would you vote republican

[Ammo Amy]

Shinobi Z Jetson

Well, not allowing something isnt big government nor would there be much money spent to enforce little to no abortions.

How do you think it's going to be enforced? Think it's going to be free and involve no laws? Obviously you don't remember much about how things were prior to 1973.

Quote:

I, also, wanted to know if you would ever see yourself doing that and if that factors in to what you believe.

At my age, it's a moot point. I'm a bit past child-bearing years, not that it's any business of yours.

Quote:

When i was more pro choice, I never really saw a reason to have a girl that I had sex with and then created a kid with, to then have an abortion. So I see that I am actually more pro-life and at this point, I only really believe in abortions for rape victims.

So you would ignore the many other factors that could come into play, such as hereditary diseases, life of the mother, ability to raise the child, etc. Perhaps when you were capable to carrying a child, you can come back to that.

Quote:

If you were to tell me a reason that I should think about allowing abortions for women who arent rape victims, Im open to change.

I doubt it. Gain the ability to get pregnant, then get back to me. Just revisit the history of how Roe V Wade came about and you might learn something. You aren't going to stop abortions, there will always be a way. All you are going to do is create a situation where poor women will have no safe options, just like there were before 1973.

Forcing a women to be an incubator for 9 months against her will is not going to help anything. In many cases, they can't afford to be pregnant. No prenatal care means more complications for both mother and child. Who will pay for that or force the woman to go to it? What are you going to do? Lock the woman up until delivery?

If you succeed in forcing a woman to have a child, then what? If she's forced to have a child she really didn't want, she is going to resent that child. You will have to create laws that will either lock the mother up and take away that child or make her take care of that child (which she couldn't afford in the first place). You will then need government to enforce minimum standards of care, but no law will force a mother to love that child she resents.

Raising a child costs money. If the woman can't afford to be pregnant, who is going to pay for that woman to raise that child? Are you going to pay for it? The government? Who?

Then there's that child. Given the government-mandated bare minimum of food, clothing, and education as required by law. The child is told over and over how it wasn't wanted but was forced into this world by the government. How will that child grow up? After all, the woman adhered to the law by doing exactly the minimum the law required. What will the child be like?

You don't think it requires big government? I beg to differ. The government will have to be there every single step of the way, from having to pay for prenatal care (if they demand the woman be stay pregnant to term), pay for the delivery, pay for the nutrition, education, and upbringing of that child if the mother can't or won't be able to do so. Chances are the child in that situation will grow up angry, resentful, and dependent upon the government as an adult.

[Shinobi Z Jetson]

Ammo Amy

Shinobi Z Jetson

Well, not allowing something isnt big government nor would there be much money spent to enforce little to no abortions.

How do you think it's going to be enforced? Think it's going to be free and involve no laws? Obviously you don't remember much about how things were prior to 1973.

Quote:

I, also, wanted to know if you would ever see yourself doing that and if that factors in to what you believe.

At my age, it's a moot point. I'm a bit past child-bearing years, not that it's any business of yours.

Quote:

When i was more pro choice, I never really saw a reason to have a girl that I had sex with and then created a kid with, to then have an abortion. So I see that I am actually more pro-life and at this point, I only really believe in abortions for rape victims.

So you would ignore the many other factors that could come into play, such as hereditary diseases, life of the mother, ability to raise the child, etc. Perhaps when you were capable to carrying a child, you can come back to that.

Quote:

If you were to tell me a reason that I should think about allowing abortions for women who arent rape victims, Im open to change.

I doubt it. Gain the ability to get pregnant, then get back to me. Just revisit the history of how Roe V Wade came about and you might learn something. You aren't going to stop abortions, there will always be a way. All you are going to do is create a situation where poor women will have no safe options, just like there were before 1973.

Forcing a women to be an incubator for 9 months against her will is not going to help anything. In many cases, they can't afford to be pregnant. No prenatal care means more complications for both mother and child. Who will pay for that or force the woman to go to it? What are you going to do? Lock the woman up until delivery?

If you succeed in forcing a woman to have a child, then what? If she's forced to have a child she really didn't want, she is going to resent that child. You will have to create laws that will either lock the mother up and take away that child or make her take care of that child (which she couldn't afford in the first place). You will then need government to enforce minimum standards of care, but no law will force a mother to love that child she resents.

Raising a child costs money. If the woman can't afford to be pregnant, who is going to pay for that woman to raise that child? Are you going to pay for it? The government? Who?

Then there's that child. Given the government-mandated bare minimum of food, clothing, and education as required by law. The child is told over and over how it wasn't wanted but was forced into this world by the government. How will that child grow up? After all, the woman adhered to the law by doing exactly the minimum the law required. What will the child be like?

You don't think it requires big government? I beg to differ. The government will have to be there every single step of the way, from having to pay for prenatal care (if they demand the woman be stay pregnant to term), pay for the delivery, pay for the nutrition, education, and upbringing of that child if the mother can't or won't be able to do so. Chances are the child in that situation will grow up angry, resentful, and dependent upon the government as an adult.

There is this neat thing called the power to vote. If I have to be able to have a child myself before I comment, I would be one uniformed voter.

Nonetheless, paying for prenatal, delivery, nutrition, education, etc are just investments on the governments behalf so that child has a chance.

There is also foster care which me and my partner are considering being involved in because she was a product of foster care.

I have, also, spoken to people who claim that they know they could have been aborted but had a chance at life and it reminds me of the gravity of sex. If you have any education on sex before having it, then you know you risk pregnancy. Knowing you risk pregnancy, if you become pregnant then you have to have a good reason to get rid of the life you created. If it puts your physical health at risk to carry and/or have the child, that I can understand.

But to say that you can't take care of it but you put yourself in the situation isn't a convincing reason to kill someone, in my mind.

Enforcing the law isn't really a big gov thing to me. It's not intrusive to have a punishment for murder of citizens outside of the womb. Once you are born, the law is clear cut. You murder someone then we have to enforce the law. There are things that cost way more to do that I am worried about saving money on.

[Bokee Gngr]

jim2175

would you vote republican or no? and why.

I would. I would vote democrat too because I tend to vote for the person not the party. However, at this time in history I would vote for a brick wall before I would vote democrat. With obamacare screwing over the nation and socialistic ideals threatening the middle class etc. I would have to vote republican this coming election despite not really liking ANY person on either side of the debates...Carson seems to be the best imo but I think we're screwed either way. I think that we have a chance of getting well and recovering if we don't sell our selves out to the democrats this time around tho.

[Ammo Amy]

Shinobi Z Jetson

Once you are born, the law is clear cut.

And there you have it. Thanks for playing.

Before it is born, especially before viability, it's not anything since without a host, it can't survive. You can't prove anything, including nationality and status since there is no birth certificate.

Quote:

Nonetheless, paying for prenatal, delivery, nutrition, education, etc are just investments on the governments behalf so that child has a chance.

So the government can carry the fetus and raise the child? Good to hear! Last I heard, the Republicans in the government didn't even want to spend money to feed kids and provide basic health care forkids or the parents that couldn't afford it. And that's after they're born. Who is going to pay for all of this big government?

The "foster care" (more big government) and other arguments are only choices that are available. After all, it is called pro-choice for a reason. The anti-choice option treats every woman the same; a mandatory incubator to deliver the product that some man had with that woman regardless of the circumstances behind it. Funny how you solely condemn the woman for a man's indiscretion and being unable to keep it in his pants. The man does not have to bear the risks of carrying or delivering a child for 9 months. He bears no physical risk and until it's proven it's his in a court (more government where the woman has to spend time and money, even if they can find the guy), no financial risk either.

So it's easy for you to talk. That's the only cheap thing I've seen here so far.

[Valthier Twilight Shadow]

Ammo Amy

Shinobi Z Jetson

Once you are born, the law is clear cut.

And there you have it. Thanks for playing.

Before it is born, especially before viability, it's not anything since without a host, it can't survive. You can't prove anything, including nationality and status since there is no birth certificate.

Quote:

Nonetheless, paying for prenatal, delivery, nutrition, education, etc are just investments on the governments behalf so that child has a chance.

So the government can carry the fetus and raise the child? Good to hear! Last I heard, the Republicans in the government didn't even want to spend money to feed kids and provide basic health care forkids or the parents that couldn't afford it. And that's after they're born. Who is going to pay for all of this big government?

The "foster care" (more big government) and other arguments are only choices that are available. After all, it is called pro-choice for a reason. The anti-choice option treats every woman the same; a mandatory incubator to deliver the product that some man had with that woman regardless of the circumstances behind it. Funny how you solely condemn the woman for a man's indiscretion and being unable to keep it in his pants. The man does not have to bear the risks of carrying or delivering a child for 9 months. He bears no physical risk and until it's proven it's his in a court (more government where the woman has to spend time and money, even if they can find the guy), no financial risk either.

So it's easy for you to talk. That's the only cheap thing I've seen here so far.

oh, gods, you're one of those people who thinks personhood is defined by having a birth certificate! gonk

[Shinobi Z Jetson]

Ammo Amy

Shinobi Z Jetson

Once you are born, the law is clear cut.

And there you have it. Thanks for playing.

Before it is born, especially before viability, it's not anything since without a host, it can't survive. You can't prove anything, including nationality and status since there is no birth certificate.

Oh so the game is over because 2 + 2 = 4 still? Strange.

The reason I have to mention the "once you are born" part is because murder outside the womb is not a disputed fact of reality.

The time spent in the womb is. However it is strange to act as though because a fetus doesn't have a birth certificate that it isn't alive. If it were to die in the womb, it is called a miscarriage. For that to be a thing, the life must be taken away.

Thing is, that is what I believe when it comes to if it is a life or not. I am not going to convince you that my view on that is right but that guides my thoughts.

Ammo Amy

Shinobi Z Jetson

Nonetheless, paying for prenatal, delivery, nutrition, education, etc are just investments on the governments behalf so that child has a chance.

So the government can carry the fetus and raise the child? Good to hear! Last I heard, the Republicans in the government didn't even want to spend money to feed kids and provide basic health care forkids or the parents that couldn't afford it. And that's after they're born. Who is going to pay for all of this big government?

The "foster care" (more big government) and other arguments are only choices that are available. After all, it is called pro-choice for a reason. The anti-choice option treats every woman the same; a mandatory incubator to deliver the product that some man had with that woman regardless of the circumstances behind it. Funny how you solely condemn the woman for a man's indiscretion and being unable to keep it in his pants. The man does not have to bear the risks of carrying or delivering a child for 9 months. He bears no physical risk and until it's proven it's his in a court (more government where the woman has to spend time and money, even if they can find the guy), no financial risk either.

So it's easy for you to talk. That's the only cheap thing I've seen here so far.

We know, already, babies are carried in a mother's womb. Chill okay. Im not trying to argue with you. I am still very open when it comes to this issue but your attitude is so oft-putting. razz

Nonetheless, bringing up a GOP attempt to cut food stamps is cool and all, but to ask who is going to pay for all this big gov is strange to say in the same thought.

They are voting to cut government spending and you are asking who is going to pay for it?

Well, I will keep those as 2 different issues. We do have to cut spending to get the debt under control because it is still growing.

The mandatory incubator part of this is just your view of pregnancy from what I can see. I don't know many people, man or woman, that feel that same way about it. It is still an honor and a goal at this point. There is a sort of reverence I have for it.

We, as men, don't just stick it in and it's done, you are pregnant. You are just as complicit unless it was rape or just a sexual assault, in general. You make it seem like you, as a woman, have no agency in the matter. We just whip our d**k out and, bam, 9 months!

It's just not the case. There is a responsibility for your body that I have to have for my body and if your concern is that "we" shouldn't have control of your body or make decisions on your behalf. You are right. You don't have to have unprotected sex or sex without contraceptives. That's not a one way street. As long as I have lived, there has always been a process that happens between first meeting a girl to actually having sex where there is a lot of consent and planning going on. Both parties know the risks each time. It is always on your mind. If after that, you decide you want to change your mind, I would vote for a certain time period which you could act on that but the later the term, the harder the argument.

I'd rather it not have to happen but you seem intent on holding your view on it, as well so....

sweatdrop

[Ammo Amy]

Valthier Twilight Shadow

oh, gods, you're one of those people who thinks personhood is defined by having a birth certificate! gonk

Nope, viability outside the womb. Try again. But remember that in this country, there are certain politicians that will tell you that you need a birth certificate or proof of citizenship before you can receive ANY benefits. Until you are born, there is neither.

Shinobi Z Jetson

Well, I will keep those as 2 different issues. We do have to cut spending to get the debt under control because it is still growing.

Forcing a woman to carry a child and raise it isn't free, and if the woman can't afford it, the government will have to step in, either to arrest, try, and incarcerate her if they feel she is not treating her pregnancy according to their standards (or paying for the prenatal care), to again taking legal action if the government determines that after birth, that woman isn't raising the child in a correct fashion. Government is involved in every step of the way, and that means everything from law, to support, to housing of children if taken from the home (also requiring government to determine if that's needed). It even involves government if the mother gives the child up after birth. That's some pretty big government, unless you believe it happens in a vacuum. And there are people trying to cut and defund that prat of government that provides care for pregnant women and children after birth.

Quote:

The mandatory incubator part of this is just your view of pregnancy from what I can see. I don't know many people, man or woman, that feel that same way about it. It is still an honor and a goal at this point. There is a sort of reverence I have for it.

You must have a very small world view, very young, or both.

Quote:

We, as men, don't just stick it in and it's done, you are pregnant. You are just as complicit unless it was rape or just a sexual assault, in general. You make it seem like you, as a woman, have no agency in the matter. We just whip our d**k out and, bam, 9 months!

Uh-huh. Nice way to dodge that. If the sex was consensual, both parties bear responsibility, but just try and enforce that until there's legal proof (requiring government, imagine that).

Quote:

It's just not the case. There is a responsibility for your body that I have to have for my body and if your concern is that "we" shouldn't have control of your body or make decisions on your behalf. You are right. You don't have to have unprotected sex or sex without contraceptives. That's not a one way street. As long as I have lived, there has always been a process that happens between first meeting a girl to actually having sex where there is a lot of consent and planning going on. Both parties know the risks each time. It is always on your mind. If after that, you decide you want to change your mind, I would vote for a certain time period which you could act on that but the later the term, the harder the argument.

Other than sterilization, there is no 100% guarantee a woman won't get pregnant, and the consequences should fall equally upon both the man and the woman, but let me tell you who has to really pay and take the risks for the unwanted pregnancy if it happens. I never heard of a guy dying during childbirth.

Quote:

I'd rather it not have to happen but you seem intent on holding your view on it, as well so....

sweatdrop

Being out in the world and getting educated in the history and realities of forced pregnancy will definitely give you some perspective. I have never had an abortion, but I know women who have. It's not one of those "la-dee-da I think I'll have an abortion today" things. It's a very hard decision and just being pregnant will affect her for life. There may be doubts, but that is her own to bear. Forcing it on a woman against her will is just plain wrong. It's a matter that should only between her, her husband (if married), her doctor, and her religious faith. The rest of you can mind your own business.

[Silverlight Symphony]

I tend to lean away from Republicans. But I also get really annoyed when people vote due to party rather than person. Sometimes the party you don't generally side with will have the better candidate. So sometimes people need to be more open minded. My sister's husband is a republican and no matter how bad the candidate may be, will still vote for them just because they are *republican*.

[Shadows of Lith]

jim2175

would you vote republican or no? and why.

There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of me or mine ever voting Republican.

Why? Their complete disdain and disregard of women, minorities, the poor, the LGBT community, their insistence on pushing their religion onto others, their disregard of the safety of others by refusing to enact gun laws that will actually be beneficial by keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, you name it.

[Angurvadal]

The way they are now? No. They're just another brand of elitist authoritarians. Same s**t, different shovel.

[Mike the Marine]

Yes. I would vote Republican. That doesn't mean I agree with some of the assholes that are currently running, or have run in the past.

[Assault on GSK 13]

inthehall

Of course. As long as they are more about freedom or libertarian leaning. I would never, ever vote for a Dem.

Well, you're really s**t out of luck there, padre.

[ConfuseDarjeelingAsterisk]

No because I believe in aliens and beerants