What Are Your Political Views?
- Thread starter emmatheweirdo
- Start date
There were no "common" or "uncommon" men and women. Everybody was equal, the only hierarchy that existed then was measured in brute strength.
I really didn't want to get involved in debating, but after reading some of these comments I'm going to toss my hat into this thread again.
I am absolutely against abortion in cases that are not of necessity. There is a thing called responsibility (this word carries over into a lot of different things.) It is one thing to seek an abortion in the case of a threat to the mother's life, or in cases of rape, and related issues. With the improvements to healthcare, the risk to mother's life is very rare, and the amount of abortions performed for women with these special cases, rather than out of convenience is very large (if you do not believe me you can search it yourself, but I assure you this is an honest fact). Abortion IS murder, one may claim "it's just a bundle of cells" if they wish, but it's still what is to become a human being. As such, if one kills the "bundle of cells," then the abortionist as destroyed the life of a human being. Abortion is NOT the right a woman, if you are convinced this is true, then you are sorely mistaken. Just because a yet to be born child is inside the woman's body, does not make the child her own body, an unborn child relies on the mother to survive, yes; however, they are genetically different beings in a basic explanation. It amazes me how people are so willing to state that it cannot be helped if someone is homosexual, nor can they help their skin color, appearance, etc. but willingly ignore that an unborn human being cannot help that they must develop inside their mother before being born (and to a mother willing to kill her own offspring to boot). Part of this is responsibility, as I said before. Unfortunately things just don't work out as ideally as people seem to try and theorize. This responsibility lies on both the man and the woman, if you don't want to get pregnant, use preventative measures. Some men are guilty of causing greater hardships on women because they leave them to be single mothers, and to deal with the problems. Should a woman feel unable to carry out the responsibilities of motherhood, then they should seek assistance (and it's out there, plenty of it), or in other cases put the child up for adoption (which is far more humane than killing a child just because the mother doesn't desire responsibility, at the very least this gives the child a fairer chance at life.) This leads to the massive issue that people don't like to face, like it or not, everyone has responsibility. For actions, there are consequences, everyone wants to do whatever they want, but nobody wants to face the problems that arise from their activities (even if it affects other people). These are very selfish times we life in, which is my opinion, but whatever.
There are plenty of forms of welfare/aid for those who are in need in the United States, the problem is those who chose to abuse it. The very problem with social welfare systems is that there are a noticeable amount of people out there who do harm to it. This puts a strain on the government, and on the people who actually need the welfare. There are people who are able, but do not work, and rely on welfare money to support living expenses. The people who actually need the welfare money, and the taxpayers who fund it suffer from this. Efforts need to be made to close these loopholes, successfully preventing sheer laziness from harming others. I am all for aiding those who need it, I am not for just tossing away money that could go to greater use, simply because someone wants to manipulate the system to do what they want, and have no responsibility.
As far as minimum wage goes, that is exactly what it is, MINIMUM wage. Minimum wage is that for a reason, it is the minimum one can receive for working. If you do not want to be paid that low, then search for jobs that pay better (or create your own job i.e. self-employment). And before anyone tries to jump on me about that, yes I realize some people cannot simply find a better job with ease. Minimum wage jobs are jobs, not careers, they are not meant to be a lifetime way of earning money. They are short term ways to make money, careers are what we need to have people striving for. The people who succeed are the people willing to put forth the effort and time to do so. As mentioned before, there is help out there to those who seek it, just because you do not come from wealth does not mean you cannot find your own (in fact many, many success stories are by those who are poor and become wealthy through their efforts). Let's take an example, say that there are three people of 18 years of age who are setting out on the world. One decides he doesn't like school, so he "doesn't wanna go to college," and finds employment at a retail store for minimum wage. The second does not seek to attend school for long, but seeks to follow his interests, and heads to vocational school to become a welder after a couple years of training, he does and finds himself in a stable career with pay that can support himself and his family. The final seeks to become a fully educated person, and eventually receives a doctoral/professional degree after years of dedicated hard work educating himself, he has solid career that supports himself and his family, and then some. For this, we will assume all of these people were from working class families, with equal availability to all benefits. We live in a land of opportunity, some people have it easier than others, but there are still ways that society has essentially balanced the weights. There are all sorts of ways that people can achieve greater things for themselves, but they have to actually put forth the hardships to achieve it. We are very fortunate to have the opportunities that we do (at least in the U.S.), that other people do not have access to, even on a minimal level. If you do not want to receive the minimum, then you shouldn't put forth the minimum in the first place. In addition, in order to balance the cost of raising minimum wage to much higher amounts, businesses will be required to either raise prices, reduce employees, or both. I don't think some people realize that the technology to replace employees is here already, self-checkout machines exist already, but they are not completely replacing as many employees as they could. If push comes to shove, larger companies are going to simply cut costs by eliminating jobs such as cashier that could be handled by a machine, replacing them with a more cost-effective solution. At the present these companies do not see a need to do so, and likely don't intend to outright toss employees out the door, unless they become economically problematic. Small businesses will not be so fortunate, as the cost to pay employees more affects them in a much greater way than it would a huge corporation. Profit margins would go downward assuredly, which may lead to further unemployment increase, and the elimination of smaller businesses (which are also a sort of competition, less businesses competition is a problem).
In the long run, things can better be handled to suit the needs of people at the state level, rather than the local level. Nationalized programs and such are much more difficult to manage, many time more expensive, flawed, and they assume that the needs of certain states are the same as others. What Alaska may deem necessary may not match Florida's needs. I could go on and on, there's simply too much to discuss.
I am absolutely against abortion in cases that are not of necessity. There is a thing called responsibility (this word carries over into a lot of different things.) It is one thing to seek an abortion in the case of a threat to the mother's life, or in cases of rape, and related issues. With the improvements to healthcare, the risk to mother's life is very rare, and the amount of abortions performed for women with these special cases, rather than out of convenience is very large (if you do not believe me you can search it yourself, but I assure you this is an honest fact). Abortion IS murder, one may claim "it's just a bundle of cells" if they wish, but it's still what is to become a human being. As such, if one kills the "bundle of cells," then the abortionist as destroyed the life of a human being. Abortion is NOT the right a woman, if you are convinced this is true, then you are sorely mistaken. Just because a yet to be born child is inside the woman's body, does not make the child her own body, an unborn child relies on the mother to survive, yes; however, they are genetically different beings in a basic explanation. It amazes me how people are so willing to state that it cannot be helped if someone is homosexual, nor can they help their skin color, appearance, etc. but willingly ignore that an unborn human being cannot help that they must develop inside their mother before being born (and to a mother willing to kill her own offspring to boot). Part of this is responsibility, as I said before. Unfortunately things just don't work out as ideally as people seem to try and theorize. This responsibility lies on both the man and the woman, if you don't want to get pregnant, use preventative measures. Some men are guilty of causing greater hardships on women because they leave them to be single mothers, and to deal with the problems. Should a woman feel unable to carry out the responsibilities of motherhood, then they should seek assistance (and it's out there, plenty of it), or in other cases put the child up for adoption (which is far more humane than killing a child just because the mother doesn't desire responsibility, at the very least this gives the child a fairer chance at life.) This leads to the massive issue that people don't like to face, like it or not, everyone has responsibility. For actions, there are consequences, everyone wants to do whatever they want, but nobody wants to face the problems that arise from their activities (even if it affects other people). These are very selfish times we life in, which is my opinion, but whatever.
There are plenty of forms of welfare/aid for those who are in need in the United States, the problem is those who chose to abuse it. The very problem with social welfare systems is that there are a noticeable amount of people out there who do harm to it. This puts a strain on the government, and on the people who actually need the welfare. There are people who are able, but do not work, and rely on welfare money to support living expenses. The people who actually need the welfare money, and the taxpayers who fund it suffer from this. Efforts need to be made to close these loopholes, successfully preventing sheer laziness from harming others. I am all for aiding those who need it, I am not for just tossing away money that could go to greater use, simply because someone wants to manipulate the system to do what they want, and have no responsibility.
As far as minimum wage goes, that is exactly what it is, MINIMUM wage. Minimum wage is that for a reason, it is the minimum one can receive for working. If you do not want to be paid that low, then search for jobs that pay better (or create your own job i.e. self-employment). And before anyone tries to jump on me about that, yes I realize some people cannot simply find a better job with ease. Minimum wage jobs are jobs, not careers, they are not meant to be a lifetime way of earning money. They are short term ways to make money, careers are what we need to have people striving for. The people who succeed are the people willing to put forth the effort and time to do so. As mentioned before, there is help out there to those who seek it, just because you do not come from wealth does not mean you cannot find your own (in fact many, many success stories are by those who are poor and become wealthy through their efforts). Let's take an example, say that there are three people of 18 years of age who are setting out on the world. One decides he doesn't like school, so he "doesn't wanna go to college," and finds employment at a retail store for minimum wage. The second does not seek to attend school for long, but seeks to follow his interests, and heads to vocational school to become a welder after a couple years of training, he does and finds himself in a stable career with pay that can support himself and his family. The final seeks to become a fully educated person, and eventually receives a doctoral/professional degree after years of dedicated hard work educating himself, he has solid career that supports himself and his family, and then some. For this, we will assume all of these people were from working class families, with equal availability to all benefits. We live in a land of opportunity, some people have it easier than others, but there are still ways that society has essentially balanced the weights. There are all sorts of ways that people can achieve greater things for themselves, but they have to actually put forth the hardships to achieve it. We are very fortunate to have the opportunities that we do (at least in the U.S.), that other people do not have access to, even on a minimal level. If you do not want to receive the minimum, then you shouldn't put forth the minimum in the first place. In addition, in order to balance the cost of raising minimum wage to much higher amounts, businesses will be required to either raise prices, reduce employees, or both. I don't think some people realize that the technology to replace employees is here already, self-checkout machines exist already, but they are not completely replacing as many employees as they could. If push comes to shove, larger companies are going to simply cut costs by eliminating jobs such as cashier that could be handled by a machine, replacing them with a more cost-effective solution. At the present these companies do not see a need to do so, and likely don't intend to outright toss employees out the door, unless they become economically problematic. Small businesses will not be so fortunate, as the cost to pay employees more affects them in a much greater way than it would a huge corporation. Profit margins would go downward assuredly, which may lead to further unemployment increase, and the elimination of smaller businesses (which are also a sort of competition, less businesses competition is a problem).
In the long run, things can better be handled to suit the needs of people at the state level, rather than the local level. Nationalized programs and such are much more difficult to manage, many time more expensive, flawed, and they assume that the needs of certain states are the same as others. What Alaska may deem necessary may not match Florida's needs. I could go on and on, there's simply too much to discuss.
Oh wow I just...no.
There is a just a certain level to those pro-lifers I suppose. If it's not the woman who decides then is it right for someone else to do it for her, like she doesn't know a thing? This "life" doesn't give a certain poop whether you keep it or not, only those religious rulers do. And the man who does it because he thinks he have powers.
For the responsibility part, it's not just that easy and I said it before it's very easy getting pregnant unless you are very, very, very cautious or just stay off it at all. And it'd way too easy for a man to do it on women, especially in countries where you can get 50 years for making an abortion which makes it worse if it's rape.
And I feel like those people who is pro-life, do you want to end the treating for diseases based on the lives of cells like cancer etc. It's per se as dangerous as carrying a child if your body can't handle it.
There is a just a certain level to those pro-lifers I suppose. If it's not the woman who decides then is it right for someone else to do it for her, like she doesn't know a thing? This "life" doesn't give a certain poop whether you keep it or not, only those religious rulers do. And the man who does it because he thinks he have powers.
For the responsibility part, it's not just that easy and I said it before it's very easy getting pregnant unless you are very, very, very cautious or just stay off it at all. And it'd way too easy for a man to do it on women, especially in countries where you can get 50 years for making an abortion which makes it worse if it's rape.
And I feel like those people who is pro-life, do you want to end the treating for diseases based on the lives of cells like cancer etc. It's per se as dangerous as carrying a child if your body can't handle it.
Last edited:
Please keep in mind that there are already many children in need of a home. There are already so many in that system... some people don't want to do adoptions because of that.
Amen. And it's pretty hard to get adoptions as well depending on your country of residence and the country you want to adopt from as well, depending on their laws for fertile couples, if you are gay or not etc.
Last edited:
Also people are forgetting just how traumatic and stressful it might be just to go through the pregnancy, even if you do give the child up at the end. It's a whole 9 months, your body and hormones change, you might be stigmatised by other people, for example if you're still at school...
MisterEnigma
Senior Member
Well the debates didn't take long at all. Right on schedule. Has there been name-calling as well, or have we not reached that level of argumentation yet?
The essential problem here is that you are trying to purport women as some sort of victim, being prevented of some essential right as if they are being treated as mindless slaves to men. This is absolutely false. You seem to be under the impression that a woman should simply be able to do as she pleases. This is not a matter of a woman being allowed to do something that should be her own right, such as voting, that is an essential right in democracy. The right to end someone else's life is not the right of a woman. A woman does not gain the right to kill her own child simply because the child relies on her. This is not some religious issue, this is a matter of protecting the right of those who cannot yet defend their own lives. I simply cannot align myself with the idea of supporting the murder of a human being out of convenience. If a depressed person was being told to kill themselves by someone else, would you be fine with knowing that you could saved the depressed persons life by taking measures to stop them? Or would you simply let things run it's course? If you are a human being of true care for life, then I would assume you would want to stop the what would essentially be murder committed against the depressed person by the verbal attacker, and convince the depressed person not to commit suicide. In the same light, why would you willingly campaign for someone to end the life of another, simply because they cannot do so alone. This is not a matter of man vs. woman, or woman's rights vs. religion, it is none of this at all, and to try and fabricate it into something so extreme is preposterous. Why should anyone have the right to end someone else's life because of a perceived burden?
MisterEnigma
Senior Member
It's like this in every single political thread ever made. They always devolve into debates solely on a few specific, heated topics, like abortion, which of course never get resolved because it's such a split issue. Honestly why political debate is so boring- no one is ever educated and they're always the same topics. People realize there's more to politics than three whole issues, right?
They are victims in the case that they actually have to carry the child. Also I don't exactly consider it a life that can makes it own decision and whatever it depends on does not matter here. What is the right, some woman being forced to carry something she doesn't want nor agrees on?
The depressed person is most likely a grown one so you cannot really debate it in this discussion to make it fair. And for those you can actually get help and since it doesn't has to do with a child growing inside it's not murder if you try to help someone depressed. Two different matters and the fact you brought it into the thing at all makes me just shake my head.
And well in those countries where you can't do legal abortions yes they are "slaves" as you put it.
Right.
I find that political debates are boring as heck, since I don't even know what they say most of the time tbh
I think they can be moderately interesting, but pro-life discussions are ALWAYS the same. The same sides never bring up anything interesting or new to the table. It's the same argument every single time. I kind of like how Gideon is making it out like it would be the woman's choice get an abortion during every instance.
This thread basically went from being all about healthcare to being all about abortion in like... a page.
I'm curious, Gideon (I hope you don't mind me asking this - if so I don't mind if you don't want to answer), what about forseen problems with the baby? If you are told your child may not survive the birth, or will only live for a few years afterwards, time which will probably be spent undergoing many painful surgeries? Or even more controversial, severe mental impairment due to chromosomal or genetic problems?
Is it wrong to want an abortion to save the child from what will be a painful/difficult/probably short life?
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what you've said or trying to attack you, I'm just genuinely curious. I just feel that this is another hard decision parents have to make. Especially since in most cases now we are talking later term. And since we have the technology now to determine certain things about a fetus beforehand, do we use this technology to determine whether to terminate a pregnancy or not, or do you see it more as just for preparation (if you do believe the baby should be kept)?
~
As for debating, I find it interesting to hear from both sides of an argument. I feel it only makes me learn more about the issue as a whole. But I'm usually not much of a debater myself because I think it's hard for people to stay civil and I'd rather stay out of it because I tend to avoid conflict.
I'm curious, Gideon (I hope you don't mind me asking this - if so I don't mind if you don't want to answer), what about forseen problems with the baby? If you are told your child may not survive the birth, or will only live for a few years afterwards, time which will probably be spent undergoing many painful surgeries? Or even more controversial, severe mental impairment due to chromosomal or genetic problems?
Is it wrong to want an abortion to save the child from what will be a painful/difficult/probably short life?
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what you've said or trying to attack you, I'm just genuinely curious. I just feel that this is another hard decision parents have to make. Especially since in most cases now we are talking later term. And since we have the technology now to determine certain things about a fetus beforehand, do we use this technology to determine whether to terminate a pregnancy or not, or do you see it more as just for preparation (if you do believe the baby should be kept)?
~
As for debating, I find it interesting to hear from both sides of an argument. I feel it only makes me learn more about the issue as a whole. But I'm usually not much of a debater myself because I think it's hard for people to stay civil and I'd rather stay out of it because I tend to avoid conflict.
Last edited:
So Obama wrote to Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei four times, and never got a response. Meanwhile, he's only met with Mitch McConnell twice in five years. And people say it was the Republicans who didn't try hard enough to work with Obama. Except when asked if the president could have done more to work with Republicans over the past years, Josh Earnest says, "probably."
ThomasNLD
Keep the wolves away
Are all pro-lifers standardly against the dead penalty?
I`m seriously curious about that. Kinda seems a no-brainer.
Just to throw in my opinion on abortion since I haven`t shared it yet, I`m pro choice. I`m not entirely sure if it should be purely the choice of the woman (what about the rights of the father?), but I can definetly understand why in pro-choice nations it is arranged like that.
I don`t like the way people portrait this subject of abortion. As if the average case involves a woman aborting a baby for convenience sake. Life isn`t that black and white. There are many circumstances that can occur, ranging widely in severity for the health of the baby and/or the mother/family.
Lastly, all I desire in this subject is that every doctor has a right to decline doing the procedure.
Personally (as a man I must add), I wouldn`t opt for abortion unless maybe a situation of rape or severe healthissues for the baby and mother were at play. Obviously I would in the end respect the wishes of the mother regardless, because in the end, she has the biggest claim to the decision.
I`m seriously curious about that. Kinda seems a no-brainer.
Just to throw in my opinion on abortion since I haven`t shared it yet, I`m pro choice. I`m not entirely sure if it should be purely the choice of the woman (what about the rights of the father?), but I can definetly understand why in pro-choice nations it is arranged like that.
I don`t like the way people portrait this subject of abortion. As if the average case involves a woman aborting a baby for convenience sake. Life isn`t that black and white. There are many circumstances that can occur, ranging widely in severity for the health of the baby and/or the mother/family.
Lastly, all I desire in this subject is that every doctor has a right to decline doing the procedure.
Personally (as a man I must add), I wouldn`t opt for abortion unless maybe a situation of rape or severe healthissues for the baby and mother were at play. Obviously I would in the end respect the wishes of the mother regardless, because in the end, she has the biggest claim to the decision.
oath2order
#Porygon2024
Similar threads
