Topic: For Ron Paul supporters
Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA started this discussion 15 years ago #11,201
Voice of !WisdomHsuU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later[^] [v] #201,305
> He's the anti-Civil-Rights-Act Republican. He's an anti-reproductive-rights Republican. He's a gay-demonizing Republican. He's an anti-public education Republican and an anti-Social Security Republican.
He's got my vote.
He's got my vote.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 36 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #201,307
Ron Paul supporters are not likely to find AlterNet a reliable source of journalism.
Nexus !jNexusRe/. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #201,312
Yeah, an extreme left-wing source makes republicans look bad while being totally unbiased.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #201,317
@previous (Nexus !jNexusRe/.)
I find it ironic how an extreme left-wing source actually helped my support for Ron Paul.
I find it ironic how an extreme left-wing source actually helped my support for Ron Paul.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #201,319
@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
You seem to hate everyone but white heterosexual males. It probably would.
You seem to hate everyone but white heterosexual males. It probably would.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #201,323
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Did you know that I also hate pedophiles that were AT moderators?
Did you know that I also hate pedophiles that were AT moderators?
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #201,324
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #201,326
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 29 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #201,329
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #201,331
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
You're a stupid left-wing pedo; don't bother replying to me. Scum.
You're a stupid left-wing pedo; don't bother replying to me. Scum.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #201,334
@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
I can absolutely assure you, with 100% certainty, that I am not a pedophile. I am a stupid left-winger, though, and 2/3 is technically mostly right.
I can absolutely assure you, with 100% certainty, that I am not a pedophile. I am a stupid left-winger, though, and 2/3 is technically mostly right.
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #201,337
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
I am also a stupid left-winger, and I hate Psychopath so much. We should be pals.
I am also a stupid left-winger, and I hate Psychopath so much. We should be pals.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 6 seconds later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #201,338
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #201,339
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #201,341
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #201,349
@previous (E)
> taking trolltops seriously
Also, here is the RAR for proof:
http://www.mediafire.com/?bslnlkea47vot6y
> taking trolltops seriously
Also, here is the RAR for proof:
http://www.mediafire.com/?bslnlkea47vot6y
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #201,357
Not only am I not going to download that, I'm also going to subtly mock you for thinking I wouldn't just accuse you of uploading a r@y_gold archive with nothing in it.
KBR !!7Enb4sycc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #201,371
There are no politicians in the US that aren't threats to progress.
StatistSocialist3000 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #201,521
I don't even have to refute most of it... they do the work for me. They say he's anti-black and then properly quote his views on the constitutionality of the civil rights act and the racist nature of its enforcement.
There was nothing to refute in that article. I can only comment on the incongruity of the paragraph titles with the actual text of the paragraphs.
There was nothing to refute in that article. I can only comment on the incongruity of the paragraph titles with the actual text of the paragraphs.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #201,954
@201,305 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
If you don't believe in reproductive rights, why do you always bitch about poor people having children?
If you don't believe in reproductive rights, why do you always bitch about poor people having children?
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 29 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #201,988
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
I am against the current reproductive rights, because I believe that reproductive rights needs to be reformed to give males an option when they have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. I think an ability for a male to opt out of having to pay child support before the baby is born would be a great male equivalent to abortion and would help prevent many unwanted children as well as cut off some reasoning for misogyny.
I am against the current reproductive rights, because I believe that reproductive rights needs to be reformed to give males an option when they have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. I think an ability for a male to opt out of having to pay child support before the baby is born would be a great male equivalent to abortion and would help prevent many unwanted children as well as cut off some reasoning for misogyny.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #201,989
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #201,990
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
As for stopping misogyny (as if you care), sexism was there long before the idea of child support even existed.
As for stopping misogyny (as if you care), sexism was there long before the idea of child support even existed.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 15 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #201,991
@201,989 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
He'd have to do it before the child is born first. I think the child would suffer anyway, since it would be raised by a single mother. We may as well allow someone to not have to be dragged down as well.
He'd have to do it before the child is born first. I think the child would suffer anyway, since it would be raised by a single mother. We may as well allow someone to not have to be dragged down as well.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #201,993
@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
That is an incredibly cruel and callous way of thinking. Why should it be raised by a single mother? The father could do things to enrich his child's life.
Your way of thinking makes me question your parents ability to raise children. They have clearly created a person with no empathy.
That is an incredibly cruel and callous way of thinking. Why should it be raised by a single mother? The father could do things to enrich his child's life.
Your way of thinking makes me question your parents ability to raise children. They have clearly created a person with no empathy.
hamfist !!snnYcROO9 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #201,994
#Ro, npaul2012 NIGGAs
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,006
@201,993 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Do you really think that child support actually FORCES men to father their children? Because that's not even REMOTELY how it works. All that the child support does is make the father pay the mother to help raise their kids. It puts the monetary responsibility almost entirely on the father and the parental responsibility on the mother. It's essentially a forced marriage that neither the mother or father wants to be in and leads to the children being raised in a life of hatred. What the pre-birth "male-abortion" system would do would make the mother either abort the fetus, or to have to raise their child on their own. This would help balance out the reproductive rights and give men a way out of an unwanted pregnancy.
Do you really think that child support actually FORCES men to father their children? Because that's not even REMOTELY how it works. All that the child support does is make the father pay the mother to help raise their kids. It puts the monetary responsibility almost entirely on the father and the parental responsibility on the mother. It's essentially a forced marriage that neither the mother or father wants to be in and leads to the children being raised in a life of hatred. What the pre-birth "male-abortion" system would do would make the mother either abort the fetus, or to have to raise their child on their own. This would help balance out the reproductive rights and give men a way out of an unwanted pregnancy.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,008
@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
Actually, child support goes to the person who has primary custody. Even grandparents can get child support. If you want to argue that that women unfairly get custody way more often then men, you would be right.
Actually, child support goes to the person who has primary custody. Even grandparents can get child support. If you want to argue that that women unfairly get custody way more often then men, you would be right.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,009
@202,006 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
I never said that child support would make a man be a father. You were the one who pointed out that the child should get no aid, because he was already fucked by having a single mother. You were the one who assumed that the child would be raised without a father. I was trying to correct your misconception.
I never said that child support would make a man be a father. You were the one who pointed out that the child should get no aid, because he was already fucked by having a single mother. You were the one who assumed that the child would be raised without a father. I was trying to correct your misconception.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,013
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
> You were the one who pointed out that the child should get no aid
That is NOT what I said. What I said was that the man should be able to present the mother-to-be with an ultimatum to either get the fetus aborted, or to have to raise the kid on her own. This would cause an EXTREME decline in women getting knocked up so that they can scam the father out of money through child support.
> You were the one who pointed out that the child should get no aid
That is NOT what I said. What I said was that the man should be able to present the mother-to-be with an ultimatum to either get the fetus aborted, or to have to raise the kid on her own. This would cause an EXTREME decline in women getting knocked up so that they can scam the father out of money through child support.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,020
@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
Why do you think that's a very common thing? How many women get pregnant just for the child support?
Why do you think that's a very common thing? How many women get pregnant just for the child support?
Freecode !!4IKKtS9GG joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,025
Anti-"reproductive rights" is misogyny now? No wonder everyone "hates" women.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,029
@202,020 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
> How many women get pregnant just for the child support?
I honestly don't know.
> How many women get pregnant just for the child support?
I honestly don't know.
Freecode !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,037
@202,020 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
> How many women get pregnant just for the child support?
A lot of women get pregnant knowing the father will be coerced into providing for herself and her offspring. It is not necessarily just for child support, but it can force a man into a relationship he would otherwise be unwilling to have, be it an unwilling and unprepared father or a monthly check in the mail.
> How many women get pregnant just for the child support?
A lot of women get pregnant knowing the father will be coerced into providing for herself and her offspring. It is not necessarily just for child support, but it can force a man into a relationship he would otherwise be unwilling to have, be it an unwilling and unprepared father or a monthly check in the mail.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,046
@previous (Freecode !!4IKKtS9GG)
How do you know that many women do this? Also when couples get pregnant it's usually from having unprotected sex. Both parties go into that act knowing that a pregnancy can result from it. How is this coercion?
How do you know that many women do this? Also when couples get pregnant it's usually from having unprotected sex. Both parties go into that act knowing that a pregnancy can result from it. How is this coercion?
Freecode !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,050
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Because she has a choice not to have a child, and can force him to be a father without his consent. That is coercion.
Because she has a choice not to have a child, and can force him to be a father without his consent. That is coercion.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 46 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,052
@202,029 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
So there could be an extreme decline in something that doesn't happen very often at all?
So there could be an extreme decline in something that doesn't happen very often at all?
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 14 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,054
@202,050 (Freecode !!4IKKtS9GG)
Which is why I believe that the father should be allowed to give the mother a pre-birth ultimatum.
Which is why I believe that the father should be allowed to give the mother a pre-birth ultimatum.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 34 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,056
@202,050 (Freecode !!4IKKtS9GG)
So it's only coercion if the woman wants the child, but the man doesn't?
So it's only coercion if the woman wants the child, but the man doesn't?
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,058
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
The woman can always get the fetus aborted, which is something the man has absolutely no control over whatsoever.
The woman can always get the fetus aborted, which is something the man has absolutely no control over whatsoever.
Freecode !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 44 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,060
@202,056 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
It is coercion if she forces him to financially provide for a child he does not want to care for.
It is coercion if she forces him to financially provide for a child he does not want to care for.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,067
@202,058 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
If this was put into practice, we would have more abortions and more children living below the poverty line. This would also encourage men to have sex without condoms because they would know that accidental pregnancy is not a worry.
If this was put into practice, we would have more abortions and more children living below the poverty line. This would also encourage men to have sex without condoms because they would know that accidental pregnancy is not a worry.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,073
@202,058 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
What if the pregnancy isn't discovered before the third month? Will the child be aborted if the father disputes the paternity? What if the father can't be found?
What if the pregnancy isn't discovered before the third month? Will the child be aborted if the father disputes the paternity? What if the father can't be found?
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,074
@202,067 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
> we would have more abortions
That's not a bad thing.
> more children living below the poverty line
Actually, there would be fewer kids being born in poverty and in unwed mother families than children being born in families.
> we would have more abortions
That's not a bad thing.
> more children living below the poverty line
Actually, there would be fewer kids being born in poverty and in unwed mother families than children being born in families.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,077
@202,073 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
> What if the pregnancy isn't discovered before the third month?
There is still six months before the baby is born.
> Will the child be aborted if the father disputes the paternity?
That would be up to the mother to decide that.
> What if the father can't be found?
Then the mother would have to decide to abort or have to raise the kid as a single mother.
> What if the pregnancy isn't discovered before the third month?
There is still six months before the baby is born.
> Will the child be aborted if the father disputes the paternity?
That would be up to the mother to decide that.
> What if the father can't be found?
Then the mother would have to decide to abort or have to raise the kid as a single mother.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,080
@202,074 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
How do you know? Most women take abortions much less casually then sex. Pregnancies would increase but many people (especially the religious) would just have the child and give it up for adoption. We already have way too many children in the foster system which wouldn't be true if all these females were getting pregnant for the child support.
How do you know? Most women take abortions much less casually then sex. Pregnancies would increase but many people (especially the religious) would just have the child and give it up for adoption. We already have way too many children in the foster system which wouldn't be true if all these females were getting pregnant for the child support.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,081
@202,077 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
So the father could show up a day later and not have to support the child?
So the father could show up a day later and not have to support the child?
Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,082
There's a simple way for the father to avoid having to pay for a child if he doesn't want to - he can simply not get a woman pregnant. There is no backup option needed to protect him from his own stupidity and carelessness.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,083
@202,080 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
We could then legalize gay marriage and allow for the gays to adopt the children.
We could then legalize gay marriage and allow for the gays to adopt the children.
Freecode !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,084
@202,067 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
> This would also encourage men to have sex without condoms because they would know that accidental pregnancy is not a worry.
Aren't women the ones in Western society who choose where, how, with whom, and when they have sex? Wouldn't it be more their responsibility to make sure they don't get themselves pregnant anyway by refusing to have unprotected sex?
Also, I do not think a father should be able to abort a child, but he should be able to abort fatherhood by legally refusing to provide for the child in the same period of time that the mother could abort.
> This would also encourage men to have sex without condoms because they would know that accidental pregnancy is not a worry.
Aren't women the ones in Western society who choose where, how, with whom, and when they have sex? Wouldn't it be more their responsibility to make sure they don't get themselves pregnant anyway by refusing to have unprotected sex?
Also, I do not think a father should be able to abort a child, but he should be able to abort fatherhood by legally refusing to provide for the child in the same period of time that the mother could abort.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,086
@202,083 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
All of them? lololol The state would have to pay for these fatherless children,and we all know how you hate that.
All of them? lololol The state would have to pay for these fatherless children,and we all know how you hate that.
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Freecode !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,087
@202,080 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
> Pregnancies would increase but many people (especially the religious) would just have the child and give it up for adoption.
Don't the religious avoid the kind of sex which causes unplanned pregnancies to begin with?
> Pregnancies would increase but many people (especially the religious) would just have the child and give it up for adoption.
Don't the religious avoid the kind of sex which causes unplanned pregnancies to begin with?
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,089
@previous (Freecode !!4IKKtS9GG)
No. 70% of Americans are Christian, you freaking dummy. These same people have sex and get pregnant.
No. 70% of Americans are Christian, you freaking dummy. These same people have sex and get pregnant.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Freecode !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 26 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,091
@202,086 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
No, if the mother could not care for the child then she could take out loans from the state which would have to be repaid at a later time.
No, if the mother could not care for the child then she could take out loans from the state which would have to be repaid at a later time.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,092
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,094
Freecode !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,095
@202,089 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
They obviously are not that religious if they get themselves pregnant.
They obviously are not that religious if they get themselves pregnant.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,096
@202,086 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
How the fuck did you get THAT conclusion? There would be less fatherless children with the lack of coercion for the father to pay for the unwanted fetuses.
How the fuck did you get THAT conclusion? There would be less fatherless children with the lack of coercion for the father to pay for the unwanted fetuses.
Freecode !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 46 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,097
@202,094 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
They try to get a job later, they prove some disability, or they go to jail, just like a father would have had to.
They try to get a job later, they prove some disability, or they go to jail, just like a father would have had to.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,099
@202,083 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
When a woman gets pregnant they have to carry the child, keep it, give it away or decide to kill it. The men have to pay money. This seems like the males are getting the short end of the stick?
When a woman gets pregnant they have to carry the child, keep it, give it away or decide to kill it. The men have to pay money. This seems like the males are getting the short end of the stick?
Freecode !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,101
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
If women have a problem with it, they can just refuse to have unprotected sex and avoid situations which make this likely.
If women have a problem with it, they can just refuse to have unprotected sex and avoid situations which make this likely.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 0 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,102
@202,096 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
If such coercion worked, there wouldn't be so many children in the foster system.
If such coercion worked, there wouldn't be so many children in the foster system.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,103
Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,105
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
@202,101 (Freecode !!4IKKtS9GG)
Both have made a mistake if they create a child one or both has no desire to raise, and so both should deal with the consequences.
@202,101 (Freecode !!4IKKtS9GG)
Both have made a mistake if they create a child one or both has no desire to raise, and so both should deal with the consequences.
Freecode !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 10 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,106
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,108
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,110
@202,105 (Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA)
There is no reason to use innocent children as tools in punishing adults that make mistakes.
There is no reason to use innocent children as tools in punishing adults that make mistakes.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,111
@202,105 (Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA)
Maybe so, but it would just increase the amount of children supported by the state. Women would not be having abortions left and right. They'll just give the children up.
Maybe so, but it would just increase the amount of children supported by the state. Women would not be having abortions left and right. They'll just give the children up.
Freecode !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 8 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,112
@202,108 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
It's a woman's body, so she should take responsibility over it. If she has the right to choose whether or not to have the child, she should have the responsibility to care for it either way.
@202,105 (Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA)
If women had to deal with the consequences of unwanted pregnancies, there would be far fewer single-parent households. By proxy, there would be fewer criminals and fewer welfare recipients.
It's a woman's body, so she should take responsibility over it. If she has the right to choose whether or not to have the child, she should have the responsibility to care for it either way.
@202,105 (Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA)
If women had to deal with the consequences of unwanted pregnancies, there would be far fewer single-parent households. By proxy, there would be fewer criminals and fewer welfare recipients.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,113
@previous (Freecode !!4IKKtS9GG)
Women deal with these consequences by raising the child, which costs more out of pocket then she would get from child support.
Women deal with these consequences by raising the child, which costs more out of pocket then she would get from child support.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,114
@202,112 (Freecode !!4IKKtS9GG)
Cost of raising a child, calculator.
http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/savings/raise-child-calculator.aspx
Cost of raising a child, calculator.
http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/savings/raise-child-calculator.aspx
StatistSocialist3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,154
Stop feeding the trolls... this argument is even logical, and is off topic.
Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,156
StatistSocialist3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,168
Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,172
StatistSocialist3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,177
Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 33 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #202,212
@previous (StatistSocialist3000)
I think it was a mistake to cite unbylined articles from 15-year-old newsletters bearing Dr. Paul's name as the main evidence for the article's attacks. It really seems like Paul's real mistake was allowing the newsletter to run under his name without reviewing what was being published, and his voting record doesn't seem to reflect sexism, homophobia or racism. The problem I think the writer missed is Paul's absurd and rigid adherence to the US Constitution, and I'll never understand why politicians regard that document as sacred and unchangeable but nearly every other piece of legislation as imperfect. It probably has something to do with their Christian beliefs in the Bible, transferred to the political world.
I think it was a mistake to cite unbylined articles from 15-year-old newsletters bearing Dr. Paul's name as the main evidence for the article's attacks. It really seems like Paul's real mistake was allowing the newsletter to run under his name without reviewing what was being published, and his voting record doesn't seem to reflect sexism, homophobia or racism. The problem I think the writer missed is Paul's absurd and rigid adherence to the US Constitution, and I'll never understand why politicians regard that document as sacred and unchangeable but nearly every other piece of legislation as imperfect. It probably has something to do with their Christian beliefs in the Bible, transferred to the political world.