Much to the disdain of the Country. Yes, we'll continue to run deficits, yes things'll become more expensive. And despite this, the crucial problems will never be addressed. I am fully made aware that this god-forsaken country has reached its limits. It's just sad that the Empire has met its death bed hundreds of years too early.
I don't fault you for your views on the country. It has continued to evolve into the most divisive I have ever seen it. It's no longer ok to seek the center it would seem. The two sides are going further apart and it makes that common middle ground nearly impossible to find. “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.” --Alexander Fraser Tytler http://izquotes.com/quote/311442 I believe we're seeing this today and the truth/wisdom of the statement couldn't be any more clear. On the current state of affairs, I believe we agree, but we've gone way off topic to do so
Hardly. All because abortion? What are those problems? That is the beauty of a free nation and free people. You can leave anytime to a place that has not reached its limit. Empire eh? No wonder you are out of touch.
Curiously you didn't deny my post's premise.....that you want to reduce the political/social power of women. Nor deny that you have never had any long-term relationship with a woman. And the likely correllation of those two things. - - - Updated - - - When are you moving?
I addressed it, way back in the first page when I said(and I still stand by this), that it's absolutely retarded for a woman to view abortion in the lens of "political rights". No, really, it reinforces why the 18th century men thought women shouldn't vote. That's thinking with your feelings, not with your head. Being a transexual is not a political right, being a hippie isn't a political right. Having a vasectomy isn't a political right. Get it? Neither too is having an abortion, it's a controversial "right" granted by a court that one would have to try to intellectually dance to justify. And even when someone(me) does try to intellectually dance to justify it, you call it "taking their social rights away". I even called it before you posted. Even insofar as the reasons. Abortion isn't about rights, or equality or even about women. But about empowerment over men, about getting back at them for the "male-dominated" system that never existed. For every position men had, women had easy and open access to his financial capital. A woman was viewed as dependent and for a man to abandon her would be socially suicide. Now, it's common. And thanks not to the chauvinist man but to the ignorant woman who couldn't even recognize her own political capital.
Wow, what a nice package of misogyny and ignorance. Maybe you should read a bit more instead to taking right wing radio talking points as gospel.
You would be happy to know that I started out politically on the left and that ever since Chris Matthews indirectly called me a racist for opposing the ACA back in 2009, I disavowed both Liberals and Neo-Cons to become a Nationalist. And there isn't a single statement of misogyny or ignorance in that. Except to call out a woman's ignorance for equating abortion to political rights. Do I have political rights to medication? Do I have political rights to having certain kind of clothes made specifically for me? Abortion has absolutely no political ramifications, nor social ramifications outside of its impact between a man and a woman. The "right of choice" is made during that moment of consensual intercourse. This isn't a political interpretation, I truly believe that a person would have to be imbecilic to believe that abortion has a "political right" attached to it.
I really don't care nor is it relevant. The misogyny in your post is self evident and need no further explanation. In as much as any person has the right to be free from government interference or dictates in personal matters that have zero effect on society, it is a political right. Would you like the government to decide when and what medication you should be able to take? So you agree that it is none of the government's business. That is arguable. By what norm? Sex only for procreation? The opposite can be said also.
Then women should start to acquire some actual political knowledge to become politically relevant. Fulfilling a woman's political desires is like fulfilling the desires of a child when the budget is constrained. "No honey, you have to share your toy". We never truly said that to women politically, instead we gave them more and more naively believing that we were in the same model of a give-and-take relationship. Except women weren't giving anything at all, and they feel as though they have nothing to give in the 21st century. It's about time men felt the same way politically. We need to stop giving two craps about women and for women, since they brag that they can own this society let them. I think deep down inside, women get a rush from being politically relevant. If abortion opponents really did fall off the face of the earth, it would actually depress them. Having a political discussion with women can mostly be foolish. (Unless and of course god willing that woman is an intellectual). But such women are very rare to find, I'm sure as hell not going to find them here . Except that's been enshrined by the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the Civil Rights act of 1964. And so on...and so on we go. If it's a political right, it's one so weak that it's already been protected before it became an issue. It's not a political right to me, it's not even a political position. No, since the government isn't a medical field or facility and isn't qualified to make those decisions. Neither too by the way is a pregnant woman, but hey who's counting? Federally, you might have a point. State-wise on the other hand? The local States very much have a business in it, especially surrounding families, moralities and single-parent households. Abortion has legalized the epidemic and it's in fact a weapon that can be used against men politically in the household. But you just said that it had no impact for governments, now you're arguing against the notion that it has no political value? Pick one, please. It sadly used to be a norm. Before this country has been led by that same cult of ignorance preached in your sig. Now the country's a bunch of dead sack rotten potatoes to me. Sure, you can have that opinion if you want. Free country and all, but I believe that when one applies logic to Abortion that people would laugh at the absurd claim that abortion is political. Only women would make that claim in the fear of losing her "political power". The fact that abortion is political power is proof of a woman's non existent political character.
I would be extremely pleased to see abortion taken off the political table and left up to women and their doctors. It would be nice if for once pro-lifers would just forget about abortion and stop trying to pass laws to regulate and restrict it. There should be no laws on abortion. It should just be one of the many medical decisions a woman has to make when deciding what to do about her pregnancy. Really, it would be a nice change to not have to worry about the politics surrounding this issue, or rather it would be nice if it wasn't turned into a political issue.
It is why I do not understand the position against birth control, education and cheap, widespread availability. I hate abortion, so I see birth control as being a very positive thing. I would think that those whom oppose abortion would feel the same, but many don't, like the Catholic Church. - - - Updated - - - It is why I do not understand the position against birth control, education and cheap, widespread availability. I hate abortion, so I see birth control as being a very positive thing. I would think that those whom oppose abortion would feel the same, but many don't, like the Catholic Church.
I will pass that along to the women I know. Thanks for reconfirming your misogyny. Then we are truly fortunate to have such intellectuals as you here. What? Well is it or it is not? You are deluding yourself if you believe that reality is what you believe or determine to be. But it is in the procreation field? You are confusing getting screwed by the government with sex. And there is the ugly head of misogyny again. Why? State government is in the procreation field? Really? By what authority does the state government infringe of individual freedom? Touch of paranoia? What is it, a nasty divorce, been jilted or just can the the beauty queen into bed? I am not sure what you mean here. Right, only the missionary position in a dark room with the eyes closed and no touching. Sexual repression works so well. So you are leaving then...May I humbly suggest Iran.
So the bottom line is you're a man and you should have all the say since women don't matter? It's not your country letting you down, it's your belief system where only you can rise to the top of the pyramid.
No, I'm following my fellow Caucasians pissed at this miserable country: Britain, Canada. Japan's a personal favorite of mine. Anything, ANYTHING but this craptastic country.
That depends, the place might get better in a decade or two. All moronic movements eventually faded into oblivion, Liberalism just might as well.
I figured that you are the type who wants it both ways. It just shows the lack of conviction, but have a nice trip anyway. After all, for your sake and those who think like you, progress must be halted and a return to the stone age will be a welcomed novelty. Maybe we can soon return the dark ages of slavery, lack of human rights, women treated as chattel etc.
So are women "kept in their place" in Britain and Canada...or even Japan?!?!? - - - Updated - - - Sam, in the past you've said you'd treat them as criminals....monitoring them by a "Womb Police".
erm no she doesn't, the "contract" you have with her is to have sexual intercourse ie the insertion of your penis into her vagina until ejaculation .. if a pregnancy should occur, then it is a separate act from the intercourse and wholly contained within the female. If every single act of intercourse resulted in a viable pregnancy then you might have a point, however it doesn't and you don't. Sexual intercourse merely creates the risk (15-20% if unprotected) of pregnancy and that doesn't include the approx 1/4 that fail to implant . .worse case scenario is that around 15 out of every 100 women who have unprotected sex will become pregnant, factor in contraception and that falls to 4 out of every 100. In your argument every woman who decides NEVER to have children is labelled as not being committed to the relationship simple because she chooses not to bear children. As a man you plant the seed then expect to have little to no further involvement with the development but still expect to reap the rewards of the fruit .. it is the woman who does all the feeding etc and as such it should be her decision alone. I'm sorry but this is a very puritan outlook on sexual relationships and I expect that if you questioned a woman prior to sex about what she would do if she become pregnant she would run a mile to get away. The fact remains that never in the history of the human race has a woman been forced to remain pregnant .. it has been tried and has failed in every culture and in ever epoch. So all of those people who enter relationships with no intention of raising a child are retarded are they? No Sexual intercourse will not "naturally" bring a baby into the world, hence why we have so many IVF clinics and infertility treatments .. sexual intercourse creates a chance of bringing a baby into the world, it is not a forgone conclusion. There are many reasons why the social family structure has declined and abortion is certainly not one of the main ones. This is merely a return to how we were, the problem is that there are people who cannot accept that the whole marriage thing is a creation of humans - usually at the hands of some religious dogma, it is not a natural thing for humans to be monogamous, especially for the males. However you are not really looking for social fairness, you are looking to impose your views onto another .. the only way you are going to get what you desire is to find someone who feels exactly the same way as you do. However if she did not agree with you then she would suffer "abuse" from you trying to convince her to go against her wishes, and if she did not comply then you would leave .. that is blackmail. Marriage is also about supporting your partner in the decisions they make even if they are not the ones you would make, it is about respecting that they are not you and firstly it is about love.
Yet how does that make abortion right? If you are going to argue in favor of abortion, at least bring up semi-valid arguments, such as the self defense argument.
My response is in line with the comments made and a rebuttal of those opinions, so are very valid to the ensuing debate, where as your above comment offers nothing of merit. If you wish to further discuss self-defense then please comment in the relevant thread - http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=320356
Why do you think women lose rights when they agree to sexual intercourse? Every instance of sex does not mean a relationship exists. In the history of the world there have always been people who keep their promises and those who don't. It would be refreshing to see men being picky about whom they sleep with. Marriage is a significant life changing event. But seldom will your partner's thoughts be synchronized with yours. Marriage doesn't mean we stop thinking for ourselves. I've been married for a very long time, and I know this for a fact.
