Jump to content

RandomIdoit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    969
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RandomIdoit

  1. Where is the emotion? If you make a bad choice, live with the consequences. If you were raped, you should not be forced to have the baby of your rapist. Unless she chose to be raped, in which case it would not be rape. I think murder is wrong, but of someone is going to kill my family and I end up killing them, I will not think twice about it. Some people are all or nothing, but I take all the variables into consideration.
  2. Use all the contraceptives available to you. Use Plan B. If you still end up pregnant, then you have to deal with the consequences. Chemotherapy does not kill a child. Surgery for street racing does not kill a child. Equating those to purposely having sex and creating a child, then wanting to kill it because you don't want to take care of it, is ridiculous. You keep asking me this question, but do not accept my opinion as my own. It's different because the pregnancy was not the mother did not have any control over getting pregnant. She should take Plan B and hope that she doesn't end up pregnant. If she does want to abort the baby, it should be done as soon as possible. Do you feel women should be forced to have a child that was the result of rape?
  3. They do. They either man up and support their child, or they pay child support. If not, they get thrown in jail. If there is a breakdown in the system, that is another argument, but there are consequences for fathering a child.
  4. I personally think that my child was a person and had rights when I saw the heartbeat. My children were conceived with the consent of both parents. I do not believe that people should use abortion as a way to get out of their poor choices. There are plenty of ways to avoid getting pregnant.
  5. So you believe that the rights of the mother are more important than the rights of the fetus. A child conceived by rape has done nothing wrong, yet you think abortion should be allowed in that case. Why? Because it the child was not conceived with consent. It wasn't a poor decision or carelessness that caused the mother to become pregnant. It sounds ridiculous, but that is what I believe. Why would you force someone to have a child that is the product of rape? I'm not saying that if a woman is raped she HAS to have an abortion. I'm saying she should be allowed to.
  6. In my opinion, yes. Personally, no. I have known people with down syndrome that live productive lives.
  7. In my personal opinion, if the child is the product of rape or incest, the mother's health is at risk, or the child has some kind of condition that means it will suffer for it's entire life, then I think it would be acceptable. That is how I feel. Not using birth control, being careless, and making poor decisions are not valid reasons to have an abortion in my opinion.
  8. The argument I have read is that if the baby can survive outside the womb, even with machines, then it is viable. Before then, no. I don't believe this because I remember seeing the sonogram with a heartbeat and would never be convinced that my child was not a person yet.
  9. The problem with the exceptions besides the mother's health being at risk (you can prove that) is that people can just lie and say they were raped just to be allowed to have an abortion. I personally think more emphasis should be put on prevention than whether they are allowed to have them or not. If you force people to have kids that they don't want or can't afford, they will just be mistreated and live a terrible life, IMO.
  10. Those are the exceptions. Also, if the mother's health is at risk. If you cannot afford $20 for Plan B, then you cannot afford children and probably shouldn't have them. If you choose to anyway, that is a poor decision.
  11. Use contraceptives. Plan B if an accident happens. I know hard core people are against this, but for most people it is perfectly fine.
  12. We will go to a popular vote, but IDs are required for voting, deal?
  13. Wouldn't Bernie have to run as an Independent because the Democrats said that he has to declare himself part of the Democratic party? https://www.yahoo.com/news/eye-bernie-sanders-democratic-national-committee-adopts-new-restrictions-2020-presidential-candidates-225841348.html So if he doesn't want to declare himself as a Democrat and runs as an Independent, he is just going to split non-Republican votes.
  14. They don't. They already pulled a 180 on their "We welcome everyone" policy. Now they want asylum seekers to seek asylum in the first country they crossed into. They have had 26,000 people enter illegally over a 15 month period and they are wanting to change their policy. The US Border Patrol arrested over 40,000 people crossing illegally in the month of May. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-immigration-border/canadas-trudeau-grilled-on-efforts-to-turn-back-asylum-seekers-idUSKBN1I24L8
  15. Crazy Karen couldn't stand for another female to get Jimbo's attention.
  16. Maybe you should read what you wrote. This is absurd and not how humans work. It's not how billionaires work.
  17. My argument is that there was no law that said they would lose all of their money over $5 million per inheritor, but imposing such a law would become important to them and change the way they "work".
  18. Can you find where I said it was their motivation for them to start? If I said that, I was wrong. I said that I think that they would have no motivation to continue making more billions if it was all going to be taxed away. And no I did not look at the studies. Was taking all of their wealth over $5 million per inheritor a parameter in this study? If not, then I do not see it as relevant to how they would react if such a law was passed.
  19. Once again, you are not taking into consideration the taxes that YOU suggested. That changes the whole landscape. Right now, it's not important to them (as you say). However, if you impose these taxes on some of the money they earned at a rate of 100%, how can you assume they still act the same?
  20. I have already said that it is speculation. Just like you are speculating. Do YOU know what they would do? Of course not. But that doesn't stop you from thinking you know what they would do and what their motivations are.
  21. I already answered that but you chose to focus on the reason why I think that. You or I do not know how they would react. Maybe if you were in their shoes, you would keep making billions of dollars more knowing it was going to be taken away after you were gone, but that doesn't mean they would. Because you are under the assumption that they would just continue doing what they have been doing. This is bad logic. No one is asking you to care, just take that into consideration when you speculate on what they would do. Garnishing someone's money because it's "too much" is extremely bad, yes.
×
×
  • Create New...