全 34 件のコメント

[–]space_dan 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Saying your opponent knows their position is wrong/a sham/ dishonest is never a good strategy. All it means is that you aren't familiar enough with the arguments to even conceive of how someone could adopt such a position in good faith. Yet many people do hold their positions in good faith.

Might I suggest some literature on the subject?

[–]ducati1011 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

Honestly I think that society needs to push more for birth control and not abortions and second we should care about the children more. We should be pushing for maternity leave and maybe even paternity leave because it's sad that so many mothers have to go back to work right after pregnancy. The child just like the fetus matters and a mother not being able to be there for her child because of a mistake or even a ripped condom or any reason at all is a disgrace.

[–]NerdyConservative[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm all for maternity leave and think companies ought to offer it. Like Netflix for example. I don't believe it should be government mandated though. I think the free market demand for this kind of leave is increasing and as high quality workers flock to companies with this perk, it will be more wide spread, eventually becoming the norm.

[–]ducati1011 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't need think the federal government should mandate it but I honestly think the states should mandate it, it should be a state AND company led idea.

[–]NerdyConservative[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

As a principle, I don't think even states should do it, but if that's what a state decides, then that's what it decides. It can always be changed, which is something that's obviously much easier to do at the state level than federal.

[–]uncleputts -3ポイント-2ポイント  (21子コメント)

It isn't the babies you're concerned about, it's women being equals. If any of you were concerned about the children, there would be a lot more support for single mother's ability to raise their children. If you really want to reduce or eliminate abortions then support access to birth control.

edit: Freedom.

[–]NerdyConservative[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (20子コメント)

Here's a novel idea. How about keeping your legs closed and pants up? How about girls and dudes exercise self control and responsibility? Why should anyone else have to make birth control more readily available?

Condoms are cheap. Abstinence is free. Don't make adult choices if you can't handle adult responsibilites

[–]JagerBaBomb 5ポイント6ポイント  (12子コメント)

It's kind of a greater good thing. There's very little rational reason to be against greater/cheaper access to female birth control, as it's very low-cost to subsidize and shows large benefits to areas that make it more readily available. Pregnancies go down, abortions go down, children out of wedlock goes down... I mean, really, why would you be against that?

[–]NerdyConservative[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (11子コメント)

It's not my responsibility to pay for someone else's birth control. Why is just not having sex out of marriage such a bad thing? Why is being responsible and not doing it in the first place wrong? Why are you opposed to abstinence? Genuine question.

Keeping your pants up until marriage also prevents kids born out of wedlock. Why should other people help pay for someone else's sex life?

[–]JagerBaBomb 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

Everything you just said is fantasy. You're in denial of reality, how humans behave, and the mating habits of our species. Abstinence doesn't work precisely because we're imperfect beings, ones which generally crave sexual activity on a regular basis.

What you wrote is akin to saying, "If only people would just do the right thing, all the time, then nothing would ever be wrong!" It's silly, infantile reasoning.

As for why the government should use tax-payer money on this? Because that's what governments (are supposed to) do: subsidize things which apply broadly and have a tangible, positive effect for society. There's really no downside when you consider just how little of 'your' tax money goes toward this, and how much of a net positive it provides. Like I said: lower levels of unwanted pregnancies, fewer abortions, less welfare money going toward unfit parents, etc..

[–]jawa709 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Keeping your pants up until marriage also prevents kids born out of wedlock. Why should other people help pay for someone else's sex life?

And what about those of us who don't marry?

[–]died_inthe_wool 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fear of children born out of wedlock--really fear of bastardy--is a really old idea that predates the advent of hormonal birth control.

[–]Papatrey -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

It's a fiscal matter of paying either for birth control or paying for all other things a child will use (schooling for example). The fiscal choice is birth control based on its relative cost effective means. It doesn't matter if you want people to just not have sex as they're gonna do it anyway. I haven't seen any scientific research that shows good value in abstinence only education. It's a matter of choosing between the better of two bad options.

[–]pursehook 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm fine with your argument about cost effectiveness.

But, birth control is already very cheap or freely available. Who is really not using it because they can't afford it? There seems to be money for drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.

[–]pipechapLibertarian Conservative -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's a fiscal matter of paying either for birth control or paying for all other things a child will use

It's also a personal matter before it's a social matter.

It is not the responsibility of society to take care of your birth control or child's needs simply because you want to have sex.

[–]Papatrey -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

When you say child's needs does that include paying for schooling? Birth control is cheaper than schooling and there are situations where society will be paying for one or the other. And I don't consider it society's responsibility I see it as an opportunity to be fiscally sound.

[–]pipechapLibertarian Conservative 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

If you knowingly can't afford either, why have sex?

You know what else would be fiscally sound? Buying all the drug addicts in the country drugs. By doing so we'd protect society from being mugged and having their houses robbed by addicts so they can pawn their stolen goods and get a fix.

[–]uncleputts 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

One day you'll learn that sex is really fun even you're not trying to make babies.

[–]NerdyConservative[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Oh I love sex. I have lots of it and enjoy it frequently. In the confines of marriage where it belongs.

[–]Akillees89 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wait are you saying that the joy of sex is only for married people? What do you want the rest of the people to do?

[–]uncleputts 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do not. Pics or it didn't happen.

[–]joeb5578 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

None of that matters though, when we have to spend the next 18 years dealing with their bad choice, whether it's paying for their food stamps, paying for yet another seat at an already maxed out school, or paying for the inevitable life of revolving door jail time since they, statistically, are not likely to be very productive to society.

This is why there has always been a gap between social conservatism and libertarianism/fiscal conservatism. I certainly look down on women who are irresponsible and have to murder their baby because of their own shitty choices, but I will defend to the death their right to do it.

[–]NerdyConservative[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

So you you'll fight for a person's right to murder their kid but don't care doing so violates their right to life? That doesn't even make sense dude.

Also. If you're libertarian don't you believe it's wrong to hurt others and deprive them of their rights? So how do you reconcile that?

[–]ultimisConstitutionalist -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm pro life and argue this often. Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of another human. Abortion is currently legal, so murder does not apply.

[–]NerdyConservative[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sorry but I disagree. It's murder. And it's premeditated. The fact that it's "lawful" is ridiculous. That's the point.

[–]NerdyConservative[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Just because the "law" doesn't define it as such, doesn't mean that isn't what it is

[–]ultimisConstitutionalist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Words have meaning. Murder has a known definition. Liberals like to to misuse words and I also call them out. Moron liberals call Capital Punsihment murder as well as self defense. You can't just use a word because you think it sounds worse.

You can use other negative words like "massacre" if you want. Murder doesn't actually work with the known definition for your application of it. It isn't just any killing of a human you don't like.