Is it though? The wealthy are always going to have to keep the poor, that I except is the only way society can practically operate; but that doesn't automatically make it fair to take from somebody just because they're wealthy....Taxes: Taxes should be equal. If I am rich... tax me 10% if you are poor... you get taxed 10%. If I make 1 billion dollars... the government takes 100 million. If you are poor and make 10k the government takes 1k! that is fair...
Surely either it's legal, or it's an offense?...Legalize it... ...penalties for multiple offenses...
You must see that this paragraph is full of contradictions?...Non married couples, decision should be made as a couple. The woman isn't the only important thing in the process, I don't care if she's the one popping it out. If the man has to support the child financially, he should get a say. If man wants the child, woman doesn't, abort it. Woman wants the child, man doesn't, man is free to walk...
Solves the problem of them re-offending. It may not be Auschwitz, but then nobody's suggesting killing people based on religion or genetics, only after due process and trial/conviction....Killing them doesn't solve anything...
You must see that this paragraph is full of contradictions?
That's nothing like what you've said in your earlier post, and raises the further issue that when there's a disagreement you're always going to have a draw!?Well, what I meant is that both parts of the couple should have a vote. It shouldn't be a one-sided decision. I should re-word it as "both members should have a vote."
That's nothing like what you've said in your earlier post, and raises the further issue that when there's a disagreement you're always going to have a draw!?
Taxes: to say that everyone should pay the same taxes is BS, just saying that the gov't should strive on what it makes on its own is bogus, cause the gov't officals don't have a consumer buying their product. and if they did then there would be purpose for taxes.
Abortion: It's murder. There's a lot more depth to this question but in the end some one's life is being cut short.
Death Penalty: If the crime is severe enough...I don't see how some ones poor choices should become the taxpayers burden.
Gun control: "the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" infringed - definition of infringed by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Immigration: Legally. The interpretation of "legal immigration" was left to us to decide by our founding fathers. So I'll go with what ever the current administration considers legal.
Borders: sentry guns
Illegal immigrants: Export. If countries fail to stop their people from illegally imigrating we should place sanctions against them.
Taxes: Flat tax would be nice. No taxes should be used for social programs....let them freaking die and let people become responsible for their own decisions.
Politicians: Term limits for sure. They should not control their own benefits, wages and should not be able to accept gifts of any kind.
That's nothing like what you've said in your earlier post, and raises the further issue that when there's a disagreement you're always going to have a draw!?
Sorry, I'm trying to figure out what you mean, would this be what you're saying:If she wants it and he doesn't, he can walk out. If he can't afford it and there is a solution to remedy the issue and you still pick the "wrong" one for your situation, then you deal with it.
the thing that irks me the most about the abortion issue is this:
If I am driving my car and I cause a car accident with a pregnant woman who miscarries due to my negligence and the car accident I caused I can be charged with negligent homicide for the death of the fetus, at any stage of its development.
On the other hand you have the mother that decides I don't want this baby and aborts it because of whatever reasons she may have and there is no consequence for her.
Its a double standard plain and simple.
Its a double standard plain and simple.
nope, still havent convinced me that there is no double standard there...
if a state says that if you cause a pregnant woman to lose her unborn child/fetus you can be charged with murder or manslaughter, but its perfectly fine for that woman to kill the unborn child? nope, still havent convinced me that there is no double standard there...
do i believe in choice, to a point, but i know and have known too many women that use abortion as a form of birth control because they and their partner were too stupid to use contraception.
Unborn child?
It is a fetus.
It is a fetus only when considered for abortion. It is manslaughter if the woman wants the "fetus" and loses it due to an accident. Since a "fetus" is not considered a "child" the name must be changed to prosecute the offender in court. Otherwise there would be no "manslaughter" or "murder" charge.
As long as you believe that abortion is the killing of a child, there is no convincing you.
Unborn child?
It is a fetus.
Sorry, I'm trying to figure out what you mean, would this be what you're saying:
Mother wants baby, but father doesn't - he can absolve himself of all responsibility.
Doesn't that seem unfair to you?
You said yourself there should be penalties for 'whores' and multiple 'offences', but a guy can have sex without contraception and just walk away from the consequences?
We've been tracking upcoming products and ranking the best tech since 2007. Thanks for trusting our opinion: we get rewarded through affiliate links that earn us a commission and we invite you to learn more about us.