Half of the US bans abortion. Then what?

[HoloDoc]

You may not have noticed this, but we live in a society set up so that people who have full time jobs are not guaranteed to be able to do this.

I earn a six figure salary. I am a single father with two kids. I am in constant financial difficulty. And I'm Australian with a far better lot than Americans. This is spot on.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I earn a six figure salary. I am a single father with two kids. I am in constant financial difficulty. And I'm Australian with a far better lot than Americans. This is spot on.

The interesting thing is that Brennan would be among the first in line complaining about the societal costs due to people not having been raised properly, but is last in line when it comes time to pay the costs of raising children. It's like one day he is absolutely clear about the benefits he receives when child care and education are provided, then the next day he stands that such things are no concern of his and he has no obligation to pay for the benefits he previously acknowledged. The contradictions in conservatism, and the way conservatives just refuse to see them, are hilarious.

 

[HoloDoc]

The interesting thing is that Brennan would be among the first in line complaining about the societal costs due to people not having been raised properly, but is last in line when it comes time to pay the costs of raising children. It's like one day he is absolutely clear about the benefits he receives when child care and education are provided, then the next day he stands that such things are no concern of his and he has no obligation to pay for the benefits he previously acknowledged. The contradictions in conservatism, and the way conservatives just refuse to see them, are hilarious.

I had this discussion with my grandmother once. She was arguing against the "Baby Bonus," which is a payment for parents of newborns. I think they've altered the structure since, but when it was first brought in it was a lump sum payment.

Her argument basically boiled down to "I didn't get any money, neither should anyone else." Which is a stupid argument. But the argument you quote isn't even that. It's "I got money, no one else should."

 

[Sommerswerd]

Life Before Roe: The Story of a Back-Alley Abortionist

I was able to read it. Thanks for posting this article. It was a great read.

 

[brennan]

The interesting thing is that Brennan would be among the first in line complaining about the societal costs due to people not having been raised properly, but is last in line when it comes time to pay the costs of raising children. It's like one day he is absolutely clear about the benefits he receives when child care and education are provided, then the next day he stands that such things are no concern of his and he has no obligation to pay for the benefits he previously acknowledged. The contradictions in conservatism, and the way conservatives just refuse to see them, are hilarious.

People who actually know my political views are rolling on the floor laughing at you right now.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

People who actually know my political views are rolling on the floor laughing at you right now.

You sure it's me they are laughing at? They might think it's funny that you adopt such an alien persona on-line and be laughing at that.

 

[brennan]

Er, no, they can tell when someone's said something really stupid and just digging their heels in.

is last in line when it comes time to pay the costs of raising children.

I'm first in line in fact. Fiscally and ideologically.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm first in line in fact. Fiscally and ideologically.

And yet your persona here is so glaringly different. Why is that?

 

[brennan]

Hmmm.., my persona. Supporting social security on CFC since 2005. Here's one from 2007:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-welfare-education.201797/page-7#post-4988475

And here is where you miss the whole point, socialism wise, it's not about what you get out of it, it's about what society gets out of it: a safety net for the disadvantaged and vulnerable. One day you might be one of them and your private system will slam it's doors on you. Public Healthcare treats you regardless of your circumstance, in that respect it's like insurance, you pay hoping you'll never need it, but if you do you'll be glad of it.

2012: Sticking up for single mums

I used to work with a lone-parent group. No one wants to employ them, just making them out to be the next lot of scrounging parasites and making their children suffer for it is nothing short of criminal.

 

[HoloDoc]

Hmmm.., my persona. Supporting social security on CFC since 2005. Here's one from 2007:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-welfare-education.201797/page-7#post-4988475



2012: Sticking up for single mums

Yet you come across as a massive right-wing troll in many threads recently. Why is that? Have you moved to the right in your old age, or are you playing Devil's advocate? Do you just enjoy starting online fights? Or are you hiding behind a keyboard and lashing out?

 

[Synobun]

Yet you come across as a massive right-wing troll in many threads recently. Why is that? Have you moved to the right in your old age, or are you playing Devil's advocate? Do you just enjoy starting online fights? Or are you hiding behind a keyboard and lashing out?

His post indicating his return to CFC in the Comings & Goings thread was fairly clear that he's just here to argue.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Yet you come across as a massive right-wing troll in many threads recently. Why is that? Have you moved to the right in your old age, or are you playing Devil's advocate? Do you just enjoy starting online fights? Or are you hiding behind a keyboard and lashing out?

Well; His user title is "Argumentative Brit"

 

[HoloDoc]

Yeah, but usually a person argues for a reason. If he is just arguing for the sake of arguing, he needs a damn hobby. Or therapy.

 

[brennan]

Yet you come across as a massive right-wing troll in many threads recently. Why is that?

Because any time you see someone criticise feminism that's what you assume about them?

His post indicating his return to CFC in the Comings & Goings thread was fairly clear that he's just here to argue.

That's a cynical reading of what I thought was a pretty obviously not-entirely-serious-post.

I'm being entirely consistent with my past posting. e.g.:

the current strand of feminism ... all it ever does, spout slogans ad nauseum and reject alternative hypotheses simply because it isn't interested in debate.

And every time I post about it I get the same barrage of abuse.

You people are hard work, seriously, I feel like i'm just starting posting over again. And there's a level of suspicion and nastiness that was not formerly present on CFC.

 

[HoloDoc]

Because any time you see someone criticise feminism that's what you assume about them?

When you criticise it with strawmans and generalisations rather than actual criticism? Yes.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You people are hard work, seriously, I feel like i'm just starting posting over again.

Seems more like you are wishing you were just starting posting over again. Without the baggage you have so thoroughly bought for yourself.

 

[brennan]

I don't have baggage Tim. I've been posting openly as a fairly radical socialist on CFC on and off for 13 years. You were stupid enough to call me a Conservative and stuff me in a pigeonhole just because I am critical of feminism, for reasons I have been fairly clear and consistent on for several years. That's your baggage, not mine. Have you got anything interesting to say or are you just going to troll some more?

 

[Patine]

Because any time you see someone criticise feminism that's what you assume about them?.

Of course, what's often forgotten by those who criticize things like feminism, Black Power, SJW, assertive Gay Pride, etc., as being wrong, contemptable, hateful, destructive, divisive, and "against all civilized and moral values," is the roots of all of these movement, which all do have very extreme branches today (though not all branches of those movements or similar movements, are so extreme, but their critics like to lump all as the worst denominator for their arguments) - movements to no longer have to live under absolutely untenable, degrading, oppressive, and thoroughly institutionally disadvantaged circumstances where getting ahead, making social traction, exploiting opportunities for advancement in life, or having the social or financial power to decide one's own destiny was severely curtailed to such people in older days, sometimes even non-existent.

 

[HoloDoc]

I don't have baggage Tim. I've been posting openly as a fairly radical socialist on CFC on and off for 13 years. You were stupid enough to call me a Conservative and stuff me in a pigeonhole just because I am critical of feminism, for reasons I have been fairly clear and consistent on for several years. That's your baggage, not mine. Have you got anything interesting to say or are you just going to troll some more?

Speaking as a guy who was kicked out of the Labor Party for being too left-wing, you are certainly not coming across as a radical socialist. Your critiques of feminism are generalised and full of holes. Now, you may be left-wing on most issues, and just a massive sexist. You wouldn't be the first, nor, sadly, the last. But it is my experience that "radical socialists," being even further to the left than me, tend to not deny the existence of the patriarchy and rape culture, nor do they defend paedophiles and try to get out of it by pretending they were just standing up for good taste. Radical socialists don't give a crap about good taste; if they did, they wouldn't be radical socialists.

 

[brennan]

Of course, what's often forgotten by those who criticize things like feminism, Black Power, SJW, assertive Gay Pride, etc., as being wrong, contemptable, hateful, destructive, divisive, and "against all civilized and moral values," is the roots of all of these movement, which all do have very extreme branches today (though not all branches of those movements or similar movements, are so extreme, but their critics like to lump all as the worst denominator for their arguments) - movements to no longer have to live under absolutely untenable, degrading, oppressive, and thoroughly institutionally disadvantaged circumstances where getting ahead, making social traction, exploiting opportunities for advancement in life, or having the social or financial power to decide one's own destiny was severely curtailed to such people in older days, sometimes even non-existent.

I quite agree. But then i'm not making quite such a severe criticism of feminism as that.

My position is simply that feminist critiques no longer pass muster. Also that it is almost impossible to even say this without being dog-piled. As should be obvious.