Oh, I know. And these people have got to be stopped. I guess my feeling is that we're not doing ourselves any favors with lambasting this guy for something he didn't say. What he actually said is troubling enough without twisting his words. How much time have we spent on this board defending Obama from people who twist his words to mean something that he didn't say, simply for the sake of drumming up umbrage among the rightwing sheep? We should be better than that. There is no doubt that these guys are dangerous to women. There is no doubt that we have to do what we can to limit their power. I just don't think this latest dust-up helps with that. It just makes us look just as stupid as conservatives.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/201...sed-bill-food-stamp-benefits-raped/?mobile=nc the bizarre theory that women will just have kids for govt assistance.
I actually like that rule, if you are poor and can't afford to feed your children, then why the fuck would they have more children. Obviously I would include an amendment that women could get subsidized abortions to keep their benefits. Regarding the rape part, I do think we need to get women to report their rapists to the police, it is hard if the rapist is a family member or some one you are afraid of. So I am a bit iffy about this part, but I guess is a trade off. But as long as she has access to affordable abortions, I am cool with the law.
Poor people do tend to have more children on average, welfare or no welfare, maybe the lack of Big Screen TV. I would be cool with one flat fee regardless of number of children. Then again I hate the family insurance plan, why does a family of 3 pay the same rate as a family of 12, I think is Bullshit. (Maybe some Insurance plans do charge per member, mine does not).
Um, that is true. Seriously. Walk into any ghetto and you'll find women who have kids so that their monthly check increases. Source: students who live in the ghetto and have "friends"/family members who do this. Of course, that is not the way the bill is directed. The bill, itself, is shit.
not to turn this into a religion thread, but according to Christianity, people do have free will. the concept of God's omnipotence is not inconsistent with human free will. it doesn't mean that everything that happens to us is God's omnipotent will.
This means that we need to get men to accept that women are equal, and not just to be seen in magazines, on the internet, and in binders.
it's the same with people who support increasingly tougher penalties and sentencing. they wouldn't do it if they thought that it might impact them. in their mind, it only affects those criminal types. until they find themselves in a little hot water - then our "justice" system will set their heads spinning.
I'm not saying that this is her motivation for having more children, but I do have an ex-sister-in-law who couldn't afford to feed her 2 kids without government assistance when I met her, and over the next 4 years, she proceeded to have 3 more kids. and her live-in boyfriends was an ex-con without a real job.
This is an extention of NIMBY, only it is about personal behavior and not goverment/corporate behavior/building.
Women beeing accepted as equal to men Isreal and Palestine living together in cooporation Peace between LFC and MUFC Not sure which is less likely.
you're right that he's being morally consistent. but I think that even most Christians recognize that the government should not force a woman to keep a fetus that resulted from a horrifically violent crime against her.
How about we have TV, Magazines, etc turn us men into no more than pieces of meat to be thought about sexual objects and nothing else. I think that would be much easier.
I think the problem is that many people (both men and women) simply look at women as vessels - vessels to receive a male's sperm, and vessels in which an embryo grows until birth. while men and women may be different in some respects and may in some cases serve different roles in society and in the family, they must both be valued and respected equally and have the same (i.e. equal) rights - and not just legal rights either, but social rights as well (i.e. equality before the law and equality before society). one is not more important or valuable than the other.
I saw this post when I posted just underneath and then forget where I saw it Just wanted to ask,.. er, what are you saying here, exactly?
well, I guess these guys would much rather provide free birth-control and/or abortions then, because those are your other alternatives to having more children. Most of these poor women are likely hard-core religious as well and might be as against those two things as the dirtbags proposing this bill likely are - so which is it - free abortions or additional support for the kid you want her to go ahead and have? Pick one.
??? So nobody should support tougher penalties, because while currently an honest person, they may become a criminal in the future??? WTF??? You need to clarify your post. By your logic above, no man should ever support tougher rape penalties because he may one day be accused of rape.