fortyninethousand322 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Technically, yes. But what happens if you don't sign up for insurance benefits? My insurance coverage is part of my compensation package. If I decline to enroll, they don't raise my salary to make up for the difference, so I would essentially be giving myself a pay cut. I would then have to take that same salary and purchase my own individual plan at a much higher rate. If I had to do that right now, I wouldn't be able to afford health insurance. So what viable alternatives would I have? The only options would be to accept the coverage offered in my compensation package or go without insurance altogether. If I want ANY coverage, I have to accept what my employer decides I should get. To be frank, that's f-ed up. Then you need to get congress to change the tax code and treat individuals who purchase insurance the same as businesses who do. That way you could shop around and find the best insurance plan for you. Just like we have with car insurance and veterinary medicine. The answer to bad government policy is not more bad government policy, it's just getting rid of the first bad policy. 1
Woggle Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I think it would be best to just socialize medicine. Many developed nations do this and they are perfectly okay with business thriving and a good standard of living so why not do it here?
fortyninethousand322 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I think it would be best to just socialize medicine. Many developed nations do this and they are perfectly okay with business thriving and a good standard of living so why not do it here? Because you'll have arguments like this one. Perhaps if you made it an opt-in system in which only the people who wanted to participate would pay for it, it might work. But mandating a socialized system will just lead to people bickering over what should be covered and what things they have a "right" to.
somedude81 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 A guy should get a choice in being a father. He should also be part of the decision of ending or continuing a pregnancy. Most courts have a formula so that parents are expected to contribute to its economic support. Any other questions my petulant child? Wow, I'm surprised to hear a woman say that. You're very level headed Kamille. There's also something I thought about, which you briefly mentioned but I take it a few steps further. Obviously a man has no right to demand that a woman get an abortion but I think he should be able to waive all rights and responsibilities to the child by some week of the pregnancy. Basically saying that the woman is welcome to carry the child but he doesn't have to pay any child support. And by doing that, he can not claim the child as his in anything.
Kamille Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Obviously a man has no right to demand that a woman get an abortion but I think he should be able to waive all rights and responsibilities to the child by some week of the pregnancy. Basically saying that the woman is welcome to carry the child but he doesn't have to pay any child support. And by doing that, he can not claim the child as his in anything. The few of my male and female friends who've found themselves in the unfortunate situation of facing an unwanted pregnancy obviously discussed it with their partner. That's what being in a relationship based on mutual respect is. That said, I think the right to demand an abortion is void the minute two people consent to sex. Insert *dick* here = void your right to waive all right and responsibilities for the consequences of your actions. Said rights and responsibilities, however, are co-shared. 1
Woggle Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I understand what people are saying with the opt out stuff but I have a real problem with leaving a child without a parent that cares about them. Misandrists would like nothing more than to say fathers are disposable sperm donors so let's not give them a reason.
somedude81 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 The few of my male and female friends who've found themselves in the unfortunate situation of facing an unwanted pregnancy obviously discussed it with their partner. That's what being in a relationship based on mutual respect is. That said, I think the right to demand an abortion is void the minute two people consent to sex. Insert *dick* here = void your right to waive all right and responsibilities for the consequences of your actions. Said rights and responsibilities, however, are co-shared. But then are they really co-shared? All the man can do is plead his case for her to not keep the baby. But ultimately it is her choice and then he has to pay the consequences. Of course, if you don't want a kid, then use birth control. But nothing is 100% effective. It would be a nightmare for me if I had sex with a girl, the condom broke, then she got pregnant and wanted to have the baby. "Then don't have sex." Is that really an option?
Chocolat Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 You find it hilarious that women have the right to determine what happens to their own bodies? When you can move it from the mother's uterus to somewhere else, then the father gets rights in that decision. Otherwise, no one should be forced to be a human incubator. Agreed that no one should be forced to be a human incubator. But men should have the same option with regard to becoming parents that women do. At present, women can impose their choices on men. Why is this considered fair when the inverse is not?
Chocolat Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 The answer to bad government policy is not more bad government policy, it's just getting rid of the first bad policy. Well said.
dasein Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 ummm, i don't know what planet you live on but the only "gender wars" going on in the political spectrum that i see are religious conservative types trying to shame women into being a 1950s stereotype, because that's what they think they want. there is no grand conspiracy. people do what they want to do, that's it. I live on the planet of "democrats will do anything to preserve the gullible female vote by throwing more 'free goodies' at them" especially in an election year, because they know that without that constituency, the entire U.S. Left is headed straight to the historical dustbin where it belongs. Regardless, it's only a matter of time. Women are waking up to the manipulation.
Author Untouchable_Fire Posted March 22, 2012 Author Posted March 22, 2012 Wha?? Who the heck except trolls has done this? Me and Zengirl both posted perfectly logically responses that didn't include any personal attacks. Zengirl went into depth about how it has nothing to do with "ripping money away from men and giving it to women." This is an illogical straw man. Read her post again. Sorry, I'm not talking about you two. I'm making a point to Woggle about how some of the female posters treat him in the threads he starts. Men DO have the right to opt out of child support. 1) Wear... a... freaking... condom. Why is this such a difficult concept? 2) Become the custodial parent. What I don't understand is the logic behind opting you... The man is just as responsible for the creation of the child. What is your logical justification for why he should get off the hook for supporting that child, when he is just as responsible for its creation as the mother? Are you intending to be hypocritical or are you just so worried about yourself that you don't see the hypocrisy? If a man's choice for fatherhood begins and ends at sex... so should a woman's. If she gets the choice to choose the responsibilities of parenting post conception, so too should he. 2
Kamille Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 "Then don't have sex." Is that really an option? The answer is obvious. Humans are not slaves to sexuality. 1
sweetjasmine Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I understand what people are saying with the opt out stuff but I have a real problem with leaving a child without a parent that cares about them. And that's the big problem. Philosophically, allowing men to waive any rights and responsibilities would make sense. It's a woman's choice what to do with her body, so her partner isn't really responsible for whichever choice she makes. That's all good and lovely in theory, but in practice, it would leave more children with even less support than they have now. If a woman chooses to carry to term, the child's interests are paramount. "Then don't have sex." Is that really an option? No, it's not a realistic option. "Well, you shouldn't have had sex then" is the same argument thrown at women who seek abortion or contraception. It's an invalid argument no matter who it's thrown at.
Author Untouchable_Fire Posted March 22, 2012 Author Posted March 22, 2012 I understand what people are saying with the opt out stuff but I have a real problem with leaving a child without a parent that cares about them. Misandrists would like nothing more than to say fathers are disposable sperm donors so let's not give them a reason. Forcing people to do something they don't want is never the solution. That is the opposite of freedom.
Kamille Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 No, it's not a realistic option. "Well, you shouldn't have had sex then" is the same argument thrown at women who seek abortion or contraception. It's an invalid argument no matter who it's thrown at. If someone is so afraid of unwanted pregnancy, they should abstain from having sex with people they don't trust. It's that simple.
somedude81 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 The answer is obvious. Humans are not slaves to sexuality. No, it's not a realistic option. "Well, you shouldn't have had sex then" is the same argument thrown at women who seek abortion or contraception. It's an invalid argument no matter who it's thrown at. Sorry Kamille, I'm with jasmine on this one.
fortyninethousand322 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 No, it's not a realistic option. "Well, you shouldn't have had sex then" is the same argument thrown at women who seek abortion or contraception. It's an invalid argument no matter who it's thrown at. The argument should be leveled at men as well. If you're not prepared to take on responsibility as a father then don't have sex. Or, have a vasectomy.
Chocolat Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 And that's the big problem. Philosophically, allowing men to waive any rights and responsibilities would make sense. It's a woman's choice what to do with her body, so her partner isn't really responsible for whichever choice she makes. That's all good and lovely in theory, but in practice, it would leave more children with even less support than they have now. If a woman chooses to carry to term, the child's interests are paramount. Then this should be something for the woman to consider as she makes her decision whether to raise, abort or place the child for adoption. Allowing men to waive rights and responsibilities is no different from allowing women to choose whether to carry, abort or adopt.
sweetjasmine Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Forcing people to do something they don't want is never the solution. That is the opposite of freedom. It's never the solution? So what if somebody doesn't want to stop robbing people or defrauding them? What if somebody doesn't want to stop assaulting their family member? Is it wrong to force them to stop? This is rather silly, IMO. You can't have a functional, civilized society if every individual is free to do precisely whatever they want, even when it harms others. My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
somedude81 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 If someone is so afraid of unwanted pregnancy, they should abstain from having sex with people they don't trust. It's that simple. What does trust have to do with it?
verhrzn Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Are you intending to be hypocritical or are you just so worried about yourself that you don't see the hypocrisy? If a man's choice for fatherhood begins and ends at sex... so should a woman's. If she gets the choice to choose the responsibilities of parenting post conception, so too should he. ... Which is why women should have more access to contraception, and not be required to have another person's permission or road blocks for an abortion. Again, I point to the fun house mirror logic of this mindset: that women shouldn't have access to contraception or abortion because of how it affects the men (men don't like condoms, men don't want to pay for birth control, men might want the babies!) but then men should also get to decide to not support the child they are partially responsible for. Look... the issue of abortion and birth are never going to be "equal" because of biology. Until men can carry the fetus and experience the pain of pregnancy and labor, the decision to continue the pregnancy or not is the woman's choice because it is her freaking body. It is not right, and never will be right, to control what someone else does with their body. The choice men have is to wear a condom, or avoid sex with women they feel would not respect their wishes via reproduction. Why is this such a terrible option? Why do you skip this step and go right to legislating women's bodies? 1
Author Untouchable_Fire Posted March 22, 2012 Author Posted March 22, 2012 The Catholic Church and all churches are exempt from that provision. The debate is over BUSINESSES affiliated with the Catholic Church, like a hospital or like Georgetown University. Applying the same reasoning to all employers would allow Jehovah's Witnesses who own businesses to deny you access to a health insurance plan which would cover prescription medication because it's trampling on their religious beliefs when their employees do things that are against their religion. Do you think it's acceptable for an employer to decide what health care an employee should have? They already do. Walmart offers nothing. So will Catholic affilated businesses if forced to go against their religion. Your basic argument is that Government should pick and choose our healthcare not business. I can choose what businesses I buy from, sell to, and work for... Government is a monopoly and provides me no choice. Be careful when advocating the government gets to control your life. At some point they may start doing stuff you don't agree with.
fortyninethousand322 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 ... Which is why women should have more access to contraception, and not be required to have another person's permission or road blocks for an abortion. Agreed. Just not from the government. Free the market, and more birth control options will be available and affordable.
thatone Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 They already do. Walmart offers nothing. So will Catholic affilated businesses if forced to go against their religion. Your basic argument is that Government should pick and choose our healthcare not business. I can choose what businesses I buy from, sell to, and work for... Government is a monopoly and provides me no choice. Be careful when advocating the government gets to control your life. At some point they may start doing stuff you don't agree with. they always do stuff you don't agree with. the bottom line is you don't get to choose. you are not an island. you live in a society you have to follow that society's rules. and a government is required to make those rules.
fortyninethousand322 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 It's never the solution? So what if somebody doesn't want to stop robbing people or defrauding them? What if somebody doesn't want to stop assaulting their family member? Is it wrong to force them to stop? This is rather silly, IMO. You can't have a functional, civilized society if every individual is free to do precisely whatever they want, even when it harms others. My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. Everyone is entitled to their life, their liberty, and their property. Force is only justified in defense of those things. Socialized medicine is a violation of life, liberty and property. Unless of course it was voluntary. You could opt out and keep your money.
Recommended Posts