Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
In the heat of a late September day in Mozambique, southern Africa, we started filming a meeting of young charity volunteers. They had poured heart and soul into an ambitious project aimed at combating HIV and spreading a message about contraception in the province of Gaza.
Then, out of the blue, and as our cameras rolled, came an unexpected announcement: the volunteers' work was to end because of a new policy from the United States.
Under US President Donald Trump's "Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance" policy, any foreign aid organisation that wants US funds cannot "perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in foreign countries".
Sebastiao Muthisse from AMODEFA, the Mozambican Association for Family Development, outlined the dilemma the aid organisation faced. They were not prepared to sign Trump's so-called 'global gag rule 'forbidding mention of abortion, and, as a result, projects had to close. For the youngsters it appeared to make no sense. Surely lack of advice on family planning would lead to unwanted pregnancies? Why should they be censored when it came to speaking about abortion?
AMODEFA, a member association of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, has worked in Mozambique since 1989. Now, the stance both organisations have taken on the Trump rule means they face losing millions of dollars in US aid, and for AMODEFA in Mozambique two-thirds of their total budget, a sum of $2m.
It's led to hard decisions, particularly when it comes to critical work on HIV prevention.
In a suburb of the capital Maputo, we met Palmira Tembe. Members of Palmira's family have died; five grandchildren are now dependent on her, along with her 13 year-old-son Nelson.
AMODEFA has received funds to help people like Palmira disclose to their families that they have HIV, and to support their care. Palmira told us that prior to the charity's involvement she couldn't tell her son Nelson why he was sick. Now both take HIV medicine together.
We will have generations that are sick without knowing what they have – they will run the risk of transmitting HIV to other people because they do not know their HIV status. In a country where it's estimated that up to 13 percent of people aged between 15 and 49 live with HIV, the support of organisations like AMODEFA can be a lifeline. But the work AMODEFA does with families like Palmira's is under threat, due to their refusal to sign up to the Trump policy.
Project leader Dr Marcelo Kantu is concerned about the future. "We will have generations that are sick without knowing what they have - they will run the risk of transmitting HIV to other people because they do not know their HIV status," he told us.
Visiting those supported by charity work in Mozambique, there was a recurring question: With the heavy price organisations could pay for defying the new US policy, why not forget about the abortion issue, sign up to the Trump rule, and keep American aid money?
Activists and charity workers told us it was not only about upholding a principle of choice, it was about free speech and a law introduced in Mozambique to save lives.
Mozambique liberalised its law on abortion in 2014, not least due to the high numbers of maternal deaths from illegal terminations. Since then, abortion is a legal option up until 12 weeks of pregnancy, and in cases of rape or incest during the first 16 weeks.
But there is Mozambique's new law on the one hand, and the Trump policy on the other.
It has long been understood that aid donations are sometimes an integral part of foreign policy; aid can be given in the hope that the recipient will favour the donor further along the line, perhaps with trade agreements or regional political support.
But is this a case of the donor wanting to influence a law that has been passed by a democratically elected government? Should aid be used as a way of dictating 'democracy' to follow the donor's views rather than allowing each democratic nation to evolve into the nation that its own citizens want?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Gaaark on Saturday December 09 2017, @08:15PM (85 children)
To me, this is like the anti-abortion crowd: a person does not want a child or cannot afford to have a child. If they are told they cannot abort the child, the person telling them this should become LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for the child: their expenses in raising them, their proper care, their education, their well-being....
The person is saying "I cannot/do not want to look after this child": if you tell them they cannot abort it, you must assume responsibility for the childs future, plain and simple. You adopt it, you pay someone to adopt it/look after it. You pay for it's future and present needs. You look after it. Simple.
If not, fuck off.
"I have a car, but i find i can no longer afford it: i lost my job"
"You cannot trash the car, you must keep it"
"Fine, but i can't afford to put fuel into it or look after it or make any payments on it, so are YOU going to do this for me?"
"Fuck off, try to give it away"
"No one wants a car that may have hidden defects you won't know about until later"
"Fuck off totally"
"Thanks, but that's not a responsible attitude"
"Fuck off"
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @08:42PM
Parent comment is very to the point comment.
Time to "abort" the anti-abortion crowd ...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @08:53PM (21 children)
Get all those liberal leaning billionaire assholes (Gates? Musk? The Twit and FacialBook crowd?) and socially pressure them into paying for these programs instead.
Most of them have been throwing 10-100x this amount at their own pet projects, so at least a few of them should be pressurable into supporting this as a middle finger to Trump and a PR campaign for their self-righteous selves.
Remember: Use the billionaires, because they got where they are having already used you.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:17PM (19 children)
How about we deport all those Africans into Europe so they can not only see by example how a civilized society behaves, but actually participate in it!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @11:17PM
How about you kill yourself and we won't have to deal with tricky bio-ethical concerns like euthanasia--since it's too late for an abortion.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @12:11AM (10 children)
Heh, actually we should deport all the white people back to Europe so they can learn what's it's like to live with real enemies right at their doorstep, not safely across that 3000 mile wide moat.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday December 10 2017, @06:21PM (9 children)
If your implicit assumptions are true, that would be a retarded thing to do. How about we not do that, eh?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @05:29PM (8 children)
If your implicit assumptions are true...
You have evidence to indicate otherwise?
How about we not do that, eh?
Scared of a little truth, are you?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 11 2017, @05:52PM (7 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @08:54PM (6 children)
Sure, if we don't move back to Europe, then we don't have "enemies at our doorstep"
Looks like y'all are trying to change that...
Problem solved by not becoming a problem in the first place.
Too late. You are bringing all that balkanizing feudal bullshit here.. If it weren't for the feds, all the states would still be at war with each other, just like Europe was for thousands of years until the Americans finally stepped in and told them to STFU! So that's why white folks need a little education, maybe a little experience on the matter, which might include you. Y'all need to be told to STFU occasionally too. Now would be good time, before you have that Trump bastard destroy everything that was gained after World War 2.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:10AM (5 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:29AM (4 children)
I'm not "beating around the bush", you are. I said exactly what I wrote. The first people to deport from North America should be whitey. Send 'em back where they came from. That's what you all say about the Mexicans and shit. I'm just throwing it back at you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 12 2017, @07:31PM (3 children)
No one is arguing that Mexicans should be deported from Mexico, which is part of North America, thus no one is arguing that Mexicans should be deported from North America. Stupid argument number one dealt with.
As to most "whiteys", those in North America are mostly native to their countries of residence. That ship sailed. Nor is it clear anymore where a good portion of "whiteys" came from. Plus, a considerable portion of Mexicans are white too. A proposal to deport "whiteys" to "where they came from" is going to fail hard, if only because you don't have a clue what a whitey is, because most of them are already in the country of their origin, and because of the unintended consequences like deporting Mexicans from North America and the country of their birth because they are whiteys. Stupid argument two dealt with.
You can find outliers who say all sorts of stupid stuff, such as you. Does that mean all of them are saying whitey should be deported to "where they come from"? Of course not. I don't confuse your idiocy with idiocy of any groups you happen to belong to or merely think you belong to. I'm sure that there are a fair number of people who advocate deportation of native US citizens because they don't like the ethnic group that the person belongs to. So what? It's a free country. You're welcome to be as stupid as you would like. Just because they have some sort of ethnicity (and it's not going to be native US citizens who identify with Mexican culture who back this particular flavor), doesn't mean that the overall ethnicity ("whitey" or whatever) is responsible. Stereotyping the whole from the actions of a few is not my job to police. Stupid argument number three dealt with.
As to beating around the bush, we still don't know what you meant by "enemies at the gate" in the very first post. I believe that indicates you still aren't being square with us. Nor did your apparent opinions on "whitey" and the desirability of deporting said "whiteys" come up in your earlier posts. So sure, you can claim you didn't beat around the bush, but you behaved so. Behavior trumps empty words. Stupid argument number four dealt with.
I was hoping there was something interesting here hidden under the surface. But alas, it's just another idiot on the internet. Oh well.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 13 2017, @06:00AM (1 child)
You are the immigrant, khallow! White as the driven snow! Defective genes from the initial Teutonic digression. You need to return, to the Urquell, the original source. It is the only way to cure your whiteness. Or, you could just become an American, like everyone else. Your choice, you crypto-racist neo-nazi libertariantardish idiot!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:39AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 16 2017, @04:33AM
Obviously you didn't read what (and who) my original post was in response to. First, calling Europe civilized? Please.. They are savages, every bit as horrific as the cannibals in the Congo. They are at peace only because the irresistible force of the US is there to protect them from each other. Whitey needs to feel that pressure also to understand why the Europeans are so crazy, and why the most common reaction to a threat is fascist nationalism, to avoid the same problem here, which is already starting to happen. So yes, my implicit "assumptions" are more than right on the mark. And your response was typical of people who care not about context, probably because of the personal bias you exhibit in all your posts.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday December 10 2017, @12:25AM (3 children)
Well now that you've tossed the race card face up out there on the table, how does it look for the US to be publicly funding BLACK abortions half way around the world while slowly cracking down on public funding of abortions at home?
That strikes me as racist in the extreme - almost to the point of genocidal.
Is consistency of policy worse than that?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 10 2017, @06:52PM (2 children)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Pav on Sunday December 10 2017, @11:58PM (1 child)
When life is brutal everyone gets unbelievably horny for obvious biological reasons, to the extent that eg. apparently Hitlers bunker degenerated into orgies. I might have questioned this had I not spoken to a Hungarian WWII veteran who slept with four Hitler Youth girls in one night. He said he wasn't considered particularly attractive at the time, but "that's what it can be like in war", and he believed he had a German son he never had contact with. The western world went on to have a post-war baby boom. There are other examples eg. Irans post-war baby boom etc... I've worked with the desperately poor, and economically brutal situations bring on the same physiological response, though in my country the situation isn't so bad due to the relatively strong safety net so even the poor keep control over their reproductive health (eg. Australia has a relatively low teen preganacy rate, and one of the worlds lowest AIDs rates for instance) though things are getting worse due to current conservative government. The poor of every ethnicity, both in the US and the third world will lose control of their populations when not given assistance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @06:08AM
Now this is why I, as a Black male, only fuck White women. One, they appreciate it, given the alternative of tiny white penises. And, Two, last thing we need is some idea of racial purity. Look at me! Perfect example of American Masculinity! According to 23andMe? Like 24% Ghengis Khan, like everybody else. And 14% English, and not just English, but Anglish, German by any other name. And then, 4% Jewish. 12% Chippewa, 2% Seminole, 5% Mayan, and 22% Gaul. How much am I up to now? But American Society only sees me as "Black", which you know, is not a thing! And they might shoot my ass, being the racist honkey crackers that they are! So, again, this is why I only fuck White women. Especially married ones. Recessive genes, baby! Explains everything!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Goddess Savitri Devi on Sunday December 10 2017, @04:03AM (2 children)
You are a wonderful example to us all, my Aryan brother!
But you don't go far enough. Place the mongrels on ships and gas them all. Leave their bodies in the sea for the fish to eat!
Shiva shall rain death upon non-Aryan scum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @05:06AM
Huh... that doesn't seem very devi-like, but I'm no expert. Poe's law?
(Score: 2) by chromas on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:34PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Saturday December 09 2017, @11:09PM
You just invented taxes.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:01PM
In most developed countries, this is precisely what would happen: the parent gives up the child and the government or other body takes over guardianship until the child comes of age. As to your car analogy, yes, people are not property and have different laws governing them. Shocking.
For what is is worth, I advocate Evictionism [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:04PM (13 children)
You can push your car off a cliff, and what kind of prison sentence will you get? 5 years tops?
Do that with a baby and you're looking at life in prison or the death penalty.
#LegalizeFourthTrimesterAbortion
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:26PM (1 child)
If you push a baby off the cliff you better hope the authorities find you before I do.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:35PM
ITG detected
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @10:54PM (2 children)
There. FTFY.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @12:28AM (1 child)
Legalize up to 18th birthday abortion... "But we prefer to abort babies a little earlier on."
There, fixed that for you!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @12:44AM
Please convert units to trimesters so the Supreme Court may rule on it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by KiloByte on Saturday December 09 2017, @11:49PM (7 children)
Except that we're talking about a fetus, not a baby.
That's not a person, merely something that could turn into a person. For those who conflate these concepts, let's extend their logic: a nocturnal emission destroys a potential person. Thus, you should avoid that, and rape someone instead. Ie, by refusing to rape, you commit murder. How does this sound?
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 2, Informative) by JustNiz on Sunday December 10 2017, @03:23AM (4 children)
>> Except that we're talking about a fetus, not a baby.
you do realise the only differnece between a fetus and a baby is the act of being born, i.e. symantics.
If you can show me how passing through a vagina or being surgincally removed of the womb causes significant physical or mental development of the baby in any significant way then maybe I'll agree with you.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @05:08AM
So, babies just pop into existence fully formed right after conception and just hang out for 9 months?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Sunday December 10 2017, @06:54AM (1 child)
You do realise the only difference between a living human adult and a rotting corpse is the act of being killed?
"i.e. symantics."
I believe you mean semantics. And that's not a rebuttal.
One of the most dangerous, not to mention bone-headedly stupid, memes in existence is the 'only semantics' meme. Semantics is vitally important, if you want to actually understand things, instead of merely obfuscating them.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Funny) by chromas on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:48PM
He meant Symantec. He's saying the difference between being alive and dead is like the difference between a clean Windows install and one with Norton AV.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 10 2017, @06:58PM
Words have meaning. A fetus covers a range of development from a single fertilized egg cell up to the baby just prior to birth. The immense difference is that a baby is by semantics already surviving outside the womb. There is no such guarantee for a fetus which starts way too undeveloped to survive outside the womb.
If the fetus is not sufficiently developed, removal from the womb causes death.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:32PM (1 child)
It think that you will find that the part of the bible that these evangelicals love (Leviticus, to be precise, they love parts of it) already has instructions relating to nighttime emissions.
(Score: 2) by chromas on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:53PM
They should focus on Numbers, which gives instruction for performing abortions (but only for suspected cheating wives).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:09PM (5 children)
The practical solution may be marihuana.
Tell everyone you can, including doctors and nurses before and after the birth, that you are currently smoking dank marihuana and plan to continue to do so while the child is in the room. The child will be taken away from you.
https://herb.co/2017/10/20/child-protective-services-medicinal-marijuana/ [herb.co]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:20PM (4 children)
You don't even have to go that far, just tell all of your fellow parents that you tell your kids that there are only two genders and Jesus loves them.
Or, worse, get caught letting them play outside unsupervised!
(Score: 2) by arcz on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:38PM (3 children)
That has never resulted in children being taken and probably never will unless we trash the first amendment.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:54PM (2 children)
Quite often what happens is the Marxists at social services hear something like that, don't like it, and start 'investigating.'
Chances are very good if they poke around a bit they can find some excuses, whether true or not.
(Score: 5, Funny) by turgid on Saturday December 09 2017, @10:47PM (1 child)
Groucho, Harpo, Chico...?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Sunday December 10 2017, @07:14AM
Gummo
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:24PM (1 child)
So, responsibility for those you don't like and none for those you do? Roger.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:17AM
Case in point. Take TMB, please!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Sulla on Saturday December 09 2017, @10:13PM (2 children)
Nobody forced you to buy the car, maybe you should have thought about the consequences before signing a contract that traps you in years of unafordable payments.
Why is it always America's responsibility to fix the problems of foreigners? Fucking leads to pregnancy, maybe stop fucking and the prooblem will go away.
What about rape? Maybe their governments should stop hanging rapists. This protects women from becoming victims of pregnancies they dont want and humans from being murdered for the crime of existing.
Did Rome, China, India, Japan, the US, Canada, any country in the EU, or Russia get where they are today based on handouts from someone else?
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @12:39AM
Did Rome, China, India, Japan, the US, Canada, any country in the EU, or Russia get where they are today based on handouts from someone else?
Yes, the US needed some "hand outs" from the French during the revolutionary war. The early colonists needed hand outs from the empire to survive, but they didn't want to pay for them. Best way to zero out the books? Start a war for "independence"... People "handed out" their lives to protect China and India from Japan, and most of Europe from Germany and Russia. So, tell us, what is a "hand out"? Societies can prevent riots by giving "hand outs" while still letting the financial industry rob the middle class and blame the poor for it, thus mitigating any unified resistance.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday December 11 2017, @05:05AM
Massive handouts to Japan after WW2 (combined with a prohibition on them spending too much on defence) led to them becoming an economic powerhouse just decades on from the war.
Israel became as powerful as it is due to enormous handouts (both from governments and the Jewish diaspora) and now dominates the region.
These are just the two most obvious ones I could think of.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DrkShadow on Saturday December 09 2017, @10:21PM (12 children)
You're very concisely ignoring the entire stance of the Other Side.
The other side says that this entity is alive, and that you're murdering it. You're comparing a living entity to an inanimate object. You'd really compare a kid to a car? How long does that comparison hold? Can we abort for the first five years, but once they start school then they're protected? The other side says that it's a kid that you're trying to abort.
The Other Side is very much trying to make the rules for humans apply to things that are still utterly dependent on their creator, that would die if their creator abandon them -- like a three year old would. The argument of one side is "If it has to be inside me and I can't get rid of it I get to destroy it if I want," and the argument of the other side is "If it's stuck in you and you can't get rid of it, too damn bad, you're not killing an X-year-old human!" "Child welfare laws prohibit this action!"
It's as though you're intentionally misrepresenting things. The whole argument is a matter of "When does life start." You're acting ignorant. Not to say I support them, but you're just acting dumb.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Justin Case on Saturday December 09 2017, @11:02PM (5 children)
Oh come on! Most men produce somewhere around a billion sperm a week. They are human and alive. Shall we pass a law requiring women to receive and nurture every one of them?
(Score: 2, Touché) by terrab0t on Sunday December 10 2017, @03:29AM (1 child)
Do spill them on the dusty ground? You heathen! [youtu.be]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday December 10 2017, @04:10AM
Don't you mean heathens [wikipedia.org] from the third world [wikipedia.org]? :)
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:26AM (1 child)
You do realize that until very recently masturbation was illegal [theguardian.com]? And there is a push to make it that way again? [dailycaller.com]
But that doesn't actually help you. All you wanted was to color a child right's issue into a women's rights issue. Every one else is just an asshole, isn't it?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @12:23PM
There. FTFY.
From TFA:
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:05PM
> Oh come on! Most men produce somewhere around a billion sperm a week
given the number of eggs, I think that even the most darwinian hardliners will concede it's a matter of redundancy.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Saturday December 09 2017, @11:21PM
I absolutely accept that your solution works with full compliance. Do you have one that works in the real world, where we all live, where full compliance is both impossible to expect and enforce?
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday December 10 2017, @01:47AM
So? A termite is a "living entity." So is a mosquito. So is a bacteria that causes severe illness. We have no qualms about terminating their lives.
Let's go further, shall we? Let's compare the fetus to an ADULT HUMAN! At that point, what rights/responsibilities would hold?
Philosopher/ethicist Judith Jarvis Thompson already thoroughly examined that argument back in 1971 [wikipedia.org]. (The Wikipedia summary is okay, but I'd encourage reading the original article.) The assumption of the Right seems to hinge on the idea that "oh, it's a living person" automatically means abortion is wrong. Thompson considers that assumption in the context of an unwanted pregnancy, and she has some pretty interesting arguments about why you may still not have an obligation to keep another person alive in that case.
You may not agree with her arguments (and many philosophers have made other arguments since, both following her logic and offering other analogies), but it's not a clear-cut case if you say "it's a living entity" or even "it's a full human person with normal human rights." It still doesn't necessarily follow logically that abortion is wrong.
Actually, not really. The whole argument is a matter of people -- on BOTH sides -- not really thinking through a lot of their assumptions rationally.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Sunday December 10 2017, @07:47AM (2 children)
"You're very concisely ignoring the entire stance of the Other Side."
No, I'm not. I'm saying that if they think it is a child and should not be aborted and will tell you you CANNOT abort it, THEY should be responsible for it.
They think the child is worth having, but NOOO, they won't raise it: you who don't want it or cannot afford it has to raise it because the morally constipated say so. Nyah!
If a woman is repeatedly raped, should she be forced to raise a child she doesn't want because it will represent the attack and attacker for the rest of her life? Are you really that fucked?
You want her to keep it? You fucking raise it and pay for it.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:30AM (1 child)
What is your stance on men who don't want to pay child support?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @11:14AM
If those men didn't have a child with a partner I'm totally in favour of their stance. If they did, the mother made a bad choice. You shouldn't have a child until you've fully domesticated you primary earner, after that they'll do literally anything for you. After than you may choose the have a child by any one who meets your selection criteria. It seems that men who have been domesticated really don't like it when men who haven't behave accordingly.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Whoever on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:36PM
So they are against hunting, right?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Jiro on Sunday December 10 2017, @12:53AM (1 child)
This reasoning wouldn't just apply to abortions, it would also apply to parents who want to shoot their 2 year olds. "If you object to shooting 2 year olds, pay the cost of raising the 2 year old to age 18. Otherwise shut up."
Nobody believes this.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @07:22AM
Pretty sure you just described Child Protective Services and the foster care system. If at any time you are deemed unable to care for your under-18-year-old, they will be taken away and the state will pay for raising them.
(Score: 1) by JustNiz on Sunday December 10 2017, @03:17AM (2 children)
nice job on the whole humans are as disposable as old cars concept.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:04AM (1 child)
Humans are too expensive to repair. Making new ones is usually easier.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday December 10 2017, @10:02AM
> Making new ones is usually easier
Sure, anyway it will be bots' task to hunt you down in the robocalypse, so, sounds like an overall silly energy expenditure.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by JustNiz on Sunday December 10 2017, @03:31AM (3 children)
>> a person does not want a child or cannot afford to have a child.
Then maybe they should have used some brains and not had unprotected sex in the first place.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Justin Case on Sunday December 10 2017, @02:08PM
Maybe you should use your brain to understand that "protection" doesn't always work.
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday December 10 2017, @07:50PM (1 child)
You do realize that the same people that are vehemently against abortion are also against teaching birth control?
The truth is the easiest way to get rid of most abortions is to teach things like birth control and make it easily available.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday December 11 2017, @05:14AM
True. If the goal really is to minimise the number of abortions, then proper sex education and availability of birth control is the most effective way to achieve this.
If instead the goal is the control and subjugation of women, then banning both abortions and sex ed is the most effective form.
(Score: -1) by Goddess Savitri Devi on Sunday December 10 2017, @04:00AM
This should only be true for Aryan children. Jew and mongrel babies should be killed along with their parents and even any Aryans who coddle and support them -- traitors!
Shiva shall rain death upon non-Aryan scum
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:59AM (4 children)
Sounds fair, it works the other way round too.
The anti abortion crowd might be against the fact that their tax money is used to perform abortions.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Sunday December 10 2017, @12:53PM (3 children)
If you're against abortion because it's murder, but you don't want to be taxed to pay for orphanages and other services for children whose parents can't support them, then we should just let them starve in the street?
Likewise, if you're against abortion if tax money is used to pay for such procedures (where in the U.S. does that happen [wikipedia.org]?), then many, many more tax dollars will be spent on children whose parents (stupid kids! Choosing the wrong parents!) don't have the resources to properly care for them. If that's not acceptable, again, they should just starve in the street, right? I wonder what the cost to taxpayers would be to bury all those dead kids. More than the cost of abortions?
But that's just wasteful. As Swift mentions [art-bin.com]:
His idea would be a boon to us all, would it not? The anti-choice folks could have their ban on abortions, the taxpayers are relieved of the necessity of paying for the care of these poor children, the parents could earn a little extra malt liquor, crack or meth money selling the children to butchers and finer restaurants, and the taxpayers again benefit from more money to spend on tasty babies.
That Swift was a genius, I tell you!
More seriously, most of the arguments I hear come down to something along the lines of, if you "murder" a fetus it's morally wrong, but if a child dies because there aren't resources to keep them alive, that's just the economic reality and the fault of the child for picking the wrong parents.
There are serious logical and ethical inconsistencies with that stance. It sounds like folks are trying to eat their cake and have it too, rather than having any real respect for life or the welfare of children.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Funny) by chromas on Sunday December 10 2017, @10:26PM
BULL-FUCKING-SHIT! The only way to make one-year-old children delicious is deep frying, and he knows it!
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:11PM (1 child)
> If you're against abortion because it's murder, but you don't want to be taxed to pay for orphanages ...
What part of "sounds fair" does look like I consider such a position OK?
Are in your place all abortion clinics and propagandists and "help centers" private? good. Here they are not. OTOH it might be possible that anti abortionist associations get their share of public funding too, but that does not invalidate the point that one is sure paying for things one does not like at all.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:28PM
I was making a more general point WRT the arguments anti-choice folks in the US generally spout, not attacking you personally.
Propagandists? Please give me an example of such activity?
Telling women that they *own* their own bodies and can decide for themselves what they wish to do with their bodies is propaganda? Please.
Actually, yes they are [wikipedia.org]. And more's the pity, IMHO.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @06:56PM (3 children)
This comment, as well as several others made in this thread, speaks to the greatest difference between the pro-abortion and anti-abortion factions: one side equates children, human lives, with inanimate objects like cars and dehumanizes them as if a fetus were not part of the human lifecycle, while the other side deeply values humanity and life. That kind of fundamental divide is what makes abortion such a touchstone issue in politics. When one person dehumanizes a life and equates a human being with a material possession, while another values life as something sacred transcending materialism, the two will have trouble finding common ground.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Sunday December 10 2017, @08:40PM (2 children)
HOLY SHIT!
Sanctimonious much?
I used the car analogy because the joke is, can you give me a car analogy!!!!!!!
So shut the fuck up!
Here's you: a Rolls Royce that has only been touched by the fecking Pope and never been driven!
What kind of life is a kid going to have if he is unwanted and cannot be taken care of by crack mom and douche dad?
My wife sees these kids all the time in the school system and she cries for them.
Will you adopt and care for ALL these unwanted kids? If my wife had the money, she would.
But too many times have I heard the HIGH and MIGHTY such as yourself say "think of the children" and then walk away without actually thinking of the children...children who have had HORRIBLE, HORRIFIC lives and YOU don't give a shit about!!!!!!!
FUCK.
OFF.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @11:14PM (1 child)
Because, after all, humans aren't special. They're just animals. And animals are just matter that happened to self-organize. And someday, the sun is going to go nova and it'll be like none of this even happened.
And there's no creator or higher power that anyone has to answer to for LITERALLY MURDERING BABIES. We're actually pretty lucky to have no responsibility for anything that happens and free reign to do whatever we want. No higher moral power. No anything. Everything is just whatever the more powerful creature wants.
We might as well just throw away every law (moral and written) that prevents humans from harming one another and let the chaos work itself out.
Human life begins at conception? Please. It's just a sperm and egg cell...That's not human life. And you know what? Fully grown humans are basically just the same thing. Just trillions and trillions of cells. That's not human life, either. There's no such thing as human life. There's no such thing as life. It's all just accidental happenstance. Amino acids which beat the odds for no reason in particular, especially considering the imminent heat death of the universe, in the grand scheme of things.
And the incredibly scary part is that you have likely, over time, convinced yourself to believe all of that. The world is a horrible place with horrible people, regardless of income or political affiliation. It's every individual's responsibility to do their absolute best to make it a better place, and the sobering fact is that we've all failed--and continue to fail--profoundly...Unless, of course, it's all one big accident, in which case who cares: the human race will be dead soon anyway.
One side fights to murder children before they have a chance to live. The other side fights to keep them alive--at least until they're born--and then pats themselves on the back for a job well done, as the kids go on to live miserable lives.
EVERYONE is a culprit here. But the ones who LITERALLY MURDER BABIES are far worse off. The people who are against abortion have the right idea but don't take it far enough. The ones who promote abortion and have no moral qualms about it have completely given up their humanity and are nothing more than animals, and the worst part is that they're proud of it.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday December 11 2017, @11:57PM
No, see, now we're in agreement! But it has to be done properly.
"I want an abortion: if you won't let me, you need to take care of it" reads as "I want an abortion: if you won't let me, you need to have some system to properly take care of it, such as adoption by CAREFULLY vetted adults who will not abuse the child, or by some community care whereby the community takes care of it properly". YES!
But reality is, Childrens Aid (here in Canada) now has such a caseload and not enough care givers that they will only take a child away from the parents if there is serious physical abuse. And often times, these scum parents go to court and get custody back, even if the child has been placed in a proper home where they are loved and cared for and educated.
Reality is, too many kids end up on the streets to be prostitutes because their care giver wasnt vetted properly and has been sexually abusing the kid.
Reality is, sooo many of these kids are born with severe problems due to being birthed by crack users. Sooo many of these kids are being born into horribly abusive households.
Virtual reality says, "Yes, lets take these kids and love them, feed them, educate them and make them feel loved and worth while."
Real reality says, "No you can't abort this thing: so until the cops come and arrest you, you can do WHATEVER THE FECK you want with them until they feel like a piece of shit and kill themselves"
One boy that my wife was teaching (she's an Educational Assistant with the school board with a Behavioural Science Technology background and takes the slower/problem kids in groups to do specialized teaching) told her, "I wish you were my mom."
How fecked is that. The kid is so unloved and mis-treated by his mother that he wants a 'stranger' to be his mom. (Like i said before, if we were ultra-rich, she'd be adopting kids like fecking crazy)
THAT is reality.
but yes, we are on the same page. Reality is dividing us. I myself would rather see a kid 'murdered' than to have to spend his/her life being raised by, basically, Josef Mengeles (Mengele's... Mengeles'?.... a couple (or single) who are real human trash who, ironically, should have been aborted, not born).
THIS IS one of the reasons i hate the power corporations have. One of the reasons corporations need to be made to pay more tax. So we can maybe afford to pay for something like you want, something like i'd like to see. Reality is, won't happen.
Sad, but true.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:02PM (3 children)
By the same logic, someone who runs up a credit card bill should be able to rob a bank to pay it off:
A person does not want to pay off a debt they have incurred or cannot afford to pay off a debt they have incurred. If they are told they cannot rob a bank to pay off the debt, the person telling them this should become LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for the debt.
So, Gaaark, is there anything you would like to tell me I can't do? If so, you will become LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for whatever motive I had for the thing you're telling me I can't do. All legal responsibility is hereby transferred from me to you, just because I say so, because you said I can't. How dare you use your words to oppose me. It's your problem now, even though I created the problem.
That's just, right?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:39PM (2 children)
No, the same logic would be:
I've run up credit card debt, let me be rid of it (pay it off/declare bankruptcy).
The other person is saying "you can't get rid of it, it is yours to keep forever and keep dealing with forever"
If they won't let me get rid of my debt, they should have to assume it.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday December 11 2017, @05:21AM
Hmmm, can we explain it to Trump this way?
"Sorry Mr President, you won't be able to declare bankruptcy any more. Gotta keep these laws rationally consistent - you can't abort a debt".
I would imagine that nobody at the White House gets to go home that night until the rule has been reversed. If necessary, they may need to order McDonalds to keep things going. Trump will live-tweet the whole thing (the McDonalds that is).
(Score: 2, Disagree) by gottabeme on Wednesday December 13 2017, @10:16AM
Oops, you goofed: paying it off != bankruptcy. They are opposites.
In this analogy, paying it off means taking responsibility for the "debt" by raising the child. Declaring "bankruptcy" means killing the child.
But children are not debts, and they cannot be cancelled by declaring bankruptcy.
You're lying. The law requires you to be responsible for the child until it reaches the age of majority.
But if your concern is that you might have to "keep dealing with it forever," why restrict this to pre-birth children? Why not let parents kill children of any age? The twos are terrible, and teenagers are the worst, right?
Another lie. You "get rid of your debt" by taking responsibility for it and paying it.
Your logic is exactly as I said it was: you aren't allowed to rob a bank to pay off your debt, so you think those forbidding you from robbing the bank should pay your debt for you.
It's real simple: you incurred the debt, therefore you are responsible for it. You do not get to commit a crime to escape it.
If you don't understand this, then you are irrational and anti-civilization. If you do understand this, then you are a liar, and you're attempting to deceive others.
Either way, shame on you.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @08:25PM
They aren't believable. Their true motives are obvious.
Old: they support condoms and mostly want to stop HIV (but might mention abortions)
New: they just quit
That makes no sense.
It seems that supporting condoms to stop wasn't the primary goal. They are uninterested in doing that, at least without also supporting abortions. Why? Maybe the condoms were just a cover excuse. The real goal is abortion.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Saturday December 09 2017, @08:42PM (24 children)
I'm pro-choice, not just on abortion but on economics too.
That means I should be able to choose how money I earned is spent. I am not fond of my money being used to bribe or coerce other countries. We should not be "giving" "foreign aid" in the first place, that way there is no power or threat in removing the money.
To put it another way, your tax dollars are like meth to politicians. They use your money to do bad things all around the world. Supporting them is immoral.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:00PM (17 children)
How Justin's post is marked insightful shows how ignorant folks are with how the world works and how the stability of foreign countries is important to our security.
Justin's view indicates the US should have never executed the Marshall Plan after World War 2.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:07PM (4 children)
The US should never have stirred the pot, agitating Japan to attack us thereby "forcing" us into World War 2. But we are still stirring every pot we can find, in countries where we have no business even being.
There may be a difference between how the world has worked and how the world should work.
Do you think it would be OK for Pakistan to dictate to the US how our women should dress? You know, in the interests of the "stability" of non-Pakistan countries which is so important to Pakistan's security?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @10:20PM (1 child)
The pot stirring for Japanese Imperialism in the 20th century was started in the mid 19th when the US sent Admiral Perry to open Japan to provide a refueling/resupply point east of China/north of the Phillipines.
As a result of that action the Japanese started sending more of their children to learn from the Americans, eventually resulting in the attack on Pearl Harbor during WW2 (Yamamoto's education had been in America, which is why he tried to unsuccessfully deter the attack, which the Japanese didn't feel they could do since they had needed the oil they were buying from the west to fuel their war against their asian, russian, and oceanic neighbors.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:08AM
Yep. Before that, Japan was minding its own business. Afterward, they got busy remaking themselves in the image of a western colonial power. (Brief summary of 100 years of history)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @11:20AM
"how our women should dress"
I'd be careful of applying a possessive pronoun like that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 11 2017, @07:53PM
When you rule out war, you merely rule it out on your terms, not a foe's terms. But we have a much deeper problem with your argument - a hideous double standard.
Here, the argument is completely bogus, because only the US is subject to your pacifistic restrictions. Japan would by your reason have no excuse to ever attack the US even if "forced" and the US was similarly "forced" by the many heinous actions at the time of the Japanese Empire to engage in sanctions for its own defense (as well as various allies and innocent people around the world). Let us keep in mind that many of the atrocities of Japan had happened well before the entry of the US into the Second World War. For example, the Nanking massacre [wikipedia.org] in 1937 is thought to have killed several hundred thousand people.
And what is the nature [independent.org] of the "stirring" of the pot?
In other words, a standard pacifistic approach to a terrible problem, which cut off the Japanese war machine from the resources it needs to fight and oppress via peaceful means. Roosevelt may have had impure motives, but his strategic approach was very sound and valid - the ambitions of a warmaking brute would be curbed through peaceful means, just like you claim to want. Why then is it the US's responsibility when Japan then chose to attack the US? The US was merely taking sensible and peaceful precautions against rampant Japanese militarism and atrocities. Japan had far less pretext for war than the US had for sanctions. But we already see that you took the side of evil.
The bottom line here is that it isn't the job of those who strive for peace to enable the warmongers of the world until the very moment that it is their head on the chopping block. That way lies suicide. Apply your morality equally and sanely and then we can talk.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:21PM (10 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarity_(international_relations) [wikipedia.org]
The Cold War is over, and U.S. influence is on the decline. Europe is fragmented.
We spent trillions on Iraq [reuters.com] only to destabilize the region and inspire the creation of ISIS.
Fighting ebola, HIV, malaria, hunger, etc. is probably in the U.S.'s interests (including Justins shouting from the garbage heap). But don't be surprised when money [bbc.com] gets [nytimes.com] pocketed [soylentnews.org] instead of spent on the problem.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @10:06PM (6 children)
Do you not concede that destabilization and balkanization was the plan?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Saturday December 09 2017, @10:29PM (5 children)
I'm pretty sure the plan was to channel loads of money into the arms and military service industries, with a soupçon of "perhaps we can turn all that oil into more money."
Afghanistan almost the same: channel loads of money into the arms and military service industries, with a soupçon of "perhaps we can turn all those mineral resources into more money."
All while keeping up the drumbeat of "support our military, they are heroes", completely ignoring the fact that they were (and still are) being badly used in these military misadventures, not to mention thrown aside like the cannon fodder congress considers them to be after their term of service, wounded or not.
In the military I see the best of the citizens in general, and the very worst of the politicians.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @11:13PM
See here [facts-are-facts.com] and here. [independent.co.uk] It's much easier for oligarchs to asset strip a country by creating such chaos that people are so busy fighting themselves they barely notice the theft in progress. What do you think mass immigration into the West is really about?
I suspect you know people in the military. I remember protesting against the invasions (something I rarely do) and I also remember the long conversations with PTSD afflicted friends returning from the conflict. Much discussion about gas pipelines, Saudi Arabia and control of our media. So I wasn't at all surprised when Trump won.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Sunday December 10 2017, @01:52AM (3 children)
The unstated primary purpose of the military is to kill people off, and not just the enemy of the moment, but also their own soldiers. Think about how callous the military often is with their own soldiers, brutally hazing them, and telling them to suck it up and not be wussy, whiny crybabies, or even just being recklessly negligent by taking risks that are totally avoidable, then shrugging off the few resulting deaths as unfortunate consequences of the necessity to train them to be good soldiers, or as the weaklings who weren't strong enough to survive, didn't deserve to survive. And then, after they've served, look at the shoddy treatment dished out to so many veterans-- like denying that PTSD is a medical condition or that Agent Orange is dangerous to humans, that sort of stuff. Reckless negligence on the part of the military killed my uncle. For want of a curb, or of a safer place to pitch their tents, a truck backed over him in his sleep. Public outcry over those kinds of deaths has forced the American military to shape up and be more careful, pretend more convincingly that they do care about their soldiers' lives.
Winning is important, yes, but secondary to population control. One of the quickest solutions for a government that has lots of jobless young men on their hands is to get in a war. If the warmongers win, they take the spoils of war, including food and land. If they lose, it merely means fewer mouths to feed, if they have run the war practically and are not themselves fanatic idiots who drank their own Kool-aid. The populace ends up fed or dead. That's win-win. It's the patriarchal, ultra competitive, barbaric way to run the world. Keep women under the thumbs of men who will force them into bearing and raising far more babies than they wished, until overpopulation has the nation ready to collapse, filled with angry youth who have no prospects. They make perfect cannon fodder. Then go to war to relieve the pressure. The survivors get to do it all over again to the next generation.
Naturally, allowing family planning and abortions disrupts this way of life, and erodes male domination. That I feel is the real reason social conservatives oppose abortion. They don't really believe in the sanctity of life, far from it since they would push and push until a war starts. Sanctity of life is just an excuse. The stunning level of hypocrisy, to use as the reason for their policies the very thing they are trying to destroy, seems par for the course for them.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday December 10 2017, @04:24AM
Not quite. Muslim societies do it better; the wealthy collect the women, the young often do without as the numbers are now imbalanced, are both crazed with hormones and bewildered by religious malarky that tells them dying a martyr is the thing to do, and are perfectly willing to go to their deaths, eyes shining. Those people are near-perfect cannon fodder; fly an aircraft into a civilian target like a skyscraper or a military target like the pentagon? Sure! Let's GO!
Not going to find a lot of that level of commitment in our armed forces (and I hope we never do.) Because people like that are batshit crazy.
The problem with your death theory for our society is that recent wars (meaning, since Vietnam) just don't cause enough deaths in a population of 330 million to make any significant difference, and results in the return of many debilitated casualties, which further load society one way or another.
I don't think they're trying to kill those kids off. I just don't think they care. Because the point is money. Not population control.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Sunday December 10 2017, @06:50AM (1 child)
But there's also a hilarious blind spot.
You describe a system that mechanically sucks in, chews up, and spits out males. And you ascribe it to male domination.
Do you think you live in a patriarchy? Take off your blinders for a moment.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Sunday December 10 2017, @04:39PM
That seeming contradiction is easily resolved. To have large harems, there has to be a lot more women than men, and what better way to create that state of affairs than war? You can forget about brotherhood, this is the men who have it all killing off their fellow men to remove competition and ensure they keep it all. That is most easily done to the young, while they are still learning and figuring out what life is all about, and are still too trusting.
Even the patriarchs' own sons aren't always exempt. If they have many sons, they may favor a few and push the rest away. But mostly, they do try to save their sons. Like, George W. Bush got a comparatively safe and even cushy assignment to the National Guard, while his peers fought in Vietnam. Those the patriarchs can't fool are bribed with admittance to the club. Or they are silenced by exiling or imprisoning them. If that doesn't work, well, accidents happen, wink, wink.
No, we don't live in a patriarchy. The closest the US came to that was the Confederacy. On one level, Confederate soldiers deserved to be shot. They sucked up Southern propaganda, committed treason against the US for an unworthy cause, slavery, and made themselves the useful idiots that the slave owning patriarchs ruthlessly exploited. On another, they deserve pity for being duped. The Civil War still burns a little even today, and we still have plenty of would-be patriarchs among us.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday December 11 2017, @06:24PM (2 children)
Was it ever "stable" to begin with? Perhaps Iraq was somewhat stable, but I'm curious what a "stable" Middle-East actually looks like. Perhaps, I missed the stability period?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday December 11 2017, @06:35PM (1 child)
Stability = Dictators, monarchs, and other Supreme Leaders.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday December 11 2017, @07:46PM
That would explain my confusion as I conflated stability with war, unrest, etc.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday December 09 2017, @09:50PM
It IS important. Very important.
Which is why we have to disempower our meddlers before they cause even more damage and even more blowback.
"Justin's view indicates the US should have never executed the Marshall Plan after World War 2."
Oh, that's quite correct, but only in a context that you're stripping off.
If we had not intervened in WWI, there would have been no WWII, and no need for the Marshall Plan.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by julian on Saturday December 09 2017, @11:30PM (2 children)
We live in a massive, inter-connected, global economy. What happens in other countries affects my daily life. We should absolutely provide foreign aid if we receive a return on our investment, which includes quieting unrest and discontent caused by poverty. Unrest and war is bad for trade, which is bad for our economy, which is bad for me.
Jesus Christ, and I'm a liberal explaining why peaceful trade is good? What has happened to our politics that I need to explain concepts like comparative advantage and the peace dividend? I'd much rather be talking about *fair* trade which is a higher-level concern.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Sunday December 10 2017, @08:57AM (1 child)
GP is not happy about how (presumably American) politicians are spending his money. Are you? Because I'm pretty sure that a lot more is spent on creating unrest and war than on poverty relief.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Monday December 11 2017, @12:41AM
"Starbucks serve bad coffee, so all coffee shops are bad". The US government is bought, and is therefore trying its best to simulate a "regulation free market" for the oligarchs. Of course they'll only be happy once government is reduced to a police force to enforce property rights, so that eg. they can suppress water riots against your local water monopolist, and burn your crops when they get GMO cross-polinated.
In other countries governments perform better... though oligarchs are more strongly enforcing their property rights worldwide. The US is just further along.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by JustNiz on Sunday December 10 2017, @03:19AM
What about the rights of the baby to not be murdered?
(Score: 0, Troll) by JustNiz on Sunday December 10 2017, @03:36AM (1 child)
Great, so if someone's existience is financially or socially inconvenient to someone else then you think its fine for state-sanctioned murder of them?
you realise thats exactly what Germany was doing to Jews in 1939-1945 right?
(Score: -1) by Goddess Savitri Devi on Sunday December 10 2017, @03:53AM
Not just the jews. The homosexuals, the gypsies and other undesirables too! Too bad we didn't wipe them all out.
And it's not just inconvenient. The scum and mongrels infest our world, threatening our very survival. So it must be cleansed to make way for the true inheritors of the Trimurti, the Aryan race!
Shiva shall rain death upon non-Aryan scum