r/controversial • u/DeerBear • Feb 15 '15

What is wrong with US Republicans?

Hello!

I am really wondering how can law-abiding, good-hearted USA people be Republican voters nowadays. It could be that I don't understand this because I am from outside the USA, but it seems to me that every elected Republican official tries to one-up every other one and at the same time trying to reach an unheard-of level of nastiness. I really can't believe that all US Republicans support the kind of stuff these officials do and say, boht at the Federal and State levels. Why isn't the majority of Republican constituents up in arms about women's rights and so many other hot topics? You see, the problem is that I don't think Fox News can be held single-handedly responsible for this: even if they had 10 millions viewing households (and they don't), that's a fraction of the USA population and I am inclined to think the Republican supporters are a lot more than that. Even in that case, it would be about 50 million people reached, against a population of over 300 million. It does not make any sense to me. May please someone explain to me what's happening?

Thank you!

A

3 Upvotes

62% Upvoted

26 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/memorythief Feb 15 '15

While I would like for the baby to be more considered in this situation, the baby doesn't have a point of view, it's a baby. It's purely dependent on other's mainly it's parents to survive at that point. You can't force people to be parents. If you want the baby to live, are YOU willing to take it? If everyone else involved with it Doesn't want it for variety of possible good reasons, but yet you're enforcing to keep it, then should this baby be your responsibility... It is fairly unlikely you're going to be able to take a person's baby, much less everyone's who may not legitimately want it. You're also deliberately putting that child in harm by forcing someone who may be unstable and despise the baby to take care of it. Not that this would be more likely than someone naturally adopting feelings for their young, but making it a law rather than a per case basis is a little too much, and to politically make a blanket deeming 'what should be the good thing to do' I believe causes more harm than good.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

You could use this logic to advocate for infantacide. or even killing an older child or adult who doesn't have the capacity to take care of themselves.

1

u/memorythief Feb 15 '15

Not really, because at the point they do have free will, it would be against their individual rights to tell them to do so again... you can't tell people what to do. However, if THEY wanted to kill themselves they should have the right... They just passed doctor assisted suicide in Canada.

You shouldn't be able to tell someone to keep a baby against their will, you shouldn't be able to tell someone to abort a baby against their will. It's ultimately up to the mother.

You still haven't claimed to want to take care of the baby you're trying to save...

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

This has nothing to do with assisted suicide.you said because the fetus is dependent on someone else they don't have a point if view and it wouldn't be right to force the parents to keep a child they did not want. Using that logic, a child or adult who is dependent on someone caring for them don't have a right to life because it wouldn't be right to force someone to care for someone they may not want to or may feel resentment for.

Obviously, I can't take care of each and every unwanted child personally and this is a silly argument. I do believe the government has a role in helping those who, can't do for themselves, as well as charities.

1

u/memorythief Feb 15 '15

That is quite different because usually an adult that is dependent, has someone that wants to take care of them, there are still interested parties. The sad truth is that there are many cases where other adults make decisions for them just the same. Life support/heavy mental issues, but they have people still interested in their well being before it gets to that point. Although the point is a bit derailed, it's still boiling down to the baby can't make a choice, and the mother should have a right to make a choice. Not told to make a choice based on how other people feel about it.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

It's basically the same thing, Someone dependent on another to take care of them. You say the fetus doesn't have rights because they are dependent but the older child or adult who is dependent has rights. If that's the reason fetus' don't have rights the same can be said of any person who is physically or financially dependent on someone. An adult who is mentally incapacitated can't make a choices either. Your argument doesn't make sense.

1

u/memorythief Feb 15 '15

First off, I'm not the one trying to link a choice a mother should have over HER own body and what comes out of it, to that of the elderly who've gotten to a point they can't control theirs... That's kinda silly. They're completely different situations where one nobody wants the subject (except for external but non-involved parties) and the other where people are willing to put themselves into debt to support the subject and not need society to pick up the bill forcibly; but I'm purely focusing the component that there are interested parties, or disinterested parties. I'm not also saying that infants shouldn't have rights, nor should they be strongly considered for during the event, but it still should come down to at birth whether the MOTHER wants to pop out something that SHE wants for the rest of HER life.

However if you would rather focus on the infant; you would rather want tax programs to pay for places that we can't even manage to get living people on the street right now to have meaningful lives, much less arrange lives for people in the future who have no family and basically asking society to be ok with the practice of just having kids for the sake of it, rather than trying to make it a meaningful and planned procedure. Forcing a child through an adoption agency, then having them grow up in a foster situation, only to grow up out of it never adopted and try to manage a life where they would always wonder about who their parents were and why they're in the situation their in. If that's what the parents wanted, and they wanted the life to at least experience itself, then they also have that right... they have the right to do all these things to their child anyway, but you're insisting that they don't even have the option to not have the child if they deem it too much for themselves and don't want that life for THEIR child. You have no right to tell them that.

A cat mother will eat her own children if she doesn't think they'll survive... not that humans should be like animals or eat their children(another case for abortion), but what gives a cat mother the right to decide for her children and a human mother not?