The people who "tardrage" about welfare generally give more to charity. You can believe that state-enforced caring is immoral and still care about people. You can also care about people in one sense but not others. I can care about you being murdered without having to also care about you getting a job. There is no inconsistency or hypocrisy in that.
"REEEEE SOLVE THE PROBLEM MY WAY OR YOU DON'T CARE."
I am for making birth control very accessible so that abortions are rare. No woman with any functioning brain is going to use abortion as birth control. It's an invasive and very emotionally draining procedure.
Yeah, it's pretty hypocritical to say that. If people don't give to charity, without social welfare, those women would be screwed. I know you have crippling autism and thus have no sex drive, but people are gonna fuck. It's cruel to punish them for doing what we (those of us without crippling autism) are genetically programmed to do.
What about the dumb whores?
Please explain how. Please show me a moral principle being selectively upheld in one place but not the other.
It's cruel to tell your kid he can't have icecream every night. He really wants icecream every night and he is sad when he can't.
I'm fine with limited welfare and I don't care if women are having sex. I just happen to draw the line at killing unborn children and I think the argument that they might after all have a shitty life is some emo, self-cutting bullshit. That's an argument for the dissolution of the human race entirely: nothing in life is guaranteed but being denied life entirely on the basis that you might suffer is infantile. You might just as well have a great life.
I have no problem with welfare in the abstract, I think social darwinism is retarded and evil and that no one "deserves" to fail because they are weak or made bad choices in life. Safety nets are a moral good. I do think taxation is theft, and therefore oppose anything being paid for with taxes. Single mothers with no fathers or in otherwise tough situations should absolutely receive community support. I just don't think that support should be at gunpoint.
So what is it like being so repulsive that no woman would touch you?
Well, you are saying that a woman is screwed if she gets pregnant and can't support it then. Not all places have enough charity.
Except humans have a biological desire for sex. Ice cream is delicious but people are gonna fuck. You can't stop them.
Well I hate to break it to you, but government programs are needed if you don't want social darwinism. There's a lot of places where charity just isn't enough. And what happens if not enough people in the community step up or there's a huge recession?
If a child is going to be born to a mother who won't and can't support it, they're very likely to have a shitty life. Unless you're willing to pay for all of these unwanted children, you are being a hypocrite. Sorry that women are not willing to have sex with you, though.
And?
They also have agency and self control which infallibly controls their desires.
Social darwinism is not "the strong live, the weak die." It is more than that, it is "the strong should live, the weak should die." When a social darwinist sees a weak person by some fiat not being removed form the gene pool, that upsets him, and he wants to fix it. Indifference is very different from social darwinism. To you this might be a distinction without a difference, but to me it has numerous philosophical consequences which I think matter.
This is our fundamental disagreement. You believe that if community support does not manifest, it must be forced to manifest using violence. I believe it is immoral to do that.
So is everyone not born in an affluent nation. That's not a moral argument for glassing Africa.
Are you willing to pay for each and every abortion or are you just happy pitching in your legally required income taxes? I pay for welfare out of my income tax: that's my contribution. This is the collectivist vision the left loves so much so pat yourself on the back - you're winning this round!
Good thing I only have to worry about my wife, then.
Abortion is the responsible choice in most cases.
This might shock you, but social welfare programs are community support.
What? There's a huge difference between poor and between a woman who doesn't want the kid and thus will do a shit job raising them.
That's the most retarded argument I've seen in this thread and that's saying a lot. I am fine with my taxes going to welfare and abortion, but the majority of abortions are paid for by health insurance or out of pocket. You want to not allow that to even happen. You also are saying that social welfare programs shouldn't exist, but those damn women (who won't fuck you) should not be able to abort a baby when accidents happen.
Uh huh.
Yes, I don't want babies to be murdered.
In fact, I said the very opposite in the post you replied to. But you're a really lame troll so this is all just theater anyway. I'll say "I'm fine with limited welfare" and you'll say "REEEEEEEEEE FASCIST" and everyone will go on with their day.
Oh, so the money isn't a problem? So why do you want me to pay to raise them if their being poor isn't the issue? The mother can give the child up for adoption and the government can use some of the tax money I pay them to fund it.
You Americans think everything revolves around you. Beyond the fact that this is a lie, my country has socialized medicine, so my income tax contributes directly to baby murder. Even if what you're saying is true (fucking lol here read something.) about abortion funding, it doesn't at all negate what I said about my taxes funding welfare. Which again, I'm fine with.
I know it doesn't occur to you godless baby killers but people with children just might have strong feelings about kids being killed.
Good thing abortion isn't murder, then, right? Are you willing to help pay for those babies? If not, your opinion means fuck all.
No, you said that people shouldn't be forced by the government to give their money to welfare programs, which is what taxes are. You're just assblasted because now you're seeing how retarded your argument was.
There's plenty of children in foster homes who need adoption. Bringing some children who will go through hell in life just because you're upset that women won't have sex with you isn't a way to go through life, son.
The pro-life tards are against the government funding Planned Parenthood and most (in the US, anyway) are against social welfare programs.
Good thing that fetuses aren't babies then, right? Fetuses are no more children than a brick is a building
The responsible choice is a nuclear family of responsible people.
That doesn't shock me at all. My posts concede this implicitly. Welfare programs are community support by means of violence.
Coomer mindset.
What you should do is dictated by God.
Why are you just okay with people being awful? Why is your solution never to make them not awful?
Lol. Like I said, just a really lame troll. The trick is to pretend you're paying attention, otherwise you're just showing your ass. Anyways, I'll leave it at that because rolling in the shit with you isn't as fun as you think it is.
Ahh so you're one of those.
Sorry that you have crippling autism and decided to come here because retards from /pol/ told you it's a safe space.
I am an atheist, so nope. This isn't a Christian nation. Even if it was, you right-wingers are typically the exact opposite of what Jesus actually said to do. He'd be pissed at you evangelicals
How would you tend to bring a poor mother out of poverty to pay for her kids? Some work several jobs already and there's no way they could afford to have the kid. Shit can happen despite your best attempt to prevent it
Choose one
Oh wow, you're right. That's such a great argument for murdering babies. People used to do it, so why not keep doing it? Bravo.
Not as such.
Baby-killing, yes.
Who the fuck is starving to death in North America? We're all dying of being too fucking fat, unless you're counting anorexics and junkies. You're also assuming that every unwanted child is going to have a terrible life with absolutely no evidence to support that (the corollary to this is that every wanted child is going to have a good life, which I'm sure you can recognise is false). All you're saying is that if you had an unwanted child you would starve it or worse.
