Their sentiment is that these young women should be saving themselves for their future husbands, and if they don’t, they’re removed who are getting what they deserve. It goes towards their belief that a man has a right to a woman because she is less than him.
I had so many people try to tell me why free lunch for children is bad and it never came down to anything but I don’t like paying for other people’s kids.
I believe part of free lunch was pushed by Eisenhower, who didn’t want malnourished troops. Odd for the patriotic to not see this any more.
Because poor desperate people is easier to convince to fight petty oil wars. They learn you can only push to far with conscriptions before people start rebeling.
Which is extra hilarious when you realize all we have to do is start actually charging wealthy people taxes and regular people wouldn’t have to pay for anything
Raise the standard deduction and poverty line to 100k. Set income tax at a flat 10%.
Also, the richest person every year has 50% of their net worth redistributed, and we build a statue in their honor.
Theres a neighbor that doesnt want to add more ambulances only cause they dont want to pay more taxes. Like dude, we have 4 ambulances for 100,000 people.
Some people just dont care, even when they know they’ll benefit from it, too.
If you want the ideological underpinnings of these arguments, there are a few.
The biggest one always boils down to the assertion that Government Is Paying For The Abortions. And that this is bad because it creates an incentive for young people to go out and have unmarried sex.
But there’s a second, arguably more insidious argument that you see crop up on the libertarian-right, which asserts the idea of “negative rights”. These are obligations of inaction that a state can impose on an individual or group, on the grounds that is makes others more free. In this case, the argument is that the fetus has a negative right with respect to the mother. Once you’re pregnant, you no longer have rights to your own body because another person is occupying it. This reasoning stems from the claim that fathers have an equal share in the property that is the child. This community property needs to be protected from a woman who wants to discharge her obligations prematurely at a loss to the man.
Pregnancy becomes a kind of debt that an impregnated woman owes to the impregnating man (and, by extension, the man’s family who also gets some degree of claim to the fetus). The woman is in debt bondage until the pregnancy is over. And the state - which libertarian ideology asserts should exist only to enforce property rights - has an obligation to obstruct the woman from evading payment of what is owed.
By contrast, all those state liabilities - health care, education, social services for children - are “positive rights”. Libertarians assert that these rights are actually an unlawful infringement on one human by another, because they must be paid for out of a communal set of resources. The mother cannot demand any recompense for her maternal state. The child cannot demand any basic standard of living as a minor. These all have to come from another adult (in a libertarian patriarchy, that means the father) and that once again infringes on his property.
It really does just boil down to the idea of Communism Bad.
Once you’re pregnant, you no longer have rights to your own body because another person is occupying it.
Except that a clump of a cells is not a person, so I am not sure how this argument holds.
This reasoning stems from the claim that fathers have an equal share in the property that is the child.
So, does that mean all sperm a man is carrying is also subject to community property rights? Don’t masturbate and destroy shared property, or you can be sued 😂 Sex cells and their less-developed products are not humans and as such not subject to any rights.
By contrast, all those state liabilities - health care, education, social services for children - are “positive rights”. Libertarians assert that these rights are actually an unlawful infringement on one human by another, because they must be paid for out of a communal set of resources.
These kind of services and rights are the reason why people formed civilizations in the first place, that is more organized allocation of resources. They didn’t form civilizations and societies to make some billionaire assholes richer. They don’t maintain social contracts out of the goodness of their hearts or because they’re weak, but because civilization and society provides for them in meaningful and substantial ways. Otherwise it’s slavery, and they have the right to eat the assholes who oppress them.
Once you’re pregnant, you no longer have rights to your own body because another person is occupying it.
Let’s harvest the bodies of people believing in this for healthy organs and blood, to save world-class violinists from dying! /s
Who wants to bail out every private for-profit corporation that we allowed to get so big it threatens our economy and national security?
If it’s too big to fail, it’s too big to exist. If the government needs to step in to save them, it should be expected that they will either be broken up or taken partially into government ownership.
>too big to fail
>look inside
>government bailout
I could instantly hear his voice.
Yeah children would be much more attainable if our system was more like Norway where the baby can basically be with mom for 18 months before she returns to work.
In the US they basically expect you back as soon as they baby has left the womb
“Do you really need to go to the hospital for this? I mean, we are still in the middle of the meeting, can’t the baby like…wait, or something”
Having a baby is a personal matter. Please do it on your own time.
We’re having an in-office birth to avoid the cost of going to the hospital.
“Who wants Voter ID?”
Hands up, cheering
“Who wants to give free ID’s to people?”
Awkward silence
What’s free ID’s? You there in hamburgerland of the free can live your lives without documents?
I mean, I need mine for any interaction with the governmental stuff.
Legally… yes. Practically, no.
Someone did a surprisingly good job shopping those hats in
The authoritarians are the party of telling people “No”. Want body autonomy? No. Want control on whether to raise a healthy child? No. Want help with the child? No.
I think we would all love to fund all of that…but Americas problem is it’ll take tax payer money and devote 99 cents of every dollar towards “defense”. all that is really needed is a halfing of the military/dod budget and reallocate funds similar to what is requested.
…but who votes for that…
If we actually taxed billionaires and millionaires and large corporations like we used to, we could fund it easily.
All that money goes to the pockets of billionaires that give politicians money. That’s why government contracts for companies are so high.
We are paying taxes and a large chunk of it goes to wealthy.
Voters influenced by foreign actors…
Because we can afford both.
Thought it was all about the states choosing 🤪
How 'bout we compromise? No reproductive rights or universal healthcare for conservatives. We’ll call it “Democratic Healthcare”. Anyone can opt in. Conservatives can choose to stay the fuck out of it and cling to their proud fascist ideals all the way to their graves.
I always fine that free meal part strange. I want to control what my kids eat and not rely on the school.
Thankfully Canada doesn’t have this expectation of free school meals… and everything works fine
You’re free to control what your kids eat even if the school provides free meals.
For some kids here it’s the only good meal they eat. No one is mandating people’s kids eat the school food.
The school could provide free meals… And ALSO you give your kid lunch from home. Just because the option of free food is there doesn’t mean you have to use it. It’s just better for everyone else who doesn’t have the option not to.
You know that no one is forcing anyone to eat those meals right? Just like no one is forcing everyone to take social welfare… Just because you provide a social service, that doesn’t mean anyone’s autonomy or rights are stripped away. It’s just providing an option for those that may not have any otherwise. Way to just think about yourself…
Free meal ain’t just for your kids, it’s for everyone ESPECIALLY poor kids. To them it might be the only normal meal of the day. If you don’t want your kids to eat what they serve, maybe you should fight for free meal that can be opt out, instead of dismiss the whole thing. I’m pretty sure whoever wrote the law and the school will be happy to feed one less mouth.
Removed by mod
LOL. The Canadian who gets government funded health care for all is being persnickety about hungry children getting government funded lunch in another country.
Welcome to the world we live in. I like focusing on something other than the exception to the rule.
And you guys should be rioting for universal health care… because it benefits the majority.
You’ll never truly be a first world country without it.
I was just pointing out that this is the reason tons of people in the US don’t want universal health care. They don’t want the government deciding what health care they receive, just like you don’t want them deciding what your children eat. And they don’t want their taxes paying for something that someone else receives.
You’re both being… short sighted, shall we say.
But… Free school lunches benefit the majority in a very similar way that universal healthcare does. By your own logic you should be rioting for free school lunches. What on earth are you on about?
Well thats an easily disprovable
lieerr… lets be generous, error through ignorance.There are a number of food programs, including charities that recognize some kids starve over the summer when kids are not in school. E.g. the food banks Canada after the bell program.
foodbankscanada.ca/after-the-bell
So take the time to reflect on 1- your right to feed your kids is not impacted, these programs are for kids who have no food, but you can still provide your own meals
2- without these programs some children starve
3- is there any possible argument that supports the outcome where some kids starve.
There is no lie, because schools quite literally do not provide free food where I live.
Everything else you speak of fine, and I have no problem with it, but let me repeat in case you decide to insert something into what I said that I didn’t (again), we do not have food programs in schools.
Food banks and free school meals are not the same. Maybe you don’t have food banks, but it’s what people use here when they need free food. Anyone can use it, even people with jobs. You don’t have to prove your poverty.
Nobody starves in Canada, unless they choose to.
So, everything works fine here, glad you educated yourself on a superior system. It’s one of many we have in a first world country.
Read my response again, try both links.
Where you live doesnt represent the whole country and vice versa
Many schools run their own programs, PTAs do as well.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/national-food-program-schools-explain-1.7160901
Has background on what exists already in addition to forward looking proposals
I agree that food banks are different than programs, again, read response in full
And finally, nice dodge. Should we (society) feed hungry kids yes/no.
I think you need to reread what I said because that was already answered … Where I live, we dont have hungry kids, it’s already taken care of… and it’s more than just one meal a day, and it’s not only children we take care of.
Your focus on kids alone shows how fucked up your system is.
Dont bother replying I won’t ever see it, I’ve had enough with your argumentative, and disingenuous approach.
Thankfully Canada doesn’t have this expectation of free school meals… and everything works fine
My focus is on far more than kids, youre the one saying they dont need any help.
And I’m posting so others dont fall for your BS. Always have been.
