05-05-2012, 09:28 PM
(05-05-2012, 04:24 PM)IMaDick Wrote: Women are women are women.
I don't seperate them into groups, that is really counter productive since the laws R v W does not have any such boundaries within it's text.
This is the law that made PPH what it is and what sustains it with tax dollars.
Just gettin' home and reading the thread.
I was comparing a demographic/culture sub-group when I posted that women who use PP for birth control and abortion (whether by choice or circumstance) are a different group, demographically or culturally, than those who choose to give birth to garner state-funded income. That is a fact, period, no way around it. One group is trying to prevent birth and the other is actively seeking it. Rowe vs. Wade has nothing to do with it; we were not arguing the right to choose. We were discussing tax-payer funding to prevent or abort unwanted pregnancy.
So, I respectfully still contest your original point and contend that when women who wish to prevent or abort pregnancies have fewer options to do so, SOME of them will wind up having children that state tax payers will have to supplement at a much higher long term cost.
While I respect your right to categorize all women as either ladies or sluts, I think it is much too narrow-minded to consider in this debate and rather irrelevant. I don't consider all men to be either gentlemen or dogs, my experience leads me to believe that many are a bit of both or somewhere in between. That too is irrelevant here because regardless of the character/morality of man involved, women (be they ladies or sluts) cannot get pregnant without them. So this is not only a "female" issue, it's a societal issue involving and affecting both men and women, fiscally and otherwise.
P.s. I can live with or without men just like you can live with or without women. Nice to have the option, and looks like neither of us chooses option B. Imagine that.
Cheers...
