Sorry Libs, You Can’t Replace Dads With Government

yea, trump at tiffany's soccer game? the other parents would have got tired of him quick.

 

No the ones responsible for their birth or the people who decide to hop in bed together and have sex.

I know personal responsibility for one's own actions is largely a foreign concept to many liberals.

If you can't feed it don't breed it the government is not your baby daddy

 

Nope, you prevent them from having an abortion that's on you.

 

Unless someone forced them to have sex they are responsible for their own damn actions.

I know I know.... It's an incredibly hard concept to understand...

 

Which doesn't change the fact if YOU prevent them from getting an abortion that's ON YOU.

 

... .

 

Of course we are for collectivism, just not federally controlled and enforced "collectivism." My family is a collective. My friends are a collective. My neighbors are a collective. The small community I live in is a collective. It is all about circles of trust. If my neighbors or friends need help, I give it to them, and vice versa. I do things that help my community and the community helps me. We believe in mutual obligation, conformity, and work-to-eat (also fundamentals of collectivism).

Cool thing about it - conservative collectivism is all voluntary - no government authority forcing me to help, whereas federally controlled leftist collectivism is ultimately enforced at the point of a gun.

Conservative collectivism certainly exists, although it is vastly different (and vastly better for liberty) than leftist collectivism which is basically authoritarianism.

 

Like I said, after its born you don't care about it.

 

I am not religious myself, but I am certain that the altruistic teachings in the Bible were a directive to each individual, not to a government. If an individual desires to give to charity, then they are free to do so. The government should not force individuals to give to charity.

 

It doesn't.

 

Semantics.

charity
(ˈtʃærɪtɪ) n, pl -ties
1. (Social Welfare)
a. the giving of help, money, food, etc, to those in need
b. (as modifier): a charity show.
2. (Social Welfare)
a. an institution or organization set up to provide help, money, etc, to those in need
b. (as modifier): charity funds.
3. (Social Welfare) the help, money, etc, given to the needy; alms

The federal government certainly fits 2a in the definition. And when they use taxpayer funds to provide money to those in need, they are absolutely using force.

 

If I'm not the daddy and someone should go find the daddy and he's the one that should care about it.

You just can't understand that can you? If you're going to bring a life into this world you should be responsible for it.

The government is not your baby daddy

 

And if you prevent a woman from getting an abortion then YOU are bringing it into the world.

 

Sorry no force involved.

 

Yes because that's how women get pregnant.....SMFH

 

And for the people arguing that you don't care about children if you think people should be responsible for their own children?

I would argue this.... Obviously they don't give a damn about their own children if they choose to bring them into the world being unable to care for them. Expecting a free ride from the government

 

Answer this question.

Is having sexual intercourse 100% guaranteed to result in conception. Yes or no?

 

But their not doing that, they want to have an abortion so they DON'T bring a kid into this world. YOU by preventing them from getting an abortion ARE the one responsible for it being born.

 

I am not preventing anybody from doing a damn thing.

If you can't afford to bring a kid into the world maybe you should not do the thing that creates children. Or get a damn condom they give him away for free at the health department.

Then there's always the tried and true keep your legs closed method

 

Answer this question.

Is having sexual intercourse 100% guaranteed to result in conception. Yes or no?

 

Your post has an assumed premise.

You haven't actually presented an argument to debate.

You would if you chose to do some work, you know, offer a solid path of logic, reasoning, gave some examples, historically or otherwise, made a real effort to substantiate the premise (and do you even know what your premise is? ), which you haven't done.

You use links to supplement that work, not let it do it for you. I only check links after you posit a solid argument, which you haven't done.

Perhaps that is why your rebuttals are just one liners, which is all your OP deserves.

 

Except that in the REAL world it is not as simple as proclaiming: Red promotes two parent families, blue does not:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/upshot/red-vs-blue-america-on-marriage.html

As usual, this is an issue where conservatives claim moral superiority, when the data actually doesn't support it. In fact, if they really were FOR stable families, they would have supported Obama, who has been a model citizen in this regard, unlike their hero Trump.

So, get off your moral high horse, nobody is buying it, except for the dupes from the cu$t.

 

They are called taxes and once you pay taxes that money is no longer your money it belongs to the government.

 

Absolutely true. The percentage of troubled kids correlates consistently to the presence or lack of presence of a father in the home. You aren't going to fix the adults of the future until you fix the environment they are raised in. It's a social rather than legal issue, but the recognition of it is the firt and most fundamental step in changing it.

 

But they will give it their very best shot.