[RESULTS ARE FINAL] 2016 Election for President of the United States | Donald Trump Victory

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

first off, paint has a funking text tool.

 

Second, yes, I think we would all agree that in regards to economic relations to China we are absolutely funked. Quite frankly, I don't think Trump is capable of fixing this, at least with his current silhouette of a plan. Tariffs and additional taxation would indeed pressure Chinese imports, and quite likely would achieve the goal of forcing them to trade more reasonably, but the real issue is of whether the US economy could make it through such a transitional period. As mentioned last time this topic came up, a sheet ton of stuff in the US is imported from China, to use a technical term. The strain placed on the economy by severely hampering such a key portion of imports would funk our consumer-based system. The value of our currency would go up as a result, which is a large part of the goal, but the supply of much of what is bought would be reduced, mitigating the effectiveness of said changes.

 

This isn't even going into the fact that tariffs have historically been proven to damage world economy and international relations.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

...I'm not being condescending, I'm stating an objective truth.

 

You don't have to be smarter than someone to get them to support you. There's nothing wrong with supporting someone less intelligent than you if they're fighting for something you agree with, or fighting against someone you disagree with.

 

And I'm pretty sure that Trump is far less intelligent than you are.

Sorry, I misread that, read that as you saying Trump supporters were the dumb ones

 

Trump grew a 1 million to atleast 4 billion, I spend my paycheck in a matter of hours after I get it...not entirely sure if that's true :P

first off, paint has a funking text tool.

 

 

TIL

 

That being said, yes you have a point in that regard that in the period while we're applying pressure on China our economy might take a hit, you need to offset that by not getting into multiple trade wars at once. While we're dealing with China, you'd ideally make agreements with a nation that has a country that has a less devalued currency. 

 

A better relationship with Russia is a good idea here. China already puts a backdoor tariff on us so it really can't get that much worse, so we can export to what's basically a starving Russia while applying pressure to china. We'd make up the loss in cheaper product with our gains from exporting which we currently cannot do

 

Relationships be damned, the current relationships suck for America, we need to hammer out deals with post Brexit UK, Russia, and a few others. Asia and Mexico are funking us.

 

The other thing is with the increased revenue we can invest in technology research and then invest in capital to outperform China in low cost production. Yes, we cannot beat them in manual labor, but we have a chance in beating their efficiency with capital. Right now we can't

[Aerion Brightflame]

He didn't be to be hugely intelligent to make that money. He was given a very large kickstarter (The equivillant of 6 million dollars in todays money), he had his Dad's contacts, he had his dad cosigning every deal he wanted to make as added legitimacy to get them started, and he got some 85 million or so from government kick backs that I know of. 

 

He was a very wealthy man buying high end property at a time when high end property shot up in terms of being valuable, like think how much house prices have risen in the past 40 years or so. It's not the hardest thing in the world for him to have done, and I think he actually could have more money right now if he had just stuck the initial million in an account and reinvested the interest time and time again. Somewhere in the region of 20 billion instead of 5. If he was an incredible buisnessman, he would have made far more than what he has made honestly. 

 

You really don't have to have intelligence to profit if you happen to be born at the right time and given every possible advantage and start. Which Trump got. 

[Phantom Roxas]

I put it in quotes to mock that name for a reason. I've yet to see proof of it being used, and I've already said I think it's shitty that people fat shamed her, let alone apparently called her miss piggy

 

No, but she pretty much admitted to it on like two shows and got caught lying about circumstances of her eating disorders, so there's plenty of room to think she's not being honest. When asked if you were implicate in those charges, the innocent person's resp is not "I had a history"

 

Rape allegations? Mainly Bill Clinton, but again just allegations, nothing in the lines of proof. 

 

Your stories implicate Trump yes, a piece on Trump's treatment of women isn't gonna be like "but here are all the times HRC and Bill treated women like trash to make an objective portrayal"

 

I don't care what this woman's history is, if she can prove that Trump called her those names, he's absolutely at fault, but she can't and she's being backpeddling pretty fast recently, so I'm skeptical. Howard stern called her fat and Trump laughed, that's about as close to "Miss Piggy" as anyone can prove

 

The problem Roxas, is you guys are more outraged that I dropped "sexual" from the definition of rape to describe China's attempt to ruin the US than the fact that China is ruining the US.

 

You're so caught up in your bubble of social justice, that you miss the bigger picture

And yet, instead of making the effort to actually look up Alicia Machado's name, you identified her as "Miss Piggy". It's not that hard to look up her name.

 

If you're willing to point out rape allegations about Bill Clinton, then I can support the allegations that I was originally talking about, which is that Trump is a rapist.

 

Of course the piece I linked to isn't going to suddenly be about the Clintons, because I assume that the writer doesn't rely on your lazy and repetitive tactic of changing the subject back to Clinton whenever you don't like Trump being criticized.

 

You say you don't care what the woman's history is, but you do seem to delight on mocking as she is now. Do you dislike that Trump laughed at Howard Stern said?

 

I'm not saying that you twisting a definition of sexual violence by completely taking the word out of context for your own convenience is a bigger outrage than China's impact on the US, so accusing me of being in a "bubble" means nothing.

 

China has been maiming the US for a while. Our trade agreements are disastrous, and it's costing us money. A lot of people are displeased, and at their wits end. Maybe you should get out and protest it. That would make you look like you have a sheet, instead of being a keyboard warrior.

 

See, maiming, that is a word I can agree with. 

 

Well I'm not a victim, I had the luxury of being born into a wealthy family and I get to sit at a university learning about Quantum states while some poor bloke in Wisconsin is wondering why he has to sell more cheese for less money every year

 

Ah, so you're just arrogant. Oh wait, everyone already knew that.

[cr47t]

Hate to interrupt the discussion, but am I the only one here irritated the issue of the Supreme Court vacancy wasn't brought up in the debate? I mean, it's probably the most important domestic policy issue at the time and I personally think Holt could easily have found a way to put it in the debate, especially one that had historic viewings, to get the stances out there.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Okay can we take a moment to put this into perspective, Winter. You went at Roxas about loving to bring the rape thing up and then you went out of your way to quote a post about from several days ago to talk about it more?

And then you, twice, claim that they're being "triggered" by the word rape which I cannot understand where this comes from and it sounds like you're just trying to trivialize what is being said with "Hurr triggered"

Sorry for bringing this up since apparently it's moved past but I just felt like this was in poor taste.

I mean I did that because he said something along the lines of me not responding, and I've been forgetting to respond to him. 

 

I won't use the word if it irritates you guys so much, the point is China is absolutely funking with trade, and Clinton isn't nearly strong enough on it for my liking. 

 

Tom pretty much made clear what his problems were so I think I addressed it? Maybe? Either-way sorry

I've repeatedly said I wouldn't have laughed at what Stern did, it's not something I would personally do, but I'm also not a showman on Television...the crowd loved it I hear, so w/e

[Phantom Roxas]

Wait, weren't you talking about the Bush and Clinton dynasties, and Mexico, when I criticized your rape analogies? No wonder you're baffled about my outrage at your use of the word. You changed the subject again by switching it to China, so you're not even consistent about what we were disagreeing over!

 

I've repeatedly said I wouldn't have laughed at what Stern did, it's not something I would personally do, but I'm also not a showman on Television...the crowd loved it I hear, so w/e

 

That isn't what I asked. I asked "Do you dislike that Trump laughed at Howard Stern said?" I'm not asking if you agree or disagree with Stern. I'm asking if you believe that Trump's response was appropriate.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

And yet, instead of making the effort to actually look up Alicia Machado's name, you identified her as "Miss Piggy". It's not that hard to look up her name.

 

If you're willing to point out rape allegations about Bill Clinton, then I can support the allegations that I was originally talking about, which is that Trump is a rapist.

 

Of course the piece I linked to isn't going to suddenly be about the Clintons, because I assume that the writer doesn't rely on your lazy and repetitive tactic of changing the subject back to Clinton whenever you don't like Trump being criticized.

 

You say you don't care what the woman's history is, but you do seem to delight on mocking as she is now. Do you dislike that Trump laughed at Howard Stern said?

 

I'm not saying that you twisting a definition of sexual violence by completely taking the word out of context for your own convenience is a bigger outrage than China's impact on the US, so accusing me of being in a "bubble" means nothing.

 

 

 

See, maiming, that is a word I can agree with. 

 

 

 

Ah, so you're just arrogant. Oh wait, everyone already knew that.

 

1) Yeah fair, my mistake, I apologize

 

2) Well yes, I'm just saying it's not objective to just point out that Trump has a shifty history and ignore Clinton, to the avg reader that makes it seem like the Clintons had none of that in the past

 

3) Diff is Clinton actually lied and got caught lying and his accusers aren't hiding behind anonymity. Not entirely sure that Clinton's confirmed and alleged sex scandals are equal to Trump's alleged one. But sure, you can say Trump's an alleged rapist, can't argue with that.

 

4) If Trump called her Ms. Housekeeping? Idk if she killed Jesus, it would still have been a shitty thing of him to do. Her background makes me question the validity of her story, but if her story is proven true, I'll absolutely criticize Trump over it. No, I don't like what he did on Stern, but the audience clearly wasn't for me

 

5 & 6) My apologies then, I can use a less ...hmm...charged word if it makes you feel better like maiming

 

7) Arrogant? How, because I had the misfortune of being born into my trash-heap family? Shrugs, I have little to nothing to do with my parents these days, so w/e

[Aerion Brightflame]

Hate to interrupt the discussion, but am I the only one here irritated the issue of the Supreme Court vacancy wasn't brought up in the debate? I mean, it's probably the most important domestic policy issue at the time and I personally think Holt could easily have found a way to put it in the debate, especially one that had historic viewings, to get the stances out there.

 

It's not really either of there's to talk about. Both would agree that Congress is funked, make promises things will go better when they are in charge, and Obama's candidate still won't get a look in till after the result is announced. It's question that doesn't really tell us much. 

 

Since if Hillary wins, they accept Garland because he's probably the best candidate the GOP would be getting. If Trump wins they keep holding out till he takes office and then someone that Trump picks gets sent through. There is simply no pressure on them to actually stop being obstructive currently because they can hold out indefinately. Obama can't exactly force the nominiation through - And he picked a reasonable nomination as well. 

 

Merrick Garland has already broken the record for the longest period of nomination for any candidate without a hearing. And I doubt that the hearing will happen any time remotely soon. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

Wait, weren't you talking about the Bush and Clinton dynasties, and Mexico, when I criticized your rape analogies? No wonder you're baffled about my outrage at your use of the word. You changed the subject again by switching it to China, so you're not even consistent about what we were disagreeing over!

 

 

 

That isn't what I asked. I asked "Do you dislike that Trump laughed at Howard Stern said?" I'm not asking if you agree or disagree with Stern. I'm asking if you believe that Trump's response was appropriate.

 

Bush and Clinton made NAFTA a thing, Bush and Clinton were trying to make TPP a thing with Obama till Sanders made HRC back down, and Trump ended Bush

 

No. Don't like it, but again I was 2 years old in 1998, not times have changed. Fatshaming has become a bigger issue recently I'd assume

It's not really either of there's to talk about. Both would agree that Congress is funked, make promises things will go better when they are in charge, and Obama's candidate still won't get a look in till after the result is announced. It's question that doesn't really tell us much. 

 

Since if Hillary wins, they accept Garland because he's probably the best candidate the GOP would be getting. If Trump wins they keep holding out till he takes office and then someone that Trump picks gets sent through. There is simply no pressure on them to actually stop being obstructive currently because they can hold out indefinately. Obama can't exactly force the nominiation through - And he picked a reasonable nomination as well. 

 

Merrick Garland has already broken the record for the longest period of nomination for any candidate without a hearing. And I doubt that the hearing will happen any time remotely soon. 

He could have made a recess appointment  

 

Would have been the ballsy and alpha thing to do, but I've realized the hard way that's not Obama

 

And it's not that I even like Garland, he's too pro-Trade, anti-Gun for my liking...and god knows what his abortion stance is. But I assume he's pro LGBT so that's nice atleast. It's just what a bold president, keeping to his word about forcing change in a stagnant country would have done

 

But lol on that topic, Walmart refuses to make Cops cakes cause it's "racist"  to say Blue Lives matter, but you have to make Gay people cakes....

 

Edit:

 

Mexico also does it, not as shamelessly as China, but they do it too. You can mess with the US-Mexico Forex market to force them to pay for a wall. Should you? Debatable, it would be a temporary flush of energy into the dying steel industry in the Rust belt as well as employment gain for the unemployed people in the Sun Belt and SoCal

 

Mexico probs wouldn't appreciate economic blackmail, but funk them, they're sending illegals with maps on where to cross over. 

[Aerion Brightflame]

No one has done it since Eisnehower, and after Eisenhower the laws were tightened to have to be 'unusual circumstances'. You could argue the most obstructionate opposition in history classes as unusual but it's a bit of a stretch for Obama to do so. Especially dragging up a law that hasn't had usage in nearly 60 years. And that's on top of all the concerns about his overuse of Executive Orders as it is. In this case showing respect for the democratic process that the US has established is the better move.

 

Like technically it's the interests of his party to let the sheet drag out because if the public's faith in congress and the senate tanks, then Democrats are far more likely to turn out to oust them and given Dem's (potentially) control of the executive branch and of the legislature. And imagine how much more support say the pro-gun groups who insist 'Obama's gonna take your guns' would get if they can point out Obama forced someone through to the Supreme Court. 

 

It's the right decision I'd say not to just step past them completely. It's not a position he has to be dominant on because he is liked far more than the Senate is. 

 

Garland is undoubtedly qualified for the position though - He has more federal judicial experience than any other nominee in history. But yes, he is left leaning as any candidate nominated by the Dem's would be. Probably the most balanced choice you'll get from them though, his name had been thrown around for the last couple of seats as well. 

 

Personally I'd love if Hillary wins to nominate Obama to the position just to give a very large and royal FU to the Republicans. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'd laugh and cry if Trump nominated Cruz.

 

2nd A people will turn out all the same. HRC is making it very clear that she wants us disarmed. Her praising the Brit and Aussie laws was will motivate all of us to turn out to stop her on that regard atleast.

 

Dems won't turn out as much over scotus, Bush had both houses, WH, and the Court, and still couldn't push any social conservative agendas. Trump will kill CU because of how Cruz and Bush tried to funk him. Liberals have a lot less to lose from a Trump court than conservatives do from a HRC court

 

I'm curious though, Harry Reid was mocking Trump's weight a few weeks back, where was the fat-shaming outrage? 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64xoDyethW8&feature=youtu.be

 

:')

 

Clinton 44% (+6) Trump 38% Johnson 7% Stein 5% Undecided 6%

 

Washington State

 

Obama won by 15% 

 

SMH

[Aerion Brightflame]

Ted Cruz is like the only republican Trump could nominate who wouldn't get approved because everyone in politics despises Ted Cruz. It's something he's even boasted about at some points. 

 

A Conservative Supreme court right now can help upturn gay marriage, any form of universal healthcare, slash planned parenthood, gutter net neutrality, and in general be very pro big business in a time we need to be moving away from that direction. And that's just sheet in the next 5-10 years, let alone the next 20-30. Proportionately there's not that much more a left leaning one can. Stricter gun laws (Because they won't buy into a reading of the Second Ammendment that supports removing all guns) which most people are in favour of being like the biggest thing. 

 

Obviously I have my biases, but I just think a moderately left leaning court pays off in the long run because it keeps you from stagnating. Not like far left obviously (But that doesn't really exist too much in US politics so what's the issue), but just enough to keep up with the changing trends of the time without too much hassle. 

[Dad]

Clinton is far left tho. Where most lefties like me want stricter gun laws, she wants full disarmament. After she gimped Bernie, she went further left than he was.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Ted Cruz is like the only republican Trump could nominate who wouldn't get approved because everyone in politics despises Ted Cruz. It's something he's even boasted about at some points. 

 

A Conservative Supreme court right now can help upturn gay marriage, any form of universal healthcare, slash planned parenthood, gutter net neutrality, and in general be very pro big business in a time we need to be moving away from that direction. And that's just sheet in the next 5-10 years, let alone the next 20-30. Proportionately there's not that much more a left leaning one can. Stricter gun laws (Because they won't buy into a reading of the Second Ammendment that supports removing all guns) which most people are in favour of being like the biggest thing. 

 

Obviously I have my biases, but I just think a moderately left leaning court pays off in the long run because it keeps you from stagnating. Not like far left obviously (But that doesn't really exist too much in US politics so what's the issue), but just enough to keep up with the changing trends of the time without too much hassle. 

Nuclear Option is a thing, but yeh I was mostly joking

 

Trump has already said he supports states deciding ME, so the national opinion supporting ME is on the LGBT's side

 

Obamacare is dying on it's own, doesn't need SCOTUS to do that

 

Planned Parenthood need to decide if they care more about the 98% helping women or 2% for revenue 

 

HRC spoke way too happily about Aussie, it was terrifying. Tell me Tom, Bush had 7 justices? How did that work out for social conservatives 

 

You think bernie is center left >_> I really question what you think is center left

 

Yeah a left court would just ramp up regulation and screw with marginal cost and sink our economy even more

 

 

Clinton is far left tho. Where most lefties like me want stricter gun laws, she wants full disarmament. After she gimped Bernie, she went further left than he was.

^^ Trump already supported cross-listing the no-fly and terrorist watch lists with the buyer laws. Common sense reform

[Aerion Brightflame]

Clinton is far left tho. Where most lefties like me want stricter gun laws, she wants full disarmament. After she gimped Bernie, she went further left than he was.

 

Which is why if she won they'd immediately appoint Garland before Hillary could nominate a different replacement. 

 

And then pray to God that Kennedy Ginsberg and Brayer live through the next 3, 3 and a half years so they can nominate new appointments next cycle if they win. 

 

Besides, the court is meant to uphold the constitution above all else if I'm not mistaken? So it makes Hillary's plans for full disarmament hard to achieve even with a left leaning court. 

 

Obamacare is dying on it's own, doesn't need SCOTUS to do that

 

Planned Parenthood need to decide if they care more about the 98% helping women or 2% for revenue 

 

HRC spoke way too happily about Aussie, it was terrifying. Tell me Tom, Bush had 7 justices? How did that work out for social conservatives 

 

You think bernie is center left >_> I really question what you think is center left

 

Yeah a left court would just ramp up regulation and screw with marginal cost and sink our economy even more

 

Universal Healthcare and Obamacare are not one and the same. Obamacare is a very flawed system, but it can be used as the board to push more reform through that could make it an actually effective system comparable to the NHS. Because universal health care is just fantastic, honestly. You really should try to embrace it. I can't imagine how pointlessly stressful your system is. 

 

This is where my bias comes through but traditional social conservatives are just funking nuts franky. I don't really care if they don't get reform through because the sort of social sheet they get through seems to make sheet worse for most people. 

 

Bernie would be centre left in Europe. But for reference I'm talking about Americain left and right when I say 'left leaning'. I mean that the court runs basically as a 4-5 split where the 5th guy is a very minorly left leaning judge with an exemplary record. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The only social conservative policy americans are still divided on is abortion...which they should be because normalizing murder isn't ok. They've lost every other fight. And abortion demand drops when the economy gets better actually. There was a really neat piece I read that says pro life people should vote dem because economy was better under Bill...ofc that's a pile of doo doo because bill just coasted off the fall backs from Reaganomics, but it was clever all the same.

 

I compared Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's tax plan to see how it would effect me as a middle class tax payer. Here's the break down using $75,000 of taxable income.

 

Hillary Clintons website does not list a table of tax brackets and so I must assume that her rates will remain the same as it is currently and as it pertains to the middle class. This places that salary in a 15% tax bracket (married filing jointly). The standard deduction is currently $12,600 which brings my income down to $62,400.

 

Under Hillary this brings my federal tax bill to $8,432.50 per year. That's around $700 per month or $325 a paycheck. (my salary is divided over 26 pay periods).

 

Donald Trump places that salary in a 12% tax bracket. His standard deduction is $30,000 which reduces my taxable income to $45,000.

 

Under Trump this brings my federal tax bill to $5,400 per year. That translates to me paying close to $450 a month in fed tax or around $220 per paycheck.

 

Donald Trump's tax plan would put an extra $125.00 a paycheck in my pocket every paycheck. That's almost $250.00 a month or $3,000.00 per year in extra money.

 

If I were to invest that $125 each paycheck into my mutual fund that has a lifetime average rate of return of 13% I would have....almost 2 million dollars when I retire around 30 years from now....

 

Think about that when you consider who you are going to vote for in November. An extra $3,000 can go an extremely long distance in most people's households (especially for my family of 5).

 

Hillary doesn't identify her proposed tax brackets on her website but here is her tax plan to look for yourself.

 

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/a-fair-tax-system/

 

And Trumps tax plan is here

 

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

[Aerion Brightflame]

The economy is gonna crash and burn in like 10-20 years anyway due to mass automation leading to massive amounts of unemployment and when the second housing bubble bursts. Which is in part why I would advise having really really good levels of social support for example because it really will help ease the blow because there will be support in place on some scale even if it can't fully cope. 

 

If we are going to briefly mention Abortion, there was a piece of logic in reference to Roe vs Wade (The logic that actually got the bill through) - In that the mother shouldn't surrender her autonimity just for the sake of the life of the child in her stomach because it is the only case where that happens to be the perception. We don't force healthy people to give kidney's or lobes of liver to save lives of those who need them. You make an active choice in that case to end a life if you don't donate but we don't force an individual to comprimise themselves for the sake of someone else. And hence the argument becomes why is abortion the exception if this is the established standard?

 

EDIT: Found the bugger

 

You should read the opinion in the Roe v. Wade decision. It makes the same point you did, i.e. we know the end points and the crossover is arbitrary. However, Justice Blackmun goes on to say that the argument is irrelevant to the decision. Even if we consider the unborn child to have full rights, it doesn't matter before viability is reached. We do not demand a kidney donor to undergo an operation to save the life of someone dying of kidney failure. So too we cannot demand that the mother give up her bodily autonomy for her child. Thus the decision in Roe v. Wade said that the public, through the legislature, is free to place that crossover at any point they choose, but if it is before viability is reached the mother still has the right to an abortion.

 

The argument essentially stops being one of 'where does life end and begin' and becomes one of rights to autonomy. It's a frankly fascinating approach to the situation I had never considered before this. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The kidney analogy is sheet, the donor didn't rip a kidney out of the recipient. With the exception of Mother's Health, Deformity, and Rape, she knew what she was getting into and now wants a get out jail free card when responsibility comes knocking

What needs to happen is the gov needs to support pregnant women and mothers, clean up adoption, and give free contraception, all three promised by Trump. Don't Cruz it and just say no abortion, walk the full walk

 

HRC is crossing even that line tom, partial birth abortions and unrestricting it to the second trimester where they are viable, AND repealing the hyde amendment, so I have to pay for X to make a choice I abhor? 

 

That's crossing the line of pro-choice and forcing me to be pro-abortion. 

[Aerion Brightflame]

But why does the mother have to surrender her autonimity to bring the child to term, and not to save a man who needs a kidney transplant?
 

Forcing her to 'save the life' in either case forces her to surrender her right to control her body. So why in one case would it be correct to say she must surrender it, and one the case where it would be incorrect? A life is a life afterall, and in both cases the mother would actively be choosing not to 'save' a life. In each case you could argue she has a moral responsibility to save said life. It is not a double standard that the expected course is different? 

 

Even if you want to get moral about it, tell me why one of these cases would be murder and one wouldn't be? Because in each case, for the sake of her autonimity the woman is sacrificing a life. 

 

It's an incredible piece of logic. 

 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

But why does the mother have to surrender her autonimity to bring the child to term, and not to save a man who needs a kidney transplant?

 

Forcing her to 'save the life' in either case forces her to surrender her right to control her body. So why in one case would it be correct to say she must surrender it, and one the case where it would be incorrect? A life is a life afterall, and in both cases the mother would actively be choosing not to 'save' a life. In each case you could argue she has a moral responsibility to save said life. It is not a double standard that the expected course is different? 

 

Even if you want to get moral about it, tell me why one of these cases would be murder and one wouldn't be? Because in each case, for the sake of her autonimity the woman is sacrificing a life. 

 

It's an incredible piece of logic. 

Because, excluding the three exceptions, she knew perfectly well the repercussions of her actions and chose to go through with her actions all the same

 

The Kidney thing isn't comparable, because the donor (mother) and the recipient (man) had no relationship prior to the transaction, the Donor (mother) didn't cause the recipient's (man) kidneys to fail.

 

The baby wouldn't be created if the mother hadn't prior engaged in often, careless sex

 

She is directly responsible for the kid's situation, she's not responsible for some guy's kidney failing

 

Why the three exceptions?

 

Woman didn't choose to get raped, she had no choice in that baby's creation

 

Woman didn't choose to be in a life threatening situation due to her pregnancy

 

Woman didn't choose to have her baby be born with debilitating defects

 

Out of her control. There's reasonably no way she could have predicted the 3

 

Tho I've gotten sheet for the 3rd one cause "eugenics" 

 

Edit: Problem with 3rd exception is also what can be considered debilitating, like downs? or missing limbs? and can you reasonably cure/fix the problems

 

But the first 2 should stand till we get ectogenesis

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

What about accidental pregnancies? As in contraceptive failure or such?

[Dad]

If this argument is coming down to "don't have sex if you don't want kids", do me a favor and stop. You say there are exceptions. I say it ain't up to you unless you're the father.

 

We talk about sex freely,but as soon as kids become apart of the equation "oh no you can't do that". Let me quote Mr. Trump. If the system is there and it's being used with loops or not, "that makes me smart".

 

You don't suddenly get to decide to put a value on something you can't control. Cuz women will start finding back alley doctors and hacks to get that abortion if they want it.

[Aerion Brightflame]

This'll be the last I post on the subject here because it is off topic, but just a few talking points for you to think over:

 

Your counter argument is based entirely around the idea that there is personal responsibility in the case of the pregnancy that isn't present for the case of the kidney transplant (Even though you technically had to alter my situation to counter it which is bad form. I gave no specifics about the transplant, you should have tried to counter it without adding any) and that that responsibility surpasses any collective moral responsibility we have as a race to save our own. And your three exceptions are three cases where you believe that responsibility is not with the mother due to a lack of consent to specific conditions. 

 

However, responsibility means in part that one is accountable for ones actions and hence that they have a form of culpability almost. But for that to be the case, surely the woman in question would have be in full control of oneself, have to have full understand of the ways to prevent said consequences of ones actions, and that there can be no blame assigned to circumstances beyond ones control. I.e. The mother and father would need to be sober and sane state of mind, have decent sex ed and actively choose not to use condoms. 

 

Because otherwise you are assigning responsibility to people for situations that they 'should have known better', which is a paralel to saying 'you should have known better than to have gotten raped'. It is not a womans choice for a condom to break. Essentially I object to the assumption that there is full responsibility on the mother in any situation that is not rape, because sex is far more complicated than that. 

 

More so, I think the argument 'One knows the consequences of your action but choose to do it' is still flawed for the Roe vs Wade argument - If you refuse to give your kidney, you do so knowing full well this individual, whoever they may be will die. You still take a form of personal responsibility by choosing not to save them. You, for the sake of convince or for moral/religious or whatever grounds, choose to let a man die, just as you would say an abortion is choosing to allow a baby to die. Why are the situations at there core like this different? 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

If this argument is coming down to "don't have sex if you don't want kids", do me a favor and stop. You say there are exceptions. I say it ain't up to you unless you're the father.

 

We talk about sex freely,but as soon as kids become apart of the equation "oh no you can't do that". Let me quote Mr. Trump. If the system is there and it's being used with loops or not, "that makes me smart".

 

You don't suddenly get to decide to put a value on something you can't control. Cuz women will start finding back alley doctors and hacks to get that abortion if they want it.

Sucks, the mother can get an abortion even if the dad doesn't want to.

 

I sure as hell don't wanna pay for your GF to get an abortion...which HRC would have me doing

 

Also the solution to line three is to have the gov take care of women and prosecute doctors as 1st degree homicide perpetrators 

 

Take the pill, watch your cycle, have him wear a condom, get morning after

 

Basically makes the rate 0

 

Most people DON'T use protection (properly) though. The avg guy on the street has no idea how to use a condom properly 

 

 

What about accidental pregnancies? As in contraceptive failure or such?

It's like driving a car, sheet can happen, but you still drive don't you?