posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:10 PM
Wait, I did not really grasp what exactly you are arguing here. It could be argued that cutting programs for women who are subject to domestic
violence could literally be forcing them to stay with their abuser. Is there some aspect of this statement that you disagree with? I do not like the
word "forcing," but if the person truly has nowhere else to go, which is often the case in situations like this, and if the federal programs offer
these victims some means of escape, then cutting these programs, even to a small degree, will mean that more people will suffer domestic violence than
they would if the programs and funding had not been cut.
Part of the problem, with just about all issues, is that too many people make up their minds and take sides based on partisanship, instead of on the
issues. I am not saying you are doing this OP, just to clarify. I just wish we could strip away the political aspect of all the issues before coming
to a conclusion about them, as this would force more people to think logically, instead of acting/reacting based on partisan lines.
But anyway, I was serious in that I did not understand exactly what you were saying. If you could just lay out your argument in a sentence or two, I
would appreciate it. I mainly want to know what part you disagree with. I may disagree with it to, but I would like to lay it out and look at it from
a logical point of view before making and judgements.