Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Atheism or agnosticism?Follow

#352 May 02 2011 at 2:56 PM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
I meant to imply "and my family wonders why I stopped pulling out" Smiley: glare Darn interwebs, ruining my come-backs!
Heh heh, "come-backs"
Oh, in that case **** no. I have enough trouble with one one year old, and a daughter at that. Smiley: motz
bsphil wrote:
Man, god killed a lot of people in the old testament.
He's kind of like an alcoholic dad. Usually loving and all, but when he's on the sauce he'll destroy you for so much as coughing.
bsphil wrote:
Also, is it incest to sleep with your daughter-in-law?
Its weird on the subject. Like ... Lot, from Sodom and Gomorrah was spared from the punishment of perversion in Sodom and Gomorrah, rallying against incestuous marriage, and engaging in incest in the closest of genetic relationships. Then he has sons with his daughters (though he was drunk during the acts). I don't remember, nor can I find, any punishment for the acts. I go back to my "Alcoholic Dad" reference.
varusword75 wrote:
Which party is against allowing the parents of underage girls know they're getting an abortion?
Neither, but since you don't actually do any fact checking or reading ...
varusword75 wrote:
Why limit this course of action to a fetus? Murder is murder regardless of how you justify it in your tiny little brain.
So is pulling out, condoms and the pill. Sinner. Murderer.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#353gbaji, Posted: May 02 2011 at 3:10 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Don't really feel like jumping into the whole discussion, but this sparked something.
#354 May 02 2011 at 3:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So nothing special about the case you're raising, right?

Aside from the 75 intervening years, anyway.

Stick to word-vomiting ideological politics. Theology doesn't suit you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#355 May 02 2011 at 3:20 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
gbaji wrote:
Don't really feel like jumping into the whole discussion, but this sparked something.

Nilatai wrote:
If life begins at conception why does god let 10-50% of all pregnancies fail by week 12? He's a ******* isn't he?


Ok. Same conditions: Why does god let 90% of them fail by year 75? Aren't you basically arguing that god's a ******* for creating life and then tossing death in there just to ***** with us? So nothing special about the case you're raising, right?
So you're saying Varus has a point and a foetus has the same rights as a fully grown adult? 'kay.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#356 May 02 2011 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
gbaji wrote:
Aren't you basically arguing that god's a ******* for creating life and then tossing death in there just to ***** with us?
That'd be one reason. Also for giving free will and turning around and punishing you for exercising it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#357 May 02 2011 at 3:30 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Ugly wrote:
I'm against people having abortions all nilly willy as well. I even agree with many of your points. I just don't see it as my place to dictate to others what they should or shouldn't do. Nor do I think the law should either. I'm of the opinion that a fetus is not a baby, at least not until its far enough along that it can feel. And while I agree, that it sucks that a man, who doesn't want the child is stuck having to pay for one if the mother decides to go forward with the abortion, such is the responsibility of being a member of society. Where I'd give your argument more credence is when a mother doesn't want it, but the father does. I'd still side with the mother though, as you should not force something upon another, especially given its not a short term thing.


I completely see your point and I think a man SHOULD be responsible to care for his child in ANY case, I'm just making a point of the unequal AND and unfair treatment. At one point of my time, I believed that even though abortions were "wrong", that a man should not have any say in the matter. That all changed when I found out how trifling some women were, using babies as a way to make money. Further more, how "my body" turns into "our baby" at any given moment. It just isn't right. I believe there are times that a woman should have the green light to get an abortion, I just don't believe it should be default on "green".

Nilatai wrote:
Shut up Alma. Two people have come to the conclusion that is what you were insinuating. Again, if you don't think so maybe you should have picked your words more carefully.


Please quote me saying that or STFU.

Nilatai wrote:
They do? I thought they just didn't want to care for the kids they have. I mean, if they'd had an abortion they wouldn't be deadbeat dads, right? They'd just be deadbeats. Nice try though...


Nope. I gave Belkira of an example of a dad of two kids of two different women who wants the third woman to have an abortion because he doesn't want to support it. That makes him a Deadbeat dad... Nice try though. You're making the assumption that these people only have one child. In many cases, these guys will remarry and only tend for the new family and not the old family. Or, what about an unfaithful husband/father who got a woman pregnant? Do you think he wants the woman to have the child? I'll give you a few seconds to answer that.............. yea, deadbeat dad.. Like I said... Nice try though.

Quote:
Oooh. So because that's to do with children it means women shouldn't be able to have abortions because if they don't have the children they can't say they don't want them. Got it!


???- You lost me.. My argument is that the primary reasons for abortions are in reference to raising children, so you can't claim that it has nothing to do with raising children.
#358 May 02 2011 at 3:53 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Please quote me saying that or STFU.
You do know what the word "insinuating" means, right?

Almalieque wrote:
Nope. I gave Belkira of an example of a dad of two kids of two different women who wants the third woman to have an abortion because he doesn't want to support it. That makes him a Deadbeat dad... Nice try though. You're making the assumption that these people only have one child. In many cases, these guys will remarry and only tend for the new family and not the old family. Or, what about an unfaithful husband/father who got a woman pregnant? Do you think he wants the woman to have the child? I'll give you a few seconds to answer that.............. yea, deadbeat dad.. Like I said... Nice try though.
So this hypothetical man. Can he afford the third child? If not I'd say he's being responsible, rather than a deadbeat.


Almalieque wrote:
???- You lost me.. My argument is that the primary reasons for abortions are in reference to raising children, so you can't claim that it has nothing to do with raising children.
Your argument was stupid. The primary reasons for abortion are health issues, or financial issues. While you may have some kind of point as far as financial issues would entail the thought "I can't afford a child", aborting the child you can't afford is more responsible than carrying it to term and subjecting it to abject poverty. Understand?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#359 May 02 2011 at 4:39 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Belkira wrote:
The mother attends to the welfare of the child far more than the man ever will. The burden of responsibility is never split evenly in this case, unless the child is adopted. I do have to laugh at you for your definition. A stay at home dad takes FAR more responsibility for the child than a dad who works 2 jobs. Both are admirable, no one is saying otherwise.


Well I'm sorry that you feel that way, but you're wrong. A man can be a stay at home dad and not be responsible at all. This is what I'm trying to get you to understand, the end result is the welfare of the child, the amount of work you might have to do is admirable (as you stated) but it doesn't make you any more responsible than the next person.

Just because you have more children than another family, doesn't make you more responsible. It's sad that you think otherwise.

Belkira wrote:
Again, that dislike of women rears it's ugly head. It's starting to look like you don't like kids much, either. :(


I presented you two options, you lean towards the one that I already stated as being idiotic. I think you're the one that don't like women and children.

Belkira wrote:
Sure. And if a woman wants to have an abortion and you scream and yell because a man has no say in that, then you're trying to punish her by forcing her to carry a baby to term because a man wants it. Or you want her to bear the brunt of the responsibility for a mutual mistake and the kid has to suffer.


The kid only would only suffer if the woman makes that choice. You can't kill a child and say that a man has no say in the matter, then turn around and try to throw in the child's well being in a man's face when you want to keep it. That's beyond idiotic and hypocritical. If you support a woman making a decision to cease the development of a child in a perfectly stable situation (i.e., wealth, health, etc.), then you don't care about the welfare of the baby. PERIOD. So stop pretending that it's all about the baby when a man doesn't want to pay. Your main concern is the ability for a woman to decide to have an abortion or not, not the welfare of the child.

Belkira wrote:


Nope. Have to disagree with you there. Completely disagree, acutally.


You can disagree, it doesn't make you right.

Belkira wrote:

No, I already pointed out to you that you aren't talking about anything prior to having ***.


Where was this? I'm not sure what argument you're in, but my entire argument stated this.

Almalieque on page 6 wrote:

Anyways, as I'm sure you're at least slightly interested, my argument against abortion has nothing to do with the murder of innocent children. My argument is based on the belief that the responsibility of a child should be predetermined with exceptions on a case by case scenario.


I've been arguing that from the beginning, so I'm not sure what nonsense you made up, but it's wrong.

Belkira wrote:


Any case where the child is not wanted. Having an abortion is a responsible course of action.


So simply "I don't want it" is considered a "responsible course of action"? Really? I'll give you a chance to expand on that, because that is a horrible and idiotic thing to say.

Belkira wrote:
I don't know what a "by" is


It's a "green light". Letting it slide. It's a sport's term when a team doesn't have to play a game in a tourney

Belkira wrote:
You're saying that a couple should mutually decide if an abortion should take place.


Are you even reading my posts? WTFRU getting this crap from. PLEASE quote me where you inferred this.

Almalieque's first reference on page 6 wrote:
Either 1 of the 2 things should happen IMO.

1) Give women total freedom and responsibility for children, defaulting men the opportunity to support if desired.

0r

2) Make both men and women equally responsible, only allowing abortions on a case by case scenario.

#360 May 02 2011 at 4:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
Quote:
At one point of my time, I believed that even though abortions were "wrong", that a man should not have any say in the matter. That all changed when I found out how trifling some women were, using babies as a way to make money.
Sure, some do. But its a much smaller portion than you think do. Why would you change the laws based on a fairly small group?

Btw, that's pretty much the definition of making decisions based off of emotion.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#361 May 02 2011 at 4:49 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
So simply "I don't want it" is considered a "responsible course of action"? Really? I'll give you a chance to expand on that, because that is a horrible and idiotic thing to say.
No, but aborting a child you don't want/can't afford is a sensible and responsible thing to do.


Almalieque wrote:
Are you even reading my posts? WTFRU getting this crap from. PLEASE quote me where you inferred this.
You have been saying all along that the man should have a say, and that if his views are not agreed upon he should be able to wash his hands of the child completely. This is the crux of your argument!
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#362 May 02 2011 at 5:10 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Nilatai wrote:
You do know what the word "insinuating" means, right?

Please quote me saying that or STFU.

Nilatai wrote:
So this hypothetical man. Can he afford the third child? If not I'd say he's being responsible, rather than a deadbeat.


If you're referring to the guy from work in the story that I told Belkira, of course. He's a "Single" Captain, with two children. He just doesn't WANT to pay the extra money. He has to pay $900 per child. If the guy weren't a complete idiot, he would have just married one of the baby mammas. Instead, he pushed the abortion topic and tried to turn it around on her. She's even keeping the option open for him to step up until the birth of the child, so she can take him to court.

Nilatai wrote:
Your argument was stupid. The primary reasons for abortion are health issues, or financial issues.While you may have some kind of point as far as financial issues would entail the thought "I can't afford a child", aborting the child you can't afford is more responsible than carrying it to term and subjecting it to abject poverty. Understand?


Financial reasons? That's why we have social programs to assist people who fall in those categories. In any case, I can accept legitimate "financial reasons", not "aww man, things going to be too tight".

Health issues? Really? Do you honestly believe that? Do you think most of the U.S would even care about abortions if the main reasons were health reasons?

On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).


74% say having a baby would interfere with work, school, or other responsibilities.
73% say they cannot afford to have a child.
48% say they do not want to be a single parent, or have relationship problems with husband or partner.
Less than 2% say they became pregnant as a result of rape or incest.



98% Personal Choice (unwanted or inconvenient)
1.7% Life/Health of Mother or Child
.3% Rape/Incest


The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner


Should I keep going or will you admit that you're just making stuff up?


#363 May 02 2011 at 5:21 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
At one point of my time, I believed that even though abortions were "wrong", that a man should not have any say in the matter. That all changed when I found out how trifling some women were, using babies as a way to make money.
Sure, some do. But its a much smaller portion than you think do. Why would you change the laws based on a fairly small group?

Btw, that's pretty much the definition of making decisions based off of emotion.


From what I've seen, it's not a "small portion". I see it in the poor and we all see it with the rich, so it's a possibility that the "middle class" doesn't do that, but in case, I'm sure it's a significant number.

Emotion? It's completely made from the logic of sharing responsibilities. Maybe you overlooked what I said. I argued that I once viewed abortion as "wrong", but decided that a man had no say in the matter. It wasn't till I realized that a man had an obligation for the born children that I changed my opinion. My emotional position hasn't really changed although my position had.

Nilatai wrote:
No, but aborting a child you don't want/can't afford is a sensible and responsible thing to do.


So, I ask again, simply saying "I don't want it" is a sensible and responsible thing to do?

Nilatai wrote:
You have been saying all along that the man should have a say, and that if his views are not agreed upon he should be able to wash his hands of the child completely. This is the crux of your argument!


Please quote me saying that or STFU.
#364 May 02 2011 at 5:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So nothing special about the case you're raising, right?

Aside from the 75 intervening years, anyway.


The argument I was addressing was essentially asking why god would create life only to allow it to die. It seems valid to point out that this isn't unique to just life which is gestating.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#365 May 02 2011 at 5:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Please quote me saying that or STFU.
You do know what the word "insinuating" means, right?


Almalieque wrote:
If you're referring to the guy from work in the story that I told Belkira, of course. He's a "Single" Captain, with two children. He just doesn't WANT to pay the extra money. He has to pay $900 per child. If the guy weren't a complete idiot, he would have just married one of the baby mammas. Instead, he pushed the abortion topic and tried to turn it around on her. She's even keeping the option open for him to step up until the birth of the child, so she can take him to court.
Oh, right. Remind me again why this means women shouldn't be autonomous when it comes to deciding whether or not to have an abortion. Because you're right about one thing, that guy is an idiot, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have to pay for his kids.


Almalieque wrote:
Financial reasons? That's why we have social programs to assist people who fall in those categories. In any case, I can accept legitimate "financial reasons", not "aww man, things going to be too tight".
Seriously? You think it's responsible to bring a child into the world which you can not afford, because things like food stamps exist?

Almalieque wrote:
Health issues? Really? Do you honestly believe that? Do you think most of the U.S would even care about abortions if the main reasons were health reasons?
Sure. You guys seem to be able to argue about just about anything for any reason.


Almalieque wrote:
Should I keep going or will you admit that you're just making stuff up?
Nah, you can have that one, I can't be bothered to do counter searches.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#366 May 02 2011 at 5:33 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
No, but aborting a child you don't want/can't afford is a sensible and responsible thing to do.


So, I ask again, simply saying "I don't want it" is a sensible and responsible thing to do?
I doubt very much any woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy is "simple". That being said, yes, in the circumstances where you do not want it or can not afford it, abortion is a sensible and responsible thing to do. That's what I said.

Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
You have been saying all along that the man should have a say, and that if his views are not agreed upon he should be able to wash his hands of the child completely. This is the crux of your argument!


Please quote me saying that or STFU.
Forgotten what your argument is already?

Again, it's not what you said, it's what you have been implying, though.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#367 May 02 2011 at 5:37 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
No, but aborting a child you don't want/can't afford is a sensible and responsible thing to do.


So, I ask again, simply saying "I don't want it" is a sensible and responsible thing to do?
Yeah. You're kind of stuck with it for a few decades.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#368 May 02 2011 at 5:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
Almalieque wrote:
From what I've seen, it's not a "small portion". I see it in the poor and we all see it with the rich, so it's a possibility that the "middle class" doesn't do that, but in case, I'm sure it's a significant number.

Emotion? It's completely made from the logic of sharing responsibilities. Maybe you overlooked what I said. I argued that I once viewed abortion as "wrong", but decided that a man had no say in the matter. It wasn't till I realized that a man had an obligation for the born children that I changed my opinion. My emotional position hasn't really changed although my position had.

Again, your perception is that its significant, but you're (and this is human nature) focusing on the bad and turning a blind eye to those who don't. Its your emotions that's clouding that and keeping you from seeing the bigger picture, where its not nearly as rampant as you beleive it to be. We're talking about something that involves money and money people into degenerate scum when they feel they're owed it, or feel another is not owed it. You're going to see the bad more than the good because its going to be far more vocal.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#369 May 02 2011 at 5:49 PM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
Almalieque wrote:
He just doesn't WANT to pay the extra money.
And?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#370gbaji, Posted: May 02 2011 at 6:03 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I can't speak about Alma, but to me responsible would be learning to think through the consequences of your actions before you take them. Put another way: By dangling the "you can always get an abortion" option in front of women, we make the decision to have unprotected *** easier for them to make. But when the choice is in front of them, it's not that easy. The net effect is that they aren't being responsible about their decisions sexually, and then are not being responsible about their decisions about having an abortion. We're getting the worst of both worlds here.
#371 May 02 2011 at 6:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,237 posts
Gbaji wrote:
If you can show me that nationally the rate of children born to unwed/unprepared women has decreased since we've legalized abortion, you might have a point. But the fact is that it's gone the other way around. Predictably.


You can't actually prove this, since out of wedlock birth is not the disgrace it was in the 50s. People used to "have to get married" all the time. My parents did, for example.

That in no way means they were "prepared" to be parents.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#372 May 02 2011 at 6:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Well I'm sorry that you feel that way, but you're wrong.A man can be a stay at home dad and not be responsible at all. This is what I'm trying to get you to understand, the end result is the welfare of the child, the amount of work you might have to do is admirable (as you stated) but it doesn't make you any more responsible than the next person.


No, I'm not wrong.

That was easy!

And you do understand that the amount of work is pretty much tied to the welfare of the child... right?

Almalieque wrote:
Just because you have more children than another family, doesn't make you more responsible. It's sad that you think otherwise.


Of course it does. It's ridiculous that you can't see how. Not really surprising, though. You are sort of dim.

Almalieque wrote:
I presented you two options, you lean towards the one that I already stated as being idiotic. I think you're the one that don't like women and children.


I don't like women and children because I think a woman should have control over her body, and children should be taken care of...? And you're the guy insinuating that a woman should have to bear a child if the couple aren't in agreement that an abortion is their choice, and if the woman wants the kid and the father doesn't, the kid is sh*t out of luck...? Or maybe you're saying that if a man doesn't want the kid, the woman should abort it, or suffer the consequences. That's another take on your little "two options, take'em or leave'em" argument.

Almalieque wrote:
The kid only would only suffer if the woman makes that choice.


True. The woman should, of course, listen to what the man tells her to do with her body. Either have the kid the man wants, or get rid of it so he doesn't have to be burdened with a monthly payment for the kid to eat. Man, I see the light now, Alma! /sarcasm off

Almalieque wrote:
You can't kill a child


More emotion. Pathetic, really.

Almalieque wrote:
... and say that a man has no say in the matter, then turn around and try to throw in the child's well being in a man's face when you want to keep it. That's beyond idiotic and hypocritical.


Like I said, it sucks, but that's the way it is. Suck it up. Put on your big boy pants and live in the real world.

Almalieque wrote:
If you support a woman making a decision to cease the development of a child in a perfectly stable situation (i.e., wealth, health, etc.), then you don't care about the welfare of the baby. PERIOD. So stop pretending that it's all about the baby when a man doesn't want to pay. Your main concern is the ability for a woman to decide to have an abortion or not, not the welfare of the child.


What sort of welfare do you think a kid's doing to have in a household where the parents don't want it, genius? My feelings are first and foremost for the woman, because she's the one who's body is being hijacked. Once the decision is made to keep that kid, though, the welfare of the baby becomes the primary focus.

Sorry the world isn't black and white for you, sweetcakes.


Almalieque wrote:
You can disagree, it doesn't make you right.


You believing it's so doesn't make you right, either. Na na na na boo boo to you, too.

Almalieque wrote:
Where was this?


Oh no, friend. I don't think so. You want to find it, go look for it.

Almalieque wrote:
I'm not sure what argument you're in, but my entire argument stated this.

Almalieque on page 6 wrote:

Anyways, as I'm sure you're at least slightly interested, my argument against abortion has nothing to do with the murder of innocent children. My argument is based on the belief that the responsibility of a child should be predetermined with exceptions on a case by case scenario.


I've been arguing that from the beginning, so I'm not sure what nonsense you made up, but it's wrong.


You're talking about abortion. That's about as far AFTER *** as it gets.

Almalieque wrote:
So simply "I don't want it" is considered a "responsible course of action"? Really? I'll give you a chance to expand on that, because that is a horrible and idiotic thing to say.


No expansion necessary. It's not like buying a video game. A woman ends up pregnant and it's a life changing decision to carry to term or terminate the pregnancy. There's no returns, no store credits. Either way, her life is changed forever. Simply "not wanting it" is a perfectly acceptable reason to terminate a pregnancy.

Now, don't pretend this translates to me saying, "Abortion is a WONDERFUL form of birth control!!" because I don't think it should be used that way. I think that's terrible, and really, it's not used that way. But I really have no right to tell a woman not to use her body that way. That's her decision, not mine. It's not one I would make for myself, but then, neither is piercing my ***** or tattoing a guy's name on my body. If they want to do those things, that's their business.


Almalieque wrote:
Are you even reading my posts? WTFRU getting this crap from. PLEASE quote me where you inferred this.

[quote=Almalieque's first reference on page 6]Either 1 of the 2 things should happen IMO.

1) Give women total freedom and responsibility for children, defaulting men the opportunity to support if desired.

0r

2) Make both men and women equally responsible, only allowing abortions on a case by case scenario.

[/quote]

Look at scenario two, dimwit. How do you think that plays out?? Pretty much what it comes down to is this:

Option one, a woman can decide to have an abortion, or the man can take the opportunity to leave the child unsupported, or she can be forced to have an abortion because she can't support a kid on her own.

Option two, both the man and the woman have to mutually decide that an abortion is right for them, or the woman is forced to carry to term.

That's how EVERYONE reads your sh*t options, Alma. And I honestly see no other way to read them. You have yet to address what should happen if the man wants the kid and the woman doesn't.

Edited, May 2nd 2011 7:24pm by Belkira

Edited, May 2nd 2011 7:26pm by Belkira
#373 May 02 2011 at 6:28 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Seriously? You think it's responsible to bring a child into the world which you can not afford, because things like food stamps exist?


I can't speak about Alma, but to me responsible would be learning to think through the consequences of your actions before you take them. Put another way: By dangling the "you can always get an abortion" option in front of women, we make the decision to have unprotected *** easier for them to make. But when the choice is in front of them, it's not that easy. The net effect is that they aren't being responsible about their decisions sexually, and then are not being responsible about their decisions about having an abortion. We're getting the worst of both worlds here.

If you can show me that nationally the rate of children born to unwed/unprepared women has decreased since we've legalized abortion, you might have a point. But the fact is that it's gone the other way around. Predictably.
Yeah you're right, we should just make abortion illegal. That'll learn them women!

I've said several times now that I don't think people should use abortion as a means of contraception. There are several good options available to everyone. However, making abortion illegal or instilling a process which forces a woman to carry the child to full term if she doesn't meet some kind of criterion for the procedure is unreasonable.

Also, there is a link between legalising abortion and the lowering of crime rates. Legalised abortion also leads to less poverty as more teenagers graduate high school, if abortion is available to them. Also in the developing world, giving women control over their reproductive system is one of the best ways to help a society out of abject poverty.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#374 May 02 2011 at 6:37 PM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
How many of Zam's pro-life posters adopt?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#375 May 02 2011 at 6:47 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Nilatai wrote:
You do know what the word "insinuating" means, right?

Please quote me insinuating that or STFU.

Nilatai wrote:
Oh, right. Remind me again why this means women shouldn't be autonomous when it comes to deciding whether or not to have an abortion. Because you're right about one thing, that guy is an idiot, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have to pay for his kids.


You said those laws were in place for people like me, dead beat dads. I said that dead beat dads favor abortion so they can avoid any responsibility. You responded that you can't be a dead beat dad and favor abortion. I proved you wrong.

Nilatai wrote:
Seriously? You think it's responsible to bring a child into the world which you can not afford, because things like food stamps exist?


Do you have a problem with food stamps? The concern is the welfare of the child. If you have to receive governmental assistance to care for your child, then what's the problem? The child is being taken care of. I'm not promoting poor people on food stamps to have children, but as I said, stuff happens. So, if an unplanned pregnancy occurs during a financial issue and you can get governmental assistance, you can no longer say "I can't afford the child".

Nilatai wrote:
Sure. You guys seem to be able to argue about just about anything for any reason.


Who are "you guys"?

#376 May 02 2011 at 6:49 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Do you have a problem with food stamps? The concern is the welfare of the child. If you have to receive governmental assistance to care for your child, then what's the problem? The child is being taken care of. I'm not promoting poor people on food stamps to have children, but as I said, stuff happens. So, if an unplanned pregnancy occurs during a financial issue and you can get governmental assistance, you can no longer say "I can't afford the child".


So.. Alma says, "You can't force the father to support his own kid!! Get all of AMERICA to support it, but not the FATHER! That's not fair!!!"
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 92 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (92)