Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Atheism or agnosticism?Follow

#377 May 02 2011 at 6:58 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Belkira wrote:
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!!!"


Maybe you shouldn't have a foreign baby daddy?
#378 May 02 2011 at 7:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,463 posts
Samira wrote:
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.
God, being a parent is the biggest sucker punch in the world, even when you pray for it, plan it, expect it. Some people bond with their children immediately but for some, it's as if the world grew legs and ran away overnight. Speaking from a place of empathy, I can't fault a scared kid for backtracking and deciding that they aren't ready. I would argue no one is ready.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#379 May 02 2011 at 7:09 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
You do know what the word "insinuating" means, right?

Please quote me insinuating that or STFU.
'kay.

Belkira wrote:
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.



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
See?



Almalieque wrote:
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.
You did? All I saw was you give anecdotal 'evidence' about a guy who as far as I can see pays for the kids he has, but wanted to avoid any further expense. If he pays for the kids he has, this doesn't make him a deadbeat.



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 it's fine to expect the government to help support the child, but not okay to expect the father to? Haha, okay.



Almalieque wrote:
Who are "you guys"?
I dunno. Republicans, black people, people who suck at science? People like you, obviously.
____________________________
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
#380Almalieque, Posted: May 02 2011 at 7:17 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Exactly this..
#381 May 02 2011 at 7:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
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!!!"


Maybe you shouldn't have a foreign baby daddy?


/facepalm

You're an idiot.
#382 May 02 2011 at 7:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The argument I was addressing was essentially asking why god would create life only to allow it to die.

Given that even the most obvious, knee-jerk answer would be "for the living and experiencing things part that comes in between", trying to compare living for 75 years and dying to a naturally failed pregnancy was profoundly retarded.

Again, stick to word-vomiting ideological politics. You'll still look stupid but maybe slightly less so.

Edited, May 2nd 2011 8:24pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#383 May 02 2011 at 7:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
I think I got Alma to give up arguing with me. I think that's a first...
#384 May 02 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,237 posts
Remarkable, if true.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#385 May 02 2011 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
I dunno, wait for it...
____________________________
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
#386 May 02 2011 at 8:09 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Belkira wrote:
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?


Except it isn't. Some children may need more attention then others.

So your argument is that a mother with two kids is a more responsible mother than a mother of one child, because she has to do more work? She might have more responsibility to attend, but that doesn't make her any more responsible as a person.

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


Please explain, because I already have counter ready.

Belkira wrote:
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.


Do you know how to read English? I'm not trying to be rude, but there is absolutely no excuse for you still not to understand my two options...

Belkira wrote:
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


Read above.. Who are you arguing with? I've never stated that...

Belkira wrote:
More emotion. Pathetic, really.


Only to match your "waaaahhhh a man shouldn't leave a child to the mother".. which was the point...but nice try anyway..

Belkira wrote:
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.


Oh, there's that emotion again. Funny how when I said the laws of marriage are equal but not fair, you complain. Yet when I argue that the current laws of children responsibilities aren't equal or fair, you say "suck it up and live in the real world"... biased a little?

Belkira wrote:
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.


No, I'm just glad that you finally admit it's about you (or the woman) and not the child. If there isn't any reason other than "I don't wanna" and you still support the abortion, it isn't about the welfare of the child. So, you can't act like it's the most important thing in the world when it's born when you didn't give two sh!&ts if it were dead or alive a few weeks ago.

Belkira wrote:

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

I can't find anything that doesn't exist.

Belkira wrote:

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


Evidence of you not reading. I not only quoted it for you, but bold it for you and you STILL don't see it?

Belkira wrote:
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.


Ok, I just wanted to make sure that I was right about your failing at life. I'm not trying to "strip" away the right to abortion, but simply "I don't wanna" with no other reason or logic is a terrible excuse. So what if your significant other quits his job because "he doesn't like his job" while you're at home caring for the child? He then says "I don't wanna work" Forcing me to work is "slavery". Really? You know how many people hate their jobs but do it to support their families?

It's not a direct comparison in scenarios, but the concept of not doing something simply based on " I don't wanna" is the same

Belkira wrote:
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.


Your failure to read isn't my fault.... I'll try again /sigh

My two scenarios are the only situations that I can think of where the responsibility is as fair as you can get make it. If you know any other scenarios, please feel free to comment.

Scenario one: The woman has total rights over the outcome of any given pregnancy and the man is completely left out of the picture, to include any financial support.

Scenario two: The man and the woman have to go with the pregnancy and support the child by default and abortions will only be granted on a case by case scenario to include scenarios such as rape, health issues, proven poverty that can't be overcome, etc.

Is it clear now?
#387 May 02 2011 at 8:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Why is all this being discussed as if the couple in question are strangers having a one-night-stand?

Married people have abortions too. And sometimes it's not because of finances. Sometimes they've just decided they don't want any more kids.
#388 May 02 2011 at 8:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Sometimes they've just decided they don't want any more kids.
No its not. Its because we've told the wives they can get abortions. Sorry, "dangled it in front of them."
____________________________
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

#389 May 02 2011 at 8:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Sometimes they've just decided they don't want any more kids.
No its not. Its because we've told the wives they can get abortions. Sorry, "dangled it in front of them."


Most women I know have had 10-12 abortions just because they can. /nod
#390 May 02 2011 at 8:31 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Sometimes they've just decided they don't want any more kids.
No its not. Its because we've told the wives they can get abortions. Sorry, "dangled it in front of them."


Most women I know have had 10-12 abortions just because they can. /nod


Have you seen the going rate for pristine natal blood?

Abortions are like an nigh untapped gold mine.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#391 May 02 2011 at 8:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Sometimes they've just decided they don't want any more kids.
No its not. Its because we've told the wives they can get abortions. Sorry, "dangled it in front of them."


Most women I know have had 10-12 abortions just because they can. /nod


Have you seen the going rate for pristine natal blood?

Abortions are like an nigh untapped gold mine.


Gotta support my wine addiction somehow.
#392 May 02 2011 at 8:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Also, I have decided that if Alma ever gets a title, it should be "Making stuff up". He's way beyond obtuse.
#393 May 02 2011 at 8:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Also, I have decided that if Alma ever gets a title, it should be "Making stuff up". He's way beyond obtuse.


Not "I don't know what we're yelling about!" ?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#394 May 02 2011 at 8:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
So your argument is that a mother with two kids is a more responsible mother than a mother of one child, because she has to do more work? She might have more responsibility to attend, but that doesn't make her any more responsible as a person.


So, you agree with me, then. A woman has more responsibility when it comes to having a child than a man ever can. Because that's what we're talking about, not whether or not one person is a more responsible person than another.

Almalieque wrote:
Please explain, because I already have counter ready.


You've already agreed with me. There's no point.

Almalieque wrote:
Do you know how to read English? I'm not trying to be rude, but there is absolutely no excuse for you still not to understand my two options...


YOU don't understand your options, Alma. That's obvious to everyone but yourself.

Almalieque wrote:
Oh, there's that emotion again. Funny how when I said the laws of marriage are equal but not fair, you complain. Yet when I argue that the current laws of children responsibilities aren't equal or fair, you say "suck it up and live in the real world"... biased a little?


Are you really this stupid? No, really, I'm not trying to be rude. Are you? Because this was one of the more idiotic statements I've seen you make. How can you not understand that there can be no equality in this situation because of the mechanics of birth...? You would have a point if a man can conceive, carry, and birth a child. As it is, he cannot.

Almalieque wrote:
No, I'm just glad that you finally admit it's about you (or the woman) and not the child. If there isn't any reason other than "I don't wanna" and you still support the abortion, it isn't about the welfare of the child. So, you can't act like it's the most important thing in the world when it's born when you didn't give two sh!&ts if it were dead or alive a few weeks ago.


Good god, you're really laying the village idiot act on thick in this thread. Child support is about the welfare of the child. I have never pretended that I'm not putting the woman first. Of course I place higher value on a human being than on a collection of cells. I've never pretended otherwise.

Almalieque wrote:
I can't find anything that doesn't exist.


Nice try. I'm not doing your work for you. You want to play the "I've already stated it, just go find it!!" game with everyone else, then you should at least learn to play by your own rules.

Almalieque wrote:
Evidence of you not reading. I not only quoted it for you, but bold it for you and you STILL don't see it?


I see you not understanding how biology works.

Almalieque wrote:
Ok, I just wanted to make sure that I was right about your failing at life. I'm not trying to "strip" away the right to abortion, but simply "I don't wanna" with no other reason or logic is a terrible excuse. So what if your significant other quits his job because "he doesn't like his job" while you're at home caring for the child? He then says "I don't wanna work" Forcing me to work is "slavery". Really? You know how many people hate their jobs but do it to support their families?

It's not a direct comparison in scenarios, but the concept of not doing something simply based on " I don't wanna" is the same


Another emotional argument. You think it's a terrible excuse. Too bad. :D I win!!

Almalieque wrote:
Your failure to read isn't my fault.... I'll try again /sigh

My two scenarios are the only situations that I can think of where the responsibility is as fair as you can get make it. If you know any other scenarios, please feel free to comment.

Scenario one: The woman has total rights over the outcome of any given pregnancy and the man is completely left out of the picture, to include any financial support.

Scenario two: The man and the woman have to go with the pregnancy and support the child by default and abortions will only be granted on a case by case scenario to include scenarios such as rape, health issues, proven poverty that can't be overcome, etc.

Is it clear now?


Yes, it's clear. Just as clear as it was before. In scenario two, you are forcing women to carry to term a pregnancy they do not want. Which is what I (and Nilatai) have been trying to explain to you.

See, I understand that this can never be completely fair. It's how life is. Women are given the ability to get pregnant and carry a baby to term. Men are not. The situation will NEVER be fair. There's no way to MAKE it fair. Your scenarios are not fair. Period. End of story.

Edited, May 2nd 2011 9:55pm by Belkira
#395gbaji, Posted: May 02 2011 at 9:10 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Sure. But my question is whether or not the legalization of abortion (and the accompanying social changes as well) has resulted in fewer unprepared parents raising children. I just don't see that the answer is yes.
#396 May 02 2011 at 9:27 PM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
Sure, "back in the day" men took responsibility because it was understood they were at fault. Doesn't sound too bad to me to bring that mindset back.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#397 May 02 2011 at 9:54 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
gbaji wrote:
Some might call that taking responsibility for your actions though. The point I'm trying to make is that "back in the day", you took responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy by marrying the person you got pregnant with and doing the best you could from there. That wasn't always ideal of course, but that also meant that women were more restrictive about who they got into sexual relationships with. And those who didn't became cautionary tales for the rest of us. Harsh perhaps, but has removing that negative actually helped us?


Sure. It was better to keep women sexually repressed. It made them much easier for men to control.
#398 May 02 2011 at 10:02 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
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.


Some might call that taking responsibility for your actions though. The point I'm trying to make is that "back in the day", you took responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy by marrying the person you got pregnant with and doing the best you could from there. That wasn't always ideal of course, but that also meant that women were more restrictive about who they got into sexual relationships with. And those who didn't became cautionary tales for the rest of us. Harsh perhaps, but has removing that negative actually helped us?


I'm certainly in the minority here, but I think "because I have a right to kill something growing inside me" is a far far better argument for abortion than "my child and I will be a burden to society if I don't". I just think we fall into the latter argument because it sounds better coming out of our mouths, even though the facts don't seem to support it very well.
You seem to have this strange idyllic view of the 50s. Talk to your parents and they'll probably straighten that out. It certainly happened plenty of times. In the heat of the moment, your rational mind (if you have one, that is) isn't the one in control, and your lizard brain is a fickle beast.

It's charitable of you to see unwanted parenthood as a cautionary tale, though.
____________________________
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.
#399 May 02 2011 at 11:57 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 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.

It's worth noting that since Roe v. Wade in 1973 abortions increased up to around 1980, but have been in a decline ever since then.

Edit: I made a slight error. It increased slightly again after beginning to fall in 1980 to 1990, but has significantly fallen since then. Overall we have seen a decrease in abortions since 1980.

Edited, May 3rd 2011 1:41am by Allegory
#400 May 03 2011 at 6:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,237 posts
Nadenu wrote:
My only question is why the fUck are we even discussing this?? Pro-lifers will never change their minds. Which is why I say we should send all unwanted children to them to raise.


Seems like a sensible course.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#401varusword75, Posted: May 03 2011 at 9:37 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 76 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (76)