Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Atheism or agnosticism?Follow

#402varusword75, Posted: May 03 2011 at 9:39 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nads,
#403 May 03 2011 at 9:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Nads,

Quote:
My only question is why the @#%^ 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.


Why not just license people to have children and if someone isn't eligible and they get pregnant the state takes the child and sterilizes the woman?


ITT, Varus supports limitation of personal freedoms, forced sterilization, big government, AND stealing children.

Nifty!
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#404 May 03 2011 at 9:41 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,821 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Why not just license people to have children and if someone isn't eligible and they get pregnant the state takes the child and sterilizes the woman?
Cuz its never the man's fault AMIRIT?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#405 May 03 2011 at 9:46 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,959 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
Sure. It was better to keep women sexually repressed. It made them much easier for men to control.


Actually it's better for society in general if woman aren't sluts.

Vaguely related.
____________________________
MyAnimeList FFXIV Krystal Spoonless
#406 May 03 2011 at 9:48 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
Sure. It was better to keep women sexually repressed. It made them much easier for men to control.


Actually it's better for society in general if woman aren't sluts.

That can't be true.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#407 May 03 2011 at 9:56 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
Sure. It was better to keep women sexually repressed. It made them much easier for men to control.


Actually it's better for society in general if woman aren't sluts.



You can turn in your man card at the nearest distributor.
#408 May 03 2011 at 10:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
I think it would be better if the men weren't sluts.

Because, you are, you know. Sluts. All of ya.
#409 May 03 2011 at 10:08 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I think it would be better if the men weren't sluts.

Because, you are, you know. Sluts. All of ya.


Playah?
#410 May 03 2011 at 10:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
I think it would be better if the men weren't sluts.

Because, you are, you know. Sluts. All of ya.


Playah?


I'm doing it! I'm hatin' the game!!
#411varusword75, Posted: May 03 2011 at 10:25 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nads,
#412 May 03 2011 at 12:25 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Nads,

Quote:
I think it would be better if the men weren't sluts.

Because, you are, you know. Sluts. All of ya.


I wouldn't be opposed to sterilizing men who impregnate women when they can't afford to take care of the child.


How the f*ck do you plan on paying for this?!? You aren't raising my taxes.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#413varusword75, Posted: May 03 2011 at 12:44 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Atard,
#414 May 03 2011 at 2:30 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Sweetums wrote:
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.


Yes, it did happen. But I think several of you are missing the point I'm trying to make. One of the core arguments in favor of abortion is that it allows unmarried women the option of not having to either marry the man who impregnated her or not to have to raise a child on her own. But here's the thing. Back in those idyllic days, the percentage of children born to single women nationwide was about 3%. Today it's about 40%.

Quote:
It's charitable of you to see unwanted parenthood as a cautionary tale, though.


3% were. Today, it's 40%. Assuming that we agree that in the vast majority of cases, a single person raising a child is not an ideal, then can't we say that something is going wrong here? I'm suggesting that because abortion is an option more women put themselves in the position of needing it (they aren't nearly as careful about unwanted pregnancies despite all the education), and because the reality of abortion isn't as simple as it seems when you're not faced with the choice in the short term and government assistance is available more women once in that position make the choice to have the child and end out on welfare. The net social results of this have been pretty devastating.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#415 May 03 2011 at 2:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Allegory 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.

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.


And that's irrelevant to the point I'm making though. I'm talking about the resulting rates of women raising children on their own. If we're to buy the argument that abortion is about allowing women the freedom to avoid that state, then why are those numbers going up?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#416 May 03 2011 at 2:39 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
Quote:
Back in those idyllic days, the percentage of children born to single women nationwide was about 3%.
You mean back when everyone was an alcoholic?
____________________________
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

#417varusword75, Posted: May 03 2011 at 2:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) ugly,
#418 May 03 2011 at 2:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
Back in those idyllic days, the percentage of children born to single women nationwide was about 3%.
You mean back when everyone was an alcoholic?


Um... Sure? Nice non sequitur, I guess!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#419 May 03 2011 at 2:46 PM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
varusword75 wrote:
As opposed to today where everyones either a meth-head, pot-head, crack-head, or pill-head?
You forgot the pretend Christians.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#420varusword75, Posted: May 03 2011 at 2:51 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lolgax,
#421 May 03 2011 at 2:52 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
varusword75 wrote:
ugly,

As opposed to today where everyones either a meth-head, pot-head, crack-head, or pill-head?

Which one are you?
____________________________
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

#422 May 03 2011 at 2:54 PM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Like you?
Its cute you caught up to the 1990s, but Peewee has been out of fashion for quite a while. That being said, as I just love humiliating you, I'm not a Christian at all, I just like knowing you're going to ****.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#423 May 03 2011 at 2:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:
3% were. Today, it's 40%. Assuming that we agree that in the vast majority of cases, a single person raising a child is not an ideal, then can't we say that something is going wrong here? I'm suggesting that because abortion is an option more women put themselves in the position of needing it (they aren't nearly as careful about unwanted pregnancies despite all the education), and because the reality of abortion isn't as simple as it seems when you're not faced with the choice in the short term and government assistance is available more women once in that position make the choice to have the child and end out on welfare. The net social results of this have been pretty devastating.


Unless I'm missing something, you're not saying what you mean to say with those facts. 40% of children born today are to single women. Abortion was not used in these cases. Your statistic would be better used only toward making an argument against, say, the assistance now given to unwed mothers making more of them able to raise children. Or the higher wages of single mothers to sustain having a child. Potentially the issues of having single pregnancies glorified in popular media. Even the lessening of social stigmas against pre-marital ***. But saying that women think "Oh, I can just have an abortion, NO WAIT! I want the baby now!" is... a jump.

Basically I'm seeing no causation here, just a correlation. You cannot in good faith say how large a contribution "ease of abortion" is contributing to "single mothers having kids." If anything, it seems logically unrelated... because the "ease of abortion" obviously did not decrease the number of children born to unwed mothers.

Edit: If you meant pregnancies, then it's a whole different ballgame. But you specifically said "children born today"... which makes me think you either stuck up a strawman, or didn't actually read your statistic.

Edited, May 3rd 2011 4:58pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#424 May 03 2011 at 3:00 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
Back in those idyllic days, the percentage of children born to single women nationwide was about 3%.
You mean back when everyone was an alcoholic?


Um... Sure? Nice non sequitur, I guess!
No, its not a non sequitur. Not at all. You just want it to be.
____________________________
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

#425 May 03 2011 at 3:02 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Nilatai wrote:
'kay.


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.





See?


So, when you read " Give women TOTAL FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY for children, defaulting men the opportunity to support if desired. ", you interpreted that as " 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.!"

Interesting... Thank you for proving to us all that you're an idiot.

Nilatai wrote:
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.


1. Money != father.. I'm sorry you feel that way..
2. He's in the military, the women are in the military. He has no choice, it is automatically deducted from his pay check. If he had it his way, he wouldn't pay anything.

3. He doesn't care about his children, at least his newest one, that makes him a dead beat dad...

4. In any case, I gave you hypothetical situations of husbands/fathers getting their mistresses pregnant. Do you believe that they want them to carry the pregnancy or have an abortion and pretend that nothing happened?

Give it up, you're wrong.

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



I already argued that the scenario of a man not paying is retarded, hence why I defaulted to scenario two.

So answer the question, if you have to receive governmental assistance to care for your child, then what's the problem?

Nilatai wrote:
I dunno. Republicans, black people, people who suck at science? People like you, obviously.


So basically you're just making stuff up just like you did about your claim that health reasons are the prime reasons for abortion..... yeaa. man.. No wonder you're such a "science genius"....
#426 May 03 2011 at 3:07 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
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.


Yes, it did happen. But I think several of you are missing the point I'm trying to make. One of the core arguments in favor of abortion is that it allows unmarried women the option of not having to either marry the man who impregnated her or not to have to raise a child on her own. But here's the thing. Back in those idyllic days, the percentage of children born to single women nationwide was about 3%. Today it's about 40%.

Today, some people never get married and have a partnership with children unrecognized by the government, and the number of those is ever increasing. Those women are statistically counted as "single women."

How successful do you expect shotgun weddings to be, anyway? In these days of no-fault divorce (another social ill, I'll assume!), do you believe they will be happy, successful marriages?

Quote:
It's charitable of you to see unwanted parenthood as a cautionary tale, though.

Quote:

3% were. Today, it's 40%. Assuming that we agree that in the vast majority of cases, a single person raising a child is not an ideal, then can't we say that something is going wrong here? I'm suggesting that because abortion is an option more women put themselves in the position of needing it (they aren't nearly as careful about unwanted pregnancies despite all the education), and because the reality of abortion isn't as simple as it seems when you're not faced with the choice in the short term and government assistance is available more women once in that position make the choice to have the child and end out on welfare. The net social results of this have been pretty devastating.

Women also regularly dropped out of high school because of unplanned pregnancies. How is that going to be a net social good? Do you think people will easily find employment as a high school dropout?

(Plus, do you know what will be more effective than banning abortion in reducing the rates? Real *** ed! Remember, privileged women didn't have much of a problem in obtaining an abortion; it was the poor/middle class women who couldn't afford a trip to the psychiatrist or another country. But, although you pay lip service to an agnostic religious bent, you seem to go with the religious right, anyway.)


Edited, May 3rd 2011 4:13pm by Sweetums
____________________________
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.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)