Atheism or agnosticism?Follow

Lol. And how about you stop assuming what sort of advice or solution I'm supposedly proposing. I'm not doing that.



Again, I'm not giving advice or proposing a course of action. What I'm saying is that perhaps we should not praise the advances in sports medicine and protective gear in the context of reducing injuries to players when the rate of injuries to players has increased. See how that's analogous to the statement I responded to about the responsibility involved with choosing abortion rather than single motherhood?


I didn't think the concept I was presenting was that complex. Stop trying to look for some hidden meaning or agenda and maybe you'll see it.

MARRIED WOMEN GET PREGNANT TOO.

But married pregnant women aren't scary. It's the UNWED MOTHERS!! that are destroying our society.

He inadvertently responded to it in his last response to me:

Edit: The problem is he's popped out this "abortion means people are more risky, but then instead of aborting they have kids" bull. I've asked three times now for some proof, and he finally said "That's unfair to me!" Finally last time he said "I think it's possible (there's a causative link), but it doesn't matter if it's true or not."

Edited, May 3rd 2011 11:15pm by LockeColeMA

Yeah, no. Nice try.



"Equally responsible" is the phrase you keep using in the second "option." Do you understand why it can't be equal if the woman doesn't want the kid and the man does? Can you finally understand why neither of your options are equal?

Probably not. You're an idiot.



Wrong.



Using emotion again.



To your first point, no. The discussion has to do with the potential for a child. There is no child yet.

To your second point, I have an issue with "partial birth abortions." I don't think they should be outright banned, but I am for stipulations on how that should only be "for the health of the mother" that we allow those to happen. IMO, once the cells are a viable baby, you've reached the point of no return. Unless the mother's life is in danger at that point, I see no reason why the pregnancy shouldn't continue and adoption is your recourse if you don't want to keep the baby.



I told you that I already explained something to you. You asked me where, and I told you to go find it if you wanted to know what it was. But it seems like you've already forgotten what we were talking about at this point, and you just want to "win." Too bad for you, you've lost. And you sound bitter about it, too.



Lord you're an idiot. You keep talking about how they should be equal in the decision. If they can't come to a decision, what then?? You keep avoiding this incredibly crucial question. Most likely because you know you're WRONG. Again.



You go ahead and remember it. And everyone else will laugh even harder at you when you try to pull the "but you said pregnancy can't be fair between a man and a woman, so you can't argue fairness with homosexuals! HA!" card. Because you'll sound like a complete loon. Well, you already sound like a complete loon. But you get the point.

Edited, May 3rd 2011 10:54pm by Belkira

I think it's funny how Alma essentially wants the decision to end with the man's opinion. Does he honestly think that child support begins to really scratch the cost of raising a child? Let's make it simple, and even exclude the lifetime reduction in income child rearing has on women, but not on men. She's not going to come out ahead by having the baby; it's not a very good investment vehicle unless you sell it on the black market before it depreciates. They're like cars--depreciate fast, those ones!

There's a reason California gets more representation than Alaska, honey.

Edited, May 4th 2011 3:37am by Sweetums

If I don't believe in the Greek pantheon but am not sure of the Norse gods exist, does that make me an atheistic agnostic?

All you other hi-jackers put down your key boards and back away.

You do realize that this topic is in reference to abortion right? I said that the woman has total control on whether she has an abortion or not. I didn't say that the man shouldn't be allowed to think. So, there is nothing you can twist and turn around to make it seem like the man has a say in the abortion, when I specifically stated that the woman has all of the power.

You were the one arguing that abortion and child support were two completely different issues. Now, you're saying that a man having the opportunity to pay child support is telling the woman to have or not to have an abortion?

Make up your mind, which one is it?
Just admit it, you're wrong.



Are you doing this on purpose? You just asked that question in my last post to you, this answer was the response to that question. This was a side point. Go back and read it if you want clarification.



Don't ask Don't tell..



Wow... you really are lost. It's in the rationale that I quoted for you. Currently, the situation isn't even close to fair or equal. Regardless if you believe it will ever become totally equal/fair the two scenarios I presented were the only solutions that I know that would put us there. The first solution is stupid, so I chose the second solution. I support case by case by case abortions because I know stuff happens in life and every scenario can't be covered in one regulation.



People will always find a way to "cheat the system", you don't take away the system, you fix it. Just like many people probably cheated on their taxes. The government doesn't stop taxes, they hire personnel to catch people cheating.

So, if the girl isn't "milking the system", you don't have a problem with her receiving governmental assistance?



What makes you think that? Have you seen my mathematical skills? Have you seen my Comp Sci skills?

So, are you going to answer the question or not? Why is a woman with two children MORE RESPONSIBLE than a woman with one child?



That scenario would be as equal as you can get under scenario two, because it wouldn't matter what the man or woman wants, the abortion would only be granted on a case by case scenario.



Right. That was easy..



Nope, stating the facts. I'm pointing out how you're using your emotions with pregnancy to make a point. "Waaaaaah, I had to carry a baby for 9 WHOLE months and YOU DIDN'T!! It won't ever be equal!! Waaaaahh I should be able to do what I want.. You can NEVER go through that, YOU'LL NEVER UNDERSTAND, BLAH, BLAH BLAH, WAAH, WAAH,WAAH.....!!!"

I would wager that most men would rather birth a child than pay 18 years of child support..



Contradict often? Oh, wait of course you do...



Interesting... I'll save that for later as you can't even grasp this concept. I don't want you too confused.



False. You're making up crap again.. hence why you said "something", you don't even know what it is.

You accused me of saying that a man should have a say in abortion and I gave you the same response that I gave Natalia, "quote me saying that or STFU". Then you said "no, you go find it!" That doesn't make any sense, you made the accusation, now render me some evidence or STFU.



Here's your confusion, I NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER said anywhere that they should be equal in a "decision". That's your misunderstanding. The first scenario gives the woman total control and THERE IS NO decision in the second scenario. I explained that to you numerous of times. In the second scenario, abortion by default is not authorized and are only approved on a case by case scenario. The decision wouldn't be up to the parents, so it wouldn't matter if one or both wanted the abortion.



I would indeed sound like a complete loon.. Good thing I wouldn't argue that...

Alma and Tulip,


For the love of God stop responding to every freaking sentence. I'm sure between the two of you you can figure out how to set up a private chat room. And if you can't respond to the entirity of a persons post in a few short and concise sentences it's probably beyond both of you and it's best to just keep silent.

Food for thought.

How did you leave gbaji out of this statement?

So you're saying that responding to an entire statement is dumb, and all debate should be kept to short statements with no opportunity to argue the point?

Just wow...

I think everyone's missing something significant here. Varus used capitalization and grammar very well in that post. What's happened?