PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
The day that men figure out how to get pregnant and carry a fetus to term, you can have a legitimate say in abortion rights. Until then, get the @#%^ out of my uterus.
Cute sentiment but that's not the way government works.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- GOP candidate: "God Intended" Pregnancies from Rape
GOP candidate: "God Intended" Pregnancies from RapeFollow
Cute sentiment but that's not the way government works.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
The day that men figure out how to get pregnant and carry a fetus to term, you can have a legitimate say in abortion rights. Until then, get the @#%^ out of my uterus.
I suppose that's true. My point was that life isn't fair. Alma was basically saying that men are affected by abortions and it's not fair that men have to pay child support when they don't want to, so men should have a say as well. There are lots of factors in life that are unfair, especially when you factor for gender inequalities. Men get the crapshoot a fair amount of the time, usually in regards to parenting issues. Women get the crapshoot a lot more often though. And I'm not advocating that men should have absolutely no say in abortion laws. What frustrates me is when a bunch of old white men collectively and slowly chip away at reproduction rights. There is no other medical procedure besides abortion, that gets such attention by lawmakers. Now I'm not going to play dumb and pretend that I don't understand why people oppose abortion. If you don't like it, fine. Don't get one. Leave medical decisions up to patients and their doctors, not legislators.
Jophiel wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
You never addressed why the discussion itself wouldn't be valuable, which is specifically why it's not necessary for me to tell you why you're wrong.
Well, given that no one else has made a real counter-position on the rights of elected representatives, I guess I won the debate
As an Australian, I don't perceive the USA to be a representative democracy, because not all citizens vote in elections. Heck if I understand things, very often only a minority of people in an electorate vote in an election. I don't reguard the non-casting of a vote as an abstaining vote. I reguard it as an abrogation of the rights and responsibilities of that citizen. That citizen is unrepresented, and not participant in a democracy.
Hence I don't really reguard the elected officials in the USA as being representative of their electorates, or of having any really meaningful mandates in carrying out their policies.
In Australia it's true that the ignorant and disenfranchised are easily swayed into voting against their own interests. And often vote in incredibly parochial, selfish and short sighted ways. And yet overall, perhaps because the rights of these people need to be addressed by campaigning politicians, Australia manages to balance it's budget over economic cycles while overall maintaining better rights and responsibilities for people who've fallen into a low point of their life cycle. Australia is also the easiest country to set up a business, and like all robust capital...(capitalisms?), big business gets just as much a disproportionate sway over politics as in America.
Edited, Oct 26th 2012 5:18am by Aripyanfar
#105Almalieque,
Posted: Oct 26 2012 at 5:39 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The day women can impregnate themselves without a man, will be the day that your request would make sense.
Almalieque wrote:
Really? So now you're unable to quantify "significant" in context?
No, it's unquantified because you provide no numbers, just vague assertions under the pretext of you being correct. Give me a solid figure and we can quibble over whether or not it counts as "significant". There was an uptick in black voter participation (+2%) in 2008 and an uptick in black Democratic votes (+6%). But there was an uptick in most demographics for both of the same things. More youths voted and more youths voted for Obama. More college-educated people voted and more voted for Obama. About an extra eight million people voted in 2008 vs 2004 and Obama won by a larger percentage than Bush did in 2004 (i.e., more people, more Dem share).
If you want to claim that a "significant" number of people voted based on race, you need to do more to prove your point than just say it.
Quote:
If you took the amount of people who voted for President Obama simply because he was black and converted their votes to Hillary Clinton during the primaries, then Hillary would have won.
Thanks for the unsubstantiated "fact", Gbaji.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
The day that men figure out how to get pregnant and carry a fetus to term, you can have a legitimate say in abortion rights. Until then, get the @#%^ out of my uterus.
I suppose that's true. My point was that life isn't fair.
Quote:
Alma was basically saying that men are affected by abortions and it's not fair that men have to pay child support when they don't want to, so men should have a say as well. There are lots of factors in life that are unfair, especially when you factor for gender inequalities. Men get the crapshoot a fair amount of the time, usually in regards to parenting issues. Women get the crapshoot a lot more often though. And I'm not advocating that men should have absolutely no say in abortion laws. What frustrates me is when a bunch of old white men collectively and slowly chip away at reproduction rights. There is no other medical procedure besides abortion, that gets such attention by lawmakers. Now I'm not going to play dumb and pretend that I don't understand why people oppose abortion. If you don't like it, fine. Don't get one. Leave medical decisions up to patients and their doctors, not legislators.
Whining, self-pity and hatin on the white man is not really going to help your cause, Sunshine.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
The day that men figure out how to get pregnant and carry a fetus to term, you can have a legitimate say in abortion rights. Until then, get the @#%^ out of my uterus.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Meh, let them ( women) make the rules. Is it that hard not to stick you **** in someone that doesn't share your political values? Problem solved, no political drama needed.
You swinging kids I swear...
Edited, Oct 26th 2012 8:19am by someproteinguy
You swinging kids I swear...
Edited, Oct 26th 2012 8:19am by someproteinguy
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
someproteinguy wrote:
Meh, let them make the rules. Is it that hard not to stick you **** in someone that doesn't share your political values? Problem solved, no political drama needed.
You swinging kids I swear...
You swinging kids I swear...
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
What about God's gifts?
Like I said (probably really ambiguously as I reread things) it's her decision, let her decide. Except in some rare bizarre case where a gal is holding a gun to a guys head or something, the guy generally has a lot of leeway in deciding whether or not he wants to have sex with someone. I mean really we still have plenty of control of the situation even if you were to completely take away our say in an abortion.
Edited, Oct 26th 2012 8:08am by someproteinguy
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
If a woman is going to abort a man's child against his wishes, does he really want her to be the mother of his children anyway?
I'm actually leaning toward agreement with the sentiment that marriage is what gives a man (or woman) legal recourse into the decision over to abort or not abort. Until they've got that little piece of paper from the state that shows they're in a legally binding contract for the purposes of income, taxes, procreation, healthcare, yadda yadda, the non-pregnant party has little to say in the matter of whether she should keep an accidental pregnancy. (Now, if they were both trying for a baby outside of wedlock, it's a bit different. But I never understood wanting to have kids with a partner without the accompanying marriage. Not my thing, I guess.)
I'm actually leaning toward agreement with the sentiment that marriage is what gives a man (or woman) legal recourse into the decision over to abort or not abort. Until they've got that little piece of paper from the state that shows they're in a legally binding contract for the purposes of income, taxes, procreation, healthcare, yadda yadda, the non-pregnant party has little to say in the matter of whether she should keep an accidental pregnancy. (Now, if they were both trying for a baby outside of wedlock, it's a bit different. But I never understood wanting to have kids with a partner without the accompanying marriage. Not my thing, I guess.)
Almalieque wrote:
Pig wrote:
For a worthless term like "significant", I'm sure that's true.
Good job giving me credit for something I didn't say. I'm pretty sure that was Joph.
Quote:
Pig wrote:
However, there are ways around this. Wear a condom every time. It's not 100% effective, sure. But it drastically cuts down on pregnancy and STDs, and then you don't have to worry about whether the women you sleep with are lying to you when they say they're on birth control
Sure there is. Men can't lie about whether or not they're on birth control, since you guys don't have one of those yet.
I'm almost surprised you didn't catch that that was tongue in cheek. Almost. Seriously though, like protein said it's not that difficult to find out before hand if you agree with your partner on abortion or child rearing BEFORE you sleep with them. I won't sleep with someone unless I know that they are okay with abortion, even though I'm not 100% sure I would have one if I was in that position. Quote:
Pig wrote:
Also, I'm pretty sure that terminating your parental rights is a way of getting out of paying child support.
Yeah i think you're pretty misguided there. There might be some loopholes there, and I don't think it's something that is widely known about. But I've heard of people terminating their parental rights before, both men and women. People complain about having their hard earned money taken away regardless of what it's for. And yeah, it's pretty damn likely that if the parents don't get along well, the parent paying child support is probably going to ***** about paying the other child support, no matter how much they love their kid. This is human nature.
Quote:
Pig wrote:
However, it is also unfair to ask a woman to act as a human incubator for a child she does not want
The child is not a person. It is a human life, sure. But it is not a person. The woman is a person, and has legal rights.
Quote:
Pig wrote:
It is also unfair that women make less money in comparison to men, it is unfair that we have to deal with stupid reports from CNN citing studies that claim that women vote with their periods, and it is unfair that we don't have a single payer health care system in this country
It's called an analogy dip ****.
Quote:
Pig wrote:
The day that men figure out how to get pregnant and carry a fetus to term, you can have a legitimate say in abortion rights. Until then, get the @#%^ out of my uterus.
The day women can impregnate themselves without a man, will be the day that your request would make sense.
We're working on it.
Quote:
I'm actually leaning toward agreement with the sentiment that marriage is what gives a man (or woman) legal recourse into the decision over to abort or not abort.
Law isn't a matter of the opinions of laymen. You have to be a judge to get that honour - and even then, Dworkin will hate you. I assume you mean that it should be the deciding factor.
#115Almalieque,
Posted: Oct 26 2012 at 3:20 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Do you believe it to be true? Why or why not?
Almalieque wrote:
I hate to use the media as a source, because it isn't valid, but
Almalieque wrote:
we both know that isn't plausible to get an accurate number of who voted for who and why.
This is where you should realize meaningful discussion cannot occur. You made a quantitative assertion without quantitative evidence. You think it might be true, and you want it to be true, but you have no way to show that it is. There's nothing meaningful you can say on the subject.
Almalieque wrote:
Do you believe it to be true? Why or why not?
No. Because the shifts in numbers don't support a groundswell on any singular basis.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Pig wrote:
Sure there is. Men can't lie about whether or not they're on birth control, since you guys don't have one of those yet. Smiley: tongue I'm almost surprised you didn't catch that that was tongue in cheek. Almost. Seriously though, like protein said it's not that difficult to find out before hand if you agree with your partner on abortion or child rearing BEFORE you sleep with them. I won't sleep with someone unless I know that they are okay with abortion, even though I'm not 100% sure I would have one if I was in that position.
Because you don't know how you will react until you're in their shoes. I'm not going to be a hypocrite. It's easy for me to say, "No abortion!" because I'm not in that situation where a woman is pregnant. If you're practicing "safer sex" and there is an unwanted pregnancy, that can totally throw you for a loop. Standing from the sideline, I can say "Pffft. that's your fault, you should have worn two condoms, pre-gamed and pulled out!"
Pig wrote:
Yeah i think you're pretty misguided there. There might be some loopholes there, and I don't think it's something that is widely known about. But I've heard of people terminating their parental rights before, both men and women. People complain about having their hard earned money taken away regardless of what it's for. And yeah, it's pretty damn likely that if the parents don't get along well, the parent paying child support is probably going to ***** about paying the other child support, no matter how much they love their kid. This is human nature.
Pretty sure that I'm not misguided. Once again, if it were that easy, there wouldn't be any issues. I did a quick wiki-search and the bottom line is the person who does not have custody must pay the parent with custody according to the guidelines provided by each state.
Pig wrote:
The child is not a person. It is a human life, sure. But it is not a person. The woman is a person, and has legal rights.
That makes no sense. If it's not a person, then why are you having an abortion?
Pig wrote:
It's called an analogy dip sh*t.
Those were supposed to be analogies? Sounded like a rant. Maybe you should be more metaphorical and less literal, you know, kind of like an analogy? Pig wrote:
We're working on it.
So, like I said, unless the woman used her own bone marrow to create her own child, then men have a say.
#119gbaji,
Posted: Oct 26 2012 at 5:46 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I set it aside because it's not the most important factor when asking if congress has "the right" to make such legislative decisions. Trying to apply a criteria for legislation which requires that you may only legislate on issues which affect you directly is absurd. How many members of congress are homeless? Yet no one insists that they can't pass legislation regarding homeless shelters, right? How many members of congress are illegal immigrants? Yet we expect them to pass laws regarding illegal immigration, right? How many are members of a foreign nations army (or active members of our own military)? Yet we give them the right to declare acts of war.
Allegory wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I hate to use the media as a source, because it isn't valid, but
Almalieque wrote:
we both know that isn't plausible to get an accurate number of who voted for who and why.
This is where you should realize meaningful discussion cannot occur. You made a quantitative assertion without quantitative evidence. You think it might be true, and you want it to be true, but you have no way to show that it is. There's nothing meaningful you can say on the subject.
That's absurd, unrealistic and unpractical. Just because something is intangible doesn't mean it can't be given a measure. That's like telling someone that they really don't love you because love isn't quantitative, so therefore a meaningless subject.
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Do you believe it to be true? Why or why not?
No. Because the shifts in numbers don't support a groundswell on any singular basis.
Of course it doesn't, because isn't a concrete fact. I wasn't asking if it were a groundswell on any singular basis. You're simply stating a fact on why my claim can't be absolute. The simple fact that you state "any singular basis" supports that you're talking in generalities. I'm specifically talking about President Obama and Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primaries.
You can't logically say "no" then say "any singular basis". That's a contradiction. If your answer is "no", then you are favoring the belief that the number of people who voted for President Obama simply because of his physical appearance, skin color, age, speaking ability or any other irrelevant trait wasn't high enough to make a difference. At that point, your accusation is no different than mine because you are unable to substantiate it.
#121gbaji,
Posted: Oct 26 2012 at 5:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So you opposed the passage of Obamacare, right? Cause we should leave medical decisions to patients and doctors and not legislators? You get that when we pass these huge health care laws, which create tons of requirements and mandates and whatnot, we are injecting the government and its laws into our health care. Some of us argued for less government regulation of health care. We got outvoted.
Your analogies are pointless. You're trying to argue that transient statuses are the same things as gender/biological identities.
It's fundamentally flawed at the onset.
Also, you're wrong. The question at hand isn't whether or not a severe statistical imbalance in elected representatives to the representative population isn't acceptable in all issues, it's a question of whether or not it's an issue in one specific case.
So, yes, setting aside the most important factor--that they'd be making rulings on medical procedures that they'll never have to deal with in their personal lives--is still an integral aspect of the case.
The answer to one of those is obvious. There's a reason we don't demand that people with an IQ under 60 be represented by someone else with an IQ under 60. Or that people with terminal illnesses be represented by people with terminal illnesses. Pacific Islanders make up .2% of the US population. With 435 Congressmen, that doesn't even account for a whole person. Etc.
To pretend like the argument for one group is the same as arguing for the sake of all groups is a strawman.
And that's why you're an idiot.
It's fundamentally flawed at the onset.
Also, you're wrong. The question at hand isn't whether or not a severe statistical imbalance in elected representatives to the representative population isn't acceptable in all issues, it's a question of whether or not it's an issue in one specific case.
So, yes, setting aside the most important factor--that they'd be making rulings on medical procedures that they'll never have to deal with in their personal lives--is still an integral aspect of the case.
The answer to one of those is obvious. There's a reason we don't demand that people with an IQ under 60 be represented by someone else with an IQ under 60. Or that people with terminal illnesses be represented by people with terminal illnesses. Pacific Islanders make up .2% of the US population. With 435 Congressmen, that doesn't even account for a whole person. Etc.
To pretend like the argument for one group is the same as arguing for the sake of all groups is a strawman.
And that's why you're an idiot.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Almalieque wrote:
Of course it doesn't, because isn't a concrete fact. I wasn't asking if it were a groundswell on any singular basis.
No, you asked if I thought that way and why not.
Rather than get bogged into "But I asked THIS not THAT!!", I'll just say that I do not believe that race played a significant factor in Obama's election (i.e. enough to have changed the election results) and I do not believe it primarily due to lack of evidence to the contrary.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Almalieque wrote:
That's absurd, unrealistic and unpractical. Just because something is intangible doesn't mean it can't be given a measure. That's like telling someone that they really don't love you because love isn't quantitative, so therefore a meaningless subject.
And has nothing to do with what I said.
You claimed many people voted for President Obama simply because he is black. That is a quantifiable statement. You need to prove that. You need to present a number for how many people voted for President Obama because he was black.
"Many Jews live in El Salvador." Do you see how without numbers that is a meaningless statement that's technically true--in the sense that at least one Jew lives in El Salvador)?
I heard that guy moved out of El Salvador.
#126gbaji,
Posted: Oct 26 2012 at 7:05 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) They are making rulings on medical procedures affecting the people who voted for them to represent them (and to make those very decisions). Which is precisely what we do with regard to every issue that our representatives vote on. Why is this one case magically different? You might have a point if women represented a tiny minority of voters (but they don't). And you might have a point if abortion and contraception issues were not already prevalent issues weighed and discussed in each and every election (but they are). So what is your argument? One must conclude that despite some people's assumption to the contrary, these issues are not as much the driving issues for women voters that you assume they are. The fact is that if 100% of women wanted a woman to represent them, then 100% of congress would be female (or really darn close). And if 100% of women wanted their representatives to vote for unrestricted elective abortions, then that would be the law. And if 100% of women wanted their representatives to pass legislation requiring the government to pay for all contraceptive and abortion costs, then that would be the law as well.
Recent Visitors: 287
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (287)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- GOP candidate: "God Intended" Pregnancies from Rape
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC