• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For teen girls, abortion linked to better outcomes vs. giving birth[W:548]

Scrabaholic said:
Pro choice means you want abortion to be legal. Henrin is pro choice as he does not want abortion to be made illegal. At least, that is what he says.
Click to expand...

I do not however associate myself that way.
 
Scrabaholic said:
That is not my name. Please do not use it again.
Click to expand...

I was talking to the defecating cow you brought into the discussion.


I never claimed "all". However, there is a fairly high risk of lasting negative emotional affects.
Click to expand...
Which automatically makes it okay to end the life of a healthy potential person?
 
Henrin said:
Do you know the tense of the word "bound" in the post you quoted?

Oh and btw, nothing about what you said changes anything. They are still binding the man today based on a false understanding of reality.

Child support laws were not established with women in mind and they still don't exist because of women. They were extended to women to try to appease men, but as you can see it didn't work.
Click to expand...

You are again demonstrating that you don't comprehend reality
 
sangha said:
It's not our govts job to make sure you are happy.
Click to expand...

Really? So I guess transsexuals don't need to use the bathroom of their choice after all, and I can get to greet them anyway I please in a new york city workplace. Cool.

Oh and btw, I never said anything about the government having the job of making sure people are happy. Strawman much?
 
sangha said:
You are again demonstrating that you don't comprehend reality
Click to expand...

Nothing I said was wrong, so yeah.

Oh and again, you should move your arguments out of the third grade.
 
Scrabaholic said:
I have a rebuttal but do not want to contribute to further derailing this thread.
Click to expand...

They technically existed from even before that time period, but that was Europe, not here.
 
trouble13 said:
I agree we are all obligated to follow the law but we are also obligated to get bad laws changed. I have no issue with a woman having autonomy but a law taking away a mans is just as wrong as the antiabortion laws and the Jim Crow laws etc.... It's oppressive toward men. We as a society have an obligation to address that or we will not progress.
Click to expand...

Then try to change the law.

How's that working out for you?

I know what I said and it's the truth. If you don't believe me give me some examples of of the law enforcing involuntary responsibility on someone besides fathers.
Click to expand...


Again, employers are held responsible for what their subordinates do. Landowners are responsible for the sidewalks in front of their homes, even though those sidewalks belong to the govt. Storeowners are responsible for keeping the sidewalk in front of their store clean, even though they don't own the sidewalk.

And parents are responsible for supporting their born children
 
DifferentDrummr said:
I was talking to the defecating cow you brought into the discussion.
Click to expand...

What???



Which automatically makes it okay to end the life of a healthy potential person?
Click to expand...

We were discussing placing for adoption.

BTW, it is illegal to end the life of a person, except in certain circumstances ie. the death penalty, war, self defense. As far as I know, nobody is trying to get that changed.
 
sangha said:
Really


Strawman much?
Click to expand...

You're the one with the strawman, my good boy. All I did was mock it with something that made me laugh.
 
sangha said:
Then try to change the law.

How's that working out for you?




Again, employers are held responsible for what their subordinates do. Landowners are responsible for the sidewalks in front of their homes, even though those sidewalks belong to the govt. Storeowners are responsible for keeping the sidewalk in front of their store clean, even though they don't own the sidewalk.

And parents are responsible for supporting their born children
Click to expand...

And no one should be responsible for government property besides government.
 
Henrin said:
Sigh. Even if they figure out a way to get men to carry babies it won't happen without artificial means, so your argument is invalid.
Click to expand...
FALSE. A man might volunteer for pregnancy, just like a woman might volunteer for pregnancy. Why should the specific technique matter? Haven't you heard of "in vitro fertilization" and "artificial insemination"?

My earlier point remains, though, in that if a man doesn't want offspring he is not likely to be wiling to go through a male-pregnancy-causing procedure. That's a difference from normal pregnancies, which Nature has placed a dissociation between pregnancy and the specific action that precedes it, sex (pregnancy doesn't happen automatically/practically-always for humans, unlike most other species). Without preparation (like studying a woman's ovulation cycle) one cannot be confident that human sex will lead to pregnancy. And since sex is enjoyable, very often humans choose the goal of simple enjoyment, not pregnancy. Nature doesn't care. Enough sexual activity tends to lead to pregnancy, and so long as that suffices for the species to continue to exist, Nature is fine with that (regardless of what the involved humans want).

Henrin said:
The law can't just claim things are equal for men because they can go through some medical operation to get pregnant too. Equal would be protecting both men and women in their natural states,
Click to expand...
FALSE. Handicapped humans are men and women, too. The special consideration they receive is intended to help balance various biological shortcomings, to allow them to become more-equal with non-handicapped folks. Even an old-fashioned peg-leg had that purpose.

Biologically, men and women are not equal to each other. Medically assisted male pregnancy is potentially one way to make them more equal, biologically.

Henrin said:
not in woman's natural state and men after they get surgery. That's not equal, it's abuse.
Click to expand...
IT IS NOT ABUSE IF IT IS VOLUNTARY. I never said anything about forcing men to be pregnant. I specifically stated words to the effect that some men would choose to avoid that option.

Henrin said:
You do realize they haven't been able to get anything to work, right? Your above link says no different.
Click to expand...
THE LINK WAS ABOUT A DISCOVERY AND ASSOCIATED POTENTIALS. Nothing more. It proves something is possible, that previously was considered impossible.

Henrin said:
So what? women can opt-out, while men can't. That's hardly equal.
Click to expand...
TRUE. And entirely because men and women are biologically different. A normal healthy human male is not allowed to park his car in a handicapped slot, because he is biologically different from handicapped. The first is a Natural restriction, and the second is a social restriction. But **as** biology-based restrictions, they are quite comparable. If you don't complain about the one, why should you complain about the other?

Henrin said:
I wonder if you realize that biologically speaking nothing binds the man to his child.
Click to expand...
AT FIRST, TRUE. Sufficient positive interactions can cause emotional bonding, however. Throughout history Men have very often bonded with other humans as "pals". (They can bond with non-humans too --most often with dogs-- but that just means you can't possibly claim it is impossible for an average man to bond with his child.)

Henrin said:
If you want to go with the biology argument you have to support men walking.
Click to expand...
I DO NOT. Societies add a Responsibility factor that has been ignored in your post.

Henrin said:
Since you don't support men walking I would advise you drop that argument.
Click to expand...
I'M NOT ABOUT TO DO THAT. As explained in #492
 
Last edited:
FutureIncoming said:
FALSE. A man might volunteer for pregnancy, just like a woman might volunteer for pregnancy. Why should the specific technique matter? Haven't you heard of "in vitro fertilization" and "artificial insemination"?
Click to expand...

What are the chances that would happen? Even if it did happen what are the chances they would abort? Regardless, it does nothing for those men that are living life using the functions they were born with.

My earlier point remains, though, in that if a man doesn't want offspring he is not likely to be wiling to go through a male-pregnancy-causing procedure. That's a difference from normal pregnancies, which Nature has placed a dissociation between pregnancy and the specific action that precedes it, sex (pregnancy doesn't happen automatically/practically-always for humans, unlike most other species). Without preparation (like studying a woman's ovulation cycle) one cannot be confident that human sex will lead to pregnancy. And since sex is enjoyable, very often humans choose the goal of simple enjoyment, not pregnancy. Nature doesn't care. Enough sexual activity tends to lead to pregnancy, and so long as that suffices for the species to continue to exist, Nature is fine with that (regardless of what the involved humans want).
Click to expand...

So basically you admit that nothing you said would work to satisfy the rights for the majority of men. Good to know.

Maybe you should can the red-herring that isn't even a reality at the moment and stick to the topic instead.

FALSE. Handicapped humans are men and women, too. The special consideration they receive is intended to help balance various biological shortcomings, to allow them to become more-equal with non-handicapped folks. Even an old-fashioned peg-leg had that purpose.
Click to expand...

So what? What I said would mean that kind of treatment is special treatment and thus unequal.

Biologically, men and women are not equal to each other. Medically assisted male pregnancy is potentially one way to make them more equal, biologically.
Click to expand...

Sigh. So what? You work inside the biological facts as they are to come up with a solution. You don't just ignore biological reality for men, while giving it respect for women.

IT IS NOT ABUSE IF IT IS VOLUNTARY. I never said anything about forcing men to be pregnant. I specifically stated words to the effect 0that some men would choose to avoid that option.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the operation, you know. I was talking about the current treatment of men by the state.

THE LINK WAS ABOUT A DISCOVERY AND ASSOCIATED POTENTIALS. Nothing more. It proves something is possible, that previously was considered impossible.
Click to expand...

It's not much of a discovery and if it worked it likely would be very unsafe and not done by any doctors.


TRUE. And entirely because men and women are biologically different. A normal healthy human male is not allowed to park his car in a handicapped slot, because he is biologically different from handicapped. The first is a Natural restriction, and the second is a social restriction. But **as** biology-based restrictions, they are quite comparable. If you don't complain about the one, why should you complain about the other?
Click to expand...

Who says I think handicapped people should get special parking? You might not know this, but I'm actually opposed to those laws.

AT FIRST, TRUE. Sufficient positive interactions can cause emotional bonding, however. Throughout history Men have very often bonded with other humans as "pals". (They can bond with non-humans too --most often with dogs-- but that just means you can't possibly claim it is impossible for an average man to bond with his child.)
Click to expand...

Most men that have sufficiently bonded with the child likely won't walk away. Just sayin'

I DO NOT. Societies add a Responsibility factor that has been ignored in your post.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with society on the matter. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
How's that working out for you?
Click to expand...

Why should anyone be responsible for the sidewalk besides the government? It's not my property, so why do I have to maintain it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom