- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It always happens.Here comes the trying to divert every topic on abortion to "its a baby"... "not it's not".... "yes it is".... always to derail the topic.:roll:
:dohI like how Conservatives' feel abortion should not be allowed ... but once born, they want an option out of personal responsibility to raise the child.
No it isn't.Ummm, this is not about what's best for the man. It's about what's best for the child.
They shouldn't.As I said, the needs of the child outweigh the needs of the man.
A line of thought that needs to change is all that is.But it's not in the childs best interest ...
....or a wedding ring. Just saying there's no need to act like a slut.She should NEVER allow a male to engage in sexual activity unless she is fully protected by both his "sock" and her contraceptives.
It is understood why it came about. The ruling then allows her to arbitrarily decide if he should be burdened. That is neither fair or right. Especially when she is allowed not to burden herself if she so chooses.
She should not be able to make a decision that burdens him. That is wrong.
Which is why he should have the same effective right.
It is understood why it came about. The ruling then allows her to arbitrarily decide if he should be burdened. That is neither fair or right. Especially when she is allowed not to burden herself if she so chooses.
She should not be able to make a decision that burdens him. That is wrong.
Which is why he should have the same effective right.
There is no g_d involved here, nor should there be.
Times change. Laws need to keep up with the changes.
What is even simpler would be making the woman 100% responsible for the outcome of what she allows into her body.
We are past that point.
She is pregnant and presently gets to arbitrarily decide whether or not to burden the man. Which is wrong and unfair
Giving the man an effective right removes the unfairness.
Of course there are exceptions. There are exceptions to most things in life. Despite the exceptions, it is Conservatives who are the champions at limiting abortions.:doh
In all actuality, all you are doing is speaking partisan crap and injecting it where it doesn't belong.
There are those on both sides of the isle that do not tow the line when it comes to this topic.
Fairness is also on the child's side. If you want to speak fairness, it is not fair to the child to be denied financial support simply because the man didn't want the child.No it isn't.
It is about fairness and not allowing another to burden someone else by their decision.
Sorry, but I can't help that you are incapable of distinguishing between a "clump of cells" in utero, and a living breathing child. :roll:If it was about what was best for the clump of cells, under the prevalent train of thought, abortion would be disallowed except for a few reasons.
But then again, who is to say that allowing a birth to occur is what is best for the clump of cells? You?
But they do.They shouldn't.
Exept for the child, who seems to be getting the shaft either way.That was the crux of my argument!! Fair for everyone involved...
Wrong!Wrong. Both parties involved "burdened" themselves when they had sex and took the risk. One is not more innocent in this than the other.
Which belongs to those that made the decision.Nice of you to address my prayer rather than the substance of what I said related to the issue of responsibility. But in respect to your ChrisL response, I believe you are under the mistaken impression that the only cost one can pay is financial, there are also long lasting emotional and psychological costs associated with abortion.
Wrong!
She controls her body. She controls what she allows into it.
She had and has absolute control.
And it was about having sex. Nothing more.
And we are past that point, to where she can choose, but he can't. A choice that may burden him when it should not. That is unfair and needs to be rectified.
He should also have an effective right to choose just as she does.
You're comitting the appeal to legality falacy. It was once legal to beat a slave to death. That was murder eventhough it was legal, because a higher law was being broken. It was legal for Saddam to rape women. It was legal under Syerian law to gas its own people. Honor killings are legal in many ME countries, yet that's still murder regardless.Really?
Please point out the law that says it is.
You want to call it killing. Go ahead. But it is not murder.
It is understood why it came about. The ruling then allows her to arbitrarily decide if he should be burdened. That is neither fair or right. Especially when she is allowed not to burden herself if she so chooses.
She should not be able to make a decision that burdens him. That is wrong.
Which is why he should have the same effective right.
There is no g_d involved here, nor should there be.
Times change. Laws need to keep up with the changes.
What is even simpler would be making the woman 100% responsible for the outcome of what she allows into her body.
We are past that point.
She is pregnant and presently gets to arbitrarily decide whether or not to burden the man. Which is wrong and unfair
Giving the man an effective right removes the unfairness.
Its an organism, but you don't seem interested in truth.And you are wrong.
It is a medical fact that it is human cells. Nothing more.
It is not a child yet, but only has the potential to become one. That is the medical fact.
That's what I did. Its been 7 years and so far I haven't gotten anyone pregnant.Any man who doesn't want to be responsible for a baby should avoid engaging in activity that produces babies.
Pretty simple, eh?
And it is still crap as a generalization.Of course there are exceptions. There are exceptions to most things in life. Despite the exceptions, it is Conservatives who are the champions at limiting abortions.
No one is denying a child support.Fairness is also on the child's side. If you want to speak fairness, it is not fair to the child to be denied financial support simply because the man didn't want the child.
Apparently you don't know that that clump of cells is not a living breathing child.Sorry, but I can't help that you are incapable of distinguishing between a "clump of cells" in utero, and a living breathing child.
No they shouldn't.But they do.
It seems that it is more likely that you want to twist the truth.Its an organism, but you don't seem interested in truth.
One, sexual drive. Two, an erection.what's so hard about that?
Which belongs to those that made the decision.
Not for you to say it is disallowed because of them.
The fallacy is all yours.You're comitting the appeal to legality falacy. It was once legal to beat a slave to death. That was murder eventhough it was legal, because a higher law was being broken. It was legal for Saddam to rape women. It was legal under Syerian law to gas its own people. Honor killings are legal in many ME countries, yet that's still murder regardless.
Elective abortion is murder.
:dohYes, she has as much control as he does regarding what he puts his body parts into.
And she gets to choose, so, so should he.I already stated that you better make damn sure you are ready to face the consequences of your actions, that goes for BOTH parties.
Bs. Abortion and birth is a private issue and should remain that way, unless and until the government decides we need more or less people.Any procedure that might impact the mental health of many is a public concern, to be discussed and examined. I wouldn't disallow the decision on that basis in ones own life but when the parties are in disagreement the decision can effect another party. BTW, This runs both directions.
:doh
And she gets to choose, so, so should he.
...
You just equated the "nonviable" fetus to an appendage. Really?
... Now you say if separated from the mother, the fetus has no chance of survival. I would suggest that neither would her arm if she chose to dissect and discard it.
Yes you did. You said it was a clump of cells. "Clump" has a definition. An organism is not a compacted mass, it has structure.It seems that it is more likely that you want to twist the truth.
Example:
Did I say it wasn't an organism?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?