Arguing that certain womenAdvocating for pro-choice with no parameters is advocating for children being born into poverty. Just pretty much a fact.
I am not advocating for any solution.
Women having children that they can not afford is a lot of people's business. Hers. The mans. The family. The Courts. CYFS. Society.
Is arguing for eugenics.be compelled by law to abort a child that she can not support
LOL. You really need to read that again... and since you won't get it... again, then again and again.Arguing that certain women
Is arguing for eugenics.
Glad to help clear that up for you.
And for anyone that doesn’t see what your goal is.
Apparently a goal you’ve held for decades.
Seems reasonable.If he notified her that he wanted out very early in the pregnancy, then yes. At that point it is 100% her choice. She has all the power to do what is right.
That is up to her... but yeah, he would completely opt out.
Yes. the unborn are potential children, children are potential adults, etc. But you are just a potential person if unborn and nonviable and have never demonstrated conscious mind and deliberate facial, vocal, or even finger-squeezing communication with other persons.Just like a child is a potential adult...
It's not weird at all. Traditionally, heads of families, parents, and eligible adults all sought to get the eligible adults married and they brought specific criteria to the selection. By and large, these criteria had to do with:What a weird misunderstanding of the term
Definition of EUGENICS
the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations (as by sterilization) to improve the populations' genetic composition… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
This is ridiculous. No one has a right to date, kiss, have sex with, or marry anyone - you have to find someone willing to do those things with you, and many individuals, and their parents, do not find being poor a positive motivating characteristic. So you would have to have other motivating characteristics in abundance - like good looks, great education, desirable personality, or the other person would have to have fallen in love with you.It is if you are trying to create a class of people who are the only ones allowed to breed.
It will work all you need do is ignore the rights and freedom that people should have.
Who else are going to be able to breed if you demand the poor should not.
And again I ask then. Is there a plan on how to achieve what you want or is your thoughts nothing more than just pure rhetoric.You are the only one talking about who is allowed to breed.
Considering that a right is nothing more than an agreement between two or more people then yes, it is a right. It is a wrong only when one person disagrees with having sex with the other.This is ridiculous. No one has a right to date, kiss, have sex with, or marry anyone - you have to find someone willing to do those things with you, and many individuals, and their parents, do not find being poor a positive motivating characteristic. So you would have to have other motivating characteristics in abundance - like good looks, great education, desirable personality, or the other person would have to have fallen in love with you.
People do not have sex with just anybody, and they certainly have criteria for those they choose to marry.
I laid out a plan in the OP.And again I ask then. Is there a plan on how to achieve what you want or is your thoughts nothing more than just pure rhetoric.
There you go again with your ridiculous strawman. Oh yes, I want children to grow up in poverty.( Sarcasm). . How dumb can you get? I’m sure you will take that line out of context.Seems like you might hate children... or resent them. Can you explain why you want children to grow up in poverty? Around drugs and gangs?
We are not talking about a child,… stop personifying a ZEFJust like a child is a potential adult...
Not as much as you.There you go again with your ridiculous strawman. Oh yes, I want children to grow up in poverty.( Sarcasm). . How dumb can you get?
So have I.by the way, I taught children who grew up in the worst poverty around drugs and crime, and that was by choice
No. It is a seed.We are not talking about a child,… stop personifying a ZEF
I am sure an acorn is a tree to you
Why do you support pedophilia? Why do you support bestiality? see has silly you sound?Why do you support Child Poverty?
So if you chose to teach in a poverty area, why would you think any teacher who chose to do that with support child poverty? your extremism is getting comical.Not as much as you.
So have I.
An acorn is a potential tree just the way a zygote is a potential child. If you remove the acorn from the Earth, it will not develop …if you remove the Zef from the woman it will not be a childNo. It is a seed.
That was the point. Jeez, you REALLY don't understand reflective posting/logic.Why do you support pedophilia? Why do you support bestiality? see has silly you sound?
... and?An acorn is a potential tree just the way a zygote is a potential child. If you remove the acorn from the Earth, it will not develop …if you remove the Zef from the woman it will not be a child
No, a right is something that you lose under certain circumstances. In NY, if you are threatening to kill another person but that person can safely flee from you, you don't lose your right to life, as they have a duty to flee instead of kill you in self-defense.Considering that a right is nothing more than an agreement between two or more people then yes, it is a right. It is a wrong only when one person disagrees with having sex with the other.
So your argument must be that people who are poor do not engage in sex and have children. remind me again which planet you live on.
No, all you did as you said at the end of the op, offer an interesting view point. A view point with many holes in it. Such as the ridiculous notion of equal rights. When men have a uterus then get back to me about being equal.I laid out a plan in the OP.
And if your not poor then you do not need any of those attractive qualities. Apparently in america money can buy anything.No, a right is something that you lose under certain circumstances. In NY, if you are threatening to kill another person but that person can safely flee from you, you don't lose your right to life, as they have a duty to flee instead of kill you in self-defense.
However, if you are threatening the person with rape, sexual assault, kidnapping, or felony robbery, or are in the process of violating them in those felonious ways, you do lose your right to life, because the person has a right to use lethal means if necessary in self-defense. Moreover, a third party can use lethal means if necessary to defend that person or help in that person's defense.
Each state here in the US can decide in which circumstances you lose your right to life by threatening or performing certain felonious acts. This isn't just between two+ persons.
But if you can get a person to have sex with you and that person is of age, then it's consensual sex, yes. But if you want to get someone's consent, you have to have some characteristics that persuade the person to consent, Usually, this issue has to do with men asking and women consenting, because apparently more men are less choosy and more women are more choosy, probably because the latter have more to lose from having sex.
If you are poor, you need to be sexually attractive, or really kind, or very intelligent, or have some other virtue, or the other person has to be really stupid and easily conned.
I understand. You are unable to deal with the argument as presented.No, all you did as you said at the end of the op, offer an interesting view point. A view point with many holes in it. Such as the ridiculous notion of equal rights. When men have a uterus then get back to me about being equal.
....... the Elephant in the Room is that........
Not in my argument..... there is a child that needs care and support
I am pro-choiceand all the pro- life males talk about is how to escape taking care of their child.
Red HerringThis is the moment one realizes that pro-life men are not interested in anyone's life except their own.
I realize that. That's exactly the problem. While you and others discuss minute pieces of the abortion issue you can drown out any intelligent thinking about supporting the child of an unplanned pregnancy.Not in my argument
Yes for the father, but somebody needs to be pro-life for the child. Here's a thought how about the father?I am pro-choice
You claimed your discussion was about law; opt-out law. My statement was an observed fact; opt out males want a law that relieves their responsibility for their child. That statement was not a red herring distraction nor is my statement designed to lead people to an erroneous conclusion. Opt-out males seem to have concluded that they don't need to respect, the mother, the child or the government that would have to pick up their share of the responsibility.Red Herring
How is it a problem?I realize that. That's exactly the problem.
I am pro-choice for the mother... 100%.Yes for the father, but somebody needs to be pro-life for the child. Here's a thought how about the father?
Yes... and that is a Red Herring. The argument is about post-conception, pre-birth opt-out equality.You claimed your discussion was about law; opt-out law. My statement was an observed fact; opt out males want a law that relieves their responsibility for their child. That statement was not a red herring distraction nor is my statement designed to lead people to an erroneous conclusion. Opt-out males seem to have concluded that they don't need to respect, the mother, the child or the government that would have to pick up their share of the responsibility.
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?