FLDS - Abortion Hypocrites

[Anguille]

S'matter? That scenario hit a little too close to home, Pinky?

No. But your snarky comments suggest you'd be delighted it it did. Are you this bitter in real life?

 

[Shattered]

No. But your snarky comments suggest you'd be delighted it it did. Are you this bitter in real life?

Not in the least, but I'm always happy when evil people get what's coming to them...

 

[Anguille]

Not in the least, but I'm always happy when evil people get what's coming to them...

Whatever, Troll.

 

[Shattered]

Whatever, Troll.

Wouldn't a troll be a person that joins a board simply to disrupt? Which is pretty much what you've been doing for your last 220ish posts which are mostly comprised of inane babbling with a good mix of banshee shrieking thrown in for variety?

 

[mattskramer]

Of course I won't explain that because I think there is no real justification for it. I think it's wrong that men have to pay child support for kids they would have chosen to abort if it had been their choice to do so.

You make a bunch of assumptions about my opinions without having any idea what they are.

Wow. I never read this perspective before. Help me to understand it by commenting on whether you agree with my example.

A man and a woman have sex and the woman gets pregnant. They talk about whether or not they want the baby. The father says. “No. I don’t want it. I want you to abort it. I’ll give you half the cost if you want the abortion. You can deliver the baby if you want to but if you do, I am not giving you child support.”

Is that fair enough? Do I understand your position? If so, it would sure get many irresponsible, self-centered, and opportunistic “fathers” off the preverbal hook.

 

[Gunny]

The point would be to prevent them from becoming human beings.

They already are human beings.

 

[jillian]

They already are human beings.

By whose definition?

 

[Gunny]

Well, perhaps... or perhaps I construed correctly. But either way. I think I said when McCain first made his statement about why Tom Ridge would probably be a no-go (I don't remember which thread) but after his appearance on Hardball, he could crawl across the floor on hot coals and I wouldn't vote for him.

I think that I've always said it's a function of what one's priorities are and whose ox is being gored. McCain's appearance on Hardball gored my ox.

That said, on the flip side, Obama's given me no indication he intends to impose any of Rev Wright's insanity on us. I think you know that if I thought he agreed with, particularly certain things that Wright said, that I couldn't vote for him no matter who was running against him and I'd more likely stay home. But if Obama's gored *your* ox, then you have every right to vote accordingly (not that you need me to tell you that).

On the other hand, we've been given every indication that McCain intends to make at least certain concessions to Hagee and his ilk. Why should I disbelieve him or pretend I didn't see what I know I saw?

What does all this blather have to do about the topic? Nothing, huh? Duly noted. THIS is what I'm talking about. This is PURE defelction from the topic.

If you want to piss on McCain, piss on for what he IS doing ... pandering for votes. Up to this point, his opinions have amazing been pretty much the same as mine and guess what .... once he gets those votes it'll be back to business as usual. There is NO indication -- NONE whatsover -- that he is going to make concessions to anyone.

Who are YOU trying to kid? When was the last time McCain was accused of making concessions? He's as inflexible as tungsten steel, so GMAFB.

Conversely, the simple formula used for going to church is belief in what the church preaches. Obama has attended Wiright's church for 20 or so years. But of course that glaring, neon sign isn't nay kind of indicator, is it?

The topic is the hypocrisy of those who support the state interceding on behalf of children because their safety takes priority over parent's rights but turning right around squealing your rights come first when it's to YOUR convenience.

 

[Ravi]

yea... but what you WONT admit here is that once fertalized the egg becomes just as autonomous from YOUR body until the ZYGOTE (mixed genetics) attaches to the lining of the uterine wall. PAST tense, right?



indeed, life isn't always fair in the workforce either. So, get your ass back in the kitchen and make me some PIE!

Still suffering from your crippling case of uterus envy, I see. Shog thinks the blastocyst is riding in a taxi and sucking down Big Macs and smokes as it makes it's way toward implantation. It's just as much a part of the woman's body as your blood is a part of yours, doofus. Until it leaves your body, it is of your body.

Duh!

Not that it even matters. Get pregnant and get back to us.

 

[Gunny]

already took that shot in the chest, dude. She whips out a guilt trip that a man would consider his child a burden. Apparently, a man's input is no good past the zipper.. unless we are talking about alimony or child support.

Bullshit. Pro CHOICE buddy. If she CHOOSES to keep the child when he is more than willing to pay for the coathanger job, then he should be legally absolved of any and all responsibility.

And guilt trips work about as well HERE as hair mousse.

 

[Gunny]

You're splitting hairs. The egg is still dependent on the woman's body which provides the only environment in which it can remain living tissue.

And without the sperm, it's just an egg.

 

[jillian]

What does all this blather have to do about the topic? Nothing, huh? Duly noted. THIS is what I'm talking about. This is PURE defelction from the topic.

If you want to piss on McCain, piss on for what he IS doing ... pandering for votes. Up to this point, his opinions have amazing been pretty much the same as mine and guess what .... once he gets those votes it'll be back to business as usual. There is NO indication -- NONE whatsover -- that he is going to make concessions to anyone.

Who are YOU trying to kid? When was the last time McCain was accused of making concessions? He's as inflexible as tungsten steel, so GMAFB.

Conversely, the simple formula used for going to church is belief in what the church preaches. Obama has attended Wiright's church for 20 or so years. But of course that glaring, neon sign isn't nay kind of indicator, is it?

The topic is the hypocrisy of those who support the state interceding on behalf of children because their safety takes priority over parent's rights but turning right around squealing your rights come first when it's to YOUR convenience.

Okie dokie....

 

[Ravi]

Wow. I never read this perspective before. Help me to understand it by commenting on whether you agree with my example.

A man and a woman have sex and the woman gets pregnant. They talk about whether or not they want the baby. The father says. “No. I don’t want it. I want you to abort it. I’ll give you half the cost if you want the abortion. You can deliver the baby if you want to but if you do, I am not giving you child support.”

Is that fair enough? Do I understand your position? If so, it would sure get many irresponsible, self-centered, and opportunistic “fathers” off the preverbal hook.

IMO, once a child is born it is alive. Neither the mother or father has the option to ignore it at that point. But if the father choose not to support it, I'd be more inclined to let him have his way because a reluctant father is more damaging than no father at all.

 

[Gunny]

You're a worse idiot than RetiredGySgt.

Do you people ever think?

Do you?

 

[Gunny]

Whatever, Troll.

YOU are calling someone else a troll?

 

[Ravi]

YOU are calling someone else a troll?

I have to admit, that made me chuckle as well.

 

[Gunny]

By whose definition?

Certainly not yours. You've got a concoted one that claims something is what it is not. If left alone it comes out one thing -- a human child -- and only in two ways -- dead or alive.

Now I'm all for aborting alien babies cuz they cause a lot of problems according to the flix. When you get one, I'm on your side.

 

[Larkinn]

They already are human beings.

Well, that settles it then.

 

[mattskramer]

IMO, once a child is born it is alive. Neither the mother or father has the option to ignore it at that point. But if the father choose not to support it, I'd be more inclined to let him have his way because a reluctant father is more damaging than no father at all.

I see your point. I was just trying to ascertain Anguille’s intellectual honesty and consistency. If I am interpreting her argument correctly, she is saying that since half of the genetic makeup is that of the father, it the mother right or the father’s right to choose to abort the baby. According to her, the father should have a voice in that if he wants it aborted, it should be aborted. Only if both agree should be baby be born. If one wants it and the other does not, then the one that wants it should expect no compensation from the one that wants no part of it. Am I right, Anguille? Is that your reasoning? If so, then at least it is consistent.

 

[Anguille]

Wow. I never read this perspective before. Help me to understand it by commenting on whether you agree with my example.

A man and a woman have sex and the woman gets pregnant. They talk about whether or not they want the baby. The father says. “No. I don’t want it. I want you to abort it. I’ll give you half the cost if you want the abortion. You can deliver the baby if you want to but if you do, I am not giving you child support.”

Is that fair enough? Do I understand your position? If so, it would sure get many irresponsible, self-centered, and opportunistic “fathers” off the preverbal hook.

Yes, you understood me correctly. I suppose it might get some "irresponsible, self-centered, and opportunistic “fathers” off the proverbial hook" as you say, but a man who offers to pay half the cost of the abortion and who forewarns a woman he wants no part of bringing an unwanted child into the world isn't being irresponsible, IMO. Allowing a man to relinquish his parental rights in exchange for not forcing him to pay child support for a child he never wanted is the closest we can come to allowing men equal choice concerning abortion without also infringing on the woman's right to keep the child.