If a woman aborted my child, I would probably go ape shit. Why are the feelings of the father...

[Faun]

Any time you're ready to offer up a remedy for men having no control over a woman's body, I'm all eyes....

Says the man that still can't acknowledge that anything else relevant is involved.


Page Eighty ******* Six...

Yes, 86 pages with no plausible remedy from you. Nothing but you bitching like a little girl.

86 pages and nothing but twisted pretzel logic from you lefties to defend your indefensible position.



You tell me what very, very important issue you left out of the situation and I will tell you my remedy.


Since you have finally asked.



You *****.

LOL

You're like a mindless parrot, squawking back at me what I say to you. I point out you're bitching like a little girl and you scratch back by calling me a *****.

You cry that I "finally asked" you about a remedy, but moron, I first asked you that 27 pages ago. You won't, or can't, say. All you do is keep bitching like a little girl.

You know what you left out, but you refuse to say it.

Keep running.

 

[Faun]

86 pages and nothing but twisted pretzel logic from you lefties to defend your indefensible position.

Twisted logic?

Nobody has to carry a baby but that baby's mother. If mother believes she is incapable and is not committed to carrying and birthing that child, she should not have to do so. That baby (or soon-to-be-baby) is a passenger that is 100% dependent on mother. IF GOVERNMENT demands that mother carry that passenger to birth and further, that is government overreach.

None of you personally have the right to force a woman to carry and birth a child she does not want. But, you are willing to let government force it. That makes you authoritarian commies.

What of the Father of that baby? Why not a single mention of him?

Why mention him? The baby is not the man's body.

And what father? Depending on the state you're, the man isn't a father until the child is born.

And again the lawyer thinks that the law defines reality.

IF the law says that the man is not the father of the unborn child he fathered, that is the law being wrong.

Slobbers an idiot as we discuss the legalities of men having no control over a woman's choice on the inevitability of the child growing inside her. The law has something to say on this debate.

 

[Chuz Life]

The memory capabilities and mental capacity of the murdered victim is irrelevant. If you disagree, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with legal decisions which addressed the rights of children born with annencephalia, for example.

You are comparing never existing in this world and going straight to heaven to existing, abused and murdered. Huge difference.

A child in the fetal stage of their life doesn't exist in this world?

Why dont you try selling that denial BULLSHIT to those already in prison for illegally killing one.

I'm sure they would pay you top dollar.

Well what do you remember from before you were born?

Relevance?

None.

Just as I thought.

So much for your red herring / straw dog.

It is very relevant. If you were aborted you'd have never really existed. Unless you have some memory of a time before birth?

How the **** do you abort a child that doesn't exist, leftard?

Do you really need to see pictures of aborted children to know they actually existed?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Very simple reason. You dont have to carry the load for 9 months and have basically a parasite eating off you.

But without the man, the process never begins. Without the sperm to fertilize the egg, there is no conception, no talk of the woman's right to choose, NOTHING. The human race would cease to exist.

But then again, only people like you would refer to human life as parasitic. How interesting.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Very simple reason. You dont have to carry the load for 9 months and have basically a parasite eating off you.

If we lived in a civilized world populated by civilized people, you would have to hide yourself in shame for the rest of your life for uttering those horrible words.

But among liberals, who are morally corrupt and reprehensible in all ways that matter, your words will barely register at all.

Dont get emotional. Use your brain. Its horrible to witness a abortion however until you have to carry the child you really dont have a say in the matter.

So I should stand by silently while innocent children are butchered? Is that your advice to me?

He basically called unborn children parasites, so yes. That is his advice. When getting a political point across means so much to you (him) it will compel you to denigrate even the very beginnings of human life.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Very simple reason. You dont have to carry the load for 9 months and have basically a parasite eating off you.

If we lived in a civilized world populated by civilized people, you would have to hide yourself in shame for the rest of your life for uttering those horrible words.

But among liberals, who are morally corrupt and reprehensible in all ways that matter, your words will barely register at all.

Dont get emotional. Use your brain. Its horrible to witness a abortion however until you have to carry the child you really dont have a say in the matter.

So I should stand by silently while innocent children are butchered? Is that your advice to me?

You stand by silently on a lot of issues with innocent children. Whats one more?

So do you. Millions of children are in Republican families, why don't you go do them a favor and save them?

You hypocrite.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now, after the child is here, that's different. Before, he should get zero say.

LOL

No, he gets plenty of say, he contributed half the genes necessary to conceive the child. If he abandons the woman he impregnated, that's different. However if he's committed, he should have just as much say as the woman on what happens to the child.

Or have you not heard the story of the little red hen?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Who are you to dictate to her what she should or shouldnt do with her own body?

Unless she was forcibly raped, brainwashed or etc, SHE was the one who made the conscious decision to open her legs and have unprotected sex. Her mistake, not his.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How do you have a goddaughter when you obviously don't believe in God? Did the parents just pick you randomly off the street?

Its just a term. It doesnt mean my goddaughter is actually a god.
No. I have known the mother since we were young adults.

To be a godmother, you have to participate in the child's baptism, stand in her place and say the words for her denouncing Satan and all the rest.

And in the Catholic Church, at least, you must be a believing Catholic to be a godmother. And they make sure of it, you don't get to be a godmother if you are just a casual Catholic.

You, ma'am, are a complete sociopath who calls unborn children "parasites". I have to assume you are a non-believer.

Looks like you thought I was a woman too.

I'm a godfather and we did none of that bullshit. I have just been in the childs life since her birth. Hell I was the one there with her mom when she was born instead of her real father.

A godfather means something, it is an English word with a meaning you can find in a dictionary.

I do not see how you can devote yourself to the care of a child, and yet be so heartless about abortion.

The use of the word "parasite" to describe an unborn child makes you a complete sociopath.

to me it godfather means you are responsible for the child as if you were her father.
Can you provide the definition of parasite in that dictionary you are telling me I should check? Nevermind i will do it.

par·a·site
ˈperəˌsīt/
noun

1. an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.

sounds exactly like what a child is doing to the mom.

So, are you calling yourself a parasite?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I know what you are advocating. NO abortion EVER. I get it. No one can EVER claim that abortion is in the best interest of a child. Death is in the best interest of a child?

We don't live in that world. That's dreamland.

Certain people in this thread are/were espousing what I call "eugenics lite". Picking and choosing what lives and what dies as a matter of convenience to the person and or perceived benefit to the community is treading along the lines of eugenics.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's as if liberals in this thread fail to understand how sexual reproduction works...

Talk about denying science.

Moving on.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Your sexist bigotry and hate against men is noted. Thanks for dropping all pretense of any other motivation for your position.

Tell me what is not factual about that statement? Is it false that all a man (I am one) has to do to bring a baby into the world is to shove his penis into a woman and shoot his cum up in her ****? Am I wrong? Did I get shitty science lessons?

You sound like a SJW commie spewing "racist" bullshit all the time. Facts are sexist to you.

 

[Correll]

Says the man that still can't acknowledge that anything else relevant is involved.


Page Eighty ******* Six...

Yes, 86 pages with no plausible remedy from you. Nothing but you bitching like a little girl.

86 pages and nothing but twisted pretzel logic from you lefties to defend your indefensible position.



You tell me what very, very important issue you left out of the situation and I will tell you my remedy.


Since you have finally asked.



You *****.

LOL

You're like a mindless parrot, squawking back at me what I say to you. I point out you're bitching like a little girl and you scratch back by calling me a *****.

You cry that I "finally asked" you about a remedy, but moron, I first asked you that 27 pages ago. You won't, or can't, say. All you do is keep bitching like a little girl.

You know what you left out, but you refuse to say it.

Keep running.

I've asked you to answer the simple question about what you left out, and then I will give you my plausible remedy.


That is pretty much the opposite of "running away".


You refusing to answer my question, about what you left out when you whined about the "man controlling the woman's body", is much more like "running away".

 

[Correll]

86 pages and nothing but twisted pretzel logic from you lefties to defend your indefensible position.

Twisted logic?

Nobody has to carry a baby but that baby's mother. If mother believes she is incapable and is not committed to carrying and birthing that child, she should not have to do so. That baby (or soon-to-be-baby) is a passenger that is 100% dependent on mother. IF GOVERNMENT demands that mother carry that passenger to birth and further, that is government overreach.

None of you personally have the right to force a woman to carry and birth a child she does not want. But, you are willing to let government force it. That makes you authoritarian commies.

What of the Father of that baby? Why not a single mention of him?

Why mention him? The baby is not the man's body.

And what father? Depending on the state you're, the man isn't a father until the child is born.

And again the lawyer thinks that the law defines reality.

IF the law says that the man is not the father of the unborn child he fathered, that is the law being wrong.

Slobbers an idiot as we discuss the legalities of men having no control over a woman's choice on the inevitability of the child growing inside her. The law has something to say on this debate.

Sure.


The law can say that the man is not the father of the child he fathered.

It can SAY that, it does not make it TRUE.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Sure.


The law can say that the man is not the father of the child he fathered.

It can SAY that, it does not make it TRUE.

That still gives him NO RIGHT to make a woman carry his retarded, genetic shit-stain

 

[Faun]

Yes, 86 pages with no plausible remedy from you. Nothing but you bitching like a little girl.

86 pages and nothing but twisted pretzel logic from you lefties to defend your indefensible position.



You tell me what very, very important issue you left out of the situation and I will tell you my remedy.


Since you have finally asked.



You *****.

LOL

You're like a mindless parrot, squawking back at me what I say to you. I point out you're bitching like a little girl and you scratch back by calling me a *****.

You cry that I "finally asked" you about a remedy, but moron, I first asked you that 27 pages ago. You won't, or can't, say. All you do is keep bitching like a little girl.

You know what you left out, but you refuse to say it.

Keep running.

I've asked you to answer the simple question about what you left out, and then I will give you my plausible remedy.


That is pretty much the opposite of "running away".


You refusing to answer my question, about what you left out when you whined about the "man controlling the woman's body", is much more like "running away".

LOL

You're asking me to read your mind; only you don't have a mind to read. HTF do I know what you're thinking? What I do know is I asked you what your remedy is to this and you won't answer. Oh well, c'est la vie.

 

[Faun]

Twisted logic?

Nobody has to carry a baby but that baby's mother. If mother believes she is incapable and is not committed to carrying and birthing that child, she should not have to do so. That baby (or soon-to-be-baby) is a passenger that is 100% dependent on mother. IF GOVERNMENT demands that mother carry that passenger to birth and further, that is government overreach.

None of you personally have the right to force a woman to carry and birth a child she does not want. But, you are willing to let government force it. That makes you authoritarian commies.

What of the Father of that baby? Why not a single mention of him?

Why mention him? The baby is not the man's body.

And what father? Depending on the state you're, the man isn't a father until the child is born.

And again the lawyer thinks that the law defines reality.

IF the law says that the man is not the father of the unborn child he fathered, that is the law being wrong.

Slobbers an idiot as we discuss the legalities of men having no control over a woman's choice on the inevitability of the child growing inside her. The law has something to say on this debate.

Sure.


The law can say that the man is not the father of the child he fathered.

It can SAY that, it does not make it TRUE.

Like the phrase, "mother-to-be," a parent needs to beget a child to be a parent.

 

[Correll]

Your sexist bigotry and hate against men is noted. Thanks for dropping all pretense of any other motivation for your position.

Tell me what is not factual about that statement? Is it false that all a man (I am one) has to do to bring a baby into the world is to shove his penis into a woman and shoot his cum up in her ****? Am I wrong? Did I get shitty science lessons?

You sound like a SJW commie spewing "racist" bullshit all the time. Facts are sexist to you.

I was actually just referring to the obvious hate dripping off of every word you posted, but if you want to discuss it "Scientifically", sure, I can play that game.


1. You state that the father, who you hatefully dismiss as the "cum donor" is "out" after the sex act and that the unborn child is totally dependent on the mother.

That ignore the science of evolution, that defines humans as mammals where the father generally and instinctively DOES care for the mother during pregnancy and provides for his children afterwards.

2. You marginalize the unborn child by referring to it as "cross eyed". This ignored medical science that shows that while many children do have eye alignment issues in the first few months, after birth, that the vast majority of them resolve on their own.

3. You marginalize the unborn child by referring to it as "retarded". This ignores the medical science that shows that retardation is only present in a small percentage of children.




But really, it was you HATE that I was referring to.


4 "**** the cum donor". Your words.


Yeah, that's not science, or reason, or rationality. That's hate.


You are an anti-male sexist and it is clouding your thinking. THat's science too. Hate makes you unable to be objective.

 

[ChrisL]

Your sexist bigotry and hate against men is noted. Thanks for dropping all pretense of any other motivation for your position.

Tell me what is not factual about that statement? Is it false that all a man (I am one) has to do to bring a baby into the world is to shove his penis into a woman and shoot his cum up in her ****? Am I wrong? Did I get shitty science lessons?

You sound like a SJW commie spewing "racist" bullshit all the time. Facts are sexist to you.

Yes, it is definitely also the man's responsibility. Like I said earlier, some men hate women.

 

[Correll]

86 pages and nothing but twisted pretzel logic from you lefties to defend your indefensible position.



You tell me what very, very important issue you left out of the situation and I will tell you my remedy.


Since you have finally asked.



You *****.

LOL

You're like a mindless parrot, squawking back at me what I say to you. I point out you're bitching like a little girl and you scratch back by calling me a *****.

You cry that I "finally asked" you about a remedy, but moron, I first asked you that 27 pages ago. You won't, or can't, say. All you do is keep bitching like a little girl.

You know what you left out, but you refuse to say it.

Keep running.

I've asked you to answer the simple question about what you left out, and then I will give you my plausible remedy.


That is pretty much the opposite of "running away".


You refusing to answer my question, about what you left out when you whined about the "man controlling the woman's body", is much more like "running away".

LOL

You're asking me to read your mind; only you don't have a mind to read. HTF do I know what you're thinking? What I do know is I asked you what your remedy is to this and you won't answer. Oh well, c'est la vie.

Nope. You made a statement, about the "man controlling the woman's body", and it's pretty obvious what major part of the equation you left out.


I mean, a child could figure it out.