Jane Roe going to Supreme Court.....

[Bonnie]

This assumption that only women can nuture and parent a child makes me want to rattle off ad hominems. I know so many men that have equal or better parenting skills than women I can't count em all. Men have been stereotyped by the shitty dads and this has denied MILLIONS of Dads access to their children even though they are forced by the LAW to pay for them. What kind of equality is that???? If I am married and WE want to have a child and my wife aborts it,---I am deprived of raising and loving MY OWN CHILD.

Explain to my why I should allowed my own child to be killed , Andy.----I really wanna hear this one !!

So would I Dillo!!

 

[dilloduck]

So would I Dillo!!

we have to wait I guess---the civil libertarian is pondering this one !!

 

[CivilLiberty]

and being a parent isn't a liberty that men have?

You've been hitting on this point quite a lot.

It's not the man's body. It's only a *portion* of his genetic material.

Should a man insist that woman GET an abortion?

No. If he does not have THAT right, then he does not have the right to insist that she does NOT get it, either.

As far as parental rights after birth, that's not up for discussion here.

Regards,


Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

That is a completely untrue and extremeist statement!!! Most pro-life advocates are very peaceful people who devote a lot of their free time doing positive things to end abortion. One or two lunatics that shoot up clinics does not consitute "many" in any way shape matter or form
?

I did not say "most" which indicates more than 50%. I said "many" which indicates at least a plurality, which means more than one.

Obviously "many" is subjective to a point. But I see protests with hundreds of fanatics, and to me, hundreds is certainly many.


Regards,

Andy

 

[dilloduck]

You've been hitting on this point quite a lot.

It's not the man's body. It's only a *portion* of his genetic material.

Should a man insist that woman GET an abortion?

No. If he does not have THAT right, then he does not have the right to insist that she does NOT get it, either.

As far as parental rights after birth, that's not up for discussion here.

Regards,


Andy

they don't pay ya much I hope . What a ridiculous dodge and faulty logic ! Who in the hell made you in charge of what's " up for discussion" ?

Ad hominem to you buddy!

 

[CivilLiberty]

Surely as an expert in the field you must realize that the rights of individuals clash---your whole reasoning for being pro Roe v Wade is that the fetus is in the woman therefore she should control it? bizarre !

Of course I understand that, and it's not "bizarre" in the slightest. The concept of assigning rights proportionately is common. I suggested earlier that the woman has at least 51%, and the man up to 49% rights. But in this instance, that means the woman has "controlling" rights.

A woman is not a slave to her man, be she married or not. A woman is a completely separate individual - legally and otherwise.

That a man has contributed 50% OR LESS (remember the Y chromosome) in terms of GENETIC material, and that a man has contributed 0% (nadda) of the nutrients and other development materials clearly and without question makes the woman, as a free independent individual, more than 50% responsible for pre-natal development, and thus more than 50% in control of making the choice.


These facts are self evident. And your premise is one of the more specious ones, along with the "abortion industry is out to make a buck".



Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

we have to wait I guess---the civil libertarian is pondering this one !!

You guys, you know, just because I can sit here in my private office writing the occasional message does not mean I don't have work to do from time to time.

If it takes a moment to retort, I'm probably busy.


Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

they don't pay ya much I hope . What a ridiculous dodge and faulty logic ! Who in the hell made you in charge of what's " up for discussion" ?

Ad hominem to you buddy!

What I meant was it's not germane to the thread, so I was not going to address it.


And don't fling ad hominems at me



- even though we don't agree on much of anything, I still respect your point of view as it's generally devoid of the ad hominems that seem far too prevalent in this forum.



Andy

 

[dilloduck]

Of course I understand that, and it's not "bizarre" in the slightest. The concept of assigning rights proportionately is common. I suggested earlier that the woman has at least 51%, and the man up to 49% rights. But in this instance, that means the woman has "controlling" rights.

A woman is not a slave to her man, be she married or not. A woman is a completely separate individual - legally and otherwise.

That a man has contributed 50% OR LESS (remember the Y chromosome) in terms of GENETIC material, and that a man has contributed 0% (nadda) of the nutrients and other development materials clearly and without question makes the woman, as a free independent individual, more than 50% responsible for pre-natal development, and thus more than 50% in control of making the choice.


These facts are self evident. And your premise is one of the more specious ones, along with the "abortion industry is out to make a buck".



Andy

Garbage , Andy. We're not dealing with furniture here. Answer my question---Why should I sit back and allow my wife to kill my child ??? I have more than 50% of the money and 50% of muscle. Guess i can use those to my advantage huh?

 

[Annie]

Garbage , Andy. We're not dealing with furniture here. Answer my question---Why should I sit back and allow my wife to kill my child ??? I have more than 50% of the money and 50% of muscle. Guess i can use those to my advantage huh?

Dillo, not to be overly pc here, but why should men only have a 'voice' if married? Seems to me that under normal circumstances involving abortion, marriage is seldom in play.

 

[elephant]

Very simply that about 40 million babies have been killed by abortion since 1973 and one or more of those babies could have grown up to accomplish any of those things.

I’m sorry but this is just a completely ridiculous argument. Should we get the socio-economic breakdown of the aborted fetuses’ mothers and actually calculate the probability. If they are averaged out over the 30 years it is a paltry 1.3 million per year. Not even half a percent of the US population. I will not go through all the math but the likelihood of one these people even being a professional athlete is about 0. There are 4000 athletes at any given time in the four major sports and I am not even taking into account that many are not all from the US. So my calculations are generous.

There are a handful of Nobel prizes and similarly prestigious awards given each for the type of accomplishments you are hoping for. 1.3 million abortions as a percentage of the world population is .002%. That is a statistical accident at best. You can only argue that “You never know though!” Which, well, is not a valid argument.

You realize that there are MILLIONS of people ALIVE RIGHT NOW IN THE US that do not have the means to get basic nutrition and education. One of them might have discovered the solution to the abortion issue (would not we all be happy?), but we will never know. If I add in all the PEOPLE around the world that will never get a chance to discover your precious cures because of starvation and lack of education or whatever, NOW we will have a statistically significant number for you to use in your argument – OVER 3 BILLION PEOPLE. Now one of them may have what you are looking for – why do you not start with them?

Make the world a place worth living in and people will stop killing their children. Make more laws and oppress people with more government and they will always fight against you.

And you still haven't addressed my last post to you.

I will get to this soon. I am just a too busy. That is a long answer type of question.

Ps careful your unreasonable anger towards religious people is really showing in many of your postings....
Never a good sign of a good debater.

This one is like a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book. You can only pick one.

Answer 1) I did not realize the religious right was so sensitive. They sure can dish it out. I just assumed Jesus would protect them from the wicked mistruths that spilt off the tips of my forked tongue. Apple slices with peanut butter anyone?

Answer 2) God, particularly as viewed by the Judeo-Christian and Islamic cultures is simply a way to give importance to the believers lives. To know that the whole universe was put here for them and there exists some power greater than all we know that takes time to care about them – it is very self-aggrandizing. Without the formality of religion as assign importance to the believers lives what would they believe? It seems they are most likely incapable of forming an internal belief system or see the value in life itself. Like children raised in households with security monitors who never form an inner sense of right and wrong, because the fear of being caught is their only motive in life, these religious minions would lose their already misguided way and most likely destroy us all. So I find it difficult to care if they do not like me, as I am sure that it is only a reflection of how their god, which does not exist, has told them to feel.

Answer 3) Did I get angry with someone? I had not noticed. Please post the specific quote. I will try harder in the future to save my love of Catholicism, and complete and utter disgust for the other perverted forms of God’s word for time spent with my loving friends.

 

[dilloduck]

Dillo, not to be overly pc here, but why should men only have a 'voice' if married? Seems to me that under normal circumstances involving abortion, marriage is seldom in play.

I was just trying to reduce the variables here for CL----less too squirm but he's jelly----I'm outta here--eating will be much better use of my time for now but I'll be back!!!!

 

[musicman]

I did not say "most" which indicates more than 50%. I said "many" which indicates at least a plurality, which means more than one.




Regards,

Andy

"Plurality" doesn't mean "more than one" - it means "more than not". It would be a stretch, for example to call 60 out of 100 a majority. Plurality would be the more appropriate term in that case.

 

[musicman]

Obviously "many" is subjective to a point. But I see protests with hundreds of fanatics, and to me, hundreds is certainly many.


Regards,

Andy

Perhaps "fanatic" is an equally subjective term here. By what yardstick do you determine which of hundreds of protestors is a "fanatic"? Does disagreeing with you make one a "fanatic"?

 

[CivilLiberty]

Garbage , Andy. We're not dealing with furniture here. Answer my question---Why should I sit back and allow my wife to kill my child ??? I have more than 50% of the money and 50% of muscle. Guess i can use those to my advantage huh?

WOAH.

There are times in a debate where both parties are so diametrically opposed at such a fundamental level that there is no hope of any form of reconciliation.

This is one of those times.

Dillo, I don't have the same values you do regarding things like this. I don't think of a woman or a wife as someone who is subservient to me.

If your wife is willing to go along, no problem. If she decides to make independent decisions that you disagree with, then I suppose you could get divorced. (Does this indicate the basis for the high divorce rate in "red" states?).



Andy

 

[dilloduck]

WOAH.

There are times in a debate where both parties are so diametrically opposed at such a fundamental level that there is no hope of any form of reconciliation.

This is one of those times.

Dillo, I don't have the same values you do regarding things like this. I don't think of a woman or a wife as someone who is subservient to me.

If your wife is willing to go along, no problem. If she decides to make independent decisions that you disagree with, then I suppose you could get divorced. (Does this indicate the basis for the high divorce rate in "red" states?).



Andy

Please don't be so condescending as to lecture me regarding the time when things occur in a debate. I'm fully capable of reading and making my own determination as to the status of a discussion and free to continue it as long as the administrators of this site permit me to do so.

Your observation that we have different values was apparent several posts ago yet many of us here choose to continue discussing issues, if for nothing other than the typing practice.

I have no where in my discussion with you stated or implied that I believe women to be subservient to me and apparently this is where you fail to grasp the rationality of my point on this issue. I have consistently argued that both sexes should have equal rights to create, nurture, teach , love and let go of a child. You believe this right to be only a womans because of the way a human being is physically created. (You have also made several vain attempts to defend abortion because of the size of the fetus ).

You have failed to protect the rights of fathers in your attempt to defend a womans desire to have sex without facing the possible consequences such as pregnancy. You thus fail at protecting the possibilty of an embryonic life to become an independent one that has a man AND a woman to teach it.
Spare me the details of size, weeks, brain formation etc. for no one will ever know when life begins and more importantly, it is irrelevant to my stand against abortion.
Pro-abortion people know fully that the ONLY issue here is that women want to have sex without dealing with the consequences. They need to accept that they ARE women and are born with obligations, one of which is to carry human life until it can survive outside the womb. To take this responsibility so lightly and callously is to mock life itself.
Woman have choices.They can abstain,use birth control, put up for adoption or raise as their own.
Are they saying that they cannot be responsible for these choices or are they cursing their anatomy under thier breath?
I will ONLY believe that pro-abortion people truly believe what they say when they are willing to grant this right to fathers. Will they ?
NEVER
Why-------Because they don't want it to be a human right---only a womans OPTION.

 

[Bonnie]

I’m sorry but this is just a completely ridiculous argument. Should we get the socio-economic breakdown of the aborted fetuses’ mothers and actually calculate the probability. If they are averaged out over the 30 years it is a paltry 1.3 million per year. Not even half a percent of the US population. I will not go through all the math but the likelihood of one these people even being a professional athlete is about 0. There are 4000 athletes at any given time in the four major sports and I am not even taking into account that many are not all from the US. So my calculations are generous.

So apparently your math probabilities are the answer to everything that you want to prove valid.............You can't possibly know how or what people would become with numbers...........

There are a handful of Nobel prizes and similarly prestigious awards given each for the type of accomplishments you are hoping for. 1.3 million abortions as a percentage of the world population is .002%. That is a statistical accident at best. You can only argue that “You never know though!” Which, well, is not a valid argument

.

You are missing the big picture, 36 million babies is a lot of dead babies period, and who said they would need to to win a nobel peace prize to be worthy of life??? Again your numbers cannot predict what people (if allowed to live) can accomplish, because number leaves out a whole range of occurances and other circumstances that contributes to the whole human being.

You realize that there are MILLIONS of people ALIVE RIGHT NOW IN THE US that do not have the means to get basic nutrition and education.

In this country just about everyone that is breathing has opportunities to make a living, even a good living, and no one is turned down for medical care. In case you haven't noticed we are a socialistic country and the tax payer foots the bill for those who are in need. And no one is turned away from school or education, every child is entitled by the government to a public education, the only caviot is they actually have to show up..........Cry me a river!!!!! Boo Hoo

If I add in all the PEOPLE around the world that will never get a chance to discover your precious cures because of starvation and lack of education or whatever

My precious cures??? What the hell does that mean?? You really have a problem!!!!



,

NOW we will have a statistically significant number for you to use in your argument – OVER 3 BILLION PEOPLE. Now one of them may have what you are looking for – why do you not start with them?

What Im looking for?? Again you sound like an insane person!!! First of all what the hell are you talking about with my precious cures and what I am looking for????

Make the world a place worth living in and people will stop killing their children. Make more laws and oppress people with more government and they will always fight against you.

This one takes the cake as a contender for most ignorant, and arrogant statement. This country is a pretty damn great country to live in and is in everyway worth living in. You must be talking about Ehtiopia. And if you want to get right to it, the Liberals in this country are the ones who censor people with political correctness, tell people they can't smoke, can't drive SUVs, they want bigger and bigger government, ridiculous restrictions on business, strict gun laws that keep anyone who wants to protect themselves and their families from having one, ridiculous environmental policies, want all forms of religion banished from the public forum, and on and on........And YOU have the balls to cry about about laws that oppress with more government..Get BENT you hypocrite!!!

Answer 1) I did not realize the religious right was so sensitive. They sure can dish it out. I just assumed Jesus would protect them from the wicked mistruths that spilt off the tips of my forked tongue. Apple slices with peanut butter anyone?

The so called religious right takes their lumps pretty good, and as far as I can tell have done nothing wrong to you. Again you really have a big problem!!!!

Answer 2) God, particularly as viewed by the Judeo-Christian and Islamic cultures is simply a way to give importance to the believers lives. To know that the whole universe was put here for them and there exists some power greater than all we know that takes time to care about them – it is very self-aggrandizing. Without the formality of religion as assign importance to the believers lives what would they believe? It seems they are most likely incapable of forming an internal belief system or see the value in life itself. Like children raised in households with security monitors who never form an inner sense of right and wrong, because the fear of being caught is their only motive in life, these religious minions would lose their already misguided way and most likely destroy us all. So I find it difficult to care if they do not like me, as I am sure that it is only a reflection of how their god, which does not exist, has told them to feel.

Here you show absolutely no understanding ot tolerance of religion, of God and those that worship. You are an arrogant unhappy bore!! GET A LIFE!!

Answer 3) Did I get angry with someone? I had not noticed. Please post the specific quote. I will try harder in the future to save my love of Catholicism, and complete and utter disgust for the other perverted forms of God’s word for time spent with my loving friends.

I feel sorry for you!! YOU are a lost cause

 

[CivilLiberty]

Please don't be so condescending as to lecture me regarding the time when things occur in a debate. I'm fully capable of reading and making my own determination as to the status of a discussion and free to continue it as long as the administrators of this site permit me to do so.

I think you misunderstand. "This is one of these times" refers to MY interest (or lack thereof) in continuing this discussion with you. Having cooled down a bit, and in seeing your response, I may have read into your response something more than you intended. We'll see in a moment.

Your observation that we have different values was apparent several posts ago yet many of us here choose to continue discussing issues, if for nothing other than the typing practice.

Indeed, one of the reasons I frequent this forum is to understand the different values of "red" staters. Many of them are as foreign as French, others catch me so off guard I'm stunned.

I have no where in my discussion with you stated or implied that I believe women to be subservient to me and apparently this is where you fail to grasp the rationality of my point on this issue.

I'm glad - really glad - that you made this statement. My post was a reaction to my apparent misinterpretation of:

...Why should I sit back and allow my wife to kill my child ??? I have more than 50% of the money and 50% of muscle. Guess i can use those to my advantage huh?

Now Dilloduck, I don't know you - In fact, it's unlikely we'll ever meet - so I don't know what kind of person you are outside of these forums. With only these forums to go on, it may be easy to misjudge character at times.

Your statement, particularly the "muscle" bit, struck me with a certain misogynistic tone. My immediate reaction caused me to dash off that post in response. (My meaning on the "This is that time" referred to me - my feeling that debating woman's rights with a misogynist would be pure folly - since I don't need the typing practice you mentioned.)

That was my thought and knee jerk response, though in reading your further reply I recognize that I misread your meaning.

I have consistently argued that both sexes should have equal rights to create, nurture, teach , love and let go of a child. You believe this right to be only a womans because of the way a human being is physically created. (You have also made several vain attempts to defend abortion because of the size of the fetus ).

I haven't got the "both sexes equal" in your arguments. Mostly I've seen your focus on granting additional right to men in the process.

You have failed to protect the rights of fathers in your attempt to defend a womans desire to have sex without facing the possible consequences such as pregnancy. You thus fail at protecting the possibilty of an embryonic life to become an independent one that has a man AND a woman to teach it.
Spare me the details of size, weeks, brain formation etc. for no one will ever know when life begins and more importantly, it is irrelevant to my stand against abortion.

Just so I'm clear then, what is relevant to your stand on abortion?

Pro-abortion people know fully that the ONLY issue here is that women want to have sex without dealing with the consequences.

1) No, that's not the only issue, and:

They need to accept that they ARE women and are born with obligations, one of which is to carry human life until it can survive outside the womb. To take this responsibility so lightly and callously is to mock life itself.

2) They have no such obligation. They have no obligation other than to themselves unless they accept that obligation.

Woman have choices.They can abstain,use birth control, put up for adoption or raise as their own.

And if the birth control does not work? Even condoms aren't fully effective.

Are they saying that they cannot be responsible for these choices or are they cursing their anatomy under thier breath?
I will ONLY believe that pro-abortion people truly believe what they say when they are willing to grant this right to fathers. Will they ?
NEVER
Why-------Because they don't want it to be a human right---only a womans OPTION.

What - WHAT - right do you want "granted" to fathers? The right to carry a child? It's not physically possible. The right to demand that their genetic seed be sewn?

This father/rights argument is specious at best. A male has no "right" to have his sperm join with an egg nor does he have the "right" to demand that a woman carry it full term. In fact, he does not have a right to raise the child under some circumstances, and the courts routinely deny parental rights to fathers in these cases.

If raising a child is a "right" it's a revokable one.

The point is, your "concept" of these "imaginary" rights has no basis in law or even culture - it may be tangental to the abortion issue, but not of much interest to me.


Regards,


Andy

 

[dilloduck]

I think you misunderstand. "This is one of these times" refers to MY interest (or lack thereof) in continuing this discussion with you. Having cooled down a bit, and in seeing your response, I may have read into your response something more than you intended. We'll see in a moment.

Why doesn't it surprise me that you would declare a discussion over because YOU were no longer interested. Maybe you should not let your emotions cloud your ability to reason. I would think a communicator as yourself would know this already

Indeed, one of the reasons I frequent this forum is to understand the different values of "red" staters. Many of them are as foreign as French, others catch me so off guard I'm stunned.

Perhaps you merely have neglected to set your emotions and ego aside long enough to understand the truth in what I say. (btw--I'm from a blue county)


:

Now Dilloduck, I don't know you - In fact, it's unlikely we'll ever meet - so I don't know what kind of person you are outside of these forums. With only these forums to go on, it may be easy to misjudge character at times.

Your statement, particularly the "muscle" bit, struck me with a certain misogynistic tone. My immediate reaction caused me to dash off that post in response. (My meaning on the "This is that time" referred to me - my feeling that debating woman's rights with a misogynist would be pure folly - since I don't need the typing practice you mentioned.)

That was my thought and knee jerk response, though in reading your further reply I recognize that I misread your meaning.

Again emotion and ego have overwhelmed your ability to reason and I obviously have to simplify the language that I use because you cannot grasp the analogies that I am attempting to make. More muscle on a man is a fact of nature but that doen't mean he has a right to abuse it but you feel as if a woman has the right to abuse her reproductive system. Save your arm chair diagnosis for you "column". Misogynist-?----Hardly--try again Dr. Freud.

I haven't got the "both sexes equal" in your arguments. Mostly I've seen your focus on granting additional right to men in the process.

not additional--EQUAL

Just so I'm clear then, what is relevant to your stand on abortion?

That both sexes should have equal rights









A

nd if the birth control does not work? Even condoms aren't fully effective

.


I've already laid out the options that they have

What - WHAT - right do you want "granted" to fathers? The right to carry a child? It's not physically possible. The right to demand that their genetic seed be sewn?

This father/rights argument is specious at best. A male has no "right" to have his sperm join with an egg nor does he have the "right" to demand that a woman carry it full term. In fact, he does not have a right to raise the child under some circumstances, and the courts routinely deny parental rights to fathers in these cases.

Courts let murderers go too but it doesn't make it right !

The point is, your "concept" of these "imaginary" rights has no basis in law or even culture - it may be tangental to the abortion issue, but not of much interest to me

.

The right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is indeed a law. Pro- abortionist just want it to apply to only women in this case. The sole right to abort is not only imaginary but sexist.

An abortion is a selfish act carried out by women giving NO thought the fetus nor the father. It's discriminitory !!

 

[no1tovote4]

FALSE. 80% of abortions take place in the FIRST trimester.

And plenty of terminations happen at the zygote level, but they are not called abortions (result of morning after pill) and thus don't make it into the statistic.


Andy

Um, 40 days is still in the first trimester CL. Don't be deliberately obtuse.

There are two different morning after pills, one that prevents the creation of the zygote at all and one that gives almost 100% chance of abortion if a zygote is created, but this is clearly not what I was talking about, I guess I should have said over 99% of surgical abortions occur after 40 days after conception. Since we are now speaking of surgical abortions and most people don't even know they are pregnant to make the choice to abort until after 40 days into a Pregnancy it is clear that almost all abortions occur 40 or more days after conception. At that point a Fetus has brain activity and a heartbeat. Thus a central nervous system and "alive" by your previous declared position of brain activy = life.

Since you have stated earlier that brain activity is where you make the cut are you willing to propose that we should stop over 99% of surgical abortions or are you going to attempt to change your position in midstream?