What sort of man supports abortion?

[kaz]

That was my favorite. You realize there is a difference between "support(ing) abortion" and believing it's not a legitimate function of government to force a woman to carry a baby to term in her body, no? Or no?

You realize it's not a legitimate fun too of gov't to facilitate and pay for abortion, right? Of course you don't. You're an idiot who thinks gubmint is responsible for pregnancy.

You're an idiot who has no long term memory because I agree with you every time we discuss this that I oppose government funding abortions.

Hello, I'm a libertarian, I always oppose government welfare, particularly at the Federal level. What is wrong with you? Are you just so emotional about this issue that you turn your brain off? What you just said to me was ridiculous

Did you not make a comment about government forcing women to give birth? If you did, I'm on the money.

That I don't believe government has the legitimate power to force a woman to carry a baby to term means that I support government funding abortions



M'kay, got it. So that I think government should stay out of it just isn't an option in your world. Wow

No, I think you're an idiot if you think the gov't is in any way responsible for pregnancy. Which is what I said. And PS, libertarians are generally just lefties who have completely rejected sanity.

What are you babbling about? I think government should stay out of abortion, it should not stop them, it should not fund them, and that means I think "the gov't is ... responsible for pregnancy?" You're a raving moonbat, you're not making any sense.

And yes, I've rejected sanity thinking we can run our own lives and all, you righties do have reality down pat knowing we can't

 

[koshergrl]

You realize it's not a legitimate fun too of gov't to facilitate and pay for abortion, right? Of course you don't. You're an idiot who thinks gubmint is responsible for pregnancy.

You're an idiot who has no long term memory because I agree with you every time we discuss this that I oppose government funding abortions.

Hello, I'm a libertarian, I always oppose government welfare, particularly at the Federal level. What is wrong with you? Are you just so emotional about this issue that you turn your brain off? What you just said to me was ridiculous

Did you not make a comment about government forcing women to give birth? If you did, I'm on the money.

That I don't believe government has the legitimate power to force a woman to carry a baby to term means that I support government funding abortions



M'kay, got it. So that I think government should stay out of it just isn't an option in your world. Wow

No, I think you're an idiot if you think the gov't is in any way responsible for pregnancy. Which is what I said. And PS, libertarians are generally just lefties who have completely rejected sanity.

What are you babbling about? I think government should stay out of abortion, it should not stop them, it should not fund them, and that means I think "the gov't is ... responsible for pregnancy?" You're a raving moonbat, you're not making any sense.

And yes, I've rejected sanity thinking we can run our own lives and all, you righties do have reality down pat knowing we can't

Sorry you can't keep track of your own commentary. Must be frustrating.

 

[kaz]

You're an idiot who has no long term memory because I agree with you every time we discuss this that I oppose government funding abortions.

Hello, I'm a libertarian, I always oppose government welfare, particularly at the Federal level. What is wrong with you? Are you just so emotional about this issue that you turn your brain off? What you just said to me was ridiculous

Did you not make a comment about government forcing women to give birth? If you did, I'm on the money.

That I don't believe government has the legitimate power to force a woman to carry a baby to term means that I support government funding abortions



M'kay, got it. So that I think government should stay out of it just isn't an option in your world. Wow

No, I think you're an idiot if you think the gov't is in any way responsible for pregnancy. Which is what I said. And PS, libertarians are generally just lefties who have completely rejected sanity.

What are you babbling about? I think government should stay out of abortion, it should not stop them, it should not fund them, and that means I think "the gov't is ... responsible for pregnancy?" You're a raving moonbat, you're not making any sense.

And yes, I've rejected sanity thinking we can run our own lives and all, you righties do have reality down pat knowing we can't

Sorry you can't keep track of your own commentary. Must be frustrating.

I've consistently said government has no legitimate role in abortions, not stopping them, not funding them. What about that exactly is so confusing to you?

 

[koshergrl]

You also consistently blab that illegal abortion equals government forced pregnancy. I'm anti abortion. Not just anti gov't subsidization. You are trying to pretend the fact that you believe abortion should be legal but not funded puts us in the same camp. It doesn't. You're just another garden variety prog anarchist hiding under the libertarian flag. Bye.

 

[kaz]

You also consistently blab that illegal abortion equals government forced pregnancy

yes, it does

I'm anti abortion. Not just anti gov't subsidization. You are trying to pretend the fact that you believe abortion should be legal but not funded puts us in the same camp. It doesn't.

You are inane. I said we agree abortion should not be funded by government, we disagree that government should force women to carry a baby to term. I have consistently stated both. The only one talking about "camp" is you

You're just another garden variety prog anarchist hiding under the libertarian flag. Bye.

You're an airhead

 

[HUGGY]

You are offering stupid opinions again. I regulate the pain killer I take with a very high degree of care. You on the other hand have a mouth(keyboard) that could well use the same restraint.

Whereas you should be free to blab whatever irrelevant, hysterical shit you please. Oh, thanks for explaining pregnancy to me. If you hadn't I'd have to count on my own extensive personal experience lolol.

You would be hard pressed to find anything I have contributed as "hysterical". It's just your crazy mind imagining things again. When I see something being passed off as having a "protected status" such as the terrorist claims of the christian variety that attempt to push their make believe agenda on the majority of good Americans I see a clear need to push back with a dose of reality and reason.

As for "your own extensive experience" you can't seem to differentiate your extensive wishful thinking from the desires of other people and how their experience in these matters is all that really matters.

Do you ever get tired of nonsensical ranting?

My point exactly. Your head is stuffed with fantasy and your mouth babbles conjecture that you demand be taken as the words of god and jesus.

There is no more blatant nonsensical rambling than the bibles and the Koran. The hebrews wanted the inside track on a singular god so they made one up. The christians wanted the inside track on the false promises of an entertaining carpenter ex jew that extended the jewish version of heaven to any that would fall for his line of jibberish. The Romans understood that if they promoted an organized version of the christian stories they could contain many people within this religion and control them without having to threaten to kill them. It was all a scam from day one when you fools believed a man named moses received a couple of stone tablets from god no less. How convenient. The jews were corrupt so jesus had an easy sell pointing out their flaws. The people were all desperate in desperate times and easy to sell a better life after death if they would only ask for forgiveness for being self serving evil pieces of crap.

We are no longer a bunch of hopelessly oppressed human beings. It is way passed the time to open our eyes to the facts of reality and relieve ourselves of the false paths we have been taking.

There is no god. Moses was a scammer as was jesus. They were very much like Charlie Manson. They enjoyed and profited by their popularity until not unlike Manson jesus thought himself more important than the Roman and Jewish authority.
These shysters offered the perfect pitch job in that they would never have to produce a damned thing because all their customers were dead.

And STILL you fools are falling head over heals for this nonsense and cruel lie.

These promises were spawned from a reality of desperate circumstances. It was easy to hope for something in death because it was certain there was no pot of gold for the average man in life.

Look around you. Compared to those wretches in Jesus and Moses's time we are all kings of our existence. Just having an automobile is magic beyond those people's wildest dreams. It is high time we reject the punishment those poor unfortunate people believed they deserved.

Grow up. We are no longer goat herders. There are no Romans that can kill us on a whim. There is no more need of a false promise of an afterlife to replace some horrible squalor of an existence.

There never was a god. It just sounded good at the time.

There is no deity to judge you.

Mind your own business and allow others to mind theirs.

Rant rant rant, gone on for post after post and you still haven't answered the question. I take it you acknowledge you are, after all, just an idiot with some serious personal issues.

Any coherent thought is a rant to someone with the mental capacity of a fruit fly. You are not here to discuss. You show up to regurgitate bumper stickers. You show up over and over to point out how horrible it is to lose a fraction of an ounce of human tissue which COULD be a human being.

We get it. ALL "potential" human life is precious. Blah blah blah. Every sperm from every orgasm I have ever had was ALSO a living thing. It moved therefore it was potentially a life. EVERY egg a woman passed not fertilized was alive to some degree and a missed opportunity for a living human being.

Those building blocks for human reproduction number into the trillions between two past puberty human beings. So why not mourn every time there is a sperm or egg that can't/won't be a human being?

You are not here to discuss anything. You are here only to make demands. Therefore I say it is YOU that brings a worthless point of view as you are in no position to demand anything.

Abortion is a legal medical procedure. Medical procedure is what health care is for. As long as abortion is legal you have no right interfering in ANY health care venue from providing abortion when it is legally desired. That includes government provided health care Toots.

 

[BluePhantom]

BLUEPHANTOM SAID:

"I am talking morally though. I, personally, would support a law which states that a woman cannot get an abortion if the father makes a legal claim to the child. It may be her body, but she took the risk when she had sex with the father."

And such a law would be struck down as un-Constitutional, and rightfully so, as to compel a woman to give birth against her will would be morally reprehensible, as well as clearly illegal:

“It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

I see BluePhantom has completely ignored your posting. Imagine that.

Not much to respond to in his post that I haven't already said and I see little value in repeating myself. However, as I said....the great thing about laws and the constitution is that we have the freedom to change them

 

[BluePhantom]

Now you're changing the subject, and throwing an all-out tantrum.

No....I am not in the least bit annoyed or rattled. Frankly I am amused. I have provided logical arguments based on establishing a fair and equitable system. You are the one who has been accusing me of "whining" and "trying to tell a woman what to do with her body". I have outlined a rational position and your response has been typical liberal rhetoric that people spew out on NPR or when they find themselves at the losing end of an argument and don't have anything left.

A woman making a choice about her body has nothing to do with equal rights, it's simply her body, her choice.

If the man wasn't involved and legally obligated toward certain courses of action I would agree with you. What is more important? The woman's body or the man's financial stability? It depends on who you ask and what the situation is. Every person will have their own answer as to which is more important and one person's evaluation is no more or less valid than another's. You struggle to see that because you have adopted an androphobic, gynocentric world view.

And once again, If a woman decides to abort because she is unable to take care of a baby, then she is taking responsibility for her actions.

We are not talking about that. We are talking about women who simply don't want to deal with the responsibilities and inconveniences of having or raising a child. I completely agree that abortion becomes an option when the child would be introduced to a life environment that would be detrimental to its development or health.

If she chooses to keep and raise the baby, this does not get you out of paying child support. You know darn good and well no judge in this country would listen to you whine about you not getting to control a woman's body, or how unfair it is for you to have to pay child support.

Case closed.

And again your androphobic, gynocentric perspective completely misses the point. We are not discussing what is currently legal. We are discussing what is fair and equitable. See the great thing about laws is that they can be changed. That's why we have a legislative branch of government. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in high school civics. Laws change when society determines that the state of things is not fair and equitable. Despite all your predictable liberal rhetoric (which I am assuming you parroted from NPR or MSNBC) you have still not demonstrated how your position is fair or equitable.

Nobody said you were annoyed, I said you are throwing a tantrum and a whine fest. Now I see you're going to pull out Mr Straw Man to help your argument, because you have none.

You said, " I, personally, would support a law which states that a woman cannot get an abortion if the father makes a legal claim to the child."

You clearly want control over a woman's body, and that is completely wrong.

You are the one who has no argument and is resorting to typical liberal rhetoric about "controlling a woman's body" to cover up the fact that you have no answer for the question of equal rights. Since you can't counter the argument, you merely resort to "oh you are just trying to control a woman's body" bullshit instead of debating the points.

 

[BluePhantom]

What sort of man supports abortion?

Or...

Abortion or a woman's right to choose what is done to and with her body?

What sort of person feels they have the right to decide that a woman must carry a baby that she does not want to?

I don't want to wait at red lights. I don't get to blast through anyway. Ppl don't get to kill other ppl because they WANT to.

A zygot is not a person.

A zygote is a stage in human development that lasts four days. Women don't even know they're pregnant at that stage.

It's funny how often the pro murder crowd around here throws the term zygote out there...You'd think they could actually, you know, research what that is instead of just regurgitating that term over and over.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Abortion is not 'murder,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.

And it's telling how often those hostile to privacy rights seek to propagate the lie that abortion is 'murder.'

One would think they'd instead research the law and learn that an embryo/fetus is not a 'baby,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections, rather than just regurgitating the lie that abortion is 'murder' over and over.

That depends on who you ask. If a fetus is not a baby why is it that someone can get charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

BLUEPHANTOM SAID:

"I am talking morally though. I, personally, would support a law which states that a woman cannot get an abortion if the father makes a legal claim to the child. It may be her body, but she took the risk when she had sex with the father."

And such a law would be struck down as un-Constitutional, and rightfully so, as to compel a woman to give birth against her will would be morally reprehensible, as well as clearly illegal:

“It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

I see BluePhantom has completely ignored your posting. Imagine that.

Not much to respond to in his post that I haven't already said and I see little value in repeating myself. However, as I said....the great thing about laws and the constitution is that we have the freedom to change them

Which illustrates one of many, many good reasons why it's important to keep a republican out of the WH for the foreseeable future, that you and others on the right would actually seek to 'change' the law and Constitution to allow the state to compel a woman to give birth against her will is morally reprehensible and repugnant to the fundamental principles upon which the Republic was founded, to advocate increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

The social right is indeed the bane of the American Nation, devoid of morality and good faith, hostile to the views and beliefs of others who dare to disagree with the social right's errant, hateful dogma.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Now you're changing the subject, and throwing an all-out tantrum.

No....I am not in the least bit annoyed or rattled. Frankly I am amused. I have provided logical arguments based on establishing a fair and equitable system. You are the one who has been accusing me of "whining" and "trying to tell a woman what to do with her body". I have outlined a rational position and your response has been typical liberal rhetoric that people spew out on NPR or when they find themselves at the losing end of an argument and don't have anything left.

A woman making a choice about her body has nothing to do with equal rights, it's simply her body, her choice.

If the man wasn't involved and legally obligated toward certain courses of action I would agree with you. What is more important? The woman's body or the man's financial stability? It depends on who you ask and what the situation is. Every person will have their own answer as to which is more important and one person's evaluation is no more or less valid than another's. You struggle to see that because you have adopted an androphobic, gynocentric world view.

And once again, If a woman decides to abort because she is unable to take care of a baby, then she is taking responsibility for her actions.

We are not talking about that. We are talking about women who simply don't want to deal with the responsibilities and inconveniences of having or raising a child. I completely agree that abortion becomes an option when the child would be introduced to a life environment that would be detrimental to its development or health.

If she chooses to keep and raise the baby, this does not get you out of paying child support. You know darn good and well no judge in this country would listen to you whine about you not getting to control a woman's body, or how unfair it is for you to have to pay child support.

Case closed.

And again your androphobic, gynocentric perspective completely misses the point. We are not discussing what is currently legal. We are discussing what is fair and equitable. See the great thing about laws is that they can be changed. That's why we have a legislative branch of government. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in high school civics. Laws change when society determines that the state of things is not fair and equitable. Despite all your predictable liberal rhetoric (which I am assuming you parroted from NPR or MSNBC) you have still not demonstrated how your position is fair or equitable.

Nobody said you were annoyed, I said you are throwing a tantrum and a whine fest. Now I see you're going to pull out Mr Straw Man to help your argument, because you have none.

You said, " I, personally, would support a law which states that a woman cannot get an abortion if the father makes a legal claim to the child."

You clearly want control over a woman's body, and that is completely wrong.

You are the one who has no argument and is resorting to typical liberal rhetoric about "controlling a woman's body" to cover up the fact that you have no answer for the question of equal rights. Since you can't counter the argument, you merely resort to "oh you are just trying to control a woman's body" bullshit instead of debating the points.

Your equal rights debate amounts to you throwing a tantrum because you don't have the final say in the choices a woman makes with her body.

 

[BluePhantom]

Now you're changing the subject, and throwing an all-out tantrum.

No....I am not in the least bit annoyed or rattled. Frankly I am amused. I have provided logical arguments based on establishing a fair and equitable system. You are the one who has been accusing me of "whining" and "trying to tell a woman what to do with her body". I have outlined a rational position and your response has been typical liberal rhetoric that people spew out on NPR or when they find themselves at the losing end of an argument and don't have anything left.

A woman making a choice about her body has nothing to do with equal rights, it's simply her body, her choice.

If the man wasn't involved and legally obligated toward certain courses of action I would agree with you. What is more important? The woman's body or the man's financial stability? It depends on who you ask and what the situation is. Every person will have their own answer as to which is more important and one person's evaluation is no more or less valid than another's. You struggle to see that because you have adopted an androphobic, gynocentric world view.

And once again, If a woman decides to abort because she is unable to take care of a baby, then she is taking responsibility for her actions.

We are not talking about that. We are talking about women who simply don't want to deal with the responsibilities and inconveniences of having or raising a child. I completely agree that abortion becomes an option when the child would be introduced to a life environment that would be detrimental to its development or health.

If she chooses to keep and raise the baby, this does not get you out of paying child support. You know darn good and well no judge in this country would listen to you whine about you not getting to control a woman's body, or how unfair it is for you to have to pay child support.

Case closed.

And again your androphobic, gynocentric perspective completely misses the point. We are not discussing what is currently legal. We are discussing what is fair and equitable. See the great thing about laws is that they can be changed. That's why we have a legislative branch of government. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in high school civics. Laws change when society determines that the state of things is not fair and equitable. Despite all your predictable liberal rhetoric (which I am assuming you parroted from NPR or MSNBC) you have still not demonstrated how your position is fair or equitable.

Nobody said you were annoyed, I said you are throwing a tantrum and a whine fest. Now I see you're going to pull out Mr Straw Man to help your argument, because you have none.

You said, " I, personally, would support a law which states that a woman cannot get an abortion if the father makes a legal claim to the child."

You clearly want control over a woman's body, and that is completely wrong.

You are the one who has no argument and is resorting to typical liberal rhetoric about "controlling a woman's body" to cover up the fact that you have no answer for the question of equal rights. Since you can't counter the argument, you merely resort to "oh you are just trying to control a woman's body" bullshit instead of debating the points.

Your equal rights debate amounts to you throwing a tantrum because you don't have the final say in the choices a woman makes with her body.

As I said....hyperbole and typical liberal empty rhetoric

 

[Carla_Danger]

Now you're changing the subject, and throwing an all-out tantrum.

No....I am not in the least bit annoyed or rattled. Frankly I am amused. I have provided logical arguments based on establishing a fair and equitable system. You are the one who has been accusing me of "whining" and "trying to tell a woman what to do with her body". I have outlined a rational position and your response has been typical liberal rhetoric that people spew out on NPR or when they find themselves at the losing end of an argument and don't have anything left.

A woman making a choice about her body has nothing to do with equal rights, it's simply her body, her choice.

If the man wasn't involved and legally obligated toward certain courses of action I would agree with you. What is more important? The woman's body or the man's financial stability? It depends on who you ask and what the situation is. Every person will have their own answer as to which is more important and one person's evaluation is no more or less valid than another's. You struggle to see that because you have adopted an androphobic, gynocentric world view.

And once again, If a woman decides to abort because she is unable to take care of a baby, then she is taking responsibility for her actions.

We are not talking about that. We are talking about women who simply don't want to deal with the responsibilities and inconveniences of having or raising a child. I completely agree that abortion becomes an option when the child would be introduced to a life environment that would be detrimental to its development or health.

If she chooses to keep and raise the baby, this does not get you out of paying child support. You know darn good and well no judge in this country would listen to you whine about you not getting to control a woman's body, or how unfair it is for you to have to pay child support.

Case closed.

And again your androphobic, gynocentric perspective completely misses the point. We are not discussing what is currently legal. We are discussing what is fair and equitable. See the great thing about laws is that they can be changed. That's why we have a legislative branch of government. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in high school civics. Laws change when society determines that the state of things is not fair and equitable. Despite all your predictable liberal rhetoric (which I am assuming you parroted from NPR or MSNBC) you have still not demonstrated how your position is fair or equitable.

Nobody said you were annoyed, I said you are throwing a tantrum and a whine fest. Now I see you're going to pull out Mr Straw Man to help your argument, because you have none.

You said, " I, personally, would support a law which states that a woman cannot get an abortion if the father makes a legal claim to the child."

You clearly want control over a woman's body, and that is completely wrong.

You are the one who has no argument and is resorting to typical liberal rhetoric about "controlling a woman's body" to cover up the fact that you have no answer for the question of equal rights. Since you can't counter the argument, you merely resort to "oh you are just trying to control a woman's body" bullshit instead of debating the points.

Your equal rights debate amounts to you throwing a tantrum because you don't have the final say in the choices a woman makes with her body.

As I said....hyperbole and typical liberal empty rhetoric

There is no hyperbole and rhetoric.

You said, "If a woman can force a man into being a parent against his will, why can't a man?"

That is your entire argument.

And the correct answer is that you cannot force a woman to give birth against her will.

Now it's time for your tantrum.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Men should have no say in the matter.

As a woman, this being my father's account in case of confusion, I completely disagree. what if the man wants a child? half that child is of his blood and creation. Why should he have no say? A woman can murder his child simply because she chooses not to carry it? That's disgusting. Anyone who feels this way, carries no heart beneath their ribs. The child growing in that woman's stomach is his as well. It is a decision made between both partners, not just one.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, Mr Man, but the ultimate decision belongs to the woman. I do think most women keep in mind, when making that very important decision, whether the man is going to be in the picture or not, however, I cannot speak for all women. And whether you like it or not, it is her body, and it is her choice.

Actually that was my daughter. I went to bed last and forgot to log off and she clearly took some liberties. She will receive a talking to when she wakes up. She brings up a good point though. If a man wants the baby and is willing to take it and raise it, even on his own, why should the woman be able to terminate the child over his objection? I get that it is her body, but she willingly engaged in creating it. Why should she be allowed to unilaterally destroy it?

Here's what I think happened. I think you created another "pretend" scenario so you would feel you had more credibility as a female.

Well then you don't know me very well as I have absolutely no problem speaking my mind and I don't feel that a woman has any more credibility on this issue than a man does. It takes two people to create a child so the father has just as much say in what happens as the mother as far as I am concerned. Again I get that it is the woman's body and she has to carry the child and all that...totally get it. But she took the risk of creating a child when she had sex. I think there is at least an argument to be made that if the father wants to keep the baby and is willing to make that commitment that the woman should be obligated to follow through with the pregnancy even if she does not want the baby or has no intention of being in the child's life.

Again, I think most (although I cannot speak for all) women include a father's willingness to raise a child when she's making that very important decision. I would also imagine that most teens/women who have an abortion are having an abortion because there's no willing participant in raising a child. And whether you like it or not, the final decision belongs to the woman.

We are talking about two different things. I agree with you that woman take the willingness of the father to help raise the child into consideration. I am referring to a specific situation where the woman does not want the child but the father is willing to raise the child on his own. Why should the father lose his child in that situation?

Yes, currently the mother has the final decision legally. No argument there. I am talking morally though. I, personally, would support a law which states that a woman cannot get an abortion if the father makes a legal claim to the child. It may be her body, but she took the risk when she had sex with the father.

I'm dragging this thread up again because I think you are a phony. I think it was a ridiculous claim that your daughter was posting on your account. I'm basing this on my past experiences in posting with you.

I think this is as phony as the time you tried to tell us about your black friend, "Fred" who advised you against going to see Earth Wind and Fire because he would not be able to protect you.

My best man at my wedding was a black man named Fred (I am white). Fred and I are still close. He always said when it came to music I had far too much soul for a white boy. LOL. We both love Earth, Wind and Fire. We would drive to school and sing. We had worked out the harmonies and sang together incredibly. I saw that EWF was playing in our city and I went to Fred all excited and said "we have to go". Fred looked at the venue and said "you can't go".

I was confused and didn't understand. I said "this is our band. We have to go" and he said. "I am sorry you can't go. I can't protect you if you go" Racism goes both ways

What a contrived, ridiculous, story!

See, I think deep down you thought a female would be more credible when discussing the rights a woman has over her own body. You are nothing but a phony.

 

[BluePhantom]

No....I am not in the least bit annoyed or rattled. Frankly I am amused. I have provided logical arguments based on establishing a fair and equitable system. You are the one who has been accusing me of "whining" and "trying to tell a woman what to do with her body". I have outlined a rational position and your response has been typical liberal rhetoric that people spew out on NPR or when they find themselves at the losing end of an argument and don't have anything left.


If the man wasn't involved and legally obligated toward certain courses of action I would agree with you. What is more important? The woman's body or the man's financial stability? It depends on who you ask and what the situation is. Every person will have their own answer as to which is more important and one person's evaluation is no more or less valid than another's. You struggle to see that because you have adopted an androphobic, gynocentric world view.


We are not talking about that. We are talking about women who simply don't want to deal with the responsibilities and inconveniences of having or raising a child. I completely agree that abortion becomes an option when the child would be introduced to a life environment that would be detrimental to its development or health.

And again your androphobic, gynocentric perspective completely misses the point. We are not discussing what is currently legal. We are discussing what is fair and equitable. See the great thing about laws is that they can be changed. That's why we have a legislative branch of government. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in high school civics. Laws change when society determines that the state of things is not fair and equitable. Despite all your predictable liberal rhetoric (which I am assuming you parroted from NPR or MSNBC) you have still not demonstrated how your position is fair or equitable.

Nobody said you were annoyed, I said you are throwing a tantrum and a whine fest. Now I see you're going to pull out Mr Straw Man to help your argument, because you have none.

You said, " I, personally, would support a law which states that a woman cannot get an abortion if the father makes a legal claim to the child."

You clearly want control over a woman's body, and that is completely wrong.

You are the one who has no argument and is resorting to typical liberal rhetoric about "controlling a woman's body" to cover up the fact that you have no answer for the question of equal rights. Since you can't counter the argument, you merely resort to "oh you are just trying to control a woman's body" bullshit instead of debating the points.

Your equal rights debate amounts to you throwing a tantrum because you don't have the final say in the choices a woman makes with her body.

As I said....hyperbole and typical liberal empty rhetoric

There is no hyperbole and rhetoric.

You said, "If a woman can force a man into being a parent against his will, why can't a man?"

That is your entire argument.

And the correct answer is that you cannot force a woman to give birth against her will.

Now it's time for your tantrum.

If you think that is my entire argument you are too obtuse to bother arguing with. What you are doing is typical liberal debate tactics. When liberals get in a position where they are stuck and have nothing with which to effectively counter the point, they resort to calling people racists, talking about the War on Women, and accusing people of trying to control women's bodies. It's meritless rhetoric designed to distract from a position of weakness by using "hot phrases" that will cast attention on the character of their opponent rather than the deficiency of their position.

I am not going to let you get away with it.

You have taken a gynocentric position wherein rights and privileges are extended to one demographic and denied to another despite both sharing equal responsibility for creating the situation. There is no way for you to argue that. That is the position you have taken and have made perfectly clear. Now that's fine if you are going to take that position, but as a consequence, you can no longer claim to support equal rights for all Americans. You have taken a very firm stance that is based upon gender inequality. You can't have it both ways and you are acutely aware of it. Now because you know damn well you are stuck either way you go, you attempt to distract by claiming "I am just trying to control a woman's body". I don't blame you. It's a hell of a Hail Mary pass....but it's all you have left. However, it's laughable and does nothing more than illuminate the weakness of your position in shining neon lights.

If you can't debate the actual points, no problem. I will be on my way. I have no need nor patience for empty rhetoric, and I have a sense of mercy which prohibits me from stomping on someone who is flailing to such a degree that they are resorting to desperation tactics of distraction and evasion.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Nobody said you were annoyed, I said you are throwing a tantrum and a whine fest. Now I see you're going to pull out Mr Straw Man to help your argument, because you have none.

You said, " I, personally, would support a law which states that a woman cannot get an abortion if the father makes a legal claim to the child."

You clearly want control over a woman's body, and that is completely wrong.

You are the one who has no argument and is resorting to typical liberal rhetoric about "controlling a woman's body" to cover up the fact that you have no answer for the question of equal rights. Since you can't counter the argument, you merely resort to "oh you are just trying to control a woman's body" bullshit instead of debating the points.

Your equal rights debate amounts to you throwing a tantrum because you don't have the final say in the choices a woman makes with her body.

As I said....hyperbole and typical liberal empty rhetoric

There is no hyperbole and rhetoric.

You said, "If a woman can force a man into being a parent against his will, why can't a man?"

That is your entire argument.

And the correct answer is that you cannot force a woman to give birth against her will.

Now it's time for your tantrum.

If you think that is my entire argument you are too obtuse to bother arguing with. What you are doing is typical liberal debate tactics. When liberals get in a position where they are stuck and have nothing with which to effectively counter the point, they resort to calling people racists, talking about the War on Women, and accusing people of trying to control women's bodies. It's meritless rhetoric designed to distract from a position of weakness by using "hot phrases" that will cast attention on the character of their opponent rather than the deficiency of their position.

I am not going to let you get away with it.

You have taken a gynocentric position wherein rights and privileges are extended to one demographic and denied to another despite both sharing equal responsibility for creating the situation. There is no way for you to argue that. That is the position you have taken and have made perfectly clear. Now that's fine if you are going to take that position, but as a consequence, you can no longer claim to support equal rights for all Americans. You have taken a very firm stance that is based upon gender inequality. You can't have it both ways and you are acutely aware of it. Now because you know damn well you are stuck either way you go, you attempt to distract by claiming "I am just trying to control a woman's body". I don't blame you. It's a hell of a Hail Mary pass....but it's all you have left. However, it's laughable and does nothing more than illuminate the weakness of your position in shining neon lights.

If you can't debate the actual points, no problem. I will be on my way. I have no need nor patience for empty rhetoric, and I have a sense of mercy which prohibits me from stomping on someone who is flailing to such a degree that they are resorting to desperation tactics of distraction and evasion.

Tantrum # 5, as predicted.

Hey, I'm all for you getting pregnant, making the choice to keep the baby even if the woman wants you to have an abortion, then suing the woman for child support. After all, I am for equal rights.

 

[martybegan]

Why isn't it valid?

Because women cannot give birth to wars, firefighters, or policemen. (eye roll)

Nothing to do with how you are seeing it.

The argument is men have no say, the reason is women are the only ones who get pregnant.

Well firefighters are the only ones who usually fight fires, so that means only firefighters get a say on fire funding, and other fire fighting related activities?

I think you should stop talking about lady parts, you are not qualified.

I think I can talk about whatever I want, and you can go to hell.

It's not the parts we are talking about, it's the consequences. Consequences women have power over, and men do not. If equality is your true goal, why is this acceptable?

Keep your dick in your pants and you won't have to worry about consequences. Don't leave birth control up to the woman. Get a vasectomy or abstain. It's simple.

keep your pants over your vagina, and you won't have to worry about the consequences. Don't leave birth control up to the man. Get your tubes tied or abstain. It's simple.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Because women cannot give birth to wars, firefighters, or policemen. (eye roll)

Nothing to do with how you are seeing it.

The argument is men have no say, the reason is women are the only ones who get pregnant.

Well firefighters are the only ones who usually fight fires, so that means only firefighters get a say on fire funding, and other fire fighting related activities?

I think you should stop talking about lady parts, you are not qualified.

I think I can talk about whatever I want, and you can go to hell.

It's not the parts we are talking about, it's the consequences. Consequences women have power over, and men do not. If equality is your true goal, why is this acceptable?

Keep your dick in your pants and you won't have to worry about consequences. Don't leave birth control up to the woman. Get a vasectomy or abstain. It's simple.

keep your pants over your vagina, and you won't have to worry about the consequences. Don't leave birth control up to the man. Get your tubes tied or abstain. It's simple.

It's up to both willing participants to be responsible and practice safe sex. The man is just as much responsible as the woman.

 

[martybegan]

Nothing to do with how you are seeing it.

The argument is men have no say, the reason is women are the only ones who get pregnant.

Well firefighters are the only ones who usually fight fires, so that means only firefighters get a say on fire funding, and other fire fighting related activities?

I think you should stop talking about lady parts, you are not qualified.

I think I can talk about whatever I want, and you can go to hell.

It's not the parts we are talking about, it's the consequences. Consequences women have power over, and men do not. If equality is your true goal, why is this acceptable?

Keep your dick in your pants and you won't have to worry about consequences. Don't leave birth control up to the woman. Get a vasectomy or abstain. It's simple.

keep your pants over your vagina, and you won't have to worry about the consequences. Don't leave birth control up to the man. Get your tubes tied or abstain. It's simple.

It's up to both willing participants to be responsible and practice safe sex. The man is just as much responsible as the woman.

Agreed, but before sex both have a choice, after sex only one has a choice, and how can that be considered equality?

 

[Carla_Danger]

I think you should stop talking about lady parts, you are not qualified.

I think I can talk about whatever I want, and you can go to hell.

It's not the parts we are talking about, it's the consequences. Consequences women have power over, and men do not. If equality is your true goal, why is this acceptable?

Keep your dick in your pants and you won't have to worry about consequences. Don't leave birth control up to the woman. Get a vasectomy or abstain. It's simple.

keep your pants over your vagina, and you won't have to worry about the consequences. Don't leave birth control up to the man. Get your tubes tied or abstain. It's simple.

It's up to both willing participants to be responsible and practice safe sex. The man is just as much responsible as the woman.

Agreed, but before sex both have a choice, after sex only one has a choice, and how can that be considered equality?

Hey, I'm all for you getting pregnant, making the choice to keep the baby even if the woman wants you to have an abortion, then suing the woman for child support. After all, I am for equal rights.