What sort of man supports abortion?

[Esmeralda]

Not exactly sure where you got this idea of "fairness" from? It's a bit like saying it's unfair that when you jump off a tall building gravity hurts you when you land...

Actually it's like both the man and the woman jumping off together but only the woman controls the parachute they share.

That analogy might make sense if a man could also get pregnant, but he can't, so that's a false analogy.

it takes two to tango. they both jumped off the roof, but she gets to decide if they open the parachute or SPLAT!

It's actually a perfect analogy.

No it isn't, because they don't go 'splat.' Getting pregnant is not the same thing as ending your life, as dying. It's not the end of something, it's the beginning of something. Also, your premise is that the result of the so called 'splat' is the same for both is completely erroneous. When you have a premise that is not logical, your entire analogy fails.

I was replying to Paintmyhouses's analogy. If you decide to take it literally, I suggest you study up on analogies and their concept and application.

Then his analogy was also fallacious. They don't both go splat; i.e., the result of birth control failure is not the same for both.

 

[Esmeralda]

Child support is just that....it's for the child, you boob. The mother and the father are both equally responsible in supporting a child. If a man has custody of that child, he can sue the mother for child support.

If the mother is truly an empowered woman, she should be able to handle it herself if the father want's nothing to do with it, or she can abort it.

Lots of women do handle it themselves with no child support, or very little, and only when the courts are able to hunt him down.

That is not fair to the child when both parents owe that child support.

It's not about fairness to the child, it's about choice. Being aborted surely isn't fair to the child.

There is no child. You want to be logical than understand there is no child: it is an undeveloped fetus.

Nice mental exercise there to justify killing something off, but it's not going to fly.

That's because you are not logical and not basing your understanding on pure science.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Child support is just that....it's for the child, you boob. The mother and the father are both equally responsible in supporting a child. If a man has custody of that child, he can sue the mother for child support.

If the mother is truly an empowered woman, she should be able to handle it herself if the father want's nothing to do with it, or she can abort it.

Lots of women do handle it themselves with no child support, or very little, and only when the courts are able to hunt him down.

That is not fair to the child when both parents owe that child support.

It's not about fairness to the child, it's about choice. Being aborted surely isn't fair to the child.

There is no child. You want to be logical than understand there is no child: it is an undeveloped fetus.

Nice mental exercise there to justify killing something off, but it's not going to fly.

Oh, so now you're anti-choice, and only pro-choice when it comes to getting out of paying child support. You are a joke.

 

[Esmeralda]

Not exactly sure where you got this idea of "fairness" from? It's a bit like saying it's unfair that when you jump off a tall building gravity hurts you when you land...

Actually it's like both the man and the woman jumping off together but only the woman controls the parachute they share.

That analogy might make sense if a man could also get pregnant, but he can't, so that's a false analogy.

it takes two to tango. they both jumped off the roof, but she gets to decide if they open the parachute or SPLAT!

It's actually a perfect analogy.

No it isn't, because they don't go 'splat.' Getting pregnant is not the same thing as ending your life, as dying. It's not the end of something, it's the beginning of something. Also, your premise is that the result of the so called 'splat' is the same for both is completely erroneous. When you have a premise that is not logical, your entire analogy fails.

Ah, your so close....You say getting pregnant is the beginning of something.
Would that something be life?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Based on what we are discussing, the choice of taking an embryo to term or ending the conception now, then it is the beginning of an issue. A miscarriage would be the end of something. God does it all the time himself. There are more miscarriages every year than abortions: He's the great abortionist. If you believe in god. Otherwise, nature is the true abortionist. Medically induced miscarriage, i.e, abortion, is doing what we do with medical science every day in thousands of other ways: helping nature along, improving upon it, etc.

 

[martybegan]

If the mother is truly an empowered woman, she should be able to handle it herself if the father want's nothing to do with it, or she can abort it.

Lots of women do handle it themselves with no child support, or very little, and only when the courts are able to hunt him down.

That is not fair to the child when both parents owe that child support.

It's not about fairness to the child, it's about choice. Being aborted surely isn't fair to the child.

There is no child. You want to be logical than understand there is no child: it is an undeveloped fetus.

Nice mental exercise there to justify killing something off, but it's not going to fly.

Oh, so now you're anti-choice, and only pro-choice when it comes to getting out of paying child support. You are a joke.

Actually I see no reason why abortions should be banned prior to viability, I just think its 1) a shitty thing to do unless therapeutically required and 2) States should be able to ban it if they feel like it.

My views are far more complicated than just "pro-life or pro-choice".

 

[martybegan]

If the mother is truly an empowered woman, she should be able to handle it herself if the father want's nothing to do with it, or she can abort it.

Lots of women do handle it themselves with no child support, or very little, and only when the courts are able to hunt him down.

That is not fair to the child when both parents owe that child support.

It's not about fairness to the child, it's about choice. Being aborted surely isn't fair to the child.

There is no child. You want to be logical than understand there is no child: it is an undeveloped fetus.

Nice mental exercise there to justify killing something off, but it's not going to fly.

That's because you are not logical and not basing your understanding on pure science.

It's a separate living organism, and if aborted, it dies. It could become a child, and not being born is probably the highest level of unfairness.

But keep ignoring that to justify your position. I myself would not vote to ban abortions before viability, but I have no illusions that a life is being snuffed out.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Run it by the judge!

If a woman decides to keep and raise a baby, both parents are financially responsible. There is no going around that fact.

While the fetus is in a woman's body, she has the final say to continue the pregnancy or end it. There is no going around that.

You're going to have to argue with mother nature on the other issues.

The only reason both parents are responsible when the man doesn't want the kid is because evidently women need more protection than men when it comes to the law, and more insulation from their own choices. If one wants to argue equality, one is confronted by the fact above.

A woman can have the final say on termination, but forcing the man to accept her choice by government fiat is antiquated, and assumes women need additional help from the government with regards to their choices.

Child support is just that....it's for the child, you boob. The mother and the father are both equally responsible in supporting a child. If a man has custody of that child, he can sue the mother for child support.

If the mother is truly an empowered woman, she should be able to handle it herself if the father want's nothing to do with it, or she can abort it.

Run that by the judge. lol

appeal to authority. nice logical fallacy there.

It doesn't answer WHY he should be forced to pay, if he indicates his choice in time for the woman to have her choice.

Because a father shares equal responsibility in raising that child. The father can indicate his choice, but does not have the final say because it's not his body.

You--My argument is over the inherent disconnect between women screaming for control of their bodies and then turning around and saying men don't have the same control.

 

[martybegan]

Actually it's like both the man and the woman jumping off together but only the woman controls the parachute they share.

That analogy might make sense if a man could also get pregnant, but he can't, so that's a false analogy.

it takes two to tango. they both jumped off the roof, but she gets to decide if they open the parachute or SPLAT!

It's actually a perfect analogy.

No it isn't, because they don't go 'splat.' Getting pregnant is not the same thing as ending your life, as dying. It's not the end of something, it's the beginning of something. Also, your premise is that the result of the so called 'splat' is the same for both is completely erroneous. When you have a premise that is not logical, your entire analogy fails.

I was replying to Paintmyhouses's analogy. If you decide to take it literally, I suggest you study up on analogies and their concept and application.

Then his analogy was also fallacious. They don't both go splat; i.e., the result of birth control failure is not the same for both.

It's not about birth control failure, it's about being able to choose to pull the cord, or not.

 

[martybegan]

The only reason both parents are responsible when the man doesn't want the kid is because evidently women need more protection than men when it comes to the law, and more insulation from their own choices. If one wants to argue equality, one is confronted by the fact above.

A woman can have the final say on termination, but forcing the man to accept her choice by government fiat is antiquated, and assumes women need additional help from the government with regards to their choices.

Child support is just that....it's for the child, you boob. The mother and the father are both equally responsible in supporting a child. If a man has custody of that child, he can sue the mother for child support.

If the mother is truly an empowered woman, she should be able to handle it herself if the father want's nothing to do with it, or she can abort it.

Run that by the judge. lol

appeal to authority. nice logical fallacy there.

It doesn't answer WHY he should be forced to pay, if he indicates his choice in time for the woman to have her choice.

Because a father shares equal responsibility in raising that child. The father can indicate his choice, but does not have the final say because it's not his body.

You--My argument is over the inherent disconnect between women screaming for control of their bodies and then turning around and saying men don't have the same control.

But he didn't want it in the first place. If SHE doesn't want it, she has an out. Fairness dictates he gets one as well. Fairness also dictates HE has to make up his mind in time so SHE can have a choice as well.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Lots of women do handle it themselves with no child support, or very little, and only when the courts are able to hunt him down.

That is not fair to the child when both parents owe that child support.

It's not about fairness to the child, it's about choice. Being aborted surely isn't fair to the child.

There is no child. You want to be logical than understand there is no child: it is an undeveloped fetus.

Nice mental exercise there to justify killing something off, but it's not going to fly.

Oh, so now you're anti-choice, and only pro-choice when it comes to getting out of paying child support. You are a joke.

Actually I see no reason why abortions should be banned prior to viability, I just think its 1) a shitty thing to do unless therapeutically required and 2) States should be able to ban it if they feel like it.

My views are far more complicated than just "pro-life or pro-choice".

You're pro-control of a woman's body and pro-tantrum when you don't get it.

State bans....ridiculous!

 

[Esmeralda]

That analogy might make sense if a man could also get pregnant, but he can't, so that's a false analogy.

it takes two to tango. they both jumped off the roof, but she gets to decide if they open the parachute or SPLAT!

It's actually a perfect analogy.

No it isn't, because they don't go 'splat.' Getting pregnant is not the same thing as ending your life, as dying. It's not the end of something, it's the beginning of something. Also, your premise is that the result of the so called 'splat' is the same for both is completely erroneous. When you have a premise that is not logical, your entire analogy fails.

I was replying to Paintmyhouses's analogy. If you decide to take it literally, I suggest you study up on analogies and their concept and application.

LOL You are just too funny. You are so ridiculous.

Running out of answers?

I did answer it.

 

[martybegan]

It's not about fairness to the child, it's about choice. Being aborted surely isn't fair to the child.

There is no child. You want to be logical than understand there is no child: it is an undeveloped fetus.

Nice mental exercise there to justify killing something off, but it's not going to fly.

Oh, so now you're anti-choice, and only pro-choice when it comes to getting out of paying child support. You are a joke.

Actually I see no reason why abortions should be banned prior to viability, I just think its 1) a shitty thing to do unless therapeutically required and 2) States should be able to ban it if they feel like it.

My views are far more complicated than just "pro-life or pro-choice".

You're pro-control of a woman's body and pro-tantrum when you don't get it.

State bans....ridiculous!

Where have I said that a woman cannot "control her own body"?

She still has her choice, and should have the information to make that choice, i.e. if the man is willing to support the kid or not.

My issues with Roe V Wade as horrible constitutional law is not part of this argument.

 

[Esmeralda]

Child support is just that....it's for the child, you boob. The mother and the father are both equally responsible in supporting a child. If a man has custody of that child, he can sue the mother for child support.

If the mother is truly an empowered woman, she should be able to handle it herself if the father want's nothing to do with it, or she can abort it.

Run that by the judge. lol

appeal to authority. nice logical fallacy there.

It doesn't answer WHY he should be forced to pay, if he indicates his choice in time for the woman to have her choice.

Because a father shares equal responsibility in raising that child. The father can indicate his choice, but does not have the final say because it's not his body.

You--My argument is over the inherent disconnect between women screaming for control of their bodies and then turning around and saying men don't have the same control.

But he didn't want it in the first place. If SHE doesn't want it, she has an out. Fairness dictates he gets one as well. Fairness also dictates HE has to make up his mind in time so SHE can have a choice as well.

Logic. Logic. Think. Think. Unless she m akes the full choice for or against abortion, she does not have the 'choice' to not carry the fetus in her body to term and give birth. She doesn't have the choice to endure all the things that go with it, including the possibility of death or a problem pregnancy where she is damaged internally. She doen't have the choice to deal with the emotional impact a pregnancy involves, which is a lifetime emotional impact whether she gives up the child or keeps it. She doesn't usually have the choice to not be the primary caregiver for the next 20 years. There is no fairness in this scenaro.

 

[Hancock]

Actually it's like both the man and the woman jumping off together but only the woman controls the parachute they share.

That analogy might make sense if a man could also get pregnant, but he can't, so that's a false analogy.

it takes two to tango. they both jumped off the roof, but she gets to decide if they open the parachute or SPLAT!

It's actually a perfect analogy.

No it isn't, because they don't go 'splat.' Getting pregnant is not the same thing as ending your life, as dying. It's not the end of something, it's the beginning of something. Also, your premise is that the result of the so called 'splat' is the same for both is completely erroneous. When you have a premise that is not logical, your entire analogy fails.

Ah, your so close....You say getting pregnant is the beginning of something.
Would that something be life?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Based on what we are discussing, the choice of taking an embryo to term or ending the conception now, then it is the beginning of an issue. A miscarriage would be the end of something. God does it all the time himself. There are more miscarriages every year than abortions: He's the great abortionist. If you believe in god. Otherwise, nature is the true abortionist. Medically induced miscarriage, i.e, abortion, is doing what we do with medical science every day in thousands of other ways: helping it along, improving upon it, etc.

And an abortion would also be the end of something! But you said the beginning of something( life)...then realized you were about to paint yourself into a corner and are now dodging accordingly...
A miscarriage is the body naturally rejecting the fertilized egg. An abortion is not natural and is usually a health fetus rejected because "mama don't want no skretch marks". The fact that you try to connect a naturally occurring miscarriage with a abortion tells me you're not only a moron, but a fuckin moron.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[martybegan]

If the mother is truly an empowered woman, she should be able to handle it herself if the father want's nothing to do with it, or she can abort it.

Run that by the judge. lol

appeal to authority. nice logical fallacy there.

It doesn't answer WHY he should be forced to pay, if he indicates his choice in time for the woman to have her choice.

Because a father shares equal responsibility in raising that child. The father can indicate his choice, but does not have the final say because it's not his body.

You--My argument is over the inherent disconnect between women screaming for control of their bodies and then turning around and saying men don't have the same control.

But he didn't want it in the first place. If SHE doesn't want it, she has an out. Fairness dictates he gets one as well. Fairness also dictates HE has to make up his mind in time so SHE can have a choice as well.

Logic. Logic. Think. Think. Unless she m akes the full choice for against abortion, she does not have the 'choice' to not carry the fetus in her body to term and give birth. She doesn't have the choice to endure all the things that go with it, including the possibility of death or a problem pregnancy where she is damaged internally. She doen't have the choice to deal with the emotional impact a pregnancy involves, which is a lifetime emotional impact whether she gives up the child or keeps it. She doesn't not usually have the choice to not be the primary caregiver for the next 20 years. There is no fairness in this scenaro.

there is total fairness, she is given the information in time to abort or keep the kid. Knowing this it's up to her to either go ahead with the kid or abort it and be done with it.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Child support is just that....it's for the child, you boob. The mother and the father are both equally responsible in supporting a child. If a man has custody of that child, he can sue the mother for child support.

If the mother is truly an empowered woman, she should be able to handle it herself if the father want's nothing to do with it, or she can abort it.

Run that by the judge. lol

appeal to authority. nice logical fallacy there.

It doesn't answer WHY he should be forced to pay, if he indicates his choice in time for the woman to have her choice.

Because a father shares equal responsibility in raising that child. The father can indicate his choice, but does not have the final say because it's not his body.

You--My argument is over the inherent disconnect between women screaming for control of their bodies and then turning around and saying men don't have the same control.

But he didn't want it in the first place. If SHE doesn't want it, she has an out. Fairness dictates he gets one as well. Fairness also dictates HE has to make up his mind in time so SHE can have a choice as well.

As soon as you can become pregnant, you will also have that choice. Until then, she has the final say.

 

[Esmeralda]

That analogy might make sense if a man could also get pregnant, but he can't, so that's a false analogy.

it takes two to tango. they both jumped off the roof, but she gets to decide if they open the parachute or SPLAT!

It's actually a perfect analogy.

No it isn't, because they don't go 'splat.' Getting pregnant is not the same thing as ending your life, as dying. It's not the end of something, it's the beginning of something. Also, your premise is that the result of the so called 'splat' is the same for both is completely erroneous. When you have a premise that is not logical, your entire analogy fails.

I was replying to Paintmyhouses's analogy. If you decide to take it literally, I suggest you study up on analogies and their concept and application.

Then his analogy was also fallacious. They don't both go splat; i.e., the result of birth control failure is not the same for both.

It's not about birth control failure, it's about being able to choose to pull the cord, or not.

You are so completely illogical. The need for abortion is based on the lack of or the failure of birth control. Jeeze.

 

[Esmeralda]

Run that by the judge. lol

appeal to authority. nice logical fallacy there.

It doesn't answer WHY he should be forced to pay, if he indicates his choice in time for the woman to have her choice.

Because a father shares equal responsibility in raising that child. The father can indicate his choice, but does not have the final say because it's not his body.

You--My argument is over the inherent disconnect between women screaming for control of their bodies and then turning around and saying men don't have the same control.

But he didn't want it in the first place. If SHE doesn't want it, she has an out. Fairness dictates he gets one as well. Fairness also dictates HE has to make up his mind in time so SHE can have a choice as well.

Logic. Logic. Think. Think. Unless she m akes the full choice for against abortion, she does not have the 'choice' to not carry the fetus in her body to term and give birth. She doesn't have the choice to endure all the things that go with it, including the possibility of death or a problem pregnancy where she is damaged internally. She doen't have the choice to deal with the emotional impact a pregnancy involves, which is a lifetime emotional impact whether she gives up the child or keeps it. She doesn't not usually have the choice to not be the primary caregiver for the next 20 years. There is no fairness in this scenaro.

there is total fairness, she is given the information in time to abort or keep the kid. Knowing this it's up to her to either go ahead with the kid or abort it and be done with it.

You were saying earlier the father should have an equal choice in whether or not there is an abortion.

 

[martybegan]

If the mother is truly an empowered woman, she should be able to handle it herself if the father want's nothing to do with it, or she can abort it.

Run that by the judge. lol

appeal to authority. nice logical fallacy there.

It doesn't answer WHY he should be forced to pay, if he indicates his choice in time for the woman to have her choice.

Because a father shares equal responsibility in raising that child. The father can indicate his choice, but does not have the final say because it's not his body.

You--My argument is over the inherent disconnect between women screaming for control of their bodies and then turning around and saying men don't have the same control.

But he didn't want it in the first place. If SHE doesn't want it, she has an out. Fairness dictates he gets one as well. Fairness also dictates HE has to make up his mind in time so SHE can have a choice as well.

As soon as you can become pregnant, you will also have that choice. Until then, she has the final say.

That only works for a man wanting a kid and the woman not wanting a kid, and in that, I agree her choice is final. It does not apply when the opposite is true, and she is given the information well before she has to decide abort/not abort.

 

[Hancock]

If the mother is truly an empowered woman, she should be able to handle it herself if the father want's nothing to do with it, or she can abort it.

Run that by the judge. lol

appeal to authority. nice logical fallacy there.

It doesn't answer WHY he should be forced to pay, if he indicates his choice in time for the woman to have her choice.

Because a father shares equal responsibility in raising that child. The father can indicate his choice, but does not have the final say because it's not his body.

You--My argument is over the inherent disconnect between women screaming for control of their bodies and then turning around and saying men don't have the same control.

But he didn't want it in the first place. If SHE doesn't want it, she has an out. Fairness dictates he gets one as well. Fairness also dictates HE has to make up his mind in time so SHE can have a choice as well.

Logic. Logic. Think. Think. Unless she m akes the full choice for or against abortion, she does not have the 'choice' to not carry the fetus in her body to term and give birth. She doesn't have the choice to endure all the things that go with it, including the possibility of death or a problem pregnancy where she is damaged internally. She doen't have the choice to deal with the emotional impact a pregnancy involves, which is a lifetime emotional impact whether she gives up the child or keeps it. She doesn't usually have the choice to not be the primary caregiver for the next 20 years. There is no fairness in this scenaro.

Emotional impact of having to keep or give up the child? What about the impact when she gets older and realizes, "I killed it." Or are going to pretend that doesn't happen either?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk