wow, this board has gone what, 2 weeks without a diatribe on how one persons view of a personal choice is another persons condemnation to eternal hell
Gotta love free speech -soap boxes whatknot - street corner preachin' - hell fire - brimstone
.....
How do you know Iran kicked our butt? The ink isn't even dry
I just hope there weren't too many calories in her salad. Wouldn't want that.
Unborn babies aren't human, but their organs are.
Originally Posted by 57Brave
You mean Jeremiah Wright was wrong?
hold up
what? how so?
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
When we can remove the fetus from the womb and have it grow in a tube or surrogate then it can be the man's choice (assuming he has a willing surrogate) it's not him that's going through all those changes to his body.
He could have offered to pay her and take care of the child. Bet she would have then. Basically paid her to be a surrogate.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
So now we're monetizing the fetus? Classy Zito.
I don't really struggle with most of my issues. I mean of course there's a struggle to come to a point and there's grey area to fuss with. But what I more struggle with is prioritizing my beliefs to find a viable candidate. On the isidewith quiz, my top 2 who weren't too far apart were Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul. Totally opposite ends of the spectrum, but I tend to be more Green party in terms of many domestic policies (though not all, in no shape way or form should student loans be paid for, if the government wants t orun schools, run them, don't give money to other schools) but I'm more libertarian in my foreign policy and personal liberties side.
If I had to pick on where I'd wind up on many issues they kind of fly a bit all over the board. For example I'm 100% with the libertarians on ending the Fed, but I believe in a central bank ran by the government. To me it's asinine we're lining rich bankers pockets to print money.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Hardly, but it's not his choice, his body isn't going through everything, hers is. Even if he agreed to take care of the kid 100%, doesn't incentivize her to go through all the trials of pregnancy.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Doesn't matter, it's still his child.
In the sense that he makes up half of the DNA. She has to carry all of the gruntwork, and there's a totally different maternal bond to a child than paternal.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
I haven't disputed that -- but you are basically saying that the child is more the mother's because she has to birth it. That's a dangerous baseline to establish.
Pregnancy is almost entirely on the mother, she has the option to terminate it. He doesn't have a say in the pregnancy aside from starting it. What you're arguing is the child, meaning a semi-self sufficient life force, what I'm arguing is a fetus, which is for at least 20 some odd weeks, entirely dependent on the mother. As I said, when they can extract the fetus and grow it in a lab or in a surrogate then you'd have a case to the man having a choice. In reality, he doesn't.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
No, we're not arguing fetus/child at all. I'm using the term child because I find the 'fetus' characterization to be boringly PC as well as indelicate to the seriousness of the situation. What we ARE arguing is responsibility -- and the idea that somehow doesn't come into effect for a man until after the child is born doesn't really jibe with me.
Last edited by Hawk; 07-14-2015 at 04:45 PM.
Why does it? Man can just bail on the woman during pregnancy with no ill consequences to his health. Sure he'll have to pay child support but that's there regardless. Explain how the man is responsible for the fetus in the womb aside from a few minutes of sex?
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
We're in 2015, not 1950. Birth control and pregnancy tests are free and readily available. Plan B is affordable, and given the proclivities of our government will probably eventually be free too. The woman has plenty of time to prevent a pregnancy from occurring.
And again, I've not said that we should force a woman to carry the child, but there's got to be a better answer (aside from weird-ass surrogate talk).
Your first paragraph is just nonsensical rhetoric. It doesn't add anything to the discussion at hand. Kudos.
There is a solution, the woman is responsible for th epregnancy. A man shouldn't be able to tell her to term it or keep it.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Lol, it's the crux of the entire issue.
No it isn't. Tons of things can happen to cause pregnancy. We have birth control, but it fails. We have plan B but if you think said Birth Control works, then why get it? Not to mention what if a woman was blackout drunk and had sex and doesn't remember it? What if the man is someone who said he had a vasectomy but didn't? What if the vasectomy didn't take? I could put a ton of theoretical scenarios.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Yeah, it is. The point has sailed way over your head and now it seems like you are grasping at straws. I'm talking about accountability here, nothing more, nothing less.
And those would be exceptions to the norm, which is two people ****ing without a condom (which feels so damn good, but is so damn stupid).
Last edited by Hawk; 07-14-2015 at 05:52 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote