Which Issue(s) Do You Struggle Most With?

[zitothebrave]

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).

No the point is that you think a man should have a say in an abortion, I don't. Your reason is cause of a friend would be willing to support the child she shouldn't have ended the pregnancy. My point of counter is that the man has no physical attachment to that unborn child, he couldn't possibly comprehend the trials and tribulations the woman goes through to make that decision.

I'm sorry you're dead wrong here, I've played coy long enough. Just gonna shut the door here. The only person who has a say in an abortion is the woman and incertain instances a legal representative (say comatose, under age of consent, so on so forth) Sorry your friend was torn up over that experience, but that doesn't even remotely represent an issue to me.

[Hawk]

No the point is that you think a man should have a say in an abortion, I don't. Your reason is cause of a friend would be willing to support the child she shouldn't have ended the pregnancy. My point of counter is that the man has no physical attachment to that unborn child, he couldn't possibly comprehend the trials and tribulations the woman goes through to make that decision.

I'm sorry you're dead wrong here, I've played coy long enough. Just gonna shut the door here. The only person who has a say in an abortion is the woman and incertain instances a legal representative (say comatose, under age of consent, so on so forth) Sorry your friend was torn up over that experience, but that doesn't even remotely represent an issue to me.

I guess I'll play too: If you actually have been duped into believing that a man isn't physically/emotionally invested in conception then I feel sorry for whoever you eventually impregnate (assuming that you want to be a father -- and you should).

Again, for the umpteenth time, it's not about comparing who 'has it worse' or who has 'more to lose' -- it's the really ****ing simple acknowledgment of the fact that it takes two to tango and that both parties need to accept the potential consequence together. There needs to be dialogue, and it shouldn't be this decision which is treated lightly. That's the point man, I don't know how much clearer I can spell it out.

I'm not talking about:

- A man forcing a woman to have an unwanted child.
- The government intervening in the process.
- Surrogates
- Transplants

It's amazing that your head is so far up your ass, I guess trying to defend women's rights (which is applaudable and something that most people don't continue to argue for outside of abortion), that you've completely lost track of the entire concept of rights. Even loosely, in the context of this discussion.

My friend's plight brought the issue forefront, it's not the sole reason why I feel the way that I do. Don't be daft.

[Runnin]

Life isn't perfect.

Carry on.

[zitothebrave]

I guess I'll play too: If you actually have been duped into believing that a man isn't physically/emotionally invested in conception then I feel sorry for whoever you eventually impregnate (assuming that you want to be a father -- and you should).

Again, for the umpteenth time, it's not about comparing who 'has it worse' or who has 'more to lose' -- it's the really ****ing simple acknowledgment of the fact that it takes two to tango and that both parties need to accept the potential consequence together. There needs to be dialogue, and it shouldn't be this decision which is treated lightly. That's the point man, I don't know how much clearer I can spell it out.

I'm not talking about:

- A man forcing a woman to have an unwanted child.
- The government intervening in the process.
- Surrogates
- Transplants

It's amazing that your head is so far up your ass, I guess trying to defend women's rights (which is applaudable and something that most people don't continue to argue for outside of abortion), that you've completely lost track of the entire concept of rights. Even loosely, in the context of this discussion.

My friend's plight brought the issue forefront, it's not the sole reason why I feel the way that I do. Don't be daft.

Most men I know with kids, they say the point the kid was real wasn't until birth, near birth, etc. I mean it was something they knew, but the whole it being their responsibility/part of them didn't hit until later. Unlike the woman who feels the effects almost immediately.

I know 0 women who have had an abortion who took it lightly. Everyone I know who's had one had many a sleepless night ahead of the procedure. Weighed pros, cons, so on so forth. Seriously the fact you imply abortion as being something handled lightly is asinine.

What rights are being tread upon by a woman choosing to have an abortion? Fetus? That's about it. That depends on if you think the fetus or pre-born child or whatever is a person or not. Which is a different debate then the original point I contested.

[BedellBrave]

"...Second, it is the logical outcome of denying personhood to the unborn child and maintaining that it is simply part of the mother's own body. Within such a framework, extracting body parts for commercial reasons is no more obnoxious than selling one's hair to a wig maker. If you typically talk about fetuses and not about unborn children, you have no right to be shocked...."

Spirit of the age and all.

[sturg33]

I just love that one woman can sue a doctor for doing damage to a 6-week old fetus, but another woman can have it vacuumed out.

Seems odd to me

[Krgrecw]

I can't understand how anyone who owns an average or smaller business or manages that said business ever votes democrat. It's like an NBA player voting to expand the three point line and wanting to raise the height of the rim.

[zitothebrave]

I just love that one woman can sue a doctor for doing damage to a 6-week old fetus, but another woman can have it vacuumed out.

Seems odd to me

How is that odd? It makes perfect sense when you factor in this important thing called context.

[Coredor]

I just love that one woman can sue a doctor for doing damage to a 6-week old fetus, but another woman can have it vacuumed out.

Seems odd to me

A woman can sue a doctor for damaging her body also. If you consider the fetus part of her body, she's suing for an injury to herself not to a baby. However if she consents to it then it's a consensual medical procedure performed on her. You may not like it, but it's not logically inconsistent with the general thought patterns pro-choice people have.

[zitothebrave]

I can't understand how anyone who owns an average or smaller business or manages that said business ever votes democrat. It's like an NBA player voting to expand the three point line and wanting to raise the height of the rim.

Girlfriend's parents are democrats, run a small business. Vermont is ran by democrats and is often cited as one of the best states to live in because there's things like very low violent crime, great health, etc.

[Runnin]

You simply don't know that. Further, in most cases, it has literally next to nothing to do with whether or not the father is 'dad material'.

You point out a potential father as having 'chosen' to callously ejaculate into a woman, but don't appropriately share that blame in a world where women also have the option to a) take birth control (which, my friend, is now gratis for all) or b) take emergency contraception. If it gets to the point where you are actually talking about a pregnancy both sides are complicit.

A agree that the father, if he is known, should be contacted before any abortion and have the right to talk to the mother. But the mother should and likely always will have the swing vote.

[Runnin]

A woman can sue a doctor for damaging her body also.

I know a guy who went in for a hernia operation and came out with one testicle removed. And STILL didn't sue.

[sturg33]

A woman can sue a doctor for damaging her body also. If you consider the fetus part of her body, she's suing for an injury to herself not to a baby. However if she consents to it then it's a consensual medical procedure performed on her. You may not like it, but it's not logically inconsistent with the general thought patterns pro-choice people have.

Fine... if I run over a pregnant woman with my car, I have two counts of man slaughter

[sturg33]

How is that odd? It makes perfect sense when you factor in this important thing called context.

No it doesn't. It allows a crackhead 17 year old to determine if something is a life or not.

[bravesnumberone]

Maybe the thread should have been "What issues do you struggle with besides abortion?"

[thethe]

I struggle with how to view moderate Muslims that don't do enough to stand against the tyranny of their religiously dominated governments and fanatical terrorist groups.

Does that make them partially responsible for the terror they inflict?

[Hawk]

Maybe the thread should have been "What issues do you struggle with besides abortion?"

Today I'm feeling sterilization.

[BedellBrave]

Maybe the thread should have been "What issues do you struggle with besides abortion?"

Millennials

[zitothebrave]

Millennials

[zitothebrave]

No it doesn't. It allows a crackhead 17 year old to determine if something is a life or not.

So you'd rather have that crackhead 17 year old be responsible for a child? As a libertarian I'm sure you wouldn't CPS involved when she neglects the child.

And that's a highly irrelevant difference to the context of the question you asked.

You're comparing a voluntary operation, to being forcibly aborted. THat's the difference.

To compare, you're saying that someone buying your car, coming to your house, and picking it up, is equivalent to car jacking.