Take it out and have a look...
Is it inside their body? is it attached to their body? is it feeding from their body? Can it be a health risk? Before birth, it is part of their body, it really is that simple...
You could say the same things about a cancer, this isn't a clean argument, it will never be...
The thing is, until you get to have the choice, you cannot really decide, not for yourself, but you want to be able to decide for others?
It isn't quite comparable to having 9 months of pregnancy and then 18 years of taking care of a child now is it?
Are the consequences more serious for the woman? naturally, does she get to have a choice because of that? naturally...
Until the male... and so on...
I love how you try to put geekbabe down by making assumptions about her... real nice, what a great man you are... your mommy must be so proud...
Bobber, how about replying to my answer while you await Geekbabe's;
"No double standard there, Bober. In the case of abortion the father and mother get off Scott free and in the case of birth the father and mother 'get punished' for eighteen years."
----------------------------
I've read Corn's answer several times now and have to confess I find there nothing but a pile of empty words:
"It appears that you've misunderstood the argument given by GB, and as such my reply. Here it is, with emphasis added for your benefit:
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry, I don't feel the need to punish women for being sexual by forcing them to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My reply was in regard to the "why" for which said "punishment" was being dolled out. Her double standard was that it's fine to punish a man for being sexual (because, you know, lots of men are liars and screw over their women, it's their fault the women gets pregnant, etc.....) but not fine to punish the woman for the same "crime"
-------------------------------
Or better yet maybe you can explain what in Jupiter's name he's talking about. All I can figure is that he's trying to draw some equation with being sexual and "lots of men are liars and screw over their women, it's their fault the women gets pregnant". Hehe, what a peculiar definition of being sexual if that's what he's trying to say. I thought being sexual was being among those forms of life that reproduce by sex. I don't even want to get into the rest of his tortured logic about what liberals usually mean by 'fairness'. I wasn't talking fairness anyway, only logical symmetry as inevitably proscribed by his previous line of reasoning.
The tear your arms off war really good, a very typical feminine response, no? Oh wait, I'll answer, very untypically female. Kind of tells you that men and women are not the same. Hey, not the same, that means different, no. Hey different, that means subject to different rules. As datalink just reminded us, the debate is about the fact that men are projecting their inferiority complexes onto the abortion issue by imagining their precious, aggressive, self willed, egotistical selves onto the fetus and imagining themselves being flushed down the toilet bowel without permission, one lump of carbon commanding the reality in which another lump must abide. How does carbon get to be so arrogant? What is the object of such great concern?
"No double standard there, Bober. In the case of abortion the father and mother get off Scott free and in the case of birth the father and mother 'get punished' for eighteen years."
----------------------------
I've read Corn's answer several times now and have to confess I find there nothing but a pile of empty words:
"It appears that you've misunderstood the argument given by GB, and as such my reply. Here it is, with emphasis added for your benefit:
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry, I don't feel the need to punish women for being sexual by forcing them to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My reply was in regard to the "why" for which said "punishment" was being dolled out. Her double standard was that it's fine to punish a man for being sexual (because, you know, lots of men are liars and screw over their women, it's their fault the women gets pregnant, etc.....) but not fine to punish the woman for the same "crime"
-------------------------------
Or better yet maybe you can explain what in Jupiter's name he's talking about. All I can figure is that he's trying to draw some equation with being sexual and "lots of men are liars and screw over their women, it's their fault the women gets pregnant". Hehe, what a peculiar definition of being sexual if that's what he's trying to say. I thought being sexual was being among those forms of life that reproduce by sex. I don't even want to get into the rest of his tortured logic about what liberals usually mean by 'fairness'. I wasn't talking fairness anyway, only logical symmetry as inevitably proscribed by his previous line of reasoning.
The tear your arms off war really good, a very typical feminine response, no? Oh wait, I'll answer, very untypically female. Kind of tells you that men and women are not the same. Hey, not the same, that means different, no. Hey different, that means subject to different rules. As datalink just reminded us, the debate is about the fact that men are projecting their inferiority complexes onto the abortion issue by imagining their precious, aggressive, self willed, egotistical selves onto the fetus and imagining themselves being flushed down the toilet bowel without permission, one lump of carbon commanding the reality in which another lump must abide. How does carbon get to be so arrogant? What is the object of such great concern?
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Sorry, I hadn't realized that you are functionally illiterate. It seems to be a common trait in this thread with those who are of a like mind to you with regard to the topic of this discussion.
Perhaps you are just feigning stupidity to save face, dunno, and don't really care. Maybe you should visit www.dictionary.com and look up the word "because", and then question why you would remove that word from my quote--hence completely changing the context of what followed after.
Can't say that I'm not suprised.
Geekbabe
Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
My answer is the same as it's always been.You cannot equate money with the risks associated with pregnancy and birth.Also it isn't just men who support children.I'm divorced and pretty much raised mine solo,including providing the bulk of their fiscal support.I know far more women who were/are in my position than I do sofa loafing bon bon eating women living large on child support payments.
Most women I know who have had abortions have done so with the full knowledge and agreement of their partner.The right to choose doesn't just benefit women,it also helps a great many men.
Geekbabe
Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Women are also legally required to not neglect their children.Trust me,the "I can't collect any child support because my ex is a deadbeat" won't protect you from neglect/abuse charges if your kids are malnouirshed,unsupervised and inadequately housed.
In addition to the physical risks of pregnancy women also are expected to provide fiscal support and sometimes to be responsible for the kids 24/7 because while you can sometimes force payment of child support you cannot force a parent to care for,spend time with their children if they don't want to.
Yeah, great argument there big-brain... what the matter, mommy didn't wanna tuck you in tonight... booohooo... huh?
The Snap - I got the power.. *sigh* just search the net, i am sure you will find the lyrics somewhere... maniac, brainiac, on top of the game, i'm the lyrical jesse james...
Nah, they just weren't hugged enough as children...
Either that or they were dropped too many times...
Yes, stupidity isn't limited to males only...
Those and the bible thumping fund-a-mental cases ignorance about the real world makes it harder to live today...
Corn:
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or better yet maybe you can explain what in Jupiter's name he's talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I hadn't realized that you are functionally illiterate. It seems to be a common trait in this thread with those who are of a like mind to you with regard to the topic of this discussion.
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I can figure is that he's trying to draw some equation with being sexual and "lots of men are liars and screw over their women, it's their fault the women gets pregnant".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you are just feigning stupidity to save face, dunno, and don't really care. Maybe you should visit www.dictionary.com and look up the word "because", and then question why you would remove that word from my quote--hence completely changing the context of what followed after.
Can't say that I'm not suprised.
--------------------------------
---------------------------------
Hehe, I took it out because it made my sentence read funny. Let me stick the whole thing right back in there for ya:
All I can figure is that he's trying to draw some equation with being sexual and the implication of this paragraph, whatever it's supposed to mean:
"My reply was in regard to the "why" for which said "punishment" was being dolled out. Her double standard was that it's fine to punish a man for being sexual (because, you know, lots of men are liars and screw over their women, it's their fault the women gets pregnant, etc.....) but not fine to punish the woman for the same "crime".
When you talk of functional literacy make sure you can write a sentence that's comprehensible, that is unless your purpose is to sound like you have a point when you don't.
Oh and speaking of functionally illiterate, you didn't mean: "Can't say that I'm not suprised." You meant 'Can't say I'm surprised, or Can say I'm not surprised."
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or better yet maybe you can explain what in Jupiter's name he's talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I hadn't realized that you are functionally illiterate. It seems to be a common trait in this thread with those who are of a like mind to you with regard to the topic of this discussion.
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I can figure is that he's trying to draw some equation with being sexual and "lots of men are liars and screw over their women, it's their fault the women gets pregnant".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you are just feigning stupidity to save face, dunno, and don't really care. Maybe you should visit www.dictionary.com and look up the word "because", and then question why you would remove that word from my quote--hence completely changing the context of what followed after.
Can't say that I'm not suprised.
--------------------------------
---------------------------------
Hehe, I took it out because it made my sentence read funny. Let me stick the whole thing right back in there for ya:
All I can figure is that he's trying to draw some equation with being sexual and the implication of this paragraph, whatever it's supposed to mean:
"My reply was in regard to the "why" for which said "punishment" was being dolled out. Her double standard was that it's fine to punish a man for being sexual (because, you know, lots of men are liars and screw over their women, it's their fault the women gets pregnant, etc.....) but not fine to punish the woman for the same "crime".
When you talk of functional literacy make sure you can write a sentence that's comprehensible, that is unless your purpose is to sound like you have a point when you don't.
Oh and speaking of functionally illiterate, you didn't mean: "Can't say that I'm not suprised." You meant 'Can't say I'm surprised, or Can say I'm not surprised."
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Of course they are, but didn't they choose to have them, and therefore be responsible for them, even if in spite of the sperm donor's wish not to have children?
You say you don't want women to be punished for being sexual, but then why punish men for the same thing? Both are just a (ir)responsible as the other for getting pregnant in the first place. I understand (but don't agree with) your position that the physical risks of pregnancy is reason for giving a woman the choice to decide whether or not to carry the unborn child to term, but that is not a valid excuse for enslaving the sperm donor for 18 years (but I would go along with having the sperm donor contribute equally to the costs of pregnancy).
Originally posted by: datalink7
What argument?
That was my point... you know... sarcasm... you couldn't make an argument so instead.. you posted crap...
Enslave? hmmm... please explain that...
You have no idea what you are talking about, you must have read all the arguments by now, so i will not repeat them, i will just say, read them again, maybe sooner or later, if you keep reading them, you will understand the difference between paying child support and taking care of a child... just maybe...
Geekbabe
Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
On top of all the physical risks of pregnancy women are also yoked to the mantle of child support for 18 years as well as the obligation of providing parental care and supervision,including providing *ALL* of the parental care if the man decides he wants no part of shared parenting.Btw while less risky than carrying a pregnancy to term,abortion is not without physical risks.The person bearing the risk of physical discomfort,bodily disfigurement and even possible death must be the one with the final say in the matter.
Btw,most people marry/partner with other people of like educational/fiscal backgrounds.For every man paying outragous child support there are men of modest means,what they pay might seem hefty in relation to their income but is isn't anywhere near enough to provide for 1/2 of the children's needs,guess who gets stuck with finding a way to make up the difference? ... and it's MUCH easier to ignore the unmet needs of children that you seldom see than it is when you are the one living with them.I cannot tell you how many nights I'd drag in from work dog tired and sit down and cry because the damn washer broke down again and there were holes in 3 pairs of sneakers at the same time and I once again had to find a way to rob peter to pay paul.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
"read funny"? Is that liberalspeak for "it was just easier to misrepresent what you said because this diversionary tactic is preferable than honestly debating your opinion"? Yep, probably...........No suprise there.
Coming from the king of gibberish, I'll take that as a compliment. I am curious though, which sentence did you have difficulty comprehending? You quoted a paragraph but complained about a sentence..........Perhaps I can dumb it down for you.
Corn: Of course they are, but didn't they choose to have them, and therefore be responsible for them, even if in spite of the sperm donor's wish not to have children?
---------------------
Whoa there Corn, isn't that what I just predicted?
------------
Corn: You say you don't want women to be punished for being sexual, but then why punish men for the same thing? Both are just a (ir)responsible as the other for getting pregnant in the first place. I understand (but don't agree with) your position that the physical risks of pregnancy is reason for giving a woman the choice to decide whether or not to carry the unborn child to term, but that is not a valid excuse for enslaving the sperm donor for 18 years (but I would go along with having the sperm donor contribute equally to the costs of pregnancy).
-----------------------------
If we think of parenting as slavery then there's no problem compelling the male to pay, no. Two people do a bank robbery and only one's got the gun, it sure as hell isn't him that walks. You have chosen to set this conundrum up in a way that favors your argument, Corn. In fact it's not two people who are responsible for a pregnancy so only the pregnancy needs be held to account. It isn't the pregnancy both are responsible for, it's the product, the child. Once the child is born you have a dependent separate entity who is, if not the responsibility of the parents, the responsibility of the state. Parenting is slavery because the child can't care for itself. We don't want welfare fathers running around getting a check in the form of an absent payment I have to pick up the tab for out of my taxes now do we. God forbid. That would piss me off. God knows people have to pay for having fun.
---------------------
Whoa there Corn, isn't that what I just predicted?
------------
Corn: You say you don't want women to be punished for being sexual, but then why punish men for the same thing? Both are just a (ir)responsible as the other for getting pregnant in the first place. I understand (but don't agree with) your position that the physical risks of pregnancy is reason for giving a woman the choice to decide whether or not to carry the unborn child to term, but that is not a valid excuse for enslaving the sperm donor for 18 years (but I would go along with having the sperm donor contribute equally to the costs of pregnancy).
-----------------------------
If we think of parenting as slavery then there's no problem compelling the male to pay, no.
Two people do a bank robbery and only one's got the gun, it sure as hell isn't him that walks. You have chosen to set this conundrum up in a way that favors your argument, Corn. In fact it's not two people who are responsible for a pregnancy so only the pregnancy needs be held to account. It isn't the pregnancy both are responsible for, it's the product, the child. Once the child is born you have a dependent separate entity who is, if not the responsibility of the parents, the responsibility of the state. Parenting is slavery because the child can't care for itself. We don't want welfare fathers running around getting a check in the form of an absent payment I have to pick up the tab for out of my taxes now do we. God forbid. That would piss me off. God knows people have to pay for having fun.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Moonie to me abortion is all about selfishness, the bottom line is the woman is terminating a future humans life for her own convenience. Wether it be she does'nt want the biological changes, does'nt want humiliation or embarresment, does'nt want the financial burden it does'nt matter IMO she's being selfish in the act. Putting her image/finances/reputation above that of the child inside her. Adoption centers can't get enough children.
I rarley talk about this subject because to me everyone on both sides is hypocritcal killing is killing and I think its done out of selfishness and is wrong. Deathrow or planned parenthood all evil and I think cheapens life.
I rarley talk about this subject because to me everyone on both sides is hypocritcal killing is killing and I think its done out of selfishness and is wrong. Deathrow or planned parenthood all evil and I think cheapens life.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
I think you misunderstand my point GB. I'm all for having a "parent" who walks away from a family (such as in divorce, etc) take fiscal responsibility for any children he's leaving behind. My argument is that if you are going to give women the "choice" whether or not they want to be enslaved to the care of a child for 18 years, why not give that choice to the man before the baby comes along?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter