|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
It is his child if she decides to carry the kid to term, sir.
Otherwise no, it's not really his or his to say it should be born or not. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Wark! |
The world i live in is reality if you believe that "pulling out before he cums?" crap then you are living in a fantasy world and soon reality will come wake you up.
Thank God the courts will soon decide just what rights a man has in this issue. Praise God for Alito and Roberts. Most amazing jew boots |
no scalia love? What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
I also suppose he's trolling. Nobody could be this retarded. I haven't seen anybody in the Palace pass off this kind of drivel and seriously expect us to treat it like a rational point. This has to be trolling.
I also refuse to believe that it took me 10 minutes to catch up to speed just to have lurker beat me to the punch. =/ Edit: 7 minutes. =/ FELIPE NO
Last edited by Bradylama; Mar 11, 2006 at 12:21 AM.
|
I guess I will just make my response simple.
anyone, man or woman, who does not want a child, should not be fucking. Either that or reliable methods of preventing pregnancy. I guess it may not 'seem' fair to the men, but the fact is that the reproductive right is the woman's alone. 9 months of bodily changes and childbirth pain and risks are things that men do not have to worry about. Besides, if a man really wants a child to raise and love, why not adopt? Adopted children require the same things. Most amazing jew boots |
Let me tell you "pro-choice" folks a little story. I was an accident, my parents were not married at the time that I was concieved, and they were most certainly NOT planning on having children at that point. They were just college students after all. Now, this is a perfect example of a situation where you guys would say "abort, abort!!!". However, my parents did the right thing. They got married, and my dad went out and found a job, and supported my mom and I. It wasn't easy for them (or me for that matter), but they did it anyway. In fact I have a great deal of resepect for my parents, because they made some big and difficult changes in their own lives for my sake, when they could have just as easily aborted me. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
I was an accident in a similar fashion, yet I still believe that the ultimate choice about going through a pregnancy or not should remain with the women in question. Then again, this didn't keep me from recently encouraging a close friend of mine to keep her child and the path they're in for will likely be a tough one to go (because of money or rather the lack therof).
How ya doing, buddy?
Last edited by Cyrus XIII; Mar 11, 2006 at 06:39 AM.
|
Pre-ejaculation semen is not fertile enough to impregnant a woman. The problem is that most guys can't "get out" in time. But I don't live in reality. Then again I've never had to have anybody terminate a pregnancy either. Plus, you can always believe the conservative movement on health education right? They're never wrong! Well, except on AIDs..... but that's it. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
What you still fail to realize is that it's impossible to determine individual motives for abortion. Let's say your parents decided to abort you. They're both in college, both have very small if any income, everything screams of economic infeasability. But what if, say, your mom had a weak heart, and giving birth to you could kill her? What if your dad beat her, and she didn't want to bring his child into the world? What if she faced the threat of disownment if she had a child? What your parents did was admirable on many levels, and while you may be here today, I can guarantee you that you wouldn't care if you had been aborted. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
I was speaking idiomatically. |
Aside from that, it isn't anybody's place to judge the motives for an abortion. While you may not believe that a certain reason for an abortion is justifiable, that's none of your concern, because you aren't the one having the abortion. It's nobody's business but the woman's or the couple's, and inquiring into their reasonings is an egregious invasion of privacy.
Besideswhich, it is again not your place to determine whether or not somebody should have an abortion. It is not your seed, it is not your body. I've provided you with several cases for why your mom could have elected to abort you, and while you personally determine one to be ok, the second is indeterminable, and the third you consider a definite no-no. However, why is it that you should force your own reasoning on a person by power of law? How is it even possible to differentiate these motives without mind reading? You would argue that it's simply better to allow the child to be born, but not only does that put an undue burden on the parents, but it also impacts society as a whole, because children don't give back for 16 years. You are actively seeking to force a problem on society that doesn't have to exist.
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
The problem with the status quo, according to proponents of this law, is that men are often forced to pay for children they didn't want in the first place, or are required to pay for children when they're unable to do so because the mother insists on following through with the pregnancy. Granting men the right to opt out of such planned pregnancies would theoretically put them on an equal legal plain with women insofar as they wouldn't be dependant on women to dissolve their parental obligations, and, consequently, they could make that decision for themselves. This is how a theoretical male abortion might take place. The logic is interesting, but I haven't made up my mind yet on whether I would support something like this or not. A few things I want to attack:
FELIPE NO
Last edited by lordjames; Mar 11, 2006 at 04:49 PM.
|
Drugs are everywhere today, simple reality. Should we then have government controlled institutions to allow people to go and get high? Smoke a joint, sniff some coke, etc.? How about underage drinking? Teens do it all the time, should we thus allow teens to do it in regulated environments? That mode of thinking is not really that outdated. It's simply that people today do not have any sense of responsibility to this world. If something goes wrong, it's someone else's fault, and they look for the easy way out. The simple fact of the matter is, if you're going to go around fucking like an adult, then should something happen and you become pregnant, then that's too bad. It's time to grow up and act like a fucking adult. Take some responsibility for your own actions for a change. As I said before, there are always exceptions to the rule, via rape victims, true health risks, etc, but abortion should not become the accepted normality of the situation.
If you don't want a kid, don't fuck. It's a very simple equation. If you want to fuck, then use proper protection, but realize that if something happens, only yourself is to blame and accept responsibility for the outcome. Most amazing jew boots |
The idea that an abortion has come to be seen as a method of birth control in society is ludicrous. I don't know what kind of retarded white trash you live around, but society has hardly come to the point where an abortion is considered to be anything but a last resort.
Not to mention the concern of health risks, which apparently nobody has picked up on. I provided an example where David's mom had a weak heart, and possibly couldn't survive child birth. However, there is no guarantee that she will die from child birth, it is simply a matter of increased risk. How then, do we determine the acceptable level of risk for an abortion when all women are in danger of losing their life in the process of child birth? It would have to be performed on a case by case basis, and doing so would likely cost the state more money in the process, as well as bring the mother to a term in the pregnancy that is at the current time considered beyond the legal allowance. What happens in this situation? Do you terminate a being that by legal account is now considered to be a child, or do you force the mother to risk her life in order to birth the child? Not to mention that this still comes back to your argument of responsibility avoidance, and that by aborting a child that threatens her life, the mother is essentially shirking the responsibilities placed on her by her weak heart. Clearly, by your reasoning, if she didn't want to risk her life she should have never had sex, and that she should suck it up and take it like a woman (or take it out, as the case may be). To you, somebody with a "Child's view of morality" this previously black and white view of moral action has become muddied. Perhaps you will figure out a way to rhetoricize your way out of these scenarios, but ultimately, in your view of the world, everybody loses. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
If someone were to have a kid, and there was a clear health risk, then certainly, I would certainly see that having an abortion would be necessary. But as well, tubes would be tied, so that anything in the future like that would be prevented.
Life is risk. Without them, it would be dull and boring, and ultimately worthless. But you take those risks and go with them, and see where it leads you. I look at abortion the same as I look at suicide. There is no reason to. Suicide is a cop out, and I have no respect for anyone who would choose it as a viable alternative to living. Abortion is the easy way out for too many people out there, so that they can go ahead and live their life the same way, without repercutions. It's not a "choice" that should be allowed, unless in the most extreme of circumstances. There's nowhere I can't reach.
Last edited by Lord Jaroh; Mar 11, 2006 at 08:17 PM.
|
Teen pregnancy is mostly an issue of ignorance, because our sexual education is highly inadequate, and access to contraceptives is limited, at best. It's easy to preach responsibility an acting grown up to a group of people that aren't considered to be legal adults.
If the child was wanted, the birth would be forced. If the child wasn't wanted, then people would find a back alley quack to perform a coat hanger abortion, or fly their children to some European country to have the operation performed. Before we developed the tools and sterility necessary for abortions, ancient man practiced infanticide when the tribe could not afford to raise a new child. This may have eventually been justified in sacrifice to gods as man developed more advanced moral reasoning, but where the practice of infanticide ends, and abortion begins is probably impossible to determine, since they've always been considered necessary taboos, much like sex itself.
Consider this, however. If there was no way to know about a person's particular health risks going into a pregnancy, then why even allow health-related abortions in the first place? The woman will give birth and die, or not, and nobody would be any the wiser that her heart was too big, or whatever. So you can either have abortions for everybody, or abortions for none. Pick and choose, you can't rationalize around your base reasoning.
How ya doing, buddy? |
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Sarcasm, Dev.
I was speaking idiomatically. |
Under the current law, neither parent is free to abandon the living child. The father has to provide support, but he does not have to provide sole support. How does your plan make anything equal at all? There is also the fact that your plan will encourage more abortions, something that no one wants. Even pro-choice people want to limit abortions where possible. Also, under the current law, the phenomon of women raising their children without any support from the fathers whatsoever is only becoming more common because of deadbeats, which are against the law and not at all the mother's choice. Are you Gohan?
Double Post:
Does that help you? Double Post:
There was also very poor to non-existant health standards. People frequently buried their children. if they had less children from family planning, they would not have to bury any of them. This is less a concern in America (except in the really shitty places), and much much more of a concern in the third-world. Therefore, I would not expect you to know them, because you have a child's view of morality. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Last edited by Sarag; Mar 12, 2006 at 12:15 AM.
Reason: Automerged double post.
|
FELIPE NO |
How ya doing, buddy? |
But is the passage talking about the damage made to the fetus, or to the mother?
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Clearly the fetus.
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
No, it's not clear at all. The passage only gives mention of the premature birthing, but no indication that a child has been damaged at all. Then it makes a general reference to the rule of an eye for an eye. Since it is the husband that has to sue for the damages, the assumtion is being made that the wife is incapable of such duties, which to me, implies damage to his pregnant wife.
What would be more important at this point, the baby or the baby factory? This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
Uh... okay. And people wonder why the Bible gets interpreted "so many ways."
The husband sues because the wife has no rights. This is the kind of society you're dealing with. It talks about injury in the same sentence that it mentions premature birth. How could it be anymore clear? Like you said, there is already the eye for an eye rule. Why would they reiterate it for a pregnant woman? I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tories want new US-Style Bill of Rights | Robo Jesus | Political Palace | 4 | Jul 3, 2006 04:44 AM |