If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   All the countries that have signed onto the women's rights treaty that Hillary Clinton is promoting, step right up. Uhhh, not so fast there USA   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 577
    More: Interesting, Hillary Rodham Clinton, United States, Catherine Ashton, UN resolutions, UN Convention, abortion law, United States rankings, treaty  
•       •       •

2233 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Sep 2011 at 7:20 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



577 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-21 11:05:39 AM

EWreckedSean: Theaetetus:
1) it's not a child before it's born. Why is it that conservatives are always the ones shouting "words mean things" until they want them not to mean things?

Really, if a child only exists after birth, why does the law consider murdering a pregnant woman as killing two victims? Things do have meaning, you've never heard the term unborn child?


I have... Who do you think proposed those laws? Do you remember NOW arguing against those laws for exactly this reason?

No, of course not.

2) No, no one has a right to require another person to use their body to support them. I do not get to require you to donate your kidney to me, even if I'll die otherwise. Do you agree?

Yes I agree. So then a child has no right to the fruits of their father's labors by your very argument, as labor is using one's body to earn income.


Again, "caring for your child" = unconstitutional servitude.

This is what Conservatives really believe.

You're not really arguing well for your position, y'know.

And if you do agree, why do you think that men should have the right to bodily autonomy, but women should not? Why do you think half the population should be denied such a fundamental right of control over their own body?

Actually I am pro-choice, just pointing out the fallacy of your position that you are only pro-choice for women.


There's no fallacy. The only reason you think there is one is that, like an idiot, you think "pro-choice" refers to every possible choice:
You want to deny people the right to choose to commit grand theft auto? You're not really pro-choice!
You want to deny people the right to choose to steal from others? You're not really pro-choice!

No, sorry. That argument simply doesn't fly. Pro-choice does not refer to any and every choice, no matter how stupid, but to the choice to undergo a specific medical procedure. And I am for that.
I am not in favor of letting people walk away from their legal obligations. You don't get that choice.
 
2011-09-21 11:05:53 AM

Farking While Farking: EWreckedSean: She can opt out by having a farking abortion genius. She can unilaterally terminate the pregnancy, which terminates the child support. That's opting out, no matter how you want to spin it. A father has no choice. But the strawman was nice.

That's like saying abstinane terminates child support. If a woman had am abortion there is no child to support.

You seem to be both against women having access to legal abortions and also against men being required to support children they father. Is that correct?


No, I am absolutely 100% pro-choice. The difference is I am pro-choice for both men and women, not just women. I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it. A woman shouldn't be able to force a man to be an ATM machine for 18 years. People love to say "Well it's in the best interest of the child, so we ignore the father's rights." Well I tell you what, having a zero abortion policy is in the best interest of the children too. It's a huge double standard.
 
2011-09-21 11:05:59 AM

skullkrusher: preggo in the butt


how is republican babby formed?
 
2011-09-21 11:07:16 AM

Fart_Machine: EWreckedSean: you've never heard the term unborn child?

It's a term used by the Pro-Life movement which satisfies their propaganda.


"The virgin will be with child fetus and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."

Stupid Pro-Life Propaganda Bible
 
2011-09-21 11:07:28 AM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus:
1) it's not a child before it's born. Why is it that conservatives are always the ones shouting "words mean things" until they want them not to mean things?

Really, if a child only exists after birth, why does the law consider murdering a pregnant woman as killing two victims? Things do have meaning, you've never heard the term unborn child?

I have... Who do you think proposed those laws? Do you remember NOW arguing against those laws for exactly this reason?

No, of course not.

2) No, no one has a right to require another person to use their body to support them. I do not get to require you to donate your kidney to me, even if I'll die otherwise. Do you agree?

Yes I agree. So then a child has no right to the fruits of their father's labors by your very argument, as labor is using one's body to earn income.

Again, "caring for your child" = unconstitutional servitude.

This is what Conservatives really believe.

You're not really arguing well for your position, y'know.

And if you do agree, why do you think that men should have the right to bodily autonomy, but women should not? Why do you think half the population should be denied such a fundamental right of control over their own body?

Actually I am pro-choice, just pointing out the fallacy of your position that you are only pro-choice for women.

There's no fallacy. The only reason you think there is one is that, like an idiot, you think "pro-choice" refers to every possible choice:
You want to deny people the right to choose to commit grand theft auto? You're not really pro-choice!
You want to deny people the right to choose to steal from others? You're not really pro-choice!

No, sorry. That argument simply doesn't fly. Pro-choice does not refer to any and every choice, no matter how stupid, but to the choice to undergo a specific medical procedure. And I am for that.
I am not in favor of letting people walk away from their legal obligations. You don't get that choice.


Wow, you sure do love those strawmen don't you? Any other positions you'd like to make up for us, or at some point would you like the ones we've actually made?
 
2011-09-21 11:07:40 AM

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes that's exactly what he (I alone am best) is saying. He is saying that the decision of the mother to carry the baby to term should eliminate the right of the child to financial support from the father.

I don't know how he specifically would phrase it but an important part you are leaving out here is if the mother carries it to term and the father is against it. And presumably being against it only matters and is only relevant so long as the mother still has a choice (abortion). I don't think he's suggesting all fathers from now on should be off the hook for child support, nor should the be allowed to go back on their choice later.

Whether or not the father is against it or not is immaterial. He is still saying that the decision of the mother should eliminate the right of the child to financial support from the father.

Child support has nothing to do with the mother. If the mother dies in child birth, the father still owes child support. It is a right of the child, a right that affects both parents equally.

So the child has a right to financial support from the father but not a right to life? You've lost the context - we're talking about abortion. Abortion has nothing to do with the rights of the child. It's not a child. If it had rights, you couldn't abort it.


Child support has NOTHING to do with abortion. Nothing at all. It's about supporting a child that has been born.

If your argument is that abortion is murder and that abortion should be illegal in all cases since the unborn child has a right to life, that is a wholly separate argument to whether a child has a right to financial support from both parents after birth.

Now, it seems to me that if you truly believe that the child has full rights from conception, believing that the decision of the mother NOT to abort should remove the right of the child to support from the father is wholly illogical.
 
2011-09-21 11:08:20 AM

qorkfiend: It totally does work both ways; the sole difference is that men are simply not on the hook, biologically speaking. There are no medical complications for him, and there's no way around that. I agree with you that it's a one-way street; I just don't see any good solution beyond not conceiving the child to begin with.


The solution I suggest is during the period of time where abortion is legal, the argument goes "it is not a child." If it was a child, it would have rights. It is the potential for a child. So long as the mother can terminate the potential for a child, a father should be allowed to terminate the potential for rights to the potential child. He isn't forcing any medical decision on her.
 
2011-09-21 11:08:51 AM

Headso: skullkrusher: preggo in the butt

how is republican babby formed?


Mt Doom?
 
2011-09-21 11:09:11 AM

lennavan: I don't know how he specifically would phrase it but an important part you are leaving out here is if the mother carries it to term and the father is against it. And presumably being against it only matters and is only relevant so long as the mother still has a choice (abortion). I don't think he's suggesting all fathers from now on should be off the hook for child support, nor should the be allowed to go back on their choice later.


Exactly. If two people have a child together willingly then yes the father should pay support.
 
2011-09-21 11:09:26 AM

EWreckedSean: The one where you made up this argument:

But please, go ahead - tell us how a woman can legally unilaterally opt-out, leaving a child with support from only its father.

Which absolutely nobody has said. See when we argue when thing, and you argue back against a different point ignoring our actual argument, that's a strawman.


Actually, that's exactly what you've been saying. Your proposal is that men should be able to walk away from a legal obligation to a child, leaving a child with only the mother's support. You claim that women have this right, but men do not.
So, I'm simply asking for proof: how can a woman walk away from a legal obligation to her child, leaving the child with only the father's support?

This is what you've been arguing. So either step up, or admit that you're actually arguing that men should have a different right that women do not have.
 
2011-09-21 11:09:48 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Child support has NOTHING to do with abortion. Nothing at all. It's about supporting a child that has been born.


Couldn't agree more. Wait, you think I brought up child support in this abortion thread?

Philip Francis Queeg: If your argument is that abortion is murder


It isn't. Go back and read what I've been saying. Otherwise what's the point in posting back and forth?
 
2011-09-21 11:10:10 AM

Farking While Farking: EWreckedSean: Really, if a child only exists after birth, why does the law consider murdering a pregnant woman as killing two victims? Things do have meaning, you've never heard the term unborn child?

Such laws are often attempts to define women as fetus carriers and are passed to weaken / challenge access to abortion.


Laws that charge a murder with two murders for murdering a pregnant woman are meant to challenge access to abortion? Huh?
 
2011-09-21 11:10:44 AM

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: EWreckedSean: you've never heard the term unborn child?

It's a term used by the Pro-Life movement which satisfies their propaganda.

"The virgin will be with child fetus and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."

Stupid Pro-Life Propaganda Bible


That's really stupid, even for you.
 
2011-09-21 11:11:00 AM

Headso: the woman also kinda has to raise the kid too...


But that is her choice.
 
2011-09-21 11:11:44 AM

EWreckedSean: Any other positions you'd like to make up for us, or at some point would you like the ones we've actually made?


Here's one you just said:

EWreckedSean: I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it.


When does a woman get to say "I don't want this child, so you will be financially responsible for it"?

It's a direct quote from you. Stop whining about me putting words in your mouth.
 
2011-09-21 11:12:35 AM

EWreckedSean: Farking While Farking: EWreckedSean: Really, if a child only exists after birth, why does the law consider murdering a pregnant woman as killing two victims? Things do have meaning, you've never heard the term unborn child?

Such laws are often attempts to define women as fetus carriers and are passed to weaken / challenge access to abortion.

Laws that charge a murder with two murders for murdering a pregnant woman are meant to challenge access to abortion? Huh?


Yup. If you murder a pregnant woman and get charged for double murder, you implicitly agreed the fetus inside was a person that was murdered.

There are also laws that "regulate abortion facilities" that are really meant to just run them out of town or put them out of business.

They aren't even thinly veiled, it's out in the open. It's not like this is a debated topic.
 
2011-09-21 11:12:48 AM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: The one where you made up this argument:

But please, go ahead - tell us how a woman can legally unilaterally opt-out, leaving a child with support from only its father.

Which absolutely nobody has said. See when we argue when thing, and you argue back against a different point ignoring our actual argument, that's a strawman.

Actually, that's exactly what you've been saying. Your proposal is that men should be able to walk away from a legal obligation to a child, leaving a child with only the mother's support. You claim that women have this right, but men do not.
So, I'm simply asking for proof: how can a woman walk away from a legal obligation to her child, leaving the child with only the father's support?

This is what you've been arguing. So either step up, or admit that you're actually arguing that men should have a different right that women do not have.


Really, quote where I've said that genius.

A woman opting out by having an abortion doesn't equal a woman opting out of child support payments while a man has to pay them. That is the point you are pretending we made so you can argue against it, I mean at least you are persistent in making up points to pretend we've made, I'll give you that. So tell us strawman, has Dorthy found you a brain yet?
 
2011-09-21 11:14:44 AM

EWreckedSean: Laws that charge a murder with two murders for murdering a pregnant woman are meant to challenge access to abortion? Huh?


The intent is to set precedet that killing a fetus is legally recognized as murder. Next step: killing a fetus without killing the mother = murder. Hmmm... Sounds a lot like what abortion does.
 
2011-09-21 11:14:46 AM

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: Child support has NOTHING to do with abortion. Nothing at all. It's about supporting a child that has been born.

Couldn't agree more. Wait, you think I brought up child support in this abortion thread?

Philip Francis Queeg: If your argument is that abortion is murder

It isn't. Go back and read what I've been saying. Otherwise what's the point in posting back and forth?


So you agree that the decision of the mother in regards to abortion should have no bearing on child support. Glad we agree.
 
2011-09-21 11:14:56 AM

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: EWreckedSean: you've never heard the term unborn child?

It's a term used by the Pro-Life movement which satisfies their propaganda.

"The virgin will be with child fetus and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."

Stupid Pro-Life Propaganda Bible

That's really stupid, even for you.


why's that if referring to a fetus as a "child" is a pro-life propagandist tactic? Or is it the word "unborn" that you have issue with?
 
2011-09-21 11:15:32 AM

I alone am best: Headso: the woman also kinda has to raise the kid too...

But that is her choice.


yeah that is her choice, your choice was previously made and at this point you are living with your choice.
 
2011-09-21 11:15:39 AM

EWreckedSean: Really, quote where I've said that genius.


Here: I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it

When does a woman get to say "I don't want this child, you will be financially responsible for it"?

It's your entire argument... it should be easy to come up with an example.
 
2011-09-21 11:16:07 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Even if I was to take torture as a "tool" it still sin't worth the damage it does to our reputation, nto the case with landmines. We can simply not use them.

Those who support the use of torture very much consider it a tool.

So your primary concern is the damage to our reputation, not the damage that land mines do to civilian populations for decades after the conflicts end. Nice priorities there


Simply having landmines does what to civilian populations after the conflict ends?

Headso: liam76: And the fact is that it still doesn have soemthing to do with the man, since if the woman has a baby the man is on the hook for child support.

After the die is cast there are consequences, your point of no return is before hers, but that doesn't mean you have less control of the situation.


It is a little more than a "point of no return" issue. You are on the hook if she lies about being protected, and if you agree to the kid before hand and she gets rid of it you have no recourse.

So her having more control is actually exactly what it means.
 
2011-09-21 11:16:19 AM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Any other positions you'd like to make up for us, or at some point would you like the ones we've actually made?

Here's one you just said:
EWreckedSean: I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it.

When does a woman get to say "I don't want this child, so you will be financially responsible for it"?

It's a direct quote from you. Stop whining about me putting words in your mouth.


If that is a direct quote from me, show me where I've said it. You'll notice you went and found a different quote. I've said she can opt out of her financial responsibility by having an abortion. A man doesn't get that choice. He can't opt out if she chooses to have the child.
 
2011-09-21 11:17:37 AM

keylock71: The baby is in her body for nine months

Truth.

... not yours.
Not truth. "ours" would be more accurate.

If she decided to have it, it's your fault for not discussing the issue with her before you had unprotected sex with her. If she chooses to get rid of it, it's her choice.
I think if "she decided" than the "fault" lies with her for making the decision.* But it takes two to tango, and makin' babies ain't no simple choice. You're boiling one of the most complicated decisions available to humans into a simple ethical situation by assuming that the only way to have babies is to engage in unprotected sex. Shockingly, babies are born to couples who wear condoms and are on the pill. Women don't always stay on top of their BC, and men don't always take the best care of their condoms. shiat happens against the wishes of both parties, and then there's a whole universe of issues that have to be sorted with BOTH parties that didn't necessarily need to be accounted for in the "we both agree that we never want children" relationship. Just saying.

If she chooses to have it, you, as the father, are responsible for helping to raise that child.
Ethically, sure. Again, it takes two to tango. Can't rightly disagree with this bit, but...

Don't like it? Tough shiat. You should have thought about that before ejaculating inside her.
This attitude helps nobody.

As someone said up thread, the man's choice occurs at the moment of copulation. Keep it in your pants if you don't want to be put in this scenario, or at the very least use birth control.

"The woman's choice occurs at the moment of copulation. Keep your legs closed if you don't want to be put in this scenario, or at the very least use birth control."
 
2011-09-21 11:18:16 AM

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: EWreckedSean: you've never heard the term unborn child?

It's a term used by the Pro-Life movement which satisfies their propaganda.

"The virgin will be with child fetus and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."

Stupid Pro-Life Propaganda Bible

That's really stupid, even for you.

why's that if referring to a fetus as a "child" is a pro-life propagandist tactic? Or is it the word "unborn" that you have issue with?


The Bible has the Earth being created in six days. It must be true then.

And that still doesn't counter what I said.
 
2011-09-21 11:18:41 AM

EWreckedSean: A woman opting out by having an abortion doesn't equal a woman opting out of child support payments while a man has to pay them.


Exactly! A woman having an abortion is not the same thing as opting out of child support payments while the other parent has to pay them! Therefore, the fact that a woman has a right to an abortion doesn't mean that it's unfair that a man doesn't have the right to opt out of child support payments while the woman has to pay them.

... Of course, that's not what you've been arguing.
 
2011-09-21 11:19:05 AM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Really, quote where I've said that genius.

Here: I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it

When does a woman get to say "I don't want this child, you will be financially responsible for it"?

It's your entire argument... it should be easy to come up with an example.


Wow strawman, I'll give that you sure are persistent in trying to tell everybody what their positions actually are. Since that is what I have been saying all along, farking quote me saying it.
 
2011-09-21 11:19:37 AM

Aidan: I alone am best: I'm sorry, i was unaware you could make money without using some part of your body. Please let me know how this is done because i'm sick of working.

Well... You can be a hedge manager without having a brain. You make mad bank, so I hear.


I was going to go with Stephen Hawking, but he does use his brain. Everything else, not so much.
 
2011-09-21 11:20:33 AM

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: EWreckedSean: you've never heard the term unborn child?

It's a term used by the Pro-Life movement which satisfies their propaganda.

"The virgin will be with child fetus and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."

Stupid Pro-Life Propaganda Bible

That's really stupid, even for you.

why's that if referring to a fetus as a "child" is a pro-life propagandist tactic? Or is it the word "unborn" that you have issue with?

The Bible has the Earth being created in six days. It must be true then.

And that still doesn't counter what I said.


again, what was your issue? With "child" or "unborn" or was it those two words together that really upset you so?
 
2011-09-21 11:20:49 AM

lennavan: qorkfiend: lennavan: This is an argument against abortion in all cases. I disagree with that.

Well, yes; I should have been clearer. It should read "engaged in consensual unprotected sex".

qorkfiend: The man made his choice (as did the woman) when they engaged in consensual unprotected sex, with the full knowledge that it could lead to the woman getting pregnant. At that point, it's a little too late to say "Whoa whoa! Why should I be responsible for any of this?"

Right, that's what I assumed you meant. =]

And again, it's an argument against abortion in all cases. I still disagree with it, I'm pro-choice. But I see where you're coming from. I think the difference between you and I is you consider the zygote the consequence they have to deal with. I think of it as a consensual sex results in a 4 month(ish) window where if they don't do something about they're going to get a viable fetus and have to deal with that.

I'll try my best at an analogy - if I steal $20 from you, I have a window of opportunity between the moment I steal $20 from you and it's too late (you find out and report it) to quick sneak back and put the $20 back. If I do, no harm no foul. I think of "too late" as fetus viability, you think of it as zygote. I won't try to change your mind because I respect where you're coming from.


Yeah, I guess I was talking in a "perfect world" sense. The decision to terminate the pregnancy or not is the consequence I was mostly referring to, not the actual biological consequence (the zygote).

To extend the thievery analogy, you knew before you stole the $20 that there may be consequences. You can decide after the fact that maybe you don't want to deal with these consequences ("abort" the operation, if you will), but you can avoid the abortion decision entirely by engaging in "safe thievery".
 
2011-09-21 11:21:00 AM

Theaetetus: liam76: Theaetetus: Alternative argument, and more to the point legally: child support is not punishment for being irresponsible. Child support is not punishment of any sort. Nor is it a choice. It is an obligation, legally imposed by the existence of the child and a result of the child's rights. ONLY the child (or a guardian ad litem) has the power to waive that obligation, so all the whining in the world about how men don't get to choose to be obligated is irrelevant.

How can you argue it isn't the mothers choice?

She gets an abortion the guy pays nothing. She has the kid and the guy is on the hook for money the next 18 years as well for part of the pre-natal care. Who makes the choice between those two?

Neither. The court imposes the obligation of child support on both parents, because it's the right of the child. If there's no child, there's no obligation.


If the woman gets to make the call about he child she is making a call about the obligation.

The end.
 
2011-09-21 11:21:06 AM

Headso: I alone am best: Headso: the woman also kinda has to raise the kid too...

But that is her choice.

yeah that is her choice, your choice was previously made and at this point you are living with your choice.


That argument is as bad as the pro-life argument.
 
2011-09-21 11:21:08 AM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: A woman opting out by having an abortion doesn't equal a woman opting out of child support payments while a man has to pay them.

Exactly! A woman having an abortion is not the same thing as opting out of child support payments while the other parent has to pay them! Therefore, the fact that a woman has a right to an abortion doesn't mean that it's unfair that a man doesn't have the right to opt out of child support payments while the woman has to pay them.

... Of course, that's not what you've been arguing.


Yes it is, you want a woman to have a choice, but a man not too. You think it is unfair for a man to force a woman to carry a child for 9 months, but perfectly fair for a woman to force a man to work with his body for 18 years to provide for the child.
 
2011-09-21 11:21:29 AM

Theaetetus: When does a woman get to say "I don't want this child, you will be financially responsible for it if you yourself decide to carry it to term"?

It's your entire argument


Yeah, that is his argument. I made it slightly more honest for you though.
 
2011-09-21 11:21:56 AM

I alone am best: Headso: I alone am best: Headso: the woman also kinda has to raise the kid too...

But that is her choice.

yeah that is her choice, your choice was previously made and at this point you are living with your choice.

That argument is as bad as the pro-life argument.


sorry that living with the consequences of your actions is so objectionable to you.
 
2011-09-21 11:22:16 AM

EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Any other positions you'd like to make up for us, or at some point would you like the ones we've actually made?

Here's one you just said:
EWreckedSean: I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it.

When does a woman get to say "I don't want this child, so you will be financially responsible for it"?

It's a direct quote from you. Stop whining about me putting words in your mouth.

If that is a direct quote from me, show me where I've said it.


See bolded quote above.

You'll notice you went and found a different quote. I've said she can opt out of her financial responsibility by having an abortion.

If she has an abortion, there is no financial responsibility for her to opt out of.

A man doesn't get that choice. He can't opt out if she chooses to have the child.

And if she chooses to have the child, she can't opt out either. The thing you're claiming exists - "she can opt out of her financial responsibility" - does not actually exist.
 
2011-09-21 11:24:37 AM

liam76: It is a little more than a "point of no return" issue. You are on the hook if she lies about being protected, and if you agree to the kid before hand and she gets rid of it you have no recourse.


She has a choice later than you have a choice because the fetus resides in her body. Yeah people victimize eachother but if you are just saying people shouldn't victimize eachother, I think we can all agree on that.
 
2011-09-21 11:25:12 AM

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: EWreckedSean: you've never heard the term unborn child?

It's a term used by the Pro-Life movement which satisfies their propaganda.

"The virgin will be with child fetus and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."

Stupid Pro-Life Propaganda Bible

That's really stupid, even for you.

why's that if referring to a fetus as a "child" is a pro-life propagandist tactic? Or is it the word "unborn" that you have issue with?

The Bible has the Earth being created in six days. It must be true then.

And that still doesn't counter what I said.

again, what was your issue? With "child" or "unborn" or was it those two words together that really upset you so?


Nightmare, the persecution
A child's dream of death.

Torment, ill forgotten
A soul that will never rest.

Guidance, it means nothing
In a world of brutal time.

Electric, circus, wild,
Deep in the infants mind.

Silent Scream
Bury the unwanted child.
Beaten and torn
Sacrifice the unborn.

Shattered, adolescent [sings: another child]
Bearer of no name.

Restrained, insane games
Suffer the children condemned.

Scattered, remnants of life,
Murder a time to die.

Pain, sufferaged toyed,
Life's little fragments destroyed.

Silent Scream
Crucify the bastard son.
Beaten and torn
Sanctify lives of scorn.

Life preordained
Humanity maintained.
Extraction termination
Pain's agonizing stain.

Embryonic death,
Embedded in your brain.
Suffocation, strangulation,
Death is farking you insane.

Nightmare, the persecution
A child's dream of death.

Torment, ill forgotten
A soul that will never rest.
Innocence withdrawn in fear.
Fires burning can you hear
Cries in the night.


Slayer - doing their part to spread Pro-Life PropagandaTM since 1981
 
2011-09-21 11:25:12 AM

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: Even if I was to take torture as a "tool" it still sin't worth the damage it does to our reputation, nto the case with landmines. We can simply not use them.

Those who support the use of torture very much consider it a tool.

So your primary concern is the damage to our reputation, not the damage that land mines do to civilian populations for decades after the conflicts end. Nice priorities there

Simply having landmines does what to civilian populations after the conflict ends?


So you think the US has an urgent need to have landmines sitting in warehouses that will never, ever be deployed? Seriously?

Once they are deployed, they are never all retrieved. Some get left behind. There they remain a danger to the civilians who live and work in the region for decades.

The point of having land mines is to deploy them. They serve no use, even as a deterrent un-deployed. If we have no intention of deploying them, there is no reason not to sign the trey.
 
2011-09-21 11:25:21 AM

EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Really, quote where I've said that genius.

Here: I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it

When does a woman get to say "I don't want this child, you will be financially responsible for it"?

It's your entire argument... it should be easy to come up with an example.

Wow strawman, I'll give that you sure are persistent in trying to tell everybody what their positions actually are. Since that is what I have been saying all along, farking quote me saying it.


Holy farking Christ.

You: "I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it"
Me: "You just said 'I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it'
You: "What?! No I didn't! That's a strawman! You can't quote me! I never said thaaaaaaaaat!"

Y'know what? If you're going to repeatedly demand I quote you, AND WHEN I DO, you claim you never said that and demand I quote you again, then you're not worth arguing with. Most people at least admit it when presented with a quote in black and white.
 
2011-09-21 11:25:43 AM
This headline always makes me laugh.
 
2011-09-21 11:26:49 AM

Headso: I alone am best: Headso: I alone am best: Headso: the woman also kinda has to raise the kid too...

But that is her choice.

yeah that is her choice, your choice was previously made and at this point you are living with your choice.

That argument is as bad as the pro-life argument.

sorry that living with the consequences of your actions is so objectionable to you.


You're still missing the whole point. She doesn't have to live with the consequences if she doesn't want to. You do. You don't get a choice after the matter, she does. She can have an abortion to end it, you cant. You have no choice, you are held responsible for whatever she wants.
 
2011-09-21 11:28:01 AM
I mean, honestly, the fact that I keep quoting his typo - "I man" rather than "A man" - would be a clue that I'm quoting him.
 
2011-09-21 11:28:02 AM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Any other positions you'd like to make up for us, or at some point would you like the ones we've actually made?

Here's one you just said:
EWreckedSean: I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it.

When does a woman get to say "I don't want this child, so you will be financially responsible for it"?

It's a direct quote from you. Stop whining about me putting words in your mouth.

If that is a direct quote from me, show me where I've said it.

See bolded quote above.

You'll notice you went and found a different quote. I've said she can opt out of her financial responsibility by having an abortion.

If she has an abortion, there is no financial responsibility for her to opt out of.

A man doesn't get that choice. He can't opt out if she chooses to have the child.

And if she chooses to have the child, she can't opt out either. The thing you're claiming exists - "she can opt out of her financial responsibility" - does not actually exist.


Yes, I see the bolded above, I love how you are cherry picking different parts trying to mismatch them together to try and show I said something I didn't. That is some fine commitment to a strawman there my friend.

The argument all along is that an abortion is a woman opting out of her financial responsibility, a choice a man can't make. You argument that it isn't is just farking stupid, which is why you are trying so very hard to pretend I made a different point. Deciding not to have a baby is absolutely opting out of paying for it. No baby, nothing to pay for. It's kind of funny at this point.
 
2011-09-21 11:28:24 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: Child support has NOTHING to do with abortion. Nothing at all. It's about supporting a child that has been born.

Couldn't agree more. Wait, you think I brought up child support in this abortion thread?

Philip Francis Queeg: If your argument is that abortion is murder

It isn't. Go back and read what I've been saying. Otherwise what's the point in posting back and forth?

So you agree that the decision of the mother in regards to abortion should have no bearing on child support. Glad we agree.



I mean, I wouldn't say that entirely. If she chooses to have the kid herself, she's on the hook. But otherwise sure. And hey, if the mother at 10 weeks can decide to terminate the fetus' potential to a right to life, the father should be able to decide to terminate the fetus' potential to a right to paternal financial support. Because I mean really, of the two, I think the kid would rather be alive and supported by one parent, don't you think?

I love that you're simultaneously arguing for a 10 week old fetus' potential right to child support from its father but not for its potential right to life. You're so close to being a pro-life, I don't know that I want to be the one to push you over the edge.
 
2011-09-21 11:30:38 AM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Really, quote where I've said that genius.

Here: I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it

When does a woman get to say "I don't want this child, you will be financially responsible for it"?

It's your entire argument... it should be easy to come up with an example.

Wow strawman, I'll give that you sure are persistent in trying to tell everybody what their positions actually are. Since that is what I have been saying all along, farking quote me saying it.

Holy farking Christ.

You: "I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it"
Me: "You just said 'I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it'
You: "What?! No I didn't! That's a strawman! You can't quote me! I never said thaaaaaaaaat!"

Y'know what? If you're going to repeatedly demand I quote you, AND WHEN I DO, you claim you never said that and demand I quote you again, then you're not worth arguing with. Most people at least admit it when presented with a quote in black and white.


Me: "Abortion is a woman's opt out of her financial responsibility"
You: "When does a woman get to opt out and the father is still financially responsible"

Lol when I ask you to quote something, quoting something else isn't doing it genius.
 
2011-09-21 11:31:50 AM

EWreckedSean: you are trying so very hard to pretend I made a different point.


Really? Let's really get to the fundamentals:

Agree or disagree: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Yes? No? Do you disagree with the above statement? Do you disagree that the above statement is what you've been proposing through this thread?
 
2011-09-21 11:32:28 AM

I alone am best: Headso: I alone am best: Headso: I alone am best: Headso: the woman also kinda has to raise the kid too...

But that is her choice.

yeah that is her choice, your choice was previously made and at this point you are living with your choice.

That argument is as bad as the pro-life argument.

sorry that living with the consequences of your actions is so objectionable to you.

You're still missing the whole point. She doesn't have to live with the consequences if she doesn't want to. You do. You don't get a choice after the matter, she does. She can have an abortion to end it, you cant. You have no choice, you are held responsible for whatever she wants.


yes because your choice to have a kid was already made. You said, yes I am going to fark this biatch bareback, yes I am going to fark her while not knowing enough about her to know if she is on a birth control pill or has stds. Yes I don't care if she is unstable I want to get my dick wet.
 
2011-09-21 11:33:34 AM

skullkrusher: again, what was your issue? With "child" or "unborn" or was it those two words together that really upset you so?


Nothing upset me. I was pointing out that "unborn child" is frequently used by the pro-life movement in their propaganda. Do you have anything to counter his or are you just trolling again?
 
Displayed 50 of 577 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report