Musika is "blah" nothing substantial.
Should men have a say in abortion ?
- Thread starter RainbowSingularity
- Start date
`That's nice... Oh no, I didn't.
:EDIT:
Maybe I'm waiting to see what you say about your hero before I tear him apart, sounds like fun doesn't it?
Last edited:
It's not like you to balk at the prospect of immersion in a silly argument. Why the sudden lack of courage?
Quite simple. You claimed you had answered the question already and provided a link, hoping no one would check. In fact you did not answer it, as evinced by the actual text of the post you linked to. You simply asked some more questions.
Can you answer Weg's question now? Specifically "why should you (and men in general) have a say in abortion?"
Gee.
I will have to remember not to post the link next time.
Get back to me when you Google Gianna Jessen and want to continue to play this silly game of awarding the moral high ground on the basis of intimate bearing.
Maybe I should have chosen a more poignant avatar name.
A good argument for better abortion procedures or regulation.
Yes, it's easier for you to lie to people when you don't provide proof you are lying in the post.
Meanwhile, you still can't answer the question. Why does it make you so uncomfortable? Does it perhaps identify a part of your beliefs that you are ashamed of, or feel you can't defend?
I realize that this is a very unconventional suggestion for you, but if you really want to know my answer to your question, you could try reading my link that you went to great trouble to copy/paste ... particularly the bit you (also with great effort I imagine) edited out.
Yes, that is one silly argument, but in the context of this discussion she lends herself to another one.
I did. It was a question, not an answer.
I can see how uncomfortable this makes you. You will do anything to avoid answering the question, because you can't.
Its not a question. You could always try copy pasting the quote, sans your edits, if you don't believe me.
Should I read this in a deep, creepy batman voice?
QED.
Whatever gets your attention.
Because dealing with the world in such bad faith - the level of dishonesty you present in your posts - is not benign. You are doing yourself harm. You cannot lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, over and over and over again, and remain a healthy human being. From an Abrahamic fundie pov - yours - you are damning your soul. No self-excusing fundie workaround - the Jesuit "good lie" that brings people to salvation - will save you from a corrupt performance like this.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
Going down the rabbit hole...
if i were to take your assertion to be a philosophical position, i would ask what place democracy of bacteria has over the entity known as the host ?
removing the right of the single bacterium from the host is no different to removing the bacteria(life) from any other life.
the act remains singular in its outcome.
how do you propose the solution to the outcome to be devoid of the democratic will of majority life by force ?
larger animals eat smaller animals etc
bacteria eat large animals...
viruses and bacteria feed off singular animals that are composed of many different life forms.
the heir of your inference suggests a need to be ignorant of many forms of life to leave the question of right to be without question (unless you can propose an alternative?)
if in gods image the dominant animal's owns' the life of the lower animal, then a baby human is a lower life form to an adult life form by divine rite.
however, most religious doctrine defines class systems of life.
accepting a class system of life to be some form of absolute law to right by rite... ?
yet there you sit, without the action.
without the action there is no morality.
if you can not define the morality of the action prior to the action, how is it moral ?the "right" has no moral basis to be attached to.
cultural moral doctrine by right to power
women have all the power so must have all the right
who would impose their own hypocrisy ?
if i were to take your assertion to be a philosophical position, i would ask what place democracy of bacteria has over the entity known as the host ?
removing the right of the single bacterium from the host is no different to removing the bacteria(life) from any other life.
the act remains singular in its outcome.
how do you propose the solution to the outcome to be devoid of the democratic will of majority life by force ?
larger animals eat smaller animals etc
bacteria eat large animals...
viruses and bacteria feed off singular animals that are composed of many different life forms.
the heir of your inference suggests a need to be ignorant of many forms of life to leave the question of right to be without question (unless you can propose an alternative?)
if in gods image the dominant animal's owns' the life of the lower animal, then a baby human is a lower life form to an adult life form by divine rite.
however, most religious doctrine defines class systems of life.
accepting a class system of life to be some form of absolute law to right by rite... ?
yet there you sit, without the action.
without the action there is no morality.
if you can not define the morality of the action prior to the action, how is it moral ?the "right" has no moral basis to be attached to.
cultural moral doctrine by right to power
women have all the power so must have all the right
who would impose their own hypocrisy ?
Last edited:
For the most part, no, and that's a problem. This is not to downplay the thoughtful contributions from wegs and Bells, of course.
We're currently seeing the same thing in the current rush of mostly old, white, male legislators in conservative US states to unconstitutionally ban abortion, thereby undoing the progress made in the United States following Roe v. Wade and attempting to take the country back in one more respect towards the middle ages. The influence of conservative religion also has a lot to answer for.
It is 2019, and white men are still imposing their control over women and their bodies in what used to be the most advanced country on Earth. It's a travesty.
The exceptionally poor showing of our resident religious conservative white males in this thread I suppose is consistent with the general decline in American leadership in terms of basic human rights. Really, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
I would say it would be a case of domestic abuse to insist that a woman continue with a pregnancy she did not want. To request that a woman take the much less risky path in regards to her health can hardly be considered a case of abuse. What if a woman desired that a man impregnate her and he refused, would that also be an example of coercion because he withheld his essence from her? Why should he owe her fatherhood simply because she desires it at a time when it’s in her best interest health wise to stop the pregnancy? If she wants to continue over his objection, then she’s free to do so on her own. He should bear no responsibility for an entity that does not, and does not have to exist, and would only come into existence to satisfy the pleasure of the mother.
If a woman has the right to not become a parent and and avoid the complications and dangers of pregnancy, then the sperm donor should as well. This feminist makes the same proposition.
Men Should Be Able To Opt Out of Parenthood Too
https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/men-should-be-able-to-opt-out-of-paternity/
I'm still waiting.
You tell us what. Brave man you are.
:EDIT:
Oh no, I'm not talking about your useless US constitution. Trump getting elected without the popular vote and being able to select people to the supreme court means your country is broken shit.
I want to hear your say. Don't tell me to Google some retard.
How undemocratic America is!!!
Last edited:
