Poll of the Day > Why are people freaking out over Alabama?

(+) Yeah! (+)

The_tall_midget posted...

Don't want to be pregnant? Stop sleeping around

While this is a great stance to take, this isn't realistic either.

Better thing to do would be to better educate, be supportive, and not ostracize birth control and contraceptives, not just place it all on the women. Men are just as much to blame. As they say: it takes two to tango.

While I don't want my daughter to have sex before she's ready to have a baby, the reality is she will. She already knows to come to us, and already knows that we don't want it to happen until she's ready. We've been open about expectations, but we're also not naive. We'll keep condoms in the house and will get her birth control when she's "ready". We're not going to judge, we'll just be ready to support and coach.

Or we can just ban intercourse for everyone under a certain age, under a certain income, and who don't pass rigorous psychological screening. This makes more sense to me than just banning the outcome of a bad choice.

Fix the process, don't punish the end result.
---

Tired argument. It isn't aware of itself. If it were, that would be a problem.
---

BlackScythe0 posted...

It is impossible to ban abortion. The only thing you can accomplish is banning safe abortion and creating laws to murder women who seek what women have sought all through human history.

If banning abortions will force people to go to extraordinary means and have unsafe abortions, how will banning guns be any different? people who want either will get them. I'm pro choice btw.
---

Peterass posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

It is impossible to ban abortion. The only thing you can accomplish is banning safe abortion and creating laws to murder women who seek what women have sought all through human history.

If banning abortions will force people to go to extraordinary means and have unsafe abortions, how will banning guns be any different? people who want either will get them. I'm pro choice btw.

Are you seriously trying to make this argument? Without safe abortion women are far more likely to die or face life long repercussions. Without more efficient weapons of mass murder the ability of murderers to deal out death will go down.

Peterass posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

It is impossible to ban abortion. The only thing you can accomplish is banning safe abortion and creating laws to murder women who seek what women have sought all through human history.

If banning abortions will force people to go to extraordinary means and have unsafe abortions, how will banning guns be any different? people who want either will get them. I'm pro choice btw.

No one accidentally uses an abortion the wrong way and your kid/grandkid can't take your abortion that you legally had done and use it to kill other people. That's a pretty flimsy analogy.
---

The_tall_midget posted...

Love on how people are saying that means that they want to remove the rights of a woman to her body.

If that was the case, those women wouldn't have been able to end up pregnant in the first place.

wat
---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Peterass posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

It is impossible to ban abortion. The only thing you can accomplish is banning safe abortion and creating laws to murder women who seek what women have sought all through human history.

If banning abortions will force people to go to extraordinary means and have unsafe abortions, how will banning guns be any different? people who want either will get them. I'm pro choice btw.

Are you seriously trying to make this argument? Without safe abortion women are far more likely to die or face life long repercussions. Without more efficient weapons of mass murder the ability of murderers to deal out death will go down.

I agree with the first half of what you say. But people assume banning guns will get rid of guns. They wont.
---

Mead posted...

Unbridled9 posted...

SunWuKung420 posted...

ROFL.

This week I learned that kyuubi doesn't know how female birth control pills work and that ohja doesn't understand the human reproductive cycle. That makes sense since they both are republicans.

Ummm... Wow. That's pretty... Yea. Terrible. Seriously dude? You make it sound like just being republican means you have no clue how those sorts of things work.

Well to be fair the republican voting base isnt exactly known for their appreciation of education and facts

And the democratic voting base is well known for their ability to go to college for underwater basket weaving on daddy's dime before thinking that anyone who disagrees with them even slightly is getting ready to goosestep.

Or, alternatively, that's a silly notion being brought around by arrogance and assumed superiority with little to no grounding in reality.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

And the democratic voting base is well known for their ability to go to college for underwater basket weaving on daddy's dime before thinking that anyone who disagrees with them even slightly is getting ready to goosestep.

Or, alternatively, that's a silly notion being brought around by arrogance and assumed superiority with little to no grounding in reality.

None of that makes the republican stance on abortion any less hypocritical or preposterous. This isn't a discussion about how young democrats are out of touch with reality.
---

Peterass posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

Peterass posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

It is impossible to ban abortion. The only thing you can accomplish is banning safe abortion and creating laws to murder women who seek what women have sought all through human history.

If banning abortions will force people to go to extraordinary means and have unsafe abortions, how will banning guns be any different? people who want either will get them. I'm pro choice btw.

Are you seriously trying to make this argument? Without safe abortion women are far more likely to die or face life long repercussions. Without more efficient weapons of mass murder the ability of murderers to deal out death will go down.

I agree with the first half of what you say. But people assume banning guns will get rid of guns. They wont.

You think I'm going to spend in depth effort in this absurdity? I'm still not even sure why I humored you. I tried to take it from an efficiency angle but that still doesn't work because the two just aren't even remotely similar concepts. Fuck I'm just just frustrated at how disgusting you are.

man101 posted...

Unbridled9 posted...

And the democratic voting base is well known for their ability to go to college for underwater basket weaving on daddy's dime before thinking that anyone who disagrees with them even slightly is getting ready to goosestep.

Or, alternatively, that's a silly notion being brought around by arrogance and assumed superiority with little to no grounding in reality.

None of that makes the republican stance on abortion any less hypocritical or preposterous. This isn't a discussion about how young democrats are out of touch with reality.

What's hypocritical/preposterous here?
---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Peterass posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

Peterass posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

It is impossible to ban abortion. The only thing you can accomplish is banning safe abortion and creating laws to murder women who seek what women have sought all through human history.

If banning abortions will force people to go to extraordinary means and have unsafe abortions, how will banning guns be any different? people who want either will get them. I'm pro choice btw.

Are you seriously trying to make this argument? Without safe abortion women are far more likely to die or face life long repercussions. Without more efficient weapons of mass murder the ability of murderers to deal out death will go down.

I agree with the first half of what you say. But people assume banning guns will get rid of guns. They wont.

You think I'm going to spend in depth effort in this absurdity? I'm still not even sure why I humored you. I tried to take it from an efficiency angle but that still doesn't work because the two just aren't even remotely similar concepts. Fuck I'm just just frustrated at how disgusting you are.

You've got some issues and might need professional help
---

Peterass posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

Peterass posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

Peterass posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

It is impossible to ban abortion. The only thing you can accomplish is banning safe abortion and creating laws to murder women who seek what women have sought all through human history.

If banning abortions will force people to go to extraordinary means and have unsafe abortions, how will banning guns be any different? people who want either will get them. I'm pro choice btw.

Are you seriously trying to make this argument? Without safe abortion women are far more likely to die or face life long repercussions. Without more efficient weapons of mass murder the ability of murderers to deal out death will go down.

I agree with the first half of what you say. But people assume banning guns will get rid of guns. They wont.

You think I'm going to spend in depth effort in this absurdity? I'm still not even sure why I humored you. I tried to take it from an efficiency angle but that still doesn't work because the two just aren't even remotely similar concepts. Fuck I'm just just frustrated at how disgusting you are.

You've got some issues and might need professional help

What professional help will I get for "I really need to just tell trolls they are gross instead of attempting to humor them"?

BlackScythe0 posted...

hat professional help will I get for "I really need to just tell trolls they are gross instead of attempting to humor them"?

Maybe not getting so angry so quickly? I mean, nothing puts a quicker end to a healthy conversation that an an angry outburst.
---

GeoMaggs posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

hat professional help will I get for "I really need to just tell trolls they are gross instead of attempting to humor them"?

Maybe not getting so angry so quickly? I mean, nothing puts a quicker end to a healthy conversation that an an angry outburst.

You thought comparing safe abortion to gun violence is a healthy discussion?

Discussing different point of views is always healthy.
---

GeoMaggs posted...

Discussing different point of views is always healthy.

Using logical fallacies and terrible arguments for false equivalence is not.

Neither is anger.
---

The_tall_midget posted...

Love on how people are saying that means that they want to remove the rights of a woman to her body.

By all means, please explain how forcing a woman to use her uterus to carry a child to term is any different from forcing somebody to give blood to a trauma victim, or transplanting an organ from somebody who hasn't consented to donating their organs.

The_tall_midget posted...

Don't want to be pregnant? Stop sleeping around.

Not that I expect you have much choice in the matter, but are you willing to become completely celibate except for the purposes of reproduction to do your part to reduce unwanted pregnancies?

_AdjI_ posted...

By all means, please explain how forcing a woman to use her uterus to carry a child to term is any different from forcing somebody to give blood to a trauma victim, or transplanting an organ from somebody who hasn't consented to donating their organs.

It's forcing mothers to feed their children. It just so happens that's how fetuses get nutrients.

Do you believe it's optional for parents to feed their kids?
---

ninja_lootz posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

By all means, please explain how forcing a woman to use her uterus to carry a child to term is any different from forcing somebody to give blood to a trauma victim, or transplanting an organ from somebody who hasn't consented to donating their organs.

It's forcing mothers to feed their children. It just so happens that's how fetuses get nutrients.

Do you believe it's optional for parents to feed their kids?

If we're specifically talking about feeding methods that rely on bodily functions? It quite definitely is. See: breastfeeding is not mandatory. Parents also are not required to give blood or donate kidneys/part of their liver to save their child's life. The requirement for parents to provide children with the necessities of life stops well short of infringing on bodily autonomy, with the sole exception of anti-abortion laws.

papercup posted...

Because it's going to go to the supreme court, and... this supreme court might actually side with Alabama.

I hope so. But Kavanaugh has already proven to be wishy washy on this issue. And then wed have to count on Roberts. Sadly, fat chance.

_AdjI_ posted...

By all means, please explain how forcing a woman to use her uterus to carry a child to term is any different from forcing somebody to give blood to a trauma victim, or transplanting an organ from somebody who hasn't consented to donating their organs.

The_tall_midget posted...

Don't want to be pregnant? Stop sleeping around.

Not that I expect you have much choice in the matter, but are you willing to become completely celibate except for the purposes of reproduction to do your part to reduce unwanted pregnancies?

Oh dear! You speak as if women only have abstinence as a form of birth control. It's as if the majority of birth control and options to deal with children after birth are almost not all available to women. Once again, if you can't handle having children, then don't fuck around; it's not society's responsibility to deal with your irresponsibility. What is this utter incapacity to deal with accountability going around?

Stop acting like women are victims. They have the majority of options and choices. Their only problem is that they've demanded such ridiculous amount of privileges that they forgot that it comes with responsibility and accountability. Your body, your choice, your never ending demands, YOUR FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Aren't women supposed to be strong and independent? Why is it that they can do everything men can a moment, but can't deal with any of their choices the other?
---

Its a little bizarre that youre so against abortion yet you have that sig.

The_tall_midget posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

By all means, please explain how forcing a woman to use her uterus to carry a child to term is any different from forcing somebody to give blood to a trauma victim, or transplanting an organ from somebody who hasn't consented to donating their organs.

The_tall_midget posted...

Don't want to be pregnant? Stop sleeping around.

Not that I expect you have much choice in the matter, but are you willing to become completely celibate except for the purposes of reproduction to do your part to reduce unwanted pregnancies?

Oh dear! You speak as if women only have abstinence as a form of birth control. It's as if the majority of birth control and options to deal with children after birth are almost not all available to women. Once again, if you can't handle having children, then don't fuck around; it's not society's responsibility to deal with your irresponsibility. What is this utter incapacity to deal with accountability going around?

Stop acting like women are victims. They have the majority of options and choices. Their only problem is that they've demanded such ridiculous amount of privileges that they forgot that it comes with responsibility and accountability. Your body, your choice, your never ending demands, YOUR FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Aren't women supposed to be strong and independent? Why is it that they can do everything men can a moment, but can't deal with any of their choices the other?

You answered neither of the requests I made of you. How terribly rude. Apologize immediately, both to me and to the parents who raised you to have better manners than that.

CacciatoPart3 posted...

Its a little bizarre that youre so against abortion yet you have that sig.

I mean, his sig pretty flagrantly demonstrates that he doesn't understand how adjectives work, so I think expecting enough intelligence to stay logically consistent is a bit of a long shot.

GeoMaggs posted...

Neither is anger.

Frustration is justifiable as a normal human emotion.

The_tall_midget posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

By all means, please explain how forcing a woman to use her uterus to carry a child to term is any different from forcing somebody to give blood to a trauma victim, or transplanting an organ from somebody who hasn't consented to donating their organs.

The_tall_midget posted...

Don't want to be pregnant? Stop sleeping around.

Not that I expect you have much choice in the matter, but are you willing to become completely celibate except for the purposes of reproduction to do your part to reduce unwanted pregnancies?

Oh dear! You speak as if women only have abstinence as a form of birth control. It's as if the majority of birth control and options to deal with children after birth are almost not all available to women. Once again, if you can't handle having children, then don't fuck around; it's not society's responsibility to deal with your irresponsibility. What is this utter incapacity to deal with accountability going around?

Stop acting like women are victims. They have the majority of options and choices. Their only problem is that they've demanded such ridiculous amount of privileges that they forgot that it comes with responsibility and accountability. Your body, your choice, your never ending demands, YOUR FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Aren't women supposed to be strong and independent? Why is it that they can do everything men can a moment, but can't deal with any of their choices the other?

There are other forms of birth control. But they can all fail. You're the one saying that you shouldn't sleep with peopl until you're ready to have a child. Most people think that's a stupid statement. Mainly because it is...

And in this case, women are the victim, as they are getting rights to their own body taken away...
---

LinkPizza posted...

And in this case, women are the victim, as they are getting rights to their own body taken away...

They are? That's weird, is anyone preventing them from sleeping around? Is anyone preventing them from using birth control? Is anyone preventing them from using all other options available from them to abandon their children if they can't raise them?

No. They're removing their "right" to demand that society fix THEIR mistakes for them. Which was not a right in the first place. ONCE AGAIN, and I know it's very difficult for the liberal crowd out there, for whom personal accountability is a scary thing, if yo're not ready to have children, then don't fuck around irresponsibly. Unwanted pregnancies are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, completely due to voluntary actions.

Once again. There are options. Stop acting like women are victims. You're not a victim of your own actions. And if you think you do, you're too irresponsible to have rights and privileges in the first place. See, freedom means that you need to have accountability for your actions. Can't have accountability for your actions? Then you deserve no privileges since all you'll due is abuse them.

Maybe if they were responsible with their bodies in the first place abortions wouldn't be a problem?
---

Shall I interpret this as you admitting that you are too feeble-minded to handle my masterful evisceration of your argument? It's okay, not everyone can function in the presence of such radiant brilliance. I'd offer to loan you sunglasses, but I can't figure out which one you are amid the seething crowds of other peasant folk basking in my glory. Nothing personal.

The_tall_midget posted...

They are?

Yes. As someone is telling them what they can and can't do with their uterus... That's what it seems like. And they also have to change their way of life. Like they shouldn't drink or smoke when pregnant. They have to eat more. And stuff happens to their body. They get sick in the morning, feet swell, and they usually can't work for a while at some point... So, yeah. They are taking away rights to their own body...

The_tall_midget posted...

is anyone preventing them from sleeping around? Is anyone preventing them from using birth control?

If someone were, they would be taking away more of their body rights. Also, what world do you live in where those are 100%? Because that fantasy land sounds fun to live in.

The_tall_midget posted...

No. They're removing their "right" to demand that society fix THEIR mistakes for them.

People make mistakes. Also, maybe they were using birth control and it failed. Because that literally happens. To say it doesn't would be factually wrong. Condoms break, pill sometimes don't work, etc...

The_tall_midget posted...

if yo're not ready to have children, then don't fuck around irresponsibly.

Who says they were. Most people don't use abortion as their personal birth control. Some people use regular birth control and one day, it fails. They were "fucking responsibly" and bad shit happens.

The_tall_midget posted...

Once again. There are options. Stop acting like women are victims.

They are, since they are getting their own body rights taken away. Also, they ave options. And abortion should be one. I would rather the country pay for adoptions rather than pay for 18 years for a child that shouldn't have been born that may live a miserable life if they aren't adopted or hate the world because they feel no one loves them. No one cares about them after their born. They just want them born so they can... what... Be miserable. Not to mention, some are born with illnesses that need better treatment. Some are special needs and need more care. But they may not get that if given up for adoption. What about kids given up that had something like Spina Bifida, IIRC. That's an expensive disorder. Even when the husband had a good engineering job, it was hard to pay for. They could only afford it because the hospital made their child the poster child for it. Other than that, they wouldn't have been able to afford it.

The_tall_midget posted...

See, freedom means that you need to have accountability for your actions.

They are trying to by taking care of the problem. But people don't want to let them do that. Like you. You say take accountability for their actions. They are trying to. They know what the problem is. And they want to get rid of it. But people won't let them.

The_tall_midget posted...

Maybe if they were responsible with their bodies in the first place abortions wouldn't be a problem?

And again, many people are. But shit happens. the world isn't perfect. Some people plan everything to not have a baby and still do.
---

OhhhJa posted...

It's like people here dont realize that women have periods quite regularly once a month barring unusual circumstances. On top of that, women experience many obvious symptoms of pregnancy long before two months go by

My wife sometimes is really irregular. It's not uncommon for her to just skip periods for a couple months at a time.

The_tall_midget posted...

Love on how people are saying that means that they want to remove the rights of a woman to her body.

If that was the case, those women wouldn't have been able to end up pregnant in the first place. Have no fear, they'll still be able to be irresponsible while demanding that society pays for their lack of responsibility. And then still cry about how oppressed they are.

Also, love on how people use rape and unplanned pregnancy when those are RIDICULOUSLY minority cases scenarios. The majority of abortions happen because of typical incapacity for accountability, which feminism is trying to eliminate from society. It's never your fault, it's the fault of:

1. The patriarchy.

2. Circumstances.

3. Victim card

4. Racism/sexism/bigotry.

5. DA DRUMPF!

6. Insert other excuses here.

Don't want to be pregnant? Stop sleeping around. Crazy idea, I know. I even encourage leftist women to keep the sex strike going... as if anybody gives a fuck.

Found the incel!

Yes. As someone is telling them what they can and can't do with their uterus... That's what it seems like. And they also have to change their way of life. Like they shouldn't drink or smoke when pregnant. They have to eat more. And stuff happens to their body. They get sick in the morning, feet swell, and they usually can't work for a while at some point... So, yeah. They are taking away rights to their own body...

No. No they aren't. They had the option to use multiple forms of birth control. They had the option to employ things such as condoms. They had the choice to employ other things such as the morning after pill. They had the choice to simply not have sex in the first place. That's an already-abundant amount of rights. Now they are going to kill an unborn life as yet another form of contraception because of their irresponsibility. I'm sorry but I see that as 'the other persons nose' of 'right to swing fist'.

I've noticed that there's effectively three different sides to the whole debate. Pro-life (believes in no abortions or extremely limited ones), pro-choice (believes women should have the option in at least some form), and pro-abortion (wants as much access as possible). I am between pro-life and choice myself in that I believe that there are situations which an abortion can, and maybe even should, be done but that none of said situations should be as a contraceptive to safeguard a womans 'right' to act like an irresponsible ****. The fact is that two lives are being weighed and a womans 'right to be an irresponsible ****' is dwarfed by the babies right to life in my eyes. As such I am highly pro-abortion.
---

I wonder why it's always the women who are the implied sluts for having sex. I wonder how many of these studs/players (or really incels) have sex knowing that whatever they do (besides a vasectomy) they might become single dads 9 months later and they can do nothing about it. But hey it's not like they will have a parasite inside them for said number of months.

I wonder how it would look if they where the once who had to take care of an unwanted pregnancy. I'm guessing there be abortion vending machines down at every bar by the end of the year.

Red_Bear posted...

I wonder why it's always the women who are the implied sluts for having sex. I wonder how many of these studs/players (or really incels) have sex knowing that whatever they do (besides a vasectomy) they might become single dads 9 months later and they can do nothing about it. But hey it's not like they will have a parasite inside them for said number of months.

I wonder how it would look if they where the once who had to take care of an unwanted pregnancy. I'm guessing there be abortion vending machines down at every bar by the end of the year.

I recently thought about that, as well. I usually do when abortion topics come up...
---

Unbridled9 posted...

That's an already-abundant amount of rights.

You heard it here, folks. Once you reach a certain number of rights, you no longer need the right to dictate what happens to your body. So what, if we take away women's ability to opt out of organ donation, then they can have an abortion? Or maybe she can get an abortion, but in return has to donate blood? Can we trade bodily autonomy rights like that?

That's not remotely how it works. It doesn't matter how many other options exist to avoid pregnancies. If you ban abortions, then you are restricting women's rights to decide how to use their own bodies. Period. Yes, another life is on the line, and that makes it a more serious decision, but lives are also on the line when we look at organ and tissue donation. Despite that, we respect the prior expressed wishes of the now-dead person and don't use their organs to save lives if they didn't want them to be used. Under laws that prohibit abortion, pregnant women have less right to bodily autonomy than corpses. That sounds dramatic and hyperbolic, but it's completely literal and true, which is really quite bad.

As it happens, I quite agree that treating abortion as just being another form of birth control is terrible. Enough options exist that are effective enough that abortion should really only be used as a last line of defense for that 1% chance that a baby happens despite due contraceptive diligence. That said, gatekeeping abortions on the basis of how hard the couple worked to prevent the pregnancy would inevitably end up being a nightmare of arbitrary restrictions, invasions of privacy, and bureaucratic delays that would end up pushing the abortion into the third trimester more often than not, by which point, you've got a viable baby and the issue's pretty much moot (such delays already happen in many areas with restrictions on how late abortions can be performed, effectively turning those restrictions into outright bans). As such, it's far better to just stick with a basic restriction on how late they can be done (brain function's a reasonable point to draw the line, or any point after which the baby stands a reasonable chance of survival if it's just delivered instead of aborted) and instead look at more proactive ways to reduce the number of abortions, such as birth control subsidies and comprehensive sex ed (both of which have been thoroughly demonstrated to significantly reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancies), as well as including birth control consultations with any abortion that is performed (a "do you have a plan to prevent this from happening again?" sort of deal, with advice and prescriptions as needed). Will that stop people from treating abortions as first-line birth control? No. But such people really aren't common enough to warrant overhauling all laws on the matter to catch them, at the expense of countless people who just got unlucky or made a mistake.

Red_Bear posted...

I wonder why it's always the women who are the implied sluts for having sex. I wonder how many of these studs/players (or really incels) have sex knowing that whatever they do (besides a vasectomy) they might become single dads 9 months later and they can do nothing about it. But hey it's not like they will have a parasite inside them for said number of months.

I wonder how it would look if they where the once who had to take care of an unwanted pregnancy. I'm guessing there be abortion vending machines down at every bar by the end of the year.

Hence my earlier challenge to our midgetly friend to vow celibacy except for reproductive purposes in an effort to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the world (though, again, his behaviour tells me that wouldn't be entirely his choice). "Just don't sleep around" is a popular saying, but everyone saying it always seems to forget that there's somebody else sleeping with them who's equally to blame.

_AdjI_ posted...

Unbridled9 posted...

That's an already-abundant amount of rights.

You heard it here, folks. Once you reach a certain number of rights, you no longer need the right to dictate what happens to your body. So what, if we take away women's ability to opt out of organ donation, then they can have an abortion? Or maybe she can get an abortion, but in return has to donate blood? Can we trade bodily autonomy rights like that?

The whole thing with republicans, if you've never noticed, is they fight against rights. They assert we need to give up the vast majority of our rights to achieve a sort of anarchical "freedom".

Anyone who isn't on the perverted definition of "freedom" that republicans use understands that rights exist to ensure our freedoms and liberty.

Red_Bear posted...

I wonder why it's always the women who are the implied sluts for having sex. I wonder how many of these studs/players (or really incels) have sex knowing that whatever they do (besides a vasectomy) they might become single dads 9 months later and they can do nothing about it. But hey it's not like they will have a parasite inside them for said number of months.

I wonder how it would look if they where the once who had to take care of an unwanted pregnancy. I'm guessing there be abortion vending machines down at every bar by the end of the year.

And I wonder what it would be like if I could fly by flapping my arms really fast. But the fact is that these women have had multiple chances by this point for multiple methods of prevention up to and including just not having sex and chose not to.

You heard it here, folks. Once you reach a certain number of rights, you no longer need the right to dictate what happens to your body. So what, if we take away women's ability to opt out of organ donation, then they can have an abortion? Or maybe she can get an abortion, but in return has to donate blood? Can we trade bodily autonomy rights like that?

That's not what I said, implied to have said, could have been interpreted to have reasonably said, or anything of the sort. And no. This is pure delusion as to what I'm saying on your part. As such I won't even bother to respond to the rest of what you said until I feel certain you won't just read only what you want to read from it.

The whole thing with republicans, if you've never noticed, is they fight against rights. They assert we need to give up the vast majority of our rights to achieve a sort of anarchical "freedom".

Anyone who isn't on the perverted definition of "freedom" that republicans use understands that rights exist to ensure our freedoms and liberty.

See, here's the thing. If an abortion was, say, removing a gall stone I wouldn't be opposed to it. It's not like I'm arguing that women don't have the right to drive or decide on who they end up married to or something. I'm arguing that the unborn child has a right to life and the woman has had ample chances, ample chances guaranteed by all the rights we as a society protect, to prevent the situation from ever arising and has ignored those rights, for whatever reason, and is now falling back on abortion as a contraceptive.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

See, here's the thing. If an abortion was, say, removing a gall stone I wouldn't be opposed to it. It's not like I'm arguing that women don't have the right to drive or decide on who they end up married to or something. I'm arguing that the unborn child has a right to life and the woman has had ample chances, ample chances guaranteed by all the rights we as a society protect, to prevent the situation from ever arising and has ignored those rights, for whatever reason, and is now falling back on abortion as a contraceptive.

It's not a child until it is a child. At 6 weeks it's not a child. It's not a viable birth at that point.

Unbridled9 posted...

And I wonder what it would be like if I could fly by flapping my arms really fast. But the fact is that these women have had multiple chances by this point for multiple methods of prevention up to and including just not having sex and chose not to.

And none are 100%. So, what happens when they used multiple forms of protection and still got pregnant. Or what happens when the guy slips off the condom without her knowledge and gets her pregnant. Its not always the womens fault. It takes two to make a baby...

And why do you assume protection is 100%, anyway? Because based on your post, you seem to think that... Or think that sex should only be used for procreation/reproduction...
---

Or ya know women can just get an abortion if they want
---

Unbridled9 posted...

That's not what I said, implied to have said, could have been interpreted to have reasonably said, or anything of the sort. And no. This is pure delusion as to what I'm saying on your part.

Your exact words were "that's an already-abundant amount of rights" in reference to the right to use birth control or be abstinent. The implication is therefore that one only needs some pre-defined quantity of rights, after which bodily autonomy stops being an essential right and can be infringed upon at will. If that's not what you're saying, I invite you to reword it to communicate your point better.

Unbridled9 posted...

As such I won't even bother to respond to the rest of what you said until I feel certain you won't just read only what you want to read from it.

Now that's just weak. Again, if I misinterpret what you say, you're more than welcome to correct me and clarify.

Unbridled9 posted...

And I wonder what it would be like if I could fly by flapping my arms really fast. But the fact is that these women have had multiple chances by this point for multiple methods of prevention up to and including just not having sex and chose not to.

Hypothetically, if one day, you find a woman who has sex with you and 9 months later you receive package and letter (along with a little song and dance routine). Explaining that you are now the proud owner of 1 (or more) screaming little shit manufactory. Congratulations your life is now ruined!

Would you:
A. Grit your teeth and do your duty (it's only 18+ years after all)
B. Wish that you had some autonomy in the matter.

And remember, it doesn't matter how careful you were/are. In the game of life- shit happens.

Then consider that women also have to put their life's on the line and go through the emotional, mental and physical trauma of carrying and giving birth to a 3.5 kg parasite.

But some men don't even seem to consider their responsibility. Once they have sown the seed, the pregnancy and possible child is entirely up to the woman to take care of. They shouldn't even have to pay alimony really, and definitely not take care of it.

Red_Bear posted...

Congratulations your life is now ruined!

Please never reproduce.

Red_Bear posted...

giving birth to a 3.5 kg parasite.

Oh god, please never reproduce.
---

Red_Bear posted...

They shouldn't even have to pay alimony really, and definitely not take care of it.

I think they probably shouldnt have to pay child support if they cut all ties. But if they want to see the child at all, then they have to pay... Or something similar...
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Red_Bear posted...

Congratulations your life is now ruined!

Please never reproduce.

I love kids.
But if someone forced me to have one against my will. Then yes I would feel like my life would be ruined and that fetus is nothing more than an unwanted drain on my body. It's a lump of cells, no higher brain functions.

And if that thing also happens to be because of my rapist father... But alabama says no-no, you slut.

LinkPizza posted...

I think they probably shouldnt have to pay child support if they cut all ties. But if they want to see the child at all, then they have to pay... Or something similar...

Then they shouldn't be able to force the woman to carry it to term. Otherwise she should have just as much right to dump it in his lap and wave her last goodbyes.

Red_Bear posted...

LinkPizza posted...

I think they probably shouldnt have to pay child support if they cut all ties. But if they want to see the child at all, then they have to pay... Or something similar...

Then they shouldn't be able to force the woman to carry it to term. Otherwise she should have just as much right to dump it in his lap and wave her last goodbyes.

Yeah. That would be fair, too. She could cut all ties and give it to him, as well. That being said, I dont think they should be forced to carry it full term.

Its weird. They already have places full of children that need homes. And now they want to fill those places up even more with all these new accidental children... Its just too much...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Its weird. They already have places full of children that need homes. And now they want to fill those places up even more with all these new accidental children... Its just too much...

While also cutting funding for such programs, no less. Or at least not expanding them. The abject hypocrisy of pro-lifers is really getting rather old.

_AdjI_ posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Its weird. They already have places full of children that need homes. And now they want to fill those places up even more with all these new accidental children... Its just too much...

While also cutting funding for such programs, no less. Or at least not expanding them. The abject hypocrisy of pro-lifers is really getting rather old.

How hard is it to understand that some people think a fetus is a person and abortions are therefor murder?
---