FLDS - Abortion Hypocrites

[Anguille]

YOU are calling someone else a troll?

I am a Lady Troll. Some are just common trolls.

 

[mattskramer]

Yes, you understood me correctly. I suppose it might get some "irresponsible, self-centered, and opportunistic “fathers” off the proverbial hook" as you say, but a man who offers to pay half the cost of the abortion and who forewarns a woman he wants no part of bringing an unwanted child into the world isn't being irresponsible, IMO. Allowing a man to relinquish his parental rights in exchange for not forcing him to pay child support for a child he never wanted is the closest we can come to allowing men equal choice concerning abortion without also infringing on the woman's right to keep the child.

Wow. Fair enough.

 

[Anguille]

I see your point. I was just trying to ascertain Anguille’s intellectual honesty and consistency. If I am interpreting her argument correctly, she is saying that since half of the genetic makeup is that of the father, it the mother right or the father’s right to choose to abort the baby. According to her, the father should have a voice in that if he wants it aborted, it should be aborted. Only if both agree should be baby be born. If one wants it and the other does not, then the one that wants it should expect no compensation from the one that wants no part of it. Am I right, Anguille? Is that your reasoning? If so, then at least it is consistent.

No. you have it all mixed up.

 

[jillian]

Certainly not yours. You've got a concoted one that claims something is what it is not. If left alone it comes out one thing -- a human child -- and only in two ways -- dead or alive.

Now I'm all for aborting alien babies cuz they cause a lot of problems according to the flix. When you get one, I'm on your side.

Again, by whose definition? I don't believe two cells together equals a child and my religious beliefs agree. If yours don't I have no problem with whatever definition you apply....but you don't get to define it for me because somewhere someone told you that it's a child from conception.

 

[Shogun]

Actually, she would do well to remember her own words when she gets knocked up, and the father walks, cuz well...the sperm left his body, and entered hers, so now it's hers.

And make your own fucking pie.

HA!

touche!

 

[Shogun]

Really? Such as what?

criminal penalties for terminating a pregnancy.

I've gone over this already. Also, just so you know, I really don't care how much that statement made you scream and hiss at your monitor like a vampire bitchslapped with a clove of garlic.

 

[Shogun]

By whose definition?

by GENETIC definition.

 

[Shogun]

Still suffering from your crippling case of uterus envy, I see. Shog thinks the blastocyst is riding in a taxi and sucking down Big Macs and smokes as it makes it's way toward implantation. It's just as much a part of the woman's body as your blood is a part of yours, doofus. Until it leaves your body, it is of your body.

Duh!

Not that it even matters. Get pregnant and get back to us.

so, how does a MAN'S genetic material from a SHARED zygote BECOME part of your body again? Do HOSTS really "become" the same thing? Did YOUR DNA change the second that the ZYGOTE attached? no?




tell me all about the envy in the work environment, giner. Zygotes are not blood. It's pretty damn dumb to suggest otherwise. Internal location does not make something "part of your body". If so, post surgical accidental sponges left behind and fucking diaphrams must make you the worlds first cyborgs.


not that it matters.. learn how to cook and then get back to me.

 

[Shogun]

Bullshit. Pro CHOICE buddy. If she CHOOSES to keep the child when he is more than willing to pay for the coathanger job, then he should be legally absolved of any and all responsibility.

And guilt trips work about as well HERE as hair mousse.

oh hey.. I hear ya.. Indeed, i've suggested the same thing.


but, as is usually the case, those who BENEFIT from a double standard are oft less than enthusiastic about equality.

 

[Larkinn]

criminal penalties for terminating a pregnancy.

Umm, so tell me again how women going through 9 months of pregnancy and men going through exactly 0 equals things out?

I've gone over this already. Also, just so you know, I really don't care how much that statement made you scream and hiss at your monitor like a vampire bitchslapped with a clove of garlic.

Umm ok?

 

[Shogun]

Umm, so tell me again how women going through 9 months of pregnancy and men going through exactly 0 equals things out?



Umm ok?

Those nine months are the product of the same MUTUAL zipper decision. Going through 9 months of pregnancy is the predictable product of sexual behaviour. If you can tell a man "tough shit" for a zipper decision then so too can a woman be told the same when a CHILD is the result of a shared decision.

but, i'm pretty sure assuming that men have no role to play during the 9 months will get you at least E-layed if you don't happen to be at an Eve Ensler show.

 

[Larkinn]

Those nine months are the product of the same MUTUAL zipper decision.

Yes, it is. So of the mutual zipper decision the women gets 9 months of pregnancy, and the man gets nothing. So tell me again how thats equal?

Going through 9 months of pregnancy is the predictable product of sexual behaviour. If you can tell a man "tough shit" for a zipper decision then so too can a woman be told the same when a CHILD is the result of a shared decision.

Incorrect. There are some things you can say tough shit about and some things you can't. Forcing someone to hand over cash because of that decision is one thing. Forcing someone to abort a child because of that decision is another.

but, i'm pretty sure assuming that men have no role to play during the 9 months will get you at least E-layed if you don't happen to be at an Eve Ensler show.

You do, I hope, understand the difference between the role a man HAS to play and a role a man CAN play? If the man runs out, then no he has no role to play in those 9 months. The woman doesn't exactly have that luxury.

 

[Anguille]

oh hey.. I hear ya.. Indeed, i've suggested the same thing.


but, as is usually the case, those who BENEFIT from a double standard are oft less than enthusiastic about equality.

You and Gumbo need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Both of you have made bone headed and false assumptions and are now accusing me of having a point of view I clearly demonstrated I do not have.

I think that like RetiredGySgt and Shat, you just hear one liberal sounding comment from a poster and that sends up a flag for you to stop listening, assign to the poster all your cookiecutter notions of what you think each and every liberals believes in and then go on your merry way, blathering nonsense and making asses of yourselves because you clearly haven't been following what has been said.

Mattskramer is the only one to have had the presence of mind to consider what I said. My opinions are much more complex than you realize.

 

[Shogun]

Yes, it is. So of the mutual zipper decision the women gets 9 months of pregnancy, and the man gets nothing. So tell me again how thats equal?

no, HE gets a child and 18 years of muted parental SUPLIMENTARY input.



Incorrect. There are some things you can say tough shit about and some things you can't. Forcing someone to hand over cash because of that decision is one thing. Forcing someone to abort a child because of that decision is another.


HA!

Oh well, since YOU say so.






You do, I hope, understand the difference between the role a man HAS to play and a role a man CAN play? If the man runs out, then no he has no role to play in those 9 months. The woman doesn't exactly have that luxury.



Indeed, she most certainly does when SHE gets the, apparently, SOLE choice in weather or not to keep the kid. Legally, he DOES have a role to pay: funding the fucking pregnancy and child support. Therefor, LEGALLY, so should she if the roles were reversed. After all,

What a woman DOES have, and enjoy the irony, is the ZIPPER choice that you'd otherwise tell a man his input ends at. By making that zipper decision equally applicable not only do we promote equality but we also facilitate value in paternity AND promote universal PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

 

[Shogun]

You and Gumbo need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Both of you have made bone headed and false assumptions and are now accusing me of having a point of view I clearly demonstrated I do not have.

I think that like RetiredGySgt and Shat, you just hear one liberal sounding comment from a poster and that sends up a flag for you to stop listening, assign to the poster all your cookiecutter notions of what you think each and every liberals believes in and then go on your merry way, blathering nonsense and making asses of yourselves because you clearly haven't been following what has been said.

Mattskramer is the only one to have had the presence of mind to consider what I said. My opinions are much more complex than you realize.

Perhaps 500 posts in the last thread over the exact same subject has made an impression.

Hell, I'm all about compramize and mutual solutions... as evident in the GREAT ABORTION COMPRAMISE. But, I've been pretty clear about my middle ground and the logic thereof and so too have those who made the last thread so much fun. I'm a big fan of equality; no more, no less.


But, hey, I hope you are having a great Saturday night!


ps.. you might wanna reconsider phrases like "you just hear one liberal sounding comment". I entertain liberal AND conservative ideas much like, im sure, you do. Which of us is generalizing here? Maybe you should ask RGS, or any other staunch conservative here, which side of the fence im on.

 

[Anguille]

Yes, it is. So of the mutual zipper decision the women gets 9 months of pregnancy, and the man gets nothing. So tell me again how thats equal?

no, HE gets a child and 18 years of muted parental SUPLIMENTARY input.



Incorrect. There are some things you can say tough shit about and some things you can't. Forcing someone to hand over cash because of that decision is one thing. Forcing someone to abort a child because of that decision is another.


HA!

Oh well, since YOU say so.






You do, I hope, understand the difference between the role a man HAS to play and a role a man CAN play? If the man runs out, then no he has no role to play in those 9 months. The woman doesn't exactly have that luxury.



Indeed, she most certainly does when SHE gets the, apparently, SOLE choice in weather or not to keep the kid. Legally, he DOES have a role to pay: funding the fucking pregnancy and child support. Therefor, LEGALLY, so should she if the roles were reversed. After all,

What a woman DOES have, and enjoy the irony, is the ZIPPER choice that you'd otherwise tell a man his input ends at. By making that zipper decision equally applicable not only do we promote equality but we also facilitate value in paternity AND promote universal PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

"Therefor, LEGALLY, so should she if the roles were reversed. After all, " Women do pay child support, you didn't know that?

 

[Shogun]

"Therefor, LEGALLY, so should she if the roles were reversed. After all, " Women do pay child support, you didn't know that?

yea.. thats the evident pattern that emerges when one takes even the slightest glance at child support.


I mean, clearly, a few non-sequiter examples reflect so much.

 

[Larkinn]

no, HE gets a child and 18 years of muted parental SUPLIMENTARY input.

Oh, I thought you were going to equal out the pregnancy phase. So how were you going to do that again?

HA!

Oh well, since YOU say so.

Umm, really? I wouldn't think that anyone would argue with the clear and obvious difference between something that physically alters your body and money.

Indeed, she most certainly does when SHE gets the, apparently, SOLE choice in weather or not to keep the kid.

Getting an abortion isn't "running out". Its going through an invasive medical procedure to abort the fetus. Thats just a wee bit worse than walking out the door.

Legally, he DOES have a role to pay: funding the fucking pregnancy and child support. Therefor, LEGALLY, so should she if the roles were reversed. After all,

Of course she would if the roles were reversed. Does he want to live with the kid and take care of it? Generally the anwser to that is no. Why do you think there are so many single mothers and so few single dads?

What a woman DOES have, and enjoy the irony, is the ZIPPER choice that you'd otherwise tell a man his input ends at. By making that zipper decision equally applicable not only do we promote equality but we also facilitate value in paternity AND promote universal PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Equality?

So, what exactly is equal about one individual getting to decide for another whether to go through a 9 month long pregnancy of face an invasive medical procedure again?

Its inherently unequal. Women get pregnant, men don't. Treating them exactly the same is incredibly stupid given the fact that its already unequal. If you want to make it actually equal (or as close as possible), you have to give the woman increased rights. Why? Because she has massively increases responsibility.

 

[Larkinn]

yea.. thats the evident pattern that emerges when one takes even the slightest glance at child support.

Gee, I wonder why that could be? Could it be because the woman is living with the child and the man ran off? In your screwy world you'd probably have the woman live with the child and pay the single man child support.

 

[Anguille]

Perhaps 500 posts in the last thread over the exact same subject has made an impression.

Hell, I'm all about compramize and mutual solutions... as evident in the GREAT ABORTION COMPRAMISE. But, I've been pretty clear about my middle ground and the logic thereof and so too have those who made the last thread so much fun. I'm a big fan of equality; no more, no less.


But, hey, I hope you are having a great Saturday night!


ps.. you might wanna reconsider phrases like "you just hear one liberal sounding comment". I entertain liberal AND conservative ideas much like, im sure, you do. Which of us is generalizing here? Maybe you should ask RGS, or any other staunch conservative here, which side of the fence im on.

I'm not generalizing in this case. All 4 of you made the same false assumption about me.
Your individuality has not gone unnoticed by me. A guy who wants to annihilate bartenders with cigarette fumes but is nice to squirrels is obviously no prepackaged product.

Thanks, I had a great Saturday evening. I hope you enjoy what's left of yours.