If a woman aborted my child, I would probably go ape shit. Why are the feelings of the father...

[Correll]

You assume that unborn Americans are just tissue lumps with no legal rights, and that there is NO other possible view.

THus any attempt by those who disagree with you on that, is seen as just attempts to limit the freedom of the mothers for no reason, in your world view.


AND you assume that as OBJECTIVE REALITY, and then assume that the Law and the Courts all agree with you and then, using all those assumptions as facts, then reach the "conclusion"

that the Constitution supports your position.

I assumed no such thing. Now you're relying on your own delusions and projecting them onto me.

Legal abortion is a right which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed. That is not my opinion but established fact. Those who state otherwise are merely expressing their opinion, which I noted and discarded in favor of the law of our land.

So are limitations on late term abortions, which you oh so conveniently left out.

That is people who consider the unborn to be people with rights, to be forcing their views on "others" legally and constitutionally.

I left nothing out, dimwit. I purposefully said, "legal abortions." The Supreme Court, in affirming the right of abortion, stated there are limitations on that right. Just as there are limitations on other rights.

So, your talk of th

You assume that unborn Americans are just tissue lumps with no legal rights, and that there is NO other possible view.

THus any attempt by those who disagree with you on that, is seen as just attempts to limit the freedom of the mothers for no reason, in your world view.


AND you assume that as OBJECTIVE REALITY, and then assume that the Law and the Courts all agree with you and then, using all those assumptions as facts, then reach the "conclusion"

that the Constitution supports your position.

I assumed no such thing. Now you're relying on your own delusions and projecting them onto me.

Legal abortion is a right which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed. That is not my opinion but established fact. Those who state otherwise are merely expressing their opinion, which I noted and discarded in favor of the law of our land.

So are limitations on late term abortions, which you oh so conveniently left out.

That is people who consider the unborn to be people with rights, to be forcing their views on "others" legally and constitutionally.

I left nothing out, dimwit. I purposefully said, "legal abortions." The Supreme Court, in affirming the right of abortion, stated there are limitations on that right. Just as there are limitations on other rights.

So, do you have anything to say about the OP's point, ie the way men have no say in what happens to their children?

Sure, my opinion is that men know they have no rights in forcing a woman to either have an abortion or to not have one. That places a higher burden on men to take even extra precautions in not getting a woman pregnant if they can't deal with consequences of having no rights over the woman's body.

So, you support the status quo that men have no control, but complete responsibility.


I do not see that as morally or ethically defensible.

 

[Faun]

I assumed no such thing. Now you're relying on your own delusions and projecting them onto me.

Legal abortion is a right which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed. That is not my opinion but established fact. Those who state otherwise are merely expressing their opinion, which I noted and discarded in favor of the law of our land.

So are limitations on late term abortions, which you oh so conveniently left out.

That is people who consider the unborn to be people with rights, to be forcing their views on "others" legally and constitutionally.

I left nothing out, dimwit. I purposefully said, "legal abortions." The Supreme Court, in affirming the right of abortion, stated there are limitations on that right. Just as there are limitations on other rights.

So, your talk of th

I assumed no such thing. Now you're relying on your own delusions and projecting them onto me.

Legal abortion is a right which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed. That is not my opinion but established fact. Those who state otherwise are merely expressing their opinion, which I noted and discarded in favor of the law of our land.

So are limitations on late term abortions, which you oh so conveniently left out.

That is people who consider the unborn to be people with rights, to be forcing their views on "others" legally and constitutionally.

I left nothing out, dimwit. I purposefully said, "legal abortions." The Supreme Court, in affirming the right of abortion, stated there are limitations on that right. Just as there are limitations on other rights.

So, do you have anything to say about the OP's point, ie the way men have no say in what happens to their children?

Sure, my opinion is that men know they have no rights in forcing a woman to either have an abortion or to not have one. That places a higher burden on men to take even extra precautions in not getting a woman pregnant if they can't deal with consequences of having no rights over the woman's body.

So, you support the status quo that men have no control, but complete responsibility.


I do not see that as morally or ethically defensible.

What is morally irreprehensible is the position that men should not have to be held responsible for their own children once they are born.

 

[Correll]

So are limitations on late term abortions, which you oh so conveniently left out.

That is people who consider the unborn to be people with rights, to be forcing their views on "others" legally and constitutionally.

I left nothing out, dimwit. I purposefully said, "legal abortions." The Supreme Court, in affirming the right of abortion, stated there are limitations on that right. Just as there are limitations on other rights.

So, your talk of th

So are limitations on late term abortions, which you oh so conveniently left out.

That is people who consider the unborn to be people with rights, to be forcing their views on "others" legally and constitutionally.

I left nothing out, dimwit. I purposefully said, "legal abortions." The Supreme Court, in affirming the right of abortion, stated there are limitations on that right. Just as there are limitations on other rights.

So, do you have anything to say about the OP's point, ie the way men have no say in what happens to their children?

Sure, my opinion is that men know they have no rights in forcing a woman to either have an abortion or to not have one. That places a higher burden on men to take even extra precautions in not getting a woman pregnant if they can't deal with consequences of having no rights over the woman's body.

So, you support the status quo that men have no control, but complete responsibility.


I do not see that as morally or ethically defensible.

What is morally irreprehensible is the position that men should not have to be held responsible for their own children once they are born.

It is interesting that you felt that the way to defend your position was to make up a strawman and attack that.

THat indicates that you AGREE with me that your actual position is morally and ethically indefensible, but that you hold to it anyway.

 

[Faun]

I left nothing out, dimwit. I purposefully said, "legal abortions." The Supreme Court, in affirming the right of abortion, stated there are limitations on that right. Just as there are limitations on other rights.

So, your talk of th

I left nothing out, dimwit. I purposefully said, "legal abortions." The Supreme Court, in affirming the right of abortion, stated there are limitations on that right. Just as there are limitations on other rights.

So, do you have anything to say about the OP's point, ie the way men have no say in what happens to their children?

Sure, my opinion is that men know they have no rights in forcing a woman to either have an abortion or to not have one. That places a higher burden on men to take even extra precautions in not getting a woman pregnant if they can't deal with consequences of having no rights over the woman's body.

So, you support the status quo that men have no control, but complete responsibility.


I do not see that as morally or ethically defensible.

What is morally irreprehensible is the position that men should not have to be held responsible for their own children once they are born.

It is interesting that you felt that the way to defend your position was to make up a strawman and attack that.

THat indicates that you AGREE with me that your actual position is morally and ethically indefensible, but that you hold to it anyway.

I am not responsible for your delusions.

 

[Correll]

So, your talk of th
So, do you have anything to say about the OP's point, ie the way men have no say in what happens to their children?

Sure, my opinion is that men know they have no rights in forcing a woman to either have an abortion or to not have one. That places a higher burden on men to take even extra precautions in not getting a woman pregnant if they can't deal with consequences of having no rights over the woman's body.

So, you support the status quo that men have no control, but complete responsibility.


I do not see that as morally or ethically defensible.

What is morally irreprehensible is the position that men should not have to be held responsible for their own children once they are born.

It is interesting that you felt that the way to defend your position was to make up a strawman and attack that.

THat indicates that you AGREE with me that your actual position is morally and ethically indefensible, but that you hold to it anyway.

I am not responsible for your delusions.

So, back to the OP.



So, you support the status quo that men have no control, but complete responsibility.


I do not see that as morally or ethically defensible.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So are limitations on late term abortions, which you oh so conveniently left out.

That is people who consider the unborn to be people with rights, to be forcing their views on "others" legally and constitutionally.

I left nothing out, dimwit. I purposefully said, "legal abortions." The Supreme Court, in affirming the right of abortion, stated there are limitations on that right. Just as there are limitations on other rights.

So, your talk of th

So are limitations on late term abortions, which you oh so conveniently left out.

That is people who consider the unborn to be people with rights, to be forcing their views on "others" legally and constitutionally.

I left nothing out, dimwit. I purposefully said, "legal abortions." The Supreme Court, in affirming the right of abortion, stated there are limitations on that right. Just as there are limitations on other rights.

So, do you have anything to say about the OP's point, ie the way men have no say in what happens to their children?

Sure, my opinion is that men know they have no rights in forcing a woman to either have an abortion or to not have one. That places a higher burden on men to take even extra precautions in not getting a woman pregnant if they can't deal with consequences of having no rights over the woman's body.

So, you support the status quo that men have no control, but complete responsibility.


I do not see that as morally or ethically defensible.

What is morally irreprehensible is the position that men should not have to be held responsible for their own children once they are born.

Who is saying that? Men who don't support their children are scumbags,

 

[Correll]

I left nothing out, dimwit. I purposefully said, "legal abortions." The Supreme Court, in affirming the right of abortion, stated there are limitations on that right. Just as there are limitations on other rights.

So, your talk of th

I left nothing out, dimwit. I purposefully said, "legal abortions." The Supreme Court, in affirming the right of abortion, stated there are limitations on that right. Just as there are limitations on other rights.

So, do you have anything to say about the OP's point, ie the way men have no say in what happens to their children?

Sure, my opinion is that men know they have no rights in forcing a woman to either have an abortion or to not have one. That places a higher burden on men to take even extra precautions in not getting a woman pregnant if they can't deal with consequences of having no rights over the woman's body.

So, you support the status quo that men have no control, but complete responsibility.


I do not see that as morally or ethically defensible.

What is morally irreprehensible is the position that men should not have to be held responsible for their own children once they are born.

Who is saying that? Men who don't support their children are scumbags,

No one said that. He just started spouting off about it instead of answering my post.

 

[Faun]

Sure, my opinion is that men know they have no rights in forcing a woman to either have an abortion or to not have one. That places a higher burden on men to take even extra precautions in not getting a woman pregnant if they can't deal with consequences of having no rights over the woman's body.

So, you support the status quo that men have no control, but complete responsibility.


I do not see that as morally or ethically defensible.

What is morally irreprehensible is the position that men should not have to be held responsible for their own children once they are born.

It is interesting that you felt that the way to defend your position was to make up a strawman and attack that.

THat indicates that you AGREE with me that your actual position is morally and ethically indefensible, but that you hold to it anyway.

I am not responsible for your delusions.

So, back to the OP.



So, you support the status quo that men have no control, but complete responsibility.


I do not see that as morally or ethically defensible.

It's also not my problem that your illiteracy prevents you from comprehending what I'm saying. I never said men have "no control."

They have plenty of control. Up until the point their seed impregnates a woman. As I pointed out, that is their opportunity to exercise their control.

 

[Faun]

So, your talk of th
So, do you have anything to say about the OP's point, ie the way men have no say in what happens to their children?

Sure, my opinion is that men know they have no rights in forcing a woman to either have an abortion or to not have one. That places a higher burden on men to take even extra precautions in not getting a woman pregnant if they can't deal with consequences of having no rights over the woman's body.

So, you support the status quo that men have no control, but complete responsibility.


I do not see that as morally or ethically defensible.

What is morally irreprehensible is the position that men should not have to be held responsible for their own children once they are born.

Who is saying that? Men who don't support their children are scumbags,

No one said that. He just started spouting off about it instead of answering my post.

I've answered your post. You simply lack the ability to understand it.

 

[Correll]

So, you support the status quo that men have no control, but complete responsibility.


I do not see that as morally or ethically defensible.

What is morally irreprehensible is the position that men should not have to be held responsible for their own children once they are born.

It is interesting that you felt that the way to defend your position was to make up a strawman and attack that.

THat indicates that you AGREE with me that your actual position is morally and ethically indefensible, but that you hold to it anyway.

I am not responsible for your delusions.

So, back to the OP.



So, you support the status quo that men have no control, but complete responsibility.


I do not see that as morally or ethically defensible.

It's also not my problem that your illiteracy prevents you from comprehending what I'm saying. I never said men have "no control."

They have plenty of control. Up until the point their seed impregnates a woman. As I pointed out, that is their opportunity to exercise their control.

And beyond that point, no control, and full responsibility.


I do not see that as morally or ethically defensible.

 

[Correll]

Sure, my opinion is that men know they have no rights in forcing a woman to either have an abortion or to not have one. That places a higher burden on men to take even extra precautions in not getting a woman pregnant if they can't deal with consequences of having no rights over the woman's body.

So, you support the status quo that men have no control, but complete responsibility.


I do not see that as morally or ethically defensible.

What is morally irreprehensible is the position that men should not have to be held responsible for their own children once they are born.

Who is saying that? Men who don't support their children are scumbags,

No one said that. He just started spouting off about it instead of answering my post.

I've answered your post. You simply lack the ability to understand it.

I'm actually fairly bright. If I misunderstood you, the problem might be you.

 

[Slyhunter]

It is so weird at how conservatives resist abortion, so want to force a woman to have the baby, but then say the baby has no rights once born (to food, healthcare, clothing etc). Nope, at that point its on its own with a mama who doesn't love it and a dad who has made a dash for it. Why be more concerned with embryos' rights than children living on the streets?
I am a mom of three and if anyone had forced me to go through carrying, birthing and raising those little angels I would have wiped that smile off his sodden face in a second flat.

Yeah murder of the most innocent, should be acceptable to all.

The most innocent clump of cells as opposed to the most innocent living children abandoned on the streets? Which is "most innocent" in your book?

Sterilize the poor. If you can't afford kids you shouldn't have sex.

 

[Faun]

What is morally irreprehensible is the position that men should not have to be held responsible for their own children once they are born.

It is interesting that you felt that the way to defend your position was to make up a strawman and attack that.

THat indicates that you AGREE with me that your actual position is morally and ethically indefensible, but that you hold to it anyway.

I am not responsible for your delusions.

So, back to the OP.



So, you support the status quo that men have no control, but complete responsibility.


I do not see that as morally or ethically defensible.

It's also not my problem that your illiteracy prevents you from comprehending what I'm saying. I never said men have "no control."

They have plenty of control. Up until the point their seed impregnates a woman. As I pointed out, that is their opportunity to exercise their control.

And beyond that point, no control, and full responsibility.


I do not see that as morally or ethically defensible.

And your remedy would be what? To force women to carry until birth against their will?

 

[Mr Natural]

And your remedy would be what? To force women to carry until birth against their will?

Absolutely!

As a punishment for their wanton ways.

 

[Slyhunter]

So are limitations on late term abortions, which you oh so conveniently left out.

That is people who consider the unborn to be people with rights, to be forcing their views on "others" legally and constitutionally.

I left nothing out, dimwit. I purposefully said, "legal abortions." The Supreme Court, in affirming the right of abortion, stated there are limitations on that right. Just as there are limitations on other rights.

So, your talk of th

So are limitations on late term abortions, which you oh so conveniently left out.

That is people who consider the unborn to be people with rights, to be forcing their views on "others" legally and constitutionally.

I left nothing out, dimwit. I purposefully said, "legal abortions." The Supreme Court, in affirming the right of abortion, stated there are limitations on that right. Just as there are limitations on other rights.

So, do you have anything to say about the OP's point, ie the way men have no say in what happens to their children?

Sure, my opinion is that men know they have no rights in forcing a woman to either have an abortion or to not have one. That places a higher burden on men to take even extra precautions in not getting a woman pregnant if they can't deal with consequences of having no rights over the woman's body.

So, you support the status quo that men have no control, but complete responsibility.


I do not see that as morally or ethically defensible.

What is morally irreprehensible is the position that men should not have to be held responsible for their own children once they are born.

If they are willing to pay for an abortion they should only be responsible for the cost of the abortion as long as abortion is legal. It's still the woman's choice whether to have the kid or not she just can't force the man to pay for it for 18 years.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You are losing It, dude.

You are actually saying that women should be forced to bear a child and should live in poverty. Completely nuts.

How is a woman forced to bear children?

Do you actually read threads or just dump on random posts?

Feel free to open the quote boxes and read the conversation.

I've read most all of them.. not one explanation as to how women are forced to have children. As well, not one explanation as to why I am obligated to support others' children.

You've obviously missed it.

Seriously, how does one force a woman to have a child? Women don't get pregnant by osmosis you know... conception is a purely voluntary act.

If abortion weren't an option, obviously.
Like I said, read the thread before responding.

 

[Faun]

So, you support the status quo that men have no control, but complete responsibility.


I do not see that as morally or ethically defensible.

What is morally irreprehensible is the position that men should not have to be held responsible for their own children once they are born.

Who is saying that? Men who don't support their children are scumbags,

No one said that. He just started spouting off about it instead of answering my post.

I've answered your post. You simply lack the ability to understand it.

I'm actually fairly bright. If I misunderstood you, the problem might be you.

Doubtful since I clearly stated men do have some control and you falsely claimed they have none.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

How is a woman forced to bear children?

Do you actually read threads or just dump on random posts?

Feel free to open the quote boxes and read the conversation.

I've read most all of them.. not one explanation as to how women are forced to have children. As well, not one explanation as to why I am obligated to support others' children.

You've obviously missed it.

Seriously, how does one force a woman to have a child? Women don't get pregnant by osmosis you know... conception is a purely voluntary act.

If abortion weren't an option, obviously.
Like I said, read the thread before responding.

Not getting pregnant is an option. Millions do it. Go to any abortion clinic, I guarantee you, it is a collection of hobags and it probably isn't their first rodeo.

 

[Faun]

I left nothing out, dimwit. I purposefully said, "legal abortions." The Supreme Court, in affirming the right of abortion, stated there are limitations on that right. Just as there are limitations on other rights.

So, your talk of th

I left nothing out, dimwit. I purposefully said, "legal abortions." The Supreme Court, in affirming the right of abortion, stated there are limitations on that right. Just as there are limitations on other rights.

So, do you have anything to say about the OP's point, ie the way men have no say in what happens to their children?

Sure, my opinion is that men know they have no rights in forcing a woman to either have an abortion or to not have one. That places a higher burden on men to take even extra precautions in not getting a woman pregnant if they can't deal with consequences of having no rights over the woman's body.

So, you support the status quo that men have no control, but complete responsibility.


I do not see that as morally or ethically defensible.

What is morally irreprehensible is the position that men should not have to be held responsible for their own children once they are born.

If they are willing to pay for an abortion they should only be responsible for the cost of the abortion as long as abortion is legal. It's still the woman's choice whether to have the kid or not she just can't force the man to pay for it for 18 years.

^^^ an example of morally irreprehensible.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You assume that unborn Americans are just tissue lumps with no legal rights, and that there is NO other possible view.

THus any attempt by those who disagree with you on that, is seen as just attempts to limit the freedom of the mothers for no reason, in your world view.


AND you assume that as OBJECTIVE REALITY, and then assume that the Law and the Courts all agree with you and then, using all those assumptions as facts, then reach the "conclusion"

that the Constitution supports your position.

I assumed no such thing. Now you're relying on your own delusions and projecting them onto me.

Legal abortion is a right which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed. That is not my opinion but established fact. Those who state otherwise are merely expressing their opinion, which I noted and discarded in favor of the law of our land.

So are limitations on late term abortions, which you oh so conveniently left out.

That is people who consider the unborn to be people with rights, to be forcing their views on "others" legally and constitutionally.

I left nothing out, dimwit. I purposefully said, "legal abortions." The Supreme Court, in affirming the right of abortion, stated there are limitations on that right. Just as there are limitations on other rights.

So, your talk of th

You assume that unborn Americans are just tissue lumps with no legal rights, and that there is NO other possible view.

THus any attempt by those who disagree with you on that, is seen as just attempts to limit the freedom of the mothers for no reason, in your world view.


AND you assume that as OBJECTIVE REALITY, and then assume that the Law and the Courts all agree with you and then, using all those assumptions as facts, then reach the "conclusion"

that the Constitution supports your position.

I assumed no such thing. Now you're relying on your own delusions and projecting them onto me.

Legal abortion is a right which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed. That is not my opinion but established fact. Those who state otherwise are merely expressing their opinion, which I noted and discarded in favor of the law of our land.

So are limitations on late term abortions, which you oh so conveniently left out.

That is people who consider the unborn to be people with rights, to be forcing their views on "others" legally and constitutionally.

I left nothing out, dimwit. I purposefully said, "legal abortions." The Supreme Court, in affirming the right of abortion, stated there are limitations on that right. Just as there are limitations on other rights.

So, do you have anything to say about the OP's point, ie the way men have no say in what happens to their children?

Sure, my opinion is that men know they have no rights in forcing a woman to either have an abortion or to not have one. That places a higher burden on men to take even extra precautions in not getting a woman pregnant if they can't deal with consequences of having no rights over the woman's body.

So true. If a man doesn't want to face that dilemma, he shouldn't put himself or the woman in that position.