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

[Chuz Life]

...never discussed, or even considered?

There must be all kinds of stories of fathers who wanted to keep their child, but the mother aborted and they could do nothing to stop it.

I am convinced the pro-abort media is censoring these stories, which must be in the millions by now.

I do have a story of a friend of mine, who was blackmailed into a very bad marriage.

She said, "Marry me, or I will abort your child."

So he married her, even though I told him the marriage would never last, even though his father told him he'd get an all-expenses paid trip through Europe if he didn't marry her.

Of course, none of us knew about the abortion threat, because he kept that a secret.

And, sure enough, the marriage was very unhappy, and as I predicted, ended in divorce.

Why doesn't the media cover a story like that?

I find the story very interesting, don't you?

Because it is the woman's body. Period. Love it or hate it, that's the best standard we have.

The differing DNA says you are full of shit.

English, please.

Not interested in educating another troll.

Thanks but no thanks.

 

[Chuz Life]

I bet there would be a lot less abortions with free childcare. I assume you guys are pushing for that?

Define "free."

Then, answer the question. . . "If we were able to provide "free" childcare. . .Will you then support a ban on abortions?"

If your answer is No. . .Then we know just how fallacious your red herring attempt really was. Don't we.

Sounds fair.

Fair?

So, in your view a child has no right to the protections of our laws unless society is willing to provide completely free care for them?

How about a half starving 3 year old in the mountains of Virginia? Do they also have less a right to the protections of our laws unless someone is willing to care for them for free?

Where is it stated in our Constitution that a child's rights are contingent upon whether or not they can get free care?

 

[Chuz Life]

"Then, answer the question. . . "If we were able to provide "free" childcare. . .Will you then support a ban on abortions?""


That's idiotic logic. The goal is fewer abortions, not more unsafe abortions.

No. Fuckstain.

The goal is equal rights and equal protections under the law. . . Beginning from the moment that a person's life begins.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The real reason right wingers want to ban abortions is to punish women for having sex.

Wrong.

I'm sure as a child you were raised to understand that there are positive and negative consequences to your choices and actions. Barring any negative method of conception (rape, etc.) the woman chose to have unprotected sex with the man. Even worse she didn't demand he wear a condom. Or the man chose not to wear the condom. Three mistakes. One consequence that the woman and the man should both bear. The child.

Abstinence is a good method of birth control if you can't bother or are unable to buy contraceptives or condoms, however. What do you expect will happen when you have free and wild sex? Consequence(s). The man runs away from them, the woman decides to run from the consequence by ending the life of an unborn child. Both choices are unacceptable.

We don't want to ban abortion outright, there are times it is medically necessary. But if you are going to make such a massive decision, whether man or woman, you should both be held responsible for the life that comes about as a result.

ChrisL

 

[Brain357]

"Then, answer the question. . . "If we were able to provide "free" childcare. . .Will you then support a ban on abortions?""


That's idiotic logic. The goal is fewer abortions, not more unsafe abortions.

Aren't there fewer abortions already? Not sure why people are still talking about it really.

 

[Brain357]

"Then, answer the question. . . "If we were able to provide "free" childcare. . .Will you then support a ban on abortions?""


That's idiotic logic. The goal is fewer abortions, not more unsafe abortions.

No. Fuckstain.

The goal is equal rights and equal protections under the law. . . Beginning from the moment that a person's life begins.

So at birth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

...never discussed, or even considered?

There must be all kinds of stories of fathers who wanted to keep their child, but the mother aborted and they could do nothing to stop it.

I am convinced the pro-abort media is censoring these stories, which must be in the millions by now.

I do have a story of a friend of mine, who was blackmailed into a very bad marriage.

She said, "Marry me, or I will abort your child."

So he married her, even though I told him the marriage would never last, even though his father told him he'd get an all-expenses paid trip through Europe if he didn't marry her.

Of course, none of us knew about the abortion threat, because he kept that a secret.

And, sure enough, the marriage was very unhappy, and as I predicted, ended in divorce.

Why doesn't the media cover a story like that?

I find the story very interesting, don't you?

Because it is the woman's body. Period. Love it or hate it, that's the best standard we have.

The differing DNA says you are full of shit.

English, please.

Not interested in educating another troll.

Thanks but no thanks.

Yes, all the people who decide the legality of abortion and homicide of a fetus by this standard are all trolls. But not you, no sir.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Then, answer the question. . . "If we were able to provide "free" childcare. . .Will you then support a ban on abortions?""


That's idiotic logic. The goal is fewer abortions, not more unsafe abortions.

Aren't there fewer abortions already? Not sure why people are still talking about it really.

Indeed there are. Must be all the prayin' and fastin'. Couldn't be all the education and cheap-to-free birth control pills. Gotta be the fastin' and prayin'

 

[TemplarKormac]

There's nothing that you can say that works against the pro-choice argument. There is no reason for anyone to inject themselves into a woman's choice as to whether or not to have a baby, except the father and he has no say in her final decision.

Oh, I completely demolished your argument, DL.

So, she, along with the man, made the choice to have unprotected sex. What do you think is the intended purpose of sexual intercourse? Just pleasure? Gee, I thought all along it was for procreative reasons. You know, for perpetuating the species. Sex is a tool, not a toy.

When you refer to the unborn child as "not human" a "parasite" or a "clump of cells" you are essentially telling me that it is a foreign body, not a part of the woman's body, that renders the woman's choice moot. Your argument could not have backfired more spectacularly.

 

[Brain357]

There's nothing that you can say that works against the pro-choice argument. There is no reason for anyone to inject themselves into a woman's choice as to whether or not to have a baby, except the father and he has no say in her final decision.

Oh, I completely demolished your argument, DL.

So, she, along with the man, made the choice to have unprotected sex. What do you think is the intended purpose of sexual intercourse? Just pleasure? Gee, I thought all along it was for procreative reasons. You know, for perpetuating the species. Sex is a tool, not a toy.

When you refer to the unborn child as "not human" a "parasite" or a "clump of cells" you are essentially telling me that it is a foreign body, not a part of the woman's body, that renders the woman's choice moot. Your argument could not have backfired more spectacularly.

When you going to start going after guys for jacking off? Lotta babies dying...

 

[ChrisL]

There's nothing that you can say that works against the pro-choice argument. There is no reason for anyone to inject themselves into a woman's choice as to whether or not to have a baby, except the father and he has no say in her final decision.

Oh, I completely demolished your argument, DL.

So, she, along with the man, made the choice to have unprotected sex. What do you think is the intended purpose of sexual intercourse? Just pleasure? Gee, I thought all along it was for procreative reasons. You know, for perpetuating the species. Sex is a tool, not a toy.

When you refer to the unborn child as "not human" a "parasite" or a "clump of cells" you are essentially telling me that it is a foreign body, not a part of the woman's body, that renders the woman's choice moot. Your argument could not have backfired more spectacularly.

This is not for you to decide for somebody else. If you find yourself in this predicament, then the woman may allow you to partake in the decision making process. What other people decide in regards to their lives and their futures is not up to anyone else.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Only in your ignorance does it work against pro choice. in case you missed it the "body" in pro choice is her body not the babys.

Oh, how convenient for you. It's only viable life if the woman chooses to give birth. Go ahead, pat yourself on the back, that's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

[Chuz Life]

...never discussed, or even considered?

There must be all kinds of stories of fathers who wanted to keep their child, but the mother aborted and they could do nothing to stop it.

I am convinced the pro-abort media is censoring these stories, which must be in the millions by now.

I do have a story of a friend of mine, who was blackmailed into a very bad marriage.

She said, "Marry me, or I will abort your child."

So he married her, even though I told him the marriage would never last, even though his father told him he'd get an all-expenses paid trip through Europe if he didn't marry her.

Of course, none of us knew about the abortion threat, because he kept that a secret.

And, sure enough, the marriage was very unhappy, and as I predicted, ended in divorce.

Why doesn't the media cover a story like that?

I find the story very interesting, don't you?

Because it is the woman's body. Period. Love it or hate it, that's the best standard we have.

The differing DNA says you are full of shit.

English, please.

Not interested in educating another troll.

Thanks but no thanks.

Yes, all the people who decide the legality of abortion and homicide of a fetus by this standard are all trolls. But not you, no sir.

Well, maybe you are not a troll you are just ignorant. Most people know that there is more than one persons body nvolved in a pregnancy situation since the mother and her chid have differing DNA.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There's nothing that you can say that works against the pro-choice argument. There is no reason for anyone to inject themselves into a woman's choice as to whether or not to have a baby, except the father and he has no say in her final decision.

Oh, I completely demolished your argument, DL.

So, she, along with the man, made the choice to have unprotected sex. What do you think is the intended purpose of sexual intercourse? Just pleasure? Gee, I thought all along it was for procreative reasons. You know, for perpetuating the species. Sex is a tool, not a toy.

When you refer to the unborn child as "not human" a "parasite" or a "clump of cells" you are essentially telling me that it is a foreign body, not a part of the woman's body, that renders the woman's choice moot. Your argument could not have backfired more spectacularly.

"I thought all along it was for procreative reasons. You know, for perpetuating the species. Sex is a tool, not a toy. "

Spot on! And eyes were not made for "watching movies", and "playing video games". And fingers were not made for "playing guitar", geesh. Our fingers are tools, not toys!

 

[ChrisL]

There's nothing that you can say that works against the pro-choice argument. There is no reason for anyone to inject themselves into a woman's choice as to whether or not to have a baby, except the father and he has no say in her final decision.

Oh, I completely demolished your argument, DL.

So, she, along with the man, made the choice to have unprotected sex. What do you think is the intended purpose of sexual intercourse? Just pleasure? Gee, I thought all along it was for procreative reasons. You know, for perpetuating the species. Sex is a tool, not a toy.

When you refer to the unborn child as "not human" a "parasite" or a "clump of cells" you are essentially telling me that it is a foreign body, not a part of the woman's body, that renders the woman's choice moot. Your argument could not have backfired more spectacularly.

You'll never get a girlfriend with THAT attitude!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because it is the woman's body. Period. Love it or hate it, that's the best standard we have.

The differing DNA says you are full of shit.

English, please.

Not interested in educating another troll.

Thanks but no thanks.

Yes, all the people who decide the legality of abortion and homicide of a fetus by this standard are all trolls. But not you, no sir.

Well, maybe you are not a troll you are just ignorant. Most people know that there is more than one person involved in a pregnancy situation since the mother and her chid. have differing DNA.

Of course I know that. It's a bizarre suggestion to say I wouldn't.

But, it's the mother's body, and so the mother's choice. She wins. Nobody gets to force her to carry that child. I think that's fair. And nobody gets to take it away from her unwillingly, either. Also fair. Simple standard.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is not for you to decide for somebody else. If you find yourself in this predicament, then the woman may allow you to partake in the decision making process. What other people decide in regards to their lives and their futures is not up to anyone else.

I'll say this again, Chris. The man contributed one half of the genes. He gets as much say as the woman. Without his sperm, there is no "choice." And we wouldn't even be here to have this discussion.

I'm sorry, but it's rather delusional to think that only the woman plays a critical role in the reproductive process.

 

[Brain357]

This is not for you to decide for somebody else. If you find yourself in this predicament, then the woman may allow you to partake in the decision making process. What other people decide in regards to their lives and their futures is not up to anyone else.

I'll say this again, Chris. The man contributed one half of the genes. He gets as much say as the woman. Without his sperm, there is no "choice." And we wouldn't even be here to have this discussion.

I'm sorry, but it's rather delusional to think that only the woman plays a critical role in the reproductive process.

Yeah the guy has a real tough job! LOL

 

[TemplarKormac]

There's nothing that you can say that works against the pro-choice argument. There is no reason for anyone to inject themselves into a woman's choice as to whether or not to have a baby, except the father and he has no say in her final decision.

Oh, I completely demolished your argument, DL.

So, she, along with the man, made the choice to have unprotected sex. What do you think is the intended purpose of sexual intercourse? Just pleasure? Gee, I thought all along it was for procreative reasons. You know, for perpetuating the species. Sex is a tool, not a toy.

When you refer to the unborn child as "not human" a "parasite" or a "clump of cells" you are essentially telling me that it is a foreign body, not a part of the woman's body, that renders the woman's choice moot. Your argument could not have backfired more spectacularly.

You'll never get a girlfriend with THAT attitude!

I may never get involved in romance. So that's all fine for me. Sex is sacred, something bestowed upon us by God. Something that isn't supposed to be abused in piques of passion. And if it is her choice not to have it, so it is also mine.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is not for you to decide for somebody else. If you find yourself in this predicament, then the woman may allow you to partake in the decision making process. What other people decide in regards to their lives and their futures is not up to anyone else.

I'll say this again, Chris. The man contributed one half of the genes. He gets as much say as the woman. Without his sperm, there is no "choice." And we wouldn't even be here to have this discussion.

I'm sorry, but it's rather delusional to think that only the woman plays a critical role in the reproductive process.

Yeah the guy has a real tough job! LOL

How childish...

Oops.