Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have a major bone to pick with this.
My days of having Intercourse for procreation are over. It is now all about the rush of the moment.
That of course has nothing to do with this thread but your interpretation of what sex is for is very rigid & 1950's
Hey... natural law is not subject to antiquation, dad. What was right and true in 1950, was right and true in 1850, 1250, 50, -50, -1850, -1950.
But your subjective personal opinion certainly is. And you can call your subjective personal opinion 'natural law' or 'objective truth', or any other colorful label you wish.
Its still your subjective personal opinion.
I have a major bone to pick with this.
My days of having Intercourse for procreation are over. It is now all about the rush of the moment.
That of course has nothing to do with this thread but your interpretation of what sex is for is very rigid & 1950's
Hey... natural law is not subject to antiquation, dad. What was right and true in 1950, was right and true in 1850, 1250, 50, -50, -1850, -1950.
But your subjective personal opinion certainly is. And you can call your subjective personal opinion 'natural law' or 'objective truth', or any other colorful label you wish.
Its still your subjective personal opinion.
For the opinion to be subjective Skylar, it must serve my interests at the expense of another.
Subjective:
: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
Subjective Define Subjective at Dictionary.com
The Reader should recognize that the opposition has no means to engage the standing point. She'd love to, but to do so refutes her own argument, thus she prefers to pretend she didn't see 'em.
Such is the nature of deceit... thus the nature of evil.
Your anecdote says nothing about the issue itself.BTW GT.
I raised my girls for several years when my xwife didn't want them anymore. I asked for NO MONEY & received none. She later expressed a desire for me to pay child support during the time I had them.
LolThe matter isn't about what's fair for the couple. The matter is the child. If a child is born, the father has an obligation to raise him/her. It's not about an obligation to the mother which is what you are suggesting.
Nope. This is what subjective means:
Subjective:
: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
Subjective Define Subjective at Dictionary.com
All that 'serve my interests' nonsense is just you offering us subjective definitions, citing yourself.
You realized you just demonstrated exactly what I'm describing, right?
The woman has the right to abort if she chooses early on. It's her body. I am not in favor of late term abortions however. If she carries the child to term, the father is obligated to take care of the child.LolThe matter isn't about what's fair for the couple. The matter is the child. If a child is born, the father has an obligation to raise him/her. It's not about an obligation to the mother which is what you are suggesting.
Are you seriously going there? I can only assume that based on the rest of the stupidity you display on this board that you are pro choice. How exactly is pro choice about the child? Or are you just being a fraud like all your brethren
Equal treatment under the law. Your side bitches about it to no end. I'm simply demanding it for men tooThe woman has the right to abort if she chooses early on. It's her body. I am not in favor of late term abortions however. If she carries the child to term, the father is obligated to take care of the child.LolThe matter isn't about what's fair for the couple. The matter is the child. If a child is born, the father has an obligation to raise him/her. It's not about an obligation to the mother which is what you are suggesting.
Are you seriously going there? I can only assume that based on the rest of the stupidity you display on this board that you are pro choice. How exactly is pro choice about the child? Or are you just being a fraud like all your brethren
I'm curious. If you are so pro life, then why do you think the father has the right not to care for the life of the child?
Are you really going to tell me the right doesn't bitch about this to no end? Stop pretending the right is rational and not whiny cry babies like the tea baggers.Equal treatment under the law. Your side bitches about it to no end. I'm simply demanding it for men tooThe woman has the right to abort if she chooses early on. It's her body. I am not in favor of late term abortions however. If she carries the child to term, the father is obligated to take care of the child.LolThe matter isn't about what's fair for the couple. The matter is the child. If a child is born, the father has an obligation to raise him/her. It's not about an obligation to the mother which is what you are suggesting.
Are you seriously going there? I can only assume that based on the rest of the stupidity you display on this board that you are pro choice. How exactly is pro choice about the child? Or are you just being a fraud like all your brethren
I'm curious. If you are so pro life, then why do you think the father has the right not to care for the life of the child?
You indulge in way too much fantasy politics.Nope. This is what subjective means:
Subjective:
: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
Subjective Define Subjective at Dictionary.com
All that 'serve my interests' nonsense is just you offering us subjective definitions, citing yourself.
You realized you just demonstrated exactly what I'm describing, right?
ROFLMNAO!
Nonsense... The object of thought, is the law of nature, which is to say the nature of the that which is at issue and the principles governing such.
What is at issue? The inherent consequence of sexual intercourse; meaning those things regarding sexual intercourse which are known by longstanding history of empirical evidence to be reasonable certain to come as a result of the behavior... that thing is conception... what's more medical science has proven through greater understanding formed, from generations of observation and tests, produce the substantial understanding the biological, then through more specific study, the chemical actions and reactions, from which such stem... through to the fullest possible understanding of the genetic processes and the physiological constructs that provides for such.
That understanding exists without regard to my recognition of such and is unaltered by my understanding of such with the same being true, where and when I comment upon such.
These facts in NO WAY serve my interests, except where in the understanding of the reality intrinsic to such, thus the inherent truth regarding such... that I should make better decisions, with regard TO MY BEHAVIOR RELEVANT TO SUCH.
Now which of the facts regarding the reality that is human physiology are you specifically contesting Skylar?
-That the Human Female is designed specifically to join with the human male for the purposes of procreation?
-That the Human female bears the FULL MEASURE of the predictable consequences common to procreation?
-That as a result of that irrefutable fact, the human female is recognized through objective reason, as having THE RIGHT to choose, with whom, where and when she allows herself to be conjoined with a male?
-That due to all of the above facts, it falls to the female to bear the responsibility to not submit herself for sexual behavior, until such time that she has settled upon a man who she can reasonably trust to sustain her and her offspring?
Which of the above NATURAL LAWS, do you SPECIFICALLY dispute and on what SPECIFIC GROUNDS?
(The Reader should recognize that the 'debate', with regard to Skylar and her flailing rationalization has now, effectively, come to a close. She will concede to the argument with her next post. More than likely as a direct result of her patented deflection of the standing points.
I hope you've enjoyed the exercise, as it has been a marvelous demonstration of the two fundamental elements required to defeat a Leftist in debate:
1- Find a Leftist.
2- Get them to speak.
And this due to the three inalterable elements of Relativism: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance.)
Yes this exactly.Absolutely-----When they were seeking the right to kill foetuses they called you a misogynist if you told them to keep their clothes on if they didn't want to get pregnant.
So tell us again how you want to be able to tell a woman that her choices are to either get an abortion or raise your child on her own, if you decide after depositing your sperm in her, that you aren't willing to be responsible.
you conveniently forgot the third choice ----the one you are so fond of telling men that they have. Keeping their clothes on.
Okay- so you want to tell the woman you are involved with to keep their clothes on- or if they let you disrobe them and deposit your sperm in them(which I admit would appear to be a woman with really low standards or perhaps too drunk to notice)
And if you ever manage to actually get your penis in a vagina you want to be able to tell a woman that her choices are to either get an abortion or raise your child on her own, if you decide after depositing your sperm in her, that you aren't willing to be responsible.
If a woman can get pregnant by fucking me despite her being ugly then decide that she isn't willing to be responsible & opts to kill the baby instead of letting me raise it then it should be a TWO WAY FUCKING STREET
Yeah, but that nonsense was already debunked. It creates unequal obligations, where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never held responsible for any child he fathers.
Nope.
And of course, your entire argument is based on the nonsense idea that a man's desire to become a father is the basis of his obligation to support his own children.
Nope.
The actual basis is his child's right to support from both parents. Which a child cannot abdicate.
Your argument fails 3 times. Which might explain why its been rejected by every state legislature in the country. The record of failure of your demands.....is perfect.
You indulge in way too much fantasy politics.
There is no potential to take innocent human life. Unless one recognizes that ones own innocent life can rightfully be taken.The woman has the right to abort if she chooses...
UHYes this exactly.So tell us again how you want to be able to tell a woman that her choices are to either get an abortion or raise your child on her own, if you decide after depositing your sperm in her, that you aren't willing to be responsible.
you conveniently forgot the third choice ----the one you are so fond of telling men that they have. Keeping their clothes on.
Okay- so you want to tell the woman you are involved with to keep their clothes on- or if they let you disrobe them and deposit your sperm in them(which I admit would appear to be a woman with really low standards or perhaps too drunk to notice)
And if you ever manage to actually get your penis in a vagina you want to be able to tell a woman that her choices are to either get an abortion or raise your child on her own, if you decide after depositing your sperm in her, that you aren't willing to be responsible.
If a woman can get pregnant by fucking me despite her being ugly then decide that she isn't willing to be responsible & opts to kill the baby instead of letting me raise it then it should be a TWO WAY FUCKING STREET
Yeah, but that nonsense was already debunked. It creates unequal obligations, where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never held responsible for any child he fathers.
Nope.
And of course, your entire argument is based on the nonsense idea that a man's desire to become a father is the basis of his obligation to support his own children.
Nope.
The actual basis is his child's right to support from both parents. Which a child cannot abdicate.
Your argument fails 3 times. Which might explain why its been rejected by every state legislature in the country. The record of failure of your demands.....is perfect.
Oh please---we know what the law is----the debate is on why it should be changed. Haven't you figured that out yet ?
If the woman has a right to walk away from her responsibility then so should the man.
I neither killed my babies nor did I fail to support them.I am a winner. Thanks for noticing. Now kindly fuck offI win the thread.A woman can choose to not be inconvenienced for 18yrs & 9 months. But if a man voices that same opinion he is a pig or just being selfish.
Does that about sum it up?
Course I knew that when I started this thread. You lefties don't give a rats ass about equality. You just want a wedge issue that gets you votes
LOL......yeah- declare victory!
You believe you should be able to kill babies or just not support your offspring- what a winner!
You believe you should be able to kill babies or just not support your offspring- what a winner!
You remain incapable of articulating an argument to counter my opinion
