Women have the right to control their own bodies.

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

No, her point as is standard for split tails is to play the modern...independent woman... until some complication arises then play the damsel.
Western women are complete dog shit.
Well maybe if they did the dumb asses would make smarter choices?
No....lol! Who am I kidding?
Women were chattel for thousands of years for a reason. When it comes to responsible, adult, critically planned choices...they are complete shit sticks.

The guy can always walk away.

Please, refute that.

She does but the "risk" is so infinitesimal that this line of argument is absurd.

She has a bigger chance of getting in a car wreck but the bitch still drives while pregnant does she not???

For one, she is not a bitch. For another...rare as it might seem, I know some one who did die in childbirth, leaving an infant and grieving father. I know many woman who had serious complications with blood pressure and pre eclampsis. It is stilla very dangerous time for women and you dont have tbe rigbt to force it on them. Technically a pregnancy can be implantef in a man, but it is very high risk. I dont see the men, who are demanding a woman carry anunwanted pregnancy lining up to offer their bodies...do you?

She IS a bitch as she has acted like a dog in heat. Disgusting whore is actually more accurate.

You're so bitter about women, why even involve yourself in thinking about their lives.

Because their bad decisions cost me money. Their bad decisions create fatherless homes which are breeding grounds for criminals.
You see, you as a female never consider the multiples of knock-on negatives that your whorish behavior may create.

Seriously, guy. Get therapy. You have issues.

I bet your wife makes you sit down to pee.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

You gotta open them legs first. Unless it is rape, they have the ultimate control. Sperm is cheap, eggs are precious.

That is hardly her point. Men can go beat off also.

No, her point as is standard for split tails is to play the modern...independent woman... until some complication arises then play the damsel.
Western women are complete dog shit.

That's the dumbest goddamn defense of baby murder there is. Seriously

No. It is using exactly the same arguments you use to force women to carry an unwanted pregnancy.

Well maybe if they did the dumb asses would make smarter choices?
No....lol! Who am I kidding?
Women were chattel for thousands of years for a reason. When it comes to responsible, adult, critically planned choices...they are complete shit sticks.

The guy can always walk away.

Please, refute that.

The woman has first right of refusal. She is the receptacle that will carry the child. It is HER responsibility to act that way. Whore or responsible actor?

So men are cretins with no ability to control their actions? They're receptacles for sperm, for now at least. No doubt they won't always be required to carry sperm, then of course they won't be needed. However, for the moment they're sperm receptacles and are assumed to be responsible for their own actions. As I've said they can always be castrated if they feel that level of responsibiliy is beyond their abilities.

Jesus...WTF was that?

 

[MAGAman]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

That's true.

But since fathers are not allowed to save the life of their child, nor kill their child, they aren't any where near being equal partners.

 

[MAGAman]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

The state has no authority to control them, either.

Have you heard of Obamacare?

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

No, her point as is standard for split tails is to play the modern...independent woman... until some complication arises then play the damsel.
Western women are complete dog shit.
Well maybe if they did the dumb asses would make smarter choices?
No....lol! Who am I kidding?
Women were chattel for thousands of years for a reason. When it comes to responsible, adult, critically planned choices...they are complete shit sticks.

The guy can always walk away.

Please, refute that.

She does but the "risk" is so infinitesimal that this line of argument is absurd.

She has a bigger chance of getting in a car wreck but the bitch still drives while pregnant does she not???

For one, she is not a bitch. For another...rare as it might seem, I know some one who did die in childbirth, leaving an infant and grieving father. I know many woman who had serious complications with blood pressure and pre eclampsis. It is stilla very dangerous time for women and you dont have tbe rigbt to force it on them. Technically a pregnancy can be implantef in a man, but it is very high risk. I dont see the men, who are demanding a woman carry anunwanted pregnancy lining up to offer their bodies...do you?

She IS a bitch as she has acted like a dog in heat. Disgusting whore is actually more accurate.

You're so bitter about women, why even involve yourself in thinking about their lives.

Because their bad decisions cost me money. Their bad decisions create fatherless homes which are breeding grounds for criminals.
You see, you as a female never consider the multiples of knock-on negatives that your whorish behavior may create.

Well you're clearly somebody's bad decision, because assholes like you are just ignorant jerks.

More than half of the women who have abortions are married or in committed relationships, and have one or more children. The women you are labelling "bitch" and "whore" are poor working mothers who will be fired from their low wage jobs and lose their homes if they get pregnant, leaving themselves, their families, and the baby to be homeless, without health insurance coverage, and unable to provide for their existing families.

If these women don't have access to safe, cheap, legal abortions, their entire family will become a drain on your purse, you selfish waste of skin.

Fired from a LOW WAGE job? Why would anyone NOT choose birth control if they were already scraping by...IT'S FREE!
As for women in committed relationships using abortion as birth control...well that's just doubly repugnant. In this case we CAN find fault in the man I believe. Or, we can view it another way. Two idiots found love.

 

[dblack]

Let's be perfectly clear on one thing. This whole argument about abortion is not about whether a fetus is alive or not. It's about whether a person has a right to end that life. Medical science is clear about the first question. It's alive. Criminal law is also clear about the second. It's murder. There should be no debate about this.

And yet there is. That's usually an indication that there's disagreement over the premises of your argument. In this case you seem to be implying that 'alive' is synonymous with 'legally recognized person'. I'm not completely sure on where the legal statutes are on this, but there's clearly no consensus on when a fetus becomes a person. Some people think it's not a legally separate person, with distinct rights, until it's separated from the mother - ie 'born'. Other's think that from the moment of conception until birth, we are facing a situation of one person living inside another.

There's also a question of jurisdiction. I don't think government should be granted authority over the inner workings of a person's body, regardless of the excuse. Any kind of coherent picture of individual rights puts "self-ownership" front and center. Without that, as a basis, we have no rights at all.

I think Republicans are indulging the same conceit liberals are usually accused of: they think every problem in society can be solved by passing a law. And no matter how many times it's shown to them that law isn't, usually, the right answer - they are convinced that THIS time it's different.

I think this is more about the moral definition of personhood than the legal definition, honestly, at least from the right. However, the left seems to be looking at this from a legalistic standpoint.

the left seems to be looking at this from a legalistic standpoint.
Might that be because we are being called murderers?

Well, it would be because the right is trying to make abortion illegal. Doesn't get much more "legalistic" than that.

 

[dblack]

Let's be perfectly clear on one thing. This whole argument about abortion is not about whether a fetus is alive or not. It's about whether a person has a right to end that life. Medical science is clear about the first question. It's alive. Criminal law is also clear about the second. It's murder. There should be no debate about this.

And yet there is. That's usually an indication that there's disagreement over the premises of your argument. In this case you seem to be implying that 'alive' is synonymous with 'legally recognized person'. I'm not completely sure on where the legal statutes are on this, but there's clearly no consensus on when a fetus becomes a person. Some people think it's not a legally separate person, with distinct rights, until it's separated from the mother - ie 'born'. Other's think that from the moment of conception until birth, we are facing a situation of one person living inside another.

There's also a question of jurisdiction. I don't think government should be granted authority over the inner workings of a person's body, regardless of the excuse. Any kind of coherent picture of individual rights puts "self-ownership" front and center. Without that, as a basis, we have no rights at all.

I think Republicans are indulging the same conceit liberals are usually accused of: they think every problem in society can be solved by passing a law. And no matter how many times it's shown to them that law isn't, usually, the right answer - they are convinced that THIS time it's different.

I think this is more about the moral definition of personhood than the legal definition, honestly, at least from the right. However, the left seems to be looking at this from a legalistic standpoint.

the left seems to be looking at this from a legalistic standpoint.
Might that be because we are being called murderers?

Well, it would be because the right is trying to make abortion illegal. Doesn't get much more "legalistic" than that.

The strategy seems to be to change the definition of "person" to include unborn fetuses. Then that can be shoehorned into the definition of murder (intentionally killing a "person"). It's just an attempt to avoid having to pass a law to get their way. They know they don't have support, nationally, for actual legislation banning abortion, so they're trying to "stealth" it in with these orwellian word games.

 

[gipper]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

So you’re really saying women are weak and incapable of taking care of themselves.

LOL No, that would be you saying that, Gipper.

No that is exactly what you posted, in other words. You can’t have it both ways.

Besides, why would you want to murder your own child? Ugh! That’s sick!

Just WHERE in that post do you get the idea that I said women are weak or incapable of taking care of themselves?
C'mon, parse those words.

You think a woman can’t control herself. She is just too weak. She is going to have unprotected sex. Then when she does you want to make the father responsible for her actions, but you don’t believe the father has any say in whether his child lives or dies. You can’t have it both ways any longer.

Abortion is legalized murder. You don’t get to murder your baby anymore.

 

[dblack]

Abortion is legalized murder. You don’t get to murder your baby anymore.

Yep. From the moment of conception, the government has a lien on your womb. You are public property. On your knees, bitch.

 

[OldLady]

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

So you’re really saying women are weak and incapable of taking care of themselves.

LOL No, that would be you saying that, Gipper.

No that is exactly what you posted, in other words. You can’t have it both ways.

Besides, why would you want to murder your own child? Ugh! That’s sick!

Just WHERE in that post do you get the idea that I said women are weak or incapable of taking care of themselves?
C'mon, parse those words.

You think a woman can’t control herself. She is just too weak. She is going to have unprotected sex. Then when she does you want to make the father responsible for her actions, but you don’t believe the father has any say in whether his child lives or dies. You can’t have it both ways any longer.

Abortion is legalized murder. You don’t get to murder your baby anymore.

Yes, if she chooses, a woman may still terminate a pregnancy. What planet are you living on right now?

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

You gotta open them legs first. Unless it is rape, they have the ultimate control. Sperm is cheap, eggs are precious.

Open legs or closed. Upright or upside down.
First time or last time. On top or bottom.
The only time a woman gets pregnant is with a deposit from her partner.

You don't open the store

No, her point as is standard for split tails is to play the modern...independent woman... until some complication arises then play the damsel.
Western women are complete dog shit.
Well maybe if they did the dumb asses would make smarter choices?
No....lol! Who am I kidding?
Women were chattel for thousands of years for a reason. When it comes to responsible, adult, critically planned choices...they are complete shit sticks.

The guy can always walk away.

Please, refute that.

She does but the "risk" is so infinitesimal that this line of argument is absurd.

She has a bigger chance of getting in a car wreck but the bitch still drives while pregnant does she not???

For one, she is not a bitch. For another...rare as it might seem, I know some one who did die in childbirth, leaving an infant and grieving father. I know many woman who had serious complications with blood pressure and pre eclampsis. It is stilla very dangerous time for women and you dont have tbe rigbt to force it on them. Technically a pregnancy can be implantef in a man, but it is very high risk. I dont see the men, who are demanding a woman carry anunwanted pregnancy lining up to offer their bodies...do you?

She IS a bitch as she has acted like a dog in heat. Disgusting whore is actually more accurate.

OK bye bye

Snowflake...meeeellllltttiiiinnnngg

He's no snowflake. My comment was over the top but made out of frustration. Yours was just hate for hates sake.

You don't think? I see one in those statements. As for my 'hate', I like to think my statements are truth on steroids. Our society is the way it is because those who prize morality have tied their hands and clipped their tongues.
I spare absolutely no feelings. I see hypocrisy and point it out.
Most western women are hypocrites here.
"My body, my decision...you damned men did this to me!"
Yet...isn't our society this way in general?
Smoke for 20 years...get cancer...sue the tobacco company.
Drive in wet weather...crash your car...sue the car company.

We live in a litigiously driven, limited liability society where introspection and personal decisions are disregarded.
So many posts on this site illuminate that fact.

 

[OldLady]

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

So you’re really saying women are weak and incapable of taking care of themselves.

LOL No, that would be you saying that, Gipper.

No that is exactly what you posted, in other words. You can’t have it both ways.

Besides, why would you want to murder your own child? Ugh! That’s sick!

Just WHERE in that post do you get the idea that I said women are weak or incapable of taking care of themselves?
C'mon, parse those words.

You think a woman can’t control herself. She is just too weak. She is going to have unprotected sex. Then when she does you want to make the father responsible for her actions, but you don’t believe the father has any say in whether his child lives or dies. You can’t have it both ways any longer.

Abortion is legalized murder. You don’t get to murder your baby anymore.

? I said the sperm donor needs to be held equally responsible. Does that infer that the man is too weak to control himself and that he will have unprotected sex? My point was that both male and female are responsible, not just the woman for spreading her legs, as some here have so charmingly put it.

 

[gipper]

So you’re really saying women are weak and incapable of taking care of themselves.

LOL No, that would be you saying that, Gipper.

No that is exactly what you posted, in other words. You can’t have it both ways.

Besides, why would you want to murder your own child? Ugh! That’s sick!

Just WHERE in that post do you get the idea that I said women are weak or incapable of taking care of themselves?
C'mon, parse those words.

You think a woman can’t control herself. She is just too weak. She is going to have unprotected sex. Then when she does you want to make the father responsible for her actions, but you don’t believe the father has any say in whether his child lives or dies. You can’t have it both ways any longer.

Abortion is legalized murder. You don’t get to murder your baby anymore.

? I said the sperm donor needs to be held equally responsible. Does that infer that the man is too weak to control himself and that he will have unprotected sex? My point was that both male and female are responsible, not just the woman for spreading her legs, as some here have so charmingly put it.

If they responsible, why does the father have no say in whether his child lives or dies?

 

[gipper]

So you’re really saying women are weak and incapable of taking care of themselves.

LOL No, that would be you saying that, Gipper.

No that is exactly what you posted, in other words. You can’t have it both ways.

Besides, why would you want to murder your own child? Ugh! That’s sick!

Just WHERE in that post do you get the idea that I said women are weak or incapable of taking care of themselves?
C'mon, parse those words.

You think a woman can’t control herself. She is just too weak. She is going to have unprotected sex. Then when she does you want to make the father responsible for her actions, but you don’t believe the father has any say in whether his child lives or dies. You can’t have it both ways any longer.

Abortion is legalized murder. You don’t get to murder your baby anymore.

Yes, if she chooses, a woman may still terminate a pregnancy. What planet are you living on right now?

So you think murdering your child is a privacy right. Nonsense.

 

[dblack]

LOL No, that would be you saying that, Gipper.

No that is exactly what you posted, in other words. You can’t have it both ways.

Besides, why would you want to murder your own child? Ugh! That’s sick!

Just WHERE in that post do you get the idea that I said women are weak or incapable of taking care of themselves?
C'mon, parse those words.

You think a woman can’t control herself. She is just too weak. She is going to have unprotected sex. Then when she does you want to make the father responsible for her actions, but you don’t believe the father has any say in whether his child lives or dies. You can’t have it both ways any longer.

Abortion is legalized murder. You don’t get to murder your baby anymore.

Yes, if she chooses, a woman may still terminate a pregnancy. What planet are you living on right now?

So you think murdering your child is a privacy right. Nonsense.

Everything that goes on in my body is a "privacy right" - and none of your fucking business. It doesn't matter what you might think is in there, it's not your concern. My body is not owned by the government. Piss off.

 

[Coyote]

And if they controlled them a little better, we wouldn't need abortions.

Women just get stuck holding the bag. They don't get pregnant by themselves. Could we could include another party that perhaps should control themselves a little better, too?

You gotta open them legs first. Unless it is rape, they have the ultimate control. Sperm is cheap, eggs are precious.

Every sperm is sacred, a potential new life if allowed to follow it’s natural course in the right environment. That makes masturbation mass murder. Men need to learn to control their hands.

Biology fail.

Prove it using your arguments opposing abortion.

In the right environment, a woman's body, it has the potential to become a child.

It's DNA is unique. Basic biology. It contains only part of the father's DNA. It is not the same.

Perhaps it is time to insist a man gets a procto exam before he masturbates. This just to protect a man's health.

 

[OldLady]

LOL No, that would be you saying that, Gipper.

No that is exactly what you posted, in other words. You can’t have it both ways.

Besides, why would you want to murder your own child? Ugh! That’s sick!

Just WHERE in that post do you get the idea that I said women are weak or incapable of taking care of themselves?
C'mon, parse those words.

You think a woman can’t control herself. She is just too weak. She is going to have unprotected sex. Then when she does you want to make the father responsible for her actions, but you don’t believe the father has any say in whether his child lives or dies. You can’t have it both ways any longer.

Abortion is legalized murder. You don’t get to murder your baby anymore.

Yes, if she chooses, a woman may still terminate a pregnancy. What planet are you living on right now?

So you think murdering your child is a privacy right. Nonsense.

Earth to gipper; Earth to gipper; Come In

 

[OldLady]

No that is exactly what you posted, in other words. You can’t have it both ways.

Besides, why would you want to murder your own child? Ugh! That’s sick!

Just WHERE in that post do you get the idea that I said women are weak or incapable of taking care of themselves?
C'mon, parse those words.

You think a woman can’t control herself. She is just too weak. She is going to have unprotected sex. Then when she does you want to make the father responsible for her actions, but you don’t believe the father has any say in whether his child lives or dies. You can’t have it both ways any longer.

Abortion is legalized murder. You don’t get to murder your baby anymore.

Yes, if she chooses, a woman may still terminate a pregnancy. What planet are you living on right now?

So you think murdering your child is a privacy right. Nonsense.

Everything that goes on in my body is a "privacy right" - and none of your fucking business. It doesn't matter what you might think is in there, it's not your concern. My body is not owned by the government. Piss off.

 

[iceberg]

You gotta open them legs first. Unless it is rape, they have the ultimate control. Sperm is cheap, eggs are precious.

That is hardly her point. Men can go beat off also.

No, her point as is standard for split tails is to play the modern...independent woman... until some complication arises then play the damsel.
Western women are complete dog shit.

That's the dumbest goddamn defense of baby murder there is. Seriously

No. It is using exactly the same arguments you use to force women to carry an unwanted pregnancy.

Well maybe if they did the dumb asses would make smarter choices?
No....lol! Who am I kidding?
Women were chattel for thousands of years for a reason. When it comes to responsible, adult, critically planned choices...they are complete shit sticks.

The guy can always walk away.

Please, refute that.

The woman has first right of refusal. She is the receptacle that will carry the child. It is HER responsibility to act that way. Whore or responsible actor?

So men are cretins with no ability to control their actions? They're receptacles for sperm, for now at least. No doubt they won't always be required to carry sperm, then of course they won't be needed. However, for the moment they're sperm receptacles and are assumed to be responsible for their own actions. As I've said they can always be castrated if they feel that level of responsibiliy is beyond their abilities.

Another fuck head.

 

[Coyote]

No one can have a say over another's body. Only their own.

Yes, they can choose not to have sex until they are ready to be a parent

As can men.

Yep, the point is, both are willing participants in the act, so both share the responsibility. If she agrees to have sex, then she agrees there is a risk of pregnancy. What you are saying is, both can be willing participants, but if she gets pregnant, and the man wants to be a father to the child, the woman can deny him his child.

You're saying that the man doesnt matter in this scenario, and that his desires do not count, so, if you are going to give sole authority to the woman over the pregnancy, then she needs to be the one to decide to have control over her body, and not have sex. If she is willing to have sex, and take the risk of getting pregnant, and shut the man out of the decision making process, then she needs to abstain.

I'm saying a woman can deny a man's demand to use her body as an incubater for his offspring. It's a process that throws a woman's body and life into a spin for a minimum of 9 months, can leave her with serious medical issues for the rest of her life and can kill her. No person has the right to impose that on another person in order to have their own gratification satisfied.

I'm not saying a man doesn't matter, I'm saying each one, both men and women, must deal with the cards nature has dealt them in terms of which aspect of procreation they have governance over.

I'm not sure I completely agree with that. Pregnancy in this day and age, in this country, is rarely fatal and doesn't cause life long health problems. Well, it did straighten my hair. While I understand your argument, I think it is half the man's and if there is no reason to think the woman is at medical risk, she should seriously consider having the child if he wants to take sole guardianship and raise it himself.

She should consider it, but it should be up to her to make that. The problem is that the man can exit at any time. And financial support is just that, financial, and realistically, with poor men and women may not begin to cover things. That is why it has to remain her decision.