I Have Been Saying

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-16-2016, 02:01 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What is the medical definition of pregnancy?

Does the fetus have a Medicaid policy?  As you previously stated, no. Then who does?  The woman. The woman is eligible for any covered healthcare which would include prenatal care. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-16-2016, 02:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Maybe you need to re-read what I actually said. I said SOME PEOPLE want to go to war to help innocents in OTHER COUTNRIES with no regards to helping innocents in our OWN COUNTRY. Which is the opposite of the definition of American Patriotism.

I haven't met a single American who wishes to go to war for innocent foreigners, but not for innocent American citizens. Not. A. Single. Person.

Ever.

Your claim is complete and utter bullshit.

Quote:I don't see how you can get how you can determine my level of American patriotism based off of one comment. Considering my past comments have been about Jobs/Economy and taking care of Americans first, not other countries.

I wrote remarksssssssssssssss. Plural.

Please explain your belief I'm unable to judge your level of patriotism based upon your lack of selfless service while you are able to judge the level of patriotism of "some" who wish to save the innocent overseas while not willing to save the innocent among their fellow Americans. C'monnnnnnnnnnn, man. 

[hollodero]

(12-16-2016, 01:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Man, this confusion is contegious. A woman can voluntarily abort a child and free herself from supporting the child; the man cannot.

What about biological make up makes sense that the woman is the only one that can voluntarily choose not to support the child? Why can't the man freely say: "I don't want anything to do with this child."

Well, that's just the way it is, that's why. Complaints to God.

I don't really grasp the stance. You want the man to have the choice to just abandon his new-born child? As an "equivalent" to the women having the right to terminate the pregnancy? That your point?

[*bfine32*]

(12-16-2016, 04:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, that's just the way it is, that's why. Complaints to God.

I don't really grasp the stance. You want the man to have the choice to just abandon his new-born child? As an "equivalent" to the women having the right to terminate the pregnancy? That your point?

Nope I want every child to be wanted, loved, and cared for.. No one should be able to abandon a newborn child; I think everyone would agree to that. However, if the woman can walk away during pregnancy, why can't the man? There is nothing fair about the woman having complete say if neither or both get the child.

If the man wants it and can support it; he should be allowed to

If the woman wants it and she or the government can support it; she should be allowed to

If the woman wants no part of it she should have that choice

If the man wants no part of it, he should have that choice.

Why is it fair to say the government cannot have say over the woman's welfare, but it can over the man's? (I mean besides ther profound "That's just the way it is")

[hollodero]

(12-16-2016, 05:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope I want every child to be wanted, loved, and cared for.. No one should be able to abandon a newborn child; I think everyone would agree to that.

I hope so...!

(12-16-2016, 05:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: However, if the woman can walk away during pregnancy, why can't the man? There is nothing fair about the woman having complete say if neither or both get the child.

If the man wants it and can support it; he should be allowed to

OK so what's the suggestion. The woman wants to terminate pregnancy, but the man wants the child. So she doesn't get to terminate the pregnancy, has to give birth and he takes complete care for the child afterwards? Is that your suggestion.

(12-16-2016, 05:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If the woman wants it and she or the government can support it; she should be allowed to

If the woman wants no part of it she should have that choice

If the man wants no part of it, he should have that choice.

Now for the last part... that means a woman gets pregnant, doesn't want to terminate the pregnancy, so the man gets to say: I don't want have to do anyting with that child, including any financial support?
That means government has to help out because the man simply chose not to participate financially (and we all agree the child should be supported, see your first sentence)? That your suggestion?

(12-16-2016, 05:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why is it fair to say the government cannot have say over the woman's welfare, but it can over the man's? (I mean besides ther profound "That's just the way it is")

I know it's profound and that you meant profane. I also think it's unfair only women have the breasts. Whenever they want to touch some, they simply need to feel themselves up. When I want, I have to do the whole dance, dinner invits and flirtation and being funnier and more ingenious than I actually am so that maybe I have a slight chance. I think that's unfair.
Then again, as profane as it seems, they have the breasts, they have the womb, that's why we behave socially and as a society the way we do. It's not fair because nature ain't "fair".

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-12-2016, 03:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But he is only forced to take the risk because of our laws. She assumes the risk because of Nature.

Who held the gun to his head and forced him to have unprotected sex?  He knew the risks, right?

[Cure4CF]

(12-16-2016, 06:31 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Who held the gun to his head and forced him to have unprotected sex?  He knew the risks, right?

What if he was raped?

[*bfine32*]

(12-16-2016, 06:07 PM)hollodero Wrote: I hope so...!


OK so what's the suggestion. The woman wants to terminate pregnancy, but the man wants the child. So she doesn't get to terminate the pregnancy, has to give birth and he takes complete care for the child afterwards? Is that your suggestion.
Nope, woman carries it to term, provided there are no medical complications, delivers the child, and forfeits all right and responsibilities. Just like an adoption.

Now for the last part... that means a woman gets pregnant, doesn't want to terminate the pregnancy, so the man gets to say: I don't want have to do anyting with that child, including any financial support?
That means government has to help out because the man simply chose not to participate financially (and we all agree the child should be supported, see your first sentence)? That your suggestion?
Yes, if the law is going to be fair, the father should be able to walk away from all obligation just as the mother can. I don't want either to happen, but we should at least be fair, right?

I know it's profound and that you meant profane. I also think it's unfair only women have the breasts. Whenever they want to touch some, they simply need to feel themselves up. When I want, I have to do the whole dance, dinner invits and flirtation and being funnier and more ingenious than I actually am so that maybe I have a slight chance. I think that's unfair.
Then again, as profane as it seems, they have the breasts, they have the womb, that's why we behave socially and as a society the way we do. It's not fair because nature ain't "fair".

Nope, I meant profound "showing great insight", I just might not have been serious. Sorta like saying your last paragraph is profound. 

[hollodero]

(12-16-2016, 07:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, I meant profound "showing great insight", I just might not have been serious. Sorta like saying your last paragraph is profound. 

I know you did do it deliberately. What about your suggestions, then. Skip my last paragraph and respond to the others (if you please). I'm really curious about your suggestions.

[*bfine32*]

(12-16-2016, 08:06 PM)hollodero Wrote: I know you did do it deliberately. What about your suggestions, then. Skip my last paragraph and respond to the others (if you please). I'm really curious about your suggestions.

in bold

[*bfine32*]

(12-16-2016, 06:49 PM)Cure4CF Wrote: What if he was raped?

He may have been seduced of given drunken consent, 

[hollodero]

(12-16-2016, 08:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: in bold

oh sorry... my bad.

(12-16-2016, 08:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, woman carries it to term, provided there are no medical complications, delivers the child, and forfeits all right and responsibilities. Just like an adoption.

"Nope"? Seems like exactly what I said, it was at least exactly what I meant.
Yeah, I'm against that. First off, there always is a remaining risk. But foremost: I feel - like others - that we have no business telling women what she can or cannot do with her body and with her pregnancy (up to a certain point into the pregnancy). And I think that's the right way. I feel it's ok that a man doesn't get to say, well, I want the child, so whatever you want just forget it, you now have go through all that, the body changes, the whole discomfort, the risk, while I can still smoke and drink while forcing you to do so.
It seems to me like a violation of a basic human right - which is control over the own body.
Or in other words, it would seem EXTREMELY unfair that way around, too. I'd rather take the "unfairness" that is given by nature and the medical possibility of pregnancy termination alone - that the woman has the power over the pregnancy. I think men simply need to accept that (and when they want a child, they need to look after a woman that wants one with him... or use adoption, which indeed he should be allowed... and what's wrong with seeing/doing it that way?)
And I am not really flexible on that one. I guess we need to agree to disagree here. I just hope all supreme courts are and stay on my side.

(12-16-2016, 08:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, if the law is going to be fair, the father should be able to walk away from all obligation just as the mother can. I don't want either to happen, but we should at least be fair, right?

But there's a huge difference in those two scenarios.
If the woman "walks away" (terminates pregnancy), there are NO obligations left.
If the man walks away, there are still ALL the obligations left.

So nope, that one isn't logical to me.

[*bfine32*]

(12-16-2016, 08:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: oh sorry... my bad.


"Nope"? Seems like exactly what I said, it was at least exactly what I meant.
Yeah, I'm against that. First off, there always is a remaining risk. But foremost: I feel - like others - that we have no business telling women what she can or cannot do with her body and with her pregnancy (up to a certain point into the pregnancy). And I think that's the right way. I feel it's ok that a man doesn't get to say, well, I want the child, so whatever you want just forget it, you now have go through all that, the body changes, the whole discomfort, the risk, while I can still smoke and drink while forcing you to do so.
It seems to me like a violation of a basic human right - which is control over the own body.
Or in other words, it would seem EXTREMELY unfair that way around, too. I'd rather take the "unfairness" that is given by nature and the medical possibility of pregnancy termination alone - that the woman has the power over the pregnancy. I think men simply need to accept that (and when they want a child, they need to look after a woman that wants one with him... or use adoption, which indeed he should be allowed... and what's wrong with seeing/doing it that way?)
And I am not really flexible on that one. I guess we need to agree to disagree here. I just hope all supreme courts are and stay on my side.



But there's a huge difference in those two scenarios.
If the woman "walks away" (terminates pregnancy), there are NO obligations left.
If the man walks away, there are still ALL the obligations left.

So nope, that one isn't logical to me.

Of course you disagree, as you fall into the group that puts the women's temporary convenience over a lifetime of the man and child; even though, she was a willing participant in the act that caused the pregnancy. No matter how many times I am forced to write "Her body, her choice" on the blackboard I still won't see the equality in that. 

[hollodero]

(12-16-2016, 09:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you disagree, as you fall into the group that puts the women's temporary convenience over a lifetime of the man and child; even though, she was a willing participant in the act that caused the pregnancy. No matter how many times I am forced to write "Her body, her choice" on the blackboard I still won't see the equality in that. 

I tried to give my reasons. I do admit that the whole abortion thing is a tricky subject to me and I do get why one could be against it, and that it doesn't even have to do with religion or being overly conservative. It's not that I take it lightly. But I accept the societal consensus on pregnancy termination that was reached by people much more affected than me - and I get the various arguments for it - even though I might find at least some understanding for the opposide side here. (I personally might be "pro choice" because of said arguments (like "her body her womb her choice", which just seems logical to me), but it's closer as you might think when putting me into a "group"... which I do not like :)

But now that this consensus is agreed on, I feel it's time to accept said consensus. The rest of my argumentation is mainly a logical continuation. And I suppose your stance actually stems from a refusal of abortion as a whole. As I said. We won't agree here, but please just don't put me in a group. I hate groups.

Still, putting that aside. For your "lifetime" argument - what is really "taken away" from the man? A child he didn't plan for either. Or even worse, a child he DID plan for without the woman's consent (the needle in the condom thing). THAT would be a problem would things go your way and that is a valid argument against your stance in my book.
But apart from the possible exploitation. I also don't really get why you would want a child that way (by a surprising pregnancy) in the first place. I feel planned pregnancies are always the better choice - and if you don't find a woman to impregnate, adoption still is a way better choice then forcing a woman to go through unwanted pregnancy. I don't really see the huge "lifetime decision" thing - she doesn't want to carry the child, so just go another avenue to fulfil your child wish, there are so many. (Best way, find a woman who wants to be pregnant from you. Why not do that in the first place?)

[GMDino]

What we lack in this discussion is input from a range of female voices.

The one female who used to contribute to PnR is very religious so her point of view would be well known.  I'd be interested in a response from the other side also but I don't know if any females are willing to post.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-16-2016, 03:40 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I haven't met a single American who wishes to go to war for innocent foreigners, but not for innocent American citizens. Not. A. Single. Person.

Ever.

Your claim is complete and utter bullshit.


I wrote remarksssssssssssssss. Plural.

Please explain your belief I'm unable to judge your level of patriotism based upon your lack of selfless service while you are able to judge the level of patriotism of "some" who wish to save the innocent overseas while not willing to save the innocent among their fellow Americans. C'monnnnnnnnnnn, man. 

Never met Hillary Clinton?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-17-2016, 02:35 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Never met Hillary Clinton?

Your answer only further reinforces my assertion your claim is complete bullshit. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-16-2016, 06:49 PM)Cure4CF Wrote: What if he was raped?

Let me paraphrase Republican Congressman Tom Akin, in cases of legitimate rape the body has ways of shutting down pregnancy. I might also add, if the man didn't want to be raped he probably shouldn't have left  the house wearing such a revealing outfit and no underwear. He obviously wanted it otherwise he wouldn't have gotten an erection. Is the woman rich and famous?  Because if a woman is rich and famous, they can grab men by the dick and the just let 'em do it. In most cases, the woman doesn't need to be rich or famous and men still let 'em do it. 

[JustWinBaby]

(12-16-2016, 05:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If the man wants no part of it, he should have that choice.

Well, if there's a guy with the means, I don't think the taxpayer wants to pick-up the tab.  The man having no financial obligation is also pretty clearly not a Conservative viewpoint on the issue.

That said, there is definitely a double standard in that the financial burden is a popular pro choice argument.  Why does that not apply to the man?  Legally, I don't think the financial question is even relevant so long as the fetus is considered to have no rights.

[Griever]

(12-17-2016, 12:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: What we lack in this discussion is input from a range of female voices.

The one female who used to contribute to PnR is very religious so her point of view would be well known.  I'd be interested in a response from the other side also but I don't know if any females are willing to post.

what kind of opinion are you looking for?

my wife got pregnant on our honeymoon, we werent in a position to financially support a child, so we had the abortion

one of the best decisions we have made as a married couple