Originally posted by Jon Miller
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Fair is fair . . . Georgia Democrats propose an anti-vasectomy bill
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Jon Miller View PostIt was definitely right for the nonNazi Germans to not say anything!
That is always what causes change in society. Not saying anything, keeping your head down, going with the flow.Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View PostBlack people should have never tried for civil rights. What if they'd alienated whites and then they'd never have gotten what they wanted!
If you think women will ever allow a return to those times, you need to put down the crack pipe.
Comment
-
Wait. The back-alley abortion problem, I grant you. But how do women "end up assuming a subservient position" from illegal abortion? Unless you're defining subservience as "having less autonomy on reproductive health."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elok View PostWait. The back-alley abortion problem, I grant you. But how do women "end up assuming a subservient position" from illegal abortion? Unless you're defining subservience as "having less autonomy on reproductive health."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elok View PostYou're really not doing yourself any favors with arguments like these...
JMJon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Comment
-
Ken, I would say that amounts to a relative disadvantage, not "subservience." Subservience, to me, implies that women are being made to serve men somehow.
Originally posted by Jon Miller View PostDoesn't change the fact that there is more truth to them than Laz's.
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elok View PostKen, I would say that amounts to a relative disadvantage, not "subservience." Subservience, to me, implies that women are being made to serve men somehow.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kentonio View PostBy serving as baby carriers for men regardless of their own wishes? Yeah I'd call that subservient.
You might just as well say the present system makes men subservient; a woman can decide to abort, but a man can't. Aren't men being FORCED to support children they might not have chosen to have if they were given an option? Aren't they being reduced to involuntary money supplies for women?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elok View PostI'd call it an overly-dramatized account of basic biology. They're not carrying the babies "for" anyone in particular. Theoretically you could say they're carrying them "for" themselves, or their genes.
Originally posted by Elok View PostYou might just as well say the present system makes men subservient; a woman can decide to abort, but a man can't. Aren't men being FORCED to support children they might not have chosen to have if they were given an option? Aren't they being reduced to involuntary money supplies for women?
Comment
-
Originally posted by kentonio View PostHow can you say they're carrying for themselves if they don't want to? Its not overdramatic, its just accurate. They're being forced to use their body as an incubator against their will.
I've had a few interesting debates with people about exactly that. I think the consensus was that yes its not fair on men, but the alternative is worse (ie forcing women to carry babies they don't want).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elok View PostFine, but being required by law to do something you don't want to do does not, by itself, render you subservient to anyone (except the government).
Originally posted by Elok View PostHow about if the man goes before a judge and says "I wanted to abort this child, but she refused. This is against my wishes and I renounce my obligation to pay for child support?"
Comment
-
You know, if we all just followed my grand plan--contraceptives in the water supply--this entire argument would be avoided."My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
"The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jon Miller View PostI don't see how the situation with sick children changes if they are before birth or 5 years after birth.
The problem is that you're trying to over-simplify a very complex issue of medical jurisprudence, and are struggling with your own position, let alone anyone else's. You're pro-life, but in favour of abortion in life-threatening cases. That's still a vague position, of course- how life-threatening does it need to be? What circumstances can alter the decision?
My own position is that I'd allow termination on any grounds up until the point where, on the balance of probability, the unborn child could survive birth. At that point, I consider the rights of the child to come into play. Beyond that point, I'm still fine with terminations in cases where serious medical conditions would afford the child no acceptable quality of life.The genesis of the "evil Finn" concept- Evil, evil Finland
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jon Miller View PostDoesn't change the fact that there is more truth to them than Laz's.
JM
I'm not lying. Nor are you.The genesis of the "evil Finn" concept- Evil, evil Finland
Comment
-
Originally posted by Guynemer View PostYou know, if we all just followed my grand plan--contraceptives in the water supply--this entire argument would be avoided.If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
){ :|:& };:
Comment
Comment