It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dave Chappell said "if women can kill their babies, then men can abandon them"

page: 14
64
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: JBIZZ

Just one question... if the man chooses not to allow christ to be his head, but he is still the head of the women. Who, what, is the women following when she is following her head? If she is to obey god in all things, how can she accept christ as her lord if her husband does not wish her to?
I dont believe she can, read the bible, any other oath, contract, agreement, promise can be automatically vetoed by her husband..

All of which leads me to this question.
Why are Christians always saying that if the women didnt want the kid, she shouldn't have had the sex when their own believe system really seems to not want to give her a choice in that, or anything else, once she is married.


Haven't you realized that in today's society traditional religion, Christianity has been thrown out of society.

This discussion of Christianity is entirely moot in modern society. It has no place in progressive liberalism.

It has no place in this discussion as it is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.

The question at hand is one of legal responsibility, and the law does not allow for discussions of Christianity.

Abortion is legal and will always be, period, Christianity can howl all it wants, you are beating a dead horse.

Also morality is moot. Today's society demands no judgement on any form of sexual gratification between consensual adults. Traditional morality must be left out of the equation as it has been ejected from modern society, which thereby makes it moot to the conversation.

This conversation is entirely the result of throwing religious values and religion out of society and saying that JudeoChristian morality is oppressive, mean and even terroristic. Society has what it asked for, and unintended consequences have resulted - all genders demanding total and complete equality and to be free of judgment, condemnation, and legal repercussions for any and all choices they make when sexually gratifying themselves with consenting adults.


edit on 9/2/19 by The2Billies because: addition grammar




posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

You are right only if the couple is married and committed. If the dreaded oops happens they have already made the commitment to children by signing the marriage certificate which is a legally binding contract.

However, if they are unmarried, and uncommitted. That is a totally other thing.
XY has made no agreement or contract to support any fetal tissue resulting from consensual intercourse
XX can literally abort financial responsibility for the fetal tissue
XY should be able to legally "abort" responsibility also if true gender equality exists
(I am NOT saying XY should be able to force an abortion, only that XY should be able to have the same choice XX does, to legally absolve themselves of responsibility for the fetal tissue)
True gender equality would be to give XY a legal time limit of 39 weeks, as XX has once XY is told the fetal tissue exists, to legally be absolved of all responsibility



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: The2Billies

Umm.. that's funny, since I was posting in response to a post that was quoting bible verses...
And, haven't you been complaining about the loss of power christianity has in govt yourself? Yes, I believe you did in this last post even..
In case you haven't noticed, this is a free country.. you are free for the most part to follow whatever moral code you like, and so am I. Just because I abandoned a large part of the Christian moral code doesnt mean I dont have one. It just means I found I couldn't survive under the Christian code! And, you have no right to try to force me to die under yours.
Govt's job is to simply to allow us as much freedom as possible while ensuring all have the opportunity to enjoy their constitutional right equally with as little infringement on them as possible.. and to keep things running smoothly enough that the whole dang experiment doesnt come crashing down on all of us..



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: The2Billies

Umm.. that's funny, since I was posting in response to a post that was quoting bible verses...
And, haven't you been complaining about the loss of power christianity has in govt yourself? Yes, I believe you did in this last post even..
In case you haven't noticed, this is a free country.. you are free for the most part to follow whatever moral code you like, and so am I. Just because I abandoned a large part of the Christian moral code doesnt mean I dont have one. It just means I found I couldn't survive under the Christian code! And, you have no right to try to force me to die under yours.
Govt's job is to simply to allow us as much freedom as possible while ensuring all have the opportunity to enjoy their constitutional right equally with as little infringement on them as possible.. and to keep things running smoothly enough that the whole dang experiment doesnt come crashing down on all of us..


I'm not forcing you to do anything. Isn't that what the law is in the US?

Hasn't government now codified everyone be free from religion through it actions and court decisions?

Haven't court decisions said that JudeoChristian religion is something people in the US must be protected from.

This was the progressive/liberal demand, and they got it.

Please don't complain when you won and the (irony of all irony's here) the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater.

When you demand value free equality, don't complain when you get it and all genders, including toxic oppressive XY's demand it.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: The2Billies

If XX chooses to abort, that's it, end of story, the govt and taxpayer has no reason to be concerned any longer about possible future commitments they might find themselves getting roped into. Those commitments only occur if XX and XY fail in their responsibilities to that child. Maybe the govt and taxpayer feel that before they take on that responsibility, XX and XY should be doing all they can do to meet that responsibility themselves??

In other words, up till recent years, the govt and taxpayers found it more advantageous for XX to terminate the pregnancy if the family was poor. They also found it advantageous to quit letting the fathers skip off shirking their responsibility. It was a money issue. And now, they are finding that the poor not having babies brought on a whole lot of other problems, they want the women to have the babies, still ignoring the main problem, the growing income inequality that is leaving more and more people in a position where they cant afford to have kids or have the time to raise them.
I dont see how absolving the fathers from their responsibility to the kids they have helped bring into the world is gonna help anything except the feeling of injustice a few men are feeling...
Which is probably far less that the injustice I felt laying in bed, calling around trying to find a surgeon willing to do a surgery I needed without an insane down payment that we didnt have after hearing time and again how our state tax, our sales tax, our car registration fees, our drivers license fees, our property taxes, they all had to increase so they had the money to provide medical care to kids whose daddies refused to accept the responsibility they made for themselves..

No, just no!!



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: The2Billies

It was the constitution that said the govt couldn't exalt one religion above another. It gave us the freedom to come up with our own belief systems. Guess you would prefer to live under puritanical rule?
And, yes, it protects us from being forced to live under one set of beliefs, be they Christian based, Islamic based, or all hail satan, let's sacrifice the neighbors daughter tonight beliefs.. again would you prefer that the majority get to decide what beliefs you should adhere to? Even within the Christian sphere, I bet theres some groups that you would refuse to accept their edicts.

Why wont you or the poster I initially responded to answer my question I asked, did God throw out the wife with the husband when he decided she was to be his obedient little servant in all things??



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

What problems do we have from poor people not having 5 babies they can't support?

If there is no baby, and it's a collection of parasitic cells, then it should require both parents to accept responsibility or it needs to be terminated unless the mother can financially do it on her own without support.

If the mother can terminate then the daddy did not make the responsibility, the mother did.

I find it to be disgusting and immoral, but if there is no baby yet, then that is how it should be, and it pains me to say it.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Excuse me, and I may be wrong here. I do tend to get posters confused with each other...
But aren't you one of the ones who I've practically had to pull teeth with just trying to get you to admit that a women who's pregnancy complications is making it danged near impossible to take care of her living breathing children just might have a valid reason to terminate the pregnancy? And, now you're trying to coerce poor pregnant women into termination?

I think your motives are rather disingenuous...



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: The2Billies
In his latest Netflix concert Dave Chappell said "if women can kill their babies, then men can abandon them."
Does he have a point? I was shocked at first to see this. But I totally understand his logic in this day and age.

If a woman can decide to kill a man's child before it is born. Then why should the man be held accountable if the woman decides to give birth. Especially if he has no say over if the child is born or not born.

He ended with "my money, my choice".

Does he have a point? If a woman could decide not to give birth, but decides to give birth, is she then solely responsible for the child? Unless, the sperm donor signs the birth certificate and declares he is a the child's parent. Like in adoption. If a woman has a choice, why shouldn't a man have the same choice?

...



Those most in favor of abortion seem to regard the fetus as something akin to the appendix - a mere body part that every woman can do exactly as she wants with.

This is of course a simplification.

In my simplified world view, unless the pregnancy is caused by sexual assault, the father should have a say in the matter.

- If the woman doesn't want the baby, allow the father to take full responsibility of the baby, and it's out of her hair.
- If the woman wants the baby, but the father doesn't, the most natural thing would be for the baby to be born. The whole matter of whether or not the father can "choose to not pay" is of course an interesting issue all by itself.

Abortion is not the same as removing a troublesome appendix - you terminate a life, and it's not something that should be done "in haste".

That being said - I find it ridiculous that men has picked up talking about them "being pregnant". No, you're not. You are not pregnant, have never been pregnant, and will never get pregnant. That is the women's job - maybe their most important one.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Uberdoubter

And. I find it interesting that it's always assumed that it's the child she doesnt want and not the pregnancy with all its complications..



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Nope, I think when the woman's life is in danger then abortion is a viable option. I do not think it should be used as birth control or when it is simply convenient.

However that currently is legal and is what liberals want. If that is the system we are going to use then the man should have every right to say he wants an abortion and won't pay, since that is a current purpose of abortion. As I said in my post, I find it immoral and disgusting and it pains me to say it. The law should be changed so that the growing human is recognized as a growing human since that is what it is. The law should keep abortion as a viable option when medically necessary, not something of convenience. Until that time, men should have every right to demand an abortion of convenience and refuse monetary support if the woman does not do it, it is completely unfair to say there is no human being, it's a nothing, and ending it can be done for any reason ... but men need to be held accountable while women don't.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Uberdoubter

And. I find it interesting that it's always assumed that it's the child she doesnt want and not the pregnancy with all its complications..

I have known quite a few women who had abortions. Every one of them was simple convenience, not one of them was due to a complication. Unless you are suggesting pregnancies CAN have complications so that is all that is needed for justification. Well then it makes even more sense for a man to be able to demand an abortion and solve those complications.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Theres a wide space between when the womens life is in danger and when complications is affecting her health to the point where she cannot fulfill the responsibilities she has to her family, which can be very inconvenient to the whole family she currently has of living, breathing husband and children.
Think our disagreement was more like just how much inconvenience, how much pain, how much suffering should a women have to endure for the sake of the unborn. If the situation was taken out of the pregnancy and abortion debate and placed just within everyday social interactions... I dont think it would be that much. The right for all these shooting victims to life doesnt seem to trump a person's right to own a gun that spits out a few dozen or so bullets in a half a minute..

A couple of teenagers were recently shot for trespassing, while laws have been passed that would prevent young incest victims from being able to have their pregnancies terminated, unless of course their life is in immediate danger. You tell me, at what age does a girls pregnancy go beyond inconvenient and enter the realm of dangerous, torturous, cruel and inhumane treatment? 14, 12, how about 10, what about nine??
There is no law that says the father of the child a woman is carrying needs to step in and help out if complications arise that affects her ability badly, even if they are married. And, there is very little support available is he is unable to. It's just hey mom, do the best you can, you should have planned better, you shouldn't have made such rotten choices in life.
And, the pos men who abuse the little girls, the churches protect them and if the have a high enough standing in govt they seem to manage to walk away with a slap on their wrists..
And, I'd guess it's been only 30 or so years that our child support laws have had any sharp teeth in them. They allowed the abortions before they put any teeth in those laws, it was their last resort..
But, heaven forbid men should have to even come close to the standard the have slapped onto women for centuries upon centuries and of course when things fall apart.. blame the women!



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I need to work 3 jobs because you have the job I want. How much suffering do I have to endure, why can't I make my life and the life of my family better by killing you?

You cheated on me and I have severe depression just thinking about you. It is a severe complication. Why can't I kill you and end that complication so I can get back to my life?

I would say at 9 and 10 there is likely to be severe risk of death to the mother. The changes that allow child birth have not occurred yet. The cruel, inhuman, torturous part is simply you making things up. In reality a child having an abortion can be more inhumane and torturous. One of the girls I know who had an abortion when she was 15 and has attempted suicide numerous times since. She has never and likely will never get over that decision. She had no depression or other mental illness prior to that. So can I now say abortion is inhumane and torturous?



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

First off, I dont have the job you wanted, I am kind if disabled which is highly likely due to the fact that thought it it more important that my money be used to provide medical care for the kid one night stand joe has been managing to avoid responsibility for... so no, you cant kill me..

You control your own mind and I highly doubt that you will be able to control your thoughts after you kill your ex..
But, hey, more than likely your ex isnt in your presence physically every day and night, they ain't attached to you by a feeding tube relying on your bodily functions, screwing them up on you.
As for the kid part of your reply, that is why it's a decision best left to the judgement of the patient ( and their parent if they are very young) and the doctor...
As far as it being such a torturous experience for the 15 year old, the pos guy who took advantage of her probably wont be spending that much time in jail, possibly none. Why would you want to also free him from the financial responsibility he has toward the child if she avoids that torture and give birth to the child? And, wouldn't some adult women be likewise tortured if they gave into the financial pressure you want to put on them?

But, here I am, pulling the teeth.. ain't I? No complication, no amount of pain and suffering is too great to relieve a women from her responsibility to bring a child into the world.. the right of the child trumps her right to a healthy body, a life without life long disability, who cares if the kids end up in foster care a few months while she is hospitalized because of the complications or even if those complications gives a poor prognosis that once born, that child wont be able to survive more than a few minutes.. fetal rights trumps all rights!! At least till its born, then well, if its killed in a mass shooting, gun rights trumps kids rights!!
edit on 2-9-2019 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

No the rights of the baby are equal to those of the mother. The only one who wants to place the rights of one above another is you, not me. Everything you say is so silly and hyperbolic.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

They cant be equal, it's not possible.
While the fetus has the right to proper nutrition, and everything else it needs to survive, which the mother is the only one who can provide,
The mother has the right to eat what she wants, or not eat at all. She has just as much right to protect herself as any gun toting NRA member. She has the right to protect her family, her kids, her income source, her health, her future as anyone else, even if that threat happens to be living within her uterus.
In most cases, ya, the two can coexist without any infringement on either rights.. but I am not talking about the most cases.. I am talking about the less common but still existant cases where they cant. Where carrying the baby to term is gonna have detrimental effect on her, her family, their finances, far above what one would expect from your average ordinary pregnancies.
You seem to be saying that the right of the fetus trumps all that, heck allow the pregnancy to continue to the brink of death then hope and pray you can avoid the disaster. And, of course dont forget to hand them the nice big bill for all that fine negligent healthcare you provided on her way out the door!
Somewhere between this position which I find totally unacceptable and the idea that anyone who wants one should be able to terminate after the point of viability is a reasonable compromise..
Bringing child support into the debate does nothing to bring us to the point of finding that point.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

No one is "blaming" the women

XX has rights and choices

One right and choice XX has is to abort her responsibility for fetal tissue

XY has no such choice

This doesn't blame the women

It is a simple gender equity matter.

The choice XX has XY should also have.

XX has a legally codified right for 39 weeks to choose to abort responsibility for the fetal tissue through literal abortion

XY should be given 39 weeks to choose to abort responsibility (not the fetal tissue/responsibility) and have it legally codified

That is not blaming XX, it is amoral, pure and simple logic, gender equity

You are becoming a bit over emotional about it all

After all society legally says XX can choose to abort and abdicate all responsibility for fetal tissue
therefore, the logical, unemotional, equitable and gender neutral thing to do is to
allow XY the same legal right to abdicate all responsibility for the fetal tissue

Why is that so difficult to grasp? There is no blame, no recrimination, no judgement passed when XX and XY are given the same exact right to abdicate responsibility for the exact same fetal tissue, regardless of what XX alone with no input from XY may or may not allow it to develop into. Pure logic, purely unemotional.

I don't get why it is an issue for modern XX who believes in abortion on demand being legally sanctioned and insisting it be accepted without judgement to champion gender equality.





edit on 9/2/19 by The2Billies because: addition



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 04:59 PM
link   
The problem with Chappel's argument is that he's arguing men should get a benefit (the benefit of knowing they have living offspring) without any cost (the cost of supporting it)

A woman who aborts her baby is forfeiting the benefit of knowing she has surviving offspring. And she's simultaneously forfeiting the cost of supporting it.


One side is arguing that they should be allowed to get something for nothing.

The other is arguing they should be allowed to get nothing for nothing.




originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

They cant be equal, it's not possible.
While the fetus has the right to proper nutrition, and everything else it needs to survive, which the mother is the only one who can provide,



We're talking prior to the 21st week, right?

Why would an entity that doesn't even exhibit consistent brainwaves have any rights at all?

An adult human with brainwaves consistent with a 20th week fetus would be declared legally dead.


edit on 2-9-2019 by bloodymarvelous because: shorten



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Knowing one has a living offspring, with zero rights or limited rights of access to that offspring, coupled with 18 years of financial obligation, is not anyone's idea of a benefit. That is what happens frequently when consenting adults engage in sexual gratification for the sake of sexual gratification, in a sexually judgement free society (swipe right).



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join