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: 15
64
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

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

What if it's not the child we don't want to support but the mother and all her complications?




posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: The2Billies
... is not anyone's idea of a benefit.


It's quite a lot of peoples' idea of a benefit.

If you could just know your kid was being raised, happy and well off, on an alien planet, a lot of guys would be entirely happy with that.

Most women wouldn't be happy with that. Bearing a child is a huge investment. Conceiving one is not so much.


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).



You could argue for different standards of obligation depending on different degrees of agreement.

Many deadbeat dads abandon their offspring after actively encouraging their partner to go ahead and conceive.

On the other hand, sometimes the girlfriend tells him she's on the pill, and it turns out 9 months later she was lying.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 05:58 PM
link   

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,

Who cares, a child after birth requires others to survive, are you saying their rights are not equal until they are able to be fully self sufficient and provide for themselves? So under the age of ~18 children should not have rights equal to others?



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 06:38 PM
link   
This is why we can't have nice things like comedy anymore lol.

Everything gets picked apart and that was a huge point Chapelle was making which made his special great for the times.

He was JOKING.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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,

Who cares, a child after birth requires others to survive, are you saying their rights are not equal until they are able to be fully self sufficient and provide for themselves? So under the age of ~18 children should not have rights equal to others?


The basis for not granting rights to a less than 21 week old fetus is that it has no functioning brain to speak of.

How can a thing with no working brain be a person?

I agree self sufficiency is irrelevant. A post 22 week fetus is a person.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 07:38 PM
link   
If you are having so much unprotected sex you need an abortion you are irresponsible.

Strike 1 having unprotected sex and become pregnant.

Strike 2 killing a living organism before it resembles an adult.

One more strike and your out.....



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

A child past the point of viability (if you dont know what that means look it up) could be removed from the uterus, placed in an incubator, be cared for by doctors and nurses and have a chance for survival if needed. Thus, the pregnancy is terminated, the women can use her strength to recover. She no longer has the pregnancy taxing her system. And just like any other child born, they can and do survive without the mothers attention.
But, before viability, the two cannot be separated, without causing the death of the fetus, are you still following me here? So, if the time comes where complications are really messing with her health, the choice is she either endures the effects of those complications weather it be for a few months, or the rest of her life and her right to be able to protect herself is infringed on, or the pregnancy is terminated which infringes on the fetus right to room and board within her body. There cant be equal right between the two as long as they are in a symbiotic, parasitic relationship.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Then, I would ask why should you get any sympathy if the child support system drags you over the coals, into the brambles, through the mud, down the rocky cliff and leaves you in the middle of the desert to dry out and become vulture food..



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Bloodworth

But then, couples spend quite a bit of money in fertility centers just to end up having to terminate the pregnancy...



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Holy christ your logic is total fail.

In your own argument, in your own first sentence you depict a "dead beat" woman whom cannot adequately raise a child.
Then you somehow twist it to the responsibility of the father instead of society???

Love... Your logic needs re-calibrating.

Here is some "arguments" to try and rebut.

1. The Man uses contraception in a clear indicator he has no desire for a child. The contraception fails resulting in pregnancy. Choices?
2. The Woman uses contraception in a clear indicator she has no desire for a child. The contraception fails resulting in pregnancy. Choices?
3. The Woman uses all the contraceptions (diaphragm, pill et c), the Man uses a contraception. A clear indicator neither want a child. The contraceptions fail and result in a pregnancy. Choices?
4. The Woman uses pregnancy as a form of control to "keep" a Man that has lost interest in her for any given reason. Choices?
5. The Man wants a child and sabotages a contraceptive. Choices?

Regardless of these scenarios, the Woman can choose to abort at any given time up until the safe limit set by state laws.
The Woman can choose to keep the child or prevent it from existing.
The Man can not choose to keep the child or prevent it from existing.
The Man can not force the Woman to carry the child to term.

Your logic states a Man is 100% responsible regardless of scenario and is a "dead beat" otherwise.
You consistently ignore the Woman's side of the argument for some reason and assume all responsibility on the Man.
The Woman is just as responsible for the child as the Man.
Equally, both the Man and the Woman should have the same choices in the outcome.
Clearly we cannot force a Woman to term as that would be immoral so therefor the only option available to the Man should be that he can choose to "abandon" the child, in a similar fashion to the Woman as if she chose to terminate (without the Man's consent).

Anyone who thinks otherwise is stuck in old world thinking and needs to catch up to Equality.
edit on 2/9/2019 by Sovaka because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sovaka

"Old world thinking" was to not give women any choices whatsoeve, unless of course, her husband chose to allow her to have some. So, rapping your wife was perfectly legal.. none of the well, if you didnt want a kid, you shouldn't of had the sex. Birth control was really quite primitive and here in the states, it was illegal to distribute any literature or items that were used for that purpose. and, abortions were legal, then they were not, but either way, it cost money and most women relied on the father of the baby for the money.. and, it was oh so easy for the father to just slip away and avoid having to provide any support for the kids he helped create.

But, like I already said, I think theres something fishy here as far as motives when people so against abortion that they support laws that ban abortion for young pregnant incest victims come out defending this.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Well holy hell that's a great way to make kids feel good.....Damn ! Smh



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 08:35 PM
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?

Interesting philosophy.

Why not allow men to have a choice? Should choice be limited to just one gender?

www.theblaze.com...

When morality is taken out of the equation: no moral judgement on abortion up until birth, why should we make a moral judgement about the sperm donor? Why is refusing to parent or take responsibility for a child mandatory for one gender and a choice for another gender?



He's a comedian. He's up there on stage making jokes not trying to make a statement and run for office. SMH



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: The2Billies

I saw it, he went after EVERY stupid argument the left is making today, and he made really good arguments to the point that left-wingers want to boycott Chapelle...



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
...
But, like I already said, I think theres something fishy here as far as motives when people so against abortion that they support laws that ban abortion for young pregnant incest victims come out defending this.


The large majority of abortions are not because of incest... But keep trying to claim they are... Your movement was started by a "white supremacist" but keep hiding behind the claim "abortion is a right..." You still haven't shown us where in the U.S. Constitution it mentions abortion as a right... In fact the U.S. Constitution mentions LIFE as a right, and not murder...



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Heck ya, I'll boycott him!! Why not, I have no idea who he is. Wouldn't have ever ran across his name if it wasn't for this thread. I'll boycott him and he will never notice.. wont affect him in the least bit..
But, it will probably bug the heck out of some on the right to know that I am boycotting him, whoever he is...



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Lol.. I'd bet there are more abortions due to rape and incest than there are abortions just before the birth of the kid..
And, protecting ones self from bodily harm is accepted to be a right. shooting someone and killing them when they've just broken into your house isnt considered murder..



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: The2Billies
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The XY should have the right to "abort" responsibility for the raising of the fully formed lump of fetal tissue.

Just as the XX can decide to abort the fully developed lump of fetal tissue to be absolved of all responsibility.


First - I have to say this is a great thread. Very thought provoking.

As I’ve read through the pages I can’t say I disagree with the OPs point - it makes logical sense.

I don’t think you can separate the morality out of this. Or rather you can but the majority of people probably couldn’t. The notion of having someone take care of us as children is embedded in us. Someone took care of each of us when we were younger and I believe the “collective we”generally agree we need to take care of our offspring. When you factor in that men can bounce much more easily it makes sense there is some kind of mechanism to kee them accountable for the resource drain they dumped on the system in the form of a small human.

That said, the degree to which women abuse the above logic to get as much money as possible out of the fathers wallet is a problem - and we even built an industry around helping women do that. In some ways, it’s a form of extortion.

Going full circle, the mother did have a choice to keep the baby....

Im having a hard time scaling the impact of implementing the OPs point. Google tells me we spend at $6bn annually on WIC. Let’s assume we have to double that figure if we followed the OPs point so $12bn. In the grand scheme of the federal budget that’s peanuts. You could 5-10x increase the cost and it’s doable....

The OP is right - the current stage really is just a hangover of “morality” telling us to “do the right thing” and another mechanism to transfer wealth/ stop consolidated wealth accumulation.



posted on Sep, 3 2019 @ 04:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: The2Billies
a reply to: Itisnowagain


originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Is this thread a pro abortion thread?
Men seem to be demanding abortions.

Or is it just 'women are bad' thread?



This thread, initiated by a XX, is about:
When intercourse is between consensual unmarried adults:


XX can choose to use birth control pills, can choose to insist on condoms, can choose to add spermicide, to prevent pregnancy - if XX does none of these, or only one and it fails

XX legally has the choice - XX is the only one who has the legal choice to abort financial and all responsibility for fetal tissue and can choose to literally throw that responsibility in the trash

XY has only one limited choice to insist on condoms that fail in real life usage 25% of the time, where if XX is fully responsible and exercises all choices will only see failure .01% of the time (basically almost never)

While XX has the legal right to abort responsibility for the fetal tissue
XY has no legal right to abort financial responsibility for the fetal tissue

It is gender inequality when XX can abort all responsibility including financial for the fetal tissue; while XY can be forced to shoulder the financial responsibility for the same fetal tissue and has no choice.

True gender equality would allow a mechanism for XY to "abort" (i.e. not have legal or financial) responsibility for the fetal tissue that XX allowed to develop.



P.S. 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.



Have you considered that some females are told to have an abortion by their sex partners and do as they are told?
And then spend their lives regretting it..... and feeling ashamed. And as they go though life they find that many people consider it murder and they have to hide that they did something just because their boyfriend was so forceful.

Is it ok to be manipulated into murdering?
Does he feel like he is a murderer or just her?

edit on 3-9-2019 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2019 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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,

Who cares, a child after birth requires others to survive, are you saying their rights are not equal until they are able to be fully self sufficient and provide for themselves? So under the age of ~18 children should not have rights equal to others?


The basis for not granting rights to a less than 21 week old fetus is that it has no functioning brain to speak of.

How can a thing with no working brain be a person?

I agree self sufficiency is irrelevant. A post 22 week fetus is a person.


Not according to the law in many states. Some states have even dropped double murder as a charge if a pregnant woman is murdered.

According to the law in quite a few states fetal tissue is not a person until the XX decides it is, or unless it has been "born" and taken a breathe.

That is the way US society has codified into it's law these days. That's what happens when traditional values are rejected and thrown away like garbage.



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join