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: 2
63
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLead



seems mine has to be true if yours is.


So, you're saying that it's okay for a man to abandon a healthy child, if it's okay for a woman to abort a healthy pregnancy? So, likewise it would it also be okay for a man to abandon a Downs Syndrome child that the mother choose not to abort, Because he was forced into fatherhood and had no choice?

Like I said, there is no "good reason" for a man to abandon their child(ren).




posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Everyone knows that one has to have sexual intercourse to make a baby. Two people make that initial choice to have sex originally, thus they both have made a choice and are responsible, male and female.

Stating birth control didn't work is a poor excuse. The only 100% birth control is a woman having her uterus / ovaries completely removed. Avoiding responsibility for poor choices is no excuse in normal relations. Whether choosing abortion or abandonment (adoption), those should be for both to decide.

Obviously, I am only talking about consenting adults taking responsibility for their original choice.


edit on 8 31 2019 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Its just a simple rebuttal to your statement, seems mine has to be true if yours is. Health has been redefined into the emotional sector these days, damn that grey area it creates. Grey area is wishy washy, meaning it goes both ways.


Exactly - discussion about abortion has moved outside the realm of morality. One is called all sorts of horrid things if they bring morality into the issue. So society has now deemed abortion to be amoral, no moral judgement allowed.

Therefore, once morality is removed from the equation, to parent or not to parent. It is only fair to allow the other biological parent to have a choice also.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: The2Billies

A man can kill his own children every time he takes his Johnson in hand with no intent of having a child. . That is if that is how we want to look at it.
If he uses his Johnson in a woman, with no intent of having a child how is that any different?

If a woman stimulates herself with no intent for a child, then that is her business.
If a woman stimulates herself with a man, that is her business as well.

So if a man and a woman choose to do those things together with no intent on having a child, where does the man have any right to what happens to the woman's body if a child is conceived.

Should the inception of a new person be left to the whims of biological fate, that each time two people smack it up and the chance, yes the chance of conception takes hold that we are to then give human rights to that ''accident'' of our animal instincts to copulate?

Is this what humans are all about? Mindless sexual gratification?

A woman's body is her own responsibility. If she decides to stop the pregnancy it is hers to decide and the man has no claim as he had no intent for a child. If she decides to go to term, it is her responsibility. At that point the man should have the right to either commit to the ''accident'' or let the woman deal with her own decisions on her own.

The crux here is intent. Was there intent for a child? Over our hundreds of thousands of years of procreating, how many children were born of intent compared to how many were born of biological drives alone. Maybe that one of our biggest problems in the world today. ''Just doing it'' or taking control of our own destiny and allowing women to make their own decisions.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Everyone knows that one has to have sexual intercourse to make a baby. Two people make that initial choice to have sex originally, thus they both have made a choice and are responsible, male and female.

Stating birth control didn't work is a poor excuse. The only 100% birth control is a woman having her uterus / ovaries completely removed. Avoiding responsibility for poor choices is no excuse in normal relations. Whether choosing abortion or abandonment, those should be for both to decide.

Obviously, I am only talking about consenting adults taking responsibility for their original choice.



It is only the sperm donor you are forcing to take responsibility for their original choice in this scenario.

The egg donor has a choice and can exercise that choice up until the day before birth.

Why is it not unjust and unequal to deny choice to one donor and give full choice to the other, if as you say there is full responsibility once the egg and sperm join?



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Why does it have to be a child he can leave during or before the pregnancy? They can abort healthy pregnancies?

A man leaves a child, but a women aborts a fetus, thats obviously how you see it, is that fair?
edit on 8/31/2019 by TheLead because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: The2Billies




Yes late term abortion, up until the day before birth is available in the US.


On demand abortions are not available in the USA past viability. There are extreme cases, that are beyond your medical acumen, where late term abortions are done. These abortions happen late because the fetus was wanted, and wasn't aborted on demand at an earlier stage, not because the baby mama got into a fight with the baby daddy.



Who forces one gender to pay for the choice of another gender against their will?


Nobody forced Mr Sperm Donor to unzip his pants.



Who allows one person to make a choice about being responsible for another human being for 18 years while forcing the other person to be responsible for another human being for 18 years


Pretty much every civilized society.



If the mother can't afford the child, she has a choice, if she can't provide for the child, she has a choice, and it's not just abortion, there is adoption. Why should she then force the other person SHE tangled with and did not use birth control with to abide by what is her's and her alone decision?


Because, choices have consequences.


+11 more 
posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: The2Billies

That's part of the Male privilege we keep hearing about.

A woman can get pregnant,
(but only with male input)
decide to keep or kill the baby
(without male input)
demand a monthly payment for 18 years or more
(Male gets no input on the $ amount)

Then she can claim in family court that said Male is abusive and should only have supervised visitation with his kid. No proof needed..

Women have all the power in the baby category.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Good point, in our society today sexual drives and acts are said to be ones personal decision and there should be no moral judgement on them.

If an act is done purely for sexual gratification without intent to produce a child - morality aside - as progressives demand - then there is no moral obligation to care for or support a child.

The egg donor (male or female to be progressive and include transgender) has full choice regardless of the desires or wishes of the sperm donor.

Morality aside - pure logic dictates - the child becomes the sole choice and thus the sole responsibility of the egg donor who allows the child to be born.


edit on 8/31/19 by The2Billies because: addition



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts




Whether choosing abortion or abandonment (adoption), those should be for both to decide.


Ideally. And, I'm sure that's what happens most of time. But, when the two side disagree, who decides? Is the man going to force the woman to abort or adopt, when she want's to keep it?

Are we going to apply a financial test on whether or not to force an abortion or adoption on a woman?



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22


That's part of the Male privilege we keep hearing about. A woman can get pregnant, (but only with male input) decide to keep or kill the baby (without male input) demand a monthly payment for 18 years or more (Male gets no input on the $ amount) Then she can claim in family court that said Male is abusive and should only have supervised visitation with his kid. No proof needed..


I agree. With the new amoral morality when it comes to sexuality:

Logic dictates that is pure sexism, purely unjust, and patently unfair.




edit on 8/31/19 by The2Billies because: added post by BT



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Finances, meaning the ability to care for the child fall under emotional health now, that was part of the debate on the New York bill, the definition of health and all that it pertains.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:14 AM
link   
This latest Chapelle special unnerved alot of Leftist Liberals because they are not use to truths.

Uncomfortable truths he busted out and for the best.

Hollywood and Leftist in general don't know how to take on Chapelle as he is both a liberal and right leaning realist.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: The2Billies




The egg donor has a choice and can exercise that choice up until the day before birth.


This is a lie.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: The2Billies

Are you sure what you want is a say in the matter and not the final say though?
Do you believe the man should be able to have the ability to force a women to risk her health or life once the doctor says that she is likely do die? Do you believe he should be able to coerce her into an abortion if her "deeply held belief" is that its morally wrong?



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:15 AM
link   
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: The2Billies



Abortion is available up until birth. Deal with it.
edit on 31-8-2019 by Archivalist because: Durr

edit on 31-8-2019 by Archivalist because: The quote system on this board is bonafide garbage



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: The2Billies


the child becomes the sole choice and thus the sole responsibility of the egg donor who allows the child to be born.


Exactly. With emphasis on ''choice'' and ''responsibility''.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: The2Billies




Morality aside


PFFT
What you mean is that, if a woman has a right to immorally abort her pregnancy, then a man the immoral right to abandon his children.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CynConcepts




Whether choosing abortion or abandonment (adoption), those should be for both to decide.


Ideally. And, I'm sure that's what happens most of time. But, when the two side disagree, who decides? Is the man going to force the woman to abort or adopt, when she want's to keep it?

Are we going to apply a financial test on whether or not to force an abortion or adoption on a woman?





Since the sperm donor (I realized the term man was transphobic) has no choice, and only the egg donor does, what should happen if there were real justice and fairness and equality, is the egg donor takes full responsibility for the choice.

No financial test, it will be as it has been when no sperm donor was identified. The egg donor takes full responsibility for the choice which is the egg donors sole choice - society must then step in if the egg donor can no support the child. Her choice her responsibility, then the government helps. If the sperm donor has no choice, he has no responsibility. Modern progressive sexual mores demand all sexual gratification to be considered amoral and consequence free. Can't have it both ways if one subscribes to progressive morality.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:18 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?

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?



Dave must be an ATS member as I have stated the same thing on several threads regarding abortion.

Women argue that it is their body and their choice alone to abort. Men should have no say in the matter. However, then they often in the same breath will try to force fatherhood on men against their wishes (see women trapping athletes for the child support bag).

I believe that if men have no say in abortion, then women should not have an automatic right to child support unless the father agrees.

Women can't on one hand say the state shouldn't force them to have a kid, but then turn around and try to use the state(courts) to force someone else to pay for that kid.



new topics

top topics



 
63
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join