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: 7
63
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: The2Billies

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: The2Billies

What does your ridiculous hyperbole about transgender people have to with the idea that if "women can kill their babies, men can abandon the babies that women chose not to kill"?



OMG circles upon circles

Please re-read all my posts, your answer is there.



Your own circle dance and not so clever deflections are there.




posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf




You know what, how about if a woman puts the wrong mans name on the birth certificate she face some form of punishment, how about if a woman makes false claims in the court to push a father out of the childs life they face punishment.


Again, none of that has anything to do with logic that: "if a woman can kill their babies, then men can abandon the babies that they don't".



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse




That is what some states want.


LOL. Yeah? What states want to let men abdicate their parental responsible to tax payers?



To say the woman has a choice and the man doesn't have one is discrimination.


It would be discrimination if men got pregnant too, but weren't allowed to abort. Becoming a parent isn't discriminatory.



I am just trying to be fair, both parties should have sayso.


Both parties?



...the Husband should have the right to say no to an abortion, if the husband says no, then no doctor should be allowed to give an abortion.


So, final say so. Not both parties.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Then quit acting like public monetary responsibility is the end all be all for your argument.

Pre-viability abandonment should be championed if pre- viability abortion for anything other than immedate health concerns shoud be, right?

Immedaite health meaning direct harm to either patient. You see the arguement is opened beyond immediate health, per the definition of health by law, but that extension is gender exclusive.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLead




Then quit acting like public monetary responsibility is the end all be all for your argument.


But, that's what the law bases it on. You can have an contractual agreement not to pay child support or be a part of your child's life, if you want. Until, the mother applies for government support. Then, like it or not, you're on the hook.

If you don't have a contractual agreement with the mother, then that's your fault for getting into a relationship that was out of your control.

Gender really has nothing to do with it. If a mother abandons her child, she can be held responsible for child support too.


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



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

But abandonment is not a women getting into a relationship that was out of her control? Its the exact opposite situation? By your standards the public should make the decision.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I guess there is some morbid logic in that. But it just doesn't sound right.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Dave Chappell pissed off a lot of snowflakes with his show. His jokes challenge their thought processes and it is brilliant.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

It's not really that challenging..
Abortion is the solution for I dont want to be pregnant, or, this baby is never gonna develope to the point where it will be able to ever live without excessive medical intervention
Adoption, orphanages, foster homes is the solution to I dont want to be a parent.
Only no one is considering it in that manner.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: rickymouse




That is what some states want.


LOL. Yeah? What states want to let men abdicate their parental responsible to tax payers?



To say the woman has a choice and the man doesn't have one is discrimination.


It would be discrimination if men got pregnant too, but weren't allowed to abort. Becoming a parent isn't discriminatory.



I am just trying to be fair, both parties should have sayso.


Both parties?



...the Husband should have the right to say no to an abortion, if the husband says no, then no doctor should be allowed to give an abortion.


So, final say so. Not both parties.



Your first point, that is what some states want....Some states are fighting to let woman get abortions right up to the time of birth, that is what my statement was about when it was in context with the rest of that paragraph. You twisted that out of context, it has nothing to do with men it has to do with womans rights being increased with abortion extended timeframes.

You have basically twisted most of what I said to fit your beliefs on this issue.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse




Some states are fighting to let woman get abortions right up to the time of birth


Under Roe V Wade, that has always been happening. But, also under Roe V Wade, abortion on demand ends at the point of viability. In other words, nobody is aborting viable fetuses just before birth.



You have basically twisted most of what I said to fit your beliefs on this issue.


I don't think so. You're posts are based in falsehoods and antidotal stories of evil women, as an excuse for men to abandon their children because their mothers didn't abort them.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Was the part where you said men should have veto power over an abortion decision twisted or was that pretty spot on?

Just curious.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: The2Billies



With abortion available up until birth


That's not true.



why should only women have a choice


Because it's her body, her pregnancy, her health and her choice.
Do you think a man should trump her choice, and force her to abort or give birth?



isn't that punitive to the man and discrimination?


A child is a punishment? Becoming a father is a discriminatory action?



Why should the woman demand financial responsibility from the man if she can't afford the child, but chooses not to abort?


Because it takes two to tango. Take your assertion farther and ask, "why should the public have to take care of child, because the dad wont"?


You know , you and I rarely agree on anything .
Except this post
Veteran father of 42 years



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: The2Billies




As Beto O'Rourke said

And you listened ?
Explains a lot there....



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: The2Billies




I don't think there is one.


There is no "good argument" for a man to abandon their child or children.

Then should the sperm doner father have any say in the abortion process?


Any say? Or final say?


I'm asking. I feel like the dad has a responsibility to take care of a kid he helped make, but I'm old school that way. But Dave has a good point here. If Dad has zero say in the abortion process, then why would he be responsible otherwise? I think it's what the kids call a "slippery slope".

This is a good one for discussion at least.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

It’s very much an interesting discussion to have.

Yes, it takes two to tango. But if a woman can unilaterally decide what happens with the result of that tango, why can’t a man unilaterally decide what his reaction to her decision is?

I certainly don’t want more single parent homes, but the question is absolutely thought provoking.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Poor kids.

What a world of snip to be brought into.

I stopped at two....two BEAUTIFUL daughter's that are EXTREMELY successful and very bright.

My youngest was on my ex wifes "hit list" WHILE WE WERE MARRIED because things between us were not so pleasant.

I had to become something I am not, say things that were not true, doing things that wrecked my most inner self, just to save her life.

She is graduating with a nursing degree, transferring to the Airforce to be an Aerospace Medic.

Take that pro choice. Sit and spin.

My oldest is a chef at Walt Disney World, having completed the Le Cordon Bleu Culinary Arts program.

As soon as my youngest was free of her psychotic "cacoon" I divorced my ex.

My youngest is still at home currently with the ex, so I'm on the hook still for support.

Do I care?

F# no.

This wasn't a prom night mishap, I was MARRIED.

NO amount of money will ever replace or quantify the existence of LIFE.

Abortion is mostly about "inconvenience" to the mother or perhaps the couple.

If you are considering abortion RIGHT NOW, under normal circumstances (whatever that means to you) you shouldn't have been sexually active AT ALL!!

My body, my choice.

My baby too, WHERE'S MY VOICE!!!??!!!!





posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: The2Billies




Why should society have to pay for a child that the woman can't afford?


Because, we're just that kind of society, that doesn't let our children die of starvation, exposure, neglect and avoidable disease.



She has a choice, once she has a choice in the matter, then it is solely her responsibility. Not the responsibility of the state nor of the sperm donor.


The law, and society in general, disagree with you. Sperm donor had a choice to keep it in his pant, or wrap it up, or get a vasectomy.



Especially if she does not give the father any say in the matter.


Maybe the Mr Sperm Donor should have been more selective in his choice of women.



As Beto O'Rourke said when talking about abortion the day before giving birth:


This is a false dichotomy. There is no such thing as "abortion on demand" past viability In the USA.



Women have the responsibility of being the last line of defense against unwanted pregnancies. Men should wrap their tools and ensure they are prepared for intercourse, but women should always make sure, since its their body.

And I agree that men should be more selective. Way more selective.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: The2Billies

It isn't about choice for either gender.

Its about the baby's human right. Once the child is born, he/she has the right to support from both parents. And I believe that no one can sign away the rights of another human being, including the mother. So contracts that excuse the father are likely illegal, although I am not sure that is meaningful because a baby can't sue.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

But then, what should be done it mom and dad dont agree, since if they all agreed I imagine this little exercise would be quite pointless.
I agree, the two should sit down together and discuss the situation in an adult manner, each giving the reason for their position and come to an agreement, but I was married long enough to know to know that sometimes, an agreement cant be reached. With me, it usually involved how the money was spent and well, he just not only had more power to force his position, but right to since he was the primary bread earner. So, weather it was right it wrong in anyone's view, he had the final say.
Well, in this case, it is the women who has more power to force her position and more right to. So, she gets the final say..




top topics



 
63
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join