reply to post by Edrick
"but that is merely an arbitrary classification of stupidity that you have thrown in there to justify Murder. "
Ahaha ahahaha ahaha. No. It is the LAW. I did not make up the law, in fact, it was probably in place before I was born.
"But, given that their own lungs are submerged in amniotic fluid, they must get all of their oxygen from the Mother's Bloodstream.
Therefore, the child is ACTUALLY Breathing. "
Breathing requires being in air. Laws (as well as some parts of the bible) dictate that living status is granted "at first breath", which means
breathing AIR, not liquid oxygen in a bloodstream. That is not breathing, it is absorbing oxygen. Plants absorb air too, but they do not have lungs,
and are therefore not breathing.
"And why does oxygen play such a pivotal role in your decision to recognize something as Alive? "
Not oxygen. Air. And because, as I have stated, it is the law that is in place.
"Oh, I love this Game... Now tell me what my Religion *IS*!
Who do I worship??? "
It doesn't matter, though I could make an extremely easy educated guess. Your insistence that sex is for the sole purpose of procreation labels you
immediately as a Christian of some sort.
Your insistence that abortion is wrong is characteristic of militant Christians.
Your ACTUAL religion could be many, but your ideologies and statements are those of a Christian, whether you are one or not, you have obviously been
heavily influenced by the more aggressive of the bunch.
More importantly, I do not have any problem with religion or those who are religious, as long as they do not attempt to force others to follow their
personal religion's "code of conduct". People can believe that abortion is wrong. I do not argue with them on the morality of it. Morality is
subjective, though, and morality is not a basis for laws, mainly because others believe it is alright and not immoral, and forcing them to follow laws
based on someone's personal morals is, coincidentally, what this board both advocates and refuses, depending on which
religion the morals are
coming from. Don't believe me? Ask people about Sharia Law. Almost everyone non-muslim agrees that it should not be implemented in their
not-completely-muslim country. And yet, they think that their Christian belief that abortion is immoral should be implemented in their
"So, you are saying that If I put you in a coma, you wouldn't have a problem with me stabbing your brain with an icepick then? "
No. No I would not have a problem with that at all. The law would, but I personally would not. I would not feel the pain, and would not be aware that
I had died.
"Oh, I'm sorry... I didn't realize that what we Were ALREADY DOING, wasn't an argument.
Silly me, reading the Dictionary and all that... "
Nowhere did I say I would not argue with you. What I said was that I would not argue with you about my INTELLIGENCE, because hey, quoting your IQ on a
forum is both stupid, and useless, as any valid information I could bring up to assert my intelligence level would be immediately dismissed as a lie.
I refuse to argue on this point because it is, in fact, fruitless. There is nothing I can bring up and prove as a fact. There is nothing I can say and
quote legitimate sources of, because guess what, my level of intelligence is not broadcast by medical reviewers on the internet! I know, shocking,
"Wow, if that's not the Pot calling the Kettle Black.
You are angry that any "Man" would tell you that maybe Offing the "Little Piece of Flesh" in your womb isn't such a Holy and Sanctified act...."
When did I say abortion is Holy? I think the entire notion of Holyness is imaginary and made up. Having an abortion can be the right choice, not due
to what specific people believe someone in the sky told someone else thousands of years ago, but because of an individual person's circumstances in
"So, your decision is more important than the Potential Life of a Child?
IS that what You are saying? "
Fetuses are not children, scientifically or legally. There is no need to bring morality into this, because other people have different beliefs. You
should not be allowed to force your belief that something incapable of human thought is a human.
"Then why isn't a MAN'S decision more important than the potential life of a child?
Answer me that question, if you can. "
What man's decision? I don't even know what you are referencing here. Are you trying to say that a man should be able to force a woman to abort? Are
you saying that he should be able to force her not to? Are you just stringing together words that don't really relate to the topic at hand in an
attempt to confuse me?
"And just think of all of the Many More Happy Couples that would be able to raise adopted children, if the father was able to decide whether he wanted
anything to do with a child that he has no choices about. "
I don't even know where this comes from either. Are you insinuating that more women would give their babies up for adoption if they could not get
child support from the father? That seems highly unlikely to me, once a woman has decided to have her baby, nothing that happens can change her mind,
in my experience.
And if it was the "type" of woman to get pregnant just to trick a man into paying child support, then it would result in more abortions, not
adoptions, once the law went into effect. There might be one year of extra kids up for adoption, but no longer than it took for these women to realize
they weren't going to get what they wanted and stop having babies for any reason other than a desire to have babies.
And ONCE AGAIN, in response to your ignorance of my previous comments wherein you shout about the thread title and about how men's rights are being
ignored, I have said numerous times, and at least once to you, that I support the idea of allowing men an additional "out" from being responsible for
unwanted children, as long as he is not a repeat offender, poking holes in condoms to make women get pregnant and then abusing the system to get out
of paying for them.
"where men and women have the SAME AMOUNT OF RIGHTS, instead of women becoming Cruel, State sponsored Tyrants the moment the man places his penis in
Do you know the statistics of how many women do not ask for child support? No. So calling all women who have sex Cruel Tyrants is yet another form of
expressing your emotions, which are both illogical and by definition considered prejudice against women, and Misogyny.
And calling women who believe they cannot handle the responsibility of child-rearing alone names, all the while declaring that abortion and adoption
are WRONG and should be ABOLISHED because they are (to you) IMMORAL, that is a double-standard. You want women to be the sole holders of
responsibility,and men to have the ability to eschew it for a life of spending their money on themselves? Great. That's perfectly fine. But do not
claim to be a Super Special Ambassador Of Equality.
"only clearly reveals your motivations in protecting the mothers right to chose, and preventing the fathers from having ANY CHOICE AT ALL. "
Again, you are replying in a direct thread. I can see the exact places where you chose to ignore the statements you didn't want to believe came from
my mouth. I am ALL FOR this choice. I am ALL FOR giving fathers more rights, and more ability to refuse responsibilities in the same way that women
can. I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with the idea of giving men the option of trying to show why they shouldn't have to pay child support. I am also a
firm believer of child support not putting the father any further below the line of poverty than the mother would be if she had support.
For example: Woman works, makes enough money to pay for rent and food, wants money for her child to be able to buy them clothing and school
Man works, lives in a building that could easily be classified as a slum, eats ramen for every meal.
No. He shouldn't have to pay child support, because he is worse off than the woman and child.
Woman is disabled. Cannot work, has been declared unable to work for whatever reason, and proven in a court of law. Collects some form of social aid.
Has enough to feed child somehow. Lives with family in a small apartment that is infested.
Man works an ok-ish job. Makes enough to scrape by. Isn't poor, but isn't well-off either. Has a tight budget.
Someone should work with both parents to try to make a budget that allows for some money to be given to the woman, so she can contribute to household
finances, and move into somewhere safer for the child and/or find ways to bring the living quarters to an acceptable level.
There are all sorts of different circumstances, and in some, the man shouldn't be held accountable (woman has multiple babies by different fathers.
Gets child support from all of them. Wears expensive clothing while claiming she doesn't have enough to "take care of her baby") and situations where
he should be (man has steady income, luxuries, multiple babies by different women. Pays nothing to any of them. Mothers live in poverty)
Equality is a LOT harder than you think, and neither forcing everyone to be accountable (banning any form of not taking care of your own child
yourself, as you have suggested) nor allowing everyone to get away with not being accountable (letting people of either gender milk the system for all
it's worth) is the answer. The answer is difficult, and probably in this day and age, impossible. There is no way that the parental court system will
have enough resources to check up on every parental dispute to the level needed to achieve actual equality.
Just because I am a realist, though, does not mean I think that it shouldn't be attempted.
""because you are using only your emotions and personal beliefs to fuel this fire"
"Wow, if that's not the Pot calling the Kettle Black.""
Actually, I pointed out all the logic in my statement. I offered you and others the chance to point out what part of my statement was emotionally
charged. You have chosen not to do so, essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalallalalala I'm right you're wrong lalalalalala".
I assume this is because you could not find any.
So while you will never see the errors in your ways and words, due to a refusal to revisit anything you have previously said from another standpoint,
at least others will see your irrationality and not take your accusations as truths.
As much fun as I have dissecting the words of internet trolls, yours are getting incredibly repetitive. If you intend to keep provoking people, I
suggest you find something upon which to build your arsenal.
Because stating that I believe things that I have outright said that I do not believe multiple times isn't really bothersome, except for my nagging
worry that you will someday raise a child to be as blind and ignorant as yourself.
And before you claim not to be, re-read this conversation. See where you acknowledged my statement, and then later on where you acted like you have
never heard it before. So either you are blind or forgetful, which is fine because I am forgetful as well, but the handy little links at the top of
these quaint little "arguments" which I would, at least on my end, call a debate seeing as almost all of my statements were based on actual facts,
with the obvious exception of my extrapolation that you are in some way religious, which I admit is entirely based on assumptions and previous
knowledge. I cannot prove or disprove it, I can merely say that it is what I have observed, the same as any scientist can and does do when creating an
edit on 27-9-2010 by BiohazardsBack because: completely forgot that I was not done finishing up an earlier point.