GOP Platform: Women Not Human

j-mac said:
Nonsense. The 'clump of cells' argument is flawed as well, because right now we are on mars looking for what? Cells, water, precursors of life. We have a definition of life on the cellular level,
Click to expand...

I never argued that cells weren't life. That would be retarded. I am saying they aren't sentient or relevant life.


why is the baby's father not needed for approval as well? Would he not have to step up if the mother chose to continue the gestation, and bring the child into the world? Ofcourse he would. The father has rights too.
Click to expand...

Do you not read what I post? Why would the father need to give permission for a non-sentient mass of cells to be pulled out of the mother?
 
christiefan915 said:
It's called parenting, not indentured servitude. And for plenty of deadbeat dads, it's neither.
Click to expand...

ok so with reference to a child one does not want, we are now talking about decades of monetary support, as well as emotional support and participation in the development of another person? You don't call that a big deal?

bijous argument was that if a man doesn't want the child, he can walk off into the sunset and basically be free. that's not the case.
 
FactsRStubborn said:
Why should an innocent child die because of a rape? It isn't the child's fault is it? Does murdering a child make the tragedy of rape go away? The answer is NO.

No sense compounding one tragedy with another. Now run along. Many women oppose abortion under any circumstance. Who are you to speak for other women? How totalitarian of you
Click to expand...


You are actually going to look at a woman or little girl who was just forcibly penetrated and forced against her will to conceive and demand she be forced to carry the fetus to term? The fetus of a man who just violently ripped her innocence away for his own lust..? All because it's your opinion that matters and hey, if she doesn't like it.. well she can just run along because other people out there are just as fucked up as you are and would force her to go through that secondary rape again just because they can't mind their own fucking business and stay out of other people's doctors office?..

you're a sick individual dude.. The idea of a mandate that would help this rape victim and her forced pregnancy get some actual health care makes you rave like a lunatic that the world as we know it is ending.. But this 'mandate' (such an ironic term) is perfectly OK in your head..

I've seen you whine Augusta Nat'l is being 'forced' to allow women into their golf club..

...I disagree. They are being forced. Pressure is being put on them to comport to others wishes. It is no different than Jessa Jackson shaking down companies to get what he wants...​

because a private club should be able to have "freedom of association"...You're aghast the someone would be forced to associate with another...and really, how dare Augusta be forced to bear such things as women in their club house...but the idea of telling a woman, who just conceived against her will that you will force her to give birth against her will..by order of the government is damn Skippy?

If Obama is a socialist because he wants a 3% tax increase on people making over $5 million a year....what the hell does that make you and yours? Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge?

ya know, I'd wish your world on you.. but it would hurt too many innocents around you.. and I'm not enough of an asshole to want anyone to have to go thru something like this just because it's my opinion that you're completely fucked up..
 
King of Owls said:
I never argued that cells weren't life. That would be retarded. I am saying they aren't sentient or relevant life.
Click to expand...
The complete genetic coding of a unique human life is there once the egg cell is fertilized by the sperm cell.

So where do you draw the very subjective line you wish to create? Since it is subjective, does it not create a very slippery slope?
 
King of Owls said:
ok so with reference to a child one does not want, we are now talking about decades of monetary support, as well as emotional support and participation in the development of another person? You don't call that a big deal?

bijous argument was that if a man doesn't want the child, he can walk off into the sunset and basically be free. that's not the case.
Click to expand...

If a man doesn't want to be a father, it's simple. Use protection every time, all the time, and don't take the woman's word for it that she's on the pill. If either partner thinks "just this once it won't matter" and the woman becomes pregnant, the man is absolutely responsible for decades of monetary support... as is the woman. There's no way I'll let the man off the hook just because he can't carry the fetus.
 
Bijou said:
It neither a 'bad argument' nor is it 'bad logic'. Late in the second trimester, and third trimester babies can be and often are viable outside of the womb. Hence, they don't have to be part of the mother to survive. That's the difference. Viability is why it isn't okay to kill a 4 year old child. Your analysis of my argument is inaccurate.
Click to expand...

bijou, my argument references the part where you say "You want to make moral decisions for others. You don't have that right."

In fact, they do have that right, otherwise we wouldn't even be discussing this. That is what the whole of society is based upon.

"My morals are we need more education and we need to provide more avenues for the poor. I am going to mandate everyone pays for it"
"I believe this war is wrong, I am going to vote against it"

... Look at our entire judicial system.

There is not a single thing government does that does not come back to making moral decisions for other people.

Also, no, it isn't a 'clump of cells'. That's a lie. And when pro-choice people LIE to further their position, they've lost before they've started.
Click to expand...

I am using hyperbole, but there are stages where it is exactly that. You've also seen me throw around the term non-sentient quite a lot.

But that's besides the point because that wasn't the argument I was addressing when you chose to respond to me here.
 
Last edited:
ekg said:
You are actually going to look at a woman or little girl who was just forcibly penetrated and forced against her will to conceive and demand she be forced to carry the fetus to term? The fetus of a man who just violently ripped her innocence away for his own lust..? All because it's your opinion that matters and hey, if she doesn't like it.. well she can just run along because other people out there are just as fucked up as you are and would force her to go through that secondary rape again just because they can't mind their own fucking business and stay out of other people's doctors office?..

you're a sick individual dude.. The idea of a mandate that would help this rape victim and her forced pregnancy get some actual health care makes you rave like a lunatic that the world as we know it is ending.. But this 'mandate' (such an ironic term) is perfectly OK in your head..

I've seen you whine Augusta Nat'l is being 'forced' to allow women into their golf club..

...I disagree. They are being forced. Pressure is being put on them to comport to others wishes. It is no different than Jessa Jackson shaking down companies to get what he wants...​

because a private club should be able to have "freedom of association"...You're aghast the someone would be forced to associate with another...and really, how dare Augusta be forced to bear such things as women in their club house...but the idea of telling a woman, who just conceived against her will that you will force her to give birth against her will..by order of the government is damn Skippy?

If Obama is a socialist because he wants a 3% tax increase on people making over $5 million a year....what the hell does that make you and yours? Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge?

ya know, I'd wish your world on you.. but it would hurt too many innocents around you.. and I'm not enough of an asshole to want anyone to have to go thru something like this just because it's my opinion that you're completely fucked up..
Click to expand...
Well said. We're talking about the American Taliban here and all while they point and wave while stamping their little feet elsewhere...ie Muslim radicals. Little to no difference in my opinion.
 
christiefan915 said:
If a man doesn't want to be a father, it's simple. Use protection every time, all the time, and don't take the woman's word for it that she's on the pill. If either partner thinks "just this once it won't matter" and the woman becomes pregnant, the man is absolutely responsible for decades of monetary support... as is the woman. There's no way I'll let the man off the hook just because he can't carry the fetus.
Click to expand...

If a woman doesn't want to be a mother, its simple, use protection every time. Take the pill, make sure the man wears a condom. It is that simple.
 
Bijou said:
It is when compared to 9 months gestation, stretch marks, etc., then 100% custody, care, emotional investment and expense.
Click to expand...

yeah if you can't abort you are screwed women definitely lose out. But if that's on the table I would rather be able to be pregnant and have the option to nuke the child or throw it in a dumpster etc than have my entire life and future dependent on the whims of somebody else.
 
enough said:
what is it with you liberal gals and leaving out that women also hold the same views?
Click to expand...

True enough. And it's also true that there are plenty of men who will encourage their woman to have an abortion so they don't have to face two decades of indentured servitude, as Grind puts it.
 
Superfreak said:
If a woman doesn't want to be a mother, its simple, use protection every time. Take the pill, make sure the man wears a condom. It is that simple.
Click to expand...

We agree absolutely, 100%. But some of the comments on this and other threads seem to put the burden on the woman. For example, FRS's remark that women should keep their legs closed. Or Foster Friess's remark that women's birth control consists of an aspirin held tightly between their knees.
 
Superfreak said:
the term 'person' is subjective.

The facts remain that it is a unique human life.
Click to expand...

yes it is human life. Only retarded mouth breathers deny that. It's genetically complete.

Yes person is subjective, which is why this debate is relevant. I would argue that to be a person you need to first have a brain. If you don't have a brain then you are just an amorphous blob .
 
Superfreak said:
If a woman doesn't want to be a mother, its simple, use protection every time. Take the pill, make sure the man wears a condom. It is that simple.
Click to expand...

Yeh, in your neatly ordered middle class world but in the projects and inner cities there are people that get shit faced drunk, strung out on crack and fuck like rabbits. My God, there are so stupid they don't even have a balanced investment portfolio. :palm:
 
christiefan915 said:
We agree absolutely, 100%. But some of the comments on this and other threads seem to put the burden on the woman.
Click to expand...

Which is obviously 100% bullshit when they do. It takes two. If both are using protection the odds of an unwanted pregnancy are effectively zero. The odds of both forms of protection failing at the same time are almost zero.

I doubt even the most retarded of individuals is unaware of how pregnancy happens. Hell, I would be it is at least 50/50 that even Jarod could figure it out.
 
Superfreak said:
The complete genetic coding of a unique human life is there once the egg cell is fertilized by the sperm cell.

So where do you draw the very subjective line you wish to create? Since it is subjective, does it not create a very slippery slope?
Click to expand...

I think a good line is around the line where a brain is formed. That's would be around the start of sentience and true personhood. Maybe it still takes a while for the brain to kick into high gear and be relevant, but that seems to be a good safe point.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Yeh, in your neatly ordered middle class world but in the projects and inner cities there are people that get shit faced drunk, strung out on crack and fuck like rabbits. My God, there are so stupid they don't even have a balanced investment portfolio. :palm:
Click to expand...

So because they are living in the projects they should not be held accountable for their actions? Is that your argument?
 
King of Owls said:
I think a good line is around the line where a brain is formed. That's would be around the start of sentience and true personhood. Maybe it still takes a while for the brain to kick into high gear and be relevant, but that seems to be a good safe point.
Click to expand...

Obviously this is where the real discussion should be. When should basic human rights apply. I can at least respect arguments like the above, despite my disagreement with them.

I just can't stand the idiots that try to pretend it is not a unique human life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top