Birth Control: Sharing the responsibility

[CFM]

1. You deny misogyny, but you don't explain how your assertions do not conclude to such. Then you follow up with some stupid question that is no way near anything I posted. Why you try to divert the conversation by creating these false narratives is beyond me, as anyone with an 8th grade education and an idea of critical thinking can see through your folly.

2. No, it's not a separate issue if folk like you tell a woman that she must bring a pregnancy to term regardless of how she got pregnant. Then you ignore my other examples to repeat your erroneous declaration. That's a stupid tactic by right wing wonks on any subject....you just ignore what you don't like and parrot your beliefs ad nausea.

3. Who asked you? Who gives a damn what you "expect"? A woman who is a complete and utter stranger to you is NOT beholden to your whims or beliefs regarding her pregnancy. You want a theocracy, move to a country that has such laws and powers. And if you want such authority over women (while bitching about your tax dollars going to the welfare and social service of single moms and unwanted kids in the foster care system), then women damn sure want equivalent authority over men, because you sure as hell have guys impregnating women all over the world and NOT taking parental responsibility. Also, maybe you should talk to people in the real world regarding divorce after pregnancy, bankruptcy after pregnancy, death of a spouse after pregnancy, and all the other little permutations that might compel some women NOT to bring a pregnancy to term.

4. But YOU ARE MAKING IT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY BY USING FEDERAL/STATE LAW TO FORCE THAT WOMAN TO BRING THAT PREGNANCY TO TERM, YOU CERTIFIED FUCKING MORON! But you have a hissy fit when a woman proposes a federal/state law that would prevent such a pregnancy. So you have your way, and MANY folk have theirs….with LESS angst of LESS amount of unwanted pregnancy. If you weren't so insipidly stubborn and proudly ignorant, you'd see that.

5. The whole point of America is that gov't assists the individual citizen and protects the individual citizen....that's what you tea party, new conservative, alt right, oather, libertarian folk all wail. YET, YOU want to put the onus of "responsibility" solely on the shoulders of women, and take away their right to choose for themselves. At the same time, you just let guys (who are part of the equation, period) off the hook by default. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple. Hell, it's anti-American. But do parrot your dreck ad nausea with your hands firmly over your ears and eyes, because you can't logically or factually defend it.

1. Expecting a woman to be responsible for the results of a choice she made is not misogyny. There you go again calling something stupid because you can't answer. That's typical of you.

2. It is a separate issue. One is a crime and the other is consensual. I didn't ignore your other examples. They were invalid so I gave them the due they deserved.

3. That same woman you consider a complete and utter stranger doesn't have a problem expecting others to support HER kids when HER choice is to have them. What you want is for people to be able to make choices then be able to demand others pay for them when they can't. I don't give a damn about their personal situations after pregnancy. Personal situations aren't not a justification for killing what your choice produced.

4. There's an easy way to prevent pregnancy if you don't want to get pregnant. It works 100% of the time. However, if a woman chooses not to exercise that option and participates in the very action that produces pregnancy, saying it is unwanted is nothing more than an excuse. It might not be what she intended, but if she knew it could happen, saying it's unwanted is a cop out. If you were honest and not so dead set on a woman being allowed to kill her baby, you'd see that.

5. Unless it's rape, and that is a crime that should be dealt with as a crime because it's a separate issue, unless the women consents, she can't get pregnant. What that means is she is allowing him in not the other way around. It's like a visitor at my home. If I invite them in and they get hurt while on my property, I'm liable, they aren't. That's why it's my responsibility to make sure things are less likely to happen. The visitors don't get a shovel and fill in a hole that may be in the back yard so they don't step in it. It's my responsibility to do that. I believe the male should use protection. However, if the sex is consensual, the woman knows he's not using it, and she lets him in anyway, is isn't his fault she chose. No one is taking that choice from her. It's like letting someone drive your that you know doesn't have a valid license. I just logically defended it but you, because you're an arrogant, narcissistic leftist will deny that I did. Refute it, nigger.

[CFM]

Lying again, CFM? This is a printed medium, so people can track your conversation. But let me educate you on how things work:

- If a responder continuously lies about what I post, misrepresents it's content and always tries to divert the discussion to another subject or just personal attacks, why should I not IA them?
- If a responder offers nothing other than denial with no factual support and puts their personal opinion out as if it's historical fact, why should I not IA them?
- If a responder shows up just to throw out personal attacks and post childish memes/slogans/talking points without attempting to have a rational, fact based discussion, why should I not IA them?

And riddle me this … if a responder has been around for YEARS and KNOWS my sentiments regarding various subjects are diametrically opposed to theirs....why do they respond, let alone NOT have me on IA?

the IA option is there for the very purpose of dealing with the mindset in the aforementioned. If you don't like it, get off this site. You don't like me, IA me. But since it seems you have some psychotic need to engage me, please explain to the reading audience what TD posted here that was worthy of anything other than what I did. If you can't, but just blather on, then you as well haven't grown to debate beyond right wing wonkery.

And that being said, stay on target regarding the OP.

No one lies about what you post. No on misrepresents what you post. Putting someone on IA is you whining and crying because you don't like the truth.
No one has refused to provide facts to refute what you post You not acknowledging it because you disagree doesn't change that they do. Putting them on IA because of that is whining and crying.
No one is doing that to you. You're not a victim although you try to be one on a daily basis.

I don't put you or anyone else on IA because, unlike you I'm not a goddamn pussy with such a thin skin I run. People disagreeing with me doesn't hurt my feelings. Apparently is hurts you so bad you go into hiding to rub the part that hurts the most.

For you the IA is a way to hide like a coward. If you can't handle disagreement, you're more than welcome to be one. You won't be the first one that has supported my claim of superiority by running away.

I don't take orders from you. That's your problem. You make demands, fail to back them up, then go into hiding like a scared little BOY. Typical left wing n-l.

[CFM]

Are you drunk? Nothing I posted suggests anything of the sort! I suggest you get an adult to explain things to you...or take a refresher course in reading comprehension.

Apparently you think women, outside of being raped, can get pregnant even if she chooses not to have sex. That's the only conclusion that can be reached if you think it's OK to abort a baby because you don't want it. If a woman gets pregnant, outside of getting pregnant when raped, she had to make a choice to do the action that produced it.


Take a basic biology class.

Again, when people point out your lack of logic, you want to blame them. Typical left wing idiot.

[Celticguy]

The left has already indicated the sperm donor doesn't have a say.

I was referring to the resultant person from ova+sperm.

[CFM]

I was referring to the resultant person from ova+sperm.

I got what you were saying. My reference was that the father also didn't matter.

[Wolverine]

I love it when you use the most moronic, bass-ackwards "logic" to try and condescend to someone. I don't even have to make fun of you...you self ridicule.

Please explain to the reading audience just how a baby CONCEIVED IN THE WOMB OF A WOMAN IS NOT PART OF HER BODY. Last time I checked, the whole point of a womb is to conceive via insemination (look it up if you don't get that last word) and bring to term that combination of sperm and egg (the latter another part of the woman's body) to produce a baby. Now if you know different, I'd like to know exactly how that baby is NOT part of the woman's body. Hell, I'm sure the entire global medical community would like to know how this is physically possible.

And while you scramble to achieve this, try focusing on the actual content of the link in relation to my OP. Carry on.

Make it hard would ya, in every case, dna transfer has occurred at conception, the heart is most likely beating, and everything about that child has been hard wired into it. It is, and will always be a child no matter what you tell yourself to help you sleep at night for killing the most innocent, and defenseless among us!

[Celticguy]

I got what you were saying. My reference was that the father also didn't matter.

Agreed

[CFM]

Agreed

The woman having the abortion will tell the sperm donor he has no say in what she does with her body. However, if her choice is to have the baby, and he gets no say, why should he then be forced to support it?

A better question is why are those of us told to butt out of a woman's choice the first ones the woman wants the government, which they also told to butt out, to force to support the child she had?

[Celticguy]

The woman having the abortion will tell the sperm donor he has no say in what she does with her body. However, if her choice is to have the baby, and he gets no say, why should he then be forced to support it?

A better question is why are those of us told to butt out of a woman's choice the first ones the woman wants the government, which they also told to butt out, to force to support the child she had?

Its not her body that is being harmed. Of course there is risk in any medical procedure which is the point in some basic safeguards applied to abortionists.

[CFM]

Its not her body that is being harmed. Of course there is risk in any medical procedure which is the point in some basic safeguards applied to abortionists.

I agree. My focus is on the father that is given no choice related to whether or not the child is carried to term yet if the choice is to do so, he'd be forced to fund the choice someone else made. While I think he should be responsible financially because he played as much of a role in creating the child as the woman, he should also get a say in the decision.

That gets to the second part. Since I had no part in the process that produced the result for which a choice is being made, that eliminates me, you, and anyone else fitting that category regardless of the decision made.

[Celticguy]

I agree. My focus is on the father that is given no choice related to whether or not the child is carried to term yet if the choice is to do so, he'd be forced to fund the choice someone else made. While I think he should be responsible financially because he played as much of a role in creating the child as the woman, he should also get a say in the decision.

That gets to the second part. Since I had no part in the process that produced the result for which a choice is being made, that eliminates me, you, and anyone else fitting that category regardless of the decision made.

Yes, i fully get your point if view.
Guys only get beaten up over this.

[CFM]

Yes, i fully get your point if view.
Guys only get beaten up over this.

It's the guys that are the father that don't get a choice yet are expected to be fully responsible and any taxpayers forced to take care of a woman's child she can't support despite being told to butt out of the choice.

[Taichiliberal]

People always like forget that there is more than one person involved with abortion. And im not referring to the father.

Determining the sex of an unborn child does not equate it as a living, breathing person independent of the womb. That's the consensus of the law of the land in general. That's what birth is all about, that's why an individual woman should be left to her and her doctor on the decision. But if you insist upon telling the woman what to do, then why the angst about doing similar to a man? The OP proposal would cut down on the unwanted pregnancies, you know.

[Nordberg]

Want to cut abortion then back sex education in schools and easily obtainable contraception. That has been proven to work .

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
your first 3 sentences in this response says it all. Here's how I schooled your like minded brethren with the same mindset and mantras:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...20#post3491920

Oh, and spare us all the old anti-abortion BS. Since teen sex and pregnancies was off the charts BEFORE proposals of sex education, your statement is without merit and proof. And yes, genius....you pay taxes JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. The difference is that if there are LESS unwanted pregnancies done by guys who aren't stand up father's after the fact, that's LESS money for foster care, etc. Think it through.

You don't give yourself enough credit

Whatever.

As the reader can clearly see, when properly challenged RB60 just blows smoke like a typical right wing blow hard. Clearly, he can't or won't think things through, as an honest assessment would force him to concede a point. I leave him to the predictable retorts and dodges.