Statistics show that the majority of women are only interested in sleeping with every second man they meet, and do not know how to use a condom?
...
...what the fuck research institutions are you following? It's this sort of rhetoric that undermines decades of attempts at gender equality and combating misogyny and sexism.
I hope you confine views like this purely to the internet, because where I live such tasteless, uninformed spiel is liable to get you a slap in the face.
Seriously... You're trying to do this in the other thread too, unfortunately, twisting words around isn't your strong point. If you're going to twist my words around, at least make me look like the idiot.
Statistically, a lot of women report not using contraception or acknowledge they used it incorrectly. Women these days have lost the concept of self respect, that's fairly evident.
1) Since when did 'a lot of' mean the same thing as 'the majority of' as stated in your original post? I could make the argument that 'a lot of black people around the world are involved in criminal activities' and be vaguely truthful. That does not equate to then saying 'the majority of black people around the world are involved in criminal activities', which would be an ignorant, racist thing to say.
2) Engaging in casual sex equals losing the concept of self respect? I thought having autonomy over one's own private life and sexual encounters was a huge sign of self-respect.
3) Fucking sources? Saying something is 'fairly evident' does not make it evident. If you're going to lambast the majority/a lot of (do make up your mind on that one) women for being sexually promiscuous and incompetent with contraception, at least cite some research and studies to back up your claims.
Once your semen is inside someone else's body you lose any claim to rights you had over it.
There's a valid argument to be made that a man shouldn't have to be held responsible for a child he fathered while a woman has means to negate that responsibility. You're not making it.
I disagree, the man was need for the fetus to exist, so the man should be able to have the option to not have a child born.
I just ate a cheeseburger. Without the cook who made it, that cheeseburger wouldn't exist. Does the cook have the right to prevent me from digesting it?
It's probably not a lot of fun if you don't want a child and you're being forced to by the woman, or wanted one but she doesn't, but it's obviously not as bad as forcing a woman into either of those options against her will.
That just it though, I want the option to choose whether or not I have a son/daughter. Even if I didn't have to pay anything, I still would be bother by the fact that I was somebodies father.
Also, I stated this before, I am opposed to forcing a women to go through with pregnancy.
You should be bothered by the fact that you're suggesting that a man should have the right to make medical decisions for a woman he may barely know.
Statistics show that the majority of women are only interested in sleeping with every second man they meet, and do not know how to use a condom?
...
...what the fuck research institutions are you following? It's this sort of rhetoric that undermines decades of attempts at gender equality and combating misogyny and sexism.
I hope you confine views like this purely to the internet, because where I live such tasteless, uninformed spiel is liable to get you a slap in the face.
Seriously... You're trying to do this in the other thread too, unfortunately, twisting words around isn't your strong point. If you're going to twist my words around, at least make me look like the idiot.
Statistically, a lot of women report not using contraception or acknowledge they used it incorrectly. Women these days have lost the concept of self respect, that's fairly evident.
1) Since when did 'a lot of' mean the same thing as 'the majority of' as stated in your original post? I could make the argument that 'a lot of black people around the world are involved in criminal activities' and be vaguely truthful. That does not equate to then saying 'the majority of black people around the world are involved in criminal activities', which would be an ignorant, racist thing to say.
2) Engaging in casual sex equals losing the concept of self respect? I thought having autonomy over one's own private life and sexual encounters was a huge sign of self-respect.
3) Fucking sources? Saying something is 'fairly evident' does not make it evident. If you're going to lambast the majority/a lot of (do make up your mind on that one) women for being sexually promiscuous and incompetent with contraception, at least cite some research and studies to back up your claims.
1) "A lot of" and "the majority of" mean two different things. Congratulations.
2) You can hold this opinion for all I care, it is false. When a women can't control herself and then has an abortion because she's incapable of taking responibility, she has very little respect for herself.
3) I wrote a big fucking thread a few days ago that most people didn't bother to read to the full. I included numerous sources. I'm not going out of my way to collect sources when people ignore me regardless of what I say or what I prove to be correct.
F4LL3N: Logically, any grown women that's capable of even the simplist tasks should be doing the same thing. Statistics show a good majority of women are not even capable of this. They're more interested in exercising their right to sleep with every second man they meet.
Most women I've met use birth control. Still, if you want to avoid having a child then you should use condoms everytime you have sex.
Volf: I disagree, the man was need for the fetus to exist, so the man should be able to have the option to not have a child born.
The woman obviously plays a much more important role in conception than the man. Besides, you want to force women to undergo an abortion at the behest of men, a staunch infringement their rights by the way, when there are so many options to avoid pregnancy out there? If in doubt, don't fuck. It's that simple.
Volf: As I said before, I'm not saying that abortion should be an alternative to condoms, they should be used if a condom fails
If the woman wants an abortion then sure but otherwise it's her choice, not yours.
Is it zero? Because if not then it's still an issue that needs to be addressed.
F4LL3N: Statistically, a lot of women report not using contraception or acknowledge they used it incorrectly. Women these days have lost the concept of self respect, that's fairly evident.
And you wonder why people laugh when you pretend to be "pro-feminist".
Statistics show that the majority of women are only interested in sleeping with every second man they meet, and do not know how to use a condom?
...
...what the fuck research institutions are you following? It's this sort of rhetoric that undermines decades of attempts at gender equality and combating misogyny and sexism.
I hope you confine views like this purely to the internet, because where I live such tasteless, uninformed spiel is liable to get you a slap in the face.
Seriously... You're trying to do this in the other thread too, unfortunately, twisting words around isn't your strong point. If you're going to twist my words around, at least make me look like the idiot.
Statistically, a lot of women report not using contraception or acknowledge they used it incorrectly. Women these days have lost the concept of self respect, that's fairly evident.
....you're saying that he's looking like an idiot, then you go and spew that misogynmitic bullshit?
So, [Citation fucking needed] on this. Honestly what you said is so blatantly insulting to women that I am honestly suprised you're not sitting on a suspension right now.
Seriously... You're trying to do this in the other thread too, unfortunately, twisting words around isn't your strong point. If you're going to twist my words around, at least make me look like the idiot.
Statistically, a lot of women report not using contraception or acknowledge they used it incorrectly. Women these days have lost the concept of self respect, that's fairly evident.
1) Since when did 'a lot of' mean the same thing as 'the majority of' as stated in your original post? I could make the argument that 'a lot of black people around the world are involved in criminal activities' and be vaguely truthful. That does not equate to then saying 'the majority of black people around the world are involved in criminal activities', which would be an ignorant, racist thing to say.
2) Engaging in casual sex equals losing the concept of self respect? I thought having autonomy over one's own private life and sexual encounters was a huge sign of self-respect.
3) Fucking sources? Saying something is 'fairly evident' does not make it evident. If you're going to lambast the majority/a lot of (do make up your mind on that one) women for being sexually promiscuous and incompetent with contraception, at least cite some research and studies to back up your claims.
1) "A lot of" and "the majority of" mean two different things. Congratulations.
Perhaps you can get them right in future, hm?
2) You can hold this opinion for all I care, it is false. When a women can't control herself and then has an abortion because she's incapable of taking responibility, she has very little respect for herself.
By definition opinions can not be true or false, they simply are a person's opinion hence the word "opinion" instead of truth. But an opinion can be wrong or ignorant, as your truly is because you never bothered to consider a person's point of view as worth a damn unless it matched your own.
3) I wrote a big fucking thread a few days ago that most people didn't bother to read to the full. I included numerous sources. I'm not going out of my way to collect sources when people ignore me regardless of what I say or what I prove to be correct.
We don't read your full posts because you're trying to disguise a lack of valid arguements with a wall of fucking text and bullshit sources from biased men, with the valid ones twisted out of context to prove a point. At the end of the day; you are wrong.
See, even though I don't agree with the pro-life crowd or their goal, for some of them I can respect their motivations for why they do it. It doesn't stop me from opposing them, but it stops me from labeling them so I can dismiss their opinions.
Now contrast to you, who says that all women who have abortions are baby-killing sluts with no self-respect (before you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, you're the one who said that these women sleep with every second man).
Can you possibly see why we don't listen to your bile? But by all means, why don't you just come out and say what you really want to say.
Is it zero? Because if not then it's still an issue that needs to be addressed.
The failure rate for condoms is around 14%. This is mostly attributed to improper storage and use. Anyways, even if the condom breaks that's still not a good enough excuse to strip a woman of the rights she posseses over her own body and force her to undergo a potentially dangerous procedure just because you can't handle the consequences of your actions.
F4LL3N: Statistically, a lot of women report not using contraception or acknowledge they used it incorrectly. Women these days have lost the concept of self respect, that's fairly evident.
And you wonder why people laugh when you pretend to be "pro-feminist".
It's true, statistically a lot of women report not using contraception or acknowledge they used it incorrectly. It's also true women have lost self respect. Well it's there, it's just in a completely different form - an extremely arrogant form, imo. I don't believe women have to get married early or have kids early. But if you do fall pregnant, take responsibility. Women (well, parents) are meant to put their children's safety before anything. Not fucking kill them. Is that a sexist belief? Ha. To most people here, apparently it is.
F4LL3N: It's true, statistically a lot of women report not using contraception or acknowledge they used it incorrectly. It's also true women have lost self respect. Well it's there, it's just in a completely different form - an extremely arrogant form, imo. I don't believe women have to get married early or have kids early. But if you do fall pregnant, take responsibility. Women (well, parents) are meant to put their children's safety before anything. Not fucking kill them. Is that a sexist belief? Ha. To most people here, apparently it is.
Oh Christ, another ignorant pro lifer. I bet you also support the death penalty and higher taxes for the poor. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Shaoken: Perhaps you can get them right in future, hm?
not using contraception 4,957 46.40 forced to have relations ~64 0.6 using contraception 5,726 53.60 contraceptive failed despite proper use ~1,808 16.9 total 10,683 100
46.40% admit to not using contraception at all. Only 16.9% of those who used contraception acknowledged they used it correctly. I highly doubt the figures are 100% accurate, but that's both "a lot" and "a majority"... Now what were you saying? SourceHere's a Pro-Abortion website that'll tell you similar figures Thus, I am yet again correct despite everyone suggesting otherwise. I know this is an arrogant thing to say, but I wouldn't say I'm highly respected here anyway, so I'll say it regardless. I know for a fact objectively speaking, I am on the right side of this debate. While I respect the idea women should ideally have a right to their own body, abortion is murder. Only your imagination can deny this fact.
When I say that, I sound exactly like a religous person saying "worship my God, or suffer in hell for all of time" ... Which I absolutely hate. However, I'm not basing what I say off of nothing. I do have a fucking large patch of ground to stand on.
By definition opinions can not be true or false, they simply are a person's opinion hence the word "opinion" instead of truth. But an opinion can be wrong or ignorant, as your truly is because you never bothered to consider a person's point of view as worth a damn unless it matched your own.
What? You're saying; the ability to have casual sex = self respect. And I'm wrong? Ha.
We don't read your full posts because you're trying to disguise a lack of valid arguements with a wall of fucking text and bullshit sources from biased men, with the valid ones twisted out of context to prove a point. At the end of the day; you are wrong.
See, even though I don't agree with the pro-life crowd or their goal, for some of them I can respect their motivations for why they do it. It doesn't stop me from opposing them, but it stops me from labeling them so I can dismiss their opinions.
Now contrast to you, who says that all women who have abortions are baby-killing sluts with no self-respect (before you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, you're the one who said that these women sleep with every second man).
Can you possibly see why we don't listen to your bile? But by all means, why don't you just come out and say what you really want to say.
I have brought to the table far more valid arguments than any of you have. The only valid arguments I've heard is that 1) women have a right to their own body, 2) It's arguably wrong to make severely deformed fetuses suffer through life (no, not Down Syndrome), 3) Is it right to bring a child into this world if he/she is going to be abused and neglected.
To that I reply, 1) An unborn baby is itself, not the mother. It IS murder. It deserves rights. 2) It's probably better for the child to be aborted if it is severely deformed, and 3) An abused and neglected life is 9 times out of 10 better than no life at all. We simply need a better system in place to help these people.
I just ate a cheeseburger. Without the cook who made it, that cheeseburger wouldn't exist. Does the cook have the right to prevent me from digesting it?
Did you just compare your poop(the cheesburger) to a baby? wtf
To answer your question, no because the cheeseburger is not biologically related to the chief and your poop will never grow up and look for the chief.
It's probably not a lot of fun if you don't want a child and you're being forced to by the woman, or wanted one but she doesn't, but it's obviously not as bad as forcing a woman into either of those options against her will.
That just it though, I want the option to choose whether or not I have a son/daughter. Even if I didn't have to pay anything, I still would be bother by the fact that I was somebodies father.
Also, I stated this before, I am opposed to forcing a women to go through with pregnancy.
You should be bothered by the fact that you're suggesting that a man should have the right to make medical decisions for a woman he may barely know.[/quote]I'm already concerned with a women who the man might not know, deciding whether or not he is a father regardless of how he feels about the manner.
F4LL3N: It's true, statistically a lot of women report not using contraception or acknowledge they used it incorrectly. It's also true women have lost self respect. Well it's there, it's just in a completely different form - an extremely arrogant form, imo. I don't believe women have to get married early or have kids early. But if you do fall pregnant, take responsibility. Women (well, parents) are meant to put their children's safety before anything. Not fucking kill them. Is that a sexist belief? Ha. To most people here, apparently it is.
Oh Christ, another ignorant pro lifer. I bet you also support the death penalty and higher taxes for the poor. You should be ashamed of yourself.
What exactly did I say that was ignorant or wrong in anyway? I just posted facts regarding contraception. It is true, self respect is still there, it's just in a different form (and imo, an arrogant form). Women should take responsibility. I mean, everyone else has to take responsibility. It's a little thing called life. It's true, parents should put their children's safety first. Obviously a lot of people don't believe the unborn to be human/people, but they're wrong.
So again. What is ignorant or wrong with what I said?
Volf: I disagree, the man was need for the fetus to exist, so the man should be able to have the option to not have a child born.
The woman obviously plays a much more important role in conception than the man. Besides, you want to force women to undergo an abortion at the behest of men, a staunch infringement their rights by the way, when there are so many options to avoid pregnancy out there? If in doubt, don't fuck. It's that simple.
Volf: As I said before, I'm not saying that abortion should be an alternative to condoms, they should be used if a condom fails
If the woman wants an abortion then sure but otherwise it's her choice, not yours.
We seem to be going in this circle, you accuse me of advocating abortion over using condoms, and I reply that I am only advocating using abortion if a condom fails. I don't know how to make this anymore clear, My stance is that condoms should be used, however if they fail then abortion should be a backup option for either party to choose.
And life always comes at the cost of other life. What's your point?
F4LL3N: Obviously a lot of people don't believe the unborn to be human/people, but they're wrong.
If you say so. I mean, they do lack most of the things that makes us human so a more apt description would be "potential human" but yeah, sure, whatever. Life is supposedly sacred and all that. I don't know why it's supposedly so, after all nature is really fucking brutal and unforgiving, but if you want to believe it is then sure, more power to you man.
Volf: My stance is that condoms should be used, however if they fail then abortion should be a backup option for either party to choose.
No. A man does not get to decide what a woman does with her own body. If it were as simple as breaking a jar then yeah, sure, I could get behind that but as it stands that zygote is part of her body and it's her choice whether she wants to keep the pregnancy going or not.
PercyBoleyn: I find it funny that the anti abortion crowd touts a quasi religious argument against it and yet they claim being pro life has nothing to do with religion.
That was a very interesting and mentally stimulating quiz. Though as I kind of figured my choices led to the quiz stating I believe abortions are morally acceptable. Thanks for sharing! :)
Look since seeing parts of Lindsay Ellis' 'The A Word' I've been soso on whether you should be firm on your choice to abort or not, but it should not be banned, at all. Honestly I can't say if someone should or not, but the option being open is at least of some benefit.
F4LL3N: What exactly did I say that was ignorant or wrong in anyway? I just posted facts regarding contraception. It is true, self respect is still there, it's just in a different form (and imo, an arrogant form). Women should take responsibility. I mean, everyone else has to take responsibility. It's a little thing called life.
Upon taking responsibility for her actions, a woman elects to have an abortion. Just because you don't like the choice that she made in reaction doesn't mean she hasn't taken responsibility for her actions.
One must wonder what "not taking responsibility" would even look like. As this is all that's required: "Oh, I'm pregnant. I guess I'd best consider that." Pregnancy is kind of a difficult thing to avoid acknowledging, at least after awhile. I suppose the closest you could come to "not taking responsibility" would be to expect the father to raise the child/pay support or fully pay for the abortion himself.
No. A man does not get to decide what a woman does with her own body. If it were as simple as breaking a jar then yeah, sure, I could get behind that but as it stands that zygote is part of her body and it's her choice whether she wants to keep the pregnancy going or not.
I realize that this isn't currently the law, which is why I stated that I would support a law that would give men a equal voice.
Amnestic: And I'm sure you'll be first in line to adopt those children, right? As soon as you turn 18, probably. After all, you admit yourself that "Having a baby would dramatically change my life (interfere with education, job, or have other dependents or children)" and "Can't afford a baby now" are frivolous excuses, so in the best interest of children, you should really be adopting as soon as possible. Maybe you should accept the consequences of your world view?
Certainly. When I am in the financial position, I probly will. Maybe 2 biological children and 2 adopted, and give blood, money, and time to charities like I have always done anyway. But until I am financially stable, I wont adopt, I wont have my own children, I can gurantee I probly wont even have sex.
Really? I thought it was about life being sacred or some such. At least you're willing to admit that it's all about punishing women for having sex now, even if you want to dress it up in 'consequences'.
Well...allow me to be quite frank. I have never really pushed the "all life is sacred" button. In a perfect world, I would have worn that button out by now. But this is far from a perfect world (As such, I will say there are SomePeople That If I could I kill them myself). As it stands, I think that everything before a childs first heartbeat is open-ended (abortion in this timescale is OK by me). However, after the first heartbeat, I will stand against abortion because you have a right to be born. Although, the usually exceptions apply, but only as last resorts. After birth, It is your parents job to raise you how they see properly. Once you hit 18, you are more or less on your own. Sure, maybe your parents and philanthropist will help you, but your out there in the world on your own.
PercyBoleyn: For what, getting pregnant? Sure, if she wants to. Otherwise there's always abortion to consider.
Abortion isn't taking responibility for the pregnancy. You're killing the fetus so it doesn't get in the way of your precious life.
And life always comes at the cost of other life. What's your point?
What's your point? We should devalue life?
If you say so. I mean, they do lack most of the things that makes us human so a more apt description would be "potential human" but yeah, sure, whatever. Life is supposedly sacred and all that. I don't know why it's supposedly so, after all nature is really fucking brutal and unforgiving, but if you want to believe it is then sure, more power to you man.
It's a biological fact. What you consider to make someone human is an opinion. Consciousness changes nothing. Sentience changes nothing. I could just as easily say "you must be able to type at 120 words per minute to be considered human."
Humanity is far too important to let the majority decide it's definition. That's what happened with black slavery, remember?
F4LL3N: Humanity is far too important to let the majority decide it's definition. That's what happened with black slavery, remember?
More proof as to why you're always wrong; you can't hold an arguement with facts, you always have to try and manipulate people's emotions. Next you'll be comparing abortion to the holocaust.
PROVE that a fetus is human, sentient and has a soul, or you have proved jack shit. So far all you've done is spew emotional bullshit and claimed yourself the victor.
It's a biological fact.
First trimester, a fetus posses no heart beat, has no brain activity, and if you removed a billion fetuses at that stage not a one would posses a chance at survival. It can not survive on it's own, nor does it exhibit any of the characteristics we associate with living things (ie movement, thinking, breathing, heart beating, eyes, working muscle system, working nervous system, bones, etc. etc.). So, what "convincing" and "high ground" arguement do you have that a fetus is alive that can not be applied to sperm or an egg?
Is it zero? Because if not then it's still an issue that needs to be addressed.
The failure rate for condoms is around 14%. This is mostly attributed to improper storage and use. Anyways, even if the condom breaks that's still not a good enough excuse to strip a woman of the rights she posseses over her own body and force her to undergo a potentially dangerous procedure just because you can't handle the consequences of your actions.
You say that as if i haven't been arguing just as vigorously against Volf. But forcing a man to provide for child he didn't mean to create because the condom broke isn't really any more fair than forcing a woman to carry a child to term for the same reason.
F4LL3N: Statistically, a lot of women report not using contraception or acknowledge they used it incorrectly. Women these days have lost the concept of self respect, that's fairly evident.
And you wonder why people laugh when you pretend to be "pro-feminist".
It's true, statistically a lot of women report not using contraception or acknowledge they used it incorrectly. It's also true women have lost self respect. Well it's there, it's just in a completely different form - an extremely arrogant form, imo. I don't believe women have to get married early or have kids early. But if you do fall pregnant, take responsibility. Women (well, parents) are meant to put their children's safety before anything. Not fucking kill them. Is that a sexist belief? Ha. To most people here, apparently it is.
It's true that you've lost respect for women. That's the only conclusion i'm going to draw from this.
The vast majority of abortions do not involve the murder of a child, in my opinion. If you are unwilling or unable to understand how i or anyone else could hold this point of view then there's no point in discussing this any further.
I'm already concerned with a women who the man might not know, deciding whether or not he is a father regardless of how he feels about the manner.
No, see, women are people too, and they have rights and intentions and feelings and things like that. A woman's right to decide whether or not she is going to be strapped down and have a fetus scraped out of her uterus is a hell of a lot more important than your right to avoid a potentially awkward conversation with your biological child a decade or two down the road.
Thanks, I'm well aware that women are human beings too. I didn't need you to tell me that. My opinion still stands, that I should have an equal right in deciding whether or not I want to be somebodies father.
Thank you! That's very helpful information. After learning some of the possible reasons for waiting, I'm perfectly willing to extend the (admittedly arbitrary) deadline I proposed. Probably to 20 weeks.
F4LL3N: Humanity is far too important to let the majority decide it's definition. That's what happened with black slavery, remember?
More proof as to why you're always wrong; you can't hold an arguement with facts, you always have to try and manipulate people's emotions. Next you'll be comparing abortion to the holocaust.
I don't know why I bother repeating myself towards people who are clearly in denial of basic logic. Racism and enslavement are products of dehumanization. You don't enslave someone whom you like and respect. You pick a group, treat them as lesser, remove their rights, and woila.
So not only am I right, I also used a logical fact... I'm not a professional writer, so I can't be expected to write something completely unbiased with no emotion whatsoever.
PROVE that a fetus is human, sentient and has a soul, or you have proved jack shit. So far all you've done is spew emotional bullshit and claimed yourself the victor.
I am the victor, you're just in denial. I already proved the fetus is biologically human. Sentience doesn't determine whether or not someone is human. Dogs have sentience. Are dogs human? No. That's just your uninformed opinion. I've already given a reasonable explanation as to the biological definition of a species. A soul? That's religous.
You've still yet to prove me wrong on anything.
First trimester, a fetus posses no heart beat, has no brain activity, and if you removed a billion fetuses at that stage not a one would posses a chance at survival. It can not survive on it's own, nor does it exhibit any of the characteristics we associate with living things (ie movement, thinking, breathing, heart beating, eyes, working muscle system, working nervous system, bones, etc. etc.). So, what "convincing" and "high ground" arguement do you have that a fetus is alive that can not be applied to sperm or an egg?
Chance at survival? Brain activity? Heart beat? That makes you human does it? I'm sorry, but my biologic definition is 100 times better than that. It's actually got objectiveness behind it. A 'fetus' isn't living in the same way as we are living, I've never claimed that. I have claimed that a fetus and a 1 month old are exactly the same. But simple intelligence would make it obvious I didn't mean a fetus could go down to the local shopping mart and pick up a loaf of bread.
What convincing argument do I have? Mate, I could develop a machine that reads a sperms theoretical mind and you still wouldn't be convinced - you're in denial, and that's quite evident.
A sperm and an egg are reproductive CELLS. They are alive. All cells are either living or dead. If they're living, they're alive. If they're dead, they lose all function. If they are neither living or dead, they do not exist. That's a fairly simple concept, I would have thought.
When a male reproductive cell and a female reproductive cell fuse, they become a zygote. This is the earliest stage of development. It marks the beginning of a new organism.
Seriously. Do not bother replying unless you agree with me. I know I'm right, as arrogant as that sounds. I'm telling you all this like your in kindergarten. It's not exactly complex. Again, your opinion that someone needs sentience or a soul or a heart beat or brain activity to be human is not factual. It is an OPINION. My argument is both logical and factual, despite the fact you can't seem to rap your head around the idea. I'm not saying opinions don't matter, they do. It's just in this specific case, we know what human life is and when it starts.
Thanks, I'm well aware that women are human beings too. I didn't need you to tell me that. My opinion still stands, that I should have an equal right in deciding whether or not I want to be somebodies father.
And I'm telling you that that opinion is only tenable if you completely disregard the doctrine of informed consent. If you truly are aware that women are in fact human beings, then i'm not sure how you can possibly defend stripping a basic human right away from them.
Thanks, I'm well aware that women are human beings too. I didn't need you to tell me that. My opinion still stands, that I should have an equal right in deciding whether or not I want to be somebodies father.
And I'm telling you that that opinion is only tenable if you completely disregard the doctrine of informed consent. If you truly are aware that women are in fact human beings, then i'm not sure how you can possibly defend stripping a basic human right away from them.
I think its a basic right for me to be able to decide that I don't want to be a father. It isn't unreasonable for me to not want a child.
It isn't that I don't have women in mind, because the whole reason I'm against making a women go through with pregnancy against her will has to do with women.
F4LL3N: Humanity is far too important to let the majority decide it's definition. That's what happened with black slavery, remember?
More proof as to why you're always wrong; you can't hold an arguement with facts, you always have to try and manipulate people's emotions. Next you'll be comparing abortion to the holocaust.
I don't know why I bother repeating myself towards people who are clearly in denial of basic logic. Racism and enslavement are products of dehumanization. You don't enslave someone whom you like and respect. You pick a group, treat them as lesser, remove their rights, and woila.
There is a world of difference between enslaving people based on the pigmentation of their skin and abortion, so you're being intellectually dishonest.
So not only am I right, I also used a logical fact...
I am the victor, you're just in denial.
Oh wait, I already used that one.
You're arrogant, ignorant, sexist, and believe in forcing others to live by your creeds, but you are not a victor.
I already proved the fetus is biologically human.
No you didn't. You just said you did and moved on and acted smug like you prove all the "sluts and murders" wrong
Sentience doesn't determine whether or not someone is human.
Yes it does. "I think, therefore I am."
Dogs have sentience. Are dogs human? No. That's just your uninformed opinion.
Dogs are not self-aware, thus they lack sentience. Sentience refers to having a higher thought process, which dogs lack.
I've already given a reasonable explanation as to the biological definition of a species. A soul? That's religous.
Oh I have. You have yet to prove jack shit, but declare yourself the victor.
Go back to high school and learn some basic learning comprhenetion and critical thought then come back to me.
I listed a varity of factors we use to define someone as being alive amongst a million others. I WAS DEFINING WHAT IS ALIVE. A fetus at the 1st trimester is not alive, ergo it can not be murdered because it never had the life to take away.
A one-month old;
* No longer relies on a ubilical cord * Does not require a womb to grow * Has brain activity * Has a heart beat * Has a functional nervous system * Breathes * Does not require the mother for survival * Is aware of it's surrondings * etc. etc.
And so the pot calls the kettle black.
[quote]Seriously. Do not bother replying unless you agree with me.
Yep, arrogant to the end. Well I'm going to reply to you and call you out on your bullshit whenever I get the chance, and if you don't like it well that's just too bad for you but you're a sexist, ignorant man and I honestly can't give a fuck what you want.
[quote]I know I'm right, as arrogant as that sounds
That's the first true thing you said; you are an arrogant man whose not interested in a debate, you just want everyone to stroke your ego or you'll belitle them to stroke your own ego.
[quote]My argument is both logical and factual, despite the fact you can't seem to rap your head around the idea. I'm not saying opinions don't matter, they do. It's just in this specific case, we know what human life is and when it starts.
Wrong, just because you keep standing up and saying it doesn't make it true. You're committing the Argumentum Ad Nauseam logical fallacy; that simply repeating yourself over and over again until the other people shuts up makes you right. But it doesn't, it just makes you arrogant and keeps you ignorant.
cobra_ky: It's true that you've lost respect for women. That's the only conclusion i'm going to draw from this.
The vast majority of abortions do not involve the murder of a child, in my opinion. If you are unwilling or unable to understand how i or anyone else could hold this point of view then there's no point in discussing this any further.
I understand how someone could hold this point of view. You don't consider the "fetus" to be a human/person.
I just think anyone who can't or doesn't want to acknowledge the 'fetus' as a human is in denial. It's a simple fact when life begins. It's a simple fact what species said organism belongs to. Once you acknowledge this, abortion is by definition, murder; regardless of whose body it's in.
Calling a fetus a 'child' or 'baby' is not so factual. But at the same time it's not exactly unreasonable to consider them such (at least in later stages of development.)
Shaoken: There is a world of difference between enslaving people based on the pigmentation of their skin and abortion, so you're being intellectually dishonest.
Did I say there wasn't a world of difference? No. I said both cases involve dehumanization. 1 point to me
You're arrogant, ignorant, sexist, and believe in forcing others to live by your creeds, but you are not a victor.
I've already read your entire post. You yet again fail to prove anything. You barely made an argument against me. Most of it was personal attacks. 2 points to me
No you didn't. You just said you did and moved on and acted smug like you prove all the "sluts and murders" wrong
I proved the fetus is biologically human, without a doubt. Reread my post. You're literally in denial about it. 3 points to me
Yes it does. "I think, therefore I am."
No. That's opinion. 4 points to me
Dogs are not self-aware, thus they lack sentience. Sentience refers to having a higher thought process, which dogs lack.
"Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences."
Dogs can feel. Dogs can perceive. Dogs are conscious. Dogs can have subjective experiences. Dogs aren't as intelligent as us. Dogs might not have self-awareness. But dogs have sentience. You've clearly never owned a dog. 5 points to me
Oh I have. You have yet to prove jack shit, but declare yourself the victor.
I've proved plenty. You just don't want to listen to reason. 6 points to me
Go back to high school and learn some basic learning comprhenetion and critical thought then come back to me.
Clearly my thinking is more critical than yours. 7 points to me
I listed a varity of factors we use to define someone as being alive amongst a million others. I WAS DEFINING WHAT IS ALIVE. A fetus at the 1st trimester is not alive, ergo it can not be murdered because it never had the life to take away.
Every single living thing is alive, by default. You're defining something completely different. Conciousness? 8 points to me
A one-month old;
* No longer relies on a ubilical cord * Does not require a womb to grow * Has brain activity * Has a heart beat * Has a functional nervous system * Breathes * Does not require the mother for survival * Is aware of it's surrondings * etc. etc.
Again, you fail to listen and understand. I stated, "...a fetus is not capable of going to the local shopping mart and picking up a loaf of bread." I.e., it's still in the womb, it may or may not have brain activity or a heart beat or a functional nervous system or breathe, etc, etc. ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WRITE9 points to me
Yep, arrogant to the end. Well I'm going to reply to you and call you out on your bullshit whenever I get the chance, and if you don't like it well that's just too bad for you but you're a sexist, ignorant man and I honestly can't give a fuck what you want.
I admitted I'm arrogant. What's your point? I may or may not reply to you again. This will likely get out of control if we continue, and I don't see why I should get banned for your stupidity. 10 points to me
That's the first true thing you said; you are an arrogant man whose not interested in a debate, you just want everyone to stroke your ego or you'll belitle them to stroke your own ego.
I am interested in a debate. What I'm not interested in, is putting up with someone's ignorance. You don't counter anything I say. Anything you do counter is incorrect. 11 points to me
Wrong, just because you keep standing up and saying it doesn't make it true. You're committing the Argumentum Ad Nauseam logical fallacy; that simply repeating yourself over and over again until the other people shuts up makes you right. But it doesn't, it just makes you arrogant and keeps you ignorant.
You haven't actually proven me wrong, on anything. I actually prove you wrong when I counter your arguments, not that you're exactly presenting any valid arguments. 12 points to me
Provide a valid argument or I'll put you on ignore. Actually counter my last post. Here:
A sperm and an egg are reproductive CELLS. They are alive. All cells are either living or dead. If they're living, they're alive. If they're dead, they lose all function. If they are neither living or dead, they do not exist. That's a fairly simple concept, I would have thought.
When a male reproductive cell and a female reproductive cell fuse, they become a zygote. This is the earliest stage of development. It marks the beginning of a new organism.
Wow...that "point" thing was incredibly arrogant to the point of being...I can't even describe just how snobish that was.
But again, point still stands; all you're doing is plugging your ears and going "I said it so it's true! 12 points to be lol!"
Okay, here's a counter;
A sperm and an egg are reproductive CELLS. They are alive. All cells are either living or dead. If they're living, they're alive. If they're dead, they lose all function. If they are neither living or dead, they do not exist. That's a fairly simple concept, I would have thought.
Hair is alive. Does that mean hair deserves special rights? Does cutting hair constitute as murdering the hair? My finger nails are constantly growing, and I commiting murder by cutting them? Cells are alive, but they are not people at all; they are all considered apart of the one person. They do not act independently of that person. And society and morality have ruled that a person has a right to do to their own body, their own cells, as they see fit.
When a male reproductive cell and a female reproductive cell fuse, they become a zygote. This is the earliest stage of development. It marks the beginning of a new organism.
Begining does not equal a person. A non-insignificant part of zygotes die early into the pregnancy. Just because it has the potential to become a baby doesn't mean that it deserves the same rights as it from conception, nor does it mean that it should be considered a human being from that point, just like all cells are considered apart of a person and not treated different in the eyes of society.
Your entire arguement hinges on the zygote being considered a person instead of being a cluster of cells. Just because it has the potential to become a person doesn't change the fact that it's still medically a group of cells.
Now, time for you to "prove" something at long last; prove that women have lost-self respect. You can add it to that "ego-stroking" counter you have going.
The mantra 'no rights without duties, no duties without rights' seems to be applied consistently here. The man is free to withhold his contribution, though after that the burden and responsibilities would pass to the woman. She should be free to do as she wished with the foetus, though if the man waives all rights then he should have no duties to support her.
Yup, exactly my point.
Any man who would walk away from his child isn't either man enough or enough of a good human being to associate with my child.
Failed logic. I could easily argue any women willing to kill her innocent unborn baby is a sick evil twisted person that doesn't deserve even the most basic human rights, but that would most definitately get out of hand and my comments would most definitately be X rated...
You could say it, but you'd just look silly. Especially considering we were talking about a woman KEEPING her child when the man didn't want it.
Besides, isn't it pretty obvious that if a man wants no part of his child the child is better off without him?
A sperm and an egg are reproductive CELLS. They are alive. All cells are either living or dead. If they're living, they're alive. If they're dead, they lose all function. If they are neither living or dead, they do not exist. That's a fairly simple concept, I would have thought.
That would describe cancer cells as well. Made of your own human cells, designed to reproduce, and they are very much alive.
Volf: Thanks, I'm well aware that women are human beings too. I didn't need you to tell me that. My opinion still stands, that I should have an equal right in deciding whether or not I want to be somebodies father.
And I'm telling you that that opinion is only tenable if you completely disregard the doctrine of informed consent. If you truly are aware that women are in fact human beings, then i'm not sure how you can possibly defend stripping a basic human right away from them.
I think its a basic right for me to be able to decide that I don't want to be a father. It isn't unreasonable for me to not want a child.
It isn't that I don't have women in mind, because the whole reason I'm against making a women go through with pregnancy against her will has to do with women.
ok then. what makes this "right" more important than the well-established right of a competent adult to have the sole authority to make medical decisions regarding their own body?
cobra_ky: It's true that you've lost respect for women. That's the only conclusion i'm going to draw from this.
The vast majority of abortions do not involve the murder of a child, in my opinion. If you are unwilling or unable to understand how i or anyone else could hold this point of view then there's no point in discussing this any further.
I understand how someone could hold this point of view. You don't consider the "fetus" to be a human/person.
I just think anyone who can't or doesn't want to acknowledge the 'fetus' as a human is in denial. It's a simple fact when life begins. It's a simple fact what species said organism belongs to. Once you acknowledge this, abortion is by definition, murder; regardless of whose body it's in.
Calling a fetus a 'child' or 'baby' is not so factual. But at the same time it's not exactly unreasonable to consider them such (at least in later stages of development.)
I don't deny that the fetus consists of living human tissue. Nor do i deny that that genetic material is unique from that of the mother. I simply don't believe that a living clump of cells with unique DNA is entitled to 'personhood' yet.
1) Since when did 'a lot of' mean the same thing as 'the majority of' as stated in your original post? I could make the argument that 'a lot of black people around the world are involved in criminal activities' and be vaguely truthful. That does not equate to then saying 'the majority of black people around the world are involved in criminal activities', which would be an ignorant, racist thing to say.
2) Engaging in casual sex equals losing the concept of self respect? I thought having autonomy over one's own private life and sexual encounters was a huge sign of self-respect.
3) Fucking sources? Saying something is 'fairly evident' does not make it evident. If you're going to lambast the majority/a lot of (do make up your mind on that one) women for being sexually promiscuous and incompetent with contraception, at least cite some research and studies to back up your claims.