You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
buzzsaw wrote:While I am philosophically pro-choice, the issue I always have with this debate is one nobody has ever been able to give a good answer to. I don't want to debate the right cares about the unborn until they are born and the left doesn't care about the unborn until they are born...those are ridiculous arguments.
What I would like to know is why in a marriage where the couple has consensual sex does the wife have the right to abort the child with no say so from the husband? Even outside a marriage if the sex is consensual...abortion should not be a form of birth control as there are many other ways to effectively do that.
I completely understand rape, incest, teens ruining their lives, etc. I get it whether I fully agree with it or not. I don't want to sit here and tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body, but at the same time why does the father have no rights, especially in a marriage with consensual sex situation? At some point even if you're going to say the embryo/fetus/whatever doesn't have rights yet, certainly the father does assuming consensual marital sex, right? Or is that considered a man trying to tell a woman what to do?
I don't think abortion should be illegal, but I also don't think the rights of all of those involved are being protected either.
Ive often pondered this point too.
Why does the man not get some input also and have some type of rights? The eventual baby is essentially half made by him and certainly he will be financially jointly responsible too. I mean if the man feels he isn't going to be able to support the child and the mother adequately financially and emotionally etc and feels it's not best to bring a child into such a relationship, then why does he get no say? I know I know, if he feels like this then he should have used a condom in the first place but there are always exceptions (condom broke or she said she was on the pill but forgot to take it - or worse intentionally didn't take it). Then the reverse, what if the man wants to keep the child and raise it, he still doesn't get a say if the woman wants to abort it. You see plenty of women that decide they suddenly want a child and will have one with someone regardless of whether the partner wants it or consents to it, but a man can't. They can't even stop the wife aborting it even if they want to raise it themselves without any input (financial or otherwise) from the mother.
It's just odd that the man essentially has no right in what happens to his unborn child. I dare say in today's "women's rights" environment if the situation was reversed I'm damn sure there would be hysterical protests about changing this.
Again, it’s because men bail on their responsibility all the time and it becomes everyone else’s job to clean it up.
So who gets the rights? The man, the baby, the woman?
Re: US Politics Thread
Perhaps there are more men bailing because when the woman doesnt want the baby and the responsibility she terminates it before it’s born, thus never needing to bail. The male doesnt get the chance to do that, they can only make the decision to bail after the fact if they can’t convince the woman not to have it.
Don’t get my wrong tho, I don’t think it’s right. if you have a baby then you have a responsibility to look after it in most instances and you should suck it up and do your best to raise and support it.
Re: US Politics Thread
It's a complete cop out. Far, far, far more men own up to their responsibility than don't. On top of that, I know quite a few men that have been completely screwed over by the mother in terms of access to the child while the mother blows the money on their own things instead of the child's.
My wife's family has/had a deadbeat dad, though it did take some time to sort out which kids were actually his (and it wasn't all 3) - I believe he is all caught up now. They also have a girl that got pregnant on purpose (or so it appears) to trap someone. My side of the family had someone take in someone's daughter that wasn't theirs and treat her like his own even though he's not with the mother any more. I've seen all kinds of things happen (both good and bad). This generalization that men just bail on kids all the time is such a falsehood...if you want to carry on with the generalization, you can make it even more offensive by looking at various cultures and how often it happens in some cultures vs others. It's a stereotype for a reason...it happens and it's unfortunate when it happens. But like every other stereotype, it's not an automatic and it's still the exception and not the rule.
I'm pro-choice, but I do believe there should be restrictions to protect everyone's rights instead of just the mother's. I don't know how to do that though. It's really hard to balance out everyone's rights on issues like this. This is why I get so frustrated when people act like these are such clear issues...no, they aren't. I don't think the mother should get a free pass to just do whatever they want regardless of anyone esle's feelings that are involved.
So what's the solution? I don't know. Rape, incest, legitimate health risk to the mother or unborn? As long as it's certified as such, go for it. Thinking out loud, maybe something like this for the less clear cut cases: If you want to say the unborn have no rights, I might be able to get onboard with that, but if you're in a relationship, the father should have to sign off on any abortion (not plan b or something like that, an actual abortion procedure). If he's not willing to, he has to be willing to sign on for full responsibility for the child. There are probably reasons I'm not thinking of that it wouldn't work, but at least I'm trying to come up with a reasonable compromise instead of just dismissing any case for one.
Re: US Politics Thread
So disappointed with mayor Pete, but I guess he's always been a spineless opportunist. Get rid of Jefferson for the benefit of a tiny group who actually care, but don't really? Seeing they're part of the aggrieved industry, who do nothing but bitch, write books and go on tv to say how they're aggreived, I'm a little dubious with their honesty. Their entire livelihood rests on how they're victims so... Erasing our forefathers will definitely be the end of what "hurts" their fragile minds.
Pete criticized Tucker and Ingram, but had no problem kissing the flabby ass of Al Sharpton, who started an antisemitic race riot that killed someone, which he's never apologized for. Not mention homophobic Joy on MSNBC who filed a false report with the FBI and figures someone possessed her body and made her was a bunch of anti gay statements on her blog, not to mention the subtle racist things she says on her disaster of a show.
In China they frequently discover dumpsters filled with aborted female fetuses because they don't want daughters for a myriad of reasons. I wonder if he supports gender-based abortion, or if they can one day tell if a baby will likely be gay if he'd be okay with aborting them for that reason. I'm actually pro-choice, but I'm curious about that.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Hannity must be on vacation, Flagg hasn't posted in a while.:o
/burn
Nope. Just no longer interested in posting and reading the same messages after 2 years.
Nothing I Post is going to alter the discussion or opinion of anyone else. So why bother?
You and the other two will call me a Trumpkin and say I parrot Fox News. You’ll post inaccurate and false claims, ignore my posts when I explain why you’re wrong, Mitch will shitpost and scream “MAGA” every 3 posts, and the truther will pop in every 3 weeks and tell us he’s finally figured it out. Smoking Guns will justify his vote for Trump and talk about the fed and interest rates, Buzz will talk about healthcare and how all of you are hypocrites for bitching about “this” action but remained silent or supported “that” action. I’ll post entirely too long blog entries on my phone that no one cares to read.
It’s the same bullshit for over 2 years. Thanks, but no thanks.
Re: US Politics Thread
PaSnow wrote:Hannity must be on vacation, Flagg hasn't posted in a while.:o
/burn
You and the other two will call me a Trumpkin and say I parrot Fox News. You’ll post inaccurate and false claims, ignore my posts when I explain why you’re wrong, Mitch will shitpost and scream “MAGA” every 3 posts, and the truther will pop in every 3 weeks and tell us he’s finally figured it out. Smoking Guns will justify his vote for Trump and talk about the fed and interest rates, Buzz will talk about healthcare and how all of you are hypocrites for bitching about “this” action but remained silent or supported “that” action. I’ll post entirely too long blog entries on my phone that no one cares to read.
It’s the same bullshit for over 2 years. Thanks, but no thanks.
You're as much to blame as anyone for this...and you do parrot Fox News...too many times I can go back to the Tucker show on Fox and see exactly where you got this shit from.
If Tucker was interested in getting at the truth, he wouldn't belittle his guests. He chooses his guests mostly just to try to humiliate them. He doesn't want to have an honest discussion any more than you do.
People tune you out because of that and because we're sick of being told that we're wrong. You cherry pick facts and truth.
You're not truly engaged in this process. You just like the sound of your own voice.
Re: US Politics Thread
Hannity must be on vacation, Flagg hasn't posted in a while.:o
/burn
Here....I'll engage you...
It seems like Trump is baiting the Dems into pursuing impeachment. I'm not sure if he thinks the Dems are too big of pussies (which they usually are) to follow through or he seems to think this will help him somehow.
I will say this...a Republican from the Senate coming out could open up a deluge.
I've often thought that the Republicans would only get rid of him if they had a back up plan. Or if he'd served his purpose. Perhaps getting rid of him in time for 2020 is ideal. They can participate in the primary season knowing full well Trump is not going to be back.
But who knows...all I know is Trump sucks. He's everything I hate in a leader. He's blustery, takes credit for things other people have done, blames other when things go wrong. He's so fuckin' lazy too. Outside of pep rallies and meeting with the media, he does nothing but tweet and go golfing.
Some people really love that shit...clearly. They're easily distracted by this guy who walks around and claims victory over everything. They love bluster with no follow through.
Another thing I've considered is while there are things about being president that Trump clearly likes...he'd be president until his mid-late 70s if he won again. How much life could he have left? My guess is he'd rather spend it getting fatter and fucking around on his wife.
At some point, he may become satiated to all of this...and decide he wants that old life back.
