|
Grex > Agora56 > #158: South Dakota challenges Roe v Wade | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 254 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 143 of 254:
| 
Mar 9 19:55 UTC 2006 |
actually I read an article on sperm banks just last week. they say an issue
is a lot of women want the same sperm. This one guy's sperm was chosen by
forty women, some 6 ft. 4 inch blonde haired blue eyed doctor in d.c. Now
he's, without his direct knowledge, fathered a LOT of children. So what if
these children grow up, and one meets and marries another, not realizing they
are biologically brother and sister?
I'd think the odds of those children meeting and marrying would be remote,
but to some its an issue that makes them against sperm banks.
|
jep
|
|
response 144 of 254:
|
Mar 9 19:55 UTC 2006 |
Richard, I find it all but impossible to you when you make statements
such as resp:102.
Since you won't read it or can't understand it, here's a summary of the
article to which I referred in resp:100: Someone wants guys to be able
to opt out of all of their parenting responsibility, including
financial support for their children, before they are born.
This has nothing to do with the mother's consent or intentions. This
guy just wants men to be able to say, "not gonna support my kid" and be
done with parenting.
So now, if you were to go back and read your resp:102 *in context*, you
would see you made a fool of yourself once again. And you would see
why I objected to you attributing ideas and thoughts to me which I
never had.
But you won't do that, will you? You'll just insist your garbage made
sense.
|
richard
|
|
response 145 of 254:
|
Mar 9 20:01 UTC 2006 |
thats bull jep, in #102 I was stating my own opinion, and referring directly
to your previous post where you said specifically that you were against that
man's court case, because you think a father should not be able to opt out
of his responsibilities. There is no need for context, I did not put words
in your mouth. You are the one making a fool of yourself, because you won't
read my exact words and insist on putting things in 'context'
|
richard
|
|
response 146 of 254:
|
Mar 9 20:02 UTC 2006 |
And I was saying that in my opinion, that guy's arguments have merit, but only
in my opinion IF the mother gives her consent. I was stating my opinion, not
yours.
|
richard
|
|
response 147 of 254:
|
Mar 9 20:05 UTC 2006 |
And I only think the mother's consent is necessary if both parents agreed to
the pregnancy. As stated, I don't think a man need be bonded by fatherhood
if it has occurred through fraud or deception.
Again jep, those are my opinions. I wasn't stating yours. I never once said
that YOU think or don't think the mother's consent was necessary, and wouldn't
because you made it very clear that you think it shouldn't happen regardless
of the consent issue.
|
richard
|
|
response 148 of 254:
|
Mar 9 20:09 UTC 2006 |
I said in #102:
"If the mother has her own financial resources and is willing to sign a
legal document releasing the father from all paternal responsibilities,
then why not? In a free country, consenting adults get to make these
decisions, not the government. This is another case of JEP wanting
morality imposed on people of free will by one institution or another.
The first sentence is my personal opinion. The last sentence isn't
referring to the first sentence, it is referring to the general issue JEP
brought up. In no way, shape or form was I putting words in your mouth.
Thats the truth. So apologize.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 149 of 254:
|
Mar 9 20:13 UTC 2006 |
resp:142 Richard, John was saying that he wouldn't like there to be more
abortions. I think that's plainly true given that he's stated before
that he's pro-life.
|
edina
|
|
response 150 of 254:
|
Mar 9 20:16 UTC 2006 |
And even as a pro-choice person, I don't want there to be more abortions.
|
jep
|
|
response 151 of 254:
|
Mar 9 20:16 UTC 2006 |
All right, Richard. Obviously words mean different things to you than
they do to me. And they mean different things to you at different
times of the day. In short, you're completely insane.
It's either that, or you're lying And you said you're not lying.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 152 of 254:
|
Mar 9 20:17 UTC 2006 |
Breathe, Richard, breathe. And it is customary to allow at least one other
person to reply to the item before you respond to yourself.
|
klg
|
|
response 153 of 254:
|
Mar 9 20:42 UTC 2006 |
(Easy does it, boys.)
|
richard
|
|
response 154 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:04 UTC 2006 |
no Im not lying jep, I told you the truth, and you simply choose not to
believe it. I was not, repeat NOT referring to you having any position on
the consent issue. In the last sentence of that paragraph I was referring
only to your previous post.
I did not put words in your mouth and if you were gentleman you would accept
that I am honest when I say that. You misinterpreted what I said, that is
not my fault and you cant hold it against me. And there is nothing "insane"
about defending one's own words against misinterpretation. You'd have done
the same thing.
|
jep
|
|
response 155 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:12 UTC 2006 |
Richard, you did attribute an idea to me, in resp:102, which didn't
originate with me. My gentlemanly status does not require me to accept
it when you deny something you clearly did.
I'll go further and state it right out in the open. I don't think
you're insane. You are a liar, who deliberately misrepresented my
position, and then equally deliberately, denied doing so. It's no
accusation, just an observation, that you are stupid in believing that
anyone would accept it when you do that.
|
richard
|
|
response 156 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:16 UTC 2006 |
jep, I did not attribute an idea to you in response #102. When I talked about
the consent issue, I was only stating my own opinion. You can choose not to
believe that, but its not right for you to call me a liar when you have no
proof other than your own personal interpretation of what I said.
I also think that you don't speak well of yourself when you automatically
assume the most negative misinterpretation of what someone says thats
possible. Give people the benefit of the doubt.
|
jep
|
|
response 157 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:18 UTC 2006 |
re resp:156: Richard, it won't work. You need to correct yourself,
apologize, and then work to do better. You can't just lie more to
cover your previous lies.
|
richard
|
|
response 158 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:20 UTC 2006 |
no jep, YOU need to apologize, or have all of grex thinking you are a jackass
for not accepting someone who is honestly trying to explain what he posted.
I have argued abortion with you in so many items that you'd have to be an
idiot to think I'd attribute you to a pro-consent issue position. Please...
|
jep
|
|
response 159 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:22 UTC 2006 |
You may indeed be an idiot, Richard. I am no longer able to be sure of
anything else. It is indisputable, though, that you are a liar.
|
richard
|
|
response 160 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:22 UTC 2006 |
And in the future jep, if someone says they are telling you the truth, don't
call them a liar. give them the benefit of the doubt.
im starting to see why your last wife left you. if you thought she was lying
about anything, she couldn't possibly change your mind even if in fact she
wasn't lying, because you are too hard headed.
,.
|
jep
|
|
response 161 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:24 UTC 2006 |
I don't think my ex-wife has anything to do with this conversation.
I *gave* you the benefit of the doubt, as long as I could muster any
doubt. I am no longer able to do that because of your insistent,
repeated lies.
|
edina
|
|
response 162 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:25 UTC 2006 |
Now you're just being a child. And an unattractive one at that.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 163 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:25 UTC 2006 |
Richard: this is a quote from 102 in which you attribute something to JEP:
This is another case of JEP wanting morality imposed on
people of free will by one institution or another.
That's your opinion based on a mis-reading of what JEP wrote.
|
richard
|
|
response 164 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:26 UTC 2006 |
trust me jep, I wouldnt be making this big a deal of it if I was lying. I'm
telling you the truth, and thats why your accusations upset me so much. If
you can't give others the benefit of the doubt, you'll never earn the benefit
of the doubt yourself
|
edina
|
|
response 165 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:26 UTC 2006 |
Re 162 - that's directed at Richard, not at John.
|
richard
|
|
response 166 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:27 UTC 2006 |
Anne, "this is another case" does NOT refer to the first sentence in that
paragraph. I honestly was referring to JEP's previous post. How hard is that
to understand
|
richard
|
|
response 167 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:28 UTC 2006 |
oh yeah edina you're one to talk of acting like a child the way you are
treating poor slynne in item #148 about her weight. Sheesh.
|