|
Grex > Agora56 > #158: South Dakota challenges Roe v Wade | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 254 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 171 of 254:
| 
Mar 9 21:34 UTC 2006 |
re #140
He should be responsible for 1/2 the costs associated with the pregnancy
and rearing the child.
You think that isn't the way the courts do it today? Why should banning
abortion make responsibility any different for the parents? I think that if
there is a ban on abortion, then we should all have to report to church on
Sunday to listen to sermons given by jep and bru. Kingjon can be the choir
and we'll all sing "Onward Christian Soldiers" along with him. Then, after
that, we can go whip some negroes in the town square and shoot Indians accused
of trying to burn our houses down. Oh wait, I know...I'm being ridiculous
and discriminatory....sorry. Its a man's world.
|
jep
|
|
response 172 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:36 UTC 2006 |
re resp:170: Try it this way, Richard.
Trust me. You lied.
|
tod
|
|
response 173 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:38 UTC 2006 |
re #160
im starting to see why your last wife left you.
Wow, you're an asshole. I'm at least portraying a stereotype from an online
persona but you are actually saying hurtful shit. Don't be such a prick.
|
richard
|
|
response 174 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:38 UTC 2006 |
jep is pro-life because he KNOWS abortion is wrong, he knows it is wrong for
everyone and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. It is wrong because
JEP knows it is wrong. JEP isn't in a position to KNOW if abortion is wrong
for another human being anymore than he's in a position to KNOW I lied. He's
not some all-knowing God. But you'd never get JEP to admit he was ever wrong
on anything.
|
richard
|
|
response 175 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:38 UTC 2006 |
re #173 and jep, you think calling someone insane, an idiot and a liar isn't
hurtful? You get what you dish out buddy.
|
tod
|
|
response 176 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:40 UTC 2006 |
re #174
Ok, thanks. Now please focus on this abortion debate cuz your hyper focus
on jep is ruining my pork roast and taters luncheon.
|
jep
|
|
response 177 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:40 UTC 2006 |
Richard, you do not have the power to hurt me. Losing your composure
isn't proving a lot for you.
|
richard
|
|
response 178 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:44 UTC 2006 |
my personal integrity is at least as important to me as your last marriage
was to you, you attack my personal integrity and I view it as just as hurtful.
You can apologize, you can admit you overreacted and I might, just might, be
telling the truth, and then I can admit that maybe I overreacted in kind, and
this can be done with.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 179 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:46 UTC 2006 |
resp:171 The difference, as I see it, is this- if she doesn't have a
choice about whether or not she has a child (no abortion) than he
shouldn't either. It's not fair. I don't want to see that happening. It
may not also be the mature response to banning abortion- but then
sometimes my emotions get the better of me on this topic.
If abortion is legal than both partners should have a choice. If
abortion is illegal- neither partner has a choice.
|
tod
|
|
response 180 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:47 UTC 2006 |
Shutup, liar
|
richard
|
|
response 181 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:49 UTC 2006 |
re #179 so anne are you saying that if a woman stops taking the pill and gets
pregnant against her partner's will, and abortion is illegal, that the father
shouldn't be able to decide he doesn't want to participate as a father under
the circumstances?
|
edina
|
|
response 182 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:51 UTC 2006 |
Re 178 I love how you're negotiating this.
Wow. This is a face of the pro-choice movement.
|
jep
|
|
response 183 of 254:
|
Mar 9 21:58 UTC 2006 |
re resp:179: I agree with the point. If a woman is able to abort her
fetus, then it seems morally appropriate for a man to be allowed to get
out of his responsibility, too.
I'm already on record as agreeing with you, that if abortion is not
legal, then the father of a child should be legally obligated to pay
for half of all of the costs of having and raising the child. That
should include all pre-natal care. He should provide support for the
mother to make up for whenever she has to miss work due to the
pregnancy or giving birth.
I think you and I agree on all of that. I think, pretty much, we agree
on the whole range of issues around the question of abortion, except
for the central one about whether abortion ought to be legal.
|
richard
|
|
response 184 of 254:
|
Mar 9 22:01 UTC 2006 |
jep said:
"re resp:179: I agree with the point. If a woman is able to abort her
fetus, then it seems morally appropriate for a man to be allowed to get
out of his responsibility, too. "
Then why are you against this man's lawsuit? It sounds like you would
support a law such as this man suggests, IF abortion stayed legal. Your
opposition to it then is situational? is that accurate?
|
richard
|
|
response 185 of 254:
|
Mar 9 22:20 UTC 2006 |
here's the deal. if biology was reversed and it was men who got pregnant,
not women, there would be no abortion argument, because a male dominated
society isnt going to tell a man what to do with his body. I have always
found a high degree of sexism in the abortion debate. Many people who are
pro-life believe in a traditional, male dominant, female subordinate, view
of society. They don't find it natural for women to be making their own
decisions.
|
scholar
|
|
response 186 of 254:
|
Mar 9 22:22 UTC 2006 |
If men got pregnant instead of women, women would be men and men would be
women.
|
richard
|
|
response 187 of 254:
|
Mar 9 22:29 UTC 2006 |
similarly, I believe that if men were the ones risking pregnancy, there would
be no debate about the morning after pill. in this society, certainly in the
past, men making decisions for women was acceptable, women making decisions
for men not acceptable.
|
tod
|
|
response 188 of 254:
|
Mar 9 22:53 UTC 2006 |
If biology was reversed, Wal*Mart wouldn't be the discussion because the day
after pill would be at every convenience store and 7-11 in the country. Guys
just don't want to fuss with stuff like that. Its too easy for them to tell
a woman what to do because they're clueless what a woman's personal life is
like from the plumbing and emotional perspective.
|
naftee
|
|
response 189 of 254:
|
Mar 10 00:14 UTC 2006 |
they want to build a wal-mart in the old quarry in st-michel. the usual
arguments.
i'm sorry ; i can only think of off-topic stuff to write because i only read
the last response.
where did richard lie ?!
|
bru
|
|
response 190 of 254:
|
Mar 10 00:17 UTC 2006 |
I have always found that arguement to be fecitious, richard. If red was green
the roses would be weeds. Women have a lot of control over their bodies, just
as men do. They are more than capable of making logical decisions. OR are
they?
|
edina
|
|
response 191 of 254:
|
Mar 10 00:26 UTC 2006 |
Oh my God....and Twila hasn't killed you yet?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 192 of 254:
|
Mar 10 00:41 UTC 2006 |
If biology were reversed, then men would be women, and women would be men.
Duh. Why is it so hard for some people to engage in feminist rhetoric
without straying into misandry?
|
richard
|
|
response 193 of 254:
|
Mar 10 00:48 UTC 2006 |
marcvh, if you insist then, just consider if BOTH men and women could
get pregnant. But in every other way, men and women played the same
roles in society. In that case, abortion would be legal IMO and so
would the morning after pill. Why? Because men in this society would
not place the same restrictions on their decision making that they
would have no problem placing on women.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 194 of 254:
|
Mar 10 00:52 UTC 2006 |
See what I mean?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 195 of 254:
|
Mar 10 01:05 UTC 2006 |
Richard is so dense he's apparently unable to see or acknowledge the many
women who would like nothing better than to restrict the reproductive
freedom of other women. So the answer to your question is "no." Richard is
incapable of seeing certain things.
|