1. #2201
    Quote Originally Posted by darenyon View Post
    because protection has no impact on childrens rights?
    Unborn children have no rights.

  2. #2202
    Scarab Lord Zhangfei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Cola, SC via Devon
    Posts
    4,357
    Quote Originally Posted by darenyon View Post
    because protection has no impact on childrens rights?
    A lot of them seem to think intent means consequences don't count.

    Unborn children have no rights.
    And born children do.
    In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.
    Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.
    This is why people ban guns. Gun supporters don't know what guns are.

  3. #2203
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    And born children do.
    Unborn children can't become born children against their mother's will. They can become born children against their father's will.

  4. #2204
    I am Murloc! darenyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cho'gall (US)
    Posts
    5,922
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    Unborn children have no rights.
    thats right, thats why no one is considered a parent until a child is born of them.

  5. #2205
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    Do you understand what "emotive" language is? Rather than crass language? It would make sense, actually, that you are swayed more by emotion than reason.
    Right, because equating elective female sterilization to "having your insides opened up and scooped out" isn't emotive at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    I suppose if you hit someone's car and pay for it, it's indentured servitude. I suppose buying stuff is indentured servitude. I don't think you know what it means.
    You completely missed the point, not surprisingly, that you chose to get the mortgage and forced someone else to pay for it.

  6. #2206
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    21,000
    Quote Originally Posted by darenyon View Post
    them abandoning their kids like that in lieu of going through the proper channels would be indicative of their inherent unsuitability. thats the point, to avoid the dumpster or neglect.
    Did you seriously just argue that the desire to abandon your parental responsibilities is proof that you're unsuitable for being a parent and thus should not be held legally liable for said responsibilities?

    I don't think that supports your argument.

  7. #2207
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    And born children do.
    Who is talking about a man being able to dissolve his responsibility toward a child that he agreed to support before it was born?

    No one.

  8. #2208
    Scarab Lord Zhangfei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Cola, SC via Devon
    Posts
    4,357
    Quote Originally Posted by DisposableHero View Post
    Unborn children can't become born children against their mother's will. They can become born children against their father's will.
    Are you suggesting that it's wrong for women to be in control of their own body? Unless the foetus can gestate elsewhere, this train of reasoning can only appear to me to be sexist.

    Right, because equating elective female sterilization to "having your insides opened up and scooped out" isn't emotite at all
    I equated abortion to any internal surgery, because that's what it is.

    You completely missed the point, not surprisingly, that you chose to get the mortgage and forced someone else to pay for it.
    No, you missed the point that indentured servitude was about paying for your travel to colonial America through work, while getting board and food. I parodied your nonsense argument and then you took it seriously, proving my point.

    Who is talking about a man being able to dissolve his responsibility toward a child that he agreed to support before it was born?
    Whether you choose or not to support/want the child, if you're responsible for it you're responsible for it? It's the child's rights that you're disputing but only for men, not women.
    Last edited by Zhangfei; 2013-02-27 at 07:30 PM.
    In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.
    Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.
    This is why people ban guns. Gun supporters don't know what guns are.

  9. #2209
    Quote Originally Posted by darenyon View Post
    thats right, thats why no one is considered a parent until a child is born of them.
    But they can try a murderer twice for killing a pregnant women.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  10. #2210
    I am Murloc! darenyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cho'gall (US)
    Posts
    5,922
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Did you seriously just argue that the desire to abandon your parental responsibilities is proof that you're unsuitable for being a parent and thus should not be held legally liable for said responsibilities?

    I don't think that supports your argument.
    i argued that the child would not benefit from remaining in said parents care.

    children do benefit from child support.

  11. #2211
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    Are you suggesting that it's wrong for women to be in control of their own body? Unless the foetus can gestate elsewhere, this train of reasoning can only appear to me to be sexist.
    No, I am suggesting that it is wrong for women to choose fatherhood for men against their will. This is why I am arguing for a form of legal parental surrender for men.

  12. #2212
    I am Murloc! darenyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cho'gall (US)
    Posts
    5,922
    Quote Originally Posted by oblivionx View Post
    But they can try a murderer twice for killing a pregnant women.
    thanks to the "ban abortion" crowd.

  13. #2213
    They don't, but they should, through legal means to dissolve their financial obligation.
    This sums up my thoughts exactly. If a woman refuses an abortion a man should be able to have legal leeway to get out of 18 years of servitude. The fact is women don't want this, as it's a huge perk of entrapping a man.

    Are you suggesting that it's wrong for women to be in control of their own body? Unless the foetus can gestate elsewhere, this train of reasoning can only appear to me to be sexist.
    One could argue the woman gave up control of that part of her body when she decided to have sex. That's not much different from the age old feminist argument a man could just "not have sex".

  14. #2214
    Scarab Lord Zhangfei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Cola, SC via Devon
    Posts
    4,357
    Quote Originally Posted by DisposableHero View Post
    No, I am suggesting that it is wrong for women to choose fatherhood for men against their will.
    Yes, but you're saying that because of equal rights and that a person with the same right as you might make a choice you dislike. A woman has the same rights to her body a man does. A man, unless he's raped, is not "forced" into fatherhood.

    This is why I am arguing for a form of legal parental surrender for men.
    And I'm pointing out the rights and responsibilities are the exact same as is, so I consider this sexist.

    One could argue the woman gave up control of that part of her body when she decided to have sex.
    One could. Then again, one could argue there's a teapot orbiting Saturn. One can argue anything, the rationality and legality is what we're discussing.
    In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.
    Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.
    This is why people ban guns. Gun supporters don't know what guns are.

  15. #2215
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    I equated abortion to any internal surgery, because that's what it is.
    A vasectomy is male sterilization, what does an abortion have to do with women having the same elective sterilization?

    Have you ever had an abortion? When done early enough, it's an out patient procedure with absolutely no surgery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    No, you missed the point that indentured servitude was about paying for your travel to colonial America through work, while getting board and food. I parodied your nonsense argument and then you took it seriously, proving my point.
    Right, because only the text book definition of a word can be used.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    Whether you choose or not to support/want the child, if you're responsible for it you're responsible for it? It's the child's rights that you're disputing but only for men, not women.
    It's not a child until it's born. The man should be free to dissolve his responsibility prior to birth.

  16. #2216
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    Are you suggesting that it's wrong for women to be in control of their own body? Unless the foetus can gestate elsewhere, this train of reasoning can only appear to me to be sexist.



    I equated abortion to any internal surgery, because that's what it is.


    Thing is that what is in the women's body is actually genetically half of someone else.

    A half that has no rights, no say and can be compelled to pay for it by law even if they didn't want it.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  17. #2217
    Quote Originally Posted by darenyon View Post
    i argued that the child would not benefit from remaining in said parents care.

    children do benefit from child support.
    If custody hearings were anywhere near fair, I'd love to see a woman shelling out for 18 years. The fact is the system is made FOR women AGAINST men. Of course any changes made to it makes females feel threatened. Sort of like how initial womens rights threatened men.

  18. #2218
    Scarab Lord Zhangfei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Cola, SC via Devon
    Posts
    4,357
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    A vasectomy is male sterilization, what does an abortion have to do with women having the same elective sterilization?
    That they both can do what they want with their body.

    Have you ever had an abortion? When done early enough, it's an out patient procedure with absolutely no surgery.
    Right? So's some stomach observation surgery. Both sexes can do what they want with their body. My wife doesn't tell me what I can or can't do.

    Right, because only the text book definition of a word can be used.
    Well it'd help, or you're a pistachio!

    It's not a child until it's born. The man should be free to dissolve his responsibility prior to birth.
    A woman can't sign away her legal responsibilities to the child, why should a man?

    A half that has no rights, no say and can be compelled to pay for it by law even if they didn't want it.
    The right to control your own body trumps everything and anything else.
    In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.
    Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.
    This is why people ban guns. Gun supporters don't know what guns are.

  19. #2219
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    21,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    Yes, but you're saying that because of equal rights and that a person with the same right as you might make a choice you dislike. A woman has the same rights to her body a man does. A man, unless he's raped, is not "forced" into fatherhood.
    You're still acting as if children are a necessary and unavoidable consequence of having sex.

    They aren't. They haven't been for 40 years, at least legally speaking. There is absolutely nothing about having lots and lots of sex that means you're going to have a kid. The only way that happens is if you get a woman pregnant, and then that woman chooses to continue the pregnancy to term and have a baby.

    Your entire argument falls apart when you include abortion as a valid option. A woman's choice to ignore one valid option does not mean it does not exist. It's her choice, sure, but the consequences of that choice should be hers, as well.

  20. #2220
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    Yes, but you're saying that because of equal rights and that a person with the same right as you might make a choice you dislike. A woman has the same rights to her body a man does. A man, unless he's raped, is not "forced" into fatherhood.
    A woman, unless she's raped, isn't forced into motherhood. She makes the choice for the man and herself. That in itself is unfair. If you can't acknowledge that imbalance you need to rethink your logic.

    A woman can't sign away her legal responsibilities to the child, why should a man?
    Abortion
    Adoption

    Oh look, two options. Tard.

    Infracted: Please do not insult other users
    Last edited by Pendulous; 2013-02-28 at 08:40 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •