SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Varx]

Oh so, the woman just kinda forgot she can get pregnant in the act of sex?

Gtfo

[Edge-]

But you can still die alone even if you have a family because death doesn't schedule visits.

Or because you're a miserable human being whose family wants nothing to do with them and has long since cut them out of their lives.

I swear, it's like empty platitudes and "folksy wisdom" is all that's on offer.

[Varx]

Not in the slightest, because they aren't advocating a position that would result in more cases of testicular cancer the same way pro-lifers do with adoption.

Changing goal post. That's not what you were calling me out for. Try again

[Edge-]

Changing goal post. That's not what you were calling me out for. Try again

No it's true. You can't put all your energy in every single issue on earth. You'd get nothing done.

Are breast cancer causes shit heads because they're not tackling testicular cancer?

rofl, you brought it the fuck up.

[Elegiac]

Oh so, the woman just kinda forgot she can get pregnant in the act of sex?

Ignoring the fact that carrying a pregnancy to term is not a guaranteed outcome of sex, even without contraceptives, I'm pointing out how manifestly idiotic your statement that a father has no responsibility for pregnancy when he also consented to the sex act is.

[Varx]

rofl, you brought it the fuck up.

No I didn't. They gave me shit for not talking about adoption systems. When I said I'm specifically talking about abortion.

- - - Updated - - -

Ignoring the fact that carrying a pregnancy to term is not a guaranteed outcome of sex, even without contraceptives, I'm pointing out how manifestly idiotic your statement that a father has no responsibility for pregnancy when he also consented to the sex act is.

A man has a responsibility to care for the child yes, but he is not responsible for an unwanted pregnancy, which is what you're saying he is

[Elegiac]

Changing goal post. That's not what you were calling me out for. Try again

There's no goal posts being changed, you just used a shitty analogy.

You not choosing to adopt because it's financially inconvenient is the same excuse you're accusing women who get abortions of; moreover, you are promoting a political position which you know will increase the number of kids who need adoption while already having decided you are going to do nothing to pick up the slack for a situation you have contributed to.

By your own arguments, you're taking the easy way out.

A man has a responsibility to care for the child yes, but he is not responsible for an unwanted pregnancy, which is what you're saying he is

You've already insisted that having sex is tacit consent for pregnancy; it either goes both ways or you're just being a misogynist.

[Endus]

There's no goal posts being changed, you just used a shitty analogy.

You not choosing to adopt because it's financially inconvenient is the same excuse you're accusing women who get abortions of; moreover, you are promoting a political position which you know will increase the number of kids who need adoption while already having decided you are going to do nothing to pick up the slack for a situation you have contributed to.

By your own arguments, you're taking the easy way out.

It's an interesting point.

I wouldn't have a problem with pro-lifers taking it on themselves to offer women seeking an abortion the financial support and compensation necessary to carry to term on the basis that those pro-lifers then adopt the resulting child, basically a form of surrogacy. I could see such a system working for many.

Fascinating that it's never brought up by pro-lifers as an option, eh?

[unfilteredJW]

It's an interesting point.

I wouldn't have a problem with pro-lifers taking it on themselves to offer women seeking an abortion the financial support and compensation necessary to carry to term on the basis that those pro-lifers then adopt the resulting child, basically a form of surrogacy. I could see such a system working for many.

Fascinating that it's never brought up by pro-lifers as an option, eh?

This wouldn't cause suffering though.

[Elegiac]

It's an interesting point.

I wouldn't have a problem with pro-lifers taking it on themselves to offer women seeking an abortion the financial support and compensation necessary to carry to term on the basis that those pro-lifers then adopt the resulting child, basically a form of surrogacy. I could see such a system working for many.

Fascinating that it's never brought up by pro-lifers as an option, eh?

Yeah it's almost as if abortion is a fake wedge issue cooked up by racists trying to hide the fact their political engagement is due to opposing desegregation. /gasp

[Varx]

There's no goal posts being changed, you just used a shitty analogy.

You not choosing to adopt because it's financially inconvenient is the same excuse you're accusing women who get abortions of; moreover, you are promoting a political position which you know will increase the number of kids who need adoption while already having decided you are going to do nothing to pick up the slack for a situation you have contributed to.

By your own arguments, you're taking the easy way out.



You've already insisted that having sex is tacit consent for pregnancy; it either goes both ways or you're just being a misogynist.

It doesn't go both ways because a man can't bear the child. A man doesn't even have a choice in keeping the baby ffs.

- - - Updated - - -

This wouldn't cause suffering though.

Oh but what about the pregnancy it's self. Jesus you libs aren't even consistent with yourselves.

[Elegiac]

It doesn't go both ways because a man can't bear the child. A man doesn't even have a choice in keeping the baby ffs.

Oh, okay, so you're acknowledging that "sex is consent for pregnancy" argument is horseshit, then. Good to know! :thumbsup:

[Darththeo]

It doesn't go both ways because a man can't bear the child. A man doesn't even have a choice in keeping the baby ffs.

That is more so that the man doesn't care to know if he knocked someone up or not.

But, let's see how knowledgeable you are on abortion:

Where is abortion more common: in countries and states with strict abortions bans or in countries and states with low or no abortion bans?
What reduces the number of abortions the most: Pre-pubescents sex education (Note: this is kids about to go into puberty, but not quite there, not like 5 year olds), strong social safety nets, paid parental leave, or bans on abortions?

[Varx]

Oh, okay, so you're acknowledging that "sex is consent for pregnancy" argument is horseshit, then. Good to know! :thumbsup:

No I'm not...

The mother has every responsibility because she's the one that can get pregnant and even decides whthere or not she's keeping it

- - - Updated - - -

That is more so that the man doesn't care to know if he knocked someone up or not.

But, let's see how knowledgeable you are on abortion:

Where is abortion more common: in countries and states with strict abortions bans or in countries and states with low or no abortion bans?
What reduces the number of abortions the most: Pre-pubescents sex education (Note: this is kids about to go into puberty, but not quite there, not like 5 year olds), strong social safety nets, paid parental leave, or bans on abortions?

Well that depends on the man

[Darththeo]

No I'm not...

The mother has every responsibility because she's the one that can get pregnant and even decides whthere or not she's keeping it

I am wondering why you are objecting to being called a misogynist. Like this is literally a misogynist talking point verbatim.

[Elegiac]

No I'm not...

The mother has every responsibility because she's the one that can get pregnant and even decides whthere or not she's keeping it

You do realise that sperm is needed to make a baby, right?

And you say liberals are the ones who need sex ed. Sheesh.

[Darththeo]

Well that depends on the man

Yes, but whether or not a woman carries a child depends on the woman.

So, again, your point is found invalid.

[Elegiac]

I am wondering why you are objecting to being called a misogynist. Like this is literally a misogynist talking point verbatim.

Was already funny seeing him acting as the self-appointed arbiter of femininity. Rofl.

[Xyonai]

The meaning of life is to bare kids. That's literally in your DNA. So yeah from a basic biological standpoint a woman's purpose is to beat a child and a man's is to spread his seed.

Obviously we're not mindless animals and human life is much more complex and meaningful than that. But having a child remains the ultimate achievement ment anyone can ever do.

You education and achievements don't mean shit when you die alone

You're right, we're -not- mindless animals. Procreation is -a- goal, but you don't speak for everyone (dare I say, you don't speak for most people) when you say that it's the ultimate goal of humanity to keep making more humans.

We've simply evolved past that. We're so biologically superior to everything else on this fuckin' planet that our species' only real risk of dying out are disasters of our own doing, so having kids can, and should, be a decision and not an imperative.

"Just not have sex!" You might say, with what I can imagine is a smug expression as you tip up your Walsh style thinking glasses. To that I say: Lmao. Sex rules, it feels good (in fact we're one of the only species where the act is pleasurable to both parties) and people just like to have it. Having sex with people you don't want to spent of your life with isn't some moral failing, people are just fuckin' bored and enjoy fuckin'. And we've developed so, SO many ways to make sex just work without having to risk most of its side effects (yes even pregnancy). Yet no contraceptive is fool proof and, at the same time, the puritan stigma around premarital sex has lead to a lot of younger folks without proper education or access to these contraceptive tools, in times in their lives where having a kid would be financially or physically devastating for them.

And, personally, I don't want kids. I don't even have the mental or emotional energy for a dog, I don't want to inflict my potentially shitty parenting on some impressionable young soul. And I know a lot of folks who feel the same way; folks who realize they're not emotionally capable of being parents, financially stable enough to raise a child to be happy or healthy, or - to be blunt - have a life all their own they're not done living to devote so much time and energy into fostering another life. You're asking, nay, demanding a woman simply drops their dreams and ambitions at the drop of a hat because you feel as if her biological imperative as a spawn point supercedes her humanity.

And this isn't even getting into the rules and laws the folks on your side of the debate want to enact to make things even worse for women who or who may not even want kids. Because while you, personally, have some understanding that rape and fetal unavailability are legitimate reasons to have an abortion: Almost no one else making these laws does. A point you've been hilariously mum about whenever someone brings it up, because it goes against this weird potential utopia you dream the world will become when abortion ceases.

[Varx]

I am wondering why you are objecting to being called a misogynist. Like this is literally a misogynist talking point verbatim.

You only think so cuz to you it doesn't seem fair.

But again, a man cannot bare a child. A woman has every bit of autonomy to become pregnant or to avoid it. Out side of rape.

I didn't make up biology, take it up with mother nature. If anyone's a misogynist it's her