EA CO AS wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Please show me where he says he wants to see states ban contraception use. I'll wait.

Mmmmkay, what then is the implication in claiming that the Griswold decision was wrong? I'll wait as well.

The same as with Roe - judges finding "rights" that aren't there.

A liberal politician says states should be able to ban assault rifles. A liberal judge says no "right" to assault rifles exists.
"It's fine, liberals don't say they want to ban assault rifles" - literally no conservative ever

Like, can you really not see why people might not be convinced here?

EA CO AS wrote:

FGITD wrote:

People should be made to suffer consequences for enjoying themselves is a great argument for pro choice.

Apparently people need to face hardships if they indulge in activities you don’t agree with

My ten year old son would eat candy all day if I let him. The consequence would be he'd get sick to his stomach and spend the day throwing up. Isn't that a consequence for enjoying himself? Or weight gain if you ate like crap every day rather than a balanced diet? Or didn't exercise at all?

This is the problem with liberals - they believe there are no such things as "right" and "wrong," just "different."

Incorrect.

The enjoyment is as a result of the consumption of the candy, cause is candy, enjoyment is effect.

The sickness is as a result of the consumption of the candy, the cause is sweets, the sickness is the effect.

Both the enjoyment and the sickness are effects. Often referred to as a Y-Y correlation.

The sickness is NOT caused by the enjoyment.

If your child enjoyed eating cucumber sticks would you frown upon that because of the enjoyment?

If we could make candy that lacked the negative effect what reason would one have for not having them?

Abortion is one of many ways to reduce the potentially negative effects of the enjoyment of sex.

It is good of you however to recognize that the an unwanted pregnancy is a negative in many cases for women.

Fred



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Newark727 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Mmmmkay, what then is the implication in claiming that the Griswold decision was wrong? I'll wait as well.

The same as with Roe - judges finding "rights" that aren't there.

A liberal politician says states should be able to ban assault rifles. A liberal judge says no "right" to assault rifles exists.
"It's fine, liberals don't say they want to ban assault rifles" - literally no conservative ever

Like, can you really not see why people might not be convinced here?

Well, once again, the Second Amendment is actually IN the Constitution, whereas abortion or anything even remotely close isn't mentioned, even once. And besides, if it's one side of the political spectrum that just loooooooooooooooves to engage in judicial over-reach, it's the left.

flipdewaf wrote:

The enjoyment is as a result of the consumption of the candy, cause is candy, enjoyment is effect.

The sickness is as a result of the consumption of the candy, the cause is sweets, the sickness is the effect.

Both the enjoyment and the sickness are effects. Often referred to as a Y-Y correlation.

The sickness is NOT caused by the enjoyment.

If your child enjoyed eating cucumber sticks would you frown upon that because of the enjoyment?

That is, quite possibly, one of the dumbest things I've ever seen written in this forum as an attempt - and I use that word loosely - at making a point. And I've been around here a long time, so that's saying something.

Bravo, you've proven you're unfit to engage with anymore. Take care.

EA CO AS wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

The enjoyment is as a result of the consumption of the candy, cause is candy, enjoyment is effect.

The sickness is as a result of the consumption of the candy, the cause is sweets, the sickness is the effect.

Both the enjoyment and the sickness are effects. Often referred to as a Y-Y correlation.

The sickness is NOT caused by the enjoyment.

If your child enjoyed eating cucumber sticks would you frown upon that because of the enjoyment?

That is, quite possibly, one of the dumbest things I've ever seen written in this forum as an attempt - and I use that word loosely - at making a point. And I've been around here a long time, so that's saying something.

Bravo, you've proven you're unfit to engage with anymore. Take care.

Your words were:

Isn't that a consequence for enjoying himself?

You can choose to not to engage with me but it’ll be clear why you’d choose that…

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

EA CO AS wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

The same as with Roe - judges finding "rights" that aren't there.

A liberal politician says states should be able to ban assault rifles. A liberal judge says no "right" to assault rifles exists.
"It's fine, liberals don't say they want to ban assault rifles" - literally no conservative ever

Like, can you really not see why people might not be convinced here?

Well, once again, the Second Amendment is actually IN the Constitution, whereas abortion or anything even remotely close isn't mentioned, even once. And besides, if it's one side of the political spectrum that just loooooooooooooooves to engage in judicial over-reach, it's the left.

Two points;

1. Surely the second amendment was just that, an amendment to the constitution.

2. Perhaps, it wasn't mentioned because they did know about it. They did not mention the internet for the same reason.

EA CO AS wrote:

emperortk wrote:

Still waiting to hear whether you want to ban adoption.

Sorry, I just forgot you were still here.

No.

Bye now.

Ah good, logical consistency be damned, hello dubious grounds for banning rights.

flipdewaf wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

The enjoyment is as a result of the consumption of the candy, cause is candy, enjoyment is effect.

The sickness is as a result of the consumption of the candy, the cause is sweets, the sickness is the effect.

Both the enjoyment and the sickness are effects. Often referred to as a Y-Y correlation.

The sickness is NOT caused by the enjoyment.

If your child enjoyed eating cucumber sticks would you frown upon that because of the enjoyment?

That is, quite possibly, one of the dumbest things I've ever seen written in this forum as an attempt - and I use that word loosely - at making a point. And I've been around here a long time, so that's saying something.

Bravo, you've proven you're unfit to engage with anymore. Take care.

Your words were:

Isn't that a consequence for enjoying himself?

You can choose to not to engage with me but it’ll be clear why you’d choose that…

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's pretty clear the goal in this case is to punish women. I can respectfully disagree with someone advocating that a fetus has rights, but a consequence-based argument to ban abortion is beyond ridiculous.

afcjets wrote:

emperortk wrote:

afcjets wrote:

It's obviously a metaphor and no I don't think nor did I intend that. Otherwise I would have used a hug as a metaphor instead.

So you're making things up to mischaracterize the other side. Cool.

A metaphor by definition is made up, however I think it accurately characterizes the other side. Just read some of the posts here. I think a high five is a much kinder metaphor than comparing a fetus to a trespasser, a parasite, and even more kind than comparing it to in essence just a woman's body part. It's not to say a high profile pro choice woman wouldn't lend emotional support to a woman psychologically traumatized by abortion. It just seems logical someone emotionally scarred might encourage other women contemplating abortion to choose life instead, which is a pro life slogan, and I have a hard time imagining Elizabeth Warren or AOC sharing how they met a woman traumatized by her abortion with the media.

I've not seen any posts here suggesting that an abortion is a cause for celebration, so unless you can point me to one, I will stand by my use of the word mischaracterize. Your inability to see the distinction notwithstanding, pro-choice isn't pro-abortion.

EA CO AS wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

The same as with Roe - judges finding "rights" that aren't there.

A liberal politician says states should be able to ban assault rifles. A liberal judge says no "right" to assault rifles exists.
"It's fine, liberals don't say they want to ban assault rifles" - literally no conservative ever

Like, can you really not see why people might not be convinced here?

Well, once again, the Second Amendment is actually IN the Constitution, whereas abortion or anything even remotely close isn't mentioned, even once. And besides, if it's one side of the political spectrum that just loooooooooooooooves to engage in judicial over-reach, it's the left.

You're missing my point. I'm discussing reasonable interpretations of intent. You acted like it's some absurd reach to think there might be "pro-life" interest in restricting or banning birth control after a judicial decision suggests there's no right to it, and allied political candidates suggest it's something states should be able to do. I attempted to show, via analogy, a situation where you'd find that position highly unconvincing - where it wouldn't seem like an absurd reach at all. Clearly you agree.

EA CO AS wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Please show me where he says he wants to see states ban contraception use. I'll wait.

Mmmmkay, what then is the implication in claiming that the Griswold decision was wrong? I'll wait as well.

The same as with Roe - judges finding "rights" that aren't there.

Uh huh...and what do you think happens after that, dear.

Big "Brown v Board of Education was wrongly decided--but I'm not pro segregation!" energy here.

afcjets wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

That's not the point I was making. It's not about punishing adults, it's about protecting the unborn. What's refreshingly honest is it admits the typical pro choice line that abortion is extremely rare and a gut wrenching decision for most women is a lie (IMO).

Says a man who has never been in that position, regardless of the background leading up to it. This is the definition of lacking empathy.

You’d be surprised at what one finds in counseling sessions - strong, confident women find themselves broken up about difficult decisions like these made many years before. How much it sticks depends on the emotional makeup and compartmentalization ability of that individual.

I actually am empathetic and exactly why I think abortion should be seen as extreme, not something that gets you a high five from someone like Elizabeth Warren or AOC or other pro choice women at a march. Abortion harms not only the unborn baby, but often results in deep emotional scars on the women who have them and can last a lifetime. As much as it has been sanitized in the media, politics, and in our culture, abortion is a horrendous procedure at its core, and that reality often sinks in too late.

People might take this concern trolling for the "unborn baby" and women, were conservative states not veritably medieval in terms of their maternal and infant mortality rates.

Conservatives' "concern" for life *literally* stops the nanosecond a child is born, both for the child and the mother, and their developing world death rates prove it.

emperortk wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

emperortk wrote:

Still waiting to hear whether you want to ban adoption.

Sorry, I just forgot you were still here.

No.

Bye now.

Ah good, logical consistency be damned, hello dubious grounds for banning rights.

Ye olde "I'm an originalist", as in, everything in the original Constitution that applies to straight white men stands. Everything else must go and everyone not straight-white-male must beg for rights. And the answer is always no. For reasons.

Why the talk of the Second Amendment, which was written in such a way to appease the southern slave states, and comparing that to women's health care?

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/10021076 ... -amendment
http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/syn ... d-militia/

Besides, you can't sit there and watch mass shooting after mass shooting and say you are pro-life so we need to ban all abortions.

Roe was argued based on the Ninth Amendment, which says the government can not limit rights not mentioned in the Bill Of Rights or Constitution

https://www.wtamu.edu/webres/File/Acade ... edford.pdf

Other cases have been argue using the same amendment.

The left looooooooves judicial overreach! (Undoes sixty years' worth of public policy and prior court decisions, many of which were 7-2, 6-3, etc., in a single opinion)

Newark727 wrote:

The left looooooooves judicial overreach! (Undoes sixty years' worth of public policy and prior court decisions in a single opinion)

While also failing to understand Roe was a 7-2 decision in a far more conservative time, much less the fact that it allows for reasonable state regulations by clearly declaring abortion is not unlimited.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ElectionWiz/ ... 7424307208

If Roe v Wade is overturned, the justices who voted to repeal it will require round the clock security. There's going to be a massive wave of anger directed at them.

EA CO AS wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

The same as with Roe - judges finding "rights" that aren't there.

A liberal politician says states should be able to ban assault rifles. A liberal judge says no "right" to assault rifles exists.
"It's fine, liberals don't say they want to ban assault rifles" - literally no conservative ever

Like, can you really not see why people might not be convinced here?

Well, once again, the Second Amendment is actually IN the Constitution, whereas abortion or anything even remotely close isn't mentioned, even once. And besides, if it's one side of the political spectrum that just loooooooooooooooves to engage in judicial over-reach, it's the left.

Was it the left hunting down trans kids in TX because you people didn't like the decisions parents were making with doctors, or similar laws in many other states? Where is the precedent for that? Besides the third reich?

Newark727 wrote:

The left looooooooves judicial overreach! (Undoes sixty years' worth of public policy and prior court decisions, many of which were 7-2, 6-3, etc., in a single opinion)

alberchico wrote:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/1523097567424307208

If Roe v Wade is overturned, the justices who voted to repeal it will require round the clock security. There's going to be a massive wave of anger directed at them.

Oh no. Who could have possibly foreseen this.

Newark727 wrote:

alberchico wrote:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/1523097567424307208

If Roe v Wade is overturned, the justices who voted to repeal it will require round the clock security. There's going to be a massive wave of anger directed at them.

Oh no. Who could have possibly foreseen this.

It’s almost as if people aren’t thrilled when government goes against the will of the people.

But you know what they say…the justices knew the risks going in, and will just have to live with the consequences of their actions.

Let's face facts folks.

This is a subject that no matter how much you try, you will not be able to change a person's mind, give up now.

The November elections are going to hang on this.

Whoever leaked this is in a world of trouble.

jetwet1 wrote:

Let's face facts folks.

This is a subject that no matter how much you try, you will not be able to change a person's mind, give up now.

The November elections are going to hang on this.

Whoever leaked this is in a world of trouble.

Could they actually be criminally charged, or would the worst punishment be that they have to hand in their resignation ? Either way, this person will go down as a hero.

alberchico wrote:

jetwet1 wrote:

Let's face facts folks.

This is a subject that no matter how much you try, you will not be able to change a person's mind, give up now.

The November elections are going to hang on this.

Whoever leaked this is in a world of trouble.

Could they actually be criminally charged, or would the worst punishment be that they have to hand in their resignation ? Either way, this person will go down as a hero.

The patriot who released the draft cannot be charged with a crime. Worse case scenario is their position could be terminated.

Clutch101 wrote:

alberchico wrote:

jetwet1 wrote:

Let's face facts folks.

This is a subject that no matter how much you try, you will not be able to change a person's mind, give up now.

The November elections are going to hang on this.

Whoever leaked this is in a world of trouble.

Could they actually be criminally charged, or would the worst punishment be that they have to hand in their resignation ? Either way, this person will go down as a hero.

The patriot who released the draft cannot be charged with a crime. Worse case scenario is their position could be terminated.

If this cannot be charged then Snowden wouldn't be able to be charged here. That is not a question of whether things being done is right or wrong.

Clutch101 wrote:

The patriot who released the draft cannot be charged with a crime. Worse case scenario is their position could be terminated.

You mean criminal, and yes they can. Theft of government property, lying to the FBI are just a few. And they will absolutely be charged; there’s no way they’re not made an example of, regardless of what their intent was.

Newark727 wrote:

alberchico wrote:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/1523097567424307208

If Roe v Wade is overturned, the justices who voted to repeal it will require round the clock security. There's going to be a massive wave of anger directed at them.

Oh no. Who could have possibly foreseen this.

Oh dear.... citizens gathered on a PUBLIC street petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. it's not like they broke into a government building with weapons and demanded an election be overturned which, for some reason, is so much better.....

alberchico wrote:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/1523097567424307208

If Roe v Wade is overturned, the justices who voted to repeal it will require round the clock security. There's going to be a massive wave of anger directed at them.

If that's the decision these judges made, then they have to live with the consequences of that decision.

alberchico wrote:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/1523097567424307208

If Roe v Wade is overturned, the justices who voted to repeal it will require round the clock security. There's going to be a massive wave of anger directed at them.

Playing the devil's advocate now, but why should the US Government provide round the clock security for them?

Going by their own 'originalist' reading of the US Constitution, any right that is not explicitly mentioned in it, can not be derived from it, so unless the US Constitution foresees the right of SCOTUS judges to claim some sort of personal protection, it's up to the US Congress and Government to decide whether or not to provide it to them....

By their own wicked reasoning on Roe vs Wade this isn't stripping them of any vested rights nor granted protections, nor it is having them face any automatic personal risks to their physical wellbeing, it is simply making sure the US Constitution is read in the original way again, while fully recognising they have absolute freedom to beg the other 2 branches of government to take care of their safety, or alternatively do it themselves again, as is a very originalist stance for sure!

sabenapilot wrote:

alberchico wrote:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/1523097567424307208

If Roe v Wade is overturned, the justices who voted to repeal it will require round the clock security. There's going to be a massive wave of anger directed at them.

Playing the devil's advocate now, but why should the US Government provide round the clock security for them?

Going by their own 'originalist' reading of the US Constitution, any right that is not explicitly mentioned in it, can not be derived from it, so unless the US Constitution foresees the right of SCOTUS judges to claim some sort of personal protection, it's up to the US Congress and Government to decide whether or not to provide it to them....

By their own wicked reasoning on Roe vs Wade this isn't stripping them of any vested rights nor granted protections, nor it is having them face any automatic personal risks to their physical wellbeing, it is simply making sure the US Constitution is read in the original way again, while fully recognising they have absolute freedom to beg the other 2 branches of government to take care of their safety, or alternatively do it themselves again, as is a very originalist stance for sure!

I’m afraid your reasoning is a little too logical to take hold in the US of A.

jetwet1 wrote:

Let's face facts folks.

This is a subject that no matter how much you try, you will not be able to change a person's mind, give up now.

The November elections are going to hang on this.

Whoever leaked this is in a world of trouble.

Of course it's possible to change a person's mind, that's why there is so much propaganda about the matter (especially on the pro-life side).

And the day your wife/daughter/sister/cousin/friend dies from a back alley abortion, you might change your mind again.

afcjets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

afcjets wrote:

My personal opinion is eventually abortion on demand up to the moment of birth won't be enough to satisfy the most militant pro choice advocates. Eventually they might demand a 24-72 hour cooling off period, similar to buyer's remorse laws when purchasing a new car. Tossing a newborn into a dumpster within X hours or days of birth will no longer be criminalized if done by the mother.

Wow, so you are worried about the most militant killing a baby after it is born?

I am worried about the most militant Anti-Abortionists killing a woman over birth control purchases.

Have to wonder which group is larger?

That's easy, the first group is, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make and it's not something I am worried about now, as disturbing as it is. I'm sure most everyone here at least in the US has seen news stories of newborns found in dumpsters, but I have never once heard of a woman murdered over purchasing contraceptives, please send a link if I missed that.

What I am worried about is a far left politician eventually making the same argument for abortion. Just as a fetus isn't viable on it's own, a newborn isn't either, and Republicans are denying health care and welfare programs, why should a woman be "punished" by having to take care of a baby.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_pregnant_women

ABC News have reported that studies in Maryland, New York, and Chicago found that approximately 20 percent of women who die during pregnancy are victims of murder.[9] In 2004, The Washington Post examined death-record data across the US which documented the killings of 1,367 pregnant women and new mothers since 1990. The newspaper reports:

[T]he killings span racial and ethnic groups. In cases whose details were known, 67 percent of women were killed with firearms. Many women were slain at home — in bedrooms, living rooms, kitchens — usually by men they knew. Husbands. Boyfriends. Lovers.[8]

As for your point about contraceptives? THen please tell me why governments are trying to push for bans on contraception usage and day after pills?

https://www.azmirror.com/blog/gop-senat ... ption-use/

Newark727 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Abortions are rare. So please keep going.

Rarer still are abortions due to rape, incest, or a threat to the mother's life.

To which I say so what, given that Republicans have now stopped even providing exemptions for such cases with their most recent legislation.

The rates are really low when you have NO reason at 74% in the state of Florida.

FGITD wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

That's also why they're against post-natal support. They want the mother of the unwanted child to suffer for their impious actions.

Exactly. It has nothing to do with the babies and everything to do with the women.

Everyone has sex (mostly…) and it’s a fun thing to do. Why does there have to be a potentially negative consequence, when we’ve devised a way to get rid of that consequence? It’s one thing to advise safe sex, it’s another to make it a gamble of potentially altering the rest of your life. But it always boils down to “don’t have sex unless you’re willing to have a baby”

Imagine applying that same logic to everything. Sorry Timmy, we’ve got to amputate that broken leg of yours. I know, you enjoyed riding your bike until you fell off, but you knew the risks when you got on and have to live with those consequences.

Finally seeing some truly honest comments from men, who actually support abortion for a real reason besides thinking is great for women or any of the other BS arguments thrown out there.

True honesty is hard to come by, but this one is actually great. Whilst having fun, we shouldn't take the burden and responsibility of you know, having fun. That's why we tell the women I won't take care of it, so abort it. ( I personally know of many of those cases).

I tend to think, men benefit much much more from abortion than women. Interesting how they managed to take the debate and instead say that men are the one who are forcing women to not have abortions. The post above actually proves that.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

That's also why they're against post-natal support. They want the mother of the unwanted child to suffer for their impious actions.

Exactly. It has nothing to do with the babies and everything to do with the women.

Everyone has sex (mostly…) and it’s a fun thing to do. Why does there have to be a potentially negative consequence, when we’ve devised a way to get rid of that consequence? It’s one thing to advise safe sex, it’s another to make it a gamble of potentially altering the rest of your life. But it always boils down to “don’t have sex unless you’re willing to have a baby”

Imagine applying that same logic to everything. Sorry Timmy, we’ve got to amputate that broken leg of yours. I know, you enjoyed riding your bike until you fell off, but you knew the risks when you got on and have to live with those consequences.

Finally seeing some truly honest comments from men, who actually support abortion for a real reason besides thinking is great for women or any of the other BS arguments thrown out there.

True honesty is hard to come by, but this one is actually great. Whilst having fun, we shouldn't take the burden and responsibility of you know, having fun. That's why we tell the women I won't take care of it, so abort it. ( I personally know of many of those cases).

I tend to think, men benefit much much more from abortion than women. Interesting how they managed to take the debate and instead say that men are the one who are forcing women to not have abortions. The post above actually proves that.

Maybe it’s more telling that you think enjoyment of sex is only for males…

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Exactly. It has nothing to do with the babies and everything to do with the women.

Everyone has sex (mostly…) and it’s a fun thing to do. Why does there have to be a potentially negative consequence, when we’ve devised a way to get rid of that consequence? It’s one thing to advise safe sex, it’s another to make it a gamble of potentially altering the rest of your life. But it always boils down to “don’t have sex unless you’re willing to have a baby”

Imagine applying that same logic to everything. Sorry Timmy, we’ve got to amputate that broken leg of yours. I know, you enjoyed riding your bike until you fell off, but you knew the risks when you got on and have to live with those consequences.

Finally seeing some truly honest comments from men, who actually support abortion for a real reason besides thinking is great for women or any of the other BS arguments thrown out there.

True honesty is hard to come by, but this one is actually great. Whilst having fun, we shouldn't take the burden and responsibility of you know, having fun. That's why we tell the women I won't take care of it, so abort it. ( I personally know of many of those cases).

I tend to think, men benefit much much more from abortion than women. Interesting how they managed to take the debate and instead say that men are the one who are forcing women to not have abortions. The post above actually proves that.

Maybe it’s more telling that you think enjoyment of sex is only for males…

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Right, both do enjoy, but only the woman is made to pay for enjoying. The male can just say, 'its a mistake abort it'. It won't be the man aborting a child.

Abortion ain't fun. Women do get emotionally scarred for life.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Finally seeing some truly honest comments from men, who actually support abortion for a real reason besides thinking is great for women or any of the other BS arguments thrown out there.

True honesty is hard to come by, but this one is actually great. Whilst having fun, we shouldn't take the burden and responsibility of you know, having fun. That's why we tell the women I won't take care of it, so abort it. ( I personally know of many of those cases).

I tend to think, men benefit much much more from abortion than women. Interesting how they managed to take the debate and instead say that men are the one who are forcing women to not have abortions. The post above actually proves that.

Maybe it’s more telling that you think enjoyment of sex is only for males…

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Right, both do enjoy, but only the woman is made to pay for enjoying.

So close to getting the point. Soooooooo close.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Finally seeing some truly honest comments from men, who actually support abortion for a real reason besides thinking is great for women or any of the other BS arguments thrown out there.

True honesty is hard to come by, but this one is actually great. Whilst having fun, we shouldn't take the burden and responsibility of you know, having fun. That's why we tell the women I won't take care of it, so abort it. ( I personally know of many of those cases).

I tend to think, men benefit much much more from abortion than women. Interesting how they managed to take the debate and instead say that men are the one who are forcing women to not have abortions. The post above actually proves that.

Maybe it’s more telling that you think enjoyment of sex is only for males…

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Right, both do enjoy, but only the woman is made to pay for enjoying. The male can just say, 'its a mistake abort it'. It won't be the man aborting a child.

Abortion ain't fun. Women do get emotionally scarred for life.

Oh, so now you're finally getting closer to how many feel about this. Why should a woman have to bear a child she doesn't want if the guy turned out to be a liar or a jerk? Why should a woman have to pay for a mistake she made when vulnerable, under influence of a substance, depressed, or any of the other many reasons someone may choose to go to bed with someone they don't know well enough? I'm against criminalization of the decisions women have to make for themselves after the fact, when so many men can just disappear, walk away, not have to deal with the emotional scars later, etc.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Maybe it’s more telling that you think enjoyment of sex is only for males…

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Right, both do enjoy, but only the woman is made to pay for enjoying. The male can just say, 'its a mistake abort it'. It won't be the man aborting a child.

Abortion ain't fun. Women do get emotionally scarred for life.

Oh, so now you're finally getting closer to how many feel about this. Why should a woman have to bear a child she doesn't want if the guy turned out to be a liar or a jerk? Why should a woman have to pay for a mistake she made when vulnerable, under influence of a substance, depressed, or any of the other many reasons someone may choose to go to bed with someone they don't know well enough? I'm against criminalization of the decisions women have to make for themselves after the fact, when so many men can just disappear, walk away, not have to deal with the emotional scars later, etc.

I don't mind arguing about abortion on cases or rape, incest, or even when the health of the mother is at risk. I am willing to actually compromise on that. The rest, well, its been discussed at length in this thread, and won't get anywhere.

The man as we said earlier in this thread, can and should pay for his role and responsibility.

Anything about a woman, I hope a lady who has had an abortion can post in this forum. We are all speaking for women here, pretty conveniently when abortion also is a escape valve for many men.

Until a woman comes and tells us here why an abortion was the right choice for her and the best choice she made, anything else here we speak about is nonsense.

Till then, nothing else to add.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Right, both do enjoy, but only the woman is made to pay for enjoying. The male can just say, 'its a mistake abort it'. It won't be the man aborting a child.

Abortion ain't fun. Women do get emotionally scarred for life.

Oh, so now you're finally getting closer to how many feel about this. Why should a woman have to bear a child she doesn't want if the guy turned out to be a liar or a jerk? Why should a woman have to pay for a mistake she made when vulnerable, under influence of a substance, depressed, or any of the other many reasons someone may choose to go to bed with someone they don't know well enough? I'm against criminalization of the decisions women have to make for themselves after the fact, when so many men can just disappear, walk away, not have to deal with the emotional scars later, etc.

I don't mind arguing about abortion on cases or rape, incest, or even when the health of the mother is at risk. I am willing to actually compromise on that. The rest, well, its been discussed at length in this thread, and won't get anywhere.

The man as we said earlier in this thread, can and should pay for his role and responsibility.

Anything about a woman, I hope a lady who has had an abortion can post in this forum. We are all speaking for women here, pretty conveniently when abortion also is a escape valve for many men.

Until a woman comes and tells us here why an abortion was the right choice for her and the best choice she made, anything else here we speak about is nonsense.

Till then, nothing else to add.

The guy paying / taking responsibility is not the whole story, and sometimes isn't enough.

Three exes of mine had abortions - one had very mixed feelings about it and would hardly talk about it, the other two were sure it was the right decision under the circumstances. One of them I knew while living in Japan, she was working in a company there and had a relationship with a coworker. She thought it was a serious relationship, and had 'the talk' with him after they had a broken condom accident and she ended up pregnant. She had irregular/light periods naturally, was very busy with work, and didn't even know she was pregnant until a few weeks later. She said she liked him a lot and could imagine a future with him if she had the child, but he laughed the whole thing off, suddenly became cold and admitted he was actually seeing other people as well. From that very moment she decided to consult about an abortion at a ladies' clinic and never looked back.

So don't even tell me it's only about the money. For many women it is also a complex emotional decision, and that's why simply calling it 'convenience' in all cases is a crass and blind view. Men can walk away - the woman can not. If someone doesn't get that, they never will.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Right, both do enjoy, but only the woman is made to pay for enjoying. The male can just say, 'its a mistake abort it'. It won't be the man aborting a child.

Abortion ain't fun. Women do get emotionally scarred for life.

Oh, so now you're finally getting closer to how many feel about this. Why should a woman have to bear a child she doesn't want if the guy turned out to be a liar or a jerk? Why should a woman have to pay for a mistake she made when vulnerable, under influence of a substance, depressed, or any of the other many reasons someone may choose to go to bed with someone they don't know well enough? I'm against criminalization of the decisions women have to make for themselves after the fact, when so many men can just disappear, walk away, not have to deal with the emotional scars later, etc.

I don't mind arguing about abortion on cases or rape, incest, or even when the health of the mother is at risk. I am willing to actually compromise on that. The rest, well, its been discussed at length in this thread, and won't get anywhere.

The man as we said earlier in this thread, can and should pay for his role and responsibility.

Anything about a woman, I hope a lady who has had an abortion can post in this forum. We are all speaking for women here, pretty conveniently when abortion also is a escape valve for many men.

Until a woman comes and tells us here why an abortion was the right choice for her and the best choice she made, anything else here we speak about is nonsense.


Till then, nothing else to add.

You keep missing the point. You demand that a Woman tells you why she made her Personal choice, but the woman is the one that gets punished for abortions. Not the man.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Right, both do enjoy, but only the woman is made to pay for enjoying. The male can just say, 'its a mistake abort it'. It won't be the man aborting a child.

Abortion ain't fun. Women do get emotionally scarred for life.

Oh, so now you're finally getting closer to how many feel about this. Why should a woman have to bear a child she doesn't want if the guy turned out to be a liar or a jerk? Why should a woman have to pay for a mistake she made when vulnerable, under influence of a substance, depressed, or any of the other many reasons someone may choose to go to bed with someone they don't know well enough? I'm against criminalization of the decisions women have to make for themselves after the fact, when so many men can just disappear, walk away, not have to deal with the emotional scars later, etc.

I don't mind arguing about abortion on cases or rape, incest, or even when the health of the mother is at risk. I am willing to actually compromise on that. The rest, well, its been discussed at length in this thread, and won't get anywhere.

You'd argue about that? Jeez!

AirWorthy99 wrote:

The man as we said earlier in this thread, can and should pay for his role and responsibility.

Coulda shoulda woulda!

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Anything about a woman,

This is the thing that you havent grasped, it's not women versus men. A woman isn't THE woman in question. A woman cannot dictate to any other woman what she wants and hold any more bearing than A man. There can biologically not be THE man.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

I hope a lady who has had an abortion can post in this forum. We are all speaking for women here, pretty conveniently when abortion also is a escape valve for many men.

It is up to THE woman involved, not women in general.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Until a woman comes and tells us here why an abortion was the right choice for her and the best choice she made, anything else here we speak about is nonsense.

https://youthcomm.org/story/abortion-it ... ce-for-me/

Fred

flipdewaf wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Oh, so now you're finally getting closer to how many feel about this. Why should a woman have to bear a child she doesn't want if the guy turned out to be a liar or a jerk? Why should a woman have to pay for a mistake she made when vulnerable, under influence of a substance, depressed, or any of the other many reasons someone may choose to go to bed with someone they don't know well enough? I'm against criminalization of the decisions women have to make for themselves after the fact, when so many men can just disappear, walk away, not have to deal with the emotional scars later, etc.

I don't mind arguing about abortion on cases or rape, incest, or even when the health of the mother is at risk. I am willing to actually compromise on that. The rest, well, its been discussed at length in this thread, and won't get anywhere.

You'd argue about that? Jeez!

AirWorthy99 wrote:

The man as we said earlier in this thread, can and should pay for his role and responsibility.

Coulda shoulda woulda!

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Anything about a woman,

This is the thing that you havent grasped, it's not women versus men. A woman isn't THE woman in question. A woman cannot dictate to any other woman what she wants and hold any more bearing than A man. There can biologically not be THE man.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

I hope a lady who has had an abortion can post in this forum. We are all speaking for women here, pretty conveniently when abortion also is a escape valve for many men.

It is up to THE woman involved, not women in general.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Until a woman comes and tells us here why an abortion was the right choice for her and the best choice she made, anything else here we speak about is nonsense.

https://youthcomm.org/story/abortion-it ... ce-for-me/

Fred

That story is dime a dozen. Teen couple uses protection, except that one time the guy gets all needy and says 'oh come on, I really want to feel you this time' or whatever. The consequences for him are not the same. And any man who says 'she should just refuse, or not give in' has no idea how some women feel in that situation. Men can be just as manipulative as women.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Oh, so now you're finally getting closer to how many feel about this. Why should a woman have to bear a child she doesn't want if the guy turned out to be a liar or a jerk? Why should a woman have to pay for a mistake she made when vulnerable, under influence of a substance, depressed, or any of the other many reasons someone may choose to go to bed with someone they don't know well enough? I'm against criminalization of the decisions women have to make for themselves after the fact, when so many men can just disappear, walk away, not have to deal with the emotional scars later, etc.

I don't mind arguing about abortion on cases or rape, incest, or even when the health of the mother is at risk. I am willing to actually compromise on that. The rest, well, its been discussed at length in this thread, and won't get anywhere.

The man as we said earlier in this thread, can and should pay for his role and responsibility.

Anything about a woman, I hope a lady who has had an abortion can post in this forum. We are all speaking for women here, pretty conveniently when abortion also is a escape valve for many men.

Until a woman comes and tells us here why an abortion was the right choice for her and the best choice she made, anything else here we speak about is nonsense.

Till then, nothing else to add.

The guy paying / taking responsibility is not the whole story, and sometimes isn't enough.

Three exes of mine had abortions - one had very mixed feelings about it and would hardly talk about it, the other two were sure it was the right decision under the circumstances. One of them I knew while living in Japan, she was working in a company there and had a relationship with a coworker. She thought it was a serious relationship, and had 'the talk' with him after they had a broken condom accident and she ended up pregnant. She had irregular/light periods naturally, was very busy with work, and didn't even know she was pregnant until a few weeks later. She said she liked him a lot and could imagine a future with him if she had the child, but he laughed the whole thing off, suddenly became cold and admitted he was actually seeing other people as well. From that very moment she decided to consult about an abortion at a ladies' clinic and never looked back.

So don't even tell me it's only about the money. For many women it is also a complex emotional decision, and that's why simply calling it 'convenience' in all cases is a crass and blind view. Men can walk away - the woman can not. If someone doesn't get that, they never will.

OK, so I managed to get you guys figured out. We all agree, (most) rape, incest, case woman is at risk.

So its not about only that, is for the inconvenience, of personal choices such as having fun sex etc. OK

We can't then agree, if you don't want the responsibility, the 'inconvenience' of raising a child and the disruption and problem it may cause a woman. Why wouldn't then adoption be a choice?

That's the point when we will continue 10 more pages talking about the same and getting nowhere.

Adoption isn't an option, its killing the unborn at will and anytime because of freedom. We will agree to disagree. That's fine. Till then, I hope a woman shows up in this forum and talks about how great it was to make that decision for herself.

The rest, we are just men, who weren't born with the maternal instinct only women are born to actually know that most women, will be scarred for life. That's fine.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

I don't mind arguing about abortion on cases or rape, incest, or even when the health of the mother is at risk. I am willing to actually compromise on that. The rest, well, its been discussed at length in this thread, and won't get anywhere.

The man as we said earlier in this thread, can and should pay for his role and responsibility.

Anything about a woman, I hope a lady who has had an abortion can post in this forum. We are all speaking for women here, pretty conveniently when abortion also is a escape valve for many men.

Until a woman comes and tells us here why an abortion was the right choice for her and the best choice she made, anything else here we speak about is nonsense.

Till then, nothing else to add.

The guy paying / taking responsibility is not the whole story, and sometimes isn't enough.

Three exes of mine had abortions - one had very mixed feelings about it and would hardly talk about it, the other two were sure it was the right decision under the circumstances. One of them I knew while living in Japan, she was working in a company there and had a relationship with a coworker. She thought it was a serious relationship, and had 'the talk' with him after they had a broken condom accident and she ended up pregnant. She had irregular/light periods naturally, was very busy with work, and didn't even know she was pregnant until a few weeks later. She said she liked him a lot and could imagine a future with him if she had the child, but he laughed the whole thing off, suddenly became cold and admitted he was actually seeing other people as well. From that very moment she decided to consult about an abortion at a ladies' clinic and never looked back.

So don't even tell me it's only about the money. For many women it is also a complex emotional decision, and that's why simply calling it 'convenience' in all cases is a crass and blind view. Men can walk away - the woman can not. If someone doesn't get that, they never will.

OK, so I managed to get you guys figured out. We all agree, (most) rape, incest, case woman is at risk.

So its not about only that, is for the inconvenience, of personal choices such as having fun sex etc. OK

We can't then agree, if you don't want the responsibility, the 'inconvenience' of raising a child and the disruption and problem it may cause a woman. Why wouldn't then adoption be a choice?

That's the point when we will continue 10 more pages talking about the same and getting nowhere.

Adoption isn't an option, its killing the unborn at will and anytime because of freedom. We will agree to disagree. That's fine. Till then, I hope a woman shows up in this forum and talks about how great it was to make that decision for herself.

The rest, we are just men, who weren't born with the maternal instinct only women are born to actually know that most women, will be scarred for life. That's fine.

TL;dr -> Could just say: 'I didn't even read the stories posted.'

In my ex's story, adoption wasn't an option. They don't do that in Japan. And even if it were, I doubt she would have carried the child. You completely missed the key of the story: she was repulsed by the guy's betrayal, her image of the future was shattered, and didn't want to be pregnant with his child a second longer.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

The rest, we are just men, who weren't born with the maternal instinct only women are born to actually know that most women, will be scarred for life. That's fine.

Did you just claim to not be able to know what women will feel and then state how they will feel? Hilarious!

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

The guy paying / taking responsibility is not the whole story, and sometimes isn't enough.

Three exes of mine had abortions - one had very mixed feelings about it and would hardly talk about it, the other two were sure it was the right decision under the circumstances. One of them I knew while living in Japan, she was working in a company there and had a relationship with a coworker. She thought it was a serious relationship, and had 'the talk' with him after they had a broken condom accident and she ended up pregnant. She had irregular/light periods naturally, was very busy with work, and didn't even know she was pregnant until a few weeks later. She said she liked him a lot and could imagine a future with him if she had the child, but he laughed the whole thing off, suddenly became cold and admitted he was actually seeing other people as well. From that very moment she decided to consult about an abortion at a ladies' clinic and never looked back.

So don't even tell me it's only about the money. For many women it is also a complex emotional decision, and that's why simply calling it 'convenience' in all cases is a crass and blind view. Men can walk away - the woman can not. If someone doesn't get that, they never will.

OK, so I managed to get you guys figured out. We all agree, (most) rape, incest, case woman is at risk.

So its not about only that, is for the inconvenience, of personal choices such as having fun sex etc. OK

We can't then agree, if you don't want the responsibility, the 'inconvenience' of raising a child and the disruption and problem it may cause a woman. Why wouldn't then adoption be a choice?

That's the point when we will continue 10 more pages talking about the same and getting nowhere.

Adoption isn't an option, its killing the unborn at will and anytime because of freedom. We will agree to disagree. That's fine. Till then, I hope a woman shows up in this forum and talks about how great it was to make that decision for herself.

The rest, we are just men, who weren't born with the maternal instinct only women are born to actually know that most women, will be scarred for life. That's fine.

TL;dr -> Could just say: 'I didn't even read the stories posted.'

In my ex's story, adoption wasn't an option. They don't do that in Japan. And even if it were, I doubt she would have carried the child. You completely missed the key of the story: she was repulsed by the guy's betrayal, her image of the future was shattered, and didn't want to be pregnant with his child a second longer.

I thought we were talking about the US, where adoption is a choice. I am sure in Europe too.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

OK, so I managed to get you guys figured out. We all agree, (most) rape, incest, case woman is at risk.

So its not about only that, is for the inconvenience, of personal choices such as having fun sex etc. OK

We can't then agree, if you don't want the responsibility, the 'inconvenience' of raising a child and the disruption and problem it may cause a woman. Why wouldn't then adoption be a choice?

That's the point when we will continue 10 more pages talking about the same and getting nowhere.

Adoption isn't an option, its killing the unborn at will and anytime because of freedom. We will agree to disagree. That's fine. Till then, I hope a woman shows up in this forum and talks about how great it was to make that decision for herself.

The rest, we are just men, who weren't born with the maternal instinct only women are born to actually know that most women, will be scarred for life. That's fine.

TL;dr -> Could just say: 'I didn't even read the stories posted.'

In my ex's story, adoption wasn't an option. They don't do that in Japan. And even if it were, I doubt she would have carried the child. You completely missed the key of the story: she was repulsed by the guy's betrayal, her image of the future was shattered, and didn't want to be pregnant with his child a second longer.

I thought we were talking about the US, where adoption is a choice. I am sure in Europe too.

Womens’ reasons for abortion are pan-cultural. Like I said, if you don’t get the emotional side of it, you never will. Read the story from the teen girl flipdewaf posted - she didn’t want to do adoption for very clear emotional reasons.

And you still apparently don’t understand the mindset of ‘I DONT WANT THAT GUY’s ANYTHING inside me a moment longer’. That’s what lies, manipulation, and betrayal of trust does. Men can walk away - women can not because the result is literally inside them.

Aaron747 wrote:

And you still apparently don’t understand the mindset of ‘I DONT WANT THAT GUY’s ANYTHING inside me a moment longer’. That’s what lies, manipulation, and betrayal of trust does. Men can walk away - women can not because the result is literally inside them.

Like I said, we will never agree. As to I am never to agree that a child is responsible for their parents, decisions, choices behavior or actions. Born or unborn.

But, you are still unable to produce a woman to come to this forum and post their experiences. Till then, all of this is just bla bla bla from men.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

And you still apparently don’t understand the mindset of ‘I DONT WANT THAT GUY’s ANYTHING inside me a moment longer’. That’s what lies, manipulation, and betrayal of trust does. Men can walk away - women can not because the result is literally inside them.

Like I said, we will never agree. As to I am never to agree that a child is responsible for their parents, decisions, choices behavior or actions. Born or unborn.

But, you are still unable to produce a woman to come to this forum and post their experiences. Till then, all of this is just bla bla bla from men.

So you would agree then that the 4 of the 5 making this ruling on the Supreme Court are worthless in their opinion?

Looks like the Mississippi lawyers falsly represented scientific evidence in front of the Supreme Court. Not that this will change the mind of Alito and others that have just been looking for an excuse to impose their religion over science.


https://news.yahoo.com/uk-scientist-acc ... 03220.html

Iannetti's research was cited in a medical paper on fetal pain that was published in the "Journal of Medical Ethics" in 2020 by the psychologist Stuart Derbyshire.

The medical paper said that Iannetti's research suggested that humans might not need a cerebral cortex — the outer layer of the human brain which isn't developed in a fetus until after 24 weeks — to feel any pain, The Observer reported.

The lawyers arguing against abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization heavily cited the paper in their case, saying it showed it was no longer accurate to say fetuses cannot feel pain before 24 weeks, The Observer reported.

"My results by no means imply that the cortex isn't necessary to feel pain," Iannetti said, according to The Observer. "I feel they were misinterpreted and used in a very clever way to prove a point."

"It distresses me that my work was misinterpreted and became one of the pillar arguments they made," he added.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

And you still apparently don’t understand the mindset of ‘I DONT WANT THAT GUY’s ANYTHING inside me a moment longer’. That’s what lies, manipulation, and betrayal of trust does. Men can walk away - women can not because the result is literally inside them.

Like I said, we will never agree. As to I am never to agree that a child is responsible for their parents, decisions, choices behavior or actions. Born or unborn.

But, you are still unable to produce a woman to come to this forum and post their experiences. Till then, all of this is just bla bla bla from men.

Women don't always get to choose who the father of their child is.

But, if you want to talk about sexual health in regards to men, ban viagra, cialis, and all other "performance" drugs. If it is God's will for all women to be forced to carry a fetus to term, it is God's will for men to not reproduce.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

And you still apparently don’t understand the mindset of ‘I DONT WANT THAT GUY’s ANYTHING inside me a moment longer’. That’s what lies, manipulation, and betrayal of trust does. Men can walk away - women can not because the result is literally inside them.

Like I said, we will never agree. As to I am never to agree that a child is responsible for their parents, decisions, choices behavior or actions. Born or unborn.

But, you are still unable to produce a woman to come to this forum and post their experiences. Till then, all of this is just bla bla bla from men.

Wait, you need the opinion of a woman to help with this?

The irony of course is that is EXACTLY what is being advocated for in EVERY instance by the pro choice advocates.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk