Welcome to Thunderdome

It's a moral position, there are no facts.

I lean "it's just a clump of cells." Up to a point.

That being said...... in my OPINION.... if you are a person who thinks that life begins at conception, and a brand-new combination of DNA that has never existed before is a precious miracle, then if you AREN'T murdering abortion doctors, you are a horrible monster without the courage to stand up for your convictions. You are also morally corrupt. In your mind, you are standing idly by while people slaughter babies because it would be inconvenient for you to put a stop to it.

"It's weird that bacteria is proof of life on Mars, but a heartbeat isn't proof of life on Earth."

At the end of the day, if your morals say don't do it, then don't do it.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 2:31 pm It's a moral position, there are no facts.

Well, there are some facts, but not "THE" facts needed to determine what is correct.

For example: Stupid people shouldn't breed is a fact.

GORDON wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 2:51 pm I lean "it's just a clump of cells." Up to a point.

Basically, yeah. It's why I'm for a woman's right, but only to a point. If the kid can thrive outside the womb, you missed your window. I mean, why stop at 9 months? Don't like your 4 year old? Abort it.

While I agree with a woman's right, I don't fool myself into thinking it's not the end of a human life (or potential human life). It's a terrible act that should not be used in lieu of a condom or the pill, but should absolutely be options for rape, incest, and in medical emergencies. Also, a fact people don't discuss a lot is that it can lead to very negative consequences for the mother. It's not a perfect procedure without side effects.

That's what sets me off. These are not ridiculous or "oppressive" compromises.

And while we're at it, Chappelle is right. If it's a woman's decision to make because it's her body, then why isn't child support a man's decision to make? Yeah, it takes two to make a baby, so if we're giving the decision to have it to only 1 of those two why does the man have to go with whatever she decides? And I say that as someone who completely believes men who don't support their kids are human scum.

Leisher wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:57 pm And while we're at it, Chappelle is right. If it's a woman's decision to make because it's her body, then why isn't child support a man's decision to make? Yeah, it takes two to make a baby, so if we're giving the decision to have it to only 1 of those two why does the man have to go with whatever she decides? And I say that as someone who completely believes men who don't support their kids are human scum.

Here's where it all gets funny.

The fact men have no say in a woman's body.... which I guess is right and good? Is why men have no reproductive rights in the USA.

The only option for a man is to "keep his legs shut." Nothing except abstinance.... and then a male can still be subject to rape.... is 100% effective at avoiding pregnancy. And since "well then keep your legs shut" is never valid thing to tell a woman, I'm going to decalre it also off the table as advice for a man.

So that being said, a dude gets laid, and shit, condom broke (or she lied about BC, or whatever). At this point, since "keep your legs shut" isn't valid, a man has no reproductive rights. Only the woman does. She can keep it, abort it, whatever, and the man has no say.... no right to a decision. Furthermore, he'll be on the hook for child support, at gunpoint by the state, more or less. I think men have been jailed over failure to pay?

Which was the only funny part about Roe v Wade being overturned. The state took away the woman's right to choose.

Which pissed women off.

Because now they were in the exact same car the men have always been in.

So that was kind of funny to me. "How's that shitburger taste?"

GORDON wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 4:11 pm I think men have been jailed over failure to pay?

Correct.

Men have plenty of reproductive rights, before they stick a baby in the woman. Don't come in a woman's vag. Ostensibly people have relationships + communication if they are having sex, and come to a joint decision.

GORDON wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 4:11 pm So that being said, a dude gets laid, and shit, condom broke (or she lied about BC, or whatever). At this point, since "keep your legs shut" isn't valid, a man has no reproductive rights. Only the woman does. She can keep it, abort it, whatever, and the man has no say.... no right to a decision. Furthermore, he'll be on the hook for child support, at gunpoint by the state, more or less. I think men have been jailed over failure to pay?

Yep, all fair. Dude stuck it in. Terms and conditions.

At any rate, I don't care for the government setting limits. The # of late term abortions is tiny, and that's up to them and their doctor, I don't want that baby.

Yes, he stuck it in. He should have just kept his legs shut.

Assuming he wasn't raped.

At which time he'd still have no rights and may be on the hook for child support to his rapist.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:05 pm Yep, all fair. Dude stuck it in. Terms and conditions.

No, not fair. A system where one gets to make all the decisions on the other's entire future because they BOTH agreed to something is not a fair agreement. Especially when society goes out of its way to pretend that there aren't women that intentionally get pregnant to trap a guy.

If the T&C say he isn't financially responsible, how does that change society and this issue specifically? I'm betting pretty drastically. We should do that for a year and see how it affects pregnancy and abortion rates.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:05 pm The # of late term abortions is tiny

So are the number of abortions that must be done to save a woman's life, but not according to every other political commercial I see here in a battleground state.

GORDON wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:44 pm Assuming he wasn't raped.

We're all grown ups, despite how we act, but can we get serious about a man's ability to say no? At some point, actual nature must be taken into account. Men are designed to spread their seed. We're designed to be promiscuous. When I was a teen and in my 20s, saying no to sex was almost unheard of. That's why it's so easy to trap guys when they're younger. Which is why military bases have to have this talk with their younger folks about local women.

So when do we get to point out that those cases should be a crime, a sex crime?, and yet, men are still financially responsible. That shit's broken. (And yes, I know there's no perfect solution. Just having a conversation here.)

Leisher wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 12:42 pm Men are designed to spread their seed. We're designed to be promiscuous. When I was a teen and in my 20s, saying no to sex was almost unheard of.

I've never had a problem with it. I turned down plenty of women cuz I didn't want the repercussions.

If a man is really raped, then have an exception.

Men have no reproductive rights. "Keep your legs shut" is not a valid argument unless it can be used on both parties, which it is not. Apparently women have a right to hetero love with a safety net, and men have a right to hetero love as long as they can be used as the safety net. Things are not equal.

GORDON wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 1:21 pm Men have no reproductive rights. "Keep your legs shut" is not a valid argument unless it can be used on both parties, which it is not. Apparently women have a right to hetero love with a safety net, and men have a right to hetero love as long as they can be used as the safety net. Things are not equal.

Men deposits semen, his rights are over. The baby grows elsewhere. So yes, things are not equal by default.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 12:45 pm I've never had a problem with it. I turned down plenty of women cuz I didn't want the repercussions.

False equivalency because you're gay.

Seriously, some people will be more emotionally mature than others, sure. However, is that the norm? The studies and the business world say no. You are, literally, telling men to turn off their naturally given and evolved instincts based on some societal rules that Mother Nature doesn't know or give two fucks about. It's not reality.

There are definitely situational differences too. 22 year old, single you with a couple of drinks in him is probably not turning down the perfect 10 with abs who tells you she's absolutely on the pill. But when Bertha the Destroyer tells you to do whatever you want to her, that's an easy "pass".

Anyone can stay celibate trapped on a desert island with the cast of The View. It's a lot harder to do with the Victoria's Secret Angels...back when they didn't have dicks and didn't weigh 600 pounds.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 1:35 pm Men deposits semen, his rights are over.

For the baby, sure, but for his money? Nope.

Women also choose to fuck, and thus, should also face consequences.

The consequences should be equal. She can choose to have it, he can choose to not be part of it, in time or money. Even then she can abort without his permission. Even then men would have fewer rights.

GORDON wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 2:22 pm The consequences should be equal. She can choose to have it, he can choose to not be part of it, in time or money. Even then she can abort without his permission. Even then men would have fewer rights.

They are equal. If he wants to gestate a baby in his womb, he can decide whether or not to abort.

And if he decides to not abort it, he gets to make the woman pay for it. Your logic is impeccable.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 2:30 pm If he wants to gestate a baby in his womb, he can decide whether or not to abort.

Dude, it's 2024, that sentence is "scientifically accurate" these days...

Leisher wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 3:01 pm

TheCatt wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 2:30 pm If he wants to gestate a baby in his womb, he can decide whether or not to abort.

Dude, it's 2024, that sentence is "scientifically accurate" these days...

lol. I really wasn't trying to bring it to that.

You knife someone today, they die 3 months later from it, it's still murder. Actions have consequences. I can't believe the other side of the argument is "Men are too dumb to do anything else but stick it in"

Why are men the ones who are required to show restraint? Why is the woman at the same time empowered to make all the choices, except to keep her legs shut because of consequences she may not want?

Heh. "Cuz."