• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What does it mean to be "pro life?"[W:156]

year2late said:
And both sexually active partners should accept the risks and consequences of unintended pregnancy.
Click to expand...

The consequences of an unintended pregnancy is a function of what the law is. The current law is a violation of the rule of law and equal justice.

Why would I accept such violations ?

The fact that a woman has control over her own body is not a free pass
Click to expand...

Of course it is. A woman currently has the freedom to do what she likes with a pregnancy.

The man on the other hand does not.

for the father not to accept the potential consequences of unintended fatherhood
Click to expand...

The man is forced to accept the financial consequences of a unilateral decision made by another person.

This is a violation of the rule of law (one person is not to be punished for the actions of another) and

Equal Justice (the woman has the right to avoid financial responsibility for the consequences of unintended pregnancy and the man does not)
 
Realitywins said:
Despite all the rhetoric and diversionary tactics evinced here, it still all boils down to the simple fact it is nobody else's business what a woman decides to do with her body.
Click to expand...

Ironically, it is customary of motherhood that it becomes the business of anybody and everybody within earshot.
 
thinkagain said:
The consequences of an unintended pregnancy is a function of what the law is. The current law is a violation of the rule of law and equal justice.

Why would I accept such violations ?



Of course it is. A woman currently has the freedom to do what she likes with a pregnancy.

The man on the other hand does not.



The man is forced to accept the financial consequences of a unilateral decision made by another person.

This is a violation of the rule of law (one person is not to be punished for the actions of another) and

Equal Justice (the woman has the right to avoid financial responsibility for the consequences of unintended pregnancy and the man does not)
Click to expand...

So the fact that a woman has the right to make her own medical decisions is somehow a reason a man does not have to accept the consequences of his sexual activity?

Remember also, child support is about the child.

The line in the sand should be reasonable child support and fair custody arraingements that have the best interest of the child in mind.
 
Last edited:
year2late said:
So the fact that a woman has the right to make her own medical decisions is somehow a reason a man does not have to accept the consequences of his sexual activity?

Remember also, child support is about the child.

The line in the sand should be reasonable child support and fair custody arraingements that have the best interest of the child in mind.
Click to expand...

Wording it in such a broad manner isn't helpful. Many women that get abortions are not thinking about medical concerns when they make their decision, but about their consent to having a child.
 
year2late said:
So the fact that a woman has the right to make her own medical decisions is somehow a reason a man does not have to accept the consequences of his sexual activity?

Remember also, child support is about the child.

The line in the sand should be reasonable child support and fair custody arraingements that have the best interest of the child in mind.
Click to expand...

If someone makes a unilateral decisions then it is that person who should be responsible for the consequences of that decision.

Punishing one person for the actions of another is a violation of the rule of law.

If the woman has the right to abort a pregnancy thus avoiding the financial consequences of a baby, then "equal justice" dictates that a man have the same tights with respect to the pregnancy. (ability to avoid financial consequences of a baby).

If a woman wants to unilaterally continue the pregnancy then the consequences of that action fall squarely on her shoulders, including the financial responsibility to take care of the child.

Further, it is not in the best interest (or any other of its citizens except the one dictator who gets to make the rules should we throw the 2 aforementioned rules away) of the Child to live in a world where the rule of law and equal justice are violated.

If it is a choice between throwing out these basic rules and having the state (in cases where the woman can not meet her obligation) help out with the cost's of a child... I pick the state thank you.
 
thinkagain said:
If someone makes a unilateral decisions then it is that person who should be responsible for the consequences of that decision.

Punishing one person for the actions of another is a violation of the rule of law.
Click to expand...

You're truncating the actions involved to those after sex to serve deadbeat apologism.

99.9% of society, including all attorneys, judges and academics, disagree with your BS.
 
ecofarm said:
You're truncating the actions involved to those after sex to serve deadbeat apologism.

99.9% of society, including all attorneys, judges and academics, disagree with your BS.
Click to expand...

How do you know what percentage of the population disagrees with him? Do you happen to have something to back up your 99.9% claim?

On that note, I can't find anything that says what percent of the population agrees with government mandated child support.
 
Henrin said:
How do you know what percentage of the population disagrees with him? Do you happen to have something to back up your 99.9% claim?
Click to expand...

The burden of proof is not on me. There are no citations for the idiocy presented. It's just deadbeat apologism.

On that note, I can't find anything that says what percent of the population agrees with government mandated child support.
Click to expand...

Well, if we discount the deadbeats and their apologists, it's all of the population.
 
ecofarm said:
The burden of proof is not on me. There are no citations for the idiocy presented. It's just deadbeat apologism.
Click to expand...

You made a claim in which I questioned you about, so yes, the burden of proof is on you.

Well, if we discount the deadbeats and their apologists, it's all of the population.
Click to expand...

No, it's factually not.
 
Henrin said:
You made a claim in which I questioned you about, so yes, the burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...

My point is in refute. The person making the ludicrous and idiotic claim is responsible for supporting that claim. When someone spews crap that no one agrees with, except deadbeats and their apologists, then they are required to provide support.

No, it's factually not.
Click to expand...

More deadbeat apologism.
 
ecofarm said:
My point is in refute. The person making the ludicrous and idiotic claim is responsible for supporting that claim. When someone spews crap that no one agrees with, except deadbeats and their apologists, then they are required to provide support
Click to expand...

News flash: I don't care about his claim right now. What I do in fact care about is your 99.9% claim that you refuse to support with anything.

More deadbeat apologism.
Click to expand...

What? No.
 
Henrin said:
News flash: I don't care about his claim right now. What I do in fact care about is your 99.9% claim that you refuse to support with anything.
Click to expand...

NewsFlash: Jumping into a debate mid-stream is misguided and a fail. My point was in refute to the complete lack of support provided for the claim.

What? No.
Click to expand...

Claiming that anyone except deadbeats and their apologists agree with him is, in fact, deadbeat apologism.
 
ecofarm said:
My point is in refute. The person making the ludicrous and idiotic claim is responsible for supporting that claim. When someone spews crap that no one agrees with, except deadbeats and their apologists, then they are required to provide support.
Click to expand...

ecofarm said:
Claiming that anyone except deadbeats and their apologists agree with him is, in fact, deadbeat apologism.
Click to expand...

I think claiming that no one except deadbeats and their apologists agree with someone is deadbeat apologism. You are engaging in the fallacy of argumentum ad lapidem. I don't envy your position of using degrading words to refer to people who believe that men deserve equal treatment under the law.

But you are not here to debate. You are here to express your distaste for a certain type of person who is unlike you. Maybe you are afraid of people who aren't like you. Maybe, you are incredulous.
ecofarm said:
What?
Click to expand...

Were you appealing to popularity when you made the uncited claim that lots of people would side with you in a bar fight?
ecofarm said:
You're truncating the actions involved to those after sex to serve deadbeat apologism.

99.9% of society, including all attorneys, judges and academics, disagree with your BS.
Click to expand...

Finally, which is it for you, ecofarm? Are you pro woman or pro life? You clearly don't believe that men should be treated with civility, but that they should instead lose their civil rights after sex.
 
Celebrity said:
I think claiming that no one except deadbeats and their apologists agree with someone is deadbeat apologism. You are engaging in the fallacy of argumentum ad lapidem. I don't envy your position of using degrading words to refer to people who believe that men deserve equal treatment under the law.
Click to expand...

Lunacy.

But you are not here to debate. You are here to express your distaste for a certain type of person who is unlike you. Maybe you are afraid of people who aren't like you. Maybe, you are incredulous.
Click to expand...

Pathetic.

Were you appealing to popularity when you made the uncited claim that lots of people would side with you in a bar fight?
Click to expand...

What? Is that mess of nonsense supposed to erase the fact that you have not one scholar, attorney or judge that agrees with you? Not a single educated person buys the line of BS you spew herein.

Finally, which is it for you, ecofarm? Are you pro woman or pro life?
Click to expand...

Both. I'm a feminist ecocentric vegan, and I would like to see the abortion deadline moved back a couple weeks (to start).

You clearly don't believe that men should be treated with civility,
Click to expand...

Victim complex.

but that they should instead lose their civil rights after sex.
Click to expand...

Choosing to have sex is choosing to accept the woman's decision in the result of pregnancy. I suggest you have a conversation on the subject with a woman before having sex with her. Due diligence.
 
ecofarm said:
NewsFlash: Jumping into a debate mid-stream is misguided and a fail. My point was in refute to the complete lack of support provided for the claim.
Click to expand...

Hardly. You made a claim unrelated to his own and I would like to see proof of it.

Claiming that anyone except deadbeats and their apologists agree with him is, in fact, deadbeat apologism.
Click to expand...

If you say so, but then, that is just another claim of yours that I doubt you will support.
 
ecofarm said:
What? Is that mess of nonsense supposed to erase the fact that you have not one scholar, attorney or judge that agrees with you? Not a single educated person buys the line of BS you spew herein.
Click to expand...

I see another claim of yours. Do you wish to support this one with one ounce of evidence? Just so you know, this is the third claim you have made in this thread and so fair you have supported none of them.
 
ecofarm said:
What? Is that mess of nonsense supposed to erase the fact that you have not one scholar, attorney or judge that agrees with you? Not a single educated person buys the line of BS you spew herein.
Click to expand...

Oh and yes, by definition committing a fallacy does in fact eliminate the legitimacy of the argument.
 
ecofarm said:
Choosing to have sex is choosing to accept the woman's decision in the result of pregnancy. I suggest you have a conversation on the subject with a woman before having sex with her. Due diligence.
Click to expand...

Laughably absurd. You should pay more attention to peoples actions and less to your own desires. If men just accepted her decision towards pregnancy by having sex then men wouldn't hurt women to cause abortion or leave women that have an abortion. In fact, this whole discussion you are having with Celebrity would likely not be happening at all. Women actually talk to their man about these matters because the fact is the man actually has a mind of his own. Shocking I know, but there it is.
 
Henrin said:
If men just accepted her decision towards pregnancy by having sex then men wouldn't hurt women to cause abortion
Click to expand...

That's psychotic.
 
ecofarm said:
That's psychotic.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you know what that words means. Men do take action to cause miscarriages. Do you deny this? Again, if men accepted the result of sex just by having sex then such behavior wouldn't happen. You don't appear to understand how people behave when they consent to things it seems.
 
ecofarm said:
Choosing to have sex is choosing to accept the woman's decision in the result of pregnancy. I suggest you have a conversation on the subject with a woman before having sex with her. Due diligence.
Click to expand...

In other words, you believe that straight men are subordinate to women in society. That is indicative of your style of feminism. You absolutely do not believe in equality, if you believe that consent to sex is not consent to reproduce only for women.

I'm not really sure what you have to contribute to this thread, but it's people like you who diminish the place of men in society. In your case, I would call it an inferiority complex.

Whereas in my case I apply victimhood evenly to male or female victims of discriminatory treatment, you seem to believe that women are all victims, and no men are victims.

Coming from a man, that is truly pathetic.
 
Henrin said:
I'm not sure you know what that words means. Men do take action to cause miscarriages. Do you deny this? Again, if men accepted the result of sex just by having sex then such behavior wouldn't happen. You don't appear to understand how people behave when they consent to things it seems.
Click to expand...

The problem is that liberals believe that they are "right" and everyone else is "wrong" and apply this ideology just as Conservatives in the Bible belt apply their ideology. Interestingly, the overlap occurs in women who choose to give birth. That's where I believe true "pro life" positions exist, but this is not a voluntary choice for men. Therefore some men who are forced into the pro life position must be in denial if they believe they ever had a choice in the matter. I am nominally pro life because I never had a choice in the matter.

Still, it would be interesting to see how men try to justify their "pro choice" position. Once they admit that they have no choice, they must accept that they are talking about women, and if they are not women then they don't know what they're talking about. :lol:

We can wish to understand women, but as men we do not have the capacity to understand a woman as anything other than a person. Misunderstandings about women which result in diminishing women's rights are not good, and diminishing men's rights to accommodate women according to some false "understanding" of relations between men and women are also not good.

I guess that male feminists can be put into three categories:

  1. Men who wish they were women.
  2. Men who wish to be subordinate to women.
  3. Men who are confused about what equality means, and/or are willing to make concessions on behalf of all men, but do not fit into categories 1 or 2.

Number 3 is aligned with the basic idea that the lives of men and women ought to have some inherent value, which can be exchanged in some political arena. I think of it as an abhorrent affront against the quality of dignity which exists our culture, for ourselves and out of respect for others.
 
Celebrity said:
In other words, you believe that straight men are subordinate to women in society. That is indicative of your style of feminism. You absolutely do not believe in equality, if you believe that consent to sex is not consent to reproduce only for women.

I'm not really sure what you have to contribute to this thread, but it's people like you who diminish the place of men in society. In your case, I would call it an inferiority complex.

Whereas in my case I apply victimhood evenly to male or female victims of discriminatory treatment, you seem to believe that women are all victims, and no men are victims.

Coming from a man, that is truly pathetic.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. Your pathetic victim claims are so sad. You're spewing internet "men's rights" BS. It's nothing more than misogyny with a facade.
 
ecofarm said:
Oh, please. Your pathetic victim claims are so sad. You're spewing internet "men's rights" BS. It's nothing more than misogyny with a facade.
Click to expand...

Oh please, your pathetic victim claim claims are so sad. You're spewing internet "women's rights" BS. It's nothing more than misandry wrapped up in a burrito, washed down with a glass of Mexican coke, digested and defecated a few hours later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom