- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 133,429
- Reaction score
- 43,228
- Location
- Miami
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
That is why I also offered the very equitable option of repayment.
How gracious of you.
That is why I also offered the very equitable option of repayment.
Well I'm not about to go though every poster here but if you think there are no bots that's fine, you win again. I happen to know otherwise. Try being a mod of a site and you'll soon find out how prevalent something's are.
How gracious of you.
You're now anti 'opt out'?
Clearly. The threat is "abort or suffer financial ruin because society does not hold me responsible for my actions". It's a very real time-pressure threat and it's an existential threat in lauding horribly unjust patriarchy.
How gracious of you.
And how disappointed he'll be.
There's no ethical reason and no law that would make a woman that's raised the child, investing her time, effort, and $, to do so.
Exactly. "Manipulate," "coerce," "influence," "incentivize," etc.
All in an attempt to convince women to act as the men would want...since the men know they cant use open or legal force when the decision is completely up to the woman....so the hope is to use coercion instead.
Heh, at least someone here has a basic understanding of the English language.
1. The Roe v Wade argument in a nutshell
....
B.) The U.S. Constitution offers no protection of "human rights". The constitution only protects the rights of a "person". The word human is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.
This argument does hold true within the confines of the United States. However, as I stated before; there are several English speaking countries in the world that allow one form of abortion or another, and that have governing doctrines that specifically use the term "human rights".
Exactly. "Manipulate," "coerce," "influence," "incentivize," etc.
All in an attempt to convince women to act as the men would want...since the men know they cant use open or legal force when the decision is completely up to the woman....so the hope is to use coercion instead.
Lots of unfortunate people turn passive aggressive once they have clearly been defeated in a debate but do not understand how or why... your posts are a classic example. The really sad part is when that defeated person attempts to use the victors argument against him. Pathetic actually.
And yet...I see no ability to refute a single thing I've written. All of which I have written in direct response to you in the past...also unrefuted.
This was a good example of your misuse of...or misunderstanding of....the word manipulation. It applies to your intent just as I've written...other people understood that.
You havent 'won' your point yet on the 'opt out' idea. It's not equal and it's not a civil right. There's been no legal foundation provided for either.
This is strange abortion topic. But what’s really strange is that it’s been highjacked by Opt Out proponents.
IMO Everything related to Child Support and 'opting out,' etc belongs in Law and Order...it's all about "proposing a new civil right" and changing family court laws.
And Bod has clearly stated it's NOT about abortion or biology.
It would also get more and/or different posters there...more exposure to different views.
I would love a men’s rights subforum - it would help with the highjackingsIMO Everything related to Child Support and 'opting out,' etc belongs in Law and Order...it's all about "proposing a new civil right" and changing family court laws.
And Bod has clearly stated it's NOT about abortion or biology.
It would also get more and/or different posters there...more exposure to different views.
I am not talking about "freedom of speech", I am talking more about people and groups being punished for opposing abortion. Should people be denied a position or government funding because they oppose abortion? Is opposing abortion as "bad" as being a white supremacist.
I will give some recent examples:
Proposed new Secretary of State (apparently) opposes abortion and several senators think that should disqualify him from being Secretary of State: Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Kamala Harris and other Dems have expressed similar concerns.
Controversial Writer Kevin Williamson was fired by the Atlantic for making anti-abortion comments. Kevin has many issues though it was not until he made these anti-abortion comments that he was fired: Kevin Williamson Explains What Happened at the Atlantic
In Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau (or his puppet masters) requires every group who gets funding for a summer jobs program sign an attestation which says they support abortion: Editorial | The Trudeau government is over-reaching on abortion and summer jobs
I myself support abortion, though I realize it is a complex issue. I do not think people should be punished for opposing it.
I am not talking about "freedom of speech", I am talking more about people and groups being punished for opposing abortion. Should people be denied a position or government funding because they oppose abortion? Is opposing abortion as "bad" as being a white supremacist.
I will give some recent examples:
Proposed new Secretary of State (apparently) opposes abortion and several senators think that should disqualify him from being Secretary of State: Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Kamala Harris and other Dems have expressed similar concerns.
Controversial Writer Kevin Williamson was fired by the Atlantic for making anti-abortion comments. Kevin has many issues though it was not until he made these anti-abortion comments that he was fired: Kevin Williamson Explains What Happened at the Atlantic
In Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau (or his puppet masters) requires every group who gets funding for a summer jobs program sign an attestation which says they support abortion: Editorial | The Trudeau government is over-reaching on abortion and summer jobs
I myself support abortion, though I realize it is a complex issue. I do not think people should be punished for opposing it.