TX Sen Wendy Davis currently in 11th hour of filibuster

[BwareDWare94 723]

You keep beating around the bush. In your world, what do you do if one wants an abortion, and the other doesn't?

 

Then it's born. Aborting a fetus should have to be a unanimous decision within the couple.

[blotsfan 2,112]

So you think a man should be allowed to force a woman to go through the labor process as well as raise a child she does not want at all.

What if she has slept with multiple men? I don't think you can test in the womb. Should all possible fathers have to approve an abortion?

What if she's a rich woman and the man she slept with tries to extort her with his approval?

What if the woman doesn't remember who the person she had sex with was and doesn't know how to go about contacting him?

What if the man decides he doesn't want to be a part of the woman/child's life, but won't sign his consent about getting an abortion?

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Haha, logged in to like 5 new negs today in this thread and thought I'd said something offensive or unpopular but it's just Cardinal acting like a jackass.

 

Anyway, SB2 passed last night. Likely to be challenged in court soon.

[BwareDWare94 723]

So you think a man should be allowed to force a woman to go through the labor process as well as raise a child she does not want at all.

What if she has slept with multiple men? I don't think you can test in the womb. Should all possible fathers have to approve an abortion?

What if she's a rich woman and the man she slept with tries to extort her with his approval?

What if the woman doesn't remember who the person she had sex with was and doesn't know how to go about contacting him?

What if the man decides he doesn't want to be a part of the woman/child's life, but won't sign his consent about getting an abortion?

 

You don't think there'd be exceptions? I'd take #5 as legitimate reasoning, but everything else is hardly provable. How many of those situations are truly likely?

 

Aside from that, each of those scenarios are pretty much the result of not being careful enough which highlights my point about responsibility. In every other aspect of life, we are held 100% accountable. Hopefully the time comes when sexuality is held with the same expectations.

 

This isn't about religion, for me. It's about accountability.

 

Also, the rich woman option would be hilarious because of all the times women have slept with rich men and then kept their babies so they'd have deeper pockets.

 

Testing in the womb is possible, IIRC, but it's much more dangerous.

Edited July 13, 2013 by BwareDWare94

[blotsfan 2,112]

You don't think there'd be exceptions? I'd take #5 as legitimate reasoning, but everything else is hardly provable. How many of those situations are truly likely?

 

Aside from that, each of those scenarios are pretty much the result of not being careful enough which highlights my point about responsibility. In every other aspect of life, we are held 100% accountable. Hopefully the time comes when sexuality is held with the same expectations.

 

This isn't about religion, for me. It's about accountability.

 

Also, the rich woman option would be hilarious because of all the times women have slept with rich men and then kept their babies so they'd have deeper pockets.

 

Testing in the womb is possible, IIRC, but it's much more dangerous.

A women sleeping with a lot of guys? Seems about as likely as a man sleeping with a lot of women. This is the 21st century. We're supposed to be beyond this stupid "women have to be a pure flowery virgin" bullshit.

 

And I agree that women people should be responsible. Always wear a condom when having sex, know your partner and all that stuff. In a perfect world, everyone would do all that. But thats not the world we live in. It never was and it never will be. We should make laws that cater to how the world is in practice. We as a society are better off with women not having children they dont want and can not take care of.

 

And in-womb testing needs the man's blood.. What if the men don't give it?

 

And your comment about rich women fully betrays you as an idiot. Does anyone think that golddiggers are ok? No. Why should we encourage it more? If there was a way to prevent female gold diggers from having the kid that didn't involve traumatic torture (an unwanted abortion) I think everyone would be for it. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

Basically, the woman has to carry the baby to term. Thats why its her choice. Its not ideal, but there is no better solution.

[BwareDWare94 723]

A women sleeping with a lot of guys? Seems about as likely as a man sleeping with a lot of women. This is the 21st century. We're supposed to be beyond this stupid "women have to be a pure flowery virgin" bullshit.

 

And I agree that women people should be responsible. Always wear a condom when having sex, know your partner and all that stuff. In a perfect world, everyone would do all that. But thats not the world we live in. It never was and it never will be. We should make laws that cater to how the world is in practice. We as a society are better off with women not having children they dont want and can not take care of.

 

And in-womb testing needs the man's blood.. What if the men don't give it?

 

And your comment about rich women fully betrays you as an idiot. Does anyone think that golddiggers are ok? No. Why should we encourage it more? If there was a way to prevent female gold diggers from having the kid that didn't involve traumatic torture (an unwanted abortion) I think everyone would be for it. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

Basically, the woman has to carry the baby to term. Thats why its her choice. Its not ideal, but there is no better solution.

 

You didn't need to take that seriously.

 

And I avoided gender terms because I think the sexes should be equally responsible for conceptions.

 

And as far as having sex with multiple partners, perhaps the world is better off without all the idots breeding.

[CARDINAL 205]

Haha, logged in to like 5 new negs today in this thread and thought I'd said something offensive or unpopular but it's just Cardinal acting like a jackass.

 

Anyway, SB2 passed last night. Likely to be challenged in court soon.

 

How am I acting like a "jackass" when I happen to just fundamentally disagree with you on this, and happen to agree with people like Thantos, Bware, etc who think that abortion should only be allowed in certain circumstances?

 

I think your being the arrogant one by asking why "we can't get beyond the debate between the life of the fetus and the mother aborting that living fetus". That is the whole fuckin point of the debate.

 

SB2 is not unconstitutional in any regard. Abortion is not a fundamental right, it is something that has been allowed by gross legislating from the bench via the Supreme Court in the early 1970's.

Edited July 14, 2013 by CARDINAL

[blotsfan 2,112]

 

And as far as having sex with multiple partners, perhaps the world is better off without all the idots breeding.

what better way to prevent that than letting the "idiots" get an abortion?

[BwareDWare94 723]

what better way to prevent that than letting the "idiots" get an abortion?

 

Morons breed early and often. It's a sad fact of our reality in this life. I'm sure you've seen it with those around you, but that doesn't mean we should allow the termination of an organism with a heartbeat. I actually like the abortion prior to the detection of a heartbeat idea.

Edited July 14, 2013 by BwareDWare94

[blotsfan 2,112]

I'm really confused. I don't why you even brought up the point about people breeding in the first place

[BwareDWare94 723]

I'm really confused. I don't why you even brought up the point about people breeding in the first place

 

Typing fast when I made the post; had to leave. I regret it, too, because there's really no way to display what I mean with statistics, etc. IMO, it's one of those known things about our world that's observable, but not necessary known fact.

[Maverick 791]

Typing fast when I made the post; had to leave. I regret it, too, because there's really no way to display what I mean with statistics, etc. IMO, it's one of those known things about our world that's observable, but not necessary known fact.

 

-sarcasm alert- Nonsense. You're not allowed to use common sense or observations.

 

Everything said must be backed by statistics. Statistics are always 100% fact and never manipulated to represent the side you're arguing for.

[BwareDWare94 723]

-sarcasm alert- Nonsense. You're not allowed to use common sense or observations.

 

Everything said must be backed by statistics. Statistics are always 100% fact and never manipulated to represent the side you're arguing for.

 

No kidding, right?

 

Can't say that the sky appears blue without a legitimate source or somebody shits a kitten these days (not necessarily at this site, but on the interwebz, overall).

[blotsfan 2,112]

The direction of this conversation has escaped me. I don't see anyone criticizing you for not using statistics. It just seems like you bringing that up helps my point more than yours (unsurprising since my viewpoint is the correct one).

[Maverick 791]

I was merely making a comment in regards to BWare's last statement regarding statistics. Wasn't directly related to your discussion necessarily.

 

You're not an advocate of the quote button, are you? This isn't directly related to the discussion either in case you get confused again.