“Sluts Vote” I guess for Democrats...

LOL .. feel free

 

Come on now Zos .. you know you have no response other than religion to the arguments presented in support of my position.

The woman has the ability not to let the "Fire" in her belly rage on and the man has no say in the matter should she wish otherwise.

It is the womans responsibility if she "chooses" to have the child.

Welcome to the modern world where a woman can vote, speak freely and chose whether or not she wants a pregnancy to continue to term.

Either you are for liberty or against it so choose.

 

And you would be right as to punishment. What we are discussing is responsibility which you obviously, though falsely, equate with punishment. In your example the shooter, while not going to jail, will still be held financially responsible. A glance at some high profile cases including murder will bear that out. Found not guilty but still has to pay. In our discussion guilt is not an issue, the action being admitted, and therefore responsibility would be a given.

 

Does this mean that Democrats support slut walks? They support perversion display (gay pride) parades.

 

If the man takes no action on his part to ensure that a pregnancy won't occur then yes he is negligent. And even if he does and for whatever reason it doesn't work then yes he should be held responsible. His choice to engage in the act which caused the pregnancy in the first place mitigates any argument involving fairness or reasonableness. Why you continue to argue that the man should not be held accountable for the results arising from an action to which he was a party is indefensible.

 

Women (and men) always have a choice to either engage in sex or not, assuming the willingness of each to do so. "Whether she agreed to it or not." simply refers to the pregnancy itself.

 

It's religion that says that when sperm meets egg it makes a baby? Which religion is that?

She has the ability, sure, but it doesn't mean that means that men don't have a choice. Men know that women have this ability and then still choose to engage in sexual intercourse or not.

Life is not always filled with fair outcomes. If it were fair everyone who works hard would have a million bucks. The fact is that both parties have the equal opportunity to have sex or not. If you know the potential outcomes--all of them--then there is no excuse later. This has everything to do with liberty because I trust individual men to get a vasectomy or wear a rubber or both to protect themselves from disease and unintended pregnancies. If/when they don't then I believe in their individual responsibility to deal with the various outcomes of their actions.

That's liberty, dude.

 

And? This sounds like whining to me.

Let's talk intended reproduction for a moment... Men get to choose to have the fun part of sexual reproduction and women do not. Is that fair that her body be ravaged and she go through intense pain and then at the end they share in the result?

Not everything in life is equally fair. Smart people do better in school. Should we lower educational standards because someone people aren't as intelligent.

Ron Paul? They're like the same person.

Were you drunk posting last night? What do I have to do with NOW?

 

I'd personally pay for Fluke's birth control to prevent further pollution of the gene pool.

 

This is the problem with the liberal mentality:

Goldwater thinks money magically materializes out of thin air and ends up in the coffers of insurance companies so they can pay the pharmaceutical companies for contraception, and you, gamewell45, assume that somehow other citizens are responsible for Fluke's irresponsible behavior, therefore our only two choices are whether to prevent a pregnancy or pay the resultant child's upbringing. Please take a moment Goldwater to realize that the insurance companies' money (and all money for that matter) is ultimately the product of someone's labor. And gamewell45, how about a third choice where Fluke and everyone else is responsible for their own behavior?

 

Funny how double standards work isn't it. One person has a right to choose while the other doesn't.

There is that double standard again. Men didn't setup the reproductive system. Blame God or nature or whatever you believe made it come about. The process of reproduction has nothing to do with it.

What does this really mean? You could say the same about the woman who wants an abortion but she is not allowed to get one: "Sorry honey, life isn't fair."

Have the actual quote with source or do you choose to remain vague on purpose?

Hungover today? Where did I say you did?

 

They both made the choice to have sex. No double standard there. Like the stock market men have to assume the risks of that interaction, both that she could get pregnant and that she could abort it. Don't treat grown men like babies. Let them be adults and wear the man pants. Any ******m human in their right mind can evaluate risks, they choose not to.

Why would I blame men for the reproduction mechanisms, men aren't gods--well, aside from Chris Hemsworth they're not gods. I mean, he's sorta a god and I would have a million babies with him if he wanted me to--ooops. Ahem. Sorry.

I do say this to women who say that its wrong for a female to have to drive to another state to get an abortion. Life's not always fair. You knew when you had sex this could happen.

You want a Ron Paul quote? or Jefferson? Let's see which is which

“We need to understand the more government spends, the more freedom is lost...Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget should exist at all.”

“If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as a sorry state as the souls who live under tyranny.”

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.”

“When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.”

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

“Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.”

Not now, but...

You brought up NOW in context with me. I'm not going to quibble like certain other posters who waste threads mincing words. You shouldn't have pulled NOW into the argument when I have nothing to do with their polices. I am an individual.

 

Do you not understand how anything works? Neither the govt nor insurance companies PAY for anything. WE, the policyholder and/or the taxpayer do the paying. The insurance companies and the govt only PROCESS the payments at an outrageous fee.

Plus INSURANCE is a TRANSFER OF RISK. Insurance was never intended to pay for known, recurring expenses. It is this kind of coverage that has made insurance so expensive. POLITICIANS have regulated insurance companies for decades. Longer than most on this forum have been alive. It IS politicians that, in the pursuit of more votes, bastardized insurance into the outrageous expense it is today. There is no risk in birth control. A woman chooses to use it or she chooses to not use it. If she chooses to use it, SHE has decided to take on a FIXED EXPENSE. No different than her shampoo, deodorant or toothpaste. Neither insurance nor govt should be paying for birth control.

Some say Fluke the Fony's birth control would cost $9 per month. Fluke the Phony says it costs $3000 per year.

Doesn't matter who is right.

If it does cost $9.00, then the insurer MUST charge much more than $108. more per year.

If $3000 is correct, then the premium MUST be much higher than $3000. MORE per year.

There are NO freebies in life. Never have been, never will be.

Women can eat birth control pills like M&M's if they want to. Just don't ask me to pay for them.

The Dems claim that Republicans have a war against women is hokum. But the Dems war on GOD and the Dems war on Israel are both obviously real.

 

Who's treating men like babies? Sure they both made the choice to have sex and if a child results they should BOTH have the right to make the choice to be a parent. What is wrong with that?

You keep repeating they both had a choice to have sex as if that means something. I agree, they BOTH made that choice.

Then how can you hold men responsible for how nature is set up. Having a child via the old fashioned way requires a man and a woman. It isn't the man's fault that nature is set up so as the woman carries the child. If she can choose if she wants to be a parent then the man should have the same right.

At least they have that option.

What do these random quotes have to do with anything?

I merely was showing an example of double standard thinking and hypocrisy. Yanno, how women want equality but then they don't want it across the board. They want the right to choose not to be a parent but when the topic of a man having the same right is suggested they get in a tizzy. hmm, and that doesn't have anything to do with you? Yeah right....

 

First off .. the shooter example is not a good one.
Second .. Punishment is based on responsibility .. The shooter from your example would not have to pay anything unless there was negligence involved.

Third .. you did not address the main arguments I presented. Quit picking out one liners and taking them out of context.

Fourth: This is the third time I have had to repost ... .. this time I have bolded the main point .. in case you did not get it the first two times.

No one is questioning what the courts have ruled. The question here is what is right and what is wrong.

State that you have no justification of your own in support of your case and that you want to defer to the courts but do stop committing the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.

Now .. would you like to state how you figure that the man is responsible or not ?

 

Quit taking single sentences out of my posts and commenting on them like the rest of my post does not exist.

If you pay attention would realize that you have just committed the same fallacy in your post above that was explained to you in the post you selected one line from.

Once again .. since you did not get it the first time. Pregnancy (the single cell at conception) is not a baby.

The question here is "who should be responsible for the Baby" not .. "who is responsible for the pregnancy".

These are two separate things. Your assumption that they are not is a LOGICAL FALLACY unless you can show otherwise. "Assuming the Premise" .. in this case.

Your premise is that Pregnancy necessarily = a Baby and this is just not true.

 

Are YOU and the Republicanism saying women don't have the right to gatehr together and walk down the street dressed any LEGAL way she wishes?

What am I asking? What a FOOLISH question! Of COURSE the Right wishes to control women and ORDER them how to dress and act!

 

They had that choice prior to (*)(*)(*)(*)ing. Once penis is in vagina...alea iact est. Saying that the man should have the exact same set of post-sex choices is ridiculous without the same physiology.

Lucky for men, they can choose just not to have sex. That's safest.

It means everything unless you're denying that sex is the only way a baby can be made. Like I guess if you believe you can make one out of clay and then sprinkle pixie dust on it...well, maybe I guess in fantasyland babies can be made differently. Where I'm from we have a legend of a couple that made a baby out of snow, Snegourka, but...I didn't really buy that then...

Maybe you do?

Whose holding men responsible for what? They both chose they were going to be parents by having sexy times. Some women choose to be the mother of a dead baby instead of a live one. They're kinda (*)(*)(*)(*)ty like that, but...

Men can kill themselves if they don't want to be a father, I guess. They have that option. Life's filled with a lot of options...maybe they could rob a bank and get a felony conviction. They'll never have to see the kid again. See how awesome life is?

They have to do with me throwing in Ron Paul and Thomas Jefferson quotes because I like to.

I think men do have the right to decide whether or not to be a parent. See above.

 

The Catholic concept is called "ensoulment" that it is at conception that the soul is imparted and thus a person exists.
Numerous other religious groups teach that a baby exists at conception .. give me a break.

Men do not have a choice in whether or not to let the "fire in the belly" burn. This is the womans choice.

What you have not done is address the issue of "neglegence" on the part of the woman.

The man is partly responsible for the pregnancy but a pregnancy is not a child.

It is the woman who choses whether or not the pregnancy results in a child. .. not the man.

Wrong again .. the potential out come of sex is "pregnancy" .. you keep making the same fallacy "assuming the premise"

A pregnancy is not a baby and nor does pregnancy necessarily lead to a baby.

If you have told the man "I expect you to not get me pregnant .. by whatever means .. and if you do get me pregnent I am not having an abortion" then Yes .. the man is responsible.

If you have not said that .. then it is you who is responsible.

What about the case where the woman states that she will have an abortion but decides not to after the fact ? Definately the man should not be held responsible in this case.

 

We're speaking of how babies are made, not how my church defines ensoulment. Both the physical and spiritual, with one notable exception, occur after two people decided to make the choice to have SEX.

They have the choice not to have sex with someone who doesn't share their belief system. Or are men so weak they cannot control themselves around women or so stupid they can't ask if the woman is pro-choice or not, or if the woman is ready for a baby and would abort one if pregnant?

Men have to make their choice early, but they still have a choice. They also have a choice after to not act like a father. It's not a good choice, but it happens.

I've addressed negligence on both parts. You decided to have sex or not have sex.

Pregnancy is a child covered in amniotic fluid, placenta, muscle and skin.

Not true. Here's how the man does it.

Responsible Man: So, what were the results of your HIV test? Hmmm hmmmm. By the way, I'm pro-life, how do you feel about abortion should I get you knocked up with the babies? WHAT? You're pro-choice? Sorry Olivia Munn, but despite your hotness I cannot put my penis in your pro-choice vagina.

See how easy that is?

Pregnancy is just the gestation of a fetus-baby. Quibble quibble we both know what I mean.

No, she could lose the baby, true, but...without sex, without pregnancy there is no baby so that argument stands. You don't want to be a dad? Don't (*)(*)(*)(*) anyone. Use your hand.

Dude, you don't have a mouth to ask those questions? Why should other people be responsible for YOU?

Is your mouth super-glued? You can't ask those questions and more? You should also be asking about disease today, too. Quit being irresponsible.

People know that people can change their minds, so they should find someone of constant character. Or...quit gambling with the baby making game.

 

No .. you asked a specific question in relation to religion.

They have the choice not to have sex with someone who doesn't share their belief system. Or are men so weak they cannot control themselves around women or so stupid they can't ask if the woman is pro-choice or not, or if the woman is ready for a baby and would abort one if pregnant?

Men have to make their choice early, but they still have a choice. They also have a choice after to not act like a father. It's not a good choice, but it happens.
I've addressed negligence on both parts. You decided to have sex or not have sex.

.

Wrong. You have not shown that the single cell at conception is "a human, nor is it a baby, a child"

Your argument assuming that a pregnancy is necessarily a child is thus a logical fallacy.

Further, since science and logic do not show that the single cell at conception is a human/child/baby, the only arguments left come from religion.

There is no "baby" in the early stages of pregnancy.

Now I realize why you have the beliefs that you do. Now that you know your beliefs are based on fallacy .. you should change them.

OK .. assume that the questions were asked. If the questions were asked, and the woman answered that she would have an abortion in the case of pregnancy, then it is her responsibility that a child results from the pregnancy.

Sure people can change their minds but this has no bearning on responsibility.

Try taking a mortgage out on a house and then a few months later going back and telling the seller of the house and the bank " I changed my mind".

You are still responsible. (Please do try and figure some stuff out for yourself in the future)

 

What was my specific question? Reread you'll see I was being snarky.

 

Someone much more qualified than I answered that question many pages back...to you in fact:

Your argument that the man has no responsibility is false. Hell, even you know it.

 

Polish sex manual:
<IN,
OUT>
Repeat if necessary.