Unfortunately you've demonstrated clearly that you're not interested in substantive discussion of the issue. I don't care to discuss issues with parrots.
That's bs. A man is as much a father to an unborn child the day before it's born as his pregnant spouse is the mother to that child the day before it's born. Regardless, the quandry I stated remains. Unless you're going with the babies come from storks view, the day that a woman becomes pregnant a man's parental responsibility is locked in. No duh the child isn't born the day it's conceived, you're quibbling. You still support the woman being able to free herself of her parental responsibility during that nine month window before the child is born, but you deny the man that same opportunity. That's sexist.
First drop the straw men. Its intellectually shallow. But so is trying to define the issue in such an absurdly narrow way that you should not have to deal with the glaringly obvious double standard. An expectant mother can relieve herself of that 18 year burden, you don't support an expectant father's choice. Quibbling to dodge the heart of the issue is just shallow.
I disagree with your entire premise. My thoughts are my own and not based on the thoughts, views, or support of others. I align myself with no one as I am expressing my opinion independent from those would agree or disagree with me. Perhaps you do not understand independent thought and have to connect it to some movement/politics/theology... I am not shackled by such petty ambitions... as it is those shackles that best represent the box of contained thinking. For example I am for same sex marriage. Is it because I am part of a movement that seeks to legalize gay marriage? Nope. Is it because I have been influenced by a side? Nope. I am for gay marriage because of my independent view of morality. Gays having sex does not hurt me or others. Gays getting married does not hurt me or others. I support same sex marriage because it does not hurt anybody. I do not allow others to think for me and any views I have that are in common with others is just incidental. You will never be able to understand my position until you can see past your own. The above quote is just your "interpretation" of my argument. Sometimes in life views are in such opposition that an understanding is not possible as it would require a new mindset to see.
You're right...some views are too far apart, too different, too"outside the box" that one cannot address a challenge to them.
If you are going to claim a strawman then at least provide the evidence of it .. exactly where have I ignored your actual position and substituted a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position .. i'll wait. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html What you have done is called deflection The only thing that is intellectually shallow is your inability to accept that your assertion is wrong and that I have in no way shown any anti-man tendencies. I have categorically stated that the individual choice of whether to continue a pregnancy or not applies equal to both men and women, and so the question - which you have tried to evade - still remains. why are you advocating super rights for the fetus?
Really? Follow the arguments dude, it's in the post I quoted in my last post. I was obviously talking about a man's 18 yr obligations, which you continually ignore. And the bit about super fetus rights is a tall straw man. And see, you just did it again. I know that you know HOW to read, but do yourself a favor and actually take the time to read and comprehend what you are responding to and what is NOT in what you're responding to. If you comprehend what I just said, I think you'll get why the second part of your last post was just one huge straw man.
Right I have read through everyone of your posts on this topic and the only time you mentioned the 18 year obligation is when you state "First, everyone knows that what we're actually discussing here is the choice to be free of parental responsibility.", not a single mention of that in any other post proceeding, so my response to you is in no way a strawman, it is you who has made the assumption of what was being discussed .. I suggest you look at the thread title in order to see what the debate is really about. Is it, do you or do you not want to remove the right of a women by weight of law to decide who, what, where and when her body is physically used by another in order to sustain its life. If yes then you are granted a right to the fetus that no other person has ie a super-right. It's easy to call a strawman when you don't really have a intelligent answer. Deflection Oh I comprehend that you are attempting to deflect. So show my anti-man comments please (if you can) and then stop deflecting.
No, just pay attention to the posts of mine that you quote - but if you didn't read it before now, as you suggest, then I'm really not shocked. Your responses since have suggested as much. 1. I never said fetus, nor did I say at what point. Just because I point out holes in your thinking doesn't mean that I must hold to the straw man you'd like to make. 2. You've got to reconcile your statements, you've made contradicting statements whenever it's convenient for you. Either the unborn child is never a human until the moment it is born [which you said in post #599], or it is a person before it's born, as you just stated. And in case you'd like to quibble over your previous statements, the statement "...that no other person has..." indicates that the fetus is a person. 3. Requiring a parent to use their body for the child's sake once the child has reached personhood - we do that all the time. People use their bodies to earn their money, and feeding children will always require direct or indirect use of the parent's body. Your rationale would mean that legally requiring parents to provide food for their babies=baby holding parents hostage. It's ludicrous, but that is what follows from your rationale. Inconsistent statements quibbling over that will not change that fact. lol! look dude, if you're going to insinuate stupidity on the part of another poster, check your grammar and spelling first! grow up and learn to stop with the straw men again, grow up. stop using straw men, and I'll stop telling you that you're doing so. There's no onus on me to waste my time defending straw men. You're for giving a right to expectant mothers - to relieve themselves of the 18yr burden of parenthood before it starts (according to your earlier statement that the unborn are not people, and do not constitute a person until after born) - but you would deny that option of freedom to a man. No matter how you try quibbling over terms, the effectually facts of the matter are clear: you'll give women the right to relieve themselves of the obligation of parenthood before the child is born, but you'll deny that to the father.
I have and again you make only one mention of this 18 year thing, and I guess I'm not really shocked at your lack of honesty in that fact. 1. No strawman made, that is just your attempt to deflect. 2. It indicates that way of thinking for a pro-life person who claims there is a 'person' at conception, and is why the argument is phrased that way .. hence the title of the topic being "A Challenge to Pro-lifers", were it a challenge to ALL people the title and question would not have been phrased the way it was, as you obviously missed the title it is no surprise that you are forming assumptions. 3. So by your so called logic then, once a person donates blood etc to another they are legally required to provide again in the future .. a ridiculous idea, and again there is no legal requirement for a person to use their body to make money in order to sustain their offspring .. if there is then please do cite that law here and now. Ah yes, the last refuge of those who have no intelligent argument to offer .. attack the person for their spelling and grammar. .. how quaint. grow up and stop trying to deflect again grow up and stop deflecting, and I'll stop telling you that you're doing so .. personally I think you need to actually look up and comprehend what a strawman is, once you have done that perhaps you can explain where I have simply ignored you position and substituted a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. Not in the slightest, if that is how you wish to view it then I would say it is you creating the strawman as I have been perfectly clear on my position from the start, and that position is that a woman has the right to decide how, when, where and what uses her body .. which is exactly the same right that EVERY other born person has, so why are you ignoring that position? If, as pro-lifers like to think, there is a person at conception then logically the male should and would be responsible for 50% of any costs incurred to the woman during the pregnancy .. does that happen? If, as I like to think, there is no person until birth then logically the male has no responsibility until birth, and that is exactly how it stands in law now .. furthermore if there is no person until birth then the fetus is nothing more than the 'property' of the woman and as such she can do what ever she likes. By granting a fetus personhood you would also be granting it a right that no other person has, the right to use and live inside another human being .. that is a super-right, in the meantime you also revoke a woman's right to body autonomy and thus lessen her position against her peers.
Prove that abortion is necessary. You always say, "that's just your assumption/opinion". When you say that, you jump through hoops to justify your beliefs (as unifier said.) It's a strawman arguement. - - - Updated - - - In history class, I learned that if a person is drafted into the army during a wartime situation, they are legally required to fight in the war, even if they don't want to fight.
High school history isn't all it's supposed to be Try post 351....as if you din't know that this has been discussed in depth throught this thread.....
Fugazi claims that abortion is a nessecary procedure, but that's just his opinion that he can't prove.
I was addressing your misconception about the draft. But as far as "but that's just his opinion that he can't prove. "...YOU are the master at that....HE has proved every word he has posted...
Unlike you I don't presume to know what is necessary for another person, I accept that to them an abortion is necessary, and I'd suggest you actually learn what a strawman argument is .. perhaps it would stop you doing it in future. nope, look up conscientious objectors, and while you are at it check to see if military law applies to civilians. For what it is worth I firmly believe that the draft should be deemed unconstitutional and illegal. what you fail to understand is that the requirement to register for the draft is a civilian law .. under that law there is no means for a person to register that they are a conscientious objector, you can only claim that status when or if your are actually drafted and then you are subject to military law, not civilian law. - - - Updated - - - Quote where I state that please.
Why would an abortion be nessecary for a woman? because it's more convenient than adoption! lol. another example of u jumping through hoops to justify the despicable act of abortion. - - - Updated - - - you implied it on this thread, in your response to my comment.
Foxhastings said that you know everything. He's putting you on the level of God. (sort of like how kanye calls himself god.)
As I said and you ignored, unlike you I don't presume to know what is necessary for another person, I accept that to them an abortion is necessary. Could be, but there again unless you know precisely why every single woman has had an abortion you are doing nothing but projecting your assumption. BTW I kind of like your new standard Sam response (number 40 I think it is) as all it does is show your inability to address the comments made. Again this is just your opinion, it may be despicable to you that does not mean you get to decide for other people. I implied nothing of a sort, and if you think that was what I implied then the correct response would be to state that you think I am implying something not to post a comment stating that I did say it, to state it as if I actually said it is nothing more than misrepresentation and basically a lie.
Yet again you are stating something as a fact when it is not Show me in Fox's comment where he states that I know everything, why do you have to misrepresent and lie about what people post?
If you lie and/or misrepresent what I posted again I will report you. I know you have a strong aversion to facts but enough already!
