We are a CHRISTIAN Nation!

Lorca said:
Is the skier responsible for breaking his or her leg? Only to the point of not engaging in the activity.

So again: do you believe that casual sex is irresponsible?
Click to expand...

We weren't talking about skiing and I've never known anyone who FELL into pussy or onto a dick.

Obviously I've never said that it was and you apparently are trying to make something up.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Only because you want the 50/50 to stop at the moment of conception.
Click to expand...

Not at all. A man has rights AND responsibilities after a child is born.

He has no rights over what happen in her body tho. Due to biology, that's just the way it is....cant alter that (maybe someday in the future....)

It's no secret, it's not like a man doesnt know this before deciding to have sex.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
We weren't talking about skiing and I've never known anyone who FELL into pussy or onto a dick.
Click to expand...

You have yet to explain how a woman having sex and getting pregnant is irresponsible.

And if this occurs....how is the man less responsible?


(You're not the sharpest tool in the shed if you cant make the connection between 'unintended consequences' in the analogy.)
 
ZappasGuitar said:
KJV.
Click to expand...

?????

this is the KJV
Ephesians 5:
21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
Click to expand...

maybe I should have asked you what BOOK you were quoting.....is it the Bible?.....
 
Lorca said:
You have yet to explain how a woman having sex and getting pregnant is irresponsible.

And if this occurs....how is the man less responsible?
Click to expand...


A woman who has sex is responsible if she becomes pregnant, just like a woman who grabs a tall metal pole and runs out into a thunderstorm is responsible for getting hit by lightning. You commit the act, you accept the consequences.

The man is equally responsible for the commission of the act, but for obvious biological reasons is much more capable of shirking that responsibility than a woman. Abortions serve to equalize both gender's ability to shirk; the only other logical alternative would be an iron-clad law preventing men from abandoning the women they bang and the children that result, thus negating both genders ability to shirk.

Anyone who is anti-abortion thus is anti-sexual-equality by nature, and anti-woman by nature of the fact that their conservative asses would never allow government to create the abovementioned law.
 
Essence said:
A woman who has sex is responsible if she becomes pregnant, just like a woman who grabs a tall metal pole and runs out into a thunderstorm is responsible for getting hit by lightning. You commit the act, you accept the consequences.
The man is equally responsible for the commission of the act, but for obvious biological reasons is much more capable of shirking that responsibility than a woman. Abortions serve to equalize both gender's ability to shirk; the only other logical alternative would be an iron-clad law preventing men from abandoning the women they bang and the children that result, thus negating both genders ability to shirk.
Click to expand...

Sterilize both parties in exchange for taking the unwanted baby off their hands...?
 
Because the only entity capable of enforcing such a transaction is the gobblement, and forcing people to become sterile is pretty much the ultimate violation of their rights over their ultimate form of property: their bodies. It's almost the pinnacle of anti-Libertarian ideal.
 
Essence said:
Because the only entity capable of enforcing such a transaction is the gobblement, and forcing people to become sterile is pretty much the ultimate violation of their rights over their ultimate form of property: their bodies. It's almost the pinnacle of anti-Libertarian ideal.
Click to expand...

How so?

If irresponsible breeders want to be rid of the troublesome fruit of their coupling, their sterilization will be voluntary.
 
Ah, right. I misunderstood the concept behind "in exchange for". That's a good idea, actually. :) It still leaves you with all of those people who wouldn't accept the deal, in which case you'll have exactly the same problem minus the percentage of the people who took the deal...but for that small percentage, it's a great idea.
 
Lorca said:
Not at all. A man has rights AND responsibilities after a child is born.

He has no rights over what happen in her body tho. Due to biology, that's just the way it is....cant alter that (maybe someday in the future....)

It's no secret, it's not like a man doesnt know this before deciding to have sex.
Click to expand...


And once again you do nothing but make excuses for women.
I guess after all this time, some women don't feel that women should have the same right of responsibility. :palm:
 
Lorca said:
You have yet to explain how a woman having sex and getting pregnant is irresponsible.

And if this occurs....how is the man less responsible?


(You're not the sharpest tool in the shed if you cant make the connection between 'unintended consequences' in the analogy.)
Click to expand...

Since the act of sex has a greater chance of conception, then hitting a tree while skiing, calling it an "unintended consequence" is just another way of admitting that women aren't responsible enough to take care of themselves. :palm:
 
Essence said:
A woman who has sex is responsible if she becomes pregnant, just like a woman who grabs a tall metal pole and runs out into a thunderstorm is responsible for getting hit by lightning. You commit the act, you accept the consequences.

The man is equally responsible for the commission of the act, but for obvious biological reasons is much more capable of shirking that responsibility than a woman. Abortions serve to equalize both gender's ability to shirk; the only other logical alternative would be an iron-clad law preventing men from abandoning the women they bang and the children that result, thus negating both genders ability to shirk.

Anyone who is anti-abortion thus is anti-sexual-equality by nature, and anti-woman by nature of the fact that their conservative asses would never allow government to create the abovementioned law.
Click to expand...

Actually, I blame the lightning, because you should never hit a woman!
 
Lorca said:
heh heh heh heh

And this right here ^^^^ is core to the discussion for many men. Awwww, that's just too bad. If you want power, figure out how to bear the fetuses yourselves.
Click to expand...

You phony magic Christian, you're as phony as a three dollar bill.

The only way any man can have children is through a committed marriage and "planned children only" makes the man a bit playing second avenue shorty in the family scheme of things. Of course I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.
 
evince said:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/28/us/te...eed&utm_campaign=Feed:+rss/cnn_us+(RSS:+U.S.)



and you wrong.

Move to some country were women are more like chattle
Click to expand...

I already told you twice that abortion is federal law and I can't do anything about it. Roe vs. Wade was unconstitutional law that invented some non existing privacy clause in the constitution that your people used to get it legalized federally. At that time, several states were getting ready to legalize it in the first place when you pushed it on the country. But it's federal law and I have to obey it but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
 
Lorca said:
I would love it if you started a thread on why men get married, because I dont know why. I think most are crazy to do so until they are actually want to reproduce.


But otherwise, you are just distracting from the subject at hand. And if abortion helps women achieve a more EQUAL role in society, how is that a bad thing? (There, back on track but Philly wont answer).
Click to expand...

I already told you why because AOD, not abortion per say and I want to make that clear distinction gives total power in the relationship to the woman and almost 0 power to the man in the relationship which it is designed to do when it comes to procreation. Now are you all done acting now with this goody two shoes yarn of yours going on and on endlessly on this thread about women's reproductive rights and are you finally ready to admit that this is what AOD actually does in society which is what it is intended to do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top