Should men have a say in abortion ?

?

note churches make THE MOST MONEY in the usa and pay no tax
so there is clearly a cash motivation of profit for them to take moral control of laws and society.
no different to a gambling and alcohol addict trying to buy a casino

is it ok ?(how does society define these things and regulate them?)
can they run the casino as a church so they pay no tax ?
can all the alcohol be served to those paying club membership fees to avoid alcohol regulations and laws
so they can feed the addicts of greed ?

conflation of the irony of moral deceit
who were the first anti-war protesters ?
women !
did they declare they owned the bodys of the men and that the state was not allowed to use their bodys for war and allow them to be killed ?
no !
... ?
where is your morality sitting ?
does it feel comfortable ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually that is kind of an interesting tangent ..... does this open attitude to abortion arise from a systemic attitude to disregard for life in general that appears to be rampant in our contemporary society? If something as elementary and non- intrusive as choosing dietary alternatives to those other than those that arrive courtesy of a slaughter house is not taken very seriously, how serious can one expect such a civilization to treat the issue of sanctity of life in general?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Relevance?
(Although I would beg to differ that it is churches that drive the American economy .... There may be plenty of disagreement in the world of finance pundits, but none of them appear to talk about churches as the big players in shaping their reality)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, you weren't.
You were talking about a father abandoning his parental responsibilities for a born child.

His responsibilities for a born child are no greater than the mothers, and there is no fairness in absolving him of them.

That's only because she's the one who is pregnant. He has the same rights, if he's pregnant - it's all fair.

That's hardly "fair" to the woman. She has incurred great cost and risk, he has done nothing comparable.

The question was: "So?"
- - - -

The inability to write grammatical English when cornered in an argument is a field mark of the fundie Christian on these forums.
As one learns in basic composition classes, such language often marks dishonesty and bad faith - an attempt to insinuate something one is unwilling to state clearly.

 

excellent question

push button violence

the developmentally stunted tween-ager in an adults body

conflated ego-centric materialistic self actualization driving the addict to feed its self

while the question seems almost pedestrian, the real conversation is vastly complex and densely connected to soo many other aspects of the self in its community it makes it highly problematic to discuss.

free contraceptive medications and service for all girls and women as confidential and a civil human right would eliminate the problem of abortion from the average citizens need to morally obsess over another persons reality.

moral self actualization by proxy as an addiction being fed with lust is the common norm.

people who are anti girls getting free and confidential medical treatment is a HUGE problem.

 

church groups are in it to make money off the anti abortion issue.
it is their ability to gain free advertising and try to gain more money donations, free publicity and gain more money paying members while taking control of political positions of power.

that is NORMAL in the usa

 

And this is distinct from their detractors, who don't seek the media limelight to further their cause, nor seek increased funding and membership, nor engineer ways to secure political representation?

 

pro choice clearly and openly do not seek personal wealth or personal-power-over-others-bodys-or-sexual-activitys by their declared support and position to anti-abortionista's, whom are the kum-ba-yah sexual fascists seeking to hand their freedom and money to the church group as a political entity that pays no tax & demand they take your rights and give them to their church group.


what are you talking about ?

 

I am talking about there being no way to coordinate many people efficiently without organization, and there is no way to sustain organization without funds, media and so forth.
Far from it to criticize one's opponents for being organized, I think, as far as this subject goes, its only warranted to criticize one's opponents if they are NOT organized. If they are not organized, it would seem to suggest they are bringing nothing but a puerile form of anarchy.

If there is a disagreement between parties, its more productive to focus on that rather than dig for worms.

 

Why are you defending the dishonest "pro-life" faction?

 

the parties and disagreement never existed until a group of people wanted to own womens bodys. then rallied tax dodger religious groups to make it a camp fire kum-ba-ya sing-song fairy tale to sell to small children to indoctrinate them to be their tithe wage slaves for life & proxy moral soldiers.
thats morally bankrupt

if you wish to reduce the contents to define pure parties, there are only 2
the pregnant women
the pregnant womens advisor (doctor)

no one else gets a say in the matter but the women.
unless you advocate Stalinist medical fascism ... ?

your hints at ass-kissing-classicism seems a little poorly placed.
you may need to tweak that propaganda game play.

kum ba yah baby lamb, we are eating your leg
kum ba yah mother pig, we are eating your baby
...
woah no marriage equality... no gay sex kum ba yah ...

is there a different song i have not mentioned ?

maybe the "family values bi-racial marriage abortion act" ?

"im a let you wall my vagina"
...
why are mexican waves banned in American stadiums ?
because wall-mart would not pay for them

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I did not say they were. Dependence as a prerequisite of existence is not evil or abhorrent; it merely means it's not possible to separate them into two independent entities.

 

I could ask "Why do you ask loaded questions?", but it would just be rhetorical since everyone, yourself included, knows the answer.

 

Which is, as mentioned, a type of relationship at the core of civilized society.

 

Yes.
For one thing, it is based on lies and slanders and bad faith - including blood libel.

The detractors are essentially honest people, and that difference is significant.

 

So your main gripe is that your opponents need to adopt a more ethical organisational model?

 

By loaded question, you mean one with actual content? Because it's the only kind I'm interested in the answer to.
So, again: Why do you defend the dishonest position of so-called pro life advocates?

Bonus question: Why do you consider supporting basic human decency absurdly and impossibly utopian?

 

Its the loaded content of a loaded q that designates it as loaded.
Are you still beating your wife?

Just see your next offering as yet another example of this guile ....

It was your model of supporting human decency (which, ironically, you demanded that your opponents fulfill in order to be deemed credible) that was attracting all the guffaws.

 

That would be a begged question. I'm not really interested in whether you're beating your wife, though I might warn you that a lot of men who did that have been found dead in mysterious circumstances.

Not that many guffaws, actually. You seem to be the only one who has a problem with not abusing people.
You still haven't answered why it's so ridiculous for those who claim to value life to value the lives of living people .

 

While not the noblest path, you ceasing the practice of beating your wife out of fear of violent vigilante repurcussions is better than nothing, I suppose.

(Yes, yes ... its a game for imbeciles, but if you demand that we play it .... )

I think we can include your dramatic redaction of the criteria for being benevolent (when the topic of you and yours being benevolent arises) as a 2nd guffaw. When both the speaker and recipient guffaw, the subject would appear to be a complete picture of silliness.

Only if we insist that your ridiculous, hypocritical babble is the standard for being benevolent (a standard you dramatically redact down to saner proportions when you are also forced into the picture).

Pardon me?