Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 159

On September 05 2019 07:58 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + On September 05 2019 07:13 Baalim wrote:   On September 05 2019 06:27 blackjacki2 wrote: It's already unfair and imbalanced because the female has to either carry the child to term or go through an abortion while the male has to do nothing. You can blame nature and/or the God of your choice for that. A man walking away scot-free while the woman is left deciding if she wants to be a single mother or get an abortion is not fair or balanced. She can kill your fetus if she decides to for any reason, you don't get a say, you want the kid? too bad, its in her hands.... you don't want a kid? too bad, its in her hands. It puzzles me how this is flying over your head, if the woman doesn't want to sacrifice her future for the baby, she can bail out.... a man doesn't have that choice, his future will be ruined if the woman desires to, that is bullshit, either both can walk away or both face responsibility. It puzzles me even more how it's flying over your head that both can't "walk away" as if you're pretending to not understand basic human physiology

what basic human psychology is flying over my head?

Spitfire's argument is that the man knew beforehand the potential consecuences of sex, so he must face them, that is exactly a main argument for conservatives against abortion.

So please argue your point or gtfo.

On September 05 2019 20:41 Spitfiree wrote: Child support is paid by whomever, if the man gets full custody the woman pays child support what the fuck are you guys talking about

Ok, lets say the next scenario, a wild pregnancy appears:

The woman wants it, the man doesn't: The woman gives birth, the man has to pay child support <--- man loses 2x

The man wants it, the woman doesn't: The baby is aborted. <-- man loses

Both want it: yay

neither want it: yay


Clearly whenever both parties disagree the man has the short end of the stick, either his offspring gets flushed down the toilet against his will or he is forced to pay for 18 years for a kid he doesn't want.

These are based on archaic traditional laws, the same laws that forbade abortion and forced women into motherhood and men into providers as they said above, these laws are changing but only for women.

On September 05 2019 23:57 Spitfiree wrote: Also, the woman doesn't "give up" on the child you ..., it's not a fucking child, thats the whole point of the argument of pro-abortion. It has no consciousness, it has not developed into anything.

that was discussed pages ago, its just a fucking word, and its not about consciousness... I'm pro choice, but I'll gladly play devil advocate and shatter the consciousness position you are taking.

She has full responsibilities for the child when she decides to keep him.

When she DECIDES, never against her will, if the man decides to be the father then he should be held accountable, but if he decides not to be the father early in the pregnancy he shouldnt be forced, just like the woman.

Also no, the man doesn't "Get to decide" since you can take proper measures to avoid it.

dont women have the same measures to avoid it too?

Abortions have huge negative impacts on women, it fucks up their hormones, it could also ruin them mentally and has physical risks.

This isnt the 1800s, early term abortions are extremely safe, they can be traumatic or trivial depending on the person, but what does that have to do with this?

The woman will still feed him, put him to sleep, take care of him during his life if she has custody ... and the man doesnt want to .... give money to support his child?

The woman has to care for it if she decides to keep it, nobody can force her to, but the man cannot decide he will be forced into whatever future the woman choses.

If he decides he doesn't want to be the father he shouldn't have sex with her (thats if you just want to protect yourself from super edge cases)

The man's body is at no risk at any point of anything, he doesn't go through pregnancy and hormone imbalance, nor does anyone suck on their tits for ages

Have you heard how higher risk gives you higher value? Thats the case here too.

On September 07 2019 04:19 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On September 05 2019 07:58 blackjacki2 wrote:   On September 05 2019 07:13 Baalim wrote:   On September 05 2019 06:27 blackjacki2 wrote: It's already unfair and imbalanced because the female has to either carry the child to term or go through an abortion while the male has to do nothing. You can blame nature and/or the God of your choice for that. A man walking away scot-free while the woman is left deciding if she wants to be a single mother or get an abortion is not fair or balanced. She can kill your fetus if she decides to for any reason, you don't get a say, you want the kid? too bad, its in her hands.... you don't want a kid? too bad, its in her hands. It puzzles me how this is flying over your head, if the woman doesn't want to sacrifice her future for the baby, she can bail out.... a man doesn't have that choice, his future will be ruined if the woman desires to, that is bullshit, either both can walk away or both face responsibility. It puzzles me even more how it's flying over your head that both can't "walk away" as if you're pretending to not understand basic human physiology what basic human psychology is flying over my head? Spitfire's argument is that the man knew beforehand the potential consecuences of sex, so he must face them, that is exactly a main argument for conservatives against abortion. So please argue your point or gtfo.

Not human psychology, human physiology. My point, as I stated previously, is that you're applying options that you think are equatable in a situation that is inherently inequitable thanks to mother nature. The woman is the one that goes through the abortion. The woman is the one that goes through pregnancy and labor. By saying it's fair if they can both "walk away" you massively overlook the human physiology that a woman can't "walk away" from a pregnancy the same way a man can "walk away" from a woman that is pregnant.

If the man decides to walk away then the woman has to decide between killing the fetus in her womb or going through pregnancy and then giving up the baby for adoption or raising it by herself without any support from the father. Perhaps the woman doesn't want to abort the fetus but she is so scared of raising the child by herself and scared that no other man would want to be with someone with stretch marks and a child that she feels she compelled to kill her unborn child.

You seem to think it all balances out because a woman can also kill a fetus that the man wants to keep. I disagree, I think forcing a woman to decide between getting an abortion and being a single parent is way way worse than a woman terminating her pregnancy that the man wanted to keep. Besides, a man should never be able to force a woman to go through a pregnancy so you shouldn't even be acting like this is some bargaining chip that you're giving up and in exchange you should be able to abandon your child.

On September 07 2019 18:18 Spitfiree wrote: If he decides he doesn't want to be the father he shouldn't have sex with her

if she decides she doesn't want to be a mother she shouldn't have sex with him

On September 07 2019 18:59 blackjacki2 wrote: Not human psychology, human physiology. My point, as I stated previously, is that you're applying options that you think are equatable in a situation that is inherently inequitable thanks to mother nature. The woman is the one that goes through the abortion. The woman is the one that goes through pregnancy and labor. By saying it's fair if they can both "walk away" you massively overlook the human physiology that a woman can't "walk away" from a pregnancy the same way a man can "walk away" from a woman that is pregnant.

I agree we are physiologically different so we have different roles, the female has the privilege of chosing life or death precisely because of her physiological role, and that is fine.

Yes "walking away" from the woman isn't as easy as for men, but in no way compares to 18years of financial burden, I would shit a hundred blood clots in the clinic before ruining my financial future as a young man. Abortion being an unpleasant experience doesn't justify forcing men to this.

If the man decides to walk away then the woman has to decide between killing the fetus in her womb or going through pregnancy and then giving up the baby for adoption or raising it by herself without any support from the father. Perhaps the woman doesn't want to abort the fetus but she is so scared of raising the child by herself and scared that no other man would want to be with someone with stretch marks and a child that she feels she compelled to kill her unborn child.

The same choice they have to make just without that monthly check for 18 years, you aren't ready to be a mother or dont feel financially secure to do it then make the responsible decision of having an abortion, that is the whole fucking point of abortion, giving women the choice to not jump into motherhood if they dont feel they can or want to.

You seem to think it all balances out because a woman can also kill a fetus that the man wants to keep. I disagree, I think forcing a woman to decide between getting an abortion and being a single parent is way way worse than a woman terminating her pregnancy that the man wanted to keep. Besides, a man should never be able to force a woman to go through a pregnancy so you shouldn't even be acting like this is some bargaining chip that you're giving up and in exchange you should be able to abandon your child.

Forcing to decide? thats an oxymoron. She gets to decide if she wants to give birth or not, to continue her life as normal or to become a mother.

Men on the other hand have to pay for 18 years if the woman desires to even if you don't want to be a father, and if you don't comply the court will put you in jail, now that is being forced into something.




At least you are putting forward coherent arguments unlike spittfire

You re trying to make a nonequal situation seem equal which is pretty absurd...

You re also just trying to diminish the weight of the decision which a woman takes when she actually goes for an abortion.

This isn't the two sides of the same coin, there is no coin. If she decides to keep the baby it's her sole decision, that child has 2 parents, which both equally should carry the burden for it. It makes literally zero sense to be able to opt-out of your responsibility.


Bohoo financial burden, if I wanna paint emotional pictures then its not fair for a single mother to be taking care of a child while also working so she could have a normal life while having 4hrs of sleep tops for the first 5 years, no privacy, no time for herself ... sheesh how messed up of a situation for the man, I don't understand how he could survive this incredible burden

On September 07 2019 21:18 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On September 07 2019 18:59 blackjacki2 wrote: Not human psychology, human physiology. My point, as I stated previously, is that you're applying options that you think are equatable in a situation that is inherently inequitable thanks to mother nature. The woman is the one that goes through the abortion. The woman is the one that goes through pregnancy and labor. By saying it's fair if they can both "walk away" you massively overlook the human physiology that a woman can't "walk away" from a pregnancy the same way a man can "walk away" from a woman that is pregnant. I agree we are physiologically different so we have different roles, the female has the privilege of chosing life or death precisely because of her physiological role, and that is fine. Yes "walking away" from the woman isn't as easy as for men, but in no way compares to 18years of financial burden, I would shit a hundred blood clots in the clinic before ruining my financial future as a young man. Abortion being an unpleasant experience doesn't justify forcing men to this.   If the man decides to walk away then the woman has to decide between killing the fetus in her womb or going through pregnancy and then giving up the baby for adoption or raising it by herself without any support from the father. Perhaps the woman doesn't want to abort the fetus but she is so scared of raising the child by herself and scared that no other man would want to be with someone with stretch marks and a child that she feels she compelled to kill her unborn child. The same choice they have to make just without that monthly check for 18 years, you aren't ready to be a mother or dont feel financially secure to do it then make the responsible decision of having an abortion, that is the whole fucking point of abortion, giving women the choice to not jump into motherhood if they dont feel they can or want to.   You seem to think it all balances out because a woman can also kill a fetus that the man wants to keep. I disagree, I think forcing a woman to decide between getting an abortion and being a single parent is way way worse than a woman terminating her pregnancy that the man wanted to keep. Besides, a man should never be able to force a woman to go through a pregnancy so you shouldn't even be acting like this is some bargaining chip that you're giving up and in exchange you should be able to abandon your child. Forcing to decide? thats an oxymoron. She gets to decide if she wants to give birth or not, to continue her life as normal or to become a mother. Men on the other hand have to pay for 18 years if the woman desires to even if you don't want to be a father, and if you don't comply the court will put you in jail, now that is being forced into something. At least you are putting forward coherent arguments unlike spittfire

So I take it you would be just as happy being the woman in your scenario and you can go through the abortions and pregnancies and the man can decide to walk out if he wants? Before you answer "well I would want to be a man regardless because XYZ" just pretend like you are reincarnated into some alien race and there are no traditional gender roles so you have nothing to base your decision on except the reproductive laws you have defined. Which gender do you choose? I think you and 99% of all other people would choose the gender that doesn't get pregnant and can just opt out if they don't want to deal parental responsibilities.

It's like when you split a piece of cake with a sibling, the fairest thing to do is to have 1 sibling slice the cake in half and the other choose which piece they want. I think in the metaphorical cake of gender reproductive laws that you sliced most people would agree that Slice A is way better than Slice B but you're over there arguing that both pieces are exactly the same when we all know you want Slice A too.

Let's not forget about the monthly period which starts from early teenage years and lasts until late adulthood


P.S.

Can a mod ban the spammer going through General forum and leaving random comments. Guessing they will later spam some random ads to SEO .... fucked up the whole order of the threads

blackjack's posts are fully on point.

On September 08 2019 04:22 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + On September 07 2019 21:18 Baalim wrote:   On September 07 2019 18:59 blackjacki2 wrote: Not human psychology, human physiology. My point, as I stated previously, is that you're applying options that you think are equatable in a situation that is inherently inequitable thanks to mother nature. The woman is the one that goes through the abortion. The woman is the one that goes through pregnancy and labor. By saying it's fair if they can both "walk away" you massively overlook the human physiology that a woman can't "walk away" from a pregnancy the same way a man can "walk away" from a woman that is pregnant. I agree we are physiologically different so we have different roles, the female has the privilege of chosing life or death precisely because of her physiological role, and that is fine. Yes "walking away" from the woman isn't as easy as for men, but in no way compares to 18years of financial burden, I would shit a hundred blood clots in the clinic before ruining my financial future as a young man. Abortion being an unpleasant experience doesn't justify forcing men to this.   If the man decides to walk away then the woman has to decide between killing the fetus in her womb or going through pregnancy and then giving up the baby for adoption or raising it by herself without any support from the father. Perhaps the woman doesn't want to abort the fetus but she is so scared of raising the child by herself and scared that no other man would want to be with someone with stretch marks and a child that she feels she compelled to kill her unborn child. The same choice they have to make just without that monthly check for 18 years, you aren't ready to be a mother or dont feel financially secure to do it then make the responsible decision of having an abortion, that is the whole fucking point of abortion, giving women the choice to not jump into motherhood if they dont feel they can or want to.   You seem to think it all balances out because a woman can also kill a fetus that the man wants to keep. I disagree, I think forcing a woman to decide between getting an abortion and being a single parent is way way worse than a woman terminating her pregnancy that the man wanted to keep. Besides, a man should never be able to force a woman to go through a pregnancy so you shouldn't even be acting like this is some bargaining chip that you're giving up and in exchange you should be able to abandon your child. Forcing to decide? thats an oxymoron. She gets to decide if she wants to give birth or not, to continue her life as normal or to become a mother. Men on the other hand have to pay for 18 years if the woman desires to even if you don't want to be a father, and if you don't comply the court will put you in jail, now that is being forced into something. At least you are putting forward coherent arguments unlike spittfire So I take it you would be just as happy being the woman in your scenario and you can go through the abortions and pregnancies and the man can decide to walk out if he wants? Before you answer "well I would want to be a man regardless because XYZ" just pretend like you are reincarnated into some alien race and there are no traditional gender roles so you have nothing to base your decision on except the reproductive laws you have defined. Which gender do you choose? I think you and 99% of all other people would choose the gender that doesn't get pregnant and can just opt out if they don't want to deal parental responsibilities. It's like when you split a piece of cake with a sibling, the fairest thing to do is to have 1 sibling slice the cake in half and the other choose which piece they want. I think in the metaphorical cake of gender reproductive laws that you sliced most people would agree that Slice A is way better than Slice B but you're over there arguing that both pieces are exactly the same when we all know you want Slice A too.

If I was an alien reincarnating, not sure I'd rather be a man or woman, but I would definitely NOT WANT TO BE the baby getting killed, dismembered and pulled out with forceps before birth.
Can I opt out of that, and leave my gender to chance for my reincarnation? Seems a better deal.

You're trying to imply you have a solution for an existential question? How cute

Are you Ben Shapiro in disguise or just equally as brainwashed?

On September 07 2019 23:46 Spitfiree wrote: You re trying to make a nonequal situation seem equal which is pretty absurd...

No, you are just making bad arguments and by simply switching the gender they are exposed

You re also just trying to diminish the weight of the decision which a woman takes when she actually goes for an abortion.

How so? by stating that early stage abortions are extremely safe?

This isn't the two sides of the same coin, there is no coin. If she decides to keep the baby it's her sole decision, that child has 2 parents, which both equally should carry the burden for it. It makes literally zero sense to be able to opt-out of your responsibility.

But women can opt-out of the responsibility of being a parent, that is exactly what abortion is.

Bohoo financial burden, if I wanna paint emotional pictures then its not fair for a single mother to be taking care of a child while also working so she could have a normal life while having 4hrs of sleep tops for the first 5 years, no privacy, no time for herself ... sheesh how messed up of a situation for the man, I don't understand how he could survive this incredible burden

"you are minimizing abortios" also "boohooo financial burden" lol.

let me say that again, I rather shit 100 "blood clots" than having to sign a check every month for 18 years, and so would anybody with a functioning brain.

Raising a child alone certainly is difficult and not ideal, but unfair? its a choice, the only one who doesn't have that choice is the man.

On September 08 2019 04:22 blackjacki2 wrote: So I take it you would be just as happy being the woman in your scenario and you can go through the abortions and pregnancies and the man can decide to walk out if he wants? Before you answer "well I would want to be a man regardless because XYZ" just pretend like you are reincarnated into some alien race and there are no traditional gender roles so you have nothing to base your decision on except the reproductive laws you have defined. Which gender do you choose? I think you and 99% of all other people would choose the gender that doesn't get pregnant and can just opt out if they don't want to deal parental responsibilities. It's like when you split a piece of cake with a sibling, the fairest thing to do is to have 1 sibling slice the cake in half and the other choose which piece they want. I think in the metaphorical cake of gender reproductive laws that you sliced most people would agree that Slice A is way better than Slice B but you're over there arguing that both pieces are exactly the same when we all know you want Slice A too.

I thought I was clear enough when I said the shitting blood clots thing before... but here it goes again.

I would rather be in the woman's spot, I rather take a pill than being exposed to the possibility of financial ruin.

On September 08 2019 10:47 Liquid`Drone wrote: blackjack's posts are fully on point.

Are you implying that Spitfire's argument of "You knew the risks before having sex so face the consecuences" isn't a great argument?

Let's see where your great logic will lead... and that is by completely ignoring the blood clot idiocy which is simply a point of view with no value whatsoever.

Lets say your way is the way to go.

What you get is - fatherless children. Cool I'm sure you can google the statistics revolving around fatherless children and the risks around them.

But on top of that, those children will also have much weaker financial support.. This is the first option, which essentially increases the risks for them to have become a burden of society.

The other way which things could go is... and it would be an adequate way in any non-psychopathic society ... have the social help for single mothers be increased so that it will cover the financial burdens.

Being a single parent isn't "difficult" - are you fucking retarded honestly? You have to take care of a human being while working and not receiving almost any sleep. Do you understand the issues which lack of sleep pose? Do you understand that combined with all the other hardcore factors such a life would be possibly the hardest thing anyone could ever do. So now, not only will you have a child that grows up in a stress environment, but you also put an adult into an environment that is hardly bearable


Or you think your genius option will drop the single mothers down to 0%? Cause if it doesn't you're simply condemning them to barbaric conditions of life.

Then again you're pro-capitalism so no fucking surprise that your opinion on this is this heartless.

And no the "you knew the risks before sex" might not look like a great argument but its as inclusive as possible and covering the rights of everyone as much as possible. What you're suggesting is just as good as if men would have the right to tell women to make an abortion.

I'm guessing there are not many couples around you with babies.

Edit:
If you cant understand how this financial help is a safety net for such people then this argument is pointless. You either believe society should carry the burden of your 'mistake' or that nobody should, both of which are absolutely fucking idiotic. This isnt some zero sum game

On September 08 2019 23:06 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On September 08 2019 04:22 blackjacki2 wrote: So I take it you would be just as happy being the woman in your scenario and you can go through the abortions and pregnancies and the man can decide to walk out if he wants? Before you answer "well I would want to be a man regardless because XYZ" just pretend like you are reincarnated into some alien race and there are no traditional gender roles so you have nothing to base your decision on except the reproductive laws you have defined. Which gender do you choose? I think you and 99% of all other people would choose the gender that doesn't get pregnant and can just opt out if they don't want to deal parental responsibilities. It's like when you split a piece of cake with a sibling, the fairest thing to do is to have 1 sibling slice the cake in half and the other choose which piece they want. I think in the metaphorical cake of gender reproductive laws that you sliced most people would agree that Slice A is way better than Slice B but you're over there arguing that both pieces are exactly the same when we all know you want Slice A too. I thought I was clear enough when I said the shitting blood clots thing before... but here it goes again. I would rather be in the woman's spot, I rather take a pill than being exposed to the possibility of financial ruin.

We're talking about your scenario where there is no risk of financial ruin. Would you rather be the one to take a pill and shit blood clots or the one that gets to just say "No thanks."

On September 09 2019 01:37 blackjacki2 wrote: We're talking about your scenario where there is no risk of financial ruin. Would you rather be the one to take a pill and shit blood clots or the one that gets to just say "No thanks."

Naturally better to walk away without having to get an abortion, however women still have the main choice if to keep or abort the baby and is a big deal, which is fine, I don't think men should have a vote and force a woman to give birth and give them the baby or something bizarre like that, so women get to choose over the baby but "walking away" is a bit more complicated than for men, that seems fair.

On September 09 2019 00:06 Spitfiree wrote: What you get is - fatherless children. Cool I'm sure you can google the statistics revolving around fatherless children and the risks around them.

Sacrificing personal freedom in an attempt to keep the nuclear family together is a very conservative position, interesting.

But on top of that, those children will also have much weaker financial support.. This is the first option, which essentially increases the risks for them to have become a burden of society.

I'm not big into subsidizing bad decisions, I care about justice and fairness more.

Being a single parent isn't "difficult" - are you fucking retarded honestly? You have to take care of a human being while working and not receiving almost any sleep. Do you understand the issues which lack of sleep pose? Do you understand that combined with all the other hardcore factors such a life would be possibly the hardest thing anyone could ever do.

Having a baby is the most difficult thing a human being could ever do... lol are these arguments or corny Hallmark card phrases?, and you have the audacity to call me retarded.

Or you think your genius option will drop the single mothers down to 0%? Cause if it doesn't you're simply condemning them to barbaric conditions of life.

Oh no, I would expect it to drop but I think there will always be plenty of people making bad decisions.

Then again you're pro-capitalism so no fucking surprise that your opinion on this is this heartless.

Then again, you're anti-capitalism so no fucking surprise you make vacuous arguments whlie pretending to hold moral high ground when you don't.

Freedom and justice matter to me much more than any attempt to construct society, if we had this discussion 100 years ago you would be arguing about not legalizing divorce because it breaks up families, and kids suffer, and I would have told you the same thing, freedom and justice are more important to me than your attempts to construct society.

And no the "you knew the risks before sex" might not look like a great argument but its as inclusive as possible and covering the rights of everyone as much as possible

lol take the loss on that one.

I'm guessing there are not many couples around you with babies.

wat? I'm 35 so at least half my friends have a baby

You either believe society should carry the burden of your 'mistake' or that nobody should

Nobody should be forced to carry the burden's of the mistakes of others.