U.S. Politics Discussion

[M3J]

https://twitter.com/emrobinsonnn/status/1129565533211365377

 

Just a clump of cells. Yeah right.

As soon as I saw that over 10 hours ago, I knew you or Kevin were somehow going to post that tweet here. It changes nothing though, still a mass of cells that can't even survive outside the mother's womb. Still not anyone's choice but the mom and the doctor's. If men could get pregnant, guaranteed you and Kevin, along with at least 90% of republican males, would support abortion, and we'd see way more birth control products and have more abortion services.

 

 

Once again, it says more about republicans when they pretend to be pro-life but want more people to have more guns, do nothing about cops killing innocent people, are willing to punish women for putting their lives first, and do nothing to help families and kids who need assistance. Can't even back it up in real life. Oh, and as I have mentioned before, they encourage their mistresses to get abortion as well.

 

 

So hostile. I see nothing changes with you. lol.

 

I think you need to learn the difference between hostility and dismissiveness.

 

You're being hostile. Not that I care as much as bdon's been hostile, but yeah.

[Generations]

[Bdon]

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/emrobinsonnn/status/1129565533211365377

 

Just a clump of cells. Yeah right.

This is more damaging for your argument than helpful.

 

Bro gummy bears are not humans. This cherry-flavored fruit snack does not have constitutional rights, it doesn't even have opposable thumbs. This is the Snapchat ghost after a sunburn, not a baby. It cannot survive like this because it is not in the womb, feeding off the host, otherwise known as, the pregnant woman. Not viable to live on its own or even with medical tubes and incubators etc. Why are you placing more importance or "value" on this bloody loogie than an actual living, breathing, developed human being? If you think that is a baby, do you also refer to caterpillars as butterflies?

 

So you really don't see human life there? It's just a "bloody loogie" to you? Maybe I'm just sensitive to the topic because I do see a child there, and I truly do appreciate that you've taken the time to respond to my previous posts and don't attack me like others have here. But I just find most of this post disgusting.

 

No I don't see a human there. If it was presented without caption or context, I wouldn't know what it was, and I don't think I'm the only one. Sorry if that disgusts you but I don't think that's worth protecting at the expense of the woman it's attached to. I don't think we should be prosecuting women for not wanting to keep that in their body.

 

 

Clears it up, still not a good argument. For one, I said nothing about value, I know that's how capitalists assess everything but that's not what I'm talking about here. Secondly, conception isn't concrete either. As I said to you before, fertilized eggs don't always become embryos and it doesn't happen at the same time for everyone. Per WebMD: "After the egg is released, it moves into the fallopian tube. It stays there for about 24 hours, waiting for a single sperm to fertilize it. All this happens, on average, about 2 weeks after your last period." Average, meaning the average of a range of different numbers. Similar to, if not, exactly like the range of different amounts of weeks before a fetus is able to survive without its host. So are you are a state law guy or a federal law guy? You want there to be a federal average or a state average?

 

Look at it like this, whether you want to accept it or not, you have to because abortions/terminations of pregnancy will happen one way or the other, so wouldn't it be best to allow a safe process that doesn't kill both the thing you think is a baby AND the mother? Isn't the mother still important, or "of value", as you would put it? Giving a person a chance to first realize they're pregnant (which these laws don't) and then giving them a deadline of a couple months to decide whether they want to go through with it or not before the embryo becomes viable outside of the womb sounds more than rational to both me, and the majority of the country, but for what's supposed to be a democracy, there are lot of unpopular laws and policies that are put in place without the say of the people.

 

If the woman were to drop dead at any moment, could the embryo survive? The answer is no because before a certain amount of weeks, it is a newly grown part of the woman's anatomy. In the same way that the dead woman can't perform sign language with her attached hand, the organism inside of her cannot continue to grow. It is not a human because humans do not need to physically feed off of other humans to survive. So the over-complication of all this seems indicative of other motivations than "preserving human life".

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/emrobinsonnn/status/1129565533211365377

 

Just a clump of cells. Yeah right.

This is more damaging for your argument than helpful.

 

Bro gummy bears are not humans. This cherry-flavored fruit snack does not have constitutional rights, it doesn't even have opposable thumbs. This is the Snapchat ghost after a sunburn, not a baby. It cannot survive like this because it is not in the womb, feeding off the host, otherwise known as, the pregnant woman. Not viable to live on its own or even with medical tubes and incubators etc. Why are you placing more importance or "value" on this bloody loogie than an actual living, breathing, developed human being? If you think that is a baby, do you also refer to caterpillars as butterflies?

 

So this potential life is not important the same way a new born baby is? Because a new born child can't survive on its own outside the womb either without the parents or some able adult caring for it. Bullshit argument. Also the caterpillars comparison was just awful.

 

Bdon, Bdon, Bdon, I'm disappointed man. If you go back and look, I said "It is not a human because humans do not need to physically feed off of other humans to survive." I said that purposely because I knew someone would try this hacky argument. Did I really have to say "literally" for you to know exactly what I meant? That newborn child can survive exponentially longer than that embryo The_Shape posted because as soon as it is DETACHED from the womb it dies, meaning it is not viable. No one else can keep it alive. That's not the same for a baby, who can be taken care of by its mother or by someone else, which you pointed out.

 

Importance in this context is not important to me, but if you want me to answer your question, my answer is yes. You literally said "potential life". I don't really have to say anything here, you hurt your own argument. Most "potential" things take a backseat because they haven't happened yet or they may never happen. I think a viable fetus is more important than a non-viable one.

 

Also, I meant for the caterpillar comparison to be taken at face value. A caterpillar can become a butterfly but until it does, it is a caterpillar and only a caterpillar. That embryo can be a baby, but it until it is, it's an embryo, which is why it's not called a baby.

 

For the side of the argument that's all about "facts over feelings", you guys sure are often placing relative morals and subjective importance and how they feel over scientific facts, and in this case, it's when deciding what another human should do with their body. Not a good look if you ask me. This is the same side that often argues "no matter what you do, people are still gonna get guns" but yet you can't apply the same logic to abortions, which affects no one but the mother while a gun can and is meant to affect multiple people. Go ahead and tell me how they're different. Be consistent with the pro-lifeness.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

In other related news, GA prosecutors are pledging not to enforce this law. I'm young but I've never even heard of something like that happening before. It's unpopular. It infringes on women's freedoms. And before I get "what about the baby's freedom?!", that non-viable fetus doesn't have the freedom to do anything without the woman it's inside of being alive.

 

It is their life and it is their body. But what people are arguing is not the woman's life, it's the child's life. The life which is separate from the woman's. That child didn't ask to be conceived and now can't choose to live. So it has no rights because adults don't want to take responsibility? Fact is the percentage of people getting abortions because of rape or complications with the mother are far far less than those admittedly doing so to avoid the responsibility. That's fact. When can we determine that the life inside the mother is not killable? Pro choice people aren't using facts over their feelings either. It's just a difference in opinion or in this case what you can tell yourself to live with the guilt. When people are getting charged for double homicide for killing a pregnant woman then I think we all know deep down what it is. A life that in the eyes of even the law, won't take less priority over the parent. All that said I don't think it should be illegal either. But we need to determine where the line is and that taxpayers won't be forced to pay for it.

 

And I'm not going to start in on the gun thing again but the arguments pro choicers have are ironically the same arguments pro gun people use. Abortions effect more than just the mother so stop with that nonsense. Fact is, making anything illegal isn't going to stop any of it. So don't make any of it illegal. Plain and simple. You can't pick and choose and you can't make stupid excuses for guns being different in argument when really there isn't one. If anything you can make an argument for guns saving people far more in number than abortions actually save people. Wanna guess which one makes up the largest percentage of deaths per year?

 

 

@ Gen. Dude you can be as much of a smartass as you want but we all see how shitty you have been in multiple topics. Not just this one. We all get a bit heated at times in here but that's what you do in almost every topic.

[M3J]

Abortions affect the mothers only.

 

Pro-gun and pro-abortion arguments are different. Pro-guns argue against gun control, which doesn't ban guns. Pro-choice is about letting women have the right to choose what to do with her own body and argue against banning abortion, and they also mention how better sex ed, birth control, and organizations can help prevent/reduce abortion.

 

Why should the mother risk her life to give birth to something that she doesn't want? If anything, so-called "pro-lifers" should take responsibility for the unwanted babies, if they really care about lives, but we all know they'll ignore it after it's born.

[King RyderFan]

Abortions affect the mothers only.

 

Pro-gun and pro-abortion arguments are different. Pro-guns argue against gun control, which doesn't ban guns. Pro-choice is about letting women have the right to choose what to do with her own body and argue against banning abortion, and they also mention how better sex ed, birth control, and organizations can help prevent/reduce abortion.

 

Why should the mother risk her life to give birth to something that she doesn't want? If anything, so-called "pro-lifers" should take responsibility for the unwanted babies, if they really care about lives, but we all know they'll ignore it after it's born.

So it does not affect the father at all if he wants to raise the child by himself after the baby's birth? Both parents should get equal say. It takes 50% of each parent's genes to make it.

[M3J]

Again, mothers are the ones who carry the fetus and puts her life at risk to give birth. the father does nothing other than impregnate her, and he can leave anytime he wants even if they agree to raise the baby together. Plus, the father has a choice at the beginning, like I said. Ask if she wants a family, and if she says no kids or getting pregnant, then he can move on.

[King RyderFan]

Again, mothers are the ones who carry the fetus and puts her life at risk to give birth. the father does nothing other than impregnate her, and he can leave anytime he wants even if they agree to raise the baby together. Plus, the father has a choice at the beginning, like I said. Ask if she wants a family, and if she says no kids or getting pregnant, then he can move on.

And the mother can leave and never see the kid again after she gives birth. You think being a single father is easy? There is a lot less support for single fathers than single mothers. Both parents have a choice to use protection or not, and that last sentence goes both ways. What if the mom wants a kid while the father doesn't? Barring extreme circumstances like rape or the mother's health being in danger should she go through with the pregnancy, both parents should have to sign off on an abortion.

[nWo_Kevin]

The father has a choice at the beginning, like I said. Ask if she wants a family, and if she says no kids or getting pregnant, then he can move on.

 

Curious what the difference is between this sentence and....

 

"The mother has a choice at the beginning. If she doesn't want a family and can't risk having kids then she can not have sex".

[Bdon]

Abortions affect the mothers only.

 

Pro-gun and pro-abortion arguments are different. Pro-guns argue against gun control, which doesn't ban guns. Pro-choice is about letting women have the right to choose what to do with her own body and argue against banning abortion, and they also mention how better sex ed, birth control, and organizations can help prevent/reduce abortion.

 

Why should the mother risk her life to give birth to something that she doesn't want? If anything, so-called "pro-lifers" should take responsibility for the unwanted babies, if they really care about lives, but we all know they'll ignore it after it's born.

OR....OR... the mother and father could just you know....not have sex or not have unprotected sex instead....Wow dude.

 

And this is not considering the ridiculously low statistic of health risks or rape. You advocate just killing the kid if they don't want it at all. Way to take the responsibility out of people's actions.

 

How about I control my own guns and they control their own actions and there won't be murder on either side. What do ya say?

[M3J]

 

Again, mothers are the ones who carry the fetus and puts her life at risk to give birth. the father does nothing other than impregnate her, and he can leave anytime he wants even if they agree to raise the baby together. Plus, the father has a choice at the beginning, like I said. Ask if she wants a family, and if she says no kids or getting pregnant, then he can move on.

And the mother can leave and never see the kid again after she gives birth. You think being a single father is easy? There is a lot less support for single fathers than single mothers. Both parents have a choice to use protection or not, and that last sentence goes both ways. What if the mom wants a kid while the father doesn't? Barring extreme circumstances like rape or the mother's health being in danger should she go through with the pregnancy, both parents should have to sign off on an abortion.

 

Yes the mother can, and many mothers have, but the main difference, if you don't understand biology, is that SHE'S still the one who gives birth and still the one who can actually die from childbirth, not fathers.

 

If the mom wants a kid, then she'll have the kid and raise it. Before you ask the obvious question, the obvious answer is that women go through danger during pregnancy and giving birth, while men don't.

 

And no, both parents shouldn't. Only the pregnant woman does. What if the father decides to leave her a week after she finds out she's pregnant, and she doesn't want the baby anymore? Why should her choice be taken away?

 

 

 

Abortions affect the mothers only.

 

Pro-gun and pro-abortion arguments are different. Pro-guns argue against gun control, which doesn't ban guns. Pro-choice is about letting women have the right to choose what to do with her own body and argue against banning abortion, and they also mention how better sex ed, birth control, and organizations can help prevent/reduce abortion.

 

Why should the mother risk her life to give birth to something that she doesn't want? If anything, so-called "pro-lifers" should take responsibility for the unwanted babies, if they really care about lives, but we all know they'll ignore it after it's born.

OR....OR... the mother and father could just you know....not have sex or not have unprotected sex instead....Wow dude.

 

And this is not considering the ridiculously low statistic of health risks or rape. You advocate just killing the kid if they don't want it at all. Way to take the responsibility out of people's actions.

 

How about I control my own guns and they control their own actions and there won't be murder on either side. What do ya say?

 

You are aware protection isn't 100% effective, right? And why shouldn't they have sex just because of conservatives' hatred of women? As I said, if men got pregnant, then guaranteed no republican would be arguing to protect fetuses.

 

I'm not advocating killing any kid, there's no kid in abortion, just an embryo. Why should the woman risk her life giving birth to a kid that she doesn't want? If you're so worried about an embryo, then go to abortion clinics and pledge to support moms and their babies if they choose to give birth. And hell, support Planned Parenthood and better sex ed to reduce abortion.

 

How about so-called pro-lifers talk about banning guns if they're so concerned about lives? Stricter gun control? Something instead of waging a war against women.

[King RyderFan]

 

 

 

Again, mothers are the ones who carry the fetus and puts her life at risk to give birth. the father does nothing other than impregnate her, and he can leave anytime he wants even if they agree to raise the baby together. Plus, the father has a choice at the beginning, like I said. Ask if she wants a family, and if she says no kids or getting pregnant, then he can move on.

And the mother can leave and never see the kid again after she gives birth. You think being a single father is easy? There is a lot less support for single fathers than single mothers. Both parents have a choice to use protection or not, and that last sentence goes both ways. What if the mom wants a kid while the father doesn't? Barring extreme circumstances like rape or the mother's health being in danger should she go through with the pregnancy, both parents should have to sign off on an abortion.

Yes the mother can, and many mothers have, but the main difference, if you don't understand biology, is that SHE'S still the one who gives birth and still the one who can actually die from childbirth, not fathers.

 

If the mom wants a kid, then she'll have the kid and raise it. Before you ask the obvious question, the obvious answer is that women go through danger during pregnancy and giving birth, while men don't.

 

And no, both parents shouldn't. Only the pregnant woman does. What if the father decides to leave her a week after she finds out she's pregnant, and she doesn't want the baby anymore? Why should her choice be taken away?

And you don't understand how parenting works. Stop acting as if being a single dad is a walk in the park. Imagine having to raise a child with no support group or anyone to help you out.

 

You are aware of low the rate of death during childbirth is right? In the US it is 16 deaths for every 100,000 women in labour. If my math is correct that is a 0.016% chance. Extremely low. There is more chance of her dying from being run over.

 

In that situation you A: track the father down and ask him or B: if he cannot be tracked down for whatever reason his right to sign is rescinded. Though if he has already *censored*ed off after a week he obviously has no interest in the kid anyway. But if the father is actually there and DOES want the kid, then he should have the right to raise it even if the mother doesn't.

[nWo_Kevin]

You are aware protection isn't 100% effective, right? And why shouldn't they have sex just because of conservatives' hatred of women? As I said, if men got pregnant, then guaranteed no republican would be arguing to protect fetuses.

 

I'm not advocating killing any kid, there's no kid in abortion, just an embryo. Why should the woman risk her life giving birth to a kid that she doesn't want? If you're so worried about an embryo, then go to abortion clinics and pledge to support moms and their babies if they choose to give birth. And hell, support Planned Parenthood and better sex ed to reduce abortion.

 

The 2nd bold part answers the question to your first bold part. No?

[AONO.]

wait what?

 

She shouldn't have sex because of the risk of getting pregnant?

 

I thought today, in the 21. century that it's been established that people have sex not only to reproduce? Or maybe I'm living in a fantasy woeld *shrug*

 

Maybe work on better sex education and educate on the importance of contraception?

 

@KingRyderFan

 

why do you always in every issue, out of nowhere have do the "but what about men" schtik. that's why I called you out on it before (that time, I read that BS long post, but for a while didn't have time to respond, after that I thought it was too late anyway). that's what I've been saying about takong up space and derailing the issue. and of course there's a place and time for that...

[nWo_Kevin]

She shouldn't have sex because of the risk of getting pregnant?

 

I thought today, in the 21. century that it's been established that people have sex not only to reproduce? Or maybe I'm living in a fantasy woeld *shrug*

 

Maybe work on better sex education and educate on the importance of contraception?

 

I have no problems with your last sentence, that education should probably come from the home too.

 

There are plenty of people who do just fine on this forum without having sex. And jokes aside (insert..."that must include you" reply), maybe I was brought up different but I love how not having sex "in the 21st century" seems like some crazy idea. As if a person can't function without having it...or you know, do it themselves.

 

People here have told me how A.) How horrible it would be for a woman to have a child she's not ready for and B.) How awful/terrible an abortion can be for a woman and its not something she wants. I offer a 100% guarantee she'll never have to experience either and that's bad?

[Doink!]

 

She shouldn't have sex because of the risk of getting pregnant?

 

I thought today, in the 21. century that it's been established that people have sex not only to reproduce? Or maybe I'm living in a fantasy woeld *shrug*

 

Maybe work on better sex education and educate on the importance of contraception?

 

I have no problems with your last sentence, that education should probably come from the home too.

 

There are plenty of people who do just fine on this forum without having sex. And jokes aside (insert..."that must include you" reply), maybe I was brought up different but I love how not having sex "in the 21st century" seems like some crazy idea. As if a person can't function without having it...or you know, do it themselves.

 

People here have told me how A.) How horrible it would be for a woman to have a child she's not ready for and B.) How awful/terrible an abortion can be for a woman and its not something she wants. I offer a 100% guarantee she'll never have to experience either and that's bad?

 

 

It's not crazy. I have only had sex with my wife. It was because of having a child when I wasn't ready and the fact that I didn't want to be tied down to a crazy ##### like my mom.

[AONO.]

 

 

She shouldn't have sex because of the risk of getting pregnant?

 

I thought today, in the 21. century that it's been established that people have sex not only to reproduce? Or maybe I'm living in a fantasy woeld *shrug*

 

Maybe work on better sex education and educate on the importance of contraception?

I have no problems with your last sentence, that education should probably come from the home too.

 

There are plenty of people who do just fine on this forum without having sex. And jokes aside (insert..."that must include you" reply), maybe I was brought up different but I love how not having sex "in the 21st century" seems like some crazy idea. As if a person can't function without having it...or you know, do it themselves.

 

People here have told me how A.) How horrible it would be for a woman to have a child she's not ready for and B.) How awful/terrible an abortion can be for a woman and its not something she wants. I offer a 100% guarantee she'll never have to experience either and that's bad?

I wasn't planinh on joking at all, but you made that remark for some reason...

 

And now you are just trolling with that question.

 

I'm fine with people having no sex at all, it's their choice. I find asexual people really interesting actually.

 

But to suggest that you shouldn't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant is either... idiotic, or trolling...

[King RyderFan]

wait what?

 

She shouldn't have sex because of the risk of getting pregnant?

 

I thought today, in the 21. century that it's been established that people have sex not only to reproduce? Or maybe I'm living in a fantasy woeld *shrug*

 

Maybe work on better sex education and educate on the importance of contraception?

 

@KingRyderFan

 

why do you always in every issue, out of nowhere have do the "but what about men" schtik. that's why I called you out on it before (that time, I read that BS long post, but for a while didn't have time to respond, after that I thought it was too late anyway). that's what I've been saying about takong up space and derailing the issue. and of course there's a place and time for that...

Firstly, let me say I agree with the first half of your post. We need better sex education, and everyone should have the right to contraception.

 

Now, onto your question, it is because I feel that both men and women have their own issues in society. However, it seems that women's issues are focused on more than men's. For instance, if a woman is a victim of domestic abuse there are plenty of shelters and support she can go to, but if a male is a victim, he is SOL. As for that long post? It was about an issue I brought up on my own. Let's look at the post that started it all:

 

Instead if gun debate part 5,247,743,577, how about we change the topic to something fresh?

 

https://www.al.com/politics/2019/05/alabama-bill-would-criminalize-false-rape-accusations.html

 

Honestly, this is a step in the right direction. Only thing I am worried about is true victims of rape having their cases thrown out due to lack of evidence and being charged.

No deflecting there, until you and M3J came along with your "but what about real rapes?" stuff, and you say there is a time and a place for it? Well considering that we can discuss gun and abortion laws in this thread, I think its only fair that we can discuss rape laws here, seeing as it has ties to the latter.

[nWo_Kevin]

But to suggest that you shouldn't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant is either... idiotic, or trolling...

How so?

[Doink!]

 

But to suggest that you shouldn't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant is either... idiotic, or trolling...

How so?

 

 

Because that would encompass personal responsibility. The left wants us to remain kids forever and let the parents (government) take care of all of their problems, until the government says no.

[AONO.]

 

But to suggest that you shouldn't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant is either... idiotic, or trolling...

How so?

 

 

How it isn't?

 

Try giving some arguments for a change to your claims like that. A lot of times you and The_Shape sound like Steven Crowder. And despite people thinking that he knows how to debate... he doesn't.

You always say some bs that sounds right by your logic and belief, and expect others to prove you wrong, without actually wanting to maybe change your mind actually...

 

Like, seriously? Because if you don't understand the problem, then you, just don't understand it... so I'd rather believe that the problem is not beyond your comprehension, rather that you are trolling.

 

You can practice whatever belief system you want, or procreate how ever you want, if you want.

But everybody should have that choice, also as a woman should have a choice if she wants conceive a child or not.

And in 2019, believe it or not, there are ways to have sex with a male and not have a child.

The thing is men don't have that option now, do they? We can have sex all we want we will never have to give birth to a child. Nobody can make us do that.

So yeah, I find it either dissrespectful to the women, or that you are oblivious to the problem.

 

Or also... if you just said that... just because... then you are again trolling, or just... saying shit for the sake of it.

 

 

But to suggest that you shouldn't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant is either... idiotic, or trolling...

How so?

 

 

Because that would encompass personal responsibility. The left wants us to remain kids forever and let the parents (government) take care of all of their problems, until the government says no.

 

 

What the *Censored* man?

 

It's very responsible to have sex and not conceive a child if you don't want to.

 

The *Censored* are you saying? What left now?

 

Again, you obviously completely reversed the situation. The conservatives, right wing politicians, and the goverment wants to BAN CHOICE.

 

It's really irresponsible to give birth to a child if you don't want it, or can't raise it properly.

[Doink!]

 

 

But to suggest that you shouldn't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant is either... idiotic, or trolling...

How so?

 

 

How it isn't?

 

Try giving some arguments for a change to your claims like that. A lot of times you and The_Shape sound like Steven Crowder. And despite people thinking that he knows how to debate... he doesn't.

You always say some bs that sounds right by your logic and belief, and expect others to prove you wrong, without actually wanting to maybe change your mind actually...

 

Like, seriously? Because if you don't understand the problem, then you, just don't understand it... so I'd rather believe that the problem is not beyond your comprehension, rather that you are trolling.

 

You can practice whatever belief system you want, or procreate how ever you want, if you want.

But everybody should have that choice, also as a woman should have a choice if she wants conceive a child or not.

And in 2019, believe it or not, there are ways to have sex with a male and not have a child.

The thing is men don't have that option now, do they? We can have sex all we want we will never have to give birth to a child. Nobody can make us do that.

So yeah, I find it either dissrespectful to the women, or that you are oblivious to the problem.

 

Or also... if you just said that... just because... then you are again trolling, or just... saying shit for the sake of it.

 

 

I don't know if you just haven't read the past five or so pages (guesstimating), but I have laid out plenty of arguments. Perhaps you should follow your own advice.

[AONO.]

Nah dude, I did. I said "a lot of times".

 

I can give you some posts or pages, sure.

 

Work on better comprehension.

 

Or wait... that last post I just responded to?

 

 

[Doink!]

Nah dude, I did. I said "a lot of times".

 

I can give you some posts or pages, sure.

 

Work on better comprehension.

 

Or wait... that last post I just responded to?

 

 

 

Reread the first sentence of the bolded part that I highlighted for you. Then go back five or six pages with all of the arguments I presented.

[nWo_Kevin]

Try giving some arguments for a change to your claims like that.

 

You always say some bs that sounds right by your logic and belief, and expect others to prove you wrong, without actually wanting to maybe change your mind actually...

 

And in 2019, believe it or not, there are ways to have sex with a male and not have a child.

The thing is men don't have that option now, do they? We can have sex all we want we will never have to give birth to a child. Nobody can make us do that.

So yeah, I find it either dissrespectful to the women, or that you are oblivious to the problem.

 

I think my argument was very clear...don't have sex if you can't handle all the outcomes that might come with it. Own up to the responsibilities that come with sex. I still don't get why you are so shocked by this idea. This is very common sense.

 

Trust me, as one of the few conservatives on here, I'm constantly having to defend myself. I'm constantly having the post links to back up my views by someone like Gen. I'm pretty sure that's not an issue with me.

 

Correct, but as M3J just said on the last page "You are aware protection isn't 100% effective?"

 

And the same thing goes to men. If you don't want a child...don't have sex with women. Don't use them as one night stands. Have a real relationship with them. Learn who they are, what their beliefs are, what they stand for in regards to children and abortion. Once you know those things then take your relationship to the next level.

 

Personally I find my position of not having sex until you are both ready and can handle the risks that might come with it together to be more respectful to women. But to each their own.

[AONO.]

 

Nah dude, I did. I said "a lot of times".

 

I can give you some posts or pages, sure.

 

Work on better comprehension.

 

Or wait... that last post I just responded to?

 

 

 

Reread the first sentence of the bolded part that I highlighted for you. Then go back five or six pages with all of the arguments I presented.

 

 

The first sentence is directly responding to Kevin