No one is forcing a woman to have a child. That would imply that we are forcing them to have sex. Sex is a choice, and with the many forms of birth control, getting pregnant is also a choice. These are consensual acts, no one is forcing a woman to get pregnant. Once they are pregnant, however, then you're involving a second life.It may sound comedic but, with the scotus about to rule on Roe v Wade, I think it's relevant.
If forcing a woman to have a child according to your god's will, then shouldn't Viagra be banned because impotence was his will also?
What?No one is forcing a woman to have a child. That would imply that we are forcing them to have sex. Sex is a choice, and with the many forms of birth control, getting pregnant is also a choice. These are consensual acts, no one is forcing a woman to get pregnant. Once they are pregnant, however, then you're involving a second life.
Sex is also a choice for men taking Viagra. That’s not a distinction.No one is forcing a woman to have a child. That would imply that we are forcing them to have sex. Sex is a choice, and with the many forms of birth control, getting pregnant is also a choice. These are consensual acts, no one is forcing a woman to get pregnant. Once they are pregnant, however, then you're involving a second life.
I am more honest than you'll ever be.What?
You know that's not true. Antiabortionists want any woman to have the child because they claim that that child could be put up for adoption.
Be honest,
And where does the man come into play? He has as much responsibility for that pregnancy as any woman does,
Which brings me back to the gist of my post that you conveniently ignored.
"If forcing a woman to have a child according to your god's will, then shouldn't Viagra be banned because impotence was his will also?"
You're blaming the woman for becoming pregnant with no blame on the man. And you wonder why there is feminism?
What's your thoughts on the question?
No one is calling them victims. You're focus is only on women, as if it's all their fault for becoming pregnant. What about the mans irresponsibility in not using the contraceptive readily available to them? According to the bible, isn't sex only for procreation?I am more honest than you'll ever be.
You don't just wake up with child. There is a process, and each part of that process is consensual and controllable. I know how you want to make every irresponsible person in the world a "victim" of people who feel you should be a grown, responsible person. But they aren't victims. They went every step of the way with their eyes open and now you're whining because there is a consequence to their actions? Like they didn't know that it was a distinct possibility? And they did it anyway.
Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-abortion by any means. However, if you're going to do adult things then there are adult consequences. And I am not so simple minded as to believe that a developing human being is no different than a cancer cell. You're killing an unborn human being, and there are people who that does not sit well with.
So now you're saying the Male/Man should NOT have a say in the abortion....unless it's Rape...of course without a Male/Man a woman couldn't get pregnantWhat?
You know that's not true. Antiabortionists want any woman to have the child because they claim that that child could be put up for adoption.
Be honest,
And where does the man come into play? He has as much responsibility for that pregnancy as any woman does,
Which brings me back to the gist of my post that you conveniently ignored.
"If forcing a woman to have a child according to your god's will, then shouldn't Viagra be banned because impotence was his will also?"
You're blaming the woman for becoming pregnant with no blame on the man. And you wonder why there is feminism?
What's your thoughts on the question?
ExpertiseSex is also a choice for men taking Viagra. That’s not a distinction.
Again, you're showing your dishonesty.No one is calling them victims. You said all that focusing only on women, as if it's all their fault for becoming pregnant. What about the mans irresponsibility in not using the contraceptive readily available to them? According to the bible, isn't sex only for procreation?
Why should men be subsidized by the government for Viagra?
Appears the question at hand is if Abortion is a RIGHT given by our Constitution and has nothing to do with leftist in PJ use of ViagraAgain, you're showing your dishonesty.
I never said anything about it being "just the women". That was a lie on your part. Like I would expect any less from you.
However, Unfortunately, reality is not a big fan of social justice. And the reality is that women are the ones who carry the child. Again, we all know this, and yet women make these decisions pretending that there is no consequence.
Of course men are just as responsible and should be just as responsible. There are several forms of male contraception. Men tend to care less, however, because nature and society has allowed them to cut and run, leaving the woman to bare the consequences alone.
He seems to have forgotten that it was the Clinton administration that pushed for the subsidies on the use of Viagra. Frankly, I have no issue with it if, again, used responsibly.Appears the question at hand is if Abortion is a RIGHT given by our Constitution and has nothing to do with leftist in PJ use of Viagra
IdiocyExpertise
So you were lying again?Idiocy
Of course he did, btw, did you see the picture of Bill in a dress Maxwell dressed him inHe seems to have forgotten that it was the Clinton administration that pushed for the subsidies on the use of Viagra. Frankly, I have no issue with it if, again, used responsibly.
@write on seems to feel that it has anything to do with the issue of abortion. It doesn't. It's an entirely separate issue. If the people in question used condoms or got the shot, or used oral birth control or the morning after pill or other methods of contraception then sex shouldn't be an issue.
Okay, I'll play along.Again, you're showing your dishonesty.
I never said anything about it being "just the women". That was a lie on your part. Like I would expect any less from you.
However, Unfortunately, reality is not a big fan of social justice. And the reality is that women are the ones who carry the child. Again, we all know this, and yet women make these decisions pretending that there is no consequence.
Of course men are just as responsible and should be just as responsible. There are several forms of male contraception. Men tend to care less, however, because nature and society has allowed them to cut and run, leaving the woman to bare the consequences alone.
I don't care who subsidized it. That's not my point and you know it.He seems to have forgotten that it was the Clinton administration that pushed for the subsidies on the use of Viagra. Frankly, I have no issue with it if, again, used responsibly.
@write on seems to feel that it has anything to do with the issue of abortion. It doesn't. It's an entirely separate issue. If the people in question used condoms or got the shot, or used oral birth control or the morning after pill or other methods of contraception then sex shouldn't be an issue.
First of all, (edited), let's look at the facts. EditedIt may sound comedic but, with the scotus about to rule on Roe v Wade, I think it's relevant.
If forcing a woman to have a child according to your god's will, then shouldn't Viagra be banned because impotence was his will also?
That is a lie.No one is calling them victims. You're focus is only on women, as if it's all their fault for becoming pregnant. What about the mans irresponsibility in not using the contraceptive readily available to them? According to the bible, isn't sex only for procreation?
Why should men be subsidized by the government for Viagra?
Like I said - idiocy.So you were lying again?
Nice cut and past from where, ZeroHedge?First of all, (since you are reacting to this like a spoiled brat), let's look at the facts. I know facts are like KRYPTONITE to you, but try to follow along, like the educated posters here.
1. Overturning Roe will not end abortion. Roe was bad law that was not based on science, but rather a lot of emotional bullshitt from a bunch of Feminists. Had there been a NATIONAL right to abortion, passed by Congress and signed into law by a President, that would have been legitimate. Roe was an overreach of court power which has cost almost a TRILLION innocent babies their lives.
2. Individual states will decide if THIS person
View attachment 67344
has the same right to life as THIS person.
View attachment 67343
Your idiot blue state will probably uphold abortion on demand, which means most of your dumber left wingers will not be reproducing. Today is hell, but the actions will save the next generation, so it's not all bad news.
3. Most of America is not in favor of outlawing ALL abortion. Most of America agrees with the exceptions: rape, incest, a threat to the mother's life. Even the most radical blue states (passing POST BIRTH ABORTION) will have to send that one past the voters, and it'll take a LOT of voter fraud to get a state legislature THAT far left.
4. Nobody in the pro life debate is coming at this from a religious angle. Frankly, that's just plain fcking IGNORANT. The Bible is not the arbiter here. The FIFTH AMENDMENT here is. A person cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. And frankly, a High school slut wanting to look good in a prom dress does not qualify as due process.