New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

This is a serious question

Colorforms

Senator
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?
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.
 

write on

Senator
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.
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?
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
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.
 

Colorforms

Senator
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?
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.
 

write on

Senator
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.
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?
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
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?
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 pregnant
 
Last edited:

Colorforms

Senator
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?
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.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
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.
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
 

Colorforms

Senator
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
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.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
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.
Of course he did, btw, did you see the picture of Bill in a dress Maxwell dressed him in :)

If a Male needs Viagra to have sex can they even make babies? Pushing a dead rope doesn't make it seem possible?
 

write on

Senator
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.
Okay, I'll play along.

Since the scotus is about to rule on abortion, query me this, which is happening in TX and MS.

1638750928573.png
 

write on

Senator
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.
I don't care who subsidized it. That's not my point and you know it.

@write on seems to feel that it has anything to do with the issue of abortion. It doesn't

Yes, it does. If a man had a uterus, he wouldn't have the same opinion he does now.
 

reason10

Governor
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?
First of all, (edited), let's look at the facts. Edited


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
1638751664168.png
has the same right to life as this person.
1638751663799.png
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 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.
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:

reason10

Governor
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?
That is a lie.

Nobody is just blaming women for becoming pregnant. And state family law statutes provide for forced support of mothers with children, even out of wedlock. Child support isn't just for married people. (Edited)

Men are not subsidized by government for Viagra. It is a prescription drug available on the free market, (obviously from the high demand coming from the left.) Tell us again how an erectile dysfunction drug somehow magically causes a woman to become pregnant out of wedlock.

And the Roe thing isn't being argued according to any religious innuendo. It was based on faulty science. And it will not be completely overturned. (Edited)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

write on

Senator
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.
Nice cut and past from where, ZeroHedge?

1. Overturning Roe will not end abortion.

First you weakly tried to blame Science without any evidence with your petty mindset that would fool who? And then you quickly switched to the religious angle.

...because Science scares you.

2. States will decide.

I'm amazed at how many fall for that line. Of course they will. Far right wing fascists that have taking control of the Republican party are confident that their plan is working in the stages I mentioned before.

Those pictures that you posted made me laugh. You want to fight for a life that you don't really care for one way or the other. It's right wing tactic that I think is wearing thin with a lot of their electorate. Look at any poll.

How Christian of you.

3. Most of America is not in favor of outlawing ALL abortion.

See #2.

4. Nobody in the pro life debate is coming at this from a religious angle.

How do you respond to a blatant lie?
 
Top