Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

jamesk1973 wrote:

It is always easier to destroy something you have dehumanized or " do not consider a human".

Questionable.

I know plenty of people that are more saddened by the deaths of dogs than by the deaths of people.

 dogma wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:

It is always easier to destroy something you have dehumanized or " do not consider a human".

Questionable.

I know plenty of people that are more saddened by the deaths of dogs than by the deaths of people.

Perhaps a better statement would be about something empathized with.

Relapse wrote:
Perhaps a better statement would be about something empathized with.

Do you empathise with an ear infection when you brutally murder billions of bacteria with antibiotics?

Or with the trillions of fungal spores and bacteria and even your own cells you kill every time you wash your hands?

^ Do we empathise with the countless brain cells that die whenever we read a thread in the OT, for that matter?

 Easy E wrote:
I hear this talk about Relative Morality. Can someone point me to the Absolute Morality I should be following?

I can send a pamphlet of information with the Revealed Truth of the Great Wiener Dog if you would like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fething a woman didn't give you ownership or medical decision making rights over her body.

It's not rocket science. You wanting the child does not mean you get to violate her right to make her own healthcare decisions.

Although your avatar scares me to death, I have to agree.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I hear this talk about Relative Morality. Can someone point me to the Absolute Morality I should be following?

I can send a pamphlet of information with the Revealed Truth of the Great Wiener Dog if you would like.

Only if it is called The Wiener Tower.

 easysauce wrote:
pregnancy isnt forced....

Guess how I know you vote Republican?

 cincydooley wrote:
I think men should have some recourse if they'd prefer to abort and the woman doesn't want to so they're not on the hook for 18 years, as sadly "trap" pregnancies are a very real thing.

Don't want ot get a girl pregnant? Wrap that junk up son. Or get a vasectomy, and laugh and laugh and laugh the first time the trap is "sprung".

jamesk1973 wrote:
All the more reason to opt for adoption as opposed to abortion.

It seems there is a demand.

The state of orphanages and foster systems the world over would seem to disagree with you.

 streamdragon wrote:
Don't want ot get a girl pregnant? Wrap that junk up son. Or get a vasectomy, and laugh and laugh and laugh the first time the trap is "sprung".
.

So your solutions are use a not always reliable, highly able to be tampered with method or have surgery. Got it.

None of it will stop the fact that people are forcing you to have sex in the first place...

 streamdragon wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
pregnancy isnt forced....

Guess how I know you vote Republican?
.

guess how I know you are oblivious to facts?

only ever voted liberal (lefter then your left)..


the fashionable ultra left outrage at me being "anti choice" despite me never saying I opposed abortions, and despite me being pro choice, is indicative of your mental capabilities.

the left version of the rights "tea party" is you, and people like you.

god forbid men have a say in the fate of children they father... god forbid the mother and father have a civil, mutual discussion weather to abort or not.

 d-usa wrote:
None of it will stop the fact that people are forcing you to have sex in the first place...

"Personal Responsibility" only applies to the homeless and the uninsured ill, it appears.

I agree that it's not fair that if you get a woman pregnant, and want to keep the child and she does not, you have little say. Any remedy for this injustice is worse than the original injustice, however. I'm sure many a young woman, upon discovering that she was destined to bleed from her vagina monthly for the vast percentage of her life also thought that was pretty unfair deal.

It bes that way sometimes, like she said.

 cincydooley wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
Don't want ot get a girl pregnant? Wrap that junk up son. Or get a vasectomy, and laugh and laugh and laugh the first time the trap is "sprung".
.

So your solutions are use a not always reliable, highly able to be tampered with method or have surgery. Got it.

Or, ya know, don't have sex. I mean, it's not like people are forcing you into it.

At least I hope not. Show us on the Spess Mahreen where the mean lady touched you.

 easysauce wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
pregnancy isnt forced....

Guess how I know you vote Republican?
.

>outrage and name calling snipped<

Whoa there. Whoa....

it was supposed to be a joke referencing all the Rs who put their foots in the mouth regarding rape during the last election cycle. Probably should have made it more obvious.

Or, ya know, don't have sex. I mean, it's not like people are forcing you into it.

I'm sure plenty of people on the right would love to see a lefty toss out this answer. I'm not one of them. It's a thoughtless answer at the very least.

@Ouze - I'm not talking about absolving responsibility at all. I'd just like for male reproductive rights to exist at all since were so adamant about protecting those of the female.

 cincydooley wrote:

Or, ya know, don't have sex. I mean, it's not like people are forcing you into it.

I'm sure plenty of people on the right would love to see a lefty toss out this answer. I'm not one of them. It's a thoughtless answer at the very least.

@Ouze - I'm not talking about absolving responsibility at all. I'd just like for male reproductive rights to exist at all since were so adamant about protecting those of the female.

You do have the exact same rights as a woman, you can talk to your physician and decide what medical procedures you do or do not want done on you. You can decide what medications you want to take or what surgeries you want performed on you. You are 100% equal in rights to women. Both men and women have the right to make medical decisions for themselves.

Nothing you do should take away another person's right to decide what they happens to their own body. You should never have a legal right that forces another person to lose their rights to their own bodies.

Here is something you can try: keep a stack of Medical Power of Attorney forms in your pocket. Next time you want to feth somebody make sure that you sit them down before you stick it in and explain to them that you would like for them to sign away their right to make their own healthcare decisions and give you the legal right to determine what medical procedures they are allowed to have or what medications they are allowed to take. Ask them to give you medical ownership of their bodies so that you can feth them. See how many of them will spread their legs for you.

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Or, ya know, don't have sex. I mean, it's not like people are forcing you into it.

I'm sure plenty of people on the right would love to see a lefty toss out this answer. I'm not one of them. It's a thoughtless answer at the very least.

@Ouze - I'm not talking about absolving responsibility at all. I'd just like for male reproductive rights to exist at all since were so adamant about protecting those of the female.

You do have the exact same rights as a woman, you can talk to your physician and decide what medical procedures you do or do not want done on you. You can decide what medications you want to take or what surgeries you want performed on you. You are 100% equal in rights to women. Both men and women have the right to make medical decisions for themselves.

Nothing you do should take away another person's right to decide what they happens to their own body. You should never have a legal right that forces another person to lose their rights to their own bodies.

Here is something you can try: keep a stack of Medical Power of Attorney forms in your pocket. Next time you want to feth somebody make sure that you sit them down before you stick it in and explain to them that you would like for them to sign away their right to make their own healthcare decisions and give you the legal right to determine what medical procedures they are allowed to have or what medications they are allowed to take. Ask them to give you medical ownership of their bodies so that you can feth them. See how many of them will spread their legs for you.

We will have to agree to disagree that those rights are equal.

Do you have less medical autonomy over your body than a woman has over her body?

Edited.

 d-usa wrote:
Do you have less medical autonomy over your body than a woman has over her body?

Nope. But because of that you have fewer reproductive rights.

If a woman chooses not to abort a baby a man doesn't want, he should be able to legally absolve himself of parental responsibility. I think there should be a timeframe in which one has to make that decision. Make it the same amount of time a woman is legally allowed to have elective reproductive surgery.

 streamdragon wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
pregnancy isnt forced....

Guess how I know you vote Republican?

 cincydooley wrote:
I think men should have some recourse if they'd prefer to abort and the woman doesn't want to so they're not on the hook for 18 years, as sadly "trap" pregnancies are a very real thing.

Don't want ot get a girl pregnant? Wrap that junk up son. Or get a vasectomy, and laugh and laugh and laugh the first time the trap is "sprung".

jamesk1973 wrote:
All the more reason to opt for adoption as opposed to abortion.

It seems there is a demand.

The state of orphanages and foster systems the world over would seem to disagree with you.

There are a ton of hoops to jump through if you want to adopt, and rightly so, but this discourages a lot of people from adopting.

 streamdragon wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
Don't want ot get a girl pregnant? Wrap that junk up son. Or get a vasectomy, and laugh and laugh and laugh the first time the trap is "sprung".
.

So your solutions are use a not always reliable, highly able to be tampered with method or have surgery. Got it.

Or, ya know, don't have sex. I mean, it's not like people are forcing you into it.

I agree wrapping it is a stupid way try to prevent pregnancy, it is made to help prevent STDs though so it's a nice thought.
Nothing wrong with the pill or Implanon unless she has an adverse effect to it, more reliable than condoms while less extreme than a vasectomy. Probably about as successful as the vasectomy would have been anyways. Though that's if you're not just sleeping around everywhere.

 cincydooley wrote:
If a woman chooses not to abort a baby a man doesn't want, he should be able to legally absolve himself of parental responsibility.

I'm not unsympathetic to this point of view, even though I don't quite agree with it. I ultimately think that agreeing to have sex with someone means both parties are potentially exposing themselves to a 19 year commitment regardless of contraception.

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
If a woman chooses not to abort a baby a man doesn't want, he should be able to legally absolve himself of parental responsibility.

I'm not unsympathetic to this point of view, even though I don't quite agree with it.

While that may be the 'fairest' of solution, the social repercussion would only be that more women would be driven to abort against their own initial will, or that monoparental families would become overall poorer.

Sometimes, 'fair' and 'good' aren't exactly the same.

I blame this thread on Games Workshop, if they knew how to write coherant rules sets the abortion issue would be settled already!

SCREE SCREE!!

- J

Free abortions for all democrats.

jamesk1973 wrote:
Free abortions for all democrats.

Why not go one step further and make it free for everyone?

 Cheesecat wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Free abortions for all democrats.

Why not go one step further and make it free for everyone?

To slow down the passing of defective genes?

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
If a woman chooses not to abort a baby a man doesn't want, he should be able to legally absolve himself of parental responsibility.

I'm not unsympathetic to this point of view, even though I don't quite agree with it. I ultimately think that agreeing to have sex with someone means both parties are potentially exposing themselves to a 19 year commitment regardless of contraception.

Now I'll be candid here and say I'm playing devils advocate bit. My real viewpoints on reproduction are far more draconian

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Free abortions for all democrats.

Why not go one step further and make it free for everyone?

To slow down the passing of defective genes?

It's a well known violation of rule one to accuse someone of trolling, so I will instead say that your stance that people who disagree with you are genetically defective and should be weeded out of society via eugenics is surely something you actually believe, and totally an OK place for us to continue this thread! In fact, this whole thread was a good place to allow for an vibrant discussion of ideas that were respected by all involved in a honest and reasonable way and not at all predicated on a completely inane premise!

 Ouze wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Free abortions for all democrats.

Why not go one step further and make it free for everyone?

To slow down the passing of defective genes?

It's a well known violation of rule one to accuse someone of trolling, so I will instead say that your stance that people who disagree with you are genetically defective and should be weeded out of society via eugenics is surely something you actually believe, and totally an OK place for us to continue this thread! In fact, this whole thread was a good place to allow for an vibrant discussion of ideas that were respected by all involved in a honest and reasonable way and not at all predicated on a completely inane premise!

I'm surprised he hasn't pitched the idea that guns are a good thing for Democrats because Republicans will be the ones that own them and accidentally shoot themselves with them...

 Ouze wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Free abortions for all democrats.

Why not go one step further and make it free for everyone?

To slow down the passing of defective genes?

It's a well known violation of rule one to accuse someone of trolling, so I will instead say that your stance that people who disagree with you are genetically defective and should be weeded out of society via eugenics is surely something you actually believe, and totally an OK place for us to continue this thread! In fact, this whole thread was a good place to allow for an vibrant discussion of ideas that were respected by all involved in a honest and reasonable way and not at all predicated on a completely inane premise!

I don't have the numbers but I am willing to make the sweeping generalization that more liberals than conservatives obtain abortions.

If that premise is followed fewer children will be born to liberal parents.

Thus fewer innocents will be exposed to liberal ideals.

Given a couple more generations the hippie liberals will be bred out.