Oh come on. You are just doing this for laughs now aren't you? You can't possibly believe that is why the majority of abortions take place in this country.
Logic eludes your side of the argument. The opt-out vs. abortion is a one way gate. Many possibilities on one side, one possibility on the other side.
You can't pick one of a multitude of possibilities and use that as a blanket example to base your laws on. That's what you're trying to do. It's simple logic.
Man would I be rich if I could figure out a way to stab people with ice picks through the computer screen.
When the women is making a decision about her fetus, you say her decision is about her fetus. "She's aborting a fetus, nothing more."
When the man is making a decision AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME (the opt out), then all of a sudden it is not a fetus anymore (the present), but already a child (from the future), according to your argument. "A man is opting out of raising the child that would come from the fetus."
Do you see how this is a problem?
Don't bother capitalizing the 'AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME' because that's still not the issue. I'm not arguing the when something is asked, but the what that is asked.
The initial thread started is asking for an opt-out clause that allows a man to opt-out of raising the child that would come from the fetus. That's not my qualification, that's the thread starter's qualification.
With abortion a woman says cut this part of my body out of me today. With the proposed opt-out plan a man would be allowed to say if that zygote grows into a human I'm not responsible for it. Abortion and opt-out inherently are discussing two different periods of time in the development of a child/fetus and are thus not equitable or comparable.
I didn't create this inequitable scenario, the thread does. It's the problem I've been highlighting all along. This scenario shows that abortion and this fabled opt-out have nothing in common and shouldn't be compared as equals.
Don't bother capitalizing the 'AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME' because that's still not the issue. I'm not arguing the when something is asked, but the what that is asked.
The initial thread started is asking for an opt-out clause that allows a man to opt-out of raising the child that would come from the fetus. That's not my qualification, that's the thread starter's qualification.
With abortion a woman says cut this part of my body out of me today. With the proposed opt-out plan a man would be allowed to say if that zygote grows into a human I'm not responsible for it. Abortion and opt-out inherently are discussing two different periods of time in the development of a child/fetus and are thus not equitable or comparable.
I didn't create this inequitable scenario, the thread does. It's the problem I've been highlighting all along. This scenario shows that abortion and this fabled opt-out have nothing in common and shouldn't be compared as equals.
And your line of reasoning has been proven to be more flawed than an object that is so flawed it is REALLY REALLY REALLY flawed and yet you still insist on being right.
The sky is blue.
No it isn't. It's shit brown.
No, it's blue. Look. See?
LIES! IT'S SHIT BROWN!
DAMMIT MAN THE SKY IS BLUE!
LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE EXTREME NOISE CAUSED BY THE SHIT BROWN SKY!
Man would I be rich if I could figure out a way to stab people with ice picks through the computer screen.
Use some logic instead. It'll get you into less trouble.
Abortions have many motivations and thus can't be tied to any single one. If it could, then that single motivation could undermine the legality of abortions in general. Much the same killing someone isn't illegal, but murder is. Killing someone has many motivations and is thus not illegal across the board while murder on the other hand is always illegal.
Opt-out, in this analogy, is murder. That is, it has one motivation and that motivation is not comparable to the multitude of motivations behind abortions. That motivation is by definition to absolve a father of parenting responsibilities, one of many possible motivations for an abortion.
The argument works in one direction but not the other. That's how logic works sometimes.
And your line of reasoning has been proven to be more flawed than an object that is so flawed it is REALLY REALLY REALLY flawed and yet you still insist on being right.
Use some logic instead. It'll get you into less trouble.
Abortions have many motivations and thus can't be tied to any single one. If it could, then that single motivation could undermine the legality of abortions in general. Much the same killing someone isn't illegal, but murder is. Killing someone has many motivations and is thus not illegal across the board while murder on the other hand is always illegal.
Opt-out, in this analogy, is murder. That is, it has one motivation and that motivation is not comparable to the multitude of motivations behind abortions. That motivation is by definition to absolve a father of parenting responsibilities, one of many possible motivations for an abortion.
The argument works in one direction but not the other. That's how logic works sometimes.
So, you believe that general abortion should be illegal and only allow prescription abortion as a last resort to save a mother's life that is clearly in danger?
So, you believe that general abortion should be illegal and only allow prescription abortion as a last resort to save a mother's life that is clearly in danger?
No. Why don't you research the many number of reasons a woman might get an abortion.
What I'm saying is that allowing a man to opt-out of parenting responsibilites of a human being, giving all of the responsibilities to the other parent, is not equivalent to an abortion. That's pretty straight forward (even for someone as slow as you. )
The initial thread started is asking for an opt-out clause that allows a man to opt-out of raising the child that would come from the fetus. That's not my qualification, that's the thread starter's qualification.
Think of it as an opt-out from the fetus. There? Are you OK with the opt-out now? Now there is no opting out of raising the child for the man, the abortion-for-men has legally killed it from his perspective.
The initial post simply asked for an alternative for men that is similar to a woman's right to an abortion. The qualifications are coming from you.
From that first post:
"The premise:
On January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court eliminated a checkerboard of state laws on reproductive freedom and guaranteed American women choice throughout the country. Thirty years later, American men are still waiting for the same right.
Women participate in ending their parental rights via abortion, adoption or in some states even abandonment within the first couple months after the pregnancy. All with absolutely no consequences for her actions.
Why should men, if they don't so desire be subjected to 18 years of child support demands if they didn't even desire the child in the first place?"
Think of it as an opt-out from the fetus. There? Are you OK with the opt-out now? Now there is no opting out of raising the child for the man, the abortion-for-men has legally killed it from his perspective.
The initial post simply asked for an alternative for men that is similar to a woman's right to an abortion. The qualifications are coming from you.
I've asked if trumptman would change the argument to opting out of responsibilities during the fetus stage and he wouldn't do it.
My opinion is just that an opt-out isn't similar to an abortion.
Abortion to avoid having to raise a kid is murder in your eyes. A GOOD PORTION of abortions are for that very reason. Deal with it.
Um, no. It's not murder to me. And I'm aware that a good portion of abortions are for this reason. It's just not the sole reason. Unlike opt-out as discussed here, where opting out of parental responsibilites is the sole reason.
Use some logic instead. It'll get you into less trouble.
Abortions have many motivations and thus can't be tied to any single one. If it could, then that single motivation could undermine the legality of abortions in general. Much the same killing someone isn't illegal, but murder is. Killing someone has many motivations and is thus not illegal across the board while murder on the other hand is always illegal.
I've asked if trumptman would change the argument to opting out of responsibilities during the fetus stage and he wouldn't do it.
My opinion is just that an opt-out isn't similar to an abortion.
bunge,
You know I really try never to be rude. But I have NO idea what you are talking about. I don't have a magic thread control button. Likewise I don't understand what sort of question you are attempting to rephrase the discussion to with regard to different from what it is now.
I'm glad to "hear you say that", because I looked through the thread again (it is very long, I did not re-read every single post) and I couldn't figure out what he was talking about either.
I did notice this on page 2, written by Bunge.
"And the man has the choice before conception, after that, it's in the woman's body and he shouldn't have a say until the child is out of body."
After seeing this post in light of his more recent ones, it all starts to make more sense.
BR, re-read what you quoted. I didn't say anything near what you've accused me of saying.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
bunge,
You know I really try never to be rude. But I have NO idea what you are talking about. I don't have a magic thread control button.
You're not a magician?
The issue that's been regurgitated is that the opt-out only effects a fetus because it's only allowed during the fetus/first two trimesters of the pregnancy. And because it's only allowed during the same time period as an abortion it is equivalent to an abortion.
"And the man has the choice before conception, after that, it's in the woman's body and he shouldn't have a say until the child is out of body."
After seeing this post in light of his more recent ones, it all starts to make more sense.
I also said this on page one:
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Yes. I say men should be able to abort any fetuses inside their bodies.
Prior to birth, both sexes have basically the same choices. Those being birth control, or surgery, to avoid pregnancies. After birth they still have the same choices. Those being keeping the kid, adoption or abandon. During the pregnancy current biology supports the fact that a woman has control of her body, not anyone else.
Comments
LOL!
Nice post! I think you summed it up better than I did, certainly with more humor.
james808 (aka "Someone")
Originally posted by bunge
Accidental death during birth?
Oh come on. You are just doing this for laughs now aren't you? You can't possibly believe that is why the majority of abortions take place in this country.
Originally posted by bunge
Accidental death during birth?
Logic eludes your side of the argument. The opt-out vs. abortion is a one way gate. Many possibilities on one side, one possibility on the other side.
You can't pick one of a multitude of possibilities and use that as a blanket example to base your laws on. That's what you're trying to do. It's simple logic.
Man would I be rich if I could figure out a way to stab people with ice picks through the computer screen.
Originally posted by james808
When the women is making a decision about her fetus, you say her decision is about her fetus. "She's aborting a fetus, nothing more."
When the man is making a decision AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME (the opt out), then all of a sudden it is not a fetus anymore (the present), but already a child (from the future), according to your argument. "A man is opting out of raising the child that would come from the fetus."
Do you see how this is a problem?
Don't bother capitalizing the 'AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME' because that's still not the issue. I'm not arguing the when something is asked, but the what that is asked.
The initial thread started is asking for an opt-out clause that allows a man to opt-out of raising the child that would come from the fetus. That's not my qualification, that's the thread starter's qualification.
With abortion a woman says cut this part of my body out of me today. With the proposed opt-out plan a man would be allowed to say if that zygote grows into a human I'm not responsible for it. Abortion and opt-out inherently are discussing two different periods of time in the development of a child/fetus and are thus not equitable or comparable.
I didn't create this inequitable scenario, the thread does. It's the problem I've been highlighting all along. This scenario shows that abortion and this fabled opt-out have nothing in common and shouldn't be compared as equals.
Originally posted by bunge
Don't bother capitalizing the 'AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME' because that's still not the issue. I'm not arguing the when something is asked, but the what that is asked.
The initial thread started is asking for an opt-out clause that allows a man to opt-out of raising the child that would come from the fetus. That's not my qualification, that's the thread starter's qualification.
With abortion a woman says cut this part of my body out of me today. With the proposed opt-out plan a man would be allowed to say if that zygote grows into a human I'm not responsible for it. Abortion and opt-out inherently are discussing two different periods of time in the development of a child/fetus and are thus not equitable or comparable.
I didn't create this inequitable scenario, the thread does. It's the problem I've been highlighting all along. This scenario shows that abortion and this fabled opt-out have nothing in common and shouldn't be compared as equals.
And your line of reasoning has been proven to be more flawed than an object that is so flawed it is REALLY REALLY REALLY flawed and yet you still insist on being right.
The sky is blue.
No it isn't. It's shit brown.
No, it's blue. Look. See?
LIES! IT'S SHIT BROWN!
DAMMIT MAN THE SKY IS BLUE!
LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE EXTREME NOISE CAUSED BY THE SHIT BROWN SKY!
What? Colors don't make noise! ARGGGGGGGH
Originally posted by BR
Man would I be rich if I could figure out a way to stab people with ice picks through the computer screen.
Use some logic instead. It'll get you into less trouble.
Abortions have many motivations and thus can't be tied to any single one. If it could, then that single motivation could undermine the legality of abortions in general. Much the same killing someone isn't illegal, but murder is. Killing someone has many motivations and is thus not illegal across the board while murder on the other hand is always illegal.
Opt-out, in this analogy, is murder. That is, it has one motivation and that motivation is not comparable to the multitude of motivations behind abortions. That motivation is by definition to absolve a father of parenting responsibilities, one of many possible motivations for an abortion.
The argument works in one direction but not the other. That's how logic works sometimes.
Originally posted by BR
And your line of reasoning has been proven to be more flawed than an object that is so flawed it is REALLY REALLY REALLY flawed and yet you still insist on being right.
Originally posted by bunge
Use some logic instead. It'll get you into less trouble.
Abortions have many motivations and thus can't be tied to any single one. If it could, then that single motivation could undermine the legality of abortions in general. Much the same killing someone isn't illegal, but murder is. Killing someone has many motivations and is thus not illegal across the board while murder on the other hand is always illegal.
Opt-out, in this analogy, is murder. That is, it has one motivation and that motivation is not comparable to the multitude of motivations behind abortions. That motivation is by definition to absolve a father of parenting responsibilities, one of many possible motivations for an abortion.
The argument works in one direction but not the other. That's how logic works sometimes.
So, you believe that general abortion should be illegal and only allow prescription abortion as a last resort to save a mother's life that is clearly in danger?
What you're saying makes NO sense.
Maybe I'm just slow here, but could you elaborate a bit on what you mean. I am completely lost by where you're trying to go with your "logic".
A nice logic tree like BR's would help.
Originally posted by BR
So, you believe that general abortion should be illegal and only allow prescription abortion as a last resort to save a mother's life that is clearly in danger?
No. Why don't you research the many number of reasons a woman might get an abortion.
Originally posted by Longhorn
What you're saying makes NO sense.
What I'm saying is that allowing a man to opt-out of parenting responsibilites of a human being, giving all of the responsibilities to the other parent, is not equivalent to an abortion. That's pretty straight forward (even for someone as slow as you.
Originally posted by bunge
No. Why don't you research the many number of reasons a woman might get an abortion.
Abortion to avoid having to raise a kid is murder in your eyes. A GOOD PORTION of abortions are for that very reason. Deal with it.
Originally posted by bunge
The initial thread started is asking for an opt-out clause that allows a man to opt-out of raising the child that would come from the fetus. That's not my qualification, that's the thread starter's qualification.
Think of it as an opt-out from the fetus. There? Are you OK with the opt-out now? Now there is no opting out of raising the child for the man, the abortion-for-men has legally killed it from his perspective.
The initial post simply asked for an alternative for men that is similar to a woman's right to an abortion. The qualifications are coming from you.
From that first post:
"The premise:
On January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court eliminated a checkerboard of state laws on reproductive freedom and guaranteed American women choice throughout the country. Thirty years later, American men are still waiting for the same right.
Women participate in ending their parental rights via abortion, adoption or in some states even abandonment within the first couple months after the pregnancy. All with absolutely no consequences for her actions.
Why should men, if they don't so desire be subjected to 18 years of child support demands if they didn't even desire the child in the first place?"
Originally posted by james808
Think of it as an opt-out from the fetus. There? Are you OK with the opt-out now? Now there is no opting out of raising the child for the man, the abortion-for-men has legally killed it from his perspective.
The initial post simply asked for an alternative for men that is similar to a woman's right to an abortion. The qualifications are coming from you.
I've asked if trumptman would change the argument to opting out of responsibilities during the fetus stage and he wouldn't do it.
My opinion is just that an opt-out isn't similar to an abortion.
Originally posted by BR
Abortion to avoid having to raise a kid is murder in your eyes. A GOOD PORTION of abortions are for that very reason. Deal with it.
Um, no. It's not murder to me. And I'm aware that a good portion of abortions are for this reason. It's just not the sole reason. Unlike opt-out as discussed here, where opting out of parental responsibilites is the sole reason.
Originally posted by bunge
Um, no. It's not murder to me.
Use some logic instead. It'll get you into less trouble.
Abortions have many motivations and thus can't be tied to any single one. If it could, then that single motivation could undermine the legality of abortions in general. Much the same killing someone isn't illegal, but murder is. Killing someone has many motivations and is thus not illegal across the board while murder on the other hand is always illegal.
Opt-out, in this analogy, is murder.
Originally posted by bunge
I've asked if trumptman would change the argument to opting out of responsibilities during the fetus stage and he wouldn't do it.
My opinion is just that an opt-out isn't similar to an abortion.
bunge,
You know I really try never to be rude. But I have NO idea what you are talking about. I don't have a magic thread control button. Likewise I don't understand what sort of question you are attempting to rephrase the discussion to with regard to different from what it is now.
Nick
I did notice this on page 2, written by Bunge.
"And the man has the choice before conception, after that, it's in the woman's body and he shouldn't have a say until the child is out of body."
After seeing this post in light of his more recent ones, it all starts to make more sense.
Originally posted by trumptman
bunge,
You know I really try never to be rude. But I have NO idea what you are talking about. I don't have a magic thread control button.
You're not a magician?
The issue that's been regurgitated is that the opt-out only effects a fetus because it's only allowed during the fetus/first two trimesters of the pregnancy. And because it's only allowed during the same time period as an abortion it is equivalent to an abortion.
What I'm saying is that this is not the case.
Originally posted by james808
I did notice this on page 2, written by Bunge.
"And the man has the choice before conception, after that, it's in the woman's body and he shouldn't have a say until the child is out of body."
After seeing this post in light of his more recent ones, it all starts to make more sense.
I also said this on page one:
Originally posted by bunge
Yes. I say men should be able to abort any fetuses inside their bodies.
Prior to birth, both sexes have basically the same choices. Those being birth control, or surgery, to avoid pregnancies. After birth they still have the same choices. Those being keeping the kid, adoption or abandon. During the pregnancy current biology supports the fact that a woman has control of her body, not anyone else.