PDA

View Full Version : A Woman's Right to an Abortion



Fantastika
05-05-2015, 04:17
Okay, so, the feminist mantra is that a woman has a right to an abortion, because it's her body and she and she alone is in control of her own body. No one else, even the seed-planting boyfriend, has any say in the matter.

So, since parenthood is a two-sided issue (mother + father), then what say does the man have in the decisions about children, or family? Isn't parenting a partnership, major decisions made with agreements?

The only fair thing, would be, to me, if the woman chooses to have the baby, but the boyfriend does not want to be a father, then he should not be forced to pay support for the child and mother for 18 years.

Nobbynumbnuts
05-05-2015, 05:10
....The only fair thing, would be, to me, if the woman chooses to have the baby, but the boyfriend does not want to be a father, then he should not be forced to pay support for the child and mother for 18 years.

..but did he wear a condom? If he doesn't want to be a father, then that's the only way he can ensure he doesn't have unwanted children and financial commitments. If he didn't wear a condom and she then gets pregnant, he cannot force her to have an abortion (her body rule) and he has to meet a share of the cost of raising the child.
Or was he just hoping she wouldn't get pregnant or if she did she would agree to an abortion?
Either way he's liable to a share of the costs...

Fantastika
05-05-2015, 05:25
..but did he wear a condom? If he doesn't want to be a father, then that's the only way he can ensure he doesn't have unwanted children and financial commitments. If he didn't wear a condom and she then gets pregnant, he cannot force her to have an abortion (her body rule) and he has to meet a share of the cost of raising the child.
Or was he just hoping she wouldn't get pregnant or if she did she would agree to an abortion?
Either way he's liable to a share of the costs...

Did she have a diaphragm? Did she take the pill? Did she have a sponge?

The woman's lack of pre-planning can not be justified by the man's lack of foresight...

But lack of forethought, foresight or foreplay is not the issue here:

If the woman wants 100% control over the decision of whether or not to give birth to a child, then she should be prepared to take full responsibility for raising the child.

Benedikt
05-05-2015, 05:56
first i believe about these theme we can talk until hell freezes over. and come to no conclusion or solution.
secondly, in this day and age, if a woman wants to be in control and is only after sex, there are plenty things on the market to make sure she does not become pregnant.
third, if a man is silly enough to fornicate around and not using a condom, he really has his brain in his di**. and we know a man can only think with one head... and every woman knows that as well.

vossy7
05-05-2015, 06:18
:10293: ....... just waiting for the Rus onslaught , on second thoughts this might be better :11158:

Benedikt
05-05-2015, 06:37
:10293: ....... just waiting for the Rus onslaught , on second thoughts this might be better :11158:



but has his own opinion and i have no problem with that.

Fantastika
05-05-2015, 07:05
:10293: ....... just waiting for the Rus onslaught , on second thoughts this might be better :11158:

I'm not talking about the morality of abortion itself, although I am opposed to abortion.

Let's say there are four cases after the woman becomes with child:

1. The woman and the man both want the child - the happy couple lives happily ever after with child (spoiled brat if you live in Baltimore).

2. The woman and the man both do not want the child - the happy couple lives happily ever after.

3. The woman wants the child, the man does not.

4. The woman does not want the child, the man does.

In cases 3 and 4, according to the prevalent feminist law, the woman decides what to do, the man has no rights, even though he is the father.

What happened to the father's rights?

Benedikt
05-05-2015, 07:19
men have only rights when it suits THEM. for the rest of the time we are mostly beer swilling, chips chewing useless appendages that are sometimes needed to donate sperm...

but they still want that we open the door for them, move the chair in the restaurant. and god help us if/when we forget their birthday...

rusmeister
05-05-2015, 07:30
The deliberate ending of life already begun; of having to take special action to prevent the appearance of a breathing, crying baby that inconveniences us, of having to take forceps and scissors to crush an existing skull and snip off arms and legs and induce the mother to expel the corpse in pieces (heck, such death porn is legal on TV) is murder. All other words, even "abort" are efforts to cover that simple and obvious fact up. (We are so fond of Ghandi, until he says abortion should be a crime.)

Really, Fantastika, your question is rather irrelevant in the face of that. If the thing is murder, what does it matter whether the man has a say in it? Either one advocating it is premeditating murder.

All the rest of the talk about contraception is efforts to separate the sex act from its natural function, to make a process obviously intended for (having the potential of) reproduction purely a source of pleasure. It is stealing that pleasure from the natural process, and violently crushing the natural consequence.

shurale
05-05-2015, 08:42
Okay, so, the feminist mantra is that a woman has a right to an abortion, because it's her body and she and she alone is in control of her own body. No one else, even the seed-planting boyfriend, has any say in the matter.

So, since parenthood is a two-sided issue (mother + father), then what say does the man have in the decisions about children, or family? Isn't parenting a partnership, major decisions made with agreements?

The only fair thing, would be, to me, if the woman chooses to have the baby, but the boyfriend does not want to be a father, then he should not be forced to pay support for the child and mother for 18 years.

All ills of this world are from women having rights and talking too much.
If Eve kept her mouth shut, we would be still living in the Garden of Eden.

natlee
05-05-2015, 10:37
The only fair thing, would be, to me, if the woman chooses to have the baby, but the boyfriend does not want to be a father, then he should not be forced to pay support for the child and mother for 18 years. Wow, you're a man's dream woman arentcha! :nut:

It is because of people (normally men!) that think like you many (women) opt for abortion for fear of being unable to cope on their own. Hardly surprising!

vossy7
05-05-2015, 11:05
What really amazes me is that it is usually men who are the most opinionated on the subject when in actual fact that haven't got a bloody clue about it :soapbox:

AstarD
05-05-2015, 12:25
The only fair thing, would be, to me, if the woman chooses to have the baby, but the boyfriend does not want to be a father, then he should not be forced to pay support for the child and mother for 18 years.Yes, if we actually want to have equality, this is the only fair solution.

natlee
05-05-2015, 12:48
The only fair solution is for both parents to be to take fecking responsibility. After all, unless one was raped, they both made the pregnancy happen!

AstarD
05-05-2015, 12:53
The only fair solution is for both parents to be to take fecking responsibility. After all, unless one was raped, they both made the pregnancy happen!So, if the father wants the baby and is willing to be responsible, the mother should have to carry it to term and let him be responsible?

natlee
05-05-2015, 14:04
So, if the father wants the baby and is willing to be responsible, the mother should have to carry it to term and let him be responsible? I know a man and a woman who did just that. They had barely known one another, but he was in his forties, no children of his own, and asked her to keep the baby promising to take good care of it. She was about 20. She gave in, had their son who became, as had been agreed, his full financial responsibility, in addition to which he personally took him to and picked him up from every playgroup, class etc. and had him at his place about half the time. He got married soon after and when the boy was about, hmmm, four to five, he moved in with the dad and his wife. The mother went on to marry and move to Switzerland. The boy is about 14 now, and she occasionally suggests he joins her now she's settled but then they end up agreeing that it's best he finishes school in Moscow first.

rusmeister
05-05-2015, 14:08
Wow, you're a man's dream woman arentcha! :nut:

It is because of people (normally men!) that think like you many (women) opt for abortion for fear of being unable to cope on their own. Hardly surprising!

I thank this post!!

Where's the darn button...?

Nobbynumbnuts
05-05-2015, 15:02
Did she have a diaphragm? Did she take the pill? Did she have a sponge?

The woman's lack of pre-planning can not be justified by the man's lack of foresight...

But lack of forethought, foresight or foreplay is not the issue here:

If the woman wants 100% control over the decision of whether or not to give birth to a child, then she should be prepared to take full responsibility for raising the child.

If two people agree to have sex then both are responsible for the outcome, because both have choices.
Because the woman wants an abortion, and he doesn't, that doesn't absolve the father from responsibility.
Because a man cannot physically force a woman to have an abortion, he can't be allowed to apply pressure mentally to get her to do so by saying if she doesn't, she's on her own financially. That's wrong, women get emotionally attached when pregnant. That's the way they are built-the baby is inside them. That's not their fault.

There's also another flaw to your argument. You are forgetting the child in all this. It didn't ask to be born. If two people agree to sex, there's always the chance of pregnancy, if measures aren't taken. Both parties cannot absolve themselves from it and giving the best care to the child.

Nobbynumbnuts
05-05-2015, 15:14
So, if the father wants the baby and is willing to be responsible, the mother should have to carry it to term and let him be responsible?

No, it's the woman who carries the baby to term and her responsibilities don't stop there. The child needs it's mother's physical presence far more than the father's. This is the natural way of things. Considering her role is far more important it's only right she should have the last say on abortion.

rusmeister
05-05-2015, 16:09
No, it's the woman who carries the baby to term and her responsibilities don't stop there. The child needs it's mother's physical presence far more than the father's. This is the natural way of things. Considering her role is far more important it's only right she should have the last say on abortion.

Since abortion is murder it's never right that "she should have the last say".
Would you actually deny the the baby in the womb is in fact killed? Or are you saying it's only a baby if the mother wants it, and if she doesn't, then it's "a clump of cells"? (Something we still are to this day.)

Nobbynumbnuts
05-05-2015, 16:22
Since abortion is murder it's never right that "she should have the last say".
Would you actually deny the the baby in the womb is in fact killed? Or are you saying it's only a baby if the mother wants it, and if she doesn't, then it's "a clump of cells"? (Something we still are to this day.)

..but this isn't a discussion about the legality of abortion.

AstarD
05-05-2015, 16:23
Indeed. I don't know why anyone gets outraged then if a woman aborts her baby during the fourth trimester. It is surely a greatly inconvenient lump of cells at that point as well. And it's still developing. And besides, it can't function or live independently.

penka
05-05-2015, 16:42
I want to thank nobby, but there is no thank you button!

AstarD
05-05-2015, 16:45
..but this isn't a discussion about the legality of abortion.No, it's about equality. And as far as children and child support are concerned, men are very unequal.

Nobbynumbnuts
05-05-2015, 16:49
I want to thank nobby, but there is no thank you button!

Thanks accepted ;)

penka
05-05-2015, 16:50
No, it's about equality. And as far as children and child support are concerned, men are very unequal.

Can a gender equality exist at all? Given the burdens and inconveniences of PMS, menstruating, child-bearing, menopause? Women are expected to perform, work, pay taxes, regardless.

penka
05-05-2015, 16:51
Thanks accepted ;)

:))))

AstarD
05-05-2015, 16:54
Can a gender equality exist at all? Given the burdens and inconveniences of PMS, menstruating, child-bearing, menopause? Women are expected to perform, work, pay taxes, regardless.
You think men don't have physical pressures and stresses? Of course, men and women aren't the same. Whoever tries to tell you that is a fool. Not only our bodies are constructed differently, but so are our minds. But we're not discussing about what each sex has to put up with physically, are we? Unless you want the law to treat you somehow as less-able because of these physical handicaps.

Nobbynumbnuts
05-05-2015, 17:00
No, it's about equality. And as far as children and child support are concerned, men are very unequal.

Equality is difficult to define when we're talking about pregnancy and child rearing.
The woman goes through the discomfort of carrying the child for 9 months then goes through the very difficult and for a lot of women, very dangerous birth process. Then she spends many years of her life caring and rearing the children. The vast majority do this without complaint and often with not much thanks.

Now please tell me how men are not treated equally...

AstarD
05-05-2015, 17:03
Equality is difficult to define when we're talking about pregnancy and child rearing.
The woman goes through the discomfort of carrying the child for 9 months then goes through the very difficult and for a lot of women, very dangerous birth process. Then she spends many years of her life caring and rearing the children. The vast majority do this without complaint and often with not much thanks.

Now please tell me how men are not treated equally...You do know that this is not something imposed on women by men, for the most part. It's just a physical difference. And that physical difference in women's and men's brains has a great deal to do with why women are the main child rearers and men are the main bread winners. Men also don't complain about being the main bread winners for many years of their lives much, do they? And then those ingrate kids have the gall to always say hi to Mom when they make it on TV.

Nobbynumbnuts
05-05-2015, 17:04
......Given the burdens and inconveniences of PMS, menstruating, menopause?......

I forgot about all those........:p

Nobbynumbnuts
05-05-2015, 17:17
You do know that this is not something imposed on women by men, for the most part. It's just a physical difference. And that physical difference in women's and men's brains has a great deal to do with why women are the main child rearers and men are the main bread winners. Men also don't complain about being the main bread winners for many years of their lives much, do they? And then those ingrate kids have the gall to always say hi to Mom when they make it on TV.

I fully agree. Men are and should always try to be the bread winners (there are exceptions these days) but that point therefore contradicts the one the OP is making about the father being able to walk away financially if the mother doesn't agree to his wishes of having an abortion.
Many kids these days (boys especially) don't have a father who is a good role model. The importance of that cannot be underestimated. But in the grand scheme of things we men have a lesser role..

penka
05-05-2015, 17:28
I forgot about all those........:p

Surely;)

penka
05-05-2015, 17:29
I fully agree. Men are and should always try to be the bread winners (there are exceptions these days) but that point therefore contradicts the one the OP is making about the father being able to walk away financially if the mother doesn't agree to his wishes of having an abortion.
Many kids these days (boys especially) don't have a father who is a good role model. The importance of that cannot be underestimated. But in the grand scheme of things we men have a lesser role..

I'll send you kiss at this point!

AstarD
05-05-2015, 17:31
But in the grand scheme of things we men have a lesser role..I completely disagree. There are many behavioral studies that suggest men play the most important role in children's lives. Being raised by a single mother is pretty much a disaster.

Nobbynumbnuts
05-05-2015, 17:33
I'll send you kiss at this point!

Wish i could receive it in person! lol :p

vossy7
05-05-2015, 17:38
I completely disagree. There are many behavioral studies that suggest men play the most important role in children's lives. Being raised by a single mother is pretty much a disaster.

ABSOLUTE POPPYCOCK......
I have many great friends and family you were raised by a single mom , my own children as a case in point !

AstarD
05-05-2015, 17:40
ABSOLUTE POPPYCOCK......
I have many great friends and family you were raised by a single mom , my own children as a case in point !Anecdotal evidence. Studies of many children and into their adulthood say differently.

Nobbynumbnuts
05-05-2015, 17:42
I completely disagree. There are many behavioral studies that suggest men play the most important role in children's lives...........

You can find a study somewhere that will support the theory the moon is made of blue cheese..............they're usually written by men too! ;)

AstarD
05-05-2015, 17:42
You can find a study somewhere that will support the theory the moon is made of blue cheese..............they're usually written by men too! ;)So if it's a study by male scientists, it's invalid?

Nobbynumbnuts
05-05-2015, 17:54
....Studies of many children and into their adulthood say differently.

I think many children who state their fathers were the biggest influence in their lives, are talking about shaping their characters, ambitions and other qualities. These can also be attributed to mothers as well.
A child that is deprived of it's mothers love and attention in it's early years usually grow up with physiological disorders. This is not true if the father is absent.

The world is full of egoistical men who would love to believe they can go to work, come home, go down the pub and they are still the most important part of their childrens lives..

AstarD
05-05-2015, 17:55
Some examples:

"Even from birth, children who have an involved father are more likely to be emotionally secure, be confident to explore their surroundings, and, as they grow older, have better social connections."The importance of fathers (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-long-reach-childhood/201106/the-importance-fathers) (Psychology Today)


Girls with involved, respectful fathers see how they should expect men to treat them and are less likely to become involved in violent or unhealthy relationships.

A number of studies suggest that fathers who are involved, nurturing, and playful with their infants have children with higher IQs, as well as better linguistic and cognitive capacities. One study of school-aged children found that children with good relationships with their fathers were less likely to experience depression, to exhibit disruptive behavior, or to lie and were more likely to exhibit pro-social behavior. This same study found that boys with involved fathers had fewer school behavior problems and that girls had stronger selfesteem. In addition, numerous studies have found that children who live with their fathers are more likely to have good physical and emotional health, to achieve academically, and to avoid drugs, violence,
and delinquent behavior.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/

Nobbynumbnuts
05-05-2015, 18:00
So if it's a study by male scientists, it's invalid?

Tongue in cheek, mate.
You're the first man i've heard claiming the most important person in a child's life is the father. Don't forget that it's the woman who carries and delivered the child in the first place, without which there'd be no life..

It's sad to hear because I'd thought we'd all moved on...

vossy7
05-05-2015, 18:07
Tongue in cheek, mate.
You're the first man i've heard claiming the most important person in a child's life is the father. Don't forget that it's the woman who carries and delivered the child in the first place, without which there'd be no life..

It's sad to hear because I'd thought we'd all moved on...

Where's the freaking thanks button ......I know , I know ...the cheque is in the post !

Nobbynumbnuts
05-05-2015, 18:08
Some examples:

"Even from birth, children who have an involved father are more likely to be emotionally secure, be confident to explore their surroundings, and, as they grow older, have better social connections."The importance of fathers (Psychology Today)
Girls with involved, respectful fathers see how they should expect men to treat them and are less likely to become involved in violent or unhealthy relationships.

A number of studies suggest that fathers who are involved, nurturing, and playful with their infants have children with higher IQs, as well as better linguistic and cognitive capacities. One study of school-aged children found that children with good relationships with their fathers were less likely to experience depression, to exhibit disruptive behavior, or to lie and were more likely to exhibit pro-social behavior. This same study found that boys with involved fathers had fewer school behavior problems and that girls had stronger selfesteem. In addition, numerous studies have found that children who live with their fathers are more likely to have good physical and emotional health, to achieve academically, and to avoid drugs, violence,
and delinquent behavior.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/us...ls/fatherhood/



A great advert for the importance of men contributing more and being involved with their children...

BUT nowhere does it say as you suggest, that fathers are more important to children than their mothers.

Wonder how many more kids would go hungry in the world if men had the daily responsibility of feeding them..........(let's forget completely they don't have the tits to do it!) :p

Nobbynumbnuts
05-05-2015, 18:11
......the cheque is in the post !

..i haven't even sent the bill yet! lol :p

Uncle Wally
05-05-2015, 18:20
ABSOLUTE POPPYCOCK......
I have many great friends and family you were raised by a single mom , my own children as a case in point !


Cross dressing dads don't count.

penka
05-05-2015, 18:27
Wish i could receive it in person! lol :p

Heh, you are in London, no?;)

Nobbynumbnuts
05-05-2015, 18:34
Heh, you are in London, no?;)

You are probably not going to believe this but i'm in the Falkland Islands. I get the M.O.D flight into Brize Norton on Friday, arriving Saturday after 17 hours in the air!
Which area of London do you live? I'm in Royal Docks..

vossy7
05-05-2015, 19:14
You are probably not going to believe this but i'm in the Falkland Islands. I get the M.O.D flight into Brize Norton on Friday, arriving Saturday after 17 hours in the air!
Which area of London do you live? I'm in Royal Docks..

Wow Nobby , Brize Norton that is where I was supposed to be based as a bastard (young) entrant into the RAF many moons ago before I wisely turned it down :)

Nobbynumbnuts
05-05-2015, 19:24
Wow Nobby , Brize Norton that is where I was supposed to be based as a bastard (young) entrant into the RAF many moons ago before I wisely turned it down :)

..was doing some catering work with an oil company. I flew out of Gatwick on the company's charter flight but that only does the return trip every two weeks. So i've got to take the M.O.D flight. This flight is open to civilians as well and is the only scheduled service between the Falklands and the UK.
Never been into Brize Norton, will let you know what it's like. They operate a free shuttle to Oxford and the train station to make a connection to London.

Falklands is a remarkable place..

Fantastika
05-05-2015, 20:43
The deliberate ending of life already begun... (gothic details)...(We are so fond of Ghandi, until he says abortion should be a crime.)

Really, Fantastika, your question is rather irrelevant in the face of that. If the thing is murder, what does it matter whether the man has a say in it? Either one advocating it is premeditating murder.


I'm not arguing the morality of abortion, I have a problem with the ethics, post-partum. And only in one certain case - the case where the father does not want the child, and the mother does. And the problem I see is that the mother can say to the father "No, I will not marry you. No I don't want you visiting the child. No, I don't want anything to do with you, we're moving to Kamchatka or New Zealand, so your visitation rights will cost you $5000 in airplane tickets and hotel bills if you want to see your progeny for a weekend. BUT, I do want your money - $500 every month for the next 18 years."

This is the law in the US - the father has to pay even when he didn't want the child in the first place. Abortion is available, but the woman has 100% of the decision-making power, and her decision effects him for 18 years, even though he has no say in the matter.

That seems to be wrong to me.

Another case is the guy here in Kansas who donated his fatherhood to 2 lesbians so they could have a kid. They signed documents absolving him of any responsibility for the kid, and paid him of his "donation."

Done deal? Nope.

A year later the ladies break up, the "mother" goes on welfare, and the state of Kansas is now coming after "dad" to financially support "his" child. Their reasoning? - The "donation process" wasn't officially sanctioned by the state. Therefore, any agreements they signed are invalid.

Thank the Progressives and Democrats for bringing us to this craziness.

mr krinkle
05-05-2015, 20:46
I completely disagree. There are many behavioral studies that suggest men play the most important role in children's lives. Being raised by a single mother is pretty much a disaster.

Its pretty much of a disaster for boys....women cannot control boys after a certain age,the boys usually go off the rails ,and rarely turn out any good.....fathers are what count for young men.
By the way,what about those women who trap men into parenthood....saying theyre taking contraception when theyre not...what are those men supposed to do.....?

shurale
05-05-2015, 20:50
"Even from birth, children who have an involved father are more likely to be emotionally secure, be confident to explore their surroundings, and, as they grow older, have better social connections."The importance of fathers (Psychology Today)
Girls with involved, respectful fathers see how they should expect men to treat them and are less likely to become involved in violent or unhealthy relationships.

A number of studies suggest that fathers who are involved, nurturing, and playful with their infants have children with higher IQs, as well as better linguistic and cognitive capacities. One study of school-aged children found that children with good relationships with their fathers were less likely to experience depression, to exhibit disruptive behavior, or to lie and were more likely to exhibit pro-social behavior. This same study found that boys with involved fathers had fewer school behavior problems and that girls had stronger selfesteem. In addition, numerous studies have found that children who live with their fathers are more likely to have good physical and emotional health, to achieve academically, and to avoid drugs, violence,
and delinquent behavior.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/us...ls/fatherhood/



A great advert for the importance of men contributing more and being involved with their children...

BUT nowhere does it say as you suggest, that fathers are more important to children than their mothers.

Wonder how many more kids would go hungry in the world if men had the daily responsibility of feeding them..........(let's forget completely they don't have the tits to do it!) :p

Self-esteem does not exist. It's a myth. Rus debunked it many posts ago.

Nobbynumbnuts
05-05-2015, 20:53
.....By the way,what about those women who trap men into parenthood....saying theyre taking contraception when theyre not...what are those men supposed to do.....?

I think we all know that people can be forgetful as well. A woman could easily forget to take her contraception. The only way a man can be sure of avoiding an unwanted pregnancy is to take his own precautions..

penka
05-05-2015, 22:29
You are probably not going to believe this but i'm in the Falkland Islands. I get the M.O.D flight into Brize Norton on Friday, arriving Saturday after 17 hours in the air!
Which area of London do you live? I'm in Royal Docks..

Wow! The Falklands! Who could have thought.... I do not live in London any longer, sadly enough but when visiting, I can be easily found at Big Easy on the Kings Rd:)

vossy7
05-05-2015, 22:34
Wow! The Falklands! Who could have thought.... I do not live in London any longer, sadly enough but when visiting, I can be easily found at Big Easy on the Kings Rd:)

Wow Pen , you are one class act as always :pressie:

penka
05-05-2015, 22:47
Wow Pen , you are one class act as always :pressie:

Er... I like seafood and always end up around my old quarters, that's all.

penka
05-05-2015, 22:59
Its pretty much of a disaster for boys....women cannot control boys after a certain age,the boys usually go off the rails ,and rarely turn out any good.....fathers are what count for young men.
By the way,what about those women who trap men into parenthood....saying theyre taking contraception when theyre not...what are those men supposed to do.....?

It is not possible to bang men into some kind of abstract equality, forcing them to assume female roles and then lament, there are not real men left.

But normally, a man is a buddy next to a buddy and a gentleman next to a lady. If a woman is more interested in when the next fur coat is due above how he spent his day, it is unreasonable to expect him to be a gentleman at the end of the day.

Nobbynumbnuts
05-05-2015, 23:08
Wow! The Falklands! Who could have thought.... I do not live in London any longer, sadly enough but when visiting, I can be easily found at Big Easy on the Kings Rd:)

Yes, who'd a thought it! The opportunity just came up at the last minute and i took it.

I know the Big Easy and the Bluebird nearby. Kings Road is a great place to hangout. Drop me a line when your next in town.

Cheers :)

mr krinkle
05-05-2015, 23:13
I think we all know that people can be forgetful as well. A woman could easily forget to take her contraception. The only way a man can be sure of avoiding an unwanted pregnancy is to take his own precautions..
I think a lot of women are "forgetful" on purpose....

Nobbynumbnuts
05-05-2015, 23:26
I think a lot of women are "forgetful" on purpose....

Well okay, if you believe that then all the more reason make sure you wear a condom every time lol :p

Uncle Wally
05-05-2015, 23:37
Well okay, if you believe that then all the more reason make sure you wear a condom every time lol :p



I just like to pull...


Can take this to bardak?

natlee
06-05-2015, 00:54
I completely disagree. There are many behavioral studies that suggest men play the most important role in children's lives. Being raised by a single mother is pretty much a disaster. LOL! So, it is better to be raised by/with a father regardless of what sort of person/father he is? But wait... if men play the most important role in children's lives then surely a bad father is a no go? :confused:

Fantastika... never mind, Nobby has said it best! :inlove:

Mr whatever, oh never mind, Nobby's covered that one, too! :kiss_mini:

Yes, women can forget to take the pill besides which, very rarely, pills don't work. Condoms strech/break. There's no 100% guarantee which is why when about to have intercourse men and women both should understand the risks/possible consequences!

rusmeister
06-05-2015, 07:57
A lot of good common sense in the thread. I was pleasantly surprised. :)
I think Nobby is right about men's "lesser role" as a sentiment, but Astar is right in fact.
And I appreciate Natlee's nod to recognizing that as contraception is never an absolute guarantee, that people need to recognize that children are a possible natural consequence.

But that brings us back to the point where the baby IS growing inside of the mother. Too many people speak of the living being as a baby if the mother wants it, and as a "clump of cells" if the mother doesn't want it. So my question to Penka from the other thread remains:


Penka, I was ready to let it go - but I have to ask you - is abortion NOT the killing of a baby in the womb?

If everybody agrees that abortion is murder then there is nothing more to say. If they do not, then there is. So my question to you remains.

Does our personhood, our belonging to the human race depend on whether we are wanted or not?

rusmeister
06-05-2015, 08:01
Can a gender equality exist at all? Given the burdens and inconveniences of PMS, menstruating, child-bearing, menopause? Women are expected to perform, work, pay taxes, regardless.

Feminists want women to abandon femininity in the name of equality. I think it would be better if women weren't forced to go out and work for strangers who are wealthier than they, and that mothers ought to be free from that economic pressure to leave the home and turn their children over to professional strangers to raise.

That means that men ought to be expected more to shoulder the responsibility they sometimes abandon, and employers to pay those men not "a living wage" (if men may not employ themselves and must be depndent on a wage - already a sad state of affairs) but a family wage. It would mean a world of strong families, fewer and more expensive goods (and demand that they be hofmhigher quality as a result), less trash and waste - in short, the distributist view. Best of all, it would not be a system imposed on others but one adopted by choice.

rusmeister
06-05-2015, 08:08
I just like to pull...


Can take this to bardak?

Not this thread. Your ideas, if you must. I object to serious threads being moved to bardak just because someone wants to talk dirty.

penka
06-05-2015, 08:20
Feminists want women to abandon femininity in the name of equality. I think it would be better if women weren't forced to go out and work for strangers who are wealthier than they, and that mothers ought to be free from that economic pressure to leave the home and turn their children over to professional strangers to raise.

That means that men ought to be expected more to shoulder the responsibility they sometimes abandon, and employers to pay those men not "a living wage" (if men may not employ themselves and must be depndent on a wage - already a sad state of affairs) but a family wage. It would mean a world of strong families, fewer and more expensive goods (and demand that they be hofmhigher quality as a result), less trash and waste - in short, the distributist view. Best of all, it would not be a system imposed on others but one adopted by choice.

That is not very realistic, rus.
I'm sure, many new mothers would prefer to be stay-at-home mums, though.
And what about single mothers? Do they have much choice at all?

I doubt "our belonging to the human race" depends, whether we are wanted or not. On the other hand, one's "personhood", if I understand what you mean correctly, might very well be that.

penka
06-05-2015, 08:20
Yes, who'd a thought it! The opportunity just came up at the last minute and i took it.

I know the Big Easy and the Bluebird nearby. Kings Road is a great place to hangout. Drop me a line when your next in town.

Cheers :)

Good for you!

;)

Uncle Wally
06-05-2015, 09:45
Not this thread. Your ideas, if you must. I object to serious threads being moved to bardak just because someone wants to talk dirty.


In your mind it's "dirty" in mine it's good clean fun!

rusmeister
06-05-2015, 23:05
That is not very realistic, rus.
I'm sure, many new mothers would prefer to be stay-at-home mums, though.
And what about single mothers? Do they have much choice at all?

I doubt "our belonging to the human race" depends, whether we are wanted or not. On the other hand, one's "personhood", if I understand what you mean correctly, might very well be that.

It is the same thing. Is a human person such only because his mother wants him?

There are many realistic situations that have changed because someone decided to be "unrealistic", that is, idealistic. Tyranny is realistic. So is slavery. Fighting for freedom is idealistic.

Fantastika
06-05-2015, 23:35
LOL! So, it is better to be raised by/with a father regardless of what sort of person/father he is? But wait... if men play the most important role in children's lives then surely a bad father is a no go? :confused:

Fantastika... never mind, Nobby has said it best! :inlove:

Mr whatever, oh never mind, Nobby's covered that one, too! :kiss_mini:


Nobby has a habit of going off on a tangent and not "replying" to the actual question.

My point is that it is unfair to demand a man pay to raise his genetic child when:

1) He does not want the child;
2) The mother refuses to get an abortion;
3) The mother does not want to get married to him or live together;
4) The mother prevents him for having a relationship with his child.

Under those conditions, it is unfair to the father to demand he pay for the child - he didn't want it in the first place and is prevented from having a relationship with the child or any part of its upbringing.

If the mother is going to assume full responsibility on all ethical levels for creating the child, refusing input from the father, then she should be prepared to likewise raise the child alone. To not share in the decision to have the child, but then demand the father pay for it and prevent him for participating in its upbringing, is unethical, on more than one level.

It's unfair to say to the father, under those conditions, your ethical involvement with our child is limited to you providing me money.

Uncle Wally
07-05-2015, 01:21
It is the same thing. Is a human person such only because his mother wants him?

There are many realistic situations that have changed because someone decided to be "unrealistic", that is, idealistic. Tyranny is realistic. So is slavery. Fighting for freedom is idealistic.



When you have to carry a growing thing around inside you for nine months before it rips your vagina a part, get back to us, before then don't tell women what they have to do. You're not god you know.

Nobbynumbnuts
07-05-2015, 02:42
....he didn't want it in the first place....

..then make certain that your partner doesn't get pregnant-not rocket science! ;-)

Not me going off at a tangent. Look at your original post. No mention of marriage, relationship with the mother or child. And no mention that he's being prevented from seeing the child either.
Stop moving the goal posts. ;-)

natlee
07-05-2015, 04:14
My point is that it is unfair to demand a man pay to raise his genetic child when:

1) He does not want the child;
2) The mother refuses to get an abortion;
3) The mother does not want to get married to him or live together;
4) The mother prevents him for having a relationship with his child.

Under those conditions, it is unfair to the father to demand he pay for the child - he didn't want it in the first place and is prevented from having a relationship with the child or any part of its upbringing.

If the mother is going to assume full responsibility on all ethical levels for creating the child, refusing input from the father, then she should be prepared to likewise raise the child alone. To not share in the decision to have the child, but then demand the father pay for it and prevent him for participating in its upbringing, is unethical, on more than one level.

It's unfair to say to the father, under those conditions, your ethical involvement with our child is limited to you providing me money. :nut:

1) Should've thought about that when f*cking the mother!
2) Good for her!
3) Her damn choice!
4) Oh give me a fecking break! A father, unless a convicted criminal, has every right to be part of his child's life so those who want to can hardly be prevented from it!

If only I had a penny for every man I've heard talk of having children somewhere he's not allowed to see/has decided it's best he doesn't see until they grow up...

Fantastika
07-05-2015, 06:45
..then make certain that your partner doesn't get pregnant-not rocket science! ;-)

Not me going off at a tangent. ...

I didn't pose what people should do to prevent pregnancy. My post was about the ethical dilemma of financial support for a child that one parent wants and the other does not.

Fantastika
07-05-2015, 07:04
:nut:

1) Should've thought about...

I am only posing a simple ethical situation,:question: but either no one understands it, and/or refuses to logically address it.

If I were a professor, I would expect more of students from a multiple-choice question (A,B,C,or D) than answers like K or P, or an essay with more than than "eff u" written on it.

Forum brats, you get an "eef" on the exam. :focus:

penka
07-05-2015, 08:15
I didn't pose what people should do to prevent pregnancy. My post was about the ethical dilemma of financial support for a child that one parent wants and the other does not.

Isn't the financial support for a child one parent doesn't even want, more of a logical consequence of one's choices?

"My point is that it is unfair to demand a man pay to raise his genetic child when:

1) He does not want the child;
2) The mother refuses to get an abortion;
3) The mother does not want to get married to him or live together;
4) The mother prevents him for having a relationship with his child."

0) He makes a decision to drop his pants and have sex.

Suuryaa
07-05-2015, 09:03
Isn't the financial support for a child one parent doesn't even want, more of a logical consequence of one's choices?

"My point is that it is unfair to demand a man pay to raise his genetic child when:

1) He does not want the child;
2) The mother refuses to get an abortion;
3) The mother does not want to get married to him or live together;
4) The mother prevents him for having a relationship with his child."

0) He makes a decision to drop his pants and have sex.

Completely agree! I don't know why there's argument going on. As soon as people decide to have sex, they take full responsibility for the outcomes (pregnancy or diseases).

Fantastika
07-05-2015, 09:11
Isn't the financial support for a child one parent doesn't even want, more of a logical consequence of one's choices?

"My point is that it is unfair to demand a man pay to raise his genetic child when:

1) He does not want the child;
2) The mother refuses to get an abortion;
3) The mother does not want to get married to him or live together;
4) The mother prevents him for having a relationship with his child."

0) He makes a decision to drop his pants and have sex.

One drives his car down the street, one takes reasonable precautions (birth control) - one looks both ways, one waits for the light to turn green, one wears his seat belt...despite one's precautions, a drunk suddenly staggers out from the sidewalk, and collides with the front fender (pregs!) One doesn't "logically" expect to hit a drunk, so one does not restrict their driving. One has insurance in case of an accident. AFAIK, there is no "pregnancy insurance" for a man.

So you are proposing that one should not drive, because there is a chance that one will injure another person? Or are you proposing that one should pay for the injuries to the drunk?

"There's no such thing as an accident" ? Why does the West always find fault in every action? We have to blame someone, we are always victims.

My post was about what happens after the accident.

In the old days, in the old ways, the pregnant girl's father marched over to yon boy's house with shotgun, and the couple was married.

No ethical problem could develop about support, because divorce was not allowed.

In the new days, in the new ways, pregnant girl can state "I don't want you in my life, or my child's life. I do want $500 from you every month for the next 18 years."

That's not ethical, on either a family level or an individual level.

Fantastika
07-05-2015, 09:28
Completely agree! I don't know why there's argument going on. As soon as people decide to have sex, they take full responsibility for the outcomes (pregnancy or diseases).

That's not the point, in either case.

I'm thinking of some famous American who bragged he had sex with 1000's of women...and then it turned out he was HIV positive. What a great man, spreading his disease to 1000's of partners. :eek: A total lack of responsibility on his part, especially since the women did not know he was "carrying".

I was only talking about the case where the woman decides to go it alone but demands monthly payments from the father. In this case, the woman takes responsibility for raising the child and denies the father his responsibility.

penka
07-05-2015, 10:09
One drives his car down the street, one takes reasonable precautions (birth control) - one looks both ways, one waits for the light to turn green, one wears his seat belt...despite one's precautions, a drunk suddenly staggers out from the sidewalk, and collides with the front fender (pregs!) One doesn't "logically" expect to hit a drunk, so one does not restrict their driving. One has insurance in case of an accident. AFAIK, there is no "pregnancy insurance" for a man.

So you are proposing that one should not drive, because there is a chance that one will injure another person? Or are you proposing that one should pay for the injuries to the drunk?

"There's no such thing as an accident" ? Why does the West always find fault in every action? We have to blame someone, we are always victims.

My post was about what happens after the accident.

In the old days, in the old ways, the pregnant girl's father marched over to yon boy's house with shotgun, and the couple was married.

No ethical problem could develop about support, because divorce was not allowed.

In the new days, in the new ways, pregnant girl can state "I don't want you in my life, or my child's life. I do want $500 from you every month for the next 18 years."

That's not ethical, on either a family level or an individual level.

"The accident" as you call it, happened for a reason, as I said above.

The moment the guy decides to engage in a sexual activity with a woman, the small fonts of the agreement, i e various risks, including the of "accidental pregnancy" get activated, whether he likes it or not.

If the guy decides seclude himself in a comfort zone of victimhood - tough luck; pass on the letter of complaint to his parents who obviously failed to teach him the facts of life.

The driver sometimes does not have much possibilities to avoid the drunk who had jumped out on the street, the guy has the choice of using condom with spermicides, keeping his pants on altogether, using the right hand or whatever.

There is not necessarily a fault in every action, but there is a consequence to every action that, by the way, might get activated or not.

If a person decides to become a doctor, the person should be aware of the risks associated with that particular profession. If then they treat a TBC patient, neglects the appropriate hygiene and precautions and then falls ill, it is hardly the fault of the patient, is it?

The monthly payments you are referring to are one of the expressions of responsibility. And the latter comes with the initial decision of having sex.

Suuryaa
07-05-2015, 10:11
[QUOTE=Fantastika;1418024I was only talking about the case where the woman decides to go it alone but demands monthly payments from the father. In this case, the woman takes responsibility for raising the child and denies the father his responsibility.[/QUOTE]

Well, and I was talking about preventing the possibility of such situations altogether. It would mean sex for pleasure can have consequences. But, as in other spheres, people prefer to live in illusions and just ignore reality.

natlee
07-05-2015, 12:09
Isn't the financial support for a child one parent doesn't even want, more of a logical consequence of one's choices?

0) He makes a decision to drop his pants and have sex.


Completely agree! I don't know why there's argument going on. As soon as people decide to have sex, they take full responsibility for the outcomes (pregnancy or diseases). :agree:

natlee
07-05-2015, 12:26
Fantastika, you disappoint me. Yes, one shouldn't drive if they don't understand and accept the risks the road comes with although that would be a bit silly if you ask me given pedestrians run similar risks ;) And I repeat, how the hell can a woman prevent a man who wants to be a part of his child's life from being that part of the child's life? He can (through court) and should (if he's a decent man) demand a DNA test, visitation rights etc. That said, a decent man would offer to help financially.

penka
07-05-2015, 12:31
Fantastika, you disappoint me. Yes, one shouldn't drive if they don't understand and accept the risks the road comes with although that would be a bit silly if you ask me given pedestrians run similar risks ;) And I repeat, how the hell can a woman prevent a man who wants to be a part of his child's life from being that part of the child's life? He can (through court) and should (if he's a decent man) demand a DNA test, visitation rights etc. That said, a decent man would offer to help financially.

:thumbsup:

rusmeister
07-05-2015, 12:48
When you have to carry a growing thing around inside you for nine months before it rips your vagina a part, get back to us, before then don't tell women what they have to do. You're not god you know.

When you are growing inside your mother's womb, and she lets some stranger stick forceps and knives into the womb to cut you up, get back to us, before then don't tell us that it's OK for women to murder their children. You're not God, you know.

rusmeister
07-05-2015, 12:51
:nut:

1) Should've thought about that when f*cking the mother!
2) Good for her!
3) Her damn choice!
4) Oh give me a fecking break! A father, unless a convicted criminal, has every right to be part of his child's life so those who want to can hardly be prevented from it!

If only I had a penny for every man I've heard talk of having children somewhere he's not allowed to see/has decided it's best he doesn't see until they grow up...

While I think our choices affect our children, so the whole issue of saying "her choice" to be much more than just what affects her personally, overall I think your attitude and spirit here are right, including righteous anger at men abandoning their families. One of my chief desires is to exhort men to be men, to own up to their responsibility and BE faithful husbands and loving fathers.

rusmeister
07-05-2015, 12:53
Isn't the financial support for a child one parent doesn't even want, more of a logical consequence of one's choices?

"My point is that it is unfair to demand a man pay to raise his genetic child when:

1) He does not want the child;
2) The mother refuses to get an abortion;
3) The mother does not want to get married to him or live together;
4) The mother prevents him for having a relationship with his child."

0) He makes a decision to drop his pants and have sex.

Look, Penka, we agree!! (Somebody mark down the date!) :)

Uncle Wally
07-05-2015, 12:59
When you are growing inside your mother's womb, and she lets some stranger stick forceps and knives into the womb to cut you up, get back to us, before then don't tell us that it's OK for women to murder their children. You're not God, you know.



It's her child, it's her body, it's her choice.

rusmeister
07-05-2015, 13:41
One drives his car down the street, one takes reasonable precautions (birth control) - one looks both ways, one waits for the light to turn green, one wears his seat belt...despite one's precautions, a drunk suddenly staggers out from the sidewalk, and collides with the front fender (pregs!) One doesn't "logically" expect to hit a drunk, so one does not restrict their driving. One has insurance in case of an accident. AFAIK, there is no "pregnancy insurance" for a man.

So you are proposing that one should not drive, because there is a chance that one will injure another person? Or are you proposing that one should pay for the injuries to the drunk?

"There's no such thing as an accident" ? Why does the West always find fault in every action? We have to blame someone, we are always victims.

My post was about what happens after the accident.

In the old days, in the old ways, the pregnant girl's father marched over to yon boy's house with shotgun, and the couple was married.

No ethical problem could develop about support, because divorce was not allowed.

In the new days, in the new ways, pregnant girl can state "I don't want you in my life, or my child's life. I do want $500 from you every month for the next 18 years."

That's not ethical, on either a family level or an individual level.

Your analogy is a false one.
The natural purpose of sex has always been the reproduction of children. Cars, on the other hand, were not designed to hit drunks.

What you are talking about is filching the pleasure belonging to a natural process, while thwarting the process itself. If you are going to talk about ethics (which is the effort to scientize morality) you'd better start from that.

"Divorce was not allowed." Why do you suppose human society has made divorce difficult in general? Any ideas as to why people all over the world should have thought that married people ought to stay together? The answers are obvious enough, when you see them.

rusmeister
07-05-2015, 13:47
It's her child, it's her body, it's her choice.

The child's body - the one being poisoned or cut up - is EMPHATICALLY NOT HER BODY.
What is NOT her body - however attached by an umbilical cord - is NOT her choice.

YOU yourself were once so. You merely don't remember it, and you are here solely because your mother did not elect to make such a murderous choice. And it's no good saying "you wouldn't care now" if she had. That can be said of all murder victims. None of them care, once they are dead. And it takes somebody to kill them.

Uncle Wally
07-05-2015, 14:34
The child's body - the one being poisoned or cut up - is EMPHATICALLY NOT HER BODY.
What is NOT her body - however attached by an umbilical cord - is NOT her choice.

YOU yourself were once so. You merely don't remember it, and you are here solely because your mother did not elect to make such a murderous choice. And it's no good saying "you wouldn't care now" if she had. That can be said of all murder victims. None of them care, once they are dead. And it takes somebody to kill them.



The child can not live without the mother. She must carry it, if she doesn't choose to do that it's her business. I am against abortion but I am also against telling people what to do.

AstarD
07-05-2015, 14:37
The child can not live without the mother. She must carry it, if she doesn't choose to do that it's her business. I am against abortion but I am also against telling people what to do.So anyone who is on life support should be at the mercy of those who might want to turn it off. They can't live without it. Other people must take care of that person. If they don't want to, they should be able to turn off the machines.

Nobbynumbnuts
07-05-2015, 14:39
....I was only talking about the case where the woman decides to go it alone but demands monthly payments from the father. In this case, the woman takes responsibility for raising the child and denies the father his responsibility.

..and as i told you but you didn't listen.....
Women when they become pregnant become 'attached' to the child. Thank God or many of us wouldn't be here! Some women find it impossible to have an abortion once becoming pregnant-even though they had said they would. This is not a result of her being a 'bitch' or simply can't make up her mind. It's nature at work.
A woman shouldn't be disadvantaged by this. Men need to understand these things.

How can a woman wanting to keep her child ever be a bad thing? (except exceptional circumstances)

..you also mentioned before that the father is denied access to the child. No court will deny him access if he's paying maintenance and is a 'good' guy.

AstarD
07-05-2015, 15:01
No court will deny him access if he's paying maintenance and is a 'good' guy.THAT'S a naive statement if I've ever heard one.

Nobbynumbnuts
07-05-2015, 15:04
THAT'S a naive statement if I've ever heard one.

..please elaborate.

AstarD
07-05-2015, 15:06
..please elaborate.I personally know men who are paying child support and would like to have equal custody, but are allowed to see the child only one day per week.

Uncle Wally
07-05-2015, 15:19
So anyone who is on life support should be at the mercy of those who might want to turn it off. They can't live without it. Other people must take care of that person. If they don't want to, they should be able to turn off the machines.



Yes. What kind of life is it if you have to be hooked up to a machine? But actually being inside someone is a bit different don't you think?

Nobbynumbnuts
07-05-2015, 15:25
I personally know men who are paying child support and would like to have equal custody, but are allowed to see the child only one day per week.

..so they are being given access then.

I don't know the cases obviously but granting equal custody is a difficult decision for a court to make. What is the situation with these guys? Is it fair on the kids to be uprooted twice weekly from one parent to another?
Children need to be with their mothers, especially very young ones. Could be traumatic for children to be moved between parents on a weekly basis..

As i said before kids need to be with their mothers more than their fathers, especially in early years.

natlee
07-05-2015, 15:45
I personally know men who are paying child support and would like to have equal custody, but are allowed to see the child only one day per week. Am not sure about once a week but it is no secret that equal custody if we're talking about a child spending half his time with the mother and the other half with the father is no good at all for the child in question. Children should have A home.

penka
07-05-2015, 19:20
Look, Penka, we agree!! (Somebody mark down the date!) :)

But, of course:)

penka
07-05-2015, 19:21
I personally know men who are paying child support and would like to have equal custody, but are allowed to see the child only one day per week.

50/50 time in Sweden and the rest of Europe, I'm sure.

penka
07-05-2015, 19:25
So anyone who is on life support should be at the mercy of those who might want to turn it off. They can't live without it. Other people must take care of that person. If they don't want to, they should be able to turn off the machines.

Your example got nothing to do with anyone's "wants".

Have you ever cared for somebody who was dying, Astar, slowly and bit by bit? If you have not, you should not say much, as I have done it. No machines, by the way.

AstarD
07-05-2015, 19:32
Your example got nothing to do with anyone's "wants".

Have you ever cared for somebody who was dying, Astar, slowly and bit by bit? If you have not, you should not say much, as I have done it. No machines, by the way.Well, that was your body and time being devoted to that. You should have had the right to put that useless blob of cells right out of your misery.

natlee
07-05-2015, 20:09
50/50 time in Sweden and the rest of Europe, I'm sure. How very strange, both my American and English male friends have their children on weekends. Perhaps courts or none, the parents were smart enough to agree that that would be best for the children? :confused:

Do the same stupid (50/50) rules apply when the father lives in another town/country? :eek: ;)

rusmeister
07-05-2015, 21:11
So anyone who is on life support should be at the mercy of those who might want to turn it off. They can't live without it. Other people must take care of that person. If they don't want to, they should be able to turn off the machines.

So is a child for some years after birth. How many three or four year olds can successfully live independently without adult intervention?

It's just that according to Wally's argument, if a mother chooses to not care for her child, the child will die and that's fine, that's the mother's choice by Wally's logic, and that is obviously equally applicable to a much older child; in fact, there's no "age limit" at all on the idea. It encourages the mother to ve as despicably fugitive and irresponsible as many men already are.

I get a feeling that anything is justified as long as adults get their physical pleasure.

penka
07-05-2015, 21:24
How very strange, both my American and English male friends have their children on weekends. Perhaps courts or none, the parents were smart enough to agree that that would be best for the children? :confused:

Do the same stupid (50/50) rules apply when the father lives in another town/country? :eek: ;)

No, they divide the year 50/50. Rule of the thumb in Sweden is the kids are with either parent each second week (one week with mum, one with dad).

natlee
07-05-2015, 22:00
No, they divide the year 50/50. Rule of the thumb in Sweden is the kids are with either parent each second week (one week with mum, one with dad). How very convenient if the school etc. is closer to one parent's house, and even that aside :nut:

rusmeister
07-05-2015, 22:26
Your example got nothing to do with anyone's "wants".

Have you ever cared for somebody who was dying, Astar, slowly and bit by bit? If you have not, you should not say much, as I have done it. No machines, by the way.

Honestly, Penka, I do understand the idea that it's good for people to experience hard things in life before they talk about them. But I don't think it good to say that people shouldn't say much. We are all so interconnected. If a man doesn't give birth, he must certainly experience birth, so Wally's talking as if men were not affected by abortion, when they are upwards of half of the population that IS aborted, is absurd. So certainly men have every right to talk about abortion, and of course, I think they ought to be held to a much higher standard of responsibility, one that it strikes me that Wally doesn't want to accept.

And we all could potentially face that slow death, and so "euthanasia", a euphemism for killing people that have become a nuisance, ostensibly to themselves, though from there it is only a matter of time before we kill them because they are a nuisance to US, is also something that potentially could affect us all. So I think we all ought to have a right to say things, but that we should weigh experience and truth in thinking about what we say.

catbert
07-05-2015, 23:19
Wow, talk about a topic going into a million different directions. All I want to say, is that the original poster was absolutely correct. If the man and woman cannot agree and the woman wants to keep the baby, she should be able to do so provided that the man in this situation is absolved of any and all financial responsibility.

And on the off chance that someone has brought up or will bring up the possibility that the woman's religion prevents her from carrying out an abortion, I want to point out that this same religion undoubtedly espouses abstention until marriage. So if you violated that rule, sorry, you don't to pick and choose. Too late to be all high and mighty after the fact.

Just my 2 RUB

Nobbynumbnuts
07-05-2015, 23:29
....All I want to say, is that the original poster was absolutely correct. If the man and woman cannot agree and the woman wants to keep the baby, she should be able to do so provided that the man in this situation is absolved of any and all financial responsibility.....

We've been through this.
Even if the woman states that she will have an abortion in the event she becomes pregnant that often changes after the fact. That's the way nature made them. Should they be dissadvantaged because of the way they are made?


Thank God for all of us, women find it harder to turn their backs on their offspring..;)

natlee
07-05-2015, 23:33
Wow, so some men are scumbags and some women support them in that... how very sad.

catbert
07-05-2015, 23:48
Wow, so some men are scumbags and some women support them in that... how very sad.

Hmm, maybe I'm misreading your post. But it sure sounded like you just called me a scumbag. I guess my asking people to take responsibility for their actions makes me a scumbag.

Just a little insight. I have two kids, including one from my previous wife. I was never in a situation of not wanting a child. But there are still some similarities in my circumstances. Even though my ex-wife and I are each meant to have our child with us 50% of the time, he spends most of his time with me. I'm happy to have him with me. And it turns out that as long as my ex keeps getting support payments as if our son continued to live with her 50% of the time, she's happy for him to live with me too. So yeah, I'm not entirely neutral in this situation. And while I'm sure there really are scumbags both male and female, I believe there would be far fewer if each party was to fully bear the burden of their decision. The best scenario is a happy family with both husband and wife. But if the father does not want the child (assuming this is still at the time that an abortion can be safely performed), the mother should not be able to force the father into moral and financial servitude just because she wants it.

rusmeister
08-05-2015, 05:18
Wow, talk about a topic going into a million different directions. All I want to say, is that the original poster was absolutely correct. If the man and woman cannot agree and the woman wants to keep the baby, she should be able to do so provided that the man in this situation is absolved of any and all financial responsibility.

And on the off chance that someone has brought up or will bring up the possibility that the woman's religion prevents her from carrying out an abortion, I want to point out that this same religion undoubtedly espouses abstention until marriage. So if you violated that rule, sorry, you don't to pick and choose. Too late to be all high and mighty after the fact.

Just my 2 RUB

If someone's religion prevents you from murdering...

Dude, it's not about what "someone's religion prevents". It's about whether the being inside the mother is human. If it is - and it is - then the killing of it is murder. No religion involved.

Your ability to even comment on this is entirely due to your mother's choice not to kill you, for which you should be eternally grateful.

catbert
08-05-2015, 22:51
It's about whether the being inside the mother is human. If it is - and it is - then the killing of it is murder. No religion involved.

Your ability to even comment on this is entirely due to your mother's choice not to kill you, for which you should be eternally grateful.

Wow, you make it sound as there can be no other opinion. And yet scholars, scientists, clergy, and laymen still cannot agree on the point at which life begins. Is it at conception or at some other point?

And with such a black and white view of this issue, how you address situations like pregnancy as a result of rape? Or pregnancies which cause health issues so severe they put the mother's life at risk?

As for being grateful to my mom, I absolutely am. Just as I am grateful to my dad. But since Mother's Day is this weekend, it'll be mom (and my wife) who'll get my gratitude.

vossy7
09-05-2015, 01:07
Sounds like Modern Family to me .......as banned Jas would say .......just saying :question:

Fantastika
09-05-2015, 07:06
Originally Posted by Nobbynumbnuts View Post
No court will deny him access if he's paying maintenance and is a 'good' guy.

THAT'S a naive statement if I've ever heard one.

:10806:

I can't count how many times I've heard grown men say, "My life was going great until the divorce and the bankruptcy," and then pours forth a tale of woe of money going into a bottomless alimony hole while the woman prevented him from seeing his kids, not one day a week, but no days a week. She moved to the Yukon, or she got the judge to agree with a false accusation of child abuse.

"Social Services" in the US, at least, take lessons from the KGB or NSA, and whenever these "helpful" civil servants burst into your house, they are accompanied by 4 or 5 heavily armed police. They will take your children if they don't see enough toys (that's called "child abuse"). One of my good friends, her daughter got mad at her one day and called Social Services, who arrived in ten minutes and took her to jail, no questions asked. She had to prove herself innocent. By that time, the daughter from hell had looted the house and took off with her boyfriend (the boyfriend-criminal-coke dealer is in prison now).

Social Services is a growth industry, corrupt through and through. The more strife between couples, or nosy neighbors, the more these bureaucrat-social activists get paid, and the more power they assume.

Knobby, if you think this doesn't happen, and happen often, in the acrimony of a bitter splitting of the ways, you are living in a bubble.

Your spaceship is fueled and ready to go, you can go back to Naive-world, must be a nice place. :)

Fantastika
09-05-2015, 07:13
Wow, talk about a topic going into a million different directions. All I want to say, is that the original poster was absolutely correct. If the man and woman cannot agree and the woman wants to keep the baby, she should be able to do so provided that the man in this situation is absolved of any and all financial responsibility.

!Abso-tively, Posi-lutely!

Nearly everyone who posted here is going with their emotions, not with their logic.

Fantastika
09-05-2015, 07:31
Your analogy is a false one.

My analogy was that an auto accident is an unexpected event, during a planned trip. Julie gets preggers is an unexpected event during a planned bedroom romp.


What you are talking about is filching the pleasure belonging to a natural process, while thwarting the process itself. If you are going to talk about ethics (which is the effort to scientize morality) you'd better start from that.

I'm not sure what the 1st sentence means, but by "ethics" I am using it to mean "promoting survival along a certain spectrum of life." Forcing the man to pay for a child he does not want and the woman does not want to share with him is unethical on two levels. 1) the "personal" ethics level for both the man and the woman. The man loses financially, the woman probably also loses financially. 2) The "family" ethics level. Obviously this is harmful because there *is* no family. 3) One could even argue on a "community ethics level," it is harmful, because such children without fathers grow up more likely to be on welfare, or anti-social, the mother and father are less successful and do not contribute to society as much as they could, etc., which harms the community.

"Divorce was not allowed." Why do you suppose human society has made divorce difficult in general? Any ideas as to why people all over the world should have thought that married people ought to stay together? The answers are obvious enough, when you see them.

Rus, you're preaching to the choir...:)

Fantastika
09-05-2015, 07:39
Sounds like Modern Family to me .......as banned Jas would say .......just saying :question:

Jas (:zoom:) was banned? What? Why? No, you didn't take what she wrote seriously, did you? You did? No, really, you didn't did you? C'mon!! :rofl:

Bring back Jas!
Bring back Jas!
Bring back Jas!
...
:emote_popcorn:

rusmeister
09-05-2015, 07:48
Wow, you make it sound as there can be no other opinion. And yet scholars, scientists, clergy, and laymen still cannot agree on the point at which life begins. Is it at conception or at some other point?

And with such a black and white view of this issue, how you address situations like pregnancy as a result of rape? Or pregnancies which cause health issues so severe they put the mother's life at risk?

As for being grateful to my mom, I absolutely am. Just as I am grateful to my dad. But since Mother's Day is this weekend, it'll be mom (and my wife) who'll get my gratitude.

Hi, Catbert.
If you said "Rape is evil", and I gave the response you gave just now, what could anyone think?
There are a number of moral issues that are indeed unclear. What should I do with money I find in the street? That can generate several different opinions.
But some things, like murder and rape, are categorical. To have a differing opinion is to be immoral, to have lost your sense of what is good and moral. It is very true that there are sticky situations, where the right moral choice must ge accompanied by pain, suffering and loss.

Scientists do in fact agree on when life begins. They call anything life as soon as it begins developing. Anything that is in a process that, if not specially stopped, will ultimately produce an adult organism, is life. So your efforts to suggest that a baby in the womb, be it 3 minutes, 3 days or 3 months from conception, are specious. The scientist will be forced to call it life, or he is no scientist.

There is no moral difficulty in the problems you pose for the Christian answer - the the issue of the mother's life rates a separate post. Yes, it is tragic that the pregnancy results from an evil like rape. And if society chooses to hang the rapist, I admit that to be within the prerogative of society (and that is another, related discussion, but here I insist on sticking to the nature of abortion). But to apply capital punishment to the child for its father's crimes is to try to cure one great evil by another, greater evil. If the life is human, then abortion is in fact the killing of human life - for human convenience. That is murder.

The ultimate test of the issue of pregnancy from rape is to ask the person we are proposing to murder - the child of rape. And the answer is universal. To a man (or woman) they all declare that they want to live; that they do not appreciate suggestions that they should have been killed in the womb.

http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/

I would be impressed if you read anything this woman has to say and comment intelligently on it. But the real issue is what is more important - a human life, or living as I wish? Abortion answers with the latter, and so the child is sacrificed on the altar of our perceived convenience. Such people have already lost their moral way and compass.

It is good that you are grateful. That means you want to live. But why then, do you refuse life to these children, who all also want to live? Why do you say it is OK to kill them? Because you've got your life, and they don't matter? If the right answer there is clear, I'll proceed to your other situation. But let's first admit there is really only one answer to this one.

rusmeister
09-05-2015, 09:24
!Abso-tively, Posi-lutely!

Nearly everyone who posted here is going with their emotions, not with their logic.

This may be true. But I think we need more careful consideration of what constitutes logic. Certainly, a contradiction in one's own views, mutually exclusive principles, as opposed to paradox, which points to a more complex truth, is illogical.


My analogy was that an auto accident is an unexpected event, during a planned trip. Julie gets preggers is an unexpected event during a planned bedroom romp.



I'm not sure what the 1st sentence means, but by "ethics" I am using it to mean "promoting survival along a certain spectrum of life." Forcing the man to pay for a child he does not want and the woman does not want to share with him is unethical on two levels. 1) the "personal" ethics level for both the man and the woman. The man loses financially, the woman probably also loses financially. 2) The "family" ethics level. Obviously this is harmful because there *is* no family. 3) One could even argue on a "community ethics level," it is harmful, because such children without fathers grow up more likely to be on welfare, or anti-social, the mother and father are less successful and do not contribute to society as much as they could, etc., which harms the community.


Rus, you're preaching to the choir...:)

I understood your analogy. I still say it is false for reasons I already described which you do not address. If you could prove my point about the original purpose of driving vs the original purpose of sexual relations as being wrong, then perhaps you could defend your analogy.

Your use of the word "ethics" is not in the least consonant with its understanding as an effort to systematize morality, cloak understandings and predictions of human behavior in scientific terms, orveven its modern usage as a replacement for "morality".

Furthermore, when you say "a certain spectrum of life", you begin that fall into illogical self-contradiction. You are trying to hedge a space where abortion is "OK" without considering its murderous aspect, ie, "before" that "certain spectrum" (which you decide where you want it to begin and end), or after, to "euthanize", ie kill, elderly that have become a nuisance.

Now we DO "force" men to support children that HAVE been born, so by your current logic, child support is in principle "unethical". Yes, raising children means that parents "lose financially"; at least throughout the formative years, just as your parents "lost financially" by raising you.

It is similarly true that fathers not wanting children harms both the family and the community. But the fault is not in the child whose slaying you would therefore in such cases approve, but in the father's wrong view of the world and his place in it. The cure is not to kill the child, but to teach the father to desire his child, and to see himself differently, to turn his wants in the right direction, rather than make his wants the god that dictates child sacrifice.

So I am not sure which choir I am preaching to, but I am sure that my position (which is not "mine", but merely the truth of the matter, that I have come to) is both consistent and does not try to avoid or justify the brand of Cain (murder) and brand of Herod (of child murder) that abortion is no matter what excuse is offered.

penka
09-05-2015, 09:51
Honestly, Penka, I do understand the idea that it's good for people to experience hard things in life before they talk about them. But I don't think it good to say that people shouldn't say much. We are all so interconnected. If a man doesn't give birth, he must certainly experience birth, so Wally's talking as if men were not affected by abortion, when they are upwards of half of the population that IS aborted, is absurd. So certainly men have every right to talk about abortion, and of course, I think they ought to be held to a much higher standard of responsibility, one that it strikes me that Wally doesn't want to accept.

And we all could potentially face that slow death, and so "euthanasia", a euphemism for killing people that have become a nuisance, ostensibly to themselves, though from there it is only a matter of time before we kill them because they are a nuisance to US, is also something that potentially could affect us all. So I think we all ought to have a right to say things, but that we should weigh experience and truth in thinking about what we say.

I see not, how it is possible to comprehend a situation fully and in detail, unless one has experienced it. At best one can offer sympathy and compassion, and perhaps, some adequate help. Medical profession, e g would be have never become possible if medical students merely talked and discussed.

I believe, you misunderstood me, as I did not talk of "inconvenience". Sometimes, when a body is giving up, due to the natural causes or a decease, the irreversible changes that occur, bring unnecessary suffering to the person. The heart gets it harder to function, heart rhythm gets disturbed, lungs get filled with fluid, resulting in severe respiratory problems and horrible anxiety. All medication administered at this point maintains the functions to some extent but does not ease the situation or bodily sensations for the person in question. At some point the body enters the stage of agony that can go on for days.
Supporting life by whatever means does not do anything for the person but prolonging the suffering.
My point was, AstarD's comparison was of an unfortunate nature.

rusmeister
09-05-2015, 12:52
I see not, how it is possible to comprehend a situation fully and in detail, unless one has experienced it. At best one can offer sympathy and compassion, and perhaps, some adequate help. Medical profession, e g would be have never become possible if medical students merely talked and discussed.

I believe, you misunderstood me, as I did not talk of "inconvenience". Sometimes, when a body is giving up, due to the natural causes or a decease, the irreversible changes that occur, bring unnecessary suffering to the person. The heart gets it harder to function, heart rhythm gets disturbed, lungs get filled with fluid, resulting in severe respiratory problems and horrible anxiety. All medication administered at this point maintains the functions to some extent but does not ease the situation or bodily sensations for the person in question. At some point the body enters the stage of agony that can go on for days.
Supporting life by whatever means does not do anything for the person but prolonging the suffering.
My point was, AstarD's comparison was of an unfortunate nature.

Thete's a lot I think we agree on, especially regarding palliative care. I'm not urging cheap ideas that disregard the suffering you point out. But I think the entire concept of medical care, and many other things, is based on someone other than the suffering patient, who is NOT experiencing what the patient is experiencing, comprehending fully and in detail, usually more detail than the sufferer knows of and with much more experience, the problem being dealt with.

We would not say that only a person who has successfully committed suicide has a right to talk or think about it, or that only a person who has lost a limb can understand anything about lost limbs, or dealing with it. Nor am I talking about just talking; I speak as a person who may well experience a heart attack, stroke, dialysis or cancer, and I am looking ahead and trying my best, while I am in a somewhat sound mind and body, to think about how I should see such things.

Nor do I suggest "supporting dying life by whatever means". A better knowledge of Orthodox bioethics would inform you that we do believe that there are points where nothing can be done but to let the patient go. The short version is that we believe in doing no harm. So it is one thing to stop artificial intervention that meaninglessly keeps a heart pumping when a person is really otherwise dead. It is another thing altogether to deliberately kill someone, even with the ostensibly noble purpose of stopping agony. I don't think we disagree on the former. We might disagree on the latter, though we would agree in doing everything humanly possible to ease the pain.

I don't want to suffer such pain. But I am convinced, while in sound mind and body, that deliberate killing is wrong even in such circumstances. And
I don't need to have undergone such pain before I say that. I must think about what is right while I can think straight.

Fantastika
09-05-2015, 15:15
This may be true. But I think we need more careful consideration of what constitutes logic. Certainly, a contradiction in one's own views, mutually exclusive principles, as opposed to paradox, which points to a more complex truth, is illogical.
Catbert was correct "Wow, talk about a topic going into a million different directions."
Everyone posting here answered with emotions, and feeling, and their views on morality, rather than address the ethical dilemma I posed, a dilemma which arises out of a violation of morality.

Your use of the word "ethics" is not in the least consonant with its understanding as an effort to systematize morality, cloak understandings and predictions of human behavior in scientific terms, or even its modern usage as a replacement for "morality".

Furthermore, when you say "a certain spectrum of life", you begin that fall into illogical self-contradiction. You are trying to hedge a space where abortion is "OK" without considering its murderous aspect, ie, "before" that "certain spectrum" (which you decide where you want it to begin and end), or after, to "euthanize", ie kill, elderly that have become a nuisance.
I was not posing a moral question, I was posing an ethical question. Where did I say abortion is OK? I was talking about the scenario which exists today, where abortion is legal. I still strongly disagree with abortion, because it violates axiomatic "truths" of my church.

I don't think we have widely-varying definitions of "religion" "morality" and "ethics." To me, morality is more axiomatic. Abortion is immoral because it violates the axiom of "survival" found in most bona-fide religions, but, given that Western politicians, for fleeting political gain, have made it legal, and such occurs, I was focusing on ethical problems that arise from their attempts to "modernize" and regulate the church. We don't have choice over the basic truths and morality of our "church" (like violating one of the Ten Commandments) for example, but we do have control over the day-to-day ethical choices we make. For example, a man has some money, he can make an ethical choice - what shall I do? Go to the casino and have myself some fun drinking and gambling (the personal ethic) or give the money to the wife so she can buy food and pay the rent, for the baby and us (the family ethic). Don't get me wrong, sometimes the personal ethic is good, too, let's say, the wife is not using the money to buy food, but to buy crack.

I suppose I have a simplistic view of "morality" and "ethics." I got an "F" in philosophy cl**** it's gobbledygook to me. Later, I found these simple definitions. They are understandable, and they work for me in a practical sense. I save the heavy-duty thinking for day-to-day decisions about how to make more money. :)

But in today's big-government world, "ethics" and "morality" have been replaced by "values" so government can rationalize its own self-destructive behavior and cloak its ignorant erosion of the foundations of civilization. Presumptuous politicians pontificating about "family values" strike me as clowns pretending to be Albert Einstein's.

Now we DO "force" men to support children that HAVE been born, so by your current logic, child support is in principle "unethical". Yes, raising children means that parents "lose financially"; at least throughout the formative years, just as your parents "lost financially" by raising you.
Parents who stay together are much more successful and prosperous than parents separated. The concept of "family" is an integral part of the ethical structure of our society, (alas, even that foundational pillar of Western Civ is being eroded by rationalist, social "scientists").

Child support is ethical for the child, unethical for the man paying it, under the scenario I outlined - if that man is not allowed to be part of the family. The man isn't a part of that family, and because he loses half his salary to alimony and child support, he is not able to financially support another family, one where he would be accepted as a full member of that family. He is doomed to be single for 18 years.

It is similarly true that fathers not wanting children harms both the family and the community. But the fault is not in the child whose slaying you would therefore in such cases approve, but in the father's wrong view of the world and his place in it. The cure is not to kill the child, but to teach the father to desire his child, and to see himself differently, to turn his wants in the right direction, rather than make his wants the god that dictates child sacrifice.
I am not posting about the morality of abortion. I was addressing one of numerous ethical questions that arise when society violates morality. My OP was based on an already-occurring violation of morality, I questioned why the woman should be the only one with a voice in deciding about abortion, when such decision also profoundly affects the man. I still disagree with abortion.

So I am not sure which choir I am preaching to, but I am sure that my position (which is not "mine", but merely the truth of the matter, that I have come to) is both consistent and does not try to avoid or justify the brand of Cain (murder) and brand of Herod (of child murder) that abortion is no matter what excuse is offered.
I was only agreeing with your illuminating questions on why society has made (used to make) it difficult to get a divorce.

Fantastika
09-05-2015, 15:53
I see not, how it is possible to comprehend a situation fully and in detail, unless one has experienced it. At best one can offer sympathy and compassion, and perhaps, some adequate help.


Women are special, in that regard, because men will never be able to "fully comprehend" what it is to be pregnant? Are men special because women will never understand being in a war? Are some blacks special because their great-great-grandfathers were slaves? Are homosexuals special because straights don't understand AIDS?

How about the time when three 14-year old thugs pointed guns at me, and I thought, "That's it, end of the line." Do you fully comprehend that feeling?

Do you fully comprehend what it was like for me when a tree attacked my car, smashing itself into the door and separating several of my bones into unnaturally arranged pieces? (Just kidding about the mobile tree!). Can you see the idiot driving too fast, the car skidding on the rainy road, the car flying off the road, spinning like a top, and the fast-approaching tree? Do you also understand the feelings of my poor car? My new Neon was ruined!

Why makes your experiences as a person, or as a child-bearing woman, special?

Why are your feelings more important that other peoples' feelings?

Understanding is based on communication. People use communication, and affinity, to establish understanding. That's the best we spiritual beings can do. Nobody is special on this planet. No individual, no gender, no race, no ethnic identity, no language, etc.

AstarD
09-05-2015, 15:54
Yes. What kind of life is it if you have to be hooked up to a machine? But actually being inside someone is a bit different don't you think?

Lot's of people are temporarily on life support, just like unborn humans.

penka
09-05-2015, 18:46
Women are special, in that regard, because men will never be able to "fully comprehend" what it is to be pregnant? Are men special because women will never understand being in a war? Are some blacks special because their great-great-grandfathers were slaves? Are homosexuals special because straights don't understand AIDS?

How about the time when three 14-year old thugs pointed guns at me, and I thought, "That's it, end of the line." Do you fully comprehend that feeling?

Do you fully comprehend what it was like for me when a tree attacked my car, smashing itself into the door and separating several of my bones into unnaturally arranged pieces? (Just kidding about the mobile tree!). Can you see the idiot driving too fast, the car skidding on the rainy road, the car flying off the road, spinning like a top, and the fast-approaching tree? Do you also understand the feelings of my poor car? My new Neon was ruined!

Why makes your experiences as a person, or as a child-bearing woman, special?

Why are your feelings more important that other peoples' feelings?

Understanding is based on communication. People use communication, and affinity, to establish understanding. That's the best we spiritual beings can do. Nobody is special on this planet. No individual, no gender, no race, no ethnic identity, no language, etc.

Not special, but the experiences are special, there is a difference there.

Yes, I comprehend. The propetrator was not a child and was on drugs in my case.

No. I don't drive and got a mother-approved driver when in Moscow.

Drop the word "special", would you?

They do. I am not arguing about that. Experience gives a perspective and insight, though.
When it comes to communication's sufficiency: Communicate to your lawmakers, it is unethical to pay the hefty alimony to your ex to sustain the lifestyle she got accustomed to. You are a taxpayer, you live in a democracy, start a petition then.

penka
09-05-2015, 18:56
Thete's a lot I think we agree on, especially regarding palliative care. I'm not urging cheap ideas that disregard the suffering you point out. But I think the entire concept of medical care, and many other things, is based on someone other than the suffering patient, who is NOT experiencing what the patient is experiencing, comprehending fully and in detail, usually more detail than the sufferer knows of and with much more experience, the problem being dealt with.

We would not say that only a person who has successfully committed suicide has a right to talk or think about it, or that only a person who has lost a limb can understand anything about lost limbs, or dealing with it. Nor am I talking about just talking; I speak as a person who may well experience a heart attack, stroke, dialysis or cancer, and I am looking ahead and trying my best, while I am in a somewhat sound mind and body, to think about how I should see such things.

Nor do I suggest "supporting dying life by whatever means". A better knowledge of Orthodox bioethics would inform you that we do believe that there are points where nothing can be done but to let the patient go. The short version is that we believe in doing no harm. So it is one thing to stop artificial intervention that meaninglessly keeps a heart pumping when a person is really otherwise dead. It is another thing altogether to deliberately kill someone, even with the ostensibly noble purpose of stopping agony. I don't think we disagree on the former. We might disagree on the latter, though we would agree in doing everything humanly possible to ease the pain.

I don't want to suffer such pain. But I am convinced, while in sound mind and body, that deliberate killing is wrong even in such circumstances. And
I don't need to have undergone such pain before I say that. I must think about what is right while I can think straight.

Sometimes, a machine is a palliative care.

I believe there is something else at the core of this discussion, rus. Namely, you tend to generalise and I tend to see special cases, though both you and I do agree on some subjects.

Murder is wrong in general but sometimes it is justified (we talked of that before). Condemnation is always wrong, though.

This very talk is inappropriate for this thread, of course. And we shouldn't get carried away.

MickeyTong
09-05-2015, 21:59
........ justify the brand of Cain (murder) and brand of Herod (of child murder) that abortion is no matter what excuse is offered.

30-40% of all fertilized eggs result in miscarriage, frequently before the mother is even aware that she is pregnant. In these instances of Spontaneous Abortion, who is the baby murderer?

I'm sure you'll have an answer which exonerates the culprit.

Uncle Wally
09-05-2015, 22:46
Lot's of people are temporarily on life support, just like unborn humans.



Hey but "some people" ain't gonna make it are they? Why make them suffer longer?

Uncle Wally
09-05-2015, 22:47
30-40% of all fertilized eggs result in miscarriage, frequently before the mother is even aware that she is pregnant. In these instances of Spontaneous Abortion, who is the baby murderer?

I'm sure you'll have an answer which exonerates the culprit.




Why are we so afraid of meeting god? I'm just dying to meet him.

rusmeister
09-05-2015, 23:45
30-40% of all fertilized eggs result in miscarriage, frequently before the mother is even aware that she is pregnant. In these instances of Spontaneous Abortion, who is the baby murderer?

I'm sure you'll have an answer which exonerates the culprit.

I suppose you might have a problem, if you think any accidental death constitutes murder, but it's just a radical misunderstanding of what murder is, which is always a deliberate choice to kill defenseless human life. Where is the deliberate choice in your scenario?

Nobbynumbnuts
10-05-2015, 02:17
Originally Posted by Nobbynumbnuts View Post
No court will deny him access if he's paying maintenance and is a 'good' guy.


:10806:

I can't count how many times I've heard grown men say, "My life was going great until the divorce and the bankruptcy," and then pours forth a tale of woe of money going into a bottomless alimony hole while the woman prevented him from seeing his kids, not one day a week, but no days a week. She moved to the Yukon, or she got the judge to agree with a false accusation of child abuse.

"Social Services" in the US, at least, take lessons from the KGB or NSA, and whenever these "helpful" civil servants burst into your house, they are accompanied by 4 or 5 heavily armed police. They will take your children if they don't see enough toys (that's called "child abuse"). One of my good friends, her daughter got mad at her one day and called Social Services, who arrived in ten minutes and took her to jail, no questions asked. She had to prove herself innocent. By that time, the daughter from hell had looted the house and took off with her boyfriend (the boyfriend-criminal-coke dealer is in prison now).

Social Services is a growth industry, corrupt through and through. The more strife between couples, or nosy neighbors, the more these bureaucrat-social activists get paid, and the more power they assume.

Knobby, if you think this doesn't happen, and happen often, in the acrimony of a bitter splitting of the ways, you are living in a bubble.

Your spaceship is fueled and ready to go, you can go back to Naive-world, must be a nice place. :)

More ranting and raving but little substance...;)

natlee
10-05-2015, 04:54
More ranting and raving but little substance...;) Couldn't agree more, and that goes for Fantastika's every post in this thread! :nut:

Fantastika
10-05-2015, 07:18
Couldn't agree more, and that goes for Fantastika's every post in this thread! :nut:

Look in a mirror.

Your every post has been "Oh, poor me, I'm a woman, I'm special. And I deserve sympathy because of my gender."

"Sympathy" is the attitude where people are always saying they are sorry, or saying yes to everything even though they don't want to nor do they intend to follow through. They might be called a "yes" person.

A really "inspirational" attitude. :9456:

Knobby can't answer a simple question, no matter how many times you ask him. If he was trying to drive a car to Voronezh, he would end up in Yoshkar-Ola. :rofl: If you gave him a weapon and told him to fire at the enemy, he would shoot at some nearby friendly squirrels.

Fellow travelers on the spaceship from Naive-World. :10301:

I didn't make this thread about abortion, or about women, you did. After you throw out a bunch of hysterical accusations and unload your emotional baggage - "men are scumbags" and "f*cking this" and "f*cking that" then you cast blame on me for what? Causing your outbursts?

Yeah, your attitude is "sympathy" all right - "Poor me, I'm a victim." "Everything I do or say is justified, because I'm the victim."

Fantastika
10-05-2015, 07:25
This thread is a disaster, and a microcosm of what is wrong with society.

Instead of dealing rationally about current issues, and discussing one issue at a time, most people just vent about personal experiences and are unable to deal non-emotionally with ethical questions.

The media acts as a magnifying glass for social unrest across the world, be it white-black, male-female, young-old, rich-poor, inter-ethnic, religious-based terrorism, etc.

People posting here need to stop taking their cues from the media, for one thing.

No issue will ever be resolved as long as one justifies their actions and attitudes on emotional reactions, rather than logical discussion and conclusions.

Fantastika
10-05-2015, 07:34
More ranting and raving but little substance...;)

As opposed to your pithy one-line dismissals of honest discussion? Why did you get fired from the circus, they had too many clowns? :soccer:

penka
10-05-2015, 09:37
Look in a mirror.

Your every post has been "Oh, poor me, I'm a woman, I'm special. And I deserve sympathy because of my gender."

"Sympathy" is the attitude where people are always saying they are sorry, or saying yes to everything even though they don't want to nor do they intend to follow through. They might be called a "yes" person.

A really "inspirational" attitude. :9456:

Knobby can't answer a simple question, no matter how many times you ask him. If he was trying to drive a car to Voronezh, he would end up in Yoshkar-Ola. :rofl: If you gave him a weapon and told him to fire at the enemy, he would shoot at some nearby friendly squirrels.

Fellow travelers on the spaceship from Naive-World. :10301:

I didn't make this thread about abortion, or about women, you did. After you throw out a bunch of hysterical accusations and unload your emotional baggage - "men are scumbags" and "f*cking this" and "f*cking that" then you cast blame on me for what? Causing your outbursts?

Yeah, your attitude is "sympathy" all right - "Poor me, I'm a victim." "Everything I do or say is justified, because I'm the victim."

Right now you are going into one weird emotional outburst. What for, I wonder?

You should not forget, you are an American and are talking with the reference to the American legislation, whilst I, for example, have the point of reference in the Swedish legislation mainly.

The system when a divorced husband must pay lifetime/ till the next husband alimony to his ex "to maintain the lifestyle she got accustomed to" is an atavism in the modern days. If you strongly agree with that statement, why don't you turn to your senator and exercise your democratic rights, trying to change the legislation? Why do you turn to the expat forum and vent your unrelated grievances here instead?
THAT is logical. Your lamentations are not. Sorry.

Fantastika
10-05-2015, 09:46
Right now you are going into one weird emotional outburst. What for, I wonder?

You should not forget, you are an American and are talking with the reference to the American legislation, whilst I, for example, have the point of reference in the Swedish legislation mainly.

The system when a divorced husband must pay lifetime/ till the next husband alimony to his ex "to maintain the lifestyle she got accustomed to" is an atavism in the modern days. If you strongly agree with that statement, why don't you turn to your senator and exercise your democratic rights, trying to change the legislation? Why do you turn to the expat forum and vent your unrelated grievances here instead?
THAT is logical. Your lamentations are not. Sorry.

Why are you dragging me down to your antagonistic level? When you keep sending out hostility, after a while, guess what, you get hostility in return. I didn't put this thread into the emotional paper shredder, you did. You set the low tone, so deal with it.

penka
10-05-2015, 10:20
Why are you dragging me down to your antagonistic level? When you keep sending out hostility, after a while, guess what, you get hostility in return. I didn't put this thread into the emotional paper shredder, you did. You set the low tone, so deal with it.

Oy vey:D

natlee
10-05-2015, 12:13
Look in a mirror.

Your every post has been "Oh, poor me, I'm a woman, I'm special. And I deserve sympathy because of my gender."

"Sympathy" is the attitude where people are always saying they are sorry, or saying yes to everything even though they don't want to nor do they intend to follow through. They might be called a "yes" person.

A really "inspirational" attitude. :9456:

Knobby can't answer a simple question, no matter how many times you ask him. If he was trying to drive a car to Voronezh, he would end up in Yoshkar-Ola. :rofl: If you gave him a weapon and told him to fire at the enemy, he would shoot at some nearby friendly squirrels.

Fellow travelers on the spaceship from Naive-World. :10301:

I didn't make this thread about abortion, or about women, you did. After you throw out a bunch of hysterical accusations and unload your emotional baggage - "men are scumbags" and "f*cking this" and "f*cking that" then you cast blame on me for what? Causing your outbursts?

Yeah, your attitude is "sympathy" all right - "Poor me, I'm a victim." "Everything I do or say is justified, because I'm the victim." LOL!

I'm no victim - having never come across the type of sc... er men you're referring to, I consider myself lucky! Or smart, for I haven't been getting involved with lowlives :) Possibly both!

Now you, on the other hand, talk out of your bottom - complete lack of logic and reasoning to start with followed by behavior of a five year old - mommy's bad, she didn't give me candy! No worries sweetie, you have had one person agree with you in this thread - big win given the amount of nonsense you've posted!

:ignore:

natlee
10-05-2015, 13:01
This thread is a disaster, and a microcosm of what is wrong with society.

Instead of dealing rationally about current issues, and discussing one issue at a time, most people just vent about personal experiences and are unable to deal non-emotionally with ethical questions.

The media acts as a magnifying glass for social unrest across the world, be it white-black, male-female, young-old, rich-poor, inter-ethnic, religious-based terrorism, etc.

People posting here need to stop taking their cues from the media, for one thing.

No issue will ever be resolved as long as one justifies their actions and attitudes on emotional reactions, rather than logical discussion and conclusions. :D:D:D

In other words, my opinion is the only right opinion and if you disagree, you're nothing short of idiots!

MickeyTong
10-05-2015, 13:58
I suppose you might have a problem, if you think any accidental death constitutes murder, but it's just a radical misunderstanding of what murder is, which is always a deliberate choice to kill defenseless human life. Where is the deliberate choice in your scenario?

Do you believe that God plays no role in the development (or otherwise) of a defenceless foetus?

FatAndy
10-05-2015, 14:12
:emote_popcorn:

Nobbynumbnuts
10-05-2015, 16:06
....honest discussion....

PMSL. :D

Nobbynumbnuts
10-05-2015, 16:15
Look in a mirror.

Your every post has been "Oh, poor me, I'm a woman, I'm special. And I deserve sympathy because of my gender."

"Sympathy" is the attitude where people are always saying they are sorry, or saying yes to everything even though they don't want to nor do they intend to follow through. They might be called a "yes" person.

A really "inspirational" attitude. :9456:

Knobby can't answer a simple question, no matter how many times you ask him. If he was trying to drive a car to Voronezh, he would end up in Yoshkar-Ola. :rofl: If you gave him a weapon and told him to fire at the enemy, he would shoot at some nearby friendly squirrels.

Fellow travelers on the spaceship from Naive-World. :10301:

I didn't make this thread about abortion, or about women, you did. After you throw out a bunch of hysterical accusations and unload your emotional baggage - "men are scumbags" and "f*cking this" and "f*cking that" then you cast blame on me for what? Causing your outbursts?

Yeah, your attitude is "sympathy" all right - "Poor me, I'm a victim." "Everything I do or say is justified, because I'm the victim."

You're ranting again.

I agree with Natalee although i don't think she's complaining as such. Women get a bum rap and always have. It's getting better slowly as men get more enlightened. It's he men who are unenlightened who have trouble with the system (there are always exceptions though)
We've had posters say men are more important than women when it comes to children, a truly remarkable statement considering it's 2015

rusmeister
10-05-2015, 16:34
Do you believe that God plays no role in the development (or otherwise) of a defenceless foetus?

In order to offer an answer that you could understand correctly, I'd have to know what you mean by "play a role".

God's perfect will (ie, what He wants) is that we should become holy as He is holy. God's free will allows us to choose whether to try to do that or not. He gives us freedom, and allows us to do evil instead of good, if we so choose. And so God, deciding that having free creatures who choose to be good is better than automatons with no freedom whatsoever, lets us murder, rape, beat, cheat, and rob each other. Yes. That's why this life, originally intended for eternal joy, has become a temporary vale of tears. Evils not intended in the original design happen both by natural processes and by human will. And so there are mutations, miscarriages, and abortions.

Can God do anything to alter any of these things in this world, this life, and NOT rob of us the freedom to choose and act as we wish? Yes, and we call such actions "miracles". But miracles are by definition outside of the natural order of things, and so, are rare and exceptional; not the rule.

If that helps a little to explain the context in which God would "play a role"...

rusmeister
10-05-2015, 16:46
Sometimes, a machine is a palliative care.

I believe there is something else at the core of this discussion, rus. Namely, you tend to generalise and I tend to see special cases, though both you and I do agree on some subjects.

Murder is wrong in general but sometimes it is justified (we talked of that before). Condemnation is always wrong, though.

This very talk is inappropriate for this thread, of course. And we shouldn't get carried away.

Thanks!
Yes, I generalize. I suppose that's what generals have to do... :)

I admit exceptions and extraordinary cases; what I find in the modern world is that most people confuse them with the rule, and/or as a reason for denying or rejecting the rule. So you CAN dig your way to the rare case where a growing baby is going to die no matter what you do, and medical intervention could still save the mother, and I would admit you have found the exception that is actually not murder. But that would not justify the overwhelming rule that medical intervention to kill a healthy baby generally IS murder. And while killing may be justified on occasion, murder, in general, cannot be justified. That naturally leads us to the need to define murder, state what it is and is not.

"Euthanasia" - another evil euphemism Chesterton predicted in his essay "On Evil Euphemisms" (1930) http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/on_evil_euphemisms.html
- similarly seeks, as a general rule to justify the killing of a person, and so is a related topic. It falls under bioethics, and is a moral issue, and there is plenty of explanation of the traditional Christian view.

Fantastika
11-05-2015, 07:39
You're ranting again.

I agree with Natalee although i don't think she's complaining as such. Women get a bum rap and always have. It's getting better slowly as men get more enlightened. It's he men who are unenlightened who have trouble with the system (there are always exceptions though)
We've had posters say men are more important than women when it comes to children, a truly remarkable statement considering it's 2015

Talking to you is like trying to make sense of a drunk squirrel.

Fantastika
11-05-2015, 08:12
LOL!

I'm no victim - having never come across the type of sc... er men you're referring to, I consider myself lucky! Or smart, for I haven't been getting involved with lowlives :) Possibly both!

Now you, on the other hand, talk out of your bottom - complete lack of logic and reasoning to start with followed by behavior of a five year old - mommy's bad, she didn't give me candy! No worries sweetie, you have had one person agree with you in this thread - big win given the amount of nonsense you've posted!

:ignore:

Are you kidding? You go from sympathy ("poor me, everyone feel sorry for me because I have such a hard life") to antagonism, anger and rage ("men are scumbags," "f*ck this" f*ck that"), and then back again.

"Anger" at your environment is better than "sympathy." With "sympathy" you are a complete victim of your environment. With "antagonism" or "rage" you are a little better - interacting with your environment, but most other people react to hostility with hostility.

So what is your basic attitude? Sympathy? or Antagonism? ("Antagonism" occasionally flares up into "rage").

Hopefully, you can pull yourself out of these bad attitudes someday. But it will be difficult, because with "sympathy" if you get others to feel sorry for your situation, then you get comfortable and don't want to change. And when you send out (communicate) "antagonism" or "rage," then you just get other people mad at you.

Funny that the "mommy analogy" comes first to your mind, your own memories? - a perfect example of "sympathy" - when you were little, you pretended to be sick because you learned that if Natlee said she was sick, mommy brought her candy?

BTW, what is a "lowlife"? I don't judge people based on their economic circumstances. I have rich friends and poor friends. All people are worthy human beings, spiritual beings, even those stuck in temporary bad attitudes like yourself.

Fantastika
11-05-2015, 08:40
Right now you are going into one weird emotional outburst. What for, I wonder?

You should not forget, you are an American and are talking with the reference to the American legislation, whilst I, for example, have the point of reference in the Swedish legislation mainly.

The system when a divorced husband must pay lifetime/ till the next husband alimony to his ex "to maintain the lifestyle she got accustomed to" is an atavism in the modern days. If you strongly agree with that statement, why don't you turn to your senator and exercise your democratic rights, trying to change the legislation?

Sorry, I am wrung out and issuing snappy retorts, from trying to get a straight answer to a simple question. Everyone's "answers," with a couple of exceptions, consists of their venting their views about men, women, abortion, etc., which is irrelevent to the original question.

I should also write to my 2 senators and tell them not to vote to send more weapons to Ukraine? They are not any smarter than what they read in Yahoo! or MSNBC. Oy vey! Schmucks they are!

I wish things were as simple in the USSA as they are in Sweden. Not when there are billion-dollar special-interest groups stirring the social pot and creating not a melting pot but a boiling cauldron. Is it really that simple to improve and change for the better in Sweden? If so, then I wish to go to Sweden. :)

penka
11-05-2015, 09:34
Sorry, I am wrung out and issuing snappy retorts, from trying to get a straight answer to a simple question. Everyone's "answers," with a couple of exceptions, consists of their venting their views about men, women, abortion, etc., which is irrelevent to the original question.

I should also write to my 2 senators and tell them not to vote to send more weapons to Ukraine? They are not any smarter than what they read in Yahoo! or MSNBC. Oy vey! Schmucks they are!

I wish things were as simple in the USSA as they are in Sweden. Not when there are billion-dollar special-interest groups stirring the social pot and creating not a melting pot but a boiling cauldron. Is it really that simple to improve and change for the better in Sweden? If so, then I wish to go to Sweden. :)

This post is somewhat tricky for me, as I find it hard to determine where the irony ends and reason begins.

I am not that familiar with the US legislation, as said and only know some bits and pieces.

Two questions here as I can see, though: child support and alimony (?) to the ex-wife.
As both parents are established, it is right and correct to provide the needed care and financial support for the child. Mother's wrong decisions, like denying a father visitation rights is not a credible excuse to stray away from the financial obligations towards the child. As for the visitations, those can be handled through the court, including the cases when only one parent gets the custody.

As for the alimony to maintain the same life-standard wife got used to during the marriage, this practice exists only in some states and is wrong to the core. Maybe, it is a reflection of the basic hypocrisy, when being a good church-goer is an indicator of a good moral profile and when a divorce is basically disapproved by the state. Maybe, that law reflects the olden days, when a wife was strictly a housewife and had slim chances of establishing her financial independency post divorce.
In modern days, however, this law is as wrong as a pioneer diet for the office plankton.
Isn't it then logical to turn to the relevant lawmakers, trying to change the old fashioned law?

For comparison:
- In Sweden both parents normally get the visitation rights
- Normally the child support sum is state-regulated and is unrelated to the income size
- In the case, a parent liable to pay child support loses job/ is unable to pay, the state pays and the parent in question accumulates a debt to the state
- During the periods, when the child spends time with the parent, liable to pay child support, this parent is exempt from the payments
- During the divorce all the assets and liabilities, accumulated during the marriage, are taken into the consideration and the actual assets are divided 50/50

In some countries, like in France and RF, a spouse can claim alimony but that requires special circumstances, like disability.

PS The heading of this thread suggests a discussion on abortion and not the child support.

natlee
11-05-2015, 11:15
Are you kidding? You go from sympathy ("poor me, everyone feel sorry for me because I have such a hard life") to antagonism, anger and rage ("men are scumbags," "f*ck this" f*ck that"), and then back again.

"Anger" at your environment is better than "sympathy." With "sympathy" you are a complete victim of your environment. With "antagonism" or "rage" you are a little better - interacting with your environment, but most other people react to hostility with hostility.

So what is your basic attitude? Sympathy? or Antagonism? ("Antagonism" occasionally flares up into "rage").

Hopefully, you can pull yourself out of these bad attitudes someday. But it will be difficult, because with "sympathy" if you get others to feel sorry for your situation, then you get comfortable and don't want to change. And when you send out (communicate) "antagonism" or "rage," then you just get other people mad at you.

Funny that the "mommy analogy" comes first to your mind, your own memories? - a perfect example of "sympathy" - when you were little, you pretended to be sick because you learned that if Natlee said she was sick, mommy brought her candy?

BTW, what is a "lowlife"? I don't judge people based on their economic circumstances. I have rich friends and poor friends. All people are worthy human beings, spiritual beings, even those stuck in temporary bad attitudes like yourself. You, my dear, would make a bad shrink! :)

Never said "men" are scumbags - did say some are (as are some women!) Anger, rage? Methinks you're talking about me having a strong opinion on certain issues - like, say, child support! No anger - disbelief, more like! When I read your recent posts, that is! ;)

And what is my "situation" exactly? Most importantly, what does it have to do with this thread? :confused:

Now you sound like one angry person when you suddenly turn around and start attacking me simply because I have pointed out I see no logic in what you've been saying.

Obviously wasn't talking about social statuses when referring to lowlives but people with no morals and the like. That said, I disagree that all people are worthy human beings :cool:

I must say I used to like reading your posts - the earlier ones had *some* logic and wit and I don't recall any personal attacks.

Nobbynumbnuts
11-05-2015, 11:55
....The woman's lack of pre-planning can not be justified by the man's lack of foresight...

But lack of forethought, foresight or foreplay is not the issue here:...


Drunk squirrel :p

TolkoRaz
11-05-2015, 12:29
Talking to you is like trying to make sense of a drunk squirrel.

Do squirrels drink? :eek:

May be they drink Belochka Vodka?

rusmeister
11-05-2015, 12:29
You're ranting again.

I agree with Natalee although i don't think she's complaining as such. Women get a bum rap and always have. It's getting better slowly as men get more enlightened. It's he men who are unenlightened who have trouble with the system (there are always exceptions though)
We've had posters say men are more important than women when it comes to children, a truly remarkable statement considering it's 2015

What I find interesting, Nobby, is your assumption that men are getting "more enlightened", and your very idea of what constitutes light, and what the "power source" is.

Such claims usually point to things like female suffrage and "equality" in "the workplace", men assisting directly in the raising of young children, and so on. But they ignore the thousand ways we have become more backwards than previous generations, that, in our "enlightenment" produce, aside from futuristic dreams of "Star Trek" as many fears in visions of the worlds of Wall-E, the Matrix and Terminator series. So I think you have an AWFUL lot of things to address before you can begin to claim enlightenment, something I am now sure most humans do not have. Without dogmatic truth regarding human nature, you can't possibly begin to claim it.

rusmeister
11-05-2015, 12:51
Maybe, it is a reflection of the basic hypocrisy, when being a good church-goer is an indicator of a good moral profile and when a divorce is basically disapproved by the state. Maybe, that law reflects the olden days, when a wife was strictly a housewife and had slim chances of establishing her financial independency post divorce.
In modern days, however, this law is as wrong as a pioneer diet for the office plankton.
Isn't it then logical to turn to the relevant lawmakers, trying to change the old fashioned law?


There's one idea I'd like to address in your words, Penka, and that is the idea that disapproval of divorce by the state is hypocrisy. It may be that statesmen divorce and then disapprove of it, so far I can concede hypocrisy. But unless a society disapproves of divorce in general, it is decadent, decaying, on its way to the list of dead civilizations. Unless families are held together by more than good feelings, unless a union a man and woman voluntarily engaged in with the probable reproduction of children (speaking of the rule and not of exceptions, generalizing) is encouraged to remain a union when the going gets rough, then the society is on its way to anarchy, and we can already see the fruits of unprecedented numbers of children both born out of wedlock and raised in the absence of one or both parents, and abortion is one of the results of this, so easy divorce and sex outside of marriage are relevant to abortion.

So I would really begin by condemning easy ("no-fault") divorce, and follow up by condemning adultery and fornication, without which there would be no approval of same-sex relations, and the upcoming approval of the other evils I have named in the works (to wit, the sexual use of children, animals and the dead). If marriage were held as holy, which it is not, and easy divorce was the first attack on it in modern times (you could say as early as Henry VIII, though it really only geared up in the early twentieth century), then none of these thingscwould ge now seen as normal or acceptable. You all would be poo-poohing the idea of homosexual relations being tolerated, and even denouncing adultery and fornication for what they are - attacks on the holy state of marriage, aka "holy matrimony".

But that's not how history turned out. We were born just when contraception became widespread, easy, and legal, divorce already had tacit approval, Hollywood was already sympathetically portraying sad marriages and adulterers, and the sexual revolution was in full swing. So we naturally absorbed the morality of our time. The only way to not be creatures of our time here is to really be able to imagine public perceptions of morality of other times, that contradict our own.

And most are creatures of their time, unable to do this.

Uncle Wally
11-05-2015, 13:10
Do squirrels drink? :eek:

May be they drink Belochka Vodka?



Looks like my photos from the night of 9 May!

Fantastika
11-05-2015, 14:02
Do squirrels drink? :eek:

May be they drink Belochka Vodka?

It may be pretty common. Imagine how much fermented fruit is out there in the forest that squirrels munch on. Apples turn sour after they fall off the tree, and it's like drinking apple cider....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=72&v=LAfKZUn9sZ0

:11581: In the Fall, there may be fermented pumpkins in the garden:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ikH9ZRcF2Q

I have a problem with squirrels vacationing in the attic of my house, so I set up a trap like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POUfAsJ1Jjg

But when I saw the squirrel, outside, (he's an older one, I can tell from the grey whiskers on his "face") racing across the roof, going for the chicken-wire, one-way "door" I was thinking, "Aha! That won't work, Dumbo! Tough luck! You're locked out. Too bad!" So the squirrel put out his little paw, opened the door just like a person would, and disappeared inside with a flash of bushy tail. My jaw dropped down to my Reeboks.

The squirrel's playing, it thinks I'm making a game for him!

Please nobody make suggestions like "Why don't you make friends? Invite him in for beer and nuts." :)

penka
11-05-2015, 16:36
There's one idea I'd like to address in your words, Penka, and that is the idea that disapproval of divorce by the state is hypocrisy. It may be that statesmen divorce and then disapprove of it, so far I can concede hypocrisy. But unless a society disapproves of divorce in general, it is decadent, decaying, on its way to the list of dead civilizations. Unless families are held together by more than good feelings, unless a union a man and woman voluntarily engaged in with the probable reproduction of children (speaking of the rule and not of exceptions, generalizing) is encouraged to remain a union when the going gets rough, then the society is on its way to anarchy, and we can already see the fruits of unprecedented numbers of children both born out of wedlock and raised in the absence of one or both parents, and abortion is one of the results of this, so easy divorce and sex outside of marriage are relevant to abortion.

So I would really begin by condemning easy ("no-fault") divorce, and follow up by condemning adultery and fornication, without which there would be no approval of same-sex relations, and the upcoming approval of the other evils I have named in the works (to wit, the sexual use of children, animals and the dead). If marriage were held as holy, which it is not, and easy divorce was the first attack on it in modern times (you could say as early as Henry VIII, though it really only geared up in the early twentieth century), then none of these thingscwould ge now seen as normal or acceptable. You all would be poo-poohing the idea of homosexual relations being tolerated, and even denouncing adultery and fornication for what they are - attacks on the holy state of marriage, aka "holy matrimony".

But that's not how history turned out. We were born just when contraception became widespread, easy, and legal, divorce already had tacit approval, Hollywood was already sympathetically portraying sad marriages and adulterers, and the sexual revolution was in full swing. So we naturally absorbed the morality of our time. The only way to not be creatures of our time here is to really be able to imagine public perceptions of morality of other times, that contradict our own.

And most are creatures of their time, unable to do this.

A secular state should not operate with the religious categories.

Prohibition of abortions does not improve the morals, it raises the number of secret and often unqualified abortions. Complicating divorces does not strengthen the institute of marriage, it instigates what you call "formication", adultery and/ or general misery within such a union.

Of course, in some places we witness all kinds of sadistic punishments, including stoning, for the sinners. Maybe, it does wonders for the morals. I call it barbaric.

natlee
11-05-2015, 16:48
A secular state should not operate with the religious categories.

Prohibition of abortions does not improve the morals, it raises the number of secret and often unqualified abortions. Complicating divorces does not strengthen the institute of marriage, it instigates what you call "formication", adultery and/ or general misery within such a union.

Of course, in some places we witness all kinds of sadistic punishments, including stoning, for the sinners. Maybe, it does wonders for the morals. I call it barbaric. I agree, for the most part. But, there are exceptions to every rule. I happen to know famiies who have not only survived the hard times - they grew stronger together after they hadn't divorced for (bad) reasons of "nowhere to go", "financially dependent" etc. Their circumstances made them try and save the marriagies!

penka
11-05-2015, 16:55
I agree, for the most part. But, there are exceptions to every rule. I happen to know famiies who have not only survived the hard times - they grew stronger together after they hadn't divorced for (bad) reasons of "nowhere to go", "financially dependent" etc. Their circumstances made them try and save the marriagies!

Absolutely. That also happens and it's great, there is an exception to every rule.

However, i must add, there must have been much more to the couples in question than the technical difficulties, that kept their relationships intact despite the temporary difficulties. There must be deep feelings, loyalty, etc. Nowhere to go/ finances does not make a strong and true marriage.

natlee
11-05-2015, 18:21
Absolutely. That also happens and it's great, there is an exception to every rule.

However, i must add, there must have been much more to the couples in question than the technical difficulties, that kept their relationships intact despite the temporary difficulties. There must be deep feelings, loyalty, etc. Nowhere to go/ finances does not make a strong and true marriage. True but then few of us marry with no such foundation, and yet so many leave practically as soon as the going gets tough.

penka
11-05-2015, 18:36
True but then few of us marry with no such foundation, and yet so many leave practically as soon as the going gets tough.

I disagree.
Many marry not after meeting yesterday, but after dating for a while, i e learning each other's habits, likes and dislikes and accommodating or not, accordingly and developing a deeper affection and loyalty to each other. Some marry for being in love or for the material benefits, which usually (not always) make a shaky and deeply false marriage. Toughness does occur now and then, still as usual, couples that got a deep bond, stay together. And there are sometimes circumstances at play.

natlee
11-05-2015, 19:38
I disagree.
Many marry not after meeting yesterday, but after dating for a while, i e learning each other's habits, likes and dislikes and accommodating or not, accordingly and developing a deeper affection and loyalty to each other. Some marry for being in love or for the material benefits, which usually (not always) make a shaky and deeply false marriage. Toughness does occur now and then, still as usual, couples that got a deep bond, stay together. And there are sometimes circumstances at play. Ok, I was talking about splitting up after years of marriage, with or without children, but a marriage based on love, mutual respect and all there is to a good strong happy successful marriage. It's not as simple as having a deep bond. I for one cannot see myself forgiving my partner for cheating - even if he's deeply sorry, even if it was a one off, even if we have children together... I'm possessive of my man, his body's mine and knowing he shared it with someone else, thinking about/picturing him with another woman would eat me alive - I'm one of those.. Then again, I'd probably rather know even if it kills me which would probably mean... the end! Cheating's just one form of betrayal - there are plenty of others. We get betrayed by both a*sholes and those who slip and do stupid things they later regret. Other people forgive cheaters quite easily and even tolerate another man/woman in their partner's lives for months to years just as long as their partner comes home to them at the end of the day. Some couples fall victims to misunderstandings and frustration caused by various changes from unemployment to loss of a family member to simple aging. Despite the bond. Etc.

Uncle Wally
11-05-2015, 20:09
Ok, I was talking about splitting up after years of marriage, with or without children, but a marriage based on love, mutual respect and all there is to a good strong happy successful marriage. It's not as simple as having a deep bond. I for one cannot see myself forgiving my partner for cheating - even if he's deeply sorry, even if it was a one off, even if we have children together... I'm possessive of my man, his body's mine and knowing he shared it with someone else, thinking about/picturing him with another woman would eat me alive - I'm one of those.. Then again, I'd probably rather know even if it kills me which would probably mean... the end! Cheating's just one form of betrayal - there are plenty of others. We get betrayed by both a*sholes and those who slip and do stupid things they later regret. Other people forgive cheaters quite easily and even tolerate another man/woman in their partner's lives for months to years just as long as their partner comes home to them at the end of the day. Some couples fall victims to misunderstandings and frustration caused by various changes from unemployment to loss of a family member to simple aging. Despite the bond. Etc.



I was thinking that if it was really true love ❤ it wouldn't matter what or who the other person was, you could just except everything and anything.

Oh nice new photo Natlee! I like it.

rusmeister
11-05-2015, 21:50
A secular state should not operate with the religious categories.

Prohibition of abortions does not improve the morals, it raises the number of secret and often unqualified abortions. Complicating divorces does not strengthen the institute of marriage, it instigates what you call "formication", adultery and/ or general misery within such a union.

Of course, in some places we witness all kinds of sadistic punishments, including stoning, for the sinners. Maybe, it does wonders for the morals. I call it barbaric.


I agree, for the most part. But, there are exceptions to every rule. I happen to know famiies who have not only survived the hard times - they grew stronger together after they hadn't divorced for (bad) reasons of "nowhere to go", "financially dependent" etc. Their circumstances made them try and save the marriagies!

I think Natlee is going in the better direction here.

Prohibition of anything ought to be done when the thing ought not to be done at all. It is a given that it will be done secretly. It OUGHT to be done secretly, and with great shame and fear!!! If you are going to murder somebody anyway, it is BETTER that you be afraid to do it, and hide in shame what you do, than that it be allowed because people want to exercise their lust and avoid the natural consequences of their sexual desires.

It is not in the least true that making divorce easy reduces adultery and fornication (what many generations, even your ancestors, called it); it is evident that it is the institution of marriage itself that is called into question, seen as no longer necessary, as droves of people choose to simply "live together" - until, in the words of the 1980 parody "Flash Gordon"'s wedding ceremony have ceased to be parody and are simple fact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5YtyW1aXIY

Really, that you should have to appeal to ancient Israel's practice of stoning underscores how un-Christian it is. Stoning was never practiced in Christendom since its inception. So suggesting that we stone people, or desire to do so, is irrelevant, and I shouldn't have to say, poor argument.

penka
11-05-2015, 22:26
I think Natlee is going in the better direction here.

Prohibition of anything ought to be done when the thing ought not to be done at all. It is a given that it will be done secretly. It OUGHT to be done secretly, and with great shame and fear!!! If you are going to murder somebody anyway, it is BETTER that you be afraid to do it, and hide in shame what you do, than that it be allowed because people want to exercise their lust and avoid the natural consequences of their sexual desires.

It is not in the least true that making divorce easy reduces adultery and fornication (what many generations, even your ancestors, called it); it is evident that it is the institution of marriage itself that is called into question, seen as no longer necessary, as droves of people choose to simply "live together" - until, in the words of the 1980 parody "Flash Gordon"'s wedding ceremony have ceased to be parody and are simple fact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5YtyW1aXIY

Really, that you should have to appeal to ancient Israel's practice of stoning underscores how un-Christian it is. Stoning was never practiced in Christendom since its inception. So suggesting that we stone people, or desire to do so, is irrelevant, and I shouldn't have to say, poor argument.


Ok!:)

natlee
11-05-2015, 23:06
I was thinking that if it was really true love ❤ it wouldn't matter what or who the other person was, you could just except everything and anything.

Oh nice new photo Natlee! I like it. A bit confused by the former statement but thanks for the latter - looking in parents' new mirror :)

Fantastika
12-05-2015, 07:22
You, my dear, would make a bad shrink! :)

Never said "men" are scumbags

And what is my "situation" exactly? Most importantly, what does it have to do with this thread? :confused:



Shrinks? You're fooling around with them? No wonder your case is advanced...well, that's easily fixed. Unless you're on psychiatric drugs, in that case, wean yourself slowly off them, abrupt withdrawal can be bad.

Anyway, turn off the music and the I-phone, get comfortable, take your shoes off, tell everyone not to disturb you, make sure you like the room...all set? Okay, good.

Now, recall a time when you wanted sympathy and someone gave it to you...got it? Good. Run it a couple of times, recalling colors, sounds, emotions. other senses. Now recall another time when you wanted sympathy and someone gave it to you...got it? Excellent. Okay now recall the earliest time in your life when you wanted sympathy and someone gave it to you. Run it a few times, for sights, sounds, smells, etc. There! That will blow your sympathy issue.

Now, do the same thing for anger. Recall a time when you got mad at someone and it "worked" - they backed off from your anger. Run it, recalling visual and audio, loudness, weights, touch, etc... Now recall another time, etc. Then recall the earliest time in your life when you got angry and the other person gave you what you wanted...

Any cognitions? If so, slow down and savor them...

No need to spend all that time and money with some pointy-head suppressing your problems by giving you legalized drugs...jeez, how barbaric!

Wait, do not do this if you're on any drugs or alcohol, it might lock it in instead of blowing it away. In that case watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOnqjkJTMaA

take two aspirin, and call me next week. :)

And stay away from the shrink! Rusmeister can suggest alternatives if you need to counsel one-on-one with someone working in the rehab industry, his people have a much better record of success. :)

Fantastika
12-05-2015, 07:41
This post is somewhat tricky for me, as I find it hard to determine where the irony ends and reason begins.


Yes, your post seems to also be ironic? In divorces, Sweden swims like a Gold-medal Olympic winner while the US sinks like a piece of concrete...?


In modern days, however, this law is as wrong as a pioneer diet for the office plankton.


That brings to mind a weird picture of cowboys munching on algae...


Isn't it then logical to turn to the relevant lawmakers, trying to change the old fashioned law?

Feminized Schmucks they are. Frightened of Gloria Allred. Maybe I should send them a nice letter and a carton of bagels and lox, slathered with cream cheese...

For comparison:
- In Sweden both parents normally get the visitation rights
* In USSA, the woman takes the child and moves to a remote location where the man is unlikely to have the financial means to fly out on alternate weekends.

- Normally the child support sum is state-regulated and is unrelated to the income size
* In USSA, child support sum is directly related to income size.

- In the case, a parent liable to pay child support loses job/ is unable to pay, the state pays and the parent in question accumulates a debt to the state
* In the USSA, if the man is unable to pay, they put him in jail, and then he really is unable to pay...

- During the periods, when the child spends time with the parent, liable to pay child support, this parent is exempt from the payments
* Good idea. Unheard of in the USSA.

- During the divorce all the assets and liabilities, accumulated during the marriage, are taken into the consideration and the actual assets are divided 50/50.
* In the USSA, the judge leaves out that qualifier "accumulated during the marriage". That's 50/50 *after* the lady gets the manor and all the best horses and carriages.

rusmeister
12-05-2015, 09:13
Ok!:)

Hmm, instant and unconditional capitulation.

It's not like my last post was an atomic bomb.

This post was, and no one could ever respond to it:
http://expat.ru/forum/showpost.php?p=1103679&postcount=78

Uncle Wally
12-05-2015, 10:57
A bit confused by the former statement but thanks for the latter - looking in parents' new mirror :)

You very welcome, nice mirror.


What I mean is, even if they have sex with someone else you don't really stop loving them. You my not want to see that or know about and maybe you don't even want to be with them but you don't really stop loving them. So why not just stay with them as long as you can? Have you ever heard the song "I hate everything about you, why do I love you?" I have been there, had a girl who was alcoholic (at that time I didn't drink and didn't like women who did) like to go out and get drunk and have sex with strangers. She couldn't understand why I loved her. I couldn't either but I did. I taught her English and helped her find a foreign guy so she could "live by the sea". Welcome her home and made her breakfast after a night out drinking and getting laid, never got mad at her or jealous.

natlee
12-05-2015, 13:23
I'm sure you don't stop loving them, but that love then becomes 70% pain and 25% hate (?). Besides, one can argue that if they've slept with smn else then they don't really love you (nor do they respect you). I know life is not all black and white, but I just don't see myself going strong after something like this - it would eat me alive until I left even if I was ready to forgive..

This to me is very different from sticking by your loved one after they've lost an arm or a leg, or have developed an addiction although the latter, in most cases, is far more difficult to fix which can well result in separation.

natlee
12-05-2015, 13:30
Shrinks? You're fooling around with them? No wonder your case is advanced... I was once sent to one by my parents after they'd found out I was planning to marry a man 21 years my senior. They told the lady (shrink) that I clearly had low self-esteem :D and that it needed fixing. I laughed but went out of curiousity (had never seen a shrink before) and because they were wiling to watch my daughter and I was just dying to get out of the house :shame: We spoke for over an hour, after which she smiled and said that I seemed perfectly confident and happy :)

That aside, I can't quite figure out whether you're a man or a middle aged overweight unattractive single woman... Either way, you aren't a very pleasant person for sure - talk about wrong first impressions!

Uncle Wally
12-05-2015, 14:10
I'm sure you don't stop loving them, but that love then becomes 70% pain and 25% hate (?). Besides, one can argue that if they've slept with smn else then they don't really love you (nor do they respect you). I know life is not all black and white, but I just don't see myself going strong after something like this - it would eat me alive until I left even if I was ready to forgive..

This to me is very different from sticking by your loved one after they've lost an arm or a leg, or have developed an addiction although the latter, in most cases, is far more difficult to fix which can well result in separation.




Yeah but this is me you're talking to. I could go out and do the same thing easily and have. I don't think I was betraying my partner so much as me having a weakness for beautiful women like she had a weakness for drink and sex. But we are looking at this from different angles, you being a woman and a mom, me being a big kid, addict and a musician. The music could overshadowed all.

Uncle Wally
12-05-2015, 14:17
I was once sent to one by my parents after they'd found out I was planning to marry a man 21 years my senior. They told the lady (shrink) that I clearly had low self-esteem :D and that it needed fixing. I laughed but went out of curiousity (had never seen a shrink before) and because they were wiling to watch my daughter and I was just dying to get out of the house :shame: We spoke for over an hour, after which she smiled and said that I seemed perfectly confident and happy :)

That aside, I can't quite figure out whether you're a man or a middle aged overweight unattractive single woman... Either way, you aren't a very pleasant person for sure - talk about wrong first impressions!



Had the same thing. I was 23 years older than her and her grandfather sat me down with a bottle of vodka and asked not to take it too far. I assured him I wouldn't. Funny her birthday was July 31. Miss her greatly.

natlee
12-05-2015, 14:20
Yeah but this is me you're talking to. I could go out and do the same thing easily and have. I don't think I was betraying my partner so much as me having a weakness for beautiful women like she had a weakness for drink and sex. But we are looking at this from different angles, you being a woman and a mom, me being a big kid, addict and a musician. The music could overshadowed all. It's nothing to do with gender or parenthood. Thankfully there are enough men whose views on so called open relationships are no different from mine. I say people can do what they damn well please as long as both partners are happy with the arrangement (and trust me, if you start digging, you will find out that very few are happy about being in an 'open relationship' even if they say that they are!) I was talking about myself and those like myself who, when in a relationship, for lack of a better word belong to their partner and will only accept the same in return.

Uncle Wally
12-05-2015, 15:49
It's nothing to do with gender or parenthood. Thankfully there are enough men whose views on so called open relationships are no different from mine. I say people can do what they damn well please as long as both partners are happy with the arrangement (and trust me, if you start digging, you will find out that very few are happy about being in an 'open relationship' even if they say that they are!) I was talking about myself and those like myself who, when in a relationship, for lack of a better word belong to their partner and will only accept the same in return.



I agree with you, it should be kept secret from each other. Open relationships never work. Men are less likely to let their girl have sex with other guys. Insecurity I think or they just have a hard time finding a sex partner and believe it is easier for women which I don't believe is true. I do find that many women will put up with their husbands fooling around if they have been in a long term relationship or if it's just every once in a while. Sometimes long distance relationships go better if while the cat's away it's time to play but once home they are as faithful as a dog. Ruff ruff.

Capman
12-05-2015, 23:10
Okay, so, the feminist mantra is that a woman has a right to an abortion, because it's her body and she and she alone is in control of her own body. No one else, even the seed-planting boyfriend, has any say in the matter.

So, since parenthood is a two-sided issue (mother + father), then what say does the man have in the decisions about children, or family? Isn't parenting a partnership, major decisions made with agreements?

The only fair thing, would be, to me, if the woman chooses to have the baby, but the boyfriend does not want to be a father, then he should not be forced to pay support for the child and mother for 18 years.

The one who truly doesn't have a choice in the matter is the child! His or her livelihood is the bottom line. The father should pay his obligations regardless of the circumstances between him and the mother.

natlee
12-05-2015, 23:39
I agree with you, it should be kept secret from each other. Open relationships never work. Men are less likely to let their girl have sex with other guys. Insecurity I think or they just have a hard time finding a sex partner and believe it is easier for women which I don't believe is true. I do find that many women will put up with their husbands fooling around if they have been in a long term relationship or if it's just every once in a while. Sometimes long distance relationships go better if while the cat's away it's time to play but once home they are as faithful as a dog. Ruff ruff. I've had two long-distance relationships (lucky me), and have been "as faithful as a dog" in both. It hasn't been too difficult as I tend to only think of getting naked with one man - my man :)

The one who truly doesn't have a choice in the matter is the child! His or her livelihood is the bottom line. The father should pay his obligations regardless of the circumstances between him and the mother. Thank you!

rusmeister
13-05-2015, 07:26
Agreed.
And the best way to pay them is to learn to love the woman he first decided to "sleep" with, to, forsaking all others, be faithful to her for life (even when it's REALLY hard) and BE the father of his own children.

Uncle Wally
13-05-2015, 08:06
I've had two long-distance relationships (lucky me), and have been "as faithful as a dog" in both. It hasn't been too difficult as I tend to only think of getting naked with one man - my man :)
Thank you!



Yeah I know, I wish you luck with that. It's a lot easier when you have kids. I mean staying faithful, the kids part a little harder and more complicated.

shurale
14-05-2015, 00:28
Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden because Eve got the right to open her mouth.
Now uppity women have even more rights and want more of them, and because of them USA and Russia go to the dogs.
Abortions are just tip of the iceberg

Uncle Wally
14-05-2015, 10:10
Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden because Eve got the right to open her mouth.
Now uppity women have even more rights and want more of them, and because of them USA and Russia go to the dogs.
Abortions are just tip of the iceberg



I am starting to like you.

natlee
14-05-2015, 10:21
I am starting to like you. :nut:

rusmeister
22-07-2015, 16:47
Ah, the logic!

Fantastika
24-07-2015, 06:04
Ah, the logic!

Rus, you're aware of the Planned Parenthood videos?

I thought the media had buried it.

To pull this thread back on topic, it's about abortions. Planned Parenthood seems to be "harvesting" heads and other body parts of the babies (livers, legs, other "extremities," etc) they abort. For resale to stem-cell centers and "researchers". The PP executive is caught on hidden video discussing how they pull the baby out carefully, so as to preserve the organs. She tells how they get $100 for a good calvarium (an intact head).

1. It's illegal to sell baby body parts for profit.
2. It's illegal to alter the abortion procedure to pull the baby out (to get better parts) since this re-positioning is the same as the illegal "partial-birth abortion" - pulling the legs out first, then jamming scissors into the base of the skull so the baby is not viable when it is completely clear of the birth canal.

Here's the video. She is stuffing her face with seafood & salad while discussing prices for baby lungs, legs and hearts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwVuozMnU

There's another video, where the Planned Parenthood president is caught lying again. About PP, it was started by eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who called for the elimination of "lesser" races.

So far, silence from the regular media, and Obama. However, his attorney general has announced an investigation. Obama's AG will likely only investigate who took the hidden video.

Does anyone know of any other country where you can buy baby body parts? The US under Mussolini-Obama surely is squandering any pretense to a superior morality among nations.

rusmeister
24-07-2015, 06:41
Rus, you're aware of the Planned Parenthood videos?

I thought the media had buried it.

To pull this thread back on topic, it's about abortions. Planned Parenthood seems to be "harvesting" heads and other body parts of the babies (livers, legs, other "extremities," etc) they abort. For resale to stem-cell centers and "researchers". The PP executive is caught on hidden video discussing how they pull the baby out carefully, so as to preserve the organs. She tells how they get $100 for a good calvarium (an intact head).

1. It's illegal to sell baby body parts for profit.
2. It's illegal to alter the abortion procedure to pull the baby out (to get better parts) since this re-positioning is the same as the illegal "partial-birth abortion" - pulling the legs out first, then jamming scissors into the base of the skull so the baby is not viable when it is completely clear of the birth canal.

Here's the video. She is stuffing her face with seafood & salad while discussing prices for baby lungs, legs and hearts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwVuozMnU

There's another video, where the Planned Parenthood president is caught lying again. About PP, it was started by eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who called for the elimination of "lesser" races.

So far, silence from the regular media, and Obama. However, his attorney general has announced an investigation. Obama's AG will likely only investigate who took the hidden video.

Does anyone know of any other country where you can buy baby body parts? The US under Mussolini-Obama surely is squandering any pretense to a superior morality among nations.
And you will see silence here. AND changing the subject. And continued denials that a fetus is just as human as we are. Such contradictions will be passed over and ignored. People want what they want, and the truth be damned.

Fantastika
24-07-2015, 16:52
And you will see silence here. AND changing the subject. And continued denials that a fetus is just as human as we are. Such contradictions will be passed over and ignored. People want what they want, and the truth be damned.

It's been discovered that fetal experience does have influence on later life, just as early post-natal experience influences later behavior. However, psychology refuses to recognize pre-natal memory, as it would interfere with the Progressive's (necessary to legitimize abortion) postulate that the "fetus is not human."

The Right to Life March every January 22nd in Washington DC, which draws 200,000 to gather in snow and bitter cold, usually gets a one-line mention in the mainstream media, along with "balanced" counter-stories concerning a counter-demonstration by a handful of abortionists.

Fantastika
28-07-2015, 00:46
Just as predicted - California will investigate the people who made the expose video, but will not investigate Planned Parenthood officials enriching themselves ("I can get a Lamborghini") by selling baby body parts.

Kamala-harris-will-investigate-group-that-exposed-planned-parenthoods-baby-body-parts-sales/ (http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/07/25/kamala-harris-will-investigate-group-that-exposed-planned-parenthoods-baby-body-parts-sales/)

And Oregon, another state on the Left Coast, will allow 15-year-olds to get sex-change operations, funded by the government, without permission of parents.

"Mom, I'm fifteen now, and I can't vote, I can't buy beer or cigarettes, I'm not allowed to drive, but I've decided I'm going to be a girl, not a boy."

Oregon-allowing-15-year-olds-to-get-state-subsidized-sex-change-operations/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/09/oregon-allowing-15-year-olds-to-get-state-subsidized-sex-change-operations/)

rusmeister
28-07-2015, 08:04
Just as predicted - California will investigate the people who made the expose video, but will not investigate Planned Parenthood officials enriching themselves ("I can get a Lamborghini") by selling baby body parts.

Kamala-harris-will-investigate-group-that-exposed-planned-parenthoods-baby-body-parts-sales/ (http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/07/25/kamala-harris-will-investigate-group-that-exposed-planned-parenthoods-baby-body-parts-sales/)

And Oregon, another state on the Left Coast, will allow 15-year-olds to get sex-change operations, funded by the government, without permission of parents.

"Mom, I'm fifteen now, and I can't vote, I can't buy beer or cigarettes, I'm not allowed to drive, but I've decided I'm going to be a girl, not a boy."

Oregon-allowing-15-year-olds-to-get-state-subsidized-sex-change-operations/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/09/oregon-allowing-15-year-olds-to-get-state-subsidized-sex-change-operations/)

Of course. You can't mess with a multi-million dollar business and expect to be left alone. The morality of the issue will be ignored.

Fantastika
28-07-2015, 19:21
The third video is out today. Holly O'Donnell describes how she fainted on her first day when doctors asked her to help procure fetal body parts from a pie dish.

Town Hall Planned-Parenthood-Part-3 (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2015/07/28/planned-parenthood-part-3-n2031292)

"Holly O'Donnell describes how she thought she was just tasked with drawing blood when she applied for the company, yet soon realized, to her horror, they wanted her to procure tissue from aborted fetuses. Then the harvesting began:

'For whatever we could procure, they would get a certain percentage. The main nurse was always trying to make sure we got our specimens. No one else really cared, but the main nurse did because she knew that Planned Parenthood w'as getting compensated.'"

I think PP is selling to this company. They have a catalog of body parts for sale.

Stem Express (http://stemexpress.com/)

VicY
29-07-2015, 01:22
An interesting interview (sorry, it's in Russian):

http://gorod.afisha.ru/changes/vrachginekolog-o-kontracepcii-i-predlozhenii-zapretit-aborty/

rusmeister
29-07-2015, 06:45
Sorry, VicY, the man, like so many today, speaks from a philosophical vacuum. What is the argument of his you would defend here? That criminalized abortions, "back-alley" abortions are bad? I'll tear the argument up in ten-seconds flat. You might as well call for the legalization of murder and rape because they ought to be done clinically, in conditions that are completely safe - but for only one of the parties. Abortion is the forcible and murderous ending of human life, and it is not the least bit "safe" for the baby. It is horrific. These are the same arguments used to justify the kinds of things Mengele did during the war. Please see the quote by the famous atheist Christopher Hitchens, above. He had more sense and philosophy than this doctor - and if he is an abortionist, then he has no right to the title, for his mission is to end lives, not save them.

You can trot out all kinds of statistics and selected dacts - as Mengele did - to justify any horror you want justified. But before you do, you should go in there and crush a skull, pierce a heart, and cut off some limbs yourself.

penka
29-07-2015, 08:12
Sorry, VicY, the man, like so many today, speaks from a philosophical vacuum. What is the argument of his you would defend here? That criminalized abortions, "back-alley" abortions are bad? I'll tear the argument up in ten-seconds flat. You might as well call for the legalization of murder and rape because they ought to be done clinically, in conditions that are completely safe - but for only one of the parties. Abortion is the forcible and murderous ending of human life, and it is not the least bit "safe" for the baby. It is horrific. These are the same arguments used to justify the kinds of things Mengele did during the war. Please see the quote by the famous atheist Christopher Hitchens, above. He had more sense and philosophy than this doctor - and if he is an abortionist, then he has no right to the title, for his mission is to end lives, not save them.

You can trot out all kinds of statistics and selected dacts - as Mengele did - to justify any horror you want justified. But before you do, you should go in there and crush a skull, pierce a heart, and cut off some limbs yourself.

Did you bother to read the article?....

rusmeister
29-07-2015, 20:04
Did you bother to read the article?....

Yes.
Did you?

penka
29-07-2015, 20:13
Well, in that case you do omit a lot and with intend. Right, you do not approve of contraception, either.

rusmeister
30-07-2015, 03:52
Well, in that case you do omit a lot and with intend. Right, you do not approve of contraception, either.

Well Penka, I ask what those things ARE. What is the natural purpose and proper use of sexual intercourse? What IS "abortion"? What IS "contraception". You don't like that. You seem to want the answers assumed and not discussed. And as soon as the natural purpose of sex is brought up, and the actual practice in SPITE of its natural purpose, it becomes clear that it is exactly like the bulimic and epicurean, that the actual practice you all want to defend is abnormal; the seeking of pleasure in the deliberate frustration of the natural process.

And this "doctor" in this interview is just as lacking in his consideration of what things are. He doesn't think, doesn't show that he thinks about these things. It's really boring to read, because it is a brainless position which I have thoroughly heard out and examined, and know from every angle. He says nothing new, just repeats the same old saws about the dreadful danger of back alley abortions, yadda yadda. If abortion is the murder of a human being, however young, then it is murder in a clinic as well as an alley, and I think if people are going to do evil, they OUGHT to be afraid to do it, and be compelled to do it in secret. And as soon as we LOOK at an abortion, SEE what is done in that process, it is clear that it is the violent ending of human life, killing a human already alive, aka murder. You can't respond to Hitchens - though he is an atheist, and I would think you prefer his worldview to mine, and you can't respond to the revelations on Planned Parenthood. You can only admit that the beings in question ARE human, that is in fact the killing of them, and that I am right. If you won't do that, you can only splutter. The best thing to do in response to the truth is to admit it, and align/change your views to accommodate it.