Who's right to choose, a womans right to choose.

[Ariadne]

PERSONAL ATTACKS?

That's all you've done!
The only one that is lost is you. You're lost in hate.

And I'm still waiting for you to address anything that I have asked. Without denegrating me or my life or my friends.

I do not believe you can.

That wasn't an attack, that was an obsevation of the lack of objectivity and substance other then anger in your posts. What am I saying, of course that was an attack, in your eyes. If I challenge you, I'm attacking. How irresponsibly male of me.

Please.

I have been addressing everything you've said ... but you're not realy saying it ... it's the Devil's Advocate that did it.

 

[CDNBear]

If a woman gets knocked up, she has a pretty serious situation to deal with. I guess guys get off pretty easy if a woman has an abortion ... it's not like they're having surgery as a result of "fun leg spreading".

I am never going to see how men get the raw end of the deal when they have choices of marriage, abortion or walking away from their own child. Women's choices are having a child or having dangerous surgery. How are these choices preferable?

I never said they were preferrable.

If you read what I type here without hating me, or men or whatever your bias is and just answer with hysteria and loathing, we might be able to have a discussion.

I'm not obsolving men of there responsiblity, I am not trying to heap it all on the woman. I am questioning the validity of the current basis for support and responsiblity.

If a woman does not feel she is old eough, mature enough, financially stable enough or in that space she is comfortable in having a child, she can choose to do one of two things. Are you with me so far?

If she doesn't want it, she DOESN"T have to have it.

But if she wants it, the man is legally obliged to participate, whether he likes it or not.

Is that a balanced equation, yes or no?

I understand all the additional circumstances and effects. I'm asking the basic question here. Please do not read anything into it, I am merely asking the question.

 

[CDNBear]

I have been addressing everything you've said ... but you're not realy saying it ... it's the Devil's Advocate that did it.

And still no substance, perhaps you'll have better luck with my last post.

 

[CDNBear]

uhhh... did you read all of my posts? CB was attempting to instill a line of reasoning into the discussion which might legally hold some merit. I also mentioned the moral ramifications of taking that line of thought. Furthermore, your response to my post came off pretty condescending, especially since if you'd read my posts, you'd know you're preaching to the choir. Your little homily on abortion, while accurate, was unnecessary. I'm aware of what a woman goes through during an abortion, and I've stated pretty clearly that it's not an option to be taken lightly. You make some good points, but you negate your own credibility when you take on such a patronizing tone.

I'm not holding much hope of being able to continue this conversation with this person.

First its the personal attacks, then its the round around and lack of anything substantial to add. I'm sure if I let it, this could end up worse then goph and me, lol.

 

[CDNBear]

I don't wake up until Monday ... it's the weekend isn't it?

That's apperent by the lack of substance in your posts.

 

[CDNBear]

Devil's advocate or not, they are your words that I respond to. If they do not reflect your opinion, then I can only say you have quite a gift of role playing. I do find it somewhat absurd that you present a point and then try to sidestep that point by saying it's not your point - you are only the discussion puppetmaster playing devil's advocate. Why don't we just assume everyone is playing that little game - the more the merrier. That way no one has to take responsibility for their words.

I stated that to fend off or end your personalizing the arguement, if that is to much for you to handle, then I suggest you need to do some soul searching.

It is quite easy for an adult to take a position contrary to their norm, to have a reasonable debate, with resorting to personl attacks. I have not attcked you, yet you are dangerously close to attacking me, based on what, my stance. You have no idea who I am or what me beliefs are, and as I'm a man, I doubt you would even try to understand. As far as you are concerned we are all just sl*ts,, hell bent on tossing our sperm to the wind without any regard for anyone else.

That's easy to say when you can sleep with a man once and own him for life, I guess.

 

[Ariadne]

I never said they were preferrable.

If you read what I type here without hating me, or men or whatever your bias is and just answer with hysteria and loathing, we might be able to have a discussion.

I'm not obsolving men of there responsiblity, I am not trying to heap it all on the woman. I am questioning the validity of the current basis for support and responsiblity.

If a woman does not feel she is old eough, mature enough, financially stable enough or in that space she is comfortable in having a child, she can choose to do one of two things. Are you with me so far?

If she doesn't want it, she DOESN"T have to have it.

But if she wants it, the man is legally obliged to participate, whether he likes it or not.

Is that a balanced equation, yes or no?

I understand all the additional circumstances and effects. I'm asking the basic question here. Please do not read anything into it, I am merely asking the question.

And here I thought you were suggesting that men got the raw end of the deal because they actually had to take responsibility for the birth of a child after "just havin' fun".

I am not with you so far. Abortion is not a choice, it is a necessity in some situations - particularly when the dad doesn't want any responsibility. Many women don't want an abortion, but they have to have it because they cannot see any alternative. They do not choose dangerous surgery for fun.

 

[Ariadne]

I stated that to fend off or end your personalizing the arguement, if that is to much for you to handle, then I suggest you need to do some soul searching.

It is quite easy for an adult to take a position contrary to their norm, to have a reasonable debate, with resorting to personl attacks. I have not attcked you, yet you are dangerously close to attacking me, based on what, my stance. You have no idea who I am or what me beliefs are, and as I'm a man, I doubt you would even try to understand. As far as you are concerned we are all just sl*ts,, hell bent on tossing our sperm to the wind without any regard for anyone else.

That's easy to say when you can sleep with a man once and own him for life, I guess.

There's this thing called socio-biology that documents that mammalian males want to sew their seeds, so to speak. It's innate and humans are part of it - like it or not.

I have no interest in owning a man for life, I prefer ducks - they're loyal after they mate.

 

[CDNBear]

And here I thought you were suggesting that men got the raw end of the deal because they actually had to take responsibility for the birth of a child after "just havin' fun".

I am not with you so far. Abortion is not a choice, it is a necessity in some situations - particularly when the dad doesn't want any responsibility. Many women don't want an abortion, but they have to have it because they cannot see any alternative. They do not choose dangerous surgery for fun.

Once again, where exactly did I claim it was fun? Where exactly did I say it was even pleasant?

Are you going to address anything that I have posted? Or just keep put words in my mouth and attacking a perception not a fact?

 

[Ariadne]

Once again, where exactly did I claim it was fun? Where exactly did I say it was even pleasant?

Are you going to address anything that I have posted? Or just keep put words in my mouth and attacking a perception not a fact?

When you state that women can "opt out" of pregnancy by having an abortion, you imply that it is a viable option. Surgery is not a viable option, particularly when it is clearly preventable. Women cannot opt out of pregnancy without life long consequences, just like men.

 

[CDNBear]

There's this thing called socio-biology that documents that mammalian males want to sew their seeds, so to speak. It's innate and humans are part of it - like it or not.

I have no interest in owning a man for life, I prefer ducks - they're loyal after they mate.

Oh I get ya, all men are animals. Woow I see through you bigotry clearly now. Thanx for pointing that out. At least we know exactly where you are coming from now.

All women, good, ug.

All man bad ug.

Thanx,

Puuuuuuleez

You ellude to us being cave men, yet the men in this thread(Freskin, myself and any others I missed) think clear and with less bigoted bias then you. At least Kreskin puts up a valid arguement with some basis in fact, your whole platform is agression against men.

 

[CDNBear]

When you state that women can "opt out" of pregnancy by having an abortion, you imply that it is a viable option. Surgery is not a viable option, particularly when it is clearly preventable. Women cannot opt out of pregnancy without life long consequences, just like men.

That does not say, that I said it was fun or anything, it says it is an option. Read with objectivity if you can not, move on.

It is a valid and viable option, there are hundreds of clinics dedicated to it, because ignorant people have turned it into a form of birth control.

Clearly your grasp of modern medical practices is flawed, it isn't a walk in the park, it is an evassive procedure to say the least, but it has come a long way from the alleys, you have us believe they are perfomed in.

btw, thanx for proving my point.

 

[Ariadne]

Oh I get ya, all men are animals. Woow I see through you bigotry clearly now. Thanx for pointing that out. At least we know exactly where you are coming from now.

All women, good, ug.

All man bad ug.

Thanx,

Puuuuuuleez

You ellude to us being cave men, yet the men in this thread(Freskin, myself and any others I missed) think clear and with less bigoted bias then you. At least Kreskin puts up a valid arguement with some basis in fact, your whole platform is agression against men.

Socio-biology ... yes, humans are driven by instincts at times. That may explain why some men flee in certain situations. Others fight and kill their pregnant partners. Socio-biology does not allude to humans as cavemen, it simply explains some human behavior. You should read about it ... it may shed some light on the reasons women give birth even with an absent father. Just a hint ... but it's not because they want to collect a cheque for the next 20 years.

 

[Ariadne]

That does not say, that I said it was fun or anything, it says it is an option. Read with objectivity if you can not, move on.

It is a valid and viable option, there are hundreds of clinics dedicated to it, because ignorant people have turned it into a form of birth control.

Clearly your grasp of modern medical practices is flawed, it isn't a walk in the park, it is an evassive procedure to say the least, but it has come a long way from the alleys, you have us believe they are perfomed in.

btw, thanx for proving my point.

Dangerous surgery is not an option, it is a necessity. It is an invasive surgery in all ways and almost always leaves physcial and emotional scars. Men want an evasive solution, but abortion is only evasive for men, not women.

 

[CDNBear]

Dangerous surgery is not an option, it is a necessity. It is an invasive surgery in all ways and almost always leaves physcial and emotional scars. Men want an evasive solution, but abortion is only evasive for men, not women.

In your opinion. I know many women that have used it for birth control, albeit irresponsibly, but still seem able to walk talk and breath, are you sure you're in the new millenium here. The practice is quite common.

But I digress, if you want to argue the symantics of abortion, feel free to start a thread and I'll ignore it.

Bu I would like an answer to the question I posted to you about 6 insults back,lol.

 

[Ariadne]

Actually, maybe you're right. Women crave men's sperm and it's just an added bonus that they can own a man for life.

 

[CDNBear]

Actually, maybe you're right. Women crave men's sperm and it's just an added bonus that they can own a man for life.

Do you or do you not have anything relivent to add or discuss, or do you just want to sit here and bash men all afternoon. I have better things I could be doing like, going over some drafts, so I can provide for my wife and two kids. Oh wait, no I won't, I'll pack up and run, that's what you say all men do. Cause it all their fault, no repsonsiblity for women.

Great arguement, to bad it's not based on anything, but your own bigotry.

And I'm still waiting.

 

[Ariadne]

Do you or do you not have anything relivent to add or discuss, or do you just want to sit here and bash men all afternoon. I have better things I could be doing like, going over some drafts, so I can provide for my wife and two kids. Oh wait, no I won't, I'll pack up and run, that's what you say all men do. Cause it all their fault, no repsonsiblity for women.

Great arguement, to bad it's not based on anything, but your own bigotry.

And I'm still waiting.

Hey, we're just devil's advocate exploring the issue. My devil's advocate has decided that you must be right and abortion is an evasive option, thus providing women with ample "opt out" solutions for "fun leg spreading".

Is that a relevant enough position on the argument?

 

[CDNBear]

Hey, we're just devil's advocate exploring the issue. My devil's advocate has decided that you must be right and abortion is an evasive option, thus providing women with ample "opt out" solutions for "fun leg spreading".

Is that a relevant enough position on the argument?

So when you run out of anything constructive or relivant, you sucome to commentary bordering on personal attacks, making stuff up, equating abortions to med evil technology, making accustaions of things I never said, now sarcasm?

Your platform is crumbling.

Yet you still haven't answered anything, with an answer that would or could be best described as a relivant response to the questions posted to you. Oh well, I guess debating isn't for everyone.

Women hold all the cards, like it or not, that's a fact. Very equal? No, not really. Ethical? Not at all. It seems woman can have their cake, and eat it to.

 

[Ariadne]

So when you run out of anything constructive or relivant, you sucome to commentary bordering on personal attacks, making stuff up, equating abortions to med evil technology, making accustaions of things I never said, now sarcasm?

Your platform is crumbling.

Yet you still ahven't answered anything, with an answer that would or could be best described as an relivant response to the questions posted to you. Oh well, I guess debating isn't for everyone.

Sorry, but this is starting to drive me nuts ... relevant, succumb,medieval, accusations.

So if I disagree, I'm wrong and if I agree, I'm wrong. Is there a right answer?

You win the debate ... my devil's advocate agrees that men really do get the raw end of the deal. Women "spread their legs" for fun so they can collect a cheque. Men should be able to father children and just walk away. The laws should be changed so that there are no government guidelines governing child support, men should be able to keep their income for themselves even when they have children and if women are going to be so stupid and selfish as to have children when men don't want them, then they alone should bear the consequences of irresponsibly bringing them into this world. Did I miss anything? Oh yah, and if men get women pregnant and a man wants the child, they should have the right to force the women to bear those children and then give them to the men.