By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Man Tricks Girlfriend Into Getting Abortion

JOKA_ on 19 May 2013
Jay520 said:
sc94597 said:
Jay520 said:
@sc

You seem to be referring to the morality of abortion, which is not what I was talking about. I'm talking about who should take responsibility and who has power

Both the man and woman should take a responsibility, because:
(a) The man chose to make decisions that results in a baby - sex; and
(b) The woman chose to make decisions that results in a baby - sex and refusing to abort.
Because both parties made decisions that resulted in a baby, both should take responsibility for a baby.

Both a man and woman have the power to decide on having a baby because a baby requires:
(a) A man who agrees to sex, which can result in a baby; and
(b) A woman who agrees to sex and does not abort, which results in a baby.

From this, we can conclude that no one can force someone to be a parent, because in order to be a parent, that person needs to make decisions which risk the birth of a baby.

So the woman makes a mistake -> she can abort the baby. 

A man makes a mistake -> oh well you're a parent. I see! Equality, huh? 


What? There is no mistake...There is no woman in the world that accidentally let a man slip a penis into their vagina and ejaculate. We're talking about women who make conscious decision to get fertilized by a man. Once the woman does this, its over; we shouldn't feel sorry for her or give her the ability to abort the baby. She made a decision. Deal with it.

That's nature. Why should we feel sorry for the woman and give her special powers?





Platinums: Red Dead Redemption, Killzone 2, LittleBigPlanet, Terminator Salvation, Uncharted 1, inFamous Second Son, Rocket League

Around the Network
Max King of the Wild on 19 May 2013
ultima said:
Max King of the Wild said:
ultima said:
Max King of the Wild said:
curl-6 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
curl-6 said:
 

 

No one is forcing it. It's a consequence of an action most people make the consious decision to partake in.

By having protected sex you're not signing up to have a child, any more than by walking down the street you're signing up to get run over by a car or mugged.

Why that's a terrible argument. First of all, protected sex is not 100%. Most people know this and thus know their might be reprucussions of the action. Secondly, protected is pretty irrelevant. By your argument if they didn't sign up for it they shouldn't have to be responsible. Lastly, your argument is even remotely similar. Walking down the street doesn't cause being hit by a car

I agree with Curl. And that's actually a pretty good analogy. 

This is what you're saying: protected sex isn't 100% reliable. Most people know this. So, if the choose to have sex, they should be prepared to deal with becoming a parent.

Likewise, walking down a street isn't 100% safe. Most people know that they might get hit by a car of get mugged. So, by walking down the street people are consciously making the decision to accept the consequences of getting hit by a car or getting mugged?

At bolded: no walking down the street does not cause you to be hit by a car per se. It is, however, a possible side-effect of walking down a street. Just like conception is a possible side-effect of recreational sex.

Yes, an action that you partake in directly causes an effect is the exact same as someone else being responsible for the control of their own vehicle striking you when you walked down a street...

This is absolutly ridiculous train of thought

Do you mind rephrasing that? That's one hell of a convoluted sentence. I literally got nothing out of it.

Lets say I go and shoot a weapon straight in the air. The projectile comes back down and strikes me and kills me. You are saying thats the exact same as if instead of it striking me and killing me it strikes a third party uninvolved and killing them





ultima on 19 May 2013
Max King of the Wild said:
ultima said:
Max King of the Wild said:
ultima said:
Max King of the Wild said:
curl-6 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
curl-6 said:
 

 

No one is forcing it. It's a consequence of an action most people make the consious decision to partake in.

By having protected sex you're not signing up to have a child, any more than by walking down the street you're signing up to get run over by a car or mugged.

Why that's a terrible argument. First of all, protected sex is not 100%. Most people know this and thus know their might be reprucussions of the action. Secondly, protected is pretty irrelevant. By your argument if they didn't sign up for it they shouldn't have to be responsible. Lastly, your argument is even remotely similar. Walking down the street doesn't cause being hit by a car

I agree with Curl. And that's actually a pretty good analogy. 

This is what you're saying: protected sex isn't 100% reliable. Most people know this. So, if the choose to have sex, they should be prepared to deal with becoming a parent.

Likewise, walking down a street isn't 100% safe. Most people know that they might get hit by a car of get mugged. So, by walking down the street people are consciously making the decision to accept the consequences of getting hit by a car or getting mugged?

At bolded: no walking down the street does not cause you to be hit by a car per se. It is, however, a possible side-effect of walking down a street. Just like conception is a possible side-effect of recreational sex.

Yes, an action that you partake in directly causes an effect is the exact same as someone else being responsible for the control of their own vehicle striking you when you walked down a street...

This is absolutly ridiculous train of thought

Do you mind rephrasing that? That's one hell of a convoluted sentence. I literally got nothing out of it.

Lets say I go and shoot a weapon straight in the air. The projectile comes back down and strikes me and kills me. You are saying thats the exact same as if instead of it striking me and killing me it strikes a third party uninvolved and killing them

No. How is this relevant exactly?



           

curl-6 on 19 May 2013
Max King of the Wild said:
curl-6 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
curl-6 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
curl-6 said:
Max King of the Wild said:

 

And its not being forced. You just have no sound argument here.

Not wanting something but being made to do it anyway (be a parent) is being forced.

I didn't want a hangover but I was forced to have one because I got drunk last night. BUT I MADE ALL THE REASONABLE ATTEMPTS NOT TO GET ONE! I took pregame (a hangover pill). I drank liquor before beer. I ate something before drinking... but I still got one

Hangovers aren't lifechanging.

So? That it's a way to logically identify arguments. Substitute things that you know to hear how it sounds... I'm glad you realize how stupid the argument sounds though

Apples  and oranges.

No, you just WISH it were.

Is it. Comparing a life-changing, possibly life destroying thing like parenthood to the brief inconvenience of a hangover is silly.



leatherhat on 19 May 2013

How can it be considered murder if fetuses aren't legally people? He should be charged with destruction of property.



ǝןdɯıs ʇı dǝǝʞ oʇ ǝʞıן ı ʍouʞ noʎ 

Ask me about being an elitist jerk

Time for hype

Around the Network
Max King of the Wild on 19 May 2013
curl-6 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
curl-6 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
curl-6 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
curl-6 said:
Max King of the Wild said:

 

And its not being forced. You just have no sound argument here.

Not wanting something but being made to do it anyway (be a parent) is being forced.

I didn't want a hangover but I was forced to have one because I got drunk last night. BUT I MADE ALL THE REASONABLE ATTEMPTS NOT TO GET ONE! I took pregame (a hangover pill). I drank liquor before beer. I ate something before drinking... but I still got one

Hangovers aren't lifechanging.

So? That it's a way to logically identify arguments. Substitute things that you know to hear how it sounds... I'm glad you realize how stupid the argument sounds though

Apples  and oranges.

No, you just WISH it were.

Is it. Comparing a life-changing, possibly life destroying thing like parenthood to the brief inconvenience of a hangover is silly.

I didn't compare anything. Just used your exact same argument with different premises



Max King of the Wild on 19 May 2013
ultima said:
Max King of the Wild said:
ultima said:
Max King of the Wild said:
ultima said:
Max King of the Wild said:
curl-6 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
curl-6 said:
 

 

No one is forcing it. It's a consequence of an action most people make the consious decision to partake in.

By having protected sex you're not signing up to have a child, any more than by walking down the street you're signing up to get run over by a car or mugged.

Why that's a terrible argument. First of all, protected sex is not 100%. Most people know this and thus know their might be reprucussions of the action. Secondly, protected is pretty irrelevant. By your argument if they didn't sign up for it they shouldn't have to be responsible. Lastly, your argument is even remotely similar. Walking down the street doesn't cause being hit by a car

I agree with Curl. And that's actually a pretty good analogy. 

This is what you're saying: protected sex isn't 100% reliable. Most people know this. So, if the choose to have sex, they should be prepared to deal with becoming a parent.

Likewise, walking down a street isn't 100% safe. Most people know that they might get hit by a car of get mugged. So, by walking down the street people are consciously making the decision to accept the consequences of getting hit by a car or getting mugged?

At bolded: no walking down the street does not cause you to be hit by a car per se. It is, however, a possible side-effect of walking down a street. Just like conception is a possible side-effect of recreational sex.

Yes, an action that you partake in directly causes an effect is the exact same as someone else being responsible for the control of their own vehicle striking you when you walked down a street...

This is absolutly ridiculous train of thought

Do you mind rephrasing that? That's one hell of a convoluted sentence. I literally got nothing out of it.

Lets say I go and shoot a weapon straight in the air. The projectile comes back down and strikes me and kills me. You are saying thats the exact same as if instead of it striking me and killing me it strikes a third party uninvolved and killing them

No. How is this relevant exactly?

Wow... Okay, so you don't agree with curl. Glad we are on the same page





curl-6 on 19 May 2013
Max King of the Wild said:

I didn't compare anything. Just used your exact same argument with different premises

It can, but it doesn't make sense to use the same argument in circumstances with drastically different stakes.



ultima on 19 May 2013
Max King of the Wild said:
Wow... Okay, so you don't agree with curl. Glad we are on the same page

What is this, some kind of evolution of the straw man? It's almost like me saying, do you or do you not agree that the sun is bright?, and upon you agreeing, declaring that you've just contradicted yourself.

Seriously, what are you talking about?



           

Max King of the Wild on 19 May 2013
ultima said:
Max King of the Wild said:
Wow... Okay, so you don't agree with curl. Glad we are on the same page

What is this, some kind of evolution of the straw man? It's almost like me saying, do you or do you not agree that the sun is bright?, and upon you agreeing, declaring that you've just contradicted yourself.

Seriously, what are you talking about?

I don't know what to tell you. You don't seem to understand. No strawman to be had here. I don't think you understand logic very well