"How's it not fair? Easily countered. The woman "Wanted" the child, so she should pay for the child "she wanted"."-ItDuz
Pardon, but the MAN and the WOMAN had sex. Pregnancy happens when people have sex.
Maybe the woman didn't want the child?? Huh?? BUT....what if she doesn't believe in abortion (which is a LOT of women!!). Then what?
Just don't have sex, avoid the whole problem. Or know your partner well enough to have confidence that you both can come to a reasonable decision. Hello?
YOu didn't counter ANY point, btw. You just repeat yourself and refuse to listen to anyone that doesn't agree with you.
Go talk to a lawyer, seriously. SERIOUSLY. He'll tell you how wrong you are.....but you don't want that, do you? You're afraid. It's OK, try to get over your fear and just do it.
Yes, the man empregnated her, but she still had the means of getting rid of the responsibility. So if a man has sex, he can't get out of parenthood, but if a woman does, she is allowed several escapes from parenthood? Great equality there.
If she doesn't believe in abortion? Easy. Adoption. "What if she doesn't believe in adoption?" Then it's "her" responsibility to deal with the consequences of "her" beliefs. If her beliefs are what's making her keep the chilld, then it's responsibility to run by "her" beliefs. The man isn't to get his rights controlled by a woman because of her "beliefs". What's actually sickening is that that thought process is the same as terrorists. "The people that don't believe or go by these beliefs deserve to be punished due to them being wrong".
Just don't have sex. How many times does this have to be repeated. Sex is performed for pleasure more than reproduction. It is our natural instinct is to have sex. Wow, what? You're saying the reasonable decision part? You mean like having unprotected sex with people you know aren't good father material, yet decide to the keep the baby anyway?
I didn't counter any points? I've done nothing but counter each of your points. I just repeat myself? Yeah, I have been repeating myself half of the time, and why do you think that is? Because you are repeating yourself, avoiding the counter points I already made for the point you present.
-Sigh- Shut up, will you? I've said constantly that if you get in contact with a lawyer willing to communicate with me on the matter I'll do it, and you ignore that even though I'm saying it in every reply. Face it, you're scared. Patheticly scared. You know you won't phone up to arrange it because it's a stupid suggestion, regardless, I said I would still do it if you set it up.
Awww poor little Wigsplitz can't read? Can't handle the fact that she's being asked to get a lawyer to contact me, then still acts like I haven't asked her to set it up. Don't worry, you're patheticness shows on those merits alone.
What if she doesn't believe in abortion, hmmm? Most women don't.
What if she doesn't know she's pregnant until it's too late? What if she hides the pregnancy?
YOU call a lawyer, it's YOUR issue, not mine. I already know what a lawyer would say. You don't. You're the one who needs to find out for yourself. It's your issue, YOU provide the research. That's how the world works. You have the burden of proof, not me. Lazy ass. Or scared. Or both.
What if she doesn't believe in abortion? Then followed up by a sarcastic "Hmmm", then followed by my counter that was made with ease, let's watch.
What if she doesn't believe in abortion?....A-D-O-P-T-I-O-N. Did you get that? Adoption.
And even if it was the case of her not believing in it, that's "her" beliefs, not the man's. The man shouldn't be made to live due to "her" beliefs. That idea is disgusting, and I'll give an example of why.
If you went to an area where terrorism and violence is committed due to it being the "beliefs" that all non believers must suffer. Say a foreigner, an American went over to that location, say a reporter even, or something along those lines. They know of the majority of peoples beliefs in the area, and know that saying their religion is stupid etc resorts in death. Now say that person says to the otherperson accompanying them to that location, and said "I don't think their religion is correct", and since it is the majority of the populations belief that there religion and God is true, all non believers should be punished. Is it right that since the foreigners went to their location and said they don't act on the same beliefs as their religion, going against the terrorist's religion, that the terrorist gets to punnish the foreigner for going against "his" belief? The foreigners knew the price to saying such things, so do they deserve to be killed for nor believing in it? Ofcourse not, because it's the "terrorists" belief, not the foreginers, and it's wrong to make someone else suffer for not sharing the same beliefs, just like it's not fair that a man shouldn't be punished to have a child he doesn't want if it's the woman's belief that abortion is bad.
The example I made is extreme, and is in no way is abortion as bad as what such people do, but the example was that it's the type of mindset people like you believe in, and the type of mind set terrorists would have to support their point, that they didn't share the same beliefs, so they should be punished.
Most women don't? Look at the poll and comments, I think you'll find that the majority so far say otherwise.
What if she doesn't know until it's too late? Then that's her fault for not checking "her" body, but even after that, she can still put the child up for adoption, regardless of it being too late to abort. What if she hides the pregnancy? Now that has got to be the lowest and most pathetic point you made on that comment. If she hides it, then that's "her" fault. So a man should suffer because "she" hid the pregnancy? Yeah, another example. Imagine a family member of a murderer. The murderer's mother wants to hide the son's ways due to shame of her son being a killer. She hides information that will get him charged and locked away for the good of the public. Then later the man murders someone else. If that woman hadn't of hidden the information, that person would of still been alive. So hiding it for "her" reasons isn't at all a reasonable excuse when someone else is at risk of the woman hiding the information. Same thought process, different scenario/situation.
I made a statement, you turned it in to a debate, you suggested the lawyer thing, you should make it happen. Call the lawyer on behalf of "your" side, so that "you" know if you're right or not. You have no idea of what a lawyer would say, so don't say you do. If you did, then you would of stood abetter chance in this debate, but since I have countered all your points, to say you know what a lawyer would say, meaning you would be replying to me the counter points a lawyer would make, would mean I'm smarter than a lawyer for winning a debate against someone (you) that knows what a lawyer would say.
So no, you don't know what a lawyer would say, infact, anyone that thinks saying "Your points are retarded, which is why I didn't reply" is a good enough counter point with no explanation of why it's "retarded" couldn't possibly know what a lawyer would say, because believe it or not, laywers actually have skill in such things, where as you clearly don't.
I know I'm right, so you have to prove me wrong. So far I have all your points countered, I am winning, so that means I don't need to look for further proof if I am already winning, that means if you want to know what a lawyer would say, to prove me wrong, you have to look it up.
You know what a lawyer would say, and then you say that I'm arrogant. Pfft.
YOU get in contact with a lawyer, why the hell should I? I already know what he's gonna say. It's YOUR argument YOU do the homework. I'm not doing YOUR work for you. You brought it up, YOU prove it.
In life, if you want to make a point, YOU gather the info. You don't make some claim and then never back it up with facts.
No. I made a statement, you dissagree with it, and you came to me to say I'm wrong. That means it's your responsibility to contact a lawyer if you have suggested it to further your point. Actually, wrong. You brought it up. You are saying they'll laugh at me due to tax payments going higher, and the tax payment part of this conversation was introduced by you, not me.
"Go find your facts. Bye"...Aren't you missing out the part about the actual discussion that was before the whole lawyer thing? Now you're avoiding the main points to talk about the lawyer thing. Just shows you can't prove me wrong.
This is what I'm talking about. You don't counter any of my points, then claim you've countered all of them, when you didn't even discuss what that comment was mainly about. -Sigh-
Abortion: Against or For?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
"How's it not fair? Easily countered. The woman "Wanted" the child, so she should pay for the child "she wanted"."-ItDuz
Pardon, but the MAN and the WOMAN had sex. Pregnancy happens when people have sex.
Maybe the woman didn't want the child?? Huh?? BUT....what if she doesn't believe in abortion (which is a LOT of women!!). Then what?
Just don't have sex, avoid the whole problem. Or know your partner well enough to have confidence that you both can come to a reasonable decision. Hello?
YOu didn't counter ANY point, btw. You just repeat yourself and refuse to listen to anyone that doesn't agree with you.
Go talk to a lawyer, seriously. SERIOUSLY. He'll tell you how wrong you are.....but you don't want that, do you? You're afraid. It's OK, try to get over your fear and just do it.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, the man empregnated her, but she still had the means of getting rid of the responsibility. So if a man has sex, he can't get out of parenthood, but if a woman does, she is allowed several escapes from parenthood? Great equality there.
If she doesn't believe in abortion? Easy. Adoption. "What if she doesn't believe in adoption?" Then it's "her" responsibility to deal with the consequences of "her" beliefs. If her beliefs are what's making her keep the chilld, then it's responsibility to run by "her" beliefs. The man isn't to get his rights controlled by a woman because of her "beliefs". What's actually sickening is that that thought process is the same as terrorists. "The people that don't believe or go by these beliefs deserve to be punished due to them being wrong".
Just don't have sex. How many times does this have to be repeated. Sex is performed for pleasure more than reproduction. It is our natural instinct is to have sex. Wow, what? You're saying the reasonable decision part? You mean like having unprotected sex with people you know aren't good father material, yet decide to the keep the baby anyway?
I didn't counter any points? I've done nothing but counter each of your points. I just repeat myself? Yeah, I have been repeating myself half of the time, and why do you think that is? Because you are repeating yourself, avoiding the counter points I already made for the point you present.
-Sigh- Shut up, will you? I've said constantly that if you get in contact with a lawyer willing to communicate with me on the matter I'll do it, and you ignore that even though I'm saying it in every reply. Face it, you're scared. Patheticly scared. You know you won't phone up to arrange it because it's a stupid suggestion, regardless, I said I would still do it if you set it up.
Awww poor little Wigsplitz can't read? Can't handle the fact that she's being asked to get a lawyer to contact me, then still acts like I haven't asked her to set it up. Don't worry, you're patheticness shows on those merits alone.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
What if she doesn't believe in abortion, hmmm? Most women don't.
What if she doesn't know she's pregnant until it's too late? What if she hides the pregnancy?
YOU call a lawyer, it's YOUR issue, not mine. I already know what a lawyer would say. You don't. You're the one who needs to find out for yourself. It's your issue, YOU provide the research. That's how the world works. You have the burden of proof, not me. Lazy ass. Or scared. Or both.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
What if she doesn't believe in abortion? Then followed up by a sarcastic "Hmmm", then followed by my counter that was made with ease, let's watch.
What if she doesn't believe in abortion?....A-D-O-P-T-I-O-N. Did you get that? Adoption.
And even if it was the case of her not believing in it, that's "her" beliefs, not the man's. The man shouldn't be made to live due to "her" beliefs. That idea is disgusting, and I'll give an example of why.
If you went to an area where terrorism and violence is committed due to it being the "beliefs" that all non believers must suffer. Say a foreigner, an American went over to that location, say a reporter even, or something along those lines. They know of the majority of peoples beliefs in the area, and know that saying their religion is stupid etc resorts in death. Now say that person says to the otherperson accompanying them to that location, and said "I don't think their religion is correct", and since it is the majority of the populations belief that there religion and God is true, all non believers should be punished. Is it right that since the foreigners went to their location and said they don't act on the same beliefs as their religion, going against the terrorist's religion, that the terrorist gets to punnish the foreigner for going against "his" belief? The foreigners knew the price to saying such things, so do they deserve to be killed for nor believing in it? Ofcourse not, because it's the "terrorists" belief, not the foreginers, and it's wrong to make someone else suffer for not sharing the same beliefs, just like it's not fair that a man shouldn't be punished to have a child he doesn't want if it's the woman's belief that abortion is bad.
The example I made is extreme, and is in no way is abortion as bad as what such people do, but the example was that it's the type of mindset people like you believe in, and the type of mind set terrorists would have to support their point, that they didn't share the same beliefs, so they should be punished.
Most women don't? Look at the poll and comments, I think you'll find that the majority so far say otherwise.
What if she doesn't know until it's too late? Then that's her fault for not checking "her" body, but even after that, she can still put the child up for adoption, regardless of it being too late to abort. What if she hides the pregnancy? Now that has got to be the lowest and most pathetic point you made on that comment. If she hides it, then that's "her" fault. So a man should suffer because "she" hid the pregnancy? Yeah, another example. Imagine a family member of a murderer. The murderer's mother wants to hide the son's ways due to shame of her son being a killer. She hides information that will get him charged and locked away for the good of the public. Then later the man murders someone else. If that woman hadn't of hidden the information, that person would of still been alive. So hiding it for "her" reasons isn't at all a reasonable excuse when someone else is at risk of the woman hiding the information. Same thought process, different scenario/situation.
I made a statement, you turned it in to a debate, you suggested the lawyer thing, you should make it happen. Call the lawyer on behalf of "your" side, so that "you" know if you're right or not. You have no idea of what a lawyer would say, so don't say you do. If you did, then you would of stood abetter chance in this debate, but since I have countered all your points, to say you know what a lawyer would say, meaning you would be replying to me the counter points a lawyer would make, would mean I'm smarter than a lawyer for winning a debate against someone (you) that knows what a lawyer would say.
So no, you don't know what a lawyer would say, infact, anyone that thinks saying "Your points are retarded, which is why I didn't reply" is a good enough counter point with no explanation of why it's "retarded" couldn't possibly know what a lawyer would say, because believe it or not, laywers actually have skill in such things, where as you clearly don't.
I know I'm right, so you have to prove me wrong. So far I have all your points countered, I am winning, so that means I don't need to look for further proof if I am already winning, that means if you want to know what a lawyer would say, to prove me wrong, you have to look it up.
You know what a lawyer would say, and then you say that I'm arrogant. Pfft.
You lose, accept it.
YOU get in contact with a lawyer, why the hell should I? I already know what he's gonna say. It's YOUR argument YOU do the homework. I'm not doing YOUR work for you. You brought it up, YOU prove it.
In life, if you want to make a point, YOU gather the info. You don't make some claim and then never back it up with facts.
So, go find your facts. Bye.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No. I made a statement, you dissagree with it, and you came to me to say I'm wrong. That means it's your responsibility to contact a lawyer if you have suggested it to further your point. Actually, wrong. You brought it up. You are saying they'll laugh at me due to tax payments going higher, and the tax payment part of this conversation was introduced by you, not me.
"Go find your facts. Bye"...Aren't you missing out the part about the actual discussion that was before the whole lawyer thing? Now you're avoiding the main points to talk about the lawyer thing. Just shows you can't prove me wrong.
This is what I'm talking about. You don't counter any of my points, then claim you've countered all of them, when you didn't even discuss what that comment was mainly about. -Sigh-