The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Polly on May 08, 2012, 03:19:02 AM
-
I am a believer of the idea that consent to intercourse does not equate to consent to carry a child, thus pro abortion.
I am also a believer in the idea that consent to intercourse does not equate to consent for fatherhood.
So I ask you TFeS, are you pro or against the 'paper abortion', whereby a man can abort the paper trail of the foetus, removing all responsibility for the child.
-
It's sad if the father doesn't want anything to do with the baby the woman intends to carry to term but if he really wants to walk away then I can't see anything healthy arising from forcing him reluctantly on the child.
-
It's sad if the father doesn't want anything to do with the baby the woman intends to carry to term but if he really wants to walk away then I can't see anything healthy arising from forcing him reluctantly on the child.
I don't see why the tax payer should pick up the tab either? Getting rid of the paper trail is just a way to avoid maintenance ... a way to pass your financial responsibility onto others.
-
I agree Thork, but that is an entirely different debate, lets say hypothetically that in this situation the state doesnt have to pick up the tab and the responsibility lies with the progenitors.
-
Lets say that goblins eat unwanted children anyway. By dismissing reality to make it hypothetical it just lost all meaning.
-
Also true, however it was more a philosophical question of equalities and such, rather than a question of how it would work in practice.
-
I cannot imagine any legal or moral justification for giving mothers near-complete freedom in choosing whether or not to be a parent, and not extending something similar to the father. In other words, I agree with the OP.
That being said, I do believe there are more intelligent ways to deal with the issue than currently exist. I could, for example, imagine a rough system whereby fathers had to register their disinterest in becoming parents (and thereby abdicate responsibility) within the term during which abortion is permitted. After that point, a father could not turn around and legally walk away from the child without the mother's consent. Obviously they would have to have been informed in a legally satisfactory sense (otherwise they could still walk away), but you get the idea.
-
Falcon punch to the gut.
-
You can't allow the woman the right to a choice if you aren't going to extend said rights to the father.
-
I'm not even sure what is being asked. Fathers remove themselves from the responsibility of child care all the time. Is it right? No, but we can't stop them very easily.
-
Should a father be allowed to paper abort a child?
They can't right now. A father can be brought through the legal system for not financially supporting a child.
-
Should a father be allowed to paper abort a child?
They can't right now. A father can be brought through the legal system for not financially supporting a child.
That's family values for ya.
-
I'm not even sure what is being asked. Fathers remove themselves from the responsibility of child care all the time. Is it right? No, but we can't stop them very easily.
You can ruin the next 18 years of their life with child support though.
-
This is a great question.
On the one hand, abortion takes a heavy toll on a woman's body so I don't believe she should be forced to abort if she doesn't want to. On the other hand, the father should have similar rights over the fetus and should definitely be made to pay if he runs off.
Ultimately, I suppose a paper abortion shouldn't be legal, but I'd hope that the couple could be mature and responsible enough to agree on something.
-
This is a great question.
On the one hand, abortion takes a heavy toll on a woman's body so I don't believe she should be forced to abort if she doesn't want to. On the other hand, the father should have similar rights over the fetus and should definitely be made to pay if he runs off.
Ultimately, I suppose a paper abortion shouldn't be legal, but I'd hope that the couple could be mature and responsible enough to agree on something.
So then a woman should need a man's permission to abort the child. He should have the option of forcing her to bear til term and allow him to adopt it, but she would of course have to pay child support. Why should she be the one that decides whether there is going to be a burden on them both?
-
I am a believer of the idea that consent to intercourse does not equate to consent to carry a child, thus pro abortion.
I am also a believer in the idea that consent to intercourse does not equate to consent for fatherhood.
So I ask you TFeS, are you pro or against the 'paper abortion', whereby a man can abort the paper trail of the foetus, removing all responsibility for the child.
I'm not really sure of what the OP is about here either so I want to raise a couple of points.
To me, having intercourse is a loose form of consent to having a child, particularly if no contraception is involved. Sex is used to make babies, it is its biological function. So if you have unprotected sex, you should willingly be able to accept the implications involved, such as an unwanted pregnancy.
Having said that, I am still pro choice for the woman, especially when you look at rape cases. Yet, based on my first point, I think each abortion case should be subject to the exact situation and context. Woman shouldn't just be able to keep aborting having made some stupid decisions themselves, such as not being able to keep there legs together.
But what about a couple who agree to have a baby, a few weeks later separate, and then the female chooses to abort? The guy has little say in the matter and there is really little that can be done, no matter how much he may still want that baby.
Please note, I really haven't thought much of this through, just typed straight from my head, and it is early in the morning here.
-
This is a great question.
On the one hand, abortion takes a heavy toll on a woman's body so I don't believe she should be forced to abort if she doesn't want to. On the other hand, the father should have similar rights over the fetus and should definitely be made to pay if he runs off.
Ultimately, I suppose a paper abortion shouldn't be legal, but I'd hope that the couple could be mature and responsible enough to agree on something.
So then a woman should need a man's permission to abort the child. He should have the option of forcing her to bear til term and allow him to adopt it, but she would of course have to pay child support. Why should she be the one that decides whether there is going to be a burden on them both?
Because the situation you just gave is absolutely ridiculous. I don't think the system is perfect, babies can ruin lives, but again- what you suggested is ridiculous.
-
This is a great question.
On the one hand, abortion takes a heavy toll on a woman's body so I don't believe she should be forced to abort if she doesn't want to. On the other hand, the father should have similar rights over the fetus and should definitely be made to pay if he runs off.
Ultimately, I suppose a paper abortion shouldn't be legal, but I'd hope that the couple could be mature and responsible enough to agree on something.
So then a woman should need a man's permission to abort the child. He should have the option of forcing her to bear til term and allow him to adopt it, but she would of course have to pay child support. Why should she be the one that decides whether there is going to be a burden on them both?
Because the situation you just gave is absolutely ridiculous. I don't think the system is perfect, babies can ruin lives, but again- what you suggested is ridiculous.
Sounds reasonable to me. Why should the woman get to the sole executor status over the decision to keep a child? The father should have just as much say as the mother does.
-
This is a great question.
On the one hand, abortion takes a heavy toll on a woman's body so I don't believe she should be forced to abort if she doesn't want to. On the other hand, the father should have similar rights over the fetus and should definitely be made to pay if he runs off.
Ultimately, I suppose a paper abortion shouldn't be legal, but I'd hope that the couple could be mature and responsible enough to agree on something.
So then a woman should need a man's permission to abort the child. He should have the option of forcing her to bear til term and allow him to adopt it, but she would of course have to pay child support. Why should she be the one that decides whether there is going to be a burden on them both?
Because the situation you just gave is absolutely ridiculous. I don't think the system is perfect, babies can ruin lives, but again- what you suggested is ridiculous.
Sounds reasonable to me. Why should the woman get to the sole executor status over the decision to keep a child? The father should have just as much say as the mother does.
Because ultimately aborting or carrying the fetus is the physical burden of the woman. I don't think there's a way to make the whole situation fair or equal, but by default the woman's decision should be the final word.
But maybe there should be a way for the man to prove he wanted an abortion and not have to pay child support?
-
This is a great question.
On the one hand, abortion takes a heavy toll on a woman's body so I don't believe she should be forced to abort if she doesn't want to. On the other hand, the father should have similar rights over the fetus and should definitely be made to pay if he runs off.
Ultimately, I suppose a paper abortion shouldn't be legal, but I'd hope that the couple could be mature and responsible enough to agree on something.
So then a woman should need a man's permission to abort the child. He should have the option of forcing her to bear til term and allow him to adopt it, but she would of course have to pay child support. Why should she be the one that decides whether there is going to be a burden on them both?
Because the situation you just gave is absolutely ridiculous. I don't think the system is perfect, babies can ruin lives, but again- what you suggested is ridiculous.
Sounds reasonable to me. Why should the woman get to the sole executor status over the decision to keep a child? The father should have just as much say as the mother does.
Because ultimately aborting or carrying the fetus is the physical burden of the woman. I don't think there's a way to make the whole situation fair or equal, but by default the woman's decision should be the final word.
But maybe there should be a way for the man to prove he wanted an abortion and not have to pay child support?
So a woman can say no to the abortion and demand child support but the man can't? The man has sole financial burden on the child in most cases. Is a physical burden more important than a financial one in cases where the woman can safely bear the child?
-
Yes Raist because the man should've covered his penis up if he really didn't want a kid. You can say it takes 2 to tango, but knowing the current state of affairs on this, I would say the onus is on the man to use contraception. If he doesn't use it, he really has to live with the consequences.
-
Yes Raist because the man should've covered his penis up if he really didn't want a kid. You can say it takes 2 to tango, but knowing the current state of affairs on this, I would say the onus is on the man to use contraception. If he doesn't use it, he really has to live with the consequences.
So a woman is in charge of her body and can decide to abort the child, but it takes a man to think about contraceptives?
My point isn't that men shouldn't have to pay for their children, my point is that women can give up the child for adoption or abort it and forgo any responsibility, but if the woman wants to keep it the man has to pay her money for 18 years.
This isn't a discussion on the responsibilities of birth control, this is a discussion about what happens once a woman is pregnant.
-
The woman is in charge of the baby because it is living inside of her, and it is her body. Giving the right to abort to the father as well would give the women's right to her body to the father. Once the baby has formed inside the mother, it is her choice and her choice alone whether to carry it to term or not. It is her body.
-
Here is what is going on.
Two consenting adults decide to have sex. They understand that the risks involved include disease, pregnancy, and other dangers that they accept when they have sex. If pregnancy does occur, both have accepted that risk. Pregnancy involves a fetus living inside the mother. Now we have abortion, which can stop this fetus from living inside the mother. If the mother chooses to perform an abortion, that is her choice. It is a medical procedure, and we cannot force medical procedures on others because people have a right to their own body. The man's desire for her to have an abortion is moot, because he accepted the risk of pregnancy when they had sex. The choice of abortion is not rooted in parenthood, but in what the pregnancy is doing to the body.
-
Here is what is going on.
Two consenting adults decide to have sex. They understand that the risks involved include disease, pregnancy, and other dangers that they accept when they have sex. If pregnancy does occur, both have accepted that risk. Pregnancy involves a fetus living inside the mother. Now we have abortion, which can stop this fetus from living inside the mother. If the mother chooses to perform an abortion, that is her choice. It is a medical procedure, and we cannot force medical procedures on others because people have a right to their own body. The man's desire for her to have an abortion is moot, because he accepted the risk of pregnancy when they had sex. The choice of abortion is not rooted in parenthood, but in what the pregnancy is doing to the body.
So what option does the father have if he doesn't want the baby?
-
Here is what is going on.
Two consenting adults decide to have sex. They understand that the risks involved include disease, pregnancy, and other dangers that they accept when they have sex. If pregnancy does occur, both have accepted that risk. Pregnancy involves a fetus living inside the mother. Now we have abortion, which can stop this fetus from living inside the mother. If the mother chooses to perform an abortion, that is her choice. It is a medical procedure, and we cannot force medical procedures on others because people have a right to their own body. The man's desire for her to have an abortion is moot, because he accepted the risk of pregnancy when they had sex. The choice of abortion is not rooted in parenthood, but in what the pregnancy is doing to the body.
So what option does the father have if he doesn't want the baby?
None, it's not his body to decide whether the baby should come to term or not.
I know people are going to should, "What about the father's rights?!" but after he has consented to the risk, he has no right to change his mind because it is not his body to make that decision about. If I sell my car to someone else, I accept the risk of not having a car. If I suddenly change my mind, it is up to the person I sold it to to decide if I should get it back or not, not mine. I gave up that right when I accepted the risk. The woman is accepting the risk that she will get pregnant. The male is accepting the risk that he will make her pregnant. They are not the same risk.
-
So you think he should be financially responsible for the child he didn't want?
-
Here is what is going on.
Two consenting adults decide to have sex. They understand that the risks involved include disease, pregnancy, and other dangers that they accept when they have sex. If pregnancy does occur, both have accepted that risk. Pregnancy involves a fetus living inside the mother. Now we have abortion, which can stop this fetus from living inside the mother. If the mother chooses to perform an abortion, that is her choice. It is a medical procedure, and we cannot force medical procedures on others because people have a right to their own body. The man's desire for her to have an abortion is moot, because he accepted the risk of pregnancy when they had sex. The choice of abortion is not rooted in parenthood, but in what the pregnancy is doing to the body.
So what option does the father have if he doesn't want the baby?
None, it's not his body to decide whether the baby should come to term or not.
I know people are going to should, "What about the father's rights?!" but after he has consented to the risk, he has no right to change his mind because it is not his body to make that decision about. If I sell my car to someone else, I accept the risk of not having a car. If I suddenly change my mind, it is up to the person I sold it to to decide if I should get it back or not, not mine. I gave up that right when I accepted the risk. The woman is accepting the risk that she will get pregnant. The male is accepting the risk that he will make her pregnant. They are not the same risk.
Financially? Yes it's the same risk.
-
Here is what is going on.
Two consenting adults decide to have sex. They understand that the risks involved include disease, pregnancy, and other dangers that they accept when they have sex. If pregnancy does occur, both have accepted that risk. Pregnancy involves a fetus living inside the mother. Now we have abortion, which can stop this fetus from living inside the mother. If the mother chooses to perform an abortion, that is her choice. It is a medical procedure, and we cannot force medical procedures on others because people have a right to their own body. The man's desire for her to have an abortion is moot, because he accepted the risk of pregnancy when they had sex. The choice of abortion is not rooted in parenthood, but in what the pregnancy is doing to the body.
So what option does the father have if he doesn't want the baby?
None, it's not his body to decide whether the baby should come to term or not.
I know people are going to should, "What about the father's rights?!" but after he has consented to the risk, he has no right to change his mind because it is not his body to make that decision about. If I sell my car to someone else, I accept the risk of not having a car. If I suddenly change my mind, it is up to the person I sold it to to decide if I should get it back or not, not mine. I gave up that right when I accepted the risk. The woman is accepting the risk that she will get pregnant. The male is accepting the risk that he will make her pregnant. They are not the same risk.
Financially? Yes it's the same risk.
But even then, it's not the same risk. If the dad wants to ditch and he's made to pay child support, that's still not as much money as the mother will have to spend on the child. The father only has to pay until the kid reaches 18, but even then the mother will likely still be supporting her kid.
-
Even if it were the same financial risk, in no other moral dilemma would we say someone can force someone to undergo a medical procedure because they might lose money if the procedure is not done. The rights of the body outweigh the financial risks. Sorry, but they do.
-
Even if it were the same financial risk, in no other moral dilemma would we say someone can force someone to undergo a medical procedure because they might lose money if the procedure is not done. The rights of the body outweigh the financial risks. Sorry, but they do.
I'm not talking about forcing the woman to physically abort the child. I am talking about a paper abortion. The male should be allowed to disconnect all responsibility completely from the child if he wishes.
-
Even if it were the same financial risk, in no other moral dilemma would we say someone can force someone to undergo a medical procedure because they might lose money if the procedure is not done. The rights of the body outweigh the financial risks. Sorry, but they do.
I'm not talking about forcing the woman to physically abort the child. I am talking about a paper abortion. The male should be allowed to disconnect all responsibility completely from the child if he wishes.
But that's so messed up. We can't just leave a mother to care for her child alone sending her and her offspring into poverty because the father felt like abandoning his responsibility.
-
Not to mention that simply being able to leave without the consent of the mother would have severe repercussions.
-
But that's so messed up. We can't just leave a mother to care for her child alone sending her and her offspring into poverty because the father felt like abandoning his responsibility.
Not to mention that simply being able to leave without the consent of the mother would have severe repercussions.
Why, she doesn't need his consent to abort the child if she wishes. Isn't that a double standard on parenting rights?
-
Aborting the child has to do with choices made about her body, though. Abandoning a child has to do solely with giving up responsibilities that you consented to having sex. It could be argued that abortion is also a denial of responsibility, but it doesn't matter, because it's her body to do with as she pleases. If it wasn't her body, and babies just popped into existence from a stork, then neither parent would have the choice of leaving unless they both consented for one to leave. However, as it stands, during pregnancy, the mother has the sole right to decide what happens to her body, assuming abortion is legal.
-
Double standard I say.
-
Double standard I say.
Maybe. I see it more as just luck of the draw of the man not being the one that gets pregnant.
-
Another reason why abortion should be illegal.
-
Double standard I say.
Indeed, but double standards exist. You'd be intimately aware of this if you were a woman, you privileged pig.
-
It's sad if the father doesn't want anything to do with the baby
It's sad if the father wants it and the mother doesn't want to carry it to term.
-
It's sad if the father doesn't want anything to do with the baby
It's sad if the father wants it and the mother doesn't want to carry it to term.
That would be sad. :( I don't see any alternative, though.
-
Aborting the child has to do with choices made about her body, though. Abandoning a child has to do solely with giving up responsibilities that you consented to having sex. It could be argued that abortion is also a denial of responsibility, but it doesn't matter, because it's her body to do with as she pleases. If it wasn't her body, and babies just popped into existence from a stork, then neither parent would have the choice of leaving unless they both consented for one to leave. However, as it stands, during pregnancy, the mother has the sole right to decide what happens to her body, assuming abortion is legal.
We understand this. Why doesn't the man have the sole right to what happens to his body? He is forced either to work and cover the child support or be thrown in jail. He can't decide he isn't ready to have a child and work 40 hour weeks. A woman can. We understand the differences in male and female reproductive organs. The question is this, no one forces her to raise or keep the child. She could put it up for adoption if she doesn't want it. That is not a medical issue and has nothing to do with their bodies. The man can not have the child put up for adoption and can't give up his side of the child.
Ignoring abortion, (warrdog's obvious attempt to get everyone to agree that abortion is evil) why can't the man put his side of the child up for adoption?
The woman has no physical need to keep the child, and it will in no way be a matter of her body her rights, why can't a man decide the child should be put up for adoption? If the woman disagrees so strongly she could find a way to finance raising the child as well.
PS at rooster a woman has no legal obligation to take care of a child past the age of 18 but under new laws men in some states have to provide medical insurance through college for the child (only if separated) so don't go on about obligations later in life, those are obligations due to attachment not legal obligations.
-
(warrdog's obvious attempt to get everyone to agree that abortion is evil)
You know you want to.
It's sad if the father doesn't want anything to do with the baby
It's sad if the father wants it and the mother doesn't want to carry it to term.
That would be sad. :( I don't see any alternative, though.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/billboard-127517-boyfriend-jilted.html
(http://cdn2.dailycaller.com/2011/06/Abortion-Billboard.jpg)
-
He looks like he wants to eat the baby.
-
The guy knew what he was getting into when having sex. So I don't have much of a problem with a women choosing (with the consequences that entails) to keep the child even when the father doesn't want it.
I have more of an issue with situations where the guy wants to keep the child but the women doesn't. I also think fathers should be treated equally in a court of law in terms of custody, so that the women also has to pay maintenance.
-
If you take the typical pro-abortion stance that the fetus is not a human being, then to suggest that the male has any rights whatsoever regarding the parasite inside the woman's body is inherently nonsensical.
If you suggest that the male does (or even should) have rights because of the fetus's potential for human life, then you are veering rather uncomfortably into the arguments pro-lifers use regarding the sanctity of the life of the fetus...
-
If you take the typical pro-abortion stance that the fetus is not a human being, then to suggest that the male has any rights whatsoever regarding the parasite inside the woman's body is inherently nonsensical.
If you suggest that the male does (or even should) have rights because of the fetus's potential for human life, then you are veering rather uncomfortably into the arguments pro-lifers use regarding the sanctity of the life of the fetus...
Whether the fetus is a human life or not is part of the debate but I think people often dismiss the fact that it might not be relevant to some people. Some people might just want to bring a life into the world and be a parent.
-
If you take the typical pro-abortion stance that the fetus is not a human being, then to suggest that the male has any rights whatsoever regarding the parasite inside the woman's body is inherently nonsensical.
If you suggest that the male does (or even should) have rights because of the fetus's potential for human life, then you are veering rather uncomfortably into the arguments pro-lifers use regarding the sanctity of the life of the fetus...
Whether the fetus is a human life or not is part of the debate but I think people often dismiss the fact that it might not be relevant to some people. Some people might just want to bring a life into the world and be a parent.
Sure, they can want to be a parent, but if they're male, and they take a pro-abortion stance, they can't reasonably claim that they should have any say in the matter. And if they're pro-life, the question is moot; they are of the opinion that the baby must be brought into the world whether they want it or not.
-
He looks like he wants to eat the baby.
He also looks completely unconcerned that he is a white guy holding a black skinned baby.
-
It's sad if the father doesn't want anything to do with the baby
It's sad if the father wants it and the mother doesn't want to carry it to term.
That would be sad. :( I don't see any alternative, though.
The alternative is asking her if she's pro-life or pro-choice before you start dating, and whether or not she wants children.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.
-
If you take the typical pro-abortion stance that the fetus is not a human being, then to suggest that the male has any rights whatsoever regarding the parasite inside the woman's body is inherently nonsensical.
If you suggest that the male does (or even should) have rights because of the fetus's potential for human life, then you are veering rather uncomfortably into the arguments pro-lifers use regarding the sanctity of the life of the fetus...
Whether the fetus is a human life or not is part of the debate but I think people often dismiss the fact that it might not be relevant to some people. Some people might just want to bring a life into the world and be a parent.
Sure, they can want to be a parent, but if they're male, and they take a pro-abortion stance, they can't reasonably claim that they should have any say in the matter. And if they're pro-life, the question is moot; they are of the opinion that the baby must be brought into the world whether they want it or not.
I was just trying to say that the decision to keep a baby doesn't necessarily hang on the fact that each parent thinks an unborn fetus is alive.
I'd say (and this is purely speculative) that the decision for most people is whether they want to be a parent or not and not whether the fetus can be classed as a 'life'.
-
It's sad if the father doesn't want anything to do with the baby
It's sad if the father wants it and the mother doesn't want to carry it to term.
That would be sad. :( I don't see any alternative, though.
The alternative is asking her if she's pro-life or pro-choice before you start dating, and whether or not she wants children.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.
Possibly the stupidest comment by Tom Bishop I've ever read.
-
Possibly the stupidest comment by Tom Bishop I've ever read.
Why is it stupid to ask a prospective partner whether they want children or would have an abortion if pregnant?
-
You've never had a conversation with an actual real-life woman before, have you?
People change their minds, they might want children later in life but not now; they might say they're pro-life but find when they get pregnant it's too stressful to carry to term and abort; someone who claims they never want babies might feel very different when pregnant; someone might feel pressured into keeping/aborting the fetus; ma pro-lifer might face too many health concerns to survive pregnancy.
etc.
-
Well then this situation shows the usefulness of preintercourse contracts.
-
Well then this situation shows the usefulness of preintercourse contracts.
I always whip out my pen and get them to sign right on the... dotted line.
-
You've never had a conversation with an actual real-life woman before, have you?
People change their minds, they might want children later in life but not now; they might say they're pro-life but find when they get pregnant it's too stressful to carry to term and abort; someone who claims they never want babies might feel very different when pregnant; someone might feel pressured into keeping/aborting the fetus; ma pro-lifer might face too many health concerns to survive pregnancy.
etc.
I believe you're talking about children, not women.
-
Good lord, man, I'm talking about people. People who can change their minds at the drop of a hat, who can find stress to be too much to deal with, who feel scared, alone, unprepared; people who might not give the issue a lot of serious thought until it happens to them, people under pressure from peers, societry, politicians, church leaders, doctors, parents, family and their neighbours to conform to a standard they might not hold.
You act as though people are rational robots living in isolation. We're not, and any experience with common or garden humans would make this blatantly obvious.
-
Sounds like a paragraph describing the overly needy and emotional, let's talk about all of our problems liberals
-
Sounds like a paragraph describing the overly needy and emotional, let's talk about all of our problems liberals
Do you honestly believe that becoming pregnant faced with; a life-changing decision, a society trying to tug you one way or the other, trying to take account of the emotional needs of your partner, enduring the opinion of your immediate friends and family might not slightly affect a judgement you made whilst sober and ignorant of that atmosphere?
-
Good lord, man, I'm talking about people. People who can change their minds at the drop of a hat, who can find stress to be too much to deal with, who feel scared, alone, unprepared; people who might not give the issue a lot of serious thought until it happens to them, people under pressure from peers, societry, politicians, church leaders, doctors, parents, family and their neighbours to conform to a standard they might not hold.
You act as though people are rational robots living in isolation. We're not, and any experience with common or garden humans would make this blatantly obvious.
So you don't talk about values that are important to you with the women you are dating and they would change their mind on something that is apparently such a major issue to them? Chris you really need to move on up in terms of women. You're an intelligent young man and you shouldn't be running around with dumb sluts.
It's fine to take them home from the bar every now and then, but they shouldn't have your real name or phone number so babies shouldn't be a concern in such situations.
-
Its not just dumb sluts that change their minds on issues like this when faced with them in reality. I know I did.
Yeah yeah in before 'but you're a dumb slut'
-
Good lord, man, I'm talking about people. People who can change their minds at the drop of a hat, who can find stress to be too much to deal with, who feel scared, alone, unprepared; people who might not give the issue a lot of serious thought until it happens to them, people under pressure from peers, societry, politicians, church leaders, doctors, parents, family and their neighbours to conform to a standard they might not hold.
You act as though people are rational robots living in isolation. We're not, and any experience with common or garden humans would make this blatantly obvious.
So you don't talk about values that are important to you with the women you are dating and they would change their mind on something that is apparently such a major issue to them? Chris you really need to move on up in terms of women. You're an intelligent young man and you shouldn't be running around with dumb sluts.
It's fine to take them home from the bar every now and then, but they shouldn't have your real name or phone number so babies shouldn't be a concern in such situations.
ITT
Raist has no empathy.
-
Its not just dumb sluts that change their minds on issues like this when faced with them in reality. I know I did.
Care to share? What did you change your mind on?
-
Its not just dumb sluts that change their minds on issues like this when faced with them in reality. I know I did.
Care to share? What did you change your mind on?
I used to think I'd never have an abortion until I got pregnant in a bad situation. I had one. Wasn't an easy choice to make but sometimes you have to change your mind. And now I know how my body handles pregnancy I think it was the right decision to make even though its hard to think like that.
-
Its not just dumb sluts that change their minds on issues like this when faced with them in reality. I know I did.
Yeah yeah in before 'but you're a dumb slut'
I wasn't talking about women changing their minds, I was talking about him completely dismissing Tom's you should ask them about their values. I just can't imagine being in a relationship with a girl without having talked to her enough to know how she feels about those things. I didn't even mean it be derogatory towards women with that comment (unusual I know) I just meant that he needs to perhaps date women for more than what they're wearing in the bar every time he runs into them.
As for women changing their minds, I understand that completely and know that a life changing event like a baby is enough to force anyone to reevaluate their values.
P.S. you aren't a dumb slut gayer, you're a whorish gayer. :P
-
So you've never slept with a woman before discussing her values?
Although I agree its wise to discuss such things before embarking on a serious relationship, but most people these days have sex before they realise its a serious relationship.
I am a whorish Gayer, and I love you :-*
-
I am a whorish Gayer, and I love you :-*
Why do I feel that someone is going to sig that?
-
I am sure it was quite the traumatic experience gayer, thanks for sharing.
-
Its not just dumb sluts that change their minds on issues like this when faced with them in reality. I know I did.
Yeah yeah in before 'but you're a dumb slut'
I wasn't talking about women changing their minds, I was talking about him completely dismissing Tom's you should ask them about their values. I just can't imagine being in a relationship with a girl without having talked to her enough to know how she feels about those things. I didn't even mean it be derogatory towards women with that comment (unusual I know) I just meant that he needs to perhaps date women for more than what they're wearing in the bar every time he runs into them.
As for women changing their minds, I understand that completely and know that a life changing event like a baby is enough to force anyone to reevaluate their values.
P.S. you aren't a dumb slut gayer, you're a whorish gayer. :P
My point was to show Tom's "Just ask them if they're pro- or anti-choice before you sleep with them." is too simplistic as people change their minds, especially when going through a life-altering event like pregnancy.
This comment makes me smile, though, considering I've never picked up a woman at a bar "I just meant that he needs to perhaps date women for more than what they're wearing in the bar every time he runs into them."
-
I am sure it was quite the traumatic experience gayer, thanks for sharing.
Well it certainly wasn't a barrel of laughs.
Which makes me wonder what must be wrong with the (extemely small percentage of) woman that use it as birth control and multiple abortions. Its very unpleasant and painful.
-
So you've never slept with a woman before discussing her values?
Although I agree its wise to discuss such things before embarking on a serious relationship, but most people these days have sex before they realise its a serious relationship.
I am a whorish Gayer, and I love you :-*
Of course I have, I'm speaking from experience. Honestly though there comes a point where you can't dumb yourself down for dumb women any longer. When chrisseti reaches this point he'll find himself a nice er an intelligent a less dumb whore.
<3 :-* @ you gayer