Belkira wrote:
Yeah, no. Nice try.
So, are you going to answer the question or not? Why is a woman with two children MORE RESPONSIBLE than a woman with one child?
Belkira wrote:
"Equally responsible" is the phrase you keep using in the second "option." Do you understand why it can't be equal if the woman doesn't want the kid and the man does? Can you finally understand why neither of your options are equal?
Probably not. You're an idiot.
That scenario would be as equal as you can get under scenario two, because it wouldn't matter what the man or woman wants, the abortion would only be granted on a case by case scenario.
Right. That was easy..
Belkira wrote:
Using emotion again.
Nope, stating the facts. I'm pointing out how you're using your emotions with pregnancy to make a point. "Waaaaaah, I had to carry a baby for 9 WHOLE months and YOU DIDN'T!! It won't ever be equal!! Waaaaahh I should be able to do what I want.. You can NEVER go through that, YOU'LL NEVER UNDERSTAND, BLAH, BLAH BLAH, WAAH, WAAH,WAAH.....!!!"
I would wager that most men would rather birth a child than pay 18 years of child support..
Belkira wrote:
To your first point, no. The discussion has to do with the potential for a child. There is no child yet.
Contradict often? Oh, wait of course you do...
Belkira wrote:
To your second point, I have an issue with "partial birth abortions." I don't think they should be outright banned, but I am for stipulations on how that should only be "for the health of the mother" that we allow those to happen. IMO, once the cells are a viable baby, you've reached the point of no return. Unless the mother's life is in danger at that point, I see no reason why the pregnancy shouldn't continue and adoption is your recourse if you don't want to keep the baby.
Interesting... I'll save that for later as you can't even grasp this concept. I don't want you too confused.
Belkira wrote:
I told you that I already explained something to you. You asked me where, and I told you to go find it if you wanted to know what it was. But it seems like you've already forgotten what we were talking about at this point, and you just want to "win." Too bad for you, you've lost. And you sound bitter about it, too.
False. You're making up crap again.. hence why you said "something", you don't even know what it is.
You accused me of saying that a man should have a say in abortion and I gave you the same response that I gave Natalia, "quote me saying that or STFU". Then you said "no, you go find it!" That doesn't make any sense, you made the accusation, now render me some evidence or STFU.
Belkira wrote:
Lord you're an idiot. You keep talking about how they should be equal in the decision. If they can't come to a decision, what then?? You keep avoiding this incredibly crucial question. Most likely because you know you're WRONG. Again.
Here's your confusion, I NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER said anywhere that they should be equal in a "decision". That's your misunderstanding. The first scenario gives the woman total control and THERE IS NO decision in the second scenario. I explained that to you numerous of times. In the second scenario, abortion by default is not authorized and are only approved on a case by case scenario. The decision wouldn't be up to the parents, so it wouldn't matter if one or both wanted the abortion.
Belkira wrote:
You go ahead and remember it. And everyone else will laugh even harder at you when you try to pull the "but you said pregnancy can't be fair between a man and a woman, so you can't argue fairness with homosexuals! HA!" card. Because you'll sound like a complete loon. Well, you already sound like a complete loon. But you get the point.
I would indeed sound like a complete loon.. Good thing I wouldn't argue that...