What the Babies Would Say

[Wickabee]

I guess the confusion comes in because I'm not for banning abortion so I'm not looking at this from that point of view at all.

All I'm saying is if you ban non rape/medical abortion you have to do something about the consequences that produces. If you're going to force the mother to carry to term, force the father to be there too.
Don't tell Habs though, he doesn't believe men should pay consequences.

[habsheaven]

You almost get it. Almost.
I'm saying there is a biological inequality that men take advantage of daily. Basically Ithink forcing women to take 100% of responsibility and men 0% when they're both 50% responsible. I'm not saying abortion is the way we should handle it or babies should die for equality, I'm saying this is the way we DO handle it and babies DO die for equality.
Everyone here knows the difference between should and do, right?
I'd love to see abortion banned (other than circumstantial) but not at the expense of recreating an inequality.
Basically, there are a whole lot of men here who want to institutionalize consequences to women, but do absolutely nothing to force men to face the consequences they are equally responsible for. You're right, it's a terrible argument for abortion, but that's probably because I'm not arguing for abortion. Even if I was pro abortion, I wouldn't have to. It's here, job done.

That's the problem I think Habs is having. He's convinced I'm arguing that abortion is good. I'm not and never we. I think it's wrong to solve a problem without considering the ramifications of the solution itself.

Don't the Habs that though. He wont believe I said that.

This just proves how bad your reading comprehension is. I have never stated or implied that I think you think abortion is good. I entered into this thread to explain to you how anti-abortionists would interpret your EXCUSE for allowing abortions. Are you going to respond to MY last post directed to you or just avoid it as usual?

[Wickabee]

This just proves how bad your reading comprehension is. I have never stated or implied that I think you think abortion is good. I entered into this thread to explain to you how anti-abortionists would interpret your EXCUSE for allowing abortions. Are you going to respond to MY last post directed to you or just avoid it as usual?

Dude, don't mess your pants. Calm down. I simply figured, since you've always had thoughts about my views that were not even close to reality you would again.

The fact you think it's an excuse for abortion flat out proves you haven't read a single thing I've written. You don't get it but you have to jump up and say it's wrong anyway. Go back and read what I've said. When you can prove you get what I've said, I'll respond.

[habsheaven]

All I'm saying is if you ban non rape/medical abortion you have to do something about the consequences that produces. If you're going to force the mother to carry to term, force the father to be there too.
Don't tell Habs though, he doesn't believe men should pay consequences.

Again, which of my posts gave you this impression? Did you not read this post? It was the only one in the thread that attempted to offer a way of fixing the inequality you are so concerned with.

Post#84
As I said, somethings just ain't fair and there is no solution. I will add, if you want to minimize the occurences of this inequality, society needs to start raising their wanted children better. They need to start instilling a sense of responsibility back into their young men and women. Today, life is ALL about ME.

[habsheaven]

Dude, don't mess your pants. Calm down. I simply figured, since you've always had thoughts about my views that were not even close to reality you would again.

The fact you think it's an excuse for abortion flat out proves you haven't read a single thing I've written. You don't get it but you have to jump up and say it's wrong anyway. Go back and read what I've said. When you can prove you get what I've said, I'll respond.

That's funny. StarCards thought you were offering it up as an excuse too. We both must need reading comprehension classes, huh?

[Wickabee]

I challenge YOU or anyone for that matter to read this thread and show me where I said the following which you stated I said:

"My point is that saying making it perfectly okay to harm a woman because "it's relatively minor" is ridiculous and misogynystic."

"You want women to suffer 100% of the consequence men are 50% responsible for."

Find it! Post it word for word! and let everyone reading get a clear idea of how your mind distorts other people's word.

Habs, seriously. You said the harm a woman is done is minor in relation to what happens to a fetus. In other words, relatively minor. I meant it exactly as you meant it and I still think it's wrong to allow harm because "it could be worse".

That's what you've said, though you may not have used those exact words.

You are arguing for a world where a man can run from his consequences and a woman can't. For nine months, she's stuck and he can leave anytime. That is what you are arguing for. I keep asking how you intend to fix that inequality and you don't want to.

What am I wrong about here?

[Wickabee]

That's funny. StarCards thought you were offering it up as an excuse too. We both must need reading comprehension classes, huh?

He was at least MILES ahead of you, and he was on his first try. What's your excuse.

[mrveggieman]

So Wick what if the guy sticks by the woman during the pregnancy but leaves after the baby is born. Do you advocate killing the baby in the name of equality after he/she has already been born?

[Wickabee]

So Wick what if the guy sticks by the woman during the pregnancy but leaves after the baby is born. Do you advocate killing the baby in the name of equality after he/she has already been born?

Wow. Another one.

Let me try this. Ahem

I AM NOT SAYING BABIES SHOULD DIE FOR EQUALITY
I AM SAYING THEY DO
I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT IS RIGHT
I AM SAYING THAT IT IS
I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR ABORTION
I AM SAYING BY SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF ABORTION YOU CREATE A PROBLEM OF INEQUALITY
I AM SAYING THAT THE CREATED PROBLEM IS NOT OKAY BECAUSE IT IS A LESSER PROBLEM
I AM TRYING TO MAKE YOU GUYS THINK AHEAD A LITTLE

But you guys are so stuck in trenches you can't even see that. You see everything in terms of pro or anti and you don't look ahead. You don't want to because it means this one thing won't solve all problems.

[habsheaven]

Habs, seriously. You said the harm a woman is done is minor in relation to what happens to a fetus. In other words, relatively minor. I meant it exactly as you meant it and I still think it's wrong to allow harm because "it could be worse".

That's what you've said, though you may not have used those exact words.

You are arguing for a world where a man can run from his consequences and a woman can't. For nine months, she's stuck and he can leave anytime. That is what you are arguing for. I keep asking how you intend to fix that inequality and you don't want to.

What am I wrong about here?

First bold

The point I was making was that the harm caused by the man aborting the situation, and the harm caused by the woman aborting the situation are not comparable. Nowhere did I say or imply it is okay for a man to get away with no responsibilty. If you think I did. Find it, post it!

Second bold

I am pro-choice. That has been well established on these boards for some time now. And again I refer you to post #84. I did address the only way I know how to fix the inequality.