Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by JerseyGator01, Jun 26, 2013.
Might want to scale back the hate speak a bit.
Yep, the pro-choice position is just the ultimate hypocrisy since all of them have been born. They assume that 100% of them were "wanted" when they were born but never bother to ask their moms.
So again, you don't get it. At all. A man also needs to stand by "my body, my choice" too-it's his body & he chooses where he sticks his penis.
You just admitted that accidents happen. Do you know enough about a woman's cycle to know when she can or can't get pregnant? Do you know there are women whose periods are so irregular they can go months without one & could still get pregnant? It's a crap shoot, so unless she's a robot & knows exactly when her egg is in the correct place, the angle is proper, her uterus tips just so, that her pH levels are optimal, & that his sperm will actually make it past the barrier, yeah-accident.
My doc was so accurate she said I'd need IVF each time. Got pregnant in 2 weeks with my first, & on the first try for the second. Following the "calendar", I shouldn't have been able to get pregnant at that time of the month.
So I say again...does that mean it's all on her? No it's not, at least to any rational, sane person.
you don't seem to understand the word 'hypocrisy.'
Just to clarify on this, yes I would support getting the father's signature on it. Obviously the water's murkier for rape & incest, but I'd leave that to the law folks. Think you can do blood tests for the incest part.
Yes, I do. The pro-aborts really don't practice what they preach. Quite obvious really. It's all about the hundreds of millions in government funding every year that increases with the increase in abortions.
Most of their so-called leaders can't even explain their position beyond a bumper sticker level, as I've posted in other threads with at least two videos recently (including the PP FL lobbyist and the House caucus leader in DC).
So if I want to have sex with you without a condom, do I automatically get to do it or can you say no?
I apologize for assuming your political affiliation.
I think what has gotten you in trouble is the absoluteness with which you stated it was all on the woman at the beginning. I think we are also replying as we're typing and maybe things are getting crossed.
But that aside, the only way a man is not at fault at all is if the girl sneaks in, drugs him, gets him off in a condom, puts the sperm in a turkey baster and then puts the baster in at just the right moment she's fertile. He didn't have a choice at all & shouldn't be responsible. That, & sperm donors are about it. Everyone else needs to own up they made a life together & have to act like adults insteadv of petulant 4-year-olds pointing fingers at each other & yelling "it's his fault" "no it's her fault"
Let me clarify a little bit here. In a two way situation, both people have to agree to do it. Where I put the blame solely on the woman is if she allows herself to get pregnant when all she had to do was say that she wanted the guy to wear a condom.
If there is an accident, so be it.. But the protection of a womans body (not getting pregnant) falls at the feet of the woman. It's her body and she chooses to allow a man to get her pregnant by not using some type of method to prevent it.
First off, you wouldn't be that lucky.
Next, I could say no. You could then put on the condom & then take it off in the middle of things, as one of the guys at my high school admitted to when his girlfriend got pregnant. Technically you complied then changed your mind, & I took you at your word. And even if I noticed, other than stabbing you then getting you off/out of me, there's not much that can be done then, & I don't think a lot of girls keep weapons that close.
Or I could say no & you do it anyways.
But see, that's a more rational statement than your absolute statement that combined with the crudeness of it made it sound like there was no fault of the man in any situation. We can still argue on it, but there's room for a guy taking responsibility for his actions.
You never know, I'm not that bad looking...
Did the NJ legislature force shut down of the others?
They're not forcing shut down. My former employer's business in NJ, the only one in the state, was forced to shut down by a judge through no fault of its own. Its critics said its building was too big, even though a similar business operated in the same building.
The pro-aborts are just so spoiled. Someone please name one abortion restriction that Planned Parenthood has lobbied for that would help a woman make a more informed choice?
GatorNorth, I will ask the same question of you that I asked of GatorBen, if five clinics can meet the requirements of the legislation, what keeps the other clinics from meeting the requirements. It seems that if one can the others can also. Impossible, I don't think so!
I answered you. Go up thread.
It's largely the same complaint you would raise if I said "No, I don't want to make you close your small non-profit, I'm just going to make you get licensed as something else (and, by the way, it will cost more than your non-profit will ever bring in for you to get in compliance with that licensing statute). But no, I don't want you to close."
Well what I gathered from earlier in the thread is the issue of needing an actual hospital within a certain distance of a clinic, even if it can be retrofitted into an ambulatory center. If it's a rural area, the nearest full service hospital might be hours away, & still why some areas just have NPs with a doctor that comes so often.
However, I agree with this, and here's why. The uterine artery is one of those that if you cut into it, it's almost like a jugular. You will bleed out & a hysterectomy is about the only thing they can do in some cases. No ambulatory center is equiped to handle a full-blown emergency like that. And that doesn't include reactions to anesthesia, damage to the cervix, etc.
Kind of the same reason some states say midwives can only have offices near a hospital or with a doctor/nurse practitioner there for complications. It's a safety/liability thing.
If you're going to ask abortion be legal for the safety of women so they don't go to "back alley" places and go back to coathanger days, there needs to be an actual element of safety there.
To reiterate, I'm anti-abortion, but have had enough medical complications from "simple things" and worked for enough doctors to understand why these safeguards would be needed. Inconvenient? Yes. Plenty of people deal with that for cancer treatment, dental care, getting certain medications...but if this is "needed" then find a way. My sister rode from Buffalo to Toronto on a bus & it cost her $20. If it's that far then get a bus & go.
So your all for sub-standard surgical care for women? Back alley abortions were ok with you. how about opening a clinic in your home to do tonsillectomy's or do you think the State should impose standards that keeps you out of business? Boo hoo if you can't meet the reasonable requirements set by the State that insures a safe environment for the protection of the health of a woman undergoing an abortion you shouldn't be in business.