You didn't answer that she gets to to me. You stated both. My discussion wasn't about law but your perceived beliefs. A different part of the discussion was about law. 2 things can happen at the same time.
exactly. So you agree with me when i said i can be against a law but also personally against abortions and that i can discuss both sides. it doesn't have to be one or the other. Cool.
You don't understand how when you start defending a position people may assume you are for that position? It is absolutely despicable to advocate that anybody besides a woman dictate if she should carry a pregnancy to term. You can feel however you want about women who get abortions or make poor decisions. You can advocate for policies which reduce these circumstances. There are policies that have been shown to do this. Like expanded access to Healthcare and increased education. But to maintain an insistence that anybody has as much say in a woman's reproductive decisions as the woman herself (which could only happen with government intervention), even after being shown how damaging such policies are to women and society in general) is absolutely maddening. It then becomes obvious that it's either an ignorant or bigoted position. At which point you flip the script and act like people are personally attacking you. We're not. We're saying that you are supporting an ignorant and bigoted position. The things you are advocating for are despicable because the result of instituting policies which would enforce those positions result in greater pain and suffering, with no benefit to anybody. If you don't want to be perceived that way you should examine that position more closely.
damn straight typical and steadfast in my stance that personal opinions shouldn't be belittled or berated. Typical of some people to do just that over and over. And your right. It all deserves a big sigh…..
policies are forced and i never once said im for that. im done man. this is just going in circle so some of you can feel moralistically superior, all the while completely dismissing the numerous times ive said im not for any law or policy. you win. You are right. You are morally superior.
That is between him and the woman he's trying to impregnate. If he doesn't like the way she handles that he should probably consider couples counseling or just ending the relationship. My wife and I made sure we agreed before we starting having kids.
When your personal opinion is being forced on everybody regardless of all evidence showing how damaging it is, and you refuse to discuss that data, your opinion is bound to lose it's weight. It doesn't hold water. You disagree with available evidence and data. Fine. I just don't understand why you'd act like a victim about it. It's not that big a deal.
i said this above and in another post yesterday that was missed. See above. It was one of my first posts.
WHat he said, that it's between them, and if he doesn't like it, figure something out, counseling or leaving, is a whole lot different than you calling it reverse bigotry, not just the woman's choice, and saying it should be equal rights in the say of it.
Probably because nobody disagrees with the idea that a couple can make reproductive decisions together if they choose to do so. But you said (or people thought you implied) that men should have some sort of power. Which people disagree with. *Edit* And actually, I did read that post yesterday, and nearly liked it after the first paragraph. However there was more in the post I didn't want to support publicly so I didn't hit the like button.
I don't see what any of this has to do with yesterday's conversation that I'm a giant asshole. Get back on topic people!
i said it was reverse bigotry to not allow the man to voice his opinion. It is not a path to equal rights. She doesn't have to abide by it, but if women truly want equal rights, they would be wise to allow the man freedom enough to let the man voice his wants and desires before making a decision or taking a stance, that a man has no say. and stop saying “men think of women as only a sack of meat to put a dick in” just for saying we should be able to voice what we want? The original claim was the man has nothing. No say no rights. Nothing. Which is one of the early comments i was pushing back at. Im not gonna go back and quote it this time, because you will likely dismiss it. That the man has no say. No voice. im the one the one that said they should discuss it. just like your question to me coming before all the berating i took for my optimal, personal scenario, regarding a couple with a child on the way. Its silence when i point it out. No admission. I understand some of you are never wrong. Can we move on now?
Read the quote again. I specifically said, *people thought you implied* to cover the possibility that you didn't say that because I don't remember specifically, but people obviously thought the implication was there.
And that's the point people disagreed with. Men don't get a right to say without government intervention and overreach. Hence power. You can't advocate for that right to men without government power to force women to comply. A woman may consider his opinion. But that's her choice. As it should be. A man doesn't get a *right* to make any part of the call at all.
You did. But Then they would have been wrong, as i made it clear no power, force, law or anything limiting the woman's ultimate decision, i am for…in several posts. can we please move on?
