If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
It's "for the children"
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:OMMzg.5660$Mz3.1788@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message nk.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Lisa" wrote in message [snip] I think what bothers me most after reading this thread is that some appear to have the opinion that once they have a child, they can simply decide to have no further responsibility for that child. If your reproductive organs are internal, you legal may do that, only those that have external genatial are held to a different standard.......which of course violates the constitution. Actually, if you look at the legal arguments, and the court's consistant responses, it comes down to "similarly situated" - and a pregnant person and a non-pregnant person will never be similarly situated. Completely constitutional. Complete bull****. Women make a choice that leads to pregnancy and has not one or two but a minimum of *four* options compared to the man's zero options for the exact same decision and act. Women can decide to eliminate the life they co-created by killing it, giving to someone else to raise, abandoning it outright or by keeping it and forcing a man (sometimes not the father) to provide money that, once the most basic of needs is provided, can be used for any purpose. Men can't get pregnant but are held as responsible when a woman does whether by ignorance of stupidity while the woman is not held as responsible with the above options available to only her. If a woman does not want to be a parent, there are several available options in addition to abstinence; men who do not want to be parents have only abstinence. Women-firster think treating women better than men is equal treatment. Phil #3 "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire (1694 - 1778) What else do you expect from stumpy? How about cites? http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20060322.html "The "Similarly Situated" Requirement: Deeming Pregnant Women Unique The Equal Protection Clause embodies a commitment to formal equality: It mandates that likes be treated alike. It thus only guarantees that men and women be treated the same to the extent they are "similarly situated." Which is bull**** since they are neither similarly situated nor treated similarly. She is pregnant and has all rights and decision-making power; he is not pregnant and has none. While her decision determines whether a child will live that needs support, she has the option of deciding she can't afford it, just doesn't want it or any reason whatever to not become a parent with children; he has no such ability. Either both have rights and responsibilities or it's all bull****. Since it is well known that only the mother has any rights and only the responsibilities she accepts while the father (or some other man) has responsibility decided for him without any rights, then it absolutely follows that the whole argument is simply manure. Once again, stumpy will go to no ends of contorting and twisting to justify her greed. ROFLMAO!! Contorting and twisting? Yes. I provided a cite. Which is an absolute non-sequitur to the previous statement. Not if you can follow simple logic, Chris - Explain, using "simple logic", how your response addresses his statement. it's impossible to "contort and twist" when one has offered no opinion, and merely provided a cite to someone else's words. Guess again. A non-sequitur, not unlike a red herring, effectively twists the harmony of the debate. That is exactly what ANY fallacy does; it meanders the conversation in an attempt to support a false claim. Fallacies often consist of true statements, but it's not the true/false values that make it a fallacy; rather it's how the statements are utilized. |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
It's "for the children"
"Chris" wrote in message news:3s4Ag.5682$Mz3.2068@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:OMMzg.5660$Mz3.1788@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message nk.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Lisa" wrote in message [snip] I think what bothers me most after reading this thread is that some appear to have the opinion that once they have a child, they can simply decide to have no further responsibility for that child. If your reproductive organs are internal, you legal may do that, only those that have external genatial are held to a different standard.......which of course violates the constitution. Actually, if you look at the legal arguments, and the court's consistant responses, it comes down to "similarly situated" - and a pregnant person and a non-pregnant person will never be similarly situated. Completely constitutional. Complete bull****. Women make a choice that leads to pregnancy and has not one or two but a minimum of *four* options compared to the man's zero options for the exact same decision and act. Women can decide to eliminate the life they co-created by killing it, giving to someone else to raise, abandoning it outright or by keeping it and forcing a man (sometimes not the father) to provide money that, once the most basic of needs is provided, can be used for any purpose. Men can't get pregnant but are held as responsible when a woman does whether by ignorance of stupidity while the woman is not held as responsible with the above options available to only her. If a woman does not want to be a parent, there are several available options in addition to abstinence; men who do not want to be parents have only abstinence. Women-firster think treating women better than men is equal treatment. Phil #3 "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire (1694 - 1778) What else do you expect from stumpy? How about cites? http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20060322.html "The "Similarly Situated" Requirement: Deeming Pregnant Women Unique The Equal Protection Clause embodies a commitment to formal equality: It mandates that likes be treated alike. It thus only guarantees that men and women be treated the same to the extent they are "similarly situated." Which is bull**** since they are neither similarly situated nor treated similarly. She is pregnant and has all rights and decision-making power; he is not pregnant and has none. While her decision determines whether a child will live that needs support, she has the option of deciding she can't afford it, just doesn't want it or any reason whatever to not become a parent with children; he has no such ability. Either both have rights and responsibilities or it's all bull****. Since it is well known that only the mother has any rights and only the responsibilities she accepts while the father (or some other man) has responsibility decided for him without any rights, then it absolutely follows that the whole argument is simply manure. Once again, stumpy will go to no ends of contorting and twisting to justify her greed. ROFLMAO!! Contorting and twisting? Yes. I provided a cite. Which is an absolute non-sequitur to the previous statement. Not if you can follow simple logic, Chris - Explain, using "simple logic", how your response addresses his statement. I already did - so sorry that you were unable to understand it. it's impossible to "contort and twist" when one has offered no opinion, and merely provided a cite to someone else's words. Guess again. A non-sequitur, not unlike a red herring, effectively twists the harmony of the debate. That is exactly what ANY fallacy does; it meanders the conversation in an attempt to support a false claim. Fallacies often consist of true statements, but it's not the true/false values that make it a fallacy; rather it's how the statements are utilized. |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
It's "for the children"
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:3s4Ag.5682$Mz3.2068@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:OMMzg.5660$Mz3.1788@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message nk.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Lisa" wrote in message [snip] I think what bothers me most after reading this thread is that some appear to have the opinion that once they have a child, they can simply decide to have no further responsibility for that child. If your reproductive organs are internal, you legal may do that, only those that have external genatial are held to a different standard.......which of course violates the constitution. Actually, if you look at the legal arguments, and the court's consistant responses, it comes down to "similarly situated" - and a pregnant person and a non-pregnant person will never be similarly situated. Completely constitutional. Complete bull****. Women make a choice that leads to pregnancy and has not one or two but a minimum of *four* options compared to the man's zero options for the exact same decision and act. Women can decide to eliminate the life they co-created by killing it, giving to someone else to raise, abandoning it outright or by keeping it and forcing a man (sometimes not the father) to provide money that, once the most basic of needs is provided, can be used for any purpose. Men can't get pregnant but are held as responsible when a woman does whether by ignorance of stupidity while the woman is not held as responsible with the above options available to only her. If a woman does not want to be a parent, there are several available options in addition to abstinence; men who do not want to be parents have only abstinence. Women-firster think treating women better than men is equal treatment. Phil #3 "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire (1694 - 1778) What else do you expect from stumpy? How about cites? http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20060322.html "The "Similarly Situated" Requirement: Deeming Pregnant Women Unique The Equal Protection Clause embodies a commitment to formal equality: It mandates that likes be treated alike. It thus only guarantees that men and women be treated the same to the extent they are "similarly situated." Which is bull**** since they are neither similarly situated nor treated similarly. She is pregnant and has all rights and decision-making power; he is not pregnant and has none. While her decision determines whether a child will live that needs support, she has the option of deciding she can't afford it, just doesn't want it or any reason whatever to not become a parent with children; he has no such ability. Either both have rights and responsibilities or it's all bull****. Since it is well known that only the mother has any rights and only the responsibilities she accepts while the father (or some other man) has responsibility decided for him without any rights, then it absolutely follows that the whole argument is simply manure. Once again, stumpy will go to no ends of contorting and twisting to justify her greed. ROFLMAO!! Contorting and twisting? Yes. I provided a cite. Which is an absolute non-sequitur to the previous statement. Not if you can follow simple logic, Chris - Explain, using "simple logic", how your response addresses his statement. I already did - No you didn't. so sorry that you were unable to understand it. it's impossible to "contort and twist" when one has offered no opinion, and merely provided a cite to someone else's words. Guess again. A non-sequitur, not unlike a red herring, effectively twists the harmony of the debate. That is exactly what ANY fallacy does; it meanders the conversation in an attempt to support a false claim. Fallacies often consist of true statements, but it's not the true/false values that make it a fallacy; rather it's how the statements are utilized. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|