Weak.
No real refute.
You are as dishonest as it gets.
No real refute.
You are as dishonest as it gets.
-
ICMag with help from Phlizon, Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest for Christmas! You can check it here. Prizes are: full spectrum led light, seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Roe v Wade overturned.
- Thread starter Hammerhead
- Start date
Captain Red Eye
Active member
eastcoastjoe
Well-known member
The irony ….. I seem to recall you getting owned so bad you had to tuck tail and protect yourself from more embarrassment
Waiting to hear about my hostility...
Real talk would equal admitting an affinity, but you know what face you can not afford to lose.
I am funnily enough concurrently freeze distilling applejack.
Real talk would equal admitting an affinity, but you know what face you can not afford to lose.
I am funnily enough concurrently freeze distilling applejack.
no dude, they have guns pointed at the volunteers.
i answered your silly hypothetical, i even gave your preferred one word "yes" answer... so wtf?
is that it?
you just wanted me to answer?
do you feel powerful you got me to answer with no intention of responding?
dude, that's a nice troll costume. i thought it was sasquatch at first...
Captain Red Eye
Active member
It's good they don't have guns pointed at volunteers. If all the things the volunteers at a foodbank are giving others came from voluntary donations that would make it real charity.
That is it.
You see when you get to the root of human relationships they are either voluntary and consensual or involuntary and violate consent.
One is good, one is not. Try harder to be good is my advice. Every good Sasquatch knows this.
Captain Red Eye
Active member
Scenario 1 - A man and woman mutually decide to make a baby and raise the child together as loving parents. They're recent lovers, live together, but not married. Sometimes they split a few bills, but by practice generally keep their finances separate.
She gets pregnant, and for some reason along the way she decides on her own to terminate the pregnancy. She didn't ask or consult the father, she just did it. She wants the father to pay half the abortion bill of $1,000.
Should the father have been consulted?
Should he have had any say in terminating the pregnancy?
Is the father liable for half the bill?
Scenario 2 - A man and woman have casual sex. The next day she has casual sex again, but different guy. She gets pregnant with twins. It's confirmed the twins have different fathers, it's the casual sex guys. The woman has had abortions before and had no objection to them, but she wants to keep both kids this time. God told her to in a dream and she recently converted to Christianity.
Neither father wish her to have their kid and ask her to abort very early on and beg her continually for months. They said they'd pay for it. She refuses and delivers two kids. She then demands child support from each father. Court grants her demand for child support from both fathers.
Should the fathers be forced to pay child support even though they didn't want the kids and stated so from very early on in the pregnancy?
Each father has a different income level and their calculated child support is different, one being low and the other being very high.
Should the mother use the money each dad pays for their respective child only on that child or should she use the money equally for both kids?
in many states, you don't even have to be the actual father in order to be roped into paying child support if you were living with the lady and were helping raise the child before discovering the deception.. the law is an ass, but there you are. i got a vasectomy myself...
lol, another sovereign bites the dust!
he's looking for a certain response, like children do in school when they ask "have you stopped sucking dicks? yes or no are the only allowed answers."
i'd like to point out that child support is for the child, and the child is innocent
so it's bad to try and save my dying wife?
sounds like you have no idea what "good" means or incidentally, even "try".
Captain Red Eye
Active member
It's good for you to try to save your dying wife. It's good for you to be free to address the things which are important to you.
How many people that have abortions are not "dying wives"?
How many people with religious objections would you force to pay for abortions and prevent from attending to the things which are important to them was the question though?
Captain Red Eye
Active member
again, taxes thread
a single mother is worth infinity more than 1,000,000,000,000,000 nonsentient, nonviable fetuses... and if you disagree, then where is your moral barometer?
1,000,000,000,000,000 nonsentient, nonviable fetuses < 1 mom and if you disagree, your morals are kaput.
Hempy McNoodle
Well-known member
Stop objectifying human fetuses!
Captain Red Eye
Active member
again, taxes thread
a single mother is worth infinity more than 1,000,000,000,000,000 nonsentient, nonviable fetuses... and if you disagree, then where is your moral barometer?
1,000,000,000,000,000 nonsentient, nonviable fetuses < 1 mom and if you disagree, your morals are kaput.
Value is subjective, which is why you can say what you just said and a religious opponent of abortions can say something different.
A more peaceful approach would be for you to pay for the things you like and to stop cheer leading capturing a religious person to make them fund that which is appalling to them.
Would you invite a Jewish friend over for dinner and slap down some ham on their plate too?
Also a given single mother could be a horrible person, while many of the bazillion unborn you want to force religious people to pay to extinguish would likely have many many "good people" among them.
My moral barometer doesn't sanctify offensive force. Yours does.
