On the rights of unwilling fathers:

[Anyee]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

Keep in mind, last time I made a thread about abortion, Anyee deleted it. She was a mod here at the time and she called it an "accident." I've modded for sister site worldofwar.net and know that there is no accidental way to delete a thread.

Huh, I did? Okay. I don't remember it. What's interesting is that you do. And bring it up here. I'm puzzled as to what you want to accomplish, other than humiliation, which isn't particularly going to work. The public court of opinion that I answer to is on my side.

Enjoy that grudge, though. I'll give you another opportunity to exercise it in a few more years, okay?

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

I bring it up to show how biased you are. You abused your mod powers to silence someone who did nothing more than disagree with you.

It's not meant for humiliation, and it's not a grudge. It's a fact that people should be aware of when they evaluate your opinion. And maybe the court of public opinion would be a little different if you didn't censor those who disagreed with you.

Given your self-proclaimed intellectual superiority, I'd have thought you'd be smart enough to realize why I brought it up. But go ahead and try to play the victim anyway, it's par for the course of Anyee arrogance.

 

[Tanooki]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

Good point there AJ. I might be a tad more willing to listen to "global warming" if the opposition wasn't censored (and that's the kind way of putting it) merely for disagreeing with either the data or the conclusions. If global warming is true, all the data should be aired out, and have the exposing rays of daylight shine upon them.

 

[Anyee]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

I bring it up to show how biased you are. You abused your mod powers to silence someone who did nothing more than disagree with you.

It's not meant for humiliation, and it's not a grudge. It's a fact that people should be aware of when they evaluate your opinion. And maybe the court of public opinion would be a little different if you didn't censor those who disagreed with you.

Given your self-proclaimed intellectual superiority, I'd have thought you'd be smart enough to realize why I brought it up. But go ahead and try to play the victim anyway, it's par for the course of Anyee arrogance.

I censored...one thread, many years ago, when I was arguably and literally a different person. I am allowed to have changed over that period of time. Are you implying that 3-5 years ago, you made no mistakes? You've never done something wrong?

Accusing me of censoring all my detractors is gross hyperbole. All I see here it someone who wants to create an amusing sidebar of drama that I have allowed myself to dally in (no more, I assure you). You have convinced one person not to argue with me. Is that a victory? What, exactly, did you accomplish? If anything knowing that I'll be judged based on things I did years ago gives me no incentive to change for the better. What's the point, eh?

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

I censored...one thread, many years ago, when I was arguably and literally a different person.

Was that my thread? Because that means you do remember, and you did it intentionally. Which would mean you lied to me then, and you lied a few posts ago when you said " I don't remember it." Liar then, liar now. Where's the change?

What, exactly, did you accomplish?

Seems I got the truth out in the open. Given the topic of this discussion, I can understand how you wouldn't see that as an accomplishment.

If anything knowing that I'll be judged based on things I did years ago gives me no incentive to change for the better. What's the point, eh?

I already said what the point was:

It's not meant for humiliation, and it's not a grudge. It's a fact that people should be aware of when they evaluate your opinion.

 

[stillman]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

If there was an abortion clinic on every corner, a lot of these problems could be averted.

Hege, maybe you should close your eyes. No wait. Keep them open; you need to read this.

I'm not sure what country did this, but they made a law where abortions were illegal. You know what happened? There were so many infants in orphanage homes that their caregivers would typically do this: change a diaper, put bottle in mouth, move on to next child. That's what they did all day. The children did not get any sort of stimulation or affection. They were just changed and fed.

Thus, there was an entire generation of very developmentally delayed people with all kinds of learning disabilities. And I don't want to hear some silly solution of how the government should pay for all the orphanages, because no one is going to vote for a government where a chunk of taxpayer's dollars is going into taking care of prostitutes and sleezy men's offspring.

Abortion clinics are an absolute must.

PS: Thanks for turning this into a rape thread, Hege [insert sarcastic face here]. I'm sure you'll disagree, but a child of a rapist should be chucked down the nearest well if there is no abortion clinic at hand. Some women can't perform the abortion themselves, and that's what wells are for. You forget that the precous, innocent, wonderful little baby will have 50% of its DNA from a rapist. Does the world really need more rapist DNA? We have to think of the bigger picture. Having laws that force women to give bith to her rapist's baby is like that woman getting raped again. She should have every right to abort.

Edit: Having just read right now the previous page of predictions concerning where this debate was headed, all I can say is sorry about the outburst which I'm sure looks really funny. Hey, you guys started it. Especially you Hege.

 

[PFSS]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

Was that my thread? Because that means you do remember, and you did it intentionally. Which would mean you lied to me then, and you lied a few posts ago when you said " I don't remember it." Liar then, liar now. Where's the change?

This wasn't by chance an Abortion thread where everyone just ended up trolling everyone and getting a tad impolite in the process?

PS: Thanks for turning this into a rape thread, Hege [insert sarcastic face here]. I'm sure you'll disagree, but a child of a rapist should be chucked down the nearest well if there is no abortion clinic at hand. Some women can't perform the abortion themselves, and that's what wells are for. You forget that the precous, innocent, wonderful little baby will have 50% of its DNA from a rapist. Does the world really need more rapist DNA? We have to think of the bigger picture. Having laws that force women to give bith to her rapist's baby is like that woman getting raped again. She should have every right to abort.

Abortion is about the woman, not the fetus. The origins of the fetus are irrelevant as the origins do not change the woman's right to her own body. There are also a lot of kids out there who were conceived as a result of rape who their mothers decided to keep rather than abort - they have done nothing wrong yet you would have have had them thrown down a well as an infant?

Further to this - several countries have followed through with the DNA based approach you talk about, sterilizing criminals. Eugenics (of that sort) is generally frowned upon these days. Also - there is an extremely strong argument that a willingness to rape (and murder/assault etc) is socialized rather than innate.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

Hey hey, there, stillman...

i know hege can't be stopped, but you should be able to slow down! (i want a civilized debate, damnit, and if 50% are civilized, that's enough! *converts stillman with paladin skill: convert*)

my opinion: see PFSS's post about how DNA from BOTH parents being rapists and murderers doesn't necessarily make you a rapist or murderer, and therefore you should be given a chance and NOT thrown down the nearest well

 

[krischan]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

FYI, I reported a few posts in here. I'm not pretending to look the other way in threads I'm participating in and there have been a few postings in here which cannot be ignored by the mods IMO. I won't discuss the issue in public here, however, that could be misunderstood as doing things which I should better leave to LorveN and Dredd.

 

[Dondrei]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

Is it just me or has AJ's making an *** of himself quotient gone up exponentially in the last year or so?

Is this what happens when law students graduate?

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

such a woman, would never be my wife, i don't marry trash/F-I-L-T-H.

that "lump of cells" u speak of, without question, has more value than such a woman u speak of.

*blink, blink*

You should print that last statement out and show it to any prospective women in your life. I think that will be just the thing to keep you from ever reproducing . . .

 

[Tanooki]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

The idea that elective abortion should be legal because somewhere, someone might have a legitimate need for one is as silly as claiming it should be legal to kill Germans, because one might try to conquer the world again. If there's a legitimate medical reason, it could be performed by an actual surgeon in an actual hospital.

And don't even start on partial birth abortion. All that's required is to fully remove the child instead of killing it at the last second. There's no way a woman's life could be in danger because a baby wasn't killed as it was being delivered.

That being said, I'd pick my wife over our child. But she might disagree.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

@ Saro: well, then he should probably make the "SUCH" part in bold with an attached footnote explaining a list of types of women which are meant by this "such", otherwise he may just end like you described!

EDIT: (pwned XD)

@Tanooki: the question is always: how far can we go in our inaccuracy at defining a person, or when one finally becomes a person... because i doubt we'll ever be 100% accurate about THAT

 

[Johnny]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

The idea that elective abortion should be legal because somewhere, someone might have a legitimate need for one is as silly as claiming it should be legal to kill Germans, because one might try to conquer the world again.

Except the part where an unborn should have no rights and germans should.

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

my girls feel the same way. baby comes before me and them. our babies are our most precious part of our lives. they are our world. we'd both choose baby other each other and ourselves.

a human male who does not care about baby first isn't much of a man.

a human female who does not care about baby first isn't much of a lady.

we have high standards. responsibility. i must be as responsible a father for our babies as my girls must they be as responsible a mother for our babies. high standards and high class.

a person who murders a baby is a baby murderer. EVIL

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

a human male who does not care about baby first isn't much of a man.

Wife > child.

I'm not less of a man for saying it.

a person who murders a baby is a baby murderer

Well, yes. And a person who eats vegetables is a vegetable eater, by definition.

EVIL

Odd how killing the baby is wrong but killing the mother apparently isn't.

 

[Anyee]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

Was that my thread? Because that means you do remember, and you did it intentionally. Which would mean you lied to me then, and you lied a few posts ago when you said " I don't remember it." Liar then, liar now. Where's the change?

I'm assuming you're being truthful when you said I "accidentally" deleted something. Okay then, I did it on purpose? I'll just go with what you say. It sounds right, but then again, I have no memory of it. Maybe it was an accident regardless. No idea. If you want to accuse me of something I could see myself doing, what exactly does it cost me to agree with you? I'm not above agreeing with something plausible even if it puts me in a bad light. Like I said, the people I care about who care about me...don't care.

I could tell any number of people, ranging from Gaile to my girlfriend, that I was stupid 3-5 years ago (maybe) and they would all say DUH. They'd love me anyway. :cloud9: It's not because they're censored. It's because of other stuff, like...forum-inappropriate things.

Seems I got the truth out in the open. Given the topic of this discussion, I can understand how you wouldn't see that as an accomplishment.

Yes, you definitely got the truth in the open: I was a contentious prat back in the day and I might have done something bad which I'll admit to because it sounds right. That's the truth. It's also the truth that you resorted to ad hominem attacks far before I did and have attracted a small sliver of negative attention whereas I'm about the same.

That's a win for me.

I already said what the point was:

You proved that 3-5 years ago, I did something. Maybe. That I can't do anymore. And that I wouldn't do anyway. Truth had nothing to do with it. You're just hiding the desire to be argumentative and nasty behind that thin veneer of grudge-pursing truth. This isn't a legal case, AJ. It's, at this point, speculation and completely moot.

Drat, I've totally ruined my desire not to keep arguing. This is what I get for wanting to procrastinate! /shame (Can I blame Durf?)

 

[WildBerry]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

Drat, I've totally ruined my desire not to keep arguing. This is what I get for wanting to procrastinate! /shame (Can I blame Durf?)

Does Durf **** in Japan?

 

[zodiac66]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

Is it just me or has AJ's making an *** of himself quotient gone up exponentially in the last year or so?

Is this what happens when law students graduate?

This is about the only statement you have ever made that I have agreed with.

 

[WildBerry]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

You forget that the precous, innocent, wonderful little baby will have 50% of its DNA from a rapist. Does the world really need more rapist DNA? We have to think of the bigger picture. Having laws that force women to give bith to her rapist's baby is like that woman getting raped again. She should have every right to abort.

I'm all for aborting rape babies, but please don't give the rapist the age old "the genes made me do it" defense. It was a conscious act from his side, and there is nothing in his DNA that caused him an unsurmountable urge to whip it out any more there is in mine or yours.

The children are not responsible of the acts of their fathers, not even by the genetics proxy. Collective responsibility is a bad concept.