David_TheMan
Banned
nah it isn't mutual, the baby provide nothing of substance to the caregiver, it just takes. It grows out of this, but at the beginning it still requires a host so to speak.
Kentucky GOP Leader Thinks Fetal Viability Begins at Conception
- Thread starter 88m3
- Start date
nah it isn't mutual, the baby provide nothing of substance to the caregiver, it just takes. It grows out of this, but at the beginning it still requires a host so to speak.
It is mutual, you are just think biologically though. Humans work on multiple levels, you ever talk to a parent about their newborn kid? Do you see how they talk about them? It's more than just biological.
Last edited:
David_TheMan
Banned
It isn't mutual though, loving your child and getting enjoyment and fulfillment from raising and caring for your child, doesn't change the fact that the child is only a receiver of goods and not a producer.
That said we are going in circles now, and I feel for your situation, that said we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
The Odum of Ala Igbo
Hail Biafra!
A Handmaiden's Tale 
Jhoon
Spontaneous Mishaps and Hijinks
Alas, they are women. They aren't mentally capable of making their own decisions.
The Elephant in the room is that abortion has and always will be about convenience. 
1. Fallacy number one - Human beings are free to do what they wish with their own bodies when it involves the destruction or death of another human being.
2. Fallacy number two - Since infants/babies are consumers and not producers they are not entitled to basic human rights.
3. Fallacy number three - Men should have no say so when it comes to the birth or death of a human being that shares half their DNA.
Funny how if a man does not want his child if that woman he impregnated brings the child to full term the man has to pay child support legally. But if a woman wants to kill a human being growing in her stomach the man supposedly has no say so. Hypocrisy at it finest on display with this type of irrational thinking.
Either at conception one believes a human being is created and deserves the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, or one chooses to believe that at conception life does not begin and the woman has nothing but a glob of cells growing in her that should be removed for the soul purpose of convenience.
1. Fallacy number one - Human beings are free to do what they wish with their own bodies when it involves the destruction or death of another human being.
2. Fallacy number two - Since infants/babies are consumers and not producers they are not entitled to basic human rights.
3. Fallacy number three - Men should have no say so when it comes to the birth or death of a human being that shares half their DNA.
Funny how if a man does not want his child if that woman he impregnated brings the child to full term the man has to pay child support legally. But if a woman wants to kill a human being growing in her stomach the man supposedly has no say so. Hypocrisy at it finest on display with this type of irrational thinking.
Either at conception one believes a human being is created and deserves the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, or one chooses to believe that at conception life does not begin and the woman has nothing but a glob of cells growing in her that should be removed for the soul purpose of convenience.
southpawstyle
Superstar
Did I not notice all the neo-con posters in Higher Learning because the election consumed so much of the conversation last year? 