Its over. Joe Biden is stepping down

[ThreePointTakedown]

23 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

In order for the statistic to be relevant, you will need to separate need and have.  Not all abortions are needed, a large number are chosen, and not because of extraordinary medical risk.

Why separate need from have?

Who gets to determine the circumstances/differences of those two? 

The same people that write in a 'rape and incest' exception have also included 'if the pregnant person is in danger' exceptions. But as we've learned recently they make those bars so incredibly high to clear because they don't want anyone to be able to clear them. Like mandating a police report being filed. Which makes it clear they know or have tried to learn little of what a rape victim goes through after the incident. Their mental state or whether they are even mentally ready to address the issue. Sometimes it takes years before they can come to grips with what happened and seek justice. If you don't think that is the case, what is behind door number 1, every report of clergy sexual abuse in the history of ever that was broken because someone... decades later finally was able to tell someone about priest, nuns, etc. abusing them and many MANY others. So the rape bar is set too high because, their words, 'women would cry "Rape" to try to get an abortion'. 

Health of the pregnant person has been in the news plenty. With Texas and Idaho both ignoring the obvious issues that go along with that provision. Do they care enough to change it or add clarification? Nope. They're perfectly happy with pregnant people dying in the hospital bathroom as long as they can't get abortions. 

Tell me how that is not being used as a deterrent or punishment when they are letting pregnant people die rather than giving them health care? Not pro-life! 

[Paul158]

3 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Why separate need from have?

Who gets to determine the circumstances/differences of those two? 

The same people that write in a 'rape and incest' exception have also included 'if the pregnant person is in danger' exceptions. But as we've learned recently they make those bars so incredibly high to clear because they don't want anyone to be able to clear them. Like mandating a police report being filed. Which makes it clear they know or have tried to learn little of what a rape victim goes through after the incident. Their mental state or whether they are even mentally ready to address the issue. Sometimes it takes years before they can come to grips with what happened and seek justice. If you don't think that is the case, what is behind door number 1, every report of clergy sexual abuse in the history of ever that was broken because someone... decades later finally was able to tell someone about priest, nuns, etc. abusing them and many MANY others. So the rape bar is set too high because, their words, 'women would cry "Rape" to try to get an abortion'. 

Health of the pregnant person has been in the news plenty. With Texas and Idaho both ignoring the obvious issues that go along with that provision. Do they care enough to change it or add clarification? Nope. They're perfectly happy with pregnant people dying in the hospital bathroom as long as they can't get abortions. 

Tell me how that is not being used as a deterrent or punishment when they are letting pregnant people die rather than giving them health care? Not pro-life! 

When things cool down a little bit I was wondering if you could share a little bit about yourself. We seem to go at these different subjects without knowing very little about one another. 

[RockLobster]

12 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Sorry for my mistake in typing. I meant 'pregnancy'. Its not a life. It was always alive before it came down the fallopian tube. If it doesn't implant its still alive. Its ending a pregnancy. 

'Ended' because pregnancy is a process. Processes can continue or they can end. Once the pregnancy has ended the body makes the requisite changes based on the outcome. 

It's interesting that you pointed this out.

A friend in Utah once told me that women should be committed to using all of their eggs as optimally and as long as possible. Similarly, that men should never masturbate because it would waste their seed.

It is interesting to realize that some people actually think women should be baby-making-machines.

(Think of all those eggs/lives that she purposely killed by not taking advantage of them!)

[headshuck]

If Harris picks Walz, she will win. 

And Minnesota wins.

[Bigbrog]

5 hours ago, RockLobster said:

It's interesting that you pointed this out.

A friend in Utah once told me that women should be committed to using all of their eggs as optimally and as long as possible. Similarly, that men should never masturbate because it would waste their seed.

It is interesting to realize that some people actually think women should be baby-making-machines.

(Think of all those eggs/lives that she purposely killed by not taking advantage of them!)

Ummm...biologically speaking that is exactly what females are made for.  Females produce only so many eggs in their lifetime and they are meant to be fertilized...again, biologically speaking.  We, as other animals, are built to reproduce to ensure the continuance of the species.  Most animals live their life around the mating season when the females produce the eggs.  Males also produce billions of sperm and that sperm is meant to be spread across many females...again, biologically speaking.  Obviously, the human species has evolved and created different societal norms around this but biologically speaking we are truly built for the purpose of reproducing.

[WrestlingRasta]

34 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Ummm...biologically speaking that is exactly what females are made for.  Females produce only so many eggs in their lifetime and they are meant to be fertilized...again, biologically speaking.  We, as other animals, are built to reproduce to ensure the continuance of the species.  Most animals live their life around the mating season when the females produce the eggs.  Males also produce billions of sperm and that sperm is meant to be spread across many females...again, biologically speaking.  Obviously, the human species has evolved and created different societal norms around this but biologically speaking we are truly built for the purpose of reproducing.

I am Bob Marley, and I approve of this message. 

[Bigbrog]

1 minute ago, WrestlingRasta said:

I am Bob Marley, and I approve of this message. 

My significant others never found it funny when I proclaimed men weren't meant to be monogamous...you know...because of the biology.

 

[WrestlingRasta]

Sherrif John Brown always hated me, for what, I don't know.  But every time I plant a seed he says "kill it before it grows"

[MPhillips]

Some people got facts and claims
Some people got pride and shame
Some people got the plots and schemes
Some people got no aim it seems

[ThreePointTakedown]

17 hours ago, Paul158 said:

When things cool down a little bit I was wondering if you could share a little bit about yourself. We seem to go at these different subjects without knowing very little about one another. 

Not really interested in that. Sorry. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

8 hours ago, RockLobster said:

It's interesting that you pointed this out.

A friend in Utah once told me that women should be committed to using all of their eggs as optimally and as long as possible. Similarly, that men should never masturbate because it would waste their seed.

It is interesting to realize that some people actually think women should be baby-making-machines.

(Think of all those eggs/lives that she purposely killed by not taking advantage of them!)

I'm not advocating for that at all. People who can become pregnant can use their eggs how ever they see fit. In a manner of their own choosing. 

Everyone else still need informed, enthusiastic consent if they intend to induce a pregnancy. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 7/30/2024 at 3:41 PM, Scouts Honor said:

says the guy who will take children from  parents who don't want them to transition.

When did I ever specifically say that? 

Should parents listen to their children and try to understand them? Yes. 

Help them through their lives, transitioning them through myriad steps in their lives, growing up, learning, moving out? Yes. 

Could transitioning from the sex they were assigned at birth to a different one, sometimes? Yes, they should help their children live life as their authentic selves. If they don't they run the risk of passing down their generational trauma. If they are fine with that, there is nothing I or anyone else can do to them. Which includes taking their kids away.

That was a ridiculous thing to even suggest. That you skipped right to a hyperbolic example that isn't real is indicative of how you try to justify your opinion by creating fictitious enemies to combat and in so reinforce the validity of your own ideas.  Rather than consider that you could be wrong in actual reality. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

2 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

Ummm...biologically speaking that is exactly what females are made for.  Females produce only so many eggs in their lifetime and they are meant to be fertilized...again, biologically speaking.  We, as other animals, are built to reproduce to ensure the continuance of the species.  Most animals live their life around the mating season when the females produce the eggs.  Males also produce billions of sperm and that sperm is meant to be spread across many females...again, biologically speaking.  Obviously, the human species has evolved and created different societal norms around this but biologically speaking we are truly built for the purpose of reproducing.

Now explain the reason(s) that this needs to remain the same, in this day and age?  

Have we figured out anything that would make this superfluous?

[Bigbrog]

30 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Now explain the reason(s) that this needs to remain the same, in this day and age?  

Have we figured out anything that would make this superfluous?

Why...I didn't infer it needs to be the same in this day and age...just purely pointing out the biology of it...period.  I believe I even mentioned that for humas as we evolved, we have created societal norms around reproduction as well as developed in the sense that humans don't live solely to reproduce.

[mspart]

6 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Could transitioning from the sex they were assigned at birth to a different one, sometimes?
 

Sex is not assigned at birth as if it were an arbitrary thing.   It is based on the observable genitalia that defines one or the other.    

mspart

[ionel]

8 hours ago, MPhillips said:

Some people got facts and claims
Some people got pride and shame
Some people got the plots and schemes
Some people got no aim it seems

Glad to see you on the NWT. 

[MPhillips]

17 minutes ago, ionel said:

Glad to see you on the NWT. 

Only for music references. Although the dummies have invaded the wrestling forums...

[uncle bernard]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

Sex is not assigned at birth as if it were an arbitrary thing.   It is based on the observable genitalia that defines one or the other.    

mspart

then why are you upset about the algerian boxer? 

[RockLobster]

6 hours ago, mspart said:

Sex is not assigned at birth as if it were an arbitrary thing.   It is based on the observable genitalia that defines one or the other.    

mspart

I've had my problems with you. But this is different... you are INCREDIBLY UNINFORMED AND STUPID HERE.

• It is NOT "one or the other" in roughly 1 in 1,500 births
• There are roughly 10,500 births in the US ever day.
• The math tells us roughly (7) kids are born each day that cannot be assigned a sex based on observation.

These kids have their own sets of problems.

I'd like to think uninformed people don't need to pile more problems on them. That's cruel and awful.

Why not just leave the kids alone to figure it out with their parents and loved ones.

Leave the kids alone.

Edited August 2 by RockLobster

[RockLobster]

12 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

Why...I didn't infer it needs to be the same in this day and age...just purely pointing out the biology of it...period.  I believe I even mentioned that for humas as we evolved, we have created societal norms around reproduction as well as developed in the sense that humans don't live solely to reproduce.

You were replying to my post. Mine was not a biological query, but a modern societal commentary.

And, yes, my post included a reference to someone who felt strongly that humans did, in fact, live solely to reproduce.

Here it is again in case you've forgotten.

21 hours ago, RockLobster said:

It's interesting that you pointed this out.

A friend in Utah once told me that women should be committed to using all of their eggs as optimally and as long as possible. Similarly, that men should never masturbate because it would waste their seed.

It is interesting to realize that some people actually think women should be baby-making-machines.

(Think of all those eggs/lives that she purposely killed by not taking advantage of them!)

In this day and age, the concept that women should be expected to be primarily "baby-making-machines" is completely unacceptable. 

Modern day cavemen that believe and promote the notion should be rebuked (yes, the current VP nominee for the R's)

[RockLobster]

14 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

I'm not advocating for that at all. People who can become pregnant can use their eggs how ever they see fit. In a manner of their own choosing. 

Everyone else still need informed, enthusiastic consent if they intend to induce a pregnancy. 

I'm going to stop well short of requiring certification and licensing for potential parents, but it is something to consider when you realize the weight and responsibility of the effort and responsibility they will be undertaking.

I'm just not sure people making the decision to induce pregnancy are making the right choice.

What about the child? Who protects the child when the parents neglect them? Abuse them? When the parents divorce?

I'm re-thinking the certification and licensing idea - maybe there should be a law to protect the children.

[Bigbrog]

8 hours ago, RockLobster said:

I'm going to stop well short of requiring certification and licensing for potential parents, but it is something to consider when you realize the weight and responsibility of the effort and responsibility they will be undertaking.

I'm just not sure people making the decision to induce pregnancy are making the right choice.

What about the child? Who protects the child when the parents neglect them? Abuse them? When the parents divorce?

I'm re-thinking the certification and licensing idea - maybe there should be a law to protect the children.

Would that law include protection for the mother's child while it is in her womb?

[Bigbrog]

8 hours ago, RockLobster said:

I've had my problems with you. But this is different... you are INCREDIBLY UNINFORMED AND STUPID HERE.

• It is NOT "one or the other" in roughly 1 in 1,500 births
• There are roughly 10,500 births in the US ever day.
• The math tells us roughly (7) kids are born each day that cannot be assigned a sex based on observation.

These kids have their own sets of problems.

I'd like to think uninformed people don't need to pile more problems on them. That's cruel and awful.

Why not just leave the kids alone to figure it out with their parents and loved ones.

Leave the kids alone.

Wow...how is saying there are two genders in any way shape or form hurting those kids that are born with an extremely rare genetic disorder??  Seriously...how does that hurt anyone???  No one is calling them "bad". 

Oh wait, it's coming from you who tries to find a way for either yourself or others to be a victim every single chance you get.  Must be hard living a life like that where you are always the victim.

[ThreePointTakedown]

16 hours ago, mspart said:

Sex is not assigned at birth as if it were an arbitrary thing.   It is based on the observable genitalia that defines one or the other.    

mspart

My apologies. Gender. Same question. 

Edited August 2 by ThreePointTakedown

[ThreePointTakedown]

9 hours ago, RockLobster said:

I'm going to stop well short of requiring certification and licensing for potential parents, but it is something to consider when you realize the weight and responsibility of the effort and responsibility they will be undertaking.

I'm just not sure people making the decision to induce pregnancy are making the right choice.

What about the child? Who protects the child when the parents neglect them? Abuse them? When the parents divorce?

I'm re-thinking the certification and licensing idea - maybe there should be a law to protect the children.

Fair point. People, especially young people, often are woefully ignorant of the responsibilities that come with adulthood. That includes being a parent. Its a difficult needle to thread trying to get children ready for a cruel and unforgiving world and still allowing them to remain 'children' for as long as possible. 

The wording of the second sentence is curious. Do you mean start a pregnancy or end one? Because either way, could be the case and there are discussions to be had for why to start or why to end. Everyone has their own reasons for either/both. 

Neglected and abused children are protected by the state and alternative arrangements are found if necessary. Plenty of problems with that system. Topic for other discussions, who is fit to foster or adopt. Some states have pretty bigoted ideas on that topic. Divorce is up to the parents. Why ask these questions? What is your point?

Certification and licensing to have a child? That's pretty bleak. Can we try education first?