Abortion, Modern Values and Politics

[Sully]

Thats what I waited for, thats your response, thats it. To say the least I am bitterly disappointed, I was expecting something good and worthwhile.

Your arguement falls apart here.

I don't believe that a man cannot fully understand or comprehend a woman's point of view, and vice versa.

I believe maybe SOME men REFUSE to fully understand a woman's point of view.

Firstly, I am not trying to knit pick but ARGUEMENT IS SPELT A-R-G-U-M-E-N-T. I know I make mistakes too, but you did it a few times so i just thought I would help you out there.

Its your belief which you are entitled to, as am I. I think men and women can comprehend each other on many things of course, the world would not function without that being true. But there are still many differences between men and women, and no we cannot replace each other in the family. You can fill one role, not two simultaneously. A MAN IS NOT A WOMAN AND WOMAN IS NOT A MAN. Tell me you agree with that, please!!!

It's a question of ignorance, which of course, breeds Conservatism.

Good shot!!, well you covered that side of the spectrum, what is the left guided by, irrationality and emotion.

But no, a woman can fully comprehend another man's pov, just as a man can.

It's a question of ignorance versus education.

Don't buy that one bit, not all women are equal and nor are men, too many variables come together to make a person. You are painting a broad picture with that view.

Since there does exist at least one man who fully comprehends a woman's point of view, counterexample shown.

Who is this man? David Rayside, U of Toronto.

(and after you're done trying showing that that man doesn't fully understand a woman's point of view and if you pull it off, I have a list of about 25 men who do.)

Wow this guy must get all the women. Tell you what lets put together a small group of women, comprised of all different walks of life. They can ask him questions and decide for themselves if this man comprehends all their views. Hahhahaha lets make a little wager on that one!!!

And we could do the same for your list of 25 men.

Hey BTW are you on that list you sly dog you!!!!

I commend you on your attempt Sully. It was a good one.

Retreat for now and come at it from another angle that's easier to prove.

Haha retreat, man I am pushing you back, seems like your arguments are crumbling.

And also you never answered my questions on how you were brought up. One. Two parents and how you would have been affected otherwise. Hey if thats too personal to answer thats fine, but I think your silence is answering my question!!!

Also one last thing if you were raised by two parents, ask your parents if they could have done both the job of father and mother at once? Now that would be something of interest to know now wouldn't it.

[takeanumber]

Weak.

I demonstrated the counter-example, fair and square.

Hey BTW are you on that list you sly dog you!!!!

90% of the way there, but no, not on that list.

And also you never answered my questions on how you were brought up. One. Two parents and how you would have been affected otherwise. Hey if thats too personal to answer thats fine, but I think your silence is answering my question!!!

It isn't relevant to the debate. I may have been raised by my great grand parents for all you know, and I'm sure you'd find a way to trash the way I was raised.

Families come in all different sizes and shapes.

To impose a Christian hierarchy on which ones are superior and which ones suck is well, Christian.

By implying that women can't impart masculine lessons to a child is just a symptom of believing in that hierarchy.

Pure and simple.

[Sully]

Weak.

You are bang on, and by starting off with the word weak I am to assume that you are referring to your subsequent post.

I demonstrated the counter-example, fair and square.

Sure you made your point known, but it seems to me to be largely unfounded. If you could provide more facts, then your argument would be strengthened, but in this case your ship is sinking and sinking fast.

It isn't relevant to the debate. I may have been raised by my great grand parents for all you know, and I'm sure you'd find a way to trash the way I was raised.

Why would I trash the way you were raised, I try stick to the subject with as much fact and useful opinion as I can. I am not here to bash anyone personally, but sometimes I can lay sarcasm on nice and thick, especially when some remarks are completely out of line and unfounded.

Actually the way you were raised is totally revelant to what you and me are debating. I think a loving father and mother are the best way to raise a child. And you disagree with that point, am I correct?

So I asked you if you were raised by your birth parents, and if you were, to imagine that your father never being there and trying to realize all the things that you would miss by his absence, things that your mother cannot compensate for. Thats my point!!! Go back and realize why we are exchanging this back and forth man!!!

Families come in all different sizes and shapes.

Ah, ya they do!!!! If your point is that many different families in many different ways can be successful. YES I AGREE. But I do not believe to the degree that a traditional family can!!!!!

To impose a Christian hierarchy on which ones are superior and which ones suck is well, Christian.

By implying that women can't impart masculine lessons to a child is just a symptom of believing in that hierarchy.

Pure and simple.

Bout time you broke out one of the anti-conservatism mantras.

No where have I mentioned Christianity in this debate, you brought it into the fold. I am not a Christian, but I love the thought of a traditional family, so what, you make that out to be bad, sad that you are so narrow minded.

Women cannot impart masculine lessons to a child like a man can, keep dreaming if you think they can, your ship is sinking, come back with less rhetoric and more facts. Cya in a few!!!!

[takeanumber]

Women cannot impart masculine lessons to a child like a man can, keep dreaming if you think they can, 

And you're wrong.

And worse, you can't prove that women can't impart masculine lessons.

(And the your point about understanding was defeated.)

Now, let's talk about the Christian thing:

You don't don't have to be a Christian to have Christian thoughts.

[Sully]

Wow, I sunk your battleship!!!

Nah lets not talk the Christian thing, if you never respond with facts and answers to questions I have, there is no point, you are just running in circles.

I have explained to you over and over again, women and men are different, that being the case, men and women cannot fill each other roles. Thats commom sense man, ignore it all you want. If in your world men and women are the same, then hey thats great if it works for you.

[takeanumber]

Just because men and women are different doesn't mean they can't fill each others roles.

What's going to be your next arguement? That women can't be police officers?

This isn't the 19th century.

[idealisttotheend]

The challange for the anti abortionists here is simple. Can you convince people not to choose abortion without using the law to force them not to? If you can then your victory will be all the sweeter. I often argue for laws in many instances but not when it involves religious or quasi-religious morality, which ought to be an individual responsibility.

[Sully]

Just because men and women are different doesn't mean they can't fill each others roles.

What's going to be your next arguement? That women can't be police officers?

This isn't the 19th century.

No, that will not be my ARGUMENT at all. Sad how you jump from the issue of family which I have solely focused on throughout this discussion and make the leap to women not being to be police officers, better stop while you can, you are making yourself look bad!!!

Hahaha your arguments are weak, you are flopping all around the issue like a fish out of water. But hey I give ya an A for your effort tho, but sorry a big fat F for content, hahahah I am starting to sound like you a little. Keep up the good work tho, you are making this too easy.

[takeanumber]

You can't prove your statement, and you know it.

YUO=PNW3D!1!1!!

[RB]

A MAN IS NOT A WOMAN AND WOMAN IS NOT A MAN. Tell me you agree with that, please!!!

the only difference between a man and women exists in their genitalia.

men and women are similar in the roles they play and those roles are perceived social roles.

it is my opionion that if we can come to grips that we can view these social roles of men and women as equal, then our expectation of the sexes are viewed as equal.

on the other hand if we continue to select some irrelevant reflections and pronouce it as DIFFERENCE then you would have succeeded in creating biasness, and your answer is prejudiced towards the way we look at men and women.

Familiar points to ponder

1) men are fearful that women gossip, we talk about their measurements

2) Without men the world would be a better place: softer, kinder, more loving; calmer, quieter, more humane

3) Both men and women are fallible. The difference is, women know it

4) Some of us women usually become the men we wanted to marry

5) It is not women’s fault if we are so tender. It is in the nature of the lives we live. And further, it would be a terrible catastrophe if men had to live men’s lives and women’s also. Which is precisely what has happened today—to women.

6) We know men are men, and this is because they have to remind you of it as soon as you meet them

7) When men and women agree, it is in their conclusions

8) One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman

9) men are about their rights and nothing more; women are about their rights and nothing less.

women, men are different, decide!!

[Sully]

You can't prove your statement, and you know it.

YUO=PNW3D!1!1!!

Thats it, hahahahaha!!!

I have proven it, you just won't admit it. You avoid the questions I ask and still make that claim above. Well good luck on your next debate!!!