Posted on 05/21/2006 11:55:33 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
Let me ask you the same question I asked another person; if these women chose to sleep around and get pregnant, would that be a more satisfactory situation?
phone numbers, please?
I am opposing that stance altogether.
You have already asked me that once, and I've answered it. Is that your big arguing point?
I'll repeat myself. I'd rather have the one who just got pregnant, because at least that child has a shot at having a daddy.
Your female role models that want to have babies without men should buy a dog instead.
They already have a dog, and treat them better than many *married* people treat their children. I don't agree with you, nor you with me. Let's leave it alone.
Restricted by whom?
I'll continue posting as is appropriate.
But you're leaving it alone is a good idea. You're way off base on this one. I suspect you've not raised a family, as have those of us here who speak with the authority of parents.
>Shades of "Brave New World". <
Indeed, my friend, indeed:
"Still leaning against the incubators he gave them, while the pencils scurried illegibly across the pages, a brief description of the modern fertilizing process; spoke first, of course, of its surgical introduction--"the operation undergone voluntarily for the good of Society, not to mention the fact that it carries a bonus amounting to six months' salary"; continued with some account of the technique for preserving the excised ovary alive and actively developing; passed on to a consideration of optimum temperature, salinity, viscosity; referred to the liquor in which the detached and ripened eggs were kept; and, leading his charges to the work tables, actually showed them how this liquor was drawn off from the test-tubes; how it was let out drop by drop onto the specially warmed slides of the microscopes; how the eggs which it contained were inspected for abnormalities, counted and transferred to a porous receptacle; how (and he now took them to watch the operation) this receptacle was immersed in a warm bouillon containing free-swimming spermatozoa -- at a minimum concentration of one hundred thousand per cubic centimetre, he insisted; and how, after ten minutes, the container was lifted out of the liquor and its contents re-examined; how, if any of the eggs remained unfertilized, it was again immersed, and, if necessary, yet again; how the fertilized ova went back to the incubators; where the Alphas and Betas remained until definitely bottled; while the Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons were brought out again, after only thirty-six hours, to undergo Bokanovsky's Process."
Just because you have children does not make you an authority. It makes you parent, and that is all. You continue posting all you want. You won't win me over, nor I you. I think you are wrong. There you have it.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I focused on your inaccurate numeric analysis. That calls into question the rest of your analysis, both its numeric underpinnings and its "sociological" conclusions. Give it a rest. If you have to explain your original post in a significantly longer follow-up post I will take that as a concession that the original analysis was problematic. Give it a rest.
Feminists are stupid that way about a number of things. A lot of feminist arguments about sex and sexuality usually mention "taking control of their sexuality" or some such BS. But they really are devaluing themselves and making themselves more into hedonist male fantasy girls. These people probably vote, too. Scary.
I look at these feminists and all I have is contempt.
I said that as best I could tell, you think abortion should remain legal. Is that incorrect? (And there's no need for a drawn-out explanation, just a simple YES or NO.)
No, you didn't. You said I was "pro-abortion". Read your own posts. I am not, even if I think making it illegal is a long shot.
I hope that's simple enough for you, since you indicated that "simple" was what you needed.
I define "pro abortion" as thinking that it should be legal. Do you think it should be legal? YES or NO.
Eugenics, at least for half the equation. We just need to restrict the quality of mother matched with the sperm
I don't accept your definition, it's far too simplistic. However, I have a pretty good idea why.
The truth is, that is true for almost every man if he is willing to exercise choice. There is always a variety of women available for any man who is appealing to women. Joe Schmoe isn't chronically rejected because he is willing to commit. He is rejected because women value him less as an appealing male. If he makes some adjustments, he can be valued more. Until then, he will be passed up by attractive women.
And that's a good thing - I say many times on FR that people tend to be rejected as companions for substantive grounds, and not shallow grounds. This is a bitter pill for many to swallow, but it is true.
I think what he is saying is that a child that comes from a fatherless household is more likely to act up. It's a fact that a majority of people in prison come from fatherless homes. I don't think it's a slam against women to say that fathers are important. It's hard for a women to do it all and then can never give a child a man's perspective/influence. Children need that. Too much female only perspective (they get this in school as well as most teachers are female) is part of the reason we've got so many cockamamy, liberal social programs in this country. Look at how messed up the schools are. Look at the "million" moms march. Look at Cindy Sheehan. Look at Oprah fans. Now those are bad examples of femaleness but even a good conservative example of femaleness isn't sufficient. Men are needed to balance things out.
lifelong singlehood would be better than being married to one of these harpies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.