American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Do I support forced sterilization? No, lol, no I don't. Settle down there, Hitler

Sterilization would be if there was no possibility of procreating. By allowing them to donate sperm and store the sperm to be used to procreate at a future date, they would not be sterilized (at least according to the English definition of the word sterilization). If they choose not to donate and store sperm, they would be choosing sterilization, a choice millions of men already make every year. So now that you know it is not forced sterilization, do you support it?

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Sterilization would be if there was no possibility of procreating. By allowing them to donate sperm and store the sperm to be used to procreate at a future date, they would not be sterilized (at least according to the English definition of the word sterilization). If they choose not to donate and store sperm, they would be choosing sterilization, a choice millions of men already make every year. So now that you know it is not forced sterilization, do you support it?

It's forced sterilization no matter how you dress it up.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

It's forced sterilization no matter how you dress it up.

It is not. I know you just want to have a honest conversation, you made that clear for pages, around whether abortion is murder and when it should be prevented. Your argument is not a thinly veiled argument to control women’s bodies.

But on the issue of sterilization, according to the Cambridge Dictionary https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic.../sterilization sterilization is “the process of having a medical operation to make it impossible to have children”. I am willing to use any definition from a reputable English dictionary for the word sterilization, but under that definition and any other you will find what I proposed is not forced sterilization. One cannot be sterilized if they have a medical operation and 10 years later they become a father (which would happen under my proposal).

So I ask again, now that you know it is not forced sterilization, would you support that proposal or are you still in the camp of forcing women to have babies and taking away their right to control their own bodies?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Everyone here with a half brain cell knows exactly why the faux outrage is going on, and the question is getting obtuse responses. I'll put it on the table; once you admit a continuum exists where on one end of the spectrum abortion is morally ambiguous at worst, and on the other end it's border line murder, you have to engage in a discussion on where to draw the line. Instead of being honest about it and having that discussion, people pretend like the question is irrelevant because it's an absurd scenario. It doesn't matter how unlikely the scenario is, the question remains: if you wouldn't abort a child just before it passes the birth canal, how far back can you go before you would?

No jerking off for this guy.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

It is not. I know you just want to have a honest conversation, you made that clear for pages, around whether abortion is murder and when it should be prevented. Your argument is not a thinly veiled argument to control women’s bodies.

But on the issue of sterilization, according to the Cambridge Dictionary https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic.../sterilization sterilization is “the process of having a medical operation to make it impossible to have children”. I am willing to use any definition from a reputable English dictionary for the word sterilization, but under that definition and any other you will find what I proposed is not forced sterilization. One cannot be sterilized if they have a medical operation and 10 years later they become a father (which would happen under my proposal).

So I ask again, now that you know it is not forced sterilization, would you support that proposal or are you still in the camp of forcing women to have babies and taking away their right to control their own bodies?

This is really dumb and the most dishonest argument I've seen in a while, and that's saying something. You can't just say that you aren't sterilized because you have a semen sample somewhere. What happens if that sample isn't variable? Is lost? Damaged? You yourself as a person are sterilized and may not be able to reverse the surgery. Take a piss.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

This is really dumb and the most dishonest argument I've seen in a while, and that's saying something. You can't just say that you aren't sterilized because you have a semen sample somewhere. What happens if that sample isn't variable? Is lost? Damaged? You yourself as a person are sterilized and may not be able to reverse the surgery. Take a piss.

That really seems like a very small risk for the male population to accept for the goal of preventing abortions due to unwanted pregnancies.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

This is really dumb and the most dishonest argument I've seen in a while, and that's saying something. You can't just say that you aren't sterilized because you have a semen sample somewhere. What happens if that sample isn't variable? Is lost? Damaged? You yourself as a person are sterilized and may not be able to reverse the surgery. Take a piss.

I feel like we are getting somewhere. You have rejected the English definition of the word sterilized in favour of your own definition, but you seem pretty clear that a man should not have his body interfered with. So you think the woman should have her body interfered with, when should that interference start? When is it no longer her body? Because you are not concerned with unborn life because I presented an alternative that would drastically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and you seem to have rejected that. So the “loss” of life does not seem to be the driving concern, so I am curious at what stage of a pregnancy is a woman’s body no longer hers?

[dino7c]

Imagine being on the wrong side of history with this issue

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I feel like we are getting somewhere. You have rejected the English definition of the word sterilized in favour of your own definition, but you seem pretty clear that a man should not have his body interfered with. So you think the woman should have her body interfered with, when should that interference start? When is it no longer her body? Because you are not concerned with unborn life because I presented an alternative that would drastically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and you seem to have rejected that. So the “loss” of life does not seem to be the driving concern, so I am curious at what stage of a pregnancy is a woman’s body no longer hers?

I rejected your ridiculous interpretation of what the definition is. You're wasting my time. I'm done.

[GGG]

Vasectomies are reversible.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I rejected your ridiculous interpretation of what the definition is. You're wasting my time. I'm done.

You rejected the Cambridge dictionary definition of what the word is to be clear, not my definition. Too bad you are done, I felt like we were getting somewhere on when you think the state should start controlling women’s bodies, since you rejected the state controlling mens bodies.

[GirlySports]

i'd set fire to the sperm bank.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

i'd set fire to the sperm bank.

Probably for the best. Scarcity would drive the market. Sperm would be the next bitcoin.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Probably for the best. Scarcity would drive the market. Sperm would be the next bitcoin.

Talk about a pump and dump market.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by GGG

Vasectomies are reversible.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I rejected your ridiculous interpretation of what the definition is. You're wasting my time. I'm done.

Not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot is it?

[iggy_oi]

This thread should be aborted

[calgaryred]

Originally Posted by GGG

Vasectomies are reversible.

Not all

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Imagine being on the wrong side of history with this issue

At its core, this is an equality issue.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot is it?

He was just practicing his impression of me.

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Hey, let me do an impression of you:

UMM THAT'S A DUMB SCENARIO. SOMETHING SOMETHING GAY PEOPLE.

How about, a simple no there? Jesus christ.

Originally Posted by White Out 403

This is really dumb and the most dishonest argument I've seen in a while, and that's saying something. You can't just say that you aren't sterilized because you have a semen sample somewhere. What happens if that sample isn't variable? Is lost? Damaged? You yourself as a person are sterilized and may not be able to reverse the surgery. Take a piss.

Or maybe little guy was really struggling with a simple “no.”