Ohio issue 1 fails

[RLLD 4,143]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Not everyone agrees on this though.

Not everyone has to as well. I am not impugning others for holding this beleive, as is being done to me.  You see I do not observe the presence of alternative view points as a rationale for person attacks and vilification.

I hold me view, others hold their own.  Its all good. Unlike leftists, I do not insist anyone agree with me.

[RLLD 4,143]

1 minute ago, zsasz said:

 

If this RLLD idiot was so concerned about the potential child that he would help create...then he should be intellectually honest enough by agreeing to not engage in coitus unless having a child is the desired outcome.

I am not concerned, you appear to not be reading very well, aside from being something of a child in general about it.

[League Champion 1,896]

Pro-abortion, pro-child mutilation, pro-human trafficking

Not shocked 

[crackattack 520]

4 hours ago, RLLD said:

Seems like a net positive for the people  

This 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Others have pointed out that, barring rape, the answer is essentially yes, the woman controls who she has sex with and if birth control is used.  Your party of science doesn't like the science reality that females bear the offspring of just about every if not every sexual species, and that as such they need to be more judicious in their sexual choices.  So the solution is to kill unborn children at-will, WHEEE$#@!  Equity!

No, the answer is absolutely no.  A woman needs to be impregnantad by a man or a syringe in order to create life.  That's pretty much sex 101, Jerry.

It's insulting to men to say that a woman is solely responsible for her deeds while the man is just a useless pawn in the matter.   As men, we should take some responsibility where we stick our d1cks and shoot our seed.

[Hawkeye21 2,380]

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Not everyone has to as well. I am not impugning others for holding this beleive, as is being done to me.  You see I do not observe the presence of alternative view points as a rationale for person attacks and vilification.

I hold me view, others hold their own.  Its all good. Unlike leftists, I do not insist anyone agree with me.

This is why I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on abortion. 

[RLLD 4,143]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

No, the answer is absolutely no.  A woman needs to be impregnantad by a man or a syringe in order to create life.  That's pretty much sex 101, Jerry.

It's insulting to men to say that a woman is solely responsible for her deeds while the man is just a useless pawn in the matter.   As men, we should take some responsibility where we stick our d1cks and shoot our seed.

When I control access to sex, as women do today, then I will be the one making the final decision. Until then, the women remains the primary decision-maker in terms of whether or not sex transpires. 

[RLLD 4,143]

Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

This is why I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on abortion. 

Seems fair.  My stance is that I support it. I see that it is a good thing for society. I do this knowing full well I am advocating for murder, which I normally oppose....its a hypocirsy that I have to accept.

[Fnord 2,051]

16 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Seems fair.  My stance is that I support it. I see that it is a good thing for society. I do this knowing full well I am advocating for murder, which I normally oppose....its a hypocirsy that I have to accept.

I appreciate you admitting that this is a moral contradiction that you choose to acknowledge and live with. I do not agree with you necessarily, but you seem to have a level of emotional maturity that most adults do not, and that is awesome.

[GutterBoy 2,898]

21 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Seems fair.  My stance is that I support it. I see that it is a good thing for society. I do this knowing full well I am advocating for murder, which I normally oppose....its a hypocirsy that I have to accept.

I have a similar stance, in that I would never want a woman to abort a child of mine, but I'm not gonna make that decision for others.

[GutterBoy 2,898]

24 minutes ago, RLLD said:

When I control access to sex, as women do today, then I will be the one making the final decision. Until then, the women remains the primary decision-maker in terms of whether or not sex transpires. 

You can't control your own body?  What kind of a man are you?  You can't say no or insist on wearing a rubber?  The decision rests with both individuals.

[RLLD 4,143]

2 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

You can't control your own body?  What kind of a man are you?  You can't say no or insist on wearing a rubber?  The decision rests with both individuals.

The woman decides if I am permitted to have sex with her, I do not take it....it is given......her decisions can, and should, include some element of protection vs killing the baby later.....

[GutterBoy 2,898]

Just now, RLLD said:

The woman decides if I am permitted to have sex with her, I do not take it....it is given......her decisions can, and should, include some element of protection vs killing the baby later.....

Agreed.

A man ALSO decides if he permits a woman to have sex with him, she does not take it, it is given, and his decisions can and should include some element of protection.

[RLLD 4,143]

8 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Agreed.

A man ALSO decides if he permits a woman to have sex with him, she does not take it, it is given, and his decisions can and should include some element of protection.

Agree, but the man cannot get pregnant, the woman can....the two decisions are not equal. 

[lickin_starfish 1,889]

I think that if a man wants the woman to have an abortion, and she wants to keep the baby, that the man should be off the hook for child support. It's only fair.

[TBayXXXVII 2,481]

The abortion issue is so stupid.  It doesn't even belong under the governments purview.  It's an elective medical procedure, plain and simple.  Is a women killing her child?  Yes, but as long as she's paying for it and is ok with being a murderer, then have at it.  I don't even care when she does it.  Murder is murder... be it at 9 minutes or 9 months.  But hey, your body, your choice, your money.

[RLLD 4,143]

12 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

The abortion issue is so stupid.  It doesn't even belong under the governments purview.  It's an elective medical procedure, plain and simple.  Is a women killing her child?  Yes, but as long as she's paying for and ok with being a murderer, then have at it.  I don't even care when she does it.  Murder is murder... be it at 9 minutes or 9 months.  But hey, your body, your choice, your money.

I would like to tag on this for a moment, and please bear with me as I try to illuminate my point, perhaps clumsily.

Above, gutter is making the point that the man is as much involved in the creation of life as the woman; the implication being that he should bear some responsibility.

If he is correct, then the man also has some say over whether or not an abortion transpires, right?

[TBayXXXVII 2,481]

8 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I would like to tag on this for a moment, and please bear with me as I try to illuminate my point, perhaps clumsily.

Above, gutter is making the point that the man is as much involved in the creation of life as the woman; the implication being that he should bear some responsibility.

If he is correct, then the man also has some say over whether or not an abortion transpires, right?

In theory, yes, but we know in real life, the answer is no.  It's no because no one has the right to force anyone to do something they don't want to do.  Sucks, but it's true.  I do think that the flipside should be accounted for too.  If the woman doesn't want the abortion, but the man does, she can't force him to have any responsibility that he doesn't want... but that won't fly either.

[RLLD 4,143]

Just now, TBayXXXVII said:

In theory, yes, but we know in real life, the answer is no.  It's no because no one has the right to force anyone to do something they don't want to do.  Sucks, but it's true.  I do think that the flipside should be accounted for too.  If the woman doesn't want the abortion, but the man does, she can't force him to have any responsibility that he doesn't want... but that won't fly either.

But if the woman wants to have that baby, and pursues support from the man.....that CAN happen.....

You see we are on the one hand asserting that BOTH are equally involved....until the woman decides she does not want to have that baby....THEN its her body-her choice.....conveniently..... (in fact, this was true all along.....during the act of coitus as well.....)

But if the man does not want the baby.....and the woman does?  Well, fock him and he better pay up.....

None of this adds up, because we are not using logic at all, and instead we fabricate reasons to justify murder.....

[Hardcore troubadour 14,915]

6 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

Looks like Republicans failed at their bid to take power away from the people.

Good for the citizens of Ohio to stand up for their rights.

https://apnews.com/article/ohio-abortion-rights-constitutional-amendment-special-election-227cde039f8d51723612878525164f1a

 

Not a liberal. Just a little more, but still a conservative.  

[WatsonRules 46]

Ohio is one of the most ridiculously gerrymandered states in the country. Democrats besides Sherrod Brown have not fared well because of this in the last thirty years. Since 1992, there have been four years of Democratic control of the Governorship, five years of Democratic control of the House, and Zero years  of Democratic control of the Senate. Right now, there are 67 Republicans to 32 Democrats in the House, and 26 Republicans to 7 Democrats in the Senate. A consequence of the supermajority of Republicans in the Ohio statehouse, along with a supportive  Republican majority in the Ohio Supreme Court, including Pat Dewine, the son of the current governor of Ohio (), is discounting the will of the people, with a side benefit of  corruption at the highest levels.

 

In 2020, former House Speaker Larry Householder was arrested for receiving $60 million in payouts from First Energy Corporation in exchange for passing a $1.3 billion bailout for them. He refused to give up the speakership, and was subsequently removed. He was found guilty and sentenced to 20 years in prison along with lobbyist and former Ohio Republican Chair Matt Borges. Now, Householder is not the only Ohio politician to play the system to his advantage (see Democrat Larry Trafficant), but the scandal had played out in full view and he wasn't removed from the speakership until it became apparent that he was going to be arrested.

 

Ohio's electoral map is so gerrymandered that even the Ohio Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional and ordered it redrawn. The Ohio State Congress said "Fock you" and did nothing, waiting on the Supreme Court to rule. The Supreme Court asked the Ohio Supreme Court to reconsider it's ruling, so now two election cycles (2022 and 2024) will have been run using electoral maps that have been deemed by the Ohio Supreme Court as disadvantageous to minorities in Ohio.

 

Now, as to Issue 1, in November of 2022, Secretary of State Frank LaRose and State Rep Brian Stewart proposed "reforms" aimed at better protecting Ohio's Constitution, namely, increasing the threshold for amendments to 60% and requiring signatures from all 88 counties. The threshold has been 50% and signatures from 44 counties since 1912, and in that time, there have been 71 citizen proposed amendments to the Constitution. 19 passed in that time, 8 with less than 60%. Here are some of them, none of which would be considered excessively "liberal" or creating of chaos:

Home rule power for liquor sales — 50.5% (1914) 
10-mill limit on unvoted real estate taxes —59.6% (1933)
Home rule for counties — 53.2% (1933) 
Eliminate straight-ticketing voting — 57.3% (1949)
Raise the state minimum wage — 56.6% (2006)
Allow a casino in Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Toledo — 52.9% (2009)
Prohibit sales tax on food for consumption off premise — 68.7% (1936)
Allow someone to vote if they are registered for 30 days — 61.5% (1977)
Term limits for state senators and representatives — 68.3% (1992) 
A valid marriage in Ohio is only between one man and one woman — 61.7% (2004). The United States Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in 2015
Freedom to choose healthcare — 65.5% (2011)
Rights for crime victims — 82.5% (2017)

Meanwhile, there have been 156 proposed amendments by the legislature in that time, 108 of which passed, but 41 with less than 60%. Here are some of those, and for the record, more of these would be considered "liberal" in this day and age, especially on the Geek Bored:

Deleting the words “white male” from voter qualifications — 55.9% (1923)
6-year term for probate judges — 55.2% (1947)
Create a State Board of Education with the power to appoint a Superintendent of Public Instruction — 56.8% (1953)
Getting rid of the word “white” when it comes to qualifications of males to serve in the Ohio National Guard, racially integrating the Ohio National Guard — 58.1% (1953)
4-year terms for the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, and secretary of state. It also limits the governor to two terms — 55.5% (1954)
4-year terms for State senators — 57.3% (1956)
Allow women to serve in the Ohio National Guard and widen the age range to those between 17-67 years old — 50.1% (1961)
Blocked special interests from using constitutional amendments to create monopolies — 51.5% (2015)
Repeal statewide prohibition — 68.3% (1933)
Permit temporary or substitute judges in the Supreme Court  — 70.0% (1944)
Women can run for office — 68.5% (1953)
Allow new Ohio residents to vote for President and Vice President — 61.9% (1957)
Authorize the state lottery —64.0% (1973)
Voters can elect delegates to national party conventions — 64.6% (1975)
Permit state to finance or assist local governments to improve roads, water, sewer and waste collection and treatment facilities — 70.8% (1987)
Protect rights of crime victims — 77.6% (1994)
Denial of bail to persons charged with certain felonies — 72.9% (1997)

 

Now, Larose and his cronies saw that Ohio voters who support a woman's right to choose were looking to emulate the success of voter led changes to Constitutions in red states like Kansas, so they proposed the raising of the threshold to 60% for citizens, but the proposition would keep the threshold at 50% for legislators. This  naked hypocrisy made even supportive Republicans uneasy, so eventually, the threshold of the proposed initiative was kept at 60% for everyone. While the reasoning was ostensibly to protect the Ohio Constitution from "outside special interest groups", LaRose is like many MAGA politicians who can't keep from saying the quiet parts out loud, and wrote to colleagues in a letter that the attempt was to protect Ohio's abortion ban (one of the countries most restrictive) and to thwart redistricting reform. Also, these guys, despite having a legislative supermajority, failed to get the ballot initiative on a February special election ballot because they couldn't get their act together. However, when the citizen-backed referendum got onto the November ballot, they panicked, and, despite having passed a ban on special elections in Ohio after the last special election cost the state $20 million and only managed to rouse 7% of the population to vote, reversed their ban and called this special election. Thankfully, they were trounced, with the added bonus of ammunition against LaRose in his bid to unseat Sherrod Brown in November.

 

The whole thing was a naked power grab, not only about abortion, but about solidifying a Republican supermajority's power in a state that most think is red, but is actually purple and has been for a while. The ads in the last few days appealed so blatantly to the current strain of nationalism that is so prevalent in this country, with waving flags, Ben Franklin, and references to the federal Constitution as an example we must revere, and when that seemed to not work, they had doctors advising people to "do their own research", and mothers lamenting the fact that their children wouldn't be safe unless the threshold was changed, all of which were clear dog whistles to the anti-woke and Qanon crowds. Again, people saw through that and thankfully, preserved their power instead of ceding it to politicians in the name of "protection".

 

Finally, two Republican Governors of Ohio, Bob Taft (who was a terrible governor) and John Kasich, who I have grudging respect for and likely would have voted for had his candidacy in 2016 survived, both trashed this ballot initiative, with Kasich saying "Ohio is stronger when we can all lend our voices and we all have an equal chance to participate in the work of our state's democracy. I’ve experienced that firsthand having policies backed by myself and a majority of the legislature's members overturned at the ballot box and it never occurred to me to try to limit Ohioans' right to do that. It wouldn't have been right then, and it isn't right now."

 

Rant over

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,481]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

But if the woman wants to have that baby, and pursues support from the man.....that CAN happen.....

You see we are on the one hand asserting that BOTH are equally involved....until the woman decides she does not want to have that baby....THEN its her body-her choice.....conveniently..... (in fact, this was true all along.....during the act of coitus as well.....)

But if the man does not want the baby.....and the woman does?  Well, fock him and he better pay up.....

None of this adds up, because we are not using logic at all, and instead we fabricate reasons to justify murder.....

I agree, it can happen and will.  I don't think there's any way around it.  I think it's best if it's that way too.  For the mass majority of men, this wouldn't be an issue, but I think the scum bags need to be held accountable.  The guy had just as much of a say in having sex as the girl did, he has consequences as well.  He should not have a get out of jail free card.

To an extent, they both are equally involved... otherwise, one is raping the other, right?  I understand the how this scenario sucks, more for men, but can suck for women.  It's what we as a society should understand to be a necessary evil.  If we start giving me the ability to bang chicks without recourse, too many bad things are going to happen... and it's going to suck for the rest of us more than the people involved.

If the abortion issue stays under the governments foot, they're only forever be an ideological war where everyone loses.  A fight like your asserting is basically going to create a bigger problem where you're giving the man more power in the situation.  That's a BAD thing.  Very bad.

The best way to handle this is, her body, her choice, HER money.  The woman should have no legal recourse to get money from the guy to have the abortion.  If he wants to help, fine, if not... it's her dime.  It's about $1k, probably less.  If the claim by the left that it's cheaper for society to kill the kid than force the woman to have it, I can claim that it's cheaper for her to kill the kid than have it.  Pay the money and do it.

[MDC 7,120]

For all the Republican complaints about Biden’s corruption and policies it seems really weird they want to campaign on banning abortion and tranny issues. You’d think they’d learn after tripping over their own d1cks in the 2022 midterms.

[seafoam1 2,799]

If your wife is pregnant, for 3 months, she doesn't have a life inside of her?

You both look forward to your new lives with your child, and someone murders her and the kid? You think that should be a single murder charge?

[jerryskids 6,553]

23 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

No, the answer is absolutely no.  A woman needs to be impregnantad by a man or a syringe in order to create life.  That's pretty much sex 101, Jerry.

It's insulting to men to say that a woman is solely responsible for her deeds while the man is just a useless pawn in the matter.   As men, we should take some responsibility where we stick our d1cks and shoot our seed.

Thanks for the science education Gutter, I think I've heard that somewhere.  RLLD basically emphasized my point (women are the ultimate arbiters since they carry the onus of the pregnancy); I'll add that I agree with your take that men should be more responsible as well.  Which leads me to the problem, which is that our culture places practically no pressure on either women or men to prevent pregnancies in unwanted situations.  You see it in opinions in this thread from RLLD and others; a feeling that "animals gonna animal" (animals of all races) and they suck at life, so we need to just let them kill their unborn children.  I aspire to a better world where we encourage personal responsibility and an integral family unit.  

[joneo 556]

6 hours ago, seafoam1 said:

Killing children easily without consequences = power? 

Focking liberals. 

Hitler thought so. 

[seafoam1 2,799]

There are 2 points of view being taken: It's ok to kill the kid because that child isn't a human. And the other is, kill it because we are better off having them dead rather than being raised by the human pile of shlt that just birthed it. 

At least the second point of view has some merit to keeping society in check.  But the solution should be prevention instead of killing. That is the solution society should be seeking out and spending time on.

"Collection of cells" my ass. You idiots are sick. 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

our culture places practically no pressure on either women or men to prevent pregnancies in unwanted situations.

I aspire to a better world where we encourage personal responsibility and an integral family unit.  

I share your aspiration to live in a better world where there is more personal responsibility and a family unit, however I disagree with your assertion that we have a culture of free sex.  In states where schools are still allowed to teach sex ed, pregnancy prevention is huge.  In states that still have planned parenthood, pregnancy prevention is the culture.

[zsasz 361]

8 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

There are 2 points of view being taken: It's ok to kill the kid because that child isn't a human. And the other is, kill it because we are better off having them dead rather than being raised by the human pile of shlt that just birthed it. 

At least the second point of view has some merit to keeping society in check.  But the solution should be prevention instead of killing. That is the solution society should be seeking out and spending time on.

"Collection of cells" my ass. You idiots are sick. 

 Its amazing how much of an idiot you are.  You don't even understand that abortion isn't the real issue in regards to Issue 1.

[WatsonRules 46]

26 minutes ago, zsasz said:

 Its amazing how much of an idiot you are.  You don't even understand that abortion isn't the real issue in regards to Issue 1.

The Geek Club is a powerful example of people willing to cede their power to the government as long as they think it advances their beliefs or if it's something they don't understand but they suspect it has to do with liberals.

This thread is a perfect example. The will of the people of Ohio was that they will not allow the legislature to take away a right that has been in place for 120 years. Geeks here are lamenting that politicians today are not more powerful than they were yesterday and they don't even know it.

[jerryskids 6,553]

6 minutes ago, WatsonRules said:

The Geek Club is a powerful example of people willing to cede their power to the government as long as they think it advances their beliefs or if it's something they don't understand but they suspect it has to do with liberals.

This thread is a perfect example. The will of the people of Ohio was that they will not allow the legislature to take away a right that has been in place for 120 years. Geeks here are lamenting that politicians today are not more powerful, and they don't even know it.

You seem fairly educated on the situation; how is increasing the percentage ceding power to the legislature?  Do all of the public votes need to be constitutional amendments?  It seems to me that you can enact laws that represent the will of the majority, without modifying the constitution every time.   

[WatsonRules 46]

37 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

You seem fairly educated on the situation; how is increasing the percentage ceding power to the legislature?  Do all of the public votes need to be constitutional amendments?  It seems to me that you can enact laws that represent the will of the majority, without modifying the constitution every time.   

In Ohio, it makes it virtually impossible to put something on the ballot in response to laws the incredibly gerrymandered legislature puts out. Since the will of the people of Ohio is that a woman should have the right to choose (greater than 50%, by most polls), you would hope that the legislature would have taken that into consideration instead of passing a law that makes 10 year old rape victims have to travel out of state to get an abortion, but they didn't because they don't have to when there's virtually no blocks on their power due to their supermajority. . When the will of the people is ignored, what other recourse do they have? This fall, voters are putting a referendum on the ballot to change the constitution to enshrine a woman's right to choose because of the incredibly restrictive heartbeat ban (no exceptions for rape or incest) on abortion. They can't win state races to put politicians in place that will listen to the people, so this is the only avenue they have left. If they don't have that, only legislators have the ability to put proposed changes before the people for a vote. Nobody should want that.

The worse part of Issue 1 was not actually the 60% threshold, but the requirement for all 88 counties to submit signatures. That is a virtual impossibility in any state.

 

ETA: No, all public votes do not need to be constitutional amendments. Voters repealed a law passed by Kasich some time back that limited collective bargaining, and when they did, he said "the people have spoken, the issue is settled". There is still that avenue of repeal. In the case of abortion, repealing the law isn't going to have the same effect on DeWine or the state legislature. They will just come back with another one to replace it. Putting it in the constitution is the only way to ensure that the right to choose is protected in Ohio.

[seafoam1 2,799]

1 hour ago, zsasz said:

 Its amazing how much of an idiot you are.  You don't even understand that abortion isn't the real issue in regards to Issue 1.

Ignore away. So if someone killed your wife and her unborn child, that's a single murder to you. 

[Sean Mooney 1,936]

3 hours ago, RLLD said:

Of course not, she has to first make the active decision to have sex....and then the further active decision to not use or demand the use of protection....and the natural outcome is potentially pregnancy...... so they roll the dice, and then if they manage to create life...well, just kill it....

you seem to be excusing men of all blame in this process. 

[seafoam1 2,799]

6 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

you seem to be excusing men of all blame in this process. 

At least you should feel happy he didn't excuse you then. 

[RLLD 4,143]

4 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

you seem to be excusing men of all blame in this process. 

A man would be at blame for not wearing a condom, a woman for allowing him to engage with out it as well as for herself.....so when the woman makes the decision to do with "her body her choice" as she pleases......then she has the sole decision, the man has none....but....you want the man to be equally culpable...

Look, as I have stated, abort away....if you are a slut and stupid, you will face the inconvenience of pregnancy....and then you can kill it....

If you are that type of woman, "I" would prefer you not be a mother, so yeah, I still support abortion. Does it matter why I support it?

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,828]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

you seem to be excusing men of all blame in this process. 

He's not doing anything of the sort.  In fact, you're doing the opposite - blaming the men and excusing the women.  There is definitely blame on both men and women, but Women control access to sex and men control access to marriage.  It's always been that way - that's never going to change.

On a side note, I feel bad for the young men in the game today.  They're getting a raw deal with the slew of young women out there.  I have no idea how they could even consider marriage in today's world.

[Sean Mooney 1,936]

4 hours ago, RLLD said:

A man would be at blame for not wearing a condom, a woman for allowing him to engage with out it as well as for herself.....so when the woman makes the decision to do with "her body her choice" as she pleases......then she has the sole decision, the man has none....but....you want the man to be equally culpable...

Look, as I have stated, abort away....if you are a slut and stupid, you will face the inconvenience of pregnancy....and then you can kill it....

If you are that type of woman, "I" would prefer you not be a mother, so yeah, I still support abortion. Does it matter why I support it?

So you do admit the man has some culpability in the scenario. Good.

4 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

He's not doing anything of the sort.  In fact, you're doing the opposite - blaming the men and excusing the women.  There is definitely blame on both men and women, but Women control access to sex and men control access to marriage.  It's always been that way - that's never going to change.

On a side note, I feel bad for the young men in the game today.  They're getting a raw deal with the slew of young women out there.  I have no idea how they could even consider marriage in today's world.

100% am not but you got to say something stupid..so gold medal to you. When two people choose to engage in sex they carry responsibility in that action. I don't excuse women in it but I don't excuse men in it. As a man you wrap that stuff up every single time before entering. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,828]

8 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

So you do admit the man has some culpability in the scenario. Good.

100% am not but you got to say something stupid..so gold medal to you. When two people choose to engage in sex they carry responsibility in that action. I don't excuse women in it but I don't excuse men in it. As a man you wrap that stuff up every single time before entering. 

Oh, GTFO Mooney you pansy.  Why are cold hard facts so hard for you to understand?  No one is excusing men but you sure do keep giving women a pass.  

Not a single f'n woman is reading your White Knighting post and going, "Gosh, he really defends us.  I want to date him now".  It's okay to blame women too, j@ckass.

[RLLD 4,143]

15 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

So you do admit the man has some culpability in the scenario. Good.

100% am not but you got to say something stupid..so gold medal to you. When two people choose to engage in sex they carry responsibility in that action. I don't excuse women in it but I don't excuse men in it. As a man you wrap that stuff up every single time before entering. 

Culpability? Sure, HE could have chosen to wear the condom.....but it remains "her body her choice".....she CHOSE to allow him to have sex with her without that protection....and later.....if SHE CHOOSES to abort that baby....he has no say since it remains......HER BODY........HER CHOICE