Screw the children

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Cesko, May 21, 2008.

  1. Cesko

    Cesko

    For all you British blokes I envy you your "progressive" government. Your politicians are even more retarded than Washington's prostitutes.
    It's all about women's rights, fuck anything else.
    I get to the point in my life when I can safely say I despise western social democratic system more than commies,Russians and anything related to Bolshevik shit from long time ago.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-defeats-fresh-challenge-fertility-laws.html
     
  2. In my opinion, this isn't about women's rights at all. I'm not saying I'm for throwing the technological doors open and allowing any procedure that can potentially be done just because it can be done, but this ain't about women's rights.

    It's actually the opposite. It's partly a reaction against something. Specifically it's a reaction against the Christian far-right who want to impose their faith-based beliefs on everyone else. More generally, it's a skirmish in the ongoing war against technology for technology's sake. Some of those opposed to the unfettered advance of reproductive technologies aren't even Christians. A great debate and one that needs to be heard.

    The fact that the finding cited lesbian couples and single women doesn't mean that they're the only ones who are being protected. The general legal principle goes beyond that.

    If anyone bothers arguing that a man in the house necessarily makes for a better parenting situation, they need to give their head a shake. How many fucked up people do you know? How many of them had a man in the house as a kid? Right. And how many fucked up kids do you know who were brought up in a 2-mom household? That's right.
     
  3. None. Because 2-mom families were unheard of 10 years ago.

    No statistically significant pool exists from which to conclude gays make more stable or loving homesteads than hetros.
     
  4. A single female or a lesbian couple to want a child without a father figure has made their first declaration that they are unfit to be a parent.

    They are self centered and selfish.

    I want a child, I do not care if the child has a father.

    I am not argueing the point of whether they are able to care for the child or that there are different consequences of a two parent family.

    My only point is this: child rearing will have many more decisions re the welfare of the child in the future I doubt the wants and needs of the child will be considered, the decisions will be based on the mothers origin of selfishness (and lack of affection toward men or dysfunctional reasons for "still" being single and incapable of a "marraige". Capece?)

    Personally I have no opinion, let 'em go for it. Society will care for the fuck ups in society with other fuck ups.
     
  5. If anyone bothers arguing that a man in the house necessarily makes for a better parenting situation, they need to give their head a shake.
    ------------------

    Valid point.

    The child may not need a father but they do need male figures in thier life, preferrably in a loving context as opposed to a male teacher, coach, etc. The absence of men in a lesbian lifestyle will not provide this.

    As for the single mother, it may become a case of "too many men" which could send the wrong message.
     
  6. No matter if your father is dead or alive or non existent (in this case). If you do not have one, you go looking for one.
     

  7. Wait, havent you effectively, said, over some posts, that-its largely inconsequential?

    A father figure is necessary, but....not if there a fly by, a loser, an in-between relationships fill -in, or indeed, given the context and the aforementioned factors, potentially all of the above?

    So, what the heck kind of father figure are you talking about, is my gist here, basically.

    You ever met some butch lesbians? tougher an' most men, but that obviously isn't your point here.

    Sure, the quintessential role model is, seemingly crucial, but it also seems to me to be clutching at straws lashing out in this manner.
     
  8. Worst case scenario.

    A low life loser absent biological father.

    The child will never believe that the bio father doesn't love her, the child will always hold out hope that he will change. the child with the piss poor father in jail will have bragging rights over the lesbian couple, "One of my moms can kick mike tyson's ass".
     
  9. so men are not needed for parenting, does that make women qualified parents automatically? I say let's just dump the kids onto streets or in schools and they will automatically grow into intelligent adults

    honestly for all I care fuck humanity

    and I like where all this is going, shit like this will eventually lead to human disrespect and disregard for one another, so everyone living a social life with a bitchy attitude (we are already there), and that will lead to confusion and finally mania, it's easier dealing with a sick society
     
  10. Indeed, but your first sentence is the crux of the matter.

    Men are not perfect, and in case you have forgotten, they have this thing in their pants, that, could, potentially , father hundreds or more, were they not carefull.
    women?
    Of course, mohammed, suggests, all this is good, just pay for the privelege, if your fecundity runs wild such as arabic scripture suggests is the right of any man, then surely, well, what could go wrong!!!



    Back to the original topic, you must be retarded to suggest all fault lies on the man, bullshit. Although, well......its possible.



    Its a matter of perspective, methinks.
    The stretch, between your daughter, or son, being murdered because of some fanatical bullshit, and peace and harmony, is a long way seperated.


    Your not sounding very christian at all, mr nutmeg.
     
    #10     May 21, 2008