Irish men have the right to choose, Irish women can suck it

unskilled78 wrote:

Tell me, what if Ireland was pro-fetuiscide, what would your opinion be then?

What the hell does this question have to do with the topic at hand.

Edit: I don't know what I meant, but it was good.

unskilled78 wrote:

If a woman COULD abort the baby whenever she wanted (like the man), would it be logical to allow the man to deny the use of his reproductive materials (like a female can)

Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

(Seriously, what the fuck did you just ask? That made no sense.)
I'm incapable of reading.

unskilled78 wrote:

If a woman COULD abort the baby whenever she wanted (like the man), would it be logical to allow the man to deny the use of his reproductive materials (like a female can)

The women can't. This is a moot point.

Also, these are embryos, not fetuses. There is a difference.

unskilled78 wrote:

Edit: I don't know what I meant, but it was good.

Oh please, no the hell it wasn't. You just wanted to characteristically BAAWWW about how reproductively oppressed men are in a thread about obvious sexism. STFD.

unskilled78 wrote:

If a woman COULD abort the baby whenever she
wanted (like the man), would it be logical to allow the man to deny the
use of his reproductive materials (like a female can)

unskilled78 wrote:

Edit: I don't know what I meant, but it was good.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Not that you should be confused with anyone as remotely attractive, but the sentiment is the same.

Cyberwulf wrote:

And that's how fucking backward this country is when it comes to equality and reproductive rights. BUT THERE'S TOTALLY NO INSTITUTIONAL SEXISM OR PATRIARCHY AMIRITE

AMEN MY SOUL SISTAH

Step away from the internet, Unbrained.

so why are women in the rest of the world able to have a decent sex life without being forced to be parents against their will, while men are just told to keep their pants on? That has to be as backward as Ireland, especially when you factor in the Bradley Ammendment (And any european equivalents thereof)

V3N0M wrote:

so why are women in the rest of the world able to have a decent sex life without being forced to be parents against their will, while men are just told to keep their pants on? That has to be as backward as Ireland, especially when you factor in the Bradley Ammendment (And any european equivalents thereof)

I'm calling troll, because someone has to.

Seule wrote:

V3N0M wrote:

so why are women in the rest of the world able to have a decent sex life without being forced to be parents against their will, while men are just told to keep their pants on? That has to be as backward as Ireland, especially when you factor in the Bradley Ammendment (And any european equivalents thereof)

I'm calling troll, because someone has to.

Troll you say? No no no, I am quite convinced this fool genuinely believes his ramblings, all I hope is there is a camera rolling when the mob finally catches up to him.

Bodyguard: Sir, there's an angry mob here to see you.
Mayor Quimby: Does it have an appointment?
Bodyguard: Yes.
Principal Skinner: I phoned ahead!

V3N0M wrote:

so why are women in the rest of the world able to have a decent sex life without being forced to be parents against their will, while men are just told to keep their pants on? That has to be as backward as Ireland, especially when you factor in the Bradley Ammendment (And any european equivalents thereof)

You've really got your balls in a twist over this Bradley Amendment thing huh.

Citing federal laws is better than citing statistics.

V3N0M wrote:

Citing federal laws is better than citing statistics.

Not all that bright, are you?

You make an assertion, which is all well and good. But without evidentiary support (read: statistics) you are simply talking through your hat.

V3N0M wrote:

so why are women in the rest of the world able to have a decent sex life without being forced to be parents against their will

AH HAHAHA

AH HA HA HAHAHA

AHAHA

AHA

AHA

AHAHAHAHA HA

V3N0M, sweetie. Just admit that you owe $8,000 in back child support. We'll understand. Really.

rae wrote:

V3N0M, sweetie. Just admit that you owe $8,000 in back child support. We'll understand. Really.

No, he'd have to have had sex for that to be the case, and all of us here know that'll never happen.

For some reason, I'm reminded of that quote- how does it go- "complaining not about the lash, but about the fact that it's not in their hand?" My first reaction on seeing the thread title was "payback's a bitch." [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

That said, Wulf is completely right, at least as far as the "this makes no sense" thing goes. They'd already made the goddamn embryos, and apparently had a signed agreement for the thing to go forward. I don't even get why a court would pay attention to this.