Rich wrote:
The argument wasn't whether a man was impacted as much as a woman during pregnancy. You said he wasn't impacted at all. You're demonstrably and unequivocally wrong so now you're changing the basis of your argument.
How about just admitting that your initial statement that the man is not impacted by pregnancy etc was flat out wrong?
As for sympathy pains being psychosomatic, so what? There are three major causes that can shorten your life. Genetics, diet and STRESS. Seems to me something happening in your mind can be pretty impactful... and who cares what the source is? The man still experiences the pains.
Weak argument on your part all around.
pawfectgent wrote:
Abortion seems to be an issue that nuts people up whenever it's discussed.
For me, I could care less. I am not pregnant, never have been, and am not in any way in the foreseeable future going to become pregnant. My part in the 'baby creation' would consist of an evening's not-stressful completely rewarding "work".
I wouldn't have to change my life for the next nine months.
I wouldn't get morning sickness.
I wouldn't get cramps and diarrhea.
I wouldn't add on 20-30 pounds and endure aching muscles and stiff joints.
I wouldn't endure labor for potentially hours of excruciating pain.
I'm not saying abortion should be legal (my personal opinion is that it shouldn't be available as the 'oops, let's just take care of this mistake' but should be available to victims of incest, rape, etc.);
what I AM saying is if I was a woman and guys wanted to vote on what I wanted to do with my body, then to hell with them. I know as a man if a bill surfaced about making say, vasectomies mandatory in some instances, then I would be outraged if a woman got to vote on it. She wouldn't be 'equipped' to tell me what I had to do with Mr. Happy or his friends Mo(e) and Jo(e).
Just as I don't have the Honeybun Oven to tell a woman what she can do with hers.
Hmmmmm. I have reread this three times now and I don't see ANYWHERE where I said a man wasn't affected at all. You quote me as saying it. You wouldn't do something like attribute words to me that weren't there, now would you? Just to try and back up your argument?
Rich wrote:
You're demonstrably and unequivocally wrong so now you're changing the basis of your argument.
Since you attributed something to me that I didn't say, then I guess you are in the same boat as me: YOU are demonstrably and unequivocably wrong. The ONLY difference is you're trying to change the basics of what I said.
Rich wrote:
How about just admitting that your initial statement that the man is not impacted by pregnancy etc was flat out wrong?
Since I didn't say it, I don't have to. I like your posts usually, and find them to be well-thought out and insightful. USUALLY. However, this time you are apparently spoiling for a fight (it is the most boring time of offseason), so I'll give you one.
Rich wrote:
As for sympathy pains being psychosomatic, so what? There are three major causes that can shorten your life. Genetics, diet and STRESS. Seems to me something happening in your mind can be pretty impactful... and who cares what the source is? The man still experiences the pains.
Weak argument on your part all around.
As I said, I don't suffer illusory agonies just because others do. Perhaps I lack some vital human compassion component. HOW did you make a stretch from pregnancy to death??? I mean, they're kind of polar opposites, in a literal and figurative way. It has me baffled how you jumped there. Back to the point of the conversation, 'something happening in your mind can be pretty impactful', well, I suppose it can if you are one of those that suffer it. Since I don't, and I understand that it is simply the minds' response, an emotional defense mechanism, to someone in pain that they themselves cannot alleviate, I don't feel a whole heap of sympathy for it.
It's not a weak argument at all, it's simply my opinion and I'm as entitled to it as you are to yours.