Abortion is Wrong?

[Central Slavia]

Chapter Four

Article 31: Divorce shall be allowed if both husband and wife are willing to divorce. Both parties shall apply to the marriage registration authority for divorce. The marriage registration authority issues a certificate of divorce after confirming that both parties are indeed willing to divorce and have made proper arrangements for their children and have properly disposed of their property.

Article 32: Where either the husband or wife applies to get divorced, the departments concerned may make mediations, or he or she may file a suit at the peoples court for divorce. The peoples court shall make mediations in the process of hearing a divorce suit; divorce shall be granted if mediation fails because mutual affection no longer exists. Divorce shall be granted if any of the following circumstances occurs and mediation fails: a) either party is a bigamist or a person who has a spouse but co-habits with another person; b) there is family violence or maltreatment or desertion of any family member; c) either party is indulged in gambling, drug-abuse or has other vicious habits and refuses to mend his or her ways despite of repeated admonition; d) both parties have lived separately due to lack of mutual affection for up to two years; e) other circumstances that have led to the nonexistence of mutual affection as husband and wife. If either party has been declared by court as to be missing and the other party applies to be divorced, divorce shall be granted.

Article 33: The application of the spouse of a soldier in active service for divorce shall be granted by the soldier unless the soldier is in grave fault.

Article 34: The husband may not apply for divorce when his wife is pregnant or within one year after giving birth to a child or within six months after terminating gestation. This restriction shall not apply to the case where the wife applies for divorce or the peoples court deems it necessary to accept the application of the husband for divorce.

Article 35: If, after divorce, both parties desire to resume their husband-and-wife relationship, they shall go through the registration procedures at the marriage registration authority.

Article 36: The relationship between parents and children does not terminate due to the divorce of parents. After the divorce of the parents, the children remain the children of both parties no matter they are supported directly by either the father or mother. Both father and mother shall, after divorce, have the right and the obligation of upbringing their children.

It is the principle that the children during lactation shall be brought up by their mother after the divorce of the parents. If any dispute arises concerning which party shall bring up the children beyond lactation, such dispute shall be settled by the peoples court according to the specific conditions of both parties and in light of protecting the rights and interests of the children.

Article 37: If, after the divorce of parents, the children are to be brought up by either party, the other party shall undertake a part or all of the necessary living and education expenses. The amount and term of payment shall be agreed upon by both parties; if no agreement is achieved, the amount and term shall be decided by the people's court. No agreement or judgment concerning the expenses for the living and education of the children may in no way prevent the children from making reasonable requests, where necessary, to either parent for an amount beyond the amount as determined in the said agreement or judgment.

Article 38: After divorce, the parent that does not directly bring up the children has the right to visit the children, and the other party has the obligation to give assistance. The way and time for exercising the right of visiting children shall be agreed upon by the parties concerned. In case no agreement is achieved, they shall be decided by the people's court.

If the visit of either the father or mother is harmful to the soundness of the body and mind of the children, the said right shall be terminated by the people's court. When the reasons for terminating the said right disappear, the right shall be resumed.

Article 39: At the time of divorce, both husband and wife shall agree upon the disposal of the jointly owned property; if they fail to come to any agreement, the people's court shall decide the disposal thereof, taking into consideration the actual circumstances of the property and following the principle of favoring the children and the wife. The rights and interests that both husband and wife enjoy in the contracted management of land shall be protected by law.

Article 40: In the case both husband and wife agree to separately own the property they respectively obtain during the existence of their marriage and either of them has spent considerably more effort on supporting children, taking care of the old or assisting the other party in work, etc, this party shall be entitled to demand the other party to make compensations at the time of divorce, and the requested party shall make compensations.

Article 41: At the time of divorce, the debts jointly incurred by both husband and wife for the common life shall be paid out of the jointly owned property. If the jointly owned property is not enough to pay the debts or if the property is individually owned, both parties shall agree upon the payment of the debts. If both parties fail to reach any agreement, the people's court shall decide on the payment of the debts.

Article 42: If, at the time of divorce, either party has difficulties in life, the other party shall render appropriate assistance from his or her personal property like house, etc. Specific arrangements shall be agreed upon by both parties. In case no agreement is agreed upon, the people's court shall make a decision.

And indeed just what i said - the court investigates it and checks that reasons exist.

Also a trivial look into wikipedia shows tha Belarusian GDP is 4/3 of Ukrainian one (per capita) while unemployment being a fourth.

It is so nice when you doubt known facts

[Muravyets]

<snip for space>

And indeed just what i said - the court investigates it and checks that reasons exist.

Also a trivial look into wikipedia shows tha Belarusian GDP is 4/3 of Ukrainian one (per capita) while unemployment being a fourth.

It is so nice when you doubt known facts

Still quoting from your Secret Diary? Do you have any notion what a LINK is? Because we have no idea if you got this off a human rights site, a PRC public relations site, a left wing site, a right wing site, a legal site, or out of your own ass. So far, over three separate posts by two respondents, you have failed to figure out that you should link to the source you got those quote from. For that reason, I call YOUR ARGUMENT bullshit, because it's not connected even to the facts you claim. And I dismiss it.

And for your repeated failures, I dismiss you, too.

Oh, by the way, once you account for the source of your quotes, that will give me more ammunition to attack you with, but it won't make any difference at all to the points Dem made, which have already utterly destroyed your claim.

EDIT: You're boring me. I've been called long-winded, but at least when I ramble on, I'm talking about something, not just blowing smoke into the forum. I'm going to take a break and watch the Men's Super G, because it's so much more interesting, and the skiers make real arguments very decisively in a lot less time than you do with your nonsense. The bottom line is this: You're wasting our time with insubstantial and meaningless remarks that are not meant to do anything but provoke others. 'Bye. I leave you to Dem's amusement.

[Central Slavia]

Yes, let's exalt a country which drives armored tanks over unarmed freshmen as the beacon of humanity...

We can also start pointing out all the good Pol Pot had done, and pretend that Stalin's Siberian Gulag's were really merely Boy Scout camp-outs...

Sometimes I wonder how people honestly come up with their ideologies...

When Stalin or Pol Pot do it, it's an ideology. When Random Internet Guys post nonsense praising the names and labels of the ideology while simultaneously backpedaling from their statements as soon as they post them, that's not ideology. That's just acting out to get attention.

Because when Random Internet Chick demands proof for most obvious statements and acts doubtful of sources when provided (and at conflict with her Right Perspective TM) while posting herself things such as people not being able to survive without sex to try and justify her increasingly poor supported opinion, and spewing bile of motive accusations on those she argues with it is not acting out to get attention at all

[ExpillaPatronun]

It's pretty depressing that 2/3rd of this forum has apparently no ethical qualms with abortion.

[Central Slavia]

http://www.international-divorce.com/d-china.htm

for GDP and unemployment wikipedia was enough although being common knowledge.

For the part about chinese government outlawing everyhing from dowries to foot binding just as it consolidated power look at a history textbook (if you ever met one)

third which mentions the recent changes in law
http://www.rnw.nl/english/radioshow/mus ... -and-harps

[Muravyets]

Yes, let's exalt a country which drives armored tanks over unarmed freshmen as the beacon of humanity...

We can also start pointing out all the good Pol Pot had done, and pretend that Stalin's Siberian Gulag's were really merely Boy Scout camp-outs...

Sometimes I wonder how people honestly come up with their ideologies...

When Stalin or Pol Pot do it, it's an ideology. When Random Internet Guys post nonsense praising the names and labels of the ideology while simultaneously backpedaling from their statements as soon as they post them, that's not ideology. That's just acting out to get attention.

Because when Random Internet Chick demands proof for most obvious statements and acts doubtful of sources when provided (and at conflict with her Right Perspective TM) while posting herself things such as people not being able to survive without sex to try and justify her increasingly poor supported opinion, and spewing bile of motive accusations on those she argues with it is not acting out to get attention at all

Blah, blah, yada, blah. Misrepresent what the other person said. Flat-out make up shit for her to have said when misrepresentation falls short. Deflect and misdirect from the actual points of the debate. Extoll your own rubberiness while denouncing the other person as having glue-like traits. And don't forget to insult, inflame and make up stories about the other person's personality. Blah, blah, blah. You're fooling no one.

[Central Slavia]

The bottom line is this: You're wasting our time with insubstantial and meaningless remarks that are not meant to do anything but provoke others. 'Bye. I leave you to Dem's amusement.

Seeing at how the once interesting discussion devolved when you turned in, i somehow doubt this. It is at least the case of the cauldron calling the cooking--pot fat.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's pretty depressing that 2/3rd of this forum has apparently no ethical qualms with abortion.

it's pretty depressing that - by extension - 1/3 has apparently no ethical qualms with slavery, so long as the slave in question is held in bondage by the contents of her uterus.

[Grave_n_idle]

The bottom line is this: You're wasting our time with insubstantial and meaningless remarks that are not meant to do anything but provoke others. 'Bye. I leave you to Dem's amusement.

Seeing at how the once interesting discussion devolved when you turned in, i somehow doubt this. It is at least the case of the cauldron calling the cooking--pot fat.

I saw it more as you got ignored because you refused to provide sources.

Perspective. An interesting beast.

[Central Slavia]

The bottom line is this: You're wasting our time with insubstantial and meaningless remarks that are not meant to do anything but provoke others. 'Bye. I leave you to Dem's amusement.

Seeing at how the once interesting discussion devolved when you turned in, i somehow doubt this. It is at least the case of the cauldron calling the cooking--pot fat.

I saw it more as you got ignored because you refused to provide sources.

Perspective. An interesting beast.

I admit that was rather dumb, especially in vicinity of people who will doubt that day alternates with night if they feel it supports their stance

[Muravyets]

It's pretty depressing that 2/3rd of this forum has apparently no ethical qualms with abortion.

Consider that a similar or greater proportion of the general public also support a woman's right to choose (up to 75% of Americans, for instance), and brace yourself for a real downer.

[Tkdkidsx2]

I don't want to dirty my hands in this bull crap. My opinion will come and then I will go.

I believe it is the woman's choice, until the third trimester, and there is brain activity. If the family is poor, as in dirt-poor, and can't feed the child, then it should be recommended they abort. I would rather have a semi-living being "die" than allow them to be tortured before they are killed on the streets.

Some say that the babies are living. Until they have brainwaves, they do not think.

I think that is it. Good luck NSG.

[Central Slavia]

Deflect and misdirect from the actual points of the debate. Extoll your own rubberiness while denouncing the other person as having glue-like traits. And don't forget to insult, inflame and make up stories about the other person's personality. Blah, blah, blah. You're fooling no one.

Of course.
You make posters acknowledge their intellectual ineptitude , i engage in rubber and glue argument.
You are thrifty , i am a miser.
You have a firm stance i am stubborm
.....
and so on. It is funny how many things can be spun in different directions depending on whether one likes he target ...

[Muravyets]

http://www.international-divorce.com/d-china.htm

for GDP and unemployment wikipedia was enough although being common knowledge.

For the part about chinese government outlawing everyhing from dowries to foot binding just as it consolidated power look at a history textbook (if you ever met one)

third which mentions the recent changes in law
http://www.rnw.nl/english/radioshow/mus ... -and-harps

Right. All of which actually supports Dem's arguments, not yours, as Dem pointed out. It is your lack of reading comprehension (or just lack of reading) that is at fault here. You think that examples of the PRC NOT controlling people's private lives is a support of your argument that it is good for the state to control people's private lives. You denounce me for not knowing common knowledge, when you don't know it even when you have supposedly just read it -- not to mention lacking the logic to figure out how these facts do not support your claims.

Just like you think that I dismissed your facts, instead of the argument you tried to base on those facts, even though I SPECIFICALLY TOLD YOU THAT WAS WHAT I WAS DOING. I even told it to you in solid caps in that earlier post, so you would see it.

You don't read, and when you do read, you misapply every statement. This is because you are not really listening to what the other person says. You are only shouting your own little fantasies and insulting me for calling you on it. It is a waste of time to talk to you. A person's efforts are far better put to talking to serious people about all the ways you are wrong. If we wish to spend time on your posts at all.

[Grave_n_idle]

The bottom line is this: You're wasting our time with insubstantial and meaningless remarks that are not meant to do anything but provoke others. 'Bye. I leave you to Dem's amusement.

Seeing at how the once interesting discussion devolved when you turned in, i somehow doubt this. It is at least the case of the cauldron calling the cooking--pot fat.

I saw it more as you got ignored because you refused to provide sources.

Perspective. An interesting beast.

I admit that was rather dumb, especially in vicinity of people who will doubt that day alternates with night if they feel it supports their stance

You think people want you to source your claims purely as a ploy?

That's not the way debate works, my friend. You can say whatever you like, but don't expect it to be considered valid until you've supported it with evidence.

[Tkdkidsx2]

Put softly. Chill. The. Fuck. Out. Everybody.

[Grave_n_idle]

Put softly. Chill. The. Fuck. Out. Everybody.

Dude, if I get any more relaxed I'm going to slip into a coma.

[Muravyets]

Deflect and misdirect from the actual points of the debate. Extoll your own rubberiness while denouncing the other person as having glue-like traits. And don't forget to insult, inflame and make up stories about the other person's personality. Blah, blah, blah. You're fooling no one.

Of course.
You make posters acknowledge their intellectual ineptitude , i engage in rubber and glue argument.
You are thrifty , i am a miser.
You have a firm stance i am stubborm
.....
and so on. It is funny how many things can be spun in different directions depending on whether one likes he target ...

I'm sure you can quote me making superior claims about myself.

Oh, no, wait -- that's yet another thing you just made up.

[ExpillaPatronun]

It's pretty depressing that 2/3rd of this forum has apparently no ethical qualms with abortion.

Consider that a similar or greater proportion of the general public also support a woman's right to choose (up to 75% of Americans, for instance), and brace yourself for a real downer.

It's one thing to acknowledge that abortions will always and to want them to happen safely, especially in cases where the mother's health is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest, and another thing entirely to have no ethical qualms with abortion, flat out.

[Central Slavia]

Right. All of which actually supports Dem's arguments, not yours, as Dem pointed out. It is your lack of reading comprehension (or just lack of reading) that is at fault here. You think that examples of the PRC NOT controlling people's private lives is a support of your argument that it is good for the state to control people's private lives

Because, it is exerting a moderate , warranted level of control, as i have stated,not leaving everything to oh-so-wise individuals. It is similar to the fact that re-hanging a painting lower is not the same as throwing it on to the floor.

. You denounce me for not knowing common knowledge, when you don't know it even when you have supposedly just read it -- not to mention lacking the logic to figure out how these facts do not support your claims.

So the fact that people in belarus live better than in ukraine does not support my claim?

Just like you think that I dismissed your facts, instead of the argument you tried to base on those facts, even though I SPECIFICALLY TOLD YOU THAT WAS WHAT I WAS DOING. I even told it to you in solid caps in that earlier post, so you would see it.

So accusing me posting sections of law from my secret diary is not dismissing facts?

You don't read, and when you do read, you misapply every statement. This is because you are not really listening to what the other person says. You are only shouting your own little fantasies and insulting me for calling you on it. It is a waste of time to talk to you. A person's efforts are far better put to talking to serious people about all the ways you are wrong. If we wish to spend time on your posts at all.

reads as: We glues can spend time better denouncing your rubberiness

[Grave_n_idle]

It's pretty depressing that 2/3rd of this forum has apparently no ethical qualms with abortion.

Consider that a similar or greater proportion of the general public also support a woman's right to choose (up to 75% of Americans, for instance), and brace yourself for a real downer.

It's one thing to acknowledge that abortions will always and to want them to happen safely, especially in cases where the mother's health is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest, and another thing entirely to have no ethical qualms with abortion, flat out.

The question is a little too binary to deduce that from the responses, don't you think?

The choices are 'yes' or 'no' - which doesn't necessarily mean a 'yes' is 'no ethical qualms...flat out'.

[Grave_n_idle]

So accusing me posting sections of law from my secret diary is not dismissing facts?

Suggesting that you're pulling stuff out of your hat, when you consistently refuse to provide sources... no, that's not 'dismissing facts'.

It's dismissing OPINION, until you source it. Then it MIGHT be dismissing facts, if the source agreed with you.

[ExpillaPatronun]

It's pretty depressing that 2/3rd of this forum has apparently no ethical qualms with abortion.

Consider that a similar or greater proportion of the general public also support a woman's right to choose (up to 75% of Americans, for instance), and brace yourself for a real downer.

It's one thing to acknowledge that abortions will always and to want them to happen safely, especially in cases where the mother's health is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest, and another thing entirely to have no ethical qualms with abortion, flat out.

The question is a little too binary to deduce that from the responses, don't you think?

The choices are 'yes' or 'no' - which doesn't necessarily mean a 'yes' is 'no ethical qualms...flat out'.

You think there are shades of gray here?!? Pfffffft.

Either you hate innocent babies and think it's okay to kill them, or you are part of the patriarchal subjection and objectification of women and refuse to admit that a woman has a right to her own body.

Clearly the question was asking if you hate babies and want them all to die.

[Tkdkidsx2]

Put softly. Chill. The. Fuck. Out. Everybody.

Dude, if I get any more relaxed I'm going to slip into a coma.

Lol and I am really talking to Muravyets, or w/e. Oh, and that Slavia dude.

[ExpillaPatronun]

Put softly. Chill. The. Fuck. Out. Everybody.

Dude, if I get any more relaxed I'm going to slip into a coma.

Lol and I am really talking to Muravyets, or w/e. Oh, and that Slavia dude.

That's the ultimate plan. Get the idealists so worked up they pass out from the stress.