[quote=foundit66;120169]

Again, you CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
You only "address" the issue by trying over and over again to CHANGE the issue into something else.
We were not talking about "functioning" as a "father or father-to-be".
We were talking about "ability to function" and how you were trying to rewrite simple English to pretend that a man who was not hungry did not have the "ability to function" to eat something.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Apparently you have difficult connecting the dots between the ability to function as a heterosexual by having sex with a woman, and the ability to become a father!

Did your parents never have that little chat with you about the birds and bees???

Your attempts to keep on trying to dodge are rather amusing and utterly unsuccessful. But we know you love to play semantical games all day long





And even your new argument is ridiculously flawed and pointless. Pastors do not function as "fathers or fathers-to-be" (within the context of this discussion), yet they aren't criticized.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We already dealt with this flawed analogy earlier

But, like I said, you keep taking up some of the most RIDICULOUS positions which routinely get shot down.
You want to punish a woman who "nags" her husband just like a man who beats his wife, because they are using different "weapons of choice", and you run from that subject too when it's proven ridiculous.

/quote]

Now who's changing the subject?

If you want to get back into a discussion on how women can avoid marrying abusive men who they don't really know very well, then start a new thread where you can unload your victimisation doggerel.

I'll get the violin music cued up.