Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on August 29, 2009, 11:15:56 AM
-
"He filed a lawsuit in 2003 challenging the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. In 2007, the high court upheld the federal ban on the procedure, which generally was used to end pregnancies in the second and third trimester." Sounds like a wonderful man. ::)
Abortion Fight Shifts to Neb. After Tiller Death
Friday, August 28, 2009 5:55 PM
BELLEVUE, Neb. -- An anti-abortion group from Kansas is moving its fight north to Nebraska, preparing for a weekend demonstration and holding a workshop to plot its strategy for putting Dr. LeRoy Carhart out of business.
About 50 people, most holding signs in support of abortion rights, gathered Friday on the sidewalk outside Carhart's clinic in this Omaha suburb. A few local anti-abortion demonstrators also were on hand awaiting the arrival of Operation Rescue members who were traveling here from Wichita, Kan.
Many more demonstrators on both sides of the issue were expected at the clinic Saturday.
Carhart has become the central figure in the nation's abortion debate since Dr. George Tiller was gunned down May 31 in Wichita. Carhart, who was close friends with Tiller and performed abortions at his clinic, has said he hopes to open a Kansas facility to offer late-term abortions and other services Tiller provided.
Police who were prepared for a potentially raucous clash between protesters on Friday instead found a mostly quiet group gathered outside Carhart's clinic. Some carried signs, one of which included an image of a bloody fetus. Another sign read, "Dr. Carhart is our hero."
Carhart said he expected that Operation Rescue's demonstration on Saturday would be no different from previous ones held at his and Tiller's clinics over the years.
President Troy Newman said Operation Rescue's demonstration is secondary to the workshop he'll conduct. The workshop is designed to teach anti-abortion activists how to conduct investigations, file complaints and use the legal system to close the clinic.
Carhart called the group's methods "pure harassment."
He said he was scheduled to see about 15 patients Friday. Abortion rights proponents greeted patients with welcome signs and escorted them from the parking lot to the building entrance.
Carhart said he was touched by the show of support.
"This is a movement by the women of America, really," he said. "I can't say enough to thank them."
Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, said the group would offer any help it can to keep the clinic open.
"Dr. Carhart's safety and the safety of his staff, clinic and patients must be our paramount concern," she said at a news conference in the clinic's waiting room.
Operation Rescue complained to Nebraska officials last week about possible unsafe conditions at Carhart's clinic. The attorney general's office said the concerns were forwarded to the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, which licenses medical facilities.
HHS spokeswoman Marla Augustine said state law requires complaints against doctors and medical clinics to be kept confidential, so the only time an investigation would be confirmed is when action is taken.
Asked about the allegations of unsafe practices, Carhart, who has operated his Bellevue clinic since 1985, said: "OK. And I've been here how long?"
Carhart's clinic is located in Bellevue's business district, near a tree-lined street containing houses. Residents said they were wary of the demonstration.
Silvia Otterpohl, who has lived six houses down from the clinic for four years, was sweeping her front porch as she kept an eye on the protesters.
"I think it's going to be really bad tomorrow. I'm scared," she said.
Asked what she's worried about, she said, "a shooting or something."
Police cars carrying two officers cruised by frequently. A police captain said eight officers would be patrolling the neighborhood on Friday. On Saturday, eight officers would be on foot, backed up by others in cruisers, to handle the larger demonstrations expected.
Carhart twice has appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge bans on a procedure its opponents call partial-birth abortion. In 2000, the high court ruled for Carhart in striking down a Nebraska law because it lacked an exception to preserve a woman's health and encompassed a more common abortion method.
He filed a lawsuit in 2003 challenging the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. In 2007, the high court upheld the federal ban on the procedure, which generally was used to end pregnancies in the second and third trimester.
http://www.newsmax.com/us/us_abortion_protest/2009/08/28/253817.html
-
Whether a Doctor is pro-life or pro-choice... Why would they go into the business of abortions?
I don't understand, I mean why get involved. Is there an interest in destroying fetuses or...?
They could become a Pediatrician or specialize in infectious disease etc... but why take on abortions full time?
???
???
-
I don't understand, I mean why get involved. Is there an interest in destroying fetuses or...?
Maybe there's an interest in giving a woman the right to do with her body as she chooses?
-
Maybe there's an interest in giving a woman the right to do with her body as she chooses?
Or an interest in making money.
-
According to CNN abortion supporters outnumber opponents 2 to 1
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/29/nebraska.abortion.protests/index.html
-
lol . . . Nearly 2 to 1. That's approximately 100 to 50.
-
lol . . . Nearly 2 to 1. That's approximately 100 to 50.
yeah, pretty pathetic that your side could only manage to get 50 people and they probably came from all over the country too.
-
Maybe there's an interest in giving a woman the right to do with her body as she chooses?
how about giving the man the right to choose what to do with his money for the following 18 yrs after the women made her own decision independent of the mans wants?
-
According to CNN abortion supporters outnumber opponents 2 to 1
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/29/nebraska.abortion.protests/index.html
and fox viewers out number msnbc viewers by multiple times but that doesnt mean anything right?
-
and fox viewers out number msnbc viewers by multiple times but that doesnt mean anything right?
in the context of this thread it's completely irrelevant
-
how about giving the man the right to choose what to do with his money for the following 18 yrs after the women made her own decision independent of the mans wants?
you always get hung up on that don't you
are you talking about the example of the women getting an abortion against the will of the man or having the kid?
-
you always get hung up on that don't you
are you talking about the example of the women getting an abortion against the will of the man or having the kid?
It's something everyone should get caught up on
Either way if one has a choice logically since both are resposible both should get a choice
-
It's something everyone should get caught up on
Either way if one has a choice logically since both are resposible both should get a choice
so you feel you should have control over someone else's body?
-
so you feel you should have control over someone else's body?
LOL i really hope that was a serious question as opposed to you trying to live up to your screen name...
try to stay with the facts and the premise, we give women the right to choose independent of the mans desire, yet we offer no option for the man independent of the womens desire.
both are equally responsible for the conception of the child what logical basis do you have for giving the women a choice but DENYING the man a choice?
-
both are equally responsible for the conception of the child what logical basis do you have for giving the women a choice but DENYING the man a choice?
Because it's the woman's body. She may choose to do as she pleases. Just as your free to do with your body as you choose.
-
LOL i really hope that was a serious question as opposed to you trying to live up to your screen name...
try to stay with the facts and the premise, we give women the right to choose independent of the mans desire, yet we offer no option for the man independent of the womens desire.
both are equally responsible for the conception of the child what logical basis do you have for giving the women a choice but DENYING the man a choice?
so your answer is yes?
-
LOL i really hope that was a serious question as opposed to you trying to live up to your screen name...
try to stay with the facts and the premise, we give women the right to choose independent of the mans desire, yet we offer no option for the man independent of the womens desire.
both are equally responsible for the conception of the child what logical basis do you have for giving the women a choice but DENYING the man a choice?
For someone who claims to be such an individualist, you sure are okay with working taxpayers paying for all your stuff... healthcare, your kids...what else?
Once a kid is born, it's up to the parents to take financial responsibility for it, and it's the court's job to make sure that happens. Unless both agree to an adoption, the father has just as much rights to the kid as the mother does, and can sue for custody, in which case the mother pays her share of child support. If the mother doesn't want it from the beginning, the father gets full custody of the kid, and again, the mother is forced to pay child support even if she was okay with an adoption. What this issue has to do with abortion is anyone's guess, but it's apples and oranges for sure.
-
Because it's the woman's body. She may choose to do as she pleases. Just as your free to do with your body as you choose.
thats only part of it thats fine have the man help pay for the medical bills then but as soon as the child is born it should be her responsibility if the man didnt want a child...you see?
-
For someone who claims to be such an individualist, you sure are okay with working taxpayers paying for all your stuff... healthcare, your kids...what else?
Once a kid is born, it's up to the parents to take financial responsibility for it, and it's the court's job to make sure that happens. Unless both agree to an adoption, the father has just as much rights to the kid as the mother does, and can sue for custody, in which case the mother pays her share of child support. If the mother doesn't want it from the beginning, the father gets full custody of the kid, and again, the mother is forced to pay child support even if she was okay with an adoption. What this issue has to do with abortion is anyone's guess, but it's apples and oranges for sure.
LOL perhaps you should go take a entry level logic class in college b/c this debate is argued all over the country in college class rooms in regards to abortion...
Its not necissarily a question of abortion but of equal rights as it applies to abortion
The women has the option of walking away from the child with abortion independent of the mans desire, the man has no such option.
does that sound fair?
-
For someone who claims to be such an individualist, you sure are okay with working taxpayers paying for all your stuff... healthcare, your kids...what else?
I have no idea what your personal beef is with me dee, but again you know nothing about me darling so pls try and refrain from making snap judgements.
-
thats only part of it thats fine have the man help pay for the medical bills then but as soon as the child is born it should be her responsibility if the man didnt want a child...you see?
No, I don't see. As a man, you know that's a risk you take.
You seem to be arguing that just because a man gives a part of himself to the woman, he gets a say over her body. If that's the case, then a kidney donor or bone marrow donor would have say over the recipients and could tell them what they may or may not do with their body.
-
LOL perhaps you should go take a entry level logic class in college b/c this debate is argued all over the country in college class rooms in regards to abortion...
Its not necissarily a question of abortion but of equal rights as it applies to abortion
The women has the option of walking away from the child with abortion independent of the mans desire, the man has no such option.
does that sound fair?
I already graduated university, thanks.
Yes, it's perfectly fair. One a child is born, it's a human being with parents. Those parents are responsible for it and that's the way the law works. The way it is applied is fair.
What you're doing is akin to a little kid who cries because his older brother is allowed to stay up an hour later to watch tv. That's your logic.
Abortion is separate issue, with the woman bearing the entire burden, with potential risks to her health. Were the situation reversed, and you, as a man, were required to bear those health risks, you wouldn't even remotely be arguing this silly premise. And btw, many abortions are performed precisely BECAUSE the man doesn't want the responsibility, so what's the problem?
And I have no personal beef with you. No reason for me to cheerlead posts I agree with, is there? What I get from your posts is that you're against abortion, but you don't think men should bear any responsibility for children once they're born. Welcome to the 1950s.
-
No, I don't see. As a man, you know that's a risk you take.
You seem to be arguing that just because a man gives a part of himself to the woman, he gets a say over her body. If that's the case, then a kidney donor or bone marrow donor would have say over the recipients and could tell them what they may or may not do with their body.
NOT AT ALLLLLLLLLLL
Im not argueing against abortion although I am personally against it the point im making has nothing to do with a womens right to choose but everything with a mans right to choose.
Like I said this isnt about abortion other then it being the how the issue is being expressed this is about equal rights...
-
I already graduated university, thanks.
Yes, it's perfectly fair. One a child is born, it's a human being with parents. Those parents are responsible for it and that's the way the law works. The way it is applied is fair.
What you're doing is akin to a little kid who cries because his older brother is allowed to stay up an hour later to watch tv. That's your logic.
Abortion is separate issue, with the woman bearing the entire burden, with potential risks to her health. Were the situation reversed, and you, as a man, were required to bear those health risks, you wouldn't even remotely be arguing this silly premise. And btw, many abortions are performed precisely BECAUSE the man doesn't want the responsibility, so what's the problem?
And I have no personal beef with you. No reason for me to cheerlead posts I agree with, is there? What I get from your posts is that you're against abortion, but you don't think men should bear any responsibility for children once they're born. Welcome to the 1950s.
LOL
-
Like I said this isnt about abortion other then it being the how the issue is being expressed this is about equal rights...
That's right. It isn't about abortion. It's a separate thread wherein you make the argument that no one should bear responsibility for a kid once it's born unless they care to. Which essentially makes all children wards of the state.
-
I already graduated university, thanks.
Yes, it's perfectly fair. One a child is born, it's a human being with parents. Those parents are responsible for it and that's the way the law works. The way it is applied is fair.
Abortion is separate issue, with the woman bearing the entire burden, with potential risks to her health. Were the situation reversed, and you, as a man, were required to bear those health risks, you wouldn't even remotely be arguing this silly premise. And btw, many abortions are performed precisely BECAUSE the man doesn't want the responsibility, so what's the problem?
And I have no personal beef with you. No reason for me to cheerlead posts I agree with, is there? What I get from your posts is that you're against abortion, but you don't think men should bear any responsibility for children once they're born. Welcome to the 1950s.
apparently you never took a logic class?
You guy are serious about distorting my point and attacking it you know thats called a straw man one of those things they teach in logic class...
Im not advocating that men shouldnt take care of their children I believe they should. Do you advocate abortion simply b/c you are pro choice? of course not now knock off your ignorance and actually try to understand what im saying.
I agree dee that the women takes on all the risk of the pregnancy etc...and which is why i think its fair for the man to have to pay for some of that cost. That doesnt mean its fair to force him to pay child support of 18 yrs for a child he didnt want when the women can decide that she will have an abortion even if the man wants to keep the child...
Do some research on this topic all of you and you will see that this isnt me just being crazy and stupid but an actually legit topic.
Mark my words sooner or later in this progressive equal rights movement this issue will become more and more prevalent.
-
NOT AT ALLLLLLLLLLL
Im not argueing against abortion although I am personally against it the point im making has nothing to do with a womens right to choose but everything with a mans right to choose.
Like I said this isnt about abortion other then it being the how the issue is being expressed this is about equal rights...
A man does have the right to choose. He can choose abstinence. But, once he makes the decision to get laid, he knows there are risks and responsibilities for his actions. And the man's right's end where the woman's begin - at her body.
-
apparently you never took a logic class?
I always get a laugh out of your logic professor act.
how about you dazzle us with your logic instead of talking about it
-
apparently you never took a logic class?
You guy are serious about distorting my point and attacking it you know thats called a straw man one of those things they teach in logic class...
Im not advocating that men shouldnt take care of their children I believe they should. Do you advocate abortion simply b/c you are pro choice? of course not now knock off your ignorance and actually try to understand what im saying.
I agree dee that the women takes on all the risk of the pregnancy etc...and which is why i think its fair for the man to have to pay for some of that cost. That doesnt mean its fair to force him to pay child support of 18 yrs for a child he didnt want when the women can decide that she will have an abortion even if the man wants to keep the child...
Do some research on this topic all of you and you will see that this isnt me just being crazy and stupid but an actually legit topic.
Mark my words sooner or later in this progressive equal rights movement this issue will become more and more prevalent.
The law doesn't really care about the mistakes people make and whether or not there was condom available that one fateful night. It cares about the welfare of children, and keeping mistakes out of the taxpayer's domain. In this way, it works great.
Maybe you should take a simple course in history. The way it used to work was that there was no abortion was available, and women had sole discretion as to how to work out their problems. There was often a lot of misery involved.
Gradually as men wanted control over what happened to their children, they fought for equal rights. That means dads get equal dibs over their children, and rights to them as well as financial aid from the mother. It works out when the father wants his kid and can fight the mother or potential adoption. It also comes with a financial burden, for BOTH parents. If you want to repeal those rights that men fought for, go ahead. But you can't have it both ways. You can't demand to stay or walk away at will.
-
I always get a laugh out of your logic professor act.
how about you dazzle us with your logic instead of talking about it
I already have with no rebuttle
what logical basis do you have to give the women the right to choose and not the man?
-
I already have with no rebuttle
what logical basis do you have to give the women the right to choose and not the man?
you and I have had this discusion before
it's her body
Ok Spock - It's your turn
-
The law doesn't really care about the mistakes people make and whether or not there was condom available that one fateful night. It cares about the welfare of children, and keeping mistakes out of the taxpayer's domain. In this way, it works great.
Maybe you should take a simple course in history. The way it used to work was that there was no abortion was available, and women had sole discretion as to how to work out their problems. There was often a lot of misery involved.
Gradually as men wanted control over what happened to their children, they fought for equal rights. That means dads get equal dibs over their children, and rights to them as well as financial aid from the mother. It works out when the father wants his kid and can fight the mother or potential adoption. It also comes with a financial burden, for BOTH parents. If you want to repeal those rights that men fought for, go ahead. But you can't have it both ways. You can't demand to stay or walk away at will.
In case you havent noticed im argueing from a fairness or equality stand point in which yes the constitution you know "the law of the land" garuntees...
the law isnt always logical or fair as in this case im sure you were against the laws decades ago that forbid women to vote etc...
Im not demanding anything do you seriously read my posts?
all im saying is that the man should have the right to choose same as the women, in the mans case it would be in the form of less child support or no child support. Perhaps we should force the women to pay the man for 18 yrs in the case that she wants an abortion and he doesnt, does that seem fair? OF COURSE NOT so how can you justify the other way around?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/opinion/01conley.html?ei=5090&en=e0b6748a2c82b86d&ex=1291093200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dalton-conley/why-my-mans-right-to-choo_b_11883.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1173414,00.html?iid=chix-sphere
again do some research instead of warping my posts
-
you and I have had this discusion before
it's her body
Ok Spock - It's your turn
and im fine with that as this conversation goes, why does that justify him not being able to have what they call a financial abortion?
thats a justification as to why she gets to choose to have or not have an abortion you still havent justified why you are denying the mans right to a male abortion...
-
and im fine with that as this conversation goes, why does that justify him not being able to have what they call a financial abortion?
thats a justification as to why she gets to choose to have or not have an abortion you still havent justified why you are denying the mans right to a male abortion...
Because you have to own up to your responsibilities, and a man knows that may be a CONSEQUENCE OF HIS ACTIONS.
-
Tony unless you can pull some dazzling "logic" out of your ass right now and stop talking in circles or attempting to split hairs, this would be otherwise a good time to quit the argument while you are still behind.
-
In case you havent noticed im argueing from a fairness or equality stand point in which yes the constitution you know "the law of the land" garuntees...
the law isnt always logical or fair as in this case im sure you were against the laws decades ago that forbid women to vote etc...
Im not demanding anything do you seriously read my posts?
all im saying is that the man should have the right to choose same as the women, in the mans case it would be in the form of less child support or no child support. Perhaps we should force the women to pay the man for 18 yrs in the case that she wants an abortion and he doesnt, does that seem fair? OF COURSE NOT so how can you justify the other way around?
Pay him for 18 years for something that doesn't exist? And you're telling me to take a logics course? :-X
Look, back in the day, men had no responsibilities. When women got themselves preggers outside of marriage it was their prob and men had no financial burden or rights. It was YOU guys who fought for equal rights to the kid and now you have them. All rights, including financial burden rights.
While a woman is pregnant, she bears all the health risks and what some would argue "undue burden" and so it is within her rights currently to either bear the risks or not. Same as you can decide whether to get that brain tumor removed, or die. Whether to get knee surgery or suffer. Once a child is born, those bets are off and those responsible morally have to pay so it can survive.
Women's eggs just kind of sit there in her body, not bothering anybody. It's the "essence" of man :D that goes splattering everywhere, causing problems in the lives of others. Women have a choice to have an abortion. You have the right to keep your "essence" from splattering where it shouldn't go. Each gender has a choice.
-
Because you have to own up to your responsibilities, and a man knows that may be a CONSEQUENCE OF HIS ACTIONS.
and a women doesnt? why is it simply the mans responsibility and not the womens? we live in a country where laws apply to everyone EQUALLY does that seem equal to you.
I totally agree with you skip I would give anything for a child of mine but set aside your personal views and biases and take a step back and look at it objectively.
why does the women not share the same responsibility you put onto the man?
-
Pay him for 18 years for something that doesn't exist? And you're telling me to take a logics course? :-X
Look, back in the day, men had no responsibilities. When women got themselves preggers outside of marriage it was their prob and men had no financial burden or rights. It was YOU guys who fought for equal rights to the kid and now you have them. All rights, including financial burden rights.
While a woman is pregnant, she bears all the health risks and what some would argue "undue burden" and so it is within her rights currently to either bear the risks or not. Same as you can decide whether to get that brain tumor removed, or die. Whether to get knee surgery or suffer. Once a child is born, those bets are off and those responsible morally have to pay so it can survive.
Women's eggs just kind of sit there in her body, not bothering anybody. It's the "essence" of man :D that goes splattering everywhere, causing problems in the lives of others. Women have a choice to have an abortion. You have the right to keep your "essence" from splattering where it shouldn't go. Each gender has a choice.
obviously your idiotic ass didnt read it b/c i said that wouldnt be fair brain child again try reading my posts
No we didnt get equal rights dee we got some rights for giving up other rights thats not equal sweety.
I agree with you guys in this conversation about the womens right to choose, the problem is it was her and her decisino alone and that shouldnt effect the man logically. Yes there is a child involved which is why i stated perhaps a reduced child support etc...dont bring morality into this or abortion is taken off the table in most cases so lets stick to logic.
LOL so what your saying is the women dont really want to have sex with the men its the men who rape them?
-
you and I have had this discusion before
yes we have straw and what it boils down to for you is that life isnt fair, which i agree with but that is basically saying that ya its not right that the women gets the right to choose and a man doesnt.
do some research if you have some time you will find that there are many court cases addressing this and sooner or later like I said this will be on the national stage.
-
yes we have straw and what it boils down to for you is that life isnt fair, which i agree with but that is basically saying that ya its not right that the women gets the right to choose and a man doesnt.
do some research if you have some time you will find that there are many court cases addressing this and sooner or later like I said this will be on the national stage.
if you know of a court case why don't you just mention it or link it.
Here's a question for you: Once a woman is pregnant are the man and woman in an equal situation?
-
if you know of a court case why don't you just mention it or link it.
Here's a question for you: Once a woman is pregnant are the man and woman in an equal situation?
if you click on some of the links i posted they which apparently nobody did they talk about some cases.
Depends on what you mean by situation? physically? of course not, responsibility? shit yes, financially? shit no, equal rights? FUCK NO
-
why does the women not share the same responsibility you put onto the man?
She does share the same responsibility. The person with custody puts a hell of a lot more effort into raising a child... financially, and in every other way. A couple of hundred bucks a month doesn't even come close to that. Is that really your argument?
I did read what you said. It seems unfair on some level, but because abortion and birth are both technically medical procedures, you can't arbitrarily screw with someone's body. Unless if you want to propose forced abortion, which I suppose is no different than forced birth. And then you're taking away the fundamental rights of women over their own autonomy. Same like you would be foaming at the mouth if someone wanted to sterilize men at will, or force you to have surgery you didn't want.
I won't copy and past your other post, but where did you get that I think all sex is rape? I was just pointing out your choice.
Every one of your arguments puts ALL the onus for sex and bringing children into the world back on women, even though you think you're arguing for equal rights. Your idiotic ass can't see that though. What's weird is you GUYS fought for rights to your children, and here you want to get rid of these rights again. Good luck.
-
if you click on some of the links i posted they which apparently nobody did they talk about some cases.
Depends on what you mean by situation? physically? of course not, responsibility? shit yes, financially? shit no, equal rights? FUCK NO
sorry, I didn't see those.
I'll check them out
-
if you click on some of the links i posted they which apparently nobody did they talk about some cases.
Depends on what you mean by situation? physically? of course not, responsibility? shit yes, financially? shit no, equal rights? FUCK NO
so you agree they are not in a equal situation yet you are demanding equality?
-
and a women doesnt? why is it simply the mans responsibility and not the womens? we live in a country where laws apply to everyone EQUALLY does that seem equal to you.
I totally agree with you skip I would give anything for a child of mine but set aside your personal views and biases and take a step back and look at it objectively.
why does the women not share the same responsibility you put onto the man?
Of course a woman does. But just because a woman has an easy way of opting out and a man doesn't, does not mean there are no equal rights. It just means that a man should exercise better discretion BEFORE sex and be better prepared for the consequences. It seems like you're upset just because a woman gets to make the choice AFTER sex.
-
She does share the same responsibility. The person with custody puts a hell of a lot more effort into raising a child... financially, and in every other way. A couple of hundred bucks a month doesn't even come close to that. Is that really your argument?
I did read what you said. It seems unfair on some level, but because abortion and birth are both technically medical procedures, you can't arbitrarily screw with someone's body. Unless if you want to propose forced abortion, which I suppose is no different than forced birth. And then you're taking away the fundamental rights of women over their own autonomy. Same like you would be foaming at the mouth if someone wanted to sterilize men at will, or force you to have surgery you didn't want.
I won't copy and past your other post, but where did you get that I think all sex is rape? I was just pointing out your choice.
Every one of your arguments puts ALL the onus for sex and bringing children into the world back on women, even though you think you're arguing for equal rights. Your idiotic ass can't see that though. What's weird is you GUYS fought for rights to your children, and here you want to get rid of these rights again. Good luck.
Yes dee i agree that the person with custody takes the brunt of the finacial responsibility but your missing the point she CHOOOOOOOOSE to take on those responsibilities the man may have not choose.
At LEAST you now understand that there is certainly an unfairness now Im certainly not proposing what should be done only ideas. The fact that there is an unfairness is what needs to be addressed how it is addressed needs to be done in a equally fair manner.
basically you said that it was the man that went around fucking women and thats why ppl get pregnant you tried to guise it in biological terms but that was the just of your statement.
No No NO NONONONONONONONONO again you are misunderstanding what im saying, it is both of their responsibilities im not putting it on one person more then the other. I actually believe that the man should pay for his child etc. he was equally responsible for that child the problem is you cannot logically give one party the right to choose and deny the other party when they are equally responsible.
Im simply pointing out the unfairness in the system again im not advocting men to stop paying child support only for equal rights under the law.
if you still feel im putting the onus onto the women please explain why?
-
so you agree they are not in a equal situation yet you are demanding equality?
i said physically its not the same, thats they only arena in which the women should have more say over the man. Since the man cannot have a say there he should have the option to walk away same as the women again financial abortion. Now I realize this isnt plausible as there is a child involved so perhaps a reduced child support. Ppl always say well he made the decision to have sex with that women and should live with the consequences well she made the decision SOLEY ON HER OWN to have the kid or not and should live with the consequences. Since the man isnt involved in the decision he should be given an equal decision of his own logically.
again why can you give her the option to walk away but deny the man logically?
-
i said physically its not the same, thats they only arena in which the women should have more say over the man. Since the man cannot have a say there he should have the option to walk away same as the women again financial abortion. Now I realize this isnt plausible as there is a child involved so perhaps a reduced child support. Ppl always say well he made the decision to have sex with that women and should live with the consequences well she made the decision SOLEY ON HER OWN to have the kid or not and should live with the consequences. Since the man isnt involved in the decision he should be given an equal decision of his own logically. again why can you give her the option to walk away but deny the man logically?
when she walks away (has an abortion) both parties are relieved of any financial burden
she get's the right to make that decision because it's her body
if there is a child then both should share the burden
-
Of course a woman does. But just because a woman has an easy way of opting out and a man doesn't, does not mean there are no equal rights. It just means that a man should exercise better discretion BEFORE sex and be better prepared for the consequences. It seems like you're upset just because a woman gets to make the choice AFTER sex.
skip reread the bold part bro, thats the first thing ive seen you type that wasnt a good comment. You understand that you just said that there arent equal rights...
Why shouldnt a women be held to the same standards as men? again we live in a country where laws are applied equally this is not equal.
Im not upset bro, i have no kids and have never gotten a girl pregnant its simply funny and can be irritating when you point out this unfairness and inequality under the law and ppl let their personal views prevent them from being objective and actually taking my statements into account.
Go back and read a little bit of this thread skip youre the only person who didnt distort my posts in one way or another. This goes to the heart of the problem this is a very touchy subject emotionally for a number of ppl and this prevents alot of ppl from seeing differing points of view.
Of course i think a man should take care of their children, I personally would never want an abortion unless they girls health was in danger and would do anything to take care of my children.
Im not advocating abortion or men walking away simply trying to open eyes bro to the unfairness of it all.
we pride ourselves with being fair and just especially the feminist movement in this country yet how many feminist do you know that advocate a mans right to choose?
-
Yes dee i agree that the person with custody takes the brunt of the finacial responsibility but your missing the point she CHOOOOOOOOSE to take on those responsibilities the man may have not choose.
At LEAST you now understand that there is certainly an unfairness now Im certainly not proposing what should be done only ideas. The fact that there is an unfairness is what needs to be addressed how it is addressed needs to be done in a equally fair manner.
basically you said that it was the man that went around fucking women and thats why ppl get pregnant you tried to guise it in biological terms but that was the just of your statement.
No No NO NONONONONONONONONO again you are misunderstanding what im saying, it is both of their responsibilities im not putting it on one person more then the other. I actually believe that the man should pay for his child etc. he was equally responsible for that child the problem is you cannot logically give one party the right to choose and deny the other party when they are equally responsible.
Im simply pointing out the unfairness in the system again im not advocting men to stop paying child support only for equal rights under the law.
if you still feel im putting the onus onto the women please explain why?
There is unfairness on both sides... the woman bears all the health risks and the burden of pregnancy, while the man can walk away at any time but maybe not without financial burden.
There is no way around it, unless if we go back to "old ways," where women get all rights and all problems. That is what you've been proposing with your arguments. If you are now changing your opinion, and arguing from a philosophical POV only, yes, it seems unfair that if you make a whoopsie error with a religious fundamentalist, or whatever, you're saddled with a kid you don't want because you can't force anyone to have an abortion. However, as someone said, you do have the choice to try as hard as hell not to make a mistake.
The way it is now, is the best the law can do to make sure EVERYONE has rights, and also that everyone pays for their mistakes. Not the taxpayer.
You're making a big deal out of nothing. Most people who find themselves preggers where one doesn't want it, end up having an abortion. People who are civilized can divide up custody so there is no financial payout, just shared responsibility. Happens every day. But isn't always possible. So, the one (male or female) who doesn't want the daily responsibility of raising the kid, writes out a check every month.
-
when she walks away (has an abortion) both parties are relieved of any financial burden
she get's the right to make that decision because it's her body
if there is a child then both should share the burden
LOL youve said that before straw sorry hoss that doesnt justify not giving the man a choice.
Again she choose to have the child independent of the man remember that was HER CHOICE and again I agree that with a child involved it complicates the matter so perhaps a reduced child support payment instead of full with a reduction in parental rights.
-
LOL youve said that before straw sorry hoss that doesnt justify not giving the man a choice.
Again she choose to have the child independent of the man remember that was HER CHOICE and again I agree that with a child involved it complicates the matter so perhaps a reduced child support payment instead of full with a reduction in parental rights.
It does justify it but you just don't agree with it
did you read the links you posted?
were any successful in proving your point?
-
skip reread the bold part bro, thats the first thing ive seen you type that wasnt a good comment. You understand that you just said that there arent equal rights...
Why shouldnt a women be held to the same standards as men? again we live in a country where laws are applied equally this is not equal.
Im not upset bro, i have no kids and have never gotten a girl pregnant its simply funny and can be irritating when you point out this unfairness and inequality under the law and ppl let their personal views prevent them from being objective and actually taking my statements into account.
Go back and read a little bit of this thread skip youre the only person who didnt distort my posts in one way or another. This goes to the heart of the problem this is a very touchy subject emotionally for a number of ppl and this prevents alot of ppl from seeing differing points of view.
Of course i think a man should take care of their children, I personally would never want an abortion unless they girls health was in danger and would do anything to take care of my children.
Im not advocating abortion or men walking away simply trying to open eyes bro to the unfairness of it all.
we pride ourselves with being fair and just especially the feminist movement in this country yet how many feminist do you know that advocate a mans right to choose?
I suppose I just don't see it as a rights issue, just a timing issue. The man has to exercise his rights prior to sex, while the woman gets added time.
-
There is unfairness on both sides... the woman bears all the health risks and the burden of pregnancy, while the man can walk away at any time but maybe not without financial burden.
There is no way around it, unless if we go back to "old ways," where women get all rights and all problems. That is what you've been proposing with your arguments. If you are now changing your opinion, and arguing from a philosophical POV only, yes, it seems unfair that if you make a whoopsie error with a religious fundamentalist, or whatever, you're saddled with a kid you don't want because you can't force anyone to have an abortion. However, as someone said, you do have the choice to try as hard as hell not to make a mistake.
The way it is now, is the best the law can do to make sure EVERYONE has rights, and also that everyone pays for their mistakes. Not the taxpayer.
You're making a big deal out of nothing. Most people who find themselves preggers where one doesn't want it, end up having an abortion. People who are civilized can divide up custody so there is no financial payout, just shared responsibility. Happens every day. But isn't always possible. So, the one (male or female) who doesn't want the daily responsibility of raising the kid, writes out a check every month.
you are correct my dear but the women is the only one with a choice, why is that? it is unfair that the women must burden pregnancy physically by herself, but she gets a choice why doesnt the man?
and so does the women dee she has the option of not getting pregnant darlin in most cases your reasoning is only one sided love you apply it to men but not the women.
Ive never argued that we should go back to the "old ways" Ive always been arguing from a philosophical stand point dee. If we agree that there should be equality and fairness in the laws then why wouldnt that apply to this subject.
The term "logic" dictates that it applies in all cases thus its logical picking and choosing isnt logical.
Youve already agreed that there is some unfairness in this issue, so logically we either arent for equality and fairness in our laws or we need to do something to bring this issue back in line with that.
LOL this may seem like im making a mountain out of a mole hill dee but trust me dear im not again do some research.
Did you click on my links? this issue will be brought up time and time again more frequently as time goes on and this is just me being foreward thinking but as contraception becomes more and more advanced and accessible to all men will obtain equal rights or as equal as we can have with women
-
I suppose I just don't see it as a rights issue, just a timing issue. The man has to exercise his rights prior to sex, while the woman gets added time.
heres the problem with that view skip, the women also have the right at the same time as the man and forgoes those right same as the man that results in pregnancy. Then you give women an entirely different set of rights while denying the man any...
-
It does justify it but you just don't agree with it
did you read the links you posted?
were any successful in proving your point?
it most certainly doesnt logically justify it
Not to my knowledge but that want the point of me posting the articles, as dee and yourself have made clear you guys think im just being stupid and idiotic. My point was to show that this is a legitimate issue and as i stated in my response to dee's post
this issue will be brought up time and time again more frequently as time goes on and this is just me being foreward thinking but as contraception becomes more and more advanced and accessible to all men will obtain equal rights or as equal as we can have with women
-
you are correct my dear but the women is the only one with a choice, why is that? it is unfair that the women must burden pregnancy physically by herself, but she gets a choice why doesnt the man?
and so does the women dee she has the option of not getting pregnant darlin in most cases your reasoning is only one sided love you apply it to men but not the women.
Ive never argued that we should go back to the "old ways" Ive always been arguing from a philosophical stand point dee. If we agree that there should be equality and fairness in the laws then why wouldnt that apply to this subject.
The term "logic" dictates that it applies in all cases thus its logical picking and choosing isnt logical.
Youve already agreed that there is some unfairness in this issue, so logically we either arent for equality and fairness in our laws or we need to do something to bring this issue back in line with that.
LOL this may seem like im making a mountain out of a mole hill dee but trust me dear im not again do some research.
Did you click on my links? this issue will be brought up time and time again more frequently as time goes on and this is just me being foreward thinking but as contraception becomes more and more advanced and accessible to all men will obtain equal rights or as equal as we can have with women
Oh Good LAWD!!!
Yes, women bear ALL the responsibilities of carrying a pregnancy to term. That comes with risks. Men do not bear these risks. They however bear other responsibilities. In the grand scheme, it works out.
In order to make things "equal," in the context of your argument, you have to enforce abortion where the man does not want the kid. But then, that's not equality, is it?
Either that, or absolve men of ALL responsibility, in which case, everything to do with sex and birth is in the realm of the woman. That's not equality either, is it?
Not sure why you think I'm arguing one-sided. Of course birth control is the responsibility of both, and I'm in favor of abortion so people who make mistakes can move on. It's not my business if people can't bear this medical procedure, but chances are 100% I'm not getting these people pregnant. I just don't want to have support their progeny and would prefer if the parties involved took care of it. The majority and the law agrees.
You've proposed that men who don't want their kids only pay some nominal fee. That doesn't relieve the taxpayer, does it? And goes back to the onus being all on women.
Got any other ideas besides forced abortion? Talk about communist, fascist thinking. Sounds like China. Or high school thinking. Take your pick.
-
it most certainly doesnt logically justify it
Not to my knowledge but that want the point of me posting the articles, as dee and yourself have made clear you guys think im just being stupid and idiotic. My point was to show that this is a legitimate issue and as i stated in my response to dee's post
did you read the articles in your links
all the men were making the same argument and they all lost
it seems you believe that both people are equal at the time they have sex and somehow maintain that equality after
the only difference is now one of them is pregnant and the other is not
but they are still equal
right?
-
Oh Good LAWD!!!
Yes, women bear ALL the responsibilities of carrying a pregnancy to term. That comes with risks. Men do not bear these risks. They however bear other responsibilities. In the grand scheme, it works out.
In order to make things "equal," in the context of your argument, you have to enforce abortion where the man does not want the kid. But then, that's not equality, is it?
Either that, or absolve men of ALL responsibility, in which case, everything to do with sex and birth is in the realm of the woman. That's not equality either, is it?
Not sure why you think I'm arguing one-sided. Of course birth control is the responsibility of both, and I'm in favor of abortion so people who make mistakes can move on. It's not my business if people can't bear this medical procedure, but chances are 100% I'm not getting these people pregnant. I just don't want to have support their progeny and would prefer if the parties involved took care of it. The majority and the law agrees.
You've proposed that men who don't want their kids only pay some nominal fee. That doesn't relieve the taxpayer, does it? And goes back to the onus being all on women.
Got any other ideas besides forced abortion? Talk about communist, fascist thinking. Sounds like China. Or high school thinking. Take your pick.
SIGH i never argued for forced abortion etc...I never said this is the way as a matter of fact I SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT I WASNT SAYING THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE SIMPLY IDEAS ::) for the love
once again dee the law isnt always fair, was it fair when it denied women the right to vote? simply b/c the law says something doesnt make it morally or logically right. Thus my point that this will continue to come about as it is as youve already stated unfair and when other viable options are there the laws will change. As I already stated in my previous post WHICH YOU QUOTED FOR YOUR POST. ::)
Now as to your more valid points of the relieving tax payer I can see your point and can agree with you on that.
-
did you read the articles in your links
all the men were making the same argument and they all lost
it seems you believe that both people are equal at the time they have sex and somehow maintain that equality after
the only difference is now one of them is pregnant and the other is not
but they are still equal
right?
yes straw I know i wasnt citing those links as proof to my case bro, go back and read my posts
ok so she isnt pregnant after she gives birth, why is the man forced to pay? the child right? she choose on her OWN to have that child she alone should take care of it logically. It was her decision soley so logically she should be the only one to deal with it.
take out the financial burden for a second and lets speak purely on a logical level when you add in extra circumstances of course the logic becomes blurred but speaking simply logically.
-
SIGH i never argued for forced abortion etc...I never said this is the way as a matter of fact I SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT I WASNT SAYING THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE SIMPLY IDEAS ::) for the love
once again dee the law isnt always fair, was it fair when it denied women the right to vote? simply b/c the law says something doesnt make it morally or logically right. Thus my point that this will continue to come about as it is as youve already stated unfair and when other viable options are there the laws will change. As I already stated in my previous post WHICH YOU QUOTED FOR YOUR POST. ::)
Now as to your more valid points of the relieving tax payer I can see your point and can agree with you on that.
No need to go to laws about voting since that has no bearing here. The law said it was unfair that women had to shoulder all financial and moral burden for a child since there are TWO people involved in making the child. Do you find it unfair? If you do, then you agree with the law. If you don't, then you don't care about "equality." Simple as that.
There are plenty of links that will take you to places where women have said they had abortions because the men in their lives said no way, and they couldn't face bearing the responsibility alone or it was financially impossible. So, really, the "unfairness" works both ways with men getting their way just as much as women having the only "choice" as you say.
And yeah, the law works for the taxpayer. As it should.
-
yes straw I know i wasnt citing those links as proof to my case bro, go back and read my posts
ok so she isnt pregnant after she gives birth, why is the man forced to pay? the child right? she choose on her OWN to have that child she alone should take care of it logically. It was her decision soley so logically she should be the only one to deal with it.
take out the financial burden for a second and lets speak purely on a logical level when you add in extra circumstances of course the logic becomes blurred but speaking simply logically.
you should stop using the word logic
what is your case again?
can you put it in a few words?
I think you're saying that if a man doesn't want a kid and the woman does than the man should have some financial obligation during the pregnancy but then nothing afterward
is that about it or do you have some broader perspective
-
No need to go to laws about voting since that has no bearing here. The law said it was unfair that women had to shoulder all financial and moral burden for a child since there are TWO people involved in making the child. Do you find it unfair? If you do, then you agree with the law. If you don't, then you don't care about "equality." Simple as that.
There are plenty of links that will take you to places where women have said they had abortions because the men in their lives said no way, and they couldn't face bearing the responsibility alone or it was financially impossible. So, really, the "unfairness" works both ways with men getting their way just as much as women having the only "choice" as you say.
And yeah, the law works for the taxpayer. As it should.
Actually it does b/c you like to cite the law as reason but again the law isnt always logical.
Yes there two ppl involved in making a child but only one with the right to choose whether to support that child or not...ya thats fair ::)
and of course the law works for the tax payers but always minding equality and fairness that is if that piece of paper the constitution means anything to you.
-
you should stop using the word logic
what is your case again?
can you put it in a few words?
I think you're saying that if a man doesn't want a kid and the woman does than the man should have some financial obligation during the pregnancy but then nothing afterward
is that about it or do you have some broader perspective
apparently i should b/c you misunderstand the meaning of the word.
ok so she isnt pregnant after she gives birth, why is the man forced to pay? the child right? she choose on her OWN to have that child she alone should take care of it logically. It was her decision soley so logically she should be the only one to deal with it.
You cant give the women a choice without logically giving the man a choice.
-
apparently i should b/c you misunderstand the meaning of the word.
You cant give the women a choice without logically giving the man a choice.
ok
so the man should have a choice?
a choice in whether the woman should carry and birth the child?
is that your issue?
-
ok
so the man should have a choice?
a choice in whether the woman should carry and birth the child?
is that your issue?
NOOOOOOOO that is her choice
First you need to understand that logically if you provide a choice to one you need to provide a choice to the other.
-
NOOOOOOOO that is her choice
First you need to understand that logically if you provide a choice to one you need to provide a choice to the other.
really?
so you're saying that if the woman has the choice to either carry the child or not that the man must automatically be given some equal choice?
.....by equal I'm talking about financial burden because that seems to be your primary issue. Please correct me if If I misunderstand you.
-
really?
so you're saying that if the woman has the choice to either carry the child or not that the man must automatically be given some equal choice?
.....by equal I'm talking about financial burden because that seems to be your primary issue. Please correct me if If I misunderstand you.
basically what you are giving the women is the right to walk away from her responsibility given that the abortion isnt done for medical reasons.
So logically the man should also recieve that right, now how its achieved is irrelevant as of right now what needs to be established is that logically you cannot deny one person and give the other person the sole choice.
-
basically what you are giving the women is the right to walk away from her responsibility given that the abortion isnt done for medical reasons.
So logically the man should also recieve that right, now how its achieved is irrelevant as of right now what needs to be established is that logically you cannot deny one person and give the other person the sole choice.
ok so you're saying all men should be given a one time opportunity to walk away from any responsibility (financial, emotional, parenting, etc..)
since we have a time issue (child doesn't really exist yet but at some point the woman is most likely going to birth a kid) here who or what do you think should administer this system or do you think a man should just have one time option anytime in the future to walk away
I'm curious what you have in mind
-
Actually it does b/c you like to cite the law as reason but again the law isnt always logical.
Yes there two ppl involved in making a child but only one with the right to choose whether to support that child or not...ya thats fair ::)
and of course the law works for the tax payers but always minding equality and fairness that is if that piece of paper the constitution means anything to you.
LOL, your "logic" basically states that the proper outcome for a pregnancy is abortion and it's up to men to decide whether or not they want the pregnancy to continue. Most people disagree and say birth is the logical outcome of a pregnancy. Many people are opposed to abortion.
The basic thrust of your argument is that only one person should be able to "choose"responsibility for a child. The man. Even though there were two involved. Argue what you want, but that isn't arguing for equality. It puts ALL the onus on the woman.
-
ok so you're saying all men should be given a one time opportunity to walk away from any responsibility (financial, emotional, parenting, etc..)
since we have a time issue (child doesn't really exist yet but at some point the woman is most likely going to birth a kid) here who or what do you think should administer this system or do you think a man should just have one time option anytime in the future to walk away
I'm curious what you have in mind
First you need to understand the logical issue im presenting to you and agree that makes sense logically we will deal with the application of it after that.
-
LOL, your "logic" basically states that the proper outcome for a pregnancy is abortion and it's up to men to decide whether or not they want the pregnancy to continue. Most people disagree and say birth is the logical outcome of a pregnancy. Many people are opposed to abortion.
The basic thrust of your argument is that only one person should be able to "choose"responsibility for a child. The man. Even though there were two involved. Argue what you want, but that isn't arguing for equality. It puts ALL the onus on the woman.
I NEVER SAID OR IMPLIED SUCH THINGS
you see skip this is what im talking about right here bro
No the women still has a choice how am i in any way saying the women should not have a choice?
-
First you need to understand the logical issue im presenting to you and agree that makes sense logically we will deal with the application of it after that.
what the fuck is your LOGICAL ISSUE?
please state it
-
what the fuck is your LOGICAL ISSUE?
please state it
you cannot logically give a choice to the women and not give a choice to the man.
-
I NEVER SAID OR IMPLIED SUCH THINGS
you see skip this is what im talking about right here bro
No the women still has a choice how am i in any way saying the women should not have a choice?
lol
-
you cannot logically give a choice to the women and not give a choice to the man.
what choice do you think the man should get?
-
I NEVER SAID OR IMPLIED SUCH THINGS
you see skip this is what im talking about right here bro
No the women still has a choice how am i in any way saying the women should not have a choice?
You THINK you say women should have choices, but that's exactly the opposite of what you're saying.
According to the majority of posts on here, 50% of the pop is against abortion. People were happy Tiller got his head blasted off. Far as I know you are against abortion.
So, for those 50% pop morally opposed to abortion who get pregnant, if the man wants to walk away, basically the woman is on her own. Yeah, EXACTLY what you propose is that men should not have to take responsibility for their actions.
-
what choice do you think the man should get?
first agree to that premise.
-
You THINK you say women should have choices, but that's exactly the opposite of what you're saying.
According to the majority of posts on here, 50% of the pop is against abortion. People were happy Tiller got his head blasted off. Far as I know you are against abortion.
So, for those 50% pop morally opposed to abortion who get pregnant, if the man wants to walk away, basically the woman is on her own. Yeah, EXACTLY what you propose is that men should not have to take responsibility for their actions.
LOL women already have that right, why not the man? ya again seems really fair ::)
how am i saying that women shouldnt have a choice?
-
LOL women already have that right, why not the man? ya again seems really fair ::)
how am i saying that women shouldnt have a choice?
People who are morally opposed to abortion don't have them. Period. You don't even want women to have the right to abortion, so I'm surprised you're even talking about it. The Bush regime made it harder for women to get them, even raped women. You should be thrilled people have their babies.
Point being, for the people who are morally opposed, according to your plan the woman should be required to take on ALL the responsibility. Or be forced into a medical procedure she doesn't want. You say you don't approve of forced abortion, so it comes down to you think men should be relieved of all responsibility whenever they wish, no matter the situation.
How is what I've extrapolated from your unfairness outrage, wrong in any way?
-
People who are morally opposed to abortion don't have them. Period. You don't even want women to have the right to abortion, so I'm surprised you're even talking about it. The Bush regime made it harder for women to get them, even raped women. You should be thrilled people have their babies.
Point being, for the people who are morally opposed, according to your plan the woman should be required to take on ALL the responsibility. Or be forced into a medical procedure she doesn't want. You say you don't approve of forced abortion, so it comes down to you think men should be relieved of all responsibility whenever they wish, no matter the situation.
How is what I've extrapolated from your unfairness outrage, wrong in any way?
LOL again you see this skip this is what im talking about bro
My arguement has nothing to do with the morality of abortion your going off on a tangent, it has to do with fairness and equal rights.
it doesnt matter what one person thinks right now or their moral beliefs
the law is unfair and thats my point i understand your point but since the law deems that a women has a choice the women will have a choice regardless of whether a man has a choice or not.
::)
If you want to do away with abortion all together to alleviate the unfairness of the situation then fine thats another idea. Im not advocating for or against abortion on this issue dee get that CLEAR Im arguing the unfairness under the law and what needs to be addressed.
-
first agree to that premise.
what premise are you referring to?
put it in your own words and I will tell you if I agree or not
-
I am personally against abortion dee but that has no bearing on this issue if your going to give the choice to one logically you must give the choice to the other.
the morality of abortion doesnt come into play here dee simply fairness under the law.
-
what premise are you referring to?
put it in your own words and I will tell you if I agree or not
those are my words wtf you think im copying and pasting over here ::)
logically you cannot give the women the right to walk away and not give the man the right to walk away?
again take out the financial burden etc and focus simply on this issue.
-
those are my words wtf you think im copying and pasting over here ::)
logically you cannot give the women the right to walk away and not give the man the right to walk away?
again take out the financial burden etc and focus simply on this issue.
ok
so you're saying the man get's the right to "walk away"
is that it?
-
ok
so you're saying the man get's the right to "walk away"
is that it?
im saying that its not fair to give the women that right and not the man
do you agree or disagree?
-
LOL again you see this skip this is what im talking about bro
My arguement has nothing to do with the morality of abortion your going off on a tangent, it has to do with fairness and equal rights.
it doesnt matter what one person thinks right now or their moral beliefs
the law is unfair and thats my point i understand your point but since the law deems that a women has a choice the women will have a choice regardless of whether a man has a choice or not.
::)
If you want to do away with abortion all together to alleviate the unfairness of the situation then fine thats another idea. Im not advocating for or against abortion on this issue dee get that CLEAR Im arguing the unfairness under the law and what needs to be addressed.
You're the one who smooshed paternal rights and financial caretaking of children with abortion, not me. I don't think the issues belong together at all.
What you're saying is that men should be able to walk away from all responsibility of taking care of their children. Point blank, that's what you're saying. Because the option of abortion exists before a child is a child, even for those who would never have one for moral reasons...men need to be able to leave their kids behind once they're alive, to make it "fair."
I get it totally. So start some mens' anti-rights group to take away all responsibility and rights for men and give it back to women. You guys fought for those rights. But, whatever.
-
im saying that its not fair to give the women that right and not the man
do you agree or disagree?
your issue is fairness?
are you kidding?
-
your issue is fairness?
are you kidding?
are you fuking kidding? how the fuck have you not deciphered that? seriously do you even read my posts before you respond?
-
your issue is fairness?
are you kidding?
Of course it is. Why do you think I made the analogy earlier about the little kid who cries when his older brother gets to stay up an hour later than he can. It's incredible. But there it is.
-
are you fuking kidding? how the fuck have you not deciphered that? seriously do you even read my posts before you respond?
so you start out fair but then you think the woman has the advantage?
she has the choice of life or death and more importantly imposing financial obligation upon you?
what if the man does want the kid and the woman doesn't
if we are talking about fairness and equal rights shouldn't the woman be forced to have the kid
-
You're the one who smooshed paternal rights and financial caretaking of children with abortion, not me. I don't think the issues belong together at all.
What you're saying is that men should be able to walk away from all responsibility of taking care of their children. Point blank, that's what you're saying. Because the option of abortion exists before a child is a child, even for those who would never have one for moral reasons...men need to be able to leave their kids behind once they're alive, to make it "fair."
I get it totally. So start some mens' anti-rights group to take away all responsibility and rights for men and give it back to women. You guys fought for those rights. But, whatever.
the reason financial burden and abortion belong together is b/c a man not paying financially is one of the male abortions...again do some research.
FOR THE LOVE OF SHIT!!! again im not saying it should be a certain way or not simply giving ideas to alleviate that UNFAIRNESS THAT YOU AGREE IS THERE could that be an option of course it could after all we allow women to run away from their responsibilities dont we? real fair...
simply b/c we got fuked while fighting for our parental rights doesnt make it fair brain child...
-
so you start out fair but then you think the woman has the advantage?
she has the choice of life or death and more importantly imposing financial obligation upon you?
what if the man does want the kid and the woman doesn't
if we are talking about fairness and equal rights shouldn't the woman be forced to have the kid
when did i say it started out fair?
No not at all she also has a choice
the actions to be taken are not as important at this point in time as the acceptance that some action needs to be taken to fix the unfairness...so again admit that you cannot logically and in all fairness deny the man the right to choose and give it solely to the women...
-
dee the road from slavery to the civil rights we all enjoy today wasnt accomplished in one big decision rather multiple smaller ones the same will be true for mens rights as they apply to this issue. Youve already agreed its not fair its only a matter of time before new laws and legislation is put in place to right that unfairness.
-
when did i say it started out fair?
No not at all she also has a choice
the actions to be taken are not as important at this point in time as the acceptance that some action needs to be taken to fix the unfairness...so again admit that you cannot logically and in all fairness deny the man the right to choose and give it solely to the women...
okay so you're not saying we started out fair
but somehow an "UNFAIRNESS" happend and MUST be corrected
should the government step in and help FIX THE UNFAIRNESS?
-
Of course it is. Why do you think I made the analogy earlier about the little kid who cries when his older brother gets to stay up an hour later than he can. It's incredible. But there it is.
good point
-
okay so you're not saying we started out fair
but somehow an "UNFAIRNESS" happend and MUST be corrected
should the government step in and help FIX THE UNFAIRNESS?
why not the govt stepped in and created the unfairness?
-
why not the govt stepped in and created the unfairness?
so you're saying at that I understand your point of view correctly?
-
so you're saying at that I understand your point of view correctly?
Im not quite sure your idea of fairness at the beginning i dont understand what you mean so no...
-
In a pregnancy, if a woman wants to have the child and the guy doesn't, she can, and the law will hold him acountable regardless of what he wants. If a woman wants to abort, she can abort without consulting the partner and go on with her life, the man has no say in the life that they conceived together.
If by chance the man wants the woman to give birth to his child and raise it on his own, with her being held accountable for support, he doesn't have that right either, even though this is all a 50/50 venture from the start. It's far from equal.
-
what if the man does want the kid and the woman doesn't
if we are talking about fairness and equal rights shouldn't the woman be forced to have the kid
Is this unreasonable if the health of the mother and child are not in jeopardy?
-
Im not quite sure your idea of fairness at the beginning i dont understand what you mean so no...
it's not my idea
it's your idea
you're the one who wrote:
when did i say it started out fair?
No not at all she also has a choice
the actions to be taken are not as important at this point in time as the acceptance that some action needs to be taken to fix the unfairness...so again admit that you cannot logically and in all fairness deny the man the right to choose and give it solely to the women...
-
Is this unreasonable if the health of the mother and child are not in jeopardy?
how to you propose that we (the US Govt) enforce unwanted birth?
-
it's not my idea
it's your idea
you're the one who wrote:
i undestand the idea of fairness straw just not how it applies to the "beginning" as you call it ::)
-
it seems you agree straw that there is an unfairness to the entire issue, correct?
-
i undestand the idea of fairness straw just not how it applies to the "beginning" as you call it ::)
there is no "fairness"
-
it seems you agree straw that there is an unfairness to the entire issue, correct?
yes
the woman get the worst part of the deal
-
how to you propose that we (the US Govt) enforce unwanted birth?
I dont propose it, a woman can terminate her own pregnancy if she wants. Im saying its not equal ground. A man in theory should have exact same options as a woman, he dont and never will
-
I dont propose it, a woman can terminate her own pregnancy if she wants. Im saying its not equal ground. A man in theory should have exact same options as a woman, he dont and never will
a man IN THEORY should be able to give birth
then everything would be equal
right
-
I am personally against abortion dee but that has no bearing on this issue if your going to give the choice to one logically you must give the choice to the other.
the morality of abortion doesnt come into play here dee simply fairness under the law.
Your idea of fairness under the law is how society used to function. It worked like this.
Under your premise, you have no responsibility for any child you father, because the option of abortion exists. Therefore, you're no longer responsible for birth control, at all, because any child born is the woman's problem. Also, you can go out and get 30 women pregnant for all you care, because you aren't responsible for any one of them. It becomes the tax payer's responsibility. And the woman's. She needs to be punished in that case.
Sounds good to you? Fine, just don't talk about equality, because that ain't it.
-
yes
the woman get the worst part of the deal
she can put a condom on her friend or take a pill, a man can put a condom on or get a procedure done. If they dont, then its 50-50 from there. a woman can be a mother if she wants and legally try to get support. a man cant choose to be a father and do the same.
whats the worse part for a woman?
-
a man IN THEORY should be able to give birth
then everything would be equal
right
nature/god made it that way, wasnt a choice by man or woman. it shouldnt affect the decisions that are made after a joint venture of conceiving a child should it?
-
nature/god made it that way, wasnt a choice by man or woman. it shouldnt affect the decisions that are made after a joint venture of conceiving a child should it?
so nature/god made it "unfair"
-
yes
the woman get the worst part of the deal
LOL ::)
-
so nature/god made it "unfair"
Its not unfair. its how it is.
if a woman can choose to abort a man's child without his consent, then barring any health issues, a man should be able to have his child aborted without her consent. thats all about equality and being fair. doesnt matter whos carrying the child, she shouldve thought about that, the same as the man before they took that chance.
if a woman can choose to have his kid and collect support for it and raise it on her own than a man should have that option also. if its about equality, why would it be any other way?
-
Its not unfair. its how it is.
if a woman can choose to abort a man's child without his consent, then barring any health issues, a man should be able to have his child aborted without her consent issues. thats all about equality and being fair. doesnt matter whos carrying the child, she shouldve thought about that, the same as the man before they took that chance.
if a woman can choose to have his kid and collect support for it and raise it on her own than a man should have that option also. if its about equality, why would it be any other way?
so you're saying that men should be able to enforce an abortion if that is what he chooses
but you also know he can't do that
and you also think this is not unfair
-
Your idea of fairness under the law is how society used to function. It worked like this.
Under your premise, you have no responsibility for any child you father, because the option of abortion exists. Therefore, you're no longer responsible for birth control, at all, because any child born is the woman's problem. Also, you can go out and get 30 women pregnant for all you care, because you aren't responsible for any one of them. It becomes the tax payer's responsibility. And the woman's. She needs to be punished in that case.
Sounds good to you? Fine, just don't talk about equality, because that ain't it.
where did i say that they have should have no obligation?
I said that is an option, there could be a reduced child support payment as another option etc...
again you agree that their is an unfairness there dont you?
fine you want to cut off tax payer funds to those single mothers fine, you see how idiotic that sounds youre really good at creating straw men dee ::)
-
so you're saying that men should be able to enforce an abortion if that is what he chooses
but you also know he can't do that
and you also think this is not unfair
its how it is bro, eqaul or not, fair or unfair. could enact legislation to protect the life of a mans child, would that be wrong?
-
where did i say that they have should have no obligation?
I said that is an option, there could be a reduced child support payment as another option etc...
again you agree that their is an unfairness there dont you?
fine you want to cut off tax payer funds to those single mothers fine, you see how idiotic that sounds youre really good at creating straw men dee ::)
your premise is that pregnancy is unfair to men
right?
-
LOL ::)
Ever been pregnant and poor or alone? Or already had 5 and want to commit suicide if you have another? Big blatherer.
What would you do if you got your girlfriend pregnant tomorrow? Leave school and get a shitty job to support it, or tell your girlfriend to get an abortion or you won't stick around?
You have soooo many philosophical ideas, but little in the way of empathy for real life situations. Barely any of them fall into the category of some woman trying to grub a few hundred dollars a month out of a man for revenge, while she bears the responsibility for actually raising a kid.
And you certainly don't get that all your philosophical ideas generally cost the tax payer a lot of money.
-
its how it is bro, eqaul or not, fair or unfair. could enact legislation to protect the life of a mans child, would that be wrong?
why would we need legislation if EQUAL or NOT?
I thought your position that it was not equal and that the man was at disadvantage
sorry, maybe I'm confusing you with Tony
-
your premise is that pregnancy is unfair to men
right?
no strawman but your living up to your name ::)
youve become part of the problem with the politics board bro congrats :-X
-
no strawman but your living up to your name ::)
youve become part of the problem with the politics board bro congrats :-X
dude, I'm trying to understand your point of view
feel free to lay it out in bullet form for all of us to understand
I'll help you get started
fill in the blank
"I believe................. ........................ ......"
-
Ever been pregnant and poor or alone? Or already had 5 and want to commit suicide if you have another? Big blatherer.
What would you do if you got your girlfriend pregnant tomorrow? Leave school and get a shitty job to support it, or tell your girlfriend to get an abortion or you won't stick around?
You have soooo many philosophical ideas, but little in the way of empathy for real life situations. Barely any of them fall into the category of some woman trying to grub a few hundred dollars a month out of a man for revenge, while she bears the responsibility for actually raising a kid.
And you certainly don't get that all your philosophical ideas generally cost the tax payer a lot of money.
again dee you KNOW NOTHING AND I MEAN NOTHING OF ME AND MY LIFE SO PLEASE STOP
If i happend to get a girl pregnant which i have only a 99.9% chance of doing since I use contraceptives, who knew they worked? ::) I would do what I needed to do to take care of my child. I go to night school as it is dee so i could still work and go to school.
Hey im fine if you want to cut off funds to them all together its your ilk and your bleeding heart that advocates for that.
-
you cannot logically give a choice to the women and not give a choice to the man.
WHEN A MAN CAN "LOGICALLY" GET PREGNANT YOU CAN THEN "LOGICALLY" GIVE HIM THE SAME CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Duh!
-
why would we need legislation if EQUAL or NOT?
I thought your position that it was not equal and that the man was at disadvantage
sorry, maybe I'm confusing you with Tony
Your right, my position is that its not equal. I dont think i said it was.
if a woman can abort or carry a mans child without his consent, do you feel its wrong for a man to hold those same options?
-
WHEN A MAN CAN "LOGICALLY" GET PREGNANT YOU CAN THEN "LOGICALLY" GIVE HIM THE SAME CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Duh!
assuming everything is consentual, why would you instantly take all the mans options away from him at conception when they mutually went into the pregnancy?
-
again dee you KNOW NOTHING AND I MEAN NOTHING OF ME AND MY LIFE SO PLEASE STOP
If i happend to get a girl pregnant which i have only a 99.9% chance of doing since I use contraceptives, who knew they worked? ::) I would do what I needed to do to take care of my child. I go to night school as it is dee so i could still work and go to school.
Hey im fine if you want to cut off funds to them all together its your ilk and your bleeding heart that advocates for that.
I was responding to your ::) because you seem to know SO much about women and being pregnant. ::)
And the reason there are laws in place today making people take responsibility for their gazillion children, is because they AREN'T just like YOU!
You've already said you think it's fair that women bear all responsibility for children if they don't abort... meaning you think men should not be responsible for birth control, or the 30 children they father, if that's how they want to splatter their man essence. You think it's just fine that when you start working, your taxes pay for them.
My bleeding heart thinks it's just fine for everyone to be responsible for the children they bring into the world. Funny how that works.
-
assuming everything is consentual, why would you instantly take all the mans options away from him at conception when they mutually went into the pregnancy?
what do you think the mans options should be?
-
what do you think the mans options should be?
the same as the mothers
-
the same as the mothers
really, so you think man should have control over the womans body?
isn't this where we started?
-
I was responding to your ::) because you seem to know SO much about women and being pregnant. ::)
And the reason there are laws in place today making people take responsibility for their gazillion children, is because they AREN'T just like YOU!
You've already said you think it's fair that women bear all responsibility for children if they don't abort... meaning you think men should not be responsible for birth control, or the 30 children they father, if that's how they want to splatter their man essence. You think it's just fine that when you start working, your taxes pay for them.
My bleeding heart thinks it's just fine for everyone to be responsible for the children they bring into the world. Funny how that works.
huh my heart says you should own up to your responsibilities guess abortion wouldnt be much of a problem if ppl just did that huh?
apparently you think its ok for women to shrink away from the responsibilities and force a man to pay for something that is out of his hands...real fair ::)
-
really, so you think man should have control over the womans body?
isn't this where we started?
who is saying a man should have control over a womens body for the love of shit straw drop that retarded shit.
You seriously cant be this fuking dense bro
-
who is saying a man should have control over a womens body for the love of shit straw drop that retarded shit.
You seriously cant be this fuking dense bro
well loomis thinks the man should have the same rights as the woman
how about this
the man has the same right to abort the fetus in his womb as a woman does
that's fair right
no one can argue with that
-
really, so you think man should have control over the womans body?
isn't this where we started?
a man should have the exact same options as the mother when it comes to the child that they conceived.
-
a man should have the exact same options as the mother when it comes to the child that they conceived.
so the if the man decides he wants the woman to birth his child then he should have that choice
right?
-
well loomis thinks the man should have the same rights as the woman
how about this
the man has the same right to abort the fetus in his womb as a woman does
that's fair right
no one can argue with that
why not?
if she disagrees then why shouldnt he have the legal option to walk away and let her do what she wanst with her body and child she wants? yet legally he cant do that. is that fair to you?
-
so the if the man decides he wants the woman to birth his child then he should have that choice
right?
exactly. isnt that what they were thinking when they had consentual unprotected sex when she was ovulating? or buyers remorse takes a mans options away, but not a womans?
-
huh my heart says you should own up to your responsibilities guess abortion would be much of a problem if ppl just did that huh?
apparently you think its ok for women to shrink away from the responsibilities and force a man to pay for something that is out of his hands...real fair ::)
Oh don't be stupid. For eons, women have born the complete responsibility of raising bastards on their own. Ostracized and murdered. Look around you at the muslim world. Used to be ours, maybe 60 years ago. Suddenly, safe, legal abortion came into the pic, and only THEN, did men suddenly want their kids.
Part of it also is the change in society, where men are allowed to feel loving and want their children. But that's nowhere in anything you've posted. Your whole thing is about men getting screwed financially.
-
why not?
if she disagrees then why shouldnt he have the legal option to walk away and let her do what she wanst with her body and child she wants? yet legally he cant do that. is that fair to you?
okay, we finally agree on something
the man has the same right to abort the fetus in his womb as a woman does
-
exactly. isnt that what they were thinking when they had consentual unprotected sex when she was ovulating? or buyers remorse takes a mans options away, but not a womans?
I guess we're done
you think you should have control over someone else body
I disagree and so does society and the law
-
i'm against abortion, personally.
but it's funny when Bbers cry that congress is trying to prevent them from doing what they want to ther body. Then, they declare they should be able to control what a woman does to her body.
If you give the govt the ability to tell a woman what to do, bend over and take it without lube when Joe lawmaker decides to take away your right to nandrolone.
-
Oh don't be stupid. For eons, women have born the complete responsibility of raising bastards on their own. Ostracized and murdered. Look around you at the muslim world. Used to be ours, maybe 60 years ago. Suddenly, safe, legal abortion came into the pic, and only THEN, did men suddenly want their kids.
Part of it also is the change in society, where men are allowed to feel loving and want their children. But that's nowhere in anything you've posted. Your whole thing is about men getting screwed financially.
I guess that justifies not giving men a choice then right?
and as youve already agreed its not fair, but i guess your ok with it as long as its in your favor huh?
-
I guess we're done
you think you should have control over someone else body
I disagree and so does society and the law
Well, personally i dont agree. im simply showing you that there is no equality in it. I will never be in that situation but if so, i would let the woman do what she wanted and more than hold up my end of the 50-50 ::) bargain
definitely not fair or equal to have no say though :)
-
i'm against abortion, personally.
but it's funny when Bbers cry that congress is trying to prevent them from doing what they want to ther body. Then, they declare they should be able to control what a woman does to her body.
If you give the govt the ability to tell a woman what to do, bend over and take it without lube when Joe lawmaker decides to take away your right to nandrolone.
well i dont use roids and the govt has the right to tell me to bend over and take it up the tail pipe in regards to this issue...that seem fair to you?
-
Well, personally i dont agree. im simply showing you that there is no equality in it. I will never be in that situation but if so, i would let the woman do what she wanted and more than hold up my end of the 50-50 ::) bargain
definitely not fair or equal to have no say though :)
Gotcha
you're saying life is unfair
and if you believe in God (not saying you do) then that's probably Gods fault
-
well i dont use roids and the govt has the right to tell me to bend over and take it up the tail pipe in regards to this issue...that seem fair to you?
what issue, abortion or steroids?
-
Gotcha
you're saying life is unfair
and if you believe in God (not saying you do) then that's probably Gods fault
its the govt responsibility to treat all ppl equal under the law isnt it?
as you agree it isnt equal is it?
-
its the govt responsibility to treat all ppl equal under the law isnt it?
as you agree it isnt equal is it?
really
what country to you live in?
regarding "it"
If you mean bearing children then yeah it's not equal
the woman have the greater burden
that's what you meant right?
-
I guess that justifies not giving men a choice then right?
and as youve already agreed its not fair, but i guess your ok with it as long as its in your favor huh?
How does it sit in my favor? I would never have an abortion, but would be prepared to raise a child on my own against all odds. I don't think it would be easy at all. It would be great hardship. And sometimes birth control fails ???
There is plenty that works in your favor. You can get someone preggers, relieve yourself of responsibility while you go to school, (not her though, she sort of has to leave if there is no family money) then cough up some bucks when you really start to be successful. Or you can get married. Or not, but love your child and willingly take half responsibility. Or go over to your girlfriend's house with a baseball bat and threaten her if she doesn't have an abortion. Or kick her down the stairs if you're both meth freaks. Or have 30 kids with a bunch of women and claim poverty when the law catches up with you.
All those scenarios play out daily. I don't get you, honestly.
-
How does it sit in my favor? I would never have an abortion, but would be prepared to raise a child on my own against all odds. I don't think it would be easy at all. It would be great hardship. And sometimes birth control fails ???
There is plenty that works in your favor. You can get someone preggers, relieve yourself of responsibility while you go to school, (not her though, she sort of has to leave if there is no family money) then cough up some bucks when you really start to be successful. Or you can get married. Or not, but love your child and willingly take half responsibility. Or go over to your girlfriend's house with a baseball bat and threaten her if she doesn't have an abortion. Or kick her down the stairs if you're both meth freaks. Or have 30 kids with a bunch of women and claim poverty when the law catches up with you.
All those scenarios play out daily. I don't get you, honestly.
you and all women have a CHOICE more then ANY MAN HAS...thats how it works in your favor
-
you know i really hope you dont go around and think that glass ceilings are wrong or that its wrong for women to get paid less for the same job b/c its unfair but you probably do you want your cake and want to eat it to darling shit doesnt work that way remember we are all equals...
-
you and all women have a CHOICE more then ANY MAN HAS...thats how it works in your favor
what does that mean ???
-
what does that mean ???
it means that if a women wants an abortion she can have one, if she wants to have the kid she can and knows that the man will be forced to pay child support.
the man on the other hand is sent to wait in the corner until the women deems which route she wants to choose...
-
you know i really hope you dont go around and think that glass ceilings are wrong or that its wrong for women to get paid less for the same job b/c its unfair but you probably do you want your cake and want to eat it to darling shit doesnt work that way remember we are all equals...
So now you're admitting what it's all about for you. :)
Unfortunately, for you, when it comes to children, our society is in favor of giving them a better life than bastard status, beat-at-will orphanages, and shit-hole living conditions. Sorry, has nothing to do with feminism. In fact, if you were out there promoting abortion, women wouldn't feel as bad about it as they do.
Wrong thread to be promoting your point of view about women taking full responsibility for all pregnancies.
-
So now you're admitting what it's all about for you. :)
Unfortunately, for you, when it comes to children, our society is in favor of giving them a better life than bastard status, beat-at-will orphanages, and shit-hole living conditions. Sorry, has nothing to do with feminism. In fact, if you were out there promoting abortion, women wouldn't feel as bad about it as they do.
Wrong thread to be promoting your point of view about women taking full responsibility for all pregnancies.
omg i hope youre not married b/c id feel really bad for your husband you twist and spin everything...hed say you look pretty and you would respond, youre cheating on me... ::)
-
what does that mean ???
It means that while Bush was in power, he supported all no-abortion memes. Not even women who went into a Catholic hospital after they were raped to get the morning-after pill. It was fine they didn't get them. Now that Obama is in the office of the stupid, he has changed his tune.
Then, no abortion for anybody. Now, everyone must have one. ::)
-
It means that while Bush was in power, he supported all no-abortion memes. Not even women who went into a Catholic hospital after they were raped to get the morning-after pill. It was fine they didn't get them. Now that Obama is in the office of the stupid, he has changed his tune.
Then, no abortion for anybody. Now, everyone must have one. ::)
yup thats exactly it deedee
again skip this is why you cant have a rational discussion about this issue...
-
omg i hope youre not married b/c id feel really bad for your husband you twist and spin everything...hed say you look pretty and you would respond, youre cheating on me... ::)
Funny that. Because from what I read from you, I would say that you probably would take care of whatever child you produced.
You just don't seem to understand the myriad of real life situations that don't fit into a big statement on a message board, or a tutored class. I don't spin and twist anything. Just have traveled a lot, and really try to see things from all angles. And also, whatever doesn't cost the taxpayer is fine with me. Other than that, I'm a bleeding heart, and you should be too if you are a true conservative. The old country conservative doctor took a chicken instead of cash from his poor patients. We all have to live together.
You're some hybrid corpie thing that is frightening.
-
Funny that. Because from what I read from you, I would say that you probably would take care of whatever child you produced.
You just don't seem to understand the myriad of real life situations that don't fit into a big statement on a message board, or a tutored class. I don't spin and twist anything. Just have traveled a lot, and really try to see things from all angles. And also, whatever doesn't cost the taxpayer is fine with me. Other than that, I'm a bleeding heart, and you should be too if you are a true conservative. The old country conservative doctor took a chicken instead of cash from his poor patients. We all have to live together.
You're some hybrid corpie thing that is frightening.
hahaha i guess ill take that as a compliment
LOL you seem to think i lack real world experience dee but again you know nothing of me. Ive traveled as well have been all over this country and a few places around the world. The problem is darlin you cant make exceptions for every case with a twist or circumstance the guidelines we have now for abortion and the fathers rights arent fair as youve already admitted.
If youre so worried about tax payers dollars let do away with all help then, hows that sound?
Yes we do all have to live together and being fair to all under the law would be the easiest way to do that. Youve already admitted that the law isnt fair in this situation to the father so what would be the logical thing to do?
-
hahaha i guess ill take that as a compliment
LOL you seem to think i lack real world experience dee but again you know nothing of me. Ive traveled as well have been all over this country and a few places around the world. The problem is darlin you cant make exceptions for every case with a twist or circumstance the guidelines we have now for abortion and the fathers rights arent fair as youve already admitted.
If youre so worried about tax payers dollars let do away with all help then, hows that sound?
Yes we do all have to live together and being fair to all under the law would be the easiest way to do that. Youve already admitted that the law isnt fair in this situation to the father so what would be the logical thing to do?
Don't take it as a compliment. You have lost the vision of conservatism and replaced it with corpie "let them all die" mentality. That was never the vision of conservatism. It used to be an honor system, helping those in need, but that has lapsed. Partially because the world is too large and terrible. Partially, because conservatives have lost their way.
It's you who makes the exception to the rule, because most men seem to want to have a connection with their child.
I said it wasn't fair that men don't get to make the decision to "poof, it goes away" because unfortunately, it's the woman who both - unfairly carries the health risk burden, that you claim isn't there, ::) and there are morals that both men and women have to abide by. I'm positive that many woman would also like the "poof, it goes away" thing.
Again, it's hilarious that you chose this thread to make your stand, but by all means, you and the fundies fight it out. Let us women know what you decide. Either way, women will be getting abortions. And they will be raising children. Either be there or don't. Go back in time, or not.
-
Don't take it as a compliment. You have lost the vision of conservatism and replaced it with corpie "let them all die" mentality.
if tony could actually understand what you're saying his head would explode
as a point of reference, tony can't afford health insurance yet is not in favor of health care reform, public option, single payer, etc...
-
Don't take it as a compliment. You have lost the vision of conservatism and replaced it with corpie "let them all die" mentality. That was never the vision of conservatism. It used to be an honor system, helping those in need, but that has lapsed. Partially because the world is too large and terrible. Partially, because conservatives have lost their way.
It's you who makes the exception to the rule, because most men seem to want to have a connection with their child.
I said it wasn't fair that men don't get to make the decision to "poof, it goes away" because unfortunately, it's the woman who both - unfairly carries the health risk burden, that you claim isn't there, ::) and there are morals that both men and women have to abide by. I'm positive that many woman would also like the "poof, it goes away" thing.
Again, it's hilarious that you chose this thread to make your stand, but by all means, you and the fundies fight it out. Let us women know what you decide. Either way, women will be getting abortions. And they will be raising children. Either be there or don't. Go back in time, or not.
LOL darling im done arguing with your ass believe what you want to believe time will in all likelihood prove me right as it is already becoming more and more of an issue.
youve perverted my argument to meet your own idealistic requirements so that you can knock it down to many times
-
if tony could actually understand what you're saying his head would explode
as a point of reference, tony can't afford health insurance yet is not in favor of health care reform, public option, single payer, etc...
not at all again you created a straw man dip shit...
Im am and have always been in favor of health care reform simply not a public option or single payer...
I also can afford health care yet another straw man I simply am choosing to exercise one of my many options and get a job that provides it for me. ;)
-
not at all again you created a straw man dip shit...
Im am and have always been in favor of health care reform simply not a public option or single payer...
I also can afford health care yet another straw man I simply am choosing to exercise one of my many options and get a job that provides it for me. ;)
right, how could I forget.
You can afford insurance but you choose not to pay for it and if you have a serious health crisis who will wind up paying for that again?
not you right?
but you don't need an affordable public option (maybe one that costs nothing when you're unemployed)
-
right, how could I forget.
You can afford insurance but you choose not to pay for it and if you have a serious health crisis who will wind up paying for that again?
not you right?
but you don't need an affordable public option (maybe one that costs nothing when you're unemployed)
Again yes I can I can also afford to pay to go to college as well you want me to show you reciepts or what? ::)
why do we need an afordable public option when the legislation that obama is proposing will supposedly lower health care costs, is obama lying?
-
Again yes I can I can also afford to pay to go to college as well you want me to show you reciepts or what? ::)
why do we need an afordable public option when the legislation that obama is proposing will supposedly lower health care costs, is obama lying?
nah - I don't need to see receipt.
just trying to point out the ideological tight rope you walk ever day
I don't really expect you to understand it either. I think our discussion on the topic went about 6-7 pages and it still didn't sink in
-
nah - I don't need to see receipt.
just trying to point out the ideological tight rope you walk ever day
I don't really expect you to understand it either. I think our discussion on the topic went about 6-7 pages and it still didn't sink in
same as this one for you straw, i understand the situation im in straw after all im the one in it perhaps its you who doesnt understand.
-
same as this one for you straw, i understand the situation im in straw after all im the one in it perhaps its you who doesnt understand.
let me see if I can guess
If you get in a car accident or catch the swine flu, or get a brain tumor, or get attacked by a shark, etc...
you will receive health care which you will not be able to pay for.
did I miss anything
-
let me see if I can guess
If you get in a car accident or catch the swine flu, or get a brain tumor, or get attacked by a shark, etc...
you will receive health care which you will not be able to pay for.
did I miss anything
well since a car accident is covered by auto insurance and you get some medical coverage from that lets take that one out
shark attack? really i freaking hate sharks wouldnt be caught dead around them, so nooo
sure its a risk perhaps we should give everyone life insurance as well, i mean after all there are probably tons of ppl that get fucked b/c of debt due to lack of life insurance ::)
-
if tony could actually understand what you're saying his head would explode
as a point of reference, tony can't afford health insurance yet is not in favor of health care reform, public option, single payer, etc...
I know. I sort of pointed that out my first post on this thread, but he feels somehow he's different from all the other people who don't have health insurance or get people preggers. I think people believe if they have the "right" attitude it makes them different and more deserving. Why, I don't know, since the taxpayer pays for them regardless.
The guy who shot up that We-Love-All Unitarian Church a few months ago, railing against dems, was a food stamp kind of guy. I don't get it but, rage/anger usually lashes out against those who least deserve it.
-
LOL darling im done arguing with your ass believe what you want to believe time will in all likelihood prove me right as it is already becoming more and more of an issue.
youve perverted my argument to meet your own idealistic requirements so that you can knock it down to many times
Don't be silly. I haven't perverted your argument. Just made it clear. :)
-
well since a car accident is covered by auto insurance and you get some medical coverage from that lets take that one out
shark attack? really i freaking hate sharks wouldnt be caught dead around them, so nooo
sure its a risk perhaps we should give everyone life insurance as well, i mean after all there are probably tons of ppl that get fucked b/c of debt due to lack of life insurance ::)
yep, it's a risk and you're putting it on the public (by virtue of not being able to pay your bills so that all people who have insurance will eventually pay more to subsidize your bad debt). Anyway, I was making a point but it's clearly miles over your head so why don't you go back to explain how unfair the world it to men
-
Tony makes some good points about the inequities regarding men in this whole abortion question.
One of the problems is we're not dealing with just a woman's body. There is a baby involved too.
-
Tony makes some good points about the inequities regarding men in this whole abortion question.
One of the problems is we're not dealing with just a woman's body. There is a baby involved too.
right on
what is one of Tony's good points?
-
right on
what is one of Tony's good points?
LOL ::)
-
LOL ::)
you've got 8 pages of your dumb ideas being torn to shreds but at least you have an intellectual ally in bum.
-
you've got 8 pages of your dumb ideas being torn to shreds but at least you have an intellectual ally in bum.
LOL sure you and dee both agreed that there is inequalities in rights...you sure tore my idea to shreds jack ass ::)
-
LOL sure you and dee both agreed that there is inequalities in rights...you sure tore my idea to shreds jack ass ::)
go back and read it again and you might learn something
on second thought, forget it. I don't have time today for another 8 pages
-
go back and read it again and you might learn something
on second thought, forget it. I don't have time today for another 8 pages
me either
perhaps you should do some research like I suggested when you get a chance it might enlighten you, probably not though ::)
-
me either
perhaps you should do some research like I suggested when you get a chance it might enlighten you, probably not though ::)
I read your links remember.
They didn't support your position at all
remember?
-
I read your links remember.
They didn't support your position at all
remember?
actually they did jack ass you misunderstand my position as always and then create a straw man and attack that ::)
-
actually they did jack ass you misunderstand my position as always and then create a straw man and attack that ::)
no they didn't
we've already discussed it
go back and read it again and then let me know if you have anything new to add
I've got a 10am meeting (already late)
see ya
-
no they didn't
we've already discussed it
go back and read it again and then let me know if you have anything new to add
I've got a 10am meeting (already late)
see ya
SIGH youve turned into 240 bro really i cant stand your ass for the most part anymore...
"It's a legal stunt, but as a way of calling attention to double standards and unintended consequences"
"The key to my argument is separating out the costs and risks of pregnancy from the issue of the child as joint property -- for lack of a better word. If you believe that a fetus is only a woman’s and part of her body, then the argument stops there. But then shouldn’t paternal obligations be abrogated too (other than compensating the woman for the “tort” he has inflicted by inseminating her -- i.e. perhaps paying for the cost of an abortion and associated pain and suffering)? From the point of view of the potential “father,” what distinction is there between his responsibilities to a bunch of cells when it is in the uterus to it when it is born if all the material “stuff” that created that child is donated, if you will, by the mother save half of the instruction manual (i.e. DNA)? The answer may be that he engaged in contract with the woman when he engaged in intercourse. Perfectly reasonable is to say that sex is not a contract, in which case, pregnancy should be non-binding on the father, no?"
"NOBODY is arguing that we should let my friend who impregnated his girlfriend off the hook. If you play, you must pay. But if you pay, you should get some say. If a father is willing to legally commit to supporting and raising the child himself, why should a woman be able to end a pregnancy that she knew was a possibility of consensual sex?"
its obvious you didnt read my articles straw you saw the first one where the guys case was lost and went off that even though I CLEARLY STATED that wasnt the point I was trying to make I was simply pointing out the inequalities that are present in the situation.
Law isnt always right and like I said these cases are becoming more and more prevelant and in all likelihood men will get more rights in the future...
-
LOL ::)
Good response. :D
-
you've got 8 pages of your dumb ideas being torn to shreds but at least you have an intellectual ally in bum.
after reading all 8, you guys did nothing but either reinforce his statement or make posts that had virtually nothing to do with his point.Men dont have equal right or choice, could post another 100 pages and it dont matter.
I mean this is laughable if its actually intended to be serious. i doubt it but you never know :-\
Women's eggs just kind of sit there in her body, not bothering anybody. It's the "essence" of man :D that goes splattering everywhere, causing problems in the lives of others. Women have a choice to have an abortion. You have the right to keep your "essence" from splattering where it shouldn't go. Each gender has a choice.
-
after reading all 8, you guys did nothing but either reinforce his statement or make posts that had virtually nothing to do with his point.Men dont have equal right or choice, could post another 100 pages and it dont matter.
I mean this is laughable if its actually intended to be serious. i doubt it but you never know :-\
No Shit
Woman have the greater burden and the greater responsibility therefore they have choices that men don't have
did you get that part when you read the last 8 pages?
-
SIGH youve turned into 240 bro really i cant stand your ass for the most part anymore...
"It's a legal stunt, but as a way of calling attention to double standards and unintended consequences"
"The key to my argument is separating out the costs and risks of pregnancy from the issue of the child as joint property -- for lack of a better word. If you believe that a fetus is only a woman’s and part of her body, then the argument stops there. But then shouldn’t paternal obligations be abrogated too (other than compensating the woman for the “tort” he has inflicted by inseminating her -- i.e. perhaps paying for the cost of an abortion and associated pain and suffering)? From the point of view of the potential “father,” what distinction is there between his responsibilities to a bunch of cells when it is in the uterus to it when it is born if all the material “stuff” that created that child is donated, if you will, by the mother save half of the instruction manual (i.e. DNA)? The answer may be that he engaged in contract with the woman when he engaged in intercourse. Perfectly reasonable is to say that sex is not a contract, in which case, pregnancy should be non-binding on the father, no?"
"NOBODY is arguing that we should let my friend who impregnated his girlfriend off the hook. If you play, you must pay. But if you pay, you should get some say. If a father is willing to legally commit to supporting and raising the child himself, why should a woman be able to end a pregnancy that she knew was a possibility of consensual sex?"
its obvious you didnt read my articles straw you saw the first one where the guys case was lost and went off that even though I CLEARLY STATED that wasnt the point I was trying to make I was simply pointing out the inequalities that are present in the situation.
Law isnt always right and like I said these cases are becoming more and more prevelant and in all likelihood men will get more rights in the future...
Tony - you're as delusional as Beach Bunny
You got kicked around like a soccer ball for 8 pages (mostly from Deedee)
We get your point - you think men get treated unfairly in pregnancy
the situation is inherently unfair (woman have the greater burden) but you think "fairness", as you view it in your mind, should be enforced or at least recognized
pregnancy in the US is unfair to the man
right?
-
Tony - you're as delusional as Beach Bunny
You got kicked around like a soccer ball for 8 pages (mostly from Deedee)
We get your point - you think men get treated unfairly in pregnancy
the situation is inherently unfair (woman have the greater burden) but you think "fairness", as you view it in your mind, should be enforced or at least recognized
pregnancy in the US is unfair to the man
right?
it is more then merely pregnancy straw you obviously didnt even read my post you just quoted or you would get that.... ::)
you cant disprove facts bro sorry
-
"The key to my argument is separating out the costs and risks of pregnancy from the issue of the child as joint property -- for lack of a better word. If you believe that a fetus is only a woman’s and part of her body, then the argument stops there. But then shouldn’t paternal obligations be abrogated too (other than compensating the woman for the “tort” he has inflicted by inseminating her -- i.e. perhaps paying for the cost of an abortion and associated pain and suffering)? From the point of view of the potential “father,” what distinction is there between his responsibilities to a bunch of cells when it is in the uterus to it when it is born if all the material “stuff” that created that child is donated, if you will, by the mother save half of the instruction manual (i.e. DNA)? The answer may be that he engaged in contract with the woman when he engaged in intercourse. Perfectly reasonable is to say that sex is not a contract, in which case, pregnancy should be non-binding on the father, no?"
please explain to me how youve torn this apart...
-
it is more then merely pregnancy straw you obviously didnt even read my post you just quoted or you would get that.... ::)
you cant disprove facts bro sorry
okay
indulge my ignorance
state your position
-
"The key to my argument is separating out the costs and risks of pregnancy from the issue of the child as joint property -- for lack of a better word. If you believe that a fetus is only a woman’s and part of her body, then the argument stops there. But then shouldn’t paternal obligations be abrogated too (other than compensating the woman for the “tort” he has inflicted by inseminating her -- i.e. perhaps paying for the cost of an abortion and associated pain and suffering)? From the point of view of the potential “father,” what distinction is there between his responsibilities to a bunch of cells when it is in the uterus to it when it is born if all the material “stuff” that created that child is donated, if you will, by the mother save half of the instruction manual (i.e. DNA)? The answer may be that he engaged in contract with the woman when he engaged in intercourse. Perfectly reasonable is to say that sex is not a contract, in which case, pregnancy should be non-binding on the father, no?"
please explain to me how youve torn this apart...
-
I've read your quote of yourself three times
are we talking strictly in legal terms or something else?
If we're talking legally then you've already lost and I assume you know that by your own links
every link is about a man who made the same assertions as you and lost in court
-
I've read your quote of yourself three times
are we talking strictly in legal terms or something else?
If we're talking legally then you've already lost and I assume you know that by your own links
every link is about a man who made the same assertions as you and lost in court
First off that wasnt my quote that was from one of the articles you said you read but obviously didnt
we arent talking legally you jack ass you obviously dont read my POSTS!!!!!!!!
again simply b/c the law says so doesnt make it right, slavery was legal so was discriminating against women those were all changed when society changed and the same will be done for these inequalities that are present in this issue.
-
First off that wasnt my quote that was from one of the articles you said you read but obviously didnt
we arent talking legally you jack ass you obviously dont read my POSTS!!!!!!!!
again simply b/c the law says so doesnt make it right, slavery was legal so was discriminating against women those were all changed when society changed and the same will be done for these inequalities that are present in this issue.
dude why are you so ANGRY?
scroll back 2 posts and tell me it doesn't appear that you are quoting yourself?
-
yes straw I know i wasnt citing those links as proof to my case bro, go back and read my posts
right
that's what I thought
you didn't post those links to support your case
why did you post those links again?
-
right
that's what I thought
you didn't post those links to support your case
why did you post those links again?
As ive said many times I didnt cite those links to prove my case LEGALLY YOU DUMB FUCK!!! the reason im angry is ive said that multiple times and you havent seemed to have gotten the message I can only assume that its either b/c you didnt read my posts or youre a complete and total jack ass
which one is it straw?
In case you havent noticed im argueing from a fairness or equality stand point in which yes the constitution you know "the law of the land" garuntees...
the law isnt always logical or fair as in this case im sure you were against the laws decades ago that forbid women to vote etc...
Im not demanding anything do you seriously read my posts?
all im saying is that the man should have the right to choose same as the women, in the mans case it would be in the form of less child support or no child support. Perhaps we should force the women to pay the man for 18 yrs in the case that she wants an abortion and he doesnt, does that seem fair? OF COURSE NOT so how can you justify the other way around?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/opinion/01conley.html?ei=5090&en=e0b6748a2c82b86d&ex=1291093200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dalton-conley/why-my-mans-right-to-choo_b_11883.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1173414,00.html?iid=chix-sphere
again do some research instead of warping my posts
Not to my knowledge but that want the point of me posting the articles, as dee and yourself have made clear you guys think im just being stupid and idiotic. My point was to show that this is a legitimate issue and as i stated in my response to dee's post
yes straw I know i wasnt citing those links as proof to my case bro, go back and read my posts
I posted those links b/c dee and yourself acted in such a way that said I was looney to believe this way when in actuality there are tons of ppl who see the FACT that there is inequalities in the law as it stands right now...
-
"The key to my argument is separating out the costs and risks of pregnancy from the issue of the child as joint property -- for lack of a better word. If you believe that a fetus is only a woman’s and part of her body, then the argument stops there. But then shouldn’t paternal obligations be abrogated too (other than compensating the woman for the “tort” he has inflicted by inseminating her -- i.e. perhaps paying for the cost of an abortion and associated pain and suffering)? From the point of view of the potential “father,” what distinction is there between his responsibilities to a bunch of cells when it is in the uterus to it when it is born if all the material “stuff” that created that child is donated, if you will, by the mother save half of the instruction manual (i.e. DNA)? The answer may be that he engaged in contract with the woman when he engaged in intercourse. Perfectly reasonable is to say that sex is not a contract, in which case, pregnancy should be non-binding on the father, no?"
please explain to me how youve torn this apart...
Again please explain how youve torn this apart...
if you say that he must take care of the child b/c it is half his he should also get a say with the fetus since logically it is half his as well. Its her body yes but its half his fetus so perhaps a one time payment to her if he doesnt want it and she does or a payment to him if he wants it and she doesnt. I dont know what the best solution is again simply pointing out the inequalities in the issue.
-
As ive said many times I didnt cite those links to prove my case LEGALLY YOU DUMB FUCK!!! the reason im angry is ive said that multiple times and you havent seemed to have gotten the message I can only assume that its either b/c you didnt read my posts or youre a complete and total jack ass
which one is it straw?
I can answer that one. lol. :D
-
As ive said many times I didnt cite those links to prove my case LEGALLY YOU DUMB FUCK!!! the reason im angry is ive said that multiple times and you havent seemed to have gotten the message I can only assume that its either b/c you didnt read my posts or youre a complete and total jack ass
which one is it straw?
I posted those links b/c dee and yourself acted in such a way that said I was looney to believe this way when in actuality there are tons of ppl who see the FACT that there is inequalities in the law as it stands right now...
Tony, unlike you, I have a job and can't spend all day on this board going over the same argument over and over.
I'm going to waste about 10 minutes of my lunch on this.
Why did you post those links? You say you didn't post them to prove your case legally and that makes sense because every instance cited was dismissed, rejected etc... So why did you post it? Did you post it to show that other people who have made same claims as you have been rejected but that just the fact that they exist has some signficance?. Just the fact that someone shares your opinion means something??
Didn't we already agree that there are inequalities in the whole situation?
Man and Woman both know the rules of the game before the fact and are equal at that point
Once a pregnancy occurs the woman has the greater burden and therefore has choice that you don't get.
After the kid is born you both now have equal responsibility to support the kid.
From what I can tell from you ramblings you think that because she has a choices that you dont' get that somehow you're owed some equivalent opportunity which you've defined as the opportunity to walk away from any financial responsibility
Additionally, you seem to try to support your case by saying if you are not given that equivalent opportunity then you should have the right to control the womans body (either forcing her to get an abortion or forcing her to bear the child).
Please clarify any part of your argument that I have wrong so far
I'll check back later tonight
-
let me try to clairfy your logic for you straw
why does the man have a responsibility to the child?
-
let me try to clairfy your logic for you straw
why does the man have a responsibility to the child?
Didn't your parents teach you this.
If you stick your wee wee in a girls hoo hoo and she get's pregnant then you're responsible
I know you think that means you should get to control the womans body during pregnancy but it doesn't
I know you think that if you can't control her body during pregnancy then you're owed the opportunity to abandon your responsibility but it doesn't
If you didn't want her to be pregnant then you shouldn't have left your jizz inside her
Is there anything else you'd like to know about life?
-
Didn't your parents teach you this.
If you stick your wee wee in a girls hoo hoo and she get's pregnant then you're responsible
I know you think that means you should get to control the womans body during pregnancy but it doesn't
I know you think that if you can't control her body during pregnancy then you're owed the opportunity to abandon your responsibility but it doesn't
If you didn't want her to be pregnant then you shouldn't have left your jizz inside her
Is there anything else you'd like to know about life?
again PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THE MAN SHOULD HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WOMENS BODY...
if youre not going to have a serious conversation with me the FUCK OFF!!!
again why do you believe the man has a responsibility to the child?
-
again PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THE MAN SHOULD HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WOMENS BODY...
if youre not going to have a serious conversation with me the FUCK OFF!!!
again why do you believe the man has a responsibility to the child?
It's very hard to take you seriously.
haven't you tried to justify your premise that man should be allowed to avoid financial obligation after birth because he is not allowed to have any control over the decision to either abort or give birth?
-
It's very hard to take you seriously.
haven't you tried to justify your premise that man should be allowed to avoid financial obligation after birth because he is not allowed to have any control over the decision to either abort or give birth?
for the love of shit answer the fuking question
again why do you believe the man has a responsibility to the child?
what im trying to show you straw is that the man should have rights, how those rights are distributed arent important as of right now. IVE SAID THIS MANY TIMES THROUGH OUT THIS THREAD...
-
for the love of shit answer the fuking question
what im trying to show you straw is that the man should have rights, how those rights are distributed arent important as of right now. IVE SAID THIS MANY TIMES THROUGH OUT THIS THREAD...
hey dumbass
I answered it the first time you asked.
We're 9 friggin pages into this thing
What EXACTLY is it that you want.
From what I can tell what you really want is to be able to walk away from any financial responsibility after the child is born
is that correct or is there more to it than that
-
hey dumbass
I answered it the first time you asked.
We're 9 friggin pages into this thing
What EXACTLY is it that you want.
From what I can tell what you really want is to be able to walk away from any financial responsibility after the child is born
is that correct or is there more to it than that
I havent asked that question until this page try and keep up...
LOL your missing the forest for the trees straw
please answer the question and ill show you the problem with your logic...
-
I havent asked that question until this page try and keep up...
LOL your missing the forest for the trees straw
please answer the question and ill show you the problem with your logic...
scroll up to the top of this page.
You asked
I answered
If you stick your wee wee in a girls hoo hoo and she get's pregnant then you're responsible
-
scroll up to the top of this page.
You asked
I answered
ok well why is she not held responsible? it doesnt matter if its her body or not if there are no medical reasons for abortion.
basically what your saying is that its b/c the child is half the mans right?
-
ok well why is she not held responsible? it doesnt matter if its her body or not if there are no medical reasons for abortion.
basically what your saying is that its b/c the child is half the mans right?
there is no child until birth
the choice to have a legal abortion or continue the pregnancy belongs soley to the woman
you don't get any say and you're not owed anything in return for your lack of choice in the matter
Once the kid is born it's the responsibility of both parents.
haven't we been over this about 20 times now?
If you don't like the rules then don't play the game or even better convert to Islam and move to a Muslim country
You might find Sharia law more in line with your view of how the world should be
-
there is no child until birth
the choice to have a legal abortion or continue the pregnancy belongs soley to the woman
I agree that there is techinically no child until birth that has nothing to do with my case
basically you are saying the father has an obligation to the child b/c it is half his correct?
-
I agree that there is techinically no child until birth that has nothing to do with my case
basically you are saying the father has an obligation to the child b/c it is half his correct?
Finally we're in agreement
we both agree there is no child until birth (therefore the man has nothing that he can lay claim to during pregnancy)
After birth the man must take care of his financial obligation
I still can't figure out exactly what your beef is
Is it more that you're against abortion or more that you want an "out" of your financial obligation
-
Finally we're in agreement
we both agree there is no child until birth (therefore the man has nothing that he can lay claim to during pregnancy)
After birth the man must take care of his financial obligation
I still can't figure out exactly what your beef is
Is it more that you're against abortion or more that you want an "out" of your financial obligation
you still havent answered the question
is it b/c the child is half his?
my beef is with the inequalities in rights nothing more nothing less
-
you still havent answered the question
is it b/c the child is half his?
my beef is with the inequalities in rights nothing more nothing less
we both agreed there is no child until birth
after birth the kid is half his and half his responsibility
the crux of the problem for you seems to center around the pregnancy
you feel the man has unequal rights during pregnancy
is that correct?
-
we both agreed there is no child until birth
after birth the kid is half his and half his responsibility
the crux of the problem for you seems to center around the pregnancy
you feel the man has unequal rights during pregnancy
is that correct?
the fetus is technically half his dip shit women cant get pregnant on their own...
now remember logic is applied across the board thats what makes it logical ;)
so if the child is half his the fetus is half his or the fetus is all hers and the child is all hers...
-
the fetus is technically half his dip shit women cant get pregnant on their own...
now remember logic is applied across the board thats what makes it logical ;)
so if the child is half his the fetus is half his or the fetus is all hers and the child is all hers...
finally you've articulated what you've been dancing around all along
who says the fetus is half his (other than you of course)?
the fetus is a part of the womans body and you have no say whatsoever over it.
you don't get to decide if she get's an abortion or takes the pregnancy to term
-
finally you've articulated what you've been dancing around all along
who says the fetus is half his (other than you of course)?
the fetus is a part of the womans body and you have no say whatsoever over it.
you don't get to decide if she get's an abortion or takes the pregnancy to term
the fetus is half his you numb nut fuck, biology says that the fetus is half his
Ok so how do you logically go from the fetus being soley hers and the child being half the mans.
Im not arguing her right to an abortion you dumb mother fucker i never have please go find my post where i said that or STFU about that...
-
the fetus is half his you numb nut fuck, biology says that the fetus is half his
Ok so how do you logically go from the fetus being soley hers and the child being half the mans.
Im not arguing her right to an abortion you dumb mother fucker i never have please go find my post where i said that or STFU about that...
you seem angry
are you aware of the difference between a fetus and a fully formed human being?
if the fetus is half his then why can't the woman just take it out and give it to the man if she doesn't want it.
then he can put it in his womb and carry it until birth
the fetus is a part of the womans body until such time as she gives birth and that's why she get's to make the choice over her own body during that time.
BTW - didn't you say before that you don't want to control the womans body.
What is it exactly that you want?
I'm out of here until tonight
-
you seem angry
are you aware of the difference between a fetus and a fully formed human being?
if the fetus is half his then why can't the woman just take it out and give it to the man if she doesn't want it.
then he can put it in his womb and carry it until birth
the fetus is a part of the womans body until such time as she gives birth and that's why she get's to make the choice over her own body during that time.
BTW - didn't you say before that you don't want to control the womans body.
What is it exactly that you want?
I'm out of here until tonight
wow your a fuking idiot
when did women become able to get pregnant all be themselves?
the fetus is half his it doesnt matter that she carries it the fetus is still technically half his, that is unless you disagree with biology?
actually ive said it many times dont make me go post from this thread and make you look like a bigger jack ass then you already do...just STFU about it and let it go
what logic do you have to say that the fetus isnt half his and the child is?
again take into account biology you remember biology dont you?
-
wow your a fuking idiot
when did women become able to get pregnant all be themselves?
the fetus is half his it doesnt matter that she carries it the fetus is still technically half his, that is unless you disagree with biology?
actually ive said it many times dont make me go post from this thread and make you look like a bigger jack ass then you already do...just STFU about it and let it go
what logic do you have to say that the fetus isnt half his and the child is?
again take into account biology you remember biology dont you?
the man makes a voluntary donation of genetic material (whether intentional or not).
those are the ground rules. If you don't like it then don't leave your voluntary donation inside her body
once the woman is pregnant the fetus is part of her body and she has sole discretion whether to take the pregnancy to term or abort (if you don't believe that then go back and read those links you posted)
You say you don't want control over the womans body (though I have my doubts)
If the woman doesn't want the pregnancy but the man does then the woman should just be able to give him the fetus at let him do what he wants with it.
You've already said you don't want to control the womans body you should have no problem with this .....right?
-
the man makes a voluntary donation of genetic material (whether intentional or not).
those are the ground rules. If you don't like it then don't leave your voluntary donation inside her body
once the woman is pregnant the fetus is part of her body and she has sole discretion whether to take the pregnancy to term or abort (if you don't believe that then go back and read those links you posted)
You say you don't want control over the womans body (though I have my doubts)
If the woman doesn't want the pregnancy but the man does then the woman should just be able to give him the fetus at let him do what he wants with it.
You've already said you don't want to control the womans body you should have no problem with this .....right?
THE WOMEN VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTS THE MANS DONATION...everything youve said and tried to justify has lended itself to the fact there are inequalities under the law...
If the fetus is soley hers then so logically is the child that comes from the FETUS...
again logically how is the fetus not half his?
no response to this and i can see why b/c logically there is not reason why its not half his is you believe the child is half his... ::)
try using logic instead of simply your biased opinions
-
THE WOMEN VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTS THE MANS DONATION...everything youve said and tried to justify has lended itself to the fact there are inequalities under the law...
If the fetus is soley hers then so logically is the child that comes from the FETUS...
again logically how is the fetus not half his?
no response to this and i can see why b/c logically there is not reason why its not half his is you believe the child is half his... ::)
try using logic instead of simply your biased opinions
there are inequalities in the law because the woman and the man are not in an equivalent situation
one person has a fetus that is literally living off her body and the other is just the same as a he was before (sitting home, drinking beer and posting on GB.com)
what about that do you not understand?
when the fetus is in the womans body it's 100% hers even though it contains the genetic material from the man
-
there are inequalities in the law because the woman and the man are not in an equivalent situation
one person has a fetus that is literally living off her body and the other is just the same as a he was before (sitting home, drinking beer and posting on GB.com)
dont jinx anybody now ;D
I agree they arent equivilant that doesnt change the FACT THE FETUS IS HALF HIS....dispute that fact straw please
if the fetus is soley hers how is it that the child is half his? the fetus becomes the child remember biology...
when the fetus is in the womans body it's 100% hers even though it contains the genetic material from the man
youve done nothing but cite your own personal opinion nothing based on logic or facts...my arguement however is based in logic and biological fact, you seem to want to justify your arguement with the logic that the law is a certain way and that makes it right...laws arent always ethical as im sure you would agree this is an instance of that.
-
dont jinx anybody now ;D
I agree they arent equivilant that doesnt change the FACT THE FETUS IS HALF HIS....dispute that fact straw please
if the fetus is soley hers how is it that the child is half his? the fetus becomes the child remember biology...
youve done nothing but cite your own personal opinion nothing based on logic or facts...my arguement however is based in logic and biological fact, you seem to want to justify your arguement with the logic that the law is a certain way and that makes it right...laws arent always ethical as im sure you would agree this is an instance of that.
dude - I don't know how much more clear I can make my point of view
what part don't you understand
-
dude - I don't know how much more clear I can make my point of view
what part don't you understand
LOL that fine for you to believe a certain way but dont dismiss the idea that there are inequalities under the law and the man gets the shaft. If you think that way fine but you have to give credence to my point of view as well even more so than yours b/c again MINE IS BASED IN LOGIC AND FACTS...YOURS IS BAISED SOLEY ON OPINION AND EMOTIONS
which is fine if you feel that way im simply saying the law should be equal regardless of race, creed, religion or SEX
-
dont jinx anybody now ;D
I agree they arent equivilant that doesnt change the FACT THE FETUS IS HALF HIS....dispute that fact straw please
if the fetus is soley hers how is it that the child is half his? the fetus becomes the child remember biology...
youve done nothing but cite your own personal opinion nothing based on logic or facts...my arguement however is based in logic and biological fact, you seem to want to justify your arguement with the logic that the law is a certain way and that makes it right...laws arent always ethical as im sure you would agree this is an instance of that.
I've cited my opinion which is supported by all the cases you've linked.
you've cited your opinion which is supported by nothing - and no matter how many time you write the word "logic" or a derivative it doesn't make it so.
the fetus is in the womans body and she get's 100% say over what happens to it and it makes no difference that a man had to contribute his genetic material.
her body = her choice
period
-
LOL that fine for you to believe a certain way but dont dismiss the idea that there are inequalities under the law and the man gets the shaft. If you think that way fine but you have to give credence to my point of view as well even more so than yours b/c again MINE IS BASED IN LOGIC AND FACTS...YOURS IS BAISED SOLEY ON OPINION AND EMOTIONS
which is fine if you feel that way im simply saying the law should be equal regardless of race, creed, religion or SEX
interesting - you wrote the word logical yet again
nothing you've said is logical
what's the logic behind saying you don't want to control the womans body yet you do want to have control over the fetus (or at least half of it)
how does that work in the real world?
-
I've cited my opinion which is supported by all the cases you've linked.
you've cited your opinion which is supported by nothing - and no matter how many time you write the word "logic" or a derivative it doesn't make it so.
the fetus is in the womans body and she get's 100% say over what happens to it and it makes no difference that a man had to contribute his genetic material.
her body = her choice
period
You just dont get it do you dip shit you cite LAW as the justification for your arguement ::) YOU JACK ASSS the law once said slavery was ok, was slavery ever the right thing to do?[/glow]
AGAIN ETHICS AND LAW DONT ALWAYS GO HAND AND HAND and this is an instance of that
since you have no basis for your claims other then your opinion and mine is based in biology and logic sorry hoss you loss again in this debate...
-
interesting - you wrote the word logical yet again
nothing you've said is logical
what's the logic behind saying you don't want to control the womans body yet you do want to have control over the fetus (or at least half of it)
how does that work in the real world?
WOW YOUR A FUKING IDIOT I NEVER SAID I WANTED CONTROL OVER THE FETUS AGAIN SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT?
in lue of being able to control the fetus the father should be presented with other options is my point...
-
You just dont get it do you dip shit you cite LAW as the justification for your arguement ::) YOU JACK ASSS the law once said slavery was ok, was slavery ever the right thing to do?[/glow]
AGAIN ETHICS AND LAW DONT ALWAYS GO HAND AND HAND and this is an instance of that
since you have no basis for your claims other then your opinion and mine is based in biology and logic sorry hoss you loss again in this debate...
yep and the law about abortion may change in the future
right now we've decided that the woman get's the choice over what happens in her body and the man get's no choice
now answer the question
you dont' want to control the womans body but you do claim some ownership and therefore some control of the fetus
how does that work?
-
yep and the law about abortion may change in the future
right now we've decided that the woman get's the choice over what happens in her body and the man get's no choice
now answer the question
you dont' want to control the womans body but you do claim some ownership and therefore some control of the fetus
how does that work?
no I was showing you the idiocy of your POV if the man is half owner of the child the man is also half owner of the fetus...since the law has deemed that the women has her own choice independent of the man the man should also have a choice independent of the women.
your opinion is based on a BIASED LAW youve said as much yet you still dont think there is anything wrong with it?
-
WOW YOUR A FUKING IDIOT I NEVER SAID I WANTED CONTROL OVER THE FETUS AGAIN SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT?
in lue of being able to control the fetus the father should be presented with other options is my point...
ok - so you've previously agreed that the man and the woman are not in equivalent situations (she's pregnant and he's not) and you think, although they are not in equal situations that some sort of eqaulity MUST be forced into the situation and in your mind that equality is the right of the man to walk away from any financial responsibility after the child is born. Didn't we reach that conclusion about 2 pages ago.
I summed up what I thought your position was and asked you to correct anything I had wrong. We've just wasted 2 pages:
Tony, unlike you, I have a job and can't spend all day on this board going over the same argument over and over.
I'm going to waste about 10 minutes of my lunch on this.
Why did you post those links? You say you didn't post them to prove your case legally and that makes sense because every instance cited was dismissed, rejected etc... So why did you post it? Did you post it to show that other people who have made same claims as you have been rejected but that just the fact that they exist has some signficance?. Just the fact that someone shares your opinion means something??
Didn't we already agree that there are inequalities in the whole situation?
Man and Woman both know the rules of the game before the fact and are equal at that point
Once a pregnancy occurs the woman has the greater burden and therefore has choice that you don't get.
After the kid is born you both now have equal responsibility to support the kid.
From what I can tell from you ramblings you think that because she has a choices that you dont' get that somehow you're owed some equivalent opportunity which you've defined as the opportunity to walk away from any financial responsibility
Additionally, you seem to try to support your case by saying if you are not given that equivalent opportunity then you should have the right to control the womans body (either forcing her to get an abortion or forcing her to bear the child).
Please clarify any part of your argument that I have wrong so far
I'll check back later tonight
-
ok - so you've previously agreed that the man and the woman are not in equivalent situations (she's pregnant and he's not) and you think, although they are not in equal situations that some sort of eqaulity MUST be forced into the situation and in your mind that equality is the right of the man to walk away from any financial responsibility after the child is born. Didn't we reach that conclusion about 2 pages ago.
I summed up what I thought your position was and asked you to correct anything I had wrong. We've just wasted 2 pages:
LOL this situation is very similiar to Affirmative Action to level the playing field you stifle another persons rights. I guess you are ok with that then? ::)
The situations are unequal straw HOWEVER BOTH OF THEM KNEW THAT GOING INTO CONSENTUAL SEX but the women is the only person in the equation with the choice or options the man must sit there...how on earth can you think that is even remotely fair?
-
LOL this situation is very similiar to Affirmative Action to level the playing field you stifle another persons rights. I guess you are ok with that then? ::)
The situations are unequal straw HOWEVER BOTH OF THEM KNEW THAT GOING INTO CONSENTUAL SEX but the women is the only person in the equation with the choice or options the man must sit there...how on earth can you think that is even remotely fair?
how is this similar in any way to affirmative action?
you're the one thinking the playing field (the womans womb I suppose) needs to be leveled.
We've only looked at your view of one outcome of the situation (woman wants kid and man doesn't)
What if the woman doesn't want the pregnancy and the man does
how should be man be compensated for his lack of control over his half of the fetus?
-
how is this similar in any way to affirmative action?
you're the one thinking the playing field (the womans womb I suppose) needs to be leveled.
We've only looked at your view of one outcome of the situation (woman wants kid and man doesn't)
What if the woman doesn't want the pregnancy and the man does
how should be man be compensated for his lack of control over his half of the fetus?
Actually Im not the only one brain child that was my point in posting the links I did this is a national concern simply b/c its not on your front burner doesnt mean its not a concern for many others DO SOME RESEARCH
LOL goodness fucking gracious straw ive never said anything about not giving the women a choice or giving the man a choice in what the women does so PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THAT
perhaps she should pay him a nominal fee and the same for the man if he doesnt want on and she does...
-
Actually Im not the only one brain child that was my point in posting the links I did this is a national concern simply b/c its not on your front burner doesnt mean its not a concern for many others DO SOME RESEARCH
LOL goodness fucking gracious straw ive never said anything about not giving the women a choice or giving the man a choice in what the women does so PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THAT
perhaps she should pay him a nominal fee and the same for the man if he doesnt want on and she does...
wow - you have short fuse. It's kind of funny watching you blow your stack over a conversation on a message board
Ok - so you think maybe the woman should pay the man some nominal fee if she wants to abort the fetus and he wants it?
who decides the value? Are some more valuable than others.
what would prevent the man from saying he wants the kid just so he can get the fee (especially when he knows the woman will abort)
if the woman can't pay the fee then should she be forced to have the kid
who should manage this whole system of debit and credits
.
.
.
.
.
do you see how ridiculous that idea is?
-
wow - you have short fuse. It's kind of funny watching you blow your stack over a conversation on a message board
Ok - so you think maybe the woman should pay the man some nominal fee if she wants to abort the fetus and he wants it?
who decides the value? Are some more valuable than others.
what would prevent the man from saying he wants the kid just so he can get the fee (especially when he knows the woman will abort)
if the woman can't pay the fee then should she be forced to have the kid
who should manage this whole system of debit and credits
.
.
.
.
.
do you see how ridiculous that idea is?
LOL first of all your getting caught up on details the very fact though youre entertaining the idea means you do see the inequality that there is in this situation
to answer you question the way that it is implemented isnt whats important right now its recognizing the bias of the law thats important...
the court could decide same as they courts do now...no straw there is nothing ridiculous about this idea whats ridiculous is you citing the law as justification I guess you would have been A OK with slavery if you had lived when it was legal...
-
LOL first of all your getting caught up on details the very fact though youre entertaining the idea means you do see the inequality that there is in this situation
to answer you question the way that it is implemented isnt whats important right now its recognizing the bias of the law thats important...
the court could decide same as they courts do now...no straw there is nothing ridiculous about this idea whats ridiculous is you citing the law as justification I guess you would have been A OK with slavery if you had lived when it was legal...
Ok so you think the law is biased in favor of the woman right?
you also think the man has a 50% claim in the fetus and his ownership interests are being restricted
is this correct?
-
Ok so you think the law is biased in favor of the woman right?
you also think the man has a 50% claim in the fetus and his ownership interests are being restricted
is this correct?
LOL i like the way you put it ;D
Im not saying the man has a claim to the fetus as in he should be able to have a say in her actions but biologically and logically the fetus is half his if the fetus isnt half his how is the child half his?
ill say yes even though its worded in such a way to lend itself to your idiotic arguement that I think a man should have a say over what the women does which ive never said or implied...
-
LOL i like the way you put it ;D
Im not saying the man has a claim to the fetus as in he should be able to have a say in her actions but biologically and logically the fetus is half his if the fetus isnt half his how is the child half his?
ill say yes even though its worded in such a way to lend itself to your idiotic arguement that I think a man should have a say over what the women does which ive never said or implied...
if, as you say, "the fetus is biologically and logically half his" then why shouldn't he bear half the biological burden of nourishing the fetus. Why shouldn't he take half the drain on his body, half the physical discomfort, half the health risk (including the risk of death). Why shouldn't he get half the morning sicknesness.
Afterall it's biologically half his right?
Your whole issue is about making this a fair equation right?
How should the woman be compensated for the unfair burden she must bear?
-
if, as you say, "the fetus is biologically and logically half his" then why shouldn't he bear half the biological burden of nourishing the fetus. Why shouldn't he take half the drain on his body, half the physical discomfort, half the health risk (including the risk of death). Why shouldn't he get half the morning sicknesness.
Afterall it's biologically half his right?
Your whole issue is about making this a fair equation right?
How should the woman be compensated for the unfair burden she must bear?
Logically if that was feasible i would agree to it if he as she does, get a choice in the matter
if you want to do away with the mans choice fine do away with the womens, you cant logically deny one and give the other a choice when biologically they are both owners of the fetus.
If like you want to say the fetus is soley hers then the child is soley hers...
now ive answered you questions so you answer mine how logically is the fetus only hers but the child the comes from the fetus hers and his?
-
Logically if that was feasible i would agree to it if he as she does, get a choice in the matter
if you want to do away with the mans choice fine do away with the womens, you cant logically deny one and give the other a choice when biologically they are both owners of the fetus.
If like you want to say the fetus is soley hers then the child is soley hers...
now ive answered you questions so you answer mine how logically is the fetus only hers but the child the comes from the fetus hers and his?
bahahahahah !!!
you and you logic are fucking funny
OK - so you LOGICALLY AGREE
let's get on to the point about compensation
how should the woman be compensated for this inequity?
I'm going to go with giving her sole choice and discretion over her own body
what do you think?
-
bahahahahah !!!
you and you logic are fucking funny
OK - so you LOGICALLY AGREE
let's get on to the point about compensation
how should the woman be compensated for this inequity?
I'm going to go with giving her sole choice and discretion over her own body
what do you think?
the problem in doing that is it also gives her sole choice and determinative action in someone elses life...
Im fine with giving her sole choice and discretion over her body, WHERE HAVE I STATED OTHERWISE? THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LIMITING HER OPTIONS IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH GIVING OPTIONS TO THE MAN get that shit through you thick fuking skulllllllllll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You still havent answer the question that ive posed to you MULTIPLE TIMES
how is a fetus soley hers but the child the comes from the fetus both of theirs?
Like I said the implementation is not whats important recognizing the inequality under the law is whats important at this moment. If you agree there is inequality under the law then say so and we can move on to implementation.
-
the problem in doing that is it also gives her sole choice and determinative action in someone elses life...
Im fine with giving her sole choice and discretion over her body, WHERE HAVE I STATED OTHERWISE? THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LIMITING HER OPTIONS IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH GIVING OPTIONS TO THE MAN get that shit through you thick fuking skulllllllllll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You still havent answer the question that ive posed to you MULTIPLE TIMES
how is a fetus soley hers but the child the comes from the fetus both of theirs?
Like I said the implementation is not whats important recognizing the inequality under the law is whats important at this moment. If you agree there is inequality under the law then say so and we can move on to implementation.
I thought we had already agreed that the fetus contains genetic material from the man
right?
-
I thought we had already agreed that the fetus contains genetic material from the man
right?
so why does the women get a choice of what to do with something that is half the mans but the man gets no choice in the situation at all?
so do you agree that there are inequalities under the law so that we can move on to implementation?
-
so why does the women get a choice of what to do with something that is half the mans but the man gets no choice in the situation at all?
so do you agree that there are inequalities under the law so that we can move on to implementation?
why don't just review what we both agree about
1. both man and woman contribute genetic material
2. the act of pregnancy creates an inequality between man and woman
if we can agree on that we can move on otherwise there's no point in wasting any more time
-
why don't just review what we both agree about
1. both man and woman contribute genetic material
2. the act of pregnancy creates an inequality between man and woman
if we can agree on that we can move on otherwise there's no point in wasting any more time
1. agreed
2. a voluntary inequality, agreed
you agree that there is an inequality in the law with respect to abortion and parental rights?
-
1. agreed
2. a voluntary inequality, agreed
you agree that there is an inequality in the law with respect to abortion and parental rights?
what is the inequity you see?
-
what is the inequity you see?
I see the voluntary inequality of the sex leading to pregnancy and it being soley on the women and also the inequality of women given a choice and not men.
What inequality do you see?
-
I see the voluntary inequality of the sex leading to pregnancy and it being soley on the women and also the inequality of women given a choice and not men.
What inequality do you see?
the girl is pregnant and the guy is not
-
the girl is pregnant and the guy is not
she is pregnant with HIS CHILD VOLUNTARILY so if she can walk away why cant he?
-
she is pregnant with HIS CHILD VOLUNTARILY so if she can walk away why cant he?
ok
this is your main beef
right?
-
ok
this is your main beef
right?
pretty much ya, there are other smaller things but thats the crux of it
-
ok
this is your main beef
right?
It took you 11 goddamn pages to figure that out?
-
It took you 11 goddamn pages to figure that out?
hahahahahahahahahah best quote in getbig history LMAOROTFCOPTER hahahah
you see skip this is what i was talking about...
-
It took you 11 goddamn pages to figure that out?
lets say the woman chooses to have the kid and would never consider having an abortion
does the man still get his right to walk away?
-
lets say the woman chooses to have the kid and would never consider having an abortion
does the man still get his right to walk away?
technically yes as the women still had the right to walk away, how would it be fair if only one person had the right to walk away?
-
technically yes as the women still had the right to walk away, how would it be fair if only one person had the right to walk away?
ok so you're saying they both have the one time choice of life and death / or it's equivalent (in your mind) financial obligation
is that correct?
-
ok so you're saying they both have the one time choice of life and death / or it's equivalent (in your mind) financial obligation
is that correct?
again your getting caught up in details...
first tell me that you agree that there is a inequality in laws as it applies to abortion and parental rights or this is just pointless
I have to assume that you do as you probably wouldnt even be entertaining the details if you disagree that there are inequalities.
-
again your getting caught up in details...
first tell me that you agree that there is a inequality in laws as it applies to abortion and parental rights or this is just pointless
I have to assume that you do as you probably wouldnt even be entertaining the details if you agree that there are inequalities.
ok
let's go with your perception of inequality
is it correct that you think that man and woman are both in an equal situation before and after impregnation
yes or no?
-
ok
let's go with your perception of inequality
is it correct that you think that man and woman are both in an equal situation before and after impregnation
yes or no?
FACEPALM!!!!!!!
Ive already said they are equivilant before and VOLUNTARILY inequivilant after
-
FACEPALM!!!!!!!
Ive already said they are equivilant before and VOLUNTARILY inequivilant after
so you think being pregnant and having to make the decision of pregnancy or abortion in your own body is the same as not having that option
but it is equivalent to having to pay for a kid you don't want?
those two options are basically the exact same thing
right?
-
so you think being pregnant and having to make the decision of pregnancy or abortion in your own body is the same as not having that option
but it is equivalent to having to pay for a kid you don't want?
those two options are basically the exact same thing
right?
WHAT??????????
I read that a few times and that made absolutely no sense please rephrase that...
-
WHAT??????????
I read that a few times and that made absolutely no sense please rephrase that...
you think man and woman are in an equal situation before and after conception
I don't agree
-
you think man and woman are in an equal situation before and after conception
I don't agree
no i said
FACEPALM!!!!!!!
Ive already said they are equivilant before and VOLUNTARILY inequivilant after
MAN YOU GOTTA FUKING LEARN HOW TO READ...
-
no i saidMAN YOU GOTTA FUKING LEARN HOW TO READ...
sorry
my bad
who has the greater burden?
-
sorry
my bad
who has the greater burden?
i have no idea, what does that matter?
-
i have no idea, what does that matter?
it matters because you claim there are inequalities in the law
-
it matters because you claim there are inequalities in the law
first of all I dont claim there are...THERE ARE INEQUALITIES PLAIN AND SIMPLE....
If i had to pick on or the other I would say the man gets the shaft as he doesnt get a choice in the matter and 9 months gestation isnt equal to 18 yrs child support payments...
-
first of all I dont claim there are...THERE ARE INEQUALITIES PLAIN AND SIMPLE....
If i had to pick on or the other I would say the man gets the shaft as he doesnt get a choice in the matter and 9 months gestation isnt equal to 18 yrs child support payments...
what does this statement mean
you don't think there are inequalities in the law?
I thought that was your main point
where are the inequalities then
I asked you two post ago and you said you don't know and why does it matter
-
what does this statement mean
you don't think there are inequalities in the law?
I thought that was your main point
where are the inequalities then
I asked you two post ago and you said you don't know and why does it matter
no that response was to who had the greater burden JACK ASS....
forget the statement and get on with it...
If i had to pick on or the other I would say the man gets the shaft as he doesnt get a choice in the matter and 9 months gestation isnt equal to 18 yrs child support payments...
response por favor...
-
no that response was to who had the greater burden JACK ASS....
forget the statement and get on with it...
response por favor...
you believe the inequality is that she can walk away but he can't
correct?
the two concurrent situations (being pregnant and being the father) are the same only the woman has the advantage because she can "walk away" if she choose and the man doesn't get a "walk away" option
if I understand you correctly I think we're probably done
-
you believe the inequality is that she can walk away but he can't
correct?
the two concurrent situations (being pregnant and being the father) are the same only the woman has the advantage because she can "walk away" if she choose and the man doesn't get a "walk away" option
if I understand you correctly I think we're probably done
I believe there is more then simply one inequality but only one person given a choice...
I would not call it an advantage as there are no winners in this situation as I see it, simply she has the RIGHT to walk away and he doesnt...
-
Strict New Neb. Abortion Law Faces Long Legal Road
Sunday, 18 Apr 2010
It's been called a groundbreaking law, but a measure approved in Nebraska last week that changes the rationale for abortion bans probably won't go into effect anytime soon — if ever.
Instead, abortion opponents are hoping it will become the most important case on abortion to reach the U.S. Supreme Court in recent memory. Even they acknowledge the ban on abortions at and after 20 weeks of pregnancy won't see the light of day unless the high court rules that it is constitutional.
Mary Spaulding Balch, legislative director for National Right to Life, said a court injunction will likely prevent the implementation of the law. The measure passed last week by Nebraska's nonpartisan Legislature and signed into law by Republican Gov. Dave Heineman is scheduled to take effect in October.
Lower courts have no precedent to support the law, which bases the new restrictions on the assertion that fetuses feel pain.
"This is a case of first impression," Spaulding Balch said.
The long trip to the high court — if it indeed lands there — combined with the time it takes for a ruling there could mean a final decision on the law is several years away.
First, a legal challenge must be posed. No one has stepped forward yet, but Dr. LeRoy Carhart, one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers, is considered a likely candidate. Carhart, who practices in an Omaha suburb and is the target of the new Nebraska law, was a plaintiff in two of the biggest abortion cases of the last decade that reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
Carhart said in a statement that the passage of the law and another that requires women to get pre-abortion screenings for mental and physical problems has strengthened his commitment to protecting women's reproductive rights.
The Center for Reproductive Rights, which has close ties to Carhart, hinted in a letter to Heineman urging him to veto the bills that it would be involved in a challenge of the ban on late-term abortions.
"This bill is clearly unconstitutional and is the most extreme abortion law passed in this country in recent memory," the letter states. It reminds Heineman that the center has litigated cases in Nebraska and across the United States in its fight for women's reproductive rights.
The 20-week ban is based on assertions from some doctors that fetuses feel pain by that stage of development. Critics say there is no firm evidence to support the claim, and that the law is an unconstitutional break from more than 35 years of court precedent that sets viability as the dividing line for abortion restrictions. Viability is the ability of a fetus to survive outside the womb. While determined on a case-by-case basis, viability is generally considered to be between 22 and 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Opponents of the law also say it is unconstitutional because it doesn't allow mental health issues to be used as reasons to have abortions at and after the 20-week mark.
Whether an injunction will be issued partially depends on whether a judge thinks there is a likelihood that the law won't withstand a legal challenge. Abortion rights advocates say that standard is clearly met.
The fetal pain law "blatantly violates" court precedent that abortions can't be banned before viability, so it is likely that an injunction will be issued, said Caitlin Borgmann, an abortion law expert and professor at The City University of New York.
"What the sponsors and supporters are really hoping for is a test case for Justice (Anthony) Kennedy," she said.
Kennedy, a moderate conservative considered a swing vote, is seen by abortion opponents as their best chance for tighter restrictions on the procedure. While abortion rights advocates say he has done nothing to suggest he would favor a pre-viability ban, opponents are hopeful because of his positions on two high-profile abortion cases over the past decade.
Both involve Carhart.
Abortion opponents' record with those cases in a federal court in Nebraska that is likely to consider the new law isn't good.
In 1997, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kopf granted an injunction to keep from going into effect a Nebraska-approved ban on the procedure that critics call partial-birth abortion. Kopf later struck down the law, and the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld his decision. The U.S. Supreme Court, with Kennedy dissenting, upheld the 8th Circuit's decision.
In 2003, less than an hour after President Bush signed the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, Kopf issued an injunction preventing that law from taking effect. As in the late 1990s, Kopf struck down that law and the 8th Circuit upheld his decision.
But the Supreme Court, with Kennedy writing for the majority, overturned the decision and upheld the federal ban.
The injunctions in both cases "confirms the likelihood" that one will be issued against the latest Nebraska law, Borgmann said.
But the former Nebraska attorney general who was at the center of the 1997 case over the state ban thinks things could turn out differently this time around.
One standard judges consider when deciding whether to grant injunctions — whether lawsuits challenging laws are likely to win — may not be met, said Don Stenberg, who defended the state law in arguments before the Supreme Court. He argues that the test of whether abortion restrictions are legal is not fetus viability but whether abortion restrictions present undue burdens to women.
"The key test is whether ... this prohibition because of fetal pain at 20 weeks is an undue burden on what courts say is a woman's right to an abortion," Stenberg said. "I don't think it is."
Another standard used to determine if injunctions are issued is whether irreparable harm would be caused if an injunction wasn't issued. Stenberg said that because the current start of viability is around 22 weeks and the new Nebraska ban is at 20, the law is eliminating only a short period in which abortions can be performed.
"Does something happen between 20 and 22 to 24 weeks that causes irreparable harm?" he asked.
Jordan Goldberg of the Center for Reproductive Rights said the bill plays off the notion of fetal pain and a state's right to protect a fetus and "none of those reasons are sufficient to outweigh a woman's right to end a pregnancy."
——
http://newsmax.com/US/US-Nebraska-Abortion-Laws/2010/04/18/id/356069