Abortion Fight Shifts to Neb. After Tiller Death

[tonymctones]

right on

what is one of Tony's good points?

LOL 

[Straw Man]

LOL 

you've got 8 pages of your dumb ideas being torn to shreds but at least you have an intellectual ally in bum. 

[tonymctones]

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

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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

[Straw Man]

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?

[tonymctones]

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 

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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...

[Dos Equis]

LOL 

Good response.   

[Dr Loomis]

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 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.

[Straw Man]

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?

[Straw Man]

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?

[tonymctones]

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

[tonymctones]

"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...

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

"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...

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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?

[Straw Man]

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?

[tonymctones]

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...

[tonymctones]

"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.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Straw Man]

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