Abortion Fight Shifts to Neb. After Tiller Death

[tonymctones]

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.

 

[Straw Man]

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?

[Skip8282]

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.

[tonymctones]

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

[tonymctones]

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...

[tonymctones]

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

[Deedee]

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.

[Straw Man]

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?

[tonymctones]

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.

[tonymctones]

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.

[Deedee]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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.

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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?

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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.

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[Deedee]

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.

[tonymctones]

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.

[tonymctones]

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?

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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.

[Skip8282]

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