If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   All the countries that have signed onto the women's rights treaty that Hillary Clinton is promoting, step right up. Uhhh, not so fast there USA   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 577
    More: Interesting, Hillary Rodham Clinton, United States, Catherine Ashton, UN resolutions, UN Convention, abortion law, United States rankings, treaty  
•       •       •

2233 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Sep 2011 at 7:20 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



577 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-21 09:30:55 AM  

coco ebert: So, it's kind of like when the U.S. lectures to other countries about human rights while Guantanamo is still open.

America- STFU and GBTW.


We don't need to be 100% perfect to be able to explain to other countries how it's supposed to work. From a human rights perspective we're pretty damned good. We don't have slavery, outside of the Prison Industrial Complex. We don't mutilate our children, outside of circumcision. We don't engage in torture, outside of waterboarding. We don't incarcerate people without due process of law, outside of Arabs. And we don't let anybody put whatever they want in their bodies, regardless of age, race, gender, or sexual orientation.
 
2011-09-21 09:36:33 AM  

EWreckedSean: Methadone Girls: EWreckedSean: shivashakti: EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.

Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?

"They" told us not to invade Iraq because the Russians, Germans and the French had financial interests in a Saddam run Iraq. Let's not pretend their was some grandiose noble reason against it.

Also, something about flimsy evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

Was there grandiose noble reasons for invading? Is that the implication?

I never suggested there was. If I had to guess, the real reason behind it was because the neo-cons actually thought they could easily establish a pro-American, secular government in the heart of the middle east to counter Iran in the region. I mean that's why we supported Iraq all through the 80s to begin with.


That's the smartest thing you've ever said on this site.
 
2011-09-21 09:36:33 AM  

Lunaville: Also, I have Bevets on ignore , people. I encourage you all to consider that option.


I was in going to ignore him but I chose to abort the process
 
2011-09-21 09:36:44 AM  

Theaetetus: serial_crusher: How come women get all these rights that I don't get?

There's a crowd of people trying to prevent you and your doctor from making private medical decisions?


In fairness though, while a man is financially obligated to pay for a child, he has no say on whether or not it gets aborted. Women do have a bit more rights when it comes to child birth than men do.
 
2011-09-21 09:36:48 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Women are tools to be used in the US. This has been true forever and will never change. We are a nation of bigots and cannot be fixed.


Sadly, this.
 
2011-09-21 09:38:09 AM  
And the US shouldn't sign. Why rights for women? Why not rights for everyone? Feminism is not about equality but about mysandry.
 
2011-09-21 09:38:21 AM  

Aarontology: keylock71: You know, for supposedly "tough, individualistic boot -strappers", the GOP seems to be made up of a bunch of whiny little titty babies, paper tigers and bullies.

A woman thinking she's a man's equal? It's like a thousand 9/11s.


First the women wanted to be treated equally and have a vote, then the blacks wanted to be treated equally, and then the gays wanted to be treated equally and now those damned women are at it again wanting to control their own bodies and reproduction...

It's been a trying few centuries for our conservative friends, to be sure, but thankfully they're still able to hold onto those 19th century values despite all this nonsense about white, wealthy men not being exceptional and deserving of better than everyone else.
 
2011-09-21 09:38:46 AM  

Bevets: As a result, previous versions of the treaty that have reached the Senate floor -- including one as recently as 2002 -- have included special riders that exempted abortion laws, and a handful of other provisions, from the treaty.

Passing a U.N. treaty that includes special exemptions would be an insult to the international community, not to mention it would sap the measure of its fundamental strength, Benshoof said.

"If we have a CEDAW that is like the last one, we don't need it," Benshoof said. "It does not send a signal to women of the world that America signs a treaty without intention of ever implementing it. It would be like signing a treaty against torture and putting in a clause excluding waterboarding."

So not giving mothers the right to kill their children is basically the same as waterboarding. This is how abortion advocates actually think.


...do you hear yourself when you type?

...maybe you should stick with the quote-mining.
 
2011-09-21 09:41:24 AM  

liam76: When you claim it won't happen because "republicans are evil" make no peep about dems not doing anything about it in the past and make no complaints about dems not pushing for it, it doesn;t coem off as an honest critique over the issue.


I just calls it likes I sees it.
 
2011-09-21 09:41:46 AM  

ArkAngel: [i.huffpost.com image 570x238]

Jesus, did she eat Monica Lewinsky or something?


i.huffpost.com
1.bp.blogspot.com27.media.tumblr.com
 
2011-09-21 09:44:34 AM  
The US only signs pledges that take rights away from people now. Read the news.
 
2011-09-21 09:45:39 AM  

liam76: Methadone Girls: Alphax: WorldCitizen: The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!

Shockingly status quo. We couldn't even join the international land mine ban.

Why do you keep calling yourselves the world police? I mean, if these are the rules and laws the rest of the world wants, but you can't bring yourself to agree to something as common sense as a land mine ban, how can you enforce the rules on everyone but yourselves? There's a word for that.....

They aren't.

They are rules and laws written by special interest groups.

As for the landmines the last time the US used them was in 1991. It is stupid to say you won't use X weapon when your enimies haven't made that commitment.


Yes, because without land mines the US would be shockingly behind other nations militarily and could probably be rolled right over.
 
2011-09-21 09:45:53 AM  

lordaction: And the US shouldn't sign. Why rights for women? Why not rights for everyone? Feminism is not about equality but about mysandry.


Control of your reproductive system should be a universal right. For men, it is easy, for women, it is more complicated.

Think about a right to visit your local government office. People in a wheel chairs need a ramp. People who can walk, don't.

Would you argue that it isn't fair that we have to put ramps in local government offices?

It is the same with women. Being a women isn't a disability, but the nature of the reproductive systems, requires extra legislative mechanisms to provide equality (ramps). Men don't get pregnant. Men don't get raped (typically). Men don't get cervical cancer. To provide women/men an equal level of control over their lives, you have to have special considerations.
 
2011-09-21 09:46:28 AM  

lordaction: And the US shouldn't sign. Why rights for women? Why not rights for everyone? Feminism is not about equality but about mysandry.


Your bad divorce does not change the fact that religious, economic and political circles of power are all overwhelming dominated by men. Neither does it justify denying basic human rights to women.
 
2011-09-21 09:46:52 AM  

Farking While Farking: ArkAngel: But shouldn't a country be allowed to support a traditional nuclear family?

The Nuclear Family has only been popular since the early 1900s and is largely an economic disaster for the poor and middle classes.

If anything is a "Traditional Family" it would be multi-generational households.


I agree. And without social security, most elderly parents would live with one of their children and a return to these multi-generational households. So social security is a family values issue.

Wow - I just spent 5 seconds inside Rick Perry's head. Don't go in htere - it's mostly empty, but there's a lot of scary shiat in the shadows.
 
2011-09-21 09:47:44 AM  

WorldCitizen: liam76: Methadone Girls: Alphax: WorldCitizen: The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!

Shockingly status quo. We couldn't even join the international land mine ban.

Why do you keep calling yourselves the world police? I mean, if these are the rules and laws the rest of the world wants, but you can't bring yourself to agree to something as common sense as a land mine ban, how can you enforce the rules on everyone but yourselves? There's a word for that.....

They aren't.

They are rules and laws written by special interest groups.

As for the landmines the last time the US used them was in 1991. It is stupid to say you won't use X weapon when your enimies haven't made that commitment.

Yes, because without land mines the US would be shockingly behind other nations militarily and could probably be rolled right over.


Rolled over is actually right, as the concern is how quickly North Korea could roll over the DMZ into Seoul without them.
 
2011-09-21 09:49:16 AM  

keylock71: It's been a trying few centuries for our conservative friends, to be sure, but thankfully they're still able to hold onto those 19th century values despite all this nonsense about white, wealthy men not being exceptional and deserving of better than everyone else.


I'd like to think that maybe after these goons all died off we could finally achieve true equality. But that's only a pipe dream. These bigots are passing their disease right on down to their children and grandchildren.

If we HAVE to go through another civil war, could we please be a little bit more thorough?!
 
2011-09-21 09:49:28 AM  

EWreckedSean: In fairness though, while a man is financially obligated to pay for a child, he has no say on whether or not it gets aborted. Women do have a bit more rights when it comes to child birth than men do.


Do you honestly believe that men are getting the harder deal when it comes to reproduction, reproductive health, reproductive rights, state interference in their reproductive system and the effect of reproduction on their lives?
 
2011-09-21 09:50:44 AM  

illisium: lordaction: And the US shouldn't sign. Why rights for women? Why not rights for everyone? Feminism is not about equality but about mysandry.

Your bad divorce does not change the fact that religious, economic and political circles of power are all overwhelming dominated by men. Neither does it justify denying basic human rights to women.


Us signing the treaty grants zero basic rights to anybody.
 
2011-09-21 09:51:10 AM  

Gulper Eel: DarnoKonrad: Actually women are doing a lot better there, whether it's the ending of male guardianship or forced marriages

Yeah, great. Now the husband has to pay a dowry before he can go bang his 11-year-old wife

Why, they're practically Vermont over there.


It's like you enjoy advertising how much of an insipid dishonest reactionary you are. No it's not vermont, nor did I imply it was, but more importantly people who care about equality don't base their compliance on the standards of foreign nations. Okay? It doesn't goddamned matter what the Saudis are up to, it matters if it's the right policy to pursue.
 
2011-09-21 09:53:44 AM  

Farking While Farking: EWreckedSean: In fairness though, while a man is financially obligated to pay for a child, he has no say on whether or not it gets aborted. Women do have a bit more rights when it comes to child birth than men do.

Do you honestly believe that men are getting the harder deal when it comes to reproduction, reproductive health, reproductive rights, state interference in their reproductive system and the effect of reproduction on their lives?


In certain areas, certainly. A woman gets pregnant, she and she alone gets to chose whether or not to have that child, right? A man is hostage to the woman's decision. If a man things abortion is murder and wants to keep the child and she doesn't. Too bad. If the pregnancy was unplanned, and the man doesn't want a child and she does, too bad, he's an ATM machine for the next 18 years. Women have options post impregnation. Men have none.
 
2011-09-21 09:54:30 AM  

EWreckedSean: Yes, because without land mines the US would be shockingly behind other nations militarily and could probably be rolled right over.

Rolled over is actually right, as the concern is how quickly North Korea could roll over the DMZ into Seoul without them.


I lived within shelling distance of North Korea (with a north facing apartment even) and visited the DMZ. I don't think if you took away the land mines North Korea would suddenly think, "hey, there's nothing stopping us know; let's go for it!"
 
2011-09-21 09:55:46 AM  

N. A. Coffey: keylock71: It's been a trying few centuries for our conservative friends, to be sure, but thankfully they're still able to hold onto those 19th century values despite all this nonsense about white, wealthy men not being exceptional and deserving of better than everyone else.

I'd like to think that maybe after these goons all died off we could finally achieve true equality. But that's only a pipe dream. These bigots are passing their disease right on down to their children and grandchildren.

If we HAVE to go through another civil war, could we please be a little bit more thorough?!


Oh the irony of you guys making sweeping judgements about a whole group of people, and then whining about their bigotry...
 
2011-09-21 09:57:33 AM  

WorldCitizen: EWreckedSean: Yes, because without land mines the US would be shockingly behind other nations militarily and could probably be rolled right over.

Rolled over is actually right, as the concern is how quickly North Korea could roll over the DMZ into Seoul without them.

I lived within shelling distance of North Korea (with a north facing apartment even) and visited the DMZ. I don't think if you took away the land mines North Korea would suddenly think, "hey, there's nothing stopping us know; let's go for it!"


Did you miss last year where the North started shelling the South again? It's hard to blame the South for wanting every little bit of deterrence between them and the North...
 
2011-09-21 09:58:30 AM  

WorldCitizen: liam76: As for the landmines the last time the US used them was in 1991. It is stupid to say you won't use X weapon when your enimies haven't made that commitment.

Yes, because without land mines the US would be shockingly behind other nations militarily and could probably be rolled right over.


Where did I say that?

The fact is this treaty is asking us to give up a tool that our enemies use. There is no reason to do it.

mrshowrules: It is the same with women. Being a women isn't a disability, but the nature of the reproductive systems, requires extra legislative mechanisms to provide equality (ramps). Men don't get pregnant. Men don't get raped (typically). Men don't get cervical cancer. To provide women/men an equal level of control over their lives, you have to have special considerations


Allowing abortion isn't "equal level of control" unless the man has a vote or he can waive off parental support.

Given the nature of our reproductive organs and technology today "equal level of control" is impossible.
 
2011-09-21 10:00:06 AM  

devildog123: FirstNationalBastard: Who are they kidding?

As long as Republicans have anything to do with it, the only rights women will be allowed on paper are the right to get in the kitchen, the right to cook dinner, and the right to shut their pretty little mouths when men are talking.

If the war on a woman's right to choose whether to keep a fetus or abort, and just how far the republicans are willing to go to make sure they don't have that choice, or a safe place to go to get the procedure done isn't enough evidence of what they think of women, I don't see what more they can do to prove just how much they hate women.


FTA: In a recent Newsweek list of the best countries in the world for women, the United States ranked eighth overal

Yup, without this treaty, women are just treated like shiat in this country. I mean, just the other day, I beat my wife because she had the nerve to get out of the kitchen.

And, back in 2009, when they had a damn near filibuster proof majority in the Senate, I didn't see the Democratic party or President Obama (back when he was riding his 60%+ popularity wave) try to get this thing ratified either. I guess they hate women too, huh?


It might be hard to grasp, but if you are going to be apart of the international community and te UN, then you have to play too.

Anyway, treaties can be changed you know. Governments of each country can exclude certain parts of the bill if they so choose, before they sign. At least, thats what Wikipedia said...
 
2011-09-21 10:02:32 AM  

AnonAmbientLight: It might be hard to grasp, but if you are going to be apart of the international community and te UN, then you have to play too.


Did the UN security council pass it?
 
2011-09-21 10:02:45 AM  

AnonAmbientLight:
It might be hard to grasp, but if you are going to be apart of the international community and te UN, then you have to play too.


Who says? Frankly, I don't much see the need to promote an unelected body from making up rules it sees fit.
 
2011-09-21 10:02:50 AM  

liam76: The fact is this treaty is asking us to give up a tool that our enemies use. There is no reason to do it.


Of course this is the same logic that some people use to justify torture by the US.
 
2011-09-21 10:03:50 AM  

EWreckedSean: WorldCitizen: EWreckedSean: Yes, because without land mines the US would be shockingly behind other nations militarily and could probably be rolled right over.

Rolled over is actually right, as the concern is how quickly North Korea could roll over the DMZ into Seoul without them.

I lived within shelling distance of North Korea (with a north facing apartment even) and visited the DMZ. I don't think if you took away the land mines North Korea would suddenly think, "hey, there's nothing stopping us know; let's go for it!"

Did you miss last year where the North started shelling the South again? It's hard to blame the South for wanting every little bit of deterrence between them and the North...


Cause there's no way to get around the DMZ's land mines at all. I mean if you can lob shells over the DMZ, that prolly means you can fly a plane over it. You know, with soldiers on them and stuff. I think the international community keeps North Korea at bay more than the land mines.
 
2011-09-21 10:04:05 AM  

liam76: Allowing abortion isn't "equal level of control" unless the man has a vote or he can waive off parental support.


A man has complete control of his sperm. Having a vote what someone else can do with their body has nothing to do with you.
 
2011-09-21 10:04:13 AM  

N. A. Coffey: If we HAVE to go through another civil war, could we please be a little bit more thorough?!


wpcontent.answcdn.com

"Don't look at me... I told 'em what needed to be done."


But seriously, these attitudes won't be changed through violence, but rather through education. Like terrorism, it's not something that can ever completely be eradicated, but it can be limited and minimized in free, civilized societies.
 
2011-09-21 10:05:29 AM  

Farking While Farking: ArkAngel: But shouldn't a country be allowed to support a traditional nuclear family?

The Nuclear Family has only been popular since the early 1900s and is largely an economic disaster for the poor and middle classes.

If anything is a "Traditional Family" it would be multi-generational households.


If you take the whole history of Homo Sapiens into account, the "traditional family" would be communal living with the women working together to take care of all the kids and the men doing the hunting much like the least disturbed indigenous tribes today.
 
2011-09-21 10:05:44 AM  
With the Republicans controlling the Senate, the Democrats really have no way to push for the ratification of this treaty...err...wait a minute...
 
2011-09-21 10:07:46 AM  

keylock71: Although Clinton did not mention America's conspicuous absence from the CEDAW list of signatories, both she and President Obama have repeatedly stated they would like to see the treaty ratified in the Senate. But while CEDAW has been in the hands of the Senate for more than 30 years -- ever since President Jimmy Carter signed it in 1980 -- it has never so much as gotten a vote in the full chamber.

Yep, that's farking embarrassing... It would be great if the US could move at least into the 20th century on these issues, never mind the 21st century, but when one political party is actively trying to put us back into the 19th century, I don't see that happening anytime soon...


Down with Mother's Day! Down with Mother's Day!

/flowers are expensive
 
2011-09-21 10:09:44 AM  

EWreckedSean: If the pregnancy was unplanned, and the man doesn't want a child and she does, too bad, he's an ATM machine for the next 18 years.


The mother also spends a great deal of money in child care; how is it fair to place that entire burden on her? The money that an absent father spends in child support is the same money he'd spend if he wasn't absent. Do you really think men should be able to get a woman pregnant, and then walk away with no consequences?

Also, there is no such thing as an unplanned pregnancy any more. If a man or woman doesn't want children, there are several options available to prevent it. Not using these options is a personal choice, and in making that choice, you are accepting responsibility for the possible consequences (to wit, pregnancy).
 
2011-09-21 10:10:03 AM  

EWreckedSean: In certain areas, certainly. A woman gets pregnant, she and she alone gets to chose whether or not to have that child, right? A man is hostage to the woman's decision. If a man things abortion is murder and wants to keep the child and she doesn't. Too bad. If the pregnancy was unplanned, and the man doesn't want a child and she does, too bad, he's an ATM machine for the next 18 years. Women have options post impregnation. Men have none.


So are you really saying that if the man wants the child but the woman doesn't then he should be able to make her keep it?

Are you also saying you refer prefer the deal that women get? And that all things considered thu have it better, not just the above items?
 
2011-09-21 10:10:43 AM  

EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: How come women get all these rights that I don't get?

There's a crowd of people trying to prevent you and your doctor from making private medical decisions?

In fairness though, while a man is financially obligated to pay for a child, he has no say on whether or not it gets aborted. Women do have a bit more rights when it comes to child birth than men do.


In fairness though, no one, anywhere, has any say on whether a man gets a vasectomy other than him and his doctor. We only intrude on private medical decisions when it's a woman.

Additionally, if a child gets aborted, a man cannot possibly be financially obligated. And if a child is not aborted, a woman is equally financially obligated. What you perceive as unfairness is really just the distinction between whether there's a child or not, and your own ignorance of the fact that the mother is equally on the hook once a child is born.
 
2011-09-21 10:11:30 AM  

Methadone Girls: I think the international community China keeps North Korea at bay more than the land mines.


The last thing the Chinese government wants is a sudden and massive influx of North Korean refugees.

Quiefenburger: With the Republicans controlling the Senate, the Democrats really have no way to push for the ratification of this treaty...err...wait a minute...


Farking filibusters, how to they work?
 
2011-09-21 10:14:06 AM  

qorkfiend: Farking filibusters, how to they work?


a 30 year filibuster is impressive ;)
 
2011-09-21 10:14:28 AM  

EWreckedSean: In certain areas, certainly. A woman gets pregnant, she and she alone gets to chose whether or not to have that child, right? A man is hostage to the woman's decision. If a man things abortion is murder and wants to keep the child and she doesn't. Too bad. If the pregnancy was unplanned, and the man doesn't want a child and she does, too bad, he's an ATM machine for the next 18 years. Women have options post impregnation. Men have none.



Haha, wow. This is some warped thinking. "Why can't I force my unintended incubator to have a medical procedure? It would save me MONEY for Christ's sake!"
 
2011-09-21 10:15:11 AM  

EWreckedSean: In certain areas, certainly. A woman gets pregnant, she and she alone gets to chose whether or not to have that child, right? A man is hostage to the woman's decision.


I suppose, if you believe "fulfilling your parental obligations to your child" is the same as being "held hostage." But then, you'd have to really admit to being a huge asshole.

If a man things abortion is murder and wants to keep the child and she doesn't. Too bad.

Wait, you mean we can't force women to undergo a painful medical procedure with a not-insignificant chance of adverse health effects or death against their will?! This is an OUTRAGE!

If the pregnancy was unplanned, and the man doesn't want a child and she does, too bad, he's an ATM machine for the next 18 years.

Here's a clue: if she has a child, she's also an ATM machine for the next 18 years, and that kid has the card.

Oh, my god - you mean that the mother and father both have to support a child? And that that's a right of the child? Children have rights?! OUTRAGE!!

Women have options post impregnation. Men have none.

Women undergo 9 months of pregnancy, followed by labor, potential emergency surgery, massive physiological stress, potentially fatal blood pressure changes, and a risk of death. Men do not. But... it's totally unfair. OUTRAGEEEEEEEE!!!
 
2011-09-21 10:15:40 AM  
This is just stupid. Women are granted the same rights in the US as men have. Proposing a special treaty for them is just farking dumb.

Ohhhh your so special because you have different genitals than the oppressive men!
 
2011-09-21 10:16:10 AM  

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: How come women get all these rights that I don't get?

There's a crowd of people trying to prevent you and your doctor from making private medical decisions?

In fairness though, while a man is financially obligated to pay for a child, he has no say on whether or not it gets aborted. Women do have a bit more rights when it comes to child birth than men do.

In fairness though, no one, anywhere, has any say on whether a man gets a vasectomy other than him and his doctor. We only intrude on private medical decisions when it's a woman.

Additionally, if a child gets aborted, a man cannot possibly be financially obligated. And if a child is not aborted, a woman is equally financially obligated. What you perceive as unfairness is really just the distinction between whether there's a child or not, and your own ignorance of the fact that the mother is equally on the hook once a child is born.


I think his point is that a woman is the final arbiter of the decision of whether they are both on the hook for raising the child. She is in effect making that decision for the father as well with her being the sole decision maker on whether to have an abortion.
 
2011-09-21 10:16:16 AM  

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: How come women get all these rights that I don't get?

There's a crowd of people trying to prevent you and your doctor from making private medical decisions?

In fairness though, while a man is financially obligated to pay for a child, he has no say on whether or not it gets aborted. Women do have a bit more rights when it comes to child birth than men do.

In fairness though, no one, anywhere, has any say on whether a man gets a vasectomy other than him and his doctor


Well that's a silly argument. Women can get their tubes tied. If your argument is that men who don't want to support a child should get vasectomies instead of waiting until its too late, you should really be consistent and demand that women do the same.

Theaetetus: Additionally, if a child gets aborted, a man cannot possibly be financially obligated. And if a child is not aborted, a woman is equally financially obligated


100% of the choice, 50% of the obligation. Seems fair to me.
 
2011-09-21 10:16:34 AM  

liam76: mrshowrules: It is the same with women. Being a women isn't a disability, but the nature of the reproductive systems, requires extra legislative mechanisms to provide equality (ramps). Men don't get pregnant. Men don't get raped (typically). Men don't get cervical cancer. To provide women/men an equal level of control over their lives, you have to have special considerations

Allowing abortion isn't "equal level of control" unless the man has a vote or he can waive off parental support.

Given the nature of our reproductive organs and technology today "equal level of control" is impossible.


We attempt to make it as equal as possible and that is the point. A woman can get raped and then get fired for being pregnant or die because of a abortion attempt. She can get raped and contract HPV and than cervical cancer. These are life altering events.

Legislation/policy that balances these issues or extends a measure of equality to women in the control of their life are part of modern thinking and societal trends. You may disagree with some of the specific measures but the goal is societal equality.
 
2011-09-21 10:18:00 AM  

Theaetetus: Women undergo 9 months of pregnancy, followed by labor, potential emergency surgery, massive physiological stress, potentially fatal blood pressure changes, and a risk of death. Men do not. But... it's totally unfair. OUTRAGEEEEEEEE!!!


Until men have the right to say "Hey, I dont want that kid. If you have it then you will pay for it all" I will always be against abortion. This one way street bullshiat is old and busted.
 
2011-09-21 10:18:31 AM  

skullkrusher: Down with Mother's Day! Down with Mother's Day!

/flowers are expensive


What about Father's Day, you male chauvinist pig?!?

I buy all my flowers from temporary stands along the side of the road...
 
2011-09-21 10:19:39 AM  

keylock71: skullkrusher: Down with Mother's Day! Down with Mother's Day!

/flowers are expensive

What about Father's Day, you male chauvinist pig?!?

I buy all my flowers from temporary stands along the side of the road...


No, no no no no no. Macy's was having a sale on shirts. I have like 10 years of Father's Day gifts to give. After that, fine... wait, I'm a father now. I WANT MINE DAMMIT!
 
2011-09-21 10:20:37 AM  

I alone am best: Until men have the right to say "Hey, I dont want that kid. If you have it then you will pay for it all"


you do have the right to say that by not sticking your pecker into a woman's vagina.
 
Displayed 50 of 577 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report