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 10:20:40 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...


in all seriousness, bodega flowers are the best flowers. 2 dozen roses, $10. They come with the buds still closed and last for a week. Beats the hell out of that $60 proflowers bullshiat that dies on your doorstep
 
2011-09-21 10:20:45 AM

mrshowrules: fired for being pregnant


Good luck with that and the impending massive amount of money you will spend defending against the lawsuit.
 
2011-09-21 10:21:36 AM

Headso: 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.


you know what they call it when that decision is made solely by the man? Rape.
 
2011-09-21 10:23:01 AM

skullkrusher: Headso: 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.

you know what they call it when that decision is made solely by the man? Rape.


It's rape to force a woman to not have sex with you?
 
2011-09-21 10:23:45 AM

Headso: 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.


That sounds like the pro-lifes argument against abortion or abstinence only education. Look it's her body, if she gets pregnant its her fault and she can remedy that if she doesnt like it. I should not be on the line for it ever. As of right now its a one way street in her favor.
 
2011-09-21 10:23:57 AM

Headso: you do have the right to say that by not sticking your pecker into a woman's vagina.


Or use one of the half-dozen options to that allow you to still stick your pecker wherever you want without a resultant pregnancy.
 
2011-09-21 10:23:58 AM

serial_crusher: 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.


I'd be happy to do so. But that's not actually my argument. My argument, noted in the very next sentence which you removed, is that we do not interfere in the man's medical decision. But we do in hers, contrary to EWrecked's assertion that women get rights that men do not: women do not get equal rights to medical privacy and bodily autonomy.

Pro-tip: if you have to clip out a sentence in order to pretend that the other person is making a different argument, don't.

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.


Yes, but with all due respect, that's because you're an idiot. The choice is not "should I be obligated to pay for my child," because THERE IS NO CHOICE. Neither the mother nor the father gets to make that choice. The obligation is imposed on both parents as a matter of law once the child is born.

The mother has one choice - she can decide whether to undergo a medical procedure now or a bigger medical procedure later. That is her sole choice.
 
2011-09-21 10:25:59 AM

skullkrusher: in all seriousness, bodega flowers are the best flowers. 2 dozen roses, $10. They come with the buds still closed and last for a week. Beats the hell out of that $60 proflowers bullshiat that dies on your doorstep


Absolutely... I've been buying dirt cheap flowers from a little old Portuguese woman, who sets up her stand a few days before the big flower holidays, for years.

I also have a few wild flower and rose bushes in the back yard that provide me with free "Yeah, I was an asshole" roses during the blooming months. : )
 
2011-09-21 10:26:23 AM

I alone am best: if she gets pregnant its her fault


It takes two, actually.

The pro-life argument is that abstinence won't lead to unintended pregnancy, which is accurate. The problem with abstinence-only is that it's an unrealistic method of birth control.
 
2011-09-21 10:27:24 AM

I alone am best: 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.


And until people like you start making arguments that are better than "fark everyone, I look out for numero uno," no one is going to listen to you.

Child support is the right of the child. Only the child - or a guardian ad litem - can waive that right. If a father could say "Hey, I dont want that kid. If you have it then you will pay for it all," then who could agree? The child? It isn't born yet. The mother? Nope. She doesn't have the ability. The court? They have the ability, but would be in breach of their duty to the child.
Got it? No one has the legal power to grant the unilateral waiver you want.
 
2011-09-21 10:27:57 AM

I alone am best: Headso: 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.

That sounds like the pro-lifes argument against abortion or abstinence only education. Look it's her body, if she gets pregnant its her fault and she can remedy that if she doesnt like it. I should not be on the line for it ever. As of right now its a one way street in her favor.


Yeah, I agree. To say both the father and mother are responsible but only the mother gets a choice seems inconsistent. If with a fetus we're going to go the "it's my body, my choice" route, then by all means "it's your body, your baby" should be a legal option for the father so long as the first is available to the woman.
 
2011-09-21 10:28:27 AM

I alone am best: I should not be on the line for it ever. As of right now its a one way street in her favor.


Child support is the right OF THE CHILD. Is that really so difficult to understand?
 
2011-09-21 10:29:11 AM

I alone am best: That sounds like the pro-lifes argument against abortion or abstinence only education. Look it's her body, if she gets pregnant its her fault and she can remedy that if she doesnt like it. I should not be on the line for it ever. As of right now its a one way street in her favor.


There's this thing called "Birth Control"... You might want to have a look into it. It's a great way to avoid your little scenario.

Take some personal responsibility for your actions, hippie.
 
2011-09-21 10:29:22 AM
Hey guys! Don't want to have a kid with the skank you are banging? Here's an idea... USE PROTECTION OR GET A VASECTOMY!

The fact that you decided to ride bareback because you are too much of a man to use a condom at the least goes to show that you really don't give a shiat whether or not you knock her up. This whole BS argument of "I should be able to have say in whether she keeps the kid or not" is bunk because guess what... you already had your say when you wet your dick. You chose to not give a shiat what happens.

Same goes for the girls. In all honesty, abortions should be used for those rare times that all of the precautions fail (condom breaks, birth control fails, life-threatening pregnancy, etc.) and from my experience that is exactly what they are used for. It is not some happy-go-lucky procedure that you get on a monthly basis, it can actually be quite invasive. Also, you don't just go get an abortion then go out and skank it up the next day, you need to heal in between. Why do you think pimps beat the shiat out of their biatches when they get pregnant and get an abortion? It's because those women are out of commission for at least a month.
 
2011-09-21 10:30:03 AM

Theaetetus: I alone am best: I should not be on the line for it ever. As of right now its a one way street in her favor.

Child support is the right OF THE CHILD. Is that really so difficult to understand?


How is that even relevant to what he is saying?
 
2011-09-21 10:30:17 AM

I alone am best: Look it's her body, if she gets pregnant its her fault and she can remedy that if she doesnt like it. I should not be on the line for it ever. As of right now its a one way street in her favor.


you're not on the hook for ever, just until the kid is an adult then you can stop all contact.
 
2011-09-21 10:30:35 AM

lennavan: I alone am best: Headso: 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.

That sounds like the pro-lifes argument against abortion or abstinence only education. Look it's her body, if she gets pregnant its her fault and she can remedy that if she doesnt like it. I should not be on the line for it ever. As of right now its a one way street in her favor.

Yeah, I agree. To say both the father and mother are responsible but only the mother gets a choice seems inconsistent. If with a fetus we're going to go the "it's my body, my choice" route, then by all means "it's your body, your baby" should be a legal option for the father so long as the first is available to the woman.


The man made his choice (as did the woman) when they engaged in unprotected sex, with the full knowledge that it could lead to the woman getting pregnant. At that point, it's a little too late to say "Whoa whoa! Why should I be responsible for any of this?"
 
2011-09-21 10:32:58 AM

I alone am best: mrshowrules: fired for being pregnant

Good luck with that and the impending massive amount of money you will spend defending against the lawsuit.


I'm not sure what you mean. Anyways, this is an International treaty and this practices is very common in many countries.
 
2011-09-21 10:33:30 AM

Theaetetus: Child support is the right of the child. Only the child - or a guardian ad litem - can waive that right. If a father could say "Hey, I dont want that kid. If you have it then you will pay for it all," then who could agree? The child? It isn't born yet. The mother? Nope. She doesn't have the ability. The court? They have the ability, but would be in breach of their duty to the child.
Got it? No one has the legal power to grant the unilateral waiver you want.


I dont think you get the gist of my statement. She has all the ability in the world. She can get an abortion. The man cant. She has a right to control her body why should I not have the right to control mine? Once the child is born, I would be in literal servitude providing for the child for the next 18 years. The system is currently so lopsided its stupid.
 
2011-09-21 10:33:38 AM

fuhfuhfuh: Hey girls! Don't want to have a kid with the skank you are banging? Here's an idea... USE PROTECTION OR GET A tubal ligation!

The fact that you decided to ride bareback because you are too much of a woman to use a female condom or one of many various birth control forms at the least goes to show that you really don't give a shiat whether or not you get knocked up. This whole BS argument of "I should be able to have say in whether he keeps the kid or not" is bunk because guess what... you already had your say when you wet your vagina. You chose to not give a shiat what happens.

Same goes for the guys. In all honesty, abortions should be used for those rare times that all of the precautions fail (condom breaks, birth control fails, life-threatening pregnancy, etc.) and from my experience that is exactly what they are used for. It is not some happy-go-lucky procedure that you get on a monthly basis, it can actually be quite invasive. Also, you don't just go get an abortion then go out and skank it up the next day, you need to heal in between. Why do you think pimps beat the shiat out of their biatches when they get pregnant and get an abortion? It's because those women are out of commission for at least a month.


Works both ways, doesn't it? Your double standard is showing.
 
2011-09-21 10:33:57 AM

lennavan: Theaetetus: I alone am best: I should not be on the line for it ever. As of right now its a one way street in her favor.

Child support is the right OF THE CHILD. Is that really so difficult to understand?

How is that even relevant to what he is saying?


Because he is saying that a choice of the mother should abrogate the right of the child to financial support from both parents.
 
2011-09-21 10:34:17 AM

qorkfiend: The man made his choice (as did the woman) when they engaged in unprotected sex, with the full knowledge that it could lead to the woman getting pregnant. At that point, it's a little too late to say "Whoa whoa! Why should I be responsible for any of this?"


This is an argument against abortion in all cases. I disagree with that.
 
2011-09-21 10:34:34 AM

Methadone Girls: 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.


These don't fly...

t2.gstatic.com
 
2011-09-21 10:34:52 AM

I alone am best: She has a right to control her body why should I not have the right to control mine?


you don't have control of your ejaculate? sounds messy
 
2011-09-21 10:34:58 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: Theaetetus: I alone am best: I should not be on the line for it ever. As of right now its a one way street in her favor.

Child support is the right OF THE CHILD. Is that really so difficult to understand?

How is that even relevant to what he is saying?

Because he is saying that a choice of the mother should abrogate the right of the child to financial support from both parents.


No he isn't.
 
2011-09-21 10:35:03 AM

I alone am best: Good luck with that and the impending massive amount of money you will spend defending against the lawsuit.


I'll bet you're one of those folks who believes in tort reform too right?
 
2011-09-21 10:36:02 AM

lennavan: Yeah, I agree. To say both the father and mother are responsible but only the mother gets a choice seems inconsistent. If with a fetus we're going to go the "it's my body, my choice" route, then by all means "it's your body, your baby" should be a legal option for the father so long as the first is available to the woman.


Look at that a conservative and a liberal agree on something and the world didnt blow up. Ebony and Ivory and shiat.
 
2011-09-21 10:36:11 AM

lennavan: fuhfuhfuh: Hey girls! Don't want to have a kid with the skank you are banging? Here's an idea... USE PROTECTION OR GET A tubal ligation!

The fact that you decided to ride bareback because you are too much of a woman to use a female condom or one of many various birth control forms at the least goes to show that you really don't give a shiat whether or not you get knocked up. This whole BS argument of "I should be able to have say in whether he keeps the kid or not" is bunk because guess what... you already had your say when you wet your vagina. You chose to not give a shiat what happens.

Same goes for the guys. In all honesty, abortions should be used for those rare times that all of the precautions fail (condom breaks, birth control fails, life-threatening pregnancy, etc.) and from my experience that is exactly what they are used for. It is not some happy-go-lucky procedure that you get on a monthly basis, it can actually be quite invasive. Also, you don't just go get an abortion then go out and skank it up the next day, you need to heal in between. Why do you think pimps beat the shiat out of their biatches when they get pregnant and get an abortion? It's because those women are out of commission for at least a month.

Works both ways, doesn't it? Your double standard is showing.


One would have realized that I meant both when I said "same goes for the girls". Sorry you apparently want to make yourself into a victim so badly that you ignored that part. Having trouble nailing yourself to that cross?
 
2011-09-21 10:38:20 AM

Fart_Machine: I alone am best: Good luck with that and the impending massive amount of money you will spend defending against the lawsuit.

I'll bet you're one of those folks who believes in tort reform too right?


I'm for people using common sense including judges.
 
2011-09-21 10:39:34 AM

fuhfuhfuh: This whole BS argument of "I should be able to have say in whether she keeps the kid or not" is bunk because guess what... you already had your say when you wet your dick.

qorkfiend: The man made his choice (as did the woman) when they engaged in unprotected sex, with the full knowledge that it could lead to the woman getting pregnant. At that point, it's a little too late to say "Whoa whoa! Why should I be responsible for any of this?"


While I agree with your points, I'd caution against these arguments. They lead to the other side saying "what about her responsibility of using protection" or suggesting that pregnancy is a punishment for lack of responsibility.

Alternative argument, and more to the point legally: child support is not punishment for being irresponsible. Child support is not punishment of any sort. Nor is it a choice. It is an obligation, legally imposed by the existence of the child and a result of the child's rights. ONLY the child (or a guardian ad litem) has the power to waive that obligation, so all the whining in the world about how men don't get to choose to be obligated is irrelevant.

Additionally, say someone could legally opt-out of child support. The child's right to support is thereby diminished, without the child or a guardian getting to intercede... how is that fair to the child? Doesn't the child have a right to due process?

Fundamentally, the MRA argument that men should be able to opt out of child support is a statement that they believe that children should not have Constitutional rights.
 
2011-09-21 10:39:50 AM

fuhfuhfuh: One would have realized that I meant both when I said "same goes for the girls".


No, you actually didn't mean that. You had a nice long rant about how men had their opportunity to say no and lost it. You then concluded:

This whole BS argument of "I should be able to have say in whether he keeps the kid or not"

At the point she gets pregnant, they no longer have a say because of their multitude of ways of contraception. If you were consistent, the exact same line of argumentation would support your conclusion "this is also why women should never be allowed to have abortions."

Your double standard, it's still showing.
 
2011-09-21 10:40:35 AM

mrshowrules: 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


I agree with that goal but I don't think you will get equality in reporduction rights.

I also think this legislation is a terrible idea for making access to abortion easier (which I completely agree with) as it will be seen as a "backdoor" to it and will drive out the bible thumpers/NATO is going to take over nuts in droves to attack it. I also see it is a terrible idea as it will be used to drag the US name through the mud and let Sauid carry on with all the stuff they do to women.

Headso: 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.


A woman has complete control of her eggs. The question comes up when they want to do something from the zygote stage on, at which point it isn't "their" egg.

And the fact is that it still doesn have soemthing to do with the man, since if the woman has a baby the man is on the hook for child support.

/pro abortion, just not pretending the law is, or there is a way to make the law "equal"

Philip Francis Queeg: 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.


Only if you consider torture a tool.

Do you consider torture a tool?

Even if I was to take torture as a "tool" it still sin't worth the damage it does to our reputation, nto the case with landmines. We can simply not use them.
 
2011-09-21 10:41:01 AM

I alone am best: I dont think you get the gist of my statement. She has all the ability in the world. She can get an abortion. The man cant. She has a right to control her body why should I not have the right to control mine? Once the child is born, I would be in literal servitude providing for the child for the next 18 years. The system is currently so lopsided its stupid.



WTF? Body != Finances. That is the difference here. She has the right to terminate the pregnancy because it is happening within the confines of her body. Financial responsibility is far far far outweighed by right to privacy.
 
2011-09-21 10:41:01 AM

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: Theaetetus: I alone am best: I should not be on the line for it ever. As of right now its a one way street in her favor.

Child support is the right OF THE CHILD. Is that really so difficult to understand?

How is that even relevant to what he is saying?

Because he is saying that a choice of the mother should abrogate the right of the child to financial support from both parents.

No he isn't.


Yes that's exactly what he (I alone am best) is saying. He is saying that the decision of the mother to carry the baby to term should eliminate the right of the child to financial support from the father.
 
2011-09-21 10:41:45 AM

skullkrusher: 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.


I was trying to think of a way that men could sign a contract that would relieve them of the responsibility of an unwanted child, but no matter how I looked at it, I couldn't come up with someing decent.

If I allow them conception to birth+30 days, that removes the woman's ability to decide to abort based on not having a father, financial support, raising support, etc.

If I allow it to happen sooner, I could see some women deliberately not telling the man until it's too late so they're forced into the same position they are currently.

I don't think children should be given up for adoption simply because one parent doesn't wish to parent (no judgment here), and the other can't due to financial or time constraints (yeah yeah legs closed whatever). A wanted child should always be supported, but I can't see how to do that easily considering the people involved.
 
2011-09-21 10:41:46 AM

fuhfuhfuh: One would have realized that I meant both when I said "same goes for the girls". Sorry you apparently want to make yourself into a victim so badly that you ignored that part. Having trouble nailing yourself to that cross?


It does go for both, but you know what doesn't? Its the whole she can decide if she want the baby or now. The man is completely cut out of the loop at that point.

If she doesnt want to have the child and the man does he has no choice. If she does, the man has to pay for it he has no choice. Im just pro-choice. I don't see what's wrong with my stance. What you people are arguing for isnt pro-choice, its pro-choice for women only and screw the men.
 
2011-09-21 10:41:55 AM
I'd say just sign the damn thing, but I know that any piece of legislature right now is an up-hill battle. Look, women are already treated as equals in the United States (for the most part). Let's just let that ride until we clean up our own issues, then go forward with the signing of some treaty that we already follow.

Would passing the CEDAW make any new laws in the U.S.?
 
2011-09-21 10:41:57 AM
Hillary Clinton is an amazing woman. I don't know how she finds time to advocate for this treaty AND be Secretary of State while still managing to make sandwiches for Bill and clean the house.
 
2011-09-21 10:41:59 AM

I alone am best: lennavan: Yeah, I agree. To say both the father and mother are responsible but only the mother gets a choice seems inconsistent. If with a fetus we're going to go the "it's my body, my choice" route, then by all means "it's your body, your baby" should be a legal option for the father so long as the first is available to the woman.

Look at that a conservative and a liberal agree on something and the world didnt blow up. Ebony and Ivory and shiat.


I promise to call you names and stuff to make up for it later.
 
2011-09-21 10:42:24 AM

keylock71: I also have a few wild flower and rose bushes in the back yard that provide me with free "Yeah, I was an asshole" roses during the blooming months. : )


hehe nice
 
2011-09-21 10:43:00 AM

CPennypacker: skullkrusher: Headso: 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.

you know what they call it when that decision is made solely by the man? Rape.

It's rape to force a woman to not have sex with you?


hehe yes?
 
2011-09-21 10:43:22 AM

lennavan: fuhfuhfuh: One would have realized that I meant both when I said "same goes for the girls".

No, you actually didn't mean that. You had a nice long rant about how men had their opportunity to say no and lost it. You then concluded:

This whole BS argument of "I should be able to have say in whether he keeps the kid or not"

At the point she gets pregnant, they no longer have a say because of their multitude of ways of contraception. If you were consistent, the exact same line of argumentation would support your conclusion "this is also why women should never be allowed to have abortions."

Your double standard, it's still showing.


Again with the victimization. Also, thanks for telling me what I REALLY mean, Kreskin. Did you also miss the part about how abortions should only be used when all else fails? When precautions are taken and fail?

Personal responsibility, HOW DOES IT WORK?!? Keep playing the victim though, it seems you are good at it.
 
2011-09-21 10:43:35 AM

liam76: And the fact is that it still doesn have soemthing to do with the man, since if the woman has a baby the man is on the hook for child support.


After the die is cast there are consequences, your point of no return is before hers, but that doesn't mean you have less control of the situation.
 
2011-09-21 10:44:16 AM

Theaetetus: serial_crusher: 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.

I'd be happy to do so. But that's not actually my argument. My argument, noted in the very next sentence which you removed, is that we do not interfere in the man's medical decision. But we do in hers, contrary to EWrecked's assertion that women get rights that men do not: women do not get equal rights to medical privacy and bodily autonomy.

Pro-tip: if you have to clip out a sentence in order to pretend that the other person is making a different argument, don't.

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.

Yes, but with all due respect, that's because you're an idiot. The choice is not "should I be obligated to pay for my child," because THERE IS NO CHOICE. Neither the mother nor the father gets to make that choice. The obligation is imposed on both parents as a matter of law once the child is born.

The mother has one choice - she can decide whether to undergo a medical procedure now or a bigger medical procedure later. That is her sole choice.


No offense, that's farking stupid. A woman has a choice post sex whether or not to keep a child. She can evaluate her financial situation and decide yes this is a good or bad idea. A man has no choice. If he doesn't want the child, or can't afford a child, he can't opt out like a woman can. He becomes an 18 year ATM machine against his will.
 
2011-09-21 10:44:29 AM

qorkfiend: 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?


Oh, I must have missed the part about the Republican filibustering.

/get back to me after you've taken a look at the current make-up of the Senate
 
2011-09-21 10:44:39 AM

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

Only if you consider torture a tool.

Do you consider torture a tool?

Even if I was to take torture as a "tool" it still sin't worth the damage it does to our reputation, nto the case with landmines. We can simply not use them.


Those who support the use of torture very much consider it a tool.

So your primary concern is the damage to our reputation, not the damage that land mines do to civilian populations for decades after the conflicts end. Nice priorities there.
 
2011-09-21 10:44:55 AM

guestguy: WTF? Body != Finances. That is the difference here. She has the right to terminate the pregnancy because it is happening within the confines of her body. Financial responsibility is far far far outweighed by right to privacy.


I'm sorry, i was unaware you could make money without using some part of your body. Please let me know how this is done because i'm sick of working. Additionally no ones right should outweigh or interfere with another's right.
 
2011-09-21 10:46:03 AM

I alone am best: Theaetetus: Child support is the right of the child. Only the child - or a guardian ad litem - can waive that right. If a father could say "Hey, I dont want that kid. If you have it then you will pay for it all," then who could agree? The child? It isn't born yet. The mother? Nope. She doesn't have the ability. The court? They have the ability, but would be in breach of their duty to the child.
Got it? No one has the legal power to grant the unilateral waiver you want.

I dont think you get the gist of my statement. She has all the ability in the world. She can get an abortion. The man cant. She has a right to control her body why should I not have the right to control mine?


You can. You have the right to control your body.
You do not have the right to unilaterally opt-out of a legal obligation to another person.

Once the child is born, I would be in literal servitude providing for the child for the next 18 years. The system is currently so lopsided its stupid.

Once the child is born, the mother is also in "literal servitude"* providing for the child for the next 18 years. What's lopsided about that?

*it's not literal servitude. Shut your goddamn whining trap.
 
2011-09-21 10:46:14 AM

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.


www.buttonsonline.com
 
2011-09-21 10:46:29 AM

DarnoKonrad: 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.


Cynically signing on to a meaningless treaty in exchange for some ego-strokes is the right policy?

The implication is, as it always is with feel-good nonsense treaties such as these, and as is confirmed by the blather of the NOW flunky in TFA, that non-signatories such as the US are morally inferior.

Which is a colossal steaming load of insulting idiocy.

Go back and look at the signatories and when they signed on.

Romania signed on in 1982...during the Ceausescu years. Fat lot of good this treaty did the women forced through pregnancies there. (I trust you've seen the orphanage photos that came out 20 years ago.)

Robert Mugabe signed on in 1991. Saddam in 1986.

Fidel Castro got on board real early, in 1980. I guess that makes him a women's rights pioneer, right?

Best Korea has been a signatory for 10 years now, during which time Dear Leader has brought every adult female Best Korean to orgasm at least a thousand times.

Dozens of nations with abortion laws far more restrictive than America's...have signed this phony treaty. That's most of Africa and South America, plus most of Central America and southern Asia.

Tell us again how it's the US who are the real assholes and how all of this nation's rights and oppiortunities don't count for squat, because we didn't sign on to some eurocrats' line of bullshiat.
 
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 »






Report