Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting, Hillary Rodham Clinton, United States, Catherine Ashton, UN resolutions, UN Convention, abortion law, United States rankings, treaty  
•       •       •

2255 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Sep 2011 at 7:20 AM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



577 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
2011-09-20 11:55:38 PM  
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.
 
2011-09-21 12:22:31 AM  
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.
 
2011-09-21 12:27:40 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.


Actually you don't get a soul unless you're born to a Mormon family, so who cares if abortions are legal?
 
2011-09-21 12:41:41 AM  
i.huffpost.com

Jesus, did she eat Monica Lewinsky or something?
 
2011-09-21 12:47:28 AM  

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

Jesus, did she eat Monica Lewinsky or something?


...I would have paid to see video of that back in 1998.
 
2011-09-21 01:08:27 AM  

Bevets: children


www.agileproductdesign.com
 
2011-09-21 01:08:32 AM  

Bevets: So not giving mothers the right to kill their children is basically the same as waterboarding.


ummm....no. Not even close to what he was saying. here, try this one...

"It would be like signing a treaty against religious persecution and putting in a clause excluding baptists."
 
2011-09-21 01:14:54 AM  
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.
 
2011-09-21 01:28:04 AM  
Ah the ol' "Do as we say, not as we do" gambit.
 
2011-09-21 01:29:41 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.

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.


Considering the UN committee overseeing the treaty opposes Mothers Day, I'd say it's overbroad. Our laws already cover it, anyways.
 
2011-09-21 01:36:44 AM  
 
2011-09-21 01:56:51 AM  

log_jammin: ArkAngel: Considering the UN committee overseeing the treaty opposes Mothers Day,


"Lastly, CEDAW does not seek to abolish Mother's Day and the Committee has never criticized Mother's Day. However, the Committee did criticize Belarus in 1998 for manipulating Mother's Day by using it to encourage "traditional" roles for women in an effort to restrict women's right to employment." (new window)


While I'm not sure the UN's own website is an unbiased source, this thing matters little. But shouldn't a country be allowed to support a traditional nuclear family?

The bigger question is what signing this treaty will accomplish.
 
2011-09-21 02:02:24 AM  

ArkAngel: While I'm not sure the UN's own website is an unbiased source


I'd say it's the very best source. unless you're claiming the are "secretly" opposed to mothers day.

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


of course. not really sure what that has to do with anything though. restricting women's right to employment is not supporting a traditional nuclear family.

ArkAngel: The bigger question is what signing this treaty will accomplish.


the best question is, what would it hurt?
 
2011-09-21 04:06:29 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.

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?
 
2011-09-21 04:22:17 AM  

devildog123: 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?


actively opposing =/= too busy trying to fix a financial crisis in the midst of republicans obstructing absolutely every bill being proposed
 
2011-09-21 04:28:10 AM  

log_jammin: devildog123: 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?

actively opposing =/= too busy trying to fix a financial crisis in the midst of republicans obstructing absolutely every bill being proposed


And in the midst of an economic meltdown, Republicans have still found a way to make sure abortion clinics get shut down. (new window)
 
2011-09-21 04:29:53 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: And in the midst of an economic meltdown, Republicans have still found a way to make sure abortion clinics get shut down. (new window)


yes but i'm sure that will create jobs...or something...
 
2011-09-21 04:38:03 AM  

log_jammin: devildog123: 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?

actively opposing =/= too busy trying to fix a financial crisis in the midst of republicans obstructing absolutely every bill being proposed


Well, they also had quite a large majority in 1980 when Jimmy Carter signed it, and he didn't bring it to the Senate either. Blaming the Republicans is a strawman argument if I've ever heard one. Sorry, as near as I can tell, no one in power in this country, Republican or Democrat has given a damn about this treaty since Carter signed it.
 
2011-09-21 04:56:37 AM  

devildog123: and he didn't bring it to the Senate either.


*blink*

He didn't "bring it to the Senate"? ok.....

devildog123: . Blaming the Republicans is a strawman argument


what part of "actively oppose" do you not understand?

devildog123: Sorry, as near as I can tell, no one in power in this country, Republican or Democrat has given a damn about this treaty since Carter signed it.


It's been released from committee for a vote several times. wanna guess what group always blocks it?
 
2011-09-21 05:07:01 AM  
 
2011-09-21 06:16:16 AM  

ArkAngel: traditional nuclear family


Something that's existed but a few generations is hardly very traditional.
 
2011-09-21 07:05:24 AM  
Que the usual crowd crying about sharia law coming out against this.
 
2011-09-21 07:22:51 AM  

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


What does that have to do with abortion?
 
2011-09-21 07:36:28 AM  

log_jammin: Some ascribe the U.S. failure to ratify the treaty to one man: the late Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina. To Helms, CEDAW was a terrible treaty "negotiated by radical feminists with the intent of enshrining their radical anti-family agenda into international law." As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1995 to 2001, Helms refused even to hold hearings on the matter. I (new window)


Besides that specific argument, there are also a lot of Republicans (an increasing number, I would say) that subscribe to the John Bolton-school of sovereignty-fetishism. i.e. those that oppose treaties because they somehow involve throwing away the 'sovereignty' of the United States. That Helms -> Bolton axis has a lot of leverage with the main Republican candidates at present through Heritage and other think tanks where they are drawing their advisors. The liberal internationalist Republican seems to have died out completely... even Richard Lugar is facing a tough challenge.

/speaking of which, when did Bolton drop out of the race?
 
2011-09-21 07:37:28 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.


Most Farkers graze on a range of subjects.

You only appear in one. I wonder, who submits/greenlights/ tolerates your demonstrably bullshiat responses after all this time?
 
2011-09-21 07:38:35 AM  
Bevets:

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

log_jammin:

ummm....no. Not even close to what he was saying. here, try this one...

"It would be like signing a treaty against religious persecution and putting in a clause excluding baptists."


There were several comparisons he could have made. He chose waterboarding.
 
2011-09-21 07:40:20 AM  
Credit is given for not sending me down a rabbit hole via one of your infamously fact-challenged links. You seem to have formed your own sentences this time.

Congrats on expressing your own thought, however disagreeable to me it might be. Seriously, I'm actually congratulating you.
 
2011-09-21 07:43:42 AM  

Bevets: There were several comparisons he could have made. He chose waterboarding.


so you don';t understand how analogies work. got it.
 
2011-09-21 07:44:46 AM  

Seth'n'Spectrum: that subscribe to the John Bolton-school of sovereignty-fetishism. i.e. those that oppose treaties because they somehow involve throwing away the 'sovereignty' of the United States.


yeah. there's some UN gun/weapon treaty that they are saying exactly that about.
 
2011-09-21 07:52:07 AM  

ArkAngel: Jesus, did she eat Monica Lewinsky or something?


Thus proving that a woman is only as valuable as her appearance makes her. Way to prove the point, douchebag.
 
2011-09-21 07:52:41 AM  
Yes, the fundies really know how to prove our points. They oppose the Women's rights treaty, and they've, for two decades, blocked the US ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The US and Somalia are the only countries in the world not to ratify that one. Good company we keep.
Why are the rightists and Christofascists against the Convention on the Rights of the Child? Because it forbids executing kids or sentencing them to life. Oh, and it dares suggest that children should have religious freedom.
 
2011-09-21 07:54:45 AM  
First the UN came for our farms, and I was silent because I'm not a farmer.
Then the UN came for our guns, and I was silent becuase my hands are neither cold nor dead.
Now the UN has come for our women and I can be silent no longer.
 
2011-09-21 07:55:26 AM  
Well, maybe the senate just hasn't had time to vote on it. They've had a lot on their plate these past few months, and...

TFA: 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.

...nevermind. WTF, senate?
 
2011-09-21 07:58:17 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.


FTA: 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.

You can apologize now.

You were just the first in a series of stupid tirades against Republicans and/or other political groups you have a personal issues with that cloud your ability to form logical conclusions about anything. Over the last 30 years the Democrats haven't even tried to get this through even when they controlled the senate completely, and no, it's not because they were concerned about Republican opposition to it, so come up with a better explanation next time.
 
2011-09-21 08:04:43 AM  

Bevets: log_jammin:

ummm....no. Not even close to what he was saying. here, try this one...

"It would be like signing a treaty against religious persecution and putting in a clause excluding baptists."

There were several comparisons he could have made. He chose waterboarding


There were several things you could have attempted to do. You chose derail the conservation.
 
2011-09-21 08:05:01 AM  

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.
 
2011-09-21 08:05:37 AM  
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...
 
2011-09-21 08:05:46 AM  
Saudi Arabia signed the treaty 11 years ago. Women are doing wonderfully there now, I think all nuanced and thoughtful people will agree.

Either that or treaties like this are a load of feel-good bullshiat with about as much real-world heft as a wet sheet of one-ply toilet paper.
 
2011-09-21 08:07:28 AM  

dahmers love zombie: Yes, the fundies really know how to prove our points. They oppose the Women's rights treaty, and they've, for two decades, blocked the US ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The US and Somalia are the only countries in the world not to ratify that one. Good company we keep.
Why are the rightists and Christofascists against the Convention on the Rights of the Child? Because it forbids executing kids or sentencing them to life. Oh, and it dares suggest that children should have religious freedom.


As for the Women's rights treaty, while I agree that abortions should be allowed, but a treaty is no way to ensure that and will only fan the flames of the people who think the UN is taking over.

As for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, that says signatories must move quickly to eliminate corporal punishment.
 
2011-09-21 08:10:13 AM  
UN treaties, and Resolutions were meant to be broken.

Isn't that right Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Egypt, Libya, Yugoslavia, Germany, United States?
 
2011-09-21 08:10:43 AM  

Gulper Eel: Saudi Arabia signed the treaty 11 years ago. Women are doing wonderfully there now, I think all nuanced and thoughtful people will agree.

Either that or treaties like this are a load of feel-good bullshiat with about as much real-world heft as a wet sheet of one-ply toilet paper.


Ding, Ding, Ding!!!
 
2011-09-21 08:12:21 AM  

Without Fail: ArkAngel: Jesus, did she eat Monica Lewinsky or something?

Thus proving that a woman is only as valuable as her appearance makes her. Way to prove the point, douchebag.


To be fair we could probably get more cash for her if she jogged or something.
 
2011-09-21 08:12:48 AM  

Gulper Eel: Saudi Arabia signed the treaty 11 years ago. Women are doing wonderfully there now, I think all nuanced and thoughtful people will agree.

Either that or treaties like this are a load of feel-good bullshiat with about as much real-world heft as a wet sheet of one-ply toilet paper.



Actually women are doing a lot better there, whether it's the ending of male guardianship or forced marriages. And you might consider for just a tiny moment how long it took women in this country to narrow the gap of equality.
 
2011-09-21 08:13:19 AM  

log_jammin:
ArkAngel: The bigger question is what signing this treaty will accomplish.

the best question is, what would it hurt?


Not much, except further knock down the credibility of the UN and the idea of "global governance". Like previous UN declarations, certain countries sign them then ignore them. Take the UN declaration of human rights - how many nations still have blasphemy/apostate laws?
 
2011-09-21 08:15:10 AM  
Hmm, more biatching from the left about the US not signing a treaty specifically designed to harass the American right and not actually accomplish anything productive. Must be a day ending in y.
 
2011-09-21 08:16:57 AM  
Republicans are evil, hateful morons, so I wouldn't look for this to pass the Senate any time soon.
 
2011-09-21 08:19:47 AM  
I prefer "Original Thoughts" Bevets to "Quotebot" Bevets
 
2011-09-21 08:22:54 AM  

FuturePastNow: Republicans are evil, hateful morons, so I wouldn't look for this to pass the Senate any time soon.


Senate has been sitting on it for 30 years.

Trying to pin this on republicans, when dems have done nothing with it shows your dishonesty or ignorance.
 
2011-09-21 08:24:30 AM  

DarnoKonrad: Gulper Eel: Saudi Arabia signed the treaty 11 years ago. Women are doing wonderfully there now, I think all nuanced and thoughtful people will agree.

Either that or treaties like this are a load of feel-good bullshiat with about as much real-world heft as a wet sheet of one-ply toilet paper.


Actually women are doing a lot better there, whether it's the ending of male guardianship or forced marriages. And you might consider for just a tiny moment how long it took women in this country to narrow the gap of equality.


How long it took? Or how long it's taking? (new window)
 
2011-09-21 08:30:21 AM  

beta_plus: Hmm, more biatching from the left about the US not signing a treaty specifically designed to harass the American right and not actually accomplish anything productive. Must be a day ending in y.


Women having rights "harasses" the American right? Good to know.
 
2011-09-21 08:37:06 AM  
The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!
 
2011-09-21 08:37:10 AM  

log_jammin: the best question is, what would it hurt?


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.
 
2011-09-21 08:38:24 AM  

Karac: DarnoKonrad: Gulper Eel: Saudi Arabia signed the treaty 11 years ago. Women are doing wonderfully there now, I think all nuanced and thoughtful people will agree.

Either that or treaties like this are a load of feel-good bullshiat with about as much real-world heft as a wet sheet of one-ply toilet paper.


Actually women are doing a lot better there, whether it's the ending of male guardianship or forced marriages. And you might consider for just a tiny moment how long it took women in this country to narrow the gap of equality.

How long it took? Or how long it's taking? (new window)


Shouldn't you be in the kitchen?
 
2011-09-21 08:39:47 AM  

WorldCitizen: The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!


Shockingly status quo. We couldn't even join the international land mine ban.
 
2011-09-21 08:42:39 AM  

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

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


No offense, but really do you blame the South Koreans for pushing us on that issue? The fact the the DMZ is one giant mind-field goes a long way to helping the people in Seoul sleep at night.
 
2011-09-21 08:43:48 AM  
America is full of human garbage. What are you stupid assholes shocked about?
 
2011-09-21 08:46:42 AM  
How come women get all these rights that I don't get?
 
2011-09-21 08:47:04 AM  

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.
 
2011-09-21 08:47:13 AM  

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.....
 
2011-09-21 08:47:35 AM  

liam76: FuturePastNow: Republicans are evil, hateful morons, so I wouldn't look for this to pass the Senate any time soon.

Senate has been sitting on it for 30 years.

Trying to pin this on republicans, when dems have done nothing with it shows your dishonesty or ignorance.


And it's going to continue to be sat on. Why pass the buck? Why not prove you're better and pass it now?
 
2011-09-21 08:47:56 AM  

MinkeyMan: beta_plus: Hmm, more biatching from the left about the US not signing a treaty specifically designed to harass the American right and not actually accomplish anything productive. Must be a day ending in y.

Women having rights "harasses" the American right? Good to know.


Not wanting to pay for childcare does not discriminate against women, nor is it a right. You have a right to pop out kids but you do not have the right to make me pay for them unless I genetically fathered them. So, yeah, it's the usual liberal BS to try to give away American sovereinty so they can have kids they can't afford and make everyone else pay for them.

In addition, many Americans, including many American women, think abortion is fundamentally wrong. I don't agree with them but I do agree that Roe V. Wade was wrong and that they had a right to fight against it in the state legislatures. The reason Europe doesn't get in fights about abortion is because they decided it through the legislatures, not the courts. In some European countries it is legal (uk, germany), others it is not (ireland & poland). It should not be decided by a treaty with the rest of the world, it should be decided in our state legislatures.

No one is falling for your shaming language anymore.

/1-10 says you pull the race card over states rights
 
2011-09-21 08:53:47 AM  
US ranks 8th in Women's rights. OMG, we must sign this worthless treaty now!! And then we must continue to name post offices and government buildings!!!

Are Farklibs really upset about not taking the time to sign a worthless treaty? Would it truly expand the women's treatment in the US. We already have laws regarding women's rights, signing the treaty is redundant. Stop wasting time on useless shiat. There's more important things to work on at the moment.
 
2011-09-21 08:54:27 AM  

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.
 
2011-09-21 08:55:38 AM  
[shutyourwhoremouthwhenmuppetsaretalking.jpg]
 
2011-09-21 08:56:16 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.


Or when America tells other countries that they shouldn't have nuclear weapons while we have the most nukes in the world and we're the only country that used them during warfare.
 
2011-09-21 08:57:08 AM  

FuturePastNow: liam76: FuturePastNow: Republicans are evil, hateful morons, so I wouldn't look for this to pass the Senate any time soon.

Senate has been sitting on it for 30 years.

Trying to pin this on republicans, when dems have done nothing with it shows your dishonesty or ignorance.

And it's going to continue to be sat on. Why pass the buck? Why not prove you're better and pass it now?


FIrst off I don't think it should be passed. Abortion is not strictly a "woman's rights issue".

Second who is the "you" here. I certainly don't have the power to pass it, and I am not a part of the republican party. Me pointing out what you are saying is either ignorant or dishonest doesn't make me a republican.
 
2011-09-21 08:57:10 AM  

beta_plus: MinkeyMan: beta_plus: Hmm, more biatching from the left about the US not signing a treaty specifically designed to harass the American right and not actually accomplish anything productive. Must be a day ending in y.

Women having rights "harasses" the American right? Good to know.

Not wanting to pay for childcare does not discriminate against women, nor is it a right. You have a right to pop out kids but you do not have the right to make me pay for them unless I genetically fathered them. So, yeah, it's the usual liberal BS to try to give away American sovereinty so they can have kids they can't afford and make everyone else pay for them.


Actually, it's conservatives who tend to both have more kids and live in relative poverty. I wouldn't blame being conservative, however... they've been consistently lied to.

In addition, many Americans, including many American women, think abortion is fundamentally wrong. I don't agree with them but I do agree that Roe V. Wade was wrong and that they had a right to fight against it in the state legislatures.

I disagree. Civil rights are not up to mob rule. If there are rights to privacy and bodily autonomy, then the rest of society doesn't get to vote on whether someone can exercise their rights. But please, go ahead - argue that there are no such rights and that a woman has no "American sovereinty [sic]".
 
2011-09-21 08:57:31 AM  

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?
 
2011-09-21 08:59:09 AM  

shivashakti: Or when America tells other countries that they shouldn't have nuclear weapons while we have the most nukes in the world and we're the only country that used them during warfare


That is what happens when countries sign treaties promising not to develope nukes and in turn get assistance in building up nuclear technology.

Nothing in any nuclear treaty we have signed prevents us from having nukes.

But don;t let reality get in the way of your anti-american whargable.
 
2011-09-21 09:01:38 AM  

liam76: shivashakti: Or when America tells other countries that they shouldn't have nuclear weapons while we have the most nukes in the world and we're the only country that used them during warfare

That is what happens when countries sign treaties promising not to develope nukes and in turn get assistance in building up nuclear technology.

Nothing in any nuclear treaty we have signed prevents us from having nukes.

But don;t let reality get in the way of your anti-american whargable.


I never said it did. I'm just saying it's hypocritical for us to tell people they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. But it's OK for us to have them....
 
2011-09-21 09:01:44 AM  

EWreckedSean: Alphax: WorldCitizen: The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!

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

No offense, but really do you blame the South Koreans for pushing us on that issue? The fact the the DMZ is one giant mind-field goes a long way to helping the people in Seoul sleep at night.


Could be wrong here, but there I don`t think there`s any existing international treaty that compels states to remove existing landmines (although it`s generally encouraged). I think the DMZ has quite enough ordinance already.
 
2011-09-21 09:02:59 AM  
Clearly women's rights are being held back by a three decade old treaty failing to be ratified.

liam76: But don;t let reality get in the way of your anti-american whargable.


This is how authoritarian cowards squash any ideas that aren't their own. By branding it anti-American.
 
2011-09-21 09:04:14 AM  
So lets see...

Its worthless so why bother, abortion bad, it will destroy our sovereignty, its only meant to harass the right wing, the classic "you let the right block it so you're just as guilty", and the guy who doesn't understand that it was already signed just not ratified.

The talking point dispenser must be on the fritz.
 
2011-09-21 09:04:41 AM  

liam76: FIrst off I don't think it should be passed. Abortion is not strictly a "woman's rights issue".


Wrong.

And our nation whined that they just couldn't get rid of all those land mines on the border between the Koreas that we have there. But we're one of about 6 nations that did not sign it.. mostly the few who still make them.
 
2011-09-21 09:06:00 AM  

log_jammin: its only meant to harass the right wing,


That's my favorite one.
 
2011-09-21 09:07:55 AM  
This treaty can not be ratified. For if it is, after Bevets kicks his wife in the head with steel toed boots until emergency services come, after she emerges from the coma, and goes home to give him "one more chance": when he attacks her next, she will shoot him. In America, everyone has the right to self-defense except a woman who is knocking boots with the guy who has decided to kill her. And that's the way it should be, right Bevets?
 
2011-09-21 09:08:40 AM  

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.
 
2011-09-21 09:09:18 AM  

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.


*There - grrr fark needs an edit button
 
2011-09-21 09:10:40 AM  

liam76: FuturePastNow: liam76: FuturePastNow: Republicans are evil, hateful morons, so I wouldn't look for this to pass the Senate any time soon.

Senate has been sitting on it for 30 years.

Trying to pin this on republicans, when dems have done nothing with it shows your dishonesty or ignorance.

And it's going to continue to be sat on. Why pass the buck? Why not prove you're better and pass it now?

FIrst off I don't think it should be passed. Abortion is not strictly a "woman's rights issue".

Second who is the "you" here. I certainly don't have the power to pass it, and I am not a part of the republican party. Me pointing out what you are saying is either ignorant or dishonest doesn't make me a republican.


The "you" is Republicans generally. We'll have to just disagree over what is and is not a womens' rights issue.

And I simply don't care which politicians weren't doing their jobs ten, twenty, thirty years ago. I care which politicians aren't doing their jobs now. You can call that dishonest if you like.
 
2011-09-21 09:11:12 AM  
Women will never be the equals of men. Ink on paper will never change that.
 
2011-09-21 09:11:15 AM  

Aarontology: log_jammin: its only meant to harass the right wing,

That's my favorite one.


Heh...

Those poor put upon dears... First we've got hard-hitting journalists like Katie Couric and Jay Leno trying to make these conservatives look bad and now the U.N. When will this oppression stop!?!

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.
 
2011-09-21 09:11:16 AM  

Methadone Girls: Why do you keep calling yourselves the world police?


Because they're going to kick your ass and get away with it.
 
2011-09-21 09:11:28 AM  
Cr@p, I forgot the part where Bevets' wife goes to prison. My stupid comment above makes zero sense without that point.
 
2011-09-21 09:11:42 AM  
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.
 
2011-09-21 09:12:28 AM  
Also, I have Bevets on ignore , people. I encourage you all to consider that option.
 
2011-09-21 09:13:06 AM  

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.


That`s just as simplistic as saying that Iraq was invaded because of Cheney`s association with Halliburton; it didn`t help things, but at the same time there are a host of other factors to consider.
 
2011-09-21 09:13:16 AM  

EWreckedSean: log_jammin: the best question is, what would it hurt?

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.


Do you get a script of what to post here everyday? Why do you hate women?
 
2011-09-21 09:14:00 AM  

illisium: EWreckedSean: Alphax: WorldCitizen: The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!

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

No offense, but really do you blame the South Koreans for pushing us on that issue? The fact the the DMZ is one giant mind-field goes a long way to helping the people in Seoul sleep at night.

Could be wrong here, but there I don`t think there`s any existing international treaty that compels states to remove existing landmines (although it`s generally encouraged). I think the DMZ has quite enough ordinance already.


No, if we sign it, we commit ourselves to removing the 155 mile long land mind field that protects South Korea from the North. That is basically the reason we refuse to consider it.
 
2011-09-21 09:14:29 AM  

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.
 
2011-09-21 09:15:20 AM  

illisium: 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.

That`s just as simplistic as saying that Iraq was invaded because of Cheney`s association with Halliburton; it didn`t help things, but at the same time there are a host of other factors to consider.


Fair enough, but you can be sure their motivations were their own national interests, not any higher moral decision making process.
 
2011-09-21 09:17:25 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.


What a thousand 9/11s might look like:

www.mediabistro.com
 
2011-09-21 09:20:15 AM  

EWreckedSean: illisium: 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.

That`s just as simplistic as saying that Iraq was invaded because of Cheney`s association with Halliburton; it didn`t help things, but at the same time there are a host of other factors to consider.

Fair enough, but you can be sure their motivations were their own national interests, not any higher moral decision making process.


Oh, let`s be clear; international politics is driven almost exclusively by the advancement of foreign interests and the impact of actions on domestic politics. All I`m saying is that the money probably wasn`t the driving factor behind the decision not to particpate. Though, like I said, I`m sure it didn`t help.
 
2011-09-21 09:21:27 AM  

Aarontology: log_jammin: its only meant to harass the right wing,

That's my favorite one.


It made me lol too.
 
2011-09-21 09:22:18 AM  

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


You want an abortion?
 
2011-09-21 09:22:20 AM  

illisium: EWreckedSean: illisium: 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.

That`s just as simplistic as saying that Iraq was invaded because of Cheney`s association with Halliburton; it didn`t help things, but at the same time there are a host of other factors to consider.

Fair enough, but you can be sure their motivations were their own national interests, not any higher moral decision making process.

Oh, let`s be clear; international politics is driven almost exclusively by the advancement of foreign interests and the impact of actions on domestic politics. All I`m saying is that the money probably wasn`t the driving factor behind the decision not to particpate. Though, like I said, I`m sure it didn`t help.


Well I think their financial issues tended to be access to Iraqi oil.
 
2011-09-21 09:25:56 AM  

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?
 
2011-09-21 09:28:22 AM  

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.
 
2011-09-21 09:29:09 AM  

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 think the implication is that you need a grandiose, noble reason to NOT invade.

/"It would lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands" apparently not noble enough
 
2011-09-21 09:29:31 AM  

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?
 
2011-09-21 09:30:21 AM  

FuturePastNow: The "you" is Republicans generally. We'll have to just disagree over what is and is not a womens' rights issue.


For the first point, try "them" in the future.

For the second, fair enough. I believe it is part of a womens rights issue, but it isn't in a vaccuum.

FuturePastNow: And I simply don't care which politicians weren't doing their jobs ten, twenty, thirty years ago. I care which politicians aren't doing their jobs now. You can call that dishonest if you like


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.


shivashakti: liam76: shivashakti: Or when America tells other countries that they shouldn't have nuclear weapons while we have the most nukes in the world and we're the only country that used them during warfare

That is what happens when countries sign treaties promising not to develope nukes and in turn get assistance in building up nuclear technology.

Nothing in any nuclear treaty we have signed prevents us from having nukes.

But don't let reality get in the way of your anti-american whargable.

I never said it did. I'm just saying it's hypocritical for us to tell people they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. But it's OK for us to have them....


When those people sign a treaty that lets them have access to technology they otherwise wouldn't have access to in exchange for not using nukes, then no it isn't hypocritical.


Aarontology: This is how authoritarian cowards squash any ideas that aren't their own. By branding it anti-American


It is "anti-american" to ignore the history of the non-proliferation treaty, and pretend that US is demanding countries make no nukes unilaterally.
 
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.
 
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.
 
2011-09-21 10:46:32 AM  

Theaetetus: 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.


Do you support abortion? I've just curious if you think a child has a right to be supported for 18 years by it's father, but has no right to be supported for 9 months in a womb, resulting in it's death.
 
2011-09-21 10:46:34 AM  

I alone am best: If she doesnt want to have the child and the man does he has no choice.


fuhfuhfuh: 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.)

 
2011-09-21 10:46:40 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: 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.


I don't know how he specifically would phrase it but an important part you are leaving out here is if the mother carries it to term and the father is against it. And presumably being against it only matters and is only relevant so long as the mother still has a choice (abortion). I don't think he's suggesting all fathers from now on should be off the hook for child support, nor should the be allowed to go back on their choice later.
 
2011-09-21 10:47:11 AM  

lennavan: This is an argument against abortion in all cases. I disagree with that.


Well, yes; I should have been clearer. It should read "engaged in consensual unprotected sex".

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.


It totally does work both ways; the sole difference is that men are simply not on the hook, biologically speaking. There are no medical complications for him, and there's no way around that. I agree with you that it's a one-way street; I just don't see any good solution beyond not conceiving the child to begin with.

I wonder if there's any precedent for the mother voluntarily granting the father sole custody after the birth.
 
2011-09-21 10:47:17 AM  

I alone am best: 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.


Well... You can be a hedge manager without having a brain. You make mad bank, so I hear.
 
2011-09-21 10:47:35 AM  

log_jammin: devildog123: 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?

actively opposing =/= too busy trying to fix a financial crisis push a medical reform bill through that no one actually knew the contents of in the midst of republicans obstructing absolutely every bill being proposed


FTFY
 
2011-09-21 10:47:38 AM  

Theaetetus: 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.


It's involuntary servitude, something that was supposed to have gone out after the 13th amendment...
 
2011-09-21 10:47:58 AM  

I alone am best: 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.



What? I don't even...ugh, forget it.
 
2011-09-21 10:48:13 AM  

fuhfuhfuh: Personal responsibility, HOW DOES IT WORK?!?


Hey, I'm actually for abortion being safe and legal. You keep making arguments to ban all abortion entirely. Like this one here.
 
2011-09-21 10:49:11 AM  

EWreckedSean: No offense, that's farking stupid.


No offense taken. If you believe it's farking stupid, then that's evidence that I'm absolutely correct.

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.

Excuse me? Please explain how a woman can "opt-out" such that a child exists, but does not receive support from the mother?

If your answer is that the child does not exist, then she has not opted-out, because she never had an obligation in the first place. The obligation arises on birth.

But please, go ahead - tell us how a woman can legally unilaterally opt-out, leaving a child with support from only its father.
 
2011-09-21 10:49:44 AM  

lennavan: fuhfuhfuh: Personal responsibility, HOW DOES IT WORK?!?

Hey, I'm actually for abortion being safe and legal. You keep making arguments to ban all abortion entirely. Like this one here.


Just curious... do you know how to even read? You have a terrible case of selective context.
 
2011-09-21 10:50:36 AM  

fuhfuhfuh: 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.


Logical fallacies, how do they work? You know because when you can't argue the facts, the best course is to lay on the ad hominems...

(there you go lennavan, hell froze over, I stuck up for you)
 
2011-09-21 10:50:39 AM  
I have it on pretty good authority that there will be a Senate push next year to ratify the UNCLOS (the UN Law of the Sea treaty). CEDAW will be on the backburner, as will everything else. Ratification of treaties is hilariously hard when one of the parties in the Senate is increasingly skeptical of the entire concept of multilateral treaties.
 
2011-09-21 10:50:41 AM  

Theaetetus: You do not have the right to unilaterally opt-out of a legal obligation to another person.



Now we are getting somewhere. Here is the kicker. SHE DOES! That is what makes it unfair.

Theaetetus: 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?



Thats her choice, I get no say in the matter.

Once again, your pro-choice but only for women.
 
2011-09-21 10:51:28 AM  

Theaetetus: 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.


You compared getting a vasectomy to having an abortion, which is a false analogy. One happens before you get pregnant, and the other happens after you're already pregnant. There's really no comparable medical decision for us to intrude or not upon a man. I'm not planning on intruding on any woman's decision to get a tubal ligation.

So yeah, sorry about the clipping that part out, but you're not making sense either way you slice it.

/ Why is a medical decision so much more sacred than a financial one? The kind of money it costs to support a child has as big of an impact on your
life as a temporary medical condition.
 
2011-09-21 10:51:38 AM  

I alone am best: 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.


That didn't answer the question.
 
2011-09-21 10:51:40 AM  

Aidan: 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.


The father's responsibility really shouldn't extend beyond anything related to the termination of the pregnancy if that is what he wants.
If he does not want to see the pregnancy aborted but the mother does, he is out of luck.
If he wants to see the pregnancy aborted but she does not, he is not responsible for child support but he has no legal right to visitation or access or claims to the child in any way.
If they both want to see the child born, they are both responsible.

The legal issues of when this decision must be made and all that are tricky but that's the only fair way imo
 
2011-09-21 10:52:07 AM  

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: No offense, that's farking stupid.

No offense taken. If you believe it's farking stupid, then that's evidence that I'm absolutely correct.

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.

Excuse me? Please explain how a woman can "opt-out" such that a child exists, but does not receive support from the mother?

If your answer is that the child does not exist, then she has not opted-out, because she never had an obligation in the first place. The obligation arises on birth.

But please, go ahead - tell us how a woman can legally unilaterally opt-out, leaving a child with support from only its father.


She can opt out by having a farking abortion genius. She can unilaterally terminate the pregnancy, which terminates the child support. That's opting out, no matter how you want to spin it. A father has no choice. But the strawman was nice.
 
2011-09-21 10:52:07 AM  

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

I don't know how he specifically would phrase it but an important part you are leaving out here is if the mother carries it to term and the father is against it. And presumably being against it only matters and is only relevant so long as the mother still has a choice (abortion). I don't think he's suggesting all fathers from now on should be off the hook for child support, nor should the be allowed to go back on their choice later.


Whether or not the father is against it or not is immaterial. He is still saying that the decision of the mother should eliminate the right of the child to financial support from the father.

Child support has nothing to do with the mother. If the mother dies in child birth, the father still owes child support. It is a right of the child, a right that affects both parents equally.
 
2011-09-21 10:52:15 AM  

Quiefenburger: /get back to me after you've taken a look at the current make-up of the Senate


...what's that got to do with anything?
 
2011-09-21 10:52:44 AM  

EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: 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.

Do you support abortion?


Yes, of course.

I've just curious if you think a child has a right to be supported for 18 years by it's father, but has no right to be supported for 9 months in a womb, resulting in it's death.

1) it's not a child before it's born. Why is it that conservatives are always the ones shouting "words mean things" until they want them not to mean things?

2) No, no one has a right to require another person to use their body to support them. I do not get to require you to donate your kidney to me, even if I'll die otherwise. Do you agree?
And if you do agree, why do you think that men should have the right to bodily autonomy, but women should not? Why do you think half the population should be denied such a fundamental right of control over their own body?
 
2011-09-21 10:53:52 AM  

EWreckedSean: 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.

It's involuntary servitude, something that was supposed to have gone out after the 13th amendment...



"Caring for your child" = "involuntary servitude"

This is what conservatives really think.
 
2011-09-21 10:54:20 AM  

I alone am best: Now we are getting somewhere. Here is the kicker. SHE DOES! That is what makes it unfair.


she gets to opt out later than you, that is all.
 
2011-09-21 10:54:50 AM  

skullkrusher: Aidan: 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.

The father's responsibility really shouldn't extend beyond anything related to the termination of the pregnancy if that is what he wants.
If he does not want to see the pregnancy aborted but the mother does, he is out of luck.
If he wants to see the pregnancy aborted but she does not, he is not responsible for child support but he has no legal right to visitation or access or claims to the child in any way.
If they both want to see the child born, they are both responsible.

The legal issues of when this decision must be made and all that are tricky but that's the only fair way imo


Exactly. It would also result in a lot less problems in this country of children living in destitution, which is often caused by women having children against the fathers wishes expecting financial support, and then them being dead-beat dads. If a woman new upfront that she wouldn't be receiving financial support, it would arm her with a lot more ammunition in making her own decisions.
 
2011-09-21 10:55:03 AM  

EWreckedSean: 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 image 259x176]


Tell that to the A Team

/I love it when a plan comes together
 
2011-09-21 10:55:18 AM  

EWreckedSean:

These don't fly...

[t2.gstatic.com image 259x176]


Says you

englishrussia.com
 
2011-09-21 10:55:20 AM  

Theaetetus: 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.


How can you argue it isn't the mothers choice?

She gets an abortion the guy pays nothing. She has the kid and the guy is on the hook for money the next 18 years as well for part of the pre-natal care. Who makes the choice between those two?
 
2011-09-21 10:55:30 AM  

skullkrusher: The father's responsibility really shouldn't extend beyond anything related to the termination of the pregnancy if that is what he wants.
If he does not want to see the pregnancy aborted but the mother does, he is out of luck.
If he wants to see the pregnancy aborted but she does not, he is not responsible for child support but he has no legal right to visitation or access or claims to the child in any way.
If they both want to see the child born, they are both responsible.

The legal issues of when this decision must be made and all that are tricky but that's the only fair way imo


I agree with what you've said, although I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of contract (what? I like contracts!) for the case of a father wanting the child but the mother not. Maybe draw it up as though she was a surrogate and go from there. If she's willing to go along with that (it'd be for cash, as all surrogacy cases are IIRC), then we're cool. If not, THEN he's out of luck. Which really does suck (I think men can be just as traumatized by abortion or miscarriages as women can) but I agree that there's nothing a guy can do then.
 
2011-09-21 10:55:41 AM  
Prior to FARK, I had no idea that womens' rights are only and entirely about child support.

Here's what I tell my kids.

*Don't have sex before adulthood or outside a serious relationship,preferably, marriage.
If you do have sex, use double-dutch birth control -two forms - for instance, a condom and oral contraceptives.
Birth control can fail. Condoms break and some antibiotics render birth control pills useless. Some doctors won't tell you if the med they've prescribed will negate your birth control. So, NEVER have sex with anyone you would not want to be the mother or father of your child. If you meet a gorgeous girl/guy who is horrible person at heart, keep going. There will be another girl/guy.*

They're a little young for it. None of mine are teens yet. But I feel I have to be proactive because my daughter, in particular, is already being exposed to questionable information especially from magazines. She gets a subscription to a magazine targeted to tween and teen dancers. The last issue featured an article on maintaining a "dancers' body" and knocked birth control pills because, supposedly, they make women gain weight. Personally, I think they make women get sloppy with their eating habits and provide a covenient excuse for the weight gain. I didn't go into all of that though. Instead, I wrote in the margin of the article "Pregnancy makes you fatter."
 
2011-09-21 10:56:52 AM  

EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: No offense, that's farking stupid.

No offense taken. If you believe it's farking stupid, then that's evidence that I'm absolutely correct.

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.

Excuse me? Please explain how a woman can "opt-out" such that a child exists, but does not receive support from the mother?

If your answer is that the child does not exist, then she has not opted-out, because she never had an obligation in the first place. The obligation arises on birth.

But please, go ahead - tell us how a woman can legally unilaterally opt-out, leaving a child with support from only its father.

She can opt out by having a farking abortion genius.


... if she has an abortion, genius, then she hasn't left a child with support from only its father.

Holy fark... Do you really not understand that?

She can unilaterally terminate the pregnancy, which terminates the child support. That's opting out, no matter how you want to spin it. A father has no choice. But the strawman was nice.

What strawman? The fact that you don't understand what "opt-out" means isn't a strawman. You simply cannot name a time at which a woman can opt-out of an obligation, leaving a child with support from only one parent, which is exactly what you suggest men should be able to do.
 
2011-09-21 10:57:18 AM  

qorkfiend: lennavan: This is an argument against abortion in all cases. I disagree with that.

Well, yes; I should have been clearer. It should read "engaged in consensual unprotected sex".


qorkfiend: The man made his choice (as did the woman) when they engaged in consensual 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?"

Right, that's what I assumed you meant. =]

And again, it's an argument against abortion in all cases. I still disagree with it, I'm pro-choice. But I see where you're coming from. I think the difference between you and I is you consider the zygote the consequence they have to deal with. I think of it as a consensual sex results in a 4 month(ish) window where if they don't do something about they're going to get a viable fetus and have to deal with that.

I'll try my best at an analogy - if I steal $20 from you, I have a window of opportunity between the moment I steal $20 from you and it's too late (you find out and report it) to quick sneak back and put the $20 back. If I do, no harm no foul. I think of "too late" as fetus viability, you think of it as zygote. I won't try to change your mind because I respect where you're coming from.
 
2011-09-21 10:57:31 AM  

Headso: I alone am best: Now we are getting somewhere. Here is the kicker. SHE DOES! That is what makes it unfair.

she gets to opt out later than you, that is all.


AFAIK it's like 3 months, no? That's not a lot of time, especially if you're dumb and don't realize you're pregnant until 4.5 months *cough*. :)
 
2011-09-21 10:57:32 AM  

EWreckedSean: She can opt out by having a farking abortion genius. She can unilaterally terminate the pregnancy, which terminates the child support. That's opting out, no matter how you want to spin it. A father has no choice. But the strawman was nice.


That's like saying abstinane terminates child support. If a woman had am abortion there is no child to support.

You seem to be both against women having access to legal abortions and also against men being required to support children they father. Is that correct?
 
2011-09-21 10:57:50 AM  

s2s2s2: Women will never be the equals of men. Ink on paper will never change that.


as long as women continue to put on makeup while driving 60mph, they never will be.

enjoy that glass ceiling biatches..HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
2011-09-21 10:58:32 AM  

Lunaville: But I feel I have to be proactive because my daughter, in particular, is already being exposed to questionable information especially from magazines. She gets a subscription to a magazine targeted to tween and teen dancers. Instead, I wrote in the margin of the article "Pregnancy makes you fatter."


I think I love you. :)
 
2011-09-21 10:58:34 AM  

liam76: Theaetetus: 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.

How can you argue it isn't the mothers choice?

She gets an abortion the guy pays nothing. She has the kid and the guy is on the hook for money the next 18 years as well for part of the pre-natal care. Who makes the choice between those two?


Neither. The court imposes the obligation of child support on both parents, because it's the right of the child. If there's no child, there's no obligation. The end.
 
2011-09-21 10:59:03 AM  

Lunaville: Prior to FARK, I had no idea that womens' rights are only and entirely about child support.


Best summary of the FARK Womyn's Movement TM I've ever seen.
 
2011-09-21 10:59:48 AM  
Theaetetus:
1) it's not a child before it's born. Why is it that conservatives are always the ones shouting "words mean things" until they want them not to mean things?


Really, if a child only exists after birth, why does the law consider murdering a pregnant woman as killing two victims? Things do have meaning, you've never heard the term unborn child?

2) No, no one has a right to require another person to use their body to support them. I do not get to require you to donate your kidney to me, even if I'll die otherwise. Do you agree?

Yes I agree. So then a child has no right to the fruits of their father's labors by your very argument, as labor is using one's body to earn income.

And if you do agree, why do you think that men should have the right to bodily autonomy, but women should not? Why do you think half the population should be denied such a fundamental right of control over their own body?

Actually I am pro-choice, just pointing out the fallacy of your position that you are only pro-choice for women.
 
2011-09-21 11:00:18 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

I don't know how he specifically would phrase it but an important part you are leaving out here is if the mother carries it to term and the father is against it. And presumably being against it only matters and is only relevant so long as the mother still has a choice (abortion). I don't think he's suggesting all fathers from now on should be off the hook for child support, nor should the be allowed to go back on their choice later.

Whether or not the father is against it or not is immaterial. He is still saying that the decision of the mother should eliminate the right of the child to financial support from the father.

Child support has nothing to do with the mother. If the mother dies in child birth, the father still owes child support. It is a right of the child, a right that affects both parents equally.



So the child has a right to financial support from the father but not a right to life? You've lost the context - we're talking about abortion. Abortion has nothing to do with the rights of the child. It's not a child. If it had rights, you couldn't abort it.
 
2011-09-21 11:00:26 AM  

beta_plus: Lunaville: Prior to FARK, I had no idea that womens' rights are only and entirely about child support.

Best summary of the FARK Womyn's Movement TM I've ever seen.


That may actually be referring to the guys arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to have the fundamental Constitutional rights of medical privacy and bodily autonomy, because men have to pay child support.
 
2011-09-21 11:01:02 AM  

EWreckedSean: (there you go lennavan, hell froze over, I stuck up for you)


Suddenly I feel like recanting everything I posted in this thread. :-P
 
2011-09-21 11:01:07 AM  
The baby is in her body for nine months... not yours.

If she decided to have it, it's your fault for not discussing the issue with her before you had unprotected sex with her.

If she chooses to get rid of it, it's her choice.

If she chooses to have it, you, as the father, are responsible for helping to raise that child.

Don't like it? Tough shiat. You should have thought about that before ejaculating inside her.

As someone said up thread, the man's choice occurs at the moment of copulation. Keep it in your pants if you don't want to be put in this scenario, or at the very least use birth control.
 
2011-09-21 11:01:34 AM  

Aidan: skullkrusher: The father's responsibility really shouldn't extend beyond anything related to the termination of the pregnancy if that is what he wants.
If he does not want to see the pregnancy aborted but the mother does, he is out of luck.
If he wants to see the pregnancy aborted but she does not, he is not responsible for child support but he has no legal right to visitation or access or claims to the child in any way.
If they both want to see the child born, they are both responsible.

The legal issues of when this decision must be made and all that are tricky but that's the only fair way imo

I agree with what you've said, although I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of contract (what? I like contracts!) for the case of a father wanting the child but the mother not. Maybe draw it up as though she was a surrogate and go from there. If she's willing to go along with that (it'd be for cash, as all surrogacy cases are IIRC), then we're cool. If not, THEN he's out of luck. Which really does suck (I think men can be just as traumatized by abortion or miscarriages as women can) but I agree that there's nothing a guy can do then.


it's gotta be ironclad, no doubt.
Avoid the ickiness of the whole thing. Use multiple sources of protection :)
 
2011-09-21 11:02:33 AM  

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: No offense, that's farking stupid.

No offense taken. If you believe it's farking stupid, then that's evidence that I'm absolutely correct.

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.

Excuse me? Please explain how a woman can "opt-out" such that a child exists, but does not receive support from the mother?

If your answer is that the child does not exist, then she has not opted-out, because she never had an obligation in the first place. The obligation arises on birth.

But please, go ahead - tell us how a woman can legally unilaterally opt-out, leaving a child with support from only its father.

She can opt out by having a farking abortion genius.

... if she has an abortion, genius, then she hasn't left a child with support from only its father.

Holy fark... Do you really not understand that?

She can unilaterally terminate the pregnancy, which terminates the child support. That's opting out, no matter how you want to spin it. A father has no choice. But the strawman was nice.

What strawman? The fact that you don't understand what "opt-out" means isn't a strawman. You simply cannot name a time at which a woman can opt-out of an obligation, leaving a child with support from only one parent, which is exactly what you suggest men should be able to do.


The one where you made up this argument:

But please, go ahead - tell us how a woman can legally unilaterally opt-out, leaving a child with support from only its father.

Which absolutely nobody has said. See when we argue when thing, and you argue back against a different point ignoring our actual argument, that's a strawman.
 
2011-09-21 11:02:42 AM  

keylock71: The baby is in her body for nine months... not yours.

If she decided to have it, it's your fault for not discussing the issue with her before you had unprotected sex with her.

If she chooses to get rid of it, it's her choice.

If she chooses to have it, you, as the father, are responsible for helping to raise that child.

Don't like it? Tough shiat. You should have thought about that before ejaculating inside her.

As someone said up thread, the man's choice occurs at the moment of copulation. Keep it in your pants if you don't want to be put in this scenario, or at the very least use birth control.


dude, you are one of the most reasonable mofos up in this biatch. That said, ^ is a load of horseshiat, my brother.
 
2011-09-21 11:02:53 AM  

EWreckedSean: Really, if a child only exists after birth, why does the law consider murdering a pregnant woman as killing two victims? Things do have meaning, you've never heard the term unborn child?


Such laws are often attempts to define women as fetus carriers and are passed to weaken / challenge access to abortion.
 
2011-09-21 11:03:04 AM  

EWreckedSean: you've never heard the term unborn child?


It's a term used by the Pro-Life movement which satisfies their propaganda.
 
2011-09-21 11:03:52 AM  

skullkrusher: it's gotta be ironclad, no doubt.
Avoid the ickiness of the whole thing. Use multiple sources of protection :)


Troof.
 
2011-09-21 11:04:34 AM  

liam76: She has the kid and the guy is on the hook for money the next 18 years as well for part of the pre-natal care. Who makes the choice between those two?


the woman also kinda has to raise the kid too...
 
2011-09-21 11:04:37 AM  

Aidan: skullkrusher: it's gotta be ironclad, no doubt.
Avoid the ickiness of the whole thing. Use multiple sources of protection :)

Troof.


or put it in her butt. Can't get preggo in the butt
 
2011-09-21 11:05:39 AM  

EWreckedSean: Theaetetus:
1) it's not a child before it's born. Why is it that conservatives are always the ones shouting "words mean things" until they want them not to mean things?

Really, if a child only exists after birth, why does the law consider murdering a pregnant woman as killing two victims? Things do have meaning, you've never heard the term unborn child?


I have... Who do you think proposed those laws? Do you remember NOW arguing against those laws for exactly this reason?

No, of course not.

2) No, no one has a right to require another person to use their body to support them. I do not get to require you to donate your kidney to me, even if I'll die otherwise. Do you agree?

Yes I agree. So then a child has no right to the fruits of their father's labors by your very argument, as labor is using one's body to earn income.


Again, "caring for your child" = unconstitutional servitude.

This is what Conservatives really believe.

You're not really arguing well for your position, y'know.

And if you do agree, why do you think that men should have the right to bodily autonomy, but women should not? Why do you think half the population should be denied such a fundamental right of control over their own body?

Actually I am pro-choice, just pointing out the fallacy of your position that you are only pro-choice for women.


There's no fallacy. The only reason you think there is one is that, like an idiot, you think "pro-choice" refers to every possible choice:
You want to deny people the right to choose to commit grand theft auto? You're not really pro-choice!
You want to deny people the right to choose to steal from others? You're not really pro-choice!

No, sorry. That argument simply doesn't fly. Pro-choice does not refer to any and every choice, no matter how stupid, but to the choice to undergo a specific medical procedure. And I am for that.
I am not in favor of letting people walk away from their legal obligations. You don't get that choice.
 
2011-09-21 11:05:53 AM  

Farking While Farking: EWreckedSean: She can opt out by having a farking abortion genius. She can unilaterally terminate the pregnancy, which terminates the child support. That's opting out, no matter how you want to spin it. A father has no choice. But the strawman was nice.

That's like saying abstinane terminates child support. If a woman had am abortion there is no child to support.

You seem to be both against women having access to legal abortions and also against men being required to support children they father. Is that correct?


No, I am absolutely 100% pro-choice. The difference is I am pro-choice for both men and women, not just women. I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it. A woman shouldn't be able to force a man to be an ATM machine for 18 years. People love to say "Well it's in the best interest of the child, so we ignore the father's rights." Well I tell you what, having a zero abortion policy is in the best interest of the children too. It's a huge double standard.
 
2011-09-21 11:05:59 AM  

skullkrusher: preggo in the butt


how is republican babby formed?
 
2011-09-21 11:07:16 AM  

Fart_Machine: EWreckedSean: you've never heard the term unborn child?

It's a term used by the Pro-Life movement which satisfies their propaganda.


"The virgin will be with child fetus and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."

Stupid Pro-Life Propaganda Bible
 
2011-09-21 11:07:28 AM  

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus:
1) it's not a child before it's born. Why is it that conservatives are always the ones shouting "words mean things" until they want them not to mean things?

Really, if a child only exists after birth, why does the law consider murdering a pregnant woman as killing two victims? Things do have meaning, you've never heard the term unborn child?

I have... Who do you think proposed those laws? Do you remember NOW arguing against those laws for exactly this reason?

No, of course not.

2) No, no one has a right to require another person to use their body to support them. I do not get to require you to donate your kidney to me, even if I'll die otherwise. Do you agree?

Yes I agree. So then a child has no right to the fruits of their father's labors by your very argument, as labor is using one's body to earn income.

Again, "caring for your child" = unconstitutional servitude.

This is what Conservatives really believe.

You're not really arguing well for your position, y'know.

And if you do agree, why do you think that men should have the right to bodily autonomy, but women should not? Why do you think half the population should be denied such a fundamental right of control over their own body?

Actually I am pro-choice, just pointing out the fallacy of your position that you are only pro-choice for women.

There's no fallacy. The only reason you think there is one is that, like an idiot, you think "pro-choice" refers to every possible choice:
You want to deny people the right to choose to commit grand theft auto? You're not really pro-choice!
You want to deny people the right to choose to steal from others? You're not really pro-choice!

No, sorry. That argument simply doesn't fly. Pro-choice does not refer to any and every choice, no matter how stupid, but to the choice to undergo a specific medical procedure. And I am for that.
I am not in favor of letting people walk away from their legal obligations. You don't get that choice.


Wow, you sure do love those strawmen don't you? Any other positions you'd like to make up for us, or at some point would you like the ones we've actually made?
 
2011-09-21 11:07:40 AM  

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

I don't know how he specifically would phrase it but an important part you are leaving out here is if the mother carries it to term and the father is against it. And presumably being against it only matters and is only relevant so long as the mother still has a choice (abortion). I don't think he's suggesting all fathers from now on should be off the hook for child support, nor should the be allowed to go back on their choice later.

Whether or not the father is against it or not is immaterial. He is still saying that the decision of the mother should eliminate the right of the child to financial support from the father.

Child support has nothing to do with the mother. If the mother dies in child birth, the father still owes child support. It is a right of the child, a right that affects both parents equally.

So the child has a right to financial support from the father but not a right to life? You've lost the context - we're talking about abortion. Abortion has nothing to do with the rights of the child. It's not a child. If it had rights, you couldn't abort it.


Child support has NOTHING to do with abortion. Nothing at all. It's about supporting a child that has been born.

If your argument is that abortion is murder and that abortion should be illegal in all cases since the unborn child has a right to life, that is a wholly separate argument to whether a child has a right to financial support from both parents after birth.

Now, it seems to me that if you truly believe that the child has full rights from conception, believing that the decision of the mother NOT to abort should remove the right of the child to support from the father is wholly illogical.
 
2011-09-21 11:08:20 AM  

qorkfiend: It totally does work both ways; the sole difference is that men are simply not on the hook, biologically speaking. There are no medical complications for him, and there's no way around that. I agree with you that it's a one-way street; I just don't see any good solution beyond not conceiving the child to begin with.


The solution I suggest is during the period of time where abortion is legal, the argument goes "it is not a child." If it was a child, it would have rights. It is the potential for a child. So long as the mother can terminate the potential for a child, a father should be allowed to terminate the potential for rights to the potential child. He isn't forcing any medical decision on her.
 
2011-09-21 11:08:51 AM  

Headso: skullkrusher: preggo in the butt

how is republican babby formed?


Mt Doom?
 
2011-09-21 11:09:11 AM  

lennavan: I don't know how he specifically would phrase it but an important part you are leaving out here is if the mother carries it to term and the father is against it. And presumably being against it only matters and is only relevant so long as the mother still has a choice (abortion). I don't think he's suggesting all fathers from now on should be off the hook for child support, nor should the be allowed to go back on their choice later.


Exactly. If two people have a child together willingly then yes the father should pay support.
 
2011-09-21 11:09:26 AM  

EWreckedSean: The one where you made up this argument:

But please, go ahead - tell us how a woman can legally unilaterally opt-out, leaving a child with support from only its father.

Which absolutely nobody has said. See when we argue when thing, and you argue back against a different point ignoring our actual argument, that's a strawman.


Actually, that's exactly what you've been saying. Your proposal is that men should be able to walk away from a legal obligation to a child, leaving a child with only the mother's support. You claim that women have this right, but men do not.
So, I'm simply asking for proof: how can a woman walk away from a legal obligation to her child, leaving the child with only the father's support?

This is what you've been arguing. So either step up, or admit that you're actually arguing that men should have a different right that women do not have.
 
2011-09-21 11:09:48 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Child support has NOTHING to do with abortion. Nothing at all. It's about supporting a child that has been born.


Couldn't agree more. Wait, you think I brought up child support in this abortion thread?

Philip Francis Queeg: If your argument is that abortion is murder


It isn't. Go back and read what I've been saying. Otherwise what's the point in posting back and forth?
 
2011-09-21 11:10:10 AM  

Farking While Farking: EWreckedSean: Really, if a child only exists after birth, why does the law consider murdering a pregnant woman as killing two victims? Things do have meaning, you've never heard the term unborn child?

Such laws are often attempts to define women as fetus carriers and are passed to weaken / challenge access to abortion.


Laws that charge a murder with two murders for murdering a pregnant woman are meant to challenge access to abortion? Huh?
 
2011-09-21 11:10:44 AM  

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: EWreckedSean: you've never heard the term unborn child?

It's a term used by the Pro-Life movement which satisfies their propaganda.

"The virgin will be with child fetus and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."

Stupid Pro-Life Propaganda Bible


That's really stupid, even for you.
  </
2011-09-21 11:11:00 AM  

Headso: the woman also kinda has to raise the kid too...


But that is her choice.