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.

(Vimeo)   This is my body, not yours   (vimeo.com) divider line 1253
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

40140 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jul 2012 at 1:45 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1253 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-30 12:20:42 PM  

hdhale: Yes, "freedom of choice" people, I'm also talking to you...actually I'm especially talking to you. Snark, implying people are stupid because they disagree with you, and eye rolling have taken the place of common sense, logic, and reasoned compromise.


As a great man once said, "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." When the response to any possible counterargument is "But Jesus! And babies! You MURDERER!", after a while, you stop trying to make counterarguments and just roll your eyes.
 
2012-07-30 12:21:02 PM  

rocky_howard: Also, it's completely pants on retarded that the United States don't have maternity leave. Jesus christ, even a 3rd world shiathole like my country has a 3 month maternity leave...

We have:

1.- Pregnant women can't be fired under any circumstances unless approved by the Ministry of Work. If fired, the employed has to pay 5 months salary to the woman, besides the usual severance package for released workers.

2.- Said protection applies until 3 months after giving birth.

3.- Women have the right to maternity leave for 12 weeks after giving birth.

4.- During the lactation period, the female worker has the right to: 3 paid breaks every day of, at least, 20 minutes each so she can feed her baby.

Dunno, how the work legislation in USA works, but I think this is fair.


Well, here you aren't allowed to fire a pregnant woman because she is pregnant, but you can do a layoff and just happen to catch her in it when she's got a month to go till she gives birth and then watch her run around like a headless chicken trying to find some job, any job, so that she won't have to give birth at home in a bathtub to avoid racking up uninsured hospital costs.

Not that I would know this.
 
2012-07-30 12:22:59 PM  

qorkfiend: "I'd save the child. That's not even a hard question."


The only context I was given was that the mother was a criminal. Given only that information, I'd value the life of the child over the life of the mother. To me, that's a no brainer. How does that equate to me not valuing women?
 
2012-07-30 12:23:34 PM  

gulogulo: rocky_howard: . I see people on both sides are selling abortion as this pretty convenient and nice process (either to make it look cool if you're pro-abortion or make it look like whores being whores if you're a religious anti-abortion).

Really? As someone who has had to go with friends through the decision making process, I never saw it sold as a "clean and easy process" by anyone. it is pretty stark.

I agree, religion is not the only source of morality. But, to base a decision like this on morality alone is pretty specious.


I think it is also worth pointing out (and too often underplayed) that abortion can be as life changing and potentially damaging as an unwanted pregnancy. But the abortion doesn't carry the offset of a baby's smile to counter the hardship. Neither does adoption.

Having also had to go with friends through the abortion decision making process and the procedure, and most importantly the aftermath even years later, it is a life-changing event as surely as an unexpected or even unwanted pregnancy.

To be clear, sometimes abortion really is the best choice between three very difficult choices, and that is something that only each individual woman can answer for themselves. Unless it is thier child, no man has any right to exprerss any opinion whatsoever.

But anyone who thinks that abortion is an action of convenience, or that women don't carry the responsibility of that decision with them for the rest of their lives has no idea what they are talking about.

/And I wish Planned Parenthood and Other Abortion clinics would focus more attention on really trying to forewarn young women of the emotional and psychological impact of having an abortion.
 
2012-07-30 12:23:44 PM  

Toxicphreke: What about the man's right to have a child? A man is on the hook for child support should a woman have the child, but the man...any man, including a husband, has zero say in stopping an abortion. If a woman can chose to have the kid or not after the sex, why can't a man choose to support the kid after having sex? Nope...once a man has sex with a woman, there is no turning back. He is committed to support the kid.Women though...they get a get out of jail free card. I say let women have abortions and chose not to be mothers when you stop forcing men to be fathers.


Thank you for drawing attention to how all the abortion laws are completely unfair to men. That's the most important part of the entire debate, and the one that should have the most focus. Truly, no woman should be allowed to make a medical decision about what happens to her body until this unfairness to all men has been addressed. That should be the new pro-choice slogan. "Abortion: It's All About The Men."
 
2012-07-30 12:24:34 PM  

Emracool the Aeons Hip: Lusiphur: Abortions should be legal and easily available because it's good for society, not because of some childish insistence that you should be able to do whatever you want with your body.

/it's my body, so I should be able to urinate wherever I want whenever I want

Yeah that's a pretty silly string of logic you got there.


Explain to me why in unemotional terms. Tell me how the social contract doesn't apply in this case, and why long standing precedent that says that society can regulate your body if doing so us found to be on the best interest if society shouldn't apply in the case of abortions.

The argument should never be about what is 'right' or 'moral', since those two words are entirely subjective and meaningless. Explain your argument in the language of social benefit it you have less than nothing.
 
2012-07-30 12:28:27 PM  
I guess the baby's body doesn't count?!

They should sell home abortion kits at Wal-Mart.... War on life! Kill babys - that'll teach 'em.
 
2012-07-30 12:28:53 PM  

Pathman: not that i want to go down this road and this isn't something i feel particularly strongly about, but why can't they discriminate? it's not government's responsibility, role or even right to make you a better person.


I don't either, but the short answer is because we made laws that tell them they can't.

Because I lean toward the "Government governs best that governs least" and "You can't legislate morality" view of the role of government, I am not convinced that we really should have.

But since the outcome of anti-discrimination legislation is on the whole very positive, I can't really get exercised about the right thing being done the wrong way. Also, it's adone deal. That particular bell can't be unrung.
 
2012-07-30 12:33:28 PM  

Granolabar: we get that second chance


While I agree with your general argument that the choice is not an isolated right, I guarantee that someone who became a father against their will would be willing to bleed out their ass every day for the rest of their lives to get that second chance.
 
2012-07-30 12:34:42 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: But there is no RIGHT that can ever exist that could compel another person to provide a product or service to you.


Counter example right here:


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


So right there you can compel people to provide the service of witnessing in court. And the government must provide council if you cannot obtain it on your own. I suspect that can compel the taxpayers to pay for it.
 
2012-07-30 12:34:50 PM  

sweatybronson: the 'good' principle of the intrinsic value of the human came from religion


Correlation vs. causation
 
2012-07-30 12:35:04 PM  
Alphax
2012-07-30 10:43:03 AM

Ker_Thwap: Kind of a Hedonistic video. I only watched the first few pretty faces then got bored. Did they also show some used up old people coughing their lungs out, trying to make bail for their fifth DWI offense, and costing the public for their "I'm a special snowflake" choices?

Missing the point, or deliberately missing the point?

Neither. I'm ignoring their "simplistic point" and looking at the big picture. I could care less about the abortion debate, I just think "It's my body" is poor justification to do anything you want in life. It's a simplistic and selfish life view. What we each do with our body can have real and lasting effects on the people we share this society with.
 
2012-07-30 12:36:14 PM  

quizzical: Thank you for drawing attention to how all the abortion laws are completely unfair to men. That's the most important part of the entire debate,


I don't think he said it was the "most important factor", but you are ignoring a very valid problem with women's reproductive rights. Their rights are a defact denail of Men's reproductive rights.

Men account for 50% of the involved parties in every single pregnancy, and can be legally bound into what is effectively indentured servitude for two decades without their consent and with no say in their own reproduction.

There aren't any easy answers here, but it is hard to argue that Men have little, if any control over their own reproduction other than whether or not they choose abstinance. So saying that Women's concerns in this area trump men's concerns actually supports the point he is making.
 
2012-07-30 12:38:39 PM  

qorkfiend: Pathman: qorkfiend: Pathman: qorkfiend: Pathman: biologically, life begins at conception.

"When life begins" is a religious issue. Your entire "secular" argument is predicated upon a religious belief. I award you no points, and may your god have mercy on your soul.

that's nonsense.

A well thought-out and convincing response.

you get out what you put in mate.
i gave you what i thought was "a well thought-out and convincing response" and you responded by accusing me of being religious...

How on Earth is when does life begin a uniquely religious issue?

I didn't accuse you of being religious. I said your secular argument was predicated on a religious belief.

The belief that "life begins at conception, period" is a religious belief.


Alright, I'm gonna dive in:

I'd argue life begins at conception since cellular processes are underway at that time (in the same way I'd argue my blood cells are alive, biological processes and all that.)

I'd say that having a "soul" is a religious belief, or at least a spiritual belief. I've found many of the more religiously minded individuals I used to debate with semantically equate "life" with "human sentience". Is that what you meant?
 
2012-07-30 12:38:40 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Very well put. That is your body. Do what you want to with it. Just don't expect anyone else to pay for the results.


Oh my god...why is this so patently unclear?

YOU ARE NOT PAYING FOR ABORTIONS THROUGH YOUR TAXES, ESPECIALLY IN TEXAS. THERE ARE NO PROGRAMS THAT HELP LOW-INCOME OR DESTITUTE WOMEN (OR ANY WOMAN FOR THAT MATTER) TO HAVE ANY KIND OF ABORTIVE PROCEDURE. WOMEN CAN NO LONGER GET BIRTH CONTROL FOR FREE IN TEXAS. THEREFORE, YOU'RE NOT PAYING FOR IT.

Good lord, the idiocy in this thread is blinding!
 
2012-07-30 12:41:16 PM  

Ker_Thwap: Alphax
2012-07-30 10:43:03 AM

Ker_Thwap: Kind of a Hedonistic video. I only watched the first few pretty faces then got bored. Did they also show some used up old people coughing their lungs out, trying to make bail for their fifth DWI offense, and costing the public for their "I'm a special snowflake" choices?

Missing the point, or deliberately missing the point?

Neither. I'm ignoring their "simplistic point" and looking at the big picture. I could care less about the abortion debate, I just think "It's my body" is poor justification to do anything you want in life. It's a simplistic and selfish life view. What we each do with our body can have real and lasting effects on the people we share this society with.


Okay.. so the latter then.
 
2012-07-30 12:42:33 PM  

Emracool the Aeons Hip: When the genetic code replicates, you must call it life.


When must I call it "human"? Because as a society we're pretty willing to kill non-human things any time it suits us.
 
2012-07-30 12:42:54 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Toxicphreke: What about the man's right to have a child? A man is on the hook for child support should a woman have the child, but the man...any man, including a husband, has zero say in stopping an abortion. If a woman can chose to have the kid or not after the sex, why can't a man choose to support the kid after having sex? Nope...once a man has sex with a woman, there is no turning back. He is committed to support the kid.Women though...they get a get out of jail free card. I say let women have abortions and chose not to be mothers when you stop forcing men to be fathers.

[www.polyvore.com image 300x300]

Problem solved. Look, they're in your size and everything.


How is this different than telling a girl she shouldn't have a choice and should use birth control (aside from the obvious attack on the person). There is a real issue here, but the problem is we can't address it properly in a climate that fights against a woman's basic rights.
 
2012-07-30 12:44:04 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Men account for 50% of the involved parties in every single pregnancy, and can be legally bound into what is effectively indentured servitude for two decades without their consent and with no say in their own reproduction.


50% input, yes, but never 50% responsibility, even if he takes 50% custody. That's a biological impossibility.
 
2012-07-30 12:45:14 PM  

untaken_name: I like how women get the choice to abort or keep but they apparently don't have the choice to keep their legs closed.


And of course according to asswipes like this one, women should be the only ones to be ashamed about, be penalized for and suffer because they have (and like) sex.

F*ck you.
 
2012-07-30 12:45:29 PM  
It's very important that I regulate what sins others can make. God gave me free will, but we should pass laws that make it hard for those sinners to have free will. Of course I love American and know it was founded with the intent of keeping religion out of the government, but the Founding Fathers mainly meant keeping Muslims out of the government. We need to have Christianity in our government to keep everyone on a moral path because having laws that make sinning a punishable offense (and therefore "playing God") is more pleasing to God than giving people the option to sin and having them choose not to.

And, though it doesn't say so anywhere in the Bible, the guy I see every Sunday who yells about Jesus told me that if I stand by while others sin I'm an accomplice. If I allow any gay sex or abortions to happen in the world, then I can go to Hell. This is just how God is. Oh yeah, and I have absolutely no evidence of God's existence besides some book, which I don't really follow anyway. But, that's enough for me to base my entire life on. Besides, isn't it fun to hate sometimes? Get all those ugly emotions out and feel superior to others?
 
2012-07-30 12:46:38 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: So right there you can compel people to provide the service of witnessing in court. And the government must provide council if you cannot obtain it on your own. I suspect that can compel the taxpayers to pay for it.


That is a goodish point

However, you must note that attorneys who act as public defenders choose to do so. No attorney can be compelled to act as a defense attorney against their will, or for free. And while taxpayer money can and is used for the procurement of services on behalf of a citizen, the citizen themselves has no right to compel someone else to provide a service or good to them.

So really, it's only the compulsion to appear in court to testify that would be relevant, but this is not a compulsion to provide a "good or service". I suppose if you wanted to, you could argue that it is similar, but giving testimony related to a court case in which you are involved is an entirely different situation.

For example, you can only be subpeonad if you have some direct association with the events of the case and can bear material witness to the facts of the case.Fact witnesses are not compensated for this, and it is illegal to do so.

Expert witnesses, who are not fact witnesses, cannot be compelled and are most certainly compensated for their goods and services.

So I think you raise a valid point, but it's not actually a case of a RIGHT requiring the compulsion of someone else to provide a good or service.
 
2012-07-30 12:47:40 PM  

kasmel: Sabyen91: Toxicphreke: Well...I've been called someone with a small pecker and someone who can't find a woman to have sex with...oh and Shawn Kemp....but I'm still waiting for a rational rebuttal. Why does a man have to live with his choice to have sex but a woman does not? I have no problem with abortion in cases of rape rape or if they are medically necessarily, but as I pointed out, lifestyle choice is the main reason.

What is your solution? Men being able to force women to abort? Not having any responsibility for a child?

I believe that a sound solution would be to give the man the opportunity to buy out of it. If he doesn't want the child he can waive any interest he has in it by paying a lump sum up front, something to the tune of abortion + aftercare + a certain compensation for counseling or whatever. If the woman decides to keep the child, the man has waived any and all legal rights as a guardian and is absolved of responsibility as well. If it's a choice for women, which I wholly endorse it being, it should also be a choice for men.

I have no problem with women being single mothers. I have no problem with women choosing to have an abortion or give up a baby for adoption. I do have a problem with women being the only ones who have any legal say in the consequences of their choices on others.

Now, I DO NOT agree with the other way around. If a woman wants an abortion, then the man should have no right to force her to have the baby. That's just farked up. A man can just go get some other woman pregnant, he doesn't have to endure months of discomfort and the medical and body changing risks of carrying a fetus to term.


I completely misunderstood your post and missed the last lines, luckily I re-read it before posting! I can see the wisdom in having an "unwise use of penis" fee. That's not a whole lot different than requiring men to pay monthly to support a child they didn't want. How much would such lump sums have to be to discourage the behavior? It would almost have to scale with the man's income else it wouldn't be much of a discouragement to rich assholes. Of course scaling to income would present an opportunity for poor assholes.

I wonder if just altering how the funds are given to the mother might help a bit? I know when I was a kid I saw friends' moms blow child support on everything but the child. Maybe cap the child support a man owes at 75% the expected monthly cost of raising the kid (for the area), you take 66% (about 50% the cost of raising the kid) and use it to buy items for the kid, on the mother's request, maybe she can fill out a form to pick what she wants, then the remaining money gets invested into a RESP for the kid, available to them at age 18, to pursue higher education. That might help with the soaking some fathers complain about, and provide a disincentive to women who want the baby to get money out of a man, and best of all the money gets spent on supporting the child, as it is supposed to.
 
2012-07-30 12:49:55 PM  

tudorgurl: Dancin_In_Anson: Very well put. That is your body. Do what you want to with it. Just don't expect anyone else to pay for the results.

Oh my god...why is this so patently unclear?

YOU ARE NOT PAYING FOR ABORTIONS THROUGH YOUR TAXES, ESPECIALLY IN TEXAS. THERE ARE NO PROGRAMS THAT HELP LOW-INCOME OR DESTITUTE WOMEN (OR ANY WOMAN FOR THAT MATTER) TO HAVE ANY KIND OF ABORTIVE PROCEDURE. WOMEN CAN NO LONGER GET BIRTH CONTROL FOR FREE IN TEXAS. THEREFORE, YOU'RE NOT PAYING FOR IT.

Good lord, the idiocy in this thread is blinding!


this is true for elective procedures. All states are required to provide federal funds for cases of rape, incest or life endangerment. SD is in violation of the Hyde Amendment by only providing funds for life endangerment.

Beyond those 3 reasons, the states are free to use their own funds to cover additional procedures
 
2012-07-30 12:50:19 PM  

gulogulo: 50% input, yes, but never 50% responsibility, even if he takes 50% custody. That's a biological impossibility.


And he can be compelled to provide up to 100% support in perpetuity despite being 100% opposed to reproduction.

The man has no determanitive authority in reproduction. but is liable for up to 100% of an outcome.

No matter how you slice it, this is inherently unfair.
 
2012-07-30 12:51:51 PM  

SnakeLee: We live in a country where church and state were separated by our founding fathers. Is the only reason you say things like that because you want your religion to be law? I don't get it...


Hmm... sounds like... THE TALIBAN!!! (dun-dun-DUUUUUNNNN!!!)
Yeah, this is where these hypocritical assholes just don't get it. Mention the phrase "Radical Muslim" around them and their tiny little brains seize up in apoplexy... but it's perfectly fine if the exact same philosophy is allowed to take over here, as long as it's their deity and their book.
 
2012-07-30 12:52:39 PM  
While I agree with the basic point, making a video of your opinion makes you a hero?

Unless you're in favor of legalized drug use and prostitution, this argument is hypocritical.
 
2012-07-30 12:53:05 PM  

tudorgurl: YOU ARE NOT PAYING FOR ABORTIONS


WHO THE FARK SAID ANYTHING ABOUT ABORTION? I SURE AS SHIAT DIDN'T!
 
2012-07-30 12:53:14 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: /And I wish Planned Parenthood and Other Abortion clinics would focus more attention on really trying to forewarn young women of the emotional and psychological impact of having an abortion.


When I had mine 12 years ago, PP made it abundantly clear the emotional and psychological impact of an abortion. 12 years later, though the procedure was medically necessary, I still feel the emotional and psychological impact of having to terminate.

So shut the fark up.
 
2012-07-30 12:54:06 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: tudorgurl: YOU ARE NOT PAYING FOR ABORTIONS

WHO THE FARK SAID ANYTHING ABOUT ABORTION? I SURE AS SHIAT DIDN'T!


Aaaand that looks like a misquote. Sorry, dude.
 
2012-07-30 12:56:46 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: And he can be compelled to provide up to 100% support in perpetuity despite being 100% opposed to reproduction.

The man has no determanitive authority in reproduction. but is liable for up to 100% of an outcome.

No matter how you slice it, this is inherently unfair.


When has he had to carry the child or go through the abortion? He's never 100% responsible. Biology is unfair. When he can do those things, then you can talk to me about the 'unfairness' to men.
 
2012-07-30 12:58:39 PM  
My life partner and I have decided not to procreate and I am very diligent about my birth control because I never want to be in a situation where I have to deal with abortion. That said, I know that no birth control is 100% perfect and I still get up in arms when legislators try to peck away at my rights and make abortion more difficult for women. Wow, if I ever get pregnant through some accident it better be legal or the hormones may compel me to strangle a derptastic mysogynist legislator or two. I have no intention of ever reenacting the scene from Alien with my vagina.

As for all you stupid people saying fetuses are alive and should be valued or have equal rights as the mother...I suggest women who don't want those fetuses should just cut them out and ship them to your house. With you, perhaps each fetus can properly pursue its own happiness without further imposing on its mother.

/btw, it's mentioned in the video, but many women rely on Planned Parenthood for services other than abortions
 
2012-07-30 01:00:19 PM  
I'll support your right to abortion if you admit its a tool to get out of your responsibility and that its murder
 
2012-07-30 01:00:53 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: gulogulo: 50% input, yes, but never 50% responsibility, even if he takes 50% custody. That's a biological impossibility.

And he can be compelled to provide up to 100% support in perpetuity despite being 100% opposed to reproduction.

The man has no determanitive authority in reproduction. but is liable for up to 100% of an outcome.

No matter how you slice it, this is inherently unfair.


And can you explain to me when this has happened? Where a man has been held accountable for a baby a woman had, where she gives him full custody that he doesn't want, and that he has to provide for that child beyond 18 years completely by himself?

And even then, biologically speaking, he still hasn't assumed 100% of the responsibly. The woman never gets off free. The system suggesting a man be able to simply opt out of any unwanted children is repugnant, because for the very fact that what is asked of these fathers is still less than what the woman has to put in and it always will be.
 
2012-07-30 01:03:06 PM  
Alphax,

It's a small distinction, but I'm not deliberately "missing" the point. Let's say I'm "expanding" the point. There are plenty of powerful reasons for and against abortions and I think reproductive rights are generally a great thing. I just think the "it's my body" line is not a particularly effective argument.

I'm not saying that it's what these women are doing, but one could use the "it's my body" argument for pretty much any kind of selfish behavior at all. It's my body, I don't feel feel like working to support my family, It's my body I can share needles, It's my body, I can spread disease, it's my body, I can have AK47s surgically implanted onto my wrists. Yes, I'm using hyperbole and slippery slope arguments in my debating.
 
2012-07-30 01:06:37 PM  

tudorgurl: Aaaand that looks like a misquote. Sorry, dude.


It's all good. I actually like the message in the video. It follows one of my favorite quotes:

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
 
2012-07-30 01:09:12 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: I'll support your right to abortion if you admit its a tool to get out of your responsibility and that its murder


If I got pregnant and didn't want to carry to full term, I would happily remove the fetus from the womb and set it up in an apartment but I don't think it would live very long without living parasitically off me. Sorry, but would that be murder? Women's bodies abort a lot of fetuses that just "don't turn out right" or fail to implant properly in the first trimester, often before women actually discover that they are pregnant with a viable fetus. Murderous wombs? Or is it just that nature is scary and unfair?
 
2012-07-30 01:12:00 PM  

tudorgurl: When I had mine 12 years ago, PP made it abundantly clear the emotional and psychological impact of an abortion. 12 years later, though the procedure was medically necessary, I still feel the emotional and psychological impact of having to terminate.

So shut the fark up.


Ummm... I think we are agreeing here. We are both pointing out that Abortion has a serious emotional and psychological impact.

And while I can't speak to your experience, I can speak to three instances from my own firsthand knowledge (two PP, one other) where the people at the clinics did not do a good job (in two cases they did none) of preparing the young women for the impact.

gulogulo: And can you explain to me when this has happened? Where a man has been held accountable for a baby a woman had, where she gives him full custody that he doesn't want, and that he has to provide for that child beyond 18 years completely by himself?


You are asking for a specific circumstance of your own devising, but the simplest answer would be when a woman chooses to have a child without consulting the father and dies in childbirth. The father is then the legal guardian whether he wants to be or not, and is legally responsible for the health and well being of that child.

gulogulo: And even then, biologically speaking, he still hasn't assumed 100% of the responsibly. The woman never gets off free.


I never said that. I said that a man can be responsible for up to 100% of financial support, not that the woman "gets off free". In most cases, it is some percantage less than 100. But that does not change the fact that a man can be made finaincially responsible for a child they did not want against thier express wishes for up to 18 years. But a woman cannot.
 
2012-07-30 01:20:59 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I never said that. I said that a man can be responsible for up to 100% of financial support, not that the woman "gets off free". In most cases, it is some percantage less than 100. But that does not change the fact that a man can be made finaincially responsible for a child they did not want against thier express wishes for up to 18 years. But a woman cannot.


No..the woman always bares some responsibility. Always. To say that they are not made financially responsible whether they decide to keep it or not is outright wrong. And yes, to equalize THAT inherent inequality, men are held accountable for unwanted pregnancies. It takes two. If he didn't want hte pregnancy, and the woman got an abortion he should assume himself pretty damn lucky. If she doesn't want an abortion, that's the inherent risk of farking that he must assume. Either way, she's still taking on more than he has to.
 
2012-07-30 01:21:07 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: Although I agree with it, I don't think they did a good job of conveying the point. The video went the emotional route and I don't think that stands on its own.
Women yelling at the camera with very angry looks on their faces doesn't really encourage empathy.


Why not? I have empathy for women with all the bible-thumpers and idiot republicans trying to claw more than half the population of this country back into the 19th century. I'm pissed right along side them, and I'm not even a woman... though if I were a woman I'd be even MORE pissed.

If some guy looking at this is afraid of an "angry" woman, he needs to turn his sack in at the door cause he obviously has no use for it.
 
2012-07-30 01:30:31 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: The war on women that the right wing is waging in this country is a travesty on the order of the subjugation of women in Afghanistan or the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia. The religious zealots have turned the useful teachings of religion into justifications of their own beliefs and insecurities. Not that religion was ever teaching anything particularly good in the first place, being a justification for the misogynist culture of ancient goat herders in the first place.


Ahh BUT while your argument can be seen as logical there is however a BIG giant difference between the two... unlike places like Afghanistan, Saudi etc.. here in the US many of these 'anti equality' religious zeolots/advocates are actually women themselves!!!!

Sarah Palin herself has said women must submit to men.. there are no Sarah Palins or women of influence in places like Saudi, Afghanistan etc...
 
2012-07-30 01:30:41 PM  

Lusiphur: Fluorescent Testicle: Y'know, the number of normally sane posters who turn into misogynistic douchecanoes as soon as the subject of women's rights is brought up is sort of amusing. Very telling, but also amusing. Oh, by the way, these "Common sense" ideas for laws that force the woman to bear 100% of the child-rearing costs with no welfare net (because I've never met a Men's Rights type who thinks that child-rearing deserves a welfare net)? Congratulations, you've just doubled or quadrupled the number of poverty-stricken families with no hope of ever picking themselves back up. Good work there, chaps. Just what we needed in this recession.

If only there was some relatively quick, easy, and safe medical outpatient procedure that gave women who were not in a position to raise a child on their own some sort of ability to...stop, our halt, having a child.

We could call it a Stoppage, and I'm sure that once women were no longer in a position to be forced to raise a child when they were not in a financial position to do so, the concept of child support would be done away with, since keeping a child would now be a freely entered choice. After all, it would be ludicrous to assume that women would make that kind of choice knowing they couldn't deal with the consequences on their own. No one is so hypocritical that they would go on and on about their right to choose only to turn around and deny that right to sometime else just because they made bad choices, right?


We could make it really glamorous sounding - make it sound French and call it Stoppage (Stop-aahj) - that
way all the bad feelings about it go away.

Kind of like calling Target "Tar-jhay" to try to get around the fact that it's just a more expensive Walmart.

In all seriousness, though, I admit to being conflicted when it comes to the abortion issue. I *do* think that life
begins at conception and that that life has value. On the flip side, if I don't think the government should have
the right to say who a person can marry, who can and can't adopt, etc... can I really be okay with them having
a say in what medical procedure a woman undergoes?

On the other hand, who's to say that one day a fetus will be (or has been) aborted that, if allowed to be
born, would have gone on to cure cancer or something else equally significant and world changing.
 
2012-07-30 01:31:59 PM  
It never gets old seeing two groups of idiots exercising MAX COGNITIVE DISSONANCE in wildly different ways duke it out:

Group 1: The neo-feminist radicals that think for some reason the only party making a choice to have a child and pay 50 to 100% of the cost are the men, and that women should have the right to make that decision for them, or abort it, or have it, then kill it and claim postpartum and damn you for judging them if they do because you just don't know how hard it is being a woman (okay I'm exaggerating the last bit).

Group 2: The group that thinks society has a right to force people that can't afford to raise a child to have children because their sky-daddy thinks it's wrong to let them control their reproduction, however society has no obligation to help you support that child they forced you to have once you have it ... after they forced you to have it, because - yes, socialism.


You both deserve each other ... the rest of us rational people would like to just not be drug into your moronic distopia, thanks.
 
2012-07-30 01:32:07 PM  

skullkrusher: of course life begins at conception. It is a question of whether that life is granted human rights. There is no reason to assign rights to that life that is not based on religion.


One could just as easily say that there is no reason to assign rights to adults that is not based on religion.

I think you're confusing moral philosophy, which can be completely secular, with the moral component of religion. Of course, very few non-religious people would make the "human rights begin at conception" argument. However, there are some who do: see the "pro-life vegan" crowd.
 
2012-07-30 01:32:58 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Toxicphreke: What about the man's right to have a child? A man is on the hook for child support should a woman have the child, but the man...any man, including a husband, has zero say in stopping an abortion. If a woman can chose to have the kid or not after the sex, why can't a man choose to support the kid after having sex? Nope...once a man has sex with a woman, there is no turning back. He is committed to support the kid.Women though...they get a get out of jail free card. I say let women have abortions and chose not to be mothers when you stop forcing men to be fathers.

[www.polyvore.com image 300x300]

Problem solved. Look, they're in your size and everything.


Actually, there is an important point here. Roe v. Wade protects a Woman's right to choose. If it were struck down it is conceivable that in a state where abortion is still legal that a man could sue a woman to force her to terminate a pregnancy citing the financial burdens of child support.

/Law of unintended consequences strikes again.
 
2012-07-30 01:33:21 PM  

gulogulo: No..the woman always bares some responsibility.


Right. I did not say otherwise.

To say that they are not made financially responsible whether they decide to keep it or not is outright wrong.

Thankfully, I did not say any such thing.

that's the inherent risk of farking that he must assume.

Careful there. That's just as invalid an argument when applied to women, isn't it? If women want to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, then they should just not have sex, ammirite?

........

Regardless of what burden a woman bears, it is simply true that a Man has no authoritative say in his own reproduction other than abstinance, but can be held legally and financially responsible for the decisions and actions of another person who they ave no contractual agreement with, and who they are not the legal guardian of.

A man cannot legally compell a woman to have an abortion, nor can he legally prevent her from having one. This is as it should be.

But a man can be made finaincially responsible for a child they did not want and has no say in the matter. And a man cannot prevent his own offspring from being terminated against his wishes.

We would be aghast if a woman was compelled to support a child they did not want and was denied an abortion. We would be aghast if a woman was compelled to terminate a pregnancy they did not wish to.

But we readily accept that it is permissible for the same thing to happen to a man.

As I said at the outset, there are no easy answers, but perhaps as a starting point, a system where a man must grant consent or could lodge his opposition to an unwanted child and fully and completely revoke his parental rights or claims prior to the expiration of the local abortion time frame?

I don't know. It's a mess, but when it comes to reproductive rights, men have virtually none.
 
2012-07-30 01:33:21 PM  

gulogulo: And yes, to equalize THAT inherent inequality, men are held accountable for unwanted pregnancies.


I don't think that's something legislation should do.

It's like making a legislation to equalize the inequality between blacks and whites for melanoma.

Or to keep it sex-based, like making a legislation to equalize the fact that a woman can have sex instantly if she decides to do so while a man can't.
 
2012-07-30 01:36:56 PM  

r1chard3: Fluorescent Testicle: Toxicphreke: What about the man's right to have a child? A man is on the hook for child support should a woman have the child, but the man...any man, including a husband, has zero say in stopping an abortion. If a woman can chose to have the kid or not after the sex, why can't a man choose to support the kid after having sex? Nope...once a man has sex with a woman, there is no turning back. He is committed to support the kid.Women though...they get a get out of jail free card. I say let women have abortions and chose not to be mothers when you stop forcing men to be fathers.

[www.polyvore.com image 300x300]

Problem solved. Look, they're in your size and everything.

Actually, there is an important point here. Roe v. Wade protects a Woman's right to choose. If it were struck down it is conceivable that in a state where abortion is still legal that a man could sue a woman to force her to terminate a pregnancy citing the financial burdens of child support.

/Law of unintended consequences strikes again.


Heck, given how patent and intellectual property wars are going on nowadays, I wouldn't discount men suing women or blocking them from having abortions because the zygote/embryo/fetus has their genetic material and a non-approved abortion is a break of IP rights.
 
2012-07-30 01:41:11 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: BojanglesPaladin: But there is no RIGHT that can ever exist that could compel another person to provide a product or service to you.

Counter example right here:


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


So right there you can compel people to provide the service of witnessing in court. And the government must provide council if you cannot obtain it on your own. I suspect that can compel the taxpayers to pay for it.


Before government can declare any or all of your rights forfeit for criminal reasons there must be a trial. Therefore you must be provided with council for that trial to be fair. You do not have a right to a lawyer unless the government is trying to take away one of those rights... likewise if government sends you to jail, then you have a right to medical treatment while you are incarcerated.
That is a basic human right.

The right to medical treatment otherwise is not. Nobody has the right to anyone else's goods or labour.
 
2012-07-30 01:44:50 PM  

rocky_howard: I don't think that's something legislation should do.


Why not? The alternative is women bare 100% of the burden at all times, and assume 100% of the risk. If you legally allow men to opt out of pregnancies whenever they choose, then they have 0 risk in having sex. Women carry the risk now both financially and biologically no matter what they do, even with the rules in place, and carry greater risk. Why should men not be held accountable for a portion of that? Can you explain to me what's unfair about that?
 
Displayed 50 of 1253 comments

First | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report