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.

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

40159 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jul 2012 at 1:45 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-07-30 01:57:28 AM  
30 votes:
Awesome.

Lsherm: Didn't get a good commercial about their body:

[img708.imageshack.us image 600x515]


I can't help noticing that those who are obsessed with fetuses in utero don't give a damn about said beings once they've become newborn babies. Those who want to force women to have children against their will are the same people who complain when these women go on welfare to provide for their children, and the same people who want to end Obamacare so those women and children won't have access to affordable health care. And none of those people are lining up to adopt any of the approximately 200,000 available children in the U.S. foster care system.
2012-07-30 12:44:03 AM  
17 votes:

TOG85: Your body, my tax dollars. Tell that to the people milking the welfare system out there. If I'm sick or think I am, I'm paying to be treated. Its not my right to remain healthy, its my personal obligation to myself.


Ah yes, wouldn't it be nice if we could pick and choose what our taxes go to?

I would like my share of the Iraq War back, and have the option to not chip in for future military farces.

The fraction of a cent that helps a woman get a mammogram?

I'm OK with that.
2012-07-29 11:34:17 PM  
14 votes:
Didn't get a good commercial about their body:

img708.imageshack.usView Full Size


/Oh yeah, I went there.
//Cheerleading video gets a cheerleading response
///especially liked the woman who claimed the right for what goes between her legs and then promptly claimed her right to remove the consequences of it.
////on my last days of TF - need the attention. Thanks. Flame on.
2012-07-29 11:11:24 PM  
14 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: FirstNationalBastard: Yeah, this is nice and all, but the people who made this do realize that the people they were addressing will just roll their eyes, spout something about Jesus, and continue on their merry way trying to put women back in the kitchen, right?

I think - maybe - this is more about firing up people - women - who already pretty much feel this way but aren't particularly politically active.


Women are taught from birth to look to men for a definition of acceptable behavior (because we NEED them to like us!) and that speaking out and saying these things is unacceptable for a woman. If you do it, you're a strange girl or maybe not even a real girl. This video is about helping women give themselves permission to demand equal rights, even when men make fun of them and dismiss their ideas, and not to give a flying fark what men or fundies or anyone else thinks about it.
2012-07-29 10:44:56 PM  
14 votes:
Yeah, this is nice and all, but the people who made this do realize that the people they were addressing will just roll their eyes, spout something about Jesus, and continue on their merry way trying to put women back in the kitchen, right?
2012-07-29 10:55:00 PM  
12 votes:

FirstNationalBastard: Yeah, this is nice and all, but the people who made this do realize that the people they were addressing will just roll their eyes, spout something about Jesus, and continue on their merry way trying to put women back in the kitchen, right?


Things like this don't have any effects on morons with inflexible belief structures. But they can certainly make a difference to those who haven't yet formed an opinion, children of religious twats for eg. It also strengthens the motivation of those that want change or to see an end to discrimination.
2012-07-30 02:09:28 AM  
10 votes:

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.


No one is forcing you to have sex with women.
2012-07-29 11:59:30 PM  
10 votes:
If you don't want a Bar Mitzvah, don't have one.
If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one.
LEAVE RELIGION OUT OF AMERICAN CITIZEN'S CHOICES.
2012-07-29 11:07:21 PM  
10 votes:

FirstNationalBastard: Yeah, this is nice and all, but the people who made this do realize that the people they were addressing will just roll their eyes, spout something about Jesus, and continue on their merry way trying to put women back in the kitchen, right?


I think - maybe - this is more about firing up people - women - who already pretty much feel this way but aren't particularly politically active.
2012-07-30 02:43:04 AM  
9 votes:

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.


Using that logic, if you have sex and get an STD, you shouldn't get treatment because, hey, you should have just kept it in your pants. And if you drop a brick on your foot and break bones, it's your own fault for not being more careful. You shouldn't be treated if you are in a car accident because you chose to drive a car knowing that the chances of being in an automobile accident are statistically high. Women should just not have sex and should have to live with the consequences of rape, incest, and accidents if they chose to do it while men are able to run off scott-free. Men don't live with the pain or stigma of abortion or unwed childbirth. Men may get nailed for child-support, but they aren't going to have a small person squirt out of their parts and into their arms, triggering a biological desire to care for it. Paying for a kid is a hell of a lot easier than raising one. But that doesn't matter if you just blame the women.

Fark you.
2012-07-29 11:31:29 PM  
8 votes:
If this video pisses off one fundamentalist that wants everyone in the US to follow their misguided views because "BUT THE BIBLE" then it was well worth the view.

And if it makes even one of those same misguilded fundies realize how wrong they are... well it's a pipe dream but it's nice...
2012-07-29 10:50:32 PM  
8 votes:

FirstNationalBastard: Yeah, this is nice and all, but the people who made this do realize that the people they were addressing will just roll their eyes, spout something about Jesus, and continue on their merry way trying to put women back in the kitchen, right?


Yes, but at least making it made them feel good. Then the people watching it will share it on Facebook, making them feel good. Then it will be on TV shows talking about how watching it made them feel good. Nothing constructive was done, but at least a lot of people felt good.
2012-07-30 02:40:46 AM  
7 votes:

MoeSzyslak: Is this the thread where all the lefties who pop into gun threads to make fun of all the dumb people for thinking "Obama's gonna take their guns" biatch and moan about how "Romney's gonna take their abortions"? Abortions didn't go anywhere after eight years of Reagan and twelve years of Bushes but somehow if Romney wins they're going to disappear as soon as he takes office. Both issues are nothing more than distractions when this country has real issues to worry about. And for the record I don't give a shiat if a woman wants to get an abortion. Have at it, in fact get ten of then for all I care. I just don't think that taxpayers should have to pay for it.


Last I checked, abortions AREN'T done with taxpayer money, at least at Planned Parenthood clinics. And you know something? I'd rather have a few of my tax dollars spent on contraceptives and abortions instead of thusands of my tax dollars on babies forced to be born because of whiny assholes who stop caring about the child the moment it exits the mother.

Also, ever heard of a condom, guys? Costs a few bucks, saves a ton of money in the future. Wrap your dick before you stick it in.

/you're not going to stop people from having sex, how about we try more education and awareness and preventive measures?
2012-07-30 02:31:10 AM  
7 votes:

Herr Flick's Revenge: Why is this crap coming up?
Abortions Wars are legal.
You want one, have at it.
You want me to pay for it?
Nope, unless I was involved in getting you pregnant terrorism/living where there's oil.


FTFY

Part of living in our society means that your government will spend some of your tax dollars on things you don't think they should be spending money on. If this is unacceptable to you, I recommend you move the fark out.
2012-07-30 02:27:23 AM  
7 votes:

xl5150: When I was in college, my friends and I used to have a game when we went out to a bar (or really anywhere social with a lot of people, for that matter). The challenge was to go up to a random girl and keep as straight and solemn a face as possible and say "I know about the abortion."

Most of the time they would just give you a weird look and tell you to fark off, but every once in awhile we would get a reaction that would tell us that she had actually had one. My friend had the highest score because once he did it and the girl started crying and hurried out of the building.

/csb


You and your friends were assholes in college (and beyond, I am sure). Color me shocked.
2012-07-30 02:07:46 AM  
7 votes:
img.photobucket.comView Full Size
2012-07-30 01:57:12 AM  
7 votes:

Lsherm: /Cheerleading video gets a cheerleading response///especially liked the woman who claimed the right for what goes between her legs and then promptly claimed her right to remove the consequences of it.////on my last days of TF - need the attention. Thanks. Flame on.


According to one viewpoint, it is bad to have abortions. To every other one, it's fine. Why does that one viewpoint have to be legislated for everyone? We don't live in a theocracy, we live in a country where the supreme court upheld the right to abortion for everyone on Constitutional grounds. 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...
2012-07-30 04:14:32 AM  
6 votes:
i129.photobucket.comView Full Size


I think women have all the rights these days in regards to abortion (other than the right to have one because of damn fundies). Basically right now its a "haha I got your sperm" game. Once shes preggo, the man is screwed, and he has no recourse. Here's my proposal:

1. A woman must inform the man she is pregnant, get his approval to be a father (in writing, to be filed with the city/state/federal whatever) before the third trimester, or she forfeits all rights to child support by the biological father.

2. If the woman wants to keep the kid but the man doesn't, he's off the hook. A woman can get an abortion with no say from the man already, so turn about is fair play.

3. The woman is under no obligation to have the child if she does not want. Like someone said here earlier in the thread, the guy can knock up another female.

Basically both parties have to agree to the child before the third trimester. No surprise 'haha I cut off all contact, I'm about to give birth, you're f*cked". If the man wants the child, he has to ask the woman to give birth to it. If she says no, no dice. Cut and dried, real simple.

Also, paternity tests are mandatory in any legal proceedings before any money is given out.
2012-07-30 02:19:49 AM  
6 votes:

Lorelle: Awesome.

Lsherm: Didn't get a good commercial about their body:

[img708.imageshack.us image 600x515]

I can't help noticing that those who are obsessed with fetuses in utero don't give a damn about said beings once they've become newborn babies. Those who want to force women to have children against their will are the same people who complain when these women go on welfare to provide for their children, and the same people who want to end Obamacare so those women and children won't have access to affordable health care. And none of those people are lining up to adopt any of the approximately 200,000 available children in the U.S. foster care system.


Also, I'll bet these same people oppose making the US not be one of four countries on earth (you don't want to know who the other 3 are) to not have mandatory maternity leave. Even the entire damn middle east has it, but the US basically tells women "live out your dream of having the career you want, or start a family. Choose one and surrender the other." These guys are obsessed with having babies be born at all costs then oppose things that would make it so much easier for women to deal with the expenses and inconveniences that come with being pregnant and raising a child.

It's disgusting.
2012-07-30 02:04:31 AM  
6 votes:

OscarTamerz: I liked how the Supreme Court legalized homosexuality but specifically exempted prostitution which is another choice for an adult. Gotta love the left wing hypocrisy.


Not sure if troll...or retard

both?
2012-07-30 01:56:31 AM  
6 votes:
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.
2012-07-29 10:51:34 PM  
6 votes:

FirstNationalBastard: Yeah, this is nice and all, but the people who made this do realize that the people they were addressing will just roll their eyes, spout something about Jesus, and continue on their merry way trying to put women back in the kitchen, right?


I'm certain there will be viewers that do this, but I'm equally certain that there will also be viewers who will listen to these women in an empathetic manner. Granted there are likely to be more of the former than the latter, but IMHO, it doesn't lessen the impact of the video significantly
2012-07-30 03:07:59 AM  
5 votes:

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.


Here's a rational rebuttal for you. Someone should have told you what I told my brother when he was 13. If you don't want to have a baby, it is up to you to make sure that you don't have one. You cannot trust other people to make that decision for you. The minute you decide to have unprotected sex it is half your responsibility. Suck it up, buttercup, and stop being a douche.
2012-07-30 02:36:58 AM  
5 votes:

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.


Wait you think that women don't have to live with the choice? Are you farking kidding me? Women have 2 really really shiatty choices here. Either they have the kid they don't want, or they have an abortion where they have to live the rest of their lives feeling the guilt of their decision as assholes like you spout off about how they are terrible people for making that decision. While I understand that some men who might want a child when the woman doesn't might get burnt in the deal, to imply that women don't have to live with their choices is not only wrong but absolutely disgusting.
2012-07-30 02:05:53 AM  
5 votes:
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.
2012-07-30 02:05:30 AM  
5 votes:

TOG85: Your body, my tax dollars. Tell that to the people milking the welfare system out there. If I'm sick or think I am, I'm paying to be treated. Its not my right to remain healthy, its my personal obligation to myself.


It must be great to live in a world were everyone can afford healthcare themselves or simply get jobs that provide them with healthcare but I unfortunately live in a world in which not everyone has access to affordable health care and I have this little annoying thing called a conscience that makes me feel bad when people die from preventable diseases that they couldn't afford to get treated.
2012-07-30 08:47:01 AM  
4 votes:
I say hand out birth control like candy. My problem only comes when people say "birth control is wrong" and then turn around and also say "abortion is wrong."

Pick one.

Pills are cheaper than abortions and wreak much less havoc on one's body.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

/that is all
2012-07-30 03:19:12 AM  
4 votes:

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: So it's logical to say that life begins when a fetus has a heartbeat and neural activity.


No it's not. Until it can survive on its own, it's part of the mother. It's like a very special hemorrhoid.
2012-07-30 02:33:00 AM  
4 votes:

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.
2012-07-30 02:05:37 AM  
4 votes:
test435.sunnewsnetwork.caView Full Size
2012-07-30 02:05:35 AM  
4 votes:
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.
If a man feels threatened by women having more power, this is about the last video I would suggest in convincing him otherwise.

I do think "I have the right to defend myself... against cancer" was a good line, though. Use more of that.
2012-07-30 02:04:36 AM  
4 votes:

Lsherm: ////on my last days of TF - need the attention. Thanks. Flame on.


You're more likely to be sponsored if you act like an intelligent human being, rather than yet another brainless conservatroll.
2012-07-30 02:04:35 AM  
4 votes:

WTF Indeed: FirstNationalBastard: Yeah, this is nice and all, but the people who made this do realize that the people they were addressing will just roll their eyes, spout something about Jesus, and continue on their merry way trying to put women back in the kitchen, right?

Yes, but at least making it made them feel good. Then the people watching it will share it on Facebook, making them feel good. Then it will be on TV shows talking about how watching it made them feel good. Nothing constructive was done, but at least a lot of people felt good.


Yup. Just like when that dumb black lady wouldn't sit in the back of the bus and tried to make a stink out of it - nothing much came of that. Or how about when some moron turned up a Fender guitar amplifier so much that the sound distorted - pfff, what a fool. Definitely nothing came of that. Then there were these guys, they were fed up with being taxed without their voices being heard and having religion forced down their throats, so they - get this! - they got on boats and sailed across an ocean to try and escape their oppressors, preaching all the way about a new government and a new way of living - what a bunch of idiots! I can't imagine whatever they thought might come of that.

(eyeroll)

To be cynical is to be intentionally stupid, and I doubt there was anything less productive done by anyone today than you posting what you did. I hope you've learned something today.
2012-07-29 11:42:10 PM  
4 votes:
My body's nobody's body but mine.
You run your own body, so let me run mine.


It is funny how an elementary school rhyme I was taught to chime away Sanduskies also applies to fundies.
2012-07-30 06:06:57 PM  
3 votes:

elysive: Sorry, but when you enter a woman, you relinquish a lot of your rights, buddy...just


mgshamster: not want (and subsequently required to support), and they can have a child they DO want termiated against their will.

1) Yup. Sucks, doesn't it.


A woman who has engaged in consensual sex can not be compelled to become a parent against her will. A man, however can.

A woman who has become fertilized can not have her offspring terminated against her will. A man can.

All of this pointless talk about "Well men should just be more responsible before they have sex" is exactly the same argument used against women to argue against the right to an abortion or contreception. It's a bullshiat argument when applied to a woman, and it's a bullshiat argument when applied to a man.

I think we all agree that a man who chooses to bring a child into this world should be obligated to provide for that child, just as a woman who chooses to bring a child into theis world should be obligated to provide for that child.

But since we have long ago established that everyone should be free to have sex with womever they choose (as part of a woman's right to her own body), and since we all agree that responsible sexual partners shoudl avail themselves of readily available contreception, then it's not the sex. It's about what happens if a pregnancy occurs.

Again, this is equally true for a woman. She has equal responsibility, correct? But a woman has two opt-outs after fertilization - Abortion or adoption. A Man does not.
2012-07-30 11:27:15 AM  
3 votes:

Pathman: there can be no life without a fertilized egg. there could theoretically be life at any point after fertilization. therefore life begins at fertilization.


But wait, after fertilization you need the egg to implant in the uterine wall---without that, there can be no life.

And that's not a minor nitpick, either: more than half of fertilized eggs fail to implant. This is why "conception" usually refers to both fertilization and implantation in the uterine wall.

Which raises an important, serious question: if you believe that life begins at fertilization, then isn't implantation failure the world's greatest single cause of death, dwarfing all other causes of death combined? Yet I have never seen pro-lifers spend even a quantum of effort advocating for a cure. It's almost like they don't really believe that egg was a person after all.
2012-07-30 10:04:51 AM  
3 votes:

Toxicphreke: Don't want to get pregnant? Stick to farking other women then ladies. See it works both ways...that's my whole farking point. Everything works both ways except that men have all responsibility in cases of pregnancy but none of the rights or options. As it stands now most states do not even require that the father be notified. What if he wants a kid and his wife keeps aborting? Should he not have the right to know and find a new wife?


You poor baby. Isn't your issue simply, "How dare a woman be able to do something that a MAN can't do?" it must be frustrating to have to rail against biology your whole life, hating that men have a penis and women have a vagina that carries the babbies. MEN should be able to control the entire process of having children. How come MEN can't patent that process by which women make babbies and take it away from women? THEY HAVE TOO MUCH POWER. HOW UNFAIR.

Poor baby.
2012-07-30 07:45:48 AM  
3 votes:
Many of the arguments in the video apply to the war on drugs and assisted suicide. And I agree with the logic across the board. If there is one thing on this planet we truly own it's our own body. There should be no law passed that dictates what you can do to it or put in it as long as it's not endangering anyone else.
2012-07-30 03:33:05 AM  
3 votes:
Weird. This really brought out the misogynist subset, didn't it? Bunch of log-ins I've never seen before...
2012-07-30 02:31:39 AM  
3 votes:

bmihura: As long as taxpayers are not involved, do what you want with your body!


As has been previously noted: you don't get to pick and choose where your tax dollars go. Or, as Morbo would put it:

24.media.tumblr.comView Full Size


REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
2012-07-30 02:31:09 AM  
3 votes:

Toxicphreke: Lorelle: No one is forcing you to have sex with women.
http://www.google.com/
Because no one is forcing women to have sex with men? Oh you mean rape rape...so all abortions are due to rape rape? Nope try this one on for size "The most common underlying reasons for abortion were 1) they could not afford a child at the time and were unmarried (42%), 2) it would interfere with their education (38%), 3) it would interfere with their employment (38%), and 4) they were students or planning to enroll in studies (34%)." http://www.womenscenter.com/abortion_reasons.html

Abortions are done for lifestyle choices. Give the men a chance to maintain their lifestyle.


About the only (very small) upside to being of the sex that has to menstruate every month, carry for 9 months, then painfully deliver the babies, is that we get that second chance to "maintain our lifestyles," if the birth control fails, want to trade?
Cause if you do I'm happy to swap you my uterus. Enjoy your abortion rights -and periods.
2012-07-30 02:30:51 AM  
3 votes:

xl5150: When I was in college, my friends and I used to have a game when we went out to a bar (or really anywhere social with a lot of people, for that matter). The challenge was to go up to a random girl and keep as straight and solemn a face as possible and say "I know about the abortion."

Most of the time they would just give you a weird look and tell you to fark off, but every once in awhile we would get a reaction that would tell us that she had actually had one. My friend had the highest score because once he did it and the girl started crying and hurried out of the building.

/csb


Wow, you sound like a complete douchebag. Congratulations on that, I guess...
2012-07-30 02:29:54 AM  
3 votes:

RastaKins: This is your body.

And it's none of my business if I pay taxes for...
...your abortion,
...your mammogram,
...your STDs.

Thanks for being so self sufficient.


Well it looks like someone walked straight out of their mom's vagina... glad you didn't need any tax sponsored infrastructure, but the mere mortals in this country all pay these things called taxes, and it all gets spent on keeping this shiat going , and of course a bunch of shiat we farking hate - even if we hate different parts of it.

Do they still teach civics in school?
2012-07-30 02:27:07 AM  
3 votes:
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this argument:

-I won't pay for your birth control
-I won't pay for your abortion
-I won't pay for your food stamps and welfare

Seems to me if you just helped out to cover those little pills, it all would have been so much cheaper, or is anyone under the delusion that you can keep people from having sex.
2012-07-30 02:23:34 AM  
3 votes:

Sabyen91: What is your solution? Men being able to force women to abort? Not having any responsibility for a child?


Fifty bucks on "Banning all non-medical abortions." He strikes me as one of those "Punish the sluts, Limbaugh uber alles" types.
2012-07-30 02:22:02 AM  
3 votes:

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?
2012-07-30 02:05:05 AM  
3 votes:
25.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
2012-07-30 01:59:18 AM  
3 votes:
Agree with most of what they said. Good for them. Fight on sister, fight on.
2012-07-30 01:57:16 AM  
3 votes:

WTF Indeed: FirstNationalBastard: Yeah, this is nice and all, but the people who made this do realize that the people they were addressing will just roll their eyes, spout something about Jesus, and continue on their merry way trying to put women back in the kitchen, right?

Yes, but at least making it made them feel good. Then the people watching it will share it on Facebook, making them feel good. Then it will be on TV shows talking about how watching it made them feel good. Nothing constructive was done, but at least a lot of people felt good.


Feeling good isn't constructive?
2012-07-30 01:51:11 AM  
3 votes:

WTF Indeed: Yes, but at least making it made them feel good. Then the people watching it will share it on Facebook, making them feel good. Then it will be on TV shows talking about how watching it made them feel good. Nothing constructive was done, but at least a lot of people felt good.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the nation of America was founded on ideas, right? Why is it so unlikely that there, the promotion, the distillation, the distribution of powerful ideas, new ways to think about old problems, could have some impact?
2012-07-30 01:49:34 AM  
3 votes:
I'm all for legalizing prostitution, it is their body after all.
2012-07-30 12:35:08 AM  
3 votes:

FirstNationalBastard: Yeah, this is nice and all, but the people who made this do realize that the people they were addressing will just roll their eyes, spout something about Jesus, and continue on their merry way trying to put women back in the kitchen, right?


It's cute they assume that they'll see the video in the first place. First rule of FOX Club: Don't venture into places delivering differing opinions. Second rule of Fox Club: Because fark you, that's why.

The video is great and all, but we already agree with you. Get in the gutter and fight.
2012-07-29 10:56:50 PM  
3 votes:
Nothing like an empowering feminist monologue scripted by a man.
2012-07-30 07:32:50 PM  
2 votes:

Pathman: life begins at the fusing of the two gametes so therefore a blastocyst is alive.


You are being dishonest: this isn't accepted as the definition of life begins by any consensus in biology.
2012-07-30 04:11:24 PM  
2 votes:

asmodeusazarak: gulogulo:

So, if a man can opt out of the one responsibility our society still holds him accountable for, what responsibility will he have left?

Simple, give him a time limit to establish whether he will accept paternity, within say 2 weeks of being notified that he is the father/prospective father. If he fails to declare the he is not interested in that time frame then he's on the hook. No one gets to have their cake and eat it too, but it is basic consideration, and eliminates the temptation some people find to try to solidify a relationship with a pregnancy that was not desired by both parities.


That seems like a really nice deal for him. All of the fun, can check off "not responsible" when it suits him. Can we say if he does that more than once then he has to have a vasectomy?
2012-07-30 03:59:27 PM  
2 votes:

gulogulo: Responsibility is a type of risk, yes. So what responsibility does a man have, objectively, if you remove even the risk of financial responsibility from him? Look at this objectively, please, and you'll see why that will create an entirely different dynamic with two partners engaging in sex.


I think I'm being pretty objective here. I certainly don't have a horse in this race - I made my decision to be a father.

The man's responsibility is in line with his control of the situation, just as it is with a woman. She can control whether or not a child is born, he can't. He should be allowed to absolve himself of the responsibility associated with the decision that he has no control over.
2012-07-30 03:55:14 PM  
2 votes:
Great video.

Some of you people sicken me.

You assume speaking out will make no difference, but let me ask you this, is keeping silent more effective at addressing social injustice?

Not that you care, your apathy is too habitual.
2012-07-30 03:17:50 PM  
2 votes:
If you have sex, you assume financial responsibility for the care of the child for 18 years. Period. End of discussion. If you don't like it, don't have sex.

Likewise, if you have sex, the mother bears the physical responsibility for the care of the child. Terminate. Adoption. Single parenthood are all options SHE gets to make. The inequity of that is found in the fact that she bears the child.

Here's an easy answer. If the mother doesn't want the child and the father does, then the father is free to take the aborted fetus to whatever mother he wants to carry it.

Sorry, in this case, fair isn't equal and the man bears the most financial risk while the mother bears the health and phsyical risks. That's more than fair in my book.
2012-07-30 03:09:54 PM  
2 votes:

gulogulo: And she has to assume all biological risks whether she wants to or not. This is why it's deemed acceptable to spread some of that risk to the man. What is it you want? That he has no risk? What risk do you think a man should have in sex? If he can absolve h imself of any unwanted child...then what risk is left for him to take on?


What are you talking abou?. No law anywhere can change the biology, so all of that is irrelevant. Take it up with God or evolution.

Past the biology, there is only custody and finaincial support and emotional. Emotional support is outside the point of this discussion.

You are still continuing to ignore the inherant disparity in reproductive rights by effectively saying "So? Women have to be pregnant, so tough cookies for men." And while that's certainly an opinion, it's not an answer to the inequity of making a man legally and financially indebted for decades against his express wishes, or worse, to leave him powerless to prevent the death of his own unborn child. You seem to be basically saying that since men don't gestate, they have no reproductive rights. That 9 months trumps 18 years, and that the woman is somehow the only "real" parent, and men shouldn't have any say.

As I said from the start, women's reporoductive rights and the right to an abortion are as they should be, or at least are where they are. But we have not yet arrived at a fair and equitable way of addressing men's reproductive rights.
2012-07-30 02:42:28 PM  
2 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: mgshamster: So your argument is that a woman can make the choice to abort a fetus, while a man cannot, and that's where the unfair division lies?

Read up. I laid it out at the begining:

"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."


Ah, ok. I think I understand where you're coming from. To be fair, men also have the option of using contraceptives, so it's a little more broad than abstain or not.

BojanglesPaladin: mgshamster: Also, I'm a bit confused as to why you're claiming that costs (ie, financial burdens) are not a part of the argument, and then immediately bring up financial responsibility as an argument.

I think you are being confused by another poster's responses, who is sidetracked by trying to balance comparitive reponsibilities including but not limited to finaincial support.

Financial responsibility without consent *IS* at the root of the orignal comment I supplemented, and is one of the points i am making as well. I further point out that Men are effectively denied reproductive rights becasue the choice about whether or not they will reproduce even after insemination has occured) is de facto completely out of their hands. And yet they are made to be finaincially and legally responsible for reproduction regardless of their wishes.


Ok, I think I understand this point as well. This is what I was trying to counter with my "risk" argument, although I may have been inelegant with my words, enough to be unable to bring my own point across.

My counter-argument to the lack of men's choice and men's financial responsibility arguments is the risk argument. Men are at zero risk of dying or obtaining any health issues due to a fetus. Men do not experience any of the physical pain. Men do not have to watch their consumption of alcohol or other consumables potentially dangerous to the fetus. Men do not have to leave their jobs to have a child (without pay in many states). If a man chooses not to have the child (ie, abortion), the man is not at risk of dying; he is not at risk of becoming infertile; he is not at risk of obtaining any medical problems or health issues; he is not at risk of being shamed or ostracized by an entire community.

Meanwhile, while a man does have to pay for 18 years if the child is born, so does the woman. If the man chooses to walk away, then the woman is left 100% responsible for the child. The only way for the woman to not have responsibility is if the man steps up to claim 100% responsibility, if the child is adopted, or if she dies. Death is pretty extreme.

So all in all, in my humble opinion, the fact that men cannot choose whether the fetus is aborted and cannot easily or reasonable choose to walk away from partial financial responsibility are points that do not compare to the biological/health risk of carrying and birthing a child or aborting a child.
2012-07-30 02:01:12 PM  
2 votes:
I'm male and I'm pro-choice, but the idea of having to pay 18 years of child support because a condom broke horrifies me.

When I was around 19-22 years old I knew this guy called Mick who was the same age as me. Mick had been abused as a child (not sure how exactly, but he'd been through a few foster homes). Mick hadn't graduated high school, because his home life growing up had been utterly shiat. Mick was the most successful and overachieving person I've ever known. He was pulling down a six figure salary building PCs by the time he was 19 (circa 1993) because he was a real golden boy. He was one of the nicest people I've ever met, and he also happened to be just absolutely ridiculously good-looking. I'm talking Brad Pitt level.

It would have been easy to hate Mick, but you just couldn't. He was just that cool.

When I knew him, he was getting through a torrid relationship break-up. His former girlfriend just wouldn't leave him alone, and she'd lied to him about using birth control in order to try to force him to stay with her. As it turned out, she'd even done the pinpricks in condoms thing, trying to get pregnant so he'd have to marry her.

So yeah, whilst I'm pro-choice and don't want to go back to the days when women were dying from backyard abortions using coathangers, anyone who claims that a guy like Mick should have been forced into eighteen years of drudgery and economic servitude to the mother of a child he didn't want, simply because he dared to have intercourse with a woman, can go and fark themselves.
2012-07-30 12:20:42 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:57:59 AM  
2 votes:

Honest Bender: Alphax: Xenomech: Not this stupid "it's my body" shiat again. Yes, it's your body, but you have another one -- with its own unique DNA and everything -- growing inside it.

If you value the 'body' inside more than the body outside, your morals aren't moral.

What if you value them both equally?


I've always wondered about this, and I have to believe that if you valued both equally then abortions would be legal, and be about as common as amputations.
Ant
2012-07-30 10:26:04 AM  
2 votes:

Toxicphreke: Give the men a chance to maintain their lifestyle.


Your choices:
1) Wear a condom
2) Don't have sex
3) Get a vasectomy

Looks like you have lots of choices.
2012-07-30 10:24:32 AM  
2 votes:

Ant: 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.

Boo-farking-hoo. Wear a condom and quit your whining.


If you wanna get laid without the worry of pregnancy and child support, might I suggest the gay?
2012-07-30 10:19:37 AM  
2 votes:

digitalrain: http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/category/medicaid.html

There are a number of abortion clinics that accept Medicaid. Last I checked, Medicaid was Federally funded.


In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions.[1] It is not a permanent law, rather it is a "rider" that, in various forms, has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976. The Hyde Amendment applies only to funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. It primarily affects Medicaid. Link
2012-07-30 09:59:09 AM  
2 votes:
You want to reduce the number of abortions? Comprehensive sex ed and free birth control. Have a bowl of condoms on the front desk of every govt building in the country. Require all health insurance plans to cover the cost of hormone pills.

Hell, subsidize the porn industry for all I care.
2012-07-30 09:55:14 AM  
2 votes:

xl5150: If abortions are going to be legal, part of the requirement to get one should be that the father of the child has to sign off on it (with the obvious exception of when the woman has a police report stating that she has been raped). It's just common sense.


Uhhhh no......Then the man can hold the woman hostage for his signature. If you don't have to carry it, then you shouldn't have the last word on it.
2012-07-30 09:50:21 AM  
2 votes:

You're the jerk... jerk: FirstNationalBastard: Yeah, this is nice and all, but the people who made this do realize that the people they were addressing will just roll their eyes, spout something about Jesus, and continue on their merry way trying to put women back in the kitchen, right?

You can be a little less condescending with your reply. The problem is that on this issue there is a strong philosophical divide over whether a fetus is a living human deserving at the very least the right against active destruction, or is it a non-sentient being living off the woman's body. Videos like this assume the first position is wrong, but do not address why (viability, development, etc.). You can continue to believe anyone who disagrees with you is some whack job idiot, but they aren't. I am not even sure where I fall on this debate because I don't know when a fetus becomes a human. It just is a debate where both sides refuse to discuss the other's position.


If the so-called 'pro-life' people actually wanted to prevent abortions, they'd support sex education and birth control, like most people. But they do not. They don't want to prevent abortions, they want to punish people who do or think things they do not approve of.
2012-07-30 09:49:58 AM  
2 votes:

Pathman: but when it comes to the life of a human being, who is to decide when life begins?


"Not one religion or another," for one.
2012-07-30 09:38:09 AM  
2 votes:
jesus christ...a whole lotta sexual politics in here. How about I just keep my opinion on womens reproductive health & politics between myself & my woman & a polling booth when the need arises (and I'm sure it will)

On a second note, I can't think of a single instance ANYONE'S opinion was changed from arguing on the internet. The whole duscussion usually degenerates into "you're a racist/nazi/misogynist". I have a lot more to say but I'm going to go have an abortion & listen to Limbaugh instead.
/ick
2012-07-30 09:22:43 AM  
2 votes:

Tatterdemalian: gulogulo: All right, again, let's think about this logically, and talk about why abortions make good economic sense, and as a tax payer it's a service I think you should want to support (that is, if you are truly fiscally conservative).

There's nothing logical about your emotional assumption that we are required to give people money and only get continued antisocial behavior in return.


We always help people, even if the problem is their own fault. I don't recall ever seeing a firefighter ask if you accidentally lit your house on fire BEFORE putting it out. Now, with a fire, people tend to look into it afterwards, and the homeowner is careful not to do it again. Oddly enough, in the vaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaast majority of, say, abortions, this is exactly what happens as well.
2012-07-30 07:56:50 AM  
2 votes:

MoeSzyslak: Is this the thread where all the lefties who pop into gun threads to make fun of all the dumb people for thinking "Obama's gonna take their guns" biatch and moan about how "Romney's gonna take their abortions"? Abortions didn't go anywhere after eight years of Reagan and twelve years of Bushes but somehow if Romney wins they're going to disappear as soon as he takes office. Both issues are nothing more than distractions when this country has real issues to worry about. And for the record I don't give a shiat if a woman wants to get an abortion. Have at it, in fact get ten of then for all I care. I just don't think that taxpayers should have to pay for it.


You are pretending that Republicans elected in 2010 haven't spent nearly all their time passing new laws restricting women's rights?
2012-07-30 06:58:13 AM  
2 votes:

MajorGroove: Nothing like an empowering feminist monologue scripted by a man.


And then argued by a bunch of men.

If you want to do your part, get a vasectomy so you don't put a woman in the position to make this decision.

For the medical experts here who will enlighten everyone with vasectomy success rates, you may get neutered. I hear it has a very high success rate.

Of course it is your body so do what you want. It's also a free country so you can continue pandering or white kniting or whatever this is.

Good day

END PSA.
2012-07-30 06:42:55 AM  
2 votes:

Toxicphreke: 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.


True. To solve this, you'll need to figure out how to transfer a blastocyte/foetus to that man so that he can carry it to term. When you've done this, that man's objection will be on moral par. Until then, the woman's fundamental right to choose when or when not to be a host must trump all.
2012-07-30 06:38:56 AM  
2 votes:

Lorelle: Toxicphreke: An in clinic abortion is between $300-1000, Such a financial hardship...just think if they had to pay that every month for 18 years!!!!!!

It IS a financial hardship for some.


And so is $75600.
2012-07-30 04:59:58 AM  
2 votes:

Lorelle: Toxicphreke: Abortions are done for lifestyle choices. Give the men a chance to maintain their lifestyle.

Stick to farking other men, then. Problem solved.


Don't want to get pregnant? Stick to farking other women then ladies. See it works both ways...that's my whole farking point. Everything works both ways except that men have all responsibility in cases of pregnancy but none of the rights or options. As it stands now most states do not even require that the father be notified. What if he wants a kid and his wife keeps aborting? Should he not have the right to know and find a new wife?
2012-07-30 04:19:02 AM  
2 votes:

Fluorescent Testicle: User1005273: I never admitted that it's troll bait, although it is. It's also a point that I wanted to make that he managed to get on the first page. And I'm sorry "Fluorescent Testicle", but you don't get to question my intelligence. BTW: You're feeding the trolls. Not too bright, are you?

[nnm.uz image 300x500]


You're really putting a lot of effort into this, aren't you?

Sorry "Fluorescent Testicle", but I think I might be able to get a little sleep before work. Have fun without me.

As for everyone else, I have fun with this stuff too (trolling is far more entertaining when sleep deprived), but we'd get a lot more done if we had debates instead of arguments.

If you're a Christian, "love thy neighbor". *See below*
If you're Pro-Life, think about what the whole process is like. They aren't monsters that kill babies for fun. Regret, fear, hopelessness, this is what you're working with.
If you're Pro-Choice, Pro-lifers are trying to save the lives of babies. You might not view he / she / it as a person, but they do. They're not monsters trying to keep you in leg irons for 9 months, they're just trying to do what they think is right.

Of course holier than thou Christians should (and probably will) burn in hell along with trolls like me :-P
2012-07-30 03:53:45 AM  
2 votes:

Toxicphreke: heidinoele: 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.

Here's a rational rebuttal for you. Someone should have told you what I told my brother when he was 13. If you don't want to have a baby, it is up to you to make sure that you don't have one. You cannot trust other people to make that decision for you. The minute you decide to have unprotected sex it is half your responsibility. Suck it up, buttercup, and stop being a douche.
You said if I had sex it is half my responsibility, then why do I have zero rights when it comes to abortion?


Your choice comes way before the abortion decision. It's your right not to have kids. You have the right to not to have sex. You have the right to a vasectomy. You have the right to wear a condom. If you choose to have sex and not protect yourself, you have the responsibity to accept the consequences.
2012-07-30 03:42:49 AM  
2 votes:

OscarTamerz: I liked how the Supreme Court legalized homosexuality but specifically exempted prostitution which is another choice for an adult. Gotta love the left wing hypocrisy.


A right wing stacked supreme court that legalizes homosexuality = left wing hypocrisy?

You either fail at trolling or are stupid... or both... no, definitely probably both.
2012-07-30 03:21:38 AM  
2 votes:

doglover: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: So it's logical to say that life begins when a fetus has a heartbeat and neural activity.

No it's not. Until it can survive on its own, it's part of the mother. It's like a very special hemorrhoid.


And this is why I have you favorited. You crack me up.

/I like to think of it as a parasite, but hemorrhoid is awesome and I'm going to start saying that instead.
2012-07-30 03:17:45 AM  
2 votes:
Toxicphreke:

yes because guilt is the same as an average of $350 a month for 18 years. And I never once called anyone terrible for getting an abortion. How about making it so anyone under 18 has to have parental consent, if the parent refuses to allow abortion they are on the hook for the kid. How about, in case of married women, notification to their husband. Hell at least with notification... he can decide to divorce if he wants. Like I pointed out before, on a pro abortion website as well, abortion is done to save women money. Let the man opt out. Sure he may look like an asshole but at least he has the same kind of choices a women has. Equal rights and all that jazz.

Do you really, honestly think all it costs to raise a child is $350 a month? If the woman chooses to keep the child, she's taking a massive financial and lifestyle stake in the welfare of that child you helped to create. Not to mention that in the process of giving birth, she gets to take on all the physical risks as well - and they're not pretty if the pregnancy goes bad. $350 a month is nothing if you don't have to take the chance of actually dying to give birth.

I mean, really, you're bent out of shape over contributing a tiny portion of your paycheck to raise a child you brought into this world, and you even want a free pass for not actually trying to take part in the life of the child your former sex partner (because that's all you're seeing her as) will have to devote a significantly larger portion of her own time and money into raising.

And trust me, if all you see that kid as is a chunk out of your paycheck, you're already a scum bag in my eyes. And that's coming from someone who's seen deadbeat parents of both genders that see their kids as nothing more than a tool their ex partner is using to "extort" money from.

If all this bothers you so much...well, let me borrow a phrase from other jerks - "stop spreading your legs!"
2012-07-30 03:06:11 AM  
2 votes:
I'm aware that abortion isn't something that's taken as lightly by its advocates as what the pro-life crowd thinks. But I disagree with the argument that a fetus is not a life. We know that life ends when the heart stops beating and the brain dies. So it's logical to say that life begins when a fetus has a heartbeat and neural activity. A heartbeat and individual brain waves can be detected in a fetus as young as 40 days.

Then there how abortion laws favor the woman and only the woman. The man has little to no say in it. As the law stands now, if a man has sex with a woman, even oral sex, and the woman then uses his sperm to impregnate herself, he is financially responsible for the child, he has no recourse. None.

Why should it be any different for women? Why do they get an out? Why does the woman have complete say over whether she raises a child? Why does she get to reach into a man's wallet at her whim and caprise and say, "You're paying for this kid I want"?

On the other side, if the man DOES want to raise the child, be completely financially responsible, and the woman says, "No, I don't think so," she can get an abortion. The man has no recourse. None.

The man has no say at all in a descision that also affects him.

All because of this idea that consent to sex is not the same as consent to become pregnant.

It produces a legal inequality that no law can justify.

If a man gets a woman pregnant and doesn't want to be a father, he's a selfish, inhumane, deadbeat dad. If a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want to be a mother, she's pro-choice.

There's also that though no method of pregnancy prevention is 100% effective, the overwhelming majority of abortions that are the result of consensual sex wouldn't happen if the couples involved used some form of pregnancy prevention.
2012-07-30 02:50:26 AM  
2 votes:

Toxicphreke: Sabyen91       
 
Smartest
Funniest
  2012-07-30 02:37:13 AM  
kasmel: Sabyen91: What kind of immoral piece of shiat would do this?

Do what exactly?

Not take care of a child he is responsible for fathering.

/I know it happens all the time but it doesn't make it right or ethical.

the same people who have abortions because they are not ready to be a parent.


I am sorry. It sucks but you still did the deed. You don't get to shirk your responsibility just because the woman doesn't get an abortion.
2012-07-30 02:46:35 AM  
2 votes:

Sabyen91: Not take care of a child he is responsible for fathering.

/I know it happens all the time but it doesn't make it right or ethical.


See, this brings us to the heart of the entire debate.

At what point does the man become responsible for a child? The moment he consents to have sex? Why is that?

Seriously, I want you to think this through logically, not emotionally. I can completely understand that there are cultural pain points WRT dead-beat dads etc, but this is not what I'm talking about.

If a couple is married, and they decide to have children, and the father walks out and refuses to assist years later, that's an entirely different scenario. That guy is a douchebag. He signed up for kids. He consented, tacitly or explicitly for the responsibility of raising children.

I'm talking about two people, maybe just started dating, whatever, end up getting pregnant. The guy is not ready or simply not interested in being a father. Why is he held to being responsible for the life of a child anymore than the woman is? The woman can choose to have an abortion, but the guy is just stuck if the woman chooses to keep it?

So, we're comfortable with women not being responsible for the life of a child as a consequence of their consent to have sex. But we're also comfortable with a man being held responsible for the life of a child as a consequence of consent to have sex?

Can you see why it's less of a moral issue and more of an ethical one? It's a double standard. And while I wholly realize that a certain amount of those are inevitable as a consequence of our biology, I don't see this as an example of that.
2012-07-30 02:39:36 AM  
2 votes:

Toxicphreke: Lorelle: No one is forcing you to have sex with women.

Because no one is forcing women to have sex with men? Oh you mean rape rape...so all abortions are due to rape rape? Nope try this one on for size "The most common underlying reasons for abortion were 1) they could not afford a child at the time and were unmarried (42%), 2) it would interfere with their education (38%), 3) it would interfere with their employment (38%), and 4) they were students or planning to enroll in studies (34%)." http://www.womenscenter.com/abortion_reasons.html

Abortions are done for lifestyle choices. Give the men a chance to maintain their lifestyle.


Seems off. It adds up to more than 100%, so that means that it was a "choose all that apply" survey. Based on that, we could assume that 34% of the responders fell into all four of those categories, thereby artificially inflating the results.

Another survey shows that 54% of women who had an abortion were using contraceptives at the time, and their contraceptives failed. So they were trying to be responsible and prevent a pregnancy, yet still got pregnant.

Link (pdf file)
2012-07-30 02:36:15 AM  
2 votes:

Lsherm: fusillade762: Lsherm: Didn't get a good commercial about their body:

That's because it's not a person.

It's a body, isn't it?

/wheee!


molecularstation.comView Full Size


Looks like one to me.
2012-07-30 02:23:46 AM  
2 votes:
Damn them welfare queens always popping out babies they can't support. And defund Planned Parenthood.
2012-07-30 02:13:27 AM  
2 votes:

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.


polyvore.comView Full Size


Problem solved. Look, they're in your size and everything.
2012-07-30 02:07:21 AM  
2 votes:

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.


media.tumblr.comView Full Size
2012-07-30 02:07:02 AM  
2 votes:
This is your body.

And it's none of my business if I pay taxes for...
...your abortion,
...your mammogram,
...your STDs.

Thanks for being so self sufficient.
2012-07-30 02:05:42 AM  
2 votes:

Fluorescent Testicle: Lsherm: ////on my last days of TF - need the attention. Thanks. Flame on.

You're more likely to be sponsored if you act like an intelligent human being, rather than yet another brainless conservatroll.


I am not sure that is true. Drew needs a bevy of conservatrolls.
2012-07-30 02:01:55 AM  
2 votes:

basemetal: Meh, that's just preaching to the choir on fark.


I wouldnt go that far, true that a certain type of person gravitates here to fark, and we do all agree for the most part on most things, but abortion is a really divisive issue. I mean on the one hand, killing babies is awesome, but on the other women shouldnt have rights.
2012-07-30 02:01:25 AM  
2 votes:
Yeah... it would be nice if it was really "your body", but most (if not all) governments feel a bit differently....
I can't put whatever chemicals I choose in my body... I can't rent it out for sexual favours...
And don't get me started on what I can't do with "MY" property....
2012-07-30 02:00:16 AM  
2 votes:
I liked how the Supreme Court legalized homosexuality but specifically exempted prostitution which is another choice for an adult. Gotta love the left wing hypocrisy.
2012-07-30 01:59:45 AM  
2 votes:

TOG85: Your body, my tax dollars. Tell that to the people milking the welfare system out there. If I'm sick or think I am, I'm paying to be treated. Its not my right to remain healthy, its my personal obligation to myself.


WOT???
2012-07-30 01:54:13 AM  
2 votes:
Preachin' to the choir, lady.
2012-07-30 01:52:45 AM  
2 votes:
I like how women get the choice to abort or keep but they apparently don't have the choice to keep their legs closed.
2012-07-30 12:22:57 AM  
2 votes:
+1.

You tell 'em girls.
2012-07-29 10:36:46 PM  
2 votes:
THIS IS MY BODY, THERE ARE MANY LIKE IT BUT THIS ONE IS MINE

i.ytimg.comView Full Size
2012-07-31 04:23:31 PM  
1 vote:

BojanglesPaladin: Right. As you say, you think that a woman is entitled to more rights than a man when it comes to choosing when to produce offspring because of biology.


A woman clearly has more rights than anyone else when it comes to choosing a medical procedure to be performed upon herself.

This is not because of biology, but because of personal autonomy. Everyone is entitled more rights to his or her own self and own stuff. You are entitled to more rights than your neighbor when it comes to cutting down a tree in your yard, or spending the money in your bank account.

There may be a handful of people who consider this unfair when they aren't busy getting into shouting matches with statues.

Even though a woman must CHOOSE to do so, and can opt out effectively AT WILL from the burden of raising and supporting a child.

Here, your argument seems to be that, because someone can CHOOSE AT WILL to prevent the consequences of your bad decision, then you should have the right to walk away from the bad decision before it manifests. Because the consequences only arise when someone else chooses to let them happen.

Applying this logic to finance, you should be able to bet 10 grand on a horse, lose, and walk away because the bookie can choose to forget about the bet. After all, it's not like you were loaned or given any money, so the debt only appears if the bookie CHOOSES, AT WILL, to make it real.
2012-07-31 02:37:59 PM  
1 vote:

mgshamster: Then don't produce offspring. I know you keep talking about "after the fact of pregnancy," but that's just a bullshiat argument....If a man really doesn't want a kid, then he needs to be extra careful about who he has sex with and how he has sex.


And once again, by THAT logic, we should ban abortions entirely and just tell woment to hold that quarter between their knees. After all, if a woman doesn't want a kid, then she needs to be extra careful about who she has sex with and how she has sex.

AMMIRITE?

No one is arguing that women gestate and men don't. But women can CHOOSE to do so, or not do so, so expecting special compensation for a situation that is not only volontary, but outside of any man's control thanks to god or biology is a pointless observation.

If you do not wish to discuss Men's reproductive rights because you don't believe they are entitled to any, that's fine.

But nothing you are saying addresses the very specific issue of whether a man's lack of reproductive rights can be used to make him produce an offspring against his will and then be compelled to provide for that offspring against his express wishes.

NOR does it address the even more difficult question of having a man's offspring terminated against his wishes. Something we would be equally (and rightly) outraged about if it were done to a woman.
2012-07-31 02:36:51 PM  
1 vote:
Young men's bodies are theirs too yet they must sign up for selective service so that someday they can be sent overseas to use their bodies to stop a bunch of bullets.
2012-07-31 05:48:40 AM  
1 vote:

RastaKins: This is my body, not yours, mom.

[img708.imageshack.us image 600x515]



A fetus can talk now? Sorry, I know you conservatives hate science. But a fetus is not a baby.
2012-07-31 04:52:11 AM  
1 vote:
This is my body, not yours, mom.

img708.imageshack.usView Full Size
2012-07-31 12:43:20 AM  
1 vote:
How is me not wanting to pay for your shiat telling you what to do with your body? I don't care what you do with it just don't send me the bill.
2012-07-30 08:41:53 PM  
1 vote:

Pathman: i'm not being disingenuous- some of you are just assuming that i am because yes - "life begins at conception" is a fundie talking point. But you know what? even a broken clock is right twice a day.


It's not that. It's when you claimed that was also accepted scientific consensus, which it is not that I take exception to spreading misinformation like that. That's bad scientificating, you, and I'll call you out on it. We have a responsibility to report data and the evidence for such claims as objectively as possible. When it is only your opinion make it clear that is the case, but don't fabricate other scientific conclusions to strengthen your opinion.
2012-07-30 08:31:24 PM  
1 vote:

bhcompy: Which is to say it's a philosophical definition, which is exactly what he said.


Well then, you can't use the fact that you're a biologist to appeal to appeal as an authority on the definition, then. Which he did too. Going on to say that "no scientist believes.." etc, etc, is no longer just trying to make the case for a philosophical definition.
2012-07-30 07:32:16 PM  
1 vote:

Pathman: ok - none of this has anything to do with what i've posted in this thread.


Really? I could have sworn that your first few posts in the thread were all about how as a "biologist," you were qualified to state that "life," for purposes of ethical discussion, begins at fertilization.

My post rebutted yours by demonstrating that any ethical arguments based on fertilization are meaningful only to people who aren't trained in biology or medicine. There is nothing special about fertilization. It is only one of the countless links in the chain of chance that is human reproduction. Abortion barely makes the top 10, yet it's the only event that carries political baggage.

If that's not suggestive of a meaningless but useful wedge issue, I don't know what is.
2012-07-30 06:46:36 PM  
1 vote:

Pathman: please, enlighten me


How many "lives" end after fertilization but before the mother even knows she's pregnant? Most embryos are naturally aborted. Why isn't it considered a tragedy when an otherwise-viable embryo fails to implant? For that matter, why isn't a homicide investigation launched when a miscarriage occurs?

Clearly, the moment of fertilization is not a meaningful place for "pro-lifers" to make their stand for moral purity.

Clearly, additional thought is needed.

Clearly, religion has nothing useful to add to the conversation.

Beyond these obvious truths, I don't think there are any firm answers.
2012-07-30 06:40:44 PM  
1 vote:

Pathman: If i'm going to argue that abortion isn't murder then obviously i have to concede that prenatal "life" is different than post-natal life as murder is the unlawful taking of life...

it's a tricky topic - that's all i was trying to say. with no shortage of idiocracy on both sides. if this were a simple issue, it would be resolved.



It's hardly "tricky" nor is it a "both sides" issue.

Women have the right to choose whether to abort a fetus. The "ideocracy" comes from the anti-choice contingency that wants to control that process.

Pathman: Carlo Spicy-Wiener: Pathman: I define life as beginning at fertilization because i am a biologist

Not a very good one, apparently.

please, enlighten me


I think the point being made is that your view does not reflect the whole of science. And the fundamentalist Christian hardline.

Odd for someone who claims he isn't religious.
2012-07-30 06:14:08 PM  
1 vote:

Pathman: I define life as beginning at fertilization because i am a biologist


Not a very good one, apparently.
2012-07-30 05:52:45 PM  
1 vote:

BojanglesPaladin:

Read up. We have been having this discussion. Bear in mind that we are only concerned with the post-conception discussion. The decision to reproduce once fertilization has occured.

I see two fundamental problems with Male reproductive rights: They can be forced to have a child they do not want (and subsequently required to support), and they can have a child they DO want termiated against their will.

Answer me this: ONce fertilized, at what point must a woman seek the permission of a man to have his child? At what point must she obtain his consent for the lifelong commitment that having a child entails?


I hope we can eventually address the situation where a man is forced into paternity he does not want. On the other, the best you can do is create a standard binding legal contract where the father agrees to accept full rights and responsibility for the child and the mother is exempted from the same if she is willing to bring it to term. That will give a woman some comfort that she will not get left "holding the bag" if she is willing to bring to term a child she does not want, but at the end of the day it's her body. Her rights to her body trump a man's rights to his potential offspring until it is out in the world. That is just one of the ways in which biology is unfair to men and we just have to suck that up. It cuts both ways.
2012-07-30 05:49:35 PM  
1 vote:

spiderpaz: BojanglesPaladin: Oh he just went full retard.

My thoughts exactly. No point continuing to feed him.


Define oblivious - 2 air heads arguing that "when women have sex, they are not making a choice to reproduce, however when a man has sex, he IS making a choice to reproduce, unless the woman decides to abort it - in which case he has no rights" calling their opposition retarded.

Have fun with that cognitive dissonance the rest of your life ... something tells me both of you are too stupid to ever overcome it.


Because you're too stupid to understand the argument in the first place.

The man consents his "reproductive rights" the minute he sleeps with a woman. Once that happens, it's her child, not his. She now bears 100% of the financial, physical, and emotional pain due to that pregnancy. Whether the child is miscarried, aborted, put up for adoption, or kept, she bears the costs until the child is born. Now, if and ONLY IF, the child is carried to term, the father has to support 50% of the costs of rearing the child. He ALREADY agreed to this when they originally had sex.

The status quo is the implied contract. If he doesn't like that contract, he's free to draft another with a surrogate or abstain. However, the implied contract is that he gives up his rights to the physical effects from that night to the person who has to LIVE with the effects.

If you don't like it, please, by all means come up with a way to transfer a pregnancy either to another woman or to artificial means, but until then, the woman decides how HER body is going to be affected by the pregnancy.
2012-07-30 05:29:13 PM  
1 vote:

spiderpaz: BojanglesPaladin: spiderpaz: It is inconsequential - I've taken a girl to get an abortion in college. It's a pill and then 48 hours of cramping. It's not intense. And it was just as emotional on me as it was on her. If you're not a bible-thumper it's no big deal.

Dude. You could not possibly be more wrong. Or more ignorant sounding.

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that you are just speaking from blind ignorance, and I'm sure YOU may have had no emotional impact, but if you think that a woman doesn't carry an abortion with her to one degree or another for the rest of her life, you are disturbingly oblivious.

So unless your intent is just to be a troll, or to elicit responses for saying intentionaly incindiary things, I would suggest that to have a rational discussion, you shoudl take it down a notch or three before you speak so flippantly about the impact of abortion on a woman.

It's only a big deal if it's morally wrong -> if it's morally wrong then the reason is because you think a fetus is a person and you are killing it -> If you think that a fetus is a person and you are killing it anyway because it is inconvenient, then you are a murdering piece of shiat.

HOWEVER, if it's no big deal then it must be because you don't think it's morally wrong, and it's just a little parasite growing inside of you that isn't a person yet -> so keep on being awesome.

Don't project your guilt on me because you might be a murdering POS and it's eating you up. My decisions and my beliefs aren't contradicting each-other so I don't have some kind of internal conflict about it - and I don't need to apologize, buddy.


Oh he just went full retard.
2012-07-30 05:25:39 PM  
1 vote:

spiderpaz: The risk of death is a rounding error away from the risk of death I incurred by driving across town to planned parenthood. If you need to be hyperbolic to make an argument, it's probably not a good argument.


Other things are more risky, therefore abortions aren't?

Are you even listening to yourself?
2012-07-30 05:23:57 PM  
1 vote:

gulogulo: I get that right now men don't have a choice, post conception, my question to you is what would make you feel better about that fact?


Finally! You've moved on. Now it's a different question.

The answer is easy. Besides abstinance, gIve men a real say about whether or not they are going to be a parent without reducing a woman's existing reproductive rights.

HOW to do so is the tricky part. Welcome to the conversation.
2012-07-30 05:20:23 PM  
1 vote:

spiderpaz: It is inconsequential - I've taken a girl to get an abortion in college. It's a pill and then 48 hours of cramping. It's not intense. And it was just as emotional on me as it was on her. If you're not a bible-thumper it's no big deal.


Dude. You could not possibly be more wrong. Or more ignorant sounding.

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that you are just speaking from blind ignorance, and I'm sure YOU may have had no emotional impact, but if you think that a woman doesn't carry an abortion with her to one degree or another for the rest of her life, you are disturbingly oblivious.

So unless your intent is just to be a troll, or to elicit responses for saying intentionaly incindiary things, I would suggest that to have a rational discussion, you shoudl take it down a notch or three before you speak so flippantly about the impact of abortion on a woman.
2012-07-30 05:19:41 PM  
1 vote:

mgshamster: spiderpaz: gulogulo: spiderpaz: Women - did you have sex, and now you don't want a child, but biology is forcing you? You're special - go get an abortion, and make sure that bastard pays for it. It's okay, because you are incapable of making decisions, so there shouldn't be any consequences unless you choose so.

There are always consequences for women. Always. Doesn't matter if she wants the baby or not, she has the consequence. If she doesn't want the baby, she still has the consequence and the man does not. Let's not pretend that abortion is an inconsequential act for a woman.

It is inconsequential - I've taken a girl to get an abortion in college. It's a pill and then 48 hours of cramping. It's not intense. And it was just as emotional on me as it was on her. If you're not a bible-thumper it's no big deal.

But you can't acknowledge that fact, because if 48 hours of cramping isn't equal to being forced to raise a child for 18 years, then your stupid ass argument falls on its face. So you double down.

Wow. Amazing. So the risk of death is completely inconsequential?


The risk of death is a rounding error away from the risk of death I incurred by driving across town to planned parenthood. If you need to be hyperbolic to make an argument, it's probably not a good argument.
2012-07-30 05:17:44 PM  
1 vote:

spiderpaz: seadoo2006: spiderpaz: gulogulo: spiderpaz: Women - did you have sex, and now you don't want a child, but biology is forcing you? You're special - go get an abortion, and make sure that bastard pays for it. It's okay, because you are incapable of making decisions, so there shouldn't be any consequences unless you choose so.

There are always consequences for women. Always. Doesn't matter if she wants the baby or not, she has the consequence. If she doesn't want the baby, she still has the consequence and the man does not. Let's not pretend that abortion is an inconsequential act for a woman.

It is inconsequential - I've taken a girl to get an abortion in college. It's a pill and then 48 hours of cramping. It's not intense. And it was just as emotional on me as it was on her. If you're not a bible-thumper it's no big deal.

But you can't acknowledge that fact, because if 48 hours of cramping isn't equal to being forced to raise a child for 18 years, then your stupid ass argument falls on its face. So you double down.

Shut. The. F*ck. Up. You ignorant piece of shiat.

Wanna know how I can tell your entire thought process is based on emotion, rather than logical reasoning?


Want to know how I know you aren't in the medical community and have no idea of the risks involved?
2012-07-30 05:17:02 PM  
1 vote:

spiderpaz: It is inconsequential - I've taken a girl to get an abortion in college. It's a pill and then 48 hours of cramping. It's not intense. And it was just as emotional on me as it was on her. If you're not a bible-thumper it's no big deal.


And as we all know, everyone's experiences are exactly the same, so if it was "inconsequential" for you and that girl, it's obviously inconsequential for everyone else who gets an abortion.
2012-07-30 05:16:35 PM  
1 vote:

spiderpaz: gulogulo: spiderpaz: Women - did you have sex, and now you don't want a child, but biology is forcing you? You're special - go get an abortion, and make sure that bastard pays for it. It's okay, because you are incapable of making decisions, so there shouldn't be any consequences unless you choose so.

There are always consequences for women. Always. Doesn't matter if she wants the baby or not, she has the consequence. If she doesn't want the baby, she still has the consequence and the man does not. Let's not pretend that abortion is an inconsequential act for a woman.

It is inconsequential - I've taken a girl to get an abortion in college. It's a pill and then 48 hours of cramping. It's not intense. And it was just as emotional on me as it was on her. If you're not a bible-thumper it's no big deal.

But you can't acknowledge that fact, because if 48 hours of cramping isn't equal to being forced to raise a child for 18 years, then your stupid ass argument falls on its face. So you double down.


Wow. Amazing. So the risk of death is completely inconsequential?
2012-07-30 05:15:45 PM  
1 vote:

o5iiawah: Emracool the Aeons Hip: Essentially the way this argument is being presented boils down to this: If the woman doesn't have enough money to get an abortion without tax funding, she should have the child. If she doesn't have the money to raise the child once it's born without tax funding, the child should die. Am I following this correctly?

Essentially your argument is to absolve anyone from any responsibility for the actions of the mother and father and shoulder society with the burden. Remove the penalty of failure from society and you do not get excellence.

thenewmissus: YOUR TAX DOLLARS DON'T PAY FOR ABORTIONS. Jeesh!!!!! How many times does this have to be repeated????????

They dont go to Abortions. They just go to fund all the other services that Planned Parenthood offers so they can direct their private funds towards abortions. It is an accounting shell game and people like you continue to bite their talking points about where their money goes.


My tax dollars go to all sorts of useless stuff (invasion of Iraq, War on Drugs, etc, etc), so that argument's moot.

Besides, it's cheaper to pay for abortions than pay for the OTHER costs associated with unwanted children:
juvie detention centers, higher crime, unemployment funds, prisons, etc.
2012-07-30 05:14:44 PM  
1 vote:

spiderpaz: But you can't acknowledge that fact, because if 48 hours of cramping isn't equal to being forced to raise a child for 18 years, then your stupid ass argument falls on its face. So you double down.


And for some women, that cramping results in them actually seeing what is pieces of the abortion in the toilet. It's not just heavy bleeding. It's not just a clot you're passing, and no it's not entirely recognizable as human, but you don't think for a moment that a decision like that might not have long term consequences for you. Yeah, I do think having to make a decision about a human life is pretty much more taxing then being financially on the hook for something for 18 years.
2012-07-30 05:11:46 PM  
1 vote:

LiberalConservative: I am thoroughly enjoying the battle between Toxicphreke / Cap Del Bandito vs Lorelle. It is times like these that remind me why i love fark. Not sure if the following makes sense, I feel like i'm going off the deep end, but here goes...

It just keeps coming back into my mind; if women want full control over their bodies/lives/whatever, then they should accept full responsibility for their own bodies/lives/whatever... and that includes the cost of raising children they produce AND/OR the emotional/financial costs of ending their unwanted (for whatever reason) pregnancy. Of course, this should only apply within societies where women are free to financially support themselves (which would be typical in a society where women have full control over thier bodies/lives/whatever). If a woman doesnt want to shoulder 100% of the cost of raising a child then they have the option of ending their pregnancy. It doesnt seem fair that women demand full control/freedom of that choice AND entitlement to a man's finances WITHOUT his consent.

Reading what i just wrote makes me uneasy. Maybe there's some gaps. Dunno. Interesting topic. Happy to keep thinking and learning on this one.


He gave his consent when he stuck it inside her. Now, those cases where the courts order support for kids that AREN'T his?

THOSE laws need to be overhauled.
2012-07-30 05:08:53 PM  
1 vote:

spiderpaz: gulogulo: spiderpaz: Women - did you have sex, and now you don't want a child, but biology is forcing you? You're special - go get an abortion, and make sure that bastard pays for it. It's okay, because you are incapable of making decisions, so there shouldn't be any consequences unless you choose so.

There are always consequences for women. Always. Doesn't matter if she wants the baby or not, she has the consequence. If she doesn't want the baby, she still has the consequence and the man does not. Let's not pretend that abortion is an inconsequential act for a woman.

It is inconsequential - I've taken a girl to get an abortion in college. It's a pill and then 48 hours of cramping. It's not intense. And it was just as emotional on me as it was on her. If you're not a bible-thumper it's no big deal.

But you can't acknowledge that fact, because if 48 hours of cramping isn't equal to being forced to raise a child for 18 years, then your stupid ass argument falls on its face. So you double down.


Shut. The. F*ck. Up. You ignorant piece of shiat.
2012-07-30 05:00:13 PM  
1 vote:

spiderpaz: Women - did you have sex, and now you don't want a child, but biology is forcing you? You're special - go get an abortion, and make sure that bastard pays for it. It's okay, because you are incapable of making decisions, so there shouldn't be any consequences unless you choose so.


There are always consequences for women. Always. Doesn't matter if she wants the baby or not, she has the consequence. If she doesn't want the baby, she still has the consequence and the man does not. Let's not pretend that abortion is an inconsequential act for a woman.
2012-07-30 04:59:15 PM  
1 vote:

gulogulo: spiderpaz: and making it lopsidedly unfair to men

You really think what's asked of them is unfair to them and lopsided in favor of women? Like I said, you clearly never have been at the point of having to chose. It isn't a prize to be coveted.


Have you raised or supported a child for 18 years?
2012-07-30 04:48:35 PM  
1 vote:

gulogulo: None of what you highlighted actually answered my question. You addressed how it is today, and made some claim that men are responsible for up to 100% (which you realize is pretty hyperobolic. That rarely happens).


Wow. It really IS like talking to a wall.

From what you quoted:

I answered it. Since you seem unable to read it when it is written, I will bold it for you: The answer is that a man (just like a woman) should be responsible for the care and support of their own children.

We are done here. I have tried to accomodate you and have answered to the best of my anbility. Either I am not communicating in a way that you can understand, or you are not understanding what I am trying to communicate. Either way, I cannot seem to get anywhere with you. I am happy to accept blame for not reaching you in a way you can hear, but I am going to quit trying now. The question, which doesn't really have any useful bearing on the point hjas been answered. Clearly. I can add nothing more.

Enjoy the rest of your day.
2012-07-30 04:20:23 PM  
1 vote:

seadoo2006: What you write is utterly retarded. A man cannot be FORCED to reproduce against his will unless he was raped, has his semen stolen from him, and inseminated a woman against his will.

Instead, you see sex as separate from reproduction, when, by definition, IT IS REPRODUCTION. Thus, your entire argument fails from the start. Outside of rape, the only person that can consent to reproduction are the two partners.



lol, keep farking that chicken ... this is good stuff. It's amazing to me to watch this play out over and over, yet there are still people out there trying to use this "the man made the choice to reproduce (not just 'fark' , the way only a woman is able to since she has a legal out after the fact) so they should just STFU and live with the consequences" argument, while simultaneously trying to refute the very same argument that pro-lifers are making about women making a "choice to reproduce". It's the purest form of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen, and it's clearly causing some kind of derangement syndrome in its advocates from all the illogical contortions they are forced to make.
2012-07-30 04:18:06 PM  
1 vote:
gulogulo: I have asked you directly if you think men should be able to absolve themselves of any risk (which all they have right now is financial).

I answered it. Since you seem unable to read it when it is written, I will bold it for you: The answer is that a man (just like a woman) should be responsible for the care and support of their own children. However, whereas a woman can opt out of this responsibility by terminating (with no input from the other parent), a Man has no such ability to opt out.

I answered it Here:

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


BojanglesPaladin: As said above as well, it is most often not 100% Financial support. However, If the woman cannot provide, the man must. If the woman is judged to be incompetant to care for the child, the man must. If the woman dies, the man must. It is possible for a man who did not want to have a child to be the sole provider for that child.

But again, forget your quibbling over percentages. They don't change the point being made.


BojanglesPaladin: there is no such scenario where a man responsiblity for caring for the child is automatically made null or they are absolved of responsibility because the mother is a conniving beeatch or tricked him or whatever. Even in cases where a court has determined that a man did not want the child, and the mother was aware of this, the man is still responsible for child care. Even in cases where the mother intentionally hid the pregnancy and only years later made the father aware that he had reproduced, the father is still liable.


BojanglesPaladin: I fear you may be bleeding some of your personal persepctive into this, and are seeing it as if someone is tryting to say that women don't do enough, or that men should be able to be deadbeat dads at will or something.

That's not what is at issue
.


BojanglesPaladin: seadoo2006: You wish to absolve men of any responsibility because "it's not fair" ... Well, tough cookie, either agree that's the risk you take when having sex or agree not to have sex. It's an easy decision.

No I don't. And I have said this explicitely a number of times.


---------------

seadoo2006: That's the deal. Don't like the deal, don't have sex.


Good point. And since a woman must also know these risks, then we should do away with abortion entirely. After all, why should a woman have an opt-out that a man does not? Don;t lik ethe deal, don't have sex?

Isn;t that the exact argument that the abstinance only bible-thumpers make? Are you sure that's what you want to go with?
2012-07-30 04:17:12 PM  
1 vote:

seadoo2006:

That seems like a really nice deal for him. All of the fun, can check off "not responsible" when it suits him. Can we say if he does that more than once then he has to have a vasectomy?

I say after the first time it's triple the child support for the remainder of his LIFE or castration, but it'll be his choice ... because HE wanted all the decision making power.


This desire to punish men is no different than the "The slut gets what she deserves" nonsense that is directed against women except that it's politically correct to direct vitriol towards men.

I was raised as a son primarily by a mother who had a lot of anger towards men, and it took me a long time to heal the wounds that caused and get my head on straight. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's time bury the hatchet. We're all victims of biology in this together, which side of the X/Y divide you fall on is small potatoes.
2012-07-30 04:13:58 PM  
1 vote:

gulogulo: asmodeusazarak: gulogulo:

So, if a man can opt out of the one responsibility our society still holds him accountable for, what responsibility will he have left?

Simple, give him a time limit to establish whether he will accept paternity, within say 2 weeks of being notified that he is the father/prospective father. If he fails to declare the he is not interested in that time frame then he's on the hook. No one gets to have their cake and eat it too, but it is basic consideration, and eliminates the temptation some people find to try to solidify a relationship with a pregnancy that was not desired by both parities.

That seems like a really nice deal for him. All of the fun, can check off "not responsible" when it suits him. Can we say if he does that more than once then he has to have a vasectomy?


I say after the first time it's triple the child support for the remainder of his LIFE or castration, but it'll be his choice ... because HE wanted all the decision making power.
2012-07-30 04:10:40 PM  
1 vote:

asmodeusazarak: gulogulo:

So, if a man can opt out of the one responsibility our society still holds him accountable for, what responsibility will he have left?

Simple, give him a time limit to establish whether he will accept paternity, within say 2 weeks of being notified that he is the father/prospective father. If he fails to declare the he is not interested in that time frame then he's on the hook. No one gets to have their cake and eat it too, but it is basic consideration, and eliminates the temptation some people find to try to solidify a relationship with a pregnancy that was not desired by both parities.


It's a shame she can't do the same thing without risking serious health injury or death. Maybe we should put a stipulation in there that if he opts out and she suffers a horrible injury or death, the same has to be applied to him so he can have similar risks.
2012-07-30 04:00:33 PM  
1 vote:

asmodeusazarak: Both genders need to have some empathy and sympathy for the situation of the other. The fact of the matter is women have, and should have, two options that exempt them from responsibility of a child after they are done carrying it, abortion and adoption. A man has no options whatsoever to say "wait I am not ready for this". If anyone fails to see that this is an issue they are severely lacking in objectivity. Men must absolutely fight for all the rights of women, but women also should be fighting to preserve the right of a man to have some say in whether he will be dedicating the next 18 years of his life to at least paying for a child. That is a tremendous burden to force upon someone that is not entering into the situation willingly.


Thank you. You have articulated it very well.

Perhaps your post, by stating it in a slightly different way, will make this comprehensable to those I have been unable to communicate effectively with.
2012-07-30 03:59:39 PM  
1 vote:
People scream and rage about having to "pay for women's pills and abortions", but there's no outrage for men using other people's money to buy boner pills.

Actually, doesn't Planned Parenthood operate from direct donations, or at least their abortion services are from direct donations? How is that using your taxpayer money?

You want people to stop having sex? Star going around sewing vaginas shut and severing scrotums. As one of the most basic biological processes that's vital to the continuation of the species, as well as our having evolve dto find it extremely pleasureable, humans are gonna hump. What you CAN do is have better sex education and better access to contraceptives. A few dollars for condoms/pills is far cheaper than abortions and raising unwanted children. Unfortuately he have a very strong religious force in this country that feels trying to move forward and act intelligently is evil and horrible, and it fights tooth and claw to keep people stupid and vulnerable.

We also need to grow up concerning the entire idea of sex. America is incredibly immature about sexuality, from the idea that a bare breast causes mental damage and increased risk of ciminal behavior in childrn to the "men who fark 50 women are awesome studs, women who have sex with more than one man in her entire life are disgusting filthy whores" attitude.
Which are also caused by the religious force in the country telling us how we're such terrible creatures that anything we do is awful and sinful, especially when it concerns women. When we get past these attitudes, we'll have a better base to discuss things of this nature.

So, what's it gonna be? More education, more awareness, willingness to pay pennis for prevention instead of millions for punishment, and a more mature outlook on sex and sexuality, or rampant ignorance, slut-shaming, failed abstinance-only programs and no attempts at education, and an "Eeewww, cooties!"-level of mentality towards sex?
2012-07-30 03:58:17 PM  
1 vote:

BojanglesPaladin: But that does not void the reality that once consensual insemination has occured, a man can be forced to reproduce against his will, or that a man can be denied his right to reproduce against his will.


What you write is utterly retarded. A man cannot be FORCED to reproduce against his will unless he was raped, has his semen stolen from him, and inseminated a woman against his will.

Instead, you see sex as separate from reproduction, when, by definition, IT IS REPRODUCTION. Thus, your entire argument fails from the start. Outside of rape, the only person that can consent to reproduction are the two partners.

So, while yes, the woman is able to choose whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term, unless the MAN can come up with away to instead carry the pregnancy to term, the point is bunk.

I've already said that the man is entitled to whatever is left after the abortion ... if he wants to figure out how to make it into a child, that's to him. However, it is the woman's right to carry a child to term and ONLY the woman's right.

Now, financially, after-birth, yes, the biological father is responsible for 1/2 the costs of raising that child to age 18. That's the deal. Don't like the deal, don't have sex. But don't say that the man has no reproductive rights, if he wants a child, he can test tube a baby into surrogacy just fine and carry 100% of all the risks.
2012-07-30 03:56:45 PM  
1 vote:

Pathman: right - something that we (certainly not science) can define. when it becomes a person is not really the question - when does it have rights is. so how do you decide when it is acceptable to end that life?


When it becomes a person is when it has rights.
2012-07-30 03:55:30 PM  
1 vote:

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?

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.


That's pretty nonsensical, while your point about how a woman must always bear the responsibility for pregnancy and termination/birth, the responsibility of raising a child after is a far heavier burdern to bear whether financially or directly. I find it hard to believe that anyone who has raised or even paid for children for even a few years could see it otherwise.

Both genders need to have some empathy and sympathy for the situation of the other. The fact of the matter is women have, and should have, two options that exempt them from responsibility of a child after they are done carrying it, abortion and adoption. A man has no options whatsoever to say "wait I am not ready for this". If anyone fails to see that this is an issue they are severely lacking in objectivity. Men must absolutely fight for all the rights of women, but women also should be fighting to preserve the right of a man to have some say in whether he will be dedicating the next 18 years of his life to at least paying for a child. That is a tremendous burden to force upon someone that is not entering into the situation willingly.
2012-07-30 03:51:42 PM  
1 vote:

seadoo2006: You wish to absolve men of any responsibility because "it's not fair" ... Well, tough cookie, either agree that's the risk you take when having sex or agree not to have sex. It's an easy decision.


No I don't. And I have said this explicitely a number of times.

The point is that if we assume that both the man and the woman must BOTH assume that sex can result in insemination, only the woman is empowered to determine whether insemination leads to reproduction. And frankly, I don't know how that could be different, because we can neither allow a woman to be forced to carry to term (and for him to be financially and legally obligated to that offspring until the age of majority) nor allow for a woman to be forced to terminate.

But we DO allow for a man's offspring to be brought to term (and for him to be financially and legally obligated to that offspring until the age of majority) against his express wishes AND for a man to have his offspring terminated against his express wishes.

And as I have said many times, there is not an easy answer to remedy this inherant disparity in reproductive rights. But that does not void the reality that once consensual insemination has occured, a man can be forced to reproduce against his will, or that a man can be denied his right to reproduce against his will.

A woman's reproductive rights as they stand today are a de facto denial (in sum or in part) of a man's reproductive rights. A woman has a right to end a man's offspring against his wishes. No one has the right to do that to a woman.

Perhaps, we could look to the law surrounding adoption for some guidance. A woman cannot give a child up for adoption without the consent of the father, nor can a father's parental rights be removed without his consent, or a court order after it has been adjuticated that he is unfit.
2012-07-30 03:37:32 PM  
1 vote:

rocky_howard: What is it exactly what these women don't want? Raising a child or spending 9 months carrying it?


The risk of carrying it to term. The cost of pre-natal healthcare (which apparently the right doesn't want everyone to have universally). The cost to your employment. The cost to your social status. It doesn't take a genius to figure these things out.
2012-07-30 03:35:03 PM  
1 vote:

BojanglesPaladin: Your question avoids the simple fact that a man can be made responsible for something he cannot change.


Easy ... don't have sex without UNDERSTANDING that you may have to care/pay financially for a child for the next 18 years.

The same is required of women ... don't have sex without UNDERSTANDING that you may have to care/play for a child/abortion/adoption.

You wish to absolve men of any responsibility because "it's not fair" ... Well, tough cookie, either agree that's the risk you take when having sex or agree not to have sex. It's an easy decision.
2012-07-30 03:29:38 PM  
1 vote:

gulogulo: So the woman isn 't taking care of the child for 18 years too, in your world? If he's just paying financially, she's doing the finances AND the actual day to day parenting. So...men should not have to assume any risk?


You keep saying 'risk', but I don't know what you mean. Do you mean responsibility? The law already says that a man can bail on fatherhood and instead pay child support. So I don't really want to argue about that.

Once a child is conceived, a woman has a choice that determines her future responsibility. A man doesn't. I don't think that is fair.

As far as the woman raising the child by herself, she is fully informed prior to making the abortion decision that she'll be going it alone (in my world). With that knowledge, she can make an informed decision about what she wants to do.

Let's be clear here: this is all clearly never going to happen. Abortion is such a touchy issue that even talking about people getting abortions because they don't want a child right now gets people all riled up. So suggesting that a man should be able to make that choice too will have people howling and is a total non-starter. But if you back up and look at the situation objectively, I think it does make sense for that to be an option.
2012-07-30 03:27:01 PM  
1 vote:

gulogulo: You keep on avoiding my question.


No I haven't. I addressed it from the start.

Your question avoids the simple fact that a man can be made responsible for something he cannot change.

Look., You keepo arguing that this woman's work is surely, surely hard. We get that. No question. I fear you may be bleeding some of your personal persepctive into this, and are seeing it as if someone is tryting to say that women don't do enough, or that men should be able to be deadbeat dads at will or something.

That's not what is at issue. Let's put aside the question of whose share of what which seems to ba a pointless stumbling block for you and just state for the record that If a young man gets a girl pregnant, he should do the right thing. I don't think anyone is arguing that.

But the issue is that after insemination, a man can be compelled to be a father against his wishes, but a woman is always free to terminate and avoid being a mother if she does not CHOOSE to. The man never has that choice past insemination.

And likewise, a man can have a child he very much wants to keep and care for intentionally terminated against his express wishes, but a woman cannot be made to have an abortion she does not choose to.

The final word on reproduction always begins and ends with the woman. Because men can be overruled at a whim either for or against carrying a baby to term, on simply cannot argue that Men have any real reproductive rights.
2012-07-30 03:17:59 PM  
1 vote:

Chebyshev: You mean like the medical risks of carrying a child? Yes, she has to bear those, that's dictated by nature. I'm not sure how you'd spread that risk to the man. Are you suggesting the the medical risks of a 9 month pregnancy entitle a woman to the support of the resulting child for 18 years by the man?



So the woman isn 't taking care of the child for 18 years too, in your world? If he's just paying financially, she's doing the finances AND the actual day to day parenting. So...men should not have to assume any risk?
2012-07-30 03:12:44 PM  
1 vote:

BojanglesPaladin: gulogulo: And she has to assume all biological risks whether she wants to or not. This is why it's deemed acceptable to spread some of that risk to the man. What is it you want? That he has no risk? What risk do you think a man should have in sex? If he can absolve h imself of any unwanted child...then what risk is left for him to take on?

What are you talking abou?. No law anywhere can change the biology, so all of that is irrelevant. Take it up with God or evolution.

Past the biology, there is only custody and finaincial support and emotional. Emotional support is outside the point of this discussion.

You are still continuing to ignore the inherant disparity in reproductive rights by effectively saying "So? Women have to be pregnant, so tough cookies for men." And while that's certainly an opinion, it's not an answer to the inequity of making a man legally and financially indebted for decades against his express wishes, or worse, to leave him powerless to prevent the death of his own unborn child. You seem to be basically saying that since men don't gestate, they have no reproductive rights. That 9 months trumps 18 years, and that the woman is somehow the only "real" parent, and men shouldn't have any say.

As I said from the start, women's reporoductive rights and the right to an abortion are as they should be, or at least are where they are. But we have not yet arrived at a fair and equitable way of addressing men's reproductive rights.


You keep on avoiding my question. Your alternative is to absolve men of any of the risks, by allowing them to opt out of financial support of a child. Keep in mind, he doesn't have to be a father. It's purely financial if he so chooses it to be. That's the bare minimum. That's the risk he assumes now, and you think that it's unfair because of current biology of the woman that saddles her with the choice to make. So, you want to make it so he doesn't have to be financially responsible either for a child, and so assumes zero risk. That's what you want?
2012-07-30 03:08:53 PM  
1 vote:

BojanglesPaladin: gulogulo: That said, it is really rare that a woman wants a man who doesn't want her so badly she's willing to get pregnant. Really rare.

I think your experience is different from many people's. Young women (Just like young men) often make very poor decisions when hormones and emotions get the better of them, even if they later regret them.

Regardless, of rarity levels or dubioiusly determinable intent, there is no such scenario where a man responsiblity for caring for the child is automatically made null or they are absolved of responsibility because the mother is a conniving beeatch or tricked him or whatever. Even in cases where a court has determined that a man did not want the child, and the mother was aware of this, the man is still responsible for child care. Even in cases where the mother intentionally hid the pregnancy and only years later made the father aware that he had reproduced, the father is still liable.

And that's kinda the point. Man have no authoritative say in their own reproduction, other than abstinance. But they most certainly have finaincial and legal responsibility without consent.


Yes it's the men suffering in this argument, just like the Christians are constantly getting persecuted.
2012-07-30 03:07:17 PM  
1 vote:

mgshamster: Biological Ali: Pathman: what does make a person?

A functioning brain.

Define "functioning." Rats have functioning brains, according to their biological needs.


I look at it this way: Does it fit the criteria of "brain dead"? If so, it's not a person.
2012-07-30 03:06:40 PM  
1 vote:

BojanglesPaladin: gulogulo: The majority of the responsibility and consequence is always hers. Not his. So why should he get a choice about what happens after the fact?

Becasue it's the man's child too. It's as much his offspring as hers. You are acting as if the matters in play here are swollen breasts and stretchmarks. It's not. We are talking about reproductive rights and offspring.

You seem to be suggesting that a Man has no special claim on his own offspring, or if he dies have some claim, it is completely over rulle dby a womans.

Is that how you feel about it?


How condescending to think that my argument is only about stretchmarks and swollen breasts. I'll ask you again..what level of RISK should a man have to accept when it comes to possibility of fathering a child. A woman is risking her health. In your scenario, he should risk nothing, is that correct?
2012-07-30 03:02:53 PM  
1 vote:

Pathman: what does make a person?


A functioning brain.
2012-07-30 02:36:45 PM  
1 vote:

Trapper439: I'm male and I'm pro-choice, but the idea of having to pay 18 years of child support because a condom broke horrifies me.

When I was around 19-22 years old I knew this guy called Mick who was the same age as me. Mick had been abused as a child (not sure how exactly, but he'd been through a few foster homes). Mick hadn't graduated high school, because his home life growing up had been utterly shiat. Mick was the most successful and overachieving person I've ever known. He was pulling down a six figure salary building PCs by the time he was 19 (circa 1993) because he was a real golden boy. He was one of the nicest people I've ever met, and he also happened to be just absolutely ridiculously good-looking. I'm talking Brad Pitt level.

It would have been easy to hate Mick, but you just couldn't. He was just that cool.

When I knew him, he was getting through a torrid relationship break-up. His former girlfriend just wouldn't leave him alone, and she'd lied to him about using birth control in order to try to force him to stay with her. As it turned out, she'd even done the pinpricks in condoms thing, trying to get pregnant so he'd have to marry her.

So yeah, whilst I'm pro-choice and don't want to go back to the days when women were dying from backyard abortions using coathangers, anyone who claims that a guy like Mick should have been forced into eighteen years of drudgery and economic servitude to the mother of a child he didn't want, simply because he dared to have intercourse with a woman, can go and fark themselves.


If I've said it once, I've said it a million times ...

DON'T STICK YOUR DICK IN CRAZY!!

You'd think, by now, most men would've figured this out, but alas, they haven't. If you have sex with someone, men need to understand that having a kid is one of those risks ... don't like it? Easy, don't have sex.

Your friend Mick sounds like a real winner, but has sh*t for brains if he thought that hitting and quitting is a rational argument. Sorry, f*ck him ... if you have sex, you might have a child, no matter how many garbage bags you wrap your pecker in. Now, be a man, own up to what YOU are responsible for and accept it.

Jesus, I swear these people are all just masochists intent to destroy themselves ... :facepalm.jpg:
2012-07-30 02:06:44 PM  
1 vote:

BojanglesPaladin: mgshamster: I think this brings up a good point: women have 100% of the biological risk, men have 0%. A man won't have medical problems or even die by bringing a child into this world. A woman's body changes quite a bit as the fetus develops, and she is at risk of dying at any stage of the pregnancy, up to and including actually giving birth.

Why is this argument so focused on only the cost being equal, when the risk is completely uneven.

It's not. gulogulo has gotten snarled in a rabbit trail trying to debate a dispute no one is haviung that women have a stake in bearing children. Of course they do. The issue another poster made and that I have piped in on, is simple:

While a woman cannot have her child aborted against her will, and a woman can freely choose to abort her child regardless of anyone else's opinion, A Man Cannot.

And further, after insemination, a man can be made legally and finaincially responsible for a child regardless of whether he wanted to reproduce, whereas a Woman can choose whether to reproduce.


So your argument is that a woman can make the choice to abort a fetus, while a man cannot, and that's where the unfair division lies?

Also, I'm a bit confused as to why you're claiming that costs (ie, financial burdens) are not a part of the argument, and then immediately bring up financial responsibility as an argument.
2012-07-30 01:48:05 PM  
1 vote:

BojanglesPaladin: 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.


I think this brings up a good point: women have 100% of the biological risk, men have 0%. A man won't have medical problems or even die by bringing a child into this world. A woman's body changes quite a bit as the fetus develops, and she is at risk of dying at any stage of the pregnancy, up to and including actually giving birth.

Why is this argument so focused on only the cost being equal, when the risk is completely uneven.
2012-07-30 01:47:35 PM  
1 vote:

BojanglesPaladin: Thankfully, I did not say any such thing.


Well, when you say a man can be held 100%...I guess my math is fuzzy, where does the other % come from for women if that's the case?

BojanglesPaladin: 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?


She already is assuming this risk. She has risk going in that the man doesn't, even now. You want to make it even less risky for men...why? So men don't even have to think about the 'not having sex' option because shiat, if he doesn't want it he can walk away? She never gets to walk away. Ever. Not from the child, and not from the consequence and medical procedure of abortion.
2012-07-30 01:44:50 PM  
1 vote:

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?
2012-07-30 01:33:21 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:21:07 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:06:37 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:00:53 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:56:46 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:50:19 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:45:14 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:44:04 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:42:54 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:38:40 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:36:14 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:34:42 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:08:53 PM  
1 vote:

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?
2012-07-30 11:59:52 AM  
1 vote:

xl5150: If abortions are going to be legal, part of the requirement to get one should be that the father of the child has to sign off on it (with the obvious exception of when the woman has a police report stating that she has been raped). It's just common sense.


You are attempting to introduce common sense into a topic where common sense rarely if ever prevails.

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.
2012-07-30 11:30:52 AM  
1 vote:
Did anyone else notice that the video talks about a lot more than abortion?

Just wondering...
2012-07-30 11:28:58 AM  
1 vote:

Pathman: there are numerous secular groups that are pro-life without relying on religious arguments.


You mean misogynists?
2012-07-30 11:27:17 AM  
1 vote:

rocky_howard: Also, if a woman aborts, how isn't she being absolved of all responsibility? I mean, barring some complication from the abortion process or whatever.


She takes the risk, and all the consequence of a medical procedure. That's still taking responsibility. What kind of world do you live in that it is not considered taking responsibility and consequence? Meanwhile the man goes through -nothing-. The difference is the man is not pregnant, the man is not the one who has to get a medical procedure, the man is not the one that has to go through societies judgement of them, and the man is not the one that bares the majority of the consequence EVEN if she decides to have the baby. How is that so hard to grasp? So very little is asked of him as it is, and you want to take that away too?
2012-07-30 11:27:16 AM  
1 vote:
i.imgur.comView Full Size
2012-07-30 11:20:29 AM  
1 vote:
Whenever I read some male anti-abortion retard going on about not wanting to pay for abortions/std/women's health, or claiming that fathers have "equal rights", and so on, I know instantly that he is a single loser who gets laid maybe once every 3-7 years, and probably has a below-average penis.

This photo is for you complete failures at life and intelligent thought. This photo is you, sub-alpha wannabe men.

maximumpc.comView Full Size

"Women have a choice to keep their legs closed"
2012-07-30 11:16:12 AM  
1 vote:

Pathman: skullkrusher: there aren't any pro-life arguments the do not rely on religion. There are reasonable secular arguments which can be made in favor of restrictions on abortion but none that support an outright ban

that's a fair point. for example - a termination of a non-viable child or in order to protect the life of mother. although i think even the religious pro-lifers might fall in line with the latter.

however to say there aren't pro-life arguments that do not rely on religion is silly.
there are numerous secular groups that are pro-life without relying on religious arguments.


what's a reasonable argument? If the law doesn't recognize an embryo as a human being, how can you support an outright ban? The only reason to believe that human-ness begins at conception is based in religion/spirituality. Without that belief, science and the law regard the early stage fetus as a mass of cells.
2012-07-30 11:15:58 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-07-30 11:12:30 AM  
1 vote:

rocky_howard: 12-24 weeks: Abort on a case by case basis: rape, pregnancy, woman got cancer, etc. Even poverty could be considered.
24-36 weeks: No abortion. Don't want the kid? Induced birth and baby belongs to the State. Most fetus are viable at this stage and if they end up dying, well, you were going to abort them anyway, so what's the deal?


You'll be happy to know that 98.5% of abortions occur before 20 weeks. So while I'm sure the women in this thread appreciate your opinion on how they should handle their pregnancy, you're crowing about the noise, not the signal.
2012-07-30 11:08:38 AM  
1 vote:

Pathman: LasersHurt: Pathman: I would argue that this is almost impossible to do so unequivocally which is in and of itself a secular and reasonable argument against abortion for the sole purpose of terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

I disagree. The fact that it's hard to draw the line does not necessarily mean that you have to err all the way back to "none." But that's just like, my opinion. Man.

that's a good point.
i agree with you - but i think it's a reasonable secular pro-life argument which was what was requested.


there aren't any pro-life arguments the do not rely on religion. There are reasonable secular arguments which can be made in favor of restrictions on abortion but none that support an outright ban
2012-07-30 10:50:58 AM  
1 vote:

MayoSlather: The man should have the same choice.


The day men can get pregnant they will.
2012-07-30 10:48:13 AM  
1 vote:

gulogulo: Yes, but the woman can never be absolved of 100% of the responsibility. Birth control and after. Ever. You are proposing a system where a man can be completely absolved of all of it.


I maintain the onus of birth control and parental rights are separate issues and cannot be causally equivocated. Your argument assumes that there are no consequences physically or emotionally for men to worry about when considering safe sex/contraception. Yes some men don't care, but some women don't care either. And while it may not be completely fair that the woman alone is saddled with the consequences when neither party cares...it's also not fair that the man has no choice in the long term decision.

What it boils down to is choice. In non-marriage situations men have none after the act of sex has occurred and women have it all.

Women can choose to tell the man or not about the pregnancy, to have the baby, or to give it up for adoption. The man has no say in any of this. Yet still is expected to assume financial responsibility at the whim of the mother. The woman has the option to think about if this is what she wants in her life, to think of the commitment, and ponder the financial responsibilities. The man should have the same choice.
2012-07-30 10:43:53 AM  
1 vote:

digitalrain: How, then, can abortion clinics accept Medicaid?


Health clinics do more than abort fetuses. They provide servers such as actual family planning, prenatal care and regular medical exams. Few health centers provide abortions as their primary function.

You choose willful ignorance when calling places like Planned Parenthood "abortion clinics".
2012-07-30 10:39:50 AM  
1 vote:

Ant: Toxicphreke: Give the men a chance to maintain their lifestyle.

Your choices:
1) Wear a condom
2) Don't have sex
3) Get a vasectomy

Looks like you have lots of choices.


LOL. Women don't need abortions. They have other choices:
Women's Choices:
1) Use contraceptive
2) Don't have sex
3) Get tubes tied

Looks like women have lots of choices.
2012-07-30 10:37:48 AM  
1 vote:

Honest Bender: Alphax: Xenomech: Not this stupid "it's my body" shiat again. Yes, it's your body, but you have another one -- with its own unique DNA and everything -- growing inside it.

If you value the 'body' inside more than the body outside, your morals aren't moral.

What if you value them both equally?


That's a poor decision. That's saying that decades of education and life experience don't matter.
2012-07-30 10:33:28 AM  
1 vote:

Lusiphur: I'm as pro choice as anyone, but "it's my body so I can do whatever I want with it." is a horribly stupid argument for anything.


Tell that to GOP legislatures. They seem to think they can do whatever they want with a women's bodies. This video is in response to that.
2012-07-30 10:30:20 AM  
1 vote:
I've noticed that everyone that is for Abortion has been born already...

Yes the person might be in your body... but then again its THEIR body now isn't it. I support their decision to do with their body as they see fit. And I don't think a one of them will choose death. Its not birth control people.

I'll speak for those that have no voice.

And yes we do care about them after they come out as well. Its a liberal lie that we don't
2012-07-30 10:29:38 AM  
1 vote:

Emracool the Aeons Hip: qorkfiend: "When life begins" is a religious issue.

I'm pretty sure it's a scientific fact that life begins when the DNA starts making copies of itself. That is the literal definition of life.


Actually, it's not. There was life before DNA.
2012-07-30 10:28:51 AM  
1 vote:

Pathman: I would argue that this is almost impossible to do so unequivocally which is in and of itself a secular and reasonable argument against abortion for the sole purpose of terminating an unwanted pregnancy.


I disagree. The fact that it's hard to draw the line does not necessarily mean that you have to err all the way back to "none." But that's just like, my opinion. Man.
2012-07-30 10:27:03 AM  
1 vote:

RedT: For real?

Unless you are talking about young celebrity starlets getting pregnant by rich old geezers (a ridiculous minority of situations but the vast majority seen on TV), I do not think you have any idea how much money most women get in child support and the fact that it is rarely enough to pay to raise a child, let alone a baby and a baby-momma.


You have little experience with:
(a) the very rural deep south
(b) the very urban inner city
(c) the right's vision of welfare queens in fur coats

Women *do* make a "career' out of pregnancy. It is a very meager existence.
Ant
2012-07-30 10:22:42 AM  
1 vote:

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.


Boo-farking-hoo. Wear a condom and quit your whining.
2012-07-30 10:22:32 AM  
1 vote:

gulogulo: genner: gulogulo: Pathman: they're keeping babies alive that are born earlier and earlier. They save a child born at 21-22 weeks last year in Germany...

As a person in hte medical profession, you know full well how rare saving a child that young is.

Yeah I'm sure that the few that survived didn't feel it was worth the effort.

As a tax payer, you're ok with paying for that effort? You realize that even if it's not coming from your taxes, it'll be coming from your insurance premiums. That's ok to you? If that impacts the availability of healthcare to other people who need it and now can no longer afford it, is that ok?


Yes I'll gladly pay higher insurance premiums so people can live.
Is that wrong, should I not have done that?
2012-07-30 10:20:11 AM  
1 vote:

LiberalConservative: Yeah, but that's just it; it is HER risk that SHE has decided to take. Wouldnt it then follow that the result is therefore HER responsibility, and not the responsibility of a man who has no choice in the decision? If fair has nothing to do with it then why not do this? Sadly becoming aware i'm starting to repeat myself :(


At what point does the man have to assume any responsibility, then? Like I said before, a woman can never be absolved of it. Ever. Right now the system equalizes that by giving her the final choice. The system you propose involves zero responsibility or risk to a man.
2012-07-30 10:14:03 AM  
1 vote:

LasersHurt: I'm curious as to the cogent, secular argument against abortion being available.


The only one that could make one would be the bleedingest heart of liberal that also advocates for a very robust social services safety net that would take care of all the poorest mothers and their children. A conservative could never make an argument for it without being a hypocrite.
2012-07-30 10:01:31 AM  
1 vote:

Pathman: genner: gulogulo: Pathman: they're keeping babies alive that are born earlier and earlier. They save a child born at 21-22 weeks last year in Germany...

As a person in hte medical profession, you know full well how rare saving a child that young is.

Yeah I'm sure that the few that survived didn't feel it was worth the effort.

yes 10% or less.
so?
that's not the point i was trying to make.
from 23-24 weeks on the chances of that baby surviving a pre-term delivery start increasing exponentially with each passing week.


Hence the ban on late-term abortions.
2012-07-30 09:59:04 AM  
1 vote:

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.


Apparently men don't have any choice but to fark women who might choose to get an abortion either, since a lot of the arguments against abortion have to do with how unfair it is that a woman can choose to get an abortion, but a man has "no choice" in the matter.

If you're impregnating women and you don't even know about it until they want to have an abortion, maybe you'd better have a brain scan scheduled.
2012-07-30 09:58:54 AM  
1 vote:

beta_plus: "That is your property. And I have the right to take it from you to kill the unborn child inside my body, you racist!"

/you have the right to kill the unborn child inside you
//you do not have the right to send the bill to someone to someone who finds your actions abhorrent
///very pro-choice
////hates kids


I find having my money taken to kill people half a world away abhorrent.
2012-07-30 09:58:41 AM  
1 vote:

Brubold: "This is my body, not yours."

I'm sure that's what the fetus would say if he/she could express his/her feelings on the matter.


But it can't, because it's a non-sapient clump of cells.
2012-07-30 09:56:38 AM  
1 vote:

kasmel: Sabyen91: Not take care of a child he is responsible for fathering.

/I know it happens all the time but it doesn't make it right or ethical.

See, this brings us to the heart of the entire debate.

At what point does the man become responsible for a child? The moment he consents to have sex? Why is that?

Seriously, I want you to think this through logically, not emotionally. I can completely understand that there are cultural pain points WRT dead-beat dads etc, but this is not what I'm talking about.

If a couple is married, and they decide to have children, and the father walks out and refuses to assist years later, that's an entirely different scenario. That guy is a douchebag. He signed up for kids. He consented, tacitly or explicitly for the responsibility of raising children.

I'm talking about two people, maybe just started dating, whatever, end up getting pregnant. The guy is not ready or simply not interested in being a father. Why is he held to being responsible for the life of a child anymore than the woman is? The woman can choose to have an abortion, but the guy is just stuck if the woman chooses to keep it?

So, we're comfortable with women not being responsible for the life of a child as a consequence of their consent to have sex. But we're also comfortable with a man being held responsible for the life of a child as a consequence of consent to have sex?

Can you see why it's less of a moral issue and more of an ethical one? It's a double standard. And while I wholly realize that a certain amount of those are inevitable as a consequence of our biology, I don't see this as an example of that.


Kasmel quite simply it is because LIFE AIN'T FAIR. So since LIFE AIN'T FAIR, we as people are forced to come up with the most ethical, sensible, and fair way to address this problem.

And the rather than having a bunch of men force women to have children they do not want and/or cannot afford (breaking news: there is more to raising a child than 20% of the father income) and rather than having a bunch of men forcing women to have abortions by refusing to take any responsibility for their own actions, the solution that society has come up with is if you impregnate a gal YOU will be responsible for the consequences of that action.

See, everyone takes some responsibility (as opposed to ALL of the responsibility being put on the women as it appears you would like to see done).
2012-07-30 09:56:08 AM  
1 vote:
Jesus what the fark is wrong with this thread?


Ohhhhh it cross posted to the main page.
2012-07-30 09:52:34 AM  
1 vote:

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.


Sure he does. Wrap your shiat up before sticking it places.
2012-07-30 09:52:27 AM  
1 vote:

Herr Flick's Revenge: Why is this crap coming up?
Abortions are legal.
You want one, have at it.
You want me to pay for it?
Nope, unless I was involved in getting you pregnant.


YOUR TAX DOLLARS DON'T PAY FOR ABORTIONS. Jeesh!!!!! How many times does this have to be repeated???????? Stop spreading lies. I can't stand to watch people say that crap. Fundies want to think that their tax dollars goes to abortions so that they can feel justified about sticking their noses into your business. If they pay for it, then they can complain about it. NOT ONE PENNY OF FEDERAL TAXES GO TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS.

//willfull ignorance is a very ugly characteristic to possess
///guess what else is fundamental????? READING
2012-07-30 09:52:24 AM  
1 vote:
"This is my body, not yours."

I'm sure that's what the fetus would say if he/she could express his/her feelings on the matter.
2012-07-30 09:51:05 AM  
1 vote:

ThrobblefootSpectre: ryarger: If you don't want to pay for more than half of raising the child, only screw rich girls with good jobs.

Yep, and women if you don't want to have a baby, then only screw old infertile guys or keep your legs closed.

(Your argument is offensive and sexist if we say it to women, eh?)


False equivalency. Both parties have access to means to prevent birth. A woman who doesn't want a baby can take the pill, use an IUD, or insist on condoms (amongst other options). A man can have a vasectomy or insist on condoms as well.

The statement was regarding money - specifically the idea that each party is 50% responsible for the monetary care of a child, weighted by income. That specific line was meant tongue-in-cheek and the converse would be - "Ladies? Do you want a cushy, lazy life? Get knocked up a half dozen time and life off the child support." Which happens in reality too often (and in the frenzied imaginations of right-wingers even more).
2012-07-30 09:35:54 AM  
1 vote:

MayoSlather: The woman is also choosing to have sex. She has a say in the argument of who is responsible for birth control. If a man refuses to be responsible you can choose to not have sex with him. In the case of an unwanted child the man does not have an option like the woman has to assume responsibility for raising a child.

You're also comparing the idea of choice between the relatively momentary act of sex and 18yrs of raising a child. They are related, but not equal.


Yes, but the woman can never be absolved of 100% of the responsibility. Birth control and after. Ever. You are proposing a system where a man can be completely absolved of all of it.
2012-07-30 09:30:40 AM  
1 vote:
It's MY body, and only I decide what goes in it. *

*Unless I've chosen to drink even just a single beer, in which case I am not responsible for my actions, and you are a rapist. lulz
2012-07-30 09:29:56 AM  
1 vote:
"I have total rights over my own body"

Where is this argument when it comes to DRUGS
2012-07-30 09:20:18 AM  
1 vote:

Tatterdemalian: There's nothing logical about your emotional assumption that we are required to give people money and only get continued antisocial behavior in return.


I agree that we need to end Corporate welfare.
2012-07-30 09:15:35 AM  
1 vote:
I don't get it:
Since when does an ultrasound of a fetus look like a fully developed baby at 8-12 weeks? They look more like a big wad of spit in the pics.
Since when is it a good idea to medically rape a woman for the sake of morality's sake? I don't recall ever reading in the bible where two wrongs would make it right.
Who determines which or who's morals we follow?
Why is the medical profession being forced to help "save a soul"? Are we supposed to superimpose the belief that the medical profession is bound to save lives, defining life as the first division of cells - ergo the medical profession is bound to save the fetus? I was always under the impression the medical profession and government relished in using a probability scale when determining the greater use of services, goods or otherwise.

My body, my soul, my beliefs.

As a taxpayer I don't agree with many of the things our government spends on. I don't agree with having to support a woman who elected to have a farking litter of children for fame sake, or for the sake of being lazy and having the government cut another check. I may not agree with the idea of a woman wantonly choosing abortions because she can't seem to learn from past experiences, but I also can not abide by the notion of someone pushing their invasive opinions on a group of people without considering the possibility of extenuating or even individual, circumstances.

Okay, opinions done, a critique of the video:
Lots of yelling, a few good points (the breast cancer), lots more yelling and a lot of in your face stuff.
(Gawd, is that what I come across like when I argue with hubby about something?!?)
2012-07-30 08:59:26 AM  
1 vote:

Emracool the Aeons Hip: I like how I keep finding uses for this one

That

guy impregnated a woman? Man, I've got to get my gaydar recalibrated.
2012-07-30 08:55:20 AM  
1 vote:

Gramma: There didn't seem to be any more suffering kids or lack of resources than there are today. I


Seem is the operative word there. You need to read about water and other resource issues we are having right here in the U.S.. The chickens are only just coming home to roost for the generation before, and yet we are still going full steam ahead because nothing 'seems' wrong to the laymen. I don't see it as a good or a bad thing, but a necessary thing. And yes, pregnancy prevention would be the best bet so let's start sex ed earlier.
2012-07-30 08:51:22 AM  
1 vote:

Lsherm: Didn't get a good commercial about their body:

[img708.imageshack.us image 600x515]

/Oh yeah, I went there.
//Cheerleading video gets a cheerleading response
///especially liked the woman who claimed the right for what goes between her legs and then promptly claimed her right to remove the consequences of it.
////on my last days of TF - need the attention. Thanks. Flame on.


If you've got a body, you didn't build that. Someone else did that.
2012-07-30 08:50:45 AM  
1 vote:

LiberalConservative: Er... because ultimately she has 100% the final decision of whether to give birth or not. The man ultimately has 0% of that decision (where the woman has full choice/control of her body and overall circumstance).


No...he has plenty of decisions up until the point of pregnancy. After that, yes biology is really unfair, but it's not like he's being asked to pay 100% for the baby once it's born. She's STILL taking on 50% of it. If she decides to get an abortion, well, he lucked out. Thank goodness he doesn't have to actually endure the procedure and the guilt that so often follows it.
2012-07-30 08:48:10 AM  
1 vote:

MayoSlather: That argument has merit. However I'd warrant that there are few that are so irresponsible to assume this . This is more an argument of the extreme than one of the majority.

Also it is a bit of a red herring. The argument has now shifted from parental rights to the onus of birth control. While not completely unrelated they are separate arguments.


Really? I can tell you that as birth control goes, already my partners have expected me to have condoms ready for their dick. Or that I would be on the pill. Are you telling me that if suddenly the guys knew they would have to take no responsibility in the end, that there wouldn't suddenly be a lot less of them willing to put it on? I have much less faith in the 'inherent need to take responsibility when there's no conseqeuence for it' than you do.

It is not a red herring at all when you're talking of being able to absolve men of any and all responsibility for the consequences of sex.
2012-07-30 08:41:13 AM  
1 vote:

Emracool the Aeons Hip: Am I following this correctly?


Heck if I know. I'm pro-abortion and pro-subsidized-birth control. We have enough idiot breeders in this country already. I just think it is a funny message about being so fiercely independent that you need help with the consequences of your actions.
2012-07-30 08:38:24 AM  
1 vote:
1. It is your body as long as you do not expect others (like the taxpayers) to pick up the tab for what you do with it. If you use other people's money you have to expect them to have some say so in how you spend it. If you don't want people telliing you what to do with your body stop reaching into their back pocket.

2. If you are a minor it is not your body as long as somebody else, parents in this case, have to deal with the consequencies and pick up the tab.
2012-07-30 08:38:16 AM  
1 vote:
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.
2012-07-30 08:29:53 AM  
1 vote:

gulogulo: Gramma: I am opposed to abortion. I don't think it should be illegal, but it is morally abhorent. And I have adopted three special needs kids, two of them were in foster care.

Well thank god no one is forcing you to have one, then.


And I am not forcing anyone to carry to term, either.
2012-07-30 08:29:37 AM  
1 vote:
As far as I'm concerned, once the woman is pregnant, the man is pretty much along for the ride. She's taking all the physical risk with the pregnancy, so, ultimately, it is her choice.

If she chooses to keep it, you are now partially responsible for raising and supporting that kid.

Fair? Nope... But life isn't fair, and compared to women, men have it pretty good in that department.