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.

(Wikipedia)   Happy Birthday, Roe v. Wade. Okay, let me rephrase that. Today marks the 41st anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision   (en.wikipedia.org) divider line 452
    More: Interesting, Happy Birthday, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, adjudications, strict scrutiny, maternal health, Fourteenth Amendment, abortion law  
•       •       •

1152 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2014 at 5:35 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



452 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-22 01:53:50 PM  
here's to 4+ decades of empowering progressive women and enraging conservative men.
 
2014-01-22 02:10:03 PM  

FlashHarry: here's to 4+ decades of empowering progressive women and enraging conservative men.


B....B...B....BUT SMALL GOVERNMENT!
 
2014-01-22 02:15:47 PM  
Holy sh*t, that headline took me a minute.
 
2014-01-22 02:18:15 PM  

Shostie: Holy sh*t, that headline took me a minute.


It's pretty good.
 
2014-01-22 02:18:47 PM  
but.... 55 MILLION BABIES!
 
2014-01-22 02:22:27 PM  

FlashHarry: here's to 4+ decades of empowering progressive women and enraging conservative men.


And lowering crime!
 
2014-01-22 02:46:20 PM  

the_rev: FlashHarry: here's to 4+ decades of empowering progressive women and enraging conservative men.

And lowering crime!


heh.
 
2014-01-22 03:45:29 PM  
Ok that's a pretty good headline right thar.
 
2014-01-22 04:10:48 PM  
I, for one, welcome our new abortionist overlords.

Oh, abortions have been legal for how many years?

I, for one, welcomed our new abortionist overlords.
 
2014-01-22 04:26:25 PM  
Nice one.
 
2014-01-22 04:29:12 PM  
to Submitter :

img30.imageshack.us
 
2014-01-22 04:30:43 PM  
Very impressive, subby.
 
2014-01-22 04:35:24 PM  
Clever and unfunny all at the same time subby.
 
2014-01-22 04:39:21 PM  
I read something a while back discussing how the democratic party/liberals have effectively eliminated 35-50+ million people from their voting base because of abortion.  The argument that was being made/based on is the idea that liberals have a tendency to have abortions more than conservatives...so aborting their kids = elimination of their voter base.

Not sure how accurate this speculation is, but interesting to think about nonetheless.
 
2014-01-22 04:44:59 PM  
I dnc that coming!
 
2014-01-22 04:50:36 PM  
Well done, subby.  Finally, an abortion of a headline worth voting for.
 
2014-01-22 04:51:01 PM  

vernonFL: I dnc that coming!


static4.fjcdn.com
 
2014-01-22 05:05:21 PM  
media.tumblr.com
 
2014-01-22 05:35:18 PM  

vernonFL: I dnc that coming!


LOL
 
2014-01-22 05:36:14 PM  
C'mon, subby. It Murderversary
 
2014-01-22 05:37:21 PM  

Endive Wombat: I read something a while back discussing how the democratic party/liberals have effectively eliminated 35-50+ million people from their voting base because of abortion.  The argument that was being made/based on is the idea that liberals have a tendency to have abortions more than conservatives...so aborting their kids = elimination of their voter base.

Not sure how accurate this speculation is, but interesting to think about nonetheless.


Technically, that would be "interdasting".
 
2014-01-22 05:37:23 PM  

Endive Wombat: I read something a while back discussing how the democratic party/liberals have effectively eliminated 35-50+ million people from their voting base because of abortion.  The argument that was being made/based on is the idea that liberals have a tendency to have abortions more than conservatives...so aborting their kids = elimination of their voter base.

Not sure how accurate this speculation is, but interesting to think about nonetheless.


And if people voted the same way as their parents that might mean something.
 
2014-01-22 05:37:27 PM  
farm2.staticflickr.com

Nice one, subby.
 
2014-01-22 05:38:08 PM  

Endive Wombat: I read something a while back discussing how the democratic party/liberals have effectively eliminated 35-50+ million people from their voting base because of abortion.  The argument that was being made/based on is the idea that liberals have a tendency to have abortions more than conservatives...so aborting their kids = elimination of their voter base.

Not sure how accurate this speculation is, but interesting to think about nonetheless.


I think you'd be surprised at the number of GOP women and daughters who fly off to Tucson and other places around the country for simple procedures.

But they don't go to Planned Parenthood so they're not committing murder in their eyes or in the eyes of their family members--if they even tell their families. They're just having simple procedures done.
 
2014-01-22 05:39:32 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: I think you'd be surprised at the number of GOP women and daughters who fly off to Tucson and other places around the country for simple procedures.


Then shouldn't they call it Oneson?
 
2014-01-22 05:40:46 PM  
*shakes tiny fist* HOTY material right there.
 
2014-01-22 05:40:53 PM  
And yet, idiots on the Right are passing a law that will make abortion illegal again.
 
2014-01-22 05:41:57 PM  

Theaetetus: TheShavingofOccam123: I think you'd be surprised at the number of GOP women and daughters who fly off to Tucson and other places around the country for simple procedures.

Then shouldn't they call it Oneson?


"Any man who would make a pun, would not scruple to cut a purse."
 Samuel Johnson
-Rand Paul
 
2014-01-22 05:42:14 PM  
Row versus wade? I prefer motorboating
 
2014-01-22 05:42:43 PM  
And now Obamacare is going to make it even better.

Mandatory abortions for republican women, AND death panels for grandma? I CAN'T WAIT TO BE A PART OF THE EVIL JACKBOOT ARMY!
 
2014-01-22 05:43:06 PM  

FlashHarry: here's to 4+ decades of empowering progressive women and enraging conservative men.


And keeping the population of the lesser breeds in check.
 
2014-01-22 05:43:29 PM  
In many cases, abortion is the responsible choice.
 
2014-01-22 05:43:39 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: you'd be surprised at the number of GOP women and daughters who fly off to Tucson and other places around the country for simple procedures


THEIR abortion is different from all those other whores out there getting abortions.  And you can bet they'll be back at the clinic the next day, protesting the procedure they just had.
 
2014-01-22 05:43:57 PM  

Mouser: And keeping the population of the lesser breeds in check.


www.reactiongifs.com
 
2014-01-22 05:45:48 PM  

FlashHarry: here's to 4+ decades of empowering progressive women and enraging conservative men.


I'll drink to that, cheers.
 
2014-01-22 05:46:01 PM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: In many cases, abortion is the responsible choice.


The white zone is still only for the loading and unloading of passengers, Tom.
 
2014-01-22 05:47:28 PM  
Abortion is Murder.
 
2014-01-22 05:48:17 PM  
Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.
 
2014-01-22 05:48:17 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-01-22 05:48:22 PM  
You've helped to make movie theaters a little less noisy. Thank you for that.
 
2014-01-22 05:49:46 PM  

genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.


Murder implies it's unlawful by definition. Since it isn't, it is therefor not murder. :)
 
2014-01-22 05:51:25 PM  
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
 
2014-01-22 05:53:07 PM  

Theaetetus: TheShavingofOccam123: I think you'd be surprised at the number of GOP women and daughters who fly off to Tucson and other places around the country for simple procedures.

Then shouldn't they call it Oneson?


It was rumored that the woman who was almost thrown off a plane for dressing to skimpy was headed for an abortion in Tucson.

"I said, 'What part of it, the shirt, the skirt? Which part?' " Ebbert continued, recounting her conversation with Keith about her outfit. "And he said, 'The whole thing.'" I said, 'I didn't bring any luggage with me. I don't have anything to change into. What can I do to make sure I can get onto that flight?' I had a doctor's appointment. I had to be there."

http://www.today.com/id/20638479/ns/today-today_news/t/thrown-plane- ou tfit-deemed-too-skimpy/
 
2014-01-22 05:53:11 PM  
Why did caviar sue Dwyane Wade in the first place?
 
2014-01-22 05:54:55 PM  

genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.


Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.
 
2014-01-22 05:56:57 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Endive Wombat: I read something a while back discussing how the democratic party/liberals have effectively eliminated 35-50+ million people from their voting base because of abortion.  The argument that was being made/based on is the idea that liberals have a tendency to have abortions more than conservatives...so aborting their kids = elimination of their voter base.

Not sure how accurate this speculation is, but interesting to think about nonetheless.

I think you'd be surprised at the number of GOP women and daughters who fly off to Tucson and other places around the country for simple procedures.

But they don't go to Planned Parenthood so they're not committing murder in their eyes or in the eyes of their family members--if they even tell their families. They're just having simple procedures done.


That's definitely the classical approach.  Rich people sending their daughters off to relatives or the country estate for a year or so, then they come back and nobody asks any pesky questions about their trip.
 
2014-01-22 05:57:06 PM  
55 million people lost to a socialist, eugenics experiment (killed by their mothers in many cases, no less). Social Security and other Federal entitlement programs are going backrupt because, in part, these folks aren't available to contribute to these political slush funds. Coincidence? I think it's possible.

This might be an anniversary of horror; it's certainly not a birthday to celebrate.
 
2014-01-22 05:58:51 PM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: Endive Wombat: I read something a while back discussing how the democratic party/liberals have effectively eliminated 35-50+ million people from their voting base because of abortion.  The argument that was being made/based on is the idea that liberals have a tendency to have abortions more than conservatives...so aborting their kids = elimination of their voter base.

Not sure how accurate this speculation is, but interesting to think about nonetheless.

And if people voted the same way as their parents that might mean something.


They do, for the most part.  When two parents share the same political affiliation, their child has about a 75% chance of having the same affiliation.  See page 2.

http://myweb.uiowa.edu/bhlai/voter/paper/wolak.pdf
 
2014-01-22 05:58:57 PM  
That does it, cancel the rest of the year. That's the HOTY winner.
 
2014-01-22 05:59:08 PM  

Endive Wombat: I read something a while back discussing how the democratic party/liberals have effectively eliminated 35-50+ million people from their voting base because of abortion.  The argument that was being made/based on is the idea that liberals have a tendency to have abortions more than conservatives...so aborting their kids = elimination of their voter base.

Not sure how accurate this speculation is, but interesting to think about nonetheless.


Liberals tend to be better at teaching their kids how sex works and how to use birth control, which reduces their need for abortions compared to the crowd that believes abstinence only education works.
 
2014-01-22 06:00:35 PM  
Subby, you saucy bistard!
I like it.
 
2014-01-22 06:00:47 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.


Here we go!

idiotsbooks.com
 
2014-01-22 06:01:04 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.


Either it's a living human being or it isn't.  Where it's physically located shouldn't be the issue.
 
2014-01-22 06:01:10 PM  

letrole: Abortion is Murder.


I thought abortion is a learned behaviour. But considering the outcome, the student never gets to practice what they've learned, I guess.
 
2014-01-22 06:01:17 PM  

letrole: Abortion is Murder.


It's easier to think about if you understand alot of those aborted babies would have grown up to be murderers. So, it's kind of a wash
 
2014-01-22 06:04:16 PM  
I don't get the headline.:(
 
2014-01-22 06:04:18 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: letrole: Abortion is Murder.

I thought abortion is a learned behaviour. But considering the outcome, the student never gets to practice what they've learned, I guess.


uber humper: letrole: Abortion is Murder.

It's easier to think about if you understand alot of those aborted babies would have grown up to be murderers. So, it's kind of a wash



Almost a silmulpost
 
2014-01-22 06:04:21 PM  
I've had 9 abortions already. Just need to get one more to complete my rewards card and the 11th is free!
 
2014-01-22 06:04:33 PM  
i1139.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-22 06:05:57 PM  

genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.


It's not. Murder is defined as an unlawful killing; if it is done within the bounds of the law, it isn't murder.
 
2014-01-22 06:06:18 PM  
 
2014-01-22 06:06:19 PM  

Callous: TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's a living human being or it isn't.  Where it's physically located shouldn't be the issue.


You better get busy. Climbing into every vajayjay in this country is gonna take a lot of your time. Or are you one of those who supports shaming pregnant women by forcing doctors to rape their patients with wands in order to dissuade them from having an abortion?

I mean, if your against something you should take responsibility and not pawn it off on some poor schlep md who's six figures in debt from med school and just wants to make his/her mortgage payment, not poke things inside patients against their will.
 
2014-01-22 06:06:47 PM  
The very fact that we celebrate our birthdays and not our conception days shows how unnatural and out of sync with day-to-day reality the anti-abortion crowd's opinion is.
 
2014-01-22 06:06:53 PM  

genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.


It's not.
 
2014-01-22 06:07:21 PM  

uber humper: TheShavingofOccam123: letrole: Abortion is Murder.

I thought abortion is a learned behaviour. But considering the outcome, the student never gets to practice what they've learned, I guess.

uber humper: letrole: Abortion is Murder.

It's easier to think about if you understand alot of those aborted babies would have grown up to be murderers. So, it's kind of a wash


Almost a silmulpost


Close enough.
 
2014-01-22 06:07:40 PM  

Callous: TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's a living human being or it isn't.  Where it's physically located shouldn't be the issue.


I take it you also believe that using a beating-heart donor after brain death, and what happened to Terri Schiavo are examples of murder, right?
 
2014-01-22 06:08:56 PM  

theknuckler_33: I don't get the headline.:(


don't worry. the headline is an abortion.

/birthdays...abortions...military...intelligence...
 
2014-01-22 06:10:55 PM  

Callous: TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's a living human being or it isn't.  Where it's physically located shouldn't be the issue.


You wouldn't say that if it was me living inside your body.
I got nasty habits.
 
2014-01-22 06:11:21 PM  

ikanreed: The very fact that we celebrate our birthdays and not our conception days shows how unnatural and out of sync with day-to-day reality the anti-abortion crowd's opinion is.


According to some in that camp, we shouldn't be celebrating birthdays either.
 
2014-01-22 06:11:42 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: theknuckler_33: I don't get the headline.:(

don't worry. the headline is an abortion.

/birthdays...abortions...military...intelligence...


ooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

/hangs head in shame
 
2014-01-22 06:11:50 PM  

The Bestest: Meanwhile in Atlanta..


QFTL about anti-abortion protests in Atlanta:

Meanwhile, pro-choice supporter Democratic state Senator Nan Orrock says legislative efforts to chip away at Roe v. Wade are unfortunate.
"The Republicans here in Georgia and around the country continue to wage a war on women. They are focused on taking rights away from women, blocking women's access to healthcare and standing between a woman and her doctor and trying to dictate what should happen. It's dead wrong."


You're not helping, Senator Orrock.
 
2014-01-22 06:12:33 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Callous: TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's a living human being or it isn't.  Where it's physically located shouldn't be the issue.

You better get busy. Climbing into every vajayjay in this country is gonna take a lot of your time. Or are you one of those who supports shaming pregnant women by forcing doctors to rape their patients with wands in order to dissuade them from having an abortion?

I mean, if your against something you should take responsibility and not pawn it off on some poor schlep md who's six figures in debt from med school and just wants to make his/her mortgage payment, not poke things inside patients against their will.


Nice strawman.

ikanreed: The very fact that we celebrate our birthdays and not our conception days shows how unnatural and out of sync with day-to-day reality the anti-abortion crowd's opinion is.


You're aware that conception is not documented and often times not known right?  Or are you just talking out your arse?
 
2014-01-22 06:13:23 PM  
Whenever I hear Roe VS Wade, I remember the time when I believed it was about whether you should row your boat or wade in the water.
 
2014-01-22 06:13:41 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: ikanreed: The very fact that we celebrate our birthdays and not our conception days shows how unnatural and out of sync with day-to-day reality the anti-abortion crowd's opinion is.

According to some in that camp, we shouldn't be celebrating birthdays either.


Strange how quick you can tell the nature of a site from its font and layout choices. It takes a whole paragraph of reading before you can draw an identical conclusion from the text.
 
2014-01-22 06:13:44 PM  
I'm laughing way to hard at this thread.
 
2014-01-22 06:16:21 PM  

Endive Wombat: I read something a while back discussing how the democratic party/liberals have effectively eliminated 35-50+ million people from their voting base because of abortion.  The argument that was being made/based on is the idea that liberals have a tendency to have abortions more than conservatives...so aborting their kids = elimination of their voter base.

Not sure how accurate this speculation is, but interesting to think about nonetheless.


Or it's taking a large cut out of the demographic that is itself uninvolved and doesn't vote.
 
2014-01-22 06:17:04 PM  

Callous: You're aware that conception is not documented and often times not known right? Or are you just talking out your arse?


Hmm, and yet... you think there's a person in there? Nobody knows it, but there's there's a human being!
 
2014-01-22 06:17:25 PM  

FlashHarry: here's to 4+ decades of empowering progressive women and enraging conservative men.


I'm strictly "pro-choice". But I also despise this inability of people to correctly frame their opponent's arguments and their persistence in misrepresenting their "enemies" motives for their own sides gain.

The conservative dislike of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women. They believe that abortion is killing a human being. They believe it is morally wrong to kill another human being, at least, one that hasn't themselves killed someone. And that's it. That's the sum and the total of their argument. All this "war against women" garbage might make for good fundraising and mobilization and help to get people riled up, but it also makes YOU every bit as sleazy as any other sleazy manipulative liar engaged in the fight. It's every bit as underhanded and disingenuous to say "liberals want to murder babies" as it is to say "conservatives want to control women". That simply isn't either sides motivation.

Here, in case this needs explicit spelling out: One side believes abortion is killing a human being. The other side believes prohibiting abortion unjustly limits the ability of women to control their own bodies. That's it. That's the entirety of the "debate". We would be a lot farther along in a lot more issues if people would stop making up the other side's motivations to capitalize on divisiveness.
 
2014-01-22 06:17:29 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Endive Wombat: I read something a while back discussing how the democratic party/liberals have effectively eliminated 35-50+ million people from their voting base because of abortion.  The argument that was being made/based on is the idea that liberals have a tendency to have abortions more than conservatives...so aborting their kids = elimination of their voter base.

Not sure how accurate this speculation is, but interesting to think about nonetheless.

Liberals tend to be better at teaching their kids how sex works and how to use birth control, which reduces their need for abortions compared to the crowd that believes abstinence only education works.


And their massive hypocrisy while preaching it
assets-s3.usmagazine.com
 
2014-01-22 06:18:12 PM  

ikanreed: Callous: You're aware that conception is not documented and often times not known right? Or are you just talking out your arse?

Hmm, and yet... you think there's a person in there? Nobody knows it, but there's there's a human being!



Schrodinger's baby!
 
2014-01-22 06:19:38 PM  

BullBearMS: No.

No one cares. Go troll politics. Stop threadjacking.

Callous: Nice strawman.


I'm still waiting for your answer on whether you believe Terri Schiavo was murdered.
 
Al! [TotalFark]
2014-01-22 06:19:54 PM  
As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.
 
2014-01-22 06:20:17 PM  
Oh, a rational discussion thread!
/these aren't fun...
// religion vs science
 
2014-01-22 06:20:31 PM  

IM4Liberty: 55 million people lost to a socialist, eugenics experiment (killed by their mothers in many cases, no less). Social Security and other Federal entitlement programs are going backrupt because, in part, these folks aren't available to contribute to these political slush funds. Coincidence? I think it's possible

a fact .

This might be an anniversary of horror; it's certainly not a birthday to celebrate.

Yep ,so now instead we will have to import Mexicans to prop up social security .
 
2014-01-22 06:20:48 PM  

hardinparamedic: Callous: TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's a living human being or it isn't.  Where it's physically located shouldn't be the issue.

I take it you also believe that using a beating-heart donor after brain death, and what happened to Terri Schiavo are examples of murder, right?


Schiavo, I don't know enough about brain death to have an opinion, that whole case was a cluster-fark that I didn't follow closely.  If the patient is clinically dead and their body is being kept functioning by machines I don't see the problem with with organ donation.  If their heart is beating on it's own how can they be brain dead?  The brain controls the heart.  Can someone have functioning organs and be brain dead?
 
2014-01-22 06:20:51 PM  

ikanreed: InterruptingQuirk: ikanreed: The very fact that we celebrate our birthdays and not our conception days shows how unnatural and out of sync with day-to-day reality the anti-abortion crowd's opinion is.

According to some in that camp, we shouldn't be celebrating birthdays either.

Strange how quick you can tell the nature of a site from its font and layout choices. It takes a whole paragraph of reading before you can draw an identical conclusion from the text.


I'm sorry I couldn't find a picture book version for you

/i keed
 
2014-01-22 06:21:55 PM  
Roe v. Wade is the final act that set the Evangelicals over the edge.

Before then, they mostly abstained from politics. After, all bets were off. They mobilized into a powerful conservative voting bloc and we've been dealing with the repercussions ever since.
 
2014-01-22 06:22:20 PM  

Callous: TheShavingofOccam123: Callous: TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's a living human being or it isn't.  Where it's physically located shouldn't be the issue.

You better get busy. Climbing into every vajayjay in this country is gonna take a lot of your time. Or are you one of those who supports shaming pregnant women by forcing doctors to rape their patients with wands in order to dissuade them from having an abortion?

I mean, if your against something you should take responsibility and not pawn it off on some poor schlep md who's six figures in debt from med school and just wants to make his/her mortgage payment, not poke things inside patients against their will.

Nice strawman.

ikanreed: The very fact that we celebrate our birthdays and not our conception days shows how unnatural and out of sync with day-to-day reality the anti-abortion crowd's opinion is.

You're aware that conception is not documented and often times not known right?  Or are you just talking out your arse?


Strawman?

There are two citizens--a pregnant woman and a physician. They're have the right to enter into a contract for services. Apparently, there's a third citizen. And this unborn citizen has more rights than the two citizens in the room. It's rights are so powerful it can not only restrict the medical professional from practicing his profession but it can force a woman to give birth against her will.

I'm pretty sure the idea of a ball of flesh having more than equal rights with two citizens is about a 500 foot tall false equivalency. But I went to Arizona State, so what do I know?

/I didn't say I graduated...
 
2014-01-22 06:22:24 PM  

Callous: hardinparamedic: Callous: TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's a living human being or it isn't.  Where it's physically located shouldn't be the issue.

I take it you also believe that using a beating-heart donor after brain death, and what happened to Terri Schiavo are examples of murder, right?

Schiavo, I don't know enough about brain death to have an opinion, that whole case was a cluster-fark that I didn't follow closely.  If the patient is clinically dead and their body is being kept functioning by machines I don't see the problem with with organ donation.  If their heart is beating on it's own how can they be brain dead?  The brain controls the heart.  Can someone have functioning organs and be brain dead?


Brain stem =/= brain basically.
 
2014-01-22 06:22:51 PM  

That Guy Jeff: FlashHarry: here's to 4+ decades of empowering progressive women and enraging conservative men.

I'm strictly "pro-choice". But I also despise this inability of people to correctly frame their opponent's arguments and their persistence in misrepresenting their "enemies" motives for their own sides gain.

The conservative dislike of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women. They believe that abortion is killing a human being. They believe it is morally wrong to kill another human being, at least, one that hasn't themselves killed someone. And that's it. That's the sum and the total of their argument. All this "war against women" garbage might make for good fundraising and mobilization and help to get people riled up, but it also makes YOU every bit as sleazy as any other sleazy manipulative liar engaged in the fight. It's every bit as underhanded and disingenuous to say "liberals want to murder babies" as it is to say "conservatives want to control women". That simply isn't either sides motivation.

Here, in case this needs explicit spelling out: One side believes abortion is killing a human being. The other side believes prohibiting abortion unjustly limits the ability of women to control their own bodies. That's it. That's the entirety of the "debate". We would be a lot farther along in a lot more issues if people would stop making up the other side's motivations to capitalize on divisiveness.


Why even care what people's motivations are? I don't care. You want to claim posession my body because you think killing a fetus is murder? I decline to discuss it with you. Your motivations are irrelevant, and I will treat you the same as I would a rapist in an alley who attempts to take posession of my body.*
I agree with you - the "motivation" talk is bullshiat.

* Assuming, for the sake of argument, that I am a woman.
 
2014-01-22 06:23:01 PM  

uber humper: letrole: Abortion is Murder.

It's easier to think about if you understand alot of those aborted babies would have grown up to be murderers. So, it's kind of a wash


They could have become middle managers, so I think we're slightly ahead.
 
2014-01-22 06:23:45 PM  

Callous: If their heart is beating on it's own how can they be brain dead?  The brain controls the heart.  Can someone have functioning organs and be brain dead?


The heart does not require the brain to function - in fact, it can function completely independently of a brain for a good deal of time, relying on the autonomic nervous system and spinal reflexes to regulate it's rate, or even just hormones in the body - such as ach and epinepherine.

The fact someone's heart is beating doesn't mean they are "alive" as we as a society define human life. It just means the sack of meat supporting a brain is still functioning.
 
2014-01-22 06:23:47 PM  

That Guy Jeff: FlashHarry: here's to 4+ decades of empowering progressive women and enraging conservative men.

I'm strictly "pro-choice". But I also despise this inability of people to correctly frame their opponent's arguments and their persistence in misrepresenting their "enemies" motives for their own sides gain.

The conservative dislike of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women. They believe that abortion is killing a human being. They believe it is morally wrong to kill another human being, at least, one that hasn't themselves killed someone. And that's it. That's the sum and the total of their argument. All this "war against women" garbage might make for good fundraising and mobilization and help to get people riled up, but it also makes YOU every bit as sleazy as any other sleazy manipulative liar engaged in the fight. It's every bit as underhanded and disingenuous to say "liberals want to murder babies" as it is to say "conservatives want to control women". That simply isn't either sides motivation.

Here, in case this needs explicit spelling out: One side believes abortion is killing a human being. The other side believes prohibiting abortion unjustly limits the ability of women to control their own bodies. That's it. That's the entirety of the "debate". We would be a lot farther along in a lot more issues if people would stop making up the other side's motivations to capitalize on divisiveness.


Let me ask you a question then.

If abortion is only about killing a human being and not about controlling women's bodies, why do they oppose increased access to contraceptives, which is the easiest and cheapest way to prevent abortions?
 
2014-01-22 06:24:23 PM  

Endive Wombat: I read something a while back discussing how the democratic party/liberals have effectively eliminated 35-50+ million people from their voting base because of abortion.  The argument that was being made/based on is the idea that liberals have a tendency to have abortions more than conservatives...so aborting their kids = elimination of their voter base.

Not sure how accurate this speculation is, but interesting to think about nonetheless.


The wingnut talking point here is that Demonrats want to give Free Stuff to Welfare Queens so they'll keep pushing out babies that grow up to be Demonrats.

/And if you think that check covers the cost of raising a child, you might be a wingnut.
 
2014-01-22 06:24:26 PM  

vernonFL: I dnc that coming!


You and subby are going straight to Hell!
Here's  golf clap for your journey.
 
2014-01-22 06:24:39 PM  

ikanreed: Callous: You're aware that conception is not documented and often times not known right? Or are you just talking out your arse?

Hmm, and yet... you think there's a person in there? Nobody knows it, but there's there's a human being!


So if a woman doesn't know the date that conception occurred she can't be pregnant?  Or it's not a human that she's pregnant with?
 
2014-01-22 06:25:37 PM  

Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.


Keep your dick in your pants in the presence of untrustworthy women in future. You just dodged a 16" artillary shell, and you should be thanking Jesus every day.
 
2014-01-22 06:25:44 PM  

hardinparamedic: Callous: If their heart is beating on it's own how can they be brain dead?  The brain controls the heart.  Can someone have functioning organs and be brain dead?

The heart does not require the brain to function - in fact, it can function completely independently of a brain for a good deal of time, relying on the autonomic nervous system and spinal reflexes to regulate it's rate, or even just hormones in the body - such as ach and epinepherine.

The fact someone's heart is beating doesn't mean they are "alive" as we as a society define human life. It just means the sack of meat supporting a brain is still functioning.



I agree, but in this case I think you meant "the sack of meat that was supporting a brain is still functioning."
 
2014-01-22 06:26:11 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.


If it is murder it's the states business. If it's not it's not. So why do people pretend the argument is about something else?
 
2014-01-22 06:27:27 PM  

jso2897: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

Keep your dick in your pants in the presence of untrustworthy women in future. You just dodged a 16" artillary shell, and you should be thanking Jesus every day.


Considering his whining, I think she made the right decision.  No reason to reward defective genes
 
2014-01-22 06:27:28 PM  

Callous: Schiavo, I don't know enough about brain death to have an opinion, that whole case was a cluster-fark that I didn't follow closely. If the patient is clinically dead and their body is being kept functioning by machines I don't see the problem with with organ donation. If their heart is beating on it's own how can they be brain dead? The brain controls the heart. Can someone have functioning organs and be brain dead?


Yes. I think you're confusing "brain death" (the media's term for cerebral death) with brain stem death.
 
2014-01-22 06:27:45 PM  

Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.


And fark you, Sir, as a man who thinks that women have the basic human right to not be forced to be an incubating meatsack for a fetus.
 
2014-01-22 06:29:02 PM  
Roe vs. Wade gets a birthday.  55 million Amerikans don't.  Most of them minority.  Remind me which party is racist?
 
2014-01-22 06:29:39 PM  

cretinbob: Row versus wade? I prefer motorboating


Nice.
 
2014-01-22 06:29:50 PM  

hardinparamedic: Callous: If their heart is beating on it's own how can they be brain dead?  The brain controls the heart.  Can someone have functioning organs and be brain dead?

The heart does not require the brain to function - in fact, it can function completely independently of a brain for a good deal of time, relying on the autonomic nervous system and spinal reflexes to regulate it's rate, or even just hormones in the body - such as ach and epinepherine.

The fact someone's heart is beating doesn't mean they are "alive" as we as a society define human life. It just means the sack of meat supporting a brain is still functioning.


As I just said, but you decline to mention the brain stem which is the necessary part of your autonomic nervous system that maintains the involuntary muscle functions in the body.
 
2014-01-22 06:30:54 PM  

hardinparamedic: Callous: If their heart is beating on it's own how can they be brain dead?  The brain controls the heart.  Can someone have functioning organs and be brain dead?

The heart does not require the brain to function - in fact, it can function completely independently of a brain for a good deal of time, relying on the autonomic nervous system and spinal reflexes to regulate it's rate, or even just hormones in the body - such as ach and epinepherine.

The fact someone's heart is beating doesn't mean they are "alive" as we as a society define human life. It just means the sack of meat supporting a brain is still functioning.


Well than I would say they are dead and organ donation is the best outcome for all involved.  Dead person's wishes, or family's wishes if dead person's wishes are unknown, considered obviously.

If there is no brain activity it's dead, and the person is dead.
 
2014-01-22 06:30:57 PM  

Mean Daddy: Roe vs. Wade gets a birthday.  55 million Amerikans don't.  Most of them minority.  Remind me which party is racist?


The one that doesn't want to support all those fatherless minority babies.
 
2014-01-22 06:31:27 PM  

Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.


Men shouldn't have a choice in whether or not the woman aborts. They should have the choice to abort their parental rights and responsibilities though.
 
2014-01-22 06:32:06 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: As I just said, but you decline to mention the brain stem which is the necessary part of your autonomic nervous system that maintains the involuntary muscle functions in the body.


Many people in the right to die camp would argue that keeping someone with only the functions of the pons, midbrain, and medulla intact is cruel and unusual, and most people who support the right to self-determination would point out that keeping people like that alive against their documented wishes is a violation of their basic human rights.

The "Pro-Life" crowd's behavior is the reason that I have a living will and advanced directives at 28 years old and POAs designated that I know will carry out my wishes.
 
2014-01-22 06:33:49 PM  

genner: TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.

If it is murder it's the states business. If it's not it's not. So why do people pretend the argument is about something else?


Why do you pretend that one of the major social debates of our time is only about one thing just because you say, without offering any substantiation, that it is?
 
2014-01-22 06:34:35 PM  

hardinparamedic: InterruptingQuirk: As I just said, but you decline to mention the brain stem which is the necessary part of your autonomic nervous system that maintains the involuntary muscle functions in the body.

Many people in the right to die camp would argue that keeping someone with only the functions of the pons, midbrain, and medulla intact is cruel and unusual, and most people who support the right to self-determination would point out that keeping people like that alive against their documented wishes is a violation of their basic human rights.

The "Pro-Life" crowd's behavior is the reason that I have a living will and advanced directives at 28 years old and POAs designated that I know will carry out my wishes.



Did you include "If I become a zombie, shoot me in the head"?
 
2014-01-22 06:34:37 PM  
Whew, I just turned 43.. MADE IT!
 
2014-01-22 06:34:47 PM  

jso2897: genner: TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.

If it is murder it's the states business. If it's not it's not. So why do people pretend the argument is about something else?

Why do you pretend that one of the major social debates of our time is only about one thing just because you say, without offering any substantiation, that it is?


Because exploring the details of a complex sociopolitical issue would go against his simple one-liner talking point.
 
2014-01-22 06:35:20 PM  

umad: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

Men shouldn't have a choice in whether or not the woman aborts. They should have the choice to abort their parental rights and responsibilities though.


If it's the man's kid, it's his kid. They now have parental responsibilities whether they want them or not.
 
2014-01-22 06:37:37 PM  

Phinn: Women don't go around randomly amputating various cells from their body for no reason.


They do, however, remove various cells for reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liposuction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_reduction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_removal#Mole_removal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_surgery
 
2014-01-22 06:38:07 PM  
Yep. Abortion's legal, and it'll continue to be legal. The sooner we move to decanting our young in vials, the sooner this bullshiat debate will go away.
 
2014-01-22 06:38:08 PM  

EbolaNYC: Whew, I just turned 43.. MADE IT!


I'm 40.  I know my mother wanted me; you will always have to wonder...

;P
 
2014-01-22 06:38:20 PM  

Wadded Beef: umad: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

Men shouldn't have a choice in whether or not the woman aborts. They should have the choice to abort their parental rights and responsibilities though.

If it's the man's kid, it's his kid. They now have parental responsibilities whether they want them or not.


If women can terminate their responsibilites then men should be able to as well. If men can't, then neither should women. I don't care either way, as long as it is equal.
 
2014-01-22 06:38:50 PM  

jso2897: genner: TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.

If it is murder it's the states business. If it's not it's not. So why do people pretend the argument is about something else?

Why do you pretend that one of the major social debates of our time is only about one thing just because you say, without offering any substantiation, that it is?


Why do you say it's more than one thing without offering any proof yourself?
I can point to my one thing.

->  Is abortion murder?

If you can bring up  a second talking point where it doesn't matter if abortion is murder or not then I'll listen.
 
2014-01-22 06:39:32 PM  

genner: Is abortion murder?


Please list the United States Public Law or State Law which defines lawful abortion as murder.

Go ahead, I'll wait.
 
2014-01-22 06:39:51 PM  

Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.


She divorced you and still had time to get an abortion?
 
2014-01-22 06:39:55 PM  
Casey v. Planned Parenthood!!! FFS. "Area man has strong opinion on what he believes the Constitution says."
 
2014-01-22 06:40:11 PM  

Wadded Beef: umad: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

Men shouldn't have a choice in whether or not the woman aborts. They should have the choice to abort their parental rights and responsibilities though.

If it's the man's kid, it's his kid. They now have parental responsibilities whether they want them or not.


I'm scared of my own question here, but if a woman can abort those responsibilities, why can't a man?
 
2014-01-22 06:40:11 PM  

genner: jso2897: genner: TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.

If it is murder it's the states business. If it's not it's not. So why do people pretend the argument is about something else?

Why do you pretend that one of the major social debates of our time is only about one thing just because you say, without offering any substantiation, that it is?

Why do you say it's more than one thing without offering any proof yourself?
I can point to my one thing.

->  Is abortion murder?

If you can bring up  a second talking point where it doesn't matter if abortion is murder or not then I'll listen.


Abortion isn't murder.  Debate over.
 
2014-01-22 06:40:25 PM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: jso2897: genner: TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.

If it is murder it's the states business. If it's not it's not. So why do people pretend the argument is about something else?

Why do you pretend that one of the major social debates of our time is only about one thing just because you say, without offering any substantiation, that it is?

Because exploring the details of a complex sociopolitical issue would go against his simple one-liner talking point.


If you look at 99% of posts in abortion threads on any forum it's one liners.

It's about privacy
It's about murder
It's just a clump of cells
It's a living human being

In reality it's a VERY complex sociological issue because different people give different weights to the various aspects of it.  Some believe that a woman's right to privacy trumps all the others.  Some believe that the baby's right to live trumps all others, etc.

It's never really going to be resolved because of that.
 
2014-01-22 06:42:54 PM  
www.nationalblackprolifeunion.comsaynsumthn.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-01-22 06:43:49 PM  

hardinparamedic: genner: Is abortion murder?

Please list the United States Public Law or State Law which defines lawful abortion as murder.

Go ahead, I'll wait.


Word games are fun.
There's this thing called the vernacular it defines murder as the taking of a human life without just cause.

Laws can be changed and that's exactly what people are trying to do in this situation.
 
2014-01-22 06:44:09 PM  

Death Whisper: [www.nationalblackprolifeunion.com image 352x356][saynsumthn.files.wordpress.com image 636x477]


Hitler championed universal healthcare.

Thus all countries with Universal Healthcare are practicing the holocaust today.
 
2014-01-22 06:44:15 PM  

Death Whisper: [www.nationalblackprolifeunion.com image 352x356][saynsumthn.files.wordpress.com image 636x477]


But I thought your kind wanted them all dead...
 
2014-01-22 06:45:19 PM  

genner: There's this thing called the vernacular it defines murder as the taking of a human life without just cause.


The just cause is whatever that woman says it is, below the age of awareness and viability.

Your personal discomfort with that fact is not legal jurisdiction to control the bodies of others. Sorry. Not yours.
 
2014-01-22 06:45:21 PM  

umad: Wadded Beef: umad: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

Men shouldn't have a choice in whether or not the woman aborts. They should have the choice to abort their parental rights and responsibilities though.

If it's the man's kid, it's his kid. They now have parental responsibilities whether they want them or not.

If women can terminate their responsibilites then men should be able to as well. If men can't, then neither should women. I don't care either way, as long as it is equal.


But it's not equal. It's only the women who are forced to carry the meatsacks and should of course have the choice whether to keep it.

As for men, if you've impregnated somebody, guess what: you've already made the choice available to you and that is you unzipped your pants. And you've made the de facto acceptance to the consequences. If she chooses to keep it you're on the hook.

Party responsibly.
 
2014-01-22 06:45:45 PM  

genner: jso2897: genner: TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.

If it is murder it's the states business. If it's not it's not. So why do people pretend the argument is about something else?

Why do you pretend that one of the major social debates of our time is only about one thing just because you say, without offering any substantiation, that it is?

Why do you say it's more than one thing without offering any proof yourself?
I can point to my one thing.

->  Is abortion murder?

If you can bring up  a second talking point where it doesn't matter if abortion is murder or not then I'll listen.


First of all, what constitutes a relevant issue is a matter of opinion - neither of us can "prove" his case. There are plenty of issues, however, that many very real people who don't happen to be you consider relevant.
Is abortion Murder?
To whom, if anyone, does a fetus "belong"?
Does the State's interest extend to the interior of a woman's body?
Is Roe vs Wade a narrow ruling, applying only to reproductive rights, or a broader one relating to privacy issues in general?
Can a person be forced to serve as an icubator for another life against their will?
What role should fathers have in the decision to have or not have an abortion?
I could list more - but of course, there is nothing I can do to keep you from waving your magic wand and declaring them all non-issues. so there wouldn't be much point.
 
2014-01-22 06:46:09 PM  
Enjoy your child sacrifice, Americans. 55 million, eh? You people care too much about high scores.
 
2014-01-22 06:46:12 PM  

That Guy Jeff: FlashHarry: here's to 4+ decades of empowering progressive women and enraging conservative men.

I'm strictly "pro-choice". But I also despise this inability of people to correctly frame their opponent's arguments and their persistence in misrepresenting their "enemies" motives for their own sides gain.

The conservative dislike of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women. They believe that abortion is killing a human being. They believe it is morally wrong to kill another human being, at least, one that hasn't themselves killed someone. And that's it. That's the sum and the total of their argument. All this "war against women" garbage might make for good fundraising and mobilization and help to get people riled up, but it also makes YOU every bit as sleazy as any other sleazy manipulative liar engaged in the fight. It's every bit as underhanded and disingenuous to say "liberals want to murder babies" as it is to say "conservatives want to control women". That simply isn't either sides motivation.

Here, in case this needs explicit spelling out: One side believes abortion is killing a human being. The other side believes prohibiting abortion unjustly limits the ability of women to control their own bodies. That's it. That's the entirety of the "debate". We would be a lot farther along in a lot more issues if people would stop making up the other side's motivations to capitalize on divisiveness.


THIS!!!!

The pro-choice/pro-abortion movement loves to frame their opponents as just being the opposite of them.  If they believe that abortion is a woman's right, then obviously anyone who opposes them is against women's rights, right?  No.

If the anti-abortion/pro-life movement believes that abortion is the murder of unborn babies, then obviously anyone who disagrees is in favor murdering babies, right?  Again. No.

It is, however,  much easier to battle strawmen than it is actual positions.  I think this is why the debate gets framed the way it does by factions on both sides.

FWIW, I believe abortion should be legal and free of government intrusion for a different set of reasons, primarily centering around concepts of self-ownership and not just the right of one gender to have some control over a small subset of their body's functions.

Even if we were to discover that abortion of a fetus really is the same as murdering a baby, I would still be pro choice on the grounds that a woman (like all human beings) has ownership of her own body and things inside of it and that her right to discontinue carrying a baby/fetus supercedes the right of that baby/fetus to live.  It's not a pretty, easy to swallow position, nor is it one that occupies any moral high ground, but I do believe it's principled and consistent with actual concepts of liberty and self-determination.  My belief in self-ownership goes beyond the right to terminate a pregnancy and well into areas (to name a few) like sexual practices, consumption of intoxicants (or poisons depending on who you talk to), consumption of food prepared/packaged in a manner viewed as inadvisable by others, etc.
 
2014-01-22 06:46:34 PM  
Considering I like to flaunt opinions on things that are none of my business, how does this sound?

Given the axiom (idiom?) "No Harm, No foul" perhaps abortions should be a simple matter right up until the fetus can feel pain (about 20 weeks from what I've read) after which abortions should need some sort of medical justification (sans which, if you still don't want the child, it goes up for adoption). That gives the woman five months to make up her mind & also protects the fetus from a painful end (to some degree at least).

Which is it? Potato or Nobel prize? Expensive potato soup maybe? I'd take soup, it's cold out.
 
2014-01-22 06:47:29 PM  
geez..,  liveactionnews.org
wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2014-01-22 06:47:34 PM  

Callous: the_vegetarian_cannibal: jso2897: genner: TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.

If it is murder it's the states business. If it's not it's not. So why do people pretend the argument is about something else?

Why do you pretend that one of the major social debates of our time is only about one thing just because you say, without offering any substantiation, that it is?

Because exploring the details of a complex sociopolitical issue would go against his simple one-liner talking point.

If you look at 99% of posts in abortion threads on any forum it's one liners.

It's about privacy
It's about murder
It's just a clump of cells
It's a living human being

In reality it's a VERY complex sociological issue because different people give different weights to the various aspects of it.  Some believe that a woman's right to privacy trumps all the others.  Some believe that the baby's right to live trumps all others, etc.

It's never really going to be resolved because of that.


Yeah, except one side has attempted to be practical about the matter and tried to reduce the number of abortions while simultaneously still supporting its legality. This side has supported funding for access to various forms of contraception and teaching comprehensive sex ed to try to limit the necessity of women have to get abortions.

The other side said "NO!" and opposed contraceptives and sex-ed while still also opposing abortion (the inevitable social consequence when the first two things are not applied). They want to have their cake and eat it too.
 
2014-01-22 06:47:45 PM  
More than half of women who get an abortion already have at least one child.
 
2014-01-22 06:48:12 PM  

hardinparamedic: genner: There's this thing called the vernacular it defines murder as the taking of a human life without just cause.

The just cause is whatever that woman says it is, below the age of awareness and viability.

Your personal discomfort with that fact is not legal jurisdiction to control the bodies of others. Sorry. Not yours.


Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins. If the government can tell me not to beat someone to death with my own fists why can't they tell a woman not to kill a baby with her body?
 
2014-01-22 06:49:50 PM  

genner: Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins. If the government can tell me not to beat someone to death with my own fists why can't they tell a woman not to kill a baby with her body?


Because an embryo and a fetus are not a baby, in any world except your own personal opinion.
 
2014-01-22 06:50:48 PM  

genner: hardinparamedic: genner: There's this thing called the vernacular it defines murder as the taking of a human life without just cause.

The just cause is whatever that woman says it is, below the age of awareness and viability.

Your personal discomfort with that fact is not legal jurisdiction to control the bodies of others. Sorry. Not yours.

Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins. If the government can tell me not to beat someone to death with my own fists why can't they tell a woman not to kill a baby with her body?


What are you going to do? Arrest the pregnant teenager for murder and lock her up for life?
 
2014-01-22 06:50:57 PM  
If people really wanted to stop abortion, they'd focus on advancements in artificial wombs. If you could just suck the thing out and let it gestate in a tube, I don't think it would be a big deal if abortions were outlawed. Of course if every abortion now leads to a new kid being born, you would need massive infrastructure projects and social policies to ensure that these tube babies have a decent shot at life instead of wasting away inside Dickensian orphanages.

So you can have your pro-life utopia, but somebody's going to have to pay for it.
 
2014-01-22 06:51:00 PM  

genner: hardinparamedic: genner: There's this thing called the vernacular it defines murder as the taking of a human life without just cause.

The just cause is whatever that woman says it is, below the age of awareness and viability.

Your personal discomfort with that fact is not legal jurisdiction to control the bodies of others. Sorry. Not yours.

Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins.


Correct. At that point, my right to swing my arms about becomes my right to punch you in the mouth - and by extension, your right to be punched in the mouth by me.
 
2014-01-22 06:52:34 PM  

Wadded Beef: umad: Wadded Beef: umad: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

Men shouldn't have a choice in whether or not the woman aborts. They should have the choice to abort their parental rights and responsibilities though.

If it's the man's kid, it's his kid. They now have parental responsibilities whether they want them or not.

If women can terminate their responsibilites then men should be able to as well. If men can't, then neither should women. I don't care either way, as long as it is equal.

But it's not equal. It's only the women who are forced to carry the meatsacks and should of course have the choice whether to keep it.

As for men, if you've impregnated somebody, guess what: you've already made the choice available to you and that is you unzipped your pants. And you've made the de facto acceptance to the consequences. If she chooses to keep it you're on the hook.

Party responsibly.


That's an unequal sharing of the responsibility. They both unzipped their pants as you put it. And yet she gets a followup opportunity to discard the responsibility, while he does not because as you say, he made his choice(the only one he gets)same as she did, but that's it for him.
 
2014-01-22 06:54:30 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: They both unzipped their pants as you put it. And yet she gets a followup opportunity to discard the responsibility, while he does not because as you say, he made his choice(the only one he gets)same as she did, but that's it for him.


Now that is some straight up thinking.  I mean, wow.  Brain power in action here!  Hope you guys are watching and learning!
 
2014-01-22 06:54:45 PM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: Callous: the_vegetarian_cannibal: jso2897: genner: TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.

If it is murder it's the states business. If it's not it's not. So why do people pretend the argument is about something else?

Why do you pretend that one of the major social debates of our time is only about one thing just because you say, without offering any substantiation, that it is?

Because exploring the details of a complex sociopolitical issue would go against his simple one-liner talking point.

If you look at 99% of posts in abortion threads on any forum it's one liners.

It's about privacy
It's about murder
It's just a clump of cells
It's a living human being

In reality it's a VERY complex sociological issue because different people give different weights to the various aspects of it.  Some believe that a woman's right to privacy trumps all the others.  Some believe that the baby's right to live trumps all others, etc.

It's never really going to be resolved because of that.

Yeah, except one side has attempted to be practical about the matter and tried to reduce the number of abortions while simultaneously still supporting its legality. This side has supported funding for access to various forms of contraception and teaching comprehensive sex ed to try to limit the necessity of women have to get abortions.

The other side said "NO!" and opposed contraceptives and sex-ed while still also opposing abortion (the inevitable social consequence when the first two things are not applied). They want to have their cake and eat it too.


Oh and this is another reason.  Anyone that disagrees with me on this must disagree with me on all things.  You'll get a lot farther into the conversation if you stop bludgeoning people with your preconceived notions about them.
 
2014-01-22 06:56:56 PM  

jso2897: That Guy Jeff: FlashHarry: here's to 4+ decades of empowering progressive women and enraging conservative men.

I'm strictly "pro-choice". But I also despise this inability of people to correctly frame their opponent's arguments and their persistence in misrepresenting their "enemies" motives for their own sides gain.

The conservative dislike of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women. They believe that abortion is killing a human being. They believe it is morally wrong to kill another human being, at least, one that hasn't themselves killed someone. And that's it. That's the sum and the total of their argument. All this "war against women" garbage might make for good fundraising and mobilization and help to get people riled up, but it also makes YOU every bit as sleazy as any other sleazy manipulative liar engaged in the fight. It's every bit as underhanded and disingenuous to say "liberals want to murder babies" as it is to say "conservatives want to control women". That simply isn't either sides motivation.

Here, in case this needs explicit spelling out: One side believes abortion is killing a human being. The other side believes prohibiting abortion unjustly limits the ability of women to control their own bodies. That's it. That's the entirety of the "debate". We would be a lot farther along in a lot more issues if people would stop making up the other side's motivations to capitalize on divisiveness.

Why even care what people's motivations are? I don't care. You want to claim posession my body because you think killing a fetus is murder? I decline to discuss it with you. Your motivations are irrelevant, and I will treat you the same as I would a rapist in an alley who attempts to take posession of my body.*
I agree with you - the "motivation" talk is bullshiat.

* Assuming, for the sake of argument, that I am a woman.


Because you live in a democracy? Again, you're putting words in their mouth. They don't give a flying fark about your body, and they don't want possession of it. All they care about is that you do not murder anyone. That's it.

I actually know some people who are non-religious, non-conservative, and anti-abortion. Their argument is this: there's no reasonable definition of life that applies to a baby that doesn't also apply to a fetus. That means it's every bit as wrong to kill a baby as it is to kill a fetus. There are plenty of places in society where we make tradeoffs in rights for the safety and lives of other people. A woman's right to "control her body" doesn't trump a baby, or fetus', right to live. It is a right, it does exist, it's just overruled by an even more fundamental right.

And you know what? It's compelling argument. I don't happen to subscribe to it, but that's mostly because I don't subscribe to the whole "trading rights to protect the safety and lives of others" argument. But that's definitely not the liberal worldview.
 
2014-01-22 06:57:22 PM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: genner: hardinparamedic: genner: There's this thing called the vernacular it defines murder as the taking of a human life without just cause.

The just cause is whatever that woman says it is, below the age of awareness and viability.

Your personal discomfort with that fact is not legal jurisdiction to control the bodies of others. Sorry. Not yours.

Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins. If the government can tell me not to beat someone to death with my own fists why can't they tell a woman not to kill a baby with her body?

What are you going to do? Arrest the pregnant teenager for murder and lock her up for life?


That kind of law is already on the books.  She could be charged with the same crime someone who kicked her in the stomach and caused a miscarriage would.
 
2014-01-22 06:57:29 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Wadded Beef: umad: Wadded Beef: umad: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

Men shouldn't have a choice in whether or not the woman aborts. They should have the choice to abort their parental rights and responsibilities though.

If it's the man's kid, it's his kid. They now have parental responsibilities whether they want them or not.

If women can terminate their responsibilites then men should be able to as well. If men can't, then neither should women. I don't care either way, as long as it is equal.

But it's not equal. It's only the women who are forced to carry the meatsacks and should of course have the choice whether to keep it.

As for men, if you've impregnated somebody, guess what: you've already made the choice available to you and that is you unzipped your pants. And you've made the de facto acceptance to the consequences. If she chooses to keep it you're on the hook.

Party responsibly.

That's an unequal sharing of the responsibility. They both unzipped their pants as you put it. And yet she gets a followup opportunity to discard the responsibility, while he does not because as you say, he made his choice(the only one he gets)same as she did, but that's it for him.


To take it out of the abstract into the practical. let us say, for the sake of argument, that you are ina  relationship with a woman who says she wants to make babby with you, and you do, and then she chnages her mind. Assuming you have the option to force her to carry it to term and become a mother against her will - is that a wise decision? Seems like a man with any sense would consider himself well out of a bad place.
 
2014-01-22 06:58:01 PM  

genner: hardinparamedic: genner: There's this thing called the vernacular it defines murder as the taking of a human life without just cause.

The just cause is whatever that woman says it is, below the age of awareness and viability.

Your personal discomfort with that fact is not legal jurisdiction to control the bodies of others. Sorry. Not yours.

Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins. If the government can tell me not to beat someone to death with my own fists why can't they tell a woman not to kill a baby with her body?


Because, among other things, saying "Stop, don't do that!" doesn't halt the spontanious abortions (as opposed to the clinic type) that occur far more commonly.

Approximately half of all fertilized eggs die before a woman even knows she is pregnant.  After they do know, the spontanious rate is around 20%.


Laws against abortion won't stop that, but, due to the ignorance of biology of (largely) male, Republican elected officials, it may be criminalized in certain circumstances.
 
2014-01-22 06:58:34 PM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: If abortion is only about killing a human being and not about controlling women's bodies, why do they oppose increased access to contraceptives, which is the easiest and cheapest way to prevent abortions?


Because it's never been about protecting life, it's always been about punishing women for having sex.
 
2014-01-22 06:59:42 PM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: That Guy Jeff: FlashHarry: here's to 4+ decades of empowering progressive women and enraging conservative men.

I'm strictly "pro-choice". But I also despise this inability of people to correctly frame their opponent's arguments and their persistence in misrepresenting their "enemies" motives for their own sides gain.

The conservative dislike of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women. They believe that abortion is killing a human being. They believe it is morally wrong to kill another human being, at least, one that hasn't themselves killed someone. And that's it. That's the sum and the total of their argument. All this "war against women" garbage might make for good fundraising and mobilization and help to get people riled up, but it also makes YOU every bit as sleazy as any other sleazy manipulative liar engaged in the fight. It's every bit as underhanded and disingenuous to say "liberals want to murder babies" as it is to say "conservatives want to control women". That simply isn't either sides motivation.

Here, in case this needs explicit spelling out: One side believes abortion is killing a human being. The other side believes prohibiting abortion unjustly limits the ability of women to control their own bodies. That's it. That's the entirety of the "debate". We would be a lot farther along in a lot more issues if people would stop making up the other side's motivations to capitalize on divisiveness.

Let me ask you a question then.

If abortion is only about killing a human being and not about controlling women's bodies, why do they oppose increased access to contraceptives, which is the easiest and cheapest way to prevent abortions?


Because an entirely separate belief says "sex marriage is bad and you should be doing everything you can to try and keep people from doing it, not making it more consequence free". Yeah, it's a stupid farking belief, but it is theirs. That's one issue they are just going to have to give up. They are a lot closer to coming around on that issue than abortion, and not inflaming the entire pot by making up unflattering positions for them might help make a more civil environment where they come around faster.

Oh wait... by "oppose increased access to contraceptives" do you mean "don't want to be forced to pay for other people's contraceptives"? Because that would be another great example of twisting their position to suit your ends. Hell, I'm pro-choice and I don't want to pay for your stuff either.
 
2014-01-22 06:59:58 PM  

mithras_angel: Laws against abortion won't stop that, but, due to the ignorance of biology of (largely) male, Republican elected officials, it may be criminalized in certain circumstances.


Ignorance of biology?  You should crack open a couple of textbooks and tell me what the life cycle of homo sapiens is again.
 
2014-01-22 07:00:16 PM  
Good headline.
 
2014-01-22 07:00:31 PM  

That Guy Jeff: jso2897: That Guy Jeff: FlashHarry: here's to 4+ decades of empowering progressive women and enraging conservative men.

I'm strictly "pro-choice". But I also despise this inability of people to correctly frame their opponent's arguments and their persistence in misrepresenting their "enemies" motives for their own sides gain.

The conservative dislike of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women. They believe that abortion is killing a human being. They believe it is morally wrong to kill another human being, at least, one that hasn't themselves killed someone. And that's it. That's the sum and the total of their argument. All this "war against women" garbage might make for good fundraising and mobilization and help to get people riled up, but it also makes YOU every bit as sleazy as any other sleazy manipulative liar engaged in the fight. It's every bit as underhanded and disingenuous to say "liberals want to murder babies" as it is to say "conservatives want to control women". That simply isn't either sides motivation.

Here, in case this needs explicit spelling out: One side believes abortion is killing a human being. The other side believes prohibiting abortion unjustly limits the ability of women to control their own bodies. That's it. That's the entirety of the "debate". We would be a lot farther along in a lot more issues if people would stop making up the other side's motivations to capitalize on divisiveness.

Why even care what people's motivations are? I don't care. You want to claim posession my body because you think killing a fetus is murder? I decline to discuss it with you. Your motivations are irrelevant, and I will treat you the same as I would a rapist in an alley who attempts to take posession of my body.*
I agree with you - the "motivation" talk is bullshiat.

* Assuming, for the sake of argument, that I am a woman.

Because you live in a democracy? Again, you're putting words in their mouth. They don't give a flying fark about your body ...


I'm not arguing with you - I am simply pointing out that, were I a woman, I would not even take your opinion into consideration, since it wouldn't concern me in that circumstance any more than it does now.
 
2014-01-22 07:00:36 PM  

Ishkur: the_vegetarian_cannibal: If abortion is only about killing a human being and not about controlling women's bodies, why do they oppose increased access to contraceptives, which is the easiest and cheapest way to prevent abortions?

Because it's never been about protecting life, it's always been about punishing women for having sex.


Hey look, another ridiculous strawman.
 
2014-01-22 07:01:56 PM  

Callous: Oh and this is another reason. Anyone that disagrees with me on this must disagree with me on all things. You'll get a lot farther into the conversation if you stop bludgeoning people with your preconceived notions about them.


No offense, but if you hold the position of opposing abortion while supporting birth control, then you are in the very small minority of the pro-life crowd. You're criticizing the pro-choice position while conveniently leaving out half of the issue. If that really is your position, then the people you should be having the argument with is not pro-choicers but the other more hardline pro-lifers who refuse to compromise on either side of the issue.

You realize that if that was the position they took (opposing abortion due to the sanctity of life but still supporting the mother and finding practical ways to avoid its necessity), the entire "war on women" narrative would lose its teeth.
 
2014-01-22 07:03:11 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Wadded Beef: umad: Wadded Beef: umad: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

Men shouldn't have a choice in whether or not the woman aborts. They should have the choice to abort their parental rights and responsibilities though.

If it's the man's kid, it's his kid. They now have parental responsibilities whether they want them or not.

If women can terminate their responsibilites then men should be able to as well. If men can't, then neither should women. I don't care either way, as long as it is equal.

But it's not equal. It's only the women who are forced to carry the meatsacks and should of course have the choice whether to keep it.

As for men, if you've impregnated somebody, guess what: you've already made the choice available to you and that is you unzipped your pants. And you've made the de facto acceptance to the consequences. If she chooses to keep it you're on the hook.

Party responsibly.

That's an unequal sharing of the responsibility. They both unzipped their pants as you put it. And yet she gets a followup opportunity to discard the responsibility, while he does not because as you say, he made his choice(the only one he gets)same as she did, but that's it for him.


To simplify: since only a woman can carry a fetus it's her choice whether she wants to keep it. Agree?

Is a man not on the hook for the child if he chooses to have sex with her and it leads to pregnancy?

Would not the 'equal' way (as proposed above) give men free reign to spread their seed anywhere/everywhere and not have to assume any responsibility? That's his "equal" viewpoint as I read it.
 
2014-01-22 07:03:48 PM  

Callous: Ishkur: the_vegetarian_cannibal: If abortion is only about killing a human being and not about controlling women's bodies, why do they oppose increased access to contraceptives, which is the easiest and cheapest way to prevent abortions?

Because it's never been about protecting life, it's always been about punishing women for having sex.

Hey look, another ridiculous strawman.


It's more "motivation" talk. Motivations don't matter.
 
2014-01-22 07:05:05 PM  

Callous: Ishkur: the_vegetarian_cannibal: If abortion is only about killing a human being and not about controlling women's bodies, why do they oppose increased access to contraceptives, which is the easiest and cheapest way to prevent abortions?

Because it's never been about protecting life, it's always been about punishing women for having sex.

Hey look, another ridiculous strawman.


It's not a strawman when it's the official platform of one of the two major political parties in this country.
 
2014-01-22 07:08:08 PM  

jso2897: That's an unequal sharing of the responsibility. They both unzipped their pants as you put it. And yet she gets a followup opportunity to discard the responsibility, while he does not because as you say, he made his choice(the only one he gets)same as she did, but that's it for him.

To take it out of the abstract into the practical. let us say, for the sake of argument, that you are ina relationship with a woman who says she wants to make babby with you, and you do, and then she chnages her mind. Assuming you have the option to force her to carry it to term and become a mother against her will - is that a wise decision? Seems like a man with any sense would consider himself well out of a bad place.


That's not the situation I am referring to. It was the OP who posited that the male contributor to a pregnancy only has one opportunity to discard the potential parental responsibility, whereas the female contributor has two, e.g. unintended pregnancy results from two people copulating, if she decides to keep it, he is on the hook and cannot remove himself from the position of responsibility without the mother's consent. If after they concieve and she doesn't want to keep it, she has an additional option to remove herself from the position of responsibility without his approval. I am not arguing that she needs his approval to abort, just that she has more rights of self-determination than he does.
 
2014-01-22 07:08:19 PM  

Molavian: mithras_angel: Laws against abortion won't stop that, but, due to the ignorance of biology of (largely) male, Republican elected officials, it may be criminalized in certain circumstances.

Ignorance of biology?  You should crack open a couple of textbooks and tell me what the life cycle of homo sapiens is again.


Everything I said there is from an NIH government site on miscarriages.


Well, except the bit about Republican politicians being generally ignorant about science.  But that's fairly common knowledge, so I assume it will be accepted.
 
2014-01-22 07:11:05 PM  

That Guy Jeff: The conservative dislike of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women. They believe that abortion is killing a human being. They believe it is morally wrong to kill another human being,


Horseshiat. They have no problems with war adventuring, poverty, starvation, famine, and doing whatever it takes to make socially undesirable people suffer. They certainly don't care about harming others, why would they care about killing others.

Fetuses must be protected at all costs! But 100,000 Iraqi civillians -- fark 'em. They should have gotten out of the way of our missiles faster.
 
2014-01-22 07:11:40 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: jso2897: That's an unequal sharing of the responsibility. They both unzipped their pants as you put it. And yet she gets a followup opportunity to discard the responsibility, while he does not because as you say, he made his choice(the only one he gets)same as she did, but that's it for him.

To take it out of the abstract into the practical. let us say, for the sake of argument, that you are ina relationship with a woman who says she wants to make babby with you, and you do, and then she chnages her mind. Assuming you have the option to force her to carry it to term and become a mother against her will - is that a wise decision? Seems like a man with any sense would consider himself well out of a bad place.

That's not the situation I am referring to. It was the OP who posited that the male contributor to a pregnancy only has one opportunity to discard the potential parental responsibility, whereas the female contributor has two, e.g. unintended pregnancy results from two people copulating, if she decides to keep it, he is on the hook and cannot remove himself from the position of responsibility without the mother's consent. If after they concieve and she doesn't want to keep it, she has an additional option to remove herself from the position of responsibility without his approval. I am not arguing that she needs his approval to abort, just that she has more rights of self-determination than he does.


Yeah - and if she uses that edge to not saddle some poor bastard with a babby she doesn't want, despite the fact that he's stupid enough to object,  said poor bastard should thank Jesus or Allah or Buddha every blinkin' day of his life.
 
2014-01-22 07:14:09 PM  
 
2014-01-22 07:14:22 PM  

Ishkur: That Guy Jeff: The conservative dislike of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women. They believe that abortion is killing a human being. They believe it is morally wrong to kill another human being,

Horseshiat. They have no problems with war adventuring, poverty, starvation, famine, and doing whatever it takes to make socially undesirable people suffer. They certainly don't care about harming others, why would they care about killing others.

Fetuses must be protected at all costs! But 100,000 Iraqi civillians -- fark 'em. They should have gotten out of the way of our missiles faster.


This sis why I stay away from the "motivation" argument. It doesn't matter what their motives are, or whether they are sincere. All that matters is stopping them.
 
2014-01-22 07:15:46 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: jso2897: That's an unequal sharing of the responsibility. They both unzipped their pants as you put it. And yet she gets a followup opportunity to discard the responsibility, while he does not because as you say, he made his choice(the only one he gets)same as she did, but that's it for him.

To take it out of the abstract into the practical. let us say, for the sake of argument, that you are ina relationship with a woman who says she wants to make babby with you, and you do, and then she chnages her mind. Assuming you have the option to force her to carry it to term and become a mother against her will - is that a wise decision? Seems like a man with any sense would consider himself well out of a bad place.

That's not the situation I am referring to. It was the OP who posited that the male contributor to a pregnancy only has one opportunity to discard the potential parental responsibility, whereas the female contributor has two, e.g. unintended pregnancy results from two people copulating, if she decides to keep it, he is on the hook and cannot remove himself from the position of responsibility without the mother's consent. If after they concieve and she doesn't want to keep it, she has an additional option to remove herself from the position of responsibility without his approval. I am not arguing that she needs his approval to abort, just that she has more rights of self-determination than he does.


Who gets pregnant? She does.  Does he?  No.
 
2014-01-22 07:16:08 PM  
If a fetus gets aborted and goes to heaven, is it stuck as a fetus for eternity?

Would they get wings for mobility or just kind of lay there in a heavenly pile?
 
2014-01-22 07:16:50 PM  

jso2897: InterruptingQuirk: jso2897: That's an unequal sharing of the responsibility. They both unzipped their pants as you put it. And yet she gets a followup opportunity to discard the responsibility, while he does not because as you say, he made his choice(the only one he gets)same as she did, but that's it for him.

To take it out of the abstract into the practical. let us say, for the sake of argument, that you are ina relationship with a woman who says she wants to make babby with you, and you do, and then she chnages her mind. Assuming you have the option to force her to carry it to term and become a mother against her will - is that a wise decision? Seems like a man with any sense would consider himself well out of a bad place.

That's not the situation I am referring to. It was the OP who posited that the male contributor to a pregnancy only has one opportunity to discard the potential parental responsibility, whereas the female contributor has two, e.g. unintended pregnancy results from two people copulating, if she decides to keep it, he is on the hook and cannot remove himself from the position of responsibility without the mother's consent. If after they concieve and she doesn't want to keep it, she has an additional option to remove herself from the position of responsibility without his approval. I am not arguing that she needs his approval to abort, just that she has more rights of self-determination than he does.

Yeah - and if she uses that edge to not saddle some poor bastard with a babby she doesn't want, despite the fact that he's stupid enough to object,  said poor bastard should thank Jesus or Allah or Buddha every blinkin' day of his life.


Well, that's one way to look at it. But any thoughts on the unequal rights that I spoke of?
 
2014-01-22 07:17:27 PM  

peacheslatour: InterruptingQuirk: jso2897: That's an unequal sharing of the responsibility. They both unzipped their pants as you put it. And yet she gets a followup opportunity to discard the responsibility, while he does not because as you say, he made his choice(the only one he gets)same as she did, but that's it for him.

To take it out of the abstract into the practical. let us say, for the sake of argument, that you are ina relationship with a woman who says she wants to make babby with you, and you do, and then she chnages her mind. Assuming you have the option to force her to carry it to term and become a mother against her will - is that a wise decision? Seems like a man with any sense would consider himself well out of a bad place.

That's not the situation I am referring to. It was the OP who posited that the male contributor to a pregnancy only has one opportunity to discard the potential parental responsibility, whereas the female contributor has two, e.g. unintended pregnancy results from two people copulating, if she decides to keep it, he is on the hook and cannot remove himself from the position of responsibility without the mother's consent. If after they concieve and she doesn't want to keep it, she has an additional option to remove herself from the position of responsibility without his approval. I am not arguing that she needs his approval to abort, just that she has more rights of self-determination than he does.

Who gets pregnant? She does.  Does he?  No.


That answer means what?
 
2014-01-22 07:19:18 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: And yet, idiots on the Right are passing a law that will make abortion illegal again.


Came to the thread to say "And in another 41 years anti-abortion activists will STILL be trying to overturn Roe-v-Wade."  But I expect it's been said by now.
 
2014-01-22 07:20:14 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: jso2897: InterruptingQuirk: jso2897: That's an unequal sharing of the responsibility. They both unzipped their pants as you put it. And yet she gets a followup opportunity to discard the responsibility, while he does not because as you say, he made his choice(the only one he gets)same as she did, but that's it for him.

To take it out of the abstract into the practical. let us say, for the sake of argument, that you are ina relationship with a woman who says she wants to make babby with you, and you do, and then she chnages her mind. Assuming you have the option to force her to carry it to term and become a mother against her will - is that a wise decision? Seems like a man with any sense would consider himself well out of a bad place.

That's not the situation I am referring to. It was the OP who posited that the male contributor to a pregnancy only has one opportunity to discard the potential parental responsibility, whereas the female contributor has two, e.g. unintended pregnancy results from two people copulating, if she decides to keep it, he is on the hook and cannot remove himself from the position of responsibility without the mother's consent. If after they concieve and she doesn't want to keep it, she has an additional option to remove herself from the position of responsibility without his approval. I am not arguing that she needs his approval to abort, just that she has more rights of self-determination than he does.

Yeah - and if she uses that edge to not saddle some poor bastard with a babby she doesn't want, despite the fact that he's stupid enough to object,  said poor bastard should thank Jesus or Allah or Buddha every blinkin' day of his life.

Well, that's one way to look at it. But any thoughts on the unequal rights that I spoke of?


No.
 
2014-01-22 07:20:45 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: peacheslatour: InterruptingQuirk: jso2897: That's an unequal sharing of the responsibility. They both unzipped their pants as you put it. And yet she gets a followup opportunity to discard the responsibility, while he does not because as you say, he made his choice(the only one he gets)same as she did, but that's it for him.

To take it out of the abstract into the practical. let us say, for the sake of argument, that you are ina relationship with a woman who says she wants to make babby with you, and you do, and then she chnages her mind. Assuming you have the option to force her to carry it to term and become a mother against her will - is that a wise decision? Seems like a man with any sense would consider himself well out of a bad place.

That's not the situation I am referring to. It was the OP who posited that the male contributor to a pregnancy only has one opportunity to discard the potential parental responsibility, whereas the female contributor has two, e.g. unintended pregnancy results from two people copulating, if she decides to keep it, he is on the hook and cannot remove himself from the position of responsibility without the mother's consent. If after they concieve and she doesn't want to keep it, she has an additional option to remove herself from the position of responsibility without his approval. I am not arguing that she needs his approval to abort, just that she has more rights of self-determination than he does.

Who gets pregnant? She does.  Does he?  No.

That answer means what?

 
2014-01-22 07:20:49 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: That answer means what?


The law, in its majestic equality, allows men as well as women to abort their fetuses.
 
2014-01-22 07:22:24 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: InterruptingQuirk: That answer means what?

The law, in its majestic equality, allows men as well as women to abort their fetuses.


Or, alternatively, forbids men as well as women to abort their fetuses. :D
 
2014-01-22 07:23:47 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: InterruptingQuirk: That answer means what?

The law, in its majestic equality, allows men as well as women to abort their fetuses.


The old "gay people can get married, just not to people of the same sex" argument. Awesome.
 
2014-01-22 07:24:46 PM  

mithras_angel: genner: hardinparamedic: genner: There's this thing called the vernacular it defines murder as the taking of a human life without just cause.

The just cause is whatever that woman says it is, below the age of awareness and viability.

Your personal discomfort with that fact is not legal jurisdiction to control the bodies of others. Sorry. Not yours.

Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins. If the government can tell me not to beat someone to death with my own fists why can't they tell a woman not to kill a baby with her body?

Because, among other things, saying "Stop, don't do that!" doesn't halt the spontanious abortions (as opposed to the clinic type) that occur far more commonly.

Approximately half of all fertilized eggs die before a woman even knows she is pregnant.  After they do know, the spontanious rate is around 20%.


Laws against abortion won't stop that, but, due to the ignorance of biology of (largely) male, Republican elected officials, it may be criminalized in certain circumstances.



We could not criminalize  spontaneous abortion, make clinical abortion illegal and elect more women to office
Not all pro life people agree with every single Republican.
 
2014-01-22 07:26:21 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: InterruptingQuirk: That answer means what?

The law, in its majestic equality, allows men as well as women to abort their fetuses.


I'm not talking about the abortion as anything more than a choice to dismiss the parental obligation comparatively to the man's potential choice to do so. Not trying to suggest that he has rights to block her choice to abort. I'm exploring his choice to abort the situation.
 
2014-01-22 07:27:40 PM  
I'd be willing to throw in a free car to any woman who's getting an abortion and also agrees to a tubal ligation.

Every woman should have the right to have sex without fear of pregnancy, after all. And have a car of her own.
 
2014-01-22 07:31:05 PM  

phalamir: EbolaNYC: Whew, I just turned 43.. MADE IT!

I'm 40.  I know my mother wanted me; you will always have to wonder...

;P


I turn 41 next week.

When I was 12 my mother, in a fit of rage because I broke a plate, told me that if abortion had been legal 7 months earlier I would not be here, and I should never forget that.


/that kind of statement sticks with a kid
 
2014-01-22 07:32:34 PM  

genner: We could not criminalize spontaneous abortion, make clinical abortion illegal and elect more women to office
Not all pro life people agree with every single Republican.


Then tell Republicans to stop holding and campaigning on those positions. Like I said above, the pro-life movement in this country would gain alot more support if they made the issue only about the fetus' life and not a whole host of other issues relating to sex and women's reproductive health.
 
2014-01-22 07:32:43 PM  

hardinparamedic: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

And fark you, Sir, as a man who thinks that women have the basic human right to not be forced to be an incubating meatsack for a fetus.


Know how you prevent that?  Birth control.  If you don't want to be an incubating meatsack* for a fetus, then use the diaphragm/pill/NuvaRing/IUD/or whatever works for you.  Problem solved averted.


/*The Incubating Meatsacks would be a good name for a punk-ska band.
 
2014-01-22 07:33:32 PM  

Wadded Beef: umad: Wadded Beef: umad: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

Men shouldn't have a choice in whether or not the woman aborts. They should have the choice to abort their parental rights and responsibilities though.

If it's the man's kid, it's his kid. They now have parental responsibilities whether they want them or not.

If women can terminate their responsibilites then men should be able to as well. If men can't, then neither should women. I don't care either way, as long as it is equal.

But it's not equal. It's only the women who are forced to carry the meatsacks and should of course have the choice whether to keep it.


Then they can have the choice whether they want to support it too. I'm just being pro-choice here.
 
2014-01-22 07:34:05 PM  
Child Murder.
 
2014-01-22 07:35:16 PM  

Phinn: I'd be willing to throw in a free car to any woman who's getting an abortion and also agrees to a tubal ligation.

Every woman should have the right to have sex without fear of pregnancy, after all. And have a car of her own.


See, and that right there is where you jumped the shark. Now I *know* you don't actually believe the steaming piles of derp and fail you're leaving for other people to clean up. Next time try not to overplay your hand so much and you might be able to stretch things out for awhile long. Or you could just find a hobby that *doesn't* exist solely to piss others off in a (likely vain) attempt to make your small and bleakly poinless life feel less soul shattering.
 
2014-01-22 07:35:29 PM  

Phinn: I'd be willing to throw in a free car to any woman who's getting an abortion and also agrees to a tubal ligation.

Every woman should have the right to have sex without fear of pregnancy, after all. And have a car of her own.


I'm conflicted between the crass cynicism of your proposal and the considerable social benefits it would confer.
Some pepole just talk about improving the gene pool.
You, sir, have a plan!
 
2014-01-22 07:35:41 PM  

fat_free: Child Murder.


Bull shiat.
 
2014-01-22 07:35:58 PM  

genner: We could not criminalize spontaneous abortion, make clinical abortion illegal and elect more women to office
Not all pro life people agree with every single Republican.


With the dissolution of all abortion clinics, women would be forced to use alternative methods, which would make every miscarriage a criminal investigation to determine whether or not it was spontaneous. Since women don't begin to show at the very beginning of a pregnancy (and some obese people hardly show at all) there would also need to be a way to determine who is pregnant at any given time so as not to miss any potential criminal abortions. I assume mandatory monthly testing of some sort would need to be put in place and a registry of the pregnant created, since the unborn can't make their situations known.

Then there's the lag time for women who are potentially pregnant but still haven't missed their periods. Something would probably have to be done to ensure that they weren't unwillingly harming their fetus with alcohol or legal drugs, which will now also need to be highly restricted to pregnant women, because the state has an overriding interest in protecting the unborn at the expense of the rights of the mother.
 
2014-01-22 07:36:31 PM  
So long as most of them were white i am ok with it.
 
2014-01-22 07:37:02 PM  
Roe v Wade was not the beginning of women having abortions in America. It was the end of women dying from abortions in America.
 
2014-01-22 07:37:13 PM  
Chicken embryo → Chicken
Elephant embryo → Elephant
Dolphin embryo → Dolphin
Polar Bear embryo → Polar Bear
Spotted Owl embryo → Spotted Owl
Human embryo → Human
 
2014-01-22 07:37:46 PM  

fat_free: Child Murder.


Third Eye.
Mystery Achievment.
Hostile Environment.
Macular Degeneration.
Moss-covered Gredunza.
 
2014-01-22 07:38:54 PM  

BobCumbers: So long as most of them were white i am ok with it.


Total, yes. By proportion of population, no.
 
2014-01-22 07:41:12 PM  

Wadded Beef: InterruptingQuirk: Wadded Beef: umad: Wadded Beef: umad: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

Men shouldn't have a choice in whether or not the woman aborts. They should have the choice to abort their parental rights and responsibilities though.

If it's the man's kid, it's his kid. They now have parental responsibilities whether they want them or not.

If women can terminate their responsibilites then men should be able to as well. If men can't, then neither should women. I don't care either way, as long as it is equal.

But it's not equal. It's only the women who are forced to carry the meatsacks and should of course have the choice whether to keep it.

As for men, if you've impregnated somebody, guess what: you've already made the choice available to you and that is you unzipped your pants. And you've made the de facto acceptance to the consequences. If she chooses to keep it you're on the hook.

Party responsibly.

That's an unequal sharing of the responsibility. They both unzipped their pants as you put it. And yet she gets a followup opportunity to discard the responsibility, while he does not because as you say, he made his choice(the only one he gets)same as she did, but that's it for him.

To simplify: since only a woman can carry a fetus it's her choice whether she wants to keep it. Agree?

Is a man not on the hook for the child if he chooses to have sex with her and it leads to pregnancy?

Would not the 'equal' way (as proposed above) give men free reign to spread their seed anywhere/everywhere and not have to assume any responsibility? That's his "equal" viewpoint as I read it.


Your idiotic argument precludes the concept of birth control.

Which, since only a woman can have a child, is the woman's problem.
 
2014-01-22 07:41:49 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: InterruptingQuirk: That answer means what?

The law, in its majestic equality, allows men as well as women to abort their fetuses.


"Anybody can get married, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex."
 
2014-01-22 07:43:29 PM  

Ishkur: the_vegetarian_cannibal: If abortion is only about killing a human being and not about controlling women's bodies, why do they oppose increased access to contraceptives, which is the easiest and cheapest way to prevent abortions?

Because it's never been about protecting life, it's always been about punishing women for having sex.


QFT
 
2014-01-22 07:44:00 PM  
Excellent headline BTW subby
 
2014-01-22 07:46:51 PM  

genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.


Let's test pro-life 'morals.'  If abortion is murder, then quit this nickel-and-dime chipping away at legal abortion like a bunch of Christian pussies and legislate it as murder already.  Next, come arrest ALL of us who've had one.  Arrest ALL the millions of girls, women, mothers, daughters, sisters and wives; Christians and non, for MURDER.

Let's just see just how fast abortion is no longer 'murder'.
 
2014-01-22 07:49:06 PM  
IIRC Mary Roe actually did give birth to the baby in question, and I think gave the kid up for adoption, so headline is more apt than subby gave it credit for.
 
2014-01-22 07:50:52 PM  

OooShiny: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Let's test pro-life 'morals.'  If abortion is murder, then quit this nickel-and-dime chipping away at legal abortion like a bunch of Christian pussies and legislate it as murder already.  Next, come arrest ALL of us who've had one.  Arrest ALL the millions of girls, women, mothers, daughters, sisters and wives; Christians and non, for MURDER.

Let's just see just how fast abortion is no longer 'murder'.


There are other people who have different opinions on the matter who wont pass said legislation in the Congress. Your test is impossible to conduct.
 
2014-01-22 07:55:22 PM  

IM4Liberty: 55 million people lost to a socialist, eugenics experiment (killed by their mothers in many cases, no less). Social Security and other Federal entitlement programs are going backrupt because, in part, these folks aren't available to contribute to these political slush funds. Coincidence? I think it's possible.

This might be an anniversary of horror; it's certainly not a birthday to celebrate.


That number could have been higher without Roe V. Wade, because their mothers might have sought back-alley abortions that killed them as well.  The impact on entitlements is probably positive because those babies would have been born disproportionately to poor, less educated women, and statistically likely to become "takers" instead of "makers", in the parlance of the Romney campaign.
 
2014-01-22 07:59:35 PM  

OooShiny: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Let's test pro-life 'morals.'  If abortion is murder, then quit this nickel-and-dime chipping away at legal abortion like a bunch of Christian pussies and legislate it as murder already.  Next, come arrest ALL of us who've had one.  Arrest ALL the millions of girls, women, mothers, daughters, sisters and wives; Christians and non, for MURDER.

Let's just see just how fast abortion is no longer 'murder'.


It is interesting that more people who make that claim haven't introduced legislation to have abortion treated as homicide.  Instead, just an ever increasing layer of inconveniences, indignities, and artificial expenses.
It is almost as if they wished to make it difficult for the poor and powerless to get abortions, but keep the option open for those who posess wealth.
 
2014-01-22 07:59:37 PM  

jso2897: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

Keep your dick in your pants in the presence of untrustworthy women in future. You just dodged a 16" artillary shell, and you should be thanking Jesus every day.


Word. Substitute "Lucky Stars" for Jesus and we are good.
 
2014-01-22 07:59:54 PM  

Arkanaut: IIRC Mary Roe actually did give birth to the baby in question, and I think gave the kid up for adoption, so headline is more apt than subby gave it credit for.


She's also pro-life and wants abortion outlawed.

From wikipedia:

Norma McCorvey became a member of the pro-life movement in 1995; she now supports making abortion illegal. In 1998, she testified to Congress:

"It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible." Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes. "
 
2014-01-22 08:00:22 PM  

jso2897: Phinn: I'd be willing to throw in a free car to any woman who's getting an abortion and also agrees to a tubal ligation.

Every woman should have the right to have sex without fear of pregnancy, after all. And have a car of her own.

I'm conflicted between the crass cynicism of your proposal and the considerable social benefits it would confer.
Some pepole just talk about improving the gene pool.
You, sir, have a plan!


Excuse me, but why are we waiting until the woman is pregnant before offering her presents in exchange for sterilization?  That needs to be available to ANY woman -and man, also - starting at the age of consent.  Heck, give a childless person a bonus of some sort if they are child free and opt for sterilization.  Double food stamps if you're child free and sterilized!
 
2014-01-22 08:01:09 PM  

jso2897: OooShiny: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Let's test pro-life 'morals.'  If abortion is murder, then quit this nickel-and-dime chipping away at legal abortion like a bunch of Christian pussies and legislate it as murder already.  Next, come arrest ALL of us who've had one.  Arrest ALL the millions of girls, women, mothers, daughters, sisters and wives; Christians and non, for MURDER.

Let's just see just how fast abortion is no longer 'murder'.

It is interesting that more people who make that claim haven't introduced legislation to have abortion treated as homicide.  Instead, just an ever increasing layer of inconveniences, indignities, and artificial expenses.
It is almost as if they wished to make it difficult for the poor and powerless to get abortions, but keep the option open for those who posess wealth.


Just like gun control.
 
2014-01-22 08:01:24 PM  

Endive Wombat: I read something a while back discussing how the democratic party/liberals have effectively eliminated 35-50+ million people from their voting base because of abortion.  The argument that was being made/based on is the idea that liberals have a tendency to have abortions more than conservatives...so aborting their kids = elimination of their voter base.

Not sure how accurate this speculation is, but interesting to think about nonetheless.


Interesting to think about, but isn't it fairly common for children to often adopt the opposite political viewpoint from their parents?
 
2014-01-22 08:01:25 PM  

GlamrLama: jso2897: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

Keep your dick in your pants in the presence of untrustworthy women in future. You just dodged a 16" artillary shell, and you should be thanking Jesus every day.

Word. Substitute "Lucky Stars" for Jesus and we are good.


When I emphasized the point later in the thread, I was careful to include a few different faiths. I'm all about that shiat.
 
2014-01-22 08:02:25 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: OooShiny: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Let's test pro-life 'morals.'  If abortion is murder, then quit this nickel-and-dime chipping away at legal abortion like a bunch of Christian pussies and legislate it as murder already.  Next, come arrest ALL of us who've had one.  Arrest ALL the millions of girls, women, mothers, daughters, sisters and wives; Christians and non, for MURDER.

Let's just see just how fast abortion is no longer 'murder'.

There are other people who have different opinions on the matter who wont pass said legislation in the Congress. Your test is impossible to conduct.


Then why even bothering having the debate on whether or not to legally define abortion as murder?
 
2014-01-22 08:03:30 PM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: InterruptingQuirk: OooShiny: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Let's test pro-life 'morals.'  If abortion is murder, then quit this nickel-and-dime chipping away at legal abortion like a bunch of Christian pussies and legislate it as murder already.  Next, come arrest ALL of us who've had one.  Arrest ALL the millions of girls, women, mothers, daughters, sisters and wives; Christians and non, for MURDER.

Let's just see just how fast abortion is no longer 'murder'.

There are other people who have different opinions on the matter who wont pass said legislation in the Congress. Your test is impossible to conduct.

Then why even bothering having the debate on whether or not to legally define abortion as murder?


I'm not having it. I was just addressing the ridiculous hypothetical they posited.
 
2014-01-22 08:04:26 PM  

DubtodaIll: Endive Wombat: I read something a while back discussing how the democratic party/liberals have effectively eliminated 35-50+ million people from their voting base because of abortion.  The argument that was being made/based on is the idea that liberals have a tendency to have abortions more than conservatives...so aborting their kids = elimination of their voter base.

Not sure how accurate this speculation is, but interesting to think about nonetheless.

Interesting to think about, but isn't it fairly common for children to often adopt the opposite political viewpoint from their parents?



Someone posted a link earlier, something like 70% of children have the same political views as their parents.
 
2014-01-22 08:04:39 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Well, that's one way to look at it. But any thoughts on the unequal rights that I spoke of?



Parental rights and responsibilities pertain to children. These rules are all about the interests of the child. The child exists, it has needs. The relevant laws should apply equally to parents of both sexes so far as possible.

Abortion rights, from the pro-choice point of view, are essentially about the pregnant person's right to control the pregnancy. As a function of biology rather than law, the pregnant person is always female, so it is nonsensical to talk about men having rights in this area, "unequal" or otherwise. (And from the anti-abortion point of view, the question is moot because the state has control of the pregnancy.)
 
2014-01-22 08:05:15 PM  

Callous: jso2897: OooShiny: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Let's test pro-life 'morals.'  If abortion is murder, then quit this nickel-and-dime chipping away at legal abortion like a bunch of Christian pussies and legislate it as murder already.  Next, come arrest ALL of us who've had one.  Arrest ALL the millions of girls, women, mothers, daughters, sisters and wives; Christians and non, for MURDER.

Let's just see just how fast abortion is no longer 'murder'.

It is interesting that more people who make that claim haven't introduced legislation to have abortion treated as homicide.  Instead, just an ever increasing layer of inconveniences, indignities, and artificial expenses.
It is almost as if they wished to make it difficult for the poor and powerless to get abortions, but keep the option open for those who posess wealth.

Just like gun control.


Back in the Jim Crow days, in some places there were carefully tailored laws designed to accomplish just that, not by collateral effect, but by design.
 
2014-01-22 08:05:27 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: I was just addressing the ridiculous hypothetical they posited.


You forgot to mention "ex post facto."
 
2014-01-22 08:06:19 PM  

GlamrLama: jso2897: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

Keep your dick in your pants in the presence of untrustworthy women in future. You just dodged a 16" artillary shell, and you should be thanking Jesus every day.

Word. Substitute "Lucky Stars" for Jesus and we are good.


"I don't care about my potential children so nobody else should either."
 
2014-01-22 08:08:09 PM  

jso2897: Ishkur: That Guy Jeff: The conservative dislike of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women. They believe that abortion is killing a human being. They believe it is morally wrong to kill another human being,

Horseshiat. They have no problems with war adventuring, poverty, starvation, famine, and doing whatever it takes to make socially undesirable people suffer. They certainly don't care about harming others, why would they care about killing others.

Fetuses must be protected at all costs! But 100,000 Iraqi civillians -- fark 'em. They should have gotten out of the way of our missiles faster.

This sis why I stay away from the "motivation" argument. It doesn't matter what their motives are, or whether they are sincere. All that matters is stopping them.


Hmm. Imagine a world where everyone took such a libertarian approach to rights. "We thinks guns are killing people and want to talk about ways to restrict them. TOUGH CRAP, DOESN'T MATTER, MY RIGHT." "We think the chemicals you're adding to this product might kill people. TOUGH CRAP DOESN'T MATTER, MY RIGHT" "We think strip mining on that piece of land might be --- DOESN'T MATTER, MY RIGHT!"

Take a step back for a minute. Let's pretend, just for a moment, that there's a possibility, however slight, that a fetus is a living human being, and that the debate is whether or not one living human being's right to live is more important than another human being's rights over their body. That's probably a debate worth having, and it's probably not one that's easily finalized, and it's probably one that's going to continue to be going on for a long, long time as attitudes, beliefs, and medical science are constantly adjusted. Now, if the debate is "can the evil religious Patriarchy (and the women who also make up this group) control women's bodies or not?", that debate probably wouldn't last very long. It wouldn't be NEARLY as contentious as the whole "killing human beings" debate, no?

I get it. It's important to have absolute control over your own body. I'm right there with you. I'm not only pro-choice, but I'm pro-legalize everything: your body, you can put what you want in it. I'm pro-suicide: your life, you can do what you want with it. I'm pro-gay: your body, you can put who you want in it :D. But I can at least recognize that not everyone that I have to live with in this democracy is quite as... "libertarian" as I am, and that when it comes to what people believe is murdering innocent babies there just might be a need to work with them. And for liberal peeps instead of libertarian, there should DEFINITELY be an acknowledgment that rights are given up all the time in the interest of the health and lives of other people and that making this particular instance super-special-no-debate-no-way would be ideologically inconsistent.
 
2014-01-22 08:08:25 PM  

umad: GlamrLama: jso2897: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

Keep your dick in your pants in the presence of untrustworthy women in future. You just dodged a 16" artillary shell, and you should be thanking Jesus every day.

Word. Substitute "Lucky Stars" for Jesus and we are good.

"I don't care about my potential children so nobody else should either."


Care about what you like.
 
2014-01-22 08:09:07 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: InterruptingQuirk: Well, that's one way to look at it. But any thoughts on the unequal rights that I spoke of?


Parental rights and responsibilities pertain to children. These rules are all about the interests of the child. The child exists, it has needs. The relevant laws should apply equally to parents of both sexes so far as possible.

Abortion rights, from the pro-choice point of view, are essentially about the pregnant person's right to control the pregnancy. As a function of biology rather than law, the pregnant person is always female, so it is nonsensical to talk about men having rights in this area, "unequal" or otherwise. (And from the anti-abortion point of view, the question is moot because the state has control of the pregnancy.)


Horseshiat. If the argument against men having the right to "abort" their parental responsibilities is "keep it zipped up if you don't want to take responsibility for your choices" then my argument to pro-choice women is "keep it zipped up if you don't want to take responsibility for your choices."
 
2014-01-22 08:10:35 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: InterruptingQuirk: Well, that's one way to look at it. But any thoughts on the unequal rights that I spoke of?


Parental rights and responsibilities pertain to children. These rules are all about the interests of the child. The child exists, it has needs. The relevant laws should apply equally to parents of both sexes so far as possible.

Abortion rights, from the pro-choice point of view, are essentially about the pregnant person's right to control the pregnancy. As a function of biology rather than law, the pregnant person is always female, so it is nonsensical to talk about men having rights in this area, "unequal" or otherwise. (And from the anti-abortion point of view, the question is moot because the state has control of the pregnancy.)


Again, I'm not suggesting that he should have a say in whether or not she gets an abortion. What I'm saying is that she has two opportunities to make up her mind, whereas he has only one. He had sex with her and she is now pregnant, he is obligated if she chooses to keep it. She had sex and is pregnant, she now gets to make a choice that affects him too as he has no choice to not have the kid. Again, I'm not suggesting that he should have a say in whether or not she gets an abortion. This is about his choice following intercourse and the resultant conception where she has an additional choice that he does not have.
 
2014-01-22 08:11:06 PM  

jso2897: umad: GlamrLama: jso2897: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

Keep your dick in your pants in the presence of untrustworthy women in future. You just dodged a 16" artillary shell, and you should be thanking Jesus every day.

Word. Substitute "Lucky Stars" for Jesus and we are good.

"I don't care about my potential children so nobody else should either."

Care about what you like.


No shiat. Thank your lucky stars if you like, but other people don't feel the same way.
 
2014-01-22 08:14:11 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: InterruptingQuirk: Well, that's one way to look at it. But any thoughts on the unequal rights that I spoke of?


Parental rights and responsibilities pertain to children. These rules are all about the interests of the child. The child exists, it has needs. The relevant laws should apply equally to parents of both sexes so far as possible.

Abortion rights, from the pro-choice point of view, are essentially about the pregnant person's right to control the pregnancy. As a function of biology rather than law, the pregnant person is always female, so it is nonsensical to talk about men having rights in this area, "unequal" or otherwise. (And from the anti-abortion point of view, the question is moot because the state has control of the pregnancy.)

Again, I'm not suggesting that he should have a say in whether or not she gets an abortion. What I'm saying is that she has two opportunities to make up her mind, whereas he has only one. He had sex with her and she is now pregnant, he is obligated if she chooses to keep it. She had sex and is pregnant, she now gets to make a choice that affects him too as he has no choice to not have the kid. Again, I'm not suggesting that he should have a say in whether or not she gets an abortion. This is about his choice following intercourse and the resultant conception where she has an additional choice that he does not have.


If she wants to carry the child but doesn't like the idea of raising it without the father's help, she could also have it adopted.  Man pays no support, woman doesn't care because she's not shackled to the kid, either.  Your idea encourages adoption, which is great!
 
2014-01-22 08:15:28 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: As a function of biology rather than law, the pregnant person is always female, so it is nonsensical to talk about men having rights in this area, "unequal" or otherwise


Men make up some ground on the rights tally with additional rights to testicular and prostate cancer treatments.

But then women are back in the race with assorted ovarian-related diseases.

I'd have to look up a list of gender-related diseases to get a final score on who has more rights.
 
2014-01-22 08:16:07 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

It's not. Murder is defined as an unlawful killing; if it is done within the bounds of the law, it isn't murder.


ArcadianRefugee: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

It's not. Murder is defined as an unlawful killing; if it is done within the bounds of the law, it isn't murder.

Bush isn't a murder, with that logic!
 
2014-01-22 08:18:20 PM  

another cultural observer: InterruptingQuirk: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: InterruptingQuirk: Well, that's one way to look at it. But any thoughts on the unequal rights that I spoke of?


Parental rights and responsibilities pertain to children. These rules are all about the interests of the child. The child exists, it has needs. The relevant laws should apply equally to parents of both sexes so far as possible.

Abortion rights, from the pro-choice point of view, are essentially about the pregnant person's right to control the pregnancy. As a function of biology rather than law, the pregnant person is always female, so it is nonsensical to talk about men having rights in this area, "unequal" or otherwise. (And from the anti-abortion point of view, the question is moot because the state has control of the pregnancy.)

Again, I'm not suggesting that he should have a say in whether or not she gets an abortion. What I'm saying is that she has two opportunities to make up her mind, whereas he has only one. He had sex with her and she is now pregnant, he is obligated if she chooses to keep it. She had sex and is pregnant, she now gets to make a choice that affects him too as he has no choice to not have the kid. Again, I'm not suggesting that he should have a say in whether or not she gets an abortion. This is about his choice following intercourse and the resultant conception where she has an additional choice that he does not have.

If she wants to carry the child but doesn't like the idea of raising it without the father's help, she could also have it adopted.  Man pays no support, woman doesn't care because she's not shackled to the kid, either.  Your idea encourages adoption, which is great!


I'm not assuming anything about what the mother wants to do after birth. Those are motivators, and as some have pointed out, they don't matter to the argument of choice. What I'm talking about is her power over the man with the choices she makes, i.e. she wants to raise it with the father's help and because he fathered it, he is now obligated with no recourse to get out of that situation as she had available to her.
 
2014-01-22 08:18:56 PM  

That Guy Jeff: jso2897: Ishkur: That Guy Jeff: The conservative dislike of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women. They believe that abortion is killing a human being. They believe it is morally wrong to kill another human being,

Horseshiat. They have no problems with war adventuring, poverty, starvation, famine, and doing whatever it takes to make socially undesirable people suffer. They certainly don't care about harming others, why would they care about killing others.

Fetuses must be protected at all costs! But 100,000 Iraqi civillians -- fark 'em. They should have gotten out of the way of our missiles faster.

This sis why I stay away from the "motivation" argument. It doesn't matter what their motives are, or whether they are sincere. All that matters is stopping them.

Hmm. Imagine a world where everyone took such a libertarian approach to rights. "We thinks guns are killing people and want to talk about ways to restrict them. TOUGH CRAP, DOESN'T MATTER, MY RIGHT." "We think the chemicals you're adding to this product might kill people. TOUGH CRAP DOESN'T MATTER, MY RIGHT" "We think strip mining on that piece of land might be --- DOESN'T MATTER, MY RIGHT!"

Take a step back for a minute. Let's pretend, just for a moment, that there's a possibility, however slight, that a fetus is a living human being, and that the debate is whether or not one living human being's right to live is more important than another human being's rights over their body. That's probably a debate worth having, and it's probably not one that's easily finalized, and it's probably one that's going to continue to be going on for a long, long time as attitudes, beliefs, and medical science are constantly adjusted. Now, if the debate is "can the evil religious Patriarchy (and the women who also make up this group) control women's bodies or not?", that debate probably wouldn't last very long. It wouldn't be NEARLY as contentious as the whole "killing human beings" debate, no?

I get it. It's impo ...


I don't know what you think you are debating with whom. If you wish to hold the view that a fetus has an absolute right to life, and that removing it is murder, you are free to hold that view. I am only pointing out that if I were a pregnant woman, I would not be taking your view into consideration, no matter how long, loudly, and passionately you may advocate for it.
I don't know what you seem to find confusing about that.
The issue of whether aborting a fetus appears to me to be a metaphysical question - I don't see science providing us with an answer to it. and frankly, as a man, I can't say that I have given the issue the deep moral scrutiny I might give an issue upon which I will ever be called upon to decide. Call me intellectually lazy, but i haven't been able to work out all the moral dilemmas that deirectly involve me in this life - and I'm not about to start on other people's.
it seems to me that if someone believes abortion to be homicide, they should advance legislation to treat it as such, instead of erecting an endless set of inconveniences that only affect poor women. But they don't. Maybe you  can explain that to me before you ask me any more questions?
 
2014-01-22 08:18:57 PM  

Loadmaster: Chicken embryo → Chicken
Elephant embryo → Elephant
Dolphin embryo → Dolphin
Polar Bear embryo → Polar Bear
Spotted Owl embryo → Spotted Owl
Human embryo → Human Clump of cells


Whoa, get the party line straight or they'll make fun of you.
 
2014-01-22 08:19:09 PM  
Anyone who is truly against abortion would be pro-contraception and pro-sexual education as these are hands-down, by far the most effective ways to reduce abortions.

All the pro-lifers who are also against these are just trying to use the state to push their religion on others which is illegal.

All the pro-lifers that force mothers to carry unwanted fetuses to term but then do nothing to help support the actual children are liars and scumbags.
 
2014-01-22 08:20:17 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: TheShavingofOccam123: you'd be surprised at the number of GOP women and daughters who fly off to Tucson and other places around the country for simple procedures

THEIR abortion is different from all those other whores out there getting abortions.  And you can bet they'll be back at the clinic the next day, protesting the procedure they just had.


The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion: When the Anti-Choice Choose

There's also  My Abortion Was Different: Why Women Shame and Blame Each Other, but it's not quite as interesting to read.
 
2014-01-22 08:22:00 PM  

umad: jso2897: umad: GlamrLama: jso2897: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

Keep your dick in your pants in the presence of untrustworthy women in future. You just dodged a 16" artillary shell, and you should be thanking Jesus every day.

Word. Substitute "Lucky Stars" for Jesus and we are good.

"I don't care about my potential children so nobody else should either."

Care about what you like.

No shiat. Thank your lucky stars if you like, but other people don't feel the same way.


Fine. Let them feel however they want to feel.
 
2014-01-22 08:23:04 PM  

ciberido: Marcus Aurelius: TheShavingofOccam123: you'd be surprised at the number of GOP women and daughters who fly off to Tucson and other places around the country for simple procedures

THEIR abortion is different from all those other whores out there getting abortions.  And you can bet they'll be back at the clinic the next day, protesting the procedure they just had.

The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion: When the Anti-Choice Choose

There's also  My Abortion Was Different: Why Women Shame and Blame Each Other, but it's not quite as interesting to read.


It's about women.  Duh.
 
2014-01-22 08:23:07 PM  
55 Million babies have been killed since Roe V Wade.

Let's take a shot for each one! :D
 
2014-01-22 08:23:08 PM  

jso2897: it seems to me that if someone believes abortion to be homicide, they should advance legislation to treat it as such, instead of erecting an endless set of inconveniences that only affect poor women. But they don't.


Playing devil's advocate here. It used to be considered ~homicide and then a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that has been upheld a number of times said it isn't. I don't think they have the realistic option anymore to propose such a bill.
 
2014-01-22 08:25:26 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: jso2897: it seems to me that if someone believes abortion to be homicide, they should advance legislation to treat it as such, instead of erecting an endless set of inconveniences that only affect poor women. But they don't.

Playing devil's advocate here. It used to be considered ~homicide and then a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that has been upheld a number of times said it isn't. I don't think they have the realistic option anymore to propose such a bill.


It was never treated as homicide under the law. It was unlawful - it was not classified as homicide. Not in my state, or any that i know of anyway.
 
2014-01-22 08:27:45 PM  

jso2897: InterruptingQuirk: jso2897: it seems to me that if someone believes abortion to be homicide, they should advance legislation to treat it as such, instead of erecting an endless set of inconveniences that only affect poor women. But they don't.

Playing devil's advocate here. It used to be considered ~homicide and then a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that has been upheld a number of times said it isn't. I don't think they have the realistic option anymore to propose such a bill.

It was never treated as homicide under the law. It was unlawful - it was not classified as homicide. Not in my state, or any that i know of anyway.


It was even legal in some states.  More, if life of the mother was at risk.
 
2014-01-22 08:28:25 PM  

That Guy Jeff: The conservative dislike of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women. They believe that abortion is killing a human being. They believe it is morally wrong to kill another human being, at least, one that hasn't themselves killed someone. And that's it.


You missed the part where, in their mad defense of the "person" they think is inside the woman, they choose to forget that the *woman* is a *person* too. It has everything to do with women.
 
2014-01-22 08:28:28 PM  

jso2897: InterruptingQuirk: jso2897: it seems to me that if someone believes abortion to be homicide, they should advance legislation to treat it as such, instead of erecting an endless set of inconveniences that only affect poor women. But they don't.

Playing devil's advocate here. It used to be considered ~homicide and then a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that has been upheld a number of times said it isn't. I don't think they have the realistic option anymore to propose such a bill.

It was never treated as homicide under the law. It was unlawful - it was not classified as homicide. Not in my state, or any that i know of anyway.


Fair enough. Before my time. Fair to say that it was considered illegal and now it's legally protected ?right?. Either way, they would have no chance with that law, considering both the makeup of Congress and all the Supreme Court has had to say about the matter.
 
2014-01-22 08:28:43 PM  
whatscookingamerica.net

Fetus or human.  Delicious as all get out.
 
2014-01-22 08:29:15 PM  
Arkanaut:

it seems to me that if someone believes abortion to be homicide, they should advance legislation to treat it as such, instead of erecting an endless set of inconveniences that only affect poor women. But they don't. Maybe you  can explain that to me before you ask me any more questions?

Because the highest court in the land closed that avenue and so they desperately grasp at whatever methods they can to try and stop what they believe to be the state sanctioned murders of millions of people.

If YOU honestly believed that people were being murdered, and the state was legally prevented from stopping it, wouldn't you try everything to get around that block? I can't really blame for coming up with so many stupid ways to try and stop what they see as a baby holocaust. The fact that money can easily buy your way out of most problems or roadblocks in life doesn't mean they are targeting the poor, it just means the rich can get out of things a lot easier. Just about ANY law can be described as "... that only affect poor ____."
 
2014-01-22 08:29:48 PM  

Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.


There's more to this story that you're going to refuse to give to us because it's going to turn out to make you look bad, so really just fark you for thinking you should have a say.
 
2014-01-22 08:32:39 PM  
Anywho, the women's rights have been foundationally settled. By that I mean that they have a right to independently decide to have an abortion, providing they can overcome all the obstacles put in their way.

What about the men's rights? I know that may seem like a silly question being put forth in this patriarchal society, but the one I spoke of is unequal in my mind. I know that the situation is unequal in that the woman is the one who gets pregnant, but she has been given recourse in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, the man has not.
 
2014-01-22 08:33:11 PM  

genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.


Callous: Either it's a living human being or it isn't.  Where it's physically located shouldn't be the issue.


I don't usually link to my own blog (and I certainly don't plan on making a habit of it), but I've already gone over why this is both  wrong and  over-simplified on it,  and I really don't want to do another GWOT today (even if it would be a [possibly reworded] cut'n'paste), so go there.
 
2014-01-22 08:33:14 PM  
The more I think about it, the more I wonder.
Why DON'T all these pro-life activists that are running aroundsaying that abortion is murder submit bills to make it so under the law?
Such laws might even be constitutional - Roe v. Wade merely overturned a law that discreetly banned abortion as a statutory act.
If abortion were reclassified as a homicide, there is no guarantee that Roe V. Wade would protect it. They could at least take their shot in the courts.
So why don't they do it?
I suspect that in the answer to that, lies the truth about the pro-life movement.
 
2014-01-22 08:33:46 PM  
I've been listening to this argument for decades.  In the end, it seems that some people think they have the right to force others to reproduce against their will.

That is slavery.  Plain and simple.

Game over.
 
2014-01-22 08:34:30 PM  
Never underestimate the eagerness of Fark posters to turn a thread about abortion into a thread about the rights of men.
 
2014-01-22 08:34:47 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: If people really wanted to stop abortion, they'd focus on advancements in artificial wombs. If you could just suck the thing out and let it gestate in a tube, I don't think it would be a big deal if abortions were outlawed. Of course if every abortion now leads to a new kid being born, you would need massive infrastructure projects and social policies to ensure that these tube babies have a decent shot at life instead of wasting away inside Dickensian orphanages.

So you can have your pro-life utopia, but somebody's going to have to pay for it.


Even with artificial wombs, I wouldn't want a child of my own brought into this world. Period. Abortion would still have to be on the table.
 
2014-01-22 08:37:25 PM  

jso2897: The more I think about it, the more I wonder.
Why DON'T all these pro-life activists that are running aroundsaying that abortion is murder submit bills to make it so under the law?
Such laws might even be constitutional - Roe v. Wade merely overturned a law that discreetly banned abortion as a statutory act.
If abortion were reclassified as a homicide, there is no guarantee that Roe V. Wade would protect it. They could at least take their shot in the courts.
So why don't they do it?
I suspect that in the answer to that, lies the truth about the pro-life movement.


They would have to get the bill made into a law before it could be challenged in the courts, yes?
 
2014-01-22 08:37:27 PM  

That Guy Jeff: Because you live in a democracy? Again, you're putting words in their mouth. They don't give a flying fark about your body, and they don't want possession of it. All they care about is that you do not murder anyone. That's it.


They're still hypocrites then, because what they're advocating is putting more lives into danger because their sole focus is just on one itty bitty little part of the picture.

They care about the fetuses. We get that. They need to take that sight, look around a bit, and realize that women really are people too, and hell, we're people long before the zygote or fetus ever even gets that far.

Their beliefs about what life is or isn't should not trump what another person may legally do with her own body. Period.
 
2014-01-22 08:38:26 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Anywho, the women's rights have been foundationally settled. By that I mean that they have a right to independently decide to have an abortion, providing they can overcome all the obstacles put in their way.

What about the men's rights? I know that may seem like a silly question being put forth in this patriarchal society, but the one I spoke of is unequal in my mind. I know that the situation is unequal in that the woman is the one who gets pregnant, but she has been given recourse in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, the man has not.


There are no silly questions - only silly people who think they are too smart to ask questions. As far as your question, you'd have to be specific as to what "rights" you think a man might have vis a vis a pregnancy. i don't know if I can answer it at all, and certainly not as asked.
 
2014-01-22 08:38:30 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Never underestimate the eagerness of Fark posters to turn a thread about abortion into a thread about the rights of men.


Is there any reasonable question about the rights of women on this issue that which should bear considering?
 
2014-01-22 08:39:09 PM  

Galileo's Daughter: hardinparamedic: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

And fark you, Sir, as a man who thinks that women have the basic human right to not be forced to be an incubating meatsack for a fetus.

Know how you prevent that?  Birth control.  If you don't want to be an incubating meatsack* for a fetus, then use the diaphragm/pill/NuvaRing/IUD/or whatever works for you.  Problem solved averted.


/*The Incubating Meatsacks would be a good name for a punk-ska band.


And when the diaphragm/pill/NuvaRing/IUD/or whatever happens to fail, as all birth control is wont to do? Would you be smugly advocating that people just keep it in their pants?
 
2014-01-22 08:39:25 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Never underestimate the eagerness of Fark posters to turn a thread about abortion into a thread about the rights of men.


We must never forget the REAL victims of inequality in America.
 
2014-01-22 08:39:58 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: That Guy Jeff: The conservative dislike of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women. They believe that abortion is killing a human being. They believe it is morally wrong to kill another human being, at least, one that hasn't themselves killed someone. And that's it.

You missed the part where, in their mad defense of the "person" they think is inside the woman, they choose to forget that the *woman* is a *person* too. It has everything to do with women.


No, they just prioritize "right to live" over "right to control your own body". There's nothing ideologically inconsistent with that. In fact, this is another one of those weird issues where the right and left are on opposite sides of where ideology says they should be. It's the left that thinks you can prioritize rights like that. Any other issue where someone says "preserving life is more important than this other individual's right" the left is all for it.

The other weird issue where the left and right are switched is the whole socialism thing. The bible has a part where god literally kills a couple for not sharing all their wealth in common with their fellow Jesus-followers to be distributed as needed. It's a textbook definition of socialism long before Marx was ever around. It's freakin' CRAZY that the religious right isn't pro-socialism. And it's also crazy that the left is all about sacrificing individual rights for safety EXCEPT for in this one special case.
 
2014-01-22 08:40:24 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: jso2897: The more I think about it, the more I wonder.
Why DON'T all these pro-life activists that are running aroundsaying that abortion is murder submit bills to make it so under the law?
Such laws might even be constitutional - Roe v. Wade merely overturned a law that discreetly banned abortion as a statutory act.
If abortion were reclassified as a homicide, there is no guarantee that Roe V. Wade would protect it. They could at least take their shot in the courts.
So why don't they do it?
I suspect that in the answer to that, lies the truth about the pro-life movement.

They would have to get the bill made into a law before it could be challenged in the courts, yes?


Yes.....but why have they not even submitted any such bills (that I know of)?
 
2014-01-22 08:40:44 PM  

That Guy Jeff: Arkanaut:

it seems to me that if someone believes abortion to be homicide, they should advance legislation to treat it as such, instead of erecting an endless set of inconveniences that only affect poor women. But they don't. Maybe you  can explain that to me before you ask me any more questions?

Because the highest court in the land closed that avenue and so they desperately grasp at whatever methods they can to try and stop what they believe to be the state sanctioned murders of millions of people.

If YOU honestly believed that people were being murdered, and the state was legally prevented from stopping it, wouldn't you try everything to get around that block? I can't really blame for coming up with so many stupid ways to try and stop what they see as a baby holocaust. The fact that money can easily buy your way out of most problems or roadblocks in life doesn't mean they are targeting the poor, it just means the rich can get out of things a lot easier. Just about ANY law can be described as "... that only affect poor ____."


You seemed to have quoted me from an unrelated post... just an FYI.
 
2014-01-22 08:42:27 PM  
Meanwhile. I wonder if Roe's (fully aware there's a real name out there. McCormick maybe?) kid she gave birth to before the courts ruled in favor of abortion has finally realized he or she is the Roe kid.  Or was the realization several years ago. And each year he or she is a mixture of thankful for surviving, and getting sick of hearing that her mother fought to not let her come to term.

Yammer away. That's my sole point. i don't care to come back to read anything.
 
2014-01-22 08:42:44 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Is there any reasonable question about the rights of women on this issue that which should bear considering?


I don't know, are there? What does this have to do with whining about men's rights in an abortion thread?
 
2014-01-22 08:44:16 PM  

hardinparamedic: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Murder implies it's unlawful by definition. Since it isn't, it is therefor not murder. :)


try telling that to a trayvon supporter.
 
2014-01-22 08:45:30 PM  

That Guy Jeff: The My Little Pony Killer: That Guy Jeff: The conservative dislike of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women. They believe that abortion is killing a human being. They believe it is morally wrong to kill another human being, at least, one that hasn't themselves killed someone. And that's it.

You missed the part where, in their mad defense of the "person" they think is inside the woman, they choose to forget that the *woman* is a *person* too. It has everything to do with women.

No, they just prioritize "right to live" over "right to control your own body". There's nothing ideologically inconsistent with that. In fact, this is another one of those weird issues where the right and left are on opposite sides of where ideology says they should be. It's the left that thinks you can prioritize rights like that. Any other issue where someone says "preserving life is more important than this other individual's right" the left is all for it.

The other weird issue where the left and right are switched is the whole socialism thing. The bible has a part where god literally kills a couple for not sharing all their wealth in common with their fellow Jesus-followers to be distributed as needed. It's a textbook definition of socialism long before Marx was ever around. It's freakin' CRAZY that the religious right isn't pro-socialism. And it's also crazy that the left is all about sacrificing individual rights for safety EXCEPT for in this one special case.


About all that these words you are putting into imaginary people's mouths add up to is a fanatsy narrative that doesn't exist outside your head.
 
2014-01-22 08:46:21 PM  

Callous: Arkanaut: IIRC Mary Roe actually did give birth to the baby in question, and I think gave the kid up for adoption, so headline is more apt than subby gave it credit for.

She's also pro-life and wants abortion outlawed.

From wikipedia:

Norma McCorvey became a member of the pro-life movement in 1995; she now supports making abortion illegal. In 1998, she testified to Congress:

"It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible." Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes. "


It's funny that even while purported arguing against abortion, she's justifying her own situation as "truly desperate and needy", and thus justifying the abortion.
 
2014-01-22 08:46:34 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: What does this have to do with whining about men's rights in an abortion thread?



I'm not sure if I agree with InterruptingQuirk's thesis, but the only one whining about it is you. It's an interesting position, although as pointed out the courts are opposed to it at this time, but no one has had any real solid logical reasons against it, just a bunch of thoughtless backlash.
 
2014-01-22 08:46:36 PM  

genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.


Actually, no, one can make the argument that even if the fetus in question were fully human in every possible sense, and had the same rights as any adult human, abortion would still be more like justified homicide than murder.  The argument can be found on the internet if you care, which I'm sure you don't.
 
2014-01-22 08:48:34 PM  

jso2897: InterruptingQuirk: Anywho, the women's rights have been foundationally settled. By that I mean that they have a right to independently decide to have an abortion, providing they can overcome all the obstacles put in their way.

What about the men's rights? I know that may seem like a silly question being put forth in this patriarchal society, but the one I spoke of is unequal in my mind. I know that the situation is unequal in that the woman is the one who gets pregnant, but she has been given recourse in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, the man has not.

There are no silly questions - only silly people who think they are too smart to ask questions. As far as your question, you'd have to be specific as to what "rights" you think a man might have vis a vis a pregnancy. i don't know if I can answer it at all, and certainly not as asked.


I'll try to put it simply, not to come off as patronizing, but rather to eliminate ambiguity.

Man and woman have consensual sex. Unintended pregnancy occurs. Man does not want child. Woman decides to keep it. Woman has child. Man now obligated to mother and child. Woman had choice man did not. She had the option after conception. Her choice affected the man. The man can do nothing about this choice. Why does he not have a choice to not support her choice?(double negative, I know) Basically, why doesn't he have the right to become a deadbeat dad? The woman knows his position about the pregnancy and made her choice independently and rightfully so. She had a way out of this situation that the two of them got into equally, yet he is unequally yoked to it now.
 
2014-01-22 08:50:07 PM  
The My Little Pony Killer: That Guy Jeff: Because you live in a democracy? Again, you're putting words in their mouth. They don't give a flying fark about your body, and they don't want possession of it. All they care about is that you do not murder anyone. That's it.

They're still hypocrites then, because what they're advocating is putting more lives into danger because their sole focus is just on one itty bitty little part of the picture.


No, not murdering people != caring for people, helping them with problems, etc. I can decline to give you a much needed blood donation and still believe it's wrong to take a knife and cut your throat, and it's perfectly ideologically consistent. Also, the number of lives threatened by "no abortion" absolutely pales to the number of lives threatened by abortion, if you believe fetuses (feti?) are living human beings. That's a just plain wrong avenue of attack, I wouldn't use it if I were you.

They care about the fetuses. We get that. They need to take that sight, look around a bit, and realize that women really are people too, and hell, we're people long before the zygote or fetus ever even gets that far.

They are perfectly OK with having it be illegal to murder women as well. And men. No inconsistencies here.

Their beliefs about what life is or isn't should not trump what another person may legally do with her own body. Period.

But preserving people's lives trumps individual rights all the time. Why is this case special? :D
 
2014-01-22 08:52:05 PM  

jso2897: InterruptingQuirk: jso2897: The more I think about it, the more I wonder.
Why DON'T all these pro-life activists that are running aroundsaying that abortion is murder submit bills to make it so under the law?
Such laws might even be constitutional - Roe v. Wade merely overturned a law that discreetly banned abortion as a statutory act.
If abortion were reclassified as a homicide, there is no guarantee that Roe V. Wade would protect it. They could at least take their shot in the courts.
So why don't they do it?
I suspect that in the answer to that, lies the truth about the pro-life movement.

They would have to get the bill made into a law before it could be challenged in the courts, yes?

Yes.....but why have they not even submitted any such bills (that I know of)?


I suppose that is valid considering that they have submitted and passed dozens of bills in the House to repeal the ACA. Maybe it speaks to the reality that they secretly accept. That Roe v Wade will never be overturned.
 
2014-01-22 08:52:51 PM  

jso2897: Callous: jso2897: OooShiny: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Let's test pro-life 'morals.'  If abortion is murder, then quit this nickel-and-dime chipping away at legal abortion like a bunch of Christian pussies and legislate it as murder already.  Next, come arrest ALL of us who've had one.  Arrest ALL the millions of girls, women, mothers, daughters, sisters and wives; Christians and non, for MURDER.

Let's just see just how fast abortion is no longer 'murder'.

It is interesting that more people who make that claim haven't introduced legislation to have abortion treated as homicide.  Instead, just an ever increasing layer of inconveniences, indignities, and artificial expenses.
It is almost as if they wished to make it difficult for the poor and powerless to get abortions, but keep the option open for those who posess wealth.

Just like gun control.

Back in the Jim Crow days, in some places there were carefully tailored laws designed to accomplish just that, not by collateral effect, but by design.


Unfortunately all too true.
 
2014-01-22 08:53:44 PM  

Boojum2k: Dusk-You-n-Me: What does this have to do with whining about men's rights in an abortion thread?


I'm not sure if I agree with InterruptingQuirk's thesis, but the only one whining about it is you. It's an interesting position, although as pointed out the courts are opposed to it at this time, but no one has had any real solid logical reasons against it, just a bunch of thoughtless backlash.


Actually, i was talking to him about it, but was unable to get him to specify what he meant by "men's rights" in the context of the situation, or what he was advocating, exactly. But I was and remain perfectly open to anything he or anyone has to say on that score.
Normally, however, when I see someone on Fark complaining that no one will provide anything but "thoughtless backlash" to their brilliant ideas, I discover, upon investigation, that their ideas are perhaps somewhat less than brilliant.
 
2014-01-22 08:54:17 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Galileo's Daughter: hardinparamedic: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

And fark you, Sir, as a man who thinks that women have the basic human right to not be forced to be an incubating meatsack for a fetus.

Know how you prevent that?  Birth control.  If you don't want to be an incubating meatsack* for a fetus, then use the diaphragm/pill/NuvaRing/IUD/or whatever works for you.  Problem solved averted.


/*The Incubating Meatsacks would be a good name for a punk-ska band.

And when the diaphragm/pill/NuvaRing/IUD/or whatever happens to fail, as all birth control is wont to do? Would you be smugly advocating that people just keep it in their pants?


NuvaRing is 98.5% effective.  That's "likely or expected" to fail?
 
2014-01-22 08:55:45 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: What about the men's rights? I know that may seem like a silly question being put forth in this patriarchal society, but the one I spoke of is unequal in my mind. I know that the situation is unequal in that the woman is the one who gets pregnant, but she has been given recourse in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, the man has not.


There's only a small window in which recourse for the man would even be an option: the exact window in which abortion is legal in whatever jurisdiction the mother happens to reside. Before the pregnancy, the man has no rights over the woman's body. After abortion is off the table, the state is involved in balancing the rights of the parents and the rights of the child. It's the entire reason why abortion is illegal after a certain point. The only way to completely equalize the man's involvement during the abortion window would be for him to legally force the woman to have an abortion. Being able to opt-out of child support might lessen the appearance of inequality, but it's not technically equal.

Since Roe v. Wade was expressly about the woman's right to privacy and autonomy over her body during the allowable abortion window, any law that would take that right away would be held unconstitutional. Trying to make it somehow "equal" for the man is pointless, since only women can become pregnant, and the resulting "inequality" that exists is fruit of the poisonous tree, so to speak, and allowing a man to force a medical procedure on a woman probably runs afoul of not only Roe v. Wade but various rights regarding due process and slavery, and is also morally abhorrent.
 
2014-01-22 08:56:00 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: jso2897: InterruptingQuirk: Anywho, the women's rights have been foundationally settled. By that I mean that they have a right to independently decide to have an abortion, providing they can overcome all the obstacles put in their way.

What about the men's rights? I know that may seem like a silly question being put forth in this patriarchal society, but the one I spoke of is unequal in my mind. I know that the situation is unequal in that the woman is the one who gets pregnant, but she has been given recourse in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, the man has not.

There are no silly questions - only silly people who think they are too smart to ask questions. As far as your question, you'd have to be specific as to what "rights" you think a man might have vis a vis a pregnancy. i don't know if I can answer it at all, and certainly not as asked.

I'll try to put it simply, not to come off as patronizing, but rather to eliminate ambiguity.

Man and woman have consensual sex. Unintended pregnancy occurs. Man does not want child. Woman decides to keep it. Woman has child. Man now obligated to mother and child. Woman had choice man did not. She had the option after conception. Her choice affected the man. The man can do nothing about this choice. Why does he not have a choice to not support her choice?(double negative, I know) Basically, why doesn't he have the right to become a deadbeat dad? The woman knows his position about the pregnancy and made her choice independently and rightfully so. She had a way out of this situation that the two of them got into equally, yet he is unequally yoked to it now.


You are repeating yourself, and in a manner that is not responsive to what I asked you
 
2014-01-22 08:57:09 PM  

jso2897: was unable to get him to specify what he meant by "men's rights" in the context of the situation



He's been very specific the entire time. And I didn't propose his ideas, or endorse them, just noted that there in fact had not been a reasoned response to him yet.


Think. I'm sure there is a rational reason why his thesis is wrong, but I haven't come up with one. My reason against it is "as a man, I would never abandon my responsibility to my child that way" but that is a personal and emotional reason, not a rational one.
 
2014-01-22 08:57:11 PM  

Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.


It isn't YOUR body going through massive changes that can be endangering to life you self righteous prick. Guess what, because of the inherent nature of biology it is not 50/50. You can NOT make someone else carry a child. You do NOT have dominion over someone else's body just because you donated genetic material.

/knew a woman who had to terminate two weeks outside of viability because the pregnancy was killing her
//and I mean killing her. I mean bedridden with grand mal seizures they couldn't stop
 
2014-01-22 08:57:41 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: That Guy Jeff: Because you live in a democracy? Again, you're putting words in their mouth. They don't give a flying fark about your body, and they don't want possession of it. All they care about is that you do not murder anyone. That's it.

They're still hypocrites then, because what they're advocating is putting more lives into danger because their sole focus is just on one itty bitty little part of the picture.

They care about the fetuses. We get that. They need to take that sight, look around a bit, and realize that women really are people too, and hell, we're people long before the zygote or fetus ever even gets that far.

Their beliefs about what life is or isn't should not trump what another person may legally do with her own body. Period.


Also who they may marry and well. Blue laws etc. still rule in lot's of places. Why can I buy booze at 10am on a Wednesday but not a Sunday? Get religion out of my government .
 
2014-01-22 08:59:27 PM  

Callous: ikanreed: Callous: You're aware that conception is not documented and often times not known right? Or are you just talking out your arse?

Hmm, and yet... you think there's a person in there? Nobody knows it, but there's there's a human being!

So if a woman doesn't know the date that conception occurred she can't be pregnant?  Or it's not a human that she's pregnant with?


It's not a person, not in any conventional meaning of the word.  There's absolutely nothing human about it.
 
2014-01-22 08:59:45 PM  

Ringshadow: Guess what, because of the inherent nature of biology it is not 50/50.



Didn't that ruin Larry Summers?
 
2014-01-22 09:00:10 PM  

Boojum2k: e's been very specific the entire time.


Yes. Very specific in stubbornly refuusing to state what "rights" he thinks a man posesses or should posess in the context of pregnancy, or why.
 
2014-01-22 09:01:12 PM  

ikanreed: There's absolutely nothing human about it.



Huh? I accept that a fetus is not yet a human, but "there's absolutely nothing human about it?"

What's in your DNA, squid?
 
2014-01-22 09:04:19 PM  

Boojum2k: ikanreed: There's absolutely nothing human about it.


Huh? I accept that a fetus is not yet a human, but "there's absolutely nothing human about it?"

What's in your DNA, squid?


There comes a point in this discussion on Fark where random people just statrt making inflammatory comments - sometimes sincere, sometimes not. I usually do a fade about then, so I may not be here much longer.
 
2014-01-22 09:05:19 PM  

jso2897: state what "rights" he thinks a man posesses or should posess in the context of pregnancy, or why.



Um. You might want to get that eye problem checked out. Barring that, there a some really good classes to combat adult illiteracy. /snark

He's made it pretty clear he is speaking of a man legally "terminating" his personal and fiscal responsibility towards the child. I don't agree with this idea, as I stated, for personal and emotional reasons. Give a rational argument in response, you playing the "What?" game is getting repetitive.
 
2014-01-22 09:05:36 PM  
As long as most of them were white i'm ok with it.
 
2014-01-22 09:06:37 PM  

jso2897: There comes a point in this discussion on Fark where random people just statrt making inflammatory comments - sometimes sincere, sometimes not. I usually do a fade about then, so I may not be here much longer.


Fair enough.
 
2014-01-22 09:07:56 PM  

Boojum2k: Barring that, there a some really good classes to combat adult illiteracy. /snark



ARE. There ARE some. It's a law, if you make a statement about someone's literacy or grammar, you will fark it up.
 
2014-01-22 09:08:15 PM  

Boojum2k: What's in your DNA, squid?


90%ish the same, yeah.  Mostly codings for basic cellular functions.
 
2014-01-22 09:09:09 PM  

Boojum2k: Boojum2k: Barring that, there a some really good classes to combat adult illiteracy. /snark


ARE. There ARE some. It's a law, if you make a statement about someone's literacy or grammar, you will fark it up.


It's called Muphry's Law, in point of fact.
 
2014-01-22 09:09:16 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: InterruptingQuirk: What about the men's rights? I know that may seem like a silly question being put forth in this patriarchal society, but the one I spoke of is unequal in my mind. I know that the situation is unequal in that the woman is the one who gets pregnant, but she has been given recourse in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, the man has not.

There's only a small window in which recourse for the man would even be an option: the exact window in which abortion is legal in whatever jurisdiction the mother happens to reside. Before the pregnancy, the man has no rights over the woman's body. After abortion is off the table, the state is involved in balancing the rights of the parents and the rights of the child. It's the entire reason why abortion is illegal after a certain point. The only way to completely equalize the man's involvement during the abortion window would be for him to legally force the woman to have an abortion. Being able to opt-out of child support might lessen the appearance of inequality, but it's not technically equal.

Since Roe v. Wade was expressly about the woman's right to privacy and autonomy over her body during the allowable abortion window, any law that would take that right away would be held unconstitutional. Trying to make it somehow "equal" for the man is pointless, since only women can become pregnant, and the resulting "inequality" that exists is fruit of the poisonous tree, so to speak, and allowing a man to force a medical procedure on a woman probably runs afoul of not only Roe v. Wade but various rights regarding due process and slavery, and is also morally abhorrent.


I feel like you are conflating the issue here. There is no question in my mind that he has zero say in her having an abortion. This kid of feels like my perception of civil rights, in that your supposed civil rights are not if they infringe on someone else's civil rights. She makes a choice which, by law, takes away his choice to be a dad. I am not saying that he should be allowed to force her to have an abortion. I am saying that he should be allowed to legally be a 'deadbeat dad' with no consequences for choosing that option. For all things to be equal. They both entered into this situation equally with the consensual sex. Yet, in our current system, if the woman makes a choice one way or the other, the man has no choice but to comply with her choice which affects him. I am not talking about him being part of the abortion decision. She has an out. He does not have an out.
 
2014-01-22 09:13:04 PM  
Here's to 4 decades of an unreversed court decision based on a lie.

You know this can't end well.

Oh wait, it hasn't for 56+ million unborn children.
 
2014-01-22 09:13:36 PM  

Boojum2k: jso2897: state what "rights" he thinks a man posesses or should posess in the context of pregnancy, or why.


Um. You might want to get that eye problem checked out. Barring that, there a some really good classes to combat adult illiteracy. /snark

He's made it pretty clear he is speaking of a man legally "terminating" his personal and fiscal responsibility towards the child. I don't agree with this idea, as I stated, for personal and emotional reasons. Give a rational argument in response, you playing the "What?" game is getting repetitive.


I'm not playing games.
I do not take people to have said things they have merely obliquely implied.
I fail to see him anywhere stating that he would grant men,as a matter of law,  the right to be free of paternal responsibilities at their disgression. He complained that women can and men can't - but he did not propose that change to our laws.
And it would be pretty absurd to do so. Which is why he won't come out and advocate it in so many words - he does not wish to appear foolish.
 
2014-01-22 09:15:21 PM  

jso2897: Boojum2k: jso2897: state what "rights" he thinks a man posesses or should posess in the context of pregnancy, or why.


Um. You might want to get that eye problem checked out. Barring that, there a some really good classes to combat adult illiteracy. /snark

He's made it pretty clear he is speaking of a man legally "terminating" his personal and fiscal responsibility towards the child. I don't agree with this idea, as I stated, for personal and emotional reasons. Give a rational argument in response, you playing the "What?" game is getting repetitive.

I'm not playing games.
I do not take people to have said things they have merely obliquely implied.
I fail to see him anywhere stating that he would grant men,as a matter of law,  the right to be free of paternal responsibilities at their disgression. He complained that women can and men can't - but he did not propose that change to our laws.
And it would be pretty absurd to do so. Which is why he won't come out and advocate it in so many words - he does not wish to appear foolish.


Oh, wait - he made a liar out of me - he finally came out and said it two posts up.
 
2014-01-22 09:17:15 PM  

jso2897: Boojum2k: jso2897: state what "rights" he thinks a man posesses or should posess in the context of pregnancy, or why.


Um. You might want to get that eye problem checked out. Barring that, there a some really good classes to combat adult illiteracy. /snark

He's made it pretty clear he is speaking of a man legally "terminating" his personal and fiscal responsibility towards the child. I don't agree with this idea, as I stated, for personal and emotional reasons. Give a rational argument in response, you playing the "What?" game is getting repetitive.

I'm not playing games.
I do not take people to have said things they have merely obliquely implied.
I fail to see him anywhere stating that he would grant men,as a matter of law,  the right to be free of paternal responsibilities at their disgression. He complained that women can and men can't - but he did not propose that change to our laws.
And it would be pretty absurd to do so. Which is why he won't come out and advocate it in so many words - he does not wish to appear foolish.


2 points for "obliquely"

-10 points for "disgression"
 
2014-01-22 09:20:00 PM  
Look, I have 5 kids of my own. That I support and who live with me and their mother.

This is argument is not academic. It is a real suggestion. Men should have an out that is commiserate with their situation, and comparable to the out that women have which is commiserate to their situation. Do I appear foolish suggesting that men should be allowed to dip out on their social responsibilities? Probably. But, why are they not allowed to do what women are allowed to do, based on conditions which women do not have to meet?
 
2014-01-22 09:21:28 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Men should have an out


Not having sex. That's their out.
 
2014-01-22 09:21:54 PM  

Ringshadow: You can NOT make someone else carry a child.


Sure you can,  it is called a surrogate mother. It also works the other way around and then it is called a surrogate father. But your friend's pregnancy was threatening her very survival so it became an operation that saved her life at the cost of her unborn fetus.

Finally, let us not forget the lying and manipulative females that get pregnant on purpose and with no intention of staying with the father only the intent of getting child support from him.

I know, hard to believe.

.
 
2014-01-22 09:22:05 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: InterruptingQuirk: Men should have an out

Not having sex. That's their out.


Would you foist such a condition on a woman?
 
2014-01-22 09:22:06 PM  

Kahabut: Boojum2k: Boojum2k: Barring that, there a some really good classes to combat adult illiteracy. /snark


ARE. There ARE some. It's a law, if you make a statement about someone's literacy or grammar, you will fark it up.

It's called Muphry's Law, in point of fact.


Why am I not surprised.

/And retained enough brainpower to Google that before saying "You misspelled Murphy"
 
2014-01-22 09:22:47 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: InterruptingQuirk: Men should have an out

Not having sex. That's their out.


That is the anti-choice crowds argument, yes. Were you trying to be funny?
 
2014-01-22 09:24:24 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Would you foist such a condition on a woman?


Sure, if they don't want to risk getting pregnant.
 
HKW
2014-01-22 09:25:00 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Wadded Beef: umad: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

Men shouldn't have a choice in whether or not the woman aborts. They should have the choice to abort their parental rights and responsibilities though.

If it's the man's kid, it's his kid. They now have parental responsibilities whether they want them or not.

I'm scared of my own question here, but if a woman can abort those responsibilities, why can't a man?


Because you have to frame your question from the Governments point-of-view.    If she has a baby, and incurs financial hardship, then shes going to need cash and likely to become a burden (or partial burden) of the 'state'.  So, the gubment is VERY determined to make sure this doesnt happen.

Remember: Its not about fairness -- its about the money.. its always about the money..  Like illegal immigration -- government is for it because billions of laborers receive money that is being sent home and/or spent without the gubment getting their cut.
 
2014-01-22 09:26:20 PM  

Rivetman1.0: Finally, let us not forget the lying and manipulative females that get pregnant on purpose and with no intention of staying with the father only the intent of getting child support from him.



I had a girlfriend who kinda almost did that, stopped taking her birth control without telling me then told me she thought she was pregnant. This was in college, and we were both considering long term plans but supposedly looking to improve our short-term outlook first.

As soon as she had her next period, I left her and have never spoken to her since. But if she had become pregnant, I'd have given the child my love and care. It wasn't fair for her to put me in that position, but the potential child didn't do it, she did.
 
2014-01-22 09:26:27 PM  

WorldKnowledge:


I'm a proud card-carrying (male) member.
 
2014-01-22 09:27:23 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: InterruptingQuirk: Would you foist such a condition on a woman?

Sure, if they don't want to risk getting pregnant.


Thanks for playing. I don't have any more door prizes, but I can call you a cab.
 
2014-01-22 09:28:08 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Thanks for playing. I don't have any more door prizes, but I can call you a cab.


Okay. Good talk.
 
2014-01-22 09:29:59 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: InterruptingQuirk: What about the men's rights? I know that may seem like a silly question being put forth in this patriarchal society, but the one I spoke of is unequal in my mind. I know that the situation is unequal in that the woman is the one who gets pregnant, but she has been given recourse in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, the man has not.

There's only a small window in which recourse for the man would even be an option: the exact window in which abortion is legal in whatever jurisdiction the mother happens to reside. Before the pregnancy, the man has no rights over the woman's body. After abortion is off the table, the state is involved in balancing the rights of the parents and the rights of the child. It's the entire reason why abortion is illegal after a certain point. The only way to completely equalize the man's involvement during the abortion window would be for him to legally force the woman to have an abortion. Being able to opt-out of child support might lessen the appearance of inequality, but it's not technically equal.

Since Roe v. Wade was expressly about the woman's right to privacy and autonomy over her body during the allowable abortion window, any law that would take that right away would be held unconstitutional. Trying to make it somehow "equal" for the man is pointless, since only women can become pregnant, and the resulting "inequality" that exists is fruit of the poisonous tree, so to speak, and allowing a man to force a medical procedure on a woman probably runs afoul of not only Roe v. Wade but various rights regarding due process and slavery, and is also morally abhorrent.

I feel like you are conflating the issue here. There is no question in my mind that he has zero say in her having an abortion. This kid of feels like my perception of civil rights, in that your supposed civil rights are not if they infringe on someone else's civil rights. She makes a choice which, by law, takes away his choic ...


I see. So - as a practical matter, you propose to submit legislation that would relieve any and all single men of any paternal responsibilities at their disgression, based upon the legal principle that "women can get abortions".
Just to make it all "fair and square".
I don't mean to be discouraging, but I don't think that plan will cut much ice with the general electorate.
Society, after all, has a concrete interest in making dads support their kids - it has no concrete interest in stopping women from gettin abortions - they constitute no ongoing expense.
I just can't see you ever winning that one.
But, hey - you're welcome to try.
And thanks for giving me a straight up answer and satisfying my OCD - I wasn't trying to be a jerk about it.
 
2014-01-22 09:31:45 PM  

jso2897: Society, after all, has a concrete interest in making dads support their kids



Yay, a rational reason to oppose the idea! Woohoo!
 
2014-01-22 09:32:15 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: I feel like you are conflating the issue here. There is no question in my mind that he has zero say in her having an abortion. This kid of feels like my perception of civil rights, in that your supposed civil rights are not if they infringe on someone else's civil rights. She makes a choice which, by law, takes away his choice to be a dad. I am not saying that he should be allowed to force her to have an abortion. I am saying that he should be allowed to legally be a 'deadbeat dad' with no consequences for choosing that option. For all things to be equal. They both entered into this situation equally with the consensual sex. Yet, in our current system, if the woman makes a choice one way or the other, the man has no choice but to comply with her choice which affects him. I am not talking about him being part of the abortion decision. She has an out. He does not have an out.


The entire issue springs from the abortion decision. A woman who carried a pregnancy to term, gave the baby to the father, and skipped town would be equally held for child support payments as a man would. It's unlikely that would happen, since she has the ability to abort it before then, but it's possible. The Roe v. Wade decision does not enshrine the right to be a deadbeat parent, so you're basing your argument on the inherent fairness of the "right to abdicate responsibility for a child," which doesn't exist, and in arguing such you are arguing that abortion itself is avoiding responsibility for a child, which is legally wrong. There's a slim window in which the rights of the mother over her own body are more important than the rights of a potential new life, and it's precisely because the fetus is not considered a child that this right exists.

There's no "out" because there's nothing to get "out of" at that point, which is why you're able to have an abortion in the first place. After the possible abortion window closes, the state has decided that the welfare of the child is paramount, and as such holds both parents accountable equally. The dad is on the hook for support. The mom is on the hook for support. And it takes both parents to put the kid up for adoption afterward. So yeah, the entire issue is about abortion.
 
2014-01-22 09:32:29 PM  
Rivetman1.0:Sure you can,  it is called a surrogate mother. It also works the other way around and then it is called a surrogate father.

Uh, that's not force. That's a business contract that is increasingly common, if not very, VERY risky because not all states will make the contract actually stick that well. You're not forcing them to carry the baby, they agreed to for a large sum of money. And the other way around is called sperm donation.

But your friend's pregnancy was threatening her very survival so it became an operation that saved her life at the cost of her unborn fetus.

That is what happened. It isn't the outcome she wanted. She'd been told her whole life she was infertile and when she finally got pregnant her body decided to reinforce that fact. She got multiple doctor's opinions on it. It was a horribly sad situation.

Finally, let us not forget the lying and manipulative females that get pregnant on purpose and with no intention of staying with the father only the intent of getting child support from him.

I know, hard to believe.


And that's why you bring your own condoms and don't stick your dick in crazy. No one is holding these idiot men down and making them raw dog it with a psycho biatch.
 
2014-01-22 09:36:22 PM  

Boojum2k: Kahabut: Boojum2k: Boojum2k: Barring that, there a some really good classes to combat adult illiteracy. /snark


ARE. There ARE some. It's a law, if you make a statement about someone's literacy or grammar, you will fark it up.

It's called Muphry's Law, in point of fact.

Why am I not surprised.

/And retained enough brainpower to Google that before saying "You misspelled Murphy"


I was really hoping to catch someone with that.

/shakes tiny fist
 
2014-01-22 09:39:14 PM  

IM4Liberty: 55 million people lost to a socialist, eugenics experiment (killed by their mothers in many cases, no less). Social Security and other Federal entitlement programs are going backrupt because, in part, these folks aren't available to contribute to these political slush funds. Coincidence? I think it's possible.

This might be an anniversary of horror; it's certainly not a birthday to celebrate.


The Guttmacher Institute estimates that the number of women who die each year because of laws against abortion is somewhere between 47,000 and 70,000.  That works out to be something on the order of 2.5 million women's lives lost worldwide since Roe v Wade passed.

Granted, 2.5 million deaths is a lot fewer than 55 million, and the difference may be even larger when you consider that I'm talking about worldwide deaths versus those in the USA alone.  But there is an even bigger difference: these 2.5 million deaths happen to actual adult human beings, whereas the 55 million you're concerned with happen to what YOU IMAGINE TO BE innocent children.

But in any case, even if you were correct, the inescapable conclusion is that you are at the very least also guilty of the very crime you charge us with: being morally responsible for the deaths of millions of human beings.  Take a good, long look in the mirror and enjoy your hypocrisy.
 
2014-01-22 09:40:03 PM  
What? Another boy? Screw it; I've already got 5, I'm having an abortion! I'd get input from the father but I don't know who he is."

//too much?
 
2014-01-22 09:41:34 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: InterruptingQuirk: Well, that's one way to look at it. But any thoughts on the unequal rights that I spoke of?


Parental rights and responsibilities pertain to children. These rules are all about the interests of the child. The child exists, it has needs. The relevant laws should apply equally to parents of both sexes so far as possible.

Abortion rights, from the pro-choice point of view, are essentially about the pregnant person's right to control the pregnancy. As a function of biology rather than law, the pregnant person is always female, so it is nonsensical to talk about men having rights in this area, "unequal" or otherwise. (And from the anti-abortion point of view, the question is moot because the state has control of the pregnancy.)

Again, I'm not suggesting that he should have a say in whether or not she gets an abortion. What I'm saying is that she has two opportunities to make up her mind, whereas he has only one. He had sex with her and she is now pregnant, he is obligated if she chooses to keep it. She had sex and is pregnant, she now gets to make a choice that affects him too as he has no choice to not have the kid. Again, I'm not suggesting that he should have a say in whether or not she gets an abortion. This is about his choice following intercourse and the resultant conception where she has an additional choice that he does not have.


They both participate in intercourse and (ideally) both have a choice about it. Then one of them participates in a pregnancy and has a choice about that. That only one of them is relevant to the pregnancy is a function of biology, not law, so it makes no sense to talk about it in terms of rights.

So, yes, different people have different choices to make about different things in their different lives.


umad:
Horseshiat. If the argument against men having the right to "abort" their parental responsibilities is "keep it zipped up if you don't want to take responsibility for your choices" then my argument to pro-choice women is "keep it zipped up if you don't want to take responsibility for your choices."

That's not my argument. My argument is that men do not get pregnant and therefore it is hypothetical nonsense to talk about their abortion rights. Regardless of whether actual pregnant people have such a right, or not.

Male PARENTS should have the same ability to sever their parental relationship with a CHILD, and the same attendant responsibilities, that female parents do. "But the fetus is a child" someone might say -- well, then abortion is more-or-less off the table anyway, so it's a moot point.
 
2014-01-22 09:45:41 PM  

Boojum2k: jso2897: Society, after all, has a concrete interest in making dads support their kids


Yay, a rational reason to oppose the idea! Woohoo!


I'm not arguing against his proposal. As an abstract idea, I can neither affirm nor discredit it - I'm just saying that i can't see it ever flying as a matter of law.
As a much larger issue, I have to reflect on something - if we ever adopt the attitude that fairness in society means all people posessing all  powers in exactly equal measure in every single situation - we will have gone insane.
The idea that law can deal with a situation as existentially unequal as the fact that women get pregnant, and men don't, in a manner that makes all thing equal for all is unrealistic, to put it mildly. And attempts to draw paralells to situations where there is no intrinsic, unavoidable differentiation of situation are facetious. There are human issues that are unique, and cannot be easily analogized to others.
As civilized people, we do our best to promote fairness and equality in every situation where it is possible.
It isn't always possible.
 
2014-01-22 09:47:05 PM  

EbolaNYC: Whew, I just turned 43.. MADE IT!


I guess you should call your mom and thank her.....
 
HKW
2014-01-22 09:48:04 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: InterruptingQuirk: Well, that's one way to look at it. But any thoughts on the unequal rights that I spoke of?


Parental rights and responsibilities pertain to children. These rules are all about the interests of the child. The child exists, it has needs. The relevant laws should apply equally to parents of both sexes so far as possible.

Abortion rights, from the pro-choice point of view, are essentially about the pregnant person's right to control the pregnancy. As a function of biology rather than law, the pregnant person is always female, so it is nonsensical to talk about men having rights in this area, "unequal" or otherwise. (And from the anti-abortion point of view, the question is moot because the state has control of the pregnancy.)


its quite simple: If a man dumps a load into a uterus & conceives a child, and MUST be held accountable for it, then the same holds for the holder of the uterus.   If she can go all 'fark this shiat', then the guy should be able to as well.
 
2014-01-22 09:48:05 PM  

ciberido: IM4Liberty: 55 million people lost to a socialist, eugenics experiment (killed by their mothers in many cases, no less). Social Security and other Federal entitlement programs are going backrupt because, in part, these folks aren't available to contribute to these political slush funds. Coincidence? I think it's possible.

This might be an anniversary of horror; it's certainly not a birthday to celebrate.

The Guttmacher Institute estimates that the number of women who die each year because of laws against abortion is somewhere between 47,000 and 70,000.  That works out to be something on the order of 2.5 million women's lives lost worldwide since Roe v Wade passed.

Granted, 2.5 million deaths is a lot fewer than 55 million, and the difference may be even larger when you consider that I'm talking about worldwide deaths versus those in the USA alone.  But there is an even bigger difference: these 2.5 million deaths happen to actual adult human beings, whereas the 55 million you're concerned with happen to what YOU IMAGINE TO BE innocent children.

But in any case, even if you were correct, the inescapable conclusion is that you are at the very least also guilty of the very crime you charge us with: being morally responsible for the deaths of millions of human beings.  Take a good, long look in the mirror and enjoy your hypocrisy.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-22 09:48:21 PM  

Callous: TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's a living human being or it isn't.  Where it's physically located shouldn't be the issue.


So if you were kidnapped one day and woke up to find yourself in some sort of hospital bed hooked up to a machine and told you couldn't leave the room or detach yourself from the machine for the next 9 months (and that a person would die if you did). you'd just say "ok, well, I guess I'm stuck here" then?  You would feel morally obligated to stay, so much so that you would consider it murder to leave the room?
 
2014-01-22 09:50:02 PM  

jso2897: As a much larger issue, I have to reflect on something - if we ever adopt the attitude that fairness in society means all people posessing all powers in exactly equal measure in every single situation - we will have gone insane.



I'm pretty sure we're entering the Crazy Years already.
 
2014-01-22 09:50:49 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Endive Wombat: I read something a while back discussing how the democratic party/liberals have effectively eliminated 35-50+ million people from their voting base because of abortion.  The argument that was being made/based on is the idea that liberals have a tendency to have abortions more than conservatives...so aborting their kids = elimination of their voter base.

Not sure how accurate this speculation is, but interesting to think about nonetheless.

Liberals tend to be better at teaching their kids how sex works and how to use birth control, which reduces their need for abortions compared to the crowd that believes abstinence only education works.


Dude............. that was really funny..... Hipster type, ironically funny.  A+, job well done.

( you were joking, ....right? )
 
2014-01-22 09:51:03 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: InterruptingQuirk: Men should have an out

Not having sex. That's their out.


So abortion is unnecessary then. If women don't want to have babies, then they shouldn't have sex.
 
2014-01-22 09:51:38 PM  

ciberido: So if you were kidnapped one day and woke up to find yourself in some sort of hospital bed hooked up to a machine and told you couldn't leave the room or detach yourself from the machine for the next 9 months (and that a person would die if you did). you'd just say "ok, well, I guess I'm stuck here" then? You would feel morally obligated to stay, so much so that you would consider it murder to leave the room?



That may be the least accurate or useful analogy to pregnancy I've ever seen. And I've been on Fark for 9 years.
 
2014-01-22 09:52:48 PM  

umad: So abortion is unnecessary then. If women don't want to have babies, then they shouldn't have sex.


No, women can get an abortion. Because they get pregnant.
 
2014-01-22 09:53:47 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: umad: So abortion is unnecessary then. If women don't want to have babies, then they shouldn't have sex.

No, women can get an abortion. Because they get pregnant.



But, as you stated earlier, they could have avoided getting pregnant by not having sex.


Is consistency too much to ask for?
 
2014-01-22 09:53:51 PM  

ciberido: Callous: TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's a living human being or it isn't.  Where it's physically located shouldn't be the issue.

So if you were kidnapped one day and woke up to find yourself in some sort of hospital bed hooked up to a machine and told you couldn't leave the room or detach yourself from the machine for the next 9 months (and that a person would die if you did). you'd just say "ok, well, I guess I'm stuck here" then?  You would feel morally obligated to stay, so much so that you would consider it murder to leave the room?


i18.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-22 09:54:45 PM  

ciberido: So if you were kidnapped one day and woke up to find yourself in some sort of hospital bed hooked up to a machine and told you couldn't leave the room or detach yourself from the machine for the next 9 months (and that a person would die if you did). you'd just say "ok, well, I guess I'm stuck here" then? You would feel morally obligated to stay, so much so that you would consider it murder to leave the room?


There's probably an interesting movie or book idea in there, if the person in question was the result of a drunken car crash on the part of the protagonist or something. Sort of a dystopian reality where eye for an eye is taken to extremes, and things you do must be repaid in flesh.
 
2014-01-22 09:55:39 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: There's probably an interesting movie or book idea in there, if the person in question was the result of a drunken car crash on the part of the protagonist or something. Sort of a dystopian reality where eye for an eye is taken to extremes, and things you do must be repaid in flesh.



"Johnny Got His Gun?"
 
2014-01-22 09:55:52 PM  

Boojum2k: Dusk-You-n-Me: umad: So abortion is unnecessary then. If women don't want to have babies, then they shouldn't have sex.

No, women can get an abortion. Because they get pregnant.


But, as you stated earlier, they could have avoided getting pregnant by not having sex.


Is consistency too much to ask for?


Nothing's too much to ask, as long as you don't have unrealistic expectations about getting it.
 
2014-01-22 09:56:12 PM  

Boojum2k: But, as you stated earlier, they could have avoided getting pregnant by not having sex.


Yes, they could have. But since they can also get pregnant, they also get another choice. Not sure what you guys aren't getting about this.
 
2014-01-22 09:56:45 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: ikanreed: The very fact that we celebrate our birthdays and not our conception days shows how unnatural and out of sync with day-to-day reality the anti-abortion crowd's opinion is.

According to some in that camp, we shouldn't be celebrating birthdays either.


"The celebration of birthdays is unknown in traditional Jewish ritual"?

So this nutcase has never heard of a bar mitzvah?
 
2014-01-22 09:57:10 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: umad: So abortion is unnecessary then. If women don't want to have babies, then they shouldn't have sex.

No, women can get an abortion. Because they get pregnant.


We've come at this from the post-birth angle...(men shouldn't have to pay support), but how about from the pre-birth angle:

Woman chooses abortion.  Man and Woman have an undivided 1/2 interest in the child.  They may have differing expectations as to whether or not to abort.  Woman chooses to abort. Man sues woman for loss of consortium and emotional distress damages.  I proffer a new tort: Zombie-baby Reverse Child Support.
 
2014-01-22 09:58:39 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: umad: So abortion is unnecessary then. If women don't want to have babies, then they shouldn't have sex.

No, women can get an abortion. Because they get pregnant.


They should have kept their pants zipped and they wouldn't have gotten pregnant.
 
2014-01-22 09:59:37 PM  

umad: They should have kept their pants zipped and they wouldn't have gotten pregnant.


Great. But having gotten pregnant, they get to choose what to do next. Not sure what you're not getting about this.
 
2014-01-22 10:00:59 PM  

Boojum2k: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: There's probably an interesting movie or book idea in there, if the person in question was the result of a drunken car crash on the part of the protagonist or something. Sort of a dystopian reality where eye for an eye is taken to extremes, and things you do must be repaid in flesh.


"Johnny Got His Gun?"


If the protagonist of that story was an artillery soldier himself, then my interesting movie or book idea is almost a hundred years too late.

Also that book sounds like the most depressing thing ever.
 
2014-01-22 10:01:57 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Boojum2k: But, as you stated earlier, they could have avoided getting pregnant by not having sex.

Yes, they could have. But since they can also get pregnant, they also get another choice.


And people are asking why men can't get another choice. Your answer is that they can't have another choice because she is pregnant and that means it is final. Well then women can just do the same. They don't need another choice either if the pregnancy means it is final.
 
2014-01-22 10:02:51 PM  

Dadoody: 55 Million babies have been killed since Roe V Wade.

Let's take a shot for each one! :D


And the only ones to survive will be the Scots!

/I'm ok with that.
 
2014-01-22 10:03:02 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Also that book sounds like the most depressing thing ever.



It is. So is the movie. But Metallica used clips for the video for "One" which is depressingly awesome.
 
2014-01-22 10:03:56 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Not sure what you're not getting about this.


We get it just fine dumbass. It still doesn't answer why couldn't men have the choice to opt out before the baby is born.
 
2014-01-22 10:05:41 PM  

umad: Dusk-You-n-Me: Not sure what you're not getting about this.

We get it just fine dumbass. It still doesn't answer why couldn't men have the choice to opt out before the baby is born.


Opt out of what?
 
2014-01-22 10:10:02 PM  

umad: And people are asking why men can't get another choice. Your answer is that they can't have another choice because she is pregnant and that means it is final. Well then women can just do the same. They don't need another choice either if the pregnancy means it is final.


umad: We get it just fine dumbass. It still doesn't answer why couldn't men have the choice to opt out before the baby is born.


I get the point you're twisting yourself into knots trying to make. Some day men will get pregnant, then you can rest easy knowing both sexes experience the situation in exactly the same way. Until then, you'll have to accept the tyranny that is human anatomy.
 
2014-01-22 10:16:56 PM  

hardinparamedic: Because an embryo and a fetus are not a baby, in any world except your own personal opinion


at what day does it qualify ? how is that different to the day before ?
 
2014-01-22 10:18:05 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: umad: And people are asking why men can't get another choice. Your answer is that they can't have another choice because she is pregnant and that means it is final. Well then women can just do the same. They don't need another choice either if the pregnancy means it is final.

umad: We get it just fine dumbass. It still doesn't answer why couldn't men have the choice to opt out before the baby is born.

I get the point you're twisting yourself into knots trying to make. Some day men will get pregnant, then you can rest easy knowing both sexes experience the situation in exactly the same way. Until then, you'll have to accept the tyranny that is human anatomy.


I'm not twisting shiat. If abstinence-only is a valid argument against men being able to opt out of their responsibilities, then it is a valid argument against abortion in all cases except for rape and incest. You are using the very same farking argument that the pro-life fundie tards are famous for.

I'm as pro-choice as they come, but your opponents' horseshiat arguments aren't any more valid when you fling them. The fact that women get pregnant has nothing to do with why it is supposedly im-farking-possible to give a man another option after conception and before birth.
 
2014-01-22 10:19:15 PM  
A foundation ruling and one of only a few cornerstone legal decisions that demonstrate the US commitment to human rights. Brown v. Board is another.
 
2014-01-22 10:21:47 PM  

Ringshadow: Rivetman1.0:Sure you can,  it is called a surrogate mother. It also works the other way around and then it is called a surrogate father.

Uh, that's not force.


Here is your statement "You can NOT make someone else carry a child. " Try to respond  to the actual statement you made that someone rebuts you with
So, yes you can make someone carry a child for you.

And that's why you bring your own condoms and don't stick your dick in crazy. No one is holding these idiot men down and making them raw dog it with a psycho biatch.

Idiot men?

buhbye
 
2014-01-22 10:23:34 PM  

That Guy Jeff: No, they just prioritize "right to live" over "right to control your own body".


No, they are prioritizing one "person's" right to live over another person's right to live. This is so completely about controlling women no matter how many times you try to spin it around in this thread.
 
2014-01-22 10:24:19 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: FlashHarry: here's to 4+ decades of empowering progressive women and enraging conservative men.

I'll drink to that, cheers.


Um, Mags?


Never mind. I'll join you. 
Bottoms up.
 
2014-01-22 10:25:10 PM  

That Guy Jeff: But preserving people's lives trumps individual rights all the time. Why is this case special? :D


Because they're still prioritizing one individual over another, by their own definition.
 
2014-01-22 10:26:08 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: The My Little Pony Killer: That Guy Jeff: Because you live in a democracy? Again, you're putting words in their mouth. They don't give a flying fark about your body, and they don't want possession of it. All they care about is that you do not murder anyone. That's it.

They're still hypocrites then, because what they're advocating is putting more lives into danger because their sole focus is just on one itty bitty little part of the picture.

They care about the fetuses. We get that. They need to take that sight, look around a bit, and realize that women really are people too, and hell, we're people long before the zygote or fetus ever even gets that far.

Their beliefs about what life is or isn't should not trump what another person may legally do with her own body. Period.

Also who they may marry and well. Blue laws etc. still rule in lot's of places. Why can I buy booze at 10am on a Wednesday but not a Sunday? Get religion out of my government .


This this this this this.

YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS DO NOT TRUMP ANOTHER PERSON'S RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY. END OF STORY.
 
2014-01-22 10:26:32 PM  

umad: If abstinence-only is a valid argument against men being able to opt out of their responsibilities


Not having sex isn't opting out of their responsibilities, it prevents the responsibilities of pregnancy from occurring in the first place. If men got pregnant, they would get a second choice. But they don't, so they don't.

Rivetman1.0: Idiot men?

buhbye


The guy who used the phrase "lying and manipulative females" is offended when someone calls men idiots. Neato.
 
2014-01-22 10:27:52 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: But they don't, so they don't.


DANCE MONKEY DANCE!!!

You won't ever answer, so fark off.
 
2014-01-22 10:29:05 PM  

umad: You won't ever answer, so fark off.


I did answer. You don't like the answer, fine, but that ain't my problem.
 
2014-01-22 10:30:14 PM  

Rivetman1.0: Try to respond  to the actual statement you made that someone rebuts you with
So, yes you can make someone carry a child for you.


Hey, herp-a-derp.

You can form a contract with someone wherein they agree to carry a pregnancy to term for you. You still are not forcing them to do so.
 
2014-01-22 10:30:45 PM  
Subby, that headline is beautiful. It's kinda subtle though, maybe Happy Birth-Day ?
 
2014-01-22 10:32:39 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: I did answer.


static5.depositphotos.com
 
2014-01-22 10:33:54 PM  
He mad.
 
2014-01-22 10:35:08 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: tinfoil-hat maggie: FlashHarry: here's to 4+ decades of empowering progressive women and enraging conservative men.

I'll drink to that, cheers.

Um, Mags?


Never mind. I'll join you.
Bottoms up.


I'm out of booze and on to water I'm trying to do better about my drunk late night posting. Some of it even scared me since I don't remember doing it.
 
2014-01-22 10:35:36 PM  

KeelingLovesCornholes: A foundation ruling and one of only a few cornerstone legal decisions that demonstrate the US commitment to human rights. Brown v. Board is another.


The US government should put an automatic abortion booth on every street corner that dispenses $25 gift cards and another $25 in lottery tickets.

Plus the keys to a new Cadillac SUV if she selects the "sterilization" option.
 
2014-01-22 10:35:52 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: He mad.


You're crazy.
 
2014-01-22 10:38:06 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: You're crazy.


No way! I think I've played it straight in here.
 
2014-01-22 10:39:44 PM  

Phinn: KeelingLovesCornholes: A foundation ruling and one of only a few cornerstone legal decisions that demonstrate the US commitment to human rights. Brown v. Board is another.

The US government should put an automatic abortion booth on every street corner that dispenses $25 gift cards and another $25 in lottery tickets.

Plus the keys to a new Cadillac SUV if she selects the "sterilization" option.


Can we also get suicide booths? Would be interesting if ya mixed up the two on accident.
 
2014-01-22 10:41:08 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Can we also get suicide booths? Would be interesting if ya mixed up the two on accident.


Old guy: "I just wanted to make a phone call! Aaaaaaggghhhh!"
 
2014-01-22 10:43:06 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: tinfoil-hat maggie: You're crazy.

No way! I think I've played it straight in here.


Well, that's why your'e crazy.

/Sorry I re-watched catch -22 last night and found a new used copy of the book a few days ago : )
 
2014-01-22 10:43:19 PM  

Boojum2k: tinfoil-hat maggie: Can we also get suicide booths? Would be interesting if ya mixed up the two on accident.

Old guy: "I just wanted to make a phone call! Aaaaaaggghhhh!"


Is that the sound of him getting suicided or an unplanned abortion?
 
2014-01-22 10:43:29 PM  

umad: Dusk-You-n-Me: Boojum2k: But, as you stated earlier, they could have avoided getting pregnant by not having sex.

Yes, they could have. But since they can also get pregnant, they also get another choice.

And people are asking why men can't get another choice. Your answer is that they can't have another choice because she is pregnant and that means it is final. Well then women can just do the same. They don't need another choice either if the pregnancy means it is final.


Attention men, unless you have had a vasectomy or are naturally sterile, every time you have vaginal sex with a woman there is a risk she could get pregnant.  Furthermore, she gets to decide whether to keep the baby or not regardless of what you want and you may be held financially responsible for the child if she decides to keep it.  If you don't trust the woman you are having sex with then I suggest you don't have sex with her any more (at least not vaginally).
 
2014-01-22 10:45:18 PM  

Boojum2k: tinfoil-hat maggie: Can we also get suicide booths? Would be interesting if ya mixed up the two on accident.

Old guy: "I just wanted to make a phone call! Aaaaaaggghhhh!"


Sure like anyone believe in phone booths anymore.
 
2014-01-22 10:45:20 PM  

Phinn: Boojum2k: tinfoil-hat maggie: Can we also get suicide booths? Would be interesting if ya mixed up the two on accident.

Old guy: "I just wanted to make a phone call! Aaaaaaggghhhh!"

Is that the sound of him getting suicided or an unplanned abortion?



At that point, what's the difference?
 
2014-01-22 10:46:04 PM  

Boojum2k: Phinn: Boojum2k: tinfoil-hat maggie: Can we also get suicide booths? Would be interesting if ya mixed up the two on accident.

Old guy: "I just wanted to make a phone call! Aaaaaaggghhhh!"

Is that the sound of him getting suicided or an unplanned abortion?


At that point, what's the difference?


If you have to ask ...
 
2014-01-22 10:46:16 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Boojum2k: tinfoil-hat maggie: Can we also get suicide booths? Would be interesting if ya mixed up the two on accident.

Old guy: "I just wanted to make a phone call! Aaaaaaggghhhh!"

Sure like anyone believe in phone booths anymore.



Old guy I say!

Or, "Tonight, on a dark and tragic episode of Doctor Who. . . "
 
2014-01-22 10:47:17 PM  

Phinn: Boojum2k: Phinn: Boojum2k: tinfoil-hat maggie: Can we also get suicide booths? Would be interesting if ya mixed up the two on accident.

Old guy: "I just wanted to make a phone call! Aaaaaaggghhhh!"

Is that the sound of him getting suicided or an unplanned abortion?


At that point, what's the difference?

If you have to ask ...



Either way, he's no longer complaining about his prostate.
 
2014-01-22 10:54:46 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: That Guy Jeff: No, they just prioritize "right to live" over "right to control your own body".

No, they are prioritizing one "person's" right to live over another person's right to live. This is so completely about controlling women no matter how many times you try to spin it around in this thread.


The vast majorities of pregnancies aren't life threatening. Your statements would only be valid if the mother died whenever a child was born. In the extremely rare event where that's the case, then yes, they would be prioritizing the life of one person over the life of another. I'm willing to bet that scenario would be significantly less contentious if the "main" issue wasn't so contentious. But for the vast majority of abortions, you're simply wrong: they are prioritizing the life of one human over the "body rights" of another, not the life of another. Let's be honest, it's 3-6 months of being crazy inconvenienced and hormonal and fat, but it's rarely ever in the same ballpark as "being dead".

Now remember, I'm pro-choice. But I'm also pro-accurate information and believe that making up crazy positions for your "enemies" doesn't help solve anything. You know that whole "divided country" thing? You're directly contributing to that by insisting on changing their goal of "stop what we think are murders" to your conspiracy of "the patriarchy is trying to control womyn!" Maybe my view of the matter is just really slanted by the fact that I know far more women who are pro-life than men. And the only dude I know who is pro-life isn't religious and would otherwise be considered a feminist. He just thinks fetuses are alive, and they are human, thus it's wrong to kill them for any reason other than "to save another life", even if that means some other rights have to be compromised. I'm OK with him thinking that, too. It's not an unreasonable position. It's ultimately wrong, but it's not unreasonable. As this is nominally a democracy with all it's crazy "you don't have to agree but you do have to compromise" rules, I'm not going to fault him or anyone else for that position. Ideally (discarding all pragmatism) we would live in anarchy where "if you don't like _____, just don't get one/buy one/see one/read one/pay for one/etc" would be the ultimate rule. But alas, pragmatism requires we band together and have to live with rules we don't like and compromised and reduced rights and endlessly debate really ethically complicated situations in which both side have perfectly valid points.
 
2014-01-22 11:00:34 PM  

Rivetman1.0: Idiot men?

buhbye


If you have unprotected sex with a chick and you have the gall to be surprised when they get pregnant and get your ass for child support, you are an idiot.

/and there are multiple TV shows dedicated to your idiot ass
//don't be a fool wrap your tool
 
2014-01-22 11:05:47 PM  

Ringshadow: If you have unprotected sex with a chick and you have the gall to be surprised when they get pregnant and get your ass for child support, you are an idiot.



And women wonder why guys like anal sex.
 
2014-01-22 11:13:22 PM  
i.e. the 'men have no parental rights but total responsibility' decision.

Because men and women should be equal. Unless not.


DIDIR?
 
2014-01-22 11:13:52 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: demaL-demaL-yeH: tinfoil-hat maggie: FlashHarry: here's to 4+ decades of empowering progressive women and enraging conservative men.

I'll drink to that, cheers.

Um, Mags?


Never mind. I'll join you.
Bottoms up.

I'm out of booze and on to water I'm trying to do better about my drunk late night posting. Some of it even scared me since I don't remember doing it.


It's OK. (I'm drinking coffee.)
Bottoms up.
 
2014-01-22 11:15:10 PM  

AirForceVet: I, for one, welcome our new abortionist overlords.

Oh, abortions have been legal for how many years?

I, for one, welcomed our new abortionist overlords.


It depends on which state you live in.

Ronald Reagan made abortion legal in my state in 1967.
 
2014-01-22 11:18:14 PM  

Mean Daddy: Roe vs. Wade gets a birthday.  55 million Amerikans don't.  Most of them minority.  Remind me which party is racist?


darkmachine.org

You guys never give up on the "You're the REAL bigots!" schtick, do you?
 
2014-01-22 11:22:28 PM  
The sooner people realize that we're all animals, the sooner you'll realize all of this is just ramblings on.
If you think for a second that you're above any creature in the kingdom, then you're just kidding yourself.
We're all animals, and if you haven't realized it by now, then, hopefully someone will come hit you on the
head with a hard object and let you realize it.
 
2014-01-22 11:24:11 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: tinfoil-hat maggie: demaL-demaL-yeH: tinfoil-hat maggie: FlashHarry: here's to 4+ decades of empowering progressive women and enraging conservative men.

I'll drink to that, cheers.

Um, Mags?


Never mind. I'll join you.
Bottoms up.

I'm out of booze and on to water I'm trying to do better about my drunk late night posting. Some of it even scared me since I don't remember doing it.

It's OK. (I'm drinking coffee.)
Bottoms up.


Cool. water this late makes me feel better in the morning anyway.
 
2014-01-22 11:30:20 PM  
Remember everyone: Fetuses are sacred. Children are a welfare plague that need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps!!!
 
2014-01-22 11:32:10 PM  

Lorelle: AirForceVet: I, for one, welcome our new abortionist overlords.

Oh, abortions have been legal for how many years?

I, for one, welcomed our new abortionist overlords.

It depends on which state you live in.

Ronald Reagan made abortion legal in my state in 1967.


Stop!
If you name three facts about Real Reagan, Zombie Reagan disappears in a puff of logic.
/Real Reagan was a union member. He was even a union president. (Take that, neo(confederate)s!)
//Real Reagan was for gun control his entire political career, and not "just in his senility".
///Slashies come in threes!
 
2014-01-22 11:53:48 PM  

kerrigand: The sooner people realize that we're all animals, the sooner you'll realize all of this is just ramblings on.
If you think for a second that you're above any creature in the kingdom, then you're just kidding yourself.
We're all animals, and if you haven't realized it by now, then, hopefully someone will come hit you on the
head with a hard object and let you realize it.


Hitting people on the head with hard objects never helps.

The Useless Song

If people ain't much good
Just hit 'em on the hood
But though you hit 'em good and hard,
they're never out for good.
Useless, it's useless - even when you're playing rough.
Take it from me, it's useless - you're never rough enough.

Kurt Weil
-Rand Paul
 
2014-01-22 11:54:42 PM  

Phinn: I'd be willing to throw in a free car to any woman who's getting an abortion and also agrees to a tubal ligation.

Every woman should have the right to have sex without fear of pregnancy, after all. And have a car of her own.


The cost-benefit ratio of that plan is terrible.

My alternative proposal; Free weekly lottery tickets to every man who undergoes a voluntary vasectomy.

A fraction of the cost, medically trivial, and most attractive to men with poor impulse control.
 
2014-01-23 12:02:47 AM  
I find it funny that people distance themselves from the bible as far as they possibly can. Yet when asked,
if the meek shall inherit the earth. They're the first ones to step up and say yes, we will.

Unknowing to them, that by evolutionary standards, they're the weakest link.
 
2014-01-23 12:04:35 AM  

Rev.K: Shostie: Holy sh*t, that headline took me a minute.

It's pretty good.


Seems rather obvious.
 
2014-01-23 12:09:41 AM  

kerrigand: I find it funny that people distance themselves from the bible as far as they possibly can. Yet when asked,
if the meek shall inherit the earth. They're the first ones to step up and say yes, we will.

Unknowing to them, that by evolutionary standards, they're the weakest link.



"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."

- Charles Darwin
 
2014-01-23 12:12:06 AM  

ciberido: genner


ciberido: Callous: TheShavingofOccam123: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's only the woman's business or it's not. Political power to subject citizens to the whims of the majority shouldn't be the issue.

Either it's a living human being or it isn't.  Where it's physically located shouldn't be the issue.

So if you were kidnapped one day and woke up to find yourself in some sort of hospital bed hooked up to a machine and told you couldn't leave the room or detach yourself from the machine for the next 9 months (and that a person would die if you did). you'd just say "ok, well, I guess I'm stuck here" then?  You would feel morally obligated to stay, so much so that you would consider it murder to leave the room?


That analogy only works if I was responsible for sending said person to the hospital in the first place.  So yes I would and depending on how I sent that person to the hospital I could be convicted of murder if he died.
 
2014-01-23 12:12:24 AM  

Hickory-smoked: kerrigand: I find it funny that people distance themselves from the bible as far as they possibly can. Yet when asked,
if the meek shall inherit the earth. They're the first ones to step up and say yes, we will.

Unknowing to them, that by evolutionary standards, they're the weakest link.


"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."

- Charles Darwin


Yeah, Darwin was correct, we are destined to fail as a species.
 
2014-01-23 12:16:01 AM  

ciberido: Mean Daddy: Roe vs. Wade gets a birthday.  55 million Amerikans don't.  Most of them minority.  Remind me which party is racist?

[darkmachine.org image 543x600]

You guys never give up on the "You're the REAL bigots!" schtick, do you?


What do you mean "you guys"?
 
2014-01-23 12:23:19 AM  

That Guy Jeff: The My Little Pony Killer: That Guy Jeff: No, they just prioritize "right to live" over "right to control your own body".

No, they are prioritizing one "person's" right to live over another person's right to live. This is so completely about controlling women no matter how many times you try to spin it around in this thread.

The vast majorities of pregnancies aren't life threatening. Your statements would only be valid if the mother died whenever a child was born. In the extremely rare event where that's the case, then yes, they would be prioritizing the life of one person over the life of another. I'm willing to bet that scenario would be significantly less contentious if the "main" issue wasn't so contentious. But for the vast majority of abortions, you're simply wrong: they are prioritizing the life of one human over the "body rights" of another, not the life of another. Let's be honest, it's 3-6 months of being crazy inconvenienced and hormonal and fat, but it's rarely ever in the same ballpark as "being dead".

Now remember, I'm pro-choice. But I'm also pro-accurate information and believe that making up crazy positions for your "enemies" doesn't help solve anything. You know that whole "divided country" thing? You're directly contributing to that by insisting on changing their goal of "stop what we think are murders" to your conspiracy of "the patriarchy is trying to control womyn!" Maybe my view of the matter is just really slanted by the fact that I know far more women who are pro-life than men. And the only dude I know who is pro-life isn't religious and would otherwise be considered a feminist. He just thinks fetuses are alive, and they are human, thus it's wrong to kill them for any reason other than "to save another life", even if that means some other rights have to be compromised. I'm OK with him thinking that, too. It's not an unreasonable position. It's ultimately wrong, but it's not unreasonable. As this is nominally a democracy with all it's craz ...



It's true that it isn't "completely" about controlling women, and there's always more than one rationale for a given position, and yes you have an anecdote about knowing the irreligious feminist abortion unicorn because of course you do, but it would be ridiculous to claim that *in general* support for anti-abortion positions isn't about controlling women *at all*.

Any anti-abortion person who would favour of a rape exception is admitting that a key factor is whether the pregnant woman is *at fault* for her condition. Which would be wholly irrelevant, if they were concerned only with treating a fetus as a person and not at all with forcing women to face the "natural" consequences of having sex. Even an exception for the health of the mother is really quite inconsistent with the notion that abortion is killing a human being; we would not allow such an excuse for homicide in other circumstances.

Much of the opposition to abortion rights is delivered in the context of a broader anti-sex, anti-gay, anti-birth-control, anti-feminist, anti-secular agenda; it seems a little absurd to assume that's a meaningless correlation.
 
2014-01-23 12:28:25 AM  

Hickory-smoked: Phinn: I'd be willing to throw in a free car to any woman who's getting an abortion and also agrees to a tubal ligation.

Every woman should have the right to have sex without fear of pregnancy, after all. And have a car of her own.

The cost-benefit ratio of that plan is terrible.

My alternative proposal; Free weekly lottery tickets to every man who undergoes a voluntary vasectomy.

A fraction of the cost, medically trivial, and most attractive to men with poor impulse control.



Reducing the number of males (or the number of fertile males, as it were) in a population has a negligible effect on a population's size or growth rate.  Other males simply fill the gap, as it were of the absent or non-fertile males.  Female fertility is the overwhelmingly critical factor, as any biologist or game warden will tell you.  Sperm is cheap and plentiful and easy to spread quickly.  Eggs are expensive and pregnancies are long.

Compare the cost of one Cadillac to, say, avoiding the creation of several generations of lifetime net losses to society.  No comparison.

Women get the new car.  Men get a coupon for a double-meat combo meal at Burger King.  It's unfair, but the disparity in incentives is biologically and economically necessary, I'm afraid.
 
2014-01-23 12:29:24 AM  
 
2014-01-23 12:36:39 AM  

Callous: Ishkur: the_vegetarian_cannibal: If abortion is only about killing a human being and not about controlling women's bodies, why do they oppose increased access to contraceptives, which is the easiest and cheapest way to prevent abortions?

Because it's never been about protecting life, it's always been about punishing women for having sex.

Hey look, another ridiculous strawman.


It's about both, more one for some, more the other for others.  Saying opposition to legal abortion is only about punishing women may be ridiculous, but no more so than claiming it's only about saving innocent lives.

And since we're going to have this argument, take a look at this "Pro-Life Belief chart."  I don't claim to agree whole-heartedly with everything in it, but one does have to address those points if one wants to intelligently deny that there's merit to the "punishing women" claim.
 
2014-01-23 12:43:01 AM  

ciberido: I don't claim to agree whole-heartedly with everything in it



That's good, because it's almost entirely a logical fail. If I want to know a pro-lifers beliefs, I'll ask her or him, same as with a pro-choice individual.

Seriously, start with the first one: Abortion bans which protect the mother from legal consequences. Chartmaker thinks "Is this policy consistent with punishing women for having sex? Yes" The rest continues this ridiculous stream of garbage.
 
2014-01-23 01:00:58 AM  
Monkeyfark Ridiculous: It's true that it isn't "completely" about controlling women, and there's always more than one rationale for a given position, and yes you have an anecdote about knowing the irreligious feminist abortion unicorn because of course you do, but it would be ridiculous to claim that *in general* support for anti-abortion positions isn't about controlling women *at all*.

In general? Nope, anti-abortion is about not killing babies. Oh, I'm sure you can find someone who's cackling about the opportunity to control women, but they would be a tiny minority. I know I've never, ever heard someone say "This way, we can tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies!" In fact, the only time "women's rights" ever even comes up in the conversation is when it's a pro-abortion person talking.

Any anti-abortion person who would favour of a rape exception is admitting that a key factor is whether the pregnant woman is *at fault* for her condition. Which would be wholly irrelevant, if they were concerned only with treating a fetus as a person and not at all with forcing women to face the "natural" consequences of having sex. Even an exception for the health of the mother is really quite inconsistent with the notion that abortion is killing a human being; we would not allow such an excuse for homicide in other circumstances.

I didn't say anything about a rape exception. My brother, the guy who's non-religious but pro-life, wouldn't make such an exception. Yeah, rape sucks. But so does murder, and getting raped doesn't justify a murder, so sorry you have to give birth to a kid now, we'll try and catch your rapists and punish him as soon as we can. And we totally allowing killing people to save your own life.

Much of the opposition to abortion rights is delivered in the context of a broader anti-sex, anti-gay, anti-birth-control, anti-feminist, anti-secular agenda; it seems a little absurd to assume that's a meaningless correlation.

True, because a lot of the opponents of abortion are religious and quite a bit of religion is founded on oppressing women. But while there is overlap, all those issues aren't one solid front. There's a lot of variance person to person and issue to issue. That's one of the problems with demonizing and dividing people, by the way. It takes people who might otherwise be in the middle of the road on a lot of issues and polarizes them. Turning everything into an all-or-nothing war between left and right or religious and non-religious pushes people away from the center and causes someone who only cares about one issue to support other ones too just to fight the other side. For example, one of my aunts is VERY anti abortion. She's one of the "There's a baby holocaust going on!" types. You could put the best dude in the world up for election, but if he has a "D" after his name she WILL NOT even consider voting for him/her because the Democratic party supports abortion in it's platform. And that's all there is to it for her. The polarization is so intense that every ballot comes down to "Supports Abortion / Doesn't Support Abortion". If there was less polarization on the issue, she might well be inclined to take a more nuanced view of the world, but in the All Out Battle of Us VS Them there's no room for that. And telling her that she doesn't actually want to save babies lives, all she's doing is trying to control women doesn't help the issue.
 
2014-01-23 01:11:15 AM  

That Guy Jeff: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: InterruptingQuirk: That answer means what?

The law, in its majestic equality, allows men as well as women to abort their fetuses.

The old "gay people can get married, just not to people of the same sex" argument. Awesome.


Pretty old.  1894, to be precise.  The original quote is by Anatole France.
 
2014-01-23 01:21:33 AM  

OooShiny: genner: Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.

Let's test pro-life 'morals.'  If abortion is murder, then quit this nickel-and-dime chipping away at legal abortion like a bunch of Christian pussies and legislate it as murder already.  Next, come arrest ALL of us who've had one.  Arrest ALL the millions of girls, women, mothers, daughters, sisters and wives; Christians and non, for MURDER.

Let's just see just how fast abortion is no longer 'murder'.



I'm surprised nobody's yet quoted Florynce Kennedy: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
 
2014-01-23 01:25:17 AM  

ciberido: "If men could get pregnant, biology would be completely different and our social mores would be unrecognizable."


FTFH
 
2014-01-23 01:45:57 AM  

That Guy Jeff: I didn't say anything about a rape exception. My brother, the guy who's non-religious but pro-life, wouldn't make such an exception. Yeah, rape sucks. But so does murder, and getting raped doesn't justify a murder, so sorry you have to give birth to a kid now, we'll try and catch your rapists and punish him as soon as we can. And we totally allowing killing people to save your own life.


I know, *I* said something about a rape exception because it is a common thing in abortion politics which is logically incompatible with the idea that the anti-abortion political position is purely about murder of fetus-persons.

And no, we do not totally allow you to murder an *innocent* person, even to save your own life (and certainly not just to spare yourself some non-life-threatening health problem).

As for the rest of your remarks, yes, everyone has their own reasons and arguments for their positions and these vary. On *both* sides. I have already agreed that anti-abortion advocacy isn't all about controlling women.I'm just saying (a) you shouldn't pretend control of women doesn't factor into anti-abortion advocacy at all, because it does, and (b) the mere existence of your brother's position doesn't shield others' motivations from criticism.


That Guy Jeff: In fact, the only time "women's rights" ever even comes up in the conversation is when it's a pro-abortion person talking.


Gasp. You don't farking say.

/very few people are "pro-abortion" -  you are giving yourself away there
 
2014-01-23 01:59:39 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: That Guy Jeff: In fact, the only time "women's rights" ever even comes up in the conversation is when it's a pro-abortion person talking.

Gasp. You don't farking say.

/very few people are "pro-abortion" -  you are giving yourself away there


Exactly.

I'm "pro-choice".  I would ~love~ to live in a world were abortion wasn't necessary, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.  Until such time, I support a woman's right to choose, but also support other options, such as adoption.

The problem with a large portion of the pro-life group is that they're also anti-condom, anti-sex education, anti-anything that would actually reduce the number of abortions necessary.  And pro-abstinence, which doesn't work, which they'd know if they remembered being a teenager.


And the politicians who are in the pro-life group are commonly against support services that would help disadvantaged children.  So it often comes across as a "we want you to be born, but once you are, you're on your own".  And then they often claim to be Christian.  Always fun, that.
 
2014-01-23 02:15:21 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: That Guy Jeff: I didn't say anything about a rape exception. My brother, the guy who's non-religious but pro-life, wouldn't make such an exception. Yeah, rape sucks. But so does murder, and getting raped doesn't justify a murder, so sorry you have to give birth to a kid now, we'll try and catch your rapists and punish him as soon as we can. And we totally allowing killing people to save your own life.

I know, *I* said something about a rape exception because it is a common thing in abortion politics which is logically incompatible with the idea that the anti-abortion political position is purely about murder of fetus-persons.

And no, we do not totally allow you to murder an *innocent* person, even to save your own life (and certainly not just to spare yourself some non-life-threatening health problem).


When you try to come up with situations that are exceptions and the opposition accepts some of those exceptions, it's not very fair to turn around and say "Hah! It's logically inconsistent to support that!" I would take making exceptions as a positive sign that people are trying to compromise.

Here, try this for inconstancy:   http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Only 1% of people polled supported abortion being *always legal*, that is, women's body rights always trumping fetus "living rights". 85% say there's a point where fetus rights outweigh women's rights. The number of people applying a consistent, unyielding belief in women's rights to control their bodies is downright *trivial*, across the board. If women had an absolute right to control their bodies or believed that they should, wouldn't that number be a lot higher? It's "logically incompatible" to say women have a right to control their bodies at the cost of a potential human life but then make exceptions for the age of the fetus. :P

Anyhow, it doesn't really matter. I'm not trying to point out gotchas or even solve the debate. We both agree on the issue. What we disagree on is the usefulness of shouting "women hater" or "baby killer" at each other. I do believe, and will continue to believe, that saying the anti-abortion peeps are doing what they do to control women is an extreme misrepresentation of their motives and goals EQUAL in error to saying pro-abortion peeps like killing babies. I'm sure somewhere there's someone who wants to use abortions to control women, and I'm sure somewhere there's someone who likes killing babies. But I've never met either of them and they certainly aren't the norm.

/very few people are "pro-abortion" -  you are giving yourself away there

Pro-abortion being shorthand for "pro-abortion rights" because "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are deceptive labels that aren't entirely descriptive of the issues and I'm getting tired of using them. Call the sides whatever you want.
 
2014-01-23 02:16:04 AM  

InterruptingQuirk: Man and woman have consensual sex. Unintended pregnancy occurs. Man does not want child. Woman decides to keep it. Woman has child. Man now obligated to mother and child. Woman had choice man did not. She had the option after conception. Her choice affected the man. The man can do nothing about this choice. Why does he not have a choice to not support her choice?(double negative, I know) Basically, why doesn't he have the right to become a deadbeat dad?


Because, in a word, biology.

As has been said already in this thread, come up with a way a man can carry a baby to term, or better yet, an artificial womb so that the fetus can grow into a baby without needing to be inside anyone's body, and then we'll talk about men's rights and "financial abortion."

Until then, it's just tough cookies, I'm afraid.
 
2014-01-23 02:28:23 AM  

BrassArt: Here's to 4 decades of an unreversed court decision based on a lie.


I'm probably wasting my breath trying to suss out any sort of reasoning from you, but what "lie" do you imagine that Roe-v-Wade is based upon?
 
2014-01-23 02:42:40 AM  

That Guy Jeff: Pro-abortion being shorthand for "pro-abortion rights" because "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are deceptive labels that aren't entirely descriptive of the issues and I'm getting tired of using them. Call the sides whatever you want.


On the contrary, "pro-abortion" is completely deceptive.  People who want abortion to be safe and legal don't want there to be MORE abortions.  We want there to be FEWER abortions thanks to preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

That is something that everyone should be able to agree on, but sadly, a lot of the Pro-Life crowd is ALSO opposed to contraceptives, sex education, and other measures which would significantly decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies.

And on what basis exactly do you see "pro-Choice" as misleading?
 
2014-01-23 02:48:24 AM  

mithras_angel: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: That Guy Jeff: In fact, the only time "women's rights" ever even comes up in the conversation is when it's a pro-abortion person talking.

Gasp. You don't farking say.

/very few people are "pro-abortion" -  you are giving yourself away there

Exactly.

I'm "pro-choice".  I would ~love~ to live in a world were abortion wasn't necessary, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.  Until such time, I support a woman's right to choose, but also support other options, such as adoption.

The problem with a large portion of the pro-life group is that they're also anti-condom, anti-sex education, anti-anything that would actually reduce the number of abortions necessary.  And pro-abstinence, which doesn't work, which they'd know if they remembered being a teenager.


And the politicians who are in the pro-life group are commonly against support services that would help disadvantaged children.  So it often comes across as a "we want you to be born, but once you are, you're on your own".  And then they often claim to be Christian.  Always fun, that.


Again, there's absolutely nothing inconsistent with being against (what you consider to be) murder and not wanted to be forced into paying for/helping out disadvantaged children. Inconsistency would be if they weren't against murdering disadvantaged children. But yes, not being socialists is very anti-Christian.
 
2014-01-23 02:59:35 AM  

ciberido: That Guy Jeff: Pro-abortion being shorthand for "pro-abortion rights" because "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are deceptive labels that aren't entirely descriptive of the issues and I'm getting tired of using them. Call the sides whatever you want.

On the contrary, "pro-abortion" is completely deceptive.  People who want abortion to be safe and legal don't want there to be MORE abortions.  We want there to be FEWER abortions thanks to preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

That is something that everyone should be able to agree on, but sadly, a lot of the Pro-Life crowd is ALSO opposed to contraceptives, sex education, and other measures which would significantly decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies.

And on what basis exactly do you see "pro-Choice" as misleading?


Pro-choice is deceptive because that means the other side is anti-choice. But their goal isn't removing choices, it's stopping what they consider to be murders. No one has the "choice" to be a murderer. Hell, they would just say "I am pro-choice, the choice of the baby. Let's let him grow up and see if he wants to live." :P Just like pro-life is deceptive because the other side isn't "anti-life". The correct titles would be pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion rights. Even that's not entirely fair because almost no one is in favor of absolute abortion rights, and only about 20% people are against abortion rights entirely. So an even better name would be "generally against the expansion or maintaining of current levels of abortion rights" and "generally for the expansion or maintaining of current levels of abortion rights". That's kind of a pain to type out though. So I'll just say "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" to get make it understood which of the two groups I'm referencing, regardless of whatever pedantic openings that makes.
 
2014-01-23 03:26:36 AM  

That Guy Jeff: When you try to come up with situations that are exceptions and the opposition accepts some of those exceptions, it's not very fair to turn around and say "Hah! It's logically inconsistent to support that!" I would take making exceptions as a positive sign that people are trying to compromise.


Whether it is unfair or not, it is accurate. Also, a lot of people who oppose abortion rights in general would say that certain exceptions are not just pragmatic but *right*. Either they're lying or they have a rationale that goes beyond merely considering the fetus a person.

Also, this isn't in some vacuum; it is in the context that I described earlier. These exceptions are just a place where other motives for anti-abortion sentiment are forced to the surface, not the only indication that they are there.


That Guy Jeff: Here, try this for inconstancy:   http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Only 1% of people polled supported abortion being *always legal*, that is, women's body rights always trumping fetus "living rights". 85% say there's a point where fetus rights outweigh women's rights. The number of people applying a consistent, unyielding belief in women's rights to control their bodies is downright *trivial*, across the board. If women had an absolute right to control their bodies or believed that they should, wouldn't that number be a lot higher? It's "logically incompatible" to say women have a right to control their bodies at the cost of a potential human life but then make exceptions for the age of the fetus. :P

 Right, you have correctly noted that an absolutist pro-choice stance, having nothing to do with the personhood of the fetus, is far from universal and that the actual views of actual pro-choice people would contradict a hypothetical person who might suggest it was.
Just like my example illustrated that a purely "abortion=murder" anti-abortion stance, having nothing to do with views on women or sex, is far from universal and that the actual views of actual anti-abortion people contradict your suggestion that it was.
 
2014-01-23 04:25:37 AM  

That Guy Jeff: I'm not trying to point out gotchas or even solve the debate. We both agree on the issue. What we disagree on is the usefulness of shouting "women hater" or "baby killer" at each other.


Oh, I missed this. Wow. This is farking RICH. Yeah, I'm a longtime advocate of shouting "woman hater" and "baby killer" at each other, you got me.

Fark you and the transparent agenda you rode in on, you "pro-abortion" weasel.
 
2014-01-23 05:14:37 AM  
Hey, I know I'm late here, but I have a question. Has Death Whisper ever actually articulated an opinion on an issue, or does he rely soley on right wing talking .jpgs?
 
2014-01-23 08:27:55 AM  

cretinbob: Row versus wade? I prefer motorboating


www.motorboatyourself.com
 
2014-01-23 09:46:59 AM  

ciberido: InterruptingQuirk: Man and woman have consensual sex. Unintended pregnancy occurs. Man does not want child. Woman decides to keep it. Woman has child. Man now obligated to mother and child. Woman had choice man did not. She had the option after conception. Her choice affected the man. The man can do nothing about this choice. Why does he not have a choice to not support her choice?(double negative, I know) Basically, why doesn't he have the right to become a deadbeat dad?

Because, in a word, biology.

As has been said already in this thread, come up with a way a man can carry a baby to term, or better yet, an artificial womb so that the fetus can grow into a baby without needing to be inside anyone's body, and then we'll talk about men's rights and "financial abortion."

Until then, it's just tough cookies, I'm afraid.


So it's tough cookies for men, but not for women?

Biology trumps the wishes of the man in regard to her keeping it, and biology trumps his wishes on supporting it. The man is being punished for committing the same act the woman did, and yet she gets to make the determination for her, the fetus, and the man. If her biology trumps his wishes in regards to her, then his biology should trump her wishes in regards to him.
 
2014-01-23 11:34:55 AM  
Is it possible that the nutty right is so obsessed with abortion because it takes mostly what would be white, better-off children, while the "undesirables" continue pumping out babies for the most part? It's difficult to imagine racism/xenophobia not infecting everything they think about. They'd never admit this, of course.
 
2014-01-23 11:50:17 AM  

menschenfresser: Is it possible that the nutty right is so obsessed with abortion because it takes mostly what would be white, better-off children, while the "undesirables" continue pumping out babies for the most part? It's difficult to imagine racism/xenophobia not infecting everything they think about. They'd never admit this, of course.



Abortions are disproportionately black and Hispanic. By a lot.  (Sources are here and here.)

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-23 11:53:14 AM  
Sorry, here's the first source.

And another CDC graphic.

www.cdc.gov
 
2014-01-23 12:01:12 PM  

menschenfresser: Is it possible that the nutty right is so obsessed with abortion because it takes mostly what would be white, better-off children, while the "undesirables" continue pumping out babies for the most part? It's difficult to imagine racism/xenophobia not infecting everything they think about. They'd never admit this, of course.


There was a link earlier in the thread documenting that the ratio is about 70/30 opposite of what you presume.
 
2014-01-23 12:12:43 PM  

Phinn: menschenfresser: Is it possible that the nutty right is so obsessed with abortion because it takes mostly what would be white, better-off children, while the "undesirables" continue pumping out babies for the most part? It's difficult to imagine racism/xenophobia not infecting everything they think about. They'd never admit this, of course.

Abortions are disproportionately black and Hispanic. By a lot.  (Sources are here and here.)

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 850x615]


Thank you for the information. I'm glad I asked now.
 
2014-01-23 12:12:56 PM  
scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2014-01-23 12:18:28 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: ciberido: InterruptingQuirk: Man and woman have consensual sex. Unintended pregnancy occurs. Man does not want child. Woman decides to keep it. Woman has child. Man now obligated to mother and child. Woman had choice man did not. She had the option after conception. Her choice affected the man. The man can do nothing about this choice. Why does he not have a choice to not support her choice?(double negative, I know) Basically, why doesn't he have the right to become a deadbeat dad?

Because, in a word, biology.

As has been said already in this thread, come up with a way a man can carry a baby to term, or better yet, an artificial womb so that the fetus can grow into a baby without needing to be inside anyone's body, and then we'll talk about men's rights and "financial abortion."

Until then, it's just tough cookies, I'm afraid.

So it's tough cookies for men, but not for women?



You're not really this stupid.  Stop pretending.
 
2014-01-23 12:47:09 PM  

ciberido: InterruptingQuirk: ciberido: InterruptingQuirk: Man and woman have consensual sex. Unintended pregnancy occurs. Man does not want child. Woman decides to keep it. Woman has child. Man now obligated to mother and child. Woman had choice man did not. She had the option after conception. Her choice affected the man. The man can do nothing about this choice. Why does he not have a choice to not support her choice?(double negative, I know) Basically, why doesn't he have the right to become a deadbeat dad?

Because, in a word, biology.

As has been said already in this thread, come up with a way a man can carry a baby to term, or better yet, an artificial womb so that the fetus can grow into a baby without needing to be inside anyone's body, and then we'll talk about men's rights and "financial abortion."

Until then, it's just tough cookies, I'm afraid.

So it's tough cookies for men, but not for women?


You're not really this stupid.  Stop pretending.


Please don't be disparaging about this.

The liberty that some women have always wanted has been attained. Yet the liberty of men has not come with it.

In most two-party contracts, the right to cancel is reserved under the condition that both parties consent.

Under the current system, Party Her has the right to cancel without consent of Party Him for whatever condition Party Her wishes.

Party Him has no condition under which to cancel the contract or his involvement with it.

Impossibility of Performance should allow Party Him to cancel the contract, but there has been a violation of this recourse based on motivators which were previously deemed as irrelevant in the case of Party her's reasons for canceling.

Contracts are voidable if mistake occurs. An unintended pregnancy is a mistake.

Contracts are voidable if one of the parties was incapacitated at the time of entering into the contract. Being under the influence could render one incapacitated according to the law.

Prior Agreement should suffice in this regard as the two parties only agreed to sexual intercourse and not to adopting any responsibilities from said act. Party Her has additional recourse as mentioned before to dismiss any responsibilities that develop from said act, whereas once again Party Him does not.

Party Her's actions resulted in a situation equally as much as Party Him's actions and yet Party Her has recourse that has been denied Party Him.

These are just a few considerations, which I wish Fark's resident lawyer(s) would weigh in on. I implore you not dismiss this entire presentation on the grounds of presumed ignorance on the subject and apply the common sense test without including any societal bias to the table.

/IA(obviously)NAL
//spitballing
 
2014-01-23 01:09:55 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: In most two-party contracts


No.
Just stop.
STFU until you can show all of us on Fark one of your contracts.
(You know, where a woman consented to pregnancy.)
Notarized and witnessed.
Otherwise ...

/Until you have your very own OEM uterus, STFU.
 
2014-01-23 01:13:08 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: You know, where a woman consented to pregnancy



I'd love to see the contract where the man consented to fatherhood.


Society has an interest in men providing for their children, that is the only rational reason against the "terminating fatherhood" concept. All the others are either personal or emotional.
 
2014-01-23 01:19:40 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: InterruptingQuirk: In most two-party contracts

No.
Just stop.
STFU until you can show all of us on Fark one of your contracts.
(You know, where a woman consented to pregnancy.)
Notarized and witnessed.
Otherwise ...


Verbal contracts are binding and legal in many states. There are also implied-in-fact contracts and implied-in-law contracts that come out of verbal contracts.
 
2014-01-23 01:23:29 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: /Until you have your very own OEM uterus, STFU.


He isn't trying to affect the self-determination of the woman and her uterus. What does a uterus have to do with the self-determination of the man regarding his own liberty?
 
2014-01-23 02:18:25 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: InterruptingQuirk: In most two-party contracts

No.
Just stop.
STFU until you can show all of us on Fark one of your contracts.
(You know, where a woman consented to pregnancy.)
Notarized and witnessed.
Otherwise ...

/Until you have your very own OEM uterus, STFU.


If you have sex without birth control, you have accepted that responsibility.  Given that the logical conclusion is pregnancy.

In truth, that applies to men and women.  But men don't get pregnant.
 
2014-01-23 02:42:16 PM  

Kahabut: If you have sex without birth control, you have accepted that responsibility. Given that the logical conclusion is pregnancy.


That is not a given. Plenty of people in this world have penile/vaginal intercourse using no form of birth control, and a pregnancy does not occur.
 
2014-01-23 03:08:13 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Kahabut: If you have sex without birth control, you have accepted that responsibility. Given that the logical conclusion is pregnancy.

That is not a given. Plenty of people in this world have penile/vaginal intercourse using no form of birth control, and a pregnancy does not occur.


True, it is not 100% given that you will get pregnant, but you would probably be wise to assume that it was.
 
2014-01-23 04:21:34 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: ciberido: InterruptingQuirk: ciberido: InterruptingQuirk: Man and woman have consensual sex. Unintended pregnancy occurs. Man does not want child. Woman decides to keep it. Woman has child. Man now obligated to mother and child. Woman had choice man did not. She had the option after conception. Her choice affected the man. The man can do nothing about this choice. Why does he not have a choice to not support her choice?(double negative, I know) Basically, why doesn't he have the right to become a deadbeat dad?

Because, in a word, biology.

As has been said already in this thread, come up with a way a man can carry a baby to term, or better yet, an artificial womb so that the fetus can grow into a baby without needing to be inside anyone's body, and then we'll talk about men's rights and "financial abortion."

Until then, it's just tough cookies, I'm afraid.

So it's tough cookies for men, but not for women?


You're not really this stupid.  Stop pretending.

Please don't be disparaging about this.

The liberty that some women have always wanted has been attained. Yet the liberty of men has not come with it.

In most two-party contracts, the right to cancel is reserved under the condition that both parties consent.

Under the current system, Party Her has the right to cancel without consent of Party Him for whatever condition Party Her wishes.

Party Him has no condition under which to cancel the contract or his involvement with it.

Impossibility of Performance should allow Party Him to cancel the contract, but there has been a violation of this recourse based on motivators which were previously deemed as irrelevant in the case of Party her's reasons for canceling.

Contracts are voidable if mistake occurs. An unintended pregnancy is a mistake.

Contracts are voidable if one of the parties was incapacitated at the time of entering into the contract. Being under the influence could render one incapacitated according to the law.

Prior Agreement should suffice in thi ...


Each party has an undivided 1/2 interest in the fetus (and, thereafter, the child).  Under the current system, the mother can work a summary forfeiture on the father's undivided half interest in the event she chooses to abort.  Equity therefore demands that the male should be able to "quit claim" his interest in the fetus entirely over to the mother, divesting himself of any interest or liability thereto, in the event she chooses to keep the child.  If the mother has the unilateral right to a medical abortion, the father should have the right to an equitable abortion in the form of a fetal quit claim option.
 
2014-01-23 04:40:02 PM  

another cultural observer: InterruptingQuirk: ciberido: InterruptingQuirk: ciberido: InterruptingQuirk: Man and woman have consensual sex. Unintended pregnancy occurs. Man does not want child. Woman decides to keep it. Woman has child. Man now obligated to mother and child. Woman had choice man did not. She had the option after conception. Her choice affected the man. The man can do nothing about this choice. Why does he not have a choice to not support her choice?(double negative, I know) Basically, why doesn't he have the right to become a deadbeat dad?

Because, in a word, biology.

As has been said already in this thread, come up with a way a man can carry a baby to term, or better yet, an artificial womb so that the fetus can grow into a baby without needing to be inside anyone's body, and then we'll talk about men's rights and "financial abortion."

Until then, it's just tough cookies, I'm afraid.

So it's tough cookies for men, but not for women?


You're not really this stupid.  Stop pretending.

Please don't be disparaging about this.

The liberty that some women have always wanted has been attained. Yet the liberty of men has not come with it.

In most two-party contracts, the right to cancel is reserved under the condition that both parties consent.

Under the current system, Party Her has the right to cancel without consent of Party Him for whatever condition Party Her wishes.

Party Him has no condition under which to cancel the contract or his involvement with it.

Impossibility of Performance should allow Party Him to cancel the contract, but there has been a violation of this recourse based on motivators which were previously deemed as irrelevant in the case of Party her's reasons for canceling.

Contracts are voidable if mistake occurs. An unintended pregnancy is a mistake.

Contracts are voidable if one of the parties was incapacitated at the time of entering into the contract. Being under the influence could render one incapacitated according to the law.

Prior Agreement should suffice in thi ...

Each party has an undivided 1/2 interest in the fetus (and, thereafter, the child).  Under the current system, the mother can work a summary forfeiture on the father's undivided half interest in the event she chooses to abort.  Equity therefore demands that the male should be able to "quit claim" his interest in the fetus entirely over to the mother, divesting himself of any interest or liability thereto, in the event she chooses to keep the child.  If the mother has the unilateral right to a medical abortion, the father should have the right to an equitable abortion in the form of a fetal quit claim option.


You're forgetting the overriding legal principle, which is that women must be absolved of all responsibity for their actions and sustenance, and all rules must be written so as to give women the widest possible range of consequence-free options regardless of the prejudice that such a system may cause for men or children.

Because reasons. And because of corsets, 100 years ago.

Sisters may be doing it for themselves, but don't expect them to act like grown-ups, you unreconstructed Neanderthal.
 
2014-01-23 05:00:37 PM  
Phinn: chart

That chart (first one) is nearly worthless. Scrolling down to the bottom of the source chart and we see that lots of states (including the most populous one, California, and the third most populous, New York) are excluded.

I'm not seeing the usefulness of a chart that purports to tell us the % of abortions performed on women of various "ethnicities" that excludes half of the states in the country.
 
2014-01-23 05:09:26 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Contracts are voidable if mistake occurs. An unintended pregnancy is a mistake.


But it's not a contract.
 
2014-01-23 05:09:40 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Phinn: chart

That chart (first one) is nearly worthless. Scrolling down to the bottom of the source chart and we see that lots of states (including the most populous one, California, and the third most populous, New York) are excluded.

I'm not seeing the usefulness of a chart that purports to tell us the % of abortions performed on women of various "ethnicities" that excludes half of the states in the country.


Is the CDC chart in my other post more reliable? Other than using government and minority-advocate websites, I haven't done any independent verification.
 
Al! [TotalFark]
2014-01-23 05:11:29 PM  

hardinparamedic: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

And fark you, Sir, as a man who thinks that women have the basic human right to not be forced to be an incubating meatsack for a fetus.


No one forced her to do anything.  It was her idea to begin with, and she was "twsiting my arm" on the matter.  I consented because you have to take someone at their word and I thought we were on the right course.  I still don't know where the relationship went wrong, but I will never agree that she had a right to terminate my child without even consulting me.  Had it been for health reasons, more power to her, but we talked about it for over a month before we decided to go through with it and there were no health concerns.  It wasn't kneejerk, and it wasn't coerced.  She wanted a baby and she wanted me to be the father.  When I finally consented to the idea, I was all in.  I don't take choices like that lightly.

To the many others who responded (I'm not going page for page and picking out every response to rebut,) I'm not whining.  I spent almost 3 months with the mindset that I was going to be a father, then I had to pry the information out of her that she was no longer pregnant... on Christmas Eve.  Had I not bothered to ask her, I still likely would not know.  She was acting like she was still with child as soon as the Monday prior to my asking, despite the pregnancy being over sometime in early November.  I am happy that I know who she is now (I was positive I knew her before, but with no one to tell me one way or another, I have to take her word) and that I don't have to deal with her for the rest of my life, but I will never be happy that the child that I made never had a fair and honest shot at life, simply because his/her mother didn't want the hassle.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for freedom of choice, I just think that the man should have some say in the matter if he wants.  Pregnancy isn't a spontaneous health issue that arises from unknown means.  It takes male and female input.  Why does the female get the only say in whether the baby gets a chance or not?  I would have willingly taken my child off of her hands and raised it myself if she didn't want it, and I was already committing myself to ensuring she was financially and physically stable for the prenancy.
 
2014-01-23 05:21:49 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: ciberido: InterruptingQuirk: ciberido: InterruptingQuirk: Man and woman have consensual sex. Unintended pregnancy occurs. Man does not want child. Woman decides to keep it. Woman has child. Man now obligated to mother and child. Woman had choice man did not. She had the option after conception. Her choice affected the man. The man can do nothing about this choice. Why does he not have a choice to not support her choice?(double negative, I know) Basically, why doesn't he have the right to become a deadbeat dad?

Because, in a word, biology.

As has been said already in this thread, come up with a way a man can carry a baby to term, or better yet, an artificial womb so that the fetus can grow into a baby without needing to be inside anyone's body, and then we'll talk about men's rights and "financial abortion."

Until then, it's just tough cookies, I'm afraid.

So it's tough cookies for men, but not for women?


You're not really this stupid.  Stop pretending.

Please don't be disparaging about this.


I'm not trying to insult you.  Before this thread I held you in rather high esteem.  I'm just going to assume that one of us is having a really bad day and pretend this thread never happened.
 
2014-01-23 05:55:12 PM  
Reproduction is not a right, unless you reproduce by parthenogenesis, or perhaps through binary fission like an amoeba. If an act requires cooperation or assistance, then it's not a right.

So many grey areas can be easily resolved if privileges and entitlements and benefits stop being treated like rights.

Rights might be enumerated, but rights themselves are unconditional. Any time that a right is qualified ie civil rights, human rights, property rights, reproductive rights, then what is actually being presented is a group of entitlements that a given society thinks everyone should have.
 
Al! [TotalFark]
2014-01-23 06:10:49 PM  

Ringshadow: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

It isn't YOUR body going through massive changes that can be endangering to life you self righteous prick. Guess what, because of the inherent nature of biology it is not 50/50. You can NOT make someone else carry a child. You do NOT have dominion over someone else's body just because you donated genetic material.

/knew a woman who had to terminate two weeks outside of viability because the pregnancy was killing her
//and I mean killing her. I mean bedridden with grand mal seizures they couldn't stop


So because the physical burden is entirely on the female, it should be 100/0?  I agree whole-heartedly that it isn't a 50/50 split, but you can't get pregnant without a man doing something somewhere along the line.  To make it a 100% female choice you are ignoring the fact that men are involved in the situation.  Were the roles reversed, I would have zero recourse.  I would be liable for support until my unwanted child turned 18.  Even if it was an unplanned prenancy, and even if we took every step to ensure prenancy did not occur short of not having sex.

Again, if it had been aborted for health concerns, I would have never posted here.  She aborted it so she wouldn't be reminded about the time she changed her mind.  She aborted it so she wouldn't be inconvenienced; so she could go out and party on her days off.  I have absolutely no qualms about abortion as a health decision.  I have nothing but qualms about abortion for vanity.  It's disgusting and abhorrent behavior, and it is indicative of the major flaws in our "throw-away" society.

/not religious
//not conservative
 
2014-01-23 06:49:52 PM  

Al!: hardinparamedic: Al!: As a man who recently conceived a child intentionally with a woman who wanted to have my baby, who then dumped me and aborted my child: Fark you RvW, and Fark everyone who says a man should have no say in the matter.

And fark you, Sir, as a man who thinks that women have the basic human right to not be forced to be an incubating meatsack for a fetus.

No one forced her to do anything.  It was her idea to begin with, and she was "twsiting my arm" on the matter.  I consented because you have to take someone at their word and I thought we were on the right course.  I still don't know where the relationship went wrong, but I will never agree that she had a right to terminate my child without even consulting me.  Had it been for health reasons, more power to her, but we talked about it for over a month before we decided to go through with it and there were no health concerns.  It wasn't kneejerk, and it wasn't coerced.  She wanted a baby and she wanted me to be the father.  When I finally consented to the idea, I was all in.  I don't take choices like that lightly.

To the many others who responded (I'm not going page for page and picking out every response to rebut,) I'm not whining.  I spent almost 3 months with the mindset that I was going to be a father, then I had to pry the information out of her that she was no longer pregnant... on Christmas Eve.  Had I not bothered to ask her, I still likely would not know.  She was acting like she was still with child as soon as the Monday prior to my asking, despite the pregnancy being over sometime in early November.  I am happy that I know who she is now (I was positive I knew her before, but with no one to tell me one way or another, I have to take her word) and that I don't have to deal with her for the rest of my life, but I will never be happy that the child that I made never had a fair and honest shot at life, simply because his/her mother didn't want the hassle.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for f ...


You know what, personally I'd agree that she did have a moral obligation to honestly consider your wishes (I'm assuming that she didn't doubt it was yours, and there was nothing that might've made her think that talking to you wasn't safe, etc).

But not every moral obligation can be turned into a legal obligation. Ultimately society can't reasonably demand that she get a man's permission before exercising a basic level of control over what's happening to and within her own body. Even a requirement to consult with you would be fraught with problems (that assumption that I just made about you doesn't apply in every case, for instance) and no one could force her to genuinely take your concerns into account anyway. You can take a short cut or go the long way, but I think you end up in the same place.

InterruptingQuirk: ...Prior Agreement should suffice in this regard as the two parties only agreed to sexual intercourse and not to adopting any responsibilities from said act. Party Her has additional recourse as mentioned before to dismiss any responsibilities that develop from said act, whereas once again Party Him does not.

Party Her's actions resulted in a situation equally as much as Party Him's actions and yet Party Her has recourse that has been denied Party Him.

These are just a few considerations, which I wish Fark's resident lawyer(s) would weigh in on. I implore you not dismiss this entire presentation on the grounds of presumed ignorance on the subject and apply the common sense test without including any societal bias to the table.


In short, you and a couple of the other posters are trying to turn sex into a contract, a fetus into property, a child into a business venture, and so on, and neither the law nor society normally views these things through that lens for the very good reason that it makes no farking sense to do so. A fetus is not a piece of property; it is either a part of someone else or it is someone else. A child isn't a JV business; it is a person. No one is agreeing to anything, let alone your oddball ideas about parenting, by merely having sex with you. Children require care regardless of how they occur, and it is normally in the interests of both the child and society to require parents to provide that care to the extent possible.
 
2014-01-23 07:35:55 PM  

another cultural observer: Each party has an undivided 1/2 interest in the fetus (and, thereafter, the child).  Under the current system, the mother can work a summary forfeiture on the father's undivided half interest in the event she chooses to abort.  Equity therefore demands that the male should be able to "quit claim" his interest in the fetus entirely over to the mother, divesting himself of any interest or liability thereto, in the event she chooses to keep the child.  If the mother has the unilateral right to a medical abortion, the father should have the right to an equitable abortion in the form of a fetal quit claim option.


1. A woman is not chattel. Her uterus. Her body.
2. A sperm donor is not a father until a fetus has graduated from fetus status to child status.
3. Your argument has negative merit.
 
2014-01-23 07:44:23 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: another cultural observer: Each party has an undivided 1/2 interest in the fetus (and, thereafter, the child).  Under the current system, the mother can work a summary forfeiture on the father's undivided half interest in the event she chooses to abort.  Equity therefore demands that the male should be able to "quit claim" his interest in the fetus entirely over to the mother, divesting himself of any interest or liability thereto, in the event she chooses to keep the child.  If the mother has the unilateral right to a medical abortion, the father should have the right to an equitable abortion in the form of a fetal quit claim option.

1. A woman is not chattel. Her uterus. Her body.
2. A sperm donor is not a father until a fetus has graduated from fetus status to child status.
3. Your argument has negative merit.


1. You're right, and nothing I said would prevent her from making whatever decision she wanted regarding her precious uterus.  Her rights to do as she pleases are perfectly protected.
2. OK.
3. Mad TV sucks
 
2014-01-23 08:14:57 PM  

another cultural observer: demaL-demaL-yeH: another cultural observer: Each party has an undivided 1/2 interest in the fetus (and, thereafter, the child).  Under the current system, the mother can work a summary forfeiture on the father's undivided half interest in the event she chooses to abort.  Equity therefore demands that the male should be able to "quit claim" his interest in the fetus entirely over to the mother, divesting himself of any interest or liability thereto, in the event she chooses to keep the child.  If the mother has the unilateral right to a medical abortion, the father should have the right to an equitable abortion in the form of a fetal quit claim option.

1. A woman is not chattel. Her uterus. Her body.
2. A sperm donor is not a father until a fetus has graduated from fetus status to child status.
3. Your argument has negative merit.

1. You're right, and nothing I said would prevent her from making whatever decision she wanted regarding her precious uterus.  Her rights to do as she pleases are perfectly protected.
2. OK.
3. Mad TV sucks


1. Was that supposed to be an objection? You don't have any rights to another person's body. Period.
2. And you've just conceded the entire ridiculous argument you posed.
3. That argument, too, has negative comparative merit. And we're through.
 
2014-01-23 08:21:53 PM  

Al!: Why does the female get the only say in whether the baby gets a chance or not?


Do you seriously not know the answer to this question?  Really?
 
2014-01-23 08:25:58 PM  
It would be nice if folks stopped conflating the issue of a man's rights separate from a woman's decision to have an abortion and the issue of a woman's decision to have an abortion.

demaL-demaL-yeH:

1. Was that supposed to be an objection? You don't have any rights to another person's body. Period.
2. And you've just conceded the entire ridiculous argument you posed.


1. You think he(or I)was arguing for a man to have a right to determine whether a woman can have an abortion, which is in error.
2. See #1 to know why he didn't concede the argument as you don't have a grasp of what is being argued.
 
2014-01-23 08:32:59 PM  

Pincy: Al!: Why does the female get the only say in whether the baby gets a chance or not?

Do you seriously not know the answer to this question?  Really?


After reading Al!s post that you replied to, I'd say he has a legitimate gripe. But hey, you go ahead and call he and I 'anti-woman/woman haters' if it makes you feel better. Nothing could be further from the truth.
 
2014-01-23 08:41:02 PM  

John Buck 41: Pincy: Al!: Why does the female get the only say in whether the baby gets a chance or not?

Do you seriously not know the answer to this question?  Really?

After reading Al!s post that you replied to, I'd say he has a legitimate gripe. But hey, you go ahead and call he and I 'anti-woman/woman haters' if it makes you feel better. Nothing could be further from the truth.


So you don't know the answer to that question either.  Good to know.
 
2014-01-23 08:46:25 PM  

Pincy: John Buck 41: Pincy: Al!: Why does the female get the only say in whether the baby gets a chance or not?

Do you seriously not know the answer to this question?  Really?

After reading Al!s post that you replied to, I'd say he has a legitimate gripe. But hey, you go ahead and call he and I 'anti-woman/woman haters' if it makes you feel better. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So you don't know the answer to that question either.  Good to know.


Because the U.S. Supreme Court said she does, and they have upheld that ruling being challenged a few different ways. Make that of it what you will, I'm not adding my personal bias to that fact.
 
2014-01-23 08:52:49 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Pincy: John Buck 41: Pincy: Al!: Why does the female get the only say in whether the baby gets a chance or not?

Do you seriously not know the answer to this question?  Really?

After reading Al!s post that you replied to, I'd say he has a legitimate gripe. But hey, you go ahead and call he and I 'anti-woman/woman haters' if it makes you feel better. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So you don't know the answer to that question either.  Good to know.

Because the U.S. Supreme Court said she does, and they have upheld that ruling being challenged a few different ways. Make that of it what you will, I'm not adding my personal bias to that fact.


Forget the law for a second and answer this using the perspective of a decent human being.  Why would the woman get the last say in whether she has an abortion or not?
 
2014-01-23 08:56:08 PM  

Pincy: John Buck 41: Pincy: Al!: Why does the female get the only say in whether the baby gets a chance or not?

Do you seriously not know the answer to this question?  Really?

After reading Al!s post that you replied to, I'd say he has a legitimate gripe. But hey, you go ahead and call he and I 'anti-woman/woman haters' if it makes you feel better. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So you don't know the answer to that question either.  Good to know.


So you think Al! should've had zero input on the decision? Not 49%, not 50% (and decided with a coin flip) but literally ZERO percent input?

That's also good to know.
 
2014-01-23 09:02:46 PM  

John Buck 41: Pincy: John Buck 41: Pincy: Al!: Why does the female get the only say in whether the baby gets a chance or not?

Do you seriously not know the answer to this question?  Really?

After reading Al!s post that you replied to, I'd say he has a legitimate gripe. But hey, you go ahead and call he and I 'anti-woman/woman haters' if it makes you feel better. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So you don't know the answer to that question either.  Good to know.

So you think Al! should've had zero input on the decision? Not 49%, not 50% (and decided with a coin flip) but literally ZERO percent input?

That's also good to know.


I am hopeful that at some point in the future science will advance to the point where men can become pregnant and then all us guys who long to have babies can do so ourselves and not have to worry about the woman spoiling it for us.  But until that time, yes, ultimately, Ali has zero input because the decision is up to the woman.

I agree, it sucks, but that's nature.  We all know the rules going into the game.  If you don't trust the woman you are having sex with to make the decision you want her to make then don't have sex with her.  But ultimately it's her body and she gets to decide.  No man should be surprised by that.
 
2014-01-23 09:07:39 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: It would be nice if folks stopped conflating the issue of a man's rights separate from a woman's decision to have an abortion and the issue of a woman's decision to have an abortion.


Well, that's ironic. This thread about a woman's right to abortion turned to a discussion of male parental rights because YOU insisted on trying to conflate these two things which have no bearing on each other.
 
2014-01-23 09:09:38 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: InterruptingQuirk: It would be nice if folks stopped conflating the issue of a man's rights separate from a woman's decision to have an abortion and the issue of a woman's decision to have an abortion.

Well, that's ironic. This thread about a woman's right to abortion turned to a discussion of male parental rights because YOU insisted on trying to conflate these two things which have no bearing on each other.


I did not conflate them, I endeavored to keep them separate. The issue of a woman's right to choose is settled, both in law and the in majority's mind. Might as well talk about the next issue on the table.
 
2014-01-23 09:13:52 PM  

Pincy: Forget the law for a second and answer this using the perspective of a decent human being. Why would the woman get the last say in whether she has an abortion or not?


I intentionally had five children with a woman who was also intentional for the purpose of having five children. To be fair, we weren't thinking beyond one at the outset, but we never had any unintended pregnancies. That is what I know. To speculate at this point about anything anyone else would or wouldn't do is merely academic and will only serve to inflame relationships. It's is not going to change in our lifetime, if ever.
 
2014-01-23 09:21:50 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: InterruptingQuirk: It would be nice if folks stopped conflating the issue of a man's rights separate from a woman's decision to have an abortion and the issue of a woman's decision to have an abortion.

Well, that's ironic. This thread about a woman's right to abortion turned to a discussion of male parental rights because YOU insisted on trying to conflate these two things which have no bearing on each other.

I did not conflate them, I endeavored to keep them separate. The issue of a woman's right to choose is settled, both in law and the in majority's mind. Might as well talk about the next issue on the table.


You cannot seriously be denying that you are dragging abortion into a spurious "unequal rights" complaint. The posts are all still RIGHT THERE. On this VERY FARKING PAGE even. Try to have a little bit of farking integrity.
 
2014-01-23 09:54:21 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: InterruptingQuirk: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: InterruptingQuirk: It would be nice if folks stopped conflating the issue of a man's rights separate from a woman's decision to have an abortion and the issue of a woman's decision to have an abortion.

Well, that's ironic. This thread about a woman's right to abortion turned to a discussion of male parental rights because YOU insisted on trying to conflate these two things which have no bearing on each other.

I did not conflate them, I endeavored to keep them separate. The issue of a woman's right to choose is settled, both in law and the in majority's mind. Might as well talk about the next issue on the table.

You cannot seriously be denying that you are dragging abortion into a spurious "unequal rights" complaint. The posts are all still RIGHT THERE. On this VERY FARKING PAGE even. Try to have a little bit of farking integrity.


I'm not denying it, though I do deny being wholey complicit in this action. Why not launch a discussion about the rights of a person that is directly affected by the decision to have an abortion following the reacknowledgement of one person's rights that have been secured.
 
2014-01-23 10:27:08 PM  

Pincy: John Buck 41: Pincy: John Buck 41: Pincy: Al!: Why does the female get the only say in whether the baby gets a chance or not?

Do you seriously not know the answer to this question?  Really?

After reading Al!s post that you replied to, I'd say he has a legitimate gripe. But hey, you go ahead and call he and I 'anti-woman/woman haters' if it makes you feel better. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So you don't know the answer to that question either.  Good to know.

So you think Al! should've had zero input on the decision? Not 49%, not 50% (and decided with a coin flip) but literally ZERO percent input?

That's also good to know.

I am hopeful that at some point in the future science will advance to the point where men can become pregnant and then all us guys who long to have babies can do so ourselves and not have to worry about the woman spoiling it for us.  But until that time, yes, ultimately, Ali has zero input because the decision is up to the woman.

I agree, it sucks, but that's nature.  We all know the rules going into the game.  If you don't trust the woman you are having sex with to make the decision you want her to make then don't have sex with her.  but ultimately it's her body and she gets to decide.  No man should be surprised by that.


It appears we aren't going to reach any kind of common ground on this issue. Good night.
 
2014-01-24 12:05:24 AM  

John Buck 41: Pincy: John Buck 41: Pincy: John Buck 41: Pincy: Al!: Why does the female get the only say in whether the baby gets a chance or not?

Do you seriously not know the answer to this question?  Really?

After reading Al!s post that you replied to, I'd say he has a legitimate gripe. But hey, you go ahead and call he and I 'anti-woman/woman haters' if it makes you feel better. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So you don't know the answer to that question either.  Good to know.

So you think Al! should've had zero input on the decision? Not 49%, not 50% (and decided with a coin flip) but literally ZERO percent input?

That's also good to know.

I am hopeful that at some point in the future science will advance to the point where men can become pregnant and then all us guys who long to have babies can do so ourselves and not have to worry about the woman spoiling it for us.  But until that time, yes, ultimately, Ali has zero input because the decision is up to the woman.

I agree, it sucks, but that's nature.  We all know the rules going into the game.  If you don't trust the woman you are having sex with to make the decision you want her to make then don't have sex with her.  but ultimately it's her body and she gets to decide.  No man should be surprised by that.

It appears we aren't going to reach any kind of common ground on this issue. Good night.


Correct, when you are talking about a woman having the right to control her own body there is not going to be much of a middle ground.
 
2014-01-24 12:19:04 AM  

Pincy: InterruptingQuirk: Pincy: John Buck 41: Pincy: Al!: Why does the female get the only say in whether the baby gets a chance or not?

Do you seriously not know the answer to this question?  Really?

After reading Al!s post that you replied to, I'd say he has a legitimate gripe. But hey, you go ahead and call he and I 'anti-woman/woman haters' if it makes you feel better. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So you don't know the answer to that question either.  Good to know.

Because the U.S. Supreme Court said she does, and they have upheld that ruling being challenged a few different ways. Make that of it what you will, I'm not adding my personal bias to that fact.

Forget the law for a second and answer this using the perspective of a decent human being.  Why would the woman get the last say in whether she has an abortion or not?


Because it is her body, not yours. And because a fetus is neither a child nor a person.
And a male is not a parent of a fetus, but may be the parent of a child. These are not the same.
 
2014-01-24 12:23:01 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: And a male is not a parent of a fetus, but may be the parent of a child. These are not the same.



No, but can you name one child who wasn't a fetus first?
 
2014-01-24 01:56:27 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Pincy: InterruptingQuirk: Pincy: John Buck 41: Pincy: Al!: Why does the female get the only say in whether the baby gets a chance or not?

Do you seriously not know the answer to this question?  Really?

After reading Al!s post that you replied to, I'd say he has a legitimate gripe. But hey, you go ahead and call he and I 'anti-woman/woman haters' if it makes you feel better. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So you don't know the answer to that question either.  Good to know.

Because the U.S. Supreme Court said she does, and they have upheld that ruling being challenged a few different ways. Make that of it what you will, I'm not adding my personal bias to that fact.

Forget the law for a second and answer this using the perspective of a decent human being.  Why would the woman get the last say in whether she has an abortion or not?

Because it is her body, not yours. And because a fetus is neither a child nor a person.
And a male is not a parent of a fetus, but may be the parent of a child. These are not the same.


is it ok if i just consider you a large fetus?
 
2014-01-24 02:53:38 AM  

Popular Opinion: demaL-demaL-yeH: Pincy: InterruptingQuirk: Pincy: John Buck 41: Pincy: Al!: Why does the female get the only say in whether the baby gets a chance or not?

Do you seriously not know the answer to this question?  Really?

After reading Al!s post that you replied to, I'd say he has a legitimate gripe. But hey, you go ahead and call he and I 'anti-woman/woman haters' if it makes you feel better. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So you don't know the answer to that question either.  Good to know.

Because the U.S. Supreme Court said she does, and they have upheld that ruling being challenged a few different ways. Make that of it what you will, I'm not adding my personal bias to that fact.

Forget the law for a second and answer this using the perspective of a decent human being.  Why would the woman get the last say in whether she has an abortion or not?

Because it is her body, not yours. And because a fetus is neither a child nor a person.
And a male is not a parent of a fetus, but may be the parent of a child. These are not the same.

is it ok if i just consider you a large fetus?



Abortion is not murder. Bombing medical clinics, harassing the patients and medical professionals, and murdering physicians are crimes. Claiming that God would want you to do any of those things is blasphemy.

/You already know your farkie.
//And you whined about it.
///Go whine some more, heretic.
 
Displayed 452 of 452 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report