Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(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
    More: Interesting, Happy Birthday, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, adjudications, strict scrutiny, maternal health, Fourteenth Amendment, abortion law  
•       •       •

1272 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2014 at 5:35 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 452 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report