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  
•       •       •

1160 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2014 at 5:35 PM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
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!
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!
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 452 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report