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 128
    More: Interesting, Happy Birthday, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, adjudications, strict scrutiny, maternal health, Fourteenth Amendment, abortion law  
•       •       •

1140 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2014 at 5:35 PM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2014-01-22 06:17:25 PM
10 votes:

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 01:53:50 PM
9 votes:
here's to 4+ decades of empowering progressive women and enraging conservative men.
2014-01-22 05:59:08 PM
8 votes:

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 06:23:47 PM
5 votes:

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 06:30:57 PM
4 votes:

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 06:25:37 PM
4 votes:

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 06:22:20 PM
4 votes:

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 06:06:47 PM
4 votes:
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 06:01:04 PM
4 votes:

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 05:54:55 PM
4 votes:

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 02:22:27 PM
4 votes:

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


And lowering crime!
2014-01-22 07:46:51 PM
3 votes:

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 07:23:47 PM
3 votes:

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 07:11:05 PM
3 votes:

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 06:47:29 PM
3 votes:
geez..,  liveactionnews.org
wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com
2014-01-22 06:27:45 PM
3 votes:

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 06:21:55 PM
3 votes:
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.
Al!
2014-01-22 06:19:54 PM
3 votes:
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 06:06:53 PM
3 votes:

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


It's not.
2014-01-22 05:57:06 PM
3 votes:
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 05:48:17 PM
3 votes:
Either it's murder or it's not. Choice shouldn't be the issue.
2014-01-23 04:21:34 PM
2 votes:

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 01:23:29 PM
2 votes:

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 01:19:40 PM
2 votes:

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 01:13:08 PM
2 votes:

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 09:46:59 AM
2 votes:

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.
2014-01-22 09:32:15 PM
2 votes:

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 08:19:09 PM
2 votes:
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 07:32:43 PM
2 votes:

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 07:08:08 PM
2 votes:

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 07:01:56 PM
2 votes:

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 06:58:34 PM
2 votes:

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 06:52:34 PM
2 votes:

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 06:45:21 PM
2 votes:

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 06:42:54 PM
2 votes:
www.nationalblackprolifeunion.comsaynsumthn.files.wordpress.com
2014-01-22 06:39:32 PM
2 votes:

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 06:23:45 PM
2 votes:

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 06:05:57 PM
2 votes:

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 05:49:46 PM
2 votes:

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 05:37:23 PM
2 votes:

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 04:30:43 PM
2 votes:
Very impressive, subby.
2014-01-24 01:56:27 AM
1 votes:

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?
2014-01-23 07:44:23 PM
1 votes:

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 05:55:12 PM
1 votes:
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 05:11:29 PM
1 votes:

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 05:00:37 PM
1 votes:
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 04:40:02 PM
1 votes:

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 12:47:09 PM
1 votes:

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 02:59:35 AM
1 votes:

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 02:15:21 AM
1 votes:

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 12:09:41 AM
1 votes:

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
2014-01-22 11:13:22 PM
1 votes:
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 10:54:46 PM
1 votes:

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 10:29:05 PM
1 votes:

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 10:26:32 PM
1 votes:

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 10:10:02 PM
1 votes:

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 09:59:37 PM
1 votes:

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 09:53:51 PM
1 votes:

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 09:53:47 PM
1 votes:

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 09:52:48 PM
1 votes:

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 09:51:03 PM
1 votes:

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.
HKW
2014-01-22 09:48:04 PM
1 votes:

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 09:41:34 PM
1 votes:

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.
HKW
2014-01-22 09:25:00 PM
1 votes:

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 09:21:54 PM
1 votes:

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 09:21:28 PM
1 votes:

InterruptingQuirk: Men should have an out


Not having sex. That's their out.
2014-01-22 09:20:00 PM
1 votes:
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 09:13:04 PM
1 votes:
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 09:09:16 PM
1 votes:

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 09:09:09 PM
1 votes:

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 09:05:19 PM
1 votes:

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 08:57:41 PM
1 votes:

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 08:57:11 PM
1 votes:

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 08:57:09 PM
1 votes:

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 08:55:45 PM
1 votes:

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 08:48:34 PM
1 votes:

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 08:46:34 PM
1 votes:

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 08:46:21 PM
1 votes:

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 08:44:16 PM
1 votes:

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 08:42:44 PM
1 votes:

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 08:38:30 PM
1 votes:

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 08:34:30 PM
1 votes:
Never underestimate the eagerness of Fark posters to turn a thread about abortion into a thread about the rights of men.
2014-01-22 08:29:48 PM
1 votes:

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 08:20:17 PM
1 votes:

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 08:18:57 PM
1 votes:

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 08:18:20 PM
1 votes:

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 08:01:09 PM
1 votes:

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 07:43:29 PM
1 votes:

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 07:41:49 PM
1 votes:

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 07:41:12 PM
1 votes:

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 07:37:02 PM
1 votes:
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 07:35:29 PM
1 votes:

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 07:34:05 PM
1 votes:
Child Murder.
2014-01-22 07:08:19 PM
1 votes:

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 07:05:05 PM
1 votes:

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 07:00:36 PM
1 votes:

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 06:54:30 PM
1 votes:

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 06:49:50 PM
1 votes:

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 06:47:34 PM
1 votes:

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 06:46:09 PM
1 votes:
Enjoy your child sacrifice, Americans. 55 million, eh? You people care too much about high scores.
2014-01-22 06:45:19 PM
1 votes:

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 06:44:09 PM
1 votes:

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 06:38:08 PM
1 votes:

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 06:37:37 PM
1 votes:

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 06:34:47 PM
1 votes:

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 06:32:06 PM
1 votes:

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 06:31:27 PM
1 votes:

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 06:29:02 PM
1 votes:
Roe vs. Wade gets a birthday.  55 million Amerikans don't.  Most of them minority.  Remind me which party is racist?
2014-01-22 06:27:27 PM
1 votes:

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 06:26:11 PM
1 votes:

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 06:19:38 PM
1 votes:

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.
2014-01-22 06:17:04 PM
1 votes:

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 06:13:41 PM
1 votes:

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 06:06:19 PM
1 votes:

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 05:58:57 PM
1 votes:
That does it, cancel the rest of the year. That's the HOTY winner.
2014-01-22 05:58:51 PM
1 votes:

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 05:51:25 PM
1 votes:
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
2014-01-22 05:47:28 PM
1 votes:
Abortion is Murder.
2014-01-22 05:43:57 PM
1 votes:

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


www.reactiongifs.com
2014-01-22 05:43:39 PM
1 votes:

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 05:43:29 PM
1 votes:
In many cases, abortion is the responsible choice.
2014-01-22 05:43:06 PM
1 votes:

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 05:42:43 PM
1 votes:
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 05:40:53 PM
1 votes:
And yet, idiots on the Right are passing a law that will make abortion illegal again.
2014-01-22 05:38:08 PM
1 votes:

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 04:44:59 PM
1 votes:
I dnc that coming!
2014-01-22 03:45:29 PM
1 votes:
Ok that's a pretty good headline right thar.
2014-01-22 02:10:03 PM
1 votes:

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


B....B...B....BUT SMALL GOVERNMENT!
 
Displayed 128 of 128 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report