Court rejects 'Roe v. Wade for Men'

[Cancel7]

STRAWMAN ALERT

My sisters ex is over $30k behind in child support, so I know quite well that there are men out there that try to shirk their responsibilities.

But for you to say something as blatantly stupid as...."Men don’t want to take care of the kids they already have, to claim they are, generally, clamoring for more, is stupid, false, and flies in the face of all known facts."

No one said men were "clamoring" for more kids. But there are millions of men who do take very good care of thier kids. To act as though men don't do so is blatantly sexist of you and quite ignorant.

Speaking of reality, how about you join it?

In fact that is what Dano is arguing…that “conservative men want kids”. Try and keep up ok SF?
If you believe that many abortions take place because the woman wants it but the man doesn’t, and that the majority don’t’ take place because the woman doesn’t want the abortion, but the man is pushing for it, then you are the one living in a dreamworld. Relying on the sexist, and conservative, vision of the “cold female” who is “murdering her child”, against the wishes of the father.

Do you know a lot of young, single, guys who got a girl pregnant and said to you while you were sitting around drinking beers in a bar “gosh I hope she keeps it”?

Do you really SF?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

In fact that is what Dano is arguing…that “conservative men want kids”. Try and keep up ok SF?
If you believe that many abortions take place because the woman wants it but the man doesn’t, and that the majority don’t’ take place because the woman doesn’t want the abortion, but the man is pushing for it, then you are the one living in a dreamworld. Relying on the sexist, and conservative, vision of the “cold female” who is “murdering her child”, against the wishes of the father.

Do you know a lot of young, single, guys who got a girl pregnant and said to you while you were sitting around drinking beers in a bar “gosh I hope she keeps it”?

Do you really SF?

Yes, conservative men want kids and many are against abortion. That is true. But that doesn't mean they are going hysterical and clamoring for more kids as your strawman suggested they did.

So you are saying that most abortions are driven by the decisions of men? That is the dumbest thing you could have said.

You really are sexist....and on this issue quite pathetic.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I love nothing more than when a bunch of men get themselves all hopped on righteousness and start yammering.

When it comes to this subject matter, there is no such thing as a conservative man or a liberal man; there are just men.

If a married man ends up with a pregnant girlfriend (and if you think conservative men who are married don’t f around you haven’t been reading the papers), and he perceives that he has a lot to lose; his children, his home, his very financial security, he will move to protect these things. The best way to do so is an abortion and he will pressure his girlfriend to have one, often by promising to leave his wife when the time is right, and then they can have babies together. If the girlfriend refuses to have the abortion she becomes what we call an inconvenient woman. Inconvenient women sometimes end up dead. The number one cause of death among pregnant women is murder.

Of course there is the anomalous man who wants to have the baby but the woman refuses, he is statistically insignificant and I always find it amusing how conservative men pretend that the far more common woman who wants her baby but is pressured into an abortion does not exist, as he writes reams about the poor man who is hanging onto his girlfriend’s leg, pleading with her to please not abort it, he’ll take care of it, please! It is uncommonly amusing.

And almost as amusing is the liberal man who pretends that liberal guys are interested in the woman’s right to choose when he knocks up an inconvenient woman, when in truth he is also often most interested in solving his problem, and it just so happens that in his case pushing for the abortion does not have the added annoyance of hypocrisy; he has not been preaching that abortion is murder.

Stop guys, I’m at work and you’re killing me. And I thought 30 Rock was funny.

Let me abbreviate that.

"MEN NEVER DO ANYTHING RIGHT OMGZ FUCKING SHIT FUCK I HATE MEN"

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Take a look at what this country is spending trying to collect child support payments. Men don’t want to take care of the kids they already have, to claim they are, generally, clamoring for more, is stupid, false, and flies in the face of all known facts.
It is not sexist to point that out. Try and start dealing with reality and stop throwing around political buzzwords SF.

I don't know?

Why are you trying to equate "other men" to "Watermark"?

 

[Cancel7]

Yes, conservative men want kids and many are against abortion. That is true. But that doesn't mean they are going hysterical and clamoring for more kids as your strawman suggested they did.

So you are saying that most abortions are driven by the decisions of men? That is the dumbest thing you could have said.

You really are sexist....and on this issue quite pathetic.

What I said is not that most abortions are driven by men, but that far more abortions take place because the man is pushing for the abortion, than take place over the objections of the man. Can you please learn to read so that I don’t have to type everything three times?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

What I said is not that most abortions are driven by men, but that far more abortions take place because the man is pushing for the abortion, than take place over the objections of the man. Can you please learn to read so that I don’t have to type everything three times?

"KILL IT!"

 

[Socrtease]

I think the basis of said argument is going to always be flawed. You're trying to apply equality of rights to pregnancy when pregnancy in itself isn't equal by any means. If both parties had the ability to carry the child to term or both had the ability to gestate, then yes, if the woman's choice always trumped the mans then As$munch would have a point. But pregancy isn't equal and it will always be the woman's job to do more than the lionshare of the work. There shouldn't be equal choices because there aren't equal partners in carrying the fetus.

Parenting however is another story.

And this Lady T is the BEST arguement for why after conception ability to decide falls directly to the woman. The moment she becomes pregnant it is no longer an equal world. So when a man engages in activities that could make a woman pregnant he should know that the rules change and he no longer has equal footing. Very well said.

 

[Demosthenes]

I think the basis of said argument is going to always be flawed. You're trying to apply equality of rights to pregnancy when pregnancy in itself isn't equal by any means. If both parties had the ability to carry the child to term or both had the ability to gestate, then yes, if the woman's choice always trumped the mans then As$munch would have a point. But pregancy isn't equal and it will always be the woman's job to do more than the lionshare of the work. There shouldn't be equal choices because there aren't equal partners in carrying the fetus.

Parenting however is another story.

More than the lionshare? So nine (9) months of carrying a child is more work than eighteen (18) years of financially supporting it? I must disagree here. To clarify, I do not believe abortion should be illegal, but I do believe the father should have a choice. He shouldn't be able to force a woman to have an abortion, but, at the same time, the mother, who played an equal part in conceiving the child, should not have the option to abort if the father says, "no, I'll raise him/her."

And Darla, for you to say that no man would argue that, I call you a liar. I have argued just that, and I am still upset that I lost a child. (Yes, protection was used, but accidents happen). I feel guilty and ashamed that she did that, even though I didn't approve. So don't tell me that all men want to shirk their responsibility and would argue for an abortion, regardless.

 

[Cancel7]

More than the lionshare? So nine (9) months of carrying a child is more work than eighteen (18) years of financially supporting it? I must disagree here. To clarify, I do not believe abortion should be illegal, but I do believe the father should have a choice. He shouldn't be able to force a woman to have an abortion, but, at the same time, the mother, who played an equal part in conceiving the child, should not have the option to abort if the father says, "no, I'll raise him/her."

And Darla, for you to say that no man would argue that, I call you a liar. I have argued just that, and I am still upset that I lost a child. (Yes, protection was used, but accidents happen). I feel guilty and ashamed that she did that, even though I didn't approve. So don't tell me that all men want to shirk their responsibility and would argue for an abortion, regardless.

Oh for god sakes, another one.

I never said “no man”.

Once again, and for the last time retards, here is my claim:

What I said is not that most abortions are driven by men, but that far more abortions take place because the man is pushing for the abortion, than take place over the objections of the man.

 

[Socrtease]

I did say virtually unheard of, as I recall you lived in a less Conservative area in the southern part of Mississippi anyway.

Here are the stats, as chart 5 clearly shows, the amount of single mothers in cities is easily the highest and in the Liberal northeast, higher still yet again then any other area in America:

"For five cities—Baltimore,
Cleveland, Newark, Rochester, and Detroit—the portion
of families made up of single mothers was 30
percent or above in 2000, with Detroit having the
highest rate (35%)."
http://www.fraud-insurance.net/Comp/BeforeAfterWelfReformUs.pdf

Oh gee what a surprise, the most Liberal voting city in America - Detroit, has the highest single mother rate.

What number of those single mothers are single because of divorce and what percentage by fathers just not taking responsibility? Everything negative in the world is because of liberals huh Dano.

 

[Demosthenes]

What I said is not that most abortions are driven by men, but that far more abortions take place because the man is pushing for the abortion, than take place over the objections of the man.

So it is ok for the majority to have complete control, while the minority have no say whatsoever?

What does this remind me of...

 

[LadyT]

More than the lionshare? So nine (9) months of carrying a child is more work than eighteen (18) years of financially supporting it? I must disagree here. To clarify, I do not believe abortion should be illegal, but I do believe the father should have a choice. He shouldn't be able to force a woman to have an abortion, but, at the same time, the mother, who played an equal part in conceiving the child, should not have the option to abort if the father says, "no, I'll raise him/her."

Every part of your argument was just stupid. #1) We're talking about pregnancy not parenting. The 18 years that follow pregnancy should be a cooperative effort where both parties put in 50%. You sound like you think the mother puts no work in once the kid's born. #2) If the father can find a way to carry the child to term then by all means he should have a say in the gestation of the fetus. Otherwise he nor the state should have dominion over another individuals body.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Lets equate... one is clear and concise... the other is a jumbled mess....

"If you believe that many abortions take place because the woman wants it but the man doesn’t, and that the majority don’t’ take place because the woman doesn’t want the abortion, but the man is pushing for it, then you are the one living in a dreamworld. Relying on the sexist, and conservative, vision of the “cold female” who is “murdering her child”, against the wishes of the father."

"What I said is not that most abortions are driven by men, but that far more abortions take place because the man is pushing for the abortion, than take place over the objections of the man. Can you please learn to read so that I don’t have to type everything three times?"

Perhaps if you had pulled your head out of your ass when you typed it the first time it would not have been so incoherent.

 

[Cancel7]

So it is ok for the majority to have complete control, while the minority have no say whatsoever?

What does this remind me of...

Because as things stand, a woman must be the one to carry the fetus to term, and give birth to it, then yes.

When the day comes that fetus can be implanted into a man, then that will change.

 

[LadyT]

So it is ok for the majority to have complete control, while the minority have no say whatsoever?

What does this remind me of...

democracy? the bush administration?

 

[uscitizen]

More than the lionshare? So nine (9) months of carrying a child is more work than eighteen (18) years of financially supporting it? I must disagree here. To clarify, I do not believe abortion should be illegal, but I do believe the father should have a choice. He shouldn't be able to force a woman to have an abortion, but, at the same time, the mother, who played an equal part in conceiving the child, should not have the option to abort if the father says, "no, I'll raise him/her."

And Darla, for you to say that no man would argue that, I call you a liar. I have argued just that, and I am still upset that I lost a child. (Yes, protection was used, but accidents happen). I feel guilty and ashamed that she did that, even though I didn't approve. So don't tell me that all men want to shirk their responsibility and would argue for an abortion, regardless.

Only 18 years of supporting it ? Wow you have good kids

 

[Damocles]

Because as things stand, a woman must be the one to carry the fetus to term, and give birth to it, then yes.

When the day comes that fetus can be implanted into a man, then that will change.

Or incubated ex-utero.

Just gotta plug my belief that we take this in the wrong direction.

 

[Demosthenes]

Otherwise he nor the state should have dominion over another individuals body.

Well, there are so many different directions to take this, I don't know where to start. (once again, be reminded that I do not think abortion should be illegal)

1. Technically, the child is not part of the woman's body, (s)he is 'of' her body (in a crude sense, like feces).

2. Just as (s)he is 'of' the mother's body, (s)he is 'of' his/her father's just as much. All the mother is doing is supporting the child for the first nine (9) or so months of its life, much as the father will be legally bound to do for the next eighteen (18) years. Yes, the mother may have morning sickness or mood swings for nine (9) months, but the father will be legally obligated to provide (support) for the child whether he wants to or not. The father shouldn't be able to make the mother abort the child, but he should have a voice if he wants to raise it himself. So instead of the mother supporting the child 9 months of her choice, and the father supporting him/her 18 years against his will, the mother will support the child for 9 months against her will and the father will support the child for 18 years of his choice.

3. Off the subject of abortion, but on the subject of your [possibly hypocritical] statement above, do you believe the government should be able to tell people what the can or cannot eat because it is not healthy? (trans fats)

4. What about smoking bans on private property?

5. Anti-drug laws because they are bad for one's health?

6. Assisted suicide?

Where is the line? It is ok for a woman to kill her in-utero child regardless of what the father says, but it isn't ok to consume trans fats?

 

[Bonestorm]

Well, there are so many different directions to take this, I don't know where to start. (once again, be reminded that I do not think abortion should be illegal)

1. Technically, the child is not part of the woman's body, (s)he is 'of' her body (in a crude sense, like feces).

2. Just as (s)he is 'of' the mother's body, (s)he is 'of' his/her father's just as much. All the mother is doing is supporting the child for the first nine (9) or so months of its life, much as the father will be legally bound to do for the next eighteen (18) years. Yes, the mother may have morning sickness or mood swings for nine (9) months, but the father will be legally obligated to provide (support) for the child whether he wants to or not. The father shouldn't be able to make the mother abort the child, but he should have a voice if he wants to raise it himself. So instead of the mother supporting the child 9 months of her choice, and the father supporting him/her 18 years against his will, the mother will support the child for 9 months against her will and the father will support the child for 18 years of his choice.

3. Off the subject of abortion, but on the subject of your [possibly hypocritical] statement above, do you believe the government should be able to tell people what the can or cannot eat because it is not healthy? (trans fats)

4. What about smoking bans on private property?

5. Anti-drug laws because they are bad for one's health?

6. Assisted suicide?

Where is the line? It is ok for a woman to kill her in-utero child regardless of what the in-utero father says, but it isn't ok to consume trans fats?

If you can't see anything wrong with the bolded portions above you may want to step away from the computer and go for an nice long walk to think about things for a while. You're thinking is clearly muddled and/or deeply disturbed.

 

[LadyT]

1. Technically, the child is not part of the woman's body, (s)he is 'of' her body (in a crude sense, like feces).

what the fuck are you talking about? Actually......no.....you're new.....so I'll indulge you....If you really want to compare the fetus to a piece of shit, I'll go there, but I must warn you, you'll lose that argument VERY easily.

2. Just as (s)he is 'of' the mother's body, (s)he is 'of' his/her father's just as much.

Ummmmm, okay if what you say is true and men are just as involved in the pregnancy as women they should have no problem taking over the gestation of the fetus and then guess what.........problem solved.

All the mother is doing is supporting the child for the first nine (9) or so months of its life, much as the father will be legally bound to do for the next eighteen (18) years.

Sigh......I can't believe someone has to explain this to you. "Support" in this case are two VASTLY different concepts. One involves physical support in the form of a parasitic symbiosis and the other is the financial and child rearing support parents are obliged to give their children.

' Yes, the mother may have morning sickness or mood swings for nine (9) months, but the father will be legally obligated to provide (support) for the child whether he wants to or not.

Again, the topic has never been about parenting. ITS ABOUT PREGNANCIES.

3. Off the subject of abortion, but on the subject of your [possibly hypocritical] statement above, do you believe the government should be able to tell people what the can or cannot eat because it is not healthy? (trans fats)

I support individual dominion over one's own body.

4. What about smoking bans on private property?

If you're smoking is causing someone harm in any form I support the individuals right to be in a smoke free environment on their property.

5. Anti-drug laws because they are bad for one's health?

Depends on the drug.

6. Assisted suicide?

I support individual dominion over one's own body.

Where is the line? It is ok for a woman to kill her in-utero child regardless of what the father says, but it isn't ok to consume trans fats?

Who the fuck said you can't consume trans fats and what the hell does that have to do with the topic?