Does a man, have say so when it comes to abortion?

[thelovingsadist]

Again, this is going nowhere. I'm not going to change my mind--I can't even seem to communicate my mind well enough to make you properly understand how I feel about equality. And none of you are going to change your mind, or even try to understand what I'm actually trying to say, or recognize when I'm joking and when I'm not.

I'm simply going agree that we disagree and leave this alone. I hope you can do the same, because I for one can't be here all night. Sorry.

Oh, and the mental illness thing had nothing to do with pregnancy. He asked for an example, and I provided one in a smartass way. Had he asked for one relevant to the discussion, I might have conceded his point. I made a joke instead. I'm fun like that, once you learn to not take me so seriously and treat me like a bigot chauvinist.

Oh, and 4est, I hope this all amused you. You were right.

 

[badbabysitter]

I certainly don't see you a a bigot...a chauvinist perhaps


forrest on the other hand is a bigot and a chauvinist with a touch of outright gaybasher... he' multitalented that way

 

[RobDownSouth]

Nope. You guys still don't get that I'm not saying men should be able to force women to have a baby.

I'm saying that it should be a mutually agreed decision, or as close to one as possible, when that is an option. What's wrong with that? How does requesting equality put us back to chauvinism?

You're asking for the impossible. When you have two people involved in making a decision, the results are binary (mutually exclusive outcomes): either A) unanimous or B) a tie/stalemate.

In the event of B) tie/stalemate, who then holds the "tiebreaker"? Hmmm? If you say "A", it's chauvinism, if it's "B", then you've whined that a woman has an unfair advantage.

There's no room to 'agree to disagree' here. Your argument is half-baked and not worthy of serious consideration.

 

[thelovingsadist]

Trust me, I'm not a chauvinist. I don't like men, generally. Except some cute one's that I can torture, maybe.

My arrogance has nothing to do with being male. It's just me.

 

[thelovingsadist]

You're asking for the impossible. When you have two people involved in making a decision, the results are binary (mutually exclusive outcomes): either A) unanimous or B) a tie/stalemate.

In the event of B) tie/stalemate, who then holds the "tiebreaker"? Hmmm? If you say "A", it's chauvinism, if it's "B", then you've whined that a woman has an unfair advantage.

There's no room to 'agree to disagree' here. Your argument is half-baked and not worthy of serious consideration.

lol

Fine, fine. I'll concede your point, there. But I still don't think it's unwise for counseling to be done before (and after) a final decision is made, regardless of who was the "tiebreaker."

So, can we go back to the suggestion that people should have to take a test and show ID before having kids?

 

[RobDownSouth]

I certainly don't see you a a bigot...a chauvinist perhaps


forrest on the other hand is a bigot and a chauvinist with a touch of outright gaybasher... he' multitalented that way

He's the biggest homophobe on Lit not named Vettteman!!

Of course, "recovering" homosexuals tend to be more than a bit judgmental.

 

[RobDownSouth]

lol

Fine, fine. I'll concede your point, there. But I still don't think it's unwise for counseling to be done before (and after) a final decision is made, regardless of who was the "tiebreaker."

So, can we go back to the suggestion that people should have to take a test and show ID before having kids?

Deal!

We haven't really tried eugenics in a good long while. I'm opposed to it philosophically, mind you, but the practical side of me thinks it'd be an excellent opportunity to thin the Republican herd.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

It's not doublethink. And it's not contradictory. That's the point.

Regardless of whether you disagree with Roe v. Wade, for the moment it is the law of the land.

Right now, not all fetuses are afforded the rights or protections of those born.

Women have superior rights until the fetus is legally recognized as a person. Superior to the fetus, superior to the father.

Once the child is born, both parents owe duties to the child. Neither can legally walk away from them.

But not superior to the state. Do not allow your arrogance to compound your ignorance. If you had read the case in its entirety, you would have had a passing chance at being familiar with the following points of law which the court clearly embraced in Roe:

"Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone."

And later,

"On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive."

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=39307028&postcount=33

 

[Squibbs]

I think the question everyone should be asking themselves is when does an aborted baby lose it's right to weigh in on the vote?

 

[KRCummings]

Roe v Wade was determined by a group of men. Makes no difference what the decision was, it was still a group of men telling a woman what she can or cannot do.

 

[badbabysitter]

But not superior to the state. Do not allow your arrogance to compound your ignorance. If you had read the case in its entirety, you would have had a passing chance at being familiar with the following points of law which the court clearly embraced in Roe:

"Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone."

And later,

"On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive."

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=39307028&postcount=33

Being Canadian , Roe vs Wade doesnt apply for this wee soul


a fetus is not a person under our law


we dont have restrictions of access to abortion


and our abortion rates have been steadily declining since 1998


another example of Canada displaying that the actual opposite happens when you let something American conservatives think will destroy the world ( gun control, gay marriage, gays in the military, universal healthcare) actually happen

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Roe v Wade was determined by a group of men. Makes no difference what the decision was, it was still a group of men telling a woman what she can or cannot do.

You are correct that it makes no difference what the decision was. The law places boundaries of behavior on male and female alike.

I hope you don't hold the baseless opinion that the gender of lawmakers and jurists should serve as a restriction when the law happens to affect one gender more than the other.

Would you advocate justices Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor recusing themselves from deciding a case involving the scope of paternity rights of men?

Ridiculous.

 

[KRCummings]

You are correct that it makes no difference what the decision was. The law places boundaries of behavior on male and female alike.

I hope you don't hold the baseless opinion that the gender of lawmakers and jurists should serve as a restriction when the law happens to affect one gender more than the other.

Would you advocate justices Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor recusing themselves from deciding a case involving the scope of paternity rights of men?

Ridiculous.

No, I don't really care who was on the bench but I find it interesting that many people will say that men don't get a final say (which they don't and shouldn't) but then hold up Roe v Wade where men did get the final say.

 

[RobDownSouth]

But not superior to the state. Do not allow your arrogance to compound your ignorance.<derp snip>

Excuse me?

This whole debate concerned the rights of a impregnatin' man versus the rights of an impregnated woman, at least until you took a side trip into Redherringville and began yammering about the sooperiority of state's rights, which was never in question.

I'm not sure if that constitutes "arrogance" or "ignorance" on your part... prolly a combination of both.

Derp.

 

[Monkey_Face]

That's not actually true, penguins do mate for life.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Excuse me?

This whole debate concerned the rights of a impregnatin' man versus the rights of an impregnated woman, at least until you took a side trip into Redherringville and began yammering about the sooperiority of state's rights, which was never in question.

I'm not sure if that constitutes "arrogance" or "ignorance" on your part... prolly a combination of both.

Derp.

You might want to go back and take a look at who I was responding to in that post. CJH had suggested that Roe v. Wade stood for the legal proposition that "women have superior rights until the fetus is legally recognized as a person." That is a gross misinterpretation of what the court actually ruled, and I find it more than a little irritating because it is apparently so commonly believed and falsely asserted. My post was addressed to that specific point only. Why would you believe otherwise?

By all means, return to the larger debate in progress in which I have no particular opinion.

 

[cjh]

You might want to go back and take a look at who I was responding to in that post. CJH had suggested that Roe v. Wade stood for the legal proposition that "women have superior rights until the fetus is legally recognized as a person." That is a gross misinterpretation of what the court actually ruled, and I find it more than a little irritating because it is apparently so commonly believed and falsely asserted. My post was addressed to that specific point only. Why would you believe otherwise?

By all means, return to the larger debate in progress in which I have no particular opinion.

Does superior to the father and superior to the fetus mean absolute?

 

[stickwork]

Not unless he's had

a sex change.

He can decide when his buddies get him knocked up on a favor.

 

[cjh]

You might want to go back and take a look at who I was responding to in that post. CJH had suggested that Roe v. Wade stood for the legal proposition that "women have superior rights until the fetus is legally recognized as a person." That is a gross misinterpretation of what the court actually ruled, and I find it more than a little irritating because it is apparently so commonly believed and falsely asserted. My post was addressed to that specific point only. Why would you believe otherwise?

By all means, return to the larger debate in progress in which I have no particular opinion.

Here's how the court subsequently explained the balance of rights.

It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that Roe's essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure. Second is a confirmation of the State's power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman's life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/833/case.html

 

[sweetthaithigh]

No man

No man should have a say in what a women does or doesn't.

Vote for Obama unless you want to see the last 40 years of progress for women's rights and gay rights disappear.

It only took the republicans 8 years to destroy the economy, I bet they could strip away rights in half the time.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Again, this is going nowhere. I'm not going to change my mind--I can't even seem to communicate my mind well enough to make you properly understand how I feel about equality. And none of you are going to change your mind, or even try to understand what I'm actually trying to say, or recognize when I'm joking and when I'm not.

Why are you using this alt vbm?

It’s not a question of being able to communicate it; it’s a display that you don’t have an argument, or certainly not a logical one, an emotional one perhaps and noting more.

Woof!

 

[hoo_hoo_boo]

i see that reproduction confers a lot of power to women simply because men can't. It seems to me that it would be extremely cruel for a woman to have repeated abortions while her husband sincerely, desperately wants children and is eager and capable of being an excellent parent. He may not even know. Why wouldn't this be a violation of his basic human rights? At the very least, why wouldn't it be a huge betrayal? And the law protects her?

I made my discovery after my wife's death. Big surprise. Eight times. No reason given. She told me she was unable, no mention of abortions. I had even been to doctors asking that I be impregnated with an embryo implanted on my peritoneum or bowel. Never been done but that doesn't mean it can't be. I offered to be the first. So full of sanctimonious platitudes. I was loyal and violated.

 

[CandiCame]

This thread, like the concept of choosing whether or not to have an abortion scares the living shit out of me. I don't know that I should be involved in either.

 

[ManCalledHorse]

That's right.


It's your womb. End of conversation.


No woman should be allowed to tell another woman either.


Any abortion any time for any reason.


Of course men must support your baby if you do not abort it. After all, it's HIS baby too...

irony

 

[ManCalledHorse]

Roe v Wade was determined by a group of men. Makes no difference what the decision was, it was still a group of men telling a woman what she can or cannot do.

Roe v Wade has less to do with a woman's right than it does about protecting prenatal life.