Men Abortion and Choice
From another site... My post on another thread. Thought it would start a nice conversation.
...according to proposed legislation in Ohio:
Abortion law would give fathers a say State legislators propose change; opponents blast bill as 'extreme'
Mike Hixenbaugh
July 30, 2007
Record-Courier staff writer
Several Ohio state representatives who normally take an anti-abortion stance are now pushing pro-choice legislation - sort of.
Led by Rep. John Adams, a group of state legislators have submitted a bill that would give fathers of unborn children a final say in whether or not an abortion can take place.
It's a measure that, supporters say, would finally give fathers a choice.
"This is important because there are always two parents and fathers should have a say in the birth or the destruction of that child," said Adams, a Republican from Sidney. "I didn't bring it up to draw attention to myself or to be controversial. In most cases, when a child is born the father has financial responsibility for that child, so he should have a say."
As written, the bill would ban women from seeking an abortion without written consent from the father of the fetus. In cases where the identity of the father is unknown, women would be required to submit a list of possible fathers. The physician would be forced to conduct a paternity test from the provided list and then seek paternal permission to abort.
Source
If two people have sex and know how babies are made and know that no contraception is perfect they choose to risk getting pregnant, if they do it is a choice. They chose that risk and therefore chose the result.
If the male states that he wishes to choose
full custody of the child that should be his right.
It is his child as much as hers.
The woman made a choice, one she made with someone else, knowing FULLY what her role would be before-hand... she need only fulfill her role as far as the birth is concerned, as far as she chose when she took the initial risk.
I fully agree with everything you just said. People need to realize that every action has a consequence, and you should not partake in something if you are not willing to accept all the possible outcomes. Getting pregnant is not out of control.
"Summit County is also near the top of the list with a 21 percent termination rate."
We're so proud. :love2: :doit: :sadsperm: :speechls: :censored: :gift: :behead: :skull:
A woman can get pregnant even if both she and her male partner use birth control. Didn't you guys know that? :rolleyes:
One of the consequences of the choice to have sex is that the woman may choose to abort her pregnancy. The reason why this is so, is because forcing women to stay pregnant would violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
This ridiculous proposed legislation will be tossed out sooner or later. Maybe they can bring it up again, when we figure out how to implant an embryo into a man.
So, any woman who's old enough and with the mental capacity to understand that sex can and does lead to pregnancy, even if protection is used, loses the final say over whether she has to carry any baby to term? Simply because she chose to have sex with a man, he gets to make decisions about what she does with her body?
Damn, man and you call Britain fascist. You want to allow men the right to dictate what a woman does with her body? Force her to undergo a process which often carries enormous health risks, even in these modern times. Oh great so, as long as the man's willing to raise the baby with no input from her, she loses the right to refuse to undergo 9 months of pregnancy and the labour that follows.
I would never want to live in a country with a law like that.
The baby is as much the man's as it is the woman's. It takes two to tango. If there was consensual sex, and she has a brain in her head, she knows what could very well happen and accepts that possibility.
Abortion because you just don't want it is selfish and only serves as a way to further irresponsibility.
By that argument, no woman should be allowed an abortion without male permission. With the greatest of respect my friend, Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, if you think you get to make those choices for another sentient human.
How're you going to make sure she carries it to term, chain her to the bed?
The baby is as much the man's as it is the woman's.
Only after it's born. While it's connected to a woman's body, she's the only one who has the right to say whether it will become an actual baby or not. Damn right it's selfish--do you want someone else making medical decisions for you?
If the male states that he wishes to choose full custody of the child that should be his right.
You can't have full custody of something in someone else's body. If he had a way to take custody without invasive surgery, then maybe the law could treat both parents equally. But until we can develop technology to compensate, the sexes are not the same, and can't be treated equally. The one whose body is involved gets final say.
By that argument, no woman should be allowed an abortion without male permission. With the greatest of respect my friend, Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, if you think you get to make those choices for another sentient human.
How're you going to make sure she carries it to term, chain her to the bed?
It's just my personal opinion. For the record I am against legislation that says what you can and can't do with your body (marijuana laws, abortion laws, etc.). It is just my personal opinion that people need to be more accountable for their actions and willing to accept the consequences of them. This goes for all the deadbeat dads out there too who skip town when the girl says she's pregnant. I see the 'I just don't want it' abortions as hypocritical. I would be willing to bet that they would support punishing someone who murdered a pregnant woman for killing her and the baby, yet have no problem with aborting a child of their own.
I guess this all stems from my belief that abortion really is killing a human being and unless it is for the safety of the mother or rape, it shouldn't be done. The child is just as dependent on the mother inside as it is outside the womb. I don't see how physically disconnecting the umbilical cord changes that and suddenly it's a real child with rights, etc. It's like how you can get arrested for underage drinking the night before your 21st birthday.. what changes?
Having an abortion is not being unaccountable for your actions. Having an abortion is a scary thing that some women choose to do for their own reasons. You want to be allowed to have a say over what happens to any foetus springing from your sperm, don't put it inside a woman who hasn't said she wants your baby.
It's just my personal opinion. For the record I am against legislation that says what you can and can't do with your body (marijuana laws, abortion laws, etc.).
Then we are in agreement. A woman should (in most cases) take into account the views and desires of the father when she makes
her decision. But "take into account" is not "defer to", and "should" is not "must", and the final decision remains hers.
Then we are in agreement. A woman should (in most cases) take into account the views and desires of the father when she makes her decision. But "take into account" is not "defer to", and "should" is not "must", and the final decision remains hers.
I can see that. I guess it really is a case by case kind of thing. If the dad doesn't have a clue what the hell he is talking about, would make a terrible father then him having such a final say would be an incredibly bad thing.
Having an abortion is not being unaccountable for your actions. Having an abortion is a scary thing that some women choose to do for their own reasons. You want to be allowed to have a say over what happens to any foetus springing from your sperm, don't put it inside a woman who hasn't said she wants your baby.
In my mind, consenting to sex is saying just that. That your desire for sexual pleasure outweighs the potential "side effects" and that you are willing to take the risk.
That's right and sometimes the consequences of that act are not pleaasant. A woman having an abortion is facing up to the consequences of her actions.
Also, men and women have sex for a myriad of reasons. It's one of the most basic human drives we have. When a man chooses to have sex he risks losing control of his sperm, a woman risks being impregnated when she doesnt want to be. Both risk sexually transmitted disease given that condoms can break. Sex is risky.
That's right and sometimes the consequences of that act are not pleaasant. A woman having an abortion is facing up to the consequences of her actions.
. . . Sex is risky.
Well I guess that's where we differ. My idea of owning up is having the baby, yours is doing exclusively what is in the best interest of the mother.
And now for the opinion that no one really wants to here on this issue:
I think men should get out of any legislation, court or anything that has to deal with abortion. It's actually confusing to me how men can be pro-life, IMO. Personally, I feel that's all up to her. A man ("as much as it is his") shouldn't be able to overlord something that is happening to a woman's body. She can and has all the right to do whatever she wants to do and a man can only and should only act accordingly.
The Chris Rock joke goes like this: "When she comes from outta the bathroom an' she got that "shit it happened" look on her face you got two options. You can say "Oh, I'm so happy, I will be a great father and am really looking forward to our baby!" or you can look at her like a deer in headlights an' say "....so whachu gonna do?"
So if men get the right to force a woman to take a pregnancy to term if he DOES want to be a father, should he also get the right to force her to terminate the pregnancy if he DOES NOT want to be a father? If not, how can you possibly advocate one without the other? If so, doesn't that give men full control over the reproductive function of a woman's body?
Just asking....
Stormie
Well I guess that's where we differ. My idea of owning up is having the baby, yours is doing exclusively what is in the best interest of the mother.
Sometimes it's the right decision to make. I can hardly imagine it is an easy one. Making a decision like that is, like it or not, dealing with the consequences of her actions in a very immediate, and difficult to handle, way. This isn't about 'owning up', in my view. To me, the woman is making a choice about her body. The foetus is part of her body.
So, any woman who's old enough and with the mental capacity to understand that sex can and does lead to pregnancy, even if protection is used, loses the final say over whether she has to carry any baby to term? Simply because she chose to have sex with a man, he gets to make decisions about what she does with her body?
I'd rather see legislation that leaves the decision of the fetus entirely to the woman.... and the decision whether or not they have sex entirely to the man.
If the male states that he wishes to choose full custody of the child that should be his right.
It is his child as much as hers.
as long as the man can take the child at the point of that decision and carry it to term in his own womb, i agree. otherwise......stfu. think about it.
I have a question for everyone.
Would you consider forcing a women to give birth to an unwanted baby torture and why or why not?
Absolutely. Pregnancy can create extreme physical and/or mental hardship. It's not a 'natural' state for every woman.
I am about to start a shitstorm of epic proportions ...
Does this legislation cover -
1. Pregnancy from rape? What kind of repercussions will be felt when a rape victim is told - "You want to terminate this pregnancy? You have to ask the rapist for his permission to terminate."
2. The father is dead? For instance - Woman finds out she's pregnant, the problem being that the child will be deformed. She decides to terminate. The father died between insemination and discovery of situation.
3. The pregnancy will, without a doubt, be harmful to the mother and/or child. However, the father refuses to abort. Will the state wait until the mother and/or child dies in childbirth to file charges against the father?
I shall now duck and cover.........
Men should absolutely, positively, 100% have a say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion...
On a personal level. Legally, legislatively, authoritatively? He has absolutely no right to any say whatsoever.
If a man wants full custody of the child, then he should be off looking for a surrogate to carry the child to term for him. That's the only solution because ultimately it's the woman's body and if he thought it might be nice to be a daddy, he should have discussed that prior to getting his cock out.
If it's unexpected, it might be unwanted by one or both. Neither has the right to force the other to comply and the state should have absolutely no say what so ever.
All of what everyone is saying seems to hinge on WHEN the "fetus" is determined to be a "child." At what point does the child earn those rights? Upon conception, 3 months, 6 months....not until birth? Thats the real issue, no?
If it is considered a child upon conception - what right does the mother have to KILL it? However, if it is not considered "human" until birth, then one could argue that everything between conception and birth is entirely up to the woman. The difficulty comes into play during the undefined period between conception and birth where we recognize the fetus as a child. I'm thinking as I'm typing, and thats always dangerous for me, but what if at, say 6 & 1/2 months the "mother" decided to (and I love this nonpersonal terminology) terminate the pregnancy? Is/would that be ok and should the father have no say under those circumstances?
but what if at, say 6 & 1/2 months the "mother" decided to (and I love this nonpersonal terminology) terminate the pregnancy? Is/would that be ok and should the father have no say under those circumstances?
There are laws in place to limit the circumstances in which a woman can seek an abortion. These laws are mainly to do with ensuring that abortions take place at the earliest possible point in the pregnancy.
Personally? I think that no man, and no government should have the right to dictate that a woman carry a child to term. As long as that baby is inside her body it is a part of her. Physically. It does not, to me, take on a separate identity until it has left the mother's body.
Men should absolutely, positively, 100% have a say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion... On a personal level. Legally, legislatively, authoritatively? He has absolutely no right to any say whatsoever.
Right on.
In most cases, when a child is born the father has financial responsibility for that child, so he should have a say.
Wow. I didn't realize men
only had a
financial responsibility to children, and that that's the motivating factor for this legislation.
I am about to start a shitstorm of epic proportions ...
1. And what about when the status of the consentuality of the sex is unclear or alleged?
2. I guess if he's dead, then it doesn't matter. Sounds like a precursor to a Fark story:
Not news: Woman kills father of child for insurance proceeds. Fark: Woman kills father of child so she can have abortion.
3. Or how about even "high risk" pregnancies (although all pregnancies carry a huge risk to the mother) where it's more of a guess as to whether or not there could be severe complications?
Hey- how 'bout it- lets start the process already, I'm all for it!
If you want control of what your semen does inside our bodies and want to take more responsibility, you can also start paying when your semen mutates into Uterian Cancer instead of a baby...oh yeah.....that can happen too...And it can also come right out of your damned paycheck. States Orders. Awesome! It's nice of you to want to be more involved and responsible for your bi-products.
If men want to continue to become more and more responsible with what their little seamen, bi-products, and bacterium does to our bodies....bring it [COLOR="White"]the Fu** [/COLOR]on.....let's do it. You are not going to like it.
But it would be a good education, for all of us.
So, any woman who's old enough and with the mental capacity to understand that sex can and does lead to pregnancy, even if protection is used, loses the final say over whether she has to carry any baby to term? Simply because she chose to have sex with a man, he gets to make decisions about what she does with her body?
Damn, man and you call Britain fascist. You want to allow men the right to dictate what a woman does with her body? Force her to undergo a process which often carries enormous health risks, even in these modern times. Oh great so, as long as the man's willing to raise the baby with no input from her, she loses the right to refuse to undergo 9 months of pregnancy and the labour that follows.
I would never want to live in a country with a law like that.
But it's ok to let a woman kill his child without his consent even though she CHOSE to get pregnant... I see.
It is not about her body it is about
their fetus.
Ain't his child til it exits her body.
Her body. Hers. If you have some solution that doesn't involve forcing a woman to engage in 9 months of potential medical complications and a painful and potentially dangerous labour, I'm all ears.
And I know you have this idea that she shouldn't have taken the risk of getting pregnant if she wasn't willing to endure all that that entails...but frankly, if you are so damn protective of your sperm and whatever arises from it, you should be more careful who you put it in. Don't deposit sperm into a woman who doesn't appreciate its value:P
Ain't his child til it exits her body.
Really?
I have a question for everyone.
Would you consider forcing a women to give birth to an unwanted baby torture and why or why not?
It would not be torture, again, because she knew that sex could lead to pregnancy and she would not be the only one involved.
Ali, yes, a surrogate would be a
great option if one could be found and the transfer could be done safely.
To me the whole thing is so selfish,
I want to have sex and then if
I get pregnant
I will not take the other party into consideration because if what
I want is what
I want, fuck-em.
Now I think I may be changing my opinion on men who don't take part in the kids life after they are born... if the child is so
FULLY the womans she can kill it without so much as a nod to the man it is not his in
ANY way
EVER... might as well just move on.
You don't get to have it both ways.
Really?
Sure, she made it all by herself.
To me the whole thing is so selfish, I want to have sex and then if I get pregnant I will not take the other party into consideration because if what I want is what I want, fuck-em.
To me the whole thing is so selfish, I want to have sex and then if she gets pregnant, I will not take her into consideration because if what I want her to do, is what I want her to do, fuck-her.
You both take a risk when you have sex. You are not risking something that could potentially kill or seriously endanger your life. If every woman who has sex, does so knowing that she risks getting pregnant and you believe that automatically subjugates her physical rights over her body to those of his rights to the child, why not agitate for abortion to be illegal if the father objects? When you've finished dictating to people of my gender what we can and cannot do with the insides of our bodies, give me a nice long lecture about how I live in Fascist Europe.
I have not said that abortion should not be legal.
I simply stated if a man wanted to take full custody of the child he should be able to do so.
The other side of your rant is that you are saying it is ok for you to kill a man's child without his consent.
Dude, rkzenrage, a man has NO, repeat NO right or legal authority to say what a woman does with HER, repeat HER body and things inside it. That doesn't mean you can't ask her to keep it, can't beg and plead and even demand... but she absolutely does NOT have to listen to you.
What was the point of that statement of the obvious?
I simply stated if a man wanted to take full custody of the child he should be able to do so.
Of course he should, if she is willing to carry it to term for him.
The other side of your rant is that you are saying it is ok for you to kill a man's child without his consent.
Okay. My honest opinion here rk, and I have a feeling this isn't likely to be a popular one: up until that baby leaves the mothers body, it is not a baby it is a feotus. A feotus is, to me, a potential baby. When it is born it is a baby in the world, experiencing life and is no longer existing within its mother's body. At that point the baby has its own, human rights, separate from the mother. At that point, it is as much his child as hers.
Prior to that...if it exists inside my body, if it is a part of me, it is mine.
That doesn't mean you can't ask her to keep it, can't beg and plead and even demand... but she absolutely does NOT have to listen to you.
Absolutely. I would imagine many women seeking abortions take into account their man's feelings on it when they're making their decision. It's not an easy thing to have to decide.
Of course he should, if she is willing to carry it to term for him.
Okay. My honest opinion here rk, and I have a feeling this isn't likely to be a popular one: up until that baby leaves the mothers body, it is not a baby it is a feotus. A feotus is, to me, a potential baby. When it is born it is a baby in the world, experiencing life and is no longer existing within its mother's body. At that point the baby has its own, human rights, separate from the mother. At that point, it is as much his child as hers.
Prior to that...if it exists inside my body, if it is a part of me, it is mine.
I strongly disagree.
*nods* I know you do. I think this is not one of those issues you and I are going to find common ground on :P
If you spit in my coke can it's still not your coke. We can share it- but it's really up to me whether I decide to dump it out or not.
*nods* I know you do. I think this is not one of those issues you and I are going to find common ground on :P
I know, just a discussion and not aimed at anyone in particular.
Okay, rk, answer me a question. At what point in the conception/pregnancy process does the feotus/baby's human rights outweigh the woman/mother's ?
IMO, as soon as we know, and not outweigh, equal.
But, politically I do not feel I have a right to outlaw abortion up to the second trimester, unless the father wants full custody.
There is no equal if a woman who doesn't want to have a baby is forced to do so. That means the baby's right to be born has been tested against, and outweighed the woman's right not to give birth.
You keep using the word "force" attached to something she decided to do.
Does not work.
Trying to find equality in abortion is near impossible.
It takes two to have a baby but only one will pay the consequences. One group focuses on one area and another group will focus on the other area and we get nowhere.
I am attaching the word force to what you seem to feel is a man's right in this. Any and all decisions about my body are mine. When and if I have sex and who with, whether or not I carry a child to term or seek medical intervention. Those are my decisions to make as long as the law allows abortion.
I would, in that situation, I hope, give full consideration to the man's feelings on it. But, if he and I haven't actually decided to get pregnant then we both took a risk: I risked getting pregnant, and he risked getting me pregnant. One of the attendant risks of getting pregnant is that I may have a child, with all the potential health factors that involves and also, possibly end up as a single mother whose career and future plans come grinding to a halt because the world turned upside down. One of the attendant risks of getting me pregnant would be that the potential child he might have had could be denied him. Both parties decided to sleep with each other. Both knew the risks. Every woman knows condoms can break. Every man knows a woman has the legal right to seek an abortion (in those countries where it is legal of course :P). Sleep with someone you are not actually planning a family with and you take the above, and a whole host of other, risks.
For the people that believe in this...
"The greatest inequality is to make unequal things equal"
Abortion:
Woman: Has risk of getting pregnant
Man: Has risk of getting woman pregnant
Woman: Has to endure pregnancy
Man: Does not have to endure pregnancy
These are naturally unequal.
To say that a man should have an equal voice in abortion is saying that we are making something that is naturally unequal and making it equal. I thought most people on this forum oppose this idea?
Every man knows a woman has the legal right to seek an abortion (in those countries where it is legal of course :P). Sleep with someone you are not actually planning a family with and you take the above, and a whole host of other, risks.
Right, and I am talking about changing that paradigm for the men who wish to accept their responsibility toward their child once it is made.
No, you are talking about changing that paradigm for the men who wish to accept their responsibility and for the women who get pregnant.
There is a lot of stating the obvious in this thread.
Tell me, how often do you think this would really happen?
How often do I think what would really happen?
You keep using the word "force" attached to something she decided to do.
Does not work.
Deciding to have sex is not the same as deciding to have a child. Duh. That is sooo 100 years ago...
If you're trying to suggest that women should only have sex when they are hoping/willing to get pregnant then I offer a hearty Fuck You.
That a man would want to take full responsibility and want the child for himself alone.
Deciding to have sex is not the same as deciding to have a child. Duh. That is sooo 100 years ago...
If you're trying to suggest that women should only have sex when they are hoping/willing to get pregnant then I offer a hearty Fuck You.
Thanks for your outstanding contribution to the wisdom and dialog of the thread. Especially since you can't read. :D
Yeah, skipped over most of your shit actually... such utter crap I thought it was Fresh... :3eye:
Sniffing the ether
I see... literal.
I've written replies and deleted them 3 times now, which is very unlike me.
I think Jinx is probably responding to this little gem....
If two people have sex and know how babies are made and know that no contraception is perfect they choose to risk getting pregnant, if they do it is a choice. They chose that risk and therefore chose the result.
Dana uses *forced* correctly in my mind....deciding to have sex (safely) and having an accident, doesnt mean the sperm donour (lets not call him a Father, he isnt a Father at this stage) should be allowed to dictate how the paternal Mothers body is used for the next 9 months.
Its ridiculous, you want to force an unwilling Female to carry a child?
Well that, and this exchange, and a couple other comments,
Simply because she chose to have sex with a man, he gets to make decisions about what she does with her body?
But it's ok to let a woman kill his child without his consent even though she CHOSE to get pregnant... I see.
but whatever. It's just ridiculous.
Sure, she made it all by herself.
Of course she didn't make it all by herself. But she's growing it all by herself. So she gets to be selfish about whether she wants to keep growing it or not.
So she gets to be selfish
Does that mean you agree?
That requirement would have the same affect on my body, as outlawing abortion would. In other words, I would HAVE to carry an unwanted fetus around for 9 months and take all of the risks involved with pregnancy and childbirth (for me, both are equally high risk). My body would be forever changed as would my emotional state.
Who is going to hold my hair while I puke my guts out every morning? Who is going to rub my back when I can barely stand? Who is going to help me up out of my chair or up the stairs? Who is going to prepare and inject my insulin shots? Who is going to be with me while I go through the multiple tests and procedures to ensure a healthy pregnancy? Who is going to make sure I eat right and don't drink or do drugs? Who is going to hold my hand while I scream during labor? Who is going to bring me ice packs when my breasts engorge? Who is going to admire my not-so-perfect-anymore body?
How many women do you think would actually go through with giving the baby to the birth father after he forced her to complete the pregnancy and childbirth? He gets to have sex, proceed to sit back and daydream of his coming child, then get it handed to him on a silver platter <so to speak>. And you think this is somehow FAIR or EQUAL????
I agree with Dana, both people who engage in sex take a risk. If they aren't prepared to deal with the consequences, then they need to abstain. Period.
and your problem with that is???
That was directed at Rk's selfish quote.
as outlawing abortion would
Good thing no one is talking about outlawing abortion.
Does that mean you agree?
I agree it's selfish.
Dude, rkzenrage, a man has NO, repeat NO right or legal authority to say what a woman does with HER, repeat HER body and things inside it. That doesn't mean you can't ask her to keep it, can't beg and plead and even demand... but she absolutely does NOT have to listen to you.
What was the point of that statement of the obvious?
That is the whole point of this entire thread. The law would force the woman to get permission from the man.
Nope, the law would make the man stop an abortion if he wished to take full responsibility for his child.
I agree with Dana, both people who engage in sex take a risk. If they aren't prepared to deal with the consequences, then they need to abstain. Period.
Abstain....seriously?
rage, you're all fucked up here.
i'm slightly disgusted by your willful disregard of a woman's rights. does it really need to be laid out as literally as stormie does in her post for you to get it?
you sir, should be ashamed of yourself for taking the stance you've taken.
Good thing no one is talking about outlawing abortion.
You started this thread about outlawing abortion--that's what the proposed legislation is about. If the woman has to get permission from the man to have an abortion, and he says no, then it would be against the law for her to have an abortion.
Ah, I love patriarchal laws.
Seriously, the woman has no say on whether to have an abortion when she is the one that has to have the baby? The father should never have the final say on an issue that a woman has to go through.
rage, you're all fucked up here.
i'm slightly disgusted by your willful disregard of a woman's rights. does it really need to be laid out as literally as stormie does in her post for you to get it?
you sir, should be ashamed of yourself for taking the stance you've taken.
As I am for yours for the man's, same thing, big deal. :right:
oh..the man's rights....took me a sec.
shut up.
i thought you were libertarian? your rights end at the limits of your body. If you dont want a woman killing your babies, keep your goo to yourself, or marry her and be sure she wants to procreate first, genius.
Rage, men and women have naturally unequal stances on abortion since the woman actually has to give birth.
They are not equal and you can not pretend that they are. Abortion is a lose-lose situation and everyone is just picking the lesser of two evils.
shut up.
No. So eloquent, as always.
I did marry her.
Your
advice is great for men and women, I applaud you for it.
Pierce, men and women are not equal? Well... um... you go ahead and stick with that.
No. So eloquent, as always.
you get the eloquence your stunted ass deserves. here's some more eloquence for ya:
EAT
A
DICK
Homophobia... it just gets better and better.
Pierce, men and women are not equal? Well... um... you go ahead and stick with that.
Ah the irony that you take me out of context for me being sexist when you support a patriarchal position.
A woman has to give birth and a man doesn't, that is fact and it doesn't make a certain gender any better than the other. Since the woman has to give birth she gets to have the final say, not the man. Trying to evening out the playing field to be fair to the man is everything you stand against since you have said you don't believe in fair. Like LJ said, if you don't want a woman to have an abortion with a baby that you helped create, don't impregnate her.
Funny, I see my opinion as equality and your's as matriarchal.
to have an abortion with a baby that you helped create, don't impregnate her.
Don't wanna' have a baby, don't get pregnant.
or abort it as soon as you know about it.
dont want to get pregnant? dont have sex?
dont want to get pregnant, dont have a uterus?
dont want to be subservient, dont be a woman?
dont want people to call you names, dont be an asshole.
You must love for people to call you names. Fetish of yours?
i just wanted to turn this ridiculous thread about assholery into what it should be. assholery.
now go piss up a rope with your silly positions and posturing about equality. it really is a waste of logic to argue this with you any further. you'll get nothing more from me than insults and ridicule.
you .......big....... bald .......sperm donor.
or abort it as soon as you know about it.
dont want to get pregnant? dont have sex?
dont want to get pregnant, dont have a uterus?
dont want to be subservient, dont be a woman?
dont want people to call you names, dont be an asshole.
*Applauds* outstanding.
Good thing no one is talking about outlawing abortion
Nope, the law would make the man stop an abortion if he wished to take full responsibility for his child.
rk, honey, I lova ya, but that's fucked up. You would seriously want a law that gives a man the right to dictate to a woman whether or not she was able to have an abortion?
From the original article on the proposed law change :
As written, the bill would ban women from seeking an abortion without written consent from the father of the fetus. In cases where the identity of the father is unknown, women would be required to submit a list of possible fathers. The physician would be forced to conduct a paternity test from the provided list and then seek paternal permission to abort.
Well, fuck me sideways if I didn't tripover and land in the Handmaid's Tale. Rk, next time you call European laws on racism fascistic in nature I'm just going to laugh in your face, because this beats any Holocaust Denial laws into the ground, for me. How can you so vehemently defend the rights of people to spout racist filth and yet not seek to defend a woman's right to have the final say over her own body? And if you want to point at Fascist German and say, well hey they limited freedom of speech, I can point you to the German Maids whose job was to bear blond haired, blue eyed, master-race babies. And I can point you to the pregnant women whom the nazis experimented on.
Chris rock joke everybody!
"so....whachu gonna do?"
Rk I don't agree with you, but I have even more respect for you for not backing down. You took all those rocks thrown at you. Teach me.
Uh uh. If rk were to concede gracefully, that would be worthy of respect.
You took all those rocks thrown at you. Teach me.
If you mean he was stoned, you may be right :P
I'd like to know what woman would have an abortion if she was in a happy relationship with a man she wants to be with (unless there are extremely extenuating circumstances and I still think she has the final say anyway).
Also, if they make this legislation what makes anyone think men wont abuse it simply to get back at a woman who wont fuck him anymore?
The problem is, the problem works both ways but ultimately, it's not the man who has to bear the brunt, and if he changes his mind half way through the pregnancy (as they all too often do) then the woman is left with a child that she never intended to have but has no choice but to follow though - and in most cases will love that child endlessly, but her life is changed forever thanks to a fuckhead who wasn't smart enough to keep what's his to himself (if you want to apportion blame). We all know that even now that women are equals (har har) men are still the ones who do most of the persuing.
Since time immemorial, there have been laws governing and securing men's rights over their children. Assumptions of female custody are an extremely modern development. For most of the world, across most of recorded history, where laws have existed, they have protected men's rights to the furtherance of their genes. These have in many cases stretched as far as the right to kill off any babies that weren't his (rights to 'expose' a baby), thereby showing that what is important, deep down is the 'replicate me' programme we're all born with. Males, as the physically dominant sex have always sought to control that programme. As civilization became more advanced, this morphed into control of land and property and maintenance of the family name and estate...but at its core it is what it always was. It is the reason society shames the promiscuous woman.
This is no different. This is no different to any of the myriad other ways men have used patriarchal societal systems to exert their control over the 'replicate me' programme and the women who incubate their genetic future.
What, let him spew crap with no repercussions? Hell no. Rk knows the deal here.
The funny part (in my opinion) is that rkz truly believes what he's saying but doesn't realize how sexist he's being.
Sorry rkz, but it's true. I realize there's reasons why you feel the way you do and that you honestly believe what you're saying, but mate, you're not a woman. You never will be so you will never understand.
Before you go ahead and tell me I'm not a man and I'll never understand, I agree.
That's why it's a case of n'er the twain shall meet on this issue.
WTF? Will you guys stop deleting your posts?
Makes it very hard to follow
Have you had your daily dose of potassium?
I thought it was protien?
I suspect its a little of both......probably no carbs though..
I know a woman who got pregnant. At the time, her relationship was a disaster that had nearly run its course. The boyfriend wanted an abortion. She did not. She left. She endures pregnancy and raises the child on entirely her own. Because she believes she has an ethical - not legal - duty to take his opinion into consideration, she eliminates his responsibility to that child by raising the child on her own without financial, emotional, or any kind of support whatsoever from him. She recognizes that although she has the biological "advantage" (or disadvantage, depending on your POV) which allows her the ultimate decisions when it comes to her body, she believes she is ethically bound to respect his wishes.
It isn't fair to women that men don't have to deal with the baby plumbing that we do - the bleeding, the cramps, the migraines, the cancers, the risks and complications, the scarring, the pain... I spend 25% of my life stuffing cotton up my twat, another 25% eating chocolate and crying. I'm only "normal" 50% of the time! You guys walk around without a care in the world except when it comes to your ability to impregnate.
It isn't fair that men don't have the ultimate say. But as with most things in life, it isn't fair, and it is about trade-offs. You don't physically have to deal with it, you don't get the final decision.
You start putting limitations on abortions like this legislation suggests, and we've regressed back to coat hanger abortions, and abortions for the privileged.
Keep your laws off my body.
rk, honey, I lova ya, but that's fucked up. You would seriously want a law that gives a man the right to dictate to a woman whether or not she was able to have an abortion?
From the original article on the proposed law change :
Well, fuck me sideways if I didn't tripover and land in the Handmaid's Tale. Rk, next time you call European laws on racism fascistic in nature I'm just going to laugh in your face, because this beats any Holocaust Denial laws into the ground, for me. How can you so vehemently defend the rights of people to spout racist filth and yet not seek to defend a woman's right to have the final say over her own body? And if you want to point at Fascist German and say, well hey they limited freedom of speech, I can point you to the German Maids whose job was to bear blond haired, blue eyed, master-race babies. And I can point you to the pregnant women whom the nazis experimented on.
First of all, I did not say I agree with the bill as proposed... I stated that a man who wishes to stop a abortion should be able to.
Fresh, back down when you are wrong... I do it all the time.
Yikes. I thought we were suppose to be getting away from the archaic idea of men controlling women.
I respect your opinion, rkzenrage, but I am a little shocked.
Perhaps my problem is my inability to trust what a man would decide for my body (or our child.) This is a time when people don't have sex just to procreate and we can no longer fool ourselves about that. Don't get me wrong. If the law were this way and my husband and I got pregnant, I would trust him because I know he would respect me and we would make this decision together. If I had chosen to marry a different man? If I were not married and a surprise pregnancy came about? Who the fuck knows? Makes me even more happy about who I married. A bit of a scary thought, though.
I see a lot of problems with this law:
- If a man has the final say in whether or not to abort the baby, as someone else stated above, what is to keep some of them from abusing this law to control a woman or to "punish" her? I won't believe that this would be a small minority of situations. Many people cannot handle responsibility, so they use it to control another person. This happens already in so many other ways.
- Once the child is born, what of him/her? Can you honestly say you believe that all fathers are going to be supportive, loving, whatever for that child? What portion of those children do you suspect will end up in the state cycle, unwanted? Who pays for these services already, and whose taxes will increase as a result of further "strain" on the system? I hate to put it this way, but it is a factor.
- There are ways around this law for pregnant women, too. "I don't remember who I slept with. Here's a list, but he might not be on there."
- Who needs more laws to control us? If the man is not considered in the decision about the life of a fetus and he has a problem with that, perhaps he should have considered his partner's perspective on that ahead of time and used a condom? Or, perhaps he might have determined his partner's perspective on having children, before he started having sex with her? Same goes for the woman. If she didn't want to get pregnant, perhaps she might have taken precautions? Both parties have responsibility in this, but once a woman gets pregnant, she has full physical responsibility for that child. Only she can eat right, not lift really heavy things, etc. to take care of that child while in the womb. If she chooses to abort the baby, obviously she isn't prepared for the responsibility. The man has no physical obligation to the child, so naturally his perspective is going to be different.
- What about situations where the man makes the woman keep the baby and she later decides she wants to be a mother? I have heard of this happening in situations where the intent is to give the baby up for adoption.
This is so case by case, therefore, putting a law around it is just dangerous. I realize my points are "obvious" but they are still valid and need to be addressed.
Rage, like I said, I respect how you feel about this, but I suspect you are putting yourself in the place of one of the men whose child is aborted without your consent and thinking "what would I want?" Not all men have the same connection to their emotions that you do. Not all men would respect a woman enough not to control her or use her. I don't believe you are archaic or domineering. I just think you are looking at this without considering other perspectives.
- There are ways around this law for pregnant women, too. "I don't remember who I slept with. Here's a list, but he might not be on there."
Not to mention the really obvious way: pick any random male friend, assert he's the father, have him sign the permission slip, and go on your merry way. Paternity tests are expensive and take a long time, there's no way they could legislate it to be a requirement for every abortion.
I thought my "possession for dummys" post was pretty clear.
So blind they can't interpret their own laws anymore. Or provide any valid justification.
Just don't spit in my coke and think it's yours.
Isn't there a fairly high risk associated with paternity tests performed in utero? I know that invasive prenatal testing, such as amniocentesis, which detects genetic disorders or chromosomal abnormalities, carries with it a high risk of infection or complication.
And what about the old oops-I-"accidentally"-fell-down-the-stairs-and-lost-the-baby trick?
rage, you're all fucked up here.
i'm slightly disgusted by your willful disregard of a woman's rights. does it really need to be laid out as literally as stormie does in her post for you to get it?
you sir, should be ashamed of yourself for taking the stance you've taken.
Wow someone said it....and it was LJ. Awesome!
:D
That is the whole point of this entire thread. The law would force the woman to get permission from the man.
Nope, the law would make the man stop an abortion if he wished to take full responsibility for his child.
Here, you say that the law doesn't force the woman to get permission. When you are reminded that it, in fact, does, you say:
First of all, I did not say I agree with the bill as proposed... I stated that a man who wishes to stop a abortion should be able to.
Fresh, back down when you are wrong... I do it all the time.
Now might be a good time for you to do so.
But let's take your proposed alternate law into consideration:
I stated that a man who wishes to stop a abortion should be able to.
If you don't agree with the "woman needs permission" part of the law, how do you propose that this should work? How would he know? If the woman tells him that she is pregnant, she risks losing her ability to make the choice herself. It would be much safer for her to make the decision without his input, which I think most would agree would be a bad outcome.
And if the man decides that she can't have an abortion, how would the doctor know?
I fail to see any moral or ethical difference between the proposed law which imposes on the woman a need for paternal permission, and rk's proposed paternal veto.
Forget moral and ethical, there is no practical difference. Exercising a veto power is the same thing as refusing to grant permission.
I, of all people, have always been hugely in favor of father's rights (you want to see some angry women's rights proponents, find the thread where I argued that in many cases child support is merely punative, and actually contributes to a worse situation for the child,) so I am sympathetic to your emotions on this one, rkz. But you're wrong. The best you can hope for is that the woman would be reasonable and choose to take the man's feelings into consideration.
Just an aside - Where is that thread Clod? I've been dealing with that issue personally.
Unless it's a virgin birth, the male contributor of DNA should have a say in the decision-making, with the balance weighted towards completing the pregnancy (i.e., man cannot force an abortion that the woman does not want and vice versa).
There are laws in place to limit the circumstances in which a woman can seek an abortion. These laws are mainly to do with ensuring that abortions take place at the earliest possible point in the pregnancy.
Not in the United States.
The "up to the end of the first trimester" is a matter of convention, not law.
with the balance weighted towards completing the pregnancy
Why?
Is there a baby shortage?
More importantly, is a there a baby shortage among people who don't fully have their shit together in the relationship/family unit department? I don't think there is.... :headshake
That'd be fine as long as the only body in question was that of the foetus/baby. As long as the woman's body is having decisions made about it, its the woman's decision. End of story.
Just an aside - Where is that thread Clod? I've been dealing with that issue personally.
Here it is. Ah, good times.
Here it is. Ah, good times.
Lady Sidhe sure did know how to start a controversial thread.
I see a lot of problems with this law:
- If a man has the final say in whether or not to abort the baby, as someone else stated above, what is to keep some of them from abusing this law to control a woman or to "punish" her? I won't believe that this would be a small minority of situations. Many people cannot handle responsibility, so they use it to control another person. This happens already in so many other ways.
He only has a say, with my suggestion, if he wants full custody of that child, no other time... and if he could carry the child (which they were looking at for a time) sure, I have no issue with it.
The revenge problem is a
possibility, as is the preferential treatment of women by the courts today. But, he has a baby that is his and only his out of it.
I just don't see a male using this as something to harm someone because they end-up with more of the burden and problems than she does in the long run. But, this is a good point.
- Once the child is born, what of him/her? Can you honestly say you believe that all fathers are going to be supportive, loving, whatever for that child? What portion of those children do you suspect will end up in the state cycle, unwanted? Who pays for these services already, and whose taxes will increase as a result of further "strain" on the system? I hate to put it this way, but it is a factor.
He wants the baby.
How is that different than the mother deciding she wants to keep the baby?
There is none, that is the point.
I do not accept the assumption that women are better parents.
The risks of the child being unwanted are the same with the female parent.
- There are ways around this law for pregnant women, too. "I don't remember who I slept with. Here's a list, but he might not be on there."
In-vitro DNA.
- Who needs more laws to control us? If the man is not considered in the decision about the life of a fetus and he has a problem with that, perhaps he should have considered his partner's perspective on that ahead of time and used a condom? Or, perhaps he might have determined his partner's perspective on having children, before he started having sex with her? Same goes for the woman. If she didn't want to get pregnant, perhaps she might have taken precautions? Both parties have responsibility in this, but once a woman gets pregnant, she has full physical responsibility for that child. Only she can eat right, not lift really heavy things, etc. to take care of that child while in the womb. If she chooses to abort the baby, obviously she isn't prepared for the responsibility. The man has no physical obligation to the child, so naturally his perspective is going to be different.
I agree with the first part, but we are talking about once it is too late.
No physical responsibility? It is half of him, physically. That is the point.
- What about situations where the man makes the woman keep the baby and she later decides she wants to be a mother? I have heard of this happening in situations where the intent is to give the baby up for adoption.
That is really OT for this, will but up to the courts to decide. She signed her rights away. I hope that he would retain primary custody as long as he is a good parent.
She wanted to kill the kid... not sure how I feel about that after the fact. But, people change... guess it would depend on the individual case.
The revenge problem is a possibility, as is the preferential treatment of women by the courts today. But, he has a baby that is his and only his out of it.
It is half of him, physically. That is the point.
If it's half him, it's half her, and can't ever be his and only his.
What if he changes his mind? What if decides to tell the kid who mom is for whatever reason? What if he dies?
It is half of him, physically. That is the point.
No...it isn't. It is half him, half her. It is not half of him, he is half of it.
It is however, physically a part of her. It is physically contained within and joined to her body. He is not half of her, therefore he has no right to make decisions about her body. He has a right to half the decision making about the child...but only if he can exercise that right without also imposing his will onto another sentient human's body.
If it's half him, it's half her, and can't ever be his and only his.
What if he changes his mind? What if decides to tell the kid who mom is for whatever reason? What if he dies?
All of that is true of her as well.
I was talking about custody, nothing more. When a woman takes care of a child alone, it is only sole custody and all of those what ifs are still accurate.
Nope. You are not just talking about custody. Long before anybody takes custody there's the pesky matter of pregnancy and labour.
Funny, I see my opinion as equality and your's as matriarchal.
Can you explain that further because I do not see how I am being matriarchal?
Lets pretend we don't have any laws and are in a completely neutral society for a second. If a woman wants to have an abortion she can have one without a man's permission. That is about as natural as you can get. That means the woman has the natural say on the issue so right now we do not have a patriarchal or matriarchal society since neither gender is powering over another.
You are saying that a man should have a right to force a woman to go through pregnancy. That means you are saying the man should have an unnatural amount of say on the issue, making it patriarchal.
What's unnatural is pretending the only one person, the woman, is responsible for the pregnancy. "My body my choice" is just rhetoric from the pro-abortion side.
Stop changing what I am saying. It takes two people to get pregnant but only one has to deal with it.
And I see it as the man has as much right to the fetus as the womans as it is half his.
Your view is matriarchal because you feel the woman should have sole choice in the matter.
You are saying the woman should have the right to force the man to allow his child to be aborted with no say.
For you it is all for nothing, I am not saying that.
I am saying if the man states he is willing to accept full custody, and only then, he can take responsibility for the child.
Can a man force a woman to have an abortion if he does not want a child?
Why not? By your logic, if someone does not want a child they should not be FORCED to have it in the world.
Same thing.
I am saying if the man states he is willing to accept full custody, and only then, he can take responsibility for the child.
But he can't. It's in her body. He can't take custody.
By your logic, if someone does not want a child they should not be FORCED to BRING it inTO the world.
Same thing.
I fixed the quote. Neither the man nor the woman should be forced to carry the fetus to term, if they don't want to.
The woman can force the man, even if not the biological father, but just the named one, to provide financial support up to the age of 18.
By your logic, no man should ever be forced to take any responsibility for their children in any way.
Edit:
Creepy wolf... same time.
I don't actually think men should be forced to take responsibility for their child.
I do, parents are parents.
Make a child, they are yours for life.
Men and women are equal.
That is a place where the law can, and should, be more gender-blind, though the chances of misidentifying the mother are considerably lower.
And I see it as the man has as much right to the fetus as the womans as it is half his.
Yet, she has to feed and put up with it for nine months while you don't have to do anything, hardly equal.
Your view is matriarchal because you feel the woman should have sole choice in the matter.
She is not forcing her views on anyone though. If a woman wants to get an abortion she is not forcing any view on anyone else, if a man wants to stop an abortion he has to force his views on her. That is why your view is patriarchal and I am not matriarchal. You are forcing your views on other people while the woman is not forcing anything on the man. The system is naturally unequal.
You are saying the woman should have the right to force the man to allow his child to be aborted with no say.
How can you force a man to allow his child to be aborted? Once his sperm leaves his body he has no control over what happens to the baby so nothing can be forced upon him.
I am saying if the man states he is willing to accept full custody, and only then, he can take responsibility for the child.
In an ideal world I would love for that to happen, but as long as the woman gives birth it can not be equalized. If you can find a way where a woman doesn't have to give birth then your point is valid, until then it isn't.
Can a man force a woman to have an abortion if he does not want a child?
Yes he can physically but that would be a man forcing his influence on a woman. As long as a woman gives birth she has an unequal say on the matter, and until you can find a way for woman not to give birth it will stay that way.
Why not? By your logic, if someone does not want a child they should not be FORCED to have it in the world.
Because the man doesn't give birth to the child he can not be forced to have it. Once the sperm leaves his body, he does not have natural control on the matter.
By your logic, no man should ever be forced to take any responsibility for their children in any way.
Some may make it seem so, but extracting money is not actually a medical procedure.
I do, parents are parents.
Make a child, they are yours for life.
Men and women are equal.
So do you think all parents should be forced to look after their children for life, even if they are not suited to it and the child would be better off with someone else? Maybe we should ban adoption. We could allow it in extreme circumstances where the parents are killed, but other than that all parents should be forced to parent.
He only has a say, with my suggestion, if he wants full custody of that child, no other time... and if he could carry the child (which they were looking at for a time) sure, I have no issue with it.
Sure, if he could carry the child. I am all for it. But since he can't, I ain't biting.
The revenge problem is a possibility, as is the preferential treatment of women by the courts today. But, he has a baby that is his and only his out of it.
I just don't see a male using this as something to harm someone because they end-up with more of the burden and problems than she does in the long run. But, this is a good point.
Yes, I will give you that mothers do get preferential treatment in custody cases, most of the time. That should change. Parents should be viewed as equal parties, but not until the child is born. Why? Because it isn't a child until it is born.
Also, it might be easy for a person to say "Oh yes, I am going to raise that child" (fill out the form, drop it off at the courthouse, etc.) but when it comes to raising the kid, what is to stop the guy from hauling the baby down to his nearest dropoff once it is born? Yes, I know, there is nothing stopping mothers from doing it, now, and there is nothing stopping teenagers from throwing their babies in dumpsters. Yes, it is a sad world. Let's try and minimize the damage.
He wants the baby.
How is that different than the mother deciding she wants to keep the baby?
There is none, that is the point.
I do not accept the assumption that women are better parents.
The risks of the child being unwanted are the same with the female parent.
No, women aren't necessarily better parents...but in this case, dad isn't able to parent, yet. The woman wants to not take the responsibility of carrying fetus, let alone caring for it after birth. The man may want to care for it after birth, but sadly enough, he isn't carrying it, so he doesn't get to decide. Men don't get to decide not to be able to carry a child, right now. Maybe technology will change that.
In-vitro DNA.
If dad isn't on the list, how do they make the comparison?
I agree with the first part, but we are talking about once it is too late.
No physical responsibility? It is half of him, physically. That is the point.
Yes, we are talking about once the woman DOES get pregnant by him. No, he has no physical responsibility to the fetus...meaning if he decides to fast for a week, that doesn't affect the fetus. Meaning if he decides to do coke, that doesn't affect the fetus. If he eats well, gets exercise...guess what? It does the fetus no good and no harm. When Mom's blood pressure spikes and she dies or needs a C-section, Dad is unaffected but the fetus is. If we are going to have legal abortion, it should be up to the woman. End of story. Hopefully, she has the decency to involve dad in the decision, but if dad isn't around, or doesn't seem to care, it's up to her.
That is really OT for this, will but up to the courts to decide. She signed her rights away. I hope that he would retain primary custody as long as he is a good parent.
If your law were reality, I would hope this would be the case, actually.
She wanted to kill the kid... not sure how I feel about that after the fact. But, people change... guess it would depend on the individual case.
I haven't known a lot of women who had abortions, but those I have known, I can promise you, are not cold hearted killers. Those I know chose the option out of desperation and extreme guilt. I know pro-lifers out there balk at that, but I think it needs to be said that it hasn't been an easy decision for any of the women I have known who made that one.
For the record, I could not go through with an abortion. But I am not about to tell another woman she can't. I don't know her circumstances, her heart or her motivations.
The Matrix would solve everything!
I thought it was protien?
I suspect its a little of both......probably no carbs though..
Protein, Magnessium and Potassium. Low Carbs, High GI.
Here it is. Ah, good times.
I'd have to defer to the woman having the ultimate decision here - even though, as a man, I would like to have more say, it really isn't mine to have - it is her body.
[side]Clod, That was a very interesting read. I was on the complete opposite end of that situation. It seemed that she was referring to one situation of an asshole and painting every father with the same brush. As it stands today, I the father, have custody of all my kids and the mother is getting married to a guy she has known less than a year. None of the kids want to go to the wedding. I am strongly urging them all to do so.[track]
wow, her new guy must have a big cock.
wow, her new guy must have a big cock.
Whatever it takes to get here stupid ass away from the kids so she doesn't fuck them up anymore than she already has. Thanks for the insight there LJ.
Lj, please reassure me that your real life occupation isnt as a therapist of any kind :P
Tough gig yesman, sounds like you got the better part of the bargain.
Not in the United States.
The "up to the end of the first trimester" is a matter of convention, not law.
Up to viability, is the current US law.
I'm not sure what our law is.
I'm still shocked this is even up for debate. Incredible. Paternal laws can go to hell. That's how they made sure women didn't legally get to own anything, I guess we are still not deemed as human...like we are still just a bunch of baby-bags. Hey let's just go right back there....after all this. Awesome. I'm going to throw something, or someone......how irritating. Those of you that agree to these barbaric policies................shame on you!
Then what are you going to do? Sue us for having a sugar cream filled donut while we are forced to incubate your child? Fuck off. And no- I'm not going to edit.
Tough gig yesman, sounds like you got the better part of the bargain.
I gave all my money and then some to her or lawyers - I ended up with the kids and a heavily mortgaged house - In my opinion, I got the better end by far. tx
Yes, it is a sad world. Let's try and minimize the damage.
I guess we are still not deemed as human
I feel the same way.
Guess we just disagree.
*sigh*
So much for civilization and society. So much sophistication resides on the outside and very little on the inside. I'm starting to think that some men only think they have a true understanding of mature subjects, and really prefer to remain ignorant.
I still wonder who gets to sue if something happens during the incubation process and a miscarriage happens?
What happens then, in the case of premature births?
There are too many variables that include burning a witch here. One thing leads to the other- we are talking about men's choice over women's bodies which can and does go very wrong...tons of possibilities there for a "grave" outcome. Especially when historically and recurrently these kinds of social and legal processes have killed women and deprived them of their natural and lawful rights.
I see your disagreement RK and raise you a-there is no "just" about the subject so far. But I will offer a - I wish RK would "just" pull his head out of his butt, c'mon you're smarter than that.
It's funny. Throughout history, the one thing men haven't been able to exercise total control over has been the in utero development of babies. But fuck me, if they don't keep trying.
I like to think of "the consolation of philosophy" at times like this.
Men pull a scrap of knowledge from philosophy's hand-made dress, and then think they own the whole damn thing. They seem more like idiots. (If you are seeing from the perspective of women's health issues...... ALL of them)
There's enough evidence here that shows- sometimes people don't deserve the sex you give them. (depending on who they are) Because they can't handle it. Never could. Never will.
Ladies, just say no........I think they've become too spoiled. :)
I wish Dana would quit talking about icky girl stuff.
;)
I like to think of "the consolation of philosophy" at times like this.
You know, that was one of the texts that got translated into Old English, during King Alfred's reign. In fact, the preface to the English edition is alleged to be Alfred's own. The translator did make some minor alterations....to soften its pagan edges. Alfred himself apparently found great solace in it, when he was at his lowest ebb in the marshes, and the Vikings overunning Wessex itself.
If men can't have a say on the child when it's in the womb, why are they expected to pay when it's out? Nobody has answered that one yet, have they?
The same reason abortions are legal, and infanticide isn't.
If men can't have a say on the child when it's in the womb, why are they expected to pay when it's out? Nobody has answered that one yet, have they?
I think men
should have a say on a child while it is still in the womb, in fact, I think such decisions should be made jointly, if at all possible. What I disagree with, is giving the man the LEGAL right to override the woman's decision if they cannot reach an agreement. Such a legal right would eliminate the woman's control over her own body and health. Because the fetus is still a part of the woman's body until she gives birth, any external control over it equates to control over the woman. Once the fetus becomes a newborn, it is no longer supported entirely by its mother's body, requiring monetary aid such as diapers and food, for which the father should be partially responsible.
You know, that was one of the texts that got translated into Old English, during King Alfred's reign. In fact, the preface to the English edition is alleged to be Alfred's own. The translator did make some minor alterations....to soften its pagan edges. Alfred himself apparently found great solace in it, when he was at his lowest ebb in the marshes, and the Vikings overunning Wessex itself.
I have to like it as- is because I know it's been mutilated but I'm not going to take the time to translate it myself from it's original text. I don't trust English translations at all (especially coming out of the middle ages) but I can't be forced to translate half the stuff I love-because I don't have that much time.......The mis-translations are intentional because even back then there were agendas as there are today........We can't have the greatest minds in the history of the world enjoying man-boy love orgies and writing about it openly......didn't happen. Or women boffing each other at 9 day pagan parties in worship of "bona". Nope.
There's your english translations- wrap it around a metaphor and strip it of "immorality" then layer it in modern poetic literature to cover the narritive holes....... Something even the Catholics can respect. Defy raw data. Apply agenda.
Ladies, just say no........I think they've become too spoiled. :)
I wish Dana would quit talking about icky girl stuff.
;)
So you're one of the use sex as the carrot and the stick school. Do you belong to the, use the children as the reward and punishment school, also?
So you're one of the use sex as the carrot and the stick school. Do you belong to the, use the children as the reward and punishment school, also?
Whatever Bruce. Don't use a joke to sway an arguement. It's going to take a lot more than that to sway me from my arguement. Try another door on a different block. Teases are around the corner.
Whatever it takes to get here stupid ass away from the kids so she doesn't fuck them up anymore than she already has. Thanks for the insight there LJ.
oh...that was wrong of me to say.
my apologies.
Whatever Bruce. Don't use a joke to sway an arguement. It's going to take a lot more than that to sway me from my arguement. Try another door on a different block. Teases are around the corner.
Women that use sex and children as weapons are far from a fucking joke.
Once again- let me explain this to you. I was making a joke. I don't care wether you think it's funny or not.
oh...that was wrong of me to say.
my apologies.
...accepted without prejudice.
Sorry about the misspellings and repeated lines everybody- I'm trying to toggle between work stuff and responses here every couple of lines. These things deserve more time...I know.
Bruce- don't personally attack me because you don't like my opinion or bad jokes. Just isn't right........if you have an opinion about the topic, I'd prefer to hear that....
You heard my opinion.
Women that use sex and children as weapons are far from a fucking joke.
I need this explained. What does that have to do with the topic? Do you think people hold kids hostage because they are inside their womb? Not sure......I'm just trying to connect that statement to the topic at hand.
*sigh*
So much for civilization and society. So much sophistication resides on the outside and very little on the inside. I'm starting to think that some men only think they have a true understanding of mature subjects, and really prefer to remain ignorant.
I still wonder who gets to sue if something happens during the incubation process and a miscarriage happens?
What happens then, in the case of premature births?
There are too many variables that include burning a witch here. One thing leads to the other- we are talking about men's choice over women's bodies which can and does go very wrong...tons of possibilities there for a "grave" outcome. Especially when historically and recurrently these kinds of social and legal processes have killed women and deprived them of their natural and lawful rights.
I see your disagreement RK and raise you a-there is no "just" about the subject so far. But I will offer a - I wish RK would "just" pull his head out of his butt, c'mon you're smarter than that.
I am talking about a man's choice for his child. Nothing more.
"Witch burnings" lol... cute.
I will no longer comment in here until I see something intelligent and new.
I am talking about a man's choice for his child. Nothing more.
"Nothing more" is right- you still haven't said how it would work without women needing a permission slip from a man to get an abortion.
I will no longer comment in here until I see something intelligent and new.
mmmmmm? mmmmmmm?
Then you have not read.
No, I've read. If I missed it, please point it out. All I see is that you say that if the man wants full custody the woman should not be able to get an abortion. But how would that work without the permission slip requirement? First, how would it be legally determined that a particular man had a claim? Second, he would have to know about the pregnancy, and under this rule it would be against the best interest of the woman to tell him. Third, the doctor would have to know about his custody claim, and it would be against the best interest of the woman to tell
him (or her). Would the doctor have to check a national registry of women who are not allowed abortions for the next nine months? Fourth, what sort of deterrant would there be? Prison time? A fine?
Yes, it would be ideal for the woman and the man to make the decision together, but if you want to encode that as a law you need to figure these things out.
No RK...you are talking about controlling a woman's womb......Man's choice for his child isn't gone about by controlling a woman's womb..(and all pretense thereof) It's about participating in their life.
I like the "Man's choice" spin though. I think it's clever. Nauseateing, but clever.
Ha! Haa! I want to see the look on a woman's face when they tell her that she has lost custody of her fetus. (especially a pregnant one)
Watch out!!! Bang! Crash! Boom!
If she wants to share custody, GREAT... that would be the best scenario possible.
"Waaaahhhh!" "Waaaahhh" " The world's so unfair to men." "Waaaah!" " It's a woman's world!" "Waaaah"
If men can't have a say on the child when it's in the womb, why are they expected to pay when it's out? Nobody has answered that one yet, have they?
For one thing, because the child might not make it 'out'. For another thing, who is it that has to pay all the in utero expenses anyway? For another, of course you're aware of how many men completely ignore the fact they have a child right?
So...assuming this legislation went ahead, *waves magic wand*: a woman gets pregnant, accidentally and tries to get an abortion. She's told to get a signature from the man who got her pregnant, before she can have an abortion...or, in rk's revised edition, she seeks an abortion and the man who got her pregnant finds out, objects and she is unable to get an abortion.
If such a law existed, how many 'under the counter' abortionists do you think would spring up?
The woman, who got pregnant by accident, really doesn't want to have a baby. wasn't part of her plan. She is horrified by the prospect of going through this. She is also subject to hormonal flux, just like any other pregnant woman, so is emotionally fragile. She is being denied the abortion through the normal channels.
How many women do you think, in that situation, would seek an abortion from less reputable outfits?
What if she doesn't, or cannot get an abortion. What if she is forced, or if you wish me to use a less loaded term, coerced into carrying baby to term and giving birth. What guarantees can the people refusing to allow her to end the pregnancy early, give this woman that the pregnancy or labour won't kill her? Not every woman wants to take the risks of childbirth, even with our wonderful medical science, it's still risky. It's also something a lot of women find frightening. Being forced to do something that frightens you can be deeply traumatic. All of these things you would potentially force on women, and thats in the 'best case' scenario, where they don't put their lives in the hands of quacks and conmen, or well meaning, untrained women.
And again, what if because she tried to carry the child to term because she was forced to, and she then dies while giving birth? Does her family have a right to sue? And if so, who?
If they feel that strongly about the horrors of childbirth, they should get their tubes tied or practice abstinence.
IF THE MAN DOESN'T WANT THE RISK OF A WOMAN ABORTING HIS CHILD, HE SHOULDN'T PUT HIS COCK IN IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
LOL... touchy.
That goes both ways, if she does not want to share the responsibility of having a child WITH a man she needs to keep her legs closed.
if more women would swallow, we wouldnt have this problem!
Wow! He D'int....ohmigod he fuckin did!
rk. honey ya know I loves ya loads but really you are soundin pretty fuckin ugly right now.
rkz, that's the point. And I"m not touchy, I'm just having a problem with the fact that you seem to think this is an ideal world where men really do want to take sole responsibility for their children concieved with women they obviously have no respect for. I say obviously because if there is mutual respect between two parties, that means they should be able to come to some mutual consensus between themselves. They shouldn't have to 'go and tell tales' just so they can get their own way.
Of course there are some men who love to take responsibility for their children, and they're usually the ones in stable relationships where issues like this are solved without the need to bring laws into it.
I am still reeling from the fact that a guy can seriously be breathing the air of this particular century and still think he has the right to final veto over 'his' woman's body. Whether or not there are hordes of guys ready and waiting to take full responsibility for unexpected children, frankly, is by the by. Whilst it's in my fucking belly, it's part of me. The only person who gets to make decisions about my body is me.
While I still agree with that point Dana, I do believe that different decisions are made based on the level of importance of the relationship between the man and the woman. Women will give more consideration to the mans wishes if they feel cared for as a person and not simply as an incubator.
Of course they will. I cannot imagine making such a decision without taking his view into account. Taking him into account and agreeing to have an abortion are two very different things. They may, or may not coincide.
If such a law existed, how many 'under the counter' abortionists do you think would spring up?
Not only that but a very brutal power struggle would result as well since they both feel like they are being controlled by the other.
If the woman wants an abortion and the man doesn't let her, she will be more likely to take the matter in her own hands.
Then, if she does get an illegal abortion, the man will feel insulted by her defying his decision. Then an arms race power struggle will ensue, most likely greatly hurting both their lives.
A power struggle can start, clearly shown here, if a woman initially wants an abortion and is able to get one without the consent of the man but it will be no where as bad since no one is actually physically forcing their control over the other.
Then an arms race power struggle will ensue, most likely greatly hurting both their lives.
the men have the nukes. but i'm pretty sure the women have WMD's. We may have to go into a few foxholes and search for them.
If they feel that strongly about the horrors of childbirth, they should get their tubes tied or practice abstinence.
No, they shouldn't, if they don't want to. They can do whatever they want concerning their own personal health care. You don't like it, too bad.
If men feel so strongly about the fate of their sperm, they should maybe go for a vasectomy, or practise abstinence
No, they shouldn't, if they don't want to. They can do whatever they want concerning their own personal health care. You don't like it, too bad.
Thank you for that, clearly shows the attitude I knew was there.
And pretty much every other woman you ask will say the same.
Somehow, I don't see wolf allowing a man to tell her what to do about her own health, unless he happened to be a healthcare professional.
Edit: I don't see her allowing a woman to either though, and I think that's the point. Just because the person carrying the child happens to be a woman doesn't give anyone, including the sperm donor who happens to be a man, a right to tell her what her rights are.
... happens to be a woman ... happens to be a man ...
Removing what they "happen to be" from consideration removes the debate from reality, IE the sexes are
not reproductively equal.
My point is that no one has a right to tell anyone what to do with their own body. How's that for reality.
Good think I was talking about the fetus, half his.
hey, rk. here's a proposed plan for you. I read that the fetus this and full custody that and none of this after the fact blah blah blah...
So. You find a man that feels this way? That he wants full custody of the child he fathers? No problemo. Get the agreement between the parties, man and woman, **before** the fact. Now, you've a leg to stand on. Now each person is making an informed decision. Informed consent. Discuss, agree, sign, sex, pregnancy, birth, custody.
--aside-- Talk about a mood killer.. yeesh.
But now there will be no surprises, no mistaken assumptions. He and she knew the job was dangerous when they took it.
I agree this is not foolproof. People change their minds. Happens all the time in all kinds of situations, even those as important and emotionally supercharged as this one. And still, people work it out. Build into the contract the "escape clauses" and the penalties for breaking the contract. Then you have a law that can be objectively evaluated. You have a structure that can be anticipated and navigated. Reform and refine as you go.
I daresay a man that protects his interests in this way, while effective, will ever have any interests to actually protect. What woman would sign? And a woman that would sign (and a man that would sign) would likely be bound by the unwritten social contract that is in effect every day.
But trying to enforce something like this **after** it has begun... not gonna happen. No contracts, no agreements of any kind get made when you mix up cooperation and compulsion.
Consent and coercion are mutually exclusive. One cannot be transformed into the other.
Not a bad idea, have the contract, keep it with you, and get it signed before-hand.
At least you would have legal standing after the fact.
Glad you like it.
I bet it would be a highly effective prophylactic. 100% effective.
Would the man, were he to have these "Equal Rights" over the fetus, have the option of FORCING THE WOMAN TO HAVE AN ABORTION?
Shoulda' made it bigger and put it in red.
You mean blood red, for the blood of the innocent victims, slaughtered in the name of equal reproductive rights?
Well it's a good question. I'm interested to know your thoughts on that one rkz.
I asked that in my first post in this thread...how can you consider giving a man the right to force a woman to take a pregnancy to term and make him a father, but not have the same right to force a woman to abort in order to NOT make him a father?
So much for civilization and society. So much sophistication resides on the outside and very little on the inside. I'm starting to think that some men only think they have a true understanding of mature subjects, and really prefer to remain ignorant.
What does it say about our civilization and society that we kill our children and think nothing of it?
Good think I was talking about the fetus, half his.
You know what, rk, you're dead right.
The answer here should be obvious to everyone.
The woman gets to cut the kid outta her, and then she can give it to the guy. If he can keep it alive, great, keep the little fucker.
You can not,
can not, force the woman to keep it inside her. You have no right to do so.
Because that's what you're advocating, rk, whether you like it or not. You're advocating a man's right to have final, be-all end-all say over what a woman does or does not keep inside her.
I can't look at you and tell you, for any reason in the world, that you must or must not get a vasectomy, a tattoo, a circumcision, a plastic surgery, or
any other medical procedure. I shouldn't be able look at a woman and do the same.
Good think I was talking about the fetus, half his.
Any chance you'll describe how your alternate law would work?
I think this is a clear case of man's law vs. natural law...........compounded with the inherent ridiculous illusions of control and the pursuit thereof. I don't even think I want to wrap my brain around all this ridiculousness anymore.....it's just such an overtly outrageous and dangerous concept that I don't think I want to spend any more time considering the arguements for it. Nonsense. Just complete nonsense.
Rk is starting to sound like Gannet. There I said it......."she needs to sign this vow to have my baby" is what it sounds like.....I like you as a person RK but your trite and benign arguements are just too frustrating to try to speak to anymore. It's "Man's Choice" to also back down when he knows he's way off-base and needs to reconsider all the possible ramifications for such a decision. I hope you make the right one.
What does it say about our civilization and society that we kill our children and think nothing of it?
Actually, it (abortion, not killing children, that's something else all together) seems like something most of us have put a lot of thought into - doesn't mean we all come to the same conclusions though.
Personally, I find unwanted and neglected children, the adults they become, and the cycles they perpetuate, much more disturbing and harmful to society than aborting fetuses. But thankfully my opinion doesn't mean squat unless I'm the woman actually considering an abortion.
And pretty much every other woman you ask will say the same.
except wolf
Wolf is a woman?
Would the man, were he to have these "Equal Rights" over the fetus, have the option of FORCING THE WOMAN TO HAVE AN ABORTION?
Tit for tat!
I asked that in my first post in this thread...how can you consider giving a man the right to force a woman to take a pregnancy to term and make him a father, but not have the same right to force a woman to abort in order to NOT make him a father?
Easy. Make a repressive, anti-choice law and try to make it look like a man-rights law.
Easy. Make a repressive, anti-choice law and try to make it look like a man-rights law.
*applauds* well said.
the men have the nukes. but i'm pretty sure the women have WMD's. We may have to go into a few foxholes and search for them.
Datz wut doze han-gunz iz fo.
Man: "have an abortion and I'll shoot you"
Woman: "If I can't have an abortion, I'll shoot myself. Then you can have whatever you find in my uterus"
Thank you for that, clearly shows the attitude I knew was there.
Oh really. Tell me, what attitude is that?
Somehow, I sense that you're not referring to my attitude toward personal freedoms.
From
here:
It is impossible to legislate morality.
What does it say about our civilization and society that we kill our children and think nothing of it?
It says people think their fleeting pleasures and momentary desires are more important than what they produce from them and the harm it does to the children they produce and those they produce them with. Memememememememe.
All the rest of the ad-homonym bullshit being spewed here is beneath me.
If you know you could get pregnant from vaginal sex you know you must own the child
with the person you did it with.
In a perfect world with unselfish, reaonable, responsible people the law should never get involved.
No one gets pregnant on accident.
So many who get pregnant on the pill who say they did not know that anti-biotics or ____ neutralized them, or that condoms are not 100% effective, are
so full of shit. If you know it could happen, you own it or don't do it at all.
Reporter: What happened?
Officer: Well, seems he fell off of that building, thirty stories.
Reporter: So they committed suicide?
Officer: Nope. They had not memorized gravitational theory or even the equation even though someone handed them a slip of paper with it on it once a month... so we are calling it an accident. No real reason to think they would expect to fall right?
If you know that gravity exists, then it is impossible to accidentally fall off?
What?
Tit for tat!
Easy. Make a repressive, anti-choice law and try to make it look like a man-rights law.
Yea.... like I said. The spin is clever but quite nauseating.
If you know contraceptives are not foolproof it is impossible to accidentally get pregnant.
I guess you could sit in some sperm at a nudist colony...
By that logic no woman should ever seek an abortion. Are you then a pro-lifer rk?
If you know that gravity exists, then it is impossible to accidentally fall off?
What?
Lol!!!:rotflol:
I know that made me chuckle as well.
If you know you can slip, it is impossible to accidentally fall off a roof?
Well you knew the risks I've no sympathy.
that's the way it is
things will never be the same
that's just the way it is
aw yea
Jeb...not really sure how that helps the discussion...
By rk's logic, any woman who doesn't want to give birth to a baby should live a celibate life. Wow. Just wow. I am staggered that anyone can hold that opinion in this day and age. And a professed liberal at that.
By that logic no woman should ever seek an abortion. Are you then a pro-lifer rk?
Personally yes, politically no.
Jeb...not really sure how that helps the discussion...
By rk's logic, any woman who doesn't want to give birth to a baby should live a celibate life. Wow. Just wow. I am staggered that anyone can hold that opinion in this day and age. And a professed liberal at that.
I did not say that, there is calculated risk involved... but, with accepting that risk one accepts the responsibility that goes with it.
Choose the risk, choose the outcome if it is not what you want.
Laws are political not personal.
Laws are political not personal.
You did not specify the nature of your question.
When did I profess to be liberal?
Jeb...not really sure how that helps the discussion...
By rk's logic, any woman who doesn't want to give birth to a baby should live a celibate life. Wow. Just wow. I am staggered that anyone can hold that opinion in this day and age. And a professed liberal at that.
Sluts!! Sluts all sluts. Buncha whores. Don't you know sex
for women is only for procreation?
Rk is turning into Gannet...I know it. I can see the metamorphesis right in front of my eyes.:yelsick:
My mistake, I thought you had professed libertarian leanings.
I wouldn't have thought I'd need to specify the nature of my question, given that you have spent much of this thread advocating a change in law. If you are simply expressing how you would feel if you were the father in question, then that's personal. You are advocating a change in law, that is a political opinion.
Personally yes, politically no.
Why not politically?
Rk is turning into Gannet...I know it. I can see the metamorphesis right in front of my eyes.:yelsick:
Oh, there's no metamorphosis a-happenin' here. ;)
Hey- where'd you come from? (outta nowhere comes blue)
Laws are political not personal.
You did not specify the nature of your question.
Well, the overarching subject of the thread has been the creation of a law to prevent women from getting abortions if the man decides to prevent it. On a personal level, most people agree that in most cases the man and woman should make the decision together. Most, if not all, of the disagreement arises when you try to make that ideal situation into a law- ie a political situation.
How would such a law work?
My point is that no one has a right to tell anyone what to do with their own body. How's that for reality.
Reality? Why aren't I allowed to do drugs?
[winging it]Hey, xoB, is the "doing" against the law? Or is it something more tangible, more definite, like possession?[/flying it into the ground]
Reality? Why aren't I allowed to do drugs?
Because it is against the law. Personally i think it shouldn't be.
It's not an equivalent though, because this isn't about whether the state has a right to tell women what to do with their bodies (again, I think they should not), but rather empowering individual men with the right to make decisions about individual women's bodies.
Reality? Why aren't I allowed to do drugs?
Because some laws infringe on rights. In fact, according to you,
all of them do.
bruce,
this analogy would work better if you were comparing it with someone compelling another person to do drugs.
When it comes down to personal liberty....we should be allowed to do whatever drugs we choose to.
Unfortunately, the reality of life means that those who do drugs also have to share reality with the rest of us. When those folks repeatedly fuck things up and cost innocent people things like THEIR lives, safety and money, then the lawmakers are compelled to take steps like regulating and outlawing the drugs that effect the drug users.
[winging it]Hey, xoB, is the "doing" against the law? Or is it something more tangible, more definite, like possession?[/flying it into the ground]
That's an end run, you can do them without possessing them.
Because it is against the law. Personally i think it shouldn't be.
It's not an equivalent though, because this isn't about whether the state has a right to tell women what to do with their bodies (again, I think they should not), but rather empowering individual men with the right to make decisions about individual women's bodies.
No equivilent, Dana. I'm not getting into that silly proposal, just responding to Ali's reality.
Because some laws infringe on rights. In fact, according to you, all of them do.
God damn right they do.... every one.
bruce,
this analogy would work better if you were comparing it with someone compelling another person to do drugs.
Not an analogy, see above.
When it comes down to personal liberty....we should be allowed to do whatever drugs we choose to.
Unfortunately, the reality of life means that those who do drugs also have to share reality with the rest of us. When those folks repeatedly fuck things up and cost innocent people things like THEIR lives, safety and money, then the lawmakers are compelled to take steps like regulating and outlawing the drugs that effect the drug users.
That's complete bullshit, considering how many people alcohol and tobacco kill.
If the male states that he wishes to choose full custody of the child that should be his right.
It is his child as much as hers.
The woman made a choice, one she made with someone else, knowing FULLY what her role would be before-hand... she need only fulfill her role as far as the birth is concerned, as far as she chose when she took the initial risk.
Sorry dude, I don't buy it. If the men carried the babies for 9 months and took the same physiological risks it would be different. The woman carries the baby, she get to say if she wants to do that for 9 months or if she wants to terminate it. Her choice, not yours. Men are but the sperm donors.
My mistake, I thought you had professed libertarian leanings.
I wouldn't have thought I'd need to specify the nature of my question, given that you have spent much of this thread advocating a change in law. If you are simply expressing how you would feel if you were the father in question, then that's personal. You are advocating a change in law, that is a political opinion.
Why not politically?
You can't, and should not try to legislate morality.
If there are methods in place other than the law to ensure the rights of both parents, that would be ideal.
Unfortunately, the current legal climate favors the female alone, my suggestion sought only to level that field for both equal parents.
Libertarians are about as conservative as one can get (neo-cons, the fools who call themselves conservative today are NOT conservative by any stretch of imagination or the definition of the word).
Sorry dude, I don't buy it. If the men carried the babies for 9 months and took the same physiological risks it would be different. The woman carries the baby, she get to say if she wants to do that for 9 months or if she wants to terminate it. Her choice, not yours. Men are but the sperm donors.
So the man gets the kid the woman runs out on him, he shoots it in the head, no sweat, right?
I guess all of you feel it is ok for women to smoke, do heroin, meth, drink, whatever while pregnant, right... it's not a kid yet and it's "just her body"?
Sorry dude, I don't buy it. If the men carried the babies for 9 months and took the same physiological risks it would be different. The woman carries the baby, she get to say if she wants to do that for 9 months or if she wants to terminate it. Her choice, not yours. Men are but the sperm donors.
I agree with you until the cord is cut. Then it becomes theirs, not hers.
I agree with you until the cord is cut. Then it becomes theirs, not hers.
I would support that notion.
Sluts!! Sluts all sluts. Buncha whores. Don't you know sex for women is only for procreation?
Never stated nor implied that.
I agree with you until the cord is cut. Then it becomes theirs, not hers.
How fortunate for her, funny how that happens.
All of what everyone is saying seems to hinge on WHEN the "fetus" is determined to be a "child." At what point does the child earn those rights? Upon conception, 3 months, 6 months....not until birth?
If it is considered a child upon conception - what right does the mother have to KILL it? However, if it is not considered "human" until birth, then one could argue that everything between conception and birth is entirely up to the woman. The difficulty comes into play during the undefined period between conception and birth where we recognize the fetus as a child. I'm thinking as I'm typing, and thats always dangerous for me, but what if at, say 6 & 1/2 months the "mother" decided to (and I love this nonpersonal terminology) terminate the pregnancy? Is/would that be ok and should the father have no say under those circumstances?
I agree with you until the cord is cut. Then it becomes theirs, not hers.
Possession of another human? I think not - unless you were referring to responsibility and not ownership. Either way, when does a fetus becomes a human with its own rights.
If it isn't a human until birth then why is someone who kills a pregnant woman charged with two counts of homicide?
[QUOTE=me]When it comes down to personal liberty....we should be allowed to do whatever drugs we choose to.
Unfortunately, the reality of life means that those who do drugs also have to share reality with the rest of us. When those folks repeatedly fuck things up and cost innocent people things like THEIR lives, safety and money, then the lawmakers are compelled to take steps [COLOR=Orange]like regulating and outlawing the drugs that effect the drug users[/COLOR].
That's complete bullshit, considering how many people alcohol and tobacco kill.[/quote]
are there or are there not laws prohibiting and or regulating the use of drugs ....including alcohol and terbaccy? complete bullshit?
Libertarians are about as conservative as one can get (neo-cons, the fools who call themselves conservative today are NOT conservative by any stretch of imagination or the definition of the word).
Libertarians can technically be called liberal since they it has roots with classical liberalism. There are distinct differences between the two but they both stress freedom.
If it isn't a human until birth then why is someone who kills a pregnant woman charged with two counts of homicide?
A lot of people feel this was a deliberate step towards more comprehensive anti-abortion legislation. Many disagree with the law or view it as hypocritical at the very least.
I guess all of you feel it is ok for women to smoke, do heroin, meth, drink, whatever while pregnant, right... it's not a kid yet and it's "just her body"?
I do not feel it is "okay"--however, it is legal (well, insomuch as only drinking and smoking are legal in the first place), and I feel it should stay that way, because you have to draw the line somewhere, and our society has drawn the line at viability. There are only three ways to look at this scenario:
1.) It is not a person before viability (roughly the third trimester). Thus abortion is legal, and the father has no rights to a clump of cells that is not his, or anyone's, child yet.
2.) It is a person before viability, and abortion should be illegal. Thus the whole question of the father's opinion on the matter is moot.
3.) It is a person before viability, but you cannot legislate morality. Thus abortion should be legal, but shunned on a personal level--i.e., the mother
should consider the wishes of the father, because it is the
right and moral thing to do, but it is both impractical and inappropriate to code that into law.
[quote=yesman065]If it isn't a human until birth then why is someone who kills a pregnant woman charged with two counts of homicide?
A lot of people feel this was a deliberate step towards more comprehensive anti-abortion legislation. Many disagree with the law or view it as hypocritical at the very least. [/QUOTE]
I gotta say that after seeing premature babies who were born well before the ninth month that it IS a child long before then.
Libertarians can technically be called liberal since they it has roots with classical liberalism. There are distinct differences between the two but they both stress freedom.
I disagree with that, at their root I think most liberals want a nanny-state.
I gotta say that after seeing premature babies who were born well before the ninth month that it IS a child long before then.
in YOUR opinion.
Some folks believe that the child is not a child for a year or more.
Possession of another human? I think not - unless you were referring to responsibility and not ownership. Either way, when does a fetus becomes a human with its own rights.
If it isn't a human until birth then why is someone who kills a pregnant woman charged with two counts of homicide?
A fetus must be given birth to, to have his/her own rights. But as long as he/she must depend on a woman's body to live, said woman has overriding rights.
And those overriding rights include deciding to carry her fetus to term, and give birth to a baby with rights to live. If someone else steps in and kills her, especially with the intent to stop the birth of the baby that she wanted, then he/she may get charged accordingly.
Then the father has no responsibility.
You don't get it both ways.
Thus the term...viability.
This whole arguement makes me feel queasy. The practicalities of trying to enforce such a law are impossible. I would think a whole lot of women would suddenly develop anmesia as to who their sex partners had been. The only real way to enforce it would be to outlaw abortion entirely. Then women would have to have the baby and any male who thought he might be the father could lay claim and subsequently submit to paternity tests to prove or disprove it. Back alley abortions would once again be in business.
/sarcasm on
How about this....I propose that men who impregnate women and then refuse to support their own offspring should have their gonads removed to prevent them from procreating anymore. I mean, it is half THEIR child, they should not be allowed to force women to be the sole support of children that are half theirs, right? Do ya think men might object to this invasion of their physical being?
/sarcasm off
Possession of another human? I think not - unless you were referring to responsibility and not ownership. Either way, when does a fetus becomes a human with its own rights.
No, ownership... just like a mini-slave. That's why the courts have ruled to limit the 4th amendment for kids.
are there or are there not laws prohibiting and or regulating the use of drugs ....including alcohol and terbaccy? complete bullshit?
Got me... missed regulating.
But their drug laws are still complete bullshit... it's all about money.
Unfortunately, the current legal climate favors the female alone, my suggestion sought only to level that field for both equal parents.
How would it do that?
Then the father has no responsibility.
You don't get it both ways.
I agree, on principle.
in YOUR opinion.
Some folks believe that the child is not a child for a year or more.
Some days I wonder if mine have made it there yet actually...
Reality? Why aren't I allowed to do drugs?
Bruce, please go ahead and take all the drugs you like. :)
/sarcasm on
How about this....I propose that men who impregnate women and then refuse to support their own offspring should have their gonads removed to prevent them from procreating anymore. I mean, it is half THEIR child, they should not be allowed to force women to be the sole support of children that are half theirs, right? Do ya think men might object to this invasion of their physical being?
/sarcasm off
This illustrates what I have touched on a couple of times during the course of this thread.
rkz assumes all men would be honourable an honest in this situation. He forgets all the dead beat dads out there. The men who think it's ok to spread their seed then move on to the next. The ones who think it's ok to hang around for a few years and then leave. The ones who are so fucked up they'd use their 'unborn child' as a weapon against a woman who doesn't want him anymore.
In an ideal world, men would have a say in the fate of the foetus. The world is not ideal and every situation is different. There is no way you could legislate this without taking away a womans rights. It's like moving back to the dark ages.
rkz assumes all men would be honourable an honest in this situation.
rk, is this what you really think?
Honestly, I don't care if every man was willing to care for the child once it was born. Whilst it takes its oxygen direct from the woman's bloodstream, it is a part of her body.
If there are methods in place other than the law to ensure the rights of both parents, that would be ideal.
Unfortunately, the current legal climate favors the female alone, my suggestion sought only to level that field for both equal parents.
Okay, so after hundreds, indeed thousands of years of the balance being all in favour of men, we get about twenty five years of the balance shifting towards women a little and men like you can't stop whining. It's all skewed in the woman's favour is it now? Because she can decide not to endure 9 months of pregnancy after her contraception failed?
Y'know my mother's generation were the first ones to be considered the natural parent in cases of custody. My grandmother's generation were still being locked up in mental asylums for 'moral and mental instability' for the crime of getting pregnant outside wedlock.
D'you think my generation doesn't know this? Hasn't heard the stories? Do you really think your "Waaah waaaaah, it's not fair, waaaah, women get it easy" bullshit resonates at all?
A fetus must be given birth to, to have his/her own rights. But as long as he/she must depend on a woman's body to live, said woman has overriding rights.
...
Exactly. If a Mexican woman is in the US, and is pregnant, the fetus is not an American citizen. It only becomes an American citizen when it is born.
No, ownership... just like a mini-slave. That's why the courts have ruled to limit the 4th amendment for kids.
Doesn't that infringe on its inalienable rights? How can you defend an ammendment that limits these rights?
Unfortunately, the current legal climate favors the female alone, my suggestion sought only to level that field for both equal parents.
How would it do that?
Cut the baby in half while still in utero.
Cut the baby in half while still in utero.
You are so wise King Sol...Spexxvet.
The latest studies show that babies need to be breast fed for at least 6 months.
Hmmmm.....................
Doesn't that infringe on its inalienable rights? How can you defend an amendment that limits these rights?
You've got it backwards. The 4th amendment
does help protect inalienable rights. The supreme court has decided that children do not have that 4th amendment protection.
No really....who is going to breast feed it for 6 months to make sure it's healthy?
Ask the billions of people that were not breast fed for six months. It's best for the kid but far from necessary.
The ONLY thing breast feeding does is add natural immunity for the baby during the first 6 months and relieves painful milk pressure off mom.
Uh, no, that's wrong. :headshake
The truth is we're still finding things out about the effects of breastfeeding, or not.
Recent studies suggest that men who don't get breastfed as babies do not develop the overwhelming fascination with boobies and therefore do not use them to objectify women, thus ending the need for mass subjugation of women.[/ smartass comment]
Yikes, I read back to about pg 13 and thought I might puke.
Keep your laws off my body.
So, rk, as a diabetic married woman, for whom pregnancy would be a major health catastrophe, I can never have sex with my husband since no birth control is 100% effective?
Is that "morality" in your book?
Breast-feeding is a really bad example of what I'm getting at. *sorry*
My only point- to what extent do we get to control the baby factory in this scenario?
Do we get to control it's lifestyle and food intake until we have reached our subjective idea about what's best for the fetus in our custody?
I keep thinking of this guy threatening to sue if it eats another bon-bon.
And
Do we get to charge it with attempted murder if it falls down a staircase?
Sorry about all the "it's" but that is the proper language for the subject at hand. Kind of like "buffalo bill" from "silence of the lambs".
"it will have the baby for me and put the lotion on it's skin"..........
Yeah, breastfeeding misinformation really bugs the shit out me, but I won't derail the thread... Although it seems fairly played since rk won't answer HM's question.
rk, is this what you really think?
Of course not I have stated that more than once, but if they are not honorable they would simply ignore the pregnancy and she would get an abortion. He would not want a child... people are tail-posting their asses off in here.
Yeah, breastfeeding misinformation really bugs the shit out me, but I won't derail the thread... Although it seems fairly played since rk won't answer HM's question.
I have not been here moron.
How would it do that?
By allowing the father to have his child if he wishes. Simple.
As for those of you talking about "viability" does that mean every time science allows us to keep a child alive earlier and earlier outside the mother the definition of fetus moves? Idiotic argument.
Of course not I have stated that more than once, but if they are not honorable they would simply ignore the pregnancy
Unless they didn't. You have no reason to make that assumption.
I have not been here moron.
Yes you have. I've been trying to get an answer for a while, and you have posted in the meantime.
By allowing the father to have his child if he wishes. Simple.
No, not simple. Here are some complications:
How would the father know about the pregnancy? Would he have to be notified by law? How would his identity be determined? A mandatory DNA test before abortion?
How, if he wanted the child, would the woman be stopped from having an abortion? Would the woman need to bring a permission slip to the doctor? Would the doctor have to check a national registry of woman who are prohibited abortions for nine months?
What deterrant would there be? Prison? A fine?
In short, how would your law
work? You're saying that the father ought to have a say in the decision. Most would agree, as a matter of personal interaction. But how could that preference be encoded into law?
All that would take some time to work out.
As far as notification, I would hope the mother would have a modicum of honor. But then, if that were true, there would be no need for a law.
there it is. there is no need for this law. you have it now!
As long as all women honor the fathers as equals, true.
As always LJ can't read.
Sometimes the woman shouldn't have to tell him - rape, for example. Would she have to get a waiver from a judge in order to get an abortion without the rapist's consent? What if it were one of the many rapes (often date rape) where there is not enough evidence to convict? As he is innocent until proven guilty, can he still veto her abortion decision?
I would hope that is a given.
I think all abortions should be decided by a roving gang of machete-wielding psychopaths.
If they don't hack you to pieces, you are legally required to have a baby. Case closed.
I would hope that is a given.
You would hope that it's a given that a date rapist could force his victim to give birth to his kid?
I find it fascinating and pathetic how many in here do not believe in innocent until proven guilty AT ALL.
Innocent until proven guilty is a moot point, if the investigation exceeds the timeframe in which an abortion is possible. Another problem.
Again, I have not pretended to state that I have worked out all legal ramifications and have stated multiple times that the woman should have personal honor so the law does not get involved.
As always, total lack of reading comprehension.
butthole
From LJ, a
high compliment.
All women will have personal honor as soon as all men do. K? Oh, and we'll stop recreational fucking as soon as men do too.
Wow, more inability to read.
The whole conversation is about men who wish to own up to the product of their actions.
The honor system is what we have in place now. You are suggesting a law which would be prohibitively impractical.
Wow, more inability to read.
The whole conversation is about men who wish to own up to the product of their actions.
for you , maybe...because you're not reading. It seems to
me that this conversation is about personal liberty. meh.
I find it fascinating and pathetic how many in here do not believe in innocent until proven guilty AT ALL.
I believe in innocent until proven guilty as a legal construct, but it doesn't mean someone is actually innocent.
I agree that under your hypothetical law, a date rapist would have the ability to force his victim to carry the child. I was pointing that out as an inevitable, and harmful, consequence of your proposal.
Again, I have not pretended to state that I have worked out all legal ramifications
That's an understatement.
and have stated multiple times that the woman should have personal honor so the law does not get involved.
That's what we have now. What would you
change?
As always, total lack of reading comprehension.
You don't seem to have a comprehension of your own idea. Don't blame the reader.
As for those of you talking about "viability" does that mean every time science allows us to keep a child alive earlier and earlier outside the mother the definition of fetus moves?
This is not really an unexpected outcome. Science and progress often lead to legal redefinition, and this would be particularly true for the beginning and end of life: points in time where the stakes are very high, and the science so likely to change things.
As long as all women honor the fathers as equals, true.
No. As long as all women honor the fathers as paramount. As long as all women consider the fathers' wishes to outweigh their own. As long as all women consider their own wishes to be subordinate to those of the men they have sex with.
for you , maybe...because you're not reading. It seems to me that this conversation is about personal liberty. meh.
Wow. You are an asshole sometimes LJ. What do they call this? A smack-down? But geez..... sometimes I really like it.
This just in: I really must be going to hell.
:sniff:
Wow, more inability to read.
The whole conversation is about men who wish to own up to the product of their actions.
Lol!!!!
Really? lol!!!
Is that really what this is about?
LOL!!!! Right..... That's a good one!!!! Oh jeez....Why is that
so funny?
It's only called a smack down if you're drinking Miller High Life and watching Nascar in your wifebeater. ...because wrestling isn't on.
now, why would you choose this moment to call me an asshole? i don't really mind so much, but I'm curious about the timing. I mean....it's quite plain that you are attracted to me, but ...must you be so blatant in your overtures? my wife is a member, you know.
Is she the one who's been spraying you with Axe (Linx)?
It's only called a smack down if you're drinking Miller High Life and watching Nascar in your wifebeater. ...because wrestling isn't on.
now, why would you choose this moment to call me an asshole? i don't really mind so much, but I'm curious about the timing. I mean....it's quite plain that you are attracted to me, but ...must you be so blatant in your overtures? my wife is a member, you know.
Oh right..... You
aren't an asshole....is this one of those spontaneous games where I have to guess the game?
Oh wait. You haven't denied it yet.
Any moment isn't a good moment to call you an asshole LJ?
Do I have the right LJ?
How about now? Asshole.
lol!
I'm sorry it's a guilty pleasure- it's just so fun though- I can't stop.
Oh right..... You aren't an asshole....is this one of those spontaneous games where I have to guess the game?
Oh wait. You haven't denied it yet.
Wellll......While i won't catagorically deny being an asshole ....at times.... I would say in a general sense that I am in fact, rather non assholular. That is ....I'm an asshole in the most appealing sense of the word ....at times.
Like.... you could say, "ah, Jim, you asshole...." and be smiling and I'd smile back and flip you the bird. And then shake my head and walk away still smiling.... But if you got all red in the face and balled your fists up impotently at your sides and screamed "YOU ASSHOLE!" at the top of your lungs in a crowded Library.....I might take some exception to that.
now...why don't you tell me how you really feel about me( I was just kidding about you being attracted to me, btw...i know I'm a big dork), and then we can deal with each other in an honest fashion. I like you, fwiw...I think you're one of the good n00bs.
Any moment isn't a good moment to call you an asshole LJ?
Do I have the right LJ?
How about now? Asshole.
lol!
I'm sorry it's a guilty pleasure- it's just so fun though- I can't stop.
You should be careful. I'll get typecast. You'll call me an asshole all the time, and as your star rises, others will glom onto you and start calling ma an asshole too. pretty soon, the definition of asshole will change in to a synonym for 'gregarious'. and you'll ruin the word.....like what happened to 'gay'.
worse than that, I'll resort to turnabout and start calling you something semi offensive and catchy....like......'dirty bitch'.....I know it's pirated from Anchorman, but it has a nice hook to it, i think. ya dirty bitch.
.. Although it seems fairly played since rk won't answer HM's question.
I have not been here moron.
Nope, that's wrong, do you want to try another answer? Maybe you
didn't read posts 241, 213, 173, 170 etc...?
Do you have enough
honor to admit that you're wrong, or is that
beneath you?
worse than that, I'll resort to turnabout and start calling you something semi offensive and catchy....like......'dirty bitch'.....I know it's pirated from Anchorman, but it has a nice hook to it, i think. ya dirty bitch.
I haven't heard, "ignorant slut", in years.
.....I have.....that's not good right?
Dana - you may be many things, but an ignorant slut is definitely not one of them.
Not either of them.
(er, that is to say, not ignorant nor a slut)
[Sir Bedemere] how do you knooooow she's not a slut?[/Sir Bedemere]
Well for one she's English!
Absolutely
[SIZE="2"]and for another I'm not Catholic....[/SIZE]
So you are a slut - I knew it!
j/k
One of my very dearest friends is a Catholic. In fact she's a latin teacher at a catholic girls. boarding school. She's a filthy slut that one :P She's the one the stories have in mind.
rk, if the man wants the baby, and the woman doesn't, who wins, and why, considering that your position is that the fetus is equally his and hers? How would the outcome differ under the honor system and your law? Would there be compensation for the woman, if the man keeps the baby? What if the man forces the woman to go full-term, then the woman decides to keep the baby?
:::a thousand other questions:::
Wellll......While i won't catagorically deny being an asshole ....at times.... I would say in a general sense that I am in fact, rather non assholular. That is ....I'm an asshole in the most appealing sense of the word ....at times.
Like.... you could say, "ah, Jim, you asshole...." and be smiling and I'd smile back and flip you the bird. And then shake my head and walk away still smiling.... But if you got all red in the face and balled your fists up impotently at your sides and screamed "YOU ASSHOLE!" at the top of your lungs in a crowded Library.....I might take some exception to that.
now...why don't you tell me how you really feel about me( I was just kidding about you being attracted to me, btw...i know I'm a big dork), and then we can deal with each other in an honest fashion. I like you, fwiw...I think you're one of the good n00bs.
No I'm just testing how many years I can shave off my life and I think the 'being attracted to you' statement did the trick. I think it probably took the little bit of youth I had left. *If you are taking me seriously- that is a whole other problem*
Ignorant maybe, but slut would be nice. And at least I would be getting some action. (with or without the permission slip from RK)
:)
Now- in
all seriousness xo Bruce. Better watch it or I'm going to take my vote for you out of the nomination thread and stick it somewhere you are not going to like. Mean-spirited antics like that do as well with me as dog shit all over my shoes. For all wondering: that's not good. Oh, and if you are going to give me a nice little nickname like that you had better be able to back that up with some tangible proof or stay the hell away from me. I never disrespected you in any way, and I don't expect to be treated with any less respect because you have decided to assasinate my character on a whim. I may be ignorant of a lot of things...but I know when someone is being a bratty little bitch for
no reason. Abuse someone else motherfucker. This started when you were deciding whether or not I sexually manipulate men and manipulate with kids.
You are fucked up. I don't need to hear that stuff, and I don't need your projections about the state of my personal life. You aren't anywhere close to knowing me to make those assumptions and thank god for small miracles like that one. This is me- jumping on your ass..........and it's not going to stop until you act like a man rather than a little bully on an adult playground. Throw some more of your colorful terms around....maybe you'll accidentally get something right.
:) There I feel better.
No. As long as all women honor the fathers as paramount. As long as all women consider the fathers' wishes to outweigh their own. As long as all women consider their own wishes to be subordinate to those of the men they have sex with.
I neither stated nor implied any of those.
But you are out of your fucking gourd if you think I'm going take insults from you. I don't care who you think you are. I don't come here to try and [SIZE="5"]make other people feel like shit[/SIZE]....do you? I'm trying to consider the source...but I don't know you.....and I don't pretend to.
That's how I feel about a special someone, too.
rk, if the man wants the baby, and the woman doesn't, who wins, and why, considering that your position is that the fetus is equally his and hers? How would the outcome differ under the honor system and your law? Would there be compensation for the woman, if the man keeps the baby? What if the man forces the woman to go full-term, then the woman decides to keep the baby?
First, that is a difficult conversation worked out between the two.
I don't pretend to be a moral authority, though I admit I have come across as one in here to make a point, a mistake on my part, one I regret.
I cannot hide the fact that my hope would be for life for the child if the woman is in good health and realizes she made a choice and should live with the short term responsibility. She does not have to keep the baby if he, as I have stated, wishes full custody.
If the man has honor and I would hope if a law was in place, he would pay all costs for pregnancy and all stemming from it.
If she changes her mind the child is as much hers as it is his.
Ignorant slut?
[youtube]V5UJOvVoPcw[/youtube]
One of my very dearest friends is a Catholic. In fact she's a latin teacher at a catholic girls. boarding school. She's a filthy slut that one :P She's the one the stories have in mind.
Please share... :D
No. As long as all women honor the fathers as paramount. As long as all women consider the fathers' wishes to outweigh their own. As long as all women consider their own wishes to be subordinate to those of the men they have sex with.
I neither stated nor implied any of those.
Yes you did. By suggesting that the man should have right of veto over a woman's decision to abort a baby, and by extending that to suggest that any woman having sex and getting accidentally pregnant should be subject to that veto, you have implied exactly that.
Now- in all seriousness xo Bruce. Better watch it or I'm going to take my vote for you out of the nomination thread and stick it somewhere you are not going to like. Mean-spirited antics like that do as well with me as dog shit all over my shoes. For all wondering: that's not good. Oh, and if you are going to give me a nice little nickname like that you had better be able to back that up with some tangible proof or stay the hell away from me. I never disrespected you in any way, and I don't expect to be treated with any less respect because you have decided to assasinate my character on a whim. I may be ignorant of a lot of things...but I know when someone is being a bratty little bitch for no reason. Abuse someone else motherfucker. This started when you were deciding whether or not I sexually manipulate men and manipulate with kids. You are fucked up. I don't need to hear that stuff, and I don't need your projections about the state of my personal life. You aren't anywhere close to knowing me to make those assumptions and thank god for small miracles like that one. This is me- jumping on your ass..........and it's not going to stop until you act like a man rather than a little bully on an adult playground. Throw some more of your colorful terms around....maybe you'll accidentally get something right.
:) There I feel better.
First of all go fuck yourself, you don't threaten me.
Second of all, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, because anyone with half a brain would know I wasn't talking to you or about you.
I was talking about the Saturday Night Live routine where Jane Curtain was called an ignorant slut every week, just as LJ threatened to hang a "dirty bitch" handle on you. If was a comment on his theatrics.
Get a clue, it's not all about you.
Anyway, what's wrong with being an ignorant slut?
I haven't heard, "ignorant slut", in years.
First of all go fuck yourself, you don't threaten me.
Second of all, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, because anyone with half a brain would know I wasn't talking to you or about you.
I was talking about the Saturday Night Live routine where Jane Curtain was called an ignorant slut every week, just as LJ threatened to hang a "dirty bitch" handle on you. If was a comment on his theatrics.
Get a clue, it's not all about you.
Ok....now I feel terrible....oh.
I was talking about the Saturday Night Live routine where Jane Curtain was called an ignorant slut every week, just as LJ threatened to hang a "dirty bitch" handle on you. If was a comment on his theatrics.
That is how I read it. But plenty of people have misread things I have posted in jest and ended up taking it personally. Whatever.
Lol!!!! Really? lol!!!
Is that really what this is about?
LOL!!!! Right..... That's a good one!!!! Oh jeez....Why is that so funny?
Seems to me because you are a sexist.
Also, another cannot
make you feel something... you
choose how you react emotionally to your environment.
Ok....now I feel terrible....oh.
Don't worry about it, I'll give you plenty of reason to hate me later.
In the mean time, take off those shoes and get back in the kitchen.
Seems to me because you are a sexist.
Oh *wipes tears of laughter from cheeks* Oh rk, please, you're killing me.
I think the important thing here is that we are all aware of what cocksuckers the rest of us are. I mean, really. What a bunch of assholes you all are. bunch of oversensitive ignorant dirty bitch sluts. sexist commie fascist raping pig fuckers. I hope you all stub your toes on Christmas morning. And get an anal fissure. And I'm the worst of the lot. except for bruce. that motherfucker is appalling.
great thread everyone.
except you!
"...Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow!"
:ipray:
The base issue here is how to allot an equal amount of input and responsibility to both parties, correct? I hate to say it, but I see no practical, legal way for a man to keep his child if the mother wants to terminate. Even if we could somehow remove a 4 week-old fetus from the mother and raise it to term either in vitro or in vivo using another parent organism, the mother could not be forced to undergo the required surgery no matter how minor. Our only option as men? Keep your slimeball radar on at all times and take a really close look at who you're about to go down on, she has all the power once the lights get turned back on.
What I do see as being a legitimate recourse for men, is the right to request the woman undergo an abortion if he cannot afford to pay child support. In this case the shoe is on the other foot ladies, if your economic situation is a case for termination, then his should be as well. If the woman refuses, then she must agree to shoulder the cost of the child. Ladies, take the same advise as in the first paragraph.
The injustice I see here is that the arguments for aborting the child in the case of the woman are considered irrelevant when applied to men.
What I do see as being a legitimate recourse for men, is the right to request the woman undergo an abortion if he cannot afford to pay child support. In this case the shoe is on the other foot ladies, if your economic situation is a case for termination, then his should be as well. If the woman refuses, then she must agree to shoulder the cost of the child.
That is absolutely awesome!
That is one problem I have with the anti-choice group. They want to force women to have babies, but don't do anything to help resolve the reason that a woman would choose to have an abortion. "Have that baby, but we're not going to help you raise it, or provide for it, or help with child-care. But we're still gonna force you to have the damn thing!"
Fine, though I am not anti-choice and stated so multiple times.
Just as long as the Pro-woman-only-choice group states that by their logic men's child support is immoral, being that it is the same thing.
Quite frankly I find the idea of men deciding what women should do with their bodies quite abhorrent. I know several women who have had abortions for various reasons, and none of them chose to abort on a whim. (Not even the girl who got raped by her stepfather at 15.) At this time in my life I couldn't imagine getting an abortion, nor do I think I'd've been able to do it even as a poor student, but it's not up to me to dictate to other women what they can or cannot do.
However, I utterly despise women who get pregnant on purpose to try and blackmail child support payments. So yes, men should be able to opt out of their fatherhood. However, this would mean that they would have absolutely no rights to the child at all, and if they later changed their mind, they would be liable to retroactively pay every missed payment.
The thing is, these days a woman getting pregnant outside marriage isn't something that need destroy her life. There was a time nobody would want to employ such a woman, therefore a man who got that woman pregnant and then wouldn't help support the child was consigning both to poverty and moral opprobrium.
These days? I don't think any man should be forced to be a father if he doesn't want to be one. That said, I also believe the State should ensure that such children are not having to survive undue hardship due to poverty.
These days? I don't think any man should be forced to be a father if he doesn't want to be one. That said, I also believe the State should ensure that such children are not having to survive undue hardship due to poverty.
So where is the state getting the money?
These days? I don't think any man should be forced to be a father if he doesn't want to be one.
So you've changed your mind since
2004, then?
It all comes down to what you define as responsibility. Everybody's responsible for trying to have the best outcome for the child. I believe giving the child up for adoption is responsible, and forced money exchange in an already unstable household is not, because the latter will not lead to a better life for the child.
Personally, I wouldn't consider that the father had lived up to his responsibility in the fullest unless he and the mother could be civil and he was a very active part of the child's life, in which case no child support would be warranted because the child would be spending as much time with the father as he would with the mother. (In the case that equally split time didn't happen, as an active parent I would expect him to help support the child monetarily--preferably by directly paying the daycare agency or in grocery store gift cards or something, but that's not always feasible. But I digress...) HOWEVER, if the father wanted nothing to do with the child, then his responsibility is to give the child up for adoption. If the woman refuses, that's her prerogative, but then she can't complain that he got her into this mess, and she shouldn't expect him to support the child any more than a stranger on the street should: he is in effect no longer that child's parent. If the woman can support the child by herself, great. If not, it is also her responsibility to give the child up for adoption.
All of your scenarios are aimed at getting a person out of taking care of a child they helped to create, merely because they've decided that they want nothing to do with it. Doesn't matter if he wants it or not. That isn't the point.
I have to agree with Lady Sidhe on this one
Actually, yes I have changed my mind on that. Probably seeing a couple of friends shafted by the child support agency had something to do with that.
Actually, yes I have changed my mind on that. Probably seeing a couple of friends shafted by the child support agency had something to do with that.
Men or women? I'd love to know that I'm not the only one getting totally screwed by this AND have virtually no recourse. According to the Domestic Relations Office.
I thought you had custody, yesman? Is she not paying you, is that the issue?
why should the state have to support a child that it didn't father? If the single woman chooses to give birth to a child that she cannot support financially, why do you and I have to? I didnt even get a reach-around!
I thought you had custody, yesman? Is she not paying you, is that the issue?
No she isn't paying me - even if she did get a job I wouldn't take her money. We've been apart since Jan '06 and she is still living off other people - thats her way.
Long story short - I have custody now, but there was a period of time where she had it and I was paying support to her. The time I paid child support to her - between the physical custody change and the paperwork getting processed was several months. In THAT time I was required by law to pay support to her even though I physically had the kids. Once the paperwork was completed, I had obviously overpaid my child support obligation. Now I have a very large credit that I cannot get back for Dom Rel, nor can I now apply it towards her alimony.
Yesman, the friends of mine who were shafted by the CSA were men. Basically, the idea of the CSA when it originally set up was that it would force 'deadbeat' dads to pay for their kids...problem is, mums were told they couldn't claim benefits if they refuse to say who the dad was...so many of them say they don't know. WE end up in a situation where the dads that the CSA have anything to do with are actually the dads who want to pay fo rtheir kids...but instead of coming up with an arrangents themselves with their partners (particularly if the partner is unemployed) they end up getting stung by the CSA for a massive proportion of their income. Totally unfair.
Dang, alimony AND CS arrears? Where do I sign up?
Seems to me because you are a sexist.
Also, another cannot make you feel something... you choose how you react emotionally to your environment.
I'm not even sure how to respond to your sexist remark........I'll just let that go......
I'm just really curious about where you are getting the other statement from. I'll need the quote.
The base issue here is how to allot an equal amount of input and responsibility to both parties, correct? I hate to say it, but I see no practical, legal way for a man to keep his child if the mother wants to terminate. Even if we could somehow remove a 4 week-old fetus from the mother and raise it to term either in vitro or in vivo using another parent organism, the mother could not be forced to undergo the required surgery no matter how minor. Our only option as men? Keep your slimeball radar on at all times and take a really close look at who you're about to go down on, she has all the power once the lights get turned back on.
What I do see as being a legitimate recourse for men, is the right to request the woman undergo an abortion if he cannot afford to pay child support. In this case the shoe is on the other foot ladies, if your economic situation is a case for termination, then his should be as well. If the woman refuses, then she must agree to shoulder the cost of the child. Ladies, take the same advise as in the first paragraph.
The injustice I see here is that the arguments for aborting the child in the case of the woman are considered irrelevant when applied to men.
Yea....here is a good reason why. Most men are trying to be irrelevant and not present when someone is pregnant. Anecdote: take it how you would like...
I saw this guy in a planned parenthood with his partner. I'm pretty sure she was there to abort. He got on his cell phone and started talking his partying drug-addicted gangster crap loudly right there in the lobby at 9:00 in the morning. The guy was drunk or high already and he was an older guy......Does anyone want to tell me that he should have the final say in what happens to a fetus? Or can we let her manage like he was obviously at least that smart to do?
Gee...I'm sure he gives all of this a lot of thought-that's after he does an eight ball and drinks a 40oz in between xbox games. Just because some of you men on here are more responsible than most.....you act like most men give this stuff a thought outside of how inconvenient the situation is. Not really. Call me a sexist or whatever....I don't care. Most men out there avoid even talking about this stuff until a woman "inconveniences" them by becoming pregnant. Their attitude: do whatever...but I hope you choose to do the thing that is going to take the least from me. A lot of times women get to see their partner's true colors when they become pregnant. It's called the asshole factor. She has to say to herself-Oh- I never would have had sex with you if I knew you were going to turn into a completely irresponsible evasive piece of dung......That said.....Consider that injustice.
Take a pregnancy and add a man. Recipe for an instant asshole. Men are just there to make it harder than it has to be which is why this is up for debate in the first place.
*Disclaimer* I am talking about a lot of men.......not all of them... so put your fists down.
SNIP~ Men are just there to make it harder than it has to be which is why this is up for debate in the first place.
*Disclaimer* I am talking about a lot of men.......not all of them... so put your fists down.
never had a woman complain about it being TOO hard before.
Seems to me because you are a sexist.
Also, another cannot make you feel something... you choose how you react emotionally to your environment.
I believe it's more along the lines of...you choose how you express and deal with your emotional reaction to external forces. Rage, rant, deny, suppress, acknowledge, explore, blame, attack, cry, self-pity, etc.
Once the paperwork was completed, I had obviously overpaid my child support obligation. Now I have a very large credit that I cannot get back for Dom Rel, nor can I now apply it towards her alimony.
Big question: was the money already disbursed to her, or is it sitting in the Domestic Relations coffers?
My husband was getting screwed by a situation just like that at one point--his employer had accidentally overdrawn the garnishment, and the domestic relations office would neither disburse the money to her as a credit for the next month
or give it back. They insisted that they would simply hold onto the money until he (inevitably, was the implication) became behind on his payments, and
then disburse it to her as a regular payment that he had missed (while still assessing him for arrears.) Worst case scenario, they assured him, he would get the money back in about 16 years when the child support obligation ended.
He called them every single day and harassed them until eventually they wrote him a check for the overage. If the money is physically in their hands and not hers, they can give it back if they want to.
I saw this guy in a planned parenthood with his partner. I'm pretty sure she was there to abort. He got on his cell phone and started talking his partying drug-addicted gangster crap loudly right there in the lobby at 9:00 in the morning. The guy was drunk or high already and he was an older guy...
Are you going to try to convince me that he was different
before she slept with him? The guy's an ass and has probably been an ass his entire life. Even if he pulled a nice guy routine, why was she fooled by a guy with the intelligence of a fish? She was dumb enough to sleep with a real prick and I hope she takes my previous advice and seeks out a normal, responsible guy (there are just as many as responsible women out there).
Take a pregnancy and add a man. Recipe for an instant asshole. Men are just there to make it harder than it has to be which is why this is up for debate in the first place.
No, I'm sorry. I don't know if you work in a women's crisis center or some other occupation which has isolated you from sane men, but trust me you're espousing an obviously skewed viewpoint of men.
you act like most men give this stuff a thought outside of how inconvenient the situation is.
Cite.
I have stated over and over and over and over that this would be rare.
You won't read and have shown this to be true constantly.
Just stop replying to my until you actually read my posts please.
Big question: was the money already disbursed to her, or is it sitting in the Domestic Relations coffers?
She already got the money. At this point I believe my only recourse is to sue her for it. That has some additional implications that I would rather not have happen. For one she plays the victim VERY WELL and would play it off on the kids as "Daddy is attacking me ....see how mean he really is.... blah blah blah." I don't want my kids getting caught up in anymore of her insanity.
Are you going to try to convince me that he was different before she slept with him? The guy's an ass and has probably been an ass his entire life.
Boy that's another thread huh?
She meets this drunk guy at a party. Stays drunk with him for a month, party to bar to party, ends up moved-in with him and "in love".
Suddenly she's tha' "victim" because he is a drunk with no relationship skills?
Poor her! LOL!!!
Often...abusive, manipulative, lying, no-good asses can be quite charming and personable when they want to. And they usually want to when trying to con someone into bed and/or marriage. I've known people to carry the facade for several years, if that's what it takes.
An insecure person, with low boundaries and low self esteem can easily fall for such nonsense because they buy into the bullshit. They excuse the glaring faults (lack of stability, anger issues, over controlling, deceptions) by saying they're not perfect either or by believing they are "the one" who will finally change this irresponsible, bad boy/girl into a good person. They find out it's never going to happen when they're good and trapped...maybe married (for better or worse), baby on the way or there, cut off from all sources of support and what little self esteem they had, completely demolished.
I strenously object to the generalization that any woman who gets pregnant unexpectedly is a slut, a party animal, or knew right up front that the person she was with was (or could be) an asshole.
I've also found that some of the seemingly nicest people can turn into completely amoral, vindictive, and cruel individuals, given the right trigger. You just never know until you're on the opposing side in a battle.
I strenously object to the generalization that any woman who gets pregnant unexpectedly is a slut, a party animal.
I don't think anyone in here made that characherization of women who get pregnant.
As far as the party animal statement... if he/she partied a lot, they knew.
That someone thought they could change someone is never an excuse to take a risk. In fact, it is sneaky and immoral.
WE end up in a situation where the dads that the CSA have anything to do with are actually the dads who want to pay fo rtheir kids...but instead of coming up with an arrangents themselves with their partners (particularly if the partner is unemployed) they end up getting stung by the CSA for a massive proportion of their income. Totally unfair.
During my conversation with the senior official I could get to at Domestic Relations, whom shall remain nameless, he admitted that this was a very common situation for which "the system" has no answer. Shit, if it would help I'd donate my overpayment to a deserving mother/family.
{sidenote}Of course my money is already gone and my ex, who is getting "spiritually united" with a guy she's known less than a year already used it as a downpayment on a house. If she got married for real I wouldn't have to pay alimony either. Isn't that nice - I get to pay alimony for another three years instead of putting that money towards the children. Again a situation for which the system has no answer. {sidenote}:mad:
Sorry dude.
My family once helped a guy put all of his income, even as it came in and property(except $10 a week) in his kid's name when he found out that his wife was cheating on him.
Still proud of that.
Bizarre that she gets alimony off you if youhave the kids.
I know the system is fucked. Both here and over there. Mostly things stay out of the CSA unless the mother is claiming benefits of some kind, or if one or the other party ask fo rthem to be involved (I think is how it works). Usually things are decided through the courts instead. But even though they are usually fairer they still aren't entirely fair.
For example, I have a friend, D, who continues to pay alimony to his ex-wife as his contribution to the costs of raising his son and also as a recognition of the time she took out from her career to be a full time mum. He has done so since they first started divorce proceedings nearly 10 years ago, throughout the four years of strung out divorce and on through the five years since that was finalised. Kid's now just turned 17.
On the surface of it that sounds quite fair. Except that she earns significantly more than he does, because she's a fairly senior teacher (she may even be a headteacher, I'm not sure) whilst his social work payscale froze for several years because he went into union work. So, whilst he is earning less, driving a shit little car and going into debt in order to buy a season ticket for their team for him and his son, she's living a much easier life, having, as far as I can tell, been barely inconvenienced in her career by the two or three years she spent at home.
At the same time, I had a colleague a couple of years back whose abusive ex managed to secure visitation rights to the children and she had to wave them off in the car twice a week with a man she couldn't really trust with their safety. Why did the court not take her fears seriously? Because she was a housewife and he was a businessman, imo.
The truth is it's very difficult to get anything like a fair and amicable settlement unless both parties are trying to come to such a thing. The problem with an adversarial system is that it presupposes a winner and a loser.
thanks rk, but it is more than ok - I know that I am doing the right, just and morally correct thing in this situation - I have faith that all will work out in the end. It usually does.
Yeah Dana - its a shame that a system had to be designed so that a friggin father is compelled to take care of his own kids. I cannot fathom that level of irrisponsibility - even though I see it everytime I go to the domestic relations office.
[youtube]byaMd_PNyIY[/youtube]
There is an important quote in here about excusing his actions as "temper" or "maleness" and "taming/civilizing him to find the prince within being our (females) job".
Hmmmmmm?
Yeah Dana - its a shame that a system had to be designed so that a friggin father is compelled to take care of his own kids. I cannot fathom that level of irrisponsibility - even though I see it everytime I go to the domestic relations office.
In fairness to men, they don't have a monopoly on irresponsibility. I think it's just that actually carrying the child kind of concentrates the female's mind a little to the new responsibility. We (females) have the help of a bunch of very powerful hormones which guide the maternal instincts, unless you happen to be one of those poor lasses who don't bond with their baby.
Hormones and a corrupt legal system.
What has a corrupt legal system got to do with a woman wanting to take care of her baby?
As already stated, if a man wants to "abort" his responsibilities to an unwanted situation he should be allowed to... no no problem.
It's all the mother's choice now, she is in COMPLETE control and that is the way it is supposed to be, right?
The man is just the sperm donor.
never had a woman complain about it being TOO hard before.
And you still haven't. I said harder than it has to be.
I
just got that 10 minutes later...
What has a corrupt legal system got to do with a woman wanting to take care of her baby?
The corrupt legal system decides who must support her efforts, whether they want to or not.
yes indeed. But the point that Yesman had raised was the fact that he has encountered a lot of men who don't want to step up and he seemed disgusted that enough men don't want to support their children that it requires a whole department to deal with it. My point was merely that it would be unfair to judge men harshly compared to women on this, given that women get a bunch of hormonal help when the pregnancy starts.
And you still haven't. I said harder than it has to be.
I just got that 10 minutes later...
har...
when it comes to me or elspode, assume it comes from the direction of the gutter first....
yes indeed. But the point that Yesman had raised was the fact that he has encountered a lot of men who don't want to step up and he seemed disgusted that enough men don't want to support their children that it requires a whole department to deal with it. My point was merely that it would be unfair to judge men harshly compared to women on this, given that women get a bunch of hormonal help when the pregnancy starts.
Or moreso - the department that is supposed to be handling and manging the support cases gets completely overwhelmed dealing with these losers to the point that NOTHING seems to get done. There are 4 caseworkers available at 8:00 am and there are at least 30 -40 people waiting in the lobby to see them, with more literally pouring in as the day goes on. These caseworkers seem to be trying their best, but the workload they face is staggering and the mental grind they must entail over days, weeks and months is staggering.
Virtually all of the people there are women, most with young children, and they are all there for the same reason - to get money from someone else - be it the system or an accused "deadbeat dad."
When in court I have seen the guys with their ghetto attire complete with $100+ sneakers blinging with decorative rings, necklaces and cellphones. They sit there disrespectfully slouched in front of the court with literally the same excuses time after time. "Yeah I'll pay this much more a month or that much next time or I ain't got no more money."
They have money for the clothes and the jewelry and the cellphones, yet nothing left for their children? Yeah I get why things are so screwed up with this system - This scum is reproducing much faster and in larger numbers than respectful people who honor their commitments.
Whats the answer???
As already stated, if a man wants to "abort" his responsibilities to an unwanted situation he should be allowed to... no no problem.
It's all the mother's choice now, she is in COMPLETE control and that is the way it is supposed to be, right?
The man is just the sperm donor.
BTW, I am making a point... I don't agree with this at all, once two people make a baby it is their job to care for it.
Why are these women carrying kids to term that they can't pay for who have been fathered by deadbeats? 3/4 of the entire point of legal abortion is avoiding this shit.:headshake
Because they can't afford to pay for abortions, maybe?
Or they have moral objections to abortion...
The other side to this, 9th, is that believing in the right for a woman to choose abortion, you must also believe in the right of the woman to choose to carry that child to term, no matter if anyone thinks it's irresponsible for any reason, no matter if she conjugated with a low-life, no matter any social issues anyone other than that woman has.
Yes, but she should also be prepared to take the responsibility for her decision, which may include the lack of the father.
Absolutely...but I'm saying that it isn't for Joe Schmo on the street to say she should have aborted. Believing in choice is believing in choice. You can't have it both ways.
Absolutely...but I'm saying that it isn't for Joe Schmo on the street to say she should have aborted. Believing in choice is believing in choice. You can't have it both ways.
Yes I can't. I mean no I can. ;)
I have to say that the Child Support Agency is good for my children. Their father is very bad at stepping up to his responsibility. Every year when they do the assessment to see what he should pay, he quits his job then tells them that he can't pay because he doesn't have a job. They then say he only has to pay the minimum which is about $27/month. The unfortunate thing for him is that they're now going back to all the old records and have caluculated a huge debt for him.
Personally, I don't care if he pays or not, other than the fact that on the one hand he claims to love his kids, but on the other, he's quite happy to let someone else pay all their every day expenses.
I didn't think he was a deadbeat when I met him. I didn't think he was a deadbeat when we fell pregnant. In fact, it wasn't till I was 7 months pregnant and I found out he'd been having an affair with someone else and then quit his job that I had the first realization. We tried to work it out. Had our second son, but I found out that he was still up to his same tricks and they just got worse.
Sometimes you just don't know what people are going to do, no matter how well you think you know them. Knowing what I know now, I would never have allowed myself to fall pregnant to him, but it's amazing how hindsight gives you 20 20 vision.
Another issue is that male or female, the people with the worst impulse control and planning skills are the ones who "forget" the birth control or use less reliable methods.
These are also likely to be the people who are least capable of adequately caring for the new entity they've created. Thus, the cycle continues
The other side to this, 9th, is that believing in the right for a woman to choose abortion, you must also believe in the right of the woman to choose to carry that child to term, no matter if anyone thinks it's irresponsible for any reason, no matter if she conjugated with a low-life, no matter any social issues anyone other than that woman has.
It's not the act of choosing that's important, here or really in anything else. It's the opportunity to take the actions necessary to secure the best possible outcome. Abortion is simply a convenience, not something sacred. Also, the language about having to affirm a womans choice by telling her she's doing the right thing no matter what is bullshit. For that choice I expect her to know her own abilities and situation and act accordingly. There's no checklist for this, some women may be able to care for a child in circumstances where others crumble, but she has 9 months to figure that out. Situations that change after birth are one thing, but if she has the baby knowing full well that she can't care for it properly then
she's the one who's mocking her right to choose.
I disagree. A choice is just that, a choice. Too many people think that pro-choice means you can choose to abort. Not believing that it also includes the right to choose to carry to term is short-sighted, and negates the whole right to choose.
For that choice I expect her to know her own abilities and situation and act accordingly.
Ahh, if everyone knew themselves so well, if these choices were easy. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way.
Often...abusive, manipulative, lying, no-good asses can be quite charming and personable when they want to. And they usually want to when trying to con someone into bed and/or marriage. I've known people to carry the facade for several years, if that's what it takes.
I strenously object to the generalization that any woman who gets pregnant unexpectedly is a slut, a party animal, or knew right up front that the person she was with was (or could be) an asshole.
I've also found that some of the seemingly nicest people can turn into completely amoral, vindictive, and cruel individuals, given the right trigger. You just never know until you're on the opposing side in a battle.
Absolutely.
Why are these women carrying kids to term that they can't pay for who have been fathered by deadbeats? 3/4 of the entire point of legal abortion is avoiding this shit.:headshake
The other thing is that we have complete cultures of women now believing that having the baby is more important than having the father, or any father of any of their 4 kids from different fathers, not being involved and that has completely acceptable.
I disagree. A choice is just that, a choice. Too many people think that pro-choice means you can choose to abort. Not believing that it also includes the right to choose to carry to term is short-sighted, and negates the whole right to choose.
...
Wait.... if you are pro-choice, it's not MANDATORY to have an abortion, if you get pregnant? Wow, what a concept! :D
The other thing is that we have complete cultures of women now believing that having the baby is more important than having the father, or any father of any of their 4 kids from different fathers, not being involved and that has completely acceptable.
"Complete Cultures of Women?" Weird.
Last I heard the baby
is more important. Or is that just me?
I'm beginning to believe that some people around here only believe in a woman's right to be blamed for any occurence. As long as it is conveniently applied to everything that is unholy.
What a smack in the face
Merc....A lot of women are abandoned or have to leave with their kids because of violence....and you accuse them of making a poor choices. This is really insulting Merc.
:headshake
That is not what I read in his post - I think he meant that there are women who think of the man as no more than a sperm donor. In some cases, I don't know how many, he is absolutely right. It is far more "socially acceptable" for an unmarried woman to have a child or children, than it used to be.
I suspect, though I have no figures for it, that the majority of single mums are not single mums because they chose that path. However, the fact that it is socially acceptable for women to bring up a child alone does somewhat free women from the constraints of living in a world where they will have moral opprobrium heaped upon them if they happen to get unlucky in bed. The fact that a small minority of women actually choose not to co-parent doesn't outweigh that for me.
I will admit, that a few years ago when I was giving serious consideration to whether or not I want children at some point, I did think that I would only really want to do that if I could be a single parent. Why? Because most men I know, whilst lovely and reasonable much of the time, have a tendency to be a little overbearing at times. What is vocalised as a fifty-fifty decision making process, for instance, actually means he gets final veto ( a little like rk's view on abortion). I had a hard enough time not physically killing my ex when we were rearing a puppy. If there had been a child in the mix I would be in jail by now :P
I never said a majority - I certainly don't think its anywhere near that. I'm sorry - I was just trying to interpret what I thought he was saying. I can think of a couple examples though - One was a local newswoman who wanted a child and she got artificially insemenated. Can't think of her name though - Lisa something - maybe? whatever.
Yesman-I was talking to the person that said "Complete Cultures of Women". I know what he meant...I don't need it explained. I think he just needed a reminder of how things got to be that way.
And what Dana is saying is the reason I am never going to have children with my husband. God love 'im. The second he talked to me that way in front of my kid.......well, it just wouldn't work out lets say....
But we didn't marry with kids in mind anyway. I don't mind not having one at all. I chose my husband....for good and bad. But lets face it...the great man that he is....he's just not cut out for it and he's not any less of a person for that. We just have a real view of our limitations. I would be too protective and could see myself pouncing on him like an enraged tiger. Not good. And he would try to constantly act as if I was stupid and his word was golden.....and he mentioned the other night in our conversation about it that his controlling behaviors would just get worse. And I believe him. Nothing wrong with not being cut out for being a parent. We may be cut out for fine genetic reproductions...but not parents. We are being realisitic. We think we would have a fine kid...it's just sad that we both have personality issues resulting from our family environments that would screw up everything and quickly. I think we are better people for not trusting each other to do this and not do it with each other. Maybe I could do it if I married someone who didn't act like twat sometimes...but I didn't. I don't even want one that bad..If I did we would be getting a divorce. But I chose that peckerhead first. :)
The ideal situation would be for us both to change and have a kid.....but lets see the reality of that actually happening?
There are real reasons some women don't want a guy around and some guys if they are honest, like my husband can say, "hey I am awesome", but I might be a terrible father......but most women never got the choice.
How about everybody keeping a contract in their wallet vis a vis parental rights. Have the bartender witness it and you're good to go.
Having an abortion is not being unaccountable for your actions. Having an abortion is a scary thing that some women choose to do for their own reasons. You want to be allowed to have a say over what happens to any foetus springing from your sperm, don't put it inside a woman who hasn't said she wants your baby.
EXACTLY!!
More and more I've been switching to the mindset that we should be teaching kids the virtues of abortion from a very young age. Abortion is about keeping unplanned pregnancies down, right? I'm envisioning a system where 7-8yo boys and girls are taught that it's very good thing to have an abortion, good or better then having a kid. Daemonize people who selfishly force others to care for their kids. Lots of indoctrinating necessary, but hey, not like that's been a problem until now. Sounds like something you could write a book about...
It'd be every uber-liberal's dream come true from what I've learned, and I wouldn't have to pay for some little snot's daycare. Win-win.
Abortions are scary? Never heard that crop up in health-ed.:right:
Originally Posted by DanaC
Having an abortion is not being unaccountable for your actions. Having an abortion is a scary thing that some women choose to do for their own reasons. You want to be allowed to have a say over what happens to any foetus springing from your sperm, don't put it inside a woman who hasn't said she wants your baby.
I agree. People should discuss what
could happen before sex. But, once you do, you own those actions.
I was one of the few young men that did not just sleep with anyone. I never got it.
Abortions are scary? Never heard that crop up in health-ed.:right:
Are you saying you don't believe it, because they didn't tell you that in health-ed? Or do you mean that health-ed is lacking, because they don't tell the whole story? :rolleyes:
I'm saying that health-ed failed to insert that little detail into the curriculum, I'll never be able to say if it's scary or not though.:p Scary is also kind of a personal assessment, most likely some women find it scary, others don't.
Hey look...I'm holding back for once. I hope I've made someone here proud today. Look....I did not vomit a fact, anecdote, or slew of curse words.
I really do think you guys are helping with some ordinary knee-jerk reactions.
I even have the time right now to write a very long response to each of you. Wow. Just wow.
Ok now back to what you were doing.
:)
More and more I've been switching to the mindset that we should be teaching kids the virtues of abortion from a very young age. Abortion is about keeping unplanned pregnancies down, right? I'm envisioning a system where 7-8yo boys and girls are taught that it's very good thing to have an abortion, good or better then having a kid. Daemonize people who selfishly force others to care for their kids. Lots of indoctrinating necessary, but hey, not like that's been a problem until now. Sounds like something you could write a book about...
It'd be every uber-liberal's dream come true from what I've learned, and I wouldn't have to pay for some little snot's daycare. Win-win.
Abortions are scary? Never heard that crop up in health-ed.:right:
My take: the unfortunate thing is that, TYPICALLY, the people who want to prevent a woman from making her own choice are the same people who don't want their kids to learn how to prevent unwanted pregnancy in school. Yet they also don't teach them, themselves.
So what you have is kids who want to have sex, don't know how to prevent pregnancy, yet you don't want them to be able fix the problem after the fact, then they are ostracized for getting pregnant or having a child out of wedlock (bad girl), or they get into a marriage that nobody really wanted, often ending up a divorced, single parent. Seems like they get screwed all the way around.
Seems like they get screwed all the way around.
and not in a good way....
Um, Spex, I wasn't being sarcastic...
I'm saying that health-ed failed to insert that little detail into the curriculum, I'll never be able to say if it's scary or not though.:p Scary is also kind of a personal assessment, most likely some women find it scary, others don't.
Well, one's health is very personal. And the procedure is a painful and invasive operation, with the added bonus of emotional turmoil. I'd have to go out on a limb here and say that it'd the rare woman/girl who wouldn't find it scary.
Copy and Paste. usarmydoctor
www.m-w.com
account
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French acunter, from a- (from Latin ad-) + cunter to count
Date: 14th century
transitive verb
1: to think of as : consider <accounts himself lucky>
2: to probe into : analyze
intransitive verb
1: to furnish a justifying analysis or explanation —used with for<couldn't account for the loss>
2 a: to be the sole or primary factor —used with for<the pitcher accounted for all three putouts> b: to bring about the capture, death, or destruction of something —used with for<accounted for two rabbits>
So - intransitive verb 2b: used with for <accounted for my baby>
I believe the unborn child is the one being held accountable...
I cannot seem to find just the right Smilie or icon to put at the end of this post. Do they make an animated one that shows a smiling face (you pick your favorite color) that is sucked apart by a little vacuum? Or one that is ripped to pieces by a surgical instrument? Or perhaps one that dies from poisoning?
Oh well -- I will settle for this one: .
Do you also believe women should seek legal consent from the father to have abortions?
Do you also believe women should seek legal consent from the father to have abortions?
Tailposting is rude.
What is tail posting again? I know someone told me once, but I forget.
Let me spell this out for you. I invited him here from the talent/curse thread to discuss this topic on an apropriate thread. Don't tell me I'm rude.
You're rude.
I wasn't even talking to you.
But now I am:
Define tailposting. Then prove that that is what I'm doing.
Posting at the end of a thread without reading it, usually covering a topic previously exhausted in stated thread at-length.
do you have one of those for 'straw man'?
Buzzer sounds: Does not apply.....
~Posting at the end of a thread without reading it, usually covering a topic previously exhausted in stated thread at-length~
I was involved in the previous discussion on this thread and I was routing a discussion to the proper thread. You shouldn't start threads if you can't even read them yourself and remember who heavily contributed.
Do you spread so much bullshit that you can't even remember it anymore? Could it be?
do you have one of those for 'straw man'?
I should make one, and for ad homonym (sp?)
Now, for the points...
Suggestions please.
1. Misrepresentation of an opponent's position. Pointing to crotch
2. Lack of intelligence. Pointing to melon
3. Inability to express own point. Points to hand.
4. Quoting out of context. Points to mouth.
Any more that you can think of let me know... I think more would be too busy.
ad· homi·nem· (ad häm′ə nem′)
adjective
appealing to prejudice and emotion rather than to reason
attacking the character, motives, etc. of an opponent rather than debating the issue on logical grounds
Especially for idiot(s) that can't spell what they try so desparately to express but can't.
I'd say that defines your situation...good turn of a phrase...Stick it rk!!
:)
Actually dyslexia is a disease for the intelligent. Seems, however, you had to look it up... I'm not impressed.
I much prefer not being able to spell content others are unable to comprehend, so they lower themselves to pathetic little name calling alone for their "substance".
Thanks for the definition, I think I know what I'll call it now.
What do you mean dyslexia is a disease for the intelligent? I had no idea it was so selective. I'd be interested to see some facts to back that statement up.
Actually dyslexia is a disease for the intelligent.
Sorry rk, my Bullshit detector just went off like a foghorn.
The only relationship between intelligence and dyslexia is that there is no relationship.
Dyslexia is not linked to intelligence. You can have a high IQ and be dyslexic...and you can be thick as the preverbial swine stool and be dyslexic. The ability to learn to read and/or spell, is likewise not linked to intelligence. Someone with disablingly low IQ, may well acquire their reading skills with prodigious speed...they may have low comprehension of what they're reading, but they may well read highly competantly. By the same token, there are many people with high IQ's and highly developed comprehension skils for whom learning to read is a serious challenge, and for whom reading (and spelling) may always be problematic.
[eta]: for those who haven't really come across dyslexia, beyond what is apparent in popular culture, the condition is a good deal more complex than 'word blindness'. It can affect such things as the ability to read a clock, a map, road signs...or it may not. It can affect organisational skills (time-keeping, organising a work folder, sequencing actions)...to lesser or greater degrees. It can affect reading, without affecting writing, or it can affect both. It affects how long the visually accessed written word will stay in the memory(think about reading something from a blackboard and transcribing it to a page in front of you) and when affecting reading, or spelling there are often key letter combinations which regularly cause problems. It's also closely associated (and there is much cross-over between the two) with dyspraxia, more commonly known as 'clumsy child syndrome'.
Dyslexics are often very creative people. I am not sure why, my reading on the subject wasn't detailed enough to get to the nitty-gritty of the brain's workings. But I assume it's because their brains process information slightly differently and they often sequence things slightly differently to non-dyslexics.
I should make one, and for ad homonym (sp?)
Wow. You still don't know your spelling error. The wrong letters entirely. Let's spell it properly again.
ad· homi·nem·
This is not an indicator of Dyslexia.
:D
You know what? I like you RK.
You started the name calling in this very thread that you don't remember me being a part of. Do you really smoke
that much pot?
When you have any grievance with anyone you immediately get petty. I've done this to people and I force myself to apologize because I've been wrong. Do you have no conscience?
And- I'm not going to take definitions from someone that doesn't even know how to have a conversation or connect with other people. I have friends just like you. You squawk and squawk and poop, leaving everyone else to clean up your crap. One of my good friends is also exhibiting this behavior by stirring up issues on a bulletin board and not even listening when people are in complete agreement. He posts controversial crap constantly and doesn't even check the responses to his newest complaint. He's being a human troll, and I'm not going to bother with him anymore either. He's become someone that has a complete inability to communicate. He's become a walking billboard of current issues, and any act of real communication is futile anymore. He's become the human embodiement of a troll. See, when people do this in person people give up then too. How do you expect to get away with it here? Did you already forget that people were here for you while you were in the hospital? Or was I tail-posting in that thread too? Was offering support another unoriginal idea that I had?
Screw you. And it's not just me. You do this to everyone.
Start paying some attention to what other people are saying.
From Langmaker
http://www.langmaker.com/db/Ad_homonym
ad homonym adj. ad homophone [Note: on analogy with "ad hominem".] Appealing to feelings and appreciation of puns, jokes, word-play, and jargon rather than intellect: witty.
Coined By: Nick Kalivoda
Retrieved from "http://www.langmaker.com/db/Ad_homonym"
*smiles*
You can have a high IQ and be dyslexic...and you can be thick as the preverbial swine stool and be dyslexic.
Really? Swine stool is proverbial? No wonder we admire your wonderful British lexicon.
Really? Swine stool is proverbial? No wonder we admire your wonderful British lexicon.
Proverbial doesn't just mean 'from a proverb,' man. It can also mean 'widely referred to.' So "He's dumb as the proverbial box of rocks" is correct usage. As is swine stool, if swine stool is a common measure of intelligence.
Thick as swine stool, is NOT proverbial, in the United States.
Thick as swine stool, is NOT proverbial, in the United States.
Ah, I get it. You were poking fun at the phrase being used frequently. I thought you were correcting usage. Check. ;)
Dana and Cice... always good to see your true colors.
Bruce, I was being facetious. For swine stool, read pigshit:P
@ rk, wtf you talking about? True colours? You made a very silly statement about dyslexia. I happen to know a bit about dyslexia and corrected the statement.
Of course, that's all you said... how silly of me, no insults or personal attacks in your post?
LOL!
I said my bullshit detector went off. That's the extent of any so-called attack. I called you out on something about which you were mistaken (and using said mistake within an attack on somebody else). Remember you said (somewhere) that you admit when you are wrong and somebody points it out to you?
Showing your true colours again are you rk?
Well, I also questioned the statement about dyslexic people being intelligent.
rkz, do you have any reference for your statement at all because if so I'd love to see it. I'm seriously doubtful that there could be such a thing although I have no doubt that some people with dyslexia are very intelligent and can achieve great things if and when their problem is identified. In fact, there is one member of my family who has dyslexia and he was a brilliant honours student and now helps design weapons to kill people with. There are other members of the family who have similar problems and they're definitely not einstines in any way even though they're definitely not as thick as swine stool either.
I just don't believe your statement due to my own personal experience and also academic research.
Bruce, I was being facetious. For swine stool, read pigshit:P
I know you were, but what a wonderful description. Something colorful and descriptive, I've come to expect from Brits.
Wow. You still don't know your spelling error. The wrong letters entirely. Let's spell it properly again.
ad· homi·nem·
This is not an indicator of Dyslexia.
:D
You know what? I like you RK. You started the name calling in this very thread that you don't remember me being a part of. Do you really smoke that much pot?
When you have any grievance with anyone you immediately get petty. I've done this to people and I force myself to apologize because I've been wrong. Do you have no conscience?
And- I'm not going to take definitions from someone that doesn't even know how to have a conversation or connect with other people. I have friends just like you. You squawk and squawk and poop, leaving everyone else to clean up your crap. One of my good friends is also exhibiting this behavior by stirring up issues on a bulletin board and not even listening when people are in complete agreement. He posts controversial crap constantly and doesn't even check the responses to his newest complaint. He's being a human troll, and I'm not going to bother with him anymore either. He's become someone that has a complete inability to communicate. He's become a walking billboard of current issues, and any act of real communication is futile anymore. He's become the human embodiement of a troll. See, when people do this in person people give up then too. How do you expect to get away with it here? Did you already forget that people were here for you while you were in the hospital? Or was I tail-posting in that thread too? Was offering support another unoriginal idea that I had? Screw you. And it's not just me. You do this to everyone.
Start paying some attention to what other people are saying.
Oh Noz! I post interesting topics to talk about in a
DISCUSSION BOARD!!
Then when people don't agree with what I think, just one person on the board, I don't take it personally...
what will we do?!?!
I often tell people I care about the events in their life and wish them well and tell you what is happening in my life. If you choose not to read these, ok.
If you think you can speak for everyone, again, ok.
What a kid fit.
rkz...will you please answer me? I would really like to know why you made the statement you did.
Maybe there's something I'm missing.
I was making an generality, it is true that it can occur at any intellegence level, yet it is common among the very intellegent. We are often intellegent and creative enough to compensate for it so most have no idea.
Leonard Da Vinci
Ann Bancroft, Arctic Explorer.
Alexander Graham Bell.
John Britten, Inventor.
Thomas Edison.
Albert Einstein.
Michael Faraday.
Dr. James Lovelock.
Willem Hollenbach, astronomical photographer and inventor.
John R. Horner, Paleontologist.
Paul MacCready "Engineer of the Century."
Archer Martin, Chemist (1952 Nobel Laureate)
Pierre Curie, Physicist (1903 Nobel Prize).
John Robert Skoyles, Brain Researcher.
Werner Von Braun
George Patton.
Ansel Adams, Photographer.
David Bailey, Photographer.
Leonardo da Vinci.
Ignacio Gomez, Muralist.
Tommy Hilfiger, Clothing Designer.
Pablo Picasso.
Robert Rauschenberg.
Auguste Rodin.
Bennett Strahan
Robert Toth
Jørn Utzon (architect, designed Sydney Opera house)
Andy Warhol.
Cher.
Brad Little.
John Lennon.
Nigel Kennedy, Violinist.
Bob Weir, Grateful Dead Guitarist.
Harvey Cushing, Surgeon.
Fred Epstein,Neurosurgeon.
Winston Churchill.
King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden.
Michael Heseltine.
Andrew Jackson.
Thomas Jefferson.
John F. Kennedy.
Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco.
Nelson Rockefeller.
Paul Wellstone,U.S. Senator.
Woodrow Wilson.
George Washington.
Scott Adams, Cartoonist (Dilbert)
Hans Christian Andersen
Avi
Jeanne Betancourt, (Author of "My Name is Brain Brian").
Steven Cannell, television writer & novelist.
John Corrigan, novelist..
Larry Chambers.
Andrew Dornenburg, award-winning author and chef.
Agatha Christie.
Fannie Flagg (Author of "Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe").
F. Scott Fitzgerald.
Gustave Flaubert.
Terry Goodkind fantasy writer, author of The Sword of Truth series.
Patricia Polacco, Children's Author and Illustrator.
Eileen Simpson (Author of "Reversals").
Elizabeth Daniels Squire(author of mystery novels).
Bernie Taylor, author of Biological Time.
Victor Villaseñor
W.B. Yeats
Richard Branson,Founder of Virgin Enterprises.
John T Chambers,CEO of Cisco Systems.
Henry Ford.
William Hewlett, Co-Founder, Hewlett-Packard.
Craig McCaw, Telecommunications Visionary.
O.D. McKee, founder of McKee Foods.
David Neeleman, CEO of jetBlue Airways.
Paul J. Orfalea, founder of Kinko's.
Charles Schwab, Investor.
Ted Turner, President, Turner Broadcasting Systems.
F.W. Woolworth
Robert Benton.
Nicole Betancourt, Emmy-winning filmmaker.
Walt Disney.
Søren KraghJacobsen (Danish film director).
Harry Anderson
Orlando Bloom
Harry Belafonte
Tom Cruise
Dave Foley
Danny Glover
Whoopi Goldberg
Susan Hampshire
Jay Leno
Keanu Reeves.
Kiera Knightley
Edward James Olmos
Oliver Reed.
Billy Bob Thornton.
Tom Smothers
Robin Williams
Henry Winkler
Loretta Young
I will still argue that it is common among people of any intelligence level rkz. I've already acknowledged that it can indeed be a problem intelligent people have to work around also.
You probably wont find a list of dumb people who have dyslexia because they never got famous. ;) Although I'd have to say from looking at that list that it's arguable as to what sort of intelligence qualifies them to be on your list of intelligent people.
I will still argue that it is common among people of any intelligence level rkz. I've already acknowledged that it can indeed be a problem intelligent people have to work around also.
You probably wont find a list of dumb people who have dyslexia because they never got famous. ;) Although I'd have to say from looking at that list that it's arguable as to what sort of intelligence qualifies them to be on your list of intelligent people.
ur stealin my linez
ur stealin my linez
Cokanz iz not teh ansorz!
I bet that the 'not-so-smart' people with dyslexia aren't even considered to have this issue or tested for it. They're simply written off as 'dumb' and that's the end of it.
This is what I like about the cellar: You can be discussing abortion and it can turn into a dyslexia debate. No really, I think that's awesome. Just a good mood today I guess.
RK, I've grown tired of the arguement...I'm in a live and let live mood. Go about your business how you see fit. I'm no judge of character. I'd just like to see you apologize every once in awhile, or reverse an opinion when it doesn't even add up with you. Whatever. Lots of people are trying to say the same thing...I don't need to do it. Hey- I don't even care about your insults. The truth hurts. And well...I'm still happy so that should tell you something. Have a nice one.
Engrish error message:
Sorry for disturb!
I have reversed my opinion and admitted when I have been wrong (no I won't go look it up) more than once.
I will apologize when I start an attack, I don't do that. I post threads on topics that I find interesting and I discuss them impersonally until I am attacked, these days that is usually on the first post, as I have a bevy of stalkers now.
The truth? What truth.
Don't like my topic/threads, don't go in them, if you do, don't get/take them personally, just discuss them and I will not return insults/personal attacks.
It is very simple.
Find a place where I started it and I will apologize and tell you I am sorry.
Umm...the post where you accused Cicero of tailposting springs immediately to mind. She (quite fairly and reasonably) moved a discussion from another thread which had veered off into the abortion debate over to here: a thread about abortion. Your response was an outright and unneccesary attack.
rk, just because people disagree with you does not make them stalkers. Nor does it constitute an attack. You made an outrageous statement about Dyslexia being indicative of intelligence. I posted in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek manner that my bullshit detector had gone off and explained why you were incorrect in your assertion. Your response? to attack me for even having joined in the conversation and accuse me of ....I'm not quite sure what, I guess ganging up on you.
For the record: I did not respond to your comment because it was you who made it. I responded to your comment because it was about dyslexia and I have done a little work in that field. You say that dyslexics are intelligent, i say yes, some of them are. Some of them are not. There's no way to be entirely sure, but I would suspect given what evidence there is, that the proportions are no different than in the rest of the population.
Out of a class of 25-30 adult, basic-skills students I could reasonably expect at least 10 of them to exhibit symptoms and characteristics of dyslexia. Whether they were all in fact dyslexic, I have no way of knowing without conducting dyslexia tests on them, which I am not qualified to do. Undiagnosed dyslexia is thought by many in the field to account for a large proportion of the destructive life-patterns of many young, male criminals, currently in jail. The proportions of male prisoners who are functionally illiterate is close to fifty percent. Of those a significant proportion are likely to be dyslexic. Up until the last twenty years the vast majority of dyslexics either found their own coping strategies which worked, or were left behind and labelled 'stupid'. A very high proportion of my older students displayed dyslexic characteristics, far higher than amongst the younger students (25-30).
The fact that you have a long list of very clever, very creative people with dyslexia tells us nothing, other than that dyslexia need not disable someone from participating in literary, academic, or creative pursuits. I can find you a similar list of very clever, very creative people who are not dyslexic.
Now. I haven't returned to this topic because I hate you, wish to stalk you, wish you ill, or enjoy getting a rise out of you. I have returned to it, because you are barking up entirely the wrong tree, and it happens to be a tree I'm quite fond of.
don't worry Rage, i've got it covered for you.
Dana, you're a stalker. i don't care what you think.
Dyslexia is a disease of the intelligent, because:
- If you're intelligent, they'll call you 'dyslexic'
- If you're not intelligent, they'll call you 'dumb'
Your response was an outright and unneccesary attack
In no way was it an attack, it was an accurate description of what she was doing, rehashing a topic that had been previously exhausted, ad-naseum, previously in the thread... a thread she had not read.
Yes, she had been invited, how does that precode reading it?
I stated dyslexia can occur in any intelligence range, clearly and concisely. Two posts later. You must have missed that one. Please, go check it out.
I'm glad you are better at diagnosing me over the net than the professionals that have in person, more than once... you are truly skilled!
Now. I haven't returned to this topic because I hate you, wish to stalk you, wish you ill, or enjoy getting a rise out of you. I have returned to it, because you are barking up entirely the wrong tree, and it happens to be a tree I'm quite fond of.
Actually, you have returned and posted an extensive and factually incorrect attack.
In no way was it an attack, it was an accurate description of what she was doing, rehashing a topic that had been previously exhausted, ad-naseum, previously in the thread... a thread she had not read.
Yes, she had been invited, how does that precode reading it?
I stated dyslexia can occur in any intelligence range, clearly and concisely. Two posts later. You must have missed that one. Please, go check it out.
I'm glad you are better at diagnosing me over the net than the professionals that have in person, more than once... you are truly skilled!
Actually, you have returned and posted an extensive and factually incorrect attack.
This thread. RK. This thread that I didn't even read....Did I read this right?
:D
#341
My joke wasn't that funny but you took the opportunity to call me a"sexist".
There are other examples...I'm just tired of the arguement....Done. I'm just done with it.
I'm working on being more polite, everywhere. I'm trying to visualize how I act and how I normally treat people to their faces...So the same will apply here from now on....
You also don't know that I did a fair amount of research on the topic of sexism. I had to reverse my opinion after a period of intense study, and a couple of specious essays that I received a perfect score on. It was going to be a book, it was going so well. I had an epiphany about the said topic and had to dump my former ideas, and the idea of a book as well. I am probably the least sexist person I know, because I am very sensitive to it and unlike most people, (because they are normal and I am crazy over the topic) I actually recognize when I'm ascribing to it, and stop myself. Like most of your insults- that one just doesn't fly and you could never understand the depths of how wrong your impressions are about it.
So- I'm not going to argue. Hope you are having a good one and there's no need to even respond to what I've written here if you would like to continue in this vein.....
I read too much Epictetus this weekend and I am giving up inflammatory arguements and trading them in for good debates. There's just no good, in any sense of the word, that can come from it. I've been pretty petty here lately, as I have been bated and took the hook almost every time.
So...
I hope you are having a good day and if you aren't...find a way to make that happen!
Off topic and I don't care:
SamIam can be proud now that I am going to utilize the good stuff I read again. You win. (Sam)
I hope Dana was just refering to me. :)
In no way was it an attack, it was an accurate description of what she was doing, rehashing a topic that had been previously exhausted, ad-naseum, previously in the thread... a thread she had not read. Yes, she had been invited, how does that precode reading it?
.
Wrong. A thread she had contributed to extensively. Also wrong, she wasn't invited, she was the one doing the inviting.
I stated dyslexia can occur in any intelligence range, clearly and concisely. Two posts later. You must have missed that one. Please, go check it out.
No I read it. I had responded to an earlier post in which you claimed dyslexia to be a disease of the intelligent. Your response was to attack me. My next few posts were tackling that attack.
I'm glad you are better at diagnosing me over the net than the professionals that have in person, more than once... you are truly skilled!
At what point have i attempted to diagnose you? I did not deny you were dyslexic at any point. I just took issue with your assertion that dyslexia is an indication of intelligence. I have taken on faith, because you have told me, that you are dyslexic. I recall you mentioning it once before, if memory serves. I am neither qualified, nor intending to become qualified, in diagnosing dyslexia. I have however, some training in how to teach literacy to dyslexic adults and in the process of that training i gained at least a modicum of an understanding of the condition.
Actually, you have returned and posted an extensive and factually incorrect attack.
I did not post an attack. I posted a rebuttal. At what point was my post factually incorrect? Generally speaking, board decorum would suggest that you cite the specific part of the post which you deem to be incorrect. Just pointing your finger at me and saying 'wrong' won't do.
dude is even an asshole to those who bend over backwards to make allowances for his bitter hateful mannerisms.
This thread. RK. This thread that I didn't even read....Did I read this right?
:D
#341
My joke wasn't that funny but you took the opportunity to call me a"sexist".
There are other examples...I'm just tired of the arguement....Done. I'm just done with it.
I'm working on being more polite, everywhere. I'm trying to visualize how I act and how I normally treat people to their faces...So the same will apply here from now on....
You also don't know that I did a fair amount of research on the topic of sexism. I had to reverse my opinion after a period of intense study, and a couple of specious essays that I received a perfect score on. It was going to be a book, it was going so well. I had an epiphany about the said topic and had to dump my former ideas, and the idea of a book as well. I am probably the least sexist person I know, because I am very sensitive to it and unlike most people, (because they are normal and I am crazy over the topic) I actually recognize when I'm ascribing to it, and stop myself. Like most of your insults- that one just doesn't fly and you could never understand the depths of how wrong your impressions are about it.
So- I'm not going to argue. Hope you are having a good one and there's no need to even respond to what I've written here if you would like to continue in this vein.....
I read too much Epictetus this weekend and I am giving up inflammatory arguements and trading them in for good debates. There's just no good, in any sense of the word, that can come from it. I've been pretty petty here lately, as I have been bated and took the hook almost every time.
So...
I hope you are having a good day and if you aren't...find a way to make that happen!
Off topic and I don't care:
SamIam can be proud now that I am going to utilize the good stuff I read again. You win. (Sam)
I hope Dana was just refering to me. :)
I felt, in context, your comment was sexist. However, seeing your side of it and the humor aspect, you are correct, I can see how it could be seen both ways and I do apologize for that. I will try to be more careful in the future.
Trust me, no one wants all this kid shit to stop more than I. I just want to discuss topics without all the stalking and spam.
At what point have i attempted to diagnose you?
You never stated I am not dyslexic? Sorry. I thought you had and read this to be that you were. My mistake, I aplogise... though others had, and I still think you implied it.
The fact that you have a long list of very clever, very creative people with dyslexia tells us nothing, other than that dyslexia need not disable someone from participating in literary, academic, or creative pursuits. I can find you a similar list of very clever, very creative people who are not dyslexic.
rk, just because people disagree with you does not make them stalkers.
I never said it did, following me from thread to thread to thread, post to post to post just to insult me OT is stalking and nothing else.
Dana, you are saying I never made post #453 in this thread?
My mistake, I aplogise... though others had, and I still think you implied it.
No. I implied nothing of the sort. I fail to see how anybody could read anything i've posted on this topic and come to that conclusion, rk. I understand others have implied it, but I categorically did not. On the contrary I have been operating on the understanding that you
are dyslexic.
I never said it did, following me from thread to thread to thread, post to post to post just to insult me OT is stalking and nothing else.
Are you seriously suggesting this is what I'm doing? I'm sorry but if you are that's just ludicrous. I hit New Posts and go to the posts I find interesting/intriguing ot to which I have at some point already contributed. Sometimes when I log in your name is listed as last poster for most of the threads I am interested in.
I post how I see it on each individual thread. There are times I post in support of something you've said. There are times I post in disagreement. There are times you say something that annoys me enough to post in a less friendly fashion. This is not stalking. This engaging in the constant live debates that characterise the Cellar.
If you really think I am victimising you in some way, then my friend, you have a very strange view of victimisation.
No. I implied nothing of the sort. I fail to see how anybody could read anything i've posted on this topic and come to that conclusion, rk. I understand others have implied it, but I categorically did not. On the contrary I have been operating on the understanding that you are dyslexic.
I'm sorry, I've been under attack a lot today and assumed the worst. Thanks again.
Are you seriously suggesting this is what I'm doing?
I have never called you a stalker, troll or anything remotely like that.
Okay, fair enough. I misunderstood your post :P
Now that we've all had a big group hug, I'd like to point out that I'm pretty sure no one on this forum 'stalks' others. I do what Dana (and I'm pretty sure just about everyone else) does, I look at new posts and see what interests me.
The reason (for example) tw and UG are constantly arguing is not because they sit around searching for each other's previous posts, it's because they're both clicking on the same threads because they're interested in the same topics... and they happen to disagree VERY strongly about them.
