Abortion: Why Men Don't Get A Say

[JBeukema]

Fix your tags, Sy. Those are George's words, not mine.

 

[syrenn]

Fix your tags, Sy. Those are George's words, not mine.

OK...let me look. Sorry love.

 

[JBeukema]

If men don't want to be in the position of an outcome not of their choosing, then THEY need to control their sperm and not put themselves in that position.

If a woman doesn't want to be a piece of property, she shouldn't spread her legs. Once she does, she belongs to him and her body belongs to him forever. She surrenders her rights and will.

Just applying the same standard...

'modern neo-feminists who, much like those same groups who took over the Coloured Civil Rights movement, seek to invert, rather than abolish, the historical system of exploitation and socio-economic and political inequality...'

Why would a man assume a woman is doing any of what you mentioned as birth control?

Why would she assume he's going to care for a child if he won't commit in a relationship as-is?

Grow up and own up.

If MEN dont want to be in a position of being the father of an unwanted child then THEY are the ones how need to control their sperm or keep their dicks in their pants.

If women don't want to be forced to have babies, they need to keep their legs shut...

and yet

I am VERY pro abortion.

go figure... modern feminazism, people..

 

[Madeline]

What is the significance of the procreative act if a woman ultimatey decides if the result is "life" or not?

What did that impregnation create, exactly?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? You have your philosophy, I have mine.

So far, the law has followed science. I'd say that's the proper guide, wouldn't you?

 

[Madeline]

If you can make the decision to have a child alone, you can rear the child alone.

You didn't need a man to tell you whether to have a baby; you don't need one to help you rear or provide for it.

Or are you a helpless little creature in need of a big strong man to tell you what to do and take care of you?

The "helpless little creature" is the baby, who

-can be killed in the woman changes her mind 3 months after the fact and decides she doesn't to have it anymore...

has a legal right to be supported by both parents

Unless the woman decides she wants nothing to do with it. As covered several times in this thread.

. I still don't see any rejoinder from you as to why the baby's rights should be terminated.

So you no longer support a woman's 'right' to kill her unborn child? Or do you only think unborn women have any rights when it's convenient for you?

What is the ginormous impediment to grasping that a child born has rights that a zygote just conceived does not? While the fetus is dependent on the mother, the mother has the right to abort. Once viable, the fetus is protected by law and imbued with certain rights; if it survives, one such right is financial support from both parents.

 

[JBeukema]

What is the significance of the procreative act if a woman ultimatey decides if the result is "life" or not?

What did that impregnation create, exactly?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? You have your philosophy, I have mine.

So far, the law has followed science. I'd say that's the proper guide, wouldn't you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...pro-abortion-is-anti-science.html#post2786726

 

[JBeukema]

While the fetus is dependent on the mother, the mother has the right to abort.

By that 'reasoning', you have a 'right to abort' seconds before you're due..

Once viable, the fetus is protected by law and imbued with certain rights

'Viable' means nothing. Some children aren't 'viable' at birth due to congenital defects.

; if it survives

Shame you view it is a misfortune that an unborn or newborn woman survives your attempts to kill her.

 

[Madeline]

What is the significance of the procreative act if a woman ultimatey decides if the result is "life" or not?

What did that impregnation create, exactly?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? You have your philosophy, I have mine.

So far, the law has followed science. I'd say that's the proper guide, wouldn't you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...pro-abortion-is-anti-science.html#post2786726

I am less than interested in someone else's POV, JB. I barely care about yours.

But just for shits and giggles, why if you oppose abortion do you support adoption of laws creating a new man's right to punish the child born from unintended conception?

 

[syrenn]

If a woman doesn't want to be a piece of property, she shouldn't spread her legs. Once she does, she belongs to him and her body belongs to him forever. She surrenders her rights and will.

Just applying the same standard...

'modern neo-feminists who, much like those same groups who took over the Coloured Civil Rights movement, seek to invert, rather than abolish, the historical system of exploitation and socio-economic and political inequality...'

I make no suggestions that a woman owns any man nor a man owns a woman. Make no mistake what i am saying. There are two issues. Men have no say or rights over a woman's body. If a baby is the outcome then the father is legally bound to support the child just as the mother is.

Why would she assume he's going to care for a child if he won't commit in a relationship as-is?
Grow up and own up.

She doesn't have to assume, it is the law. I makes no difference of the parents of the child hate each other. Both are legally responsible for the child.

If women don't want to be forced to have babies, they need to keep their legs shut...

Or have abortions. And if the men have problems with that to fucking bad for them.

and yet

I am VERY pro abortion.

go figure... modern feminazism, people..

And your point is?

 

[Madeline]

While the fetus is dependent on the mother, the mother has the right to abort.

By that 'reasoning', you have a 'right to abort' seconds before you're due..

Once viable, the fetus is protected by law and imbued with certain rights

'Viable' means nothing. Some children aren't 'viable' at birth due to congenital defects.

; if it survives

Shame you view it is a misfortune that an unborn or newborn woman survives your attempts to kill her.

Hey genius, some in utero deaths are natural.

 

[JBeukema]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? You have your philosophy, I have mine.

So far, the law has followed science. I'd say that's the proper guide, wouldn't you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...pro-abortion-is-anti-science.html#post2786726

I am less than interested in someone else's POV, JB. I barely care about yours.

But just for shits and giggles, why if you oppose abortion do you support adoption of laws creating a new man's right to punish the child born from unintended conception?

I don't know. You tell me, since it's only in your head that any such thing is the case.

 

[JBeukema]

I make no suggestions that a woman owns any man nor a man owns a woman. Make no mistake what i am saying.

Because he joined in a gangbang at a party, she owns his money which he earns through his labour. She therefore owns him for such time as his labour serves only to reward a woman who refuses to take responsibility for her own decisions. That is what you keep advocating.

There are two issues. Men have no say or rights over a woman's body. If a baby is the outcome then the father is legally bound to support the child just as the mother is.

The mother's not legally bound if she doesn't want to. this has been covered numerous times in this thread.

go figure... modern feminazism, people..

And your point is?

There you have it. Sy admits to being a feminazi who spits on all true feminists stand for.

 

[Madeline]

I make no suggestions that a woman owns any man nor a man owns a woman. Make no mistake what i am saying.

Because he joined in a gangbang at a party, she owns his money which he earns through his labour. She therefore owns him for such time as his labour serves only to reward a woman who refuses to take responsibility for her own decisions. That is what you keep advocating.

Jesus H. Christ, now every woman with an unintended pregnancy is a slut who pulled a train for cash? And your males are just innocent bystanders in this debacle, I assume?

Someone hates women.

There are two issues. Men have no say or rights over a woman's body. If a baby is the outcome then the father is legally bound to support the child just as the mother is.

The mother's not legally bound if she doesn't want to. this has been covered numerous times in this thread.

The existence of abandonment laws in this country -- and they do not exist in all 50 states -- are intended to reduce the incidence of infanticide. There's some controversy as to whether they do so, and no one suggests they are 100% effective. Unless of course, infanticide is of no concern to you, seems to me we all have a stake in the safety of infants.

go figure... modern feminazism, people..

And your point is?

There you have it. Sy admits to being a feminazi who spits on all true feminists stand for.

I wonder what feminist literature you have been reading that advocates infants should have no rights paternal financial support apart from what is willingly given? Apparently in addition to your hatred of women, you also hate babies.

You seem to think our choices are between the unwanted infant's rights to support it needs to survive and the unintended father's rights to avoid paying.

No problem....the infant comes first.

 

[Ravi]

I make no suggestions that a woman owns any man nor a man owns a woman. Make no mistake what i am saying.

Because he joined in a gangbang at a party, she owns his money which he earns through his labour. She therefore owns him for such time as his labour serves only to reward a woman who refuses to take responsibility for her own decisions. That is what you keep advocating.

There are two issues. Men have no say or rights over a woman's body. If a baby is the outcome then the father is legally bound to support the child just as the mother is.

The mother's not legally bound if she doesn't want to. this has been covered numerous times in this thread.

go figure... modern feminazism, people..

And your point is?

There you have it. Sy admits to being a feminazi who spits on all true feminists stand for.

Dishonest idiot.

 

[syrenn]

Because he joined in a gangbang at a party, she owns his money which he earns through his labour. She therefore owns him for such time as his labour serves only to reward a woman who refuses to take responsibility for her own decisions. That is what you keep advocating

Wrong JB. If said father is DNA proven to be the child's father then he owes the child his hard earned money not the woman. If he didn't want to put himself in that postilion then he should have kept his sperm to himself.

now to mention a gang bang without wearing a condom!

The mother's not legally bound if she doesn't want to. this has been covered numerous times in this thread.

If she keeps the baby she AND the father are legally bound to care for it. If she aborts it or gives it up for adoption then BOTH are off the hook.

There you have it. Sy admits to being a feminazi who spits on all true feminists stand for.

And what is it that i am spitting on?

 

[JBeukema]

I wonder what feminist literature you have been reading

The real stuff. First and Second Wave and those who remember the real aims of feminism, not as a distinct movement unto itself, but as part of the broad civil rights movement and march towards egalitarianism and socioeconomic and political equality for all.

You seem to think our choices are between the unwanted infant's rights to support it needs to survive and the unintended father's rights to avoid paying.

No problem....the infant comes first.

So women shouldn't be able to put a child up for adoption?

 

[JBeukema]

If she keeps the baby she AND the father are legally bound to care for it. If she aborts it or gives it up for adoption then BOTH are off the hook.

And that's all you feminazis want: for women to have all the power. You don't carea bout the children; they're simply tools for you to use to achieve your own aims.

 

[Ravi]

I wonder what feminist literature you have been reading

The real stuff. First and Second Wave and those who remember the real aims of feminism, not as a distinct movement unto itself, but as part of the broad civil rights movement and march towards egalitarianism and socioeconomic and political equality for all.

How exactly is making both parents responsible financially for a living child a movement away from socioeconomic and political equality for all?

 

[Ravi]

If she keeps the baby she AND the father are legally bound to care for it. If she aborts it or gives it up for adoption then BOTH are off the hook.

And that's all you feminazis want: for women to have all the power. You don't carea bout the children; they're simply tools for you to use to achieve your own aims.

You are being ridiculous. While I do not agree with Syrenn that a parent that doesn't want to parent should be forced to do so (imo, bad for the kid in the long run) she is putting the concern where it belongs: A living, breathing, child. You are in reality only concerned with one thing...allowing the male half of the equation to shirk any responsibility.

So what is your solution, exactly?

 

[JBeukema]

You don't want both parents to be responsible. You, Sy, and Mad have attacked women like Pixie who do. You want to woman to have all the power and say. You want the woman to be able to opt out at any time while the man is punished for penetrating her by surrendering his liberty and rights for the next 18-22 years if the woman chooses to use the child as a weapon against him and deny him the opportunity which she has, to go on with his life. That it is the difference between real feminism and this neofeminst crap you settle. You're the Al Sharptons of feminism; you want to invert, not abolish historical inequalities. You want revenge, not justice.