Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Because his responsibilty is to the child. Not the mother. If the child exists, the obligation to the child exists.
With that obligation for mother and father always being equal. Either they both of that obligation, nor neither do.
The mother can decide to not be responsible for the child, via the abortion.
In which case neither she nor the man are responsible for the child. Their obligation is always equal.
Again, if true equality between the sexes is desired, why does a woman have that ability, and not a man?
Because he's not carrying the child. If he wishes to carry the child, he gets that choice for his own body. If she's the one carrying the child, she gets to make that choice for her own body
Do women need some sort of special protection?
From a man MAKING her carry a child or MAKING her abort?
Nope. She is the one that gets to control the use of her own body. Just as the man is the one that gets to control his.
Their control over their own bodies are equal. Just as their obligation is equal. Either they are both responsible, or neither are.
Then she has more rights than he has. If we pass an ERA and sex cannot be a decider in laws, that would not be possible.
She has the same rights that he has: the right to control the use of her own body.
When it comes to law, biology should have nothing to do with it, or isn't that what progressives keep telling us?
He isn't in control of his own "body" if he can't get out of parenthood and the woman can.
Says you, pretending you know a thing about the law. Again, the legislatures of 50 of 50 states have rejected your pseudo-legal gibberish. What's more likely.....that *every* legislature of *every* state doesn't understnad how the law works....
.....or you don't.
You're demanding unequal obligation where a woman is responsible for every child she bears but a man never has to take responsibility for any child he sires.
No.
Is that it?
And plenty of legislatures thought Jim Crow laws were just dandy. Appealing to authority isn't going to work here.
The woman can abort each fetus as she see's fit. She still has control.
What you are asking for is equality without equality. With only men being held responsible for their sexuality without escape.
So basically you are admitting women need special protections, right?
The mother can decide to not be responsible for the child, via the abortion.
In which case neither she nor the man are responsible for the child. Their obligation is always equal.
Again, if true equality between the sexes is desired, why does a woman have that ability, and not a man?
Because he's not carrying the child. If he wishes to carry the child, he gets that choice for his own body. If she's the one carrying the child, she gets to make that choice for her own body
Do women need some sort of special protection?
From a man MAKING her carry a child or MAKING her abort?
Nope. She is the one that gets to control the use of her own body. Just as the man is the one that gets to control his.
Their control over their own bodies are equal. Just as their obligation is equal. Either they are both responsible, or neither are.
Then she has more rights than he has. If we pass an ERA and sex cannot be a decider in laws, that would not be possible.
She has the same rights that he has: the right to control the use of her own body.
When it comes to law, biology should have nothing to do with it, or isn't that what progressives keep telling us?
He isn't in control of his own "body" if he can't get out of parenthood and the woman can.
Says you, pretending you know a thing about the law. Again, the legislatures of 50 of 50 states have rejected your pseudo-legal gibberish. What's more likely.....that *every* legislature of *every* state doesn't understnad how the law works....
.....or you don't.
You're demanding unequal obligation where a woman is responsible for every child she bears but a man never has to take responsibility for any child he sires.
No.
Is that it?
And plenty of legislatures thought Jim Crow laws were just dandy. Appealing to authority isn't going to work here.
The woman can abort each fetus as she see's fit. She still has control.
What you are asking for is equality without equality. With only men being held responsible for their sexuality without escape.
So basically you are admitting women need special protections, right?
No special protections. Merely the *same* protections: control over the use of their own bodies.
You're demanding unequal obligation, where a woman is responsible for every child she bears but a father is not responsible for any child he sires.
Nope. We will continue with equal rights to control of one's own body and equal obligation for one's children.
G I don’t know? Could it be because men don’t get pregnant?Which does nothing to change the fact that right now there is a legal imbalance. Women can discard of an unwanted pregnancy, both legally and physically, and men cannot. (legally)
One would think this was obvious. But apparently we have to hold their hands and walk them through the process of where baby's come from.
You are confusing biology with legality.
As the laws of 50 of 50 States demonstrate eleganlty....the confusion is yours. As legality sits on one side of this issue exclusively. Not yours.
Every state recognizes that a man and woman have equal obligation for their own children.
As it should be.
More appeal to authority, and when and if an ERA amendment passes, if poorly written those laws would become moot.
it's not a question of obligation, its a question of only one having a legal "out" if they don't want a child after sex resulting in a pregnancy.
In which case neither she nor the man are responsible for the child. Their obligation is always equal.
Because he's not carrying the child. If he wishes to carry the child, he gets that choice for his own body. If she's the one carrying the child, she gets to make that choice for her own body
From a man MAKING her carry a child or MAKING her abort?
Nope. She is the one that gets to control the use of her own body. Just as the man is the one that gets to control his.
Their control over their own bodies are equal. Just as their obligation is equal. Either they are both responsible, or neither are.
Then she has more rights than he has. If we pass an ERA and sex cannot be a decider in laws, that would not be possible.
She has the same rights that he has: the right to control the use of her own body.
When it comes to law, biology should have nothing to do with it, or isn't that what progressives keep telling us?
He isn't in control of his own "body" if he can't get out of parenthood and the woman can.
Says you, pretending you know a thing about the law. Again, the legislatures of 50 of 50 states have rejected your pseudo-legal gibberish. What's more likely.....that *every* legislature of *every* state doesn't understnad how the law works....
.....or you don't.
You're demanding unequal obligation where a woman is responsible for every child she bears but a man never has to take responsibility for any child he sires.
No.
Is that it?
And plenty of legislatures thought Jim Crow laws were just dandy. Appealing to authority isn't going to work here.
The woman can abort each fetus as she see's fit. She still has control.
What you are asking for is equality without equality. With only men being held responsible for their sexuality without escape.
So basically you are admitting women need special protections, right?
No special protections. Merely the *same* protections: control over the use of their own bodies.
You're demanding unequal obligation, where a woman is responsible for every child she bears but a father is not responsible for any child he sires.
Nope. We will continue with equal rights to control of one's own body and equal obligation for one's children.
No, I am not, you are the one demanding unequal protections.
G I don’t know? Could it be because men don’t get pregnant?
One would think this was obvious. But apparently we have to hold their hands and walk them through the process of where baby's come from.
You are confusing biology with legality.
As the laws of 50 of 50 States demonstrate eleganlty....the confusion is yours. As legality sits on one side of this issue exclusively. Not yours.
Every state recognizes that a man and woman have equal obligation for their own children.
As it should be.
More appeal to authority, and when and if an ERA amendment passes, if poorly written those laws would become moot.
Says the soul that just appealed to the authority of 'legality'. Defined by you of course.
I'll stick with legality as defined by 50 of 50 States. As the legislatures are embued by the the people to make law. And you're nobody.
Is this really it? Just your standard sctick of demanding that we ignore the law and every legal principle and accept your personal opinion as the law?
You're quite the one trick pony, Marty.
it's not a question of obligation, its a question of only one having a legal "out" if they don't want a child after sex resulting in a pregnancy.
Of course its a question of obligation. If the child exists, the obligation exists for both parents. If the child doesn't exist, no obligation exists for either parents.
The obligation is equal. And at no point can the mother saddle the father with an obligation that she doesn't also bear.
Parents are responsible for their children. You're insisting that men should never have to be.
Nope.
Then she has more rights than he has. If we pass an ERA and sex cannot be a decider in laws, that would not be possible.
She has the same rights that he has: the right to control the use of her own body.
When it comes to law, biology should have nothing to do with it, or isn't that what progressives keep telling us?
He isn't in control of his own "body" if he can't get out of parenthood and the woman can.
Says you, pretending you know a thing about the law. Again, the legislatures of 50 of 50 states have rejected your pseudo-legal gibberish. What's more likely.....that *every* legislature of *every* state doesn't understnad how the law works....
.....or you don't.
You're demanding unequal obligation where a woman is responsible for every child she bears but a man never has to take responsibility for any child he sires.
No.
Is that it?
And plenty of legislatures thought Jim Crow laws were just dandy. Appealing to authority isn't going to work here.
The woman can abort each fetus as she see's fit. She still has control.
What you are asking for is equality without equality. With only men being held responsible for their sexuality without escape.
So basically you are admitting women need special protections, right?
No special protections. Merely the *same* protections: control over the use of their own bodies.
You're demanding unequal obligation, where a woman is responsible for every child she bears but a father is not responsible for any child he sires.
Nope. We will continue with equal rights to control of one's own body and equal obligation for one's children.
No, I am not, you are the one demanding unequal protections.
Of course you're demanding legal inequality. You're demanding that a woman be responsible for every child she bears but a man never has to take responsibility for any child he fathers.
Nope. Your pseudo-legal gibberish is rejected universally by every state in the Union. And for good reason. As the obligation isn't to the mother....its to the child.
If the child exist, the obligation exists. Your entire nonsense demand is debunked by the simple fact that children are responsible for their own children.
One would think this was obvious. But apparently we have to hold their hands and walk them through the process of where baby's come from.
You are confusing biology with legality.
As the laws of 50 of 50 States demonstrate eleganlty....the confusion is yours. As legality sits on one side of this issue exclusively. Not yours.
Every state recognizes that a man and woman have equal obligation for their own children.
As it should be.
More appeal to authority, and when and if an ERA amendment passes, if poorly written those laws would become moot.
Says the soul that just appealed to the authority of 'legality'. Defined by you of course.
I'll stick with legality as defined by 50 of 50 States. As the legislatures are embued by the the people to make law. And you're nobody.
Is this really it? Just your standard sctick of demanding that we ignore the law and every legal principle and accept your personal opinion as the law?
You're quite the one trick pony, Marty.
it's not a question of obligation, its a question of only one having a legal "out" if they don't want a child after sex resulting in a pregnancy.
Of course its a question of obligation. If the child exists, the obligation exists for both parents. If the child doesn't exist, no obligation exists for either parents.
The obligation is equal. And at no point can the mother saddle the father with an obligation that she doesn't also bear.
Parents are responsible for their children. You're insisting that men should never have to be.
Nope.
You run to the warm comfort of established law because you an unable to see the actual question and debate.
She has the same rights that he has: the right to control the use of her own body.
Says you, pretending you know a thing about the law. Again, the legislatures of 50 of 50 states have rejected your pseudo-legal gibberish. What's more likely.....that *every* legislature of *every* state doesn't understnad how the law works....
.....or you don't.
You're demanding unequal obligation where a woman is responsible for every child she bears but a man never has to take responsibility for any child he sires.
No.
Is that it?
And plenty of legislatures thought Jim Crow laws were just dandy. Appealing to authority isn't going to work here.
The woman can abort each fetus as she see's fit. She still has control.
What you are asking for is equality without equality. With only men being held responsible for their sexuality without escape.
So basically you are admitting women need special protections, right?
No special protections. Merely the *same* protections: control over the use of their own bodies.
You're demanding unequal obligation, where a woman is responsible for every child she bears but a father is not responsible for any child he sires.
Nope. We will continue with equal rights to control of one's own body and equal obligation for one's children.
No, I am not, you are the one demanding unequal protections.
Of course you're demanding legal inequality. You're demanding that a woman be responsible for every child she bears but a man never has to take responsibility for any child he fathers.
Nope. Your pseudo-legal gibberish is rejected universally by every state in the Union. And for good reason. As the obligation isn't to the mother....its to the child.
If the child exist, the obligation exists. Your entire nonsense demand is debunked by the simple fact that children are responsible for their own children.
Now you are not making any sense, and you have lost the ability to use the quote function properly.
abortions. No rights even if the male is married to the female and wants a baby. A women should make it known to men that she is not ready or doesn't' want kids before marriage and a women has a choice to change her mind anytime she wants.
abortions. No rights even if the male is married to the female and wants a baby. A women should make it known to men that she is not ready or doesn't' want kids before marriage and a women has a choice to change her mind anytime she wants.
Penny, do you know who Donatien Alphonse François was? He was one of the first abortion activists of the Western world, who lived from 1740-1814. He believed—and wrote thousands of words about—the inherent, natural right of men to take pleasure from inflicting sexual violence on women. Can you possibly understand, Penny, how his ancient words have trickled down from his era of French History, over the many decades since he wrote them, into American culture of the 1950's, and eventually, into your mind? Old Donatien Alphonse François also believed in abortion as a means of population control, and that mothers should have a right to kill even children who had already been born. This man, Penny, is the man whose savage ideas have deceived you into believing that the killing of the unborn is normal and moral. Further, he is the MAN who made you think women have the right do whatever they want while pregnant, to their developing child. No WOMAN came up with the idea. No, this man gave you permission to do it, he told you what you could and couldn't do with your own body, and apparently, you have no problem with that.
And Penny, this man I've spoken about with you above? He is also known by another name. A name which made him very famous and even more infamous to history. His other name, a title really, was The Marquis de Sade. You should look up the definitions of Sadism; Sadist; Sadistic. Do any of those definitions describe you?
And most of what you've experienced and believe is what you wanted to see because so many people have told you that this is so.
That’s a somewhat fair assessment. Probably not quite as much with me as others, but I totally understand where you’re coming from.
I’ll reiterate what I said before... if there’s nothing beyond this I’d have been off dying in infancy because pleasure and fun were never my lot in this life.
Well, each person seems to be set with different aims in life, view different things as important.
Where I see things from is that people should be able to make those decisions for themselves without imposing themselves on others.
abortions. No rights even if the male is married to the female and wants a baby. A women should make it known to men that she is not ready or doesn't' want kids before marriage and a women has a choice to change her mind anytime she wants.
Penny, do you know who Donatien Alphonse François was? He was one of the first abortion activists of the Western world, who lived from 1740-1814. He believed—and wrote thousands of words about—the inherent, natural right of men to take pleasure from inflicting sexual violence on women. Can you possibly understand, Penny, how his ancient words have trickled down from his era of French History, over the many decades since he wrote them, into American culture of the 1950's, and eventually, into your mind? Old Donatien Alphonse François also believed in abortion as a means of population control, and that mothers should have a right to kill even children who had already been born. This man, Penny, is the man whose savage ideas have deceived you into believing that the killing of the unborn is normal and moral. Further, he is the MAN who made you think women have the right do whatever they want while pregnant, to their developing child. No WOMAN came up with the idea. No, this man gave you permission to do it, he told you what you could and couldn't do with your own body, and apparently, you have no problem with that.
And Penny, this man I've spoken about with you above? He is also known by another name. A name which made him very famous and even more infamous to history. His other name, a title really, was The Marquis de Sade. You should look up the definitions of Sadism; Sadist; Sadistic. Do any of those definitions describe you?
Well, each person seems to be set with different aims in life, view different things as important.
Where I see things from is that people should be able to make those decisions for themselves without imposing themselves on others.
I truly believe there need to be at least limits on how far those choices can go in certain directions. Kinda like those blow up fillers they put in the gutters of bowling alleys for kids - to help them stay on the right path. Otherwise Society collapses on itself, as we’re seeing.
You men can avoid both with a good quality condom.
Limits are essential. Though how far should those limits go?
Fascism to Anarchy.... where is the line? People have different views on that.
You are confusing biology with legality.
As the laws of 50 of 50 States demonstrate eleganlty....the confusion is yours. As legality sits on one side of this issue exclusively. Not yours.
Every state recognizes that a man and woman have equal obligation for their own children.
As it should be.
More appeal to authority, and when and if an ERA amendment passes, if poorly written those laws would become moot.
Says the soul that just appealed to the authority of 'legality'. Defined by you of course.
I'll stick with legality as defined by 50 of 50 States. As the legislatures are embued by the the people to make law. And you're nobody.
Is this really it? Just your standard sctick of demanding that we ignore the law and every legal principle and accept your personal opinion as the law?
You're quite the one trick pony, Marty.
it's not a question of obligation, its a question of only one having a legal "out" if they don't want a child after sex resulting in a pregnancy.
Of course its a question of obligation. If the child exists, the obligation exists for both parents. If the child doesn't exist, no obligation exists for either parents.
The obligation is equal. And at no point can the mother saddle the father with an obligation that she doesn't also bear.
Parents are responsible for their children. You're insisting that men should never have to be.
Nope.
You run to the warm comfort of established law because you an unable to see the actual question and debate.
In comparison to what? You demanding that YOU define 'legality'?
Sorry, but the moment you cited 'legality', you lost. As the law is firmly on one side of this issue. With every State has rejected your nonsense without exception.
Is your standard plea that we accept your imagination as the law really all you have?
If so, that was easy.
And plenty of legislatures thought Jim Crow laws were just dandy. Appealing to authority isn't going to work here.
The woman can abort each fetus as she see's fit. She still has control.
What you are asking for is equality without equality. With only men being held responsible for their sexuality without escape.
So basically you are admitting women need special protections, right?
No special protections. Merely the *same* protections: control over the use of their own bodies.
You're demanding unequal obligation, where a woman is responsible for every child she bears but a father is not responsible for any child he sires.
Nope. We will continue with equal rights to control of one's own body and equal obligation for one's children.
No, I am not, you are the one demanding unequal protections.
Of course you're demanding legal inequality. You're demanding that a woman be responsible for every child she bears but a man never has to take responsibility for any child he fathers.
Nope. Your pseudo-legal gibberish is rejected universally by every state in the Union. And for good reason. As the obligation isn't to the mother....its to the child.
If the child exist, the obligation exists. Your entire nonsense demand is debunked by the simple fact that children are responsible for their own children.
Now you are not making any sense, and you have lost the ability to use the quote function properly.
Here's the post again, for the cheap seats.
Of course you're demanding legal inequality. You're demanding that a woman be responsible for every child she bears but a man never has to take responsibility for any child he fathers.
Nope. Your pseudo-legal gibberish is rejected universally by every state in the Union. And for good reason. As the obligation isn't to the mother....its to the child.
If the child exist, the obligation exists. Your entire nonsense demand is debunked by the simple fact that parents are responsible for their own children.
