Court rejects 'Roe v. Wade for Men'

**uscitizen** · 11-12-2007, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Demosthenes

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

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

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

***Damocles*** · 11-12-2007, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Darla

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

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

Or incubated ex-utero.

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

**Demosthenes** · 11-12-2007, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by LadyT

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

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

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

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

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

4. What about smoking bans on private property?

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

6. Assisted suicide?

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

**Bonestorm** · 11-12-2007, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Demosthenes

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

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

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

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

4. What about smoking bans on private property?

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

6. Assisted suicide?

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

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

**LadyT** · 11-12-2007, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Demosthenes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I support individual dominion over one's own body.

4. What about smoking bans on private property?

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

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

Depends on the drug.

6. Assisted suicide?

I support individual dominion over one's own body.

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

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

**FUCK THE POLICE** · 11-12-2007, 05:08 PM

WHY DO YOU WANT TO KILL BABIES LADYT?1!?!

**LadyT** · 11-12-2007, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Watermark

WHY DO YOU WANT TO KILL BABIES LADYT?1!?!

Just the ones below the Mason Dixon line.

**FUCK THE POLICE** · 11-12-2007, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by LadyT

Just the ones below the Mason Dixon line.

Why don't you think women in the north should have control over their own bodies?

**LadyT** · 11-12-2007, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by Watermark

Why don't you think women in the north should have control over their own bodies?

That has nothing to do with my war on children in the south now does it?

**Cancel7** · 11-13-2007, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by LadyT

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

LOL

I'm starting to suspect that Damo has been advertising in adult special ed schools. Look, let's face it, that's where SR originally found Top. I think Damo figured, why not?

**Blackwater Lunchbreak** · 11-13-2007, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by LadyT

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

you're the one who wants to evacuate babies from their wombs.

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

You can't have it both ways. You can't take a man's money if you decide to keep it, but then still have the right to flush it even if the father wants it.

In this day of equal rights, anti-male domestic law must be disposed of. It is wrong for women to transform men into cash machines with the help of the state.

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

It's still wrong to use government to steal from men. if you want his money, you have to figure out how to keep him around of his own free will. Probably sucking him off a lot would work.

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

That's the same pschosis which has ruined sex ed in schools. Sex isn't about parenting and procreation, it's about condoms and homosexuality right?

I support individual dominion over one's own body.

Now you just need to support a man's dominion over his own cash.

**Connecticut Stud** · 11-13-2007, 06:28 AM

So lady T do you want sperm doners to pay child support too?? LOL

**Blackwater Lunchbreak** · 11-13-2007, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by Connecticut Stud

So lady T do you want sperm doners to pay child support too?? LOL

OF course she does. She's a statist fascist man hater.

**Robdawg** · 11-13-2007, 08:05 AM

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

I laughed out loud at this...

**LadyT** · 11-13-2007, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by AssHatZombie

you're the one who wants to evacuate babies from their wombs.

Right that makes sense and is grounded in so much truth. I want abortions for everyone.

You can't have it both ways. You can't take a man's money if you decide to keep it, but then still have the right to flush it even if the father wants it.

Okay fine. How about this: If the fetus is aborted, the father can keep it. Is that a nice compromise?

In this day of equal rights, anti-male domestic law must be disposed of. It is wrong for women to transform men into cash machines with the help of the state.

In this day of equal rights, perhaps men should start carrying children to term. Its wrong for men to transform women into baby making machines always beign the only ones who can give birth. Its time for men to step up to the plate.

It's still wrong to use government to steal from men. if you want his money, you have to figure out how to keep him around of his own free will. Probably *&&^%$ lot would work.

Oh, that's classy. Is that what your mom taught you?

That's the same pschosis which has ruined ............
Now you just need to support a man's dominion over his own cash.

No. Its the global military industrial complex.