What about men's rights?

[Jeremiah]

...

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Jeremiah

Sure he's talking about the right case? Roe was about which trimester the pregnant woman was in, Casey was about viability and destroying the trimester test.

Well, the trimester test was based upon the concept of viability. In 1973, the 28 weeks was thought to be the timeframe for viability -- thus the trimester test. In 1992, when Casey was decided, medical science had progressed to the point where 22 weeks was thought to be the timeframe.

Either way, under Roe and the subsequent line of cases, including Casey, the test has become viability, and that means that the meaningfulness of the constitutional "right" to abortion will continue to change as science progresses.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by sixeightmkw

It is weird how Roe vs Wade says that fetus' are not human for the purpose of aborting them, but legislation passed says other words. Per Wikipedia:
Quote"Since the 1970s in the United States, there has been continuing debate over the "personhood" of the fetus before birth, generally in the context of the argument over abortion, which is currently legal in the United States following the case of Roe v. Wade.

According to legislation which passed the US Senate in March 2004, an unborn child is defined as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb and who is injured or killed during the commission of a federal crime of violence..". (Unborn Victims of Violence Act, April 2004)Quote"

It isn't weird at all. It is aspecific effort to provide a "back-door" to roe v wade by legally defining a fetus as a person in another context so there will be a way to challenge the fact that fetuses aren't considered human in the abortion debate.

its all inter-related

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Did you read the article I posted above?

Science may soon render Roe v. Wade into a meaningless decision. If science can keep a child alive from the moment of conception (and it appears that things are headed that way), then that child is "viable", and the states have the right to regulate whether an abortion of that child would be permissible.

I did read it, and found it VERY interesting. That sort of tech would certainly go a LONG way to changing the moral concesus on when a fetus becomes "human", but it hasn't happened yet.

It is clear that you think a fetus becomes human at conception (and I agree), but do you think that is the concensus viewpoint amongst Americans? I don't.


Of couse even if science makes it so that fetuses are viable from conception, there will still be the issue of mandating a mother submit to a potentially dangerous operation to safely remove the fetus to the new wonder technology. Further, at this point women are generally unable to deliver future babies through "natural" childbirth once they've had a c-section. These are not trivialities-- there are several technologies that will have to be perfected before this becomes THE clear alternative to abortion.

[sixeightmkw]

It seems to me to come down to common sense vs. technology.

side note:
Any one know the very first case of abortion, I guess legalized abortion, and why the woman terminated the pregnacy? And alos, why do they use the word terminate when technically speaking, they can't terminate something that isn't alive. Just some random thoughts.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by sixeightmkw

It seems to me to come down to common sense vs. technology.

side note:
Any one know the very first case of abortion, I guess legalized abortion, and why the woman terminated the pregnacy? And alos, why do they use the word terminate when technically speaking, they can't terminate something that isn't alive. Just some random thoughts.

...probably occurred because the woman was simply celebrating her rights while dancing on those of the man's...and dancing on the baby's grave all at the same time.

[sixeightmkw]

WOW, HSO>

[Jeremiah]

...

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by sixeightmkw

It seems to me to come down to common sense vs. technology.

side note:
Any one know the very first case of abortion, I guess legalized abortion, and why the woman terminated the pregnacy? And alos, why do they use the word terminate when technically speaking, they can't terminate something that isn't alive. Just some random thoughts.

Nobody ever said a fetus wasn't alive. A sperm and an ovum are alive as well. You can also teminate LOTS of things that aren't alive: an exercise regemin, a hired position, or an argument.



the problem with common sense is it is NEVER common, nor agreed upon

[Jeremiah]

...

[dude1394]

Sounds like false advertising to me... He's got a case, how interesting.

There needs to be a way to make sure that all dollars only go to the child, but pretty tough when someone has to be responsible as the child shouldn't suffer.

Adoption might be the best answer.

[GermanBlitzkrieg]

To all young men here:

Dude1394 represents the brainwashing you all have gone through. What I mean by this is "as the child shouldn't suffer." It's OK for abortion, or for a woman to CHOOSE adoption, or just leave child at a fire station, and aborgate ALL parental and FINANCIAL responsibility, but a man should not have a choice AT ALL? Bound for 18 years on penalty of PRISON on the whelm of the woman?

My point is, you are being discriminated against most aggrieviously, and ther is no sense of irritation or real concern in your response. However, I congratulate you for being rational, and seeing the truth even if it shows a lack of real concern.

Adoption is the only fair choice in this case, just as in all similar cases. Or she can choose to raise the child herself. ANY OTHER DECISION is discrimination and unfair, and even illegal, regardless of what some pinhead judge (or judges) might say. Other rulings have pointed out the "uniqueness" of the woman during pregnancy, but the equality of the men and women after birth. It's just that these cases FAVORED the women involved.

ALL men should be trying to make this clear to others. Your lives are on the line.

Either that, or women should not have the choice to aborgate thier responsibilities.

And for some here, this may become the most important information on this board.

[Five-ofan]

I dont think women should have the right to abort either BUT if a guy gets someone pregnant, the kid is his responsibility. He does need to have to take care of the kid unless the kid is given up for adoption. I have no problem with that. Im 20 and a college kid that couldnt afford or take care of a kid so you know what? Im not gonna have a freakin kid. Its not that damn difficult to prevent yourself from having one. If you end up with a kid you didnt want/cant care for, you have already proved yourself irresponsible so giving it up for adoption is probably the best option but men shouldnt have the right to just abandon financial support for their kids.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by GermanBlitzkrieg

To all young men here:

Dude1394 represents the brainwashing you all have gone through. What I mean by this is "as the child shouldn't suffer." It's OK for abortion, or for a woman to CHOOSE adoption, or just leave child at a fire station, and aborgate ALL parental and FINANCIAL responsibility, but a man should not have a choice AT ALL? Bound for 18 years on penalty of PRISON on the whelm of the woman?

My point is, you are being discriminated against most aggrieviously, and ther is no sense of irritation or real concern in your response. However, I congratulate you for being rational, and seeing the truth even if it shows a lack of real concern.

Adoption is the only fair choice in this case, just as in all similar cases. Or she can choose to raise the child herself. ANY OTHER DECISION is discrimination and unfair, and even illegal, regardless of what some pinhead judge (or judges) might say. Other rulings have pointed out the "uniqueness" of the woman during pregnancy, but the equality of the men and women after birth. It's just that these cases FAVORED the women involved.

ALL men should be trying to make this clear to others. Your lives are on the line.

Either that, or women should not have the choice to aborgate thier responsibilities.

And for some here, this may become the most important information on this board.

It's "abrogate."

Interesting take, though.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

I dont think women should have the right to abort either BUT if a guy gets someone pregnant, the kid is his responsibility. He does need to have to take care of the kid unless the kid is given up for adoption. I have no problem with that. Im 20 and a college kid that couldnt afford or take care of a kid so you know what? Im not gonna have a freakin kid. Its not that damn difficult to prevent yourself from having one. If you end up with a kid you didnt want/cant care for, you have already proved yourself irresponsible so giving it up for adoption is probably the best option but men shouldnt have the right to just abandon financial support for their kids.

I can buy this... But, from the other side of things.. Women shouldn't have the right to abort without the man's consent... They should be charged with murder... I'll get the wet sponge..

[Jeremiah]

...

[Murphy3]

I will be one day...

[Drbio]

A vote for murph is a vote for you.....

[GermanBlitzkrieg]

Five-O, what crap! Your girlfriend can either: a) abort, b) adopt out, c) drop at fire station, d) drop at police station, e) drop at hospital, f) keep the baby and have daddy pay child support, g) old fashioned, and unheard of, get married and keep the kid.

YOU can: a) pay support, b) get married (if SHE decides to), c) go to jail.

Get a clue. That's not freedom and equality. That's slavery. Morally a man should support thier child, BUT MORALLY A WOMAN SHOULD TOO.

Only is the man held hostage BY LAW.

I find it amusing in a world where so many women define Roe vs. Wade as sacrosanct, that so many young men want to keep the status quo.

This problem affects everybody. I'll discuss how later.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by GermanBlitzkrieg

Five-O, what crap! Your girlfriend can either: a) abort, b) adopt out, c) drop at fire station, d) drop at police station, e) drop at hospital, f) keep the baby and have daddy pay child support, g) old fashioned, and unheard of, get married and keep the kid.

YOU can: a) pay support, b) get married (if SHE decides to), c) go to jail.

Get a clue. That's not freedom and equality. That's slavery. Morally a man should support thier child, BUT MORALLY A WOMAN SHOULD TOO.

Only is the man held hostage BY LAW.

I find it amusing in a world where so many women define Roe vs. Wade as sacrosanct, that so many young men want to keep the status quo.

This problem affects everybody. I'll discuss how later.

Hey tough titties...Stuff happens. You got randy and you and girlfriend made baby. Now I would entertain some mechanism of limiting the amount of support for baby, but bringing up a kiddo is hard work budda'. Even if you bring 'em up badly it's hard work.

So keeping the baby(which is a good) just to get child support is not exactly a great deal. Adoption sounds like a better solution, but that lady isn't getting some sort of joyride to heaven here.

So if you want to change it, make the woman morally BY LAW responsible as well.

Bottom line is baby didn't do a damn thing but get born, just because you and sweetie-pie don't like it, tough.

[Hitman]

Murph -- Couldn't agree more.

[Drbio]

Seems like this issue might invoke passionate responses or something.

[GermanBlitzkrieg]

The disintegration of Men's Rights continues...

http://www.times-news.com/opinion/lo...171102856.html

[Five-ofan]

Look i dont think that women should have the right to abortion or to just leave the kid somewhere BUT as they tell you in kindergarden two wrongs dont make a right. just because women can do things they shouldnt be able to doesnt mean men should be able to do the wrong thing either. Flat out you can prevent yourself from having the kid if you are the guy. Obviously so can the woman but acting like just because women arent held completely responsible for their children that men should just be able to walk away too is a horrible place to go. We live in an age where controceptives have reached the point to where if you dont want to have a kid you can pretty much be sure you wont have a kid. There was a time when it was either abstanace or take a chance on having a kid. Thankfully those days have passed and having a kid is entirely your fault if you want to assign blame like it is a mistake. As i said before im 20 years old and i cant afford nor do i have any will to have to care for a kid right now so im not gonna have a freakin kid. Its not that complicated.

Again i thoroughly disagree with abortion as i belief that it is purely murder but just because women get away with that doesnt mean men should be able to get out of their responsibilities and thats what it is btw a man's RESPONISBILITY, to take care of their kids.

[GermanBlitzkrieg]

My new link, Five-O, was about the government controlling your ability to even MEET foreign women, should you choose. Read the story. See the pattern, as more of your rights are trampled. At 20, you have NO IDEA what is going to happen to you. It's about equal rights, not responsibilities. If you want to support a child, go for it. Don't enslave others while women have all the choices. MAKE THE WOMEN RESPONSIBLE TOO!

I hope you feel so chilverous in 40 years: that will mean you had a very happy life.

[GermanBlitzkrieg]

The story:

Congress sabotages international marriage, romance for vets

Dave Root, Damascus

While we weren't looking Congress along with some extreme feminist groups used the "backdoor" to strip you of your right to choose whom you wish to date and marry by implementing the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA). The new law severely limits a man's ability to date and marry foreign women. These "International marriages" have lower divorce rates than the 50 percent average for all US citizens.

The new law will affect veterans and others - 60,000 marriages occur each year between veterans and foreign women. The stated purpose of the new law was to protect foreign immigrant women from violence stemming from a few unfortunate cases of foreign immigrant women who were abused by their husbands. Everyone agrees protecting women from violence is important, but IMBRA is a senseless law creating an "iron curtain" that actually increases violence against women.

The provisions of the new law are draconian, requiring clients of International marriage agencies ("marriage brokers") to provide sensitive background information (personal and criminal) to marriage brokers before sending love letters to foreign women. Since when are Americans required to provide documents just for the purpose of writing a love letter?

Another provision amends the application form for so-called "fiancŽe Visas" with numerous questions including: Whether or not the romance was arranged by an international broker and if the U.S. citizen has ever been accused of various crimes including alcohol offenses. IMBRA is a confusing bureaucratic nightmare.

Recently the Department of Homeland Security missed a deadline to revise the old petition forms, resulting in 10,000 "indefinite delays" trashing and destroying those marriages. Many of those affected by the recall are veterans. While these American servicemen have been fighting for their country, these extreme feminist groups made "backdoor" arrangements with YOUR legislators creating IMBRA and preventing them from marrying the person they love.

Proponents of IMBRA were unable to get much support for IMBRA when the law was introduced in 2003. Most legislators felt the controversial law was a severe impingement of men's privacy rights. The manner in which IMBRA passed was an atrocity reminiscent of the old Soviet Politburo, being passed by an undemocratic voice vote with no debate, no questions answered and no violence statistics presented comparing violence rates. IMBRA reeks of political corruption and scandal on a massive level.

Ironically, the largest international dating agencies are exempt from IMBRA for suspicious reasons. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) desperately presented false and misleading testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 14, 2004 (falsely) claiming international marriage brokers were involved in human trafficking of women into the United States. A DOJ study had already concluded no such correlation.

Clients of IMBs are essentially a "politically unpopular group." The collective "mass psychological" behavior of human beings sometimes dictates totally irrational responses to events similar to mob anger mentality. Japanese Americans during World War II, a politically unpopular group, were placed in internment camps having done nothing wrong.

The proponents continue to use deception , distortion and exaggeration, all of which are a form of lying (political McCarthyism). They carefully engineer "one sided" media interviews with no opposing point of view.

IMBRA proponents sensationalize the three foreign immigrant women killed by American men in "mail order bride arrangements" in 10 years, masking the ugly American fact that 14,000 American women citizens have been killed by their intimate partner in the same time frame. The only problem with these "International marriages" is a false perception created by IMBRA proponents.

IMBRA is a violation of the rights of people living in America. People living everywhere should have the right to choose whom they marry without government interference. Fellow citizens, please contact your elected representatives and ask for repeal of The "International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005." Please contact your fellow veterans also.

[Five-ofan]

That is a terrible law. I think you misunderstand my point g_B. I dont disagree at all that the way laws are set up now are completely unfair to men. My point was that instead of making men less responsible in order to even things up we should make women more responsible. Regardless of that anyone who has a kid does have a responsibility to said child. If you cant handle that responsibility dont have the kid.

[vjz]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

The male should have rights to his sperm....

ROTFLMAO

Did you just say "right to his sperm"? This is the funniest thing I've ever read in a long time.

Are you seriously equating ejaculating a milligram of white fluid (which guys do *all* the time) to harboring, protecting, nurturing and growing a fucking living thing in the stomach for NINE months?!? Really? Seriously?

If you'd understand what a women goes thru every month (for 3-5 days) for 30+ years of her life, and for nine months for every child borne, you'd understand that the rights of a woman in this case is waaaaay more than the man.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by vjz

ROTFLMAO

Did you just say "right to his sperm"? This is the funniest thing I've ever read in a long time.

Are you seriously equating ejaculating a milligram of white fluid (which guys do *all* the time) to harboring, protecting, nurturing and growing a fucking living thing in the stomach for NINE months?!? Really? Seriously?

If you'd understand what a women goes thru every month (for 3-5 days) for 30+ years of her life, and for nine months for every child borne, you'd understand that the rights of a woman in this case is waaaaay more than the man.

I don't think Murph ever said it was the same. And there really isn't a fair answer to this (other than to simply outlaw abortion, of course). But Murph original point certainly is valid. The fact that a woman has the right to take away a man's baby without any recourse is quite sad.

I can't imagine the horror of wanting the child, and the woman deciding she doesn't, and there's nothing you can do about it.

[mavsman55]

When you terminate a pregnancy, you terminate a life. Why people can do this without guilt, let alone fight for people's rights to do it is beyond me. You liberals all act like a woman has no choice whether or not to get pregnant and is just given this baby out of thin air. If a woman is irresponsible enough to have unprotected sex when she can't afford a baby who doesn't want one, then how does it make sense to punish the baby by killing it?

People deserve life more than irresponsible mothers deserve convenience.

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by Drbio

I could be wrong, but I think in most cases it seems the child does not get to speak up about not being viciously ripped apart piece by piece by a vacuum placed in the womb. I'm guessing that if they did they might not appreciate it very much.

Well the Taco Bell I just got looks a lot less appetizing now.

[Five-ofan]

That is a good thing. This is a subject that should turn your stomach.

[bobatundi]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Your not being ignored but the majority of people who dont ignore logic are already against abortion.

That's a pretty bold statement, with very little grounding other than your own ideology behind it I suspect.

There are a great deal of logical reasons to support a woman's right to choose. And yes, it is a WOMAN's right to choose--not a man's, not the government's, not the pope's.

[bobatundi]

Originally Posted by mavsman55

When you terminate a pregnancy, you terminate a life. Why people can do this without guilt, let alone fight for people's rights to do it is beyond me. You liberals all act like a woman has no choice whether or not to get pregnant and is just given this baby out of thin air. If a woman is irresponsible enough to have unprotected sex when she can't afford a baby who doesn't want one, then how does it make sense to punish the baby by killing it?

People deserve life more than irresponsible mothers deserve convenience.

It's always so convenient to blame the woman, isn't it? It takes two people for someone to get pregnant.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by bobatundi

It's always so convenient to blame the woman, isn't it? It takes two people for someone to get pregnant.

You're the one supporting the woman's supposedly inalienable right to "choose," with no "man/government/pope" telling her what to do, so with that "right" comes additional burden as well. If she's so inclined to choose death for the kid, you just said you want it to be such that she and only she makes that decision. That's fine, but...

If the woman is the final authority on life or death for the child then she's the final bearer of all burdens associated with that decision.

Many people who support abortion like to believe that life begins at birth, so if birth never occurs, how can one be a father of nothing? No blame.

If she lets the kid live, she can at least attempt to chase down the baby-daddy for child support for 18 years.

The father enters the picture legally, in your scenario, when the kid is born. Not before.

I oppose this view. I don't support abortion "rights," and I think if you're gonna get a girl pregnant, you damn well better be ready to call yourself a daddy. But that's not the reality of the situation in a society that allows abortions. This isn't some creation of a vast right-wing conspiracy - remember, us right wing "extremists" kinda like the idea of two parents taking responsibility for a child from the moment of, or even prior to, conception.

This is the way the abortion rights movement has set it up - for the mother to have absolute say in all matters. Playing God has its drawbacks....

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by bobatundi

That's a pretty bold statement, with very little grounding other than your own ideology behind it I suspect.

There are a great deal of logical reasons to support a woman's right to choose. And yes, it is a WOMAN's right to choose--not a man's, not the government's, not the pope's.

The bolded statement above is no less a groundless statement based on your ideology than Five-o's was based on his.

Can you support the idea that it's a right? To me, a right is an inalienable personal liberty of which the exercise does not prevent someone else's rights from being exercised. You can't violate my rights by enjoying one of yours. That makes it a liberty that you are not allowed by law to take in that circumstance because doing so violates my rights.

In my view, one of those liberties is control over your own body. You've got it until you invite the possibility of allowing another human organism to take root inside it. That human has the same rights as you, especially if you're a liberal and you supposedly have a higher respect for these rights than do we meanie conservatives.

Right now, the law supports the privilege of a woman to end a pregnancy in the first trimester having already made the earlier choices that made that pregnancy possible. Depending upon which state she lives in, of course. And let's not dirty the waters just yet regarding medical exceptions or non-consensual sex - those are certainly up for debate, but you are currently supporting a privilege to choose and claiming it's a right.

My point is that exercising that privilege ends the life of a human being. Call it whatever helps desensitize you, but it's a being, it's human, made up of DNA, and it's living in a scientific sense that it accepts nutrients from outside itself and develops as a result.

We respect the right of all human beings to life. The liberties we have in this country are broad and we believe them to be inherent (self-evident?), but we have laws that prevent us from exercising them such a way that it ends the life of another human being.

The real question ALWAYS gets down to what do you believe makes a human being a human being, but nobody wants to ask themselves that. They all want to make it an us vs. them, lib vs. conservative, men vs. women, old vs. new, church vs. atheist argument, because those are easy and we get to choose sides and wave pitchforks.

I just think we oughta let babies live, make an easy compromise by opting to save the lives of pregnant mothers in medical danger, and work on some harder-to-come-by compromises on non-consensual conceptions and morning after pills.

Rather than screaming about rights.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by bobatundi

It's always so convenient to blame the woman, isn't it? It takes two people for someone to get pregnant.

but only one to kill. Which, I think, was the point of the thread.
Men get screwed on both questions of death (no say in whether the baby lives or dies)
and questions of life (there is a severe disadvantage in family court for possessing a penis. I think a mother in Texas can inform a father 20 years after the fact about a child, and sue for back child support.)

[bobatundi]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

The bolded statement above is no less a groundless statement based on your ideology than Five-o's was based on his.

Can you support the idea that it's a right? To me, a right is an inalienable personal liberty of which the exercise does not prevent someone else's rights from being exercised. You can't violate my rights by enjoying one of yours. That makes it a liberty that you are not allowed by law to take in that circumstance because doing so violates my rights.

How does a woman choosing an abortion violate one of YOUR rights? You have a right to your own life, not to someone else's. The concept of abortion doesn't violate your rights, it violates your personal beliefs--big difference.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by bobatundi

How does a woman choosing an abortion violate one of YOUR rights? You have a right to your own life, not to someone else's. The concept of abortion doesn't violate your rights, it violates your personal beliefs--big difference.

I'm not talking about me.

See, this is what abortion supporters do. They try to make the opposition of abortion about the people who oppose it.

It's about violation of the human rights of the baby. You obviously didn't read.

[Mavdog]

so if "It's [abortion] about violation of the human rights of the baby", where do you establish where the rights of the baby trump the rights of the mother?

is contraception wrong? after all, it denies the right of baby to conceive.