is pro-life discrimination against women?

[Jerry]

have you seen the threads about mens rights during pregnancies? a lot of pro-choicers are saying that men should be able to opt out of child support payments, sinse women can get abortions.

one thing I would like to see, is law that requires that the father be given the choice to keep the child and the mother required to pay child support, before the mother can give a child up for adoption. such may already technically be in place, but i'd like to see a system that enforces it better, sinse the woman can lie about knowing the paternaty of the child. figuring out a good way to do this would be tricky though.

I would like to see a cultural change where people actually take the time to form stable relationships, then get married and form a stable home, then have children.

All of this crap would be a non-issue if I were still dreaming......

 

[talloulou]

one thing I would like to see, is law that requires that the father be given the choice to keep the child and the mother required to pay child support, before the mother can give a child up for adoption. such may already technically be in place, but i'd like to see a system that enforces it better, sinse the woman can lie about knowing the paternaty of the child. figuring out a good way to do this would be tricky though.

The only way to be completely fair would involve both parents signing a consent to reproduce before any baby is carried to term. This will never happen, nor should it. It would be impossibe to regulate too!

Just allowing a man to sign a form opting out of paying child support is NOT the same "opt out" that women get with abortion. That would be similar to women putting a child up for adoption vs keeping it. The abortion opt out allows the child to never be born. You don't have to wonder....hmmm whatever happened to that kid I have out there somewhere in the world. So to be "fair" men must have the SAME opt out that abortion provides women, anotherwards they should get to decide that no child of theirs is born if they don't want a child of theirs born. Anything short of that is still discriminatory. Now most people would say that's crazy. That would be horrible. Well that's kind of how I feel about abortion in general. To me women having that right is crazy and horrible just like many women would feel if men had the SAME right.

Noone would allow a law such as this to pass. It couldn't be regulated and women would pitch a fit if they were forced to abort pregnancies men didn't approve of.

The only fair thing to do regarding reproductive rights and parenthood is to put everyone in the same boat. We should all be able to use birth control, I believe we should have the right to the MAP when birth control fails, and if with all that we still end up pregnant then both mother and father pay the pied piper and become parents. In the days prior to birth control people were not as likely to have sex out of wedlock or to get pregnant accidently. It happened but not nearly as much. Now we have birth control so that has given us way more options and allowed us to be freer sexually.

However "free-er" is not the same as free of consequence. For women to completely hold the reproductive cards in her hands is wrong.

 

[FallingPianos]

I would like to see a cultural change where people actually take the time to form stable relationships, then get married and form a stable home, then have children.

All of this crap would be a non-issue if I were still dreaming......

as would I.

if only the world were a perfect place, we would not need laws or government...

 

[FallingPianos]

Just allowing a man to sign a form opting out of paying child support is NOT the same "opt out" that women get with abortion. That would be similar to women putting a child up for adoption vs keeping it. The abortion opt out allows the child to never be born. You don't have to wonder....hmmm whatever happened to that kid I have out there somewhere in the world. So to be "fair" men must have the SAME opt out that abortion provides women, anotherwards they should get to decide that no child of theirs is born if they don't want a child of theirs born. Anything short of that is still discriminatory. Now most people would say that's crazy. That would be horrible. Well that's kind of how I feel about abortion in general. To me women having that right is crazy and horrible just like many women would feel if men had the SAME right.

its kind of a moot point though, sinse neither should be allowed to have an abortion.

The only fair thing to do regarding reproductive rights and parenthood is to put everyone in the same boat. We should all be able to use birth control, I believe we should have the right to the MAP when birth control fails, and if with all that we still end up pregnant then both mother and father pay the pied piper and become parents.

agreed. but I'd like to point out that it is more about being fair to the child, then about being fair to the mother. the way I see it, things like child support payments are the right of the child, not the mother.

 

[steen]

I assert that the duty of healthy pregnant person (once the pregnancy has reached a certain length) is the following:

to care for her fetus/child either until it becomes an adult, or until she can find someone else to do it through an adoption.

I assert that the father has the same duties, though he cannot directly act on them until the child is born.

during the pregnancy this duty includes letting the fetus make use of her bodily resources.

these duties do not include: the duty to give up her bodily resources to anyone else, or the duty to care for anyone else's children.

but you Do refuse to take on such duties yourself to give of your bodily resources against your will. That is the duty you hypocritically want to force on the woman but want yourself freed from. hence the hypocricy and your endless spewing of sophistry to avoid admitting to. How lame and cowardly.

if those duties amount to discimination, than I believe that sort of discimination is completely justified.

Of course you do, as do other pro-lifers. That is the inherent misogyny of the oppressive prolife slavers.

I insist that everyone has the duty to give up their bodily resources to their fetus, but not to save lives in general, but this is only directly applicable to women.

Ah, so we have a duty to give up bodily resources, but ONLY to a fetus. Real persons don't have the right to your bodily resources, only a fetus does. Yes, that is a conveniet way to excuse yourself from the forced slavery you seek to inflict on the pregnant woman.

Incidentially, you thus are also assigning more rights to a fetus than to a person, however you are going to defend that one, claiming that mindless, non-sensate, non-sentient tissue must have more rights than a sentient person.

the father has the duty to help support the mother during her pregnancy,

Does he? What law states that?

but that is as much as men are capible of doing. if the father were capible of fully sharing that duty, he would be obligated to do so as well.

But you want duties ONLY to a fetus, so that YOU can't be forced to help a person's life and have to suffer having your bodily resources forcibly taken. You only want the pregnant woman to suffer this, in your hypocricy.

I do not excuse myself or anyone from those duties.

You cowardly excuse yourself from forcibly having your bodily resources taken against your will, what you so hypocritically want to force the woman to undergo.

Pro-life hypocricy disgusts me.

 

[steen]

It doesn't matter what she does with her bodily resources.
All that matters is what she does with the baby's bodily resources.

There is no baby, and she doesn't use the fetus bodily resources.

Carrying the baby to term is not "saving" life.
It is simply failing to extinguish it.

But there is no baby.

That aside, you are saying that a woman can be forced to give her bodily resources against her will to keep a fetus alive. However, you can't be forced to give her bodily resources against you will to keep a person alive. That is extraordinarily hypocritical and misogynistic.

 

[steen]

The pro life movement is about acknowledging the unborn's inherent, self evident humanity.

The pro-life movement doesn't give a rip about humanity, or it would also insist on forced bodily donations for all other persons. It is just a bunch of misogynists seeking to control and oppress women. You are nothing but a bunch of hypocritical slavers.

 

[steen]

Forcing someone to give blood or a kidney is not comparable with pregnancy.

:spin: Ah, so starts the sophistry of the pro-lifers seeking to weasel out of risking having the same burdens that they seek to misogynistically force the pregnant woman to endure.

In the first situation someone presumable would come along and try to forcefully take your blood or your kidney.

yeah, have your bodily resources used against your will. Just as if you were denied an abortion.

With pregnancy your own body creates the entity that will use your resources and the whole process occurs naturally.

Ah, like lung tumors after smoking. Like head bleeds after traffic accidents. yes, we should just completely deny medical care. Oh, what was that? Mindless tissue only has right when YOU want it to and as long as YOU can not be forced to be bodily involved? Ah, what a delightful example of hypocrisy.

In your mind you may not want to be pregnant but noone forced your body to do anything.

Not right now. But if I was a woman and I was denied an abortion, then I am very much forced to give of my bodily resources against my will.

Your body chose to accept the fertilized egg and then set up, all on its own, the conditions where your bodily resources nourish it.

false. The "body" has no mind and thus no choice. Your anthropomorphizing lies doesn't change that.

There is no OUTSIDE party. It's just you, the fertilized egg your body accepted,

And the pro-lifer denying the woman an abortion for the purpose of controlling, oppressing and subduing her to fit her "proper" role in the fundie theocracy

and your bodies desire to nourish it.

Another lie.

 

[steen]

I would like to see a cultural change where people actually take the time to form stable relationships, then get married and form a stable home, then have children.

All of this crap would be a non-issue if I were still dreaming......

Ah, theocratic imperialism. The true reason for the pro-life movement raises its ugly head, the desire to control everybody else's lives. Over my dead body, dude.

 

[FallingPianos]

but you Do refuse to take on such duties yourself to give of your bodily resources against your will. That is the duty you hypocritically want to force on the woman but want yourself freed from. hence the hypocricy and your endless spewing of sophistry to avoid admitting to. How lame and cowardly.

I already stated that I am not free from such duties:

I do not excuse myself or anyone from those duties.

Ah, so we have a duty to give up bodily resources, but ONLY to a fetus.

more specifically, only to your own fetus. not to anyone else's fetus.

Incidentially, you thus are also assigning more rights to a fetus than to a person.

I am claiming that a fetus and a child have more rights than an adult to be cared for, yes.

Does he? What law states that?

no clue. that was another assertion I was making, it had nothing to do with law. I'm saying that if the law does not state that, it ought to.

But you want duties ONLY to a fetus, so that YOU can't be forced to help a person's life and have to suffer having your bodily resources forcibly taken.

false. I want those duties only to a fetus, and the applicable duties to a child, because they have the right to those duties from their parents, and an adult does not.

I do not excuse myself or anyone from those duties.

You cowardly excuse yourself from forcibly having your bodily resources taken against your will, what you so hypocritically want to force the woman to undergo.

If I ever get pregnant, I shall have those same duties that I stated for women. If I ever get anyone else pregnant, I shall have those same duties that I stated for men.

if you are going to accuse me of blatently lying, at least state what your basis for such an accusation is.

 

[talloulou]

The "body" has no mind and thus no choice.

Well my body has a mind!:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

 

[talloulou]

:
Ah, like lung tumors after smoking. Like head bleeds after traffic accidents. yes, we should just completely deny medical care.

No in an instance where carrying a baby to term will physically harm the mother then that's a different story. However in most cases pregnancy will not harm the mother the same way tumors or traffic bleeds would.

 

[Synch]

Of course there would be, until YOU start submitting to the same duty to give your bodily resources that you want to force on the pregnant person. Until then, the pro-life argument is hypocritical.

Um...

Child support?

To earn money, you need bodily resources to earn the cash, which you contribute to the woman so the woman can buy food, which gives bodily resources to the baby.

Men's bodily resources ----> job ----> money ------> food -------> woman -------> baby.

Aren't there laws that force men who are the genetic fathers to give child support? Against their own will?

I heard a man who had oral sex with a woman once, the woman used his ejaculation in her mouth to inpregnant herself, and now the man is forced to give child support...

Long after the baby is born, the man is forced to give bodily resources, long after the woman keeps giving.

 

[talloulou]

Um...

Child support?

To earn money, you need bodily resources to earn the cash, which you contribute to the woman so the woman can buy food, which gives bodily resources to the baby.

Men's bodily resources ----> job ----> money ------> food -------> woman -------> baby.

Aren't there laws that force men who are the genetic fathers to give child support? Against their own will?

I heard a man who had oral sex with a woman once, the woman used his ejaculation in her mouth to inpregnant herself, and now the man is forced to give child support...

Long after the baby is born, the man is forced to give bodily resources, long after the woman keeps giving.

Not only that in some states if you are married and your spouse becomes pregnant by someone other than you it is still your legal responsibility to pay for the child. Furthermore if a women tells you that you're a father and you pay child support and find out 10 yrs later you weren't the father she doesn't have to repay you one red cent. Even if it's proven she decieved you on purpose knowingly..... she is guilty of NO crime. Telling someone they are a father even when you know they are not is not a crime.:shock:

The laws are very unfair to men, not just in regards to abortion, and I do not see why they have stood for it and tolerated it this long.

 

[talloulou]

From Steen:

Another lie.

In reference to my statement: "your body's desire to nourish it."

I'll give you that one as a legit lie 'cause of "desire" being the wrong word. How about your body's willingness to nourish it?

Is that still a lie:rofl

 

[FallingPianos]

From Steen:



In reference to my statement: "your body's desire to nourish it."

I'll give you that one as a legit lie 'cause of "desire" being the wrong word. How about your body's willingness to nourish it?

Is that still a lie:rofl

I'm sure he would say it is, sinse the body has no will of its own.

 

[steen]

I already stated that I am not free from such duties:

More lies. You have said you would volunteer. You have not stated that there is a right to force you. So you are again lying.

false. I want those duties only to a fetus, and the applicable duties to a child, because they have the right to those duties from their parents, and an adult does not.

Because if an adult had such rights, then YOU could possibly be forced, and hypocritically, you want to avoid that. Typical pro-life hypocricy there.

if you are going to accuse me of blatently lying, at least state what your basis for such an accusation is.

I have numerous times, just as I did in my first reply.

Now, are you going to keep on lying?

 

[steen]

No in an instance where carrying a baby to term will physically harm the mother then that's a different story. However in most cases pregnancy will not harm the mother the same way tumors or traffic bleeds would.

Taking her bodily resources against her will is harm, as it is slavery.

 

[steen]

Um...

Child support?

Is not physically forced on you without the ability to avoid. It is not a bodily resource. That aside, certainly if we can give reluctant fathers the option of opting out, that would increase choices.

Increase taxes and let these funds go to the kids instead of letting the reluctant fathers pay. I have no problem with that.

 

[steen]

In reference to my statement: "your body's desire to nourish it."

I'll give you that one as a legit lie 'cause of "desire" being the wrong word. How about your body's willingness to nourish it?

Is that still a lie:rofl

Willingness is still involving intent, so yes it is. "ability" may cover it, though. The words you use DO matter.

 

[FallingPianos]

More lies. You have said you would volunteer. You have not stated that there is a right to force you. So you are again lying.

if I fail to volunteer for the duties I specified, should the time come, the state has the right to force me to take them on.

happy?

*edit*

the state has the right to force me by due process of law. currently, the duties I specified are not law, so the state does not presently have that right.

however, I support legislation that would make such laws.

 

[talloulou]

Willingness is still involving intent, so yes it is. "ability" may cover it, though. The words you use DO matter.

ability doesn't sound powerful enough. How about, "Your body's tendency to nourish it!":rofl

 

[steen]

if I fail to volunteer for the duties I specified, should the time come, the state has the right to force me to take them on.

Ah, that you "specified." yes, just so you stay clear of any actual duties you could be forced to perform. Hypocritical to the core.

the state has the right to force me by due process of law. currently, the duties I specified are not law, so the state does not presently have that right.

however, I support legislation that would make such laws.

You support the state making legislation forcing people to give of their bodily resources to save the lives of persons?

 

[steen]

ability doesn't sound powerful enough. How about, "Your body's tendency to nourish it!":rofl

OK, I can live with that.

 

[FallingPianos]

Ah, that you "specified." yes, just so you stay clear of any actual duties you could be forced to perform. Hypocritical to the core.

You support the state making legislation forcing people to give of their bodily resources to save the lives of persons?

But that the prolife movement insist on ONLY the woman being forced to give bodily resources against her will to save lives, THAT very much is the pro-lifers fault.

not to save lives in general, only to save her fetus's life. I'd never say that pregnant woman should be forced to donate their blood (or whatever) to me, or to anyone else except her fetus.

I insist that everyone has the duty to give up their bodily resources to their fetus, but not to save lives in general, but this is only directly applicable to women. the father has the duty to help support the mother during her pregnancy, but that is as much as men are capible of doing. if the father were capible of fully sharing that duty, he would be obligated to do so as well.

I assert that the duty of healthy pregnant person (once the pregnancy has reached a certain length) is the following:

to care for her fetus/child either until it becomes an adult, or until she can find someone else to do it through an adoption.

I assert that the father has the same duties, though he cannot directly act on them until the child is born.

during the pregnancy this duty includes letting the fetus make use of her bodily resources.

these duties do not include: the duty to give up her bodily resources to anyone else, or the duty to care for anyone else's children.

I never said to persons. I limited it to their own fetuses.

no, I do not believe anyone has the duty to give up their bodily resources to anyone/thing other than their fetus.