Should men get a vote?

[quip]

Many things are ‘perhaps’ rights. Does privacy ‘perhaps’ apply to recreational drug use? Does privacy ‘perhaps’ preclude a vaccine mandate?

The same privacy I enjoy with my medical provider, Perhaps.

 

[quip]

You shoveled your own grave.

Privacy shall not be provoked.

Says only no one ever in reverse situations.

You - be -You IQ57!

 

[ttwtt78640]

The same privacy I enjoy with my medical provider, Perhaps.

What your medical care provider can and can’t do is limited by law. In fact, who can be a medical care provider is also limited by law. Does that ‘perhaps’ violate your privacy right?

 

[Crovax]

The same privacy I enjoy with my medical provider, Perhaps.

You do not enjoy that privacy because the court has only ever ruled that it applies in 2 situations abortion and birth control pills while it has explicitly denied that privilege with things like marijuana

 

[Surrealistik]

... only women should be allowed to vote on the issue of abortion.

Why should a man have any say at all in the matter?

I'm all for allowing only women to vote on the issue of abortion provided men can legally opt out of supporting a child from a pregnancy they don't want, thereby forever relinquishing any fatherhood claims, obligations, rights, standing and privileges.

 

[Gordy327]

I'm all for allowing only women to vote on the issue of abortion provided men can legally opt out of supporting a child from a pregnancy they don't want, thereby forever relinquishing any fatherhood claims, obligations, rights, standing and privileges.

Doesn't work that way. Gestation and rearing are 2 separate things.

 

[Surrealistik]

Doesn't work that way. Gestation and rearing are 2 separate things.

Fact is, I'm patently uncomfortable with the idea of entrapment into alimony and child support without any recourse for the man whatsoever.

 

[Gordy327]

Fact is, I'm patently uncomfortable with the idea of entrapment into alimony and child support without any recourse for the man whatsoever.

Better avoid relations with women then, just to be safe.

 

[Surrealistik]

Better avoid relations with women then, just to be safe.

Nah, I'll keep to that compromise as my personal position. If society has other ideas about what is fair and just in the case of such entrapment, so be it; not happy about that, but it's tolerable; part of the price of admission.

 

[soylentgreen]

No, we're definitely not. The Founding Fathers have been quoted about a thousand times on this forum insisting we're not a Christian nation in so many words. I'm not going to quote them again but we are in no way a Christian nation.

Unfortunately your founding fathers are dead and what they may or may not insist does not really count against what is.

 

[Bodi]

It's enough of an argument for women to chase after men for mommy support.

If women want to say that men are responsible for the babies that women give birth to they opened the door to inviting men to be involved in what's growing in their belly.

If women do not want men to be involved in their choices they should not be forcing men to be responsible for them.

Women have no issue with telling men that if they don't like living with the consequences of the choices women make after sex that men should not have sex. That being the case, I have no issue with men telling women if they don't want babies they should not have sex otherwise they are subject to choices being made for them by men.

When women back off their selfish position I will back off mine.

They are two different arguments...

 

[Gordy327]

Nah, I'll keep to that compromise as my personal position. If society has other ideas about what is fair and just in the case of such entrapment, so be it; not happy about that, but it's tolerable; part of the price of admission.

Then don't complain. Problem solved.

 

[soylentgreen]

No, we are not. Neither is there anything in the Constitution affirming us as a christian nation. I defy you to prove otherwise!

Prove it!!! On a thread about abortion being an issue because of a christian based belief in a right to life. What sort of proof would you accept?

 

[quip]

What your medical care provider can and can’t do is limited by law. In fact, who can be a medical care provider is also limited by law. Does that ‘perhaps’ violate your privacy right?

The point being abortion should be filed under the doctor/patient confidentiality rubric.

Perhaps means....duh!

 

[Gordy327]

Unfortunately your founding fathers are dead and what they may or may not insist does not really count against what is.

What is, is that this is not a Christian nation, there is no legal declaration of such, all religions and non religion is equal under the law, and that there is a separation of church and state. That is what is!

 

[Gordy327]

Prove it!!! On a thread about abortion being an issue because of a christian based belief in a right to life. What sort of proof would you accept?

Which thread? Which post/s? Cite them! And since Christianity is not mentioned in the constitution and the separation of church and state exists, that alone is legal proof.

 

[Bodi]

I agree with your self assessment.

It has proved interesting.

Look above for further nonsense. Tear “what” all down exactly. Men. The patriarchy, burn bras, get on with it. Re-define women and lose all progress. My body, my choice, except for vaccine mandates. It all reeks of hypocrisy in the highest degree. All meaningless mumbo jumbo.

You voted when you spread your legs.

That’s reality.

nah... just have an abortion. Problem solved.

 

[soylentgreen]

What is, is that this is not a Christian nation, there is no legal declaration of such, all religions and non religion is equal under the law, and that there is a separation of church and state. That is what is!

The trouble with arguing that there is no legal declaration does not actually stop a belief system from being true.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The point being abortion should be filed under the doctor/patient confidentiality rubric.

Perhaps means....duh!

So you say, yet others disagree.

 

[Gordy327]

nah... just have an abortion. Problem solved.

Abortion solves many problems.

 

[Bodi]

usually its legislatures, so thats both men and women.

If its a statewide proposition, I would argue both. we do not separate out who can vote based on an issue.

Why should a man get to vote about an issue solely of and and women's private medical care?

 

[soylentgreen]

Which thread? Which post/s? Cite them! And since Christianity is not mentioned in the constitution and the separation of church and state exists, that alone is legal proof.

This thread. Would america be having this particular problem with abortion if it was not for a strong christian base. Do you really believe your american christians do not lobby for their belief system.

 

[Gordy327]

The trouble with arguing that there is no legal declaration does not actually stop a belief system from being true.

A strawman argument. Its not about mete belief. People can have beliefs and religion. But religious beliefs and tenets cannot be legally endorsed or codified by the government or law.

 

[ttwtt78640]

A strawman argument. Its not about mete belief. People can have beliefs and religion. But religious beliefs and tenets cannot be legally endorsed or codified by the government or law.

Hmm… is murder not illegal?

 

[Bodi]

This thread. Would america be having this particular problem with abortion if it was not for a strong christian base. Do you really believe your american christians do not lobby for their belief system.

Special Interest groups do not represent the country...