Should men get a vote?

[molten_dragon]

Democracy works how we say it works...

Those arguments could be made...

They could be, but things start getting complicated when you start getting into the details. How would you verify which women are fertile and get a say in abortion? What are the criteria? What proof has to be submitted? Who is in charge of validating all of it?

Now expand that out into all of the political issues we have to deal with.

 

[Bodi]

They could be, but things start getting complicated when you start getting into the details. How would you verify which women are fertile and get a say in abortion? What are the criteria? What proof has to be submitted? Who is in charge of validating all of it?

Now expand that out into all of the political issues we have to deal with.

It was your argument... not mine. I personally think it is a ridiculous waste of time... all women can vote and no men can vote, on abortion. Simple.

 

[Rawley]

I think that they know...

Hard to believe you missed this.

“Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” Blackburn asked.

“Can I provide a definition?” Jackson repeated the question.

“Mmhmm, yeah,” Blackburn confirmed.

“I can’t,” Jackson replied.

“You can’t?” Blackburn asked.

“Not — in this context, I’m not a biologist,” Jackson laughed.

 

[iguanaman]

Can you cite the religious reference(s?) in the SCOTUS decision?

No but I can say that Roe was reaffirmed for 50 years until a Catholic majority of justices voted to overturn it. You don't think they would be stupid enough to use religious references do you? Sometimes I wonder about people who need to be told the obvious. They lied through their teeth at their confirmation hearings didn't they? Here is who Alito did reference instead of the Pope...and he had to go back 400 years to find him. A judge who sentenced woman to death for witchcraft is supposed to support the idea that abortion is murder.

Draft Overturning Roe v. Wade Quotes Infamous Witch Trial Judge With Long-Discredited Ideas on Rape​

Justice Alito’s leaked opinion cites Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century jurist who conceived the notion that husbands can’t be prosecuted for raping their wives, who sentenced women to death as “witches,” and whose misogyny stood out even in his time.​

Alito, in his draft opinion, invokes “eminent common-law authorities,” including Hale, to show how abortion was viewed historically not as a right, but as a criminal act. “Two treatises by Sir Matthew Hale likewise described abortion of a quick child who died in the womb as a ‘great crime’ and a ‘great misprision,’” Alito wrote.

https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale

 

[Bodi]

Hard to believe you missed this.

“Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” Blackburn asked.

“Can I provide a definition?” Jackson repeated the question.

“Mmhmm, yeah,” Blackburn confirmed.

“I can’t,” Jackson replied.

“You can’t?” Blackburn asked.

“Not — in this context, I’m not a biologist,” Jackson laughed.

“Not — in this context, I’m not a biologist,” Jackson laughed.

That is the key.

 

[trouble13]

They are two different arguments...

I don't think it is. The issue is control. Women understandably do not want to be controlled by men. Men understandably do not want to be controlled by women.

Women feel entitled to control men but don't like it much when men get involved in women choices. Women don't like sharing control.

 

[Lursa]

So men should be careful when they have sex but not women?

Women have different options, due to biology. Women can have abortions...men know this before they decide to have sex, right?

And abortions are painful and expensive, even ocassionally dangerous. But some men ALSO want to decide WHICH consequences a woman has to suffer. In their own best interests.

Women will decide what's in their best interests, and that of their families and obligations. Men should do the same thing...but their decision comes earlier. Do you believe that men are capable of doing what's in their best interests? I am but would like to hear your answer.

And if your answer is yes...then, shouldnt they accept their consequences, if any?

 

[ttwtt78640]

No can do. That would've been a potential breach of the establishment clause. It was a heavy-handed lesson in tacit implementation.

It was a difference of opinion and even RGB seemed to doubt whether RvW would stand.

 

[Eurotrash]

I don't think it is. The issue is control. Women understandably do not want to be controlled by men. Men understandably do not want to be controlled by women.

Women feel entitled to control men but don't like it much when men get involved in women choices. Women don't like sharing control.

I would say your post is right on. Just switch the genders, and you've got it for the abortion issue|!

 

[TXNormalGOP]

Men should vote to keep abortion safe, legal and rare?

Yes. Then if women don't want the right, they can vote it down.

 

[zincwarrior]

I should have vote on paying child support

No. That's based on the needs of the child. Don't be a deadbeat dad.

 

[Gordy327]

I'll complain as I damn well please. As stated, just because it's presently the norm that the man has no recourse in cases of deception and entrapment with regards to pregnancy, and I have to currently deal with that fact, doesn't mean I have to like it, nor do I have to keep silent about it and not advocate for change.

Unfortunately it's not like the level of risk is always known; indeed, in cases of entrapment, it's actively misrepresented. Therefore, as a man, your options are never trust your partner and never have unprotected penetrative sex (while being careful to keep an eagle eye on your condoms in the meanwhile), which is obviously not really tenable assuming you don't have a vasectomy (getting one before you're absolutely ready is also an extreme), or throw yourself at the mercy of the woman without recourse; this is a lose lose scenario.

That's sounds like your problem then. Whining about it isn't going to win you over with anyone.

 

[Lursa]

"Just never have unprotected vaginal sex outside of a vasectomy because of the remote but existent and life changing risk of a deceitful woman" as stated is not a reasonable position.

Who says? Please document that somehow, somewhere.

And so your answer is "Yes, men are entitled to sex without consequences."

That's hypocritical...since women are not and never have been. How do you justify that hypocrisy?

See my next post 268 before answering, it lists women's consequences.

Unlike men, women do have recourse if they're tricked into a pregnancy they don't want, and if there's any expenses, hardship, consequences or fallout that derive from a man's deception so far as terminating the pregnancy is concerned, that man should be held accountable and liable for that of course. Fair's fair.

No, not all women do. Some states are trying to take that away, remember? And many women are religious and dont believe in abortion and have a First Amendment right to not have them.

I don't believe men should be made to suffer adverse consequences in the form of an unwanted pregnancy for unprotected consensual sex where their partner has clearly and specifically represented that she is on birth control, and agreed that a morning after pill or other abortion method would be used in the case of accidental pregnancy. Why should they?

You make men sound stupid and like victims. You are claiming that men cannot keep it in their pants in their own best interests.

Why on earth should any laws encourage that pathetic mindset? Can men control themselves or not? People demand it of women all the time.

 

[zincwarrior]

People are arguing that a human male and a human female create a human fetus that will grow into a human person, that fetus is not human?

The argument is that that is a human being, and the State has an interest in it's protection.

But that's the crux isn't it. A woman is essentially slave to the fetus and the nexus of who's rights have preeminence and when is the hullabaloo.

 

[zincwarrior]

I don't think it is. The issue is control. Women understandably do not want to be controlled by men. Men understandably do not want to be controlled by women.

Women feel entitled to control men but don't like it much when men get involved in women choices. Women don't like sharing control.

I however want to control everyone. Do my bidding!

 

[Gordy327]

The argument is that that is a human being, and the State has an interest in it's protection.

Funny how that so called "interest" is never defined or rationalized, especially over the interests of the already born and legally recognized woman in question.

The argument is that that is a human being, and the State has an interest in it's protection.

But that's the crux isn't it. A woman is essentially slave to the fetus and the nexus of who's rights have preeminence and when is the hullabaloo.

That's right.

 

[Gordy327]

I however want to control everyone. Do my bidding!

[Bows before zinc] Yes my master

 

[Lursa]

@Surrealistik

And so your answer is "Yes, men are entitled to sex without consequences."

That's hypocritical...since women are not and never have been. How do you justify that hypocrisy?

If there's a pregnancy, no woman can escape consequences. There are only 4 options:

--she has a kid​

--she has a miscarriage​

--she has an abortion​

--she dies during pregnancy/childbirth​

All are painful and have the potential to make her infertile or even kill her. All incur costs and health issues, enough to often lose a job.

Women have to accept all this before they have sex. And we have no "outs" if there's a pregnancy. Men get off the hook 3 out of 4 of those times. And you're complaining it's not fair? It's not...not by a long shot. A pregnancy doesnt affect a man's health or kill him.

But you keep complaining that men shouldnt have to worry about women 'tricking' them, even when you seem to believe it's common. I dont think it is but if it is, then that would mean men are even stupider, taking that risk. Again...can men act in their own self-interests or not?

If they can, why dont they do so more often?

 

[ttwtt78640]

No but I can say that Roe was reaffirmed for 50 years until a Catholic majority of justices voted to overturn it. You don't think they would be stupid enough to use religious references do you? Sometimes I wonder about people who need to be told the obvious. They lied through their teeth at their confirmation hearings didn't they? Here is who Alito did reference instead of the Pope...and he had to go back 400 years to find him. A man who sentenced woman to death for witchcraft.

Draft Overturning Roe v. Wade Quotes Infamous Witch Trial Judge With Long-Discredited Ideas on Rape​

Justice Alito’s leaked opinion cites Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century jurist who conceived the notion that husbands can’t be prosecuted for raping their wives, who sentenced women to death as “witches,” and whose misogyny stood out even in his time.​

Alito, in his draft opinion, invokes “eminent common-law authorities,” including Hale, to show how abortion was viewed historically not as a right, but as a criminal act. “Two treatises by Sir Matthew Hale likewise described abortion of a quick child who died in the womb as a ‘great crime’ and a ‘great misprision,’” Alito wrote.

https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale

Quickening (detectable fetal movement) is not a religious matter, it is using the level of fetal development to confer the right to life of a human being. Even RvW and PPvC contained compromise provisions (allow restriction by law) based on the level of fetal development, as do the abortion laws in most other countries.

 

[Bodi]

I don't think it is. The issue is control. Women understandably do not want to be controlled by men. Men understandably do not want to be controlled by women.

Women feel entitled to control men but don't like it much when men get involved in women choices. Women don't like sharing control.

They are both about control but at stages that are not comparable...

 

[Bodi]

Yes. Then if women don't want the right, they can vote it down.

Men should not get to vote on the issue in the first place...

 

[Gordy327]

Quickening (detectable fetal movement) is not a religious matter, it is using the level of fetal development to confer the right to life of a human being. Even RvW and PPvC contained compromise provisions (allow restriction by law) based on the level of fetal development, as do the abortion laws in most other countries.

The unborn do not have rights. Quickening is rather old school too. Viability is a better standard and reasonable compromise. There is no rational reason to limit abortion before viability.

 

[trouble13]

They are both about control but at stages that are not comparable...

Do you believe that the woman has sole domain over the life growing inside of her?

 

[Bodi]

The argument is that that is a human being, and the State has an interest in it's protection.

But that's the crux isn't it. A woman is essentially slave to the fetus and the nexus of who's rights have preeminence and when is the hullabaloo.

The state has an interest in protecting the unborn from abortion?

 

[Gordy327]

Do you believe that the woman has sole domain over the life growing inside of her?

Yes. It's her body being used and she alone deals with all issues, complications, and other health matters.