Should Men Have a Say?

[Lord Tammerlain]

Utterly hypocritical position. If you have the baby, you have the legal right to force the man to "sustain the baby by extracting his bodily resources (labor) against his will" for eighteen years.

And every gov't social program extracts from my bodily resources (labor) to sustain/support someone whether I like it or not.

So you carry 'em in your womb for nine months, gee that's tough... we carry them on our backs for eighteen years and more.

(Also, before you point out that pregnancy is potentially dangerous, let me mention that many men die on the job, or as a result of health issues directly relating to job stress and overwork...)

Gee and women dont work or support their childern

And if the woman gave up parental rights to the man, he can sue her for child support

 

[samsmart]

Utterly hypocritical position. If you have the baby, you have the legal right to force the man to "sustain the baby by extracting his bodily resources (labor) against his will" for eighteen years.

And every gov't social program extracts from my bodily resources (labor) to sustain/support someone whether I like it or not.

So you carry 'em in your womb for nine months, gee that's tough... we carry them on our backs for eighteen years and more.

(Also, before you point out that pregnancy is potentially dangerous, let me mention that many men die on the job, or as a result of health issues directly relating to job stress and overwork...)

Women work to provide for their children too. Only women typically don't get paid as much as men do. So there's unfairness in that.

Also, men should be just as careful of their reproductive rights as women should be. If a man doesn't want to get a woman, then they should take precautions. And also lobby for a male birth control pill.

 

[misterman]

I think no one, male nor female, has the right to decide whether or not an unborn child should be allowed to live or not. It's not a man's right, and it's not a woman's right either.

But the government can?

 

[Chuz Life]

But the government can?

As expected and provided for by the Constitution.

 

[misterman]

As expected and provided for by the Constitution.

Where's it say that?

 

[thatguymd]

Yes, it really is.
It is really, really, really easy.

Any position is easy if you just ignore or dismiss any counter arguements without reason.

In your response, instead of seeing how many times you can say "really", why not address the person's concern as to why it may not be that easy (that was in the post you were replying to)?

And you still haven't addressed the fact that the ZEF is forced to take the the bodily resources in the first place.

So far, you are saying it is okay to kill anyone you want as long as you force them to draw your blood beforehand.

 

[Chuz Life]

I think no one, male nor female, has the right to decide whether or not an unborn child should be allowed to live or not. It's not a man's right, and it's not a woman's right either.

But the government can?

As expected and provided for by the Constitution.

Where's it say that?

Specifically the 5th and 14th Amendments.

 

[misterman]

Specifically the 5th and 14th Amendments.

I disagree. Please show me why you think so, quoting the text you think applies.

 

[justabubba]

Specifically the 5th and 14th Amendments.

ok. here they are in full:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

you have cited both as supporting your position but you have offered nothing to indicate what about those amendments proves your case
this is your opportunity to share with us your reasoning that the 5th and 14th amendments give direction about the UN/lawfulness of abortion

 

[Chuz Life]

I disagree. Please show me why you think so, quoting the text you think applies.

I'd rather not.

Igave you the source and due to time constraints, I can't go any deeper into it.

If you disagree that's fine with me.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[misterman]

I'd rather not.

Igave you the source and due to time constraints, I can't go any deeper into it.

If you disagree that's fine with me.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

No. I do not agree to disagree. If you can't back up your argument, withdraw it. Don't come here and make claims and then run away. Next time stay out of a debate if you're just going to drive by.

 

[Chuz Life]

No. I do not agree to disagree. If you can't back up your argument, withdraw it. Don't come here and make claims and then run away. Next time stay out of a debate if you're just going to drive by.

It's not a drive by.

You asked a question and I answered it.

You don't like my answer?

That's fine with me.

 

[misterman]

It's not a drive by.

You asked a question and I answered it.

You don't like my answer?

That's fine with me.

The Constitution clearly does not give the government the power to regulate abortion.

 

[Chuz Life]

The Constitution clearly does not give the government the power to regulate abortion.

Roe v. Wade regulates abortion by recognizing the States Rights to regulate after the child reaches "viability".

Are you now saying that Roe v. Wade is un-Constitutional?

Is the United States Supreme Court not a part of "the Government?"

Shhhhhhhhh.

 

[misterman]

Roe v. Wade regulates abortion by recognizing the States Rights to regulate after the child reaches "viability".

Are you now saying that Roe v. Wade is un-Constitutional?

Is the United States Supreme Court not a part of "the Government?"

So now you want to debate?

Make up your mind. I'm not going to waste my time with you if you're going to just run off at any moment saying you don't have time.

 

[Chuz Life]

So now you want to debate?

Make up your mind. I'm not going to waste my time with you if you're going to just run off at any moment saying you don't have time.

Are we married?

Honey,... is that you?

 

[MidiPour]

I think that if people are close enough to be intimate, and mature enough to be having sex in the first place, that they should also be adult enough to realize that the thoughts of the person whose body is going to be going through the ringer should carry a bit more weight.

This is a good imperative that I agree upon, but doesn't argue where men are allowed to have a say on an abortion.

 

[Panache]

Blah, blah, blah.
See, none of this even seems worth addressing.
Intelligent people already know what you're saying is malarkey, without my having to point it out.
Dumb people will lap it up without regard to content, because ZOMG, you is defending the pweshuss wittle unborn childwen. :roll:

Do you think prefacing your arguments with belittling remarks actually strengthens your position?

Clearly, work is not a "bodily resource". :roll:

Why are some bodily resources resources and others are not? Energy is most assuredly a resource. When one is forced to deplete their energy reserves, a "bodily resource" is indeed being extracted.

Also, by what standard is it ok to take people's other resources, but not their bodily ones?

 

[Jerry]

Also, by what standard is it ok to take people's other resources, but not their bodily ones?

When doing so is the only way you can survive.

Yes it's theft, and that's ok.

 

[Panache]

When doing so is the only way you can survive.

Yes it's theft, and that's ok.

And the same doesn't apply to bodily resources for what reason?

 

[Jerry]

And the same doesn't apply to bodily resources for what reason?

Um, the same does apply to bodily resources...it applies to everything.

Yes the zef is taking your bodily resources against your will, yes that's a violation of your bodily sovereignty, yes it's theft, yes it's trespassing, and that's ok.

 

[Panache]

No one is extracting any bodily resources from you, ever.

Oh, so the highway patrol can't extract some of your breath with a breathalyzer? A judge can't issue a warrant to get a DNA sample from you as part of a murder investigation?

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

If she is upset at the thought of him not supporting the child, she should not have had sex that resulted in conception. See what I did there?

Your argument doesn't work because there's a kid that needs supported regardless of what the guy wants it doesn't matter what the guy wants. The woman holds all the cards once her body is getting used. No matter what the woman chooses, it's her body that has to go through the process. The man has to go through nothing. Maybe one guy out of a thousand will actually want the kid, mostly, I believe, the majority would opt on the pro-choice side.
---

However, that doesn't mean that I won't point out the rank hypocrisy in the current crowd of libby patsies running around about how only women should have the rights of decision. If there is a decision, then the man should be allowed to decide as well. If you are going to say 'then don't have sex' to one gender, you must say it to the other.

After all, don't the pro-choicers want equality? Hmmm?

This is a situation where the situation isn't equal. Justice can never be equal when one party bears all the burden.

 

[Caedon]

Your argument doesn't work because there's a kid that needs supported regardless of what the guy wants it doesn't matter what the guy wants.

And as I've said multiple times, that's why I support the notion of child support. As I've also said multiple times, I will still use the example of child support to point out how the system is not fair.

The woman holds all the cards once her body is getting used. No matter what the woman chooses, it's her body that has to go through the process. The man has to go through nothing. Maybe one guy out of a thousand will actually want the kid, mostly, I believe, the majority would opt on the pro-choice side.

1 guy in a 1000 will actually want the kid? Proof please. Furthermore, I've heard something that should solve that.... wait a minute... wait a minute. Ahh yes, perhaps then the woman should not have had sex.

See what I did... again? This argument boils down to two sides: Side A says 'we can sleep around and get abortions if we don't want kids' but then says to Side B, 'hey, if you don't want kids, don't sleep around.' It's an entitlement mentality that women, in the context of pregnancy, are a special class of citizen and should have the right and power to control a man's property [his paycheck] for the next 18 years should she choose to have the child.

Flip this over and we see that the injustice and inequality is exacerbated in the other direction: a couple wants children. The woman gets pregnant. The man wants her to deliver. She decides she doesn't want the child, even though they've agreed in the past to try to have children. She can get an abortion and he's out of luck, with no choice in the matter, even though he was directly responsible for conception of the child. Again, we see that the modern justice system has decided to give all rights to the women and no rights, only responsibility, to the men.

That's unjust.

This is a situation where the situation isn't equal. Justice can never be equal when one party bears all the burden.

The woman bears all the burden? Just what the hell is 18 years of child support payments if not a burden? :2wave:

 

[VanceMack]

And as I've said multiple times, that's why I support the notion of child support. As I've also said multiple times, I will still use the example of child support to point out how the system is not fair.



1 guy in a 1000 will actually want the kid? Proof please. Furthermore, I've heard something that should solve that.... wait a minute... wait a minute. Ahh yes, perhaps then the woman should not have had sex.

See what I did... again? This argument boils down to two sides: Side A says 'we can sleep around and get abortions if we don't want kids' but then says to Side B, 'hey, if you don't want kids, don't sleep around.' It's an entitlement mentality that women, in the context of pregnancy, are a special class of citizen and should have the right and power to control a man's property [his paycheck] for the next 18 years should she choose to have the child.

Flip this over and we see that the injustice and inequality is exacerbated in the other direction: a couple wants children. The woman gets pregnant. The man wants her to deliver. She decides she doesn't want the child, even though they've agreed in the past to try to have children. She can get an abortion and he's out of luck, with no choice in the matter, even though he was directly responsible for conception of the child. Again, we see that the modern justice system has decided to give all rights to the women and no rights, only responsibility, to the men.

That's unjust.



The woman bears all the burden? Just what the hell is 18 years of child support payments if not a burden? :2wave:

Thats why the potential daddy should end the life of the zygote in the womans belly. Simple assault charges...no real harm...and no need for 18 years of child support.