Ohio asshat wants women to get a permission slip to have an abortion.

[Catch101]

Originally Posted by Saya

I can't believe this. "If a woman has an abortion, she is murdering my child. If a woman keeps the child, then she will suck me dry with child support." Why is it assumed that a woman is out to fuck over a man? Being a single parent even if they have a man to "suck dry" is NOT at all easy. And when it comes down to pregnancy, once again its the woman who has to carry it. Yes its nice if a couple can talk it over, but even then it is still up to the woman how much his opinion matters to her. She has to deal with the consequences of childbirth or abortion, and the effects it will have on her body in the long term, and for a lot of women abortion is far easier and protects their quality of life, as well as their health.

You know what? None of this even matters. We both agree that this bill sucks ass.

The End

[Saya]

Actually it does matter, a lot.

And if you don't care that much why come in here saying women are evil what with all their control over their own bodies and people shouldn't have one night stands?

[Catch101]

Originally Posted by Saya

Actually it does matter, a lot.

And if you don't care that much why come in here saying women are evil what with all their control over their own bodies and people shouldn't have one night stands?

You're not being serious are you? I can be a sucker for internet sarcasm.

But if that is the way you want to go about things, I will take JCC's advice, and fuck off.

[Godslayer Jillian]

It's very simple. If a man does not want a woman to abort, then he should speak with her. Any more than that just amounts to one or the other having full control over the abortion; and that should be the woman.
If they are in a loving relationship, then talking between them will lead to a mutual decision.
If it's just regular sex with no intentions of procreating, why would the man care so much about that kid? It could only be because of his own ideas of abortion, in which case it goes back to the woman's decision having precedence over the man's own opinions.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Solumina

Your wife is not all people, my cousin almost died while getting a C-section due to complications but that doesn't happen with everyone.

How does that change the fact that I've never heard any such thing?

I don't know where you got this idea that **** is physically much different from your average every day kind of sex, for most cases the victim is forced to submit either through drugging or threats of violence, not physical force, and even when force is used it doesn't produce any real signatures of ****, it just shows that rough sex occurred, except in the case of extreme minors where the vagina is actually unable to accommodate the size of a penis

No there isn't, there is just evidence of penetration as I stated above **** is sex, the average **** doesn't put all that much strain on the vagina and even in the cases where it does many people enjoy rough sex or sex with well endowed partners so there is still no hard evidence of a ****.

I also want to point out something that you are overlooking that you may want to think about: most **** victims who do go forward do so immediately after and therefor wouldn't really fall under this bill as they are encouraged to take the morning after pill or after they have taken months to sort through what has happened to them, frequently making it significantly more dangerous for them to get an abortion or even after it has become too late for them to have an abortion, even if they knew from the minute they found themselves pregnant that they wanted an abortion.

You know what? I'm through with arguments about ****. If you want to know why, it's because right from the beginning I've said that the only part of the bill that I support is the man's right to have a say. So, obviously, I opposed the rest, which would include anything the bill says about a woman having to prove that she's been *****. Yet for some reason, Saya is either incapable of comprehending this, or she for some reason refuses to accept this. And, like an idiot, I allowed myself to get drawn into it.

No she suggested that people take advantage of their trust by manipulating them. Most victims of molestation while they are children don't realize what happened to them until they are much older.

She said "Children are extremely suggestive." If you go out somewhere and meet someone who's been suggestive toward you, it means they're trying to get you to fuck them.

No shit, there are countless possible scenarios, all of which should be taken into consideration.

It's one thing to take different scenarios into consideration. It's a different thing altogether to discuss a single scenario, then use a different scenario to counter an argument about the original scenario.

Nobody is saying that there shouldn't be a discussion between the two potential parents or that what the man thinks doesn't matter,

Saya is.

but that isn't what this bill is about, this bill is about making sure that a woman can't get an abortion without the consent of the man who knocked her up.

And, like I've already said, there's only one part of the bill that I support. What you just said is not it.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

You know what? I'm through with arguments about ****. If you want to know why, it's because right from the beginning I've said that the only part of the bill that I support is the man's right to have a say. So, obviously, I opposed the rest, which would include anything the bill says about a woman having to prove that she's been *****. Yet for some reason, Saya is either incapable of comprehending this, or she for some reason refuses to accept this. And, like an idiot, I allowed myself to get drawn into it.

Because you argued that women are doing a disgusting thing by "allowing" their rapist to get away, and that its too tough for them if they don't report it. You're right that it has nothing to do with the bill but I just couldn't believe anyone could really say that shit in this day and age, its that kind of tough luck attitude towards **** survivors that make it hard for them to come forward.

She said "Children are extremely suggestive." If you go out somewhere and meet someone who's been suggestive toward you, it means they're trying to get you to fuck them.

Being suggestive means you're putting forward suggestions, nothing necessarily sexual about it. I did however mean suggestible, I'm not sure why you couldn't see that mistake since the rest of the sentence did make sense and Solumina was able to pick up on that, but yeah my bad for using the wrong word and letting you jump all over it and accuse me of saying kids ask for it. Lots of pedo defenses center around the idea that suggestive (and no, not asking the kid for sex) questioning can actually make children believe something happened when it didn't, when questioning children psychologists have to be very careful not to be suggestive. Unfortunately rapists can often use that to manipulate young children as well.

It's one thing to take different scenarios into consideration. It's a different thing altogether to discuss a single scenario, then use a different scenario to counter an argument about the original scenario.

You're the only who used single scenarios in the first place, I merely present different scenarios to show you that its not always like that.

Saya is.

I never did, I merely said that the ultimate decision is up to the woman. A man is perfectly entitled to his opinion but its up to the woman how much his opinion is worth to her.

And, like I've already said, there's only one part of the bill that I support. What you just said is not it.

What part of the bill do you support? All its saying is that men should be able to control women, its not saying "people in relationships should talk about abortion." Either you're just here to fight, really believe that women need to be controlled or you're trying to make an issue where there isn't one.

[Tumor]

Originally Posted by Catch101

So basically the man is screwed either way? He doesn't have a say in the abortion or keeping of his child.

If the woman wants to keep the child in spite of the father's objections, then he should legally be absolved (is that the correct word?) of any future responsibility, financial or otherwise.

[Tumor]

Originally Posted by Saya

Why is it assumed that a woman is out to fuck over a man?

Well, you're assuming that men are out to control women's bodies, to what's wrong with someone assuming that women are out to control men's wallets?

I don't believe that either assumption is representative of the gender they're being applied to, but fair's fair.

[Tumor]

Originally Posted by Saya

Because you argued that women are doing a disgusting thing by "allowing" their rapist to get away, and that its too tough for them if they don't report it. You're right that it has nothing to do with the bill but I just couldn't believe anyone could really say that shit in this day and age, its that kind of tough luck attitude towards **** survivors that make it hard for them to come forward.

Let me get this straight. You argued with him over the issue of **** to such an extent because of something he said at the end of the argument?

[alyroi360]

What a son of a bitch. I guess he has nothing better to do than trying force this shit on everybody else. I mean, it's fine if some of you guys are pro-life, I get that, it is kinda sick when you get down to this stuff. This girl I know was talking about how getting an abortion haunted her and she never stopped thinking about it... However, I am pro-choice, simply because if for whatever reason, that parisitic embodiment can't be there, it has to come out, plain and simple. If somehow, I break my abstinence and get pregnant, I'm not going to get an abortion just because I got pregnant and I'm still in high school. I don't think that would be fair.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

How does wanting to give the fathers a say make someone an asshat?

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

In any case, apparently you haven't noticed, but the only part of this legislation that I approve of is the man's right to have a say. The rest of it I do not support.

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

As I've already indicated in my last post, I support only the man's right to have a say. In any case, if the man doesn't come forward, then as far as I'm concerned, he's waived that right.

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

Again, the only part of the bill I agree with is the man's right to have a say.

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

What I've been saying (over and over, and yet people still can't comprehend this) is that the man should have a say.

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

If you want to know why, it's because right from the beginning I've said that the only part of the bill that I support is the man's right to have a say.

Originally Posted by Saya

What part of the bill do you support?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Because men don't have a right to say anything without the bill?

[Beneath the Shadows]

We have the right to say something. But what's the point when what we have to say is legally worthless?

[Godslayer Jillian]

So how do you want the man to have a say and not to mean he has the final word on proceeding with an adoption?

[Alarica]

I think that the ultimate decision is a womans and her alone, for whatever her personal reasons, but I do think that men should have a say too.

That said, I only recently became aware of partial birth abortions. That changes my view on them rather.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Alarica

I think that the ultimate decision is a womans and her alone, for whatever her personal reasons, but I do think that men should have a say too.

That said, I only recently became aware of partial birth abortions. That changes my view on them rather.

Partial birth abortion is a blanket term invented by the anti-choice movement, what it is depends on your definition.

Originally Posted by Tumor

Well, you're assuming that men are out to control women's bodies, to what's wrong with someone assuming that women are out to control men's wallets?

I don't believe that either assumption is representative of the gender they're being applied to, but fair's fair.

This biill is meant for men to conrol women's bodies, how is it not? Either way you're saying and trying to get a woman to do what you want with her body. And no, its just a disgusting assumption that women being a single mom is sooooo easy that they just go through pregnancies willy nilly just to get money. Seriously, have you been a single parent or the child of one, and had to watch them break their backs trying to make ends meet even when the father was nice enough to send the cheque on time?

Let me get this straight. You argued with him over the issue of **** to such an extent because of something he said at the end of the argument?

It was apart of his argument, no? And a disgusting and dismissive point at that.

If the woman wants to keep the child in spite of the father's objections, then he should legally be absolved (is that the correct word?) of any future responsibility, financial or otherwise.

That would be nice if we had a system in place that would take care of single parents and their children, but if we were to do that now children would be doomed to live in poverty and punished for not having a father who wanted to help.

We have the right to say something. But what's the point when what we have to say is legally worthless?

If you don't believe that a man has a right to veto an abortion, then how are you supporting this bill? Because thats all the bill does from a man who intends to use it to punish promiscuity and promote abstinence and waiting until marriage. It has little to do with "a man has a part of a say."

And really, how would men have a legal say without compromising the woman's autonomy?

[Alarica]

Originally Posted by Saya

Partial birth abortion is a blanket term invented by the anti-choice movement, what it is depends on your definition.

My definition of a partial birth abortion would be only that which I was recently informed about. Removing a fully formed foetus of about 20weeks gestation in this case, feet first but leaving the head still inside the mothers body. Turning it and inserting a pair of surgical scissors into the base of the skull, opening up the hole and sucking out the brain. Before removing the body completely and disposing of it. Partially delivering the baby, killling it and then removing it. Because by definition apparently it is classed as abortion and legal practice if they dont deliver the head until after it is dead. It's murder to do the same procedure after complete birth.

[Catch101]

Saya = Troll

She is arguing over nothing. We have all agreed this bill is idiotic, what the fuck else do you want?

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Alarica

My definition of a partial birth abortion would be only that which I was recently informed about. Removing a fully formed foetus of about 20weeks gestation in this case, feet first but leaving the head still inside the mothers body. Turning it and inserting a pair of surgical scissors into the base of the skull, opening up the hole and sucking out the brain. Before removing the body completely and disposing of it. Partially delivering the baby, killling it and then removing it. Because by definition apparently it is classed as abortion and legal practice if they dont deliver the head until after it is dead. It's murder to do the same procedure after complete birth.

Thats the D&X procedure, it accounts for about 0.17% of all abortions (source). The main reason why they don't deliver the head is because its much easier for the woman to pass (the skull collapses). Finally, the doctor does either anaesthetize the fetus or cut the umbilical cord before the procedure (source) . If done before the third trimester, the fetus has an extremely small chance of surviving outside the womb, so even if the woman cold push the head out she would just have to watch the fetus have a prolonged death. It can also be the least traumatic for the parents, since the body is intact they can mourn the body and hold it, otherwise, sorry to be gruesome but other methods may include surgery (which is a lot riskier) or taking the fetus out in pieces. After fetus viability is established, usually always in the third trimester the choice to abort is obviously a grave consideration by both the doctor and the woman and rarely done.

Originally Posted by Catch101

Saya = Troll

She is arguing over nothing. We have all agreed this bill is idiotic, what the fuck else do you want?

Do you read at all? And didn't you say you were going to fuck off?

[Catch101]

Originally Posted by Saya

Do you read at all? And didn't you say you were going to fuck off?

Just shut the fuck up already. You talk to damn much, and about nothing, seeing as everyone is in AGREEMENT over the bill.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Yeah, right. Then YOU answer how the fuck you want a "legal say" for the male that does not mean he will have control over a woman having an abortion or not.
Do that instead of calling one of our oldest members a troll.

[Catch101]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Yeah, right. Then YOU answer how the fuck you want a "legal say" for the male that does not mean he will have control over a woman having an abortion or not.
Do that instead of calling one of our oldest members a troll.

The best solution has already been put fourth by Tumor:

If the woman wants to keep the child in spite of the father's objections, then he should legally be absolved (is that the correct word?) of any future responsibility, financial or otherwise.

And I surely could care less about the length of time a troll has been registered on a forum.

Now please, STFU.

[Catch101]

And to add to Tumor's solution:

If the woman wants to abort the child in spite of the father's objection, then she should be allowed to without any permission slip needed.

*Fucks Off*

[Godslayer Jillian]

So in your revolutionary opinion that justifies calling Saya a troll, the man has no say on a woman's decision of having an abortion if she wants it and he doesn't.

[Tumor]

Originally Posted by Saya

This biill is meant for men to conrol women's bodies, how is it not? Either way you're saying and trying to get a woman to do what you want with her body.

Oh, now you're going to misrepresent my statements? I never said any such thing, nor did I say that I support any such thing.

And no, its just a disgusting assumption that women being a single mom is sooooo easy that they just go through pregnancies willy nilly just to get money. Seriously, have you been a single parent or the child of one, and had to watch them break their backs trying to make ends meet even when the father was nice enough to send the cheque on time?

So, women should be able to control men's wallets? Is that what you're saying? Because it looks a lot like you are right now.

It was apart of his argument, no? And a disgusting and dismissive point at that.

Completely beside the point. You said it was the cause of the argument. Rather, it is the result.

That would be nice if we had a system in place that would take care of single parents and their children, but if we were to do that now children would be doomed to live in poverty and punished for not having a father who wanted to help.

I love how you constantly claim that the women, and now even the children, will be "punished," but refuse to see that in many case so would the men.[/quote]