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

[Tumor]

Originally Posted by Catch101

The best solution has already been put fourth by Tumor:

Actually, that was an opinion. Not a solution.

[Catch101]

Originally Posted by 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.

Never once did I claim to have any "revolutionary" opinions. In fact I came into this thread posing a question, not voicing any opinion.

And did I not say we were in agreement?

I considered her a troll because she seemed the type who would argue (anything even slightly in a man's favor) until their head turned blue. (Yeah...I know...you should never assume...)

I would like to depart on somewhat good terms though, which is why I am apologizing. Sorry Saya, and anyone else who felt I was out of line with my comments or opinions.

Night'

[Catch101]

Originally Posted by Tumor

Actually, that was an opinion. Not a solution.

Yes sir' (or ma'am?...lol)

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Saya

If you don't believe that a man has a right to veto an abortion, then how are you supporting this bill?

Gee, I am soo glad you're here to tell me what I do and don't support. Because all this time, I was sitting here thinking that I didn't support the bill.

Silly me.

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

If a woman has a child in spite of the man's wishes, he will still be legally obliged to pay child support. Therefore, she will be compromising his autonomy. So if you object to a man having even the slightest chance to compromise any woman's autonomy (and really, that's all my opinion represents... the slightest chance), then it seems to me that you should object to a woman being able to do the same thing to a man. That is, if you believe in equal treatment.

Based on your arguments, however, I don't think that you do.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Catch101

I considered her a troll because she seemed the type who would argue (anything even slightly in a man's favor) until their head turned blue. (Yeah...I know...you should never assume...)

That doesn't make her a troll. That makes her a "feminist."

Note the quotes.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Point of order:

Can we stop referring to the unborn fetus by terms like "kid" and "child"? During the reasonable time of abortion, the fetus is somewhere between a clumping of sells and a parasite that roughly resembles the cross of a sea monkey and a chicken. Using the word "child" to refer to an unborn fetus that hasn't even developed enough to live on it's own is a cheap ploy trying to play off human instinct to protect the young.

Knock it off.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Tumor

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.

So a man has no say, right? What are you even arguing about?

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.

Absolutely not. But a child needs to be taken care of. Its not a mystery around here that I do support socialism and anarchy, but in society today many single parent families could not get by without child support. I do support putting a system in place so that single parent families CAN get by without child support, and that is the solution to that problem, not just screwing the kids over by letting the father do what he wants.

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

Not at all, he was responding to the point that the bill makes it extremely hard on **** survivors. It was part of the OP, go read it.

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]

Child support is based on what the parents make and what the child needs, the non-custodial parent should always have enough to support his or herself. To refrain from anecdotal information, lets look at the average for the US: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-99.pdf, the median child support is $280, or the average is $350. For fathers below the poverty line, the median is $125 dollars a month. And depending on where you live, the court might not order a 50/50 cost, but the custodial parent should take up the brunt of it, assuming the other parent spends no time with the child. All in all the average child support payment covers less than half of the expenses. The system sadly is broken for everyone involved, for both the parents and the kids, there's no denying that, and we need reform. I think we can achieve that without having kids starve to death.

Originally Posted by BeneathTheShadows

Gee, I am soo glad you're here to tell me what I do and don't support. Because all this time, I was sitting here thinking that I didn't support the bill.

Silly me.

So this whole time you were saying "the only part of the bill I support is..." meant an imaginary part of the bill?

If a woman has a child in spite of the man's wishes, he will still be legally obliged to pay child support. Therefore, she will be compromising his autonomy. So if you object to a man having even the slightest chance to compromise any woman's autonomy (and really, that's all my opinion represents... the slightest chance), then it seems to me that you should object to a woman being able to do the same thing to a man. That is, if you believe in equal treatment.

Based on your arguments, however, I don't think that you do.

See above. And another thing, this isn't financial rights and how that affects our children, we're talking about reproductive rights and medical rights. I don't think a man should get a permission slip from his significant other to get a vasectomy, or to donate sperm. I don't think he should have to refuse a blood transfusion just because his wife might be a Jehovah's Witness, its up to him what to do with his body.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Saya

So this whole time you were saying "the only part of the bill I support is..." meant an imaginary part of the bill?

So now "the only part" means the entirety rather than a single part?

See above.

Which part? Because I'm not seeing anything that even begins to address what I said.

And another thing, this isn't financial rights and how that affects our children, we're talking about reproductive rights and medical rights.

So now you're going to say that one set of rights is more important than another? Who are you to determine which rights should take precedence over other rights?

I don't think a man should get a permission slip from his significant other to get a vasectomy, or to donate sperm.

Those examples would be analogous with a tubal ligation or egg donation, not to abortion. It doesn't take two people to produce sperm or eggs, so it shouldn't take two people to make such decisions. But it does take two people to cause a pregnancy, which is why I've been saying that those same two people should, at the very least, discuss alternatives.

I don't think he should have to refuse a blood transfusion just because his wife might be a Jehovah's Witness, its up to him what to do with his body.

That's more of a religious debate than a gender-based debate such as we've been having, so I don't see the point in even bringing this one up. You could switch the genders and the argument remains valid for the same reasons.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

So now "the only part" means the entirety rather than a single part?

Isn't that EXACTLY the opposite of what she's saying?
She's saying that you came in here not to defend 'the entirety' of the bill, nor a 'single part' of the bill, but in fact a non-existent part of a bill, which makes all your comments useless and idiotic.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Point of order:

Can we stop referring to the unborn fetus by terms like "kid" and "child"? During the reasonable time of abortion, the fetus is somewhere between a clumping of sells and a parasite that roughly resembles the cross of a sea monkey and a chicken. Using the word "child" to refer to an unborn fetus that hasn't even developed enough to live on it's own is a cheap ploy trying to play off human instinct to protect the young.

Knock it off.

I agree that "fetus" is the proper term, but what you said is absolutely not true, unless you feel it's only reasonable to have an abortion like two weeks after you find out you're pregnant.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

So now "the only part" means the entirety rather than a single part?

What Jillian said.

Which part? Because I'm not seeing anything that even begins to address what I said.

That big paragraph in the exact same post in which I replied to a similar point by Tumor.

So now you're going to say that one set of rights is more important than another? Who are you to determine which rights should take precedence over other rights?

This is a thread about abortion rights, isn't it? You can bring up racial rights if you want but its still besides the point, unless you're arguing that a man has far more to lose if the pregnancy goes though and should have the right to force a woman to have an abortion. Shouldn't every man be thanking women for saving them the horrors of child support? A lot don't and won't, and its completely besides the point. What to do with a child once a child is born is one thing, what to do with a fetus that is not born and inside a woman is another.

Those examples would be analogous with a tubal ligation or egg donation, not to abortion. It doesn't take two people to produce sperm or eggs, so it shouldn't take two people to make such decisions.

Did you even know a lot of doctors ask for the wife's permission before going ahead with a vasectomy? And donated sperm goes somewhere, right? There is another person involved even if they don't know who. And only ONE person is carrying a fetus, only one person is pregnant, so it shouldn't necessarily take two people to make a decision about abortion.

But it does take two people to cause a pregnancy, which is why I've been saying that those same two people should, at the very least, discuss alternatives.

They should discuss how they feel about the subject, assuming they are in a relationship, but why does that have to be legally forced? Whats this legal right that you've been arguing for all this time? Force couples to sit down and talk it over, even though chances are they already have? Force two people who don't know each other except for a one night thing to talk it over?

That's more of a religious debate than a gender-based debate such as we've been having, so I don't see the point in even bringing this one up. You could switch the genders and the argument remains valid for the same reasons.

The anti-choice movement is steeped in religion, and the argument still stands that its forcing or coercing someone to do something potentially dangerous with their bodies when they can choose a legal and safer alternative. If a person on their own wants to refuse an abortion or a blood transfusion or any elective surgery because of morals they have towards the issue, fine. But if someone they love is pregnant or wants an elective surgery, why should the significant other have a say over what they do with their bodies?

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Isn't that EXACTLY the opposite of what she's saying?

No.

She's saying that you came in here not to defend 'the entirety' of the bill, nor a 'single part' of the bill, but in fact a non-existent part of a bill,

If it was non-existent, then this bill would basically saying that the man has no right to say anything one way or the other. Which is obviously not the case.

which makes all your comments useless and idiotic.

Comments to which both you and Saya argued against, making your own comments equally useless and idiotic, if not more so for actually arguing with them.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Wow, what a bullshit post.
"Of course it's in the bill, if it didn't mean what I want it to mean it would mean the opposite of what I want it to mean"
The bill has nothing to do with the man to just have a fucking say on a woman's abortion. It's for him to have CONTROL over a woman's abortion.
Cna you get that through your fucking skull or do we need another five pages of you bullshitting your way to not answering how you want a 'legal say'

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Saya

What Jillian said.

What he said was wrong. So answer the question

That big paragraph in the exact same post in which I replied to a similar point by Tumor.

I said that by requiring men to pay child support, those men's financial autonomy is being violated. You posted statistics on the average amount of child support payments. That does not address what I said.

This is a thread about abortion rights, isn't it? You can bring up racial rights if you want but its still besides the point, unless you're arguing that a man has far more to lose if the pregnancy goes though and should have the right to force a woman to have an abortion.

Where did "racial rights" come from? In any case, what I'm saying is both the man and the woman has the potential to lose something, so, again, it's something they should discuss together.

Shouldn't every man be thanking women for saving them the horrors of child support? A lot don't and won't, and its completely besides the point. What to do with a child once a child is born is one thing, what to do with a fetus that is not born and inside a woman is another.

In either case, it should be up to both parents.

Did you even know a lot of doctors ask for the wife's permission before going ahead with a vasectomy?

If they do so, they're doing in spite of there being no legal requirement to do so. But thanks for pointing out another double standard.

And donated sperm goes somewhere, right? There is another person involved even if they don't know who. And only ONE person is carrying a fetus, only one person is pregnant, so it shouldn't necessarily take two people to make a decision about abortion.

In the case of a woman (specifically, a single woman) to go to a sperm bank to get pregnant, the decision is made entirely by the woman. In such a case, a decision to abort would be up only to her.

They should discuss how they feel about the subject, assuming they are in a relationship, but why does that have to be legally forced? Whats this legal right that you've been arguing for all this time? Force couples to sit down and talk it over, even though chances are they already have? Force two people who don't know each other except for a one night thing to talk it over?

Why are you opposed to such discussion? What's wrong with two people sitting down, discussing their respective situations and opinions, examining all viable alternatives, and then deciding the best course of actions?

The anti-choice movement is steeped in religion, and the argument still stands that its forcing or coercing someone to do something potentially dangerous with their bodies when they can choose a legal and safer alternative.

No matter what choice is made, there are potential dangers and legal alternatives.

If a person on their own wants to refuse an abortion or a blood transfusion or any elective surgery because of morals they have towards the issue, fine. But if someone they love is pregnant or wants an elective surgery, why should the significant other have a say over what they do with their bodies?

If it's someone they love, why would they even consider denying them the opportunity to have a say?

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Wow, what a bullshit post.
"Of course it's in the bill, if it didn't mean what I want it to mean it would mean the opposite of what I want it to mean"
The bill has nothing to do with the man to just have a fucking say on a woman's abortion. It's for him to have CONTROL over a woman's abortion.
Cna you get that through your fucking skull or do we need another five pages of you bullshitting your way to not answering how you want a 'legal say'

What a load of shit. If a man has total control, he's not only having a say, he's getting his way. But he's still having a say. And that's part I agree with. The control part, on the other hand, I don't support. Which is why I don't support this bill.

I really don't get how you are unable, or unwilling, to comprehend this.

[Delkaetre]

Tell you all what. Suggestion.

The man does not have the right to force a woman to carry to term, because if he wants a child that badly, he should find a woman who actually wants a child. That way they both agree and no one has to force anyone else. Man does not have a say on abortion, man finds woman who wants the same thing as he does or even adopts one of the many, many children without parents.
Let's face it- it's much easier for a man to go out and get a different woman pregnant than it is for an unwilling mother to piece her life back together after the damage to body and career that a forced pregnancy may result in.

For those who are ranting about women being able to force men to pay- If a woman is dead set on carrying it to term when the man would rather she didn't and has at all reasonable points made this clear, then perhaps he should be absolved of financial responsibilities. For him to be able to avoid these financial responsibilities, his objections must have been raised within the first trimester while it's still possibly to safely and healthily abort. This still leaves some problem areas, but does reduce the number of hazards for unwilling fathers.

Would the above not make things so much easier than supporting even one small bit of the above bill?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

What a load of shit. If a man has total control, he's not only having a say, he's getting his way. But he's still having a say. And that's part I agree with. The control part, on the other hand, I don't support. Which is why I don't support this bill.

I really don't get how you are unable, or unwilling, to comprehend this.

Because you haven't fucking said one single time how you want a man to have a "legal say" in the matter.
Stop fucking around and answer that simple question.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

I agree that "fetus" is the proper term, but what you said is absolutely not true, unless you feel it's only reasonable to have an abortion like two weeks after you find out you're pregnant.

The facts I said were true, my opinions on how unpleasant fetus's look are more for commentary than guidelines. I know it's probably more human looking during the last part of viable abortion time.

To satisfy ophelia, I'll change the part.

It looks like something between a clump of cells, a mutant chicken, or a vaguely humanoid alien.

[Alarica]

For the argument on what a fetus looks like at various gestations, there is a group on facebook that women have posted photos of their dead babies, at various points in pregnancy. Not from abortion, but from miscarriage (I'm hoping anyway). Personally I think it's a sick thing to do, but I'm aware others think it's a healing and perfectly acceptable thing to do. If you want to argue about what they look like, go and look at the group. It's open and so are all the pictures. I'm happy to give the name of the group if anyone wants to see so you can put this into real perspective ffs.

[Catch101]

Okay...I know I said I would leave...but I thought this was hilarious!

Method Man and Red Man speak:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prvEy...layer_embedded

[Catch101]

AND, it was just a joke. No (if any) serious replies please!

[Tumor]

Originally Posted by Saya

So a man has no say, right? What are you even arguing about?

That your own arguments are flawed. You are obviously being gender-biased in the extreme, and you constantly have to resort to misrepresentation in order to make your arguments appear valid.

Absolutely not. But a child needs to be taken care of. Its not a mystery around here that I do support socialism and anarchy, but in society today many single parent families could not get by without child support. I do support putting a system in place so that single parent families CAN get by without child support, and that is the solution to that problem, not just screwing the kids over by letting the father do what he wants.

"Absolutely not. But a child needs to be taken care of." That's like saying "I'm not racist, but..." The bulk of your reply contradicts the first two words.

Not at all, he was responding to the point that the bill makes it extremely hard on **** survivors. It was part of the OP, go read it.

What do you mean "not at all?" His comment came almost at the very end of the argument about ****. It's right there on page two. No matter how you slice it, his comment was the result. Not the cause, like you claimed.

Child support is based on what the parents make and what the child needs, the non-custodial parent should always have enough to support his or herself. To refrain from anecdotal information, lets look at the average for the US: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-99.pdf, the median child support is $280, or the average is $350. For fathers below the poverty line, the median is $125 dollars a month. And depending on where you live, the court might not order a 50/50 cost, but the custodial parent should take up the brunt of it, assuming the other parent spends no time with the child. All in all the average child support payment covers less than half of the expenses. The system sadly is broken for everyone involved, for both the parents and the kids, there's no denying that, and we need reform. I think we can achieve that without having kids starve to death.

What does that have anything to do with it?

[Tumor]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Because you haven't fucking said one single time how you want a man to have a "legal say" in the matter.
Stop fucking around and answer that simple question.

Is your position really so weak that you have to demand a method on bringing his idea to fruition rather than discussing the merits of his idea? Whether or not he has an idea how to do such a thing is completely beside the point. Knowing how to make it happen (or not knowing, for that matter) does not make his ideas good or bad.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Tumor

That your own arguments are flawed. You are obviously being gender-biased in the extreme, and you constantly have to resort to misrepresentation in order to make your arguments appear valid.

Its only gender biased because only women can get pregnant. If men were capable of it I'd still say its his choice and not the mother's, how hard is that to fucking understand? So really, whats your problem with the statement "Only the pregnant woman should be able to choose to abort or to carry"?

"Absolutely not. But a child needs to be taken care of." That's like saying "I'm not racist, but..." The bulk of your reply contradicts the first two words.

How? I'm saying that if we get rid of child support altogether now kids will starve, so we need a system in place where those kids can be taken care of. Fuck your thick.

What do you mean "not at all?" His comment came almost at the very end of the argument about ****. It's right there on page two. No matter how you slice it, his comment was the result. Not the cause, like you claimed.

It still has everything to do with the OP, and even if he said something else equally stupid that had nothing to do with the OP I'd call him on his bullshit. Whats your problem?

What does that have anything to do with it?

I ask you then, what does child support have to do with abortion? In arguing about it, are you trying to make a case that men should be able to force women to abort? This started because BtS argued that a woman in labor can't imagine the pain of paying child support, that women get off easy compared to what a man has to go through, so its nothing to force a woman to carry to term. I called him on that bullshit, what more do you want to argue?

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Tumor

Is your position really so weak that you have to demand a method on bringing his idea to fruition rather than discussing the merits of his idea? Whether or not he has an idea how to do such a thing is completely beside the point. Knowing how to make it happen (or not knowing, for that matter) does not make his ideas good or bad.

We all fucking AGREE THAT PEOPLE SHOULD TALK BEFORE A DECISION IS REACHED and that the man SHOULD VOICE HIS OPINION. We are simply saying that there is no way to legally guarantee that the man will be able to give his opinion without giving him veto power.

In a perfect world I would be more than happy to remove the man's responsibility to pay child support if he is in favor of having the child aborted but I know that there are a lot of men who would simply say that they wanted an abortion in order to avoid child support, a better system needs to be put in place before something like that would be feasible.