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

http://www.lifenews.com/state4302.html

I know he's tried this before and it won't pass, but the fact that so much time and money is going to be spent even trying to pass this shit boggles my mind. "Women can't be trusted making decisions by themselves, what does their husbands say? Oh, you got knocked up from casual sex and you're not sure who the father is? Shame on you, you hussy, you deserve to be punished for not adhering to our morals! You were *****? Doesn't matter if most rapes go unreported, you have to prove it and announce it to the world!"

Hmm, while I do think the father has some right in the matter, since it is the woman's body she has the final say. Why not simply add on somthing like a required waiting period if the woman is married unless the man gives his consent which would negate the waiting period. This waiting period could give some necessery time to think things through before a mistake is made that they could regret for the rest of their lives, if the woman still isn't convinced by then she can go through with it anyways.

I personally disagree with abortion, but if it's going to happen, might as well make sure the woman is absolutely sure.

Thats still pretty bad. Why a waiting period? I'm not a doctor but I would assume getting an abortion as soon as possible would be the healthiest choice. And thats another thing, this affect's not only the woman's autonomy and her body, but it also affects her health. And why married women? We don't sign our bodies away when we get married. The decision to abort shouldn't be decided by lawmaking men who know nothing about it and just want to project their morals on other people, its a health decision made by a woman and consulted with a doctor.

And would that waiting period extend to the morning after pill? I would argue that would be the least traumatic way to end a pregnancy but could easily be seen as a sort of abortion as well.

Thats still assuming people have the same opinions about abortion as you do, they could be perfectly convinced and willing right away and yet they should still wait because their husbands can't make up their minds? They still have to sit and watch their bodies change because of that? Why? Even the act of saying "honey, I went to get an abortion but they said you have to give me a permission slip or we'll have to wait" is insanely patronizing. Because someone else thinks that they are incubating a sacred life, a subjective belief that they do not adhere to.

I personally disagree with abortion so I will not have one. But I know my squeamish attitude towards abortion is completely subjective and I have no right to impose those beliefs on someone else or make it harder for them to get the healthcare they want.

Ah yes, soon abortions, like guns, will come with a mandatory 3-day waiting period.

Well because people tend to make abrupt decisions, and with all the horomone imbalences going on in a pregnant woman they can make plenty. Like how some women have thoughts to kill their kids somtimes due to sone of these imbalences. I doubt it's completely unheard of for one of these imbalences to lead to thoughts of an abortion one moment and then end up not wanting one the next, I think that would be a horrible situation.
I made the end of my earlier post in an attempt to point out the fact that I was looking past the fact that I disagree with somthing, though I am sorry if I did not make it clear enough, as I havent had much of sleep today.

Its up to the doctor to decide if the woman is in an okay state of mind, again not a lawmaker. The imbalances you're talking about with the women who killed their children is POST partum depression, after the birth. In any case, its just wrong to treat women like they're hysterical and slaves to their hormones, if some have regrets later thats sadly their prerogative, other women shouldn't suffer for it.

http://www.webmd.com/news/20000822/s...egret-abortion

And most women do not regret having an abortion. The problems of a few should not hinder the rights of the majority, and because a few may become depressed afterwards does not mean that the state has any right to treat women like children.

There is actually more than just Post partum depression, otherwise they wouldn't need to specify that it happened after birth, Post partum depression just recieves the most press.

Whatever the case may be, the number of women killing their children in the US every year is 200,

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art..._children.html

And I doubt all of those murders were due to pregnancy, even if it was its a far cry from a significant amount of mothers to even come into this discussion. Even so, depression during and after pregnancy still only affects 13% of women:
http://www.womenshealth.gov/FAQ/depr...regnancy.cfm#b

About 1/3 of all women will have an abortion, and 60% of those who get an abortion already have children. Why can't they be trusted to know themselves and their bodies? Most of them have been through it before.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Eh don't worry I only brought it up fyi not to get anyone riled up I conceed the discussion to you.

I wasn't getting riled up.

Ah well you can still have a cookie anyways if you want.

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

1. No one has the right to have that kind of control over another person's body.

2. Its punishing women who have casual sex.

3. Its making things very hard on those who have been *****, once again only one in ten rapes get reported, if you didn't report it you have to carry to term.

4. Its assuming that a embryo or fetus is a person and a child, and therefore a father would have parental rights. That is a completely subjective view, and has no legal standing.

5. Its a pro-life tactic to limit abortions and promote chastity and waiting until marriage, they really don't give a fuck about rights, they want to punish promiscuity and sex before marriage.

6. If you're in a commited relationship more than likely you're going to talk it over with your husband or boyfriend before you go through with it. But also according to the guttmacher link I provided, half of women who abort list fearing being a single parent or having problems with their significant other one of the reasons they aborted, and two thirds report not being able to afford a child. That means a man that they might not know very well or one that they are not in a stable relationship with has the power to veto the decision about their bodies.

7. This would cause the return of back alley abortions, and women will die.

I just want to clarify for those who may be wondering this stat is based on those who report **** to a hotline but not to the police, last I heard the stat in the US was that 87% of rapes reported to hotlines went unreported to police, so it doesn't even take into consideration those who may be too traumatized to call.

1. So what you're saying is that the rights of the woman takes precedence over the rights of the man? Sorry, I can't accept that. I believe in equal treatment.

2. No more than men.

3. I'm not talking about ****. I'm talking about consentual sex. In the cases of **** or disease, abortio should always be an option, no questions asked.

4. Technically, abortion is a parental right. So if the mother has parental rights, so should the father.

5. It won't limit abortions because most of the men would encourage the woman not only to get an abortion, but to do it ASAP. (It could also be said this encouragement would convince a woman to get an abortion when she would otherwise decide not to.) It doesn't promote chastity or punish pre-marital sex because if people are going to have sex, they're going to do it regardless. As for promiscuity, you make it sound as if promiscuity should be socially acceptable. Even people who are sexually liberated frown upon promiscuity.

6. As I've already indicated, most men won't "veto" the decision.

7. Oh, right, because a woman couldn't simply leave Ohio for a day.

Just how the hell does that logic work when we have already said that most **** victims don't report to the police and you have to have brought criminal charges for you to be regarded as a **** victim under this proposed legislation.


You don't know a lot of the men I know.

If a man could volunteer to carry the baby than maybe, but its the woman who has to handle the health risks associated with pregnancy, carry the fetus for nine months and then go into labour. This treats women as merely incubators for babies.

See above. A man does not suffer from pregnancy. When the child is born, then he can have equal parenting rights, but before then no man has any right to force a woman to bear his child. Secondly, in this bill, if the woman doesn't know who the father is, she is prohibited from an abortion. So whoever did impregnate her can just not come forward, but she still has to suffer.

You asked what makes him an asshat.

No, its a healthcare right, a right as a human to have control over her own body and a right to autonomy.

Most men? Actually, more than half of men in America oppose abortion:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1212/abo...ion-gender-gap

And even if "most men" wouldn't, what about those who would? "Sorry babe, you have to go through with this. Even though statistically speaking there's a 50/50 chance we're not in a stable relationship and we're more than likely to be below the poverty line."

In the article, and again you asked why he's an asshat, he did say he wants to promote chastity and waiting until marriage. In this bill, if a woman does not know who the father is, she is prohibited from having an abortion, and will go to jail if she still has one.

And yes, there is nothing morally wrong with casual sex, and what do you mean by "sexually liberated?" In the historical context this includes "free love", and the power to choose one's sexual behavior without the notion that sex as a shameful act that should only be between two people in a relationship. I understand not wanting to participate, I won't myself, but there is nothing wrong with adults having consentual sex with each other even if they are not in a relationship, or don't even know each other.

If her husband is like most men and oppose abortion, you think he'd let her leave the state and come back magically unpregnant? And why should they have to leave to get a health care service they are entitled to? Why should we make it harder for women to get an abortion? Because economic reasons play a big part in the decision to abort, it can be difficult for some women to leave, and really, if you're so for this than you'd want this on the national level, right? Its just barbaric to ask a women that if she wants her abortion she has to leave, just because she doesn't know the father, was ***** but didn't report it or because her husband thinks he owns her body.

Then maybe they should press charges more often. 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.

Gee, that was a compelling argument.

Fuck off, really.

About as compelling as you saying that most men would be all for the abortion.

Technically, that's exactly what the womb is. But it's far better to treat women as "merely incubators" than to treat men as non-entities.

So a man can't force a woman to bear his child, but a woman can force a man to have no recourse when she aborts his child. That's still a double standard, and it's still bullshit.

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.

I don't think that that question would apply to a **** victim seeking an abortion. "Question 1: Were you *****? Question 2: Did this act of **** get you pregnant? Question 3: Do you wish to abort the pregnancy? Question 4: Is Representative John Adams an asshat?" Yeah, that doesn't quite work.

If it's not a parental choice or right, then why are the parents of unborn children called the parents of unborn children?

That link says 46%. That's not more than half.

And what about those who would convince the woman to get an abortion when she'd otherwise not get one? The specific people getting abortions would change, but the number of abortions would not.

As I've already indicated, I don't support that part of the bill.

Sexually liberated; defining one's views on sexuality not according to religious dogma, but rather on the reality of human nature. You want to have pre- or extra-marital sex? Go for it. Want to have more than one partner at any given time, or even at the same time? Sounds fun. Gender of your partner is irrelevant? Whatever floats your boat. I'm not sure where I stand on the age issue. In any case, I consider myself sexually liberated. Hell, if I wanted to I could take a mistress, and my wife wouldn't care (which would qualify her as being sexually liberated as well).

There's still a difference between being sexually liberated and fucking anyone and everyone who's willing and available. Even someone who's sexually liberated must take responsibility for their sex life. I wouldn't want to be the one to catch and spread an STD.

If she really wanted an abortion, do you really think she'd stop and ask for permission?

"Entitled" is a subjective term. If the majority of voters in Ohio voted that women are not entitled to abortions, then they're not.

Why should we make it easier? Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control in place of other contraceptive measures. Using it as such is irresponsible.

[quote]Because economic reasons play a big part in the decision to abort, it can be difficult for some women to leave,[quote]

If they're so poor that they can't afford a $150 Greyhound ticket (that's round-trip and assuming that they'd travel from one end of Ohio to the opposite end to leave the state, rather then the closer state border), then how can they afford an abortion in the first place?

Wrong. Such decisions are up to each individual state, and I'd rather it stay that way.

In the context of this discussion, "barbaric" is quite simply a laughable term to use.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know it would offend your sensibilities to suggest that rapists should be dealt with rather than be allowed to remain free and at large.

According to Gallup in a poll more recent then the one Saya linked to, most men do support abortion.

Pro-choice and being okay with abortion are two very different things and your link simply said that 49% or men are pro-choice

Um... sure.

If science were to turn up a cure for AIDS or a technology which removed all the health threats of hard drugs, the same people would be clamoring for legislation against it. Some of these people don't give a shit about people. They consider suffering and horror a valuable asset in their war on human nature and freedom.

Thats a bit of a paradox when you consider war is part of human nature.

Everyone says this but it's total bullshit.

I believe a woman is the only one who has a say in what she does to her body. The man doesn't have to carry a baby for 9 months. A man doesn't have to suffer from morning sickness and fainting. A man doesn't have to go into labour and push something the size of a computer screen through something the size of a thumbnail.
Until that starts happening, I believe that a man should keep his nose out of it when the woman he got pregnant wants an abortion.

Oh, and Beneath The Shadows? You are the only asshat here with that attitude.

Are you fucking kidding me? Its better to objectify and veto the will of a human being just because the father is a dickhead?

No, because its not a child. Its a fetus.

Again, we're talking about the bill, and you asked what makes this guy an asshat.

You asked what about this bill makes him an asshat, I told you he wants to punish **** victims. I have no idea why the fuck you think they would ask a **** victim about it, according to this they must provide a police report stating that they have been *****.

Its not legally classified as a parental right since its not a child, in Roe vs Wade it was decided that abortion is only constitutional because its a right to privacy:

"right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

Notice no use of the world "parent" there, just a woman and her pregnancy.

I apologize, I read it wrong A more recent one puts it at 54% of men consider themselves prolife:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30771408/

While there can be manipulation in a woman getting an abortion, legally her opinion is the only one that matters. I can be pressured into joining the army but at the end of the day its still legally my choice, why give men who have so much sway over women the legal right to control them?


Why not? I mean, if they find out who the father is, can he press charges for the slut to pay for killing his baby?

Having casual sex is considered promiscuous, so yeah you fucking another woman even if your wife doesn't care is still "promiscuous" and if she gets knocked up and you don't want her to abort, she'd have to carry the baby of a married man she doesn't really give two shits about.

No, there's still nothing wrong with have sex with multiple partners, yes they should be careful and wear condoms but otherwise there is nothing wrong with it. Again, its just trying to punish women who have multiple partners or one night stands, a man she doesn't know suddenly has veto power over her body.

Most couples would discuss it, maybe he'd be willing. But if he isn't, she's fucked.

They are entitled because of the constitution, its a federal right the state cannot take away.

Why? If done during the first trimester it has virtually no long term effects on a woman.

That would add 150 dollars right up to their bill when low cost abortion clinics still can charge a few hundred already. And then they'd have to take time off work to leave, so they'd end up losing more money. No, at home with a coat hanger would be cheaper and then you can just tell the father you miscarried, can't you? Plus don't forget that 60% of women who abort are already mothers, so there needs to be a babysitter while she's gone, and really how would the father not notice that hundreds of dollars and a pregnancy is missing?

Again, wrong. The right to abortion is held up at a federal level.

Only if you're projecting your own morals towards abortion onto it.

The one I put up in this post was taken last May, a year newer than yours.

Way to blame the victim and just say "oh then they should just come forward if they want their abortions." Its not that easy for a lot of women, most victims of sexual assault are young and you're more likely to get ***** by someone you know. Not to mention even when charges are pressed, most rapists get off the hook. For some rapes its hard to prove (like marital ****), some people might not even know some forms of **** are ****, and especially after that kind of trauma I don't blame a girl one bit if she just can't report it to the police. Punishing the victim and forcing her to have a baby just because she never filed a police report is fucking sick.

Solumina is right, not everyone who is pro choice goes out every weekend and has an abortion. Like I said earlier, I for one wouldn't get an abortion, I'm pro choice though. A man can say he's pro choice but when he has the opportunity to have a kid or if he's abusive, wants to punish the woman, he would have veto and could use it.

Versus dehumanizing another human being in the extreme and denying them the freedom of choice because the mother is a cunt? Yes.

Which is an unborn child.

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

Yeah, you say that. The article disagrees. "Adams said the bill offers exceptions in cases of **** or incest or when the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy."

Because they're talking about women in general. Not all women are pregnant, so it would make no sense to call them all parents.

So it seems. It's amazing how often these results change.

"Manipulation." "Control." Give me a break. This isn't about controlling women. It's about the rights of men. Oh, but I forgot... in our PC-inundated society, vagina trumps penis, just because.

I've already said why not numerous times.

Who's "they?" In any case, it depends on the situation. If the identity of the father isn't known until after the abortion, then no. If the father identifies himself and then tests prove it, then yes.

Only by people with the most uptight and conservative views on sex. Promiscuity falls under casual sex, not the other way around.

First of all, I wouldn't take a mistress I didn't care about or who didn't care about me. If all she wants is sex, and nothing more she can go find someone else. Secondly, if I got someone else pregnant and she wanted an abortion, I'd be fine with it.

Way to assume stuff.

I didn't say that there was anything wrong with it.

Stop making it all about women. It's not. It's not just women who can be promiscuous. And it's not just women who have to suffer for it if the child is carried to term. Let's say Mr. Q goes out and sleeps around. Three of the women e sleeps with get pregnant. Each child is carried to term. Who's going to be the one busting his ass for the next 18 years to pay child support to three different women? Who's the one who will go to jail if he skips out on payments? Conversely, who's the ones who have numerous public programs created to assist them in many ways, from health-care to education to basic needs for children, some of which are unavailable to men due to the fact that men are men?

As I've already indicated, so is he.

If the voters pass a proposition banning abortion, then yes they can. Otherwise, the Federal government would be infringing on the rights of the voters on on the rights of the states to govern themselves via the general public. "Of the people, by the people, for the people."

You don't consider possible death a long-term effect?

$150 at most.

Days off?

They could do that regardless. Why pay a few hundred at a low-cost abortion clinic when you can just grab a hanger?

Um... the father? That's what he's there for. (Yes, sometimes women go out for a night or two with friends.)

If the woman said she was going out for a night or two with friends, that would explain the hundreds of dollars. As for the pregnancy, if a woman who used a coat hanger can simply say that she mis-carried, why can't a woman who went to a clinic?

There's no provision saying that the general public of any state can't vote to illegalize abortion.

Isn't that exactly what you're doing right now?

You're right, I thought it said 2009, not 8.

Where, exactly, did I do that? Other than "nowhere," of course.

More like "oh then they should just come forward." Period.

I hope you're not suggesting that that makes it alright.

I've seen plenty of reports saying that most people accused of sex crimes get convicted even if they're innocent. I've never seen one that says that most people accused of sex crimes get off the hook.

Oh, bullshit. A woman who gets ***** will display the same psychological and physical effects, no matter who it was who ***** her.

How do you not know if you got *****?

Neither can I. But that doesn't change the fact that, unless someone else catches the rapist in the act, a rapist won't get punished unless his victim comes forward.

No one's disagreeing with you in this case, so that begs the question... why do you continue arguing as if someone is?

I wasn't aware that she even said anything of the sort.

If a man prohibits an abortion just to punish the woman, he punishes himself, as well. As for being abusive, that sounds like legal grounds to invalidate his choice to me.

Stop fucking atomizing your arguments. It's annoying.

BTS, all I have to say is that there have already been cases in which the man sues the woman for her desire to have an abortion without his consent.
That seems alright, for a man to have a legal option if he doesn't want his child to be aborted.
What YOU want, on the other hand, is for the woman to be entirely subordinate to the man until HE makes a decision for HER. You must see how stupid that is.

Baby grows in woman.
Woman doesn't want baby to grow inside her.
Man does.

I don't really see why the man should have a legal say...
It's growing inside the woman.

I wouldn't want a woman to kill off my baby if it was a conscious decision for us to have a baby and she later simply chooses to back down. I feel I should have a say on that.
However, that's the type of shit you talk about together. BTS can't possibly think that a man should talk of his feelings with that pregnant woman and instead he should have total control and veto power over her body. Yet he thinks that the solution to so many unreported rapes is simply:

I definitely agree about talking it over.
Don't get me wrong, I just think that the end decision should be the woman's, as it's her body.
Personally, I don't think I could ever deal with children, maybe I let that skew my points.

If you had actually read my arguments, you would know that that's not true. What I've been saying (over and over, and yet people still can't comprehend this) is that the man should have a say. Having a say does not mean total control. Having a say does not mean that the decision to abort (or not to) will be as the man wants 100% of the time. It only means that what the man wants will be taken into account when the final decision is made.

Of course you should.

Wouldn't that be part of "having a say?"

I really don't know where you got such a ridiculous idea.

How is that even related to what you were saying?

He has no choice to be denied, its only the woman's. Its in her cunt, not his dick.

Thats like saying I'm an unaged senior citizen. Its not a child yet.

And they'd have to prove that they were *****, otherwise it could be considered lying and the woman would go to jail for six months.

No, because we are talking about a woman and her pregnancy, and because of her right to privacy it is her body, her condition and her choice. Men do not get pregnant.

The anti-choice movement can scare a lot of people.

Give me a break, this is about controlling women because they are out of control having their abortions! Maybe when something the size of a watermelon wants to crawl out of your dickhole you might not really care what your wife has to say about stopping that from happening.

And the state will pay for all these tests? Or would the state punish the woman further by making her pay it?

You can have casual sex with multiple partners and it would be considered promiscuous:

"not restricted to one sexual partner"

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/promiscuous

But you should never ever have the choice to force anyone else to have your baby.


Thats in the case if the man has a CHILD with a woman. When a woman is pregnant and has a FETUS, and is enjoying a parasitic relationship with it, then he has no say in what she does with HER body. Whatever the father feels about "Oh I didn't want the kid", the kid, the breathing sentient PERSON, does not deserve being punished and live in poverty because his parents don't like each other.


Once again, huge difference between a person and a fetus that is living inside a woman.

They'd have to change the federal constitution, it would be illegal otherwise. California for example cannot reinstate racial segregation even if everyone in the state voted for it because equal rights is federally enshrined.

http://www.womenshealthlondon.org.uk...ab/pregab.html

"The rate of deaths from early abortions is about 1 in 100,000 in this country. Comparing this to the maternal death rate, abortion is eight to ten times safer than childbirth."

Its far more risky to carry to term, and pregnancy has far more side effects other than death.

It still makes it unnecessarily harder on them, and while yes home abortions still exist because of the cost of abortions perhaps under the new US healthcare system abortions will become even cheaper or free like they are here in Canada, since they are a legal and medically appropriate procedures.

Thats assuming they have a sort of relationship. Some women just can't sneak away from the house for that long.

So you're saying that you're pro a woman having to lie to her husband after attempting to get a legal abortion and spending money to leave the state to have her abortion...if its in another time zone its not hurting the father's choice? Whats the point of this then if all you're trying to do is marginalize a woman's right and punish her for wanting an abortion?

Roe vs.Wade. If that ever got reversed there are states that have a trigger ban, meaning that its not illegal now because of Roe but if it ever got overturned then the ban would be effective immediately. But they cannot make it illegal right now because Roe stands. There are restrictions that some states can chose (for example, parental consent for a minor who is pregnant, 24 hour waiting periods) but they cannot deny the right to abortion altogether.

Absolutely not, quite the opposite. Like I've said twice in this thread now, I would never have an abortion, but my religious beliefs are not that of others so when arguing about abortion I cannot allow my religion or very subjective morals to come into play. A woman is pregnant, and doesn't want to give birth. Pregnancy, I'm not sure if you're aware, is not an easy thing and like I've already mentioned, abortion is safer than giving birth. Its her medical condition, her body and her choice alone, not the man she slept with.


You're putting the responsibility on the **** victim to prove she was ***** otherwise she can't have her abortion.

For a lot of women its not that easy.

What I'm suggesting is that young scared women being abused by someone they may have trusted might not just be able to easily report their abuse.


There is only a 16% conviction rate for a rapist in America:
http://www.rainn.org/get-information...eporting-rates

The issue of how many are falsified however is plagued with bad research on both sides, and is rarely ever touched. Its hard to say because a lot of studies who place that number as high include when victims recant, which is not an admission of guilt but an unwillingness to go through with legal proceedings. And of course the coverage on the falsified reports can make victims become targets, even if they have been ***** but can't prove it.

Bullshit, its different for every situation and for every individual. If a husband rapes, if a woman rapes a man, if a father rapes you, if a stranger tackles you in the bushes, if you wake up after someone slipped something in your drink and you're all alone in a motel room and don't even know what happened, everyone is going to have a completely different reaction. I know women who have been ***** who have completely derealized the situation, they never cried over it or felt fear, they just can't really feel like its real. I've known women who completely broke down and I know women who did a good job at acting and keeping up a front. I know men who have been ***** who would bottle it all inside, because they're men, right? I know men who hit rock bottom and couldn't get back up, I know men and women who dealt with it very well and never let it bring them down. I have known many people who have been sexually assaulted, I don't know a single one who reported it.

See above for date **** scenario, but also many people do not know that a spouse can **** their spouse, might not think that if you're drunk or asleep that it counts if it was a boyfriend or a husband, might not think it counts at all if you are drunk, might think that because they were not able to say no that it meant it wasn't ****, if they were coerced into saying yes, if a lover manipulates them afterwards and says things like "you enjoyed it/you were asking for it by doing/wearing variable z", if a child is ***** they might not even know what it was. Also for men they're supposed to enjoy sex, right? See the thread about the hairdresser ****** a man for comments on if men are even able to be ***** at all.


And thats extremely hard for them to do, and even if they do there's only a 16% chance they will get justice at all.

Because you merely shrugged the issue of **** victims off as "well they should just come forward", meaning they get punished for not being able to or unwilling to report what happened to them. Thats fucking sick.

she said: "Pro-choice and being okay with abortion are two very different things", I'm sorry for assuming you could look back and read. Not everyone who is pro choice will be willing to get an abortion, as simple as that.

I don't think getting the kid he wanted is equal to the punishment of pregnancy and the lack of the right to choose what to do with one's own body. And domestic abuse can also hard to prove, especially non physical abusers. But better err on the side of safety and treat all women like liars and make them have your babies, right?


I doubt many women will get an abortion willy nilly while being in a stable relationship without putting the father into consideration. A man should not have legal rights over a woman's body.

Funny, I thought the fetus develops in the uterus. <_< In any case, it's his dick that's in part responsible.


Here's something interesting...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

"1 a: an unborn or recently born person"

If they press charges, even if the accused is acquitted, there's reasonable doubt. No jury would convict a woman in such a case. Unless, maybe, the same woman did the same thing numerous times.

You just basically said the Roe v Wade applies only to one person.

Can't argue with that.

If women gave birth through their urethra, that analogy would be apt.

Oh, right, because the person making the claim (the man) shouldn't be responsible for backing those claims up.

According to that definition, an 80 year-old who's had sex with just two people through-out their entire life is a slut.

Then why should women have the choice to force someone else to lose a child?


If an abortion isn't performed, the man would have a child with the woman.

If the child is born even though the father didn't want it, then that child would still (possibly) live in poverty. In such a case as you just described, the kid will suffer because the father's wishes were ignored, not in spite of that.

Yeah. A fetus depends on the woman for less than a year. A born child depends on the woman, or man, or both (or, in some cases, someone else) for well over a decade.

But then you try to make the fetus sound worse.

If equal right is so "enshrined," how did Prop 8 pass?

We're talking about America, not England. In any case, I didn't say that bearing a child is safer. I said that there are still risks associated with abortion.

Earlier you implied that having the state (or the mother) provide the cost of a paternity test is bad, but now you suggest that the state bear the cost of an abortion?

In any case, the state should only provide necessary health-care. Broken limbs, contagious/debilitating/deadly diseases, gun/knife wounds, automobile accident victims, things like that. Abortion is not necessary, unless the life of the mother is put at risk by the pregnancy.

If they didn't have that sort of relationship, why would the man be noticing a few hundred missing dollars, unless the woman stole it from him?

No, what I'm saying is that even if one state gives men the right to have a say, women still have options. It's not as cut-and-dry as you're saying it is.

I was already talking about Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade is not a provision in itself.

Yes, I know all that. The reason those laws cannot go into effect is because they when through the state legislature, not the voting public.

Because no state's voting public has ever passed such a proposition. I'm not even sure if any state has managed to gain enough petition signatures to put such a proposition on a ballot.

And how will this be accomplished?
Would you be for or against having a girl go run to the father and sign her permission slip?

As far as whether or not pregnancy is easy, I can only go but what I've seen. What I've seen is that every time my wife was pregnant, it was quite easy for her. In the end, though, she got a bit lucky, I guess. C-sections.

It's up to the **** victim to prove that they were *****, regardless.

I never said it would be easy. I know first-hand that it's not easy.

That's why children should be taught that if something happens, and they have no idea if it's bad or not, they should talk to an adult.

You know, I followed the sources that site claimed, and couldn't seem to locate any specific statistics about **** convictions. Maybe I missed it.

I didn't mean to imply that women are lying about being ***** though that certainly would qualify as "even if they're innocent." I was thinking more along the lines of cases such as mistaken identity or circumstantial evidence.

If someone forces their dick into you, you're going to have marks from forced entry. If you struggled, you'll probably have even more marks. If you were tied up, you'd have marks from that. The point is, there is almost always visible evidence of ****.

As for psychologically, you're right, different people react differently. But even then, criminal psychologists are trained to identify when a person is reacting to a ****.

This would still result in the above-mentioned physical evidence.

The whole "if you're drunk you were *****" bullshit is exactly that. Unless, of course, someone got someone else drunk just so they could fuck them. Beyond that, drunkeness does not equal non-consentual. If both parties were drunk, who ***** who?

In this day and age, I'd be amazed if there were really that many people who didn't know that those things are not okay.

Like I said above, they should be taught to go to an adult if they're not sure.

I'm well aware of people's opinions on the matter. A man can be ***** by a woman. That's all I have to say about that.

So they shouldn't try at all? They should just roll over and take it? You might as well say that they were asking for it.

What's fucking sick is that I say that **** victims should come forward, and you argue against it.

"Pro-choice and being okay with abortion are two very different things."

"Not everyone who is pro choice goes out every weekend and has an abortion."

Your statement doesn't match up with hers.

You're right, 18 years of responsibility and hard work is not comparable to 9 months of discomfort. Women are lucky.

As for "the lack of the right to choose," that's exactly what you're arguing for.

Again, criminal psychologist. (And I don't mean the ones who talk to criminals, I mean the ones who help investigators determine if a criminal complaint is valid. I'm not sure if that's the proper term.)

And a woman should not have legal rights to deny a man his own rights.

Tear down the straw man and try again.

But its her uterus that has to be plagued by a parasitic life form for nine months.

Thats fine for a dictionary but legally a fetus isn't a child or a person. And am I an unaged senior citizen by that logic?

The fact that a woman would have to face legal threats and probably will be prosecuted especially if she didn't press charges or was unable to, thats still disgusting.

I'm sorry you can't understand abstract logic.

Again, sorry for your poor comprehension.

So pin the woman down and take a DNA sample from her unwillingly?


Could be that way if you take everything absolutely literally like you do.

What child? There is no child to lose, just a pregnancy.

Just like if they didn't use protection. Should women who use birth control without the father's knowledge be shamed for robbing the man's opportunity to have a child? You can get pregnant and lose the zygote when you have your period, should they mourn the loss of their potential child around the toilet whenever she flushes a tampon?

Doesn't matter, children shouldn't be punished because they are unwanted. I do concede that people who have children should consider the possibility that they can get pregnant and abortion may not be an option. Are you for forcing women to have abortions when the man doesn't want one? Whats the difference?

Nine months can be a long time, and labour isn't any fun either.

A fetus just isn't a person or a child.

Because a lot of politicians have no shame.

I couldn't find recent stats for America, I'd assume its worse since the healthcare isn't so great there but otherwise we can go with the country that has universal healthcare. As for abortion risks, you jumped on death first, and that risk is higher for a woman if she carries to term. Pregnancy can really ravage a woman's body. Abortions carry the risks of any other medical or surgical procedure, depending on when the abortion is done and how.

Since I believe that universal healthcare is a right and abortion is a medical procedure, yes. Here in Canada abortions are provided for free.

Necessary can be subjective, and thats only your opinion.

If two people are living together, you notice. I never even lived with anyone before and a lot of boyfriends knew how much money I had at almost any given time. And if we allow this to happen, there can still be room for other restrictions such as punishment for transporting a woman to another state for an abortion (in previous abortion banning attempts this has been a part of it). You open up a whole door of people telling a woman what to do with her body and punishing her if she doesn't obey and squeeze a baby out for a man.

If you allow one state to prohibit abortion unless a man allows it, whats to stop the others? If you really believe in this, why wouldn't you want to see this on a national level? Will women be reduced to fleeing to Mexico and Canada in the end? Why should they leave?

No, but its not going to be overturned anytime soon.

So it remains a federally protected legal right, what are you complaining about? Even if a state managed to pass one there would be so many lawsuits it would just get overridden again.

South Dakota. It was voted down.

It's a straw man to ask you your SPECIFIC opinion on the SPECIFIC subject of this thread? You're the one trying to bullshit your way around the issue by just saying "the man ought to have a saying" when it's clear that you want more than just that, as you are still arguing the original post.

And what I've seen is women who can't wear pants anymore because their c-section scars still hurt.

No its not, and thats an extremely hard thing to do.

Unless you've given birth before you can't say you know first hand.

Way to oversimplify a complicated and horrible situation. Children are extremely suggestive and easily manipulated.

Follow number three in the footnote, sheesh.

Fair enough.

Not always the case, unless you're watching CSI. I'm not sure how many rapists tie up their victims, how many victims are completely conscious and fighting tooth and nail. You're focusing on a very specific **** scenario.

Then the **** convicition rate wouldn't be so low if thats all it took,wouldn't it? If it were that simple, there'd be no false accusations, right? They can talk to a person and say "this person has had a traumatic experience, or this person is depressed," but no one can say "This person has been *****" purely by how they are acting. And like I said, a lot of people put up a good front and some people dont' react at all.

Not always. You might find this interesting:
http://www.safercampus.org/blog/?p=1296


Its if a sober person takes advantage of a drunk person, whether or not they intentionally got them drunk.

Its sad but actually, but think about it, its fairly recently in history that we consider these things ****. I hope we're getting better at getting **** education out there but its not the case, if you don't go looking for this info you might not ever know, except for your gut feeling that you were violated somehow.

Like I said before, its just not that easy. And its not the kid's fault or the parent's fault if the kid doesn't come forward.

I'm not saying they shouldn't try and don't try to turn this around on me, I'm saying its not that easy for them and its not their fault if they don't report it. I can't blame a victim for not coming forward, even though I would and have encouraged it, its not their fault that our system makes it extremely hard for them to get any justice.

You're still the one who said its their fault if they didn't report it so no abortion, dude.

Again, I apologize for your lack of abstract thinking. Thats very sad you can't do that. I'll try to be absolutely literal in the future.

Fuck you. Even with that argument, a woman has the 18 years of responsibility and hardwork AND has to carry the child and risk health complications and death and give birth. Really, fuck you.

I'd vote against the right to choose to **** too, since its forcing someone to use their body for your wants.

Again, really, what magical world do you live in where every **** and abuse case can be proven sooooooo easily? CSI or Law And Order? Especially with these cases it can come down to a "he said she said" scenario.

There are no rights for her to deny.

Which, according to the law, is a human being for the majority of that time.

Like I just said, for the majority of that time, yes it is.

Depends. Are you 65 years old or older?

The fact that the woman allows her rapist to walk free is more disgusting.

I'm sorry you don't understand that Roe v Wade is not an abstract issue.

You're the one displaying a lack of comprehension You talked something the "size of a watermelon" wanting to "crawl out of [my] dickhole." Well, that would be my urethra. And for the analogy to be apt, women would have to be able to have something the size of a watermelon crawling out of their urethra. But wait! They can't! Aww, too bad.

And how, exactly, would that pay for a test?

You're the one saying that more than one sex partner = promiscuous. That would be you taking the dictionary definition literally.

You can't have one without the other.

Do you have a relevant point to make, or are you making up ridiculous scenarios just for the fuck of it?

You still don't get it. Allowing the man to have a say in the decision-making process does not mean that a child would be carried to term if he wants it to be, nor does it mean that an abortion will be procured if he demands it. It only means that his wishes will be taken into consideration. Why are you having so much difficulty understanding such a simple concept?

Eighteen years is far longer.

Yes it is.

Politicians had nothing to do with it.

That was my point in the first place that there's always risks. The only reason that abortion has claimed less lives than carrying a child to term is because the number of women seeking abortions is far less then women carrying the child to term.

A paternity test is also a medical procedure. Shouldn't it then also be provided by the state?

So, what, you think a punctured lung could be deemed unnecessary? And who cares if it's opinion? Most of your own arguments are nothing more than opinion. Should I dismiss them?

Make up your mind. Are these hypothetical people in a relationship where such things could be notice, or aren't they? You keep bouncing back and forth.

Right, because a Greyhound bus driver knows the purpose of everyone's trips.

And you open up a different door by denying anyone from having a say in anything.

The voters.

What part of "each individual state" did you not understand? Every state has the right to make up their own minds about issues. And so they should.

I seriously doubt that every single state would adopt similar policies. As far as abortion is concerned, that has never happened, even before Roe v Wade.

Yeah, we've already gone over this. You've brought us around in a circle.

I'm not the one complaining, here.

Well, there you go. The fact that any state has gotten such a measure on the ballots proves that Roe v Wade is not as infallible as you think.

I've never even heard any such thing. After four c-sections, it certainly isn't the case with my wife.

No it's not. It's only difficult to prove that someone in particular did it.

You need to pay attention. We're talking about the difficulty of rap victims to go the police right now. Not child-birth.

Dear lord, you just suggested that children ask to be *****.

Even if a child can be manipulated into doing something, it doesn't mean they would be confused about whether it's okay or not.

Didn't I just say that I already did?

Even if they don't fight, or can't, there's still physical evidence of forced penetration.

And you're bouncing between numerous scenarios.

That's why it's called "evidence" rather than "proof."

That doesn't disagree with anything I said.

In other words, no actual disagreement.

Everything you brought up I learned in school. And I haven't gone to school in over a decade, so I'm inclined to believe that most of that stuff is common knowledge.

Why are you so obsessed with blame? I'm not placing any.

I said "you might as well say." Not "you said." I'm not turning anything around here.

I said no such thing.

If someone says something, it either means one thing or another. Over-thinking it and trying to create tenuous connections to something else is not abstract thinking, it is assumption. And in this case, it's also misrepresentation.

And since when is a woman not capable of handing full custody of a child over to the father?

Which is why it's not only not a right, but illegal.

I'll tell you what worl I'm not living in... the one where you are where "almost always" doesn't actually mean "almost always," but rather "100%." Is that some more of your abstract thinking?

Then there are no right for him to deny.

No, it's a straw man to jump into a discussion about a man's right to have a say in whether or not his unborn child is aborted and start talking about parental permission.

Speaking of bullshit...

Nice, keep bullshitting your way around my question. It's very simple, listen carefully:
A bill is trying to pass. A woman has to ask for permission to get an abortion. If the man does not wanted, bad shit for her. Agree or disagree?