This argument seems to be running into the abortion argument. I think you want to give men the ability to have an abortion, but it can't happen.
Uhh, NO! Just like you can't force a woman to have a baby, you can't force a woman to abort a baby. NO ONE IS ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE THAT. The woman has all the rights to her body as she wants. It is male opt-out that is being proposed here. The male should be able to opt-in (assuming the female is A-OK to proceed with the baby) or opt-out (still giving the female the choice of whatever she pleases to do with her body). She may even be smart and "opt-out" herself, if she realizes there won't be a man there to support her little project. If she is still opt-in, then she knows she will be on her own in the endeavor. Sad, but that's what she wants. The man shouldn't be "forced" into anything anymore than the woman is "forced" into anything.
Because the courts are slow, you don't mess something else up.
This argument seems to be running into the abortion argument. I think you want to give men the ability to have an abortion, but it can't happen.
They can't have a physical abortion since they don't have the child on them. But they could have a "legal" abortion with regard to being able to terminate their parental rights.
Uhh, NO! Just like you can't force a woman to have a baby, you can't force a woman to abort a baby. NO ONE IS ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE THAT. The woman has all the rights to her body as she wants. It is male opt-out that is being proposed here.
No, what I'm saying isn't that people want to force women to have an abortion, but to stop them. That takes away the female opt-out clause.
There is no way to give men something 'equal' to that abortion. An 'opt-out' clause is abstinence. Like I said earlier, we can't look at the results of your proposed laws (abortion for women vs. opting out for men) and say that because the end results for each respective party is the same the laws are equitable. That's just silly.
No, what I'm saying isn't that people want to force women to have an abortion, but to stop them. That takes away the female opt-out clause.
There is no way to give men something 'equal' to that abortion. An 'opt-out' clause is abstinence. Like I said earlier, we can't look at the results of your proposed laws (abortion for women vs. opting out for men) and say that because the end results for each respective party is the same the laws are equitable. That's just silly.
How would giving the men an opt-out clause deny women their ability to have an abortion?!?
Likewise just how are two laws that have equitable results silly?
As for for opt-out clause being abstinence, could the same be argued for women?
How would giving the men an opt-out clause deny women their ability to have an abortion?!?
No, the argument is leading towards 'give men an opt-out or take away the ability for women to have an abortion.'
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Likewise just how are two laws that have equitable results silly?
Ends don't justify the means.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
As for for opt-out clause being abstinence, could the same be argued for women?
Yup. Both men and women have the same options, except abortion. But men don't have the physical ability to have an abortion.
With an abortion, a women terminates a fetus. That's not a human and that's also not leaving a human alone and alive. With the opt-out clause people are discussing a man would be abandoning a human being. Two different cases entirely.
As long as I'm allowed to consider the men who "opt-out" worthless sacks of amoral garbage I'm fine with it morally as long as it is done before the second trimester of pregnancy is over.
No, the argument is leading towards 'give men an opt-out or take away the ability for women to have an abortion.'
Ends don't justify the means.
Yup. Both men and women have the same options, except abortion. But men don't have the physical ability to have an abortion.
With an abortion, a women terminates a fetus. That's not a human and that's also not leaving a human alone and alive. With the opt-out clause people are discussing a man would be abandoning a human being. Two different cases entirely.
The assumptions about where the argument leads are your own. I stated quite clearly that men should have an opt-out for parental rights. I have continued to say so in this thread even when others have claimed it would INCREASE the number of abortions.
Second part... silly...ends don't justify the means..
Why don't you just admit that instead of giving women equality, you want to give them a protected status. It would be more intellectually honest of you. Giving men the ability to opt out changes nothing, I repeat NOTHING, about a woman's current rights.
Just cough up that women would rather remain weak and needing both men's money, repression of men's rights and governmental money to truly have their "choice" and be equal.
Otherwise you should give men the opt-out and stop protecting women while allowing them to exercise both true choice, rights and responsibilites for their actions. True empowerment and equality doesn't require repression.
As for leaving a human being alone and alive, that is just what abandonment does and we allow women to do it without legal prosecution because we would rather have the child alive than dead. Likewise we would rather allow the mother to give up her rights than declare her a criminal for not wanting to be a parent.
Men should be afforded the same level of equality.
As long as I'm allowed to consider the men who "opt-out" worthless sacks of amoral garbage I'm fine with it morally as long as it is done before the second trimester of pregnancy is over.
That's fine with me, but I'm curious. What do you consider the woman who opt out via an abortion?
By your standards, she should also be a "deadbeat mom" who would not be in such an unnecessary predicament if she had exercised abstinence. Being that this is an "unnecessary predicament", she should just "deal with it", have the baby, and pay the consequences.
It's why Tom Liekus recommends putting a few drops of tobasco sauce in your used condom before chucking it in the trash (or aside) after a session with your girl. This may seem completely ridiculous and paranoid, but it is known to happen (the hijacking).
Hehe. Another listener. I love it. Happy birthday Tom!
It's why Tom Liekus recommends putting a few drops of tobasco sauce in your used condom before chucking it in the trash (or aside) after a session with your girl.
"Tom Leykis [radio talk show host in Seattle] encourages guys to put Tabasco sauce in used condoms before disposing of them. The idea being that if a woman tries to retrieve the "juice" she will be in for a nasty surprise.
One hardcore listener did this and the girl attempted to inseminate herself with the used condom. The resulting burns prompted her to take him to court where the judge threw the case out as he is welcome to dispose of his bodily fluids in anyway he sees fit.
Then the good part comes. The guy counter sues for emotional distress." [here]
" - Never @#%$ without a condom. No matter how much she says ?I just want to feel you? don?t @#%$ her without a condom. But, that?s not enough. When you finish, you must dispose of the condom properly. At her house you flush it. At your house you keep a bottle of Tabasco in the bathroom and you put two drops in the condom, and throw it away. (you don?t want to stop up your own plumbing with condoms)
As for leaving a human being alone and alive, that is just what abandonment does and we allow women to do it without legal prosecution because we would rather have the child alive than dead. Likewise we would rather allow the mother to give up her rights than declare her a criminal for not wanting to be a parent.
Men should be afforded the same level of equality.
I think you need to make a stronger case that men aren't treated equal. A women can't abandon a child if the man wants it. You keep saying they can't, but I just don't see it.
I think you need to make a stronger case that men aren't treated equal. A women can't abandon a child if the man wants it. You keep saying they can't, but I just don't see it.
I think you need to stop attempting to delay the question to the time when both parties have fewer rights because the baby is born and deal with it when both parties have maximum rights because it is a fetus.
Likewise you still make assumptions about a man and what he would have to do to claim his parental rights. In what surely demonstrates the absurdity of the law, he couldn't renounce the rights, even if he wasn't the birth father if the mother claimed he was the father, and likewise he couldn't claim them even if he was the birth father if the mother claimed he wasn't.
She has all the power in this instance. He can gain some after lengthy testing and court hearings. You claim we need to shorten the time, but don't state how when the courts are already overloaded.
As for leaving a human being alone and alive, that is just what abandonment does and we allow women to do it without legal prosecution because we would rather have the child alive than dead. Likewise we would rather allow the mother to give up her rights than declare her a criminal for not wanting to be a parent.
Men should be afforded the same level of equality.
I've already explained that to achieve this you just have to sponsor a campaign for men to kidnap their newly born children and then leave them in dumpsters to die.
That's what women did to earn these 'rights'. If you're not prepared to put the effort in then you don't deserve them.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
This argument seems to be running into the abortion argument. I think you want to give men the ability to have an abortion, but it can't happen.
Uhh, NO!
Originally posted by bunge
Because the courts are slow, you don't mess something else up.
This argument seems to be running into the abortion argument. I think you want to give men the ability to have an abortion, but it can't happen.
They can't have a physical abortion since they don't have the child on them. But they could have a "legal" abortion with regard to being able to terminate their parental rights.
Nick
Originally posted by Randycat99
Uhh, NO!
No, what I'm saying isn't that people want to force women to have an abortion, but to stop them. That takes away the female opt-out clause.
There is no way to give men something 'equal' to that abortion. An 'opt-out' clause is abstinence. Like I said earlier, we can't look at the results of your proposed laws (abortion for women vs. opting out for men) and say that because the end results for each respective party is the same the laws are equitable. That's just silly.
Originally posted by bunge
No, what I'm saying isn't that people want to force women to have an abortion, but to stop them. That takes away the female opt-out clause.
There is no way to give men something 'equal' to that abortion. An 'opt-out' clause is abstinence. Like I said earlier, we can't look at the results of your proposed laws (abortion for women vs. opting out for men) and say that because the end results for each respective party is the same the laws are equitable. That's just silly.
How would giving the men an opt-out clause deny women their ability to have an abortion?!?
Likewise just how are two laws that have equitable results silly?
As for for opt-out clause being abstinence, could the same be argued for women?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
How would giving the men an opt-out clause deny women their ability to have an abortion?!?
No, the argument is leading towards 'give men an opt-out or take away the ability for women to have an abortion.'
Originally posted by trumptman
Likewise just how are two laws that have equitable results silly?
Ends don't justify the means.
Originally posted by trumptman
As for for opt-out clause being abstinence, could the same be argued for women?
Yup. Both men and women have the same options, except abortion. But men don't have the physical ability to have an abortion.
With an abortion, a women terminates a fetus. That's not a human and that's also not leaving a human alone and alive. With the opt-out clause people are discussing a man would be abandoning a human being. Two different cases entirely.
How would giving the men an opt-out clause deny women their ability to have an abortion?!?
Likewise just how are two laws that have equitable results silly?
As for for opt-out clause being abstinence, could the same be argued for women?
Damn you and your infernal logic!!!!
Originally posted by bunge
No, the argument is leading towards 'give men an opt-out or take away the ability for women to have an abortion.'
Ends don't justify the means.
Yup. Both men and women have the same options, except abortion. But men don't have the physical ability to have an abortion.
With an abortion, a women terminates a fetus. That's not a human and that's also not leaving a human alone and alive. With the opt-out clause people are discussing a man would be abandoning a human being. Two different cases entirely.
The assumptions about where the argument leads are your own. I stated quite clearly that men should have an opt-out for parental rights. I have continued to say so in this thread even when others have claimed it would INCREASE the number of abortions.
Second part... silly...ends don't justify the means..
Why don't you just admit that instead of giving women equality, you want to give them a protected status. It would be more intellectually honest of you. Giving men the ability to opt out changes nothing, I repeat NOTHING, about a woman's current rights.
Just cough up that women would rather remain weak and needing both men's money, repression of men's rights and governmental money to truly have their "choice" and be equal.
Otherwise you should give men the opt-out and stop protecting women while allowing them to exercise both true choice, rights and responsibilites for their actions. True empowerment and equality doesn't require repression.
As for leaving a human being alone and alive, that is just what abandonment does and we allow women to do it without legal prosecution because we would rather have the child alive than dead. Likewise we would rather allow the mother to give up her rights than declare her a criminal for not wanting to be a parent.
Men should be afforded the same level of equality.
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
As long as I'm allowed to consider the men who "opt-out" worthless sacks of amoral garbage I'm fine with it morally as long as it is done before the second trimester of pregnancy is over.
That's fine with me, but I'm curious. What do you consider the woman who opt out via an abortion?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
That's fine with me, but I'm curious. What do you consider the woman who opt out via an abortion?
Nick
I consider her as a woman who does not want to be a mother or ruin her life at least on the moment the pregnancy occurred.
Originally posted by Randycat99
It's why Tom Liekus recommends putting a few drops of tobasco sauce in your used condom before chucking it in the trash (or aside) after a session with your girl. This may seem completely ridiculous and paranoid, but it is known to happen (the hijacking).
Hehe. Another listener. I love it. Happy birthday Tom!
Originally posted by Randycat99
It's why Tom Liekus recommends putting a few drops of tobasco sauce in your used condom before chucking it in the trash (or aside) after a session with your girl.
Oh, you put the tabasco sauce in AFTER.
That Tom, living the "man's life" just how nature intended...
Originally posted by BRussell
Oh, you put the tabasco sauce in AFTER.
Oh come on BRussell, you know you liked all the comments about your spicy love making.
Nick
One hardcore listener did this and the girl attempted to inseminate herself with the used condom. The resulting burns prompted her to take him to court where the judge threw the case out as he is welcome to dispose of his bodily fluids in anyway he sees fit.
Then the good part comes. The guy counter sues for emotional distress." [here]
" - Never @#%$ without a condom. No matter how much she says ?I just want to feel you? don?t @#%$ her without a condom. But, that?s not enough. When you finish, you must dispose of the condom properly. At her house you flush it. At your house you keep a bottle of Tabasco in the bathroom and you put two drops in the condom, and throw it away. (you don?t want to stop up your own plumbing with condoms)
" - [here]
Originally posted by trumptman
As for leaving a human being alone and alive, that is just what abandonment does and we allow women to do it without legal prosecution because we would rather have the child alive than dead. Likewise we would rather allow the mother to give up her rights than declare her a criminal for not wanting to be a parent.
Men should be afforded the same level of equality.
I think you need to make a stronger case that men aren't treated equal. A women can't abandon a child if the man wants it. You keep saying they can't, but I just don't see it.
Originally posted by bunge
I think you need to make a stronger case that men aren't treated equal. A women can't abandon a child if the man wants it. You keep saying they can't, but I just don't see it.
I think you need to stop attempting to delay the question to the time when both parties have fewer rights because the baby is born and deal with it when both parties have maximum rights because it is a fetus.
Likewise you still make assumptions about a man and what he would have to do to claim his parental rights. In what surely demonstrates the absurdity of the law, he couldn't renounce the rights, even if he wasn't the birth father if the mother claimed he was the father, and likewise he couldn't claim them even if he was the birth father if the mother claimed he wasn't.
She has all the power in this instance. He can gain some after lengthy testing and court hearings. You claim we need to shorten the time, but don't state how when the courts are already overloaded.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
As for leaving a human being alone and alive, that is just what abandonment does and we allow women to do it without legal prosecution because we would rather have the child alive than dead. Likewise we would rather allow the mother to give up her rights than declare her a criminal for not wanting to be a parent.
Men should be afforded the same level of equality.
I've already explained that to achieve this you just have to sponsor a campaign for men to kidnap their newly born children and then leave them in dumpsters to die.
That's what women did to earn these 'rights'. If you're not prepared to put the effort in then you don't deserve them.