Should men have a say in abortion ?

Musika said:
engineering their destruction.
Click to expand...

you are a patriot act salesman ?

thats anti 2nd amendment isnt it ?

hiding behind your lies of pretend freedom.

engineering a conspiracy to commit an act of nawty non compliance to the rich white folks lovely tea party at the golf club.
unless your chinese and you want to have a walk around for a free trial period.
 
Musika said:
And?
Click to expand...
i grow bored with your continued propaganda attempt to manipulatively change the subject of the topic to become a proxy debate around science(or your pre-wrapped & packaged caged moral stereo type) instead of the authority over a persons own body.
your attempt to proxy the non ability to self govern as a right over the womens body is your deliberate hyperbole.
playing the "all life is sacred card to try and emotionally distance yourself from the real debate..."
lack of empathy ?
inability to empathize with the women/pregnant girl?
or deliberate attempt to undermine the human by exploiting the power & authority system of the self to hand that slave master status to the state so you can sell lobbyist tickets for religious extremists ?

what of your fake "self governance" and no taxation without representation ?
where are the women making all the abortion law decisions and rules ?
where is the jury of peer women ?

its not the mans body so why should he get a say in the issue ?
 
Last edited:
RainbowSingularity said:
the money is already theirs because they own their own tax
asserting that their tax money should not be equally distributed to pay for food housing and health care seems a bit of a stretch of the meaning of "human rights".

loosing an audience that are pre-disposed to be lost to a convenient psychopathic pre-determination is not a loss but a state of reality.
the loss can not occur because the win will be a loss
you already know this.
but THAT is you game.
Click to expand...
You are not really making a lot of sense.
All I said is that you are discussing the issue of wealth distribution. I haven't suggested anything on that subject. In your mind, perhaps your ideas on wealth distribution are synonymous with a certain model of human rights. You will find, however, that implementing any sort model of wealth distribution appears to never draw a uniform consensus.
I mean if there is not even a consensus surrounding human rights, it seems unlikely that there will be any uniformity on the wealth distribution front. Actually, even if there was a consensus, there would still be disagreement. Money is like that.
 
Musika said:
You are not really making a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

i called your game. now your playing the "little women are crazy and cant be trusted to engage in mens affairs" card.
lol
cutting state funding to private health care institutions that run mostly from government money is just a psychopaths budget cut system
you think hiding behind the "nothing is certain in this world so everyone should do as i say"
card really fools me ?

pathetic
your slick thats for sure.
 
RainbowSingularity said:
i grow bored with your continued propaganda attempt to manipulatively change the subject of the topic to become a proxy debate around science instead of the authority over a persons own body.
your attempt to proxy the non ability to self govern as a right over the womens body is our deliberate hyperbole.
playing the "all life is sacred card to try and emotionally distance yourself from the real debate..."
lack of empathy ?
inability to empathize with the women/pregnant girl?
or deliberate attempt to undermine the human by exploiting the power & authority system of the self to hand that slave master status to the state so you can sell lobbyist tickets for religious extremists ?

its not the mans body so why should he get a say in the issue ?
Click to expand...
I've been having difficulty of late responding to these recent posts of yours because they don't make a lot of sense. You seem to be talking against some sort of category which you deem as your arch enemy. In a desperate bid to find individuals to fit your arch nemesis, you saddle people with things they not only don't say or ideas they don't have, but with statements and ideas that don't even convey meaning or relevance and even stand outside the guidelines of comprehension.

So after posting a bevy of such tangential tirades, you come back and reiterate the standard view you represent (which of course everyone remotely connected to the debate of this topic is already intimately familiar with) as if it stands as a conclusion to substance already provided.
It doesn't.
 
RainbowSingularity said:
i called your game. now your playing the "little women are crazy and cant be trusted to engage in mens affairs" card.
lol
cutting state funding to private health care institutions that run mostly from government money is just a psychopaths budget cut system
you think hiding behind the "nothing is certain in this world so everyone should do as i say"
card really fools me ?

pathetic
your slick thats for sure.
Click to expand...
Strange that you would think the comprehension issues arise from your gender.
Is that another prerequisite that your arch nemesis must possess?
 
Musika said:
Strange that you would think the comprehension issues arise from your gender.
Is that another prerequisite that your arch nemesis must possess?
Click to expand...

lol
your whimsical hallucination of others feelings to proxy empathy while you re-position your game is also see through.

you wish to play god with womens bodys.

you think your attempt to back away emotively makes any difference ?

lol
 
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-abortion/index.html
Wrote Ginsburg, a prominent woman's rights lawyer before becoming a judge, "A woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a 'mother.'"
As other states have been instituting drastic regulations -- including outright bans -- to deter women from ending a pregnancy, Ginsburg may have been concerned not only about the case at hand.
Ginsburg has seen reproductive rights and civil liberties narrowed over her quarter century on the bench, and as the court has become more conservative especially in recent years, she has seemed more apprehensive about what could be next.
Click to expand...
 
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-abortion/index.html
In Ginsburg's solo dissent, covering barely two pages, she emphasized the larger stakes.
"This case implicates the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the state," she said. She criticized her fellow justices for taking up a dispute that had been litigated under the wrong standard in lower courts. She said Indiana's full petition should be rejected outright.
Indiana officials had declared that a fetus should be given a "dignified and respectful" burial or cremation.
Ginsburg implicitly responded by quoting portions of an opinion by 7th Circuit Chief Judge Diane Wood: "One may wonder how, if respect for the humanity of fetal remains after a miscarriage or abortion is the state's goal, Indiana's statute rationally achieves that goal when it simultaneously allows any form of disposal whatsoever if the woman elects to handle the remains herself."
Click to expand...

making legal demand of law to force the state to pay for burial services for abortions ...

will that be burials in consecrated grounds at your local community church ?

as if that is a sane normal persons reasoned response to personal freedom to exploit taxation away from medical care and then bastardise the issue by wasting it on legal psychopath games.

meanwhile the 15 year old is still pregnant with no health care, no job and no income.

how does this help ?

old boys club psychopaths playing god with womens bodys...
 
[1/2]​

Capracus said:
If we are going to allow the woman a mulligan for her misstep, then we should grant one for the man when the woman wishes to continue with the pregnancy.
Click to expand...

You still don't get how this works.

Let's try it this way:

I'm pro-feticide in this case, so my position is in the best medical interests of the woman.
Click to expand...

That your position coincides with what your self-interest tells you is in a woman's best interest isn't exactly surprising. In fact, you were actually told (#76↑), and still walked into it: The bluntest expression is that they need women to have abortion access so that they might escape child support.

Additionally, one of my initial critiques (#14↑) of the thread ran: What is generally missing is the fact of women themselves. You're a pretty straightforward example of that, having so objectified women you cannot properly account for them in this discussion:

• If we are going to allow the woman a mulligan for her misstep, then we should grant one for the man when the woman wishes to continue with the pregnancy.

• A man can't account for his gametes when they're being held hostage by the woman.

• If she's unwilling to return them, she should be required to take sole ownership and responsibility for them.

• If it shouldn't be there, then she should be more than happy to rid herself of the mess it created.

• Life itself compels women to have abortions, most often for the same reason a man would request one of a woman, because they don't want to become a parent at that time.​

Take the first four of those: Go get your own damn sperm cells back. Go file for a court order, win, and then try to find the damn things. Do you know why the court won't issue that order? Because you're not going to find them. So just like stuffing it back in doesn't help (remember that one↗?), I can promise you, disassembling the aborted fetus will not isolate your sperm cells for retrieval. There really is no time machine by which you can go back and correct your failure to contain your gamete, and that's why there is no mulligan. Littering only inherently confers unto you responsibility for littering; you cannot prevent the owner of the place you improperly dumped your trash from cleaning it up, or even, as this discussion goes, turning it into art. Meanwhile, your argument generally requires objectification of women.

Held hostage? If she's "unwilling" to return them? She can't; remember, she's already pregnant at this point. If you wanted the cells back, you should have tried at the time, or, better yet, not lost track of them in the first place. You even decide what she "should" think and feel, but that's the thing; you treat women, in argument, as mere things or even abstractions. Your masculine need even has you telling us what she "should" think and feel; and we should probably note, neither is that new, as you've tried before to assert bounds about how traumatized little girls should be or not by familial sexual predation, and don't try to pretend otherwise↗. In your arguments, over the course of years, this objectivization and subordination of women has been apparent. By the time we get around to reminding you that the sperm cells you lost don't exist at the point you decide you require she should give them back, the question isn't about whether you are correct or incorrect, but, rather, why you are so wrong. As a one-off troll job because something in the world pissed you off, sure, that would make sense, but this isn't one-off; a years-long history like this is itself indicative of this, that, and the other, or, more particularly, the existential subordination of women to masculine need permeating your expressed outlook.

And when life itself compels women to terminate pregnancies, it doesn't wait for them to go see their doctors. One of the curious symptoms of your argument is the comparison of masculinity to an unrestrained force of nature or random act of the Universe. A man is not a tornado; nor do men appreciate being compared to lethal weapons, so it doesn't matter if it's a stray bullet or the one deliberately put into her because she wouldn't give him her phone number; he certainly should not be a plague. Sure, it's not quite the hand grenade analogy, but in this age of #NotAllMen, why is it that men who are somehow sexually frustrated, are the ones requiring we consider all men? Women will certainly decide according to their own criteria, but you should not confuse life itself with a man's world. A shitty job is symptomatic of artifice; a landslide might occur in relation to artifice, but gravity is a force of nature—e.g., Hazel Landslide, which became very relevant after people decided to build a neighborhood in the middle of it, leading to a 2014 event known as the Oso mudslide. Do not confuse the dumb stuff people do on purpose with lightning and fire, or genetics, or the mundane mysteries of biochemistry by which so many fertilizations fail to implant, or so many conceptions fail to complete gestation.

He’s demanding no stake in her medical decision ...
Click to expand...

To reiterate↑: He is demanding a stake in her medical decisions as a lever by which he might help himself. But he has no such stake, which is why it puts nothing on the scale↑.

... he is requesting to have the same right to not become a parent that she has.
Click to expand...

To reiterate↑: Every man should have the same right to terminate a pregnancy he is carrying as a woman. In fact, he does, as near as I can tell.

If she continues with the pregnancy, he currently loses that right and she assumes a tenfold risk to her own health.
Click to expand...

Again, to reiterate: Here's when a man makes his decisions: First, when he engages sexual intercourse; second, when his seminal fluid touches her body. From there, every last drop of risk he contributes is his risk to bear.

Regardless of his motive for her to terminate, agreeing to his request will medically do far less harm to herself.
Click to expand...

And his priorities are not hers; she will decide according to hers.

And as for control, her continuing with the pregnancy is not an exercise in control over him on her part?
Click to expand...

Perhaps in the perspective of one who trades in such notions. To reiterate:

→ The fact of unintended pregnancy means the male gamete should not have been present.

→ Sperm cells, as such, are not in this case a contribution to a process, but waste irresponsibly left behind.

↳ Littering does not automatically grant you a proprietary share in anything except legal responsibility for inadequately disposing of your trash.​

You're just running around in desperate circles, at this point.

Still, though, to reiterate what is already reiterated, that a man has his say first, when he engages sexual intercourse, and, second, when his seminal fluid touches her body°, we might get a little more vivid: After orgasm, cease all intimacy in order to efficiently run through a checklist for cleaning up all seminal fluid including with chemicals that will help disrupt gamete viability. True, a wet wipe isn't the best of all solutions, but you could always hose her down with nonoxynol foam, and then wipe it up with a towel. Just remember what happens, though, when word gets around about that guy who needs to stop everything and scrape her out after he fucks her.

Thus, to reiterate, there is a risk reduction pathway that runs, approximately, be a better partner to women or else be the lover unto yourself you always wanted from others.

Even still, if you're going to be with the witchy-women you imagine, then keep track of your stuff, and wipe it up before she can steal it from wherever you shot off and ... actually, y'know, never mind.

When your reason fails, you can always be counted on to bring out the ideological tar and feathers.
Click to expand...

Well, seriously, what was it you said? Oh, right:

Capracus said:
Fine, if they want to continue with this masochistic process over the objection of the other potential parent, then they are free to do so on their own.
Click to expand...
____________________

Notes:

° Which might be out of sequence, when we come down to the man's part in reproduction, as there is no guarantee he actually penetrates a woman before spilling his seminal fluid onto her body.


[(cont.)]​
 
[2/2]​

Capracus said:
What the hell does the above non sequitur have to do with this:
iceaura said:
Capracus said:
When should the life of a developing fetus be considered worth protecting? Conception? Degree of cognition? Full term?
Click to expand...
Always. From before conception, even.
So?
Click to expand...
Maybe you could attempt to make sense of the statement, since iceaura seems incapable or unwilling to do so itself.
Click to expand...

Actually, it has to do with your response, and the straw man fallacy—

Capracus said:
Apparently you believe that all abortion must be banned since it threatens the life of any developing fetus.
Click to expand...

—in service of your sausage party celebration of masculine need.

As to Iceaura, I don't see that his answer at #175—

iceaura said:
Not that it's a difficult question to answer off the cuff - by suitable laws and regulations that address common threats, such as air and water and noise pollution by industry for profit, say. Among many other approaches.
Which already exist, btw - something the Republican corporate elite might pause to consider when throwing rancid bones ....
Click to expand...

—is confusing. It's in the foundation of our law, actually written into the U.S. Constitution. In terms of what that means, there was no explicit reservation banishing, either explicitly or effectively, what was, at the time the Constitution was conceived, written, and adopted, a common practice; and that even among men who clearly despised the humanity of women. Still, it is in despising the humanity of women that we find the germ of any pretense stammering to justify blithering masculinistic bawls that brings me to reiterate, again, it's time for men to stop treating their own sexual inadequacy or fears thereof as something to blame on everybody else.

Capracus said:
It sees Nazis under its bed, and it struggles with vocabulary.

In medical use, the word "foeticide" is used simply to mean causing the death of the fetus.
Click to expand...

Technically, the foeticide occurs at the hands of the doctor; however, the medical question is separate from the presupposition of criminality—

Capracus said:
Is the woman selfish when she decides to abrogate parental duty by committing feticide?
Click to expand...

—in the phrase, "committing feticide". You should probably pay attention to the history of how laws about committing foeticide work; pitched as protection for women against violent crime, they've been wildly exploited to prosecute women for miscarriage.

Capracus said:
Since you seem to have Nazis on the brain, maybe you'd prefer a more sanitized term like Final Solution.
Click to expand...

Emotionalism doesn't help.

I've considered the risk of termination from the outset of the proposition.
Click to expand...

Not quite, but still:

I've noted numerous times that termination is far less risky than a continued pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Your first address was actually a change of subject, focusing on medical risk instead of liability risk—

Capracus said:
From the standpoint of risk, an early abortion carries 1/10 the risk to the health of mother than a continued pregnancy, so the risk argument doesn't fly. From the standpoint of having an equal opportunity in regards to a commitment to parenthood, the mother has an unequal advantage in having the right to make that decision for both parents by continuing or stopping the pregnancy.
Click to expand...

—in the course of asserting false equivalence in order to pretend an "unfair advantage".

Capracus said:
The only way for a woman to eliminate the risk of a continued pregnancy is to terminate it, its one of many reasons women choose to have abortions. Did you even bother to read the nonsense you generated above before you posted it?
Click to expand...

This part of the paragraph seems something of a non sequitur. It happens in part because you presume her priorities according to your need.

Sperm donors want to contribute their “waste” without having to be responsible for the pregnancies they generate.
Click to expand...

So go get a lawyer, draw up a template contract; like I said, under particular circumstances. And then carry a copy of that contract with you, for her to fill out, in a kit alongside your condoms, spermicide, and hazardous material retrieval gear in case you need to scrape your fluids out of her in order to get your own damn sperm cells back after you leave them where they shouldn't be, and before one of them triggers a pregnancy.

A man unwilling to become a father is functionally no different than a commercial sperm donor, except he's not be paid for his services.
Click to expand...

Then why bother with women, in the first place? Just stay home and be better off with your own self↱.

If a women has the right to abandon parenthood during the first half of a pregnancy, so should the man.
Click to expand...

To reiterate↑, yet again: Every man should have the same right to terminate a pregnancy he is carrying as a woman. And, yeah, I'm pretty sure he does.

As a question of stupidity, it would be largely hopeless, at this point, but as a matter of stubbornness, well, nobody is surprised; you need to stop trying to hold similar what is not. And while it's not quite a monkey tugging his weasel, this bit 'round and 'round the mulberry bush is rather quite pathetic: Your cells, your body, your right. Once they initiate a pregnancy in her body, the cells of that pregnancy are hers until she's done with them inside her body. Once it's a pregnancy, your cells don't exist, anymore; that part really is an existential bright line. Or maybe not; the bright line occurs earlier, at the cortical reaction, or perhaps fusion of the secondary oocyte, which is approximately what the "life at conception" argument intends. At cortical reaction, it is virtually impossible for you to retrieve your cell; at fusion, your cell no longer exists. What happens to the zygote is up to her, unless life happens to compel an outcome regardless of her opinion. A man already had his say, at this point; she is dealing with something else. All that remains for him is the liability risk he incurred when he lost track of his cells. Littered. Left his waste somewhere even he didn't want it.

Well since most fucks don't result in pregnancy, most fucks in this regard are free. Laws are changing all the time, so maybe the government will eventually come through on this one.
Click to expand...

I can only reiterate↑: Wicked Super Happy Bonus Fun Time.

Oh, wait, I mean: The basic summary is to be a better partner to women, or else be the lover unto yourself you always wanted from others. And it remains true, a whole lot of what goes into that a man ought to be able to figure out for himself.

Somewhere between free fucks and government cheese, we ... we ... oh, never mind.

Why is it relevant when a fetus is granted protection? It might have something to do with when the law establishes a legal limit in pregnancy for the option of feticide/abortion/termination/baby killing. Did I leave any of your favorites out?
Click to expand...

(#startmakingsense)

I'm pro-feticide in this case, so my position is in the best medical interests of the woman.
Click to expand...

One more time, just because it remains relevant↑: They need women to have abortion access so that they might escape child support.

You don't get to decide what is in a woman's best medical interest. If sloth in avoiding paternity is our lodestar, then it's probably (ahem!) in her best medical interest to schedule a hysterectomy at first sign of thelarche; best to get out in front of these things, after all.

If reality has any relevance, however, no, you don't get to decide what is in her best interest, medical or otherwise. Additionally, guarding her best medical interests is probably easier achieved by avoiding sexual contact with such demanding man.

If a woman wishes to assume the added risk of a continued pregnancy over the objections of the man, then let her also assume sole responsibility for the outcome.
Click to expand...

Littering only gets you liability. Be a better partner than all that.

[fin]​
 
men should not hold majority in the legal decisions pertaining to abortions.
their opinion should be just that. opinion. nothing more.

do women run wall st ?
why not ?
patriarchy dressed in drag and painted with lipstick doesn't make it a peer legal ruling.
it does not make it a law of the people.
it is a law for men to hold domain over women's body's, and THAT is slavery.
 
Musika said:
You are neither directly in government
Click to expand...
I don't have to be directly in government to tell them what they should be doing. Have you ever heard of democracy?
Musika said:
Of course the obvious alternative is that you don't really support these bizarre guidelines for advocacy and you are just plying a double standard to defeat your opponents.
Click to expand...
If you have any argument against what I "advocate", present it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top