Also you do realize just about everything you said also happens to men?
Women can and do abuse men, they can be extremely controlling.
Men don’t have access to free contraception in the same “birth control” deserts that affect 19 of 168m women in the US
Women can have a child a male does not want and legally sue for child support which a man has to provide and if he does not he can go to jail, leaving him poor and destitute.
A man has no say in whether the child was kept or not, he has zero rights to the outcome of his unborn child. It can be terminated against his will. It can also be born when he’d rather an abortion.
The 9 month gestational period a woman endures can force a man into a 18 year commitment financially irrespective of whether he wanted it or not.
Men don’t have mental health issues?
You have the most blinkered view of anyone on this thread yet
If the fathers of the fetuses are excluded from participating in an abortion decision that carries the implication that they are irrelevant. And if they are irrelevant then they are excused from any responsibility for the consequences of their actions. That’s not good for society as a whole.
Men and women can’t have complete equality when it comes to pregnancy because women carry children. But if women can make the choice to either be a parent or not (i.e., carry the pregnancy or not), then how is it fair that men don’t have a similar choice? How is it fair to force a man to provide financial child support if the woman he impregnated chooses to keep and rear a child?
Wow Dwight has lost it. He has gone on a massive mouth-frothing rant posting comment after comment without reply, mostly all pointless, all because he wants to control what women can do with their bodies.
Since you still can't comprehend that, since the constitutional rights can be taken away by politicians, those rights aren't inalienable (which literally means cannot be taken away) I think it is very safe to say that you don't have the nuance or capacity for this discussion. The only other answer is that you are resorting to deliberately lying to try and make your point which gives us the same conclusion. I'm gonna leave it there because you are clearly deranged and debating you is like trying to teach a door how to read.
A disgraceful embarrassment that you are so desperate to deny women control of their own bodies.
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 7 hours, 50 minutes ago
Also Welsh boy
If you think US states are nothing more than local councils
Let’s examine that hypothetical.
If Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cheshire outlawed abortion and you were a pregnant woman who wanted an abortion and it was legal in basically everywhere else in your country what would you do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah you carefully left out the part where some of those councils would create laws where you could sue anyone who helped that woman procure an abortion in a different area. I wonder why.
Also those counties cannot outlaw abortion because it is a national law.
Your hypotheticals are as unbalanced and lacking in nuance as the rest of your embarrassing argument.
I don't really want to know why you are so desperate to control what women can do with their bodies but it makes me genuinely uneasy for any women in your life. Toodle.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 7 hours, 50 minutes ago
Also Welsh boy
If you think US states are nothing more than local councils
Let’s examine that hypothetical.
If Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cheshire outlawed abortion and you were a pregnant woman who wanted an abortion and it was legal in basically everywhere else in your country what would you do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah you carefully left out the part where some of those councils would create laws where you could sue anyone who helped that woman procure an abortion in a different area. I wonder why.
Also those counties cannot outlaw abortion because it is a national law.
Your hypotheticals are as unbalanced and lacking in nuance as the rest of your embarrassing argument.
I don't really want to know why you are so desperate to control what women can do with their bodies but it makes me genuinely uneasy for any women in your life. Toodle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Welsh
You can’t wrap your head around the difference between local councils and US states.
In the UK, local councils can make bye laws granted by parliament. In the US states can create laws very different to each other. The only thing they cannot do is contradict the constitution.
You keep banging on and on and on about “me wanting to control women”
Where have I said that?
I have merely pointed out the 14th amendment does not protect abortion.
I have pointed out that now the right to abortion is in the hands of politicians. That is all that’s changed in the US.
You don’t seem to really get that fact. Before yesterday women had a protection from politicians around abortion.
A right they do not have in the UK. Now their fate as it pertains to abortion is, just like the UK, in the hands of the politicians.
I get you’re really upset a few states are going to outlaw it. I get you’re upset the other ten are going to make it as difficult to get an abortion as it is in the UK.
But you continue to bash “America” and deny the fact that in 37 states it’s easier to get an abortion than it is in The UK.
You have a hard on for the US for some reason. I’m not a single comment have you called a state out. You keep bashing the union in general. Showing how little you understand about what actually occurred and what the ramifications are.
If you are upset that the US federal government has said that abortion is now in the hands of the politicians then you should be equally enraged that the same is in the hands of the UK politicians.
The US Supreme Court has not denied a woman anything, they have said, it is up to democratically elected officials to decide.
If you’re upset what Kentucky, South Dakota etc have done them all I ask is you enlighten your debate to actually talk about the problem states not make sweeping statement after sweeping statement about the US.
The UK does not provide a right above law for abortion. Now neither does the US.
You don’t seem to be able to wrap your head around this?
You seem to think genuinely that every state has the same laws struck by the federal government.
The naivety is clear for anyone who actually lives over here to see.
You have repeatedly confused whether the ruling was morally right or wrong with the legality of it. You have repeatedly surmised the US government has repealed womens rights. You seem to believe abortion is now illegal in America as a whole.
I guess when you live in a country which is ruled by another country and the entire population is subjected to laws decided nationally you probably don’t get the unique nature of law in the US and the independence of each state in the union to create their own laws.
But if you can’t be bothered to learn what you’re talking about, then just stop.
I came back because I was curious to see if you had learned anything. Apparently you don't understand the words you use.
The constitution is not above law, the constitution is part of law. The lawmakers of the US can change the laws in and rights in the constitution if they choose. The US never offered a "right above law" for abortion. It offered a right in law; the same as the UK. The Supreme Court has now removed that right in the US which takes it below the UK, not on the same level (it was previously on the same level). Women never had a right protected from politicians because those very politicians can amend the constitution you absolute moron.
The problem states are only able to do this because they have been given permission at the federal level of the US. Also, every lawmaker in those states is a US citizen, not a citizen of Kentucky. The entire point is that the US is explicitly allowing the rights of its citizens to be eroded because they are US citizens.
It is not easier to get an abortion in any part of the US as it is in the UK.
These are some very simple facts that you either still cannot grasp or are deliberately ignoring to try to justify this. If you can't be bothered to learn what you are talking about then just stop. Although it seems increasingly likely is a capacity issue rather than an effort issue.
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 2 hours, 42 minutes ago
Also you do realize just about everything you said also happens to men?
Women can and do abuse men, they can be extremely controlling.
Men don’t have access to free contraception in the same “birth control” deserts that affect 19 of 168m women in the US
Women can have a child a male does not want and legally sue for child support which a man has to provide and if he does not he can go to jail, leaving him poor and destitute.
A man has no say in whether the child was kept or not, he has zero rights to the outcome of his unborn child. It can be terminated against his will. It can also be born when he’d rather an abortion.
The 9 month gestational period a woman endures can force a man into a 18 year commitment financially irrespective of whether he wanted it or not.
Men don’t have mental health issues?
You have the most blinkered view of anyone on this thread yet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry; barring your fifth of eight paragraphs, what the fack does any of that have to do with abortion?
Not only is all of it 100% irrelevant to the debate, I haven’t touched on, let alone given an opinion on, men’s rights outside of abortion anywhere. Not a word.
And I have “the most blinkered view of anyone on this thread”? You’ve just made a raft of assumptions about my beliefs and then gone off on a tirade against them, and I’m the blinkered one? OK.
And you just like welshy seem outraged that the US has put the rights of women in the hands of politicians
Once again, something the UK has always done.
The only thing the US federal government has done has say that abortion is not immune to human law.
So why are you so upset that the US has merely aligned with the UK.
Women in the US and the UK are subject to the determination of elected officials now. It’s parity.
In 3 states yes it’s been outlawed but not one person other than myself has mentioned those states. All I’ve read is diatribe about the US as a whole.
I am perplexed why people are so upset that the US has said elected officials can decide the rights of women regarding abortion, when their own country has said this for decades.
If you’re upset with what kentucky etc have done why aren’t you talking about the specific states rather than making sweeping incorrect statements about the US as a whole?
Or like welshfool do you also think that all laws in the US are decided by the federal government and states have zero independence?
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 3 hours, 5 minutes ago
Also you do realize just about everything you said also happens to men?
Women can and do abuse men, they can be extremely controlling.
Men don’t have access to free contraception in the same “birth control” deserts that affect 19 of 168m women in the US
Women can have a child a male does not want and legally sue for child support which a man has to provide and if he does not he can go to jail, leaving him poor and destitute.
A man has no say in whether the child was kept or not, he has zero rights to the outcome of his unborn child. It can be terminated against his will. It can also be born when he’d rather an abortion.
The 9 month gestational period a woman endures can force a man into a 18 year commitment financially irrespective of whether he wanted it or not.
Men don’t have mental health issues?
You have the most blinkered view of anyone on this thread yet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he didn't want a baby then he should have had a w@nk instead of coming inside the woman.
Actions have consequences. If you poke the hole and a baby comes out 9 months later then that's on you.
Ultimately it is the woman that carries the baby and if I don't want babies aborted out of my body then it's not gonna happen because a horny man wants it out.
Nevertheless, I think there should be more emphasis on contraception than abortion. Abortion stops us from developing contraceptive sciences. We need better contraception than we have now and then we wouldn't need to bother about abortions as there'd be very few people seeking out an abortion to begin with.
“Actions have consequences.”
You do see the hypocrisy in that statement alone if you’re defending abortion rights?
So a man cums inside a woman and is therefore bound to those consequences?
A woman consensually allows it but is not bound by the consequences?
That’s a weird way to pitch equality
Your point about contraceptives is valid and also worth noting that even in Kentucky which is by far the harshest on abortion, plan B will still be available over the counter.
“Emergency contraceptives” will not be affected by the reversal of roe v wade.
So women who have had unprotected s3x can still access these drugs to make a decision.
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 4 minutes ago
“Actions have consequences.”
You do see the hypocrisy in that statement alone if you’re defending abortion rights?
=====
I was replying to your comment mate, that's all. Try responding to that instead of something I haven't stated.
So a man cums inside a woman and is therefore bound to those consequences?
A woman consensually allows it but is not bound by the consequences?
That’s a weird way to pitch equality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pitch equality? What the Fack are you on about?
Equality would be if the woman carried the baby for 4.5 months and the man for 4.5 months each.
There is no equality when it comes to having babies. Once you deposit your seed you have no further role for 9 months, your body isn't on the line and lifetime consequences on the body of having a baby aren't your concern. That's not equality.
Men have a very limited role to play and equality suggests that their input should face a similar amount of limitation.
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 12 minutes ago
Your point about contraceptives is valid and also worth noting that even in Kentucky which is by far the harshest on abortion, plan B will still be available over the counter.
“Emergency contraceptives” will not be affected by the reversal of roe v wade.
So women who have had unprotected s3x can still access these drugs to make a decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree on this. Contraception should be aggressively persued as a global strategy ahead of abortion IMO.
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
So a man cums inside a woman and is therefore bound to those consequences?
A woman consensually allows it but is not bound by the consequences?
That’s a weird way to pitch equality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pitch equality? What the Fack are you on about?
Equality would be if the woman carried the baby for 4.5 months and the man for 4.5 months each.
There is no equality when it comes to having babies. Once you deposit your seed you have no further role for 9 months, your body isn't on the line and lifetime consequences on the body of having a baby aren't your concern. That's not equality.
Men have a very limited role to play and equality suggests that their input should face a similar amount of limitation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A woman can carry a baby a man doesn’t want for 9 months.
A man is legally bound to provide child support for 18 years.
The man has zero say in whether a woman keeps a child he doesn’t want or destroys one he does.
But, if she does keep it, he’s legally bound to provide for it.
agree there are risks with childbirth and obviously negative effects on a female body post pregnancy.
But men literally have zero rights to the plight of their unborn, agree with it or not, same rules in UK, personally and just my own opinion, if a woman keeps a child a man doesn’t want, knowing he wants nothing to do with it, then he should be absolved of responsibility of it.
Choosing to have a child when you know the father wants nothing to do with it, knowing you will be raising it alone, should not give you the right to then sue the father for money every month.
A woman can carry a baby a man doesn’t want for 9 months.
===
Yeah, if she doesn't want to have a baby flushed out of her then she can.
Men should poke the hole only when ready for the consequences. This seems basic and obvious to me.
And women should allow their hole to be poked only when ready for the consequences too.
Now that's equality. Do the crime do the time.
A man is legally bound to provide child support for 18 years
=====
When you poke a hole there is more than a decent chance a baby will come out and you know this before you start poking the hole. That's how nature works. You also know the woman will have more say than you on what happens to the baby. That comes with responsibilities which one should face having willingly and knowingly poked a hole.
The man has zero say in whether a woman keeps a child he doesn’t want or destroys one he does.
====
The man has 100% say where he spills his man juice though, and makes a conscious decision to spill it. Men are therefore estopped from later denying the associated responsibilities. Once the juice is spilled the man willingly surrenders some of the rights to the entity within which he spilled his juice.
Choosing to have a child when you know the father wants nothing to do with it, knowing you will be raising it alone, should not give you the right to then sue the father for money every month
======
There would be no pregnancy without the man though. Also, if the man wanted nothing to do with a baby then he should have thought about that before doing the act which is guaranteed to bring about a baby.
If I bang a woman I ensure contraception. If not then I should be ready and not act surprised and unready in case a baby comes out.
I think men should have a say but the ultimate decision rests with the woman and the rights of the unborn foetus. If the woman decides to keep it then too bad for you and you have to live with the consequences of your actions.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 13 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 20 minutes ago
SCOTUS is a democratic institution?
Who elects them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The democratically elected president recommends appointments which are voted on by democratically elected officials
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The president who may not be democratically elected (the last two republican presidents lost the democratically popular vote) recommends them and they are voted on by officials who represent vastly different numbers of the population
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The democracy of the US is based on the electoral vote, not the popular vote. So you cannot say the President was not elected democratically.
The officials in the house and senate however are democratically elected by the folks of their states.
Each state irrespective of size gets 2 seats in congress and a pro rata’d amount of seats in congress.
California and New York for example have 53 and 27 respectively out of the 435 seats.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you think someone getting fewer votes than another person and being elected is democratic (meaning rule by the people)?
Makes as much sense as the rest of your nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah and giving California the same number of senators as Rhode Island and Delaware kinda ain't Democratic.
I wonder if Dwight has ever heard of James Madison and his views on Democracy.
This thread is wild!
I do actually get what Dwight is saying in terms of the legal constitutional aspect in the US but, to me, that just makes the constitution a bit of a nonsense.
I still fail to see how this makes things more democratic. A woman should have the right to an abortion as the baseline standard. Saying it's now up to the politicians and the electorate doesn't do it for me sorry. If a woman decides to have an abortion then that's a decision for her.
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 17 minutes ago
Choosing to have a child when you know the father wants nothing to do with it, knowing you will be raising it alone, should not give you the right to then sue the father for money every month
======
There would be no pregnancy without the man though. Also, if the man wanted nothing to do with a baby then he should have thought about that before doing the act which is guaranteed to bring about a baby.
If I bang a woman I ensure contraception. If not then I should be ready and not act surprised and unready in case a baby comes out.
I think men should have a say but the ultimate decision rests with the woman and the rights of the unborn foetus. If the woman decides to keep it then too bad for you and you have to live with the consequences of your actions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the woman doesn’t have to live with the consequences of her actions? You’re giving women an out and men either have to live through the trauma of having a potential life they helped create get aborted or suffer the financial burden of taking care of a child they don’t want.
The woman has the luxury of dodging consequences, pretty dangerous considering men are at danger of being exploited for their finances. Women poking holes in condoms or lying about being on contraception. On the other end of the spectrum men who want to take responsibility for the unborn child have to watch on in silent horror as potential life is eliminated.
The vast majority of abortions in the US are elective without any reasoning. women are using it as contraception. If you don’t find anything morally questionable about eliminating something as sacred as life for the sake of an oorgasm then you need to reflect on your own position on this.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 15 minutes ago
This thread is wild!
I do actually get what Dwight is saying in terms of the legal constitutional aspect in the US but, to me, that just makes the constitution a bit of a nonsense.
I still fail to see how this makes things more democratic. A woman should have the right to an abortion as the baseline standard. Saying it's now up to the politicians and the electorate doesn't do it for me sorry. If a woman decides to have an abortion then that's a decision for her.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree Diafol.
Sign in if you want to comment
Abortion furore & trigger laws
Page 12 of 18
13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17
posted on 26/6/22
Also you do realize just about everything you said also happens to men?
Women can and do abuse men, they can be extremely controlling.
Men don’t have access to free contraception in the same “birth control” deserts that affect 19 of 168m women in the US
Women can have a child a male does not want and legally sue for child support which a man has to provide and if he does not he can go to jail, leaving him poor and destitute.
A man has no say in whether the child was kept or not, he has zero rights to the outcome of his unborn child. It can be terminated against his will. It can also be born when he’d rather an abortion.
The 9 month gestational period a woman endures can force a man into a 18 year commitment financially irrespective of whether he wanted it or not.
Men don’t have mental health issues?
You have the most blinkered view of anyone on this thread yet
posted on 26/6/22
If the fathers of the fetuses are excluded from participating in an abortion decision that carries the implication that they are irrelevant. And if they are irrelevant then they are excused from any responsibility for the consequences of their actions. That’s not good for society as a whole.
Men and women can’t have complete equality when it comes to pregnancy because women carry children. But if women can make the choice to either be a parent or not (i.e., carry the pregnancy or not), then how is it fair that men don’t have a similar choice? How is it fair to force a man to provide financial child support if the woman he impregnated chooses to keep and rear a child?
posted on 26/6/22
Wow Dwight has lost it. He has gone on a massive mouth-frothing rant posting comment after comment without reply, mostly all pointless, all because he wants to control what women can do with their bodies.
Since you still can't comprehend that, since the constitutional rights can be taken away by politicians, those rights aren't inalienable (which literally means cannot be taken away) I think it is very safe to say that you don't have the nuance or capacity for this discussion. The only other answer is that you are resorting to deliberately lying to try and make your point which gives us the same conclusion. I'm gonna leave it there because you are clearly deranged and debating you is like trying to teach a door how to read.
A disgraceful embarrassment that you are so desperate to deny women control of their own bodies.
posted on 26/6/22
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 7 hours, 50 minutes ago
Also Welsh boy
If you think US states are nothing more than local councils
Let’s examine that hypothetical.
If Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cheshire outlawed abortion and you were a pregnant woman who wanted an abortion and it was legal in basically everywhere else in your country what would you do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah you carefully left out the part where some of those councils would create laws where you could sue anyone who helped that woman procure an abortion in a different area. I wonder why.
Also those counties cannot outlaw abortion because it is a national law.
Your hypotheticals are as unbalanced and lacking in nuance as the rest of your embarrassing argument.
I don't really want to know why you are so desperate to control what women can do with their bodies but it makes me genuinely uneasy for any women in your life. Toodle.
posted on 26/6/22
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 7 hours, 50 minutes ago
Also Welsh boy
If you think US states are nothing more than local councils
Let’s examine that hypothetical.
If Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cheshire outlawed abortion and you were a pregnant woman who wanted an abortion and it was legal in basically everywhere else in your country what would you do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah you carefully left out the part where some of those councils would create laws where you could sue anyone who helped that woman procure an abortion in a different area. I wonder why.
Also those counties cannot outlaw abortion because it is a national law.
Your hypotheticals are as unbalanced and lacking in nuance as the rest of your embarrassing argument.
I don't really want to know why you are so desperate to control what women can do with their bodies but it makes me genuinely uneasy for any women in your life. Toodle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Welsh
You can’t wrap your head around the difference between local councils and US states.
In the UK, local councils can make bye laws granted by parliament. In the US states can create laws very different to each other. The only thing they cannot do is contradict the constitution.
You keep banging on and on and on about “me wanting to control women”
Where have I said that?
I have merely pointed out the 14th amendment does not protect abortion.
I have pointed out that now the right to abortion is in the hands of politicians. That is all that’s changed in the US.
You don’t seem to really get that fact. Before yesterday women had a protection from politicians around abortion.
A right they do not have in the UK. Now their fate as it pertains to abortion is, just like the UK, in the hands of the politicians.
I get you’re really upset a few states are going to outlaw it. I get you’re upset the other ten are going to make it as difficult to get an abortion as it is in the UK.
But you continue to bash “America” and deny the fact that in 37 states it’s easier to get an abortion than it is in The UK.
You have a hard on for the US for some reason. I’m not a single comment have you called a state out. You keep bashing the union in general. Showing how little you understand about what actually occurred and what the ramifications are.
If you are upset that the US federal government has said that abortion is now in the hands of the politicians then you should be equally enraged that the same is in the hands of the UK politicians.
The US Supreme Court has not denied a woman anything, they have said, it is up to democratically elected officials to decide.
If you’re upset what Kentucky, South Dakota etc have done them all I ask is you enlighten your debate to actually talk about the problem states not make sweeping statement after sweeping statement about the US.
The UK does not provide a right above law for abortion. Now neither does the US.
You don’t seem to be able to wrap your head around this?
posted on 26/6/22
You seem to think genuinely that every state has the same laws struck by the federal government.
The naivety is clear for anyone who actually lives over here to see.
You have repeatedly confused whether the ruling was morally right or wrong with the legality of it. You have repeatedly surmised the US government has repealed womens rights. You seem to believe abortion is now illegal in America as a whole.
I guess when you live in a country which is ruled by another country and the entire population is subjected to laws decided nationally you probably don’t get the unique nature of law in the US and the independence of each state in the union to create their own laws.
But if you can’t be bothered to learn what you’re talking about, then just stop.
posted on 26/6/22
I came back because I was curious to see if you had learned anything. Apparently you don't understand the words you use.
The constitution is not above law, the constitution is part of law. The lawmakers of the US can change the laws in and rights in the constitution if they choose. The US never offered a "right above law" for abortion. It offered a right in law; the same as the UK. The Supreme Court has now removed that right in the US which takes it below the UK, not on the same level (it was previously on the same level). Women never had a right protected from politicians because those very politicians can amend the constitution you absolute moron.
The problem states are only able to do this because they have been given permission at the federal level of the US. Also, every lawmaker in those states is a US citizen, not a citizen of Kentucky. The entire point is that the US is explicitly allowing the rights of its citizens to be eroded because they are US citizens.
It is not easier to get an abortion in any part of the US as it is in the UK.
These are some very simple facts that you either still cannot grasp or are deliberately ignoring to try to justify this. If you can't be bothered to learn what you are talking about then just stop. Although it seems increasingly likely is a capacity issue rather than an effort issue.
posted on 26/6/22
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 2 hours, 42 minutes ago
Also you do realize just about everything you said also happens to men?
Women can and do abuse men, they can be extremely controlling.
Men don’t have access to free contraception in the same “birth control” deserts that affect 19 of 168m women in the US
Women can have a child a male does not want and legally sue for child support which a man has to provide and if he does not he can go to jail, leaving him poor and destitute.
A man has no say in whether the child was kept or not, he has zero rights to the outcome of his unborn child. It can be terminated against his will. It can also be born when he’d rather an abortion.
The 9 month gestational period a woman endures can force a man into a 18 year commitment financially irrespective of whether he wanted it or not.
Men don’t have mental health issues?
You have the most blinkered view of anyone on this thread yet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry; barring your fifth of eight paragraphs, what the fack does any of that have to do with abortion?
Not only is all of it 100% irrelevant to the debate, I haven’t touched on, let alone given an opinion on, men’s rights outside of abortion anywhere. Not a word.
And I have “the most blinkered view of anyone on this thread”? You’ve just made a raft of assumptions about my beliefs and then gone off on a tirade against them, and I’m the blinkered one? OK.
posted on 26/6/22
And you just like welshy seem outraged that the US has put the rights of women in the hands of politicians
Once again, something the UK has always done.
The only thing the US federal government has done has say that abortion is not immune to human law.
So why are you so upset that the US has merely aligned with the UK.
Women in the US and the UK are subject to the determination of elected officials now. It’s parity.
In 3 states yes it’s been outlawed but not one person other than myself has mentioned those states. All I’ve read is diatribe about the US as a whole.
I am perplexed why people are so upset that the US has said elected officials can decide the rights of women regarding abortion, when their own country has said this for decades.
If you’re upset with what kentucky etc have done why aren’t you talking about the specific states rather than making sweeping incorrect statements about the US as a whole?
Or like welshfool do you also think that all laws in the US are decided by the federal government and states have zero independence?
posted on 26/6/22
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 3 hours, 5 minutes ago
Also you do realize just about everything you said also happens to men?
Women can and do abuse men, they can be extremely controlling.
Men don’t have access to free contraception in the same “birth control” deserts that affect 19 of 168m women in the US
Women can have a child a male does not want and legally sue for child support which a man has to provide and if he does not he can go to jail, leaving him poor and destitute.
A man has no say in whether the child was kept or not, he has zero rights to the outcome of his unborn child. It can be terminated against his will. It can also be born when he’d rather an abortion.
The 9 month gestational period a woman endures can force a man into a 18 year commitment financially irrespective of whether he wanted it or not.
Men don’t have mental health issues?
You have the most blinkered view of anyone on this thread yet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he didn't want a baby then he should have had a w@nk instead of coming inside the woman.
Actions have consequences. If you poke the hole and a baby comes out 9 months later then that's on you.
Ultimately it is the woman that carries the baby and if I don't want babies aborted out of my body then it's not gonna happen because a horny man wants it out.
Nevertheless, I think there should be more emphasis on contraception than abortion. Abortion stops us from developing contraceptive sciences. We need better contraception than we have now and then we wouldn't need to bother about abortions as there'd be very few people seeking out an abortion to begin with.
posted on 26/6/22
“Actions have consequences.”
You do see the hypocrisy in that statement alone if you’re defending abortion rights?
So a man cums inside a woman and is therefore bound to those consequences?
A woman consensually allows it but is not bound by the consequences?
That’s a weird way to pitch equality
posted on 26/6/22
Your point about contraceptives is valid and also worth noting that even in Kentucky which is by far the harshest on abortion, plan B will still be available over the counter.
“Emergency contraceptives” will not be affected by the reversal of roe v wade.
So women who have had unprotected s3x can still access these drugs to make a decision.
posted on 26/6/22
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 4 minutes ago
“Actions have consequences.”
You do see the hypocrisy in that statement alone if you’re defending abortion rights?
=====
I was replying to your comment mate, that's all. Try responding to that instead of something I haven't stated.
posted on 26/6/22
So a man cums inside a woman and is therefore bound to those consequences?
A woman consensually allows it but is not bound by the consequences?
That’s a weird way to pitch equality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pitch equality? What the Fack are you on about?
Equality would be if the woman carried the baby for 4.5 months and the man for 4.5 months each.
There is no equality when it comes to having babies. Once you deposit your seed you have no further role for 9 months, your body isn't on the line and lifetime consequences on the body of having a baby aren't your concern. That's not equality.
Men have a very limited role to play and equality suggests that their input should face a similar amount of limitation.
posted on 26/6/22
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 12 minutes ago
Your point about contraceptives is valid and also worth noting that even in Kentucky which is by far the harshest on abortion, plan B will still be available over the counter.
“Emergency contraceptives” will not be affected by the reversal of roe v wade.
So women who have had unprotected s3x can still access these drugs to make a decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree on this. Contraception should be aggressively persued as a global strategy ahead of abortion IMO.
posted on 26/6/22
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
So a man cums inside a woman and is therefore bound to those consequences?
A woman consensually allows it but is not bound by the consequences?
That’s a weird way to pitch equality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pitch equality? What the Fack are you on about?
Equality would be if the woman carried the baby for 4.5 months and the man for 4.5 months each.
There is no equality when it comes to having babies. Once you deposit your seed you have no further role for 9 months, your body isn't on the line and lifetime consequences on the body of having a baby aren't your concern. That's not equality.
Men have a very limited role to play and equality suggests that their input should face a similar amount of limitation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A woman can carry a baby a man doesn’t want for 9 months.
A man is legally bound to provide child support for 18 years.
The man has zero say in whether a woman keeps a child he doesn’t want or destroys one he does.
But, if she does keep it, he’s legally bound to provide for it.
agree there are risks with childbirth and obviously negative effects on a female body post pregnancy.
But men literally have zero rights to the plight of their unborn, agree with it or not, same rules in UK, personally and just my own opinion, if a woman keeps a child a man doesn’t want, knowing he wants nothing to do with it, then he should be absolved of responsibility of it.
Choosing to have a child when you know the father wants nothing to do with it, knowing you will be raising it alone, should not give you the right to then sue the father for money every month.
posted on 26/6/22
A woman can carry a baby a man doesn’t want for 9 months.
===
Yeah, if she doesn't want to have a baby flushed out of her then she can.
Men should poke the hole only when ready for the consequences. This seems basic and obvious to me.
posted on 26/6/22
And women should allow their hole to be poked only when ready for the consequences too.
Now that's equality. Do the crime do the time.
posted on 26/6/22
A man is legally bound to provide child support for 18 years
=====
When you poke a hole there is more than a decent chance a baby will come out and you know this before you start poking the hole. That's how nature works. You also know the woman will have more say than you on what happens to the baby. That comes with responsibilities which one should face having willingly and knowingly poked a hole.
posted on 26/6/22
The man has zero say in whether a woman keeps a child he doesn’t want or destroys one he does.
====
The man has 100% say where he spills his man juice though, and makes a conscious decision to spill it. Men are therefore estopped from later denying the associated responsibilities. Once the juice is spilled the man willingly surrenders some of the rights to the entity within which he spilled his juice.
posted on 26/6/22
Choosing to have a child when you know the father wants nothing to do with it, knowing you will be raising it alone, should not give you the right to then sue the father for money every month
======
There would be no pregnancy without the man though. Also, if the man wanted nothing to do with a baby then he should have thought about that before doing the act which is guaranteed to bring about a baby.
If I bang a woman I ensure contraception. If not then I should be ready and not act surprised and unready in case a baby comes out.
I think men should have a say but the ultimate decision rests with the woman and the rights of the unborn foetus. If the woman decides to keep it then too bad for you and you have to live with the consequences of your actions.
posted on 26/6/22
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 13 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 20 minutes ago
SCOTUS is a democratic institution?
Who elects them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The democratically elected president recommends appointments which are voted on by democratically elected officials
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The president who may not be democratically elected (the last two republican presidents lost the democratically popular vote) recommends them and they are voted on by officials who represent vastly different numbers of the population
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The democracy of the US is based on the electoral vote, not the popular vote. So you cannot say the President was not elected democratically.
The officials in the house and senate however are democratically elected by the folks of their states.
Each state irrespective of size gets 2 seats in congress and a pro rata’d amount of seats in congress.
California and New York for example have 53 and 27 respectively out of the 435 seats.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you think someone getting fewer votes than another person and being elected is democratic (meaning rule by the people)?
Makes as much sense as the rest of your nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah and giving California the same number of senators as Rhode Island and Delaware kinda ain't Democratic.
I wonder if Dwight has ever heard of James Madison and his views on Democracy.
posted on 26/6/22
This thread is wild!
I do actually get what Dwight is saying in terms of the legal constitutional aspect in the US but, to me, that just makes the constitution a bit of a nonsense.
I still fail to see how this makes things more democratic. A woman should have the right to an abortion as the baseline standard. Saying it's now up to the politicians and the electorate doesn't do it for me sorry. If a woman decides to have an abortion then that's a decision for her.
posted on 26/6/22
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 17 minutes ago
Choosing to have a child when you know the father wants nothing to do with it, knowing you will be raising it alone, should not give you the right to then sue the father for money every month
======
There would be no pregnancy without the man though. Also, if the man wanted nothing to do with a baby then he should have thought about that before doing the act which is guaranteed to bring about a baby.
If I bang a woman I ensure contraception. If not then I should be ready and not act surprised and unready in case a baby comes out.
I think men should have a say but the ultimate decision rests with the woman and the rights of the unborn foetus. If the woman decides to keep it then too bad for you and you have to live with the consequences of your actions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the woman doesn’t have to live with the consequences of her actions? You’re giving women an out and men either have to live through the trauma of having a potential life they helped create get aborted or suffer the financial burden of taking care of a child they don’t want.
The woman has the luxury of dodging consequences, pretty dangerous considering men are at danger of being exploited for their finances. Women poking holes in condoms or lying about being on contraception. On the other end of the spectrum men who want to take responsibility for the unborn child have to watch on in silent horror as potential life is eliminated.
The vast majority of abortions in the US are elective without any reasoning. women are using it as contraception. If you don’t find anything morally questionable about eliminating something as sacred as life for the sake of an oorgasm then you need to reflect on your own position on this.
posted on 26/6/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 15 minutes ago
This thread is wild!
I do actually get what Dwight is saying in terms of the legal constitutional aspect in the US but, to me, that just makes the constitution a bit of a nonsense.
I still fail to see how this makes things more democratic. A woman should have the right to an abortion as the baseline standard. Saying it's now up to the politicians and the electorate doesn't do it for me sorry. If a woman decides to have an abortion then that's a decision for her.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree Diafol.
Page 12 of 18
13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17