Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why do you need scientists then?

Other than for political rhetorical reasons, do even the pro-choicers claim that a fetus is not a life of some sort, just not one that should be protected when the mother doesn't want to?

Many of the pro-choicers, by no means all, debate the life point. That is why I need scientists. Others, like my father, take a far more practical approach.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If they drink or work with chemicals that are reasonably likely to cause harm to the child? Yes, I do.

I think that the bottom line with the pro-choice crowd is that they feel the biological fact that women are the ones who get pregnant is unfair. Abortion is their way of trying to make up for this biological unfairness.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think that the bottom line with the pro-choice crowd is that they feel the biological fact that women are the ones who get pregnant is unfair. Abortion is their way of trying to make up for this biological unfairness.

No, the unfairness is being told by someone who has not and cannot be in a similar situation not to have an abortion.

That said, if only women were allowed to vote on the question "abortion: legal or not?" would a vote for "not" be any more palatable?

[SlaveNoMore]

Say_hello_for_me
Who is the absolutely worst ... most hypocritical Republican running for reelection this year?

Arlen Specter

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
No, the unfairness is being told by someone who has not and cannot be in a similar situation not to have an abortion.

That said, if only women were allowed to vote on the question "abortion: legal or not?" would a vote for "not" be any more palatable?

Why don't men have equivilent abortion rights - i.e. "Either you abort, or I get to opt out"

Rather unfair that the woman gets to choose her economic destiny, whereas the man can be unwillingly on the hook for 18 years of child support.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why don't men have equivilent abortion rights - i.e. "Either you abort, or I get to opt out"
.

They should.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why don't men have equivilent abortion rights - i.e. "Either you abort, or I get to opt out"

Rather unfair that the woman gets to choose her economic destiny, whereas the man can be unwillingly on the hook for 18 years of child support.

Last I checked it was pretty hard for a woman to rape a man in a way that would get her pregnant. That whole erection thing is pretty key to pregnancy.

Unless you were raped and that caused the pregnancy, you were not an unwilling participant.

[Not Me]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jul28.html

Interesting development.

• JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia, July 28 --In talks with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Saudi Arabia today proposed the creation of an Islamic force to help stabilize Iraq and potentially someday replace at least some of the U.S.-led military coalition, according to senior Arab diplomats here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
In other words, why is the day you turn 18, or 16, or whatever, such a magical moment?

Because we won't be able to replicate Justice O'Connor to answer these questions for us, barring further advances involving stem-cell research?

[SlaveNoMore]

Not Me
Last I checked it was pretty hard for a woman to rape a man in a way that would get her pregnant. That whole erection thing is pretty key to pregnancy.

Unless you were raped and that caused the pregnancy, you were not an unwilling participant.

Yes, to flesh out your wholly irrelevant hypo, please add that that, despite the rapist's passionate pleas to abort, she decides to keep it and punish him with 18 years of financial obligation.

Get back to my question. The woman can abort for mere inconvenience. If the man has no say in the matter (which may or may not be fair), then he should not be obligated by the law to have any further financial responsibility.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Because we won't be able to replicate Justice O'Connor to answer these questions for us, barring further advances involving stem-cell research?

Excellent point, seeing as Ron was advocating (without ever actually using the word) human cloning for the basis of embryo creation.

Something that goes far and away beyond the Dem platform position.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why don't men have equivilent abortion rights - i.e. "Either you abort, or I get to opt out"

Rather unfair that the woman gets to choose her economic destiny, whereas the man can be unwillingly on the hook for 18 years of child support.

When have you ever been unwilling?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Yes, to flesh out your wholly irrelevant hypo, please add that that, despite the rapist's passionate pleas to abort, she decides to keep it and punish him with 18 years of financial obligation.

My guess is if a man were raped (and could prove it) and a baby were to result, if the rapist went to court asking for child support, the court would not order it. Moreover, if the rapee could prove it, wouldn't the mother be in jail?

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Get back to my question. The woman can abort for mere inconvenience. If the man has no say in the matter (which may or may not be fair), then he should not be obligated by the law to have any further financial responsibility.

This completely ignores the welfare of the child. You are as bad as the pro-choice crowd that ignore the fetus' rights. You know, pregnancy is not just about a mother and a father's rights. There is a fucking child involved.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Excellent point, seeing as Ron was advocating (without ever actually using the word) human cloning for the basis of embryo creation.

Something that goes far and away beyond the Dem platform position.

You actually appear to have devoted some of your brain's processing capacity to Ron Reagan's speech. I, on the other hand, am too stupid to have the luxury of devoting my scarce resources to such things.

Instead, I will just take Michael Kinsley's word for it that there are hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos that could be used before we have to clone Justice O'Connor for purposes other than the jurisprudential ones I had in mind.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Get back to my question. The woman can abort for mere inconvenience. If the man has no say in the matter (which may or may not be fair), then he should not be obligated by the law to have any further financial responsibility.

The financial responsibility flows to the child, not the mom. She can abort a fetus for mere inconvenience (since we're assuming no health problems, how late in the pregnancy she can do this varies depending upon the state she goes to for the clinic), but she can't kill the kid after birth for the same reason.

Worried about the hussy hitting you up for dough 9 months later? You can, roughly in order of effectiveness: (1) just say no; (2) exclusively date post-menopausal women; (3) accept only blow jobs and make sure she swallows; (4) get clipped; (5) wear a condom; (6) wear briefs instead of boxers to raise body heat and kill the little suckers before they get out; (7) insist on a "money shot"; (8) cross your fingers; or (9) sue for custody of Slave Junior.