 |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
February 22nd, 2012
10:15 AM ET
No abortions for women? Then no vasectomies for men, lawmakers sayAs members of Georgia’s House of Representatives debate whether to prohibit abortions for women more than 20 weeks pregnant, House Democrats planned to introduce their own reproductive rights plan: No more vasectomies that leave "thousands of children ... deprived of birth." Rep. Yasmin Neal, a Democrat from the Atlanta suburb of Jonesboro, planned to introduce a bill Wednesday that would prevent men from vasectomies unless needed to avert serious injury or death. “If we legislate women’s bodies, it’s only fair that we legislate men’s,” said Neal, who said she wanted to introduce a bill that would generate emotion and conversation the way anti-abortion bills do. “There are too many problems in the state. Why are you under the skirts of women? I’m sure there are other places to be." Read the full story on This Just In
« Previous entryEPA dioxin assessment raises red flag for some
|
  About this blog
Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love. Recent Comments
 |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Oh, look! Mikey's home from school! Yippee!
DId you learn all about the Const itution and the Declaration of Independence and find out that laws are based on the former and not the latter, honey?
I loved the comment about "old white guys" who made a decision "40 years ago". I guess it's escaped your notice that R v W has been challenged repeatedly by numerous courts and yet it has stood since 1973. What does that tell you, Mikey?
Do explain how "right and wrong do not equal a moral dictate." I'm just all ears!
Ok, Mary. You think that your opinion on the matter is right, and mine is wrong. Are you basing that on a morale dictate or how you understand rights and laws?
Lets look at something completely different. 2+2=4. That mathematical statement is right but if I said 2+2=5 it would be wrong. The basis for that right and wrong is not morals but mathematical principles. Right and wrong describe the validity of a statement, not the motives used to reach that statement.
A "morale dictate"?
Really, honey, get a girlfriend. Get a high school diploma. Get a college degree. Get a graduate degree. Then you can attempt to make a point.
You aren't even in the ball park.
You can argue about math if you want, but it has absolutely no bearing or relationship to law or rights.
Really, sweetie, stop straining at a gnat. You aren't equipped. You think women should be forced to incubate fetuses because you love 'baybeez'.
Get over it. If you love them so much, adopt one. If you love them so much, send one to college.
You aren't in charge of a woman's decision to carry or to terminate a pregnancy. You're simply not.
End of story.
And therein lies your biggest error, Mkey Wikey. I don't care if you think your take on abortion is right or wrong. The fact is that you have no say in the matter, as it isn't your body or your life that are affected.
When you get preggers, do notify the media. I can't wait to see a picture of you at 8 months, beaming with anticipation.
I still pine to know if you ever figured out the laws aren't based on morality and that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are not in the Consti tution, I'd love to see you admit your errors. I doubt you will, though, being a high school kid who thinks he's got all the answers.
Seriously?! How many times do I have to say that I agree with you that laws are based on rights and not morals, especially since I have never said otherwise?
You can attempt to back-pedal all you want, you little liar, but it won't work.
But do go ahead and continue your dishonesty. It's hardly a surprise.
You are joking right? Tell me where I said that laws are based on morals. And yes, I saw BS's quote about me saying something is either right or wrong. That was the whole point of the "right and wrong do not equal a moral dictate" thing that you seem to not be able to comprehend.
Keep lying, dear. It's unbecoming but hardly surprising that you lack any honesty or character.
I wonder what would happen to Mike's moral convictions if he knocked up his girlfriend. (That's a stretch for the imagination, I know, as I can't fathom what girl would find Mike attractive.) I'll bet he'd have a far different view of abortion if he were facing a lifetime commitment to raising a kid he didn't plan for and having to support his high school honey (if he had one, which is hard to envision).
How would he see the issue if he could foresee himself at, say, age 40, putting his spawn through school and working at a minimum-wage job himself, owing to his truncated educational opportunities and the fact that his high school "sweetheart" never got past her junior year of high school?
Here is an idea. Don't have sex outside of marriage. problem solved smh
You can continue to prevaricate,Mikey Wikey, but your post made it quite apparent that you believe that right and wrong are the basis for laws. Trying to back-pedal now is quite dishonest of you. Hardly surprising, since you have no compunction about lies.
I went back and read through my posts. This is the one time that I talk about right and wrong.
"Another issue seems to be not so much about abridging freedoms but more specifically abridging the freedom of women and implying that I must be a male chauvinist pig by even talking about this. I'm sorry that women are the only ones who can carry children, but that's between you and whoever or whatever you think made you. Regardless, just because women are the only people who can have abortions doesn't mean that every male who thinks it should be illegal is somehow trying to oppress women. The bottom-line is that something is either right or wrong, and it doesn't matter if it applies to men, women or both."
I stick by that statement. I do think that abortions are wrong, that is my opinion. Just because I think abortions are wrong, does not mean that I think they are wrong because of my morals. Just like you think your opinion, which is also based on rights, is right.
Nope. You can lie all you want, but your belief in morality as the basis of law is quite clear.
Really Mary, you give women a bad name. Like between stupid and Idiot.
I do like how you guys have now ganged up and added ugly teenager to the list of qualities you've given me in your minds. You guys are a psychologists dream.
Poor baby. If it bothers you, go cry to your mommy.
Oooh, you've been "ganged up upon"? You poor little fella. What a dreadful fate!! Gosh, however WILL you manage to survive the embarrassment of having been beaten to a pulp by women??
Guess what, you little d2ck? You have no clue. Try to imagine yourself being forced to put your feet in stirrups while you're being castrated.
Maybe you'll catch on.
Ah, yes. It's the end of another day. And as has been true for the past 40 years, women have the right to decide whether or not to continue to carry a pregnancy to term or to terminate it.
Mikeys and other zealots have had no effect on R v W, and it continues to be the law of the land. The SCOTUS shows no interest in overturning it, nor does the majority of the American public.
Until and unless the rights of women to control their own destiny is overturned, they will have the right to decide what is best for themselves without interference from do-gooders like Mikey, or the government, or the church.
Get over it, fetus-worshippers. You don't have a say.
Well, this has been fun. I love how Mike feels he's been wronged by being characterized as a 'teenager'. That's truly classic!
What else could anyone imagine about someone who posts such drivel? Would a mature male who was sure of his own masculinity be so threatened by the rights of women? I have to say that I know a good many men who are pro-choice.
I wonder why Mike is so insecure? Must have a very small penis.
Ha, you say Mike is the child/teenager, but you are the immature ones avoiding the debate at hand and just have resourced to name calling and what kind of penis size he has like that even matters to the topic of abortion.
Love how Mikey continues to lie through his teeth.
I guess morals only apply to other people and only in cases that involve women's morality.
And now, Mikey, you've become not only a liar but a boring one.
Get a hobby, sweetcheeks.
I'm not interested in a dishonest, lying little kid.
Wow. I've never seen such a group of close-minded people be so incapable of even understanding where a differing opinion is coming from. I have no delusions that you girls are going to change your mind but it's fascinating to see the defensiveness in all of your comments, and then think that Im the one who feels threatened.
You can talk a good talk about but really if my name was Michelle 90% of your arguments would fall apart. You just automatically assume that because I am a man that I am against you somehow. Get over it ladies and stay classy!
What a buffoon. You could be the head cheerleader at your school, you little dope, and your arguments would hold no more merit. You still would have no say over someone else's body or its contents and you would still be too stupid to figure out that none of the statements you've made are based on facts. You're welcome to your opinion, little boy (you're no "man"–I doubt you are more than 16). You have every right to think whatever you want. You have simply been unable to back up your opinion with anything remotely resembling facts. Furthermore, you are laughable when you pretend you're some sort of threat to anyone's reproductive freedoms. At least twice you've blathered on about how those who disagree with you are under the impression you're "against women". What delusions of grandeur. You don't know any women. You're a kid.
Oh, and "stay classy"? Really?
You're a joke.
Shake it off Mike and stop replying to these people. Regardless of what you believe, name-calling has nothing to do with rational debate. Hurt people, hurt people and obviously MaryLand has some pain associated with this topic.
Wrong-o, not-so-hot tomalley. I have never had nor sought an abortion. I am pro-choice. My mother was pro-choice and she had 4 kids. My mother-in-law is pro-choice; she had two kids and 2 miscarriages and even SHE thinks you people are nuts. My sister-in-law is Catholic and SHE is adamantly pro-choice.
There's no "pain" associated with this topic. Just disgust with little posers like you who think they have some say in what other people do with their bodies and the contents thereof. Unless the rights of another person are being infringed upon, you don't. And a fetus is not a person.
"Unless the rights of another person are being infringed upon, you don't."
Mary, I could not agree more.
What part of the fact that fetuses are not considered persons under the law are you struggling with, you moronic twit? What part of the fact that if a fetus had rights a woman would lose hers?
Let me know when you think it's fine for the government to force you to get a vasectomy, Twinkletoes.
I have to apologize for my last comment. I just wanted to see how you would react if I did nothing but agree with you about something. While your response did not disappoint, I shouldn't have stooped to your level.
Your rights aren't on the line, Mike. Prohibiting abortion won't infringe on your rights under the law at all. Not one iota. It WILL affect the rights of women. That is why it doesn't bother you in the slightest.
Now, back to my question. How would you feel about the government telling you that could not have a vasectomy? How would you like it if the government could force you to have one? The principle is the same. The government does not force people to do something with their bodies against their will if they are not infringing on another PERSON'S rights. And a fetus does not have the legal status of a person in this country. When you figure out a way for it to have equal rights without abrogating those of a woman, alert the media. Until then, women have the say, not you.
"The government does not force people to do something with their bodies against their will if they are not infringing on another PERSON'S rights. And a fetus does not have the legal status of a person in this country."
I completely agree with you on both points and I understand that is why abortions are legal. We are in agreement. My question is this, why do you think a fetus should not have legal status? From what I gather, your opinion boils down to this, a fetus should not have legal standing because that would cause women to loose some of their liberties. Again, I understand what you are saying and I agree that a fetus with rights would indeed infringe on the mother's rights. So, lets pretend that abortion was illegal and RvW never happened. How would you argue the point that a fetus (which you concede is a human life) does not warrant the same legal status as every other human life? I just want your opinion as to why, not just a re-iteration that its legal because the courts say it's legal.
Here is my point. We give up rights all the time because they conflict with other people's rights (which you have already agreed with). It's a big balancing act. In my opinion, denying legal standing to one group of people in order to protect another group of people is flawed logic. It's been tried before with women and minorities and thankfully the courts wised up and laws were changed. Again, that is just my opinion and I know that it is not in line with court rulings but remember that court rulings are based on legal opinions. So saying my opinion is wrong because it is not the same as another person's opinion isn't really a good argument.
I stopped reading your post when you couldn't manage to figure out the difference between "lose" and "loose", Mikey.
I don't debate with people who don't speak English.
I'd like to congratulate Mike on his ability to maintain his cool composure in the face of such vicious, illogical, rude, and crass people! And despite what is being said here, Mike's opinions matter! People matter. And it's not surprising to me that people who believe in killing life before birth would not have a problem with treating others with so much disrespect and contempt.
Oh, blow it out your ear. Women ARE people. They are people with rights. They are not simply containers for fetuses.
Abortion is a personal, private decision and is none of your business, or Mikey's.
Of course, everybody knows that you actually ARE Mikey, posting under a different name. Not terribly impressive.
I agree with you Mike
Who knew that Margaret Atwood was actually writing about the future in The Handmaid's Tale. I hope everybody is ready for Gilead.
Give it a rest... you pathetic fools
Bite me. If you don't like what people say here, beat it.
What the imbeciles here fail to recognize is that they need to provide a reason for a fetus being accorded rights that supersede those of a woman. They can't. That's why morons like Mikey always resort to the late-term abortion argument. Late-term abortion is so rare that it is inconsequential. That's why Mikey has to focus on them, because to pretend that a cluster of insensate cells' 'rights' are equal to those of a woman would be a point impossible to prove.
Mikey is a moron.
What the imbeciles here fail to recognize is that they need to provide a reason for a fetus being accorded rights that supersede those of a woman. They can't. That's why morons like Mikey always resort to the late-term abortion argument. Late-term abortion is so rare that it is inconsequential. That's why Mikey has to focus on them, because to pretend that a cluster of insensate cells' 'rights' are equal to those of a woman would be a point impossible to prove.
Mikey is a moron.
To everyone reading this, I apologize for women everywhere, especially to whoever Mike is. We are NOT like Mary in real life, I can promise you that.
Stick it up your fundament and set it on fire.
Thanks for the support. Don't worry your rep as a woman is still intact with me. Contrary to popular belief on this forum I'm married with 2 kids so I have actually met a girl before.
(If you listen carefully you can actually hear Mary typing a response calling me a liar again. Hey Mary, I also have an advanced degree but you are too closed minded to realize none of that matters anyway.)
Oh, sure you have an "advanced degree". Right. That's why you can't figure out that it's "close-minded", not "closed-minded".
I'm so impressed by your academic cred.
I've met snails smarter than you, Mikey.
Is Mike a real person?
God forbid.
The public schools are truly in trouble.
Wow, at first I thought this must be a joke but it's not. It does bring up an interesting point for all you pro-choice supporters. If a fetus does not warrant any legal standing, why does a one day old, or even a 6 six week old? Nothing really changes from a minute before to a minute after birth. The academics at Oxford argue that a human being shouldn't be considered a legal person until that person has a mind capable of recognizing any of it's own worth. The logic being that until a baby should not be given any right to life until it has the mental capacity to understand that life is something of value that can be taken away.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2108433/Doctors-right-kill-unwanted-disabled-babies-birth-real-person-claims-Oxford-academic.html?ICO=most_read_module
For someone who can't even figure out how to use an apostrophe correctly, you're remarkably arrogant when discussing the rights of women.
What academics in England think is irrelevant. In case you hadn't noticed, this is the US. The laws here are not the same and your references are a waste of space.
When you actually acquire two working brain cells, let me know. I'll be waiting for you, Mikey.
You would have a point if said anything about this being a law. I was just pointing out an interesting point of view.
No, you weren't. You wouldn't know a point if one punctured your cerebellum.
I'll be thrilled to continue this discussion when Mikey graduates from high school.
Good lord, is Mikey still yammering nonsense?
Why do legal opinions matter more than yours, Mikey? Because the judges on the SCOTUS actually WENT TO LAW SCHOOL, you idiot. Here's a hint, dummy. Getting a JD requires graduating from HS and college, neither of which you have obviously achieved.
Judges also said that slavery was ok and that women shouldn't have a right to vote.
Yes, you stupid git, and those rulings were overturned. Just as were the rulings prohibiting abortion.
Get it, fuckwit?
Ooooh, nice try, honey! Did you figure out the difference between "loose" and "lose" yet? Or are you to be a total "loser" and claim you made a typo?
Roe v. Wade stands. When Mikey the genius comes up with an argument the Justices won't find completely ridiculous, everyone should be on full alert.
Until then, rest easy. Morons don't get to make the laws.
I am just on tenterhooks wondering when Mikey is going to demonstrate his superior intellect and education.
I wonder when that will occur.
As of this point, I've seen him do little but expose his own lack of any smarts or education. I wonder when he'll surprise me.
Gosh, the suspense is just killing me!
I'd love to see evidence of Mikey's "advanced degree". In what "field" is that "advance degree", Mikey? Physics? Mathematics?
I know it's not in English or literature. If it were, your posts would actually be readable and somewhat sentient.
I bet you would. Unfortunately that would require me to care about what you want. But you are right, it's definitely not in English or lit.
BTW, punctuation goes on the inside of quotations.
Nope. Not always. More fool you. As usual.
Well, now that we have been reduced to arguing over grammar I think it's time to go.
Tom, not sure what the heck you said there so "more fool you" too!
Mary, so sorry you are hung up over my most heinous mistake using loose when I meant lose. I was thinking of you when I was typing so lets just call it a freudian slip.
Oh, poor thing. Nothing left to argue, huh?
*sigh*
You never had anything to begin with.
Even Cialis only works if you actually have a penis.
You think it's time to go?
Your time to go was about 1973, dude.
Catch up, why don't you?
Those bell-bottoms are out of style and so is your view of reproductive rights.
Apparently, you care quite a lot, or you'd have left eons ago, dearie.
You loser, you are so needy. If anyone needed an example of Schadenfreude, dear, you'd be it.
Poor little thing.
Mikey demonstrates his arrogance and ignorance again. And all at once! Bonus!
Mikey, you'd be outwitted by a 3-legged dog, dear. When will you figure it out? Women aren't subservient. They don't owe a fetus life at the expense of their own health or life.
It's that simple, dearie.
Which is only underlining your stupidity in not being able to grasp the concept.
Not that it matters. Nobody's listening to you anyway.
I await your absolute proof that punctuation "always goes on the inside of quotations". Do produce said absolute proof, sweet cheeks. Thanks in advance.
Meanwhile, do enlighten everyone as to the nature of your 'advanced degree'. Why is it that such a degree didn't require to write anything that approached English? Were you able to get away with such atrocities as "loose" when what you meant was "lose"? Doesn't seem as though you were held to much of a standard.
Is Webster's a good enough source for you? Also, I didn't say always, you added that. Commas and periods do always go on the inside. Question marks and exclamation points depend on the context.
Later, hope you enjoy your weekend.
Nope. Not good enough, unless your source says that "loose" and "lose" are equivalent. Does it?
Didn't think so.
You're outclassed, dummy.
The popcorn is delicious when accompanied by a vision of Mikey eating crow.
You are eating popcorn and thinking of me? I don't know weather (that one's for you Mary) to laugh at you or cry for you.
Hope you have a good life Jabs.
No worries, darling. I have a great life. I laugh at ideologues like you and revel in my freedom to thumb my nose at your mores.
Have a great weekend, "looser".
Men like Mike make me laugh. I can't help it. It is just too absurd to watch their posturing about abortion. I am reminded of little boys of 3 or 4 building castles in the sand at the beach and imagining that their creations are somehow holy and will endure forever, when in fact, their 'creations' are nothing but ejaculations destined to be erased by time and tide.
Most little boys outgrow their delusions of grandeur. Too bad Mike didn't mature.
Wow. Mikey is truly desperate! It's so sad when someone is reduced to using Webster as a source.
How lame.
Not about to pass muster in any graduate school worthy of the name.
But anyone can see that Mikey didn't go to a real graduate school.
I mean, really. Would a graduate of any decent program look that stupid?
I do think it's interesting that Mikey has yet to provide any justification for his view that a fetus should have more rights, or even equal rights, than/with the woman whose body is supporting its existence.
Funny, that.
Are you kidding? The dolt's in high school and hasn't ever had a date he didn't bribe.
He's so full of crap it's a wonder he hasn't been cited by the EPA.
You do have a point. Mike doesn't seem to have even the slightest idea what his ideals would entail, much less a willingness to deal with the repercussions of them.
Good thing nobody gives a ripe fuck what idiots like him think about the matter.
Yeah, I agree. He's an idiot and a bore, but he makes a good piñata.
Too bad he's full of s h it and not candy.
Did you mean "an idot and a bore" or "an idiot an a who re"?
Wait, Who gives a sib)the?
Well, I'd say he's both, not that it matters. Idiots like Mike abound, but they're not in the majority. Most people (at least those who are sane) do not wish to see R v W overturned, and believe that abortion is a personal decision between a woman and her physician.
Mike can go screw himself if he doesn't like it.
When are you and your invisible playmates going to answer the questions I asked, Mikey? Do you think that the government should be able to prohibit you from having a vasectomy? Should it be able to force you to have one? Why not?
The principle is the same and you haven't managed to acknowledge that. I wonder why.
In addition, you have yet to state any reason the fetus should have more rights than the woman upon whom it is dependent.
Are you going to answer that?
Mary, you are a broken record. I have answered your questions (many times) so here is a recap...
Do I think the govt should be able to prohibit vasectomies? No.
Should I be forced to have one? No.
Why? Unlike abortions, vasectomies affect one person, me. Abortions affect the mother, and the fetus. Now before you start ranting and raving, just read the rest of the post.
I want you to really read this slowly because I've already had to repeat it a bunch. The issue is not who's rights are more important or who has more rights. We are all protected equally! The issue is whether or not a fetus should be considered a legal person. Obviously you don' t think they should at all (and the courts currently agree with you). My question to you is still this, when should a human life be considered a legal person and therefore be given EQUAL rights under the law?
The fault I see with your logic is this. You repeatedly say that a fetus cannot have rights because that would inherently abridge the rights of the mother. Let's look back at drugs, you have already said that they are illegal in order to protect others' rights. By your logic, instead of the govt infringing on my rights to do whatever I want with and to my body, every other person should just be denied legal status. After all, giving other people rights inherently abridges my rights.
So I ask again since you continue to ignore the actual question that your argument hinges upon, when should a human life be given legal standing and all the rights associated with that standing?
When that life is viable outside the body of the woman and does not depend on her body for its survival, sh!twit.
You have yet to give ANY reason a fetus should have equal or special rights, Mikey. Not surprising. There aren't any. This nation is a nation of laws and our Consti tution is the basis for those laws. You cannot seem to get it through your thick skull that women have rights to their bodies just as men do. The government cannot force you to do something with your body that you do not wish to do. It cannot and should not be able to do so. Your belief that a fetus should have rights is your opinion. You don't have any reason for it. You simply believe it.
Not good enough. And do stop pretending to be other people, you idiot. You're the only bozo posting these lame-azz responses to your own drivel.
Fetuses are not people with rights. That is all that needs to be said. You can wish they were. They aren't, nor should they be. You have not produced a single legal basis for your belief.
No, we are NOT protected "equally", Mike. You simply don't understand that a fetus is not given the same rights as a born person.
It doesn't matter that you think it should. That's just tough toenails for you. When you get pregnant, you can do as you choose. When I do, I can do as I choose, and you can pretend your opinion has weight, but it doesn't.
I think the government should not allow you to have a vasectomy and should prohibit the use of birth control on your part. I think you should be forced to impregnate as many women as possible. After all, your having a vasectomy prevents a life from being created! You shouldn't be able to do that. You say the fetus is alive, and it is. So are eggs and sperm. Why should you have the right to prevent them from causing conception? Your limiting your imaginary family to only two fantasy 'children' has resulted in the prevention of lives that could have been conceived and born.
Do you see how ridiculous your argument is? You have no more say about what a woman does with her body than I have about what you do with yours.
You continue to use drug laws as your argument. Not sufficient, dear. For one thing, I don't believe all drugs should be illegal, nor do I believe the 'war on drugs' has been effective. However, to argue that the reason drugs are illegal is that their use, production, and sale can infringe on the well-being of other PEOPLE is making my argument for me.
Fetuses are not people with rights.
it only proves the point that dems view abortion as form of "birth control" to even attempt to compare the two (and frankly I dont care what you do to yourself but that "defense" if it may be called that is just pure stupidity)
And the countdown to the insults begins...
As mature and intellectual as these ladies think they are, you would think they would understand that the side yelling and attacking the loudest usually is the side that doesn't have a defendable argument.
And the countdown also begins until the inevitable complete misunderstanding of what I just said. Can't wait to see how many, "I don't care if you agree or not! SCOTUS does so suck it!" comments I get.
It's hilarious to watch someone with the brains of a turnip pretend that anyone can't grasp what he's written and that the only possible reason others don't agree with his argument is that they "misunderstand" it.
How dense can one turnip be?
"When that life is viable outside the body of the woman and does not depend on her body for its survival, sh!twit." So do you agree that abortions after a fetus is viable should be illegal?
"However, to argue that the reason drugs are illegal is that their use, production, and sale can infringe on the well-being of other PEOPLE is making my argument for me." No, my point is that the well-being of others sometimes drives abridgments of our rights. You are the one saying that fetus's cannot ever be given rights because that would take away the mother's rights like the two are somehow mutually exclusive. They aren't, we give up rights for each other all the time which is what the drug example illustrates.
"You say the fetus is alive, and it is. So are eggs and sperm." Yes, they are alive, but they are not human beings by themselves. You are starting to grasp at straws if you honestly believe your own logic here.
"No, we are NOT protected "equally", Mike. You simply don't understand that a fetus is not given the same rights as a born person." I do understand that a fetus is not given the same rights. That's the whole point of this debate! You ask for a legal argument for why a fetus should have special rights. They shouldn't, they should have the same rights as every other person in this country. That is my legal argument. In the US of A we do not pick and choose specific groups of people to give and withhold rights to. So if you concede that a fetus is a human being, then we should treat them like any other human being. Just because the person in question is dependent on another person for life should be irrelevant. There are plenty of infants out there, and handicapped adults, and dying elderly that depend on others for life. To turn it around on you, how would you legally justify denying rights to another human being? Saying that it would infringe on your rights is not an answer (to be fair it is an answer, just not a legally defensible answer).
As far as losing rights as a woman goes, you are right, it sucks. I don't know what else to tell you. All I can say is that if both men and women could be pregnant I would still feel the same way. I know you probably don't believe me but it's true, just like there are plenty of women in the world who are pro-life. Contrary to popular feminist beliefs, just because I am a guy does mean I'm out to get you. I understand what I am saying and I don't take it lightly. Anytime individual rights are on the line, we should take a good hard look at the situation before we pass judgement. In this case, I think that limiting a woman's right is justified in order to protect the fetus's right to life (which again, I know they do not have any right to life under the current laws).
My God, if you were any dumber, we'd have to water you. You are such an arrogant little goober that you insist I think you're "out to get" me. Idiot. This has far less to do with your supposed masculinity than you dream, little boy. I wouldn't care whether you were male or female. I have had this exact argument with women who are opposed to choice. You're not special just because you have a p e nis. I couldn't care less about your gender, you nitwit. The fact is that no one has a right to force a woman to continue a pregnancy against her wishes. No one. Your being male simply makes your views ridiculous because no matter what you blabber about how you'd view the issue if you were able to be pregnant, you can no more fathom what that means than you can envision what your life would be like if you were a dog or a bird. You can't know. You will never know. No one knows what another person's life is like. But of course, being the arrogant moron you are, you think you can know what you'd feel if you could be pregnant. Laughable. Almost as funny as your insistence that our right to life is greater than our right to liberty because of the arrangement of the words in the Declaration of Independence. Just silly. "I don't take it lightly." Yes, you do, but you're such a simpleton that you don't even realize it. "It sucks. I don't know what to tell you." Oh, but you'll imagine that you are going to tell me something. You moron, you are in no position to tell half the population that they have fewer rights than you do because they are pregnant. As if.
Oh, and how many times are you going to pretend that elderly people, handicapped people, and infants depending on others is the same as the dependence of a fetus on the woman carrying it? Is an infant born to a woman who happens to die in childbirth unable to be fed and cared for by another? Yes. See if your little brain can work out the difference, Mikey. It might take you a while to figure out why the two do not compare. And yes, it IS a legally defensible answer, as the laws prove.
I wonder, Mikey, do you think capital punishment is "right"? How about "rape"? Do you think a woman who's pregnant due to r a pe or in c est should also be forced to continue pregnancy? How about one who's carrying a fetus with a trisomy defect? How about a 12-year-old who engaged in s 2x with an older boy? Are you going to force her to give birth?
It's a free country and you can continue to yap and blather your little fantasies about abortion and it will matter not a whit. The fact is that our laws are based on rights guaranteed to us by the Const it ution. For the majority of our history, women have had a right to bodily integrity and autonomy. If you think you're somehow going to force half the population to give up those rights, I would suggest you attempt to reinst itute slavery first and see how that works out.
Until and unless a woman can have an unwanted fetus removed from her body and implanted in the body of someone who wants it, she will have the right to end such a pregnancy. You can be all horrified about it, Mikey, but that's the way it is. Don't approve? Doesn't matter. It isn't your body, it isn't your fetus, and it isn't your decision.
It never was. Women have ended pregnancies with or without legal backing, ever since man walked upright.
Oh, and as for abortion after viability, most are already illegal unless the pregnancy threatens the woman's health or life. No, I don't think abortion should be legal after the point of viability except for such circu mstances.
And that isn't what this argument is about, Mikey. And you know it.
I'm still laughing about Mike thinking he's making a point legally when he was under the impression that suicide was illegal.
Not exactly class valedictorian, were you?
Almost forgot the other one, that Mike thought anyone claimed our society was 100% free. That was a knee-slapper.
" In the US of A we do not pick and choose specific groups of people to give and withhold rights to. So if you concede that a fetus is a human being, then we should treat them like any other human being."
Oh, really? But that's EXACTLY what you are proposing. That women's rights will be withheld in favor of those of the fetus. You just destroyed your own argument. I have never said a fetus was a "human being". It is human; it is living. It is not a human being with rights equal to those of born people. Slavery was outlawed because is was obvious that these WERE people. Fetuses are not people. When you see one walking around, let me know.
Thanks for making my point so neatly.
I think Mike's 'degree' might have been in elementary education.
Probably a gym teacher.
You continue to burp out that "fetuses should have the same rights as any other person." Yet I proposed a scenario in which it was given those rights, and you conceded that it would not be possible for a fetus and the woman carrying to HAVE equal rights. One or the other will have to give up rights. The fetus wouldn't have equal rights under your laws. It would have special rights and women would be lesser beings.
You fail to acknowledge the pregnancy involves risk to health and life for a woman. You are saying that her life and her health are less important and worthy than those of a cluster of cells less than 8 weeks old.
No sale.
Mary, attempting to discuss the semantics of punctuation, spelling and syntax is ultimately doomed to failure. Not everyone is capable of using english to it's fullest extent.... unlike some (supposedly). For example, say if someone was dyslexic, it wouldn't make their point any less valid... also academia doesn't instantly equal spelling ability (for any number of reasons), so, to believe to believe people who can't write well, must be uneducated is a gross generalisation. I'm going to say Mike was asking some quite reasonable questions, questions that you couldn't be bothered to answer, questions to which your only replies have been insults..
Personally, when it comes to abortion... I believe in choice, to an extent. If the woman in question has had an accident during an encounter and gotten herself pregnant... then I see no reason why there should be an abortion, after all, it wasn't the childs fault that people (or very loosely, the parents) weren't using protection... safe sex is the responsibility of both participants. If they willingly choose not to use contraceptives, then they should expect pregnancy and the ramifications it causes... sadly some girls (fortunately I'm not one of them) use abortion as a simple convenience tool, because having a child might impact on her social life... seriously, If the child isn't wanted he or she can always be fostered out, his or her life doesn't need to be ended. Having said that though, If however a rape has occurred, then I see no reason why the lady in question can't have an abortion. But to me personally any abortion for whatever reason, should be done before the foetus (yes, I use British english) has a heartbeat.
Quick notice, due to a lack of proof reading (and likely due to being 1am).. please scrap one of my "to believe" repeats from the "to believe to believe" sentence.
Thank you
Lori
Go sit with Mikey on the stupid bench, Lorinda.
Just quickly, but praise be to your kind words.. not that they actually worry me. Don't worry though, being the good christian that I am, I truly forgive you and subsequently will pray for you, that you may grow spiritually as a person. Lori.
You lose. You didn't actually do well in reading comprehension, did you? I answered every single question Mike raised. If you claim otherwise, you're daft or blind; maybe both.
Why don't you answer MY questions? How will you give a fetus and the woman carrying it 'equal rights'? Mikey couldn't figure out how to do so. I doubt you can, either. He couldn't give any legal reasons why a fetus should have rights equal to those of one born; can you? Go right ahead.
This isn't about 'opinion'. It's about facts, and like Mikey, you've presented few if any that support your opinion or bolster the argument being made.
In addition, this isn't about laws in the UK. No one cares what your country's laws are concerning rights. This isn't about your nation; it's about the US and its laws.
Isn't it interesting that Lorinda misuses apostrophes in exactly the same way Mikey does?
It's cute, though, how he tried so hard. The "semantics of punctuation". Priceless!
P.S In modern times with our health facilities, unless the mother has an underlying health issue... there isn't an overly large risk to the mothers safety. In ye oldé times, yes, risk of infection during labour was significantly higher – mind you, cross contamination was a far greater occurrence. Sadly a number of girls died during labour. Fortunately for us, this isn't so much the case anymore... but rather the exception.
The main problem though, will always be people from areas of a lower socioeconomic state, those less able to afford appropriate healthcare.
Anyway, it's 1:20am now... I'll be the first to admit I could be rambling... figured I'd just throw in my 2 cents worth and now I'm off to bed.
Oh, yeah, and tell your pal to stop using such obvious sock-puppets, dearie.
It didn't actually post for whichever reason, I'm going to say this once and keep it brief – just incase somewhere along the line what I just typed up does post. Simply put, I'm not affiliated with anyone who sent any messages previous to me. Honestly I have no idea who Mike is. I simply stumbled into the forum during research on vasectomies as my husband offered to have one, rather voluntarily I might add. Long story short, other forms of contraceptives don't work for me. I refuse to have my words attributed to someone I wouldn't know from a bar of soap; my words are my own academic license. Off tangent....
I'm not in the UK, I'm elsewhere in the British Commonwealth. If my full post comes up, it'll hopefully explain things.... if it doesn't come up I'll try reposting in about 15 hours.. the server seems to think I've already posted it.
Uh huh. You might want to keep in mind that vasectomies aren't 100% effective. I happen to know a woman whose husband had one. A year later, she became pregnant. And yes, it is his.
During a vasectomy, the vas deferens from each testicle is clamped, cut, or otherwise sealed. This prevents sperm from mixing with the semen that is ejaculated from the penis. An egg cannot be fertilized when there are no sperm in the semen. The testicles continue to produce sperm, but the sperm are reabsorbed by the body. ,-`'
Stay in touch
<http://www.picturesofherpes.co/
Ms. Neal is confusing her analogs. The analagous situation for women vis-a-vis a vasectomy isn't pregnancy, it's a tubal ligation. The abortion right analogy for men would be the right to renounce parental responsibilities as well as rights either post-conception or post-birth. However men don't have that right. So really, Ms. Neal has it wrong.
You are so right, and if the media was trying to be fair, they would have made this point in the article, However political correctness makes it so you cannot criticize a talking about the right to abortion. The ironic things is that I am for abortion, but I still think but some people just make stupid arguments and are never called on it by the media. Comparing vasectomy to abortion is a textbook case of stupid arguments from lazy minds that don't think thing through.
So you want to make it so men can't even prevent conception? Then neither should women be allowed to either. Better add a clause to that bill that forbids women from getting free birth control from Obamacare, you hypocrite! Nice attempt at a strawmen there. Zygotes are not the same as gametes! I guess someone failed high school biology.
Let’s mandate men have vasectomy...I wonder how many men will want THEIR bodies controlled by laws and by others!