Ohio asshat wants women to get a permission slip to have an abortion.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Saya

2. Its punishing women who have casual sex.

5. Its a pro-life tactic to limit abortions and promote chastity and waiting until marriage, they really don't give a fuck about rights, they want to punish promiscuity and sex before marriage.

If science were to turn up a cure for AIDS or a technology which removed all the health threats of hard drugs, the same people would be clamoring for legislation against it. Some of these people don't give a shit about people. They consider suffering and horror a valuable asset in their war on human nature and freedom.

[Renatus]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

They consider suffering and horror a valuable asset in their war on human nature and freedom.

Thats a bit of a paradox when you consider war is part of human nature.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Renatus

Thats a bit of a paradox when you consider war is part of human nature.

Everyone says this but it's total bullshit.

[GoblinQueen]

I believe a woman is the only one who has a say in what she does to her body. The man doesn't have to carry a baby for 9 months. A man doesn't have to suffer from morning sickness and fainting. A man doesn't have to go into labour and push something the size of a computer screen through something the size of a thumbnail.
Until that starts happening, I believe that a man should keep his nose out of it when the woman he got pregnant wants an abortion.

Oh, and Beneath The Shadows? You are the only asshat here with that attitude.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

Technically, that's exactly what the womb is. But it's far better to treat women as "merely incubators" than to treat men as non-entities.

Are you fucking kidding me? Its better to objectify and veto the will of a human being just because the father is a dickhead?

So a man can't force a woman to bear his child, but a woman can force a man to have no recourse when she aborts his child. That's still a double standard, and it's still bullshit.

No, because its not a child. Its a fetus.

As I've already indicated in my last post, I support only the man's right to have a say. In any case, if the man doesn't come forward, then as far as I'm concerned, he's waived that right.

Again, we're talking about the bill, and you asked what makes this guy an asshat.

I don't think that that question would apply to a **** victim seeking an abortion. "Question 1: Were you *****? Question 2: Did this act of **** get you pregnant? Question 3: Do you wish to abort the pregnancy? Question 4: Is Representative John Adams an asshat?" Yeah, that doesn't quite work.

You asked what about this bill makes him an asshat, I told you he wants to punish **** victims. I have no idea why the fuck you think they would ask a **** victim about it, according to this they must provide a police report stating that they have been *****.

If it's not a parental choice or right, then why are the parents of unborn children called the parents of unborn children?

Its not legally classified as a parental right since its not a child, in Roe vs Wade it was decided that abortion is only constitutional because its a right to privacy:

"right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

Notice no use of the world "parent" there, just a woman and her pregnancy.

That link says 46%. That's not more than half.

I apologize, I read it wrong A more recent one puts it at 54% of men consider themselves prolife:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30771408/

And what about those who would convince the woman to get an abortion when she'd otherwise not get one? The specific people getting abortions would change, but the number of abortions would not.

While there can be manipulation in a woman getting an abortion, legally her opinion is the only one that matters. I can be pressured into joining the army but at the end of the day its still legally my choice, why give men who have so much sway over women the legal right to control them?

As I've already indicated, I don't support that part of the bill.

Why not? I mean, if they find out who the father is, can he press charges for the slut to pay for killing his baby?

Sexually liberated; defining one's views on sexuality not according to religious dogma, but rather on the reality of human nature. You want to have pre- or extra-marital sex? Go for it. Want to have more than one partner at any given time, or even at the same time? Sounds fun. Gender of your partner is irrelevant? Whatever floats your boat. I'm not sure where I stand on the age issue. In any case, I consider myself sexually liberated. Hell, if I wanted to I could take a mistress, and my wife wouldn't care (which would qualify her as being sexually liberated as well).

Having casual sex is considered promiscuous, so yeah you fucking another woman even if your wife doesn't care is still "promiscuous" and if she gets knocked up and you don't want her to abort, she'd have to carry the baby of a married man she doesn't really give two shits about.

There's still a difference between being sexually liberated and fucking anyone and everyone who's willing and available. Even someone who's sexually liberated must take responsibility for their sex life. I wouldn't want to be the one to catch and spread an STD.

No, there's still nothing wrong with have sex with multiple partners, yes they should be careful and wear condoms but otherwise there is nothing wrong with it. Again, its just trying to punish women who have multiple partners or one night stands, a man she doesn't know suddenly has veto power over her body.

If she really wanted an abortion, do you really think she'd stop and ask for permission?

Most couples would discuss it, maybe he'd be willing. But if he isn't, she's fucked.

"Entitled" is a subjective term. If the majority of voters in Ohio voted that women are not entitled to abortions, then they're not.

They are entitled because of the constitution, its a federal right the state cannot take away.

Why should we make it easier? Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control in place of other contraceptive measures. Using it as such is irresponsible.

Why? If done during the first trimester it has virtually no long term effects on a woman.

If they're so poor that they can't afford a $150 Greyhound ticket (that's round-trip and assuming that they'd travel from one end of Ohio to the opposite end to leave the state, rather then the closer state border), then how can they afford an abortion in the first place?

That would add 150 dollars right up to their bill when low cost abortion clinics still can charge a few hundred already. And then they'd have to take time off work to leave, so they'd end up losing more money. No, at home with a coat hanger would be cheaper and then you can just tell the father you miscarried, can't you? Plus don't forget that 60% of women who abort are already mothers, so there needs to be a babysitter while she's gone, and really how would the father not notice that hundreds of dollars and a pregnancy is missing?

Wrong. Such decisions are up to each individual state, and I'd rather it stay that way.

Again, wrong. The right to abortion is held up at a federal level.

In the context of this discussion, "barbaric" is quite simply a laughable term to use.

Only if you're projecting your own morals towards abortion onto it.

According to Gallup in a poll more recent then the one Saya linked to, most men do support abortion.

The one I put up in this post was taken last May, a year newer than yours.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know it would offend your sensibilities to suggest that rapists should be dealt with rather than be allowed to remain free and at large.

Way to blame the victim and just say "oh then they should just come forward if they want their abortions." Its not that easy for a lot of women, most victims of sexual assault are young and you're more likely to get ***** by someone you know. Not to mention even when charges are pressed, most rapists get off the hook. For some rapes its hard to prove (like marital ****), some people might not even know some forms of **** are ****, and especially after that kind of trauma I don't blame a girl one bit if she just can't report it to the police. Punishing the victim and forcing her to have a baby just because she never filed a police report is fucking sick.

Um... sure.

Solumina is right, not everyone who is pro choice goes out every weekend and has an abortion. Like I said earlier, I for one wouldn't get an abortion, I'm pro choice though. A man can say he's pro choice but when he has the opportunity to have a kid or if he's abusive, wants to punish the woman, he would have veto and could use it.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Saya

Are you fucking kidding me? Its better to objectify and veto the will of a human being just because the father is a dickhead?

Versus dehumanizing another human being in the extreme and denying them the freedom of choice because the mother is a cunt? Yes.

No, because its not a child. Its a fetus.

Which is an unborn child.

Again, we're talking about the bill, and you asked what makes this guy an asshat.

Again, the only part of the bill I agree with is the man's right to have a say.

You asked what about this bill makes him an asshat, I told you he wants to punish **** victims. I have no idea why the fuck you think they would ask a **** victim about it, according to this they must provide a police report stating that they have been *****.

Yeah, you say that. The article disagrees. "Adams said the bill offers exceptions in cases of **** or incest or when the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy."

Its not legally classified as a parental right since its not a child, in Roe vs Wade it was decided that abortion is only constitutional because its a right to privacy:

"right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

Notice no use of the world "parent" there, just a woman and her pregnancy.

Because they're talking about women in general. Not all women are pregnant, so it would make no sense to call them all parents.

I apologize, I read it wrong A more recent one puts it at 54% of men consider themselves prolife:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30771408/

So it seems. It's amazing how often these results change.

While there can be manipulation in a woman getting an abortion, legally her opinion is the only one that matters. I can be pressured into joining the army but at the end of the day its still legally my choice, why give men who have so much sway over women the legal right to control them?

"Manipulation." "Control." Give me a break. This isn't about controlling women. It's about the rights of men. Oh, but I forgot... in our PC-inundated society, vagina trumps penis, just because.

Why not?

I've already said why not numerous times.

I mean, if they find out who the father is, can he press charges for the slut to pay for killing his baby?

Who's "they?" In any case, it depends on the situation. If the identity of the father isn't known until after the abortion, then no. If the father identifies himself and then tests prove it, then yes.

Having casual sex is considered promiscuous,

Only by people with the most uptight and conservative views on sex. Promiscuity falls under casual sex, not the other way around.

so yeah you fucking another woman even if your wife doesn't care is still "promiscuous" and if she gets knocked up and you don't want her to abort, she'd have to carry the baby of a married man she doesn't really give two shits about.

First of all, I wouldn't take a mistress I didn't care about or who didn't care about me. If all she wants is sex, and nothing more she can go find someone else. Secondly, if I got someone else pregnant and she wanted an abortion, I'd be fine with it.

Way to assume stuff.

No, there's still nothing wrong with have sex with multiple partners, yes they should be careful and wear condoms but otherwise there is nothing wrong with it.

I didn't say that there was anything wrong with it.

Again, its just trying to punish women who have multiple partners or one night stands, a man she doesn't know suddenly has veto power over her body.

Stop making it all about women. It's not. It's not just women who can be promiscuous. And it's not just women who have to suffer for it if the child is carried to term. Let's say Mr. Q goes out and sleeps around. Three of the women e sleeps with get pregnant. Each child is carried to term. Who's going to be the one busting his ass for the next 18 years to pay child support to three different women? Who's the one who will go to jail if he skips out on payments? Conversely, who's the ones who have numerous public programs created to assist them in many ways, from health-care to education to basic needs for children, some of which are unavailable to men due to the fact that men are men?

Most couples would discuss it, maybe he'd be willing. But if he isn't, she's fucked.

As I've already indicated, so is he.

They are entitled because of the constitution, its a federal right the state cannot take away.

If the voters pass a proposition banning abortion, then yes they can. Otherwise, the Federal government would be infringing on the rights of the voters on on the rights of the states to govern themselves via the general public. "Of the people, by the people, for the people."

Why? If done during the first trimester it has virtually no long term effects on a woman.

You don't consider possible death a long-term effect?

That would add 150 dollars right up to their bill when low cost abortion clinics still can charge a few hundred already.

$150 at most.

And then they'd have to take time off work to leave, so they'd end up losing more money.

Days off?

No, at home with a coat hanger would be cheaper and then you can just tell the father you miscarried, can't you?

They could do that regardless. Why pay a few hundred at a low-cost abortion clinic when you can just grab a hanger?

Plus don't forget that 60% of women who abort are already mothers, so there needs to be a babysitter while she's gone,

Um... the father? That's what he's there for. (Yes, sometimes women go out for a night or two with friends.)

and really how would the father not notice that hundreds of dollars and a pregnancy is missing?

If the woman said she was going out for a night or two with friends, that would explain the hundreds of dollars. As for the pregnancy, if a woman who used a coat hanger can simply say that she mis-carried, why can't a woman who went to a clinic?

Again, wrong. The right to abortion is held up at a federal level.

There's no provision saying that the general public of any state can't vote to illegalize abortion.

Only if you're projecting your own morals towards abortion onto it.

Isn't that exactly what you're doing right now?

The one I put up in this post was taken last May, a year newer than yours.

You're right, I thought it said 2009, not 8.

Way to blame the victim

Where, exactly, did I do that? Other than "nowhere," of course.

and just say "oh then they should just come forward if they want their abortions."

More like "oh then they should just come forward." Period.

Its not that easy for a lot of women, most victims of sexual assault are young and you're more likely to get ***** by someone you know.

I hope you're not suggesting that that makes it alright.

Not to mention even when charges are pressed, most rapists get off the hook.

I've seen plenty of reports saying that most people accused of sex crimes get convicted even if they're innocent. I've never seen one that says that most people accused of sex crimes get off the hook.

For some rapes its hard to prove (like marital ****),

Oh, bullshit. A woman who gets ***** will display the same psychological and physical effects, no matter who it was who ***** her.

some people might not even know some forms of **** are ****,

How do you not know if you got *****?

and especially after that kind of trauma I don't blame a girl one bit if she just can't report it to the police.

Neither can I. But that doesn't change the fact that, unless someone else catches the rapist in the act, a rapist won't get punished unless his victim comes forward.

Punishing the victim and forcing her to have a baby just because she never filed a police report is fucking sick.

No one's disagreeing with you in this case, so that begs the question... why do you continue arguing as if someone is?

Solumina is right, not everyone who is pro choice goes out every weekend and has an abortion.

I wasn't aware that she even said anything of the sort.

Like I said earlier, I for one wouldn't get an abortion, I'm pro choice though. A man can say he's pro choice but when he has the opportunity to have a kid or if he's abusive, wants to punish the woman, he would have veto and could use it.

If a man prohibits an abortion just to punish the woman, he punishes himself, as well. As for being abusive, that sounds like legal grounds to invalidate his choice to me.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Stop fucking atomizing your arguments. It's annoying.

BTS, all I have to say is that there have already been cases in which the man sues the woman for her desire to have an abortion without his consent.
That seems alright, for a man to have a legal option if he doesn't want his child to be aborted.
What YOU want, on the other hand, is for the woman to be entirely subordinate to the man until HE makes a decision for HER. You must see how stupid that is.

[Malice In Wonderland]

Baby grows in woman.
Woman doesn't want baby to grow inside her.
Man does.

I don't really see why the man should have a legal say...
It's growing inside the woman.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I wouldn't want a woman to kill off my baby if it was a conscious decision for us to have a baby and she later simply chooses to back down. I feel I should have a say on that.
However, that's the type of shit you talk about together. BTS can't possibly think that a man should talk of his feelings with that pregnant woman and instead he should have total control and veto power over her body. Yet he thinks that the solution to so many unreported rapes is simply:

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

Then maybe they should press charges more often.

[Malice In Wonderland]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I wouldn't want a woman to kill off my baby if it was a conscious decision for us to have a baby and she later simply chooses to back down. I feel I should have a say on that.
However, that's the type of shit you talk about together. BTS can't possibly think that a man should talk of his feelings with that pregnant woman and instead he should have total control and veto power over her body. Yet he thinks that the solution to so many unreported rapes is simply:

I definitely agree about talking it over.
Don't get me wrong, I just think that the end decision should be the woman's, as it's her body.
Personally, I don't think I could ever deal with children, maybe I let that skew my points.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

What YOU want, on the other hand, is for the woman to be entirely subordinate to the man until HE makes a decision for HER. You must see how stupid that is.

If you had actually read my arguments, you would know that that's not true. What I've been saying (over and over, and yet people still can't comprehend this) is that the man should have a say. Having a say does not mean total control. Having a say does not mean that the decision to abort (or not to) will be as the man wants 100% of the time. It only means that what the man wants will be taken into account when the final decision is made.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I wouldn't want a woman to kill off my baby if it was a conscious decision for us to have a baby and she later simply chooses to back down. I feel I should have a say on that.

Of course you should.

However, that's the type of shit you talk about together. BTS can't possibly think that a man should talk of his feelings with that pregnant woman

Wouldn't that be part of "having a say?"

and instead he should have total control and veto power over her body.

I really don't know where you got such a ridiculous idea.

Yet he thinks that the solution to so many unreported rapes is simply:

How is that even related to what you were saying?

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

Versus dehumanizing another human being in the extreme and denying them the freedom of choice because the mother is a cunt? Yes.

He has no choice to be denied, its only the woman's. Its in her cunt, not his dick.

Which is an unborn child.

Thats like saying I'm an unaged senior citizen. Its not a child yet.

Yeah, you say that. The article disagrees. "Adams said the bill offers exceptions in cases of **** or incest or when the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy."

And they'd have to prove that they were *****, otherwise it could be considered lying and the woman would go to jail for six months.

Because they're talking about women in general. Not all women are pregnant, so it would make no sense to call them all parents.

No, because we are talking about a woman and her pregnancy, and because of her right to privacy it is her body, her condition and her choice. Men do not get pregnant.

So it seems. It's amazing how often these results change.

The anti-choice movement can scare a lot of people.

"Manipulation." "Control." Give me a break. This isn't about controlling women. It's about the rights of men. Oh, but I forgot... in our PC-inundated society, vagina trumps penis, just because.

Give me a break, this is about controlling women because they are out of control having their abortions! Maybe when something the size of a watermelon wants to crawl out of your dickhole you might not really care what your wife has to say about stopping that from happening.

Who's "they?" In any case, it depends on the situation. If the identity of the father isn't known until after the abortion, then no. If the father identifies himself and then tests prove it, then yes.

And the state will pay for all these tests? Or would the state punish the woman further by making her pay it?

Only by people with the most uptight and conservative views on sex. Promiscuity falls under casual sex, not the other way around.

You can have casual sex with multiple partners and it would be considered promiscuous:

"not restricted to one sexual partner"

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/promiscuous

First of all, I wouldn't take a mistress I didn't care about or who didn't care about me. If all she wants is sex, and nothing more she can go find someone else. Secondly, if I got someone else pregnant and she wanted an abortion, I'd be fine with it.

Way to assume stuff.

But you should never ever have the choice to force anyone else to have your baby.

Stop making it all about women. It's not. It's not just women who can be promiscuous. And it's not just women who have to suffer for it if the child is carried to term. Let's say Mr. Q goes out and sleeps around. Three of the women e sleeps with get pregnant. Each child is carried to term. Who's going to be the one busting his ass for the next 18 years to pay child support to three different women? Who's the one who will go to jail if he skips out on payments? Conversely, who's the ones who have numerous public programs created to assist them in many ways, from health-care to education to basic needs for children, some of which are unavailable to men due to the fact that men are men?

Thats in the case if the man has a CHILD with a woman. When a woman is pregnant and has a FETUS, and is enjoying a parasitic relationship with it, then he has no say in what she does with HER body. Whatever the father feels about "Oh I didn't want the kid", the kid, the breathing sentient PERSON, does not deserve being punished and live in poverty because his parents don't like each other.

As I've already indicated, so is he.

Once again, huge difference between a person and a fetus that is living inside a woman.

If the voters pass a proposition banning abortion, then yes they can. Otherwise, the Federal government would be infringing on the rights of the voters on on the rights of the states to govern themselves via the general public. "Of the people, by the people, for the people."

They'd have to change the federal constitution, it would be illegal otherwise. California for example cannot reinstate racial segregation even if everyone in the state voted for it because equal rights is federally enshrined.

You don't consider possible death a long-term effect?

http://www.womenshealthlondon.org.uk...ab/pregab.html

"The rate of deaths from early abortions is about 1 in 100,000 in this country. Comparing this to the maternal death rate, abortion is eight to ten times safer than childbirth."

Its far more risky to carry to term, and pregnancy has far more side effects other than death.

They could do that regardless. Why pay a few hundred at a low-cost abortion clinic when you can just grab a hanger?

It still makes it unnecessarily harder on them, and while yes home abortions still exist because of the cost of abortions perhaps under the new US healthcare system abortions will become even cheaper or free like they are here in Canada, since they are a legal and medically appropriate procedures.

Um... the father? That's what he's there for. (Yes, sometimes women go out for a night or two with friends.)

Thats assuming they have a sort of relationship. Some women just can't sneak away from the house for that long.

If the woman said she was going out for a night or two with friends, that would explain the hundreds of dollars. As for the pregnancy, if a woman who used a coat hanger can simply say that she mis-carried, why can't a woman who went to a clinic?

So you're saying that you're pro a woman having to lie to her husband after attempting to get a legal abortion and spending money to leave the state to have her abortion...if its in another time zone its not hurting the father's choice? Whats the point of this then if all you're trying to do is marginalize a woman's right and punish her for wanting an abortion?

There's no provision saying that the general public of any state can't vote to illegalize abortion.

Roe vs.Wade. If that ever got reversed there are states that have a trigger ban, meaning that its not illegal now because of Roe but if it ever got overturned then the ban would be effective immediately. But they cannot make it illegal right now because Roe stands. There are restrictions that some states can chose (for example, parental consent for a minor who is pregnant, 24 hour waiting periods) but they cannot deny the right to abortion altogether.

[Saya]

Isn't that exactly what you're doing right now?

Absolutely not, quite the opposite. Like I've said twice in this thread now, I would never have an abortion, but my religious beliefs are not that of others so when arguing about abortion I cannot allow my religion or very subjective morals to come into play. A woman is pregnant, and doesn't want to give birth. Pregnancy, I'm not sure if you're aware, is not an easy thing and like I've already mentioned, abortion is safer than giving birth. Its her medical condition, her body and her choice alone, not the man she slept with.

Where, exactly, did I do that? Other than "nowhere," of course.

You're putting the responsibility on the **** victim to prove she was ***** otherwise she can't have her abortion.

More like "oh then they should just come forward." Period.

For a lot of women its not that easy.

I hope you're not suggesting that that makes it alright.

What I'm suggesting is that young scared women being abused by someone they may have trusted might not just be able to easily report their abuse.

I've seen plenty of reports saying that most people accused of sex crimes get convicted even if they're innocent. I've never seen one that says that most people accused of sex crimes get off the hook.

There is only a 16% conviction rate for a rapist in America:
http://www.rainn.org/get-information...eporting-rates

The issue of how many are falsified however is plagued with bad research on both sides, and is rarely ever touched. Its hard to say because a lot of studies who place that number as high include when victims recant, which is not an admission of guilt but an unwillingness to go through with legal proceedings. And of course the coverage on the falsified reports can make victims become targets, even if they have been ***** but can't prove it.

Oh, bullshit. A woman who gets ***** will display the same psychological and physical effects, no matter who it was who ***** her.

Bullshit, its different for every situation and for every individual. If a husband rapes, if a woman rapes a man, if a father rapes you, if a stranger tackles you in the bushes, if you wake up after someone slipped something in your drink and you're all alone in a motel room and don't even know what happened, everyone is going to have a completely different reaction. I know women who have been ***** who have completely derealized the situation, they never cried over it or felt fear, they just can't really feel like its real. I've known women who completely broke down and I know women who did a good job at acting and keeping up a front. I know men who have been ***** who would bottle it all inside, because they're men, right? I know men who hit rock bottom and couldn't get back up, I know men and women who dealt with it very well and never let it bring them down. I have known many people who have been sexually assaulted, I don't know a single one who reported it.

How do you not know if you got *****?

See above for date **** scenario, but also many people do not know that a spouse can **** their spouse, might not think that if you're drunk or asleep that it counts if it was a boyfriend or a husband, might not think it counts at all if you are drunk, might think that because they were not able to say no that it meant it wasn't ****, if they were coerced into saying yes, if a lover manipulates them afterwards and says things like "you enjoyed it/you were asking for it by doing/wearing variable z", if a child is ***** they might not even know what it was. Also for men they're supposed to enjoy sex, right? See the thread about the hairdresser ****** a man for comments on if men are even able to be ***** at all.

Neither can I. But that doesn't change the fact that, unless someone else catches the rapist in the act, a rapist won't get punished unless his victim comes forward.

And thats extremely hard for them to do, and even if they do there's only a 16% chance they will get justice at all.

No one's disagreeing with you in this case, so that begs the question... why do you continue arguing as if someone is?

Because you merely shrugged the issue of **** victims off as "well they should just come forward", meaning they get punished for not being able to or unwilling to report what happened to them. Thats fucking sick.

I wasn't aware that she even said anything of the sort.

she said: "Pro-choice and being okay with abortion are two very different things", I'm sorry for assuming you could look back and read. Not everyone who is pro choice will be willing to get an abortion, as simple as that.

If a man prohibits an abortion just to punish the woman, he punishes himself, as well. As for being abusive, that sounds like legal grounds to invalidate his choice to me.

I don't think getting the kid he wanted is equal to the punishment of pregnancy and the lack of the right to choose what to do with one's own body. And domestic abuse can also hard to prove, especially non physical abusers. But better err on the side of safety and treat all women like liars and make them have your babies, right?

If you had actually read my arguments, you would know that that's not true. What I've been saying (over and over, and yet people still can't comprehend this) is that the man should have a say. Having a say does not mean total control. Having a say does not mean that the decision to abort (or not to) will be as the man wants 100% of the time. It only means that what the man wants will be taken into account when the final decision is made.

I doubt many women will get an abortion willy nilly while being in a stable relationship without putting the father into consideration. A man should not have legal rights over a woman's body.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Saya

He has no choice to be denied, its only the woman's. Its in her cunt, not his dick.

Funny, I thought the fetus develops in the uterus. <_< In any case, it's his dick that's in part responsible.

Thats like saying I'm an unaged senior citizen. Its not a child yet.

Here's something interesting...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

"1 a: an unborn or recently born person"

And they'd have to prove that they were *****, otherwise it could be considered lying and the woman would go to jail for six months.

If they press charges, even if the accused is acquitted, there's reasonable doubt. No jury would convict a woman in such a case. Unless, maybe, the same woman did the same thing numerous times.

No, because we are talking about a woman and her pregnancy, and because of her right to privacy it is her body, her condition and her choice. Men do not get pregnant.

You just basically said the Roe v Wade applies only to one person.

The anti-choice movement can scare a lot of people.

Can't argue with that.

Give me a break, this is about controlling women because they are out of control having their abortions! Maybe when something the size of a watermelon wants to crawl out of your dickhole you might not really care what your wife has to say about stopping that from happening.

If women gave birth through their urethra, that analogy would be apt.

And the state will pay for all these tests? Or would the state punish the woman further by making her pay it?

Oh, right, because the person making the claim (the man) shouldn't be responsible for backing those claims up.

You can have casual sex with multiple partners and it would be considered promiscuous:

"not restricted to one sexual partner"

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/promiscuous

According to that definition, an 80 year-old who's had sex with just two people through-out their entire life is a slut.

But you should never ever have the choice to force anyone else to have your baby.

Then why should women have the choice to force someone else to lose a child?

Thats in the case if the man has a CHILD with a woman.

If an abortion isn't performed, the man would have a child with the woman.

When a woman is pregnant and has a FETUS, and is enjoying a parasitic relationship with it, then he has no say in what she does with HER body. Whatever the father feels about "Oh I didn't want the kid", the kid, the breathing sentient PERSON, does not deserve being punished and live in poverty because his parents don't like each other.

If the child is born even though the father didn't want it, then that child would still (possibly) live in poverty. In such a case as you just described, the kid will suffer because the father's wishes were ignored, not in spite of that.

Once again, huge difference between a person and a fetus that is living inside a woman.

Yeah. A fetus depends on the woman for less than a year. A born child depends on the woman, or man, or both (or, in some cases, someone else) for well over a decade.

But then you try to make the fetus sound worse.

They'd have to change the federal constitution, it would be illegal otherwise. California for example cannot reinstate racial segregation even if everyone in the state voted for it because equal rights is federally enshrined.

If equal right is so "enshrined," how did Prop 8 pass?

http://www.womenshealthlondon.org.uk...ab/pregab.html

"The rate of deaths from early abortions is about 1 in 100,000 in this country. Comparing this to the maternal death rate, abortion is eight to ten times safer than childbirth."

Its far more risky to carry to term, and pregnancy has far more side effects other than death.

We're talking about America, not England. In any case, I didn't say that bearing a child is safer. I said that there are still risks associated with abortion.

It still makes it unnecessarily harder on them, and while yes home abortions still exist because of the cost of abortions perhaps under the new US healthcare system abortions will become even cheaper or free like they are here in Canada, since they are a legal and medically appropriate procedures.

Earlier you implied that having the state (or the mother) provide the cost of a paternity test is bad, but now you suggest that the state bear the cost of an abortion?

In any case, the state should only provide necessary health-care. Broken limbs, contagious/debilitating/deadly diseases, gun/knife wounds, automobile accident victims, things like that. Abortion is not necessary, unless the life of the mother is put at risk by the pregnancy.

Thats assuming they have a sort of relationship. Some women just can't sneak away from the house for that long.

If they didn't have that sort of relationship, why would the man be noticing a few hundred missing dollars, unless the woman stole it from him?

So you're saying that you're pro a woman having to lie to her husband after attempting to get a legal abortion and spending money to leave the state to have her abortion...if its in another time zone its not hurting the father's choice? Whats the point of this then if all you're trying to do is marginalize a woman's right and punish her for wanting an abortion?

No, what I'm saying is that even if one state gives men the right to have a say, women still have options. It's not as cut-and-dry as you're saying it is.

Roe vs.Wade.

I was already talking about Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade is not a provision in itself.

If that ever got reversed there are states that have a trigger ban, meaning that its not illegal now because of Roe but if it ever got overturned then the ban would be effective immediately. But they cannot make it illegal right now because Roe stands.

Yes, I know all that. The reason those laws cannot go into effect is because they when through the state legislature, not the voting public.

There are restrictions that some states can chose (for example, parental consent for a minor who is pregnant, 24 hour waiting periods) but they cannot deny the right to abortion altogether.

Because no state's voting public has ever passed such a proposition. I'm not even sure if any state has managed to gain enough petition signatures to put such a proposition on a ballot.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

It only means that what the man wants will be taken into account when the final decision is made.

And how will this be accomplished?
Would you be for or against having a girl go run to the father and sign her permission slip?

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Saya

Absolutely not, quite the opposite. Like I've said twice in this thread now, I would never have an abortion, but my religious beliefs are not that of others so when arguing about abortion I cannot allow my religion or very subjective morals to come into play. A woman is pregnant, and doesn't want to give birth. Pregnancy, I'm not sure if you're aware, is not an easy thing and like I've already mentioned, abortion is safer than giving birth. Its her medical condition, her body and her choice alone, not the man she slept with.

As far as whether or not pregnancy is easy, I can only go but what I've seen. What I've seen is that every time my wife was pregnant, it was quite easy for her. In the end, though, she got a bit lucky, I guess. C-sections.

You're putting the responsibility on the **** victim to prove she was ***** otherwise she can't have her abortion.

It's up to the **** victim to prove that they were *****, regardless.

For a lot of women its not that easy.

I never said it would be easy. I know first-hand that it's not easy.

What I'm suggesting is that young scared women being abused by someone they may have trusted might not just be able to easily report their abuse.

That's why children should be taught that if something happens, and they have no idea if it's bad or not, they should talk to an adult.

There is only a 16% conviction rate for a rapist in America:
http://www.rainn.org/get-information...eporting-rates

You know, I followed the sources that site claimed, and couldn't seem to locate any specific statistics about **** convictions. Maybe I missed it.

The issue of how many are falsified however is plagued with bad research on both sides, and is rarely ever touched. Its hard to say because a lot of studies who place that number as high include when victims recant, which is not an admission of guilt but an unwillingness to go through with legal proceedings. And of course the coverage on the falsified reports can make victims become targets, even if they have been ***** but can't prove it.

I didn't mean to imply that women are lying about being ***** though that certainly would qualify as "even if they're innocent." I was thinking more along the lines of cases such as mistaken identity or circumstantial evidence.

Bullshit, its different for every situation and for every individual. If a husband rapes, if a woman rapes a man, if a father rapes you, if a stranger tackles you in the bushes, if you wake up after someone slipped something in your drink and you're all alone in a motel room and don't even know what happened, everyone is going to have a completely different reaction. I know women who have been ***** who have completely derealized the situation, they never cried over it or felt fear, they just can't really feel like its real. I've known women who completely broke down and I know women who did a good job at acting and keeping up a front. I know men who have been ***** who would bottle it all inside, because they're men, right? I know men who hit rock bottom and couldn't get back up, I know men and women who dealt with it very well and never let it bring them down. I have known many people who have been sexually assaulted, I don't know a single one who reported it.

If someone forces their dick into you, you're going to have marks from forced entry. If you struggled, you'll probably have even more marks. If you were tied up, you'd have marks from that. The point is, there is almost always visible evidence of ****.

As for psychologically, you're right, different people react differently. But even then, criminal psychologists are trained to identify when a person is reacting to a ****.

See above for date **** scenario, but also many people do not know that a spouse can **** their spouse,

This would still result in the above-mentioned physical evidence.

might not think that if you're drunk or asleep that it counts if it was a boyfriend or a husband, might not think it counts at all if you are drunk,

The whole "if you're drunk you were *****" bullshit is exactly that. Unless, of course, someone got someone else drunk just so they could fuck them. Beyond that, drunkeness does not equal non-consentual. If both parties were drunk, who ***** who?

might think that because they were not able to say no that it meant it wasn't ****, if they were coerced into saying yes, if a lover manipulates them afterwards and says things like "you enjoyed it/you were asking for it by doing/wearing variable z",

In this day and age, I'd be amazed if there were really that many people who didn't know that those things are not okay.

if a child is ***** they might not even know what it was.

Like I said above, they should be taught to go to an adult if they're not sure.

Also for men they're supposed to enjoy sex, right? See the thread about the hairdresser ****** a man for comments on if men are even able to be ***** at all.

I'm well aware of people's opinions on the matter. A man can be ***** by a woman. That's all I have to say about that.

And thats extremely hard for them to do, and even if they do there's only a 16% chance they will get justice at all.

So they shouldn't try at all? They should just roll over and take it? You might as well say that they were asking for it.

Because you merely shrugged the issue of **** victims off as "well they should just come forward", meaning they get punished for not being able to or unwilling to report what happened to them. Thats fucking sick.

What's fucking sick is that I say that **** victims should come forward, and you argue against it.

she said: "Pro-choice and being okay with abortion are two very different things", I'm sorry for assuming you could look back and read. Not everyone who is pro choice will be willing to get an abortion, as simple as that.

"Pro-choice and being okay with abortion are two very different things."

"Not everyone who is pro choice goes out every weekend and has an abortion."

Your statement doesn't match up with hers.

I don't think getting the kid he wanted is equal to the punishment of pregnancy and the lack of the right to choose what to do with one's own body.

You're right, 18 years of responsibility and hard work is not comparable to 9 months of discomfort. Women are lucky.

As for "the lack of the right to choose," that's exactly what you're arguing for.

And domestic abuse can also hard to prove, especially non physical abusers. But better err on the side of safety and treat all women like liars and make them have your babies, right?

Again, criminal psychologist. (And I don't mean the ones who talk to criminals, I mean the ones who help investigators determine if a criminal complaint is valid. I'm not sure if that's the proper term.)

I doubt many women will get an abortion willy nilly while being in a stable relationship without putting the father into consideration. A man should not have legal rights over a woman's body.

And a woman should not have legal rights to deny a man his own rights.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

And how will this be accomplished?
Would you be for or against having a girl go run to the father and sign her permission slip?

Tear down the straw man and try again.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

Funny, I thought the fetus develops in the uterus. <_< In any case, it's his dick that's in part responsible.

But its her uterus that has to be plagued by a parasitic life form for nine months.

Here's something interesting...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

"1 a: an unborn or recently born person"

Thats fine for a dictionary but legally a fetus isn't a child or a person. And am I an unaged senior citizen by that logic?

If they press charges, even if the accused is acquitted, there's reasonable doubt. No jury would convict a woman in such a case. Unless, maybe, the same woman did the same thing numerous times.

The fact that a woman would have to face legal threats and probably will be prosecuted especially if she didn't press charges or was unable to, thats still disgusting.

You just basically said the Roe v Wade applies only to one person.

I'm sorry you can't understand abstract logic.

If women gave birth through their urethra, that analogy would be apt.

Again, sorry for your poor comprehension.

Oh, right, because the person making the claim (the man) shouldn't be responsible for backing those claims up.

So pin the woman down and take a DNA sample from her unwillingly?

According to that definition, an 80 year-old who's had sex with just two people through-out their entire life is a slut.

Could be that way if you take everything absolutely literally like you do.

Then why should women have the choice to force someone else to lose a child?

What child? There is no child to lose, just a pregnancy.

If an abortion isn't performed, the man would have a child with the woman.

Just like if they didn't use protection. Should women who use birth control without the father's knowledge be shamed for robbing the man's opportunity to have a child? You can get pregnant and lose the zygote when you have your period, should they mourn the loss of their potential child around the toilet whenever she flushes a tampon?

If the child is born even though the father didn't want it, then that child would still (possibly) live in poverty. In such a case as you just described, the kid will suffer because the father's wishes were ignored, not in spite of that.

Doesn't matter, children shouldn't be punished because they are unwanted. I do concede that people who have children should consider the possibility that they can get pregnant and abortion may not be an option. Are you for forcing women to have abortions when the man doesn't want one? Whats the difference?

Yeah. A fetus depends on the woman for less than a year. A born child depends on the woman, or man, or both (or, in some cases, someone else) for well over a decade.

Nine months can be a long time, and labour isn't any fun either.

But then you try to make the fetus sound worse.

A fetus just isn't a person or a child.

If equal right is so "enshrined," how did Prop 8 pass?

Because a lot of politicians have no shame.

We're talking about America, not England. In any case, I didn't say that bearing a child is safer. I said that there are still risks associated with abortion.

I couldn't find recent stats for America, I'd assume its worse since the healthcare isn't so great there but otherwise we can go with the country that has universal healthcare. As for abortion risks, you jumped on death first, and that risk is higher for a woman if she carries to term. Pregnancy can really ravage a woman's body. Abortions carry the risks of any other medical or surgical procedure, depending on when the abortion is done and how.

Earlier you implied that having the state (or the mother) provide the cost of a paternity test is bad, but now you suggest that the state bear the cost of an abortion?

Since I believe that universal healthcare is a right and abortion is a medical procedure, yes. Here in Canada abortions are provided for free.

In any case, the state should only provide necessary health-care. Broken limbs, contagious/debilitating/deadly diseases, gun/knife wounds, automobile accident victims, things like that. Abortion is not necessary, unless the life of the mother is put at risk by the pregnancy.

Necessary can be subjective, and thats only your opinion.

If they didn't have that sort of relationship, why would the man be noticing a few hundred missing dollars, unless the woman stole it from him?

If two people are living together, you notice. I never even lived with anyone before and a lot of boyfriends knew how much money I had at almost any given time. And if we allow this to happen, there can still be room for other restrictions such as punishment for transporting a woman to another state for an abortion (in previous abortion banning attempts this has been a part of it). You open up a whole door of people telling a woman what to do with her body and punishing her if she doesn't obey and squeeze a baby out for a man.

No, what I'm saying is that even if one state gives men the right to have a say, women still have options. It's not as cut-and-dry as you're saying it is.

If you allow one state to prohibit abortion unless a man allows it, whats to stop the others? If you really believe in this, why wouldn't you want to see this on a national level? Will women be reduced to fleeing to Mexico and Canada in the end? Why should they leave?

I was already talking about Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade is not a provision in itself.

No, but its not going to be overturned anytime soon.

Yes, I know all that. The reason those laws cannot go into effect is because they when through the state legislature, not the voting public.

So it remains a federally protected legal right, what are you complaining about? Even if a state managed to pass one there would be so many lawsuits it would just get overridden again.

Because no state's voting public has ever passed such a proposition. I'm not even sure if any state has managed to gain enough petition signatures to put such a proposition on a ballot.

South Dakota. It was voted down.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

Tear down the straw man and try again.

It's a straw man to ask you your SPECIFIC opinion on the SPECIFIC subject of this thread? You're the one trying to bullshit your way around the issue by just saying "the man ought to have a saying" when it's clear that you want more than just that, as you are still arguing the original post.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

As far as whether or not pregnancy is easy, I can only go but what I've seen. What I've seen is that every time my wife was pregnant, it was quite easy for her. In the end, though, she got a bit lucky, I guess. C-sections.

And what I've seen is women who can't wear pants anymore because their c-section scars still hurt.

It's up to the **** victim to prove that they were *****, regardless.

No its not, and thats an extremely hard thing to do.

I never said it would be easy. I know first-hand that it's not easy.

Unless you've given birth before you can't say you know first hand.

That's why children should be taught that if something happens, and they have no idea if it's bad or not, they should talk to an adult.

Way to oversimplify a complicated and horrible situation. Children are extremely suggestive and easily manipulated.

You know, I followed the sources that site claimed, and couldn't seem to locate any specific statistics about **** convictions. Maybe I missed it.

Follow number three in the footnote, sheesh.

I didn't mean to imply that women are lying about being ***** though that certainly would qualify as "even if they're innocent." I was thinking more along the lines of cases such as mistaken identity or circumstantial evidence.

Fair enough.

If someone forces their dick into you, you're going to have marks from forced entry. If you struggled, you'll probably have even more marks. If you were tied up, you'd have marks from that. The point is, there is almost always visible evidence of ****.

Not always the case, unless you're watching CSI. I'm not sure how many rapists tie up their victims, how many victims are completely conscious and fighting tooth and nail. You're focusing on a very specific **** scenario.

As for psychologically, you're right, different people react differently. But even then, criminal psychologists are trained to identify when a person is reacting to a ****.

Then the **** convicition rate wouldn't be so low if thats all it took,wouldn't it? If it were that simple, there'd be no false accusations, right? They can talk to a person and say "this person has had a traumatic experience, or this person is depressed," but no one can say "This person has been *****" purely by how they are acting. And like I said, a lot of people put up a good front and some people dont' react at all.

This would still result in the above-mentioned physical evidence.

Not always. You might find this interesting:
http://www.safercampus.org/blog/?p=1296

The whole "if you're drunk you were *****" bullshit is exactly that. Unless, of course, someone got someone else drunk just so they could fuck them. Beyond that, drunkeness does not equal non-consentual. If both parties were drunk, who ***** who?

Its if a sober person takes advantage of a drunk person, whether or not they intentionally got them drunk.

In this day and age, I'd be amazed if there were really that many people who didn't know that those things are not okay.

Its sad but actually, but think about it, its fairly recently in history that we consider these things ****. I hope we're getting better at getting **** education out there but its not the case, if you don't go looking for this info you might not ever know, except for your gut feeling that you were violated somehow.

Like I said above, they should be taught to go to an adult if they're not sure.

Like I said before, its just not that easy. And its not the kid's fault or the parent's fault if the kid doesn't come forward.

So they shouldn't try at all? They should just roll over and take it? You might as well say that they were asking for it.

I'm not saying they shouldn't try and don't try to turn this around on me, I'm saying its not that easy for them and its not their fault if they don't report it. I can't blame a victim for not coming forward, even though I would and have encouraged it, its not their fault that our system makes it extremely hard for them to get any justice.

What's fucking sick is that I say that **** victims should come forward, and you argue against it.

You're still the one who said its their fault if they didn't report it so no abortion, dude.

"Pro-choice and being okay with abortion are two very different things."

"Not everyone who is pro choice goes out every weekend and has an abortion."

Your statement doesn't match up with hers.

Again, I apologize for your lack of abstract thinking. Thats very sad you can't do that. I'll try to be absolutely literal in the future.

You're right, 18 years of responsibility and hard work is not comparable to 9 months of discomfort. Women are lucky.

Fuck you. Even with that argument, a woman has the 18 years of responsibility and hardwork AND has to carry the child and risk health complications and death and give birth. Really, fuck you.

As for "the lack of the right to choose," that's exactly what you're arguing for.

I'd vote against the right to choose to **** too, since its forcing someone to use their body for your wants.

Again, criminal psychologist. (And I don't mean the ones who talk to criminals, I mean the ones who help investigators determine if a criminal complaint is valid. I'm not sure if that's the proper term.)

Again, really, what magical world do you live in where every **** and abuse case can be proven sooooooo easily? CSI or Law And Order? Especially with these cases it can come down to a "he said she said" scenario.

And a woman should not have legal rights to deny a man his own rights.

There are no rights for her to deny.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Saya

But its her uterus that has to be plagued by a parasitic life form for nine months.

Which, according to the law, is a human being for the majority of that time.

Thats fine for a dictionary but legally a fetus isn't a child or a person.

Like I just said, for the majority of that time, yes it is.

And am I an unaged senior citizen by that logic?

Depends. Are you 65 years old or older?

The fact that a woman would have to face legal threats and probably will be prosecuted especially if she didn't press charges or was unable to, thats still disgusting.

The fact that the woman allows her rapist to walk free is more disgusting.

I'm sorry you can't understand abstract logic.

I'm sorry you don't understand that Roe v Wade is not an abstract issue.

Again, sorry for your poor comprehension.

You're the one displaying a lack of comprehension You talked something the "size of a watermelon" wanting to "crawl out of [my] dickhole." Well, that would be my urethra. And for the analogy to be apt, women would have to be able to have something the size of a watermelon crawling out of their urethra. But wait! They can't! Aww, too bad.

So pin the woman down and take a DNA sample from her unwillingly?

And how, exactly, would that pay for a test?

Could be that way if you take everything absolutely literally like you do.

You're the one saying that more than one sex partner = promiscuous. That would be you taking the dictionary definition literally.

What child? There is no child to lose, just a pregnancy.

You can't have one without the other.

Just like if they didn't use protection. Should women who use birth control without the father's knowledge be shamed for robbing the man's opportunity to have a child? You can get pregnant and lose the zygote when you have your period, should they mourn the loss of their potential child around the toilet whenever she flushes a tampon?

Do you have a relevant point to make, or are you making up ridiculous scenarios just for the fuck of it?

Doesn't matter, children shouldn't be punished because they are unwanted. I do concede that people who have children should consider the possibility that they can get pregnant and abortion may not be an option. Are you for forcing women to have abortions when the man doesn't want one? Whats the difference?

You still don't get it. Allowing the man to have a say in the decision-making process does not mean that a child would be carried to term if he wants it to be, nor does it mean that an abortion will be procured if he demands it. It only means that his wishes will be taken into consideration. Why are you having so much difficulty understanding such a simple concept?

Nine months can be a long time, and labour isn't any fun either.

Eighteen years is far longer.

A fetus just isn't a person or a child.

Yes it is.

Because a lot of politicians have no shame.

Politicians had nothing to do with it.

I couldn't find recent stats for America, I'd assume its worse since the healthcare isn't so great there but otherwise we can go with the country that has universal healthcare. As for abortion risks, you jumped on death first, and that risk is higher for a woman if she carries to term. Pregnancy can really ravage a woman's body. Abortions carry the risks of any other medical or surgical procedure, depending on when the abortion is done and how.

That was my point in the first place that there's always risks. The only reason that abortion has claimed less lives than carrying a child to term is because the number of women seeking abortions is far less then women carrying the child to term.

Since I believe that universal healthcare is a right and abortion is a medical procedure, yes. Here in Canada abortions are provided for free.

A paternity test is also a medical procedure. Shouldn't it then also be provided by the state?

Necessary can be subjective, and thats only your opinion.

So, what, you think a punctured lung could be deemed unnecessary? And who cares if it's opinion? Most of your own arguments are nothing more than opinion. Should I dismiss them?

If two people are living together, you notice. I never even lived with anyone before and a lot of boyfriends knew how much money I had at almost any given time.

Make up your mind. Are these hypothetical people in a relationship where such things could be notice, or aren't they? You keep bouncing back and forth.

And if we allow this to happen, there can still be room for other restrictions such as punishment for transporting a woman to another state for an abortion (in previous abortion banning attempts this has been a part of it).

Right, because a Greyhound bus driver knows the purpose of everyone's trips.

You open up a whole door of people telling a woman what to do with her body and punishing her if she doesn't obey and squeeze a baby out for a man.

And you open up a different door by denying anyone from having a say in anything.

If you allow one state to prohibit abortion unless a man allows it, whats to stop the others?

The voters.

If you really believe in this, why wouldn't you want to see this on a national level?

What part of "each individual state" did you not understand? Every state has the right to make up their own minds about issues. And so they should.

Will women be reduced to fleeing to Mexico and Canada in the end? Why should they leave?

I seriously doubt that every single state would adopt similar policies. As far as abortion is concerned, that has never happened, even before Roe v Wade.

No, but its not going to be overturned anytime soon.

Yeah, we've already gone over this. You've brought us around in a circle.

So it remains a federally protected legal right, what are you complaining about? Even if a state managed to pass one there would be so many lawsuits it would just get overridden again.

I'm not the one complaining, here.

South Dakota. It was voted down.

Well, there you go. The fact that any state has gotten such a measure on the ballots proves that Roe v Wade is not as infallible as you think.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Saya

And what I've seen is women who can't wear pants anymore because their c-section scars still hurt.

I've never even heard any such thing. After four c-sections, it certainly isn't the case with my wife.

No its not, and thats an extremely hard thing to do.

No it's not. It's only difficult to prove that someone in particular did it.

Unless you've given birth before you can't say you know first hand.

You need to pay attention. We're talking about the difficulty of rap victims to go the police right now. Not child-birth.

Way to oversimplify a complicated and horrible situation. Children are extremely suggestive

Dear lord, you just suggested that children ask to be *****.

and easily manipulated.

Even if a child can be manipulated into doing something, it doesn't mean they would be confused about whether it's okay or not.

Follow number three in the footnote, sheesh.

Didn't I just say that I already did?

Not always the case, unless you're watching CSI. I'm not sure how many rapists tie up their victims, how many victims are completely conscious and fighting tooth and nail.

Even if they don't fight, or can't, there's still physical evidence of forced penetration.

You're focusing on a very specific **** scenario.

And you're bouncing between numerous scenarios.

Then the **** convicition rate wouldn't be so low if thats all it took,wouldn't it? If it were that simple, there'd be no false accusations, right? They can talk to a person and say "this person has had a traumatic experience, or this person is depressed," but no one can say "This person has been *****" purely by how they are acting. And like I said, a lot of people put up a good front and some people dont' react at all.

That's why it's called "evidence" rather than "proof."

Not always. You might find this interesting:
http://www.safercampus.org/blog/?p=1296

That doesn't disagree with anything I said.

Its if a sober person takes advantage of a drunk person, whether or not they intentionally got them drunk.

In other words, no actual disagreement.

Its sad but actually, but think about it, its fairly recently in history that we consider these things ****. I hope we're getting better at getting **** education out there but its not the case, if you don't go looking for this info you might not ever know, except for your gut feeling that you were violated somehow.

Everything you brought up I learned in school. And I haven't gone to school in over a decade, so I'm inclined to believe that most of that stuff is common knowledge.

Like I said before, its just not that easy. And its not the kid's fault or the parent's fault if the kid doesn't come forward.

Why are you so obsessed with blame? I'm not placing any.

I'm not saying they shouldn't try and don't try to turn this around on me, I'm saying its not that easy for them and its not their fault if they don't report it. I can't blame a victim for not coming forward, even though I would and have encouraged it, its not their fault that our system makes it extremely hard for them to get any justice.

I said "you might as well say." Not "you said." I'm not turning anything around here.

You're still the one who said its their fault if they didn't report it so no abortion, dude.

I said no such thing.

Again, I apologize for your lack of abstract thinking. Thats very sad you can't do that. I'll try to be absolutely literal in the future.

If someone says something, it either means one thing or another. Over-thinking it and trying to create tenuous connections to something else is not abstract thinking, it is assumption. And in this case, it's also misrepresentation.

Fuck you. Even with that argument, a woman has the 18 years of responsibility and hardwork AND has to carry the child and risk health complications and death and give birth. Really, fuck you.

And since when is a woman not capable of handing full custody of a child over to the father?

I'd vote against the right to choose to **** too, since its forcing someone to use their body for your wants.

Which is why it's not only not a right, but illegal.

Again, really, what magical world do you live in where every **** and abuse case can be proven sooooooo easily? CSI or Law And Order? Especially with these cases it can come down to a "he said she said" scenario.

I'll tell you what worl I'm not living in... the one where you are where "almost always" doesn't actually mean "almost always," but rather "100%." Is that some more of your abstract thinking?

There are no rights for her to deny.

Then there are no right for him to deny.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

It's a straw man to ask you your SPECIFIC opinion on the SPECIFIC subject of this thread?

No, it's a straw man to jump into a discussion about a man's right to have a say in whether or not his unborn child is aborted and start talking about parental permission.

You're the one trying to bullshit your way around the issue by just saying "the man ought to have a saying" when it's clear that you want more than just that, as you are still arguing the original post.

Speaking of bullshit...

[Godslayer Jillian]

Nice, keep bullshitting your way around my question. It's very simple, listen carefully:
A bill is trying to pass. A woman has to ask for permission to get an abortion. If the man does not wanted, bad shit for her. Agree or disagree?