Catholic University drops student insurance

[fskimospy]

You are saying a man does not automatically become the legal guardian of a child.

So why does automatically pick up responsibilities.

The right to not have your child given away to the state without your knowledge or consent is hardly a "special" right". It is inherent to be a parent.

He does not automatically pick up responsibilities, why on earth would you think such a silly thing? He only picks up responsibilities if his paternity is established, which is the same point at which he acquires access to all other parental rights.

As has now been told to you several times, both parents have the same ability to use the safe haven law. Equality for all. If such a law is used, neither parent has any responsibilities to the child and it becomes a ward of the state. If the woman has an abortion, no one has any responsibilities as there is no child. If the child is born, both parents have responsibility. In all of these cases both parents have the same duty to the child.

What you want in your piggish misogyny is for men to get an extra special right to abandon a child after it is born and leave the other parent to shoulder the burden alone. There is no corresponding case for women in that way at all. I love it when self described conservatives whine and shriek about how they need to be given extra special rights that no one else has because they're so picked on.

 

[nehalem256]

Women have the right to force men to support an unwanted child. Men do not have the right to force women to support an unwanted child.

Equality not found. Diversion tactics to be seen in 5...4...3...

That is really a secondary matter. eskimospy is claiming that men dont even have an inherent right to the child AFTER IT IS BORN, unless the woman chooses to give them to him.

If he has no inherent rights. He has no inherent responsibilities

 

[nehalem256]

He does not automatically pick up responsibilities, why on earth would you think such a silly thing? He only picks up responsibilities if his paternity is established, which is the same point at which he acquires access to all other parental rights.

So he only picks up rights if the woman decides to inform him.

The woman gets to unilaterally decide if a man has rights/responsibilities for his child.

 

[fskimospy]

That is really a secondary matter. eskimospy is claiming that men dont even have an inherent right to the child AFTER IT IS BORN, unless the woman chooses to give them to him.

If he has no inherent rights. He has no inherent responsibilities

The woman doesn't need to choose anything. If the baby is born the man is free to establish paternity and there's nothing the woman can do about it. This is basic understanding of the law.

cybrsage's argument is horrible, as usual. Men and women both do not have a right to force each other to undergo unwanted medical procedures. Once a child is born both men and women have the right to force each other to support an unwanted child. Equality for all.

 

[fskimospy]

So he only picks up rights if the woman decides to inform him.

The woman gets to unilaterally decide if a man has rights/responsibilities for his child.

No, his rights are not dependent on a woman informing him, he could find out in dozens of other ways. Are you really this incompetent? Your argument is basically 'because a woman can have a baby where the identity of the father is unknown, men should be able to absolve themselves of all parental responsibility'.

Sorry, yet another request for special rights denied.

 

[nehalem256]

No, his rights are not dependent on a woman informing him, he could find out in dozens of other ways. Are you really this incompetent? Your argument is basically 'because a woman can have a baby where the identity of the father is unknown, men should be able to absolve themselves of all parental responsibility'.

Sorry, yet another request for special rights denied.

No they should be able to, because women can. In fact it is the only way for pre-martial sex to be workable. You cannot have a society in which one person can unilaterally decide to impose obligations.

How can you have a society which an 18 year old girl can decide that an 18 year old boy must be a father just because he had sex and she wont get an abortion?

 

[fskimospy]

No they should be able to, because women can. In fact it is the only way for pre-martial sex to be workable. You cannot have a society in which one person can unilaterally decide to impose obligations.

How can you have a society which an 18 year old girl can decide that an 18 year old boy must be a father just because he had sex and she wont get an abortion?

No one has the right to unilaterally impose obligations, nor have they ever. Your own post explains why such a thing is impossible. This has been explained to you dozens of times now. You continue to ask for extra, special rights for men, but you're going to continue to be denied.

It's time you came to grips with equality for everyone and stopped demanding special rights for yourself. You're going to have to learn to live with equality for everyone. There's no point in continuing this because you're too invested in your own viewpoint and misogyny to actually consider how ridiculous your argument is. I'm going to bed. Have fun with internet porn, I'm sure it's the closest you're ever going to get.

 

[nehalem256]

And thanks eskimospy for providing the footing for opposing gay marriage in this thread

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2245839&page=12

Gay marriage is clearly a new special right under your definition.

 

[fskimospy]

And thanks eskimospy for providing the footing for opposing gay marriage in this thread

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2245839&page=12

Gay marriage is clearly a new special right under your definition.

lol, only if you don't understand either of the two discussions. Thanks for crapping your pants in yet another thread though. Are you getting tired of being mocked yet?

 

[nehalem256]

No one has the right to unilaterally impose obligations, nor have they ever. Your own post explains why such a thing is impossible. This has been explained to you dozens of times now. You continue to ask for extra, special rights for men, but you're going to continue to be denied.

It's time you came to grips with equality for everyone and stopped demanding special rights for yourself. You're going to have to learn to live with equality for everyone. There's no point in continuing this because you're too invested in your own viewpoint and misogyny to actually consider how ridiculous your argument is. I'm going to bed. Have fun with internet porn, I'm sure it's the closest you're ever going to get.

I think it is time to come to grips with your man hate.

 

[cybrsage]

That is really a secondary matter. eskimospy is claiming that men dont even have an inherent right to the child AFTER IT IS BORN, unless the woman chooses to give them to him.

If he has no inherent rights. He has no inherent responsibilities

People who have been emasculated will say denying equality to men is called equality.

 

[cybrsage]

No they should be able to, because women can. In fact it is the only way for pre-martial sex to be workable. You cannot have a society in which one person can unilaterally decide to impose obligations.

How can you have a society which an 18 year old girl can decide that an 18 year old boy must be a father just because he had sex and she wont get an abortion?

Good question, and one which exposes the lack of equality. Those who have already been emasculated will either not respond or will pretend that only her having the choice of parenthood means they are being treated equally.

 

[nehalem256]

People who have been emasculated will say denying equality to men is called equality.

Well logically since liberals have decided that it is okay to force men to subsidize women's health care they dont think women are capable of taking care of themselves.

Therefore liberals believe men to be superior to women.

IF that were that case it would be logical to impose more responsibilities on men right?

 

[nehalem256]

Good question, and one which exposes the lack of equality. Those who have already been emasculated will either not respond or will pretend that only her having the choice of parenthood means they are being treated equally.

And this one as well

What if a woman says she is on the pill, but is not? Should the man still be responsible in that case?

 

[cybrsage]

And this one as well

What if a woman says she is on the pill, but is not? Should the man still be responsible in that case?

The emasculated will say that he definately should still be responsible. SHE is the only one with rights, and that is called equality.

 

[umbrella39]

Catholic University drops insurance coverage on students because of moral objections.

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=30064



Ok government, your move.

OK Catholic Church... give up your tax exempt status, your move...

 

[umbrella39]

So, instead of offering services that they consider to be against the sacredness of life, they'll stop insuring students putting their health and life at risk. Great logic there Catholics. Boy has Catholicism as an institution been acting stupid lately.

This, the but, but, government/UHC crowd really needs to pull their heads out of their big collective ass along with the Catholic Church...

 

[umbrella39]

Yeah, that's exactly what liberals think.

Ignore recent returning member - soon to be rebanned member...

 

[nehalem256]

OK Catholic Church... give up your tax exempt status, your move...

Well you never know old testament God might come back and start smiting Democrats :biggrin:

Your move government.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Well you never know old testament God might come back and start smiting Democrats :biggrin:

Your move government.

Old testament God would smite pretty much everyone -- working on the Sabbath, cutting your sideburns, eating a cheeseburger. Death for us all. Oldgod was a smitey kind of guy.

 

[woolfe9999]

Not really. You were talking nonsense.

Let me try to put it more directly then: the entire concept of government, any government, is that it governs. That means it has the power to tell people what to do and what not to do. Of course we want to put limits on that power. However, arguing against a particular piece of legislation on the simple ground that the government is "telling us what to do" sounds a lot like libertarian whining from the likes of people like A420, for example. If we accept any government, then by definition we accept that in some cases the government will tell us what to do. The criticism has got to be of more substance and more specific than just that.

I think we have to ask the question of what purpose the rule/law/regulation in question has and then weigh that against the degree of curtailment of choice it involves. A general statement of disagreeing with something because the government is telling people what to do is either logically inconsistent with approving of other governmental acts, or else inevitably leads to the notion of anarchy being the solution.

- wolf

 

[Ausm]

Wait a minute. You seem to be saying that the baby is part of her body. But the baby is not hers alone.

Are you saying that the man owns part of her body?[/QUOTE]

Depends on what time period you are living in....

 

[cybrsage]

cybrsage's argument is horrible, as usual. Men and women both do not have a right to force each other to undergo unwanted medical procedures. Once a child is born both men and women have the right to force each other to support an unwanted child. Equality for all.

Yet only a woman is allowed to decide if the man is to be a father or not. He gets no say in it. The emasculated call this equality.

 

[cybrsage]

Old testament God would smite pretty much everyone -- working on the Sabbath, cutting your sideburns, eating a cheeseburger. Death for us all. Oldgod was a smitey kind of guy.

Only if you are Jewish or are Walking with Israel.

 

[cybrsage]

OK Catholic Church... give up your tax exempt status, your move...

You really do not want that...it would mean they could start putting money into Politics and create a command saying all Catholics must vote for a specific party. You REALLY do not want that.