Dems look to limit state restrictions on abortions

[bshole]

Texas,

How about this solution. If the father doesn't want the child, we give him a hammer. Within 5 days of the birth, the father has the right to hammer the brains out of the newborn infant. Is that more along the lines of what you are looking for?

 

[nehalem256]

TH is a perfect example of the effectiveness of no-sex ed or abstinence only sex-ed.

If a man makes a gift of his seed to a woman why should he be held responsible for what she does with it?

If a woman buys a gun for a man and 9 months later he shoots someone is the woman equally culpable for the murder?

 

[brycejones]

Texas,

How about this solution. If the father doesn't want the child, we give him a hammer. Within 5 days of the birth, the father has the right to hammer the brains out of the newborn infant. Is that more along the lines of what you are looking for?

If you don't want the child doesn't that mean its trespassing and wants to steal from you so just shoot the little "thug". Castle doctrine FTW.

 

[Texashiker]

Get back to me after we develop a way for men to get pregnant, then we'll talk.

Responsibility does not grant extra rights.

Rights are granted at time of creation, all people are created equal and with equal rights.

Biology does not grant you extra rights, location does not take away your rights, inconvenience is not a standard to gauge rights.

That child has as much right to develop in the uterus as a gay or black has a right to be served at a restaurant.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Texas,

How about this solution. If the father doesn't want the child, we give him a hammer. Within 5 days of the birth, the father has the right to hammer the brains out of the newborn infant. Is that more along the lines of what you are looking for?

TH doesn't care about the lives of the infants, his end game is endless unprotected fucking without the responsibilities afterwards. His faux rage about abortions is sad, but that's what it boils down to. Abortion is his stepping stone to what he is really bent out of shape about.

 

[glenn1]

That child has as much right to develop in the uterus as a gay or black has a right to be served at a restaurant.

"Public accomodation" is what governs the later, was that the case with your wife's uterus?

 

[Texashiker]

was that the case with your wife's uterus?

That we are all created equal and entitled to certain rights. One of those rights being the right to life.

 

[glenn1]

That we are all created equal and entitled to certain rights. One of those rights being the right to life.

The point evidently went over you head. Is your wife's uterus a public accomodation? If not one of those certain rights is freedom of association. Don't try to argue abortion on Constitutional grounds if you're an ignorant dumbass about the document in question.

 

[Texashiker]

The point evidently went over you head. Is your wife's uterus a public accommodation? .

It seems you are unable to comprehend basic human rights.

You can not use a standard to gauge the issuance of rights.

Whether the person is black, female, gay, asian, native american or an unborn child, we are all created equal and entitled to basic human rights.

Regardless if the uterus is not a public accommodation, the child was created with a human right to life.

 

[Darwin333]

You continue to say this. The child in question IS NOT YOUR BODY. You have to be completely daft to think so. So, stop your moronic trolling. This has been repeatedly explained to you.


And, the bill in question says nothing of the sort you, or the FoxNews article, are attempting to imply.

He uses his "body" to make money, so technically he has a point.

It would be fair to give men the exact same choice, in the exact same timeframe, as the mother to "give up the child". Sign a piece of paper and they no longer have ANY rights whatsoever to the child ever again and the mother can choose to have the child with the knowledge that she is on her own or she can choose to not have the child. That would give both parties equal responsibility in the process, it would be virtually the exact same choice.

With that said, my father taught me pretty young that life ain't fair and ain't never going to be. Men get shafted in matters concerning family law, just the way it is and the way it is going to remain. A woman can have a child and never inform the father that he has a child with no reprecussions. A married woman can cheat on her husband and the husband can be forced to support a child that isn't his if he signs the birth certificate in some states. Hell most people know women that have committed flat out fraud when it comes to children, fathers, child support, etc with absolutely no legal ramifications. It sucks but there just isn't a good answer. Ironically if we started mandating DNA tests at birth (could you imagine telling your wife who just went through childbirth that you want a DNA test before you sign the BC?) the OP would probably be up in arms over that too.

But hey, we make more money, get to pee standing up, can write our names in the snow, aren't looked down upon for having lots of sex with different partners, have written almost all laws throughout our entire history and actually owned women for a very good part of it and still do in certain places. I say fair trade but that's just me.

PS: For the record, I happily support my girls. They get far more of my monthly income than required by the state and I have never been bitter about a dime.

 

[nehalem256]

But hey, we make more money, get to pee standing up, can write our names in the snow, aren't looked down upon for having lots of sex with different partners, have written almost all laws throughout our entire history and actually owned women for a very good part of it and still do in certain places. I say fair trade but that's just me.

This is what male privilege looks like:

But hey the people ordering those people to their death shared the same genitals so its okay.

EDIT: And given how much you just admitted that current laws screw over men imagine how much men would get screwed over if women were the ones writing them?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

This is what male privilege looks like:


But hey the people ordering those people to their death shared the same genitals so its okay.

Yet, I bet you've done absolutely nothing in service of this country.

 

[nehalem256]

Yet, I bet you've done absolutely nothing in service of this country.

I bet most women in the US haven't been owned by a man yet apparently that is still a worthwhile complaint.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I bet most women in the US haven't been owned by a man yet apparently that is still a worthwhile complaint.

As I thought, my daughter who spent 6 years in the Army has done more in service for this country than you have. She even served in Afghanistan while you sat your protected ass in the US posting your woman hate in here.

 

[nehalem256]

As I thought, my daughter who spent 6 years in the Army has done more in service for this country than you have. She even served in Afghanistan while you sat your protected ass in the US posting your woman hate in here.

Do you have a point?

Darwin was trying to claim that women had it worse than men in the PAST. Facts don't really back that up.

If we are talking about the present then Darwin laid out how women in fact do have more rights. Care to refute that?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yes, I have a point. You're a worthless woman hating sack of shit. No one in here takes anything you say seriously, you might as well be talking to yourself.

 

[alzan]

Yes, I have a point. You're a worthless woman hating sack of shit. No one in here takes anything you say seriously, you might as well be talking to yourself.

Now, now; he has TH for a father and a toaster as his wife. Show him a little compassion.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, I have a point. You're a worthless woman hating sack of shit. No one in here takes anything you say seriously, you might as well be talking to yourself.

So your point is you are massively butthurt.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So your point is you are massively butthurt.

No butthurt here, just speaking the truth.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Actually, if anyone looks at your posts they see a common theme.

Boohoo!! Life's not fair, women get all the breaks and I have to pay for them...sniffle, sniffle.

 

[nehalem256]

Actually, if anyone looks at your posts they see a common theme.

Boohoo!! Life's not fair, women get all the breaks and I have to pay for them...sniffle, sniffle.

As opposed to the libs going life isn't fair, man up and take responsibility for women's choices?

And if you in anyway question this you "hate" women

 

[brycejones]

This message is hidden because nehalem256 is on your ignore list.

The only way to deal with the toaster lover.

 

[TerryMathews]

The only way to deal with the toaster lover.

I miss the good old days, when these little troll posts were infractions.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

It is a very simple concept, and that concept is that all people are created equal.

Well, yeah, but at issue is whether or not a newborn is really a "people" to begin with.

If you are going to use self-awareness as a standard, are people in a coma self-aware? Someone was in a car wreck and in a coma, are they fair game to be butchered?

There's already a personality inside of that body, just unconscious or sleeping. Big big difference.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Regarding who should be financially responsible for an infant, because abortion is available, the woman makes the decision 100% as to whether or not to give birth. Thus, if a man who is not married to the woman does not want to be responsible, he needs to merely pay for the costs of an abortion and be done with it. If the woman wants to carry the fetus to term that's her business, but she'd then be fully responsible for caring for the infant.