"Men Must Approve Abortion, Women Are Hosts"

[Neutraligon]

At no point did the person claim that only high schoolers support the bill, rather that the knowledge level is at the high school level.

More accurately, their knowledge about people's relationships can be boiled down to the naivette of a high school kid.

When it comes to relationships, shit's hard, yo'.

There's plenty of variables you cannot plan for, including financials. You simply have to show you're better at managing things as they spring up in order for someone to trust you with more responsibility. Being the one who calls the shots in a relationship doesn't happen overnight and simply because I am the man. It happens because one proves to be more competent at calling the shots than the other.

If my girlfriend/wife proved to be better at adapting and calling the shots then she probably will be the one who's going to be making the decisions at home. I'd trust anyone who can make competent decisions constantly any day of the week rather than someone who demands for me to trust them in making competent decisions.

My father was one of the kindest people you will ever meet, a real mench. He was however rather bad at planning ahead when it came to doing things, so normally that ended up as my mom's job, who was very good at it. For financials and the such that was mixed. His job was the handyman and on technical things like what computers or cars to buy or what to look for in say a fridge. That is where his strength lay and where my mom really lacked. He also sucked at cooking, and he ended up doing the laundry instead. The trust to do each of these jobs grew over the years, with each acting as the authority in their own respective strengths because they trusted each other to make those decisions.

[Pu4GatoRy]

did this thread just die from everyone not fighting back in forth and in circles? Or is it just old news that no one cares about anymore? Either way, back to Forum 7 with me!

Apparently...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

My father was one of the kindest people you will ever meet, a real mench. He was however rather bad at planning ahead when it came to doing things, so normally that ended up as my mom's job, who was very good at it. For financials and the such that was mixed. His job was the handyman and on technical things like what computers or cars to buy or what to look for in say a fridge. That is where his strength lay and where my mom really lacked. He also sucked at cooking, and he ended up doing the laundry instead. The trust to do each of these jobs grew over the years, with each acting as the authority in their own respective strengths because they trusted each other to make those decisions.

The roles in my family were rather odd.

My dad has always been pretty good at managing and delegating, so higher resource and people management at home fell into his lap. So for the most part, he called the shots at home about what was going to be done, when, and how; pretty authoritarian.

My mom on the other hand was good at micromanaging and making sure everything was in order. So she was the one that my dad let to administrate most of the things up close while he was out working and making money while making sure that his orders were carried out exactly as he had laid them out. So while my dad made the more important decisions and his voice could not be overruled, he also depended on my mom a lot to let him know what was going on at home and how she thought they could deal with it. The rest of us had different responsibilities and chores delegated to us depending on our strengths that nobody could question except my mom and my dad.

So in a sense we had a small bureaucracy going on at home. And it worked pretty well for the most part while that was happening. We were a pretty efficient family, for what it's worth, at dealing with situations.

[Gravlen]

This is a contradictory position to hold - or perhaps straight up disingenuous. If a woman only can get an abortion if the man agrees, he does have final say in the matter. His opinion about what she can and cannot do with her body would take primacy.

Would you agree that he should at least have a voice on the issue? Not override the woman's rights, but at least voice his opin-oh wait, nevermind, I gotta think this through some more...

By law? No. If a woman wants to listen to his opinion, she should of course allow him to speak his mind. But she should never be compelled to listen to him. In the end, it's her decision and hers alone.

[United Muscovite Nations]

After seeing some of the arguments employed by the pro-life side and supporting side, I have come to the conclusion that they either cover their eyes or simply ignore the counterarguments that disprove their arguments in the first place. Let's see if I can fix that:

Bodily autonomy is always more important than life. The fetus does not matter - it doesn't matter if that fetus could become the next FDR/JFK or if that fetus could be the next Hitler - it does not matter. What is up for debate here is bodily autonomy, and pretty much all the pro-choicers here have been pointing that out. The woman has ownership and sovereignty over every aspect of her body. Even if we give human rights to the fetus, fine; sure. The fetus has bodily autonomy. It still resides in the woman's uterus, uses the woman's resources, and the woman's bodily space. This means the fetus is in constant violation of the woman's bodily sovereignty every single moment it resides inside the woman, if the woman does not wish to be pregnant and seeks an abortion. Abortion, if she chooses it, is the solution and protection of the woman's bodily sovereignty.

There, are we clear now? Don't think you can ignore this one. Try some new arguments, please.

If exercising of your rights involved murdering someone in cold blood, then I don't think those rights should be allowed. If you don't have the right to force your kids out of your home after they are born, you shouldn't have the right to before they are born, when they literally have no other option but death.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

After seeing some of the arguments employed by the pro-life side and supporting side, I have come to the conclusion that they either cover their eyes or simply ignore the counterarguments that disprove their arguments in the first place. Let's see if I can fix that:

Bodily autonomy is always more important than life. The fetus does not matter - it doesn't matter if that fetus could become the next FDR/JFK or if that fetus could be the next Hitler - it does not matter. What is up for debate here is bodily autonomy, and pretty much all the pro-choicers here have been pointing that out. The woman has ownership and sovereignty over every aspect of her body. Even if we give human rights to the fetus, fine; sure. The fetus has bodily autonomy. It still resides in the woman's uterus, uses the woman's resources, and the woman's bodily space. This means the fetus is in constant violation of the woman's bodily sovereignty every single moment it resides inside the woman, if the woman does not wish to be pregnant and seeks an abortion. Abortion, if she chooses it, is the solution and protection of the woman's bodily sovereignty.

There, are we clear now? Don't think you can ignore this one. Try some new arguments, please.

If exercising of your rights involved murdering someone in cold blood, then I don't think those rights should be allowed. If you don't have the right to force your kids out of your home after they are born, you shouldn't have the right to before they are born, when they literally have no other option but death.

Actually, once they get to be 18 years of age, you do have the right to kick your kids out of the house and there's not a thing the state can do about it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If exercising of your rights involved murdering someone in cold blood, then I don't think those rights should be allowed. If you don't have the right to force your kids out of your home after they are born, you shouldn't have the right to before they are born, when they literally have no other option but death.

Actually, once they get to be 18 years of age, you do have the right to kick your kids out of the house and there's not a thing the state can do about it.

I don't think a fetus is 18 years of age.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Actually, once they get to be 18 years of age, you do have the right to kick your kids out of the house and there's not a thing the state can do about it.

I don't think a fetus is 18 years of age.

Your statement didn't define age. You simply said a parent doesn't have the right to force their kids out of their house after they're born. The answer being yes, yes they do, and the state cannot do anything against you if you kick your kids out after they're 18.

I mean, you can also kick a kid out of your house by institutionalizing them if they are a threat to you and your family, so there's that too.

Also, kid or not, you can also kill them in self-defense and the cops won't do anything to you. Of course, this is a really rare circumstance, but in the chance that your kid is an imminent threat, you still can hold self-defense in court.

[Neutraligon]

I don't think a fetus is 18 years of age.

Your statement didn't define age. You simply said a parent doesn't have the right to force their kids out of their house after they're born. The answer being yes, yes they do, and the state cannot do anything against you if you kick your kids out after they're 18.

I mean, you can also kick a kid out of your house by institutionalizing them if they are a threat to you and your family, so there's that too.

There is also adoption, which can technically be called kicking the kid out of the house.

[Greater Celisia]

Someone finally writes up a law that gives men a say in human reproduction and everyone gets mad. What really needs to happen is industrial incubation so we don't have to listen to the fem tears anymore.

[Neutraligon]

After seeing some of the arguments employed by the pro-life side and supporting side, I have come to the conclusion that they either cover their eyes or simply ignore the counterarguments that disprove their arguments in the first place. Let's see if I can fix that:

Bodily autonomy is always more important than life. The fetus does not matter - it doesn't matter if that fetus could become the next FDR/JFK or if that fetus could be the next Hitler - it does not matter. What is up for debate here is bodily autonomy, and pretty much all the pro-choicers here have been pointing that out. The woman has ownership and sovereignty over every aspect of her body. Even if we give human rights to the fetus, fine; sure. The fetus has bodily autonomy. It still resides in the woman's uterus, uses the woman's resources, and the woman's bodily space. This means the fetus is in constant violation of the woman's bodily sovereignty every single moment it resides inside the woman, if the woman does not wish to be pregnant and seeks an abortion. Abortion, if she chooses it, is the solution and protection of the woman's bodily sovereignty.

There, are we clear now? Don't think you can ignore this one. Try some new arguments, please.

If exercising of your rights involved murdering someone in cold blood, then I don't think those rights should be allowed.

So once again self defense against someone who intends to harm but not kill me should not be allowed?

If you don't have the right to force your kids out of your home after they are born, you shouldn't have the right to before they are born, when they literally have no other option but death.

Since a house and a womb are not the same thing I would declare they are not compatible. Whether you like it or not I am not forced to donate my organs or blood to keep my kids alive.

[Neutraligon]

Someone finally writes up a law that gives men a say in human reproduction and everyone gets mad. What really needs to happen is industrial incubation so we don't have to listen to the fem tears anymore.

A man has a right in the part of the reproduction that he takes part in. Funny thing, that doesn't involve the actually pregnancy.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If exercising of your rights involved murdering someone in cold blood, then I don't think those rights should be allowed.

So once again self defense against someone who intends to harm but not kill me should not be allowed?

If you don't have the right to force your kids out of your home after they are born, you shouldn't have the right to before they are born, when they literally have no other option but death.

Since a house and a womb are not the same thing I would declare they are not compatible. Whether you like it or not I am not forced to donate my organs or blood to keep my kids alive.

I think people should have to do whatever is necessary and within their capacity to save someone in a vulnerable position from death.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Someone finally writes up a law that gives men a say in human reproduction and everyone gets mad. What really needs to happen is industrial incubation so we don't have to listen to the fem tears anymore.

I generally would not be disagreeing with a law that gives men a say in human reproduction.

The problem here is the underlying argument behind the law and how it is being drafted and its implications.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I think people should have to do whatever is necessary and within their capacity to save someone in a vulnerable position from death.

Does this mean up to, and including, lethal force if necessary?

[Neutraligon]

So once again self defense against someone who intends to harm but not kill me should not be allowed?

Since a house and a womb are not the same thing I would declare they are not compatible. Whether you like it or not I am not forced to donate my organs or blood to keep my kids alive.

I think people should have to do whatever is necessary and within their capacity to save someone in a vulnerable position from death.

I disagree, since that would quit easily involve placing myself in danger. Oh and, under US law you cannot compel me to do so. And you did not reply to my comment on self defense against someone who has no intention of killing me, but does intend to harm me.

[Greater Celisia]

Someone finally writes up a law that gives men a say in human reproduction and everyone gets mad. What really needs to happen is industrial incubation so we don't have to listen to the fem tears anymore.

A man has a right in the part of the reproduction that he takes part in. Funny thing, that doesn't involve the actually pregnancy.

Which is why I propose industrial incubation. So men don't need women for reproduction.

[Pu4GatoRy]

I don't think a fetus is 18 years of age.

Your statement didn't define age. You simply said a parent doesn't have the right to force their kids out of their house after they're born. The answer being yes, yes they do, and the state cannot do anything against you if you kick your kids out after they're 18.

I mean, you can also kick a kid out of your house by institutionalizing them if they are a threat to you and your family, so there's that too.

Also, kid or not, you can also kill them in self-defense and the cops won't do anything to you. Of course, this is a really rare circumstance, but in the chance that your kid is an imminent threat, you still can hold self-defense in court.

All you are doing is posting obscene exceptions and in no way are you disproving the statement. Most pro-life people accept abortion for crazy circumstances, like if the woman is in danger from the child being born or what not.

[Neutraligon]

A man has a right in the part of the reproduction that he takes part in. Funny thing, that doesn't involve the actually pregnancy.

Which is why I propose industrial incubation. So men don't need women for reproduction.

An interesting way of putting things.

[Neutraligon]

Your statement didn't define age. You simply said a parent doesn't have the right to force their kids out of their house after they're born. The answer being yes, yes they do, and the state cannot do anything against you if you kick your kids out after they're 18.

I mean, you can also kick a kid out of your house by institutionalizing them if they are a threat to you and your family, so there's that too.

Also, kid or not, you can also kill them in self-defense and the cops won't do anything to you. Of course, this is a really rare circumstance, but in the chance that your kid is an imminent threat, you still can hold self-defense in court.

All you are doing is posting obscene exceptions and in no way are you disproving the statement. Most pro-life people accept abortion for crazy circumstances, like if the woman is in danger from the child being born or what not.

Pregnancy is always potentially life threatening. You are forcing on a woman risks she does not wish to take.

[Pu4GatoRy]

If exercising of your rights involved murdering someone in cold blood, then I don't think those rights should be allowed.

So once again self defense against someone who intends to harm but not kill me should not be allowed?

If you don't have the right to force your kids out of your home after they are born, you shouldn't have the right to before they are born, when they literally have no other option but death.

Since a house and a womb are not the same thing I would declare they are not compatible. Whether you like it or not I am not forced to donate my organs or blood to keep my kids alive.

He was making on analogy. Why are you taking it so literally?

[Pu4GatoRy]

I think people should have to do whatever is necessary and within their capacity to save someone in a vulnerable position from death.

I disagree, since that would quit easily involve placing myself in danger. Oh and, under US law you cannot compel me to do so. And you did not reply to my comment on self defense against someone who has no intention of killing me, but does intend to harm me.

Well maybe the law is wrong. Should I start a forum for that?

Morally speaking, he's in the high ground here. On the position of civil rights, he isn't. The question is, which is more important?

[United Muscovite Nations]

I think people should have to do whatever is necessary and within their capacity to save someone in a vulnerable position from death.

Does this mean up to, and including, lethal force if necessary?

What do you mean?

As for what you said about self-defense, Neutraligon; defending oneself from an outside threat is a little different than killing your own child that you begat. However, if the pregnancy is causing severe health risks, then abortion is permissible, even encouraged (though, if the woman is unwilling to abort, her position should be respected).

[Neutraligon]

So once again self defense against someone who intends to harm but not kill me should not be allowed?

Since a house and a womb are not the same thing I would declare they are not compatible. Whether you like it or not I am not forced to donate my organs or blood to keep my kids alive.

He was making on analogy. Why are you taking it so literally?

I am not, I am saying it is a bad analogy because a house does not have bodily sovereignty stuff involved.

[Pu4GatoRy]

I think people should have to do whatever is necessary and within their capacity to save someone in a vulnerable position from death.

Does this mean up to, and including, lethal force if necessary?

I personally that if deciding between two decisions where people will die in both, to choose the decision where the least lives will be lost, no matter what. This also includes taking into consideration weather one decision will let people live who will end up killing others. For example, saving 10 people convicted of homicide, or 5 innocent people, the 5 innocent people should live, seeing the criminals are unstable, and could kill again.