Abortion and Women's Rights

Abortion has nothing to do with women's rights.  Murder is not a right. 

Also, women provide material for the kid AND goes through labor. That counts as extra leverage, so the man loses.

how about this. every person against abortion, and is able to support a child, adopt one. once more than three quarters of americans unwanted foster children are with loving families will i ever consider limiting abortion. we have far too many kids in this country without a home, either in poverty or moving from foster home to foster home. We dont need more, esp. if they're to be dumped like trash into the system unwanted. pro-lifers think that foster care is somehow the end all be all solution to the children that are born unwanted. this is like saying put all the homelss in jail. at least there's food and shelter. it's ignoring the problem, and it's a shitty solution. I would personally not exist than exist in a world where i was thrown away into an institution in which i'm chosen like an animal, not to mention the abuse some of these kids undergo under the supervision of these foster parents.

>>681
Again, if man don't get any rights, we shouldn't have to bear any responsibility either.  If we have responsibilities, rights should come with it.  50/50 responsibility = 50/50 rights.  Xel agrees here, fathers get the short end of the stick if they have no say. 

>>682

Reposting for good justice:

"I think the following are reasonable, based on my readings and analysis of the thread:

Child Support Laws are fine, both parties are responsible for, and have rights to the child.

Abortion should be legal up until the point at which the human fetus could be considered a 'human life', i.e. has attained consciousness and or feeling/senses.  After this point, no abortions should be allowed at all unless continuing development of the fetus and birth is deemed a -serious- threat to the mother's life by medical professionals or other able, credible, and knowledgeable people.  In this instance, the abortion would only be allowed if done humanely.

No abortion should be allowed without the consent of the man, due to the fact that the unborn baby is indeed partly his, as well as is partly his responsibility.

Contraceptives should be totally legal, unrestricted, and deregulated.

Pharmacists should be allowed to sell or not to sell their services if they please.

Responsible and able male parents should not be denied their children so regularly in custody battles, as the child is, again, a mutual right and responsibility of both parents."

Equal responsibility, equal rights.  No less.

Equal sage, equal stop posting. No less.

"Abortion should be legal up until the point at which the human fetus could be considered a 'human life', i.e. has attained consciousness and or feeling/senses." Not enough.
"No abortion should be allowed without the consent of the man, due to the fact that the unborn baby is indeed partly his, as well as is partly his responsibility." He signs a contract before conception or he can cry me a river. The woman will have to take time off of one of her jobs (only in America does the word "job" have to be used in plural) and pay for the abortion.
"Contraceptives should be totally legal, unrestricted, and deregulated." Great, now we just need to get rid of christianists.
"Pharmacists should be allowed to sell or not to sell their services if they please." Yes, and I'll boycott the shit out of those that discriminate and so should every pro-lifer with a sense of commitment and respect for women (a minority)
"Responsible and able male parents should not be denied their children so regularly in custody battles, as the child is, again, a mutual right and responsibility of both parents." This is a problem with retarded jurisprudence; many times the cause of parents losing custody are failures that have nothing to do with parenting.

For fuck's sake, think about your mental health. Sage this fucking thread to death.

>>687
"No abortion should be allowed without the consent of the man, due to the fact that the unborn baby is indeed partly his, as well as is partly his responsibility." He signs a contract before conception or he can cry me a river. The woman will have to take time off of one of her jobs (only in America does the word "job" have to be used in plural) and pay for the abortion."

So the man doesn't need to sign onto a contract to have the responsibility of caring for a child dumped onto him (child support laws), yet he *does* have to get a contract signed if he wants any rights to the child?

"Pharmacists should be allowed to sell or not to sell their services if they please." Yes, and I'll boycott the shit out of those that discriminate and so should every pro-lifer with a sense of commitment and respect for women (a minority)"

Good.

"Responsible and able male parents should not be denied their children so regularly in custody battles, as the child is, again, a mutual right and responsibility of both parents." This is a problem with retarded jurisprudence; many times the cause of parents losing custody are failures that have nothing to do with parenting."

It has a lot to do with the notion that children are all the woman's responsibility, and with that responsibility of course go the rights as well.  This is a sexist notion. 

"So the man doesn't need to sign onto a contract to have the responsibility of caring for a child dumped onto him (child support laws), yet he *does* have to get a contract signed if he wants any rights to the child?" No. That wouldn't be nice at all.
"It has a lot to do with the notion that children are all the woman's responsibility, and with that responsibility of course go the rights as well.  This is a sexist notion." And some feminists hate all gender roles, including this one. I do as well, but christianists and deep-red babykissers perpetuate it happily.

>>690

"So the man doesn't need to sign onto a contract to have the responsibility of caring for a child dumped onto him (child support laws), yet he *does* have to get a contract signed if he wants any rights to the child?" No. That wouldn't be nice at all."

But that's what you said.  My suggestion automatically does both.  The man gets 50% of the responsibilities, and 50% of the rights as well.  I don't see what's wrong with this.  Mutual responsibilities, mutual rights.

"It has a lot to do with the notion that children are all the woman's responsibility, and with that responsibility of course go the rights as well.  This is a sexist notion." And some feminists hate all gender roles, including this one. I do as well, but christianists and deep-red babykissers perpetuate it happily."

So if you hate it, then why don't you agree with my concluding ideas?  Not asking for any legislation, or support of legislation, outside of what you have already agreed to in the past - just asking for acknowledgement and support.  Simple recognition that they are good and will promote equality.

Gestate of the Nation.

A quick hypocrisy check is in order. How many times have we looked surreptitious daggers at any woman pushing a pram with fag in gob, and muttered 'If you can't even give up smoking for a kid then you shouldn't bloody well be having them, you irresponsible beast'? Too many to count. If there's one thing that makes us come over all righteous, it's the sight of a Marlboro-puffing mother. Especially if she's bulgingly pregnant. Especially if she's bulgingly pregnant and complaining loudly about how, say, the gentle noise from next door's civilised little middle-class barbecue gathering is having an adverse affect on her cherished unborn sprog.

Yep, we certainly deplore the fecklessness of women who can't be arsed to look after their children's health if it means giving up their own pointless, unhealthy and costly habit. But we balk severely at the idea that it should be enshrined in law that, if you behave in a manner which at all endangers your unborn child, you are liable for any harm caused just as if the child had been up and running around and refusing to use the potty.

Some 20 US states (did you know that was coming?) now consider drug use by an expectant mother equivalent to child abuse. One woman in enlightenment hub (and first state to push through the abortion ban) South Carolina - a crack user whose baby was stillborn - is currently serving 12 years as the first woman to be convicted of fetal homicide. This shows not only the kind of jolly ignorance of the nature of drug addiction itself that you'd expect, but a fat sadistic streak that doesn't allow any of that pussy-ass 'perhaps they've suffered enough' apostasy.

This terrifyingly absurd new crime goes along with new federal guidelines, which are casting the net wide. They suggest that all women of childbearing age should consider themselves 'pre-pregnant' - it could happen at any time, see, because you were born in sin and are all whores. This means that if you're out of nappies and not yet in false teeth (they can do wonders with IVF these days), you're expected to stop smoking, take folic acid, and keep yourself especially healthy. Perfectly sensible stuff, except perhaps for the folic acid, which is very good for you but a bit expensive to take for twenty years if you're not trying for a baby.

The trouble is that these things aren't to benefit the woman, but the phantom foetus she isn't yet incubating. (But could suddenly be doing at any time, even if she's not sexually active - there are rapists out there, and you can't bank on them being thoughtful enough to slap on a condom.) So essentially, the US isn't content with placing women's rights below those of her unborn child - it is striving to place them below those of her *non*-unborn child. In 20 states, your contentment is secondary to that of the substance of the hypothesis of the glint in the milkman's eye. You've got to admire that kind of bio-social chutzpah. Lawyers must be laughing themselves to sleep at night.

It's a logical enough progression, part of the wholesale attribution of individual rights for each sticky spermatozoa-vanquished ovum. The irony is that many women who are liable to
'fall' pregnant aren't going to be the most supplement-poppingly responsible adults to begin with - anyone can have an accident, but it's a lot more likely if you can't be bothered with contraception. Although of course the US has that sewn up too; the government-backed campaign of misinformation and pre-emptive finger-wagging that passes for sex ed seems to aim for a Pavlovian aversion response in teenagers. Show them a combined pill or a condom and they start fiddling with their 'True Love Waits' rings and crying.

In any case, the new guidelines are forcing responsibility onto some of the people least able to shoulder it, and at least casting a sort of nasty shadow of prurient suspicion over all other young women. America, as manifest in this sort of fundamentalist guffola, doesn't like women very much. Hillary Clinton can't possibly be prepared for what she'll get if she becomes President - especially as she's not yet a safely witchy old crone. She should probably, as a thoughtful Sharon Stone recently suggested, wait until half her teeth fall out and her only curve is a banana-back before running for POTUS. Sexuality is the greatest threat to the American way of life since, ooh, that other one with the Hajis and bombs and shit.

This story dovetails quite nicely with Blair's 'get 'em young' plans to slap ASBOs on feisty fetuses. Hey, at least that's consistent - if cell clusters have the right not to suffer indirect abuse via the umbilical, they should also be tried as adults. You could have a crèche for the jury. Anyway - despite the inevitable uproar that greeted his typically poorly-expressed, alarmist-friendly musings, it is hard to disagree *entirely* with the theory. You *can* identify likely candidates for future bother, whether or not you should do anything to try and avert what remains only theoretical badness.

More importantly, Blair's wizard wheeze makes you think that at least, if politicians begin to look past already lost-cause teenagers to evil children, past them to disconcerting teddy-
ripping toddlers and up into the sleazy fleshbag from whence they came, they will eventually end up at the conception stage. Which means - dare we dream? - a healthier attitude towards sex education, and a genuine, practical, unflinching effort to help teenagers avoid pregnancy in the first place. That's what we call a real long-term solution to societal shitstorm.

How can you escape this encroaching womb-fascism? The only
solution is to consider yourself, as you literally are, pre-dead. Then none of this monkeyshine matters a damn.

I've had enough of trying to stop you from posting on this long dead thread. I am better to waste MY time on this futile attempt to stop others from wasting their time. I am guilty of nothing except excessive compassion, just remember one thing... I tried, I warned you I WARNED YOU.

You will remember this near the end.

Farewell.

How do I sage? Because I'm going to start saging the fuck out of this. It's old, we're [Xel and I, not Kuroumi's last fucked up posts] right and everyone else has proven to be retarded.

i donno if saging works on /dis/

but it goes in the email feild

Yeah Kumori, women who smoke and drink while pregnant aren't irresponsible pieces of shit.

"Some 20 US states (did you know that was coming?) now consider drug use by an expectant mother equivalent to child abuse."

Good.  Drug use is fine, but when you do it while pregnant, you are fucking with someone elses' future.

>>697
Hey it's the woman's body and the fetus is not a human being okay.

I can just imagine Kumori saying next: 'Women who smoke and drink while pregnant aren't irresponsible bitches, they are brave and acting in good conscience, promoting the women's movement through passive resistence!'

>>694 if u don't like it then gtfo

>>696 I never said they were. That was Anonymous.

>>701
I guess Kumori failed to sense the sarcasm.

>>699 Actually, I am against a mother smoking and drinking and what-not during pregnancy. I just simply choose to let it go since if they want to do that sort of stuff, they're the ones responsible for whatever happens.

>>694 Kumori* That last post was based upon an article I read, nothing personal was put into it from my point of view. It shows various attacks on pregnant women from their lifestyle choice, and the passive attack on non-pregnant women.

>>702 Sorry, it's rather hard to notice sacarsm over the Internet.

All three of them are right, Xel, Anti, and Kumori. The rest are just retarded. Now please, sage this thread and let it all be over.

Yeah I agree. Kumori, Xel, and Anti are right. Oh yeah, I saw that article before too lol. Quite interesting. Thread over, no extra lives, no continues.

I agree with the conclusion offered in >>684. 

>>703
"Actually, I am against a mother smoking and drinking and what-not during pregnancy. I just simply choose to let it go since if they want to do that sort of stuff, they're the ones responsible for whatever happens."

Yeah, because the mother is the only one whose health will be negatively affected. 

>>709 Exactly. Now, this thread has been due to being saged long already.

>>707 Still got some people giving this thread 1-Ups. Including me..dammit. Okay now let the saging begin.

>>694
Yeah Kumori's posts have been increasingly stupid recently.

>>711 I merely spoke mostly out of physical aspects for the majority of my posts. I haven't given much of how I personally feel about said things. To make ends meet, my thoughts are exactly like the married man's. My fault for not being so descriptive. I won't point any fingers, but it was stupid of you to say that, considering this thread is long dead, and >>706 and >>707 and see through my misunderstandings. The End.

>>712
married guy = kumori

who cares?

711 Shut the fuck up and leave Kumori alone. Geez. Her points were just as good as Anti's and Xel's, just misunderstood. Enough is enough you dumbasses.

>>715 No they weren't.

who cares? Really?

706=707

>>708 Seconded.

>>698  And what about once it is born and has various birth defects, learning disabilities, and other bullshit? Are you going to blame the mother then? How about if the mother did drugs during  the development of the kid, and the kid develops disabilities, the mother gets thrown in jail, or has to pay off the child for fucking up its life some how?