Display posts from previous
Sort by

Could Obama get elected without " evangelicals" ?

81 by Mandroid20_Archive
I think that most liberal people really don't care whether or not someone in Berkeley is smoking medical marijuana or whether or not Joe and Tim are getting married in San Jose. I think that liberal people do profoundly care that some 17-year old in Mamou, LA can't get legally get an abortion in her state after being gang raped and contracting HIV from one of her attackers. In my mind, it's less a case of whether or not states have rights and more a case of universally available human rights that I feel should be afforded to every woman, not just the ones who happen to live in certain states.
"To be stupid, selfish, and have good health are three requirements for happiness, though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost."

-Gustave Flaubert

Could Obama get elected without " evangelicals" ?

82 by Johnny 13_Archive
Rick Reuben wrote:
Johnny 13 wrote: I would also expect my wife to plan with me, but she has no legal obligation to do so.
I didn't ask you about a legal obligation. I asked you if you, as a husband, are entitled to input on an abortion decision. You have already said that a husband and wife should plan for abortions, together- twice.
Johnny 13 wrote:
I expect that within a relationship there should be some discussion, or what is the reason for coupling long term.

Johnny 13 wrote: It is his responsibility to know what she will do about a pregnancy before she gets pregnant.


I believe a husband and a wife should discuss most everything. I think we are getting hung up on this point. The form I would expect this conversation would take, would be to reiterate previous understanding, and to clarify what needs to be done. It is not time to pull a 180º turn on your partner, and this is again something that could go either way. The marked difference being that since the concern is for the woman's body, she gets to trump the man, no matter what her relationship to the man. You have caught me stating that inconstancy is one hell of a bummer, but not as bad as willful ignorance.

I don't know much about you. Are you married? Cause you come off like a single guy. I have been married for a long time, and our ways work quite well for us.

Could Obama get elected without " evangelicals" ?

83 by Mandroid20_Archive
Rick Reuben wrote:
Mandroid2.0 wrote:It is ultimately our body and it is ultimately our right to decide whether or not we want to keep the child, not our husbands' or our boyfriends', though as I stated before, I would certainly hope that the issue of what to do in case or pregnancy has been addressed the moment that sexual intercourse is introduced into a relationship.
That's all I'm saying. It shouldn't be a unilateral decision by the mother, and I can't imagine that in a loving, healthy relationship, it would be. The idea that it is entirely up to the mother to come to the decision and that the father must shut his trap is extreme. It goes against the best reason in favor of having a kid: bringing a kid into a home where the parents talk things over.


That's fine, but I don't see the need for the government to regulate such arrangements. I can see any legal regulation requiring the permission of the father in order for the mother to get an abortion backfiring in horrible ways and making situations far worse rather than more fair for the parents.

I was married for two years and my husband and I had an agreement to terminate any pregnancy that might occur and had both professed not wanting to have children. We made that agreement before we got married. If something had changed, we would have discussed it and decided to either have a kid or get a divorce. That's how I understand most marriages work, and if the two parents are so immature that they can't be open and honest with one another about where they stand, they probably shouldn't be bringing a child into the world in the first place.
"To be stupid, selfish, and have good health are three requirements for happiness, though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost."

-Gustave Flaubert

Could Obama get elected without " evangelicals" ?

84 by Johnny 13_Archive
Rick Reuben wrote:
Johnny 13 wrote:The woman owns the embryo, and is the one building it. It is her vitality that sustains it, and it is her body that provides every resource. It is hers and of her as much as her spleen is.
Wrong- first, humans aren't property, and aren't 'owned'. A baby is not a spleen. You don't eject your spleen after nine months.

A baby, no matter who is digesting the food and passing it down the umbilical cord ( which might be food purchased/ cooked by the father ) is a mutual creation of man and woman. Saying that 'oh, the woman is doing the most work for the first nine months' is a bad argument to stand behind, because it brings economics in where it has no place. What, are you going to decide which school the kids goes to depending on which parent is paying most of the tuition? Of course not.

Decisions affecting kids ought to be made by both parents, right from the start, and I can prove this:

If a woman wants the exclusive right to decide on an abortion, then she can also take the exclusive responsibility to pay child support, if the father takes off and she has the kid. If the baby is 'hers, and hers alone' to decide what to do with, then how can she go after a father for child support? If it is entirely her decision to abort, then by the same logic, it was entirely her decision to carry to term, and therefore, since the man was kept out of the decision making process in both cases, the man has no responsibility to pay child support. After all, how can he be charged for the creation of a baby that was entirely the woman's property??

And with that devastating legal argument, Rick Lee Bailey is retiring for the evening.


An embryo is a potential human being, but at the point an abortion would take place it is certainly not one yet. With no ability to think or feel it certainly is the property of the woman.

The rest of this is based on your assumption that the embryo/fetus has a starter kit of rights that I patently disagree with. Just as the woman's role is unique, so is the man's legal obligation. If he does not want a child, he damn well better do his best to prevent conception, and know what will happen if things go wrong, because he is on the hook even if he would rather not be. I would rather not be in, or have to pay for the results of a car crash, but life does not give us any take backs.

Guys don't really have it all that bad in this life, and the truth is we are hashing out an example that I don't see to many guys getting screwed over by. The right to be dumb and uninformed is not something I am all that interested in fighting for.

Could Obama get elected without " evangelicals" ?

85 by numberthirty_Archive
Rick Reuben wrote:
Johnny 13 wrote:The woman owns the embryo, and is the one building it. It is her vitality that sustains it, and it is her body that provides every resource. It is hers and of her as much as her spleen is.
Wrong- first, humans aren't property, and aren't 'owned'. A baby is not a spleen. You don't eject your spleen after nine months.

A baby, no matter who is digesting the food and passing it down the umbilical cord ( which might be food purchased/ cooked by the father ) is a mutual creation of man and woman. Saying that 'oh, the woman is doing the most work for the first nine months' is a bad argument to stand behind, because it brings economics in where it has no place. What, are you going to decide which school the kids goes to depending on which parent is paying most of the tuition? Of course not.

Decisions affecting kids ought to be made by both parents, right from the start, and I can prove this:

If a woman wants the exclusive right to decide on an abortion, then she can also take the exclusive responsibility to pay child support, if the father takes off and she has the kid. If the baby is 'hers, and hers alone' to decide what to do with, then how can she go after a father for child support? If it is entirely her decision to abort, then by the same logic, it was entirely her decision to carry to term, and therefore, since the man was kept out of the decision making process in both cases, the man has no responsibility to pay child support. After all, how can he be charged for the creation of a baby that was entirely the woman's property??

And with that devastating legal argument, Rick Lee Bailey is retiring for the evening.


Not exactly devastating, braintrust.

You are trying to make the case that a man should not be held legally responsible for support if the woman makes a descision on her own to carry a child to term.

This is stupid on a number of levels.

It is very simple for a man to make sure he doesn't wind up in the situation to start with. Check out the condom section at your local grocery/drug store.

Second, the call on what to do with a fetus is a woman's. Once a child is living, the economic resposibility is shared.

Makes perfect sense to me.

I know you're thinking "Bu...Wait" Shut it. Listen.

A father will have to pay support for maybe 'til a kid finishes college.

As Mandroid very clearly pointed out, a woman has to pay in ways that are not only economic and will affect her for the rest of her life.

That said, men need to really shut up about child support.

If a man does not think to use a condom when he knows he does not want children, he has given up any say over if the child should be carried to term.

Could Obama get elected without " evangelicals" ?

87 by Marsupialized_Archive
Rick Reuben wrote:I know it is very, very hard for liberal atheists to accept that they can't make society be atheist. It frustrates them that religious people have a voice in their government. It fucks their authoritarian atheist dream up. Tough, tough break. There are places you can go to where the government dictates abortions, like China. But you wouldn't like it there.


So what makes you say I am a liberal? Just the fact I am against religious laws being enforced upon non religious people? That makes me a cut and paste liberal? I have many opinions that your average 'liberal' would berate me endlessly for.

Atheist, sure.

I do not want everyone in the country to be an atheist. I could care less what people believe if they keep it to themselves.
I want a complete and total removal of religious speak and ideas from the political landscape. No politician should ever mention religion. You should not have any clue as to the personal religious beliefs of a politician.
There are real, serious political matters to be attended to, and we have the candidates taking time out to sit with some creepy preacher and tell him how much they pretend to love the imaginary man in the sky.
Watch the seals bark and clap when they say it.
Arf! Arf! Arf!

This makes me absolutely sick. Absolutely ill.

We look like absolute buffoons. Just fools.
Last edited by Marsupialized_Archive on Sun Aug 17, 2008 11:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rick Reuben wrote:Marsupialized reminds me of freedom

Could Obama get elected without " evangelicals" ?

88 by Mandroid20_Archive
eva03 wrote:
Johnny 13 wrote:.

I would rather not be in, or have to pay for the results of a car crash, but life does not give us any take backs.



Ummm..... isn't that the whole point of having an abortion?


That is assuming that the woman wants an abortion.

What I think that Johnny13 is pointing out is that if the woman decides to keep the child, the father should be half-responsible for paying for it and raising it, since he was one of the parties that had willingly fucked in the first place and thus risked a pregnancy that may or may not be carried to term dependent upon the mother's decision, and that he should honour whatever that decision is.

btw, doesn't making the argument that a husband can disagree about his wife's decision to have an abortion also mean that he could force her to abort the fetus if she wanted to carry it?
"To be stupid, selfish, and have good health are three requirements for happiness, though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost."

-Gustave Flaubert

Could Obama get elected without " evangelicals" ?

89 by Johnny 13_Archive
eva03 wrote:
Johnny 13 wrote:.

I would rather not be in, or have to pay for the results of a car crash, but life does not give us any take backs.



Ummm..... isn't that the whole point of having an abortion?


I was speaking of the man's role, and his inability to reclaim actions that have gone beyond him. The woman still has a right to decide what is best for herself, and she has the greater interest in this matter.

Should a man have a right to get a vasectomy without his wife's approval? My arguments would be nearly the same on that topic as it is for this. Yes he can, tho it would be proper not to do this without behaving like a human being, and letting your partner know what you are up to.

Could Obama get elected without " evangelicals" ?

90 by Johnny 13_Archive
Mandroid2.0 wrote:
eva03 wrote:
Johnny 13 wrote:.

I would rather not be in, or have to pay for the results of a car crash, but life does not give us any take backs.



Ummm..... isn't that the whole point of having an abortion?


That is assuming that the woman wants an abortion.

What I think that Johnny13 is pointing out is that if the woman decides to keep the child, the father should be half-responsible for paying for it and raising it, since he was one of the parties that had willingly fucked in the first place and thus risked a pregnancy that may or may not be carried to term dependent upon the mother's decision, and that he should honour whatever that decision is.

btw, doesn't making the argument that a husband can disagree about his wife's decision to have an abortion also mean that he could force her to abort the fetus if she wanted to carry it?


Well said. I am going to sleep now. Chlorine is burning my eyes something fierce.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests