Men don't have the right to choice!
- Thread starter tomchamp
- Start date
sweetpea
Bjo
Oh no Mr.King...that is not true...I love that about you and Vrai both...and so does Gumbo. We had a lot of ppl asking to be judges...hopefully everyone who wants to will get a turn at some point.Ken King said:And that is why they won't let you be a judge in the fight club, zero impartiality.
I'm sure there will be a time a judge will want out of it or get booted for being partial. And you are #1 on my list
when it happens.Tell it like it is
No sugar coating...I love it!
Last edited:
V
Vixen
Guest
sweetpea said:
Gumbo is like the local Chinese Restaurant. He tells all of us women we were his 1st choice, just like they tell everyone they are their number 1 customer.
V
Vixen
Guest
sweetpea said:You numma won cussomer....
Hopefully somebody will so we can see him
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Ken King said:
C'mon Ken. You have gone from unmarried and pregnancy, to not caring and knocks up, and now we're at unloving folk and bumping uglies. If I were watching Law & Order I would be hearing how someone has no case and is choosing to attack the victim. What's behind the increasingly negative terminology you're using? Your choice of words doesn't make your case any more valid.
And am I to understand that you're basing your judgement on Roe V. Wade... a decision that been criticized as being one of the worst ever? Am I also to understand that you actually believe your statement "...resulting in a pregnancy the male does not hold any right to dictate what the woman will do, though we know he might become financially responsible at a later time if carried full term, but his wishes don't really matter yet." I've read a lot of your posts over the years, and you've always been a champion of fairness, especially in legal issues. but how can you say that you feel that a guy should (as we're talking about opinions here) has zero rights IRT a child before it is born, while a woman has every right in the World?
But putting all that aside, I would like to refer you back to your comment "No dillweed, my point was that if a guy knocks up a woman that they aren't caring enough to be married to then they have no say as to how she handles it even if it results in their sorry ass paying for it for the next 18 to 21 years." I can understand that in your other comments you are just stating the plain truth of the law as you see it, but I wonder about your statements concerning marriage. What about marriage gives a man a right to stop his wife from getting an abortion, and if so, what about those carerr-live together couples who have been together for years but not married?
Okay Bru, slowly just for you.Bruzilla said:
This is the thread starter.
Can you see what we are talking about now? The one-night stand, the incidental tryst, and not long term loving relationships. As such, knocked up, bumping ugly, or maybe even bang, bang, bang all fit the bill.tomchamp said:
Nope you don’t understand my point. As with Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton you never hear mention of the father, to my knowledge there are no cases where the male biological units rights are considered as such for me that means that judicially the father’s rights haven’t been considered as existing. In a pregnancy where there has been no relationship, no sharing other then lust and bodily fluids, I say the woman has the exclusive rights as to the outcome of the pregnancy.
Marriage is the joining of two into one – thus they share the decision. I would extend that philosophy to the career-live together couple too (common-law, even if Maryland doesn’t allow it).
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I'm getting the impression that we're mixing apples and oranges in this string, defined as mixing what the law is with our personal beliefs. To the best of my knowledge you're right in saying that there's really nothing in the law stating the rights of the father, and I'll stipulate to that fact even though I think it's at the core of the problem. Maybe if we finally got some father's rights we would start seeing more fatherly responsibility.
But then we get to the "iffy" ground of beliefs, which is where marriage comes in. I keep thinking of the joke alluded to Winston Churchhill about a woman being a whore and him saying "we've already established that, now we're just negotiating price." It seems to me that if a married man should have a right to force his wife to carry to term, and an unmarried man in a long-term relationship should share that right, then the decisive factor in all of this cannot be the legal bond of marriage. Instead, using your examples, it is a demonstrated level of commitment or period of time, which to me is a highly subjective condition. Does a couple who's been together for a month qualify? How about six months? Suppose a man and woman meet, fall in love, and she becomes pregnant in the first month of their relationship and wants to abort the child, while the guy, who's madly in love and fully committed to the relationship wants to keep the baby even at the risk of alienating and losing the woman? Why should the woman have more rights than the father? I just keep hearing the pigs saying "we're all equal, but some of us are more equal."
I think that the core truth is that every child is comprised of 50% of the father and 50% of the mother, and that regardless of time or commitment the father should have the same rights as the mother.
But then we get to the "iffy" ground of beliefs, which is where marriage comes in. I keep thinking of the joke alluded to Winston Churchhill about a woman being a whore and him saying "we've already established that, now we're just negotiating price." It seems to me that if a married man should have a right to force his wife to carry to term, and an unmarried man in a long-term relationship should share that right, then the decisive factor in all of this cannot be the legal bond of marriage. Instead, using your examples, it is a demonstrated level of commitment or period of time, which to me is a highly subjective condition. Does a couple who's been together for a month qualify? How about six months? Suppose a man and woman meet, fall in love, and she becomes pregnant in the first month of their relationship and wants to abort the child, while the guy, who's madly in love and fully committed to the relationship wants to keep the baby even at the risk of alienating and losing the woman? Why should the woman have more rights than the father? I just keep hearing the pigs saying "we're all equal, but some of us are more equal."
I think that the core truth is that every child is comprised of 50% of the father and 50% of the mother, and that regardless of time or commitment the father should have the same rights as the mother.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Ken King said:Okay Bru, slowly just for you.
Can you see what we are talking about now? The one-night stand, the incidental tryst, and not long term loving relationships. As such, knocked up, bumping ugly, or maybe even bang, bang, bang all fit the bill.
Thank you for writing slowly as I do not read very fast.
I fully grasp and comprehend the situation you've been citing. What I find interesting is that when your statements were challenged, and you we're required to defend them, you chose to reframe the argument using much coarser language. The man went from unmarried, to not caring, to unloving. The adjectives used to describe the man have no real bearing on the merits of your argument as the core argument is should a man have a right to object to an abortion of his child.
I just found it rather interesting that you chose to increasingly defame the man as a part of the argument you were making.
It's more of the situation then an attack upon men. As we all know unprotected sex leads to many things with pregnancy being just one of them. So the language was a slur against the provocative act of two people seeking animalistic pleasure outside the bounds of a relationship (which is how I understood the hypothetical that we are discussing).
I do feel that as far as father's rights go a lot is lacking within our judicial system. Where it should go I am unsure, but I doubt if we will ever see a day when as a result of casual sex the "baby's daddy" will have an equal say with the "baby's mommy" as far as whether or not to have an abortion.
I do feel that as far as father's rights go a lot is lacking within our judicial system. Where it should go I am unsure, but I doubt if we will ever see a day when as a result of casual sex the "baby's daddy" will have an equal say with the "baby's mommy" as far as whether or not to have an abortion.
Interesting and I actually agree if the father is positively known, but this isn't always the case (known paternity) nor have I ever seen it considered as a matter of law.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Ken King said:
But Ken, in all seriousness, what difference does it make if the couple enjoyed animalistic pleasure in the back seat of a car, or two people doing it slow to Barry White back at his apartment? The result is the same... a child is created. The man's sperm aren't any more "responsible" because of the mood at the time of conception, and the egg doesn't request to see proof of marriage.
Ken King said:
We'll see those laws at about the same time we see laws that make the baby's health as important as the mother's... meaning never.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
camily said:
I'm so glad we can entertain you.
But wouldn't it be cool if it did?Bruzilla said:
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I think an egg would prefer a copy of a credit report over a marriage certificate, but that's just me. 
