The "WAr On Women??"

[Punish_her]

[QUOTE=Thorne;967467]
It's about reducing the rights of women, making them less than men, making them little more than carriers for men's babies, regardless of their own feelings. It's about getting women out of the workforce and back into the kitchen. It's about removing the rights that women have fought so hard to claim.[QUOTE=Thorne;967467]

How?


[QUOTE=Thorne;967467]
Absolutely WRONG! Not a right to have an abortion, but a right to CHOOSE whether or not to carry a parasitical clump of cells to term. A right to CHOOSE whether or not to get pregnant at all![QUOTE=Thorne;967467]

Once again, it strikes me as enormously unfair that a woman gets a way out of an unwanted pregnancy, but a man does not.
and what's the last part about? Nobody is tellling women they have to have babies

And for the record, I disapprove of most forms of abortion, especially when used as a form of post coital birth control. However, being a man and not a woman, I don't believe that I have any right to force a woman to carry a fetus to term if she feels incapable of providing for the child, or in the case of rape or incest, or when there are medical problems which cannot be repaired by doctors. In short, I approve of allowing the person most affected by it the right to choose for herself!

Once again, does a woman have a right to force me to be a father? If I get a girl pregnant, and she does not want the child but I do, then tough luck on me.
If she wants the kid and I don't, I'm on the hook for 18 years of child support.
And don't say "that's what you get for getting a girl pregnant because last time I checked it is a group effort.

[Thorne]

How?

By forcing women to have children if they want to have sex. Or even if they don't want to have sex ("You MUST submit to your husband!") Basically going back to the "barefoot and pregnant" stage of ancient history (like the 1950's for FSM's sake!) By not allowing women to choose whether of not to have children, they are in essence telling women that they are incapable of making proper decisions and should leave those kinds of things to "da menfolk".

Once again, it strikes me as enormously unfair that a woman gets a way out of an unwanted pregnancy, but a man does not.

I have never yet seen a man who was pregnant, unwanted or not! But it isn't the man who has to undergo the enormous biological changes that come with pregnancy. He doesn't have to take the risks to life and health that come with even an easy pregnancy. He isn't the one who will have to lose time from his job, or time with his drinking buddies, because of doctor's appointments and recovery times. Until men are able to carry a fetus for nine months and undergo all of the hazards of doing so, they don't get the choice. Of course, in an ideal world, they should have some say in the matter, but when it comes right down to it, the woman should be the one to make the choice.

and what's the last part about? Nobody is tellling women they have to have babies

They are trying to prevent women, and men, from using ANY form of contraception. In short, they are telling women that if they have sex, they MUST risk pregnancy. And they are trying to pass laws which will prevent abortions of ANY kind, even after rape or when the life of the mother is threatened. In other words, they are trying to FORCE women to have babies. Pro-birth, not pro-life. They place the life of the fetus (NOT child) ahead of the life of the mother.

If I get a girl pregnant, and she does not want the child but I do, then tough luck on me.

Pretty much, yeah. Once again, SHE is the one taking the risks, SHE is the one who has to carry the fetus to term, SHE is the one who does all of the work! That's why a good sex-ed class teaches about the risks and responsibilities of having sexual relations and not the fun parts.

If she wants the kid and I don't, I'm on the hook for 18 years of child support.

Yep. That's about the size of it. If you don't want children, get a vasectomy. Or use a condom. Of course, if the right has their way, neither of those will be an option, either.

And don't say "that's what you get for getting a girl pregnant because last time I checked it is a group effort.

Not always! But I'll assume that you're not a rapist. So yes, in your case it will probably be a group effort. And the potential price for that group activity is becoming a parent. Whether you like it or not. Allowing the use of contraceptives, for men AND women, including the morning after pill, reduces that risk astronomically. If the theocons have their way, you will have even less choice than now. If you have sex, you WILL become a father, sooner rather than later.

[Punish_her]

Im trying this quote thing one last time, cause damn, it's getting embarassing

[/QUOTE]By forcing women to have children if they want to have sex. Or even if they don't want to have sex ("You MUST submit to your husband!") Basically going back to the "barefoot and pregnant" stage of ancient history (like the 1950's for FSM's sake!) By not allowing women to choose whether of not to have children, they are in essence telling women that they are incapable of making proper decisions and should leave those kinds of things to "da menfolk".[/QUOTE]

How exactly are they doing this? Nobody is saying women can't work or own property or vote.


[/QUOTE]I have never yet seen a man who was pregnant, unwanted or not! But it isn't the man who has to undergo the enormous biological changes that come with pregnancy. He doesn't have to take the risks to life and health that come with even an easy pregnancy. He isn't the one who will have to lose time from his job, or time with his drinking buddies, because of doctor's appointments and recovery times. Until men are able to carry a fetus for nine months and undergo all of the hazards of doing so, they don't get the choice. Of course, in an ideal world, they should have some say in the matter, but when it comes right down to it, the woman should be the one to make the choice.[/QUOTE]

Thomas Beattie (Beatie?)


[/QUOTE]They are trying to prevent women, and men, from using ANY form of contraception. In short, they are telling women that if they have sex, they MUST risk pregnancy. And they are trying to pass laws which will prevent abortions of ANY kind, even after rape or when the life of the mother is threatened. In other words, they are trying to FORCE women to have babies. Pro-birth, not pro-life. They place the life of the fetus (NOT child) ahead of the life of the mother.[/QUOTE]

I am quite sure you're referring to the sandra fluke/birth control fiasco. nobody is trying to ban birth control; the question is whether or not the gov't should make insurance companies pick up the tab. theres a big difference


[/QUOTE]Pretty much, yeah. Once again, SHE is the one taking the risks, SHE is the one who has to carry the fetus to term, SHE is the one who does all of the work! That's why a good sex-ed class teaches about the risks and responsibilities of having sexual relations and not the fun parts.


Yep. That's about the size of it. If you don't want children, get a vasectomy. Or use a condom. Of course, if the right has their way, neither of those will be an option, either.[/QUOTE]

the maternal mortality rate is .024 percent. And once again, if she didn't want kids, she should be on the pill. you can't dumpall the blame on the man which is what everyone does all the time. Give both sexes a way of opting out: if a man wants the kid and she doesn't, then the man foots all the bills during a 9 month gestation and takes sole custody; if the man doesn't want it and the girl does, then he gives up all financial responsibilities. that is only fair.
and if people think the gov't should pay for womens BC, maybe it should pay for my vasectomy.

[Thorne]

Im trying this quote thing one last time, cause damn, it's getting embarassing

Use just QUOTE (in brackets) to open the quote, and /QUOTE (with brackets) to close the quote. Or highlight the text you want to quote and click on the 'Wrap QUOTE tags around selected text' button at the right end of the formatting bar.

How exactly are they doing this? Nobody is saying women can't work or own property or vote.

No, not yet. The laws they are trying to change, though, could result in women being kept out of the work force by being continuously pregnant. And if you don't thing they would eventually go after their right to vote you're being naive. These are people who secretly admire the Muslim's Sharia Law. They just think those people are talking to the wrong god.

Thomas Beattie (Beatie?)

A transgender man. Born female. And he CHOSE to have children.

I am quite sure you're referring to the sandra fluke/birth control fiasco. nobody is trying to ban birth control; the question is whether or not the gov't should make insurance companies pick up the tab. theres a big difference

Nope, not referring to that at all. That's clearly a case of people like Rush Limbaugh either not knowing what they're talking about or deliberately lying about it.

No, I'm talking about laws restricting access to contraceptives. I'm talking about groups like the Catholic Church which lies about condoms preventing the spread of AIDS. I'm talking about prominent politicians who think that "contraception is 'a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.'"

the maternal mortality rate is .024 percent.

And the UN says that there could be as many as 817,000 such deaths each year! That's a lot of dead mothers.

And once again, if she didn't want kids, she should be on the pill.

Which she might not be able to afford, since her insurance company isn't required to pay for it. And if the theocons have their way she won't even be able to GET birth control pills.

you can't dumpall the blame on the man which is what everyone does all the time. Give both sexes a way of opting out: if a man wants the kid and she doesn't, then the man foots all the bills during a 9 month gestation and takes sole custody; if the man doesn't want it and the girl does, then he gives up all financial responsibilities. that is only fair.

Except you still have the woman bearing the physical, medical burden of being pregnant. Would you be willing to pay her for lost wages while she is confined to her bed for problems with the pregnancy? What about future problems resulting from complications with the pregnancy? Should the father be held responsible for those if he forces her to have the baby? As for the other option, true he shouldn't be solely responsible for the medical bills, but he is responsible for that child. After all, he did play role. And sometimes you have to pay the piper. If you didn't want kids, you shouldn't have slept with her!

and if people think the gov't should pay for womens BC, maybe it should pay for my vasectomy.

I agree. I'd rather the government pay the few dollars needed for those than pay welfare for the huge number of children and mothers in poverty. It would be a bargain! A couple hundred one time for a vasectomy? Or a couple hundred a month for each little bastard you spawn? No contest!

[Punish_her]

okay, and for real, how the hell do you use the quotes? I put the [/QUOTE] thing in there, and nothing happens.I would greatly apppreciate a tutorial