• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Do you need an abortion? Did you bring a note?

I'm not an expert in DNA or anything like that but how does one prove that the person that signed the release is actually the father? "Hey wino (outside the courthouse), here's twenty bucks to sign a document."

Fuck these fucking republicans!
 
I'm not an expert in DNA or anything like that but how does one prove that the person that signed the release is actually the father? "Hey wino (outside the courthouse), here's twenty bucks to sign a document"
Possibly best not choose a wino, as that might open her up to a charge of rape (but not necessarily legitimate rape)...
 
If the father of the unborn child is deceased, the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed or induced shall sign a notarized affidavit attesting to the fact.

All the woman needs to do with an uncooperative father is to murder him.

PROBLEM SOLVED.
 
Not surprised.

In many states, a married woman needs written permission from her husband to have her tubes tied.

After all, she's his brood mare and she can't do anything about the reproductive qualities she brings to the marriage without his OK.
Is it permission?
When i got snipped, they wanted my wife to sign the form that she'd been apprised of my intention to become infertile. They said the point was to avoid any lawsuits against the clinic if it turned out she still wanted kids. Exactly how that lawsuit would have worked, i'm not sure, but in this great, litigious land, I'm not prepared to say it would not happen.

Anyway, when they asked where she was, i said she was home, recovering from the birth of twins, one by Cesarean. He didn't miss a beat and initialed it himself. "We'll allow that she's probably okay with it."

I'm sure in this legislation, they specify permission. But as i understand it, the right to an abortion is based on her owning her womb, not her owning the baby. Is this law suggesting that the father has ownership of the baby?
I thought owning people was a bad thing? Even in Missouri?
 
WTF?

This is ridiculous. It's the right of the woman to do what she wants. It's her body after all.

What surprises me is that some states require spousal permission to become infertile? WTF!

10 years ago, when I had my hysterectomy, the only thing stopping the doctor was the fact that I had not had any children. Once I explained that I was in a (at that time) stable relationship, he went ahead with the surgery. His reason for being hesitant was that he didn't want me to 'come back in 5 years and blame him for being childless'. Still - the hysterectomy was done for a number of reasons - potentially having cancer being the most important one.

However - IT WAS MY CHOICE! Not my partners. Not my parents. MINE.

Same with abortion or sterilisation. It should be the person's choice. No one else has a say.
 
A Missouri Republican has introduced a bill that would require women seeking abortion care to first get written, notarized permission from the father before they are legally allowed to have the procedure. Exceptions, according to the bill’s sponsor, will only be made for life endangerment and victims who become pregnant from “legitimate rape.”

As Molly Redden at Mother Jones reported Wednesday, the bill was actually filed earlier this month and is slated for next year’s legislative session. The measure, introduced by state Rep. Rick Brattin reads, “No abortion shall be performed or induced unless and until the father of the unborn child provides written, notarized consent to the abortion.”

Of the exception for “legitimate rape,” Brattin explained to Redden that he apparently doesn’t mean it the way that his fellow Missourian Todd Akin meant it when the words effectively ended his political career. In what seems to be an attempt to preempt and criticism and, you know, let the public know that he means legitimate legitimate rape, Brattin told Redden, “Just like any rape, you have to report it, and you have to prove it,” he said. “So you couldn’t just go and say, ‘Oh yeah, I was raped,’ and get an abortion. It has to be a legitimate rape.
http://www.salon.com/2014/12/17/you...on/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

And just when my migraine was letting up.

Well, sure. A woman's womb belongs to the state and any man who has sex with her (with her consent or without).

If you believed in Small Government like conservatives and libertarians do, then you would understand why it has to be this way. Anything else would make us all less free. You don't want to be less free, do you? ;)
 
However - IT WAS MY CHOICE! Not my partners. Not my parents. MINE.
Yet your partner would be on the hook financially for your choice. Seems fundamentally unjust to me. There should be an opt-out clause for paternal rights and obligations.
 
If you've ever paid even a small bit of attention, you know that I do not think that is ok.
Yet it happens.

I know no such thing. You are very quick to insist that when victim and rapist are acquainted, the sex was consensual and merely regretted later by the woman.
No. What I am saying is that some cases that are not rape get redefined as rape by vindictive partners and/or activists with an ax to grind. I never said that getting raped is impossible if people know each other - that's absurd. But just because a woman alleges rape doesn't make it so. And just because a fraud like Mary Koss says 1 in 4 females get raped in college doesn't make it so either.
Also, these cases are very difficult to prove even when it is rape because DNA will generally only establish that they had sex, not that there was rape or anything like it.
 
However - IT WAS MY CHOICE! Not my partners. Not my parents. MINE.
Yet your partner would be on the hook financially for your choice. Seems fundamentally unjust to me. There should be an opt-out clause for paternal rights and obligations.

IF I had a child, then yes he would have been responsible for it. However, it's still the woman's choice. Just like it's usually the woman's choice to have sex in the first place (under most circumstances).
 
IF I had a child, then yes he would have been responsible for it. However, it's still the woman's choice. Just like it's usually the woman's choice to have sex in the first place (under most circumstances).
And it doesn't strike you as at all unjust that he is financially on the hook for your choice?
My sense of justice dictates that responsibility should be apportioned relative to choices made in the matter. I.e. he should be given a chance to opt-out when informed of the pregnancy just as you have a chance to opt-out through abortion (if you had an uterus).
 
However - IT WAS MY CHOICE! Not my partners. Not my parents. MINE.
Yet your partner would be on the hook financially for your choice. Seems fundamentally unjust to me. There should be an opt-out clause for paternal rights and obligations.

How the fuck does that work? How exactly can either choice, to have a hysterectomy or not, result in a financial burden on anyone?

You might as well say that there should be an opt-out clause for paternal rights when having an appendectomy.

Or didn't you actually read any of gmbteach's post apart from the horrifying words 'My choice'?

:rolleyesa:
 
Or didn't you actually read any of gmbteach's post apart from the horrifying words 'My choice'?
Or didn't you actually read the words "Same with abortion" right below those? Although in all fairness she did shout the words "it was my choice". :tonguea:
 
Yet it happens.

I know no such thing. You are very quick to insist that when victim and rapist are acquainted, the sex was consensual and merely regretted later by the woman.
No. What I am saying is that some cases that are not rape get redefined as rape by vindictive partners and/or activists with an ax to grind. I never said that getting raped is impossible if people know each other - that's absurd. But just because a woman alleges rape doesn't make it so. And just because a fraud like Mary Koss says 1 in 4 females get raped in college doesn't make it so either.
Also, these cases are very difficult to prove even when it is rape because DNA will generally only establish that they had sex, not that there was rape or anything like it.

That 1 in 4 rape statistic has been around since I was in college. At least. In other words: before you were born. And before the study by Dr. Koss was published.

And yes: any discussion of rape, no matter how horrific is certain to bring posts from you claiming that this woman or that woman lied about being raped. And that the leftist FBI publishes bogus, biased statistics.
 
Or didn't you actually read any of gmbteach's post apart from the horrifying words 'My choice'?
Or didn't you actually read the words "Same with abortion" right below those? Although in all fairness she did shout the words "it was my choice". :tonguea:

I will reiterate: The choice to procreate or not is dependent upon each and every individual.

It's a man's right to have a vasectomy. I have known, and dated, men who have chosen not to reproduce voluntarily and have had a vasectomy so that it doesn't happen.

With me, it was my choice, primarily for health reasons, to have the hysterectomy. Should I have fallen pregnant at any time before that, it would have been MY choice to keep or terminate. The involvement of the father is not always necessary and if the father wants to give up any paternal rights, he can petition for that through the courts. Should he choose not to financially support a child, then he shouldn't have put himself in the position of creating one in the first place. There are such things has condoms you know.

If a man and women are so irresponsible as to CHOOSE to have unprotected sex in this day and age, then BOTH are saying that they will accept the responsibility for any life that may be created. I do accept that rape is another matter entirely. With regards to rape, the woman should automatically have the choice and the father should not have any say in it.

If a man doesn't want to be financially tied down - then he needs to step up to the plate and do something proactive. It shouldn't always be up to the woman to look after birth control.
 
If a man doesn't want to be financially tied down - then he needs to step up to the plate and do something proactive. It shouldn't always be up to the woman to look after birth control.
To be fair, she'd need to get his written permission to obtain any birth control, so it wouldn't be her sole responsibility.
 
If a man doesn't want to be financially tied down - then he needs to step up to the plate and do something proactive. It shouldn't always be up to the woman to look after birth control.
To be fair, she'd need to get his written permission to obtain any birth control, so it wouldn't be her sole responsibility.

Why?
 
What behavior is supposed to justify rape to make it legitimate? And wouldn't it make more sense to permit abortion when there wasn't a legitimate reason for the rape in the first place??
An unfortunate turn of phrase as it is commonly misunderstood. It means what Whoopi Goldberg calls "rape rape" and excludes things like so-called statutory "rape" or regretted hookups.

I know what it actually means. I find the notion stupid, though, so I took it literally.
 
I did not write in favor of such abortion restrictions. I merely clarified what they mean by "legitimate rape" for Loren.

As far as "old man and underage girl", the more common type of statutory "rape" is a guy who is only a few years older than a girl just below age of consent. If an 18 year old and his 17 year old girlfriend have consensual sex in California (age of consent 18, no real "Romeo and Juliet" protections for people close in age) do you really think she can legitimately be described as a "rape victim"?

As I am sure you are aware, I think so-called "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions should be mandatory in every state. I do not agree that it is "statutory rape" when a couple is close in age and one of them turns 18.

Are you agreeing that the old man - young girl example I gave is not "legitimate" rape? Or just explaining something you disagree with?

Not only should there be an exemption for those close in age but I would also make an exception for any ongoing sexual relationship, period. If it was legally started I see no benefit from society in requiring them to stop. This would normally be a matter of one of them crossing an age threshold but I would also apply it to relocation.
 
That's what the statutory "rape" is though in most cases.

Are you agreeing that the old man - young girl example I gave is not "legitimate" rape? Or just explaining something you disagree with?
Depends on whether the girl consents and how old she is.

As a society, we draw a line in the sand, below which any so-called "consent" doesn't matter. We take this stance with business contracts, employment contracts, marriage contracts and sexual intercourse.

Or do you think a 5-year old can "consent" to any of the above acts?
 
I'm not an expert in DNA or anything like that but how does one prove that the person that signed the release is actually the father? "Hey wino (outside the courthouse), here's twenty bucks to sign a document."
That was more or less my first thought too. This stupid law solves nothing with regard to any "men's rights" in this issue. It ONLY makes a woman a second class citizen without the right of bodily autonomy. We have to get permission of a male, any male.

Fuck these fucking republicans!

And that was my second thought. :p
 
Back
Top Bottom