Roe v. Wade - For Men

So...

Does that means we grant chimps the right to vote?

I means after all, they are human-like, and thy do know sign languages...
 
souggy said:
So...

Does that means we grant chimps the right to vote?

I means after all, they are human-like, and thy do know sign languages...
Click to expand...

I like the example argued by the attorney who is offering to represent any man (for free) who wants to opt out.


Suppose a law is passed that only men can buy and own guns. The argument there is, the majority of gun rights laws effect men. It "might" effect women, but not to the same degree it effects men.

Would women have a problem with it?

He took it a step further. He said suppose a law is passed that only men are allowed to vote on legislation that would effect men more than it would effect women ..... (see where that argument goes?)

Men are effected by abortion, not to the same degree ....
 
Steinhauer said:
I like the example argued by the attorney who is offering to represent any man (for free) who wants to opt out.


Suppose a law is passed that only men can buy and own guns. The argument there is, the majority of gun rights laws effect men. It "might" effect women, but not to the same degree it effects men.

Would women have a problem with it?

He took it a step further. He said suppose a law is passed that only men are allowed to vote on legislation that would effect men more than it would effect women ..... (see where that argument goes?)

Men are effected by abortion, not to the same degree ....
Click to expand...

you want equal protection? get the men to grow fetus inside him too and then we'll talk about equality.
 
Jiro said:
you want equal protection? get the men to grow fetus inside him too and then we'll talk about equality.
Click to expand...

Is your argument stating that there will never be gender equality?

(yes, I snuck that one in too :giggle:)


j/k Jiro, I know what you meant.
 
Steinhauer said:
Is your argument stating that there will never be gender equality?

(yes, I snuck that one in too :giggle:)


j/k Jiro, I know what you meant.
Click to expand...

I suppose it would make you and pro-lifers a lot happier if human is an androgynous species :)
 
Jiro said:
I suppose it would make you and pro-lifers a lot happier if human is an androgynous species :)
Click to expand...

I am actually pro-choice. However, I am pre Roe v. Wade pro-choice. I believe that abortion should be permitted if complications arise from the pregnancy that put the mother's life at risk. Also, if incest or rape occurred (Yes, even in a marriage).


I do not agree (or will I ever agree) that abortion should be permitted simply because someone said "oops!".

I mean ... come on ... its a baby! Having a baby is the most exciting and joyous occassion anyone should ever experience.

If the abortion rate is so high, its a telling sign that there is a serious lack of sex ed.

Anyways ... you won't see me barricading abortion clinics and shouting "baby killer". I seriously try not to judge women who decide to have an abortion - its none of my business unless its family.

Even then, its really not my business (but it is).


edit: re-read post #6 .... yeppers, definitely a can of worms ..... heh
 
Steinhauer said:
I am actually pro-choice. However, I am pre Roe v. Wade pro-choice. I believe that abortion should be permitted if complications arise from the pregnancy that put the mother's life at risk. Also, if incest or rape occurred (Yes, even in a marriage).


I do not agree (or will I ever agree) that abortion should be permitted simply because someone said "oops!".

I mean ... come on ... its a baby! Having a baby is the most exciting and joyous occassion anyone should ever experience.

If the abortion rate is so high, its a telling sign that there is a serious lack of sex ed.

Anyways ... you won't see me barricading abortion clinics and shouting "baby killer". I seriously try not to judge women who decide to have an abortion - its none of my business unless its family.

Even then, its really not my business (but it is).
Click to expand...

Pro-choice and Pro-life aren't existed until Roe v. Wade ruled in 1973.

It means you are pro-life if you support to limit the abortion to complication and rape/incest. Pro-choice support on all abortion, regardless on reasons.

No, in prior to 1973, many states banned on abortion.
 
Steinhauer said:
I am actually pro-choice. However, I am pre Roe v. Wade pro-choice. I believe that abortion should be permitted if complications arise from the pregnancy that put the mother's life at risk. Also, if incest or rape occurred (Yes, even in a marriage).


I do not agree (or will I ever agree) that abortion should be permitted simply because someone said "oops!".

I mean ... come on ... its a baby! Having a baby is the most exciting and joyous occassion anyone should ever experience.

If the abortion rate is so high, its a telling sign that there is a serious lack of sex ed.

Anyways ... you won't see me barricading abortion clinics and shouting "baby killer". I seriously try not to judge women who decide to have an abortion - its none of my business unless its family.

Even then, its really not my business (but it is).
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but how is that pro-choice? You can't have it both way. You're either pro-choice or you're not.

that's like me saying... I am "pro-Amendment 2" but.... I want a strict regulation, specific self-defense law, abolish CCW privilege but allow home defense, national database for Firearm ID, registration, etc.

Makes no sense at all.

beside - the abortion rate is not skyrocketing anyway.
 
Foxrac said:
Pro-choice and Pro-life aren't existed until Roe v. Wade ruled in 1973.

It means you are pro-life if you support to limit the abortion to complication and rape/incest. Pro-choice support on all abortion, regardless on reasons.

No, in prior to 1973, many states banned on abortion.
Click to expand...

Then by your definition I am pro-life. I just can't wrap my mind around taking an innocent life based on "convenience".

I have been reading a bit on Peter Singer's views. He does not consider a fetus in the womb to be "human life".

Well, then what is it? a frog? duck? dinosaur maybe?
 
Steinhauer said:
Then by your definition I am pro-life. I just can't wrap my mind around taking an innocent life based on "convenience".

I have been reading a bit on Peter Singer's views. He does not consider a fetus in the womb to be "human life".

Well, then what is it? a frog? duck? dinosaur maybe?
Click to expand...

a non-viable fetus that does not meet medical and legal definition to be recognized as a human being.

frog, duck, and dinosaur were procreated in a same way as human - a non-viable fetus.
 
Steinhauer said:
Then by your definition I am pro-life. I just can't wrap my mind around taking an innocent life based on "convenience".

I have been reading a bit on Peter Singer's views. He does not consider a fetus in the womb to be "human life".

Well, then what is it? a frog? duck? dinosaur maybe?
Click to expand...

The case about Roe v. Wade for men is just silly.

You already have rights is refuse to sex with woman and they can't get pregnant without sex.

In one year ago, couple of female employees asked me to sex without condom and I rejected their request because I know that they are trying to advantage of me and make me to pay child support. :roll:
 
Jiro said:
I suppose it would make you and pro-lifers a lot happier if human is an androgynous species :)
Click to expand...

005472_9.jpg
 
Jiro said:
you want equal protection? get the men to grow fetus inside him too and then we'll talk about equality.
Click to expand...

That is it in a nutshell. One only has to look at the number of single female parents compared to single male parents to see who bears the largest responsibility for raising that fetus if it is carried to term.
 
Steinhauer said:
Then by your definition I am pro-life. I just can't wrap my mind around taking an innocent life based on "convenience".

I have been reading a bit on Peter Singer's views. He does not consider a fetus in the womb to be "human life".

Well, then what is it? a frog? duck? dinosaur maybe?
Click to expand...

It is a potential for life. It is not viable life.

But, that is totally unrelated to the topic. The topic is about equal rights, according to you. And I still maintain that if men want rights equal to those afforded women, they will have to start giving a few of their rights up.
 
Foxrac said:
The case about Roe v. Wade for men is just silly.

You already have rights is refuse to sex with woman and they can't get pregnant without sex.

In one year ago, couple of female employees asked me to sex without condom and I rejected their request because I know that they are trying to advantage of me and make me to pay child support. :roll:
Click to expand...

yes, so you recognize situations where men can get trapped .... (the whole point of this thread).
 
Steinhauer said:
yes, so you recognize situations where men can get trapped .... (the whole point of this thread).
Click to expand...

and you recognize the situations where women can get trapped for 9 months with a possibility of dying and temporary economic loss
 
Steinhauer said:
Can't women also get their tubes tied if they don't want to have a baby (you know ... instead of an abortion)?
Click to expand...

Yes, they can. But they also must follow what the guys have to follow when getting a vasectomy.

In the case of a woman, to undergo a tubal litigation they must meet some criteria's:

1) Over a certain age (I think it is 30)
2) have had kids
3) Has a disease that prevents pregnancy

and a few others.
 
Back
Top