Stupak amendment won't cover miscarriagesFollow

I don't like this at all. I don't think someone should be able to opt out of paying unless the women marries someone else and they adopt the child and become the legal parent of said child.

There's no reason that any of you should have to pay for some illegitimate child of Varrus.

And I still say you run into the problem of the kid suffering because the mother miscalculates and cannot afford to care for it.

Also, I wanted to add that Varrus is doing a splendid job of proving that he has absolutely no concern for children once they are out of the womb, since he wants to make sure that a man doesn't have to pay for a kid that he helps create. It's all about the bottom line!

I have heard stories about such things, and I suspect a co-worker may have done something like this in order to get her boyfriend to marry her, but I don't actually know anyone who has attempted this. Almost every woman I know is smarter than that.

I agree with you, Varrus. It's not fair. But the kid from this union shouldn't be punished for it. I assure you, a woman might be stupid enough to do something like this, but she's not really getting what she wants.

Both sexes do it Varus. Just because you don't know anyone who does it (or you think you don't) doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Physically and emotionally abusive partners frequently try and sabotage their wife/girlfriend's birth control methods in the hopes of getting them pregnant so they will be even more dependent upon them, and less likely to leave.

And despite what you think, women cannot have abortions in demand. There are several states in the south that only have a few abortion clinics total, and not everyone can afford time off work to travel half way across the state. Missouri only has one abortion clinic, iirc.

And one I agree with... on paper.

Well, us and almost all the rest of mammalia. And some fish. And some reptiles. No birds or amphibians though.

Whether or not humans should lay eggs? Were you on that project at Monsanto?

Yes, that's a natural implication of the point.

Gestation is completely ridiculous. Who the **** thought it was a good idea to make women need to grow some sort of disgusting parasite inside of themselves after conception, just so we could perpetuate a species? Seriously... Imagine man, nine months of functional incapacitation, not to mention the explicit biological roller-coaster that is supposed to go on. Even without regarding paternity rights and such, or the moral crap, the process is, even in pure imagination, seriously creepy ****.

Is that a power? Maybe the endurance or fortitude is powerful, and I guess whatever retroactive rage it inspires in the sexist diatribe is.. I guess, but the only things unique to the female role are the carrying and bearing, and I can't view those as anything other than harms inflicted onto women by men. Being able to carry a life-stealing little ball of cancer isn't a power worth fighting for as much as a harmful, biological caprice worth remedying, and the containment of that caprice is something that women should be enabled to deal with in every practical capacity, such as having ready access to prevention and abortion, preferably accepted and funded by the same health-system that governs everything else related to health.

This was actually a fairly common way of women getting economic support by pushing a man into marriage back in the days when abortions were out of the question and illegitimate children were a huge scandal. Not so much in modern times, though. Mainly because a) illegitimate children are no huge deal and b) abortions.



Listen.

A baby is not cancer. Okay? You're discrediting the entire pro-choice movement with this line of argument.

And, yes, Samira is partly right in her analysis that the ability to become pregnant grants the woman a certain form of power in social terms. I believe she's incorrect in stating that all opposition to abortion is due to some sort of barely-suppressed tantrum over the fact that men can't have babies, however.

Edited, Nov 12th 2009 12:36am by zepoodle

Of course it isn't, but you have to admit that the two things are analogous in some ways.