Women's Rights, Men's Too
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 111
  1. #1
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    450

    Women's Rights, Men's Too

    The pro choice contingent emphasizes the women's right to control her body. I can only assume that men have the same rights.

    Also, the same folks insist the government should stay out of these issues, you know, between a woman and her doctor.

    Following this logic, if a woman wishes to commit suicide, does she have that right, a man , too for that matter.

    Does the government have no right to interfere with suicide?

    Do we all have the right to do what we will with our own bodies?

  2. #2
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Wookiebiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    6,580
    Yes, you do have the right to kill yourself … it's not against the law to do so. It however, in many states, is illegal for somebody to help you kill yourself (doctor assisted), though not in all states (I live in a physician assisted suicide state).

    The government does and does not have the right … kind of depends on how you look at it. Technically they don't, however emergency responders can step in to prevent you from killing yourself. Also mandatory reporters much report if somebody is suicidal in an effort to protect the individual from killing themselves.

    With that said, the individual can still commit suicide if they wish, a person can deny aid from first responders and they can only intervene when the individual is no longer conscious as at that time it's considered "Implied Consent" under the premis that the individual really doesn't want to die and can't let the first responder know due to being unconscious.

    Men do not have any restrictions as to what they can/can not do to their bodies … women have multiple restrictions, mostly imposed by men.
    Snakebit: "How many times do I have to tell you that I don't have a source? I don't make a note of everything I see or hear on the internet and you don't have to take my word for it."

  3. #3
    Darling of The Lounge
    Reputation: Retro Grouch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    4,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Easy Riders View Post
    The pro choice contingent emphasizes the women's right to control her body. I can only assume that men have the same rights.

    Also, the same folks insist the government should stay out of these issues, you know, between a woman and her doctor.

    Following this logic, if a woman wishes to commit suicide, does she have that right, a man , too for that matter.

    Does the government have no right to interfere with suicide?

    Do we all have the right to do what we will with our own bodies?
    Your logic is based on the decision and choice of an adult. It starts to get complicated when you introduce a fetus into the equation.

  4. #4
    δanned
    Reputation: SauronHimself's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    6,941
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookiebiker View Post
    Men do not have any restrictions as to what they can/can not do to their bodies … women have multiple restrictions, mostly imposed by men.
    If we're talking about the United States, apparently males don't have the right to not have their penises hacked away at birth, whereas 32 states outright ban female circumcision. Before you decide to split hairs about how one is "worse" than the other, that has no basis in whether or not the recipient can consent to it. Both procedures are unnecessary, and there is no reason why either males or females both can't have the right to protection from them.
    Ghurarmu shirkush’ agh azgushu. Zant ya apakurizak. Gûl-n’ anakhizak.

  5. #5
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Wookiebiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    6,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Retro Grouch View Post
    Your logic is based on the decision and choice of an adult. It starts to get complicated when you introduce a fetus into the equation.
    To play Devil's advocate (I'm pro choice) … they chose the wrong direction to take the discussion/argument IMO.

    They shouldn't be discussing what/what not to do with women's bodies, they should be arguing the point of why does a man not get a say in whether an abortion is allowed or not.

    The last time I checked it takes both an egg and sperm to create even a Zygote, let alone a full term baby. At what point does the male have a say in the decision? It is after all half theirs and they may want the future child, have beliefs that are different from the mother, etc.

    When it comes to children the courts are overwhelmingly slanted toward the women … they get custody of children in divorces way, way more often than men. They get to make the decision when it comes to abortions, etc.

    If it's about the fetus … why does the man not get a say?
    Snakebit: "How many times do I have to tell you that I don't have a source? I don't make a note of everything I see or hear on the internet and you don't have to take my word for it."

  6. #6
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: troutmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    24,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Easy Riders View Post
    The pro choice contingent emphasizes the women's right to control her body. I can only assume that men have the same rights.

    Also, the same folks insist the government should stay out of these issues, you know, between a woman and her doctor.

    Following this logic, if a woman wishes to commit suicide, does she have that right, a man , too for that matter.

    Does the government have no right to interfere with suicide?

    Do we all have the right to do what we will with our own bodies?
    Of course a man or a woman have the right to consult with their doctor when contemplating suicide. Such healthcare providers are know as psychiatrists.

    Are you suggesting a fetus can contemplate suicide or that psychiatrist often advocate to their patients to end their life needlessly?
    I am 100% convinced the internet and social media are not the salvation to human civility.

  7. #7
    gazing from the shadows
    Reputation: QuiQuaeQuod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    26,382
    People own their own body, and thus control it fully. Any other premise leads to very bad things being possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wookiebiker View Post
    Yes, you do have the right to kill yourself … it's not against the law to do so. It however, in many states, is illegal for somebody to help you kill yourself (doctor assisted), though not in all states (I live in a physician assisted suicide state).

    The government does and does not have the right … kind of depends on how you look at it. Technically they don't, however emergency responders can step in to prevent you from killing yourself. Also mandatory reporters much report if somebody is suicidal in an effort to protect the individual from killing themselves.

    With that said, the individual can still commit suicide if they wish, a person can deny aid from first responders and they can only intervene when the individual is no longer conscious as at that time it's considered "Implied Consent" under the premis that the individual really doesn't want to die and can't let the first responder know due to being unconscious.
    Well said. The only other aspect is that it is possible to take civil action against a caretaker who does not take reasonable steps to prevent a suicide, if the person who committed suicide was of "unsound" mind. Clearly that means that a rational decision to end one's own life absolves any caregiver of liability.
    .
    Stout beers under trees, please.

  8. #8
    wots...uh the deal?
    Reputation: mmoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookiebiker View Post
    The last time I checked it takes both an egg and sperm to create even a Zygote, let alone a full term baby. At what point does the male have a say in the decision? It is after all half theirs and they may want the future child, have beliefs that are different from the mother, etc.
    I held this position for a while. Takes two to create a pregnancy, why can't it take two to decide to medically terminate? Seems logical.
    How to enforce? two people signing off on the medical documents for termination? But what if one lies? If a woman cannot get the male to signoff, just get a random male friend to sign. So then the extreme right will force a genetic test of the fetus vs the male? What would be a proper punishment for false signing? And then "but that's after the fact", so force a woman to get a fetal genetic test against the male who claims they are the contributor of the genetic material?

    It's at that point my fiscal conservative kicks in and says no state funding for testing every termination. (and yes, state funding. No 'woman must pay for a test before termination') Also, the intrusiveness of this crosses my lines.

    It is a woman's body. They have more vested interest than the male. A woman's body and body chemistry changes after none months. Their body, their impact, their decision. It took me, as a guy, a while to understand that part. While it does not pass a simple "fairness" test (as pointed out), it is not a simple situation.

    But, I am open to thought in that arena.

    As for the courts and divorce etc, yea, that seems slanted from my outside perspective. But, different issue.

    Much more interesting...riding buddy wondered what would happen if the left just gave in on abortion. Would the right stop being so divisive about social issues and stop pushing the "but we must stack the supreme court". Maybe we can get back to civility and try some unity. Optimistic thought. But I countered with the "it's the only way that the right can make a broader appeal to the masses as their base dies off. They would just pick the next divisive social issue to demonize"

  9. #9
    Cycling Addict
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    4,192
    mmoose wrote:

    "Much more interesting...riding buddy wondered what would happen if the left just gave in on abortion. Would the right stop being so divisive about social issues and stop pushing the "but we must stack the supreme court". Maybe we can get back to civility and try some unity. Optimistic thought. But I countered with the "it's the only way that the right can make a broader appeal to the masses as their base dies off. They would just pick the next divisive social issue to demonize"

    I think that you hit the nail on the head there. Take the debate on same sex marriage in Washington state for example. The right wing said that a domestic partnership bill with essentially the same benefits would be acceptable, so the legislature passed just such a bill. The next year the far right "Christian" activists tried a voter initiative to overturn that bill. The voters of the state rejected that and then passed a voter initiative legalize same sex marriage. What did we learn from that? That we cannot believe anything the "Christian" right says... they do not wish to compromise, they just want things their way.
    Life is short... enjoy the ride.

  10. #10
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: troutmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    24,576
    Quote Originally Posted by bradkay View Post
    mmoose wrote:

    "Much more interesting...riding buddy wondered what would happen if the left just gave in on abortion. Would the right stop being so divisive about social issues and stop pushing the "but we must stack the supreme court". Maybe we can get back to civility and try some unity. Optimistic thought. But I countered with the "it's the only way that the right can make a broader appeal to the masses as their base dies off. They would just pick the next divisive social issue to demonize"

    I think that you hit the nail on the head there. Take the debate on same sex marriage in Washington state for example. The right wing said that a domestic partnership bill with essentially the same benefits would be acceptable, so the legislature passed just such a bill. The next year the far right "Christian" activists tried a voter initiative to overturn that bill. The voters of the state rejected that and then passed a voter initiative legalize same sex marriage. What did we learn from that? That we cannot believe anything the "Christian" right says... they do not wish to compromise, they just want things their way.
    Its far easy to debate wedge issues like abortion, guns or milkshakes, then to discuss real issues like the budget, spending, war powers act, social security, comprehensive immigration reforms, of the electoral college.
    I am 100% convinced the internet and social media are not the salvation to human civility.

  11. #11
    Adorable Furry Hombre
    Reputation: Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    28,119
    Quote Originally Posted by mmoose View Post
    I held this position for a while. Takes two to create a pregnancy, why can't it take two to decide to medically terminate? Seems logical.
    How to enforce? two people signing off on the medical documents for termination? But what if one lies? If a woman cannot get the male to signoff, just get a random male friend to sign. So then the extreme right will force a genetic test of the fetus vs the male? What would be a proper punishment for false signing? And then "but that's after the fact", so force a woman to get a fetal genetic test against the male who claims they are the contributor of the genetic material?

    It's at that point my fiscal conservative kicks in and says no state funding for testing every termination. (and yes, state funding. No 'woman must pay for a test before termination') Also, the intrusiveness of this crosses my lines.

    It is a woman's body. They have more vested interest than the male. A woman's body and body chemistry changes after none months. Their body, their impact, their decision. It took me, as a guy, a while to understand that part. While it does not pass a simple "fairness" test (as pointed out), it is not a simple situation.

    But, I am open to thought in that arena.

    As for the courts and divorce etc, yea, that seems slanted from my outside perspective. But, different issue.

    Much more interesting...riding buddy wondered what would happen if the left just gave in on abortion. Would the right stop being so divisive about social issues and stop pushing the "but we must stack the supreme court". Maybe we can get back to civility and try some unity. Optimistic thought. But I countered with the "it's the only way that the right can make a broader appeal to the masses as their base dies off. They would just pick the next divisive social issue to demonize"

    Short answer. Hell no. The Christian Taliban wants a theocratic government and educational system. As we've seen, the Bible taught both as "history" and "science", also school prayer and so on--and as the source of law. They've been trying for years. Have we forgotten about farcical "Intelligent Design"? NVM all the other taxpayer-funded christianity exploits the GOP has sponsored and fought for that were happening before Trump took over?


    "Giving in" on abortion, will only embolden them to demand even more Bronze Age superstition into our society.
    "Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity "

  12. #12
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Short answer. Hell no. The Christian Taliban wants a theocratic government and educational system. As we've seen, the Bible taught both as "history" and "science", also school prayer and so on--and as the source of law. They've been trying for years. Have we forgotten about farcical "Intelligent Design"? NVM all the other taxpayer-funded christianity exploits the GOP has sponsored and fought for that were happening before Trump took over?


    "Giving in" on abortion, will only embolden them to demand even more Bronze Age superstition into our society.
    "In God We Trust", it's on the money! The government has kowtowed to the Christian Religion in so many ways for so long. Enforcing separation of church and state now seems like you are taking something away from the Christians.

    If a strict separation had been enforced from the beginning it would be accepted today.

    Plus, it seems every President must go to some Christian church during the campaign to prove his/her worth, and often reference god as their close personal friend.

    Talk about sending mixed messages about enforcing the separation of church and state.

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: troutmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    24,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Easy Riders View Post
    "In God We Trust", it's on the money! The government has kowtowed to the Christian Religion in so many ways for so long. Enforcing separation of church and state now seems like you are taking something away from the Christians.

    If a strict separation had been enforced from the beginning it would be accepted today.

    Plus, it seems every President must go to some Christian church during the campaign to prove his/her worth, and often reference god as their close personal friend.

    Talk about sending mixed messages about enforcing the separation of church and state.
    The "In God We Trust" on US currency, and the nation's Pledge of Allegiance, are recent additions occurring 170 years after the Declaration of Independence. Both were signed into law by President Eisenhower, and both were enacted during the "commie's are coming" mania of the old War.

    Given how united the United States have become since the 1950's, both these religious sayings have done not meaningful good for the United States.
    Last edited by troutmd; 06-04-2019 at 10:40 AM.
    I am 100% convinced the internet and social media are not the salvation to human civility.

  14. #14
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: DaveWC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    4,960
    So conservative values mean

    - women must carry all conceived fetuses to term regardless of their choice
    - they will not receive pay from their employer during & after delivery
    - if they take time off to deliver & care for their child they can & will lose their job
    - social programs designed to help families in need should be slashed or eliminated, single mothers need to invest in bootstraps
    - birth control education & free condoms should be eliminated & abstinence training substituted
    - minimum wage should be abolished & let workers earn what the market will bear
    - companies should pay women their market value and not concern themselves with the comparative wages for men
    - companies' health care plans don't need to cover the cost of contraception if they choose not to
    - the MeToo program is overdone, women need to stop drinking alcohol when men are present, dress more conservatively and keep their knees closed

    Fun question... if men should be able to decide whether a woman can abort a fetus, should they also be able to decide whether a woman uses birth control? How far do these men's rights go?

  15. #15
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: DaveWC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    4,960
    Some people think that if men can't have a say in the birth of the fetus, they shouldn't be required to pay for the resulting child. Maybe women should be able to opt out too. If they are disallowed an abortion by the govt, then the govt should have to cover all costs of the child.

  16. #16
    wots...uh the deal?
    Reputation: mmoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,111
    I don't mind the thread drift, but

    Back on topic.

    Should a man decide if a woman uses birth control? Should a woman's husband make that decision unilaterally.

    And then we get into the what ifs.
    What if a woman and man agree to marriage. And, they agree to have kids...even the same number, two kids. But then after 2 kids, the man decides he wants 20. Or 'changes religion where birth control is the evil' and demands no contraception, much 'relations' and no divorce. What right does the woman have over 2 or 20 kids?
    And remember, not that long ago, one of the most mortal activities was giving birth. As a husband and a father, I know that I will never really know the impact of pregnancy and child birth. Not like my wife does.
    So, I get to the SouthPark realization "I get it now. I don't get it". (but not with racism...) I get that I will never truly get this and must trust a woman's decision. (Not quite to the point of "I don't got a dog in this fight" I kinda do...but it's so inconsequential compared to those who really do have a dog in the fight)

  17. #17
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: troutmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    24,576
    Quote Originally Posted by mmoose View Post
    I don't mind the thread drift, but

    Back on topic.

    Should a man decide if a woman uses birth control? Should a woman's husband make that decision unilaterally.

    And then we get into the what ifs.
    What if a woman and man agree to marriage. And, they agree to have kids...even the same number, two kids. But then after 2 kids, the man decides he wants 20. Or 'changes religion where birth control is the evil' and demands no contraception, much 'relations' and no divorce. What right does the woman have over 2 or 20 kids?
    And remember, not that long ago, one of the most mortal activities was giving birth. As a husband and a father, I know that I will never really know the impact of pregnancy and child birth. Not like my wife does.
    So, I get to the SouthPark realization "I get it now. I don't get it". (but not with racism...) I get that I will never truly get this and must trust a woman's decision. (Not quite to the point of "I don't got a dog in this fight" I kinda do...but it's so inconsequential compared to those who really do have a dog in the fight)
    Sounds like those advocating for Pro-Life/smaller government have created some unintended consequences ... including a government so large deciding things it becomes a mind bodging melange of morality police. Or perhaps is just another social dividend of the Libertarian Curse - "If everyone were just like me everything would be OK and we wouldn't need government" mentality.
    I am 100% convinced the internet and social media are not the salvation to human civility.

  18. #18
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Wookiebiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    6,580
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveWC View Post
    If they are disallowed an abortion by the govt, then the govt should have to cover all costs of the child.
    But that would be … GASP … Socialism!

    That fetus needs to grab their bootstraps and pull them suckers up to get into a good preschool!
    Snakebit: "How many times do I have to tell you that I don't have a source? I don't make a note of everything I see or hear on the internet and you don't have to take my word for it."

  19. #19
    Russian Troll Farmer
    Reputation: No Time Toulouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    2,323
    Quote Originally Posted by Easy Riders View Post
    The pro choice contingent emphasizes the women's right to control her body. I can only assume that men have the same rights.

    Also, the same folks insist the government should stay out of these issues, you know, between a woman and her doctor.

    Following this logic, if a woman wishes to commit suicide, does she have that right, a man , too for that matter.

    Does the government have no right to interfere with suicide?

    Do we all have the right to do what we will with our own bodies?
    As for the suicide question: How are you going to prosecute a person after he kills himself? Now, if a person is standing on a bridge threatening to kill himself, that is more a mental health issue, since obviously the theatrics are designed to be a cry for help.

    As for having a right to do what we want to do with our bodies; just talk to anybody in the body-piercing community...
    "L'enfer, c'est les autres"

  20. #20
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: davesupra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,921
    A few clarifications...

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveWC View Post
    So conservative values mean
    - they will not receive pay from their employer during & after delivery
    - they may not receive pay from their employer if they choose not to work, it depends on how generous their employer wants to be.
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveWC View Post
    - birth control education & free condoms...
    - nothing is free, someone else is paying for those condoms
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveWC View Post
    - minimum wage should be abolished & let workers earn what the market will bear
    - Yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveWC View Post
    - companies should pay women their market value and not concern themselves with the comparative wages for men
    - Yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveWC View Post
    - companies' health care plans don't need to cover the cost of contraception if they choose not to
    - Companies can choose to provide benefits like health insurance, or not. If they decide to provide an insurance benefit, they should certainly have control over whatever benefits they want to provide.
    "The American people elected Donald Trump as the President of the United States, and not Hillary. I don't think the left is taking this loss as well as they could have"...

  21. #21
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: DaveWC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    4,960
    Quote Originally Posted by davesupra View Post
    A few clarifications...
    Unnecessary. Your posting history says it all.

    You're ok with women being forced to carry unwanted fetuses while ignoring the way the govt & capitalism financially mistreats women. At least no one throws milkshakes at single mothers trying to get by in a system built to punish them... that would be the final straw.

  22. #22
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Oxtox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    10,510
    Quote Originally Posted by davesupra View Post
    A few clarifications...

    - they may not receive pay from their employer if they choose not to work, it depends on how generous their employer wants to be.

    - nothing is free, someone else is paying for those condom

    - Companies can choose to provide benefits like health insurance, or not. If they decide to provide an insurance benefit, they should certainly have control over whatever benefits they want to provide.
    Ebeneezer Scrooge, is that you...?
    Ancient Astronaut theorists say, 'YES!'

  23. #23
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by No Time Toulouse View Post
    As for the suicide question: How are you going to prosecute a person after he kills himself? Now, if a person is standing on a bridge threatening to kill himself, that is more a mental health issue, since obviously the theatrics are designed to be a cry for help.

    As for having a right to do what we want to do with our bodies; just talk to anybody in the body-piercing community...
    And yet, if the individual gets help from a doctor, the doctor gets punished. So much for it being a privacy issue between a woman and her doctor.

    You can end your fetus just between you and your doctor but you can't end yourself just between you and your doctor.

    Sorry, doesn't track.

  24. #24
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    450
    And, if you don't want to involve your doctor and choose to use a gun, the left will count you as a reason to ban guns.

  25. #25
    Adorable Furry Hombre
    Reputation: Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    28,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Easy Riders View Post
    And, if you don't want to involve your doctor and choose to use a gun, the left will count you as a reason to ban guns.
    The Pro-Life christian taliban made assisted suicide illegal....which leaves you the generally worst ways to go out. Thank you christian taliban.
    "Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity "

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-20-2016, 06:38 AM
  2. Replies: 500
    Last Post: 12-15-2014, 09:22 PM
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-26-2014, 09:10 AM
  4. WOMEN IN THE MILITARY:. "Separate" Combat Training for Men and Women
    By BikesOfALesserGod in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 10-06-2013, 07:23 PM
  5. Women"s rights:
    By QED in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 04-11-2013, 12:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.