Who's right to choose, a womans right to choose.

[Kreskin]

But the man doesn't have an option if he can not afford a child, the woman does though.

The option refers to her right to have a medical procedure. Men are most welcome to have medical procedures too without women dictating what and how. No inequality of rights there. Men are welcome to have abortions if they so happen to become pregnant themselves. Women are welcome to have vasectomies once they figure out how to grow the appropriate plumbing. The reality is Bear the man lost his options once he donated the semen for pregnancy. If he didn't want her to get pregnant he should not have inserted Mr Happy and placed semen in her reproductive system. It's alittle too late when she becomes pregnant from it and has no thoughts of having a medical procedure that she doesn't want or need. There is no fault in not having an abortion. Society does not condone it as a means of birth control. His baby wasn't asked to be born. He was instrumental in the cause of the birth. No one is at fault for anything. The baby arrived and needs the aid of its parents. The time for debating whose plumbing can do what is moot.

 

[talloola]

But the man doesn't have an option if he can not afford a child, the woman does though.

The mother has that small advantage over the man because she has to carry the child, and if she decides
to terminate or adopt the child, she is also relieving the man of financial responsibility, but if she decides
to keep the child, he has to share responsibility, after all he did have sex without being responsible, so
he can't just run away. If they help each other half and half, it is not depriving the man of much money,
surely he can manage to give enough each month to help "his" child grow up without being "poor" and
"deprived", or, would you feel better if you had the choice of telling her to "piss" off, or not, just because
you can't stand the idea that she has a "little" more choice than you, well I'll tell you buddy, if you had that new life in your body, you would be "sniffling and whining" like a little puppy, as that would be quite
a feeling of responsibility, knowing a baby was growing inside of you, entirely different from a man
finding out he is going to be a father.

 

[CDNBear]

Sure he does, Bear. He can wear a condom or use something else and eliminate the possibility of fatherhood. Same with the woman. The whole thing behind parenthood is mutual agreement; a partnership. Anything else is being either criminal or ridiculously irresponsible.

We are actually referring to accidental pregnancy.

The option refers to her right to have a medical procedure. Men are most welcome to have medical procedures too without women dictating what and how. No inequality of rights there. Men are welcome to have abortions if they so happen to become pregnant themselves. Women are welcome to have vasectomies once they figure out how to grow the appropriate plumbing. The reality is Bear the man lost his options once he donated the semen for pregnancy. If he didn't want her to get pregnant he should not have inserted Mr Happy and placed semen in her reproductive system. It's alittle too late when she becomes pregnant from it and has no thoughts of having a medical procedure that she doesn't want or need. There is no fault in not having an abortion. Society does not condone it as a means of birth control. His baby wasn't asked to be born. He was instrumental in the cause of the birth. No one is at fault for anything. The baby arrived and needs the aid of its parents. The time for debating whose plumbing can do what is moot.

Lovely bit of emotion, but no substance.

The mother has that small advantage over the man because she has to carry the child, and if she decides
to terminate or adopt the child, she is also relieving the man of financial responsibility, but if she decides
to keep the child, he has to share responsibility, after all he did have sex without being responsible, so
he can't just run away. If they help each other half and half, it is not depriving the man of much money,
surely he can manage to give enough each month to help "his" child grow up without being "poor" and
"deprived", or, would you feel better if you had the choice of telling her to "piss" off, or not, just because
you can't stand the idea that she has a "little" more choice than you, well I'll tell you buddy, if you had that new life in your body, you would be "sniffling and whining" like a little puppy, as that would be quite
a feeling of responsibility, knowing a baby was growing inside of you, entirely different from a man
finding out he is going to be a father.

More emotion and obviously no idea what the debate has been about.

Does anybody have the ablity to leave their emotions at the door?

 

[talloola]

We are actually referring to accidental pregnancy.

Lovely bit of emotion, but no substance.

More emotion and obviously no idea what the debate has been about.

Does anybody have the ablity to leave their emotions at the door?

laws are made as a result of behavior, and behavior causes emotion/feelings/hurt/to parties, as
a result this thread cannot leave out any of these things

any legal decisions that were made regarding this subject were made as a result of behavior, as I
have stated more than once, so how can legalities be discussed without bringing in what the parties
are doing to create law suites, or we will all sound like a bunch of robots.

You are just trying to avoid seeing exactly what people are doing to create the problems, and demanding
that we all just spout legalities is not realistic. Go talk to a judge, and you still won't be able to get
what you want, as he will bring in the behavioral problems that create the legal decision.

 

[Zzarchov]

Actually, if we just went with emotion and never brought in legalities and rights (Even ones we don't like) Women still wouldn't be able to have abortions. Which in a way (though an unsatisfactory one) would make the role in pregnancy of the genders fair. Both didn't take proper precautions so they both can have an unwanted pregnancy.

Seems stupid to ruin two peoples lives (three really) as a "solution" though.

 

[CDNBear]

laws are made as a result of behavior, and behavior causes emotion/feelings/hurt/to parties, as
a result this thread cannot leave out any of these things

any legal decisions that were made regarding this subject were made as a result of behavior, as I
have stated more than once, so how can legalities be discussed without bringing in what the parties
are doing to create law suites, or we will all sound like a bunch of robots.

You are just trying to avoid seeing exactly what people are doing to create the problems, and demanding
that we all just spout legalities is not realistic. Go talk to a judge, and you still won't be able to get
what you want, as he will bring in the behavioral problems that create the legal decision.

Silly me, why didn't I think of talking to a Judge. Instead I just talk to silly old lawyers. Oddly enough, they agree, constitutionally, the present laws are out of balance, morally, ethically, they are a necessity. But wow, they seem to be able to look at it like a robot.

Zzarchov, LRG, Nikki, self and myself are correct. When emotion, opinion and conjecture is removed and you look at all the parts of this, it is out of wack, but for reason. But it is still out of balance. Which is what we have been saying all along.

 

[talloola]

Silly me, why didn't I think of talking to a Judge. Instead I just talk to silly old lawyers. Oddly enough, they agree, constitutionally, the present laws are out of balance, morally, ethically, they are a necessity. But wow, they seem to be able to look at it like a robot.

Zzarchov, LRG, Nikki, self and myself are correct. When emotion, opinion and conjecture is removed and you look at all the parts of this, it is out of wack, but for reason. But it is still out of balance. Which is what we have been saying all along.

your forgot to add ----IN YOUR OPINION

 

[Nikki]

I can't believe you all have time to still be chasing your tails in this thread. Just call it a draw already and close it. Man there is nothing more to be said. this is what post # 648?

 

[talloola]

The option refers to her right to have a medical procedure. Men are most welcome to have medical procedures too without women dictating what and how. No inequality of rights there. Men are welcome to have abortions if they so happen to become pregnant themselves. Women are welcome to have vasectomies once they figure out how to grow the appropriate plumbing. The reality is Bear the man lost his options once he donated the semen for pregnancy. If he didn't want her to get pregnant he should not have inserted Mr Happy and placed semen in her reproductive system. It's alittle too late when she becomes pregnant from it and has no thoughts of having a medical procedure that she doesn't want or need. There is no fault in not having an abortion. Society does not condone it as a means of birth control. His baby wasn't asked to be born. He was instrumental in the cause of the birth. No one is at fault for anything. The baby arrived and needs the aid of its parents. The time for debating whose plumbing can do what is moot.

"
yes Kreskin it so simple, but there certain men, who, for some reason, think otherwise, they like to" play"
but not "pay", life isn't like that, for her or for him.

 

[talloola]

The option refers to her right to have a medical procedure. Men are most welcome to have medical procedures too without women dictating what and how. No inequality of rights there. Men are welcome to have abortions if they so happen to become pregnant themselves. Women are welcome to have vasectomies once they figure out how to grow the appropriate plumbing. The reality is Bear the man lost his options once he donated the semen for pregnancy. If he didn't want her to get pregnant he should not have inserted Mr Happy and placed semen in her reproductive system. It's alittle too late when she becomes pregnant from it and has no thoughts of having a medical procedure that she doesn't want or need. There is no fault in not having an abortion. Society does not condone it as a means of birth control. His baby wasn't asked to be born. He was instrumental in the cause of the birth. No one is at fault for anything. The baby arrived and needs the aid of its parents. The time for debating whose plumbing can do what is moot.

yes Kreskin, it is so simple, but there are certain men, who just don't see it that way, that want to
"play", but don't want to "pay", life just isn't like that.

What a laugh, "just accidental pregnancies", give me a break, very lame, a pregnancy is never
accidental, that would be so if a pregnancy occured without sex taking place at all.

The possibility of a pregnancy occuring is "always" there, you don't want the responsibility of a child
you didn't plan for, don't "DO IT "

 

[Kreskin]

Lovely bit of emotion, but no substance.

It's a lovely bit of reality. If it wasn't substance yours would have some Bear.

 

[Zzarchov]

The possibility of a pregnancy occuring is "always" there, you don't want the responsibility of a child
you didn't plan for, don't "DO IT "

I can totally agree with that statement if thats the way the laws were set up. But they aren't.

If the laws were under that principle then they would still be fair, because a woman wouldn't have 100% control over if he is a father or not...because she wouldn't be able to have an abortion.

The possibility of her getting pregnant is "always" there, she doesn't want the responsibility of a child
she didn't plan for, don't DO IT

But..since she is allowed an abortion, should he not have equal rights to decide whether or not HE wants to be a parent? Hell, she can put the child up for adoption without telling him she was ever pregnant, nor giving him the chance to raise his own child.

How on earth does your statement counter-act that portion? Thats what is meant by Emotion and not Reason. IF you used reason you would see why that is wrong.

Because it doesn't work like that currently, if it did nothing would need changed. But you aren't looking at things the way they are. You are looking at one portion and ignoring all the hideous abuse that happens in the system because you are emotionally attached to one part of it that you ignore WHY that makes things unfair, and the situations that it can cause.

 

[CDNBear]

your forgot to add ----IN YOUR OPINION

Umm, perhaps you missed the lawyers bit in that. I would put a lawyers words above yours any day. So it is not an opinion, as yours is, it's an interpritation of the law as seen by a Family lawyer. God forbid he be biased or anything, lol. Even he, as a practitioner of Family Law, says there is and imbalance. But the alternative is both morally and ethically unjust. What does that say? The same that we have been saying all along.

Something those of you that have argued with pure emotion and opinion, might have seen had you tried using a modicome of analytical thought.

 

[CDNBear]

It's a lovely bit of reality. If it wasn't substance yours would have some Bear.

Once again you have failed to see anything, but a moral or ethical question. Try using that high and mighty wit to look at it analytically, you can not or will not, so why bother trying to debate?

Debates are based on facts and evidence, not emotion and opinion.

As I posted a few posts ago, even a Family Lawyer says there is an imbalance, but for the very reasons you and the rest of the emotional elite have stated it is the way it is. A point not one of us has tried to dismiss. All we have done is look at the law, minus emotion and opinion, and analise it. It is out of balance, a lawyer concures, based on the very choices we have argued are valid and available to women, as apposed to men.

This whole thread could be summed up in all of 1 post by your team. "Yes, but" Instead all we got was NO NO NO NO NO. Which is wrong.

 

[Kreskin]

You continue to be your factual self Bear. In the meantime there is no evidence that the highest courts in the land will support new laws or rulings that place duress on the right to life, liberty and security of the woman. Let me know when your facts become something other than a wishlist.

 

[Sassylassie]

You continue to be your factual self Bear. In the meantime there is no evidence that the highest courts in the land will support new laws or rulings that place duress on the right to life, liberty and security of the woman. Let me know when your facts become something other than a wishlist.

Wouldn't enacting such laws drag Canada down to the level of Extreme Islamic Countries where Sharia Law rules and women have less rights than males??? NO thankyou, nes pas sacre bleu. Power to the Sisterhood, Sassy raises her rolling pin high.

 

[CDNBear]

You continue to be your factual self Bear. In the meantime there is no evidence that the highest courts in the land will support new laws or rulings that place duress on the right to life, liberty and security of the woman. Let me know when your facts become something other than a wishlist.

Once again you have monumentally missed the whole point, haven't you.

Is this forum not a place to debate policy, laws and the like?

Is that not what we are doing here?

Is the fact that the laws in this case, for whatever reason, are out of balance, lost on you?

Can you not see the imbalance?

Or is it, you just refuse to accept the facts?

You keep going in circles, all on your own. I keep throwing you a line, you keep swimming away.

 

[Kreskin]

Wouldn't enacting such laws drag Canada down to the level of Extreme Islamic Countries where Sharia Law rules and women have less rights than males??? NO thankyou, nes pas sacre bleu. Power to the Sisterhood, Sassy raises her rolling pin high.

Sassy, those who want the courts to rule as such haven't thought that far ahead.

 

[Kreskin]

Once again you have monumentally missed the whole point, haven't you.

Is this forum not a place to debate policy, laws and the like?

Is that not what we are doing here?

Is the fact that the laws in this case, for whatever reason, are out of balance, lost on you?

Can you not see the imbalance?

Or is it, you just refuse to accept the facts?

You keep going in circles, all on your own. I keep throwing you a line, you keep swimming away.

What facts? That the courts don't support your position but you're rallying hard to change it? You're losing it man. Keep dreaming.

 

[Kreskin]

And those equality rights in the Charter. Do they not apply to toddlers? You think the charter will support some toddlers getting more entitlements than others simply because mom could've aborted them? Dream on Bear.