By Quentin

May 6, 2011 10:50 PM | Link to this

MYOB, so you feel 18-23 years of forced labor is not even close to being the same as pregnant for 9 months? Maybe we should just toss men in jail for being men then since in your beliefs it appears men should have no rights since they can’t get pregnant. But, would you accept us refusing to allow women in the military, to be on a police department or a fire department under the same premises of biological difference rules all in the matter? Something tells me you would be upset if we refused women certain jobs and opportunities based on biological differences but you seem fine for using them to deny men any rights in reproduction besides a vasectomy.

By Perspective

May 6, 2011 1:23 PM | Link to this

@MYOB You also want to put all the responsibility on the men.How about putting women in jail if they have sex and aren’t on the pill? It the same premise only you and sigh have a big hate on for for men.Bottom line is if you don’t want to get pregnant either use birth control or don’t have sex.

By MYOB

May 6, 2011 10:51 AM | Link to this

And the smackdown of women continues. I did have false pregnancy — empty egg, which required a DNC. So you see, you cannot predict medical care. My suggestion is the equivalent of pregnancy. If you prohibit abortions, there should be something called wrongful pregnancy, where men are criminally punished for not using condoms. That’s the level you are operating on. The point is that the existing law is sufficient.

By Perspective

May 6, 2011 7:03 AM | Link to this

@all the men….. So now you call for imprisonment and mutilation of men for having sex resulting in a pregnancy but you put none of the responsibility on women at all. You are truly something else.I sense some hatred of men in you for some reason. Have you had an abortion before?

By Quentin

May 5, 2011 8:45 PM | Link to this

All the Men, personal responsibility is fine with me but you fail to address the points made. Why do you feel forcing men under penalty of incarceration to be responsible to the point they must pay their perpetrators when the male is a victim of a sex crime? Either males should have rights too or they should have no responsibilities. Is that a radical and unacceptable concept for you and others somehow? Should we just come out and state that men should have no rights to their own bodies and declare all men must pay in to a pool to support all women who have children, no matter if that child is the product of her raping him or even when that child is his? That is not a far step from where we presently are and I would hope you would feel women should be equally responsible for their behavior as men. If not then should they not have rights equal to men in return for not being responsible?

By to all the men

May 5, 2011 7:33 PM | Link to this

Personal responsibility? Tell that one to San Quentin. That and $5 will get you a cup of coffee. Maybe the “punishment” for men impregnating someone should be nine months in jail including organ donation. Sound good?

By Perspective

May 5, 2011 3:21 PM | Link to this

@to all the men….How can you make the men more responsible when they already carry all the responsibility in your eyes.Yours is another idiotic statement- “And frankly, if you want to put MORE responsibility on men, make all birth control illegal. You can’t force someone to undergo physical stress, injury, and debilitation. The decision should be made on a case by case basis by a woman and her physician.” In most abortions no one forced the woman to have sex.You say women have the right to control their own body,well they also have the right to not have sex or to use contraception when they do have sex. You want women to have all the rights and the baby none. I’d venture to say the baby would choose a crappy life over being dismembered and killed. If women to responsibility for their sexual activity there would be very little need for abortion except in cases of rape or incest or the pregancy threatening the mothers life. Personal responsibility goes a long way.

By to all of the men i've loved before

May 5, 2011 3:09 PM | Link to this

Rocket science, I am not sure that I buy your “every sperm is sacred” premise. The appropriate premise is that accidental or high risk pregnancies do occur. A decision to terminate a pregnancy before viability is and should be a birth control option. And frankly, if you want to put MORE responsibility on men, make all birth control illegal. You can’t force someone to undergo physical stress, injury, and debilitation. The decision should be made on a case by case basis by a woman and her physician.

By Perspective

May 5, 2011 12:13 PM | Link to this

But sigh,you keep putting all the responsibility on the men. Your statement,”Why can’t women just not have sex? Because men don’t get pregnant, that’s why.” is idiotic. What does it have to do with the woman taking responsibility for her sexual activity?

By Maybe It Is Rocket Science

May 5, 2011 7:24 AM | Link to this

This would have been a good debate if the comments weren’t largely off-topic. Is it okay to kill a baby after leaving the womb? What about one day before leaving? What about the day before that? At what point is it acceptable? Of course, it never is, as killing him/her violates the baby’s right to life, one of all our unalienable rights. It has NOTHING to do with the rights of the woman (which should be supported as whole-heatedly as those of the baby).

By Quentin

May 4, 2011 10:15 PM | Link to this

Sigh, how about ADDRESSING the issues then? Why do you think men should be forced to get a vasectomy if they don’t want to be fathers but the idea of holding women to that same standard is wrong somehow? Is it that hard for a woman to say no and keep her legs closed!?!?

By Patti the pissy pirate

May 4, 2011 8:10 PM | Link to this

AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH! Quentin, separate your issues. I will refrain from claiming that you are not overly fond of women, either, but just barely. I don’t recall that my husband needed my permission to get a vasectomy, and I would have had a tubal ligation, but I wasn’t sure after my extremely premature twins were born half-dead, that I was done having kids. After they were safely home from the hospital WE decided that our family was complete. So save your crappy comments for someone who gives a s**t.

By Quentin

May 4, 2011 7:05 PM | Link to this

Sigh, you avoid every issue brought forth and defend it with only that women get pregnant? Did you know that when you look at the average number of hours a man had to work to pay ONLY child support, it is well over the number of hours a woman is pregnant? Sorry but I don’t see women working in coal mines, being jailed when home on leave from the military and BEGGING to deploy again because a judge won’t reduce their support to what they are actually paid so it is combat of jail. A womb does not trump the rights of all others and you have supported a double standard that gives no rights to those unless they are a woman who is pregnant. As for the vasectomy comment, it demonstrates your belief in males as second class citizens. After all, if women don’t want to get pregnant, they can have a tubal, but you do not suggest that. You DO state that even if the father WANTS to be a parent he must be subject to the desires of the mother though you then state only by extreme measures can he decide not to be a father BEFORE conception. As a final note, maybe you should tell the various boys around the US and in Ohio who are minors paying their molesters to get a vasectomy. I am sure it would be interesting to try and take a minor to do this. Since getting mine required a meeting and signed form from my then wife to be allowed to get, I doubt a minor would have a chance. And yes, most doctors will flat refuse the option you touted unless he already has children and has PERMISSION because some have been successfully sued by women who wanted children and then were cheated of it by their husbands getting it done behind her back. Per the system, that denied her rights to be a mother, though it has been demonstrated that there are nor rights to be, or for a father.

By sigh again

May 4, 2011 4:55 PM | Link to this

If you think women should be more responsible, support Planned Parenthood. Why can’t women just not have sex? Because men don’t get pregnant, that’s why. There’s usually very little question about who the mother is. Would all of you just calm down. Why is the idea of a vasectomy considered an anti-man diatribe? What if vasectomies were illegal? That’s really the equivalent of this issue. DR means domestic relations, I am not in the medical field. I waste my time blogging because the idiots are proposing another bad bill.

By null=Karon

May 4, 2011 3:23 PM | Link to this

Karon gets no respect. BTW, you can’t legislate morality, but everybody has a belief system and makes decisions off of that. The law was intended to protect our freedom to worship, not limit our freedom and tell us what we are allowed to do. You are the one who is mixed up on this subject. BTW, if a person’s voting record is good, I’ll vote for them no matter if they are a Christian or Jew, or an athiest. However, if that person claims to be a Christian but then says they were saved in Rev Wright’s church where I heard Rev Wright (on video) use God’s name in vain and curse our nation, and then says he believes in “collective” salvation which is not in the Bible, I can judge the fruit and say he is either lying or delusional.

By Quentin

May 4, 2011 3:23 PM | Link to this

Squirrellygirl, for me the proof was with my divorce and my children. My ex abused the children heavily and when I tried to report it they didn’t care. Instead they went after me constantly on false claims. I now have full custody but the last false accusation they investigated me for demonstrated the point too well. The CPS agent became upset when I told them I was tired of the false accusation, went to get the papers on all the past investigations by them he claimed never happened and AFTER I gave him the report showing EXTREME abuse committed by my ex and told him to go investigate real abusers and charge her for filing a false report like the laws say he can do, his reply was “Why don’t you just give her full custody like she wants and walk away? That would stop the constant investigations you are tired of.” Now we can’t keep saying we need to stop unwed motherhood, allow abortions and going after “deadbeat dads” when the system refuses to recognize abusive mothers and treats fathers as disposable except for financial support at the will of the mother. The courts have been very consistent in ruling that he MUST pay no matter how he was ruled to be the father but then rules he has no rights no matter what. So why WOULD these guys care to stick around or anything else? We have a double standard that says if she gets pregnant, she can then demand he pay to support a child she wants and if he is wealthy enough she won’t have to ever work. Meanwhile we will then tell a man he must live in poverty, can not have a family like he wants and he has no rights to that child. Heck, I have even seen cases where a father has managed to get custody from an abusive mother and STILL ordered to pay “child support” to her. Not alimony but the judge stated CHILD SUPPORT when he had full custody. These people get upset at any restrictions on abortion but see zero problems in keeping children with abusive mothers over good fathers, forcing men to pay for children that are not even their own and that even in rape, molesting and incest the victim should pay child support if they are male. Of course the mother being the criminal and these males being the victim is also not to be something held against these “mothers” in court as it has no bearing on how they will treat the child. Also we must not give them a harsh punishment since they are a mother and must care for their child meaning don’t jail them or etc. My arguments are always consistent on these matters and I will back them up with the laws, court rulings and etc. If the idea of simple equal treatment without special treatment based on gender is not acceptable then you should ask yourself if the reverse would be acceptable such as paying women less for the same work. If not, you need to ask yourself why you dislike males so much you fell treating them as a second class citizen is acceptable.

By Squirrellygirl

May 4, 2011 2:13 PM | Link to this

The morning after pill causes the woman to abort the baby. Yes, of course I’m against the morning after pill, especially if used to abort a healthy unborn baby. Once you are pregnant it is too late to prevent it. Once you have a living being in your belly, the baby is a living human being and the baby has rights. I feel for Quentin. I do think men should have the same say as women in saving the baby. I know I read about it yesterday, but I think it was Quentin who got treated unfairly in the courts. If this is what happened, it is completely wrong.

By Quentin

May 4, 2011 12:20 PM | Link to this

BTW, if anyone thinks I am extreme, a simple challenge on how disposable we treat fathers in our society. I can name at least two cases off the top of my head where the mother killed or attempted to the father for no reason and the courts either allowed her contact after because he is disabled from the attack or because he is dead she gets custody. Now can anyone name a father who gained custody after killing his wife?

By Quentin

May 4, 2011 12:11 PM | Link to this

Sigh, thank you for proving my point. Men have to keep their sperm to themselves and you stick by those cases as urban legends though they are real. They are examples of just how far the system has skewed. If men are required to keep their sperm to themselves and under lock and key, then why do you feel holding women to ANY standards is wrong? If she wants to abort, then fine but HE should be allowed to abort too. If he has no choice even if he is raped, molested or etc, then she should have no choice either. It isn’t that difficult. By the way, maybe you should also look in to Paternity Fraud. In most states DNA is NOT allowed as evidence for paternity to get out of support. If they were married and she got pregnant during that time, then he is the father, PERIOD. Her having affairs and the children being someone else’s means nothing. So now he has to pay for kids that are not his, he is not allowed any involvement with if he wants since they are not his and he has resources taken from him preventing him from raising his REAL children better. You say you support men’s rights but you then turn around and SUPPORT these kinds of things while telling people like me to get snipped or etc. You do not tell women the same thing and have demonstrated you have no problems with these issues showing a double standard to the extreme where men are to be disposable with no rights except to be responsible for what the mother demands.

By null

May 4, 2011 9:46 AM | Link to this

One more thing Squirrelly… I’d take that disgusting example with the metal prongs, severing,blah,blah, blah than another kid that is abused all it’s pathetic little life till it ends up in a suitcase at the bottom of a river, or wrapped in plastic and left somewhere after being suffacated in the closet he/she has been tied up in covered in urine and feces for most of it’s life OR since we are in Dayton, put in a microwave and nuked to death… yeah I’d say an abortion is better than all those scenarios! And get your facts straight, partial birth abortion, that you explained is illegal now! It is a totally different process.

By null

May 4, 2011 9:18 AM | Link to this

S.girl you proved my point exactly! That is the difference btwn you and a lot of folks that read your whack-job posts, whether I, Pres.Obama, Rev.Wright or anyone else for that matter is a Christian is IRRELEVANT! That is the problem! Your beliefs are religiously biased, news flash not everyone in America is a Christian or relious so why would they/we have to live by laws created to follow “what is said in the Bible”? Is that not why America is what it is, a country whose laws should be a separation of church and state?

By Perspective

May 4, 2011 9:02 AM | Link to this

Hey sigh,how about if the woman doesn’t want kids she keeps her legs closed. You’re real big on telling guys to keep their sperm to themselves well it certainly takes two to tango. Once again as Quentin says,the woman has all the rights and the men none. BTW just what is DR background? Did you stand and look over a Dr’s shoulder or what? Either you are a Dr. or not. If you are sick of the issue then quit posting your anti man diatribes.

By sigh I am so sick of this issue

May 3, 2011 10:15 PM | Link to this

I have worked in a paternity lab, and I also have some DR background, as well three kids, so you are not telling me anything new. I stick to my “urban legend” description of your excessively unlikely anecdotal evidence. And by unlikely I mean that it does not describe most of the people you or I know. I was not the judge in any of those cases, and I do not know the circumstances. I do support men’s rights, but if you don’t want children, keep your sperm to yourself. You can also get a vasectomy, which I highly recommend in your case. But in any event, you can’t force someone to be pregnant.

By Quentin

May 3, 2011 10:07 PM | Link to this

sigh, since males have no right after conception, then yes. Nothing punitive about that since it is applying the same standards as we apply to the fathers. BTW, did you ever look those items up that I pointed to demonstrating my cases are not an urban myth like you thought?

By Quentin

May 3, 2011 6:52 PM | Link to this

sigh, since males have no right after conception, then yes. Nothing punitive about that since it is applying the same standards as we apply to the fathers. BTW, did you ever look those items up that I pointed to demonstrating my cases are not an urban myth like you thought?

By sigh

May 3, 2011 5:45 PM | Link to this

Quentin and Squirrelly: your punitive stances in this matter are inappropriate. You cannot force someone to have a baby. Are you against the morning after pill as well?

By Squirrellygirl

May 3, 2011 2:02 PM | Link to this

No matter what our laws say, it is still murder to kill a baby, even if that baby is still in the womb. Even though it was illegal to use tax payer money to fund abortions, tax payer funded abortion is provided for in the hc bill and Obama is trying to overturn that law. These are two separate subjects. Is it legal to kill an unborn baby and should tax payers fund the killing of unborn babies. Now you can call it something nice like “abortion” instead of murder, but it is the same thing. And this is what they did to Jews during the Holocaust. The Germans did not acknowledge that Jews were human so that they could rationalize murdering them. They took away their possessions, their clothing, and they murdered them and put them in mass graves. They take metal prongs and pull the baby out of the womb, severing limbs, tearing the baby apart. Then they throw the baby away. Obama wants to use the embryonic fluid, and he is making tax payers pay for stem cell research because he said it wasn’t about religion, it’s about the law. So Obama dismisses Americans religious beliefs and says that the law prevails over our religious beliefs. This is one reason I don’t believe Obama is a Christian. But I have a host of reasons why I don’t think Obama is a Christian, including the fact that he went to Rev Wright’s church for over 20 years and listened to his hate spewed talk about white people. I remember hearing part of Rev Wright’s “sermon”—do you remember when he said “G D America!”???? I do. I think that is how Obama thinks, too.

By Quentin

May 3, 2011 2:00 PM | Link to this

As a bit of a side note, sigh’s claim these are urban myths is a common one I have seen. Part of the reason is it is hard to believe that this kind of ruling is made and that can be so extreme. That is part of how they manage to get away with these rulings though. It is so extreme and nuts that people don’t WANT to believe them and even when presented with them, most will reject it as false because it is so hard to really believe it. Unless someone has experience some of this kind of legal treatment and the bias, it honestly is hard to believe. It is also a shame since these things get little to no attention from the news while other false claims ARE given weight to be now considered common knowledge as “facts.” We will give power and even use claims like the Superbowl Sunday wife beatings myth and have crafted laws around them but even after being shown false for a decade it is still believed and quoted. But people just can’t believe in our system that it could be so biased and unfair as to hold a male who is raped or a boy who is molested responsible. Hench my stance on abortion and etc are strictly based on equal treatment and the belief that we should treat both parents equally in the decisions and rights.

By Quentin

May 3, 2011 1:42 PM | Link to this

sigh, I pointed to an article with the actual court cases showing that this has happened. They are not urban legends. Google the article I mentioned. IT’S TEN O’CLOCK: DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR SPERM ARE? Here is the case info for one of the mentioned articles if you care to look it up. State of Louisiana v. Frisard, 694 So. 2d 1032 That was an oral sex case.

By sigh

May 3, 2011 1:37 PM | Link to this

I was referring to your urban legends about women impregnating themselves with extra sperm. Quentin, you have your own issues, and I do believe in father’s rights, by the way, but that doesn’t have anything to do with this discussion.

By Quentin

May 3, 2011 1:13 PM | Link to this

sigh, what urban myths are you talking about?

By Quentin

May 3, 2011 1:11 PM | Link to this

sigh, what urban myths are you talking about? If you do not believe me, read my posts with information and some places to find things. My position is simple, if males have no rights, even in cases where they are a victim of a sex crime, then women should have no rights either. Nothing extreme in that belief and no urban myth on the present situation being males have no rights but are still held responsible.

By sigh

May 3, 2011 12:55 PM | Link to this

You have the right and the means to plan your family, urban myths aside. This is a very particular question, not a general inquiry about fatherhood. But since we are talking about family planning, Planned Parenthood plays a very significant role in reducing abortions. Disingenuous morality is a dangerous game.

By what a crock

May 3, 2011 12:48 PM | Link to this

Newt Gingrich has no respect for women or children. He divorced his first wife (his own hs teacher) while she was being treated for cancer, and refused to pay alimony or child support. He divorced his second wife on mother’s day and ran off with a congressional staffer twenty years his junior. This is someone who should be able to make a serious medical decision for millions of Americans? Gross.

By Quentin

May 3, 2011 12:43 PM | Link to this

sigh, I have yet to see anyone say it has no effect on a woman. So far the arguments have been about the economics, religious reasons and my equality arguments.

By sigh

May 3, 2011 12:25 PM | Link to this

Whatever your position on abortion, stop saying pregnancy has no effect on women. Medically speaking, terminating a pregnancy is safer for women than pregnancy and childbirth. When you’ve had a bowling ball under your ribs and your butt reconstructed, we’ll talk.

By Quentin

May 3, 2011 12:24 PM | Link to this

Jim, you are incorrect. Many are fathers who would LOVE to have that child and care for them. They have no choice though. While the courts will order DNA tests to PROVE a male is the father and backdate child support for up to 14 years here in Ohio, when a man has argued he WANTS the child, the courts have stated he has no rights to prevent an abortion and in the only case I can find where it was delayed until she couldn’t get an abortion, the courts ruled against his getting custody and ordered support from him instead with no rights to even see the child. So per the courts, even is SHE doesn’t want the child and he does, the father has no rights but MUST be responsible from the moment of conception. Even if she can’t name the father, the government can go on a man hunt and force a bunch of men to give up DNA more than a decade later and demand he pay thousands based on his PRESENT earnings and not the historical earnings that would be lower as he gained better employment. He also has no rights to the lost time with his child. Notice also that when these points are brought out, supporters of abortion very rarely will even address them and the few who do usually will just tell him he should have thought of it BEFORE sex. Null has been a great exception that I am happy to have seen. If you want to see how the majority of these people are, go to the pro-abortion rights sites and post these kinds of questions. You will be cussed out, insulted, called a woman hater, misogynistic, and banned in most cases.

By Jim

May 3, 2011 11:58 AM | Link to this

The same people who want to end a woman’s right to choose, are the same people who don’t want to care, educate, or help a child once they’re born. I don’t think anyone favors abortion, but defunding organizations like Planned Parenthood, will only exacerbate the problem with more unwanted pregnancies. This bill will never make it through the senate, and if it does, will be vetoed.

By @byInterestingTopic

May 3, 2011 11:55 AM | Link to this

“cost EVERYONE more money” — so this is your excuse to kill a baby? The baby wasn’t economically feasible. You remind me of the government people who put the librarian to death because he wasn’t contributing to society the way they thought he should. Seriously, you should live in the twilight zone, or Venezuela or China or some place like that where they don’t appreciate life. Good-bye to you.

By Squirrellygirl

May 3, 2011 11:50 AM | Link to this

“What I am pointing out is that when the choice is taken away from a woman to have the proceedure done, more women have back door abortions or have children born into families that don’t have the means or capacity to take care of them.” So…using your logic, we should make it easier for people to kill people if we think the baby might be subject to a bad life later. Huh? So should we make it easier for people to steal? To cheat? Seriously, you want to use this as an excuse to kill an unborn baby? Really? You’re doing the baby a favor by torturing the baby to death pulling her/him out of the womb, severing parts of the body, but it’s for the baby’s own good? You are delusional. Seriously.

By @byJS

May 3, 2011 11:40 AM | Link to this

“You also conflated the issue of what YOU consider to be ‘someone’ and what the Bible says. I know, in your mind, that it’s one and the same so that what you believe, the Bible obviously says.” Jer 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Uh huh… So you want to challenge God and say that you have a right to play God and kill a defenseless unborn baby, who, by the way, is depending on the mother to protect him/her? Really? Ask God to forgive you and He will.

By @bynull

May 3, 2011 11:29 AM | Link to this

“Maybe if the people who spent their time protesting the abortion clinics would also spend a little time protesting in front of the rapists and pedophiles homes their wouldn’t be as much of a need for those services?” HUH??? If we knew who these people were before they committed their crimes, I guess we would be mindreaders or have E.S.P. so…really this doesn’t make any sense. Please explain…(I know you can’t)…

By Interesting topic

May 3, 2011 11:21 AM | Link to this

I understand everyone has an opinion on this subject and I’m not saying I support or don’t support this matter, that is beside the point. What I am pointing out is that when the choice is taken away from a woman to have the proceedure done, more women have back door abortions or have children born into families that don’t have the means or capacity to take care of them. If a child is born into a family that doesn’t take care of them, they ultimately go into care and 1. cost EVERYONE more money and 2. often times have a less than inviting childhood experience that travels into adulthood. So the government should stop interviening in our day to day lives and let us deal with the concequences of our choices and start creating much needed jobs and figuring out a way to improve this country.

By Sy Gote

May 3, 2011 10:54 AM | Link to this

We are a Country that has a majority of its citizens go to centers of worship, at least occasionally. This is not a politicians call. We should not allow abortion except in a few cases that are so obvious they do not need further discussion. The sperm moves, it has life. Once the egg and sperm unite; human life begins…We must not play god. Watching and listening to politicians today suggests we all need get down on our knees and pray….really pray!

By Quentin

May 3, 2011 10:53 AM | Link to this

null, my point is simple, abortion is not equal in any manner. Since we give women total control over reproduction, then we can’t hold men responsible. The problem is, we hold men fully responsible from the moment of conception and unless we give men and equal out, then we must hold women to an equal standard. Now go out and actually talk to people about it at a rally for abortion rights and you will find actual physical attacks will happen. My experience has been that but at least with those who oppose abortion, they have been MUCH more receptive. My passion is due to the treatment I have gotten by the system that has held ME responsible for the abuse of my children by my ex, demanded I pay or be jailed while nothing happens to her and even jailed me after our teen testified to the judge she was afraid to see her mother and be abused again. After I started protesting when the judge threw me in jail, you would be amazed at the flat HATE a father trying to protect his children and who cares for them gets. Just like the Artimis House flat laughed at me when I requested help from her abuse of me and the children before the divorce. The best they stated was to leave and let the children stay with their abusive mother because they felt the children would be safe with her AFTER I told them of the abuse and need to have help getting all of us someplace safe. Now they were happy to help her with FALSE claims when we divorced and numerous government agencies threatened ME for trying to report her abuse while ignoring laws and refusing to investigate it. Instead they decided to ONLY investigate me and flat stated they would see me in jail for the crimes she claimed to cover for her abuse. So if I am responsible for HER behavior, responsible to support HER and the children but have no rights except to pay child support, then we need to either tell men we have no responsibilities either or tell women they have no rights. Our present system requires males be responsible no matter what but they then say men have no rights either. You may want to look up Hurley Must Go dot Com and see just how our system runs. Also google the article IT’S TEN O’CLOCK: DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR SPERM ARE?

By null

May 3, 2011 10:36 AM | Link to this

Quentin… That is a great argument! although I am not arguing with you. I actually somewhat agree with you, just still not sure what relevence this has in this thread? I mean if you are saying that while people fight for a woman’s right to choose and no one fights for a man’s right I suppose you are right. You have a passion for your side and I do mine…

By Quentin

May 3, 2011 10:14 AM | Link to this

Null, every state, including Ohio has ruled in a case that being the victim in a sex crime like rape, molesting and incest are NOT a reason to not have the male victim pay child support. Ohio ruled this in the last couple of years in a case with a 14-year-old boy. Others cases that have ruled like this include women who took condoms from the trash and impregnated themselves, men passed out drunk at a party where the reverse genders would have been rape, a woman at a hospital that recovered the contents from oral sex and etc. To date the law has ruled it makes ZERO difference in HOW she gets pregnant with his sperm, he IS responsible PERIOD. Meanwhile a woman can also hide the fact she had a child from him and refuse him any rights to be in the life of the child and THEN go for back child support for the entire time up to 18 years. The same with back child support being unable to be excused by law no matter what. So in most states, his being married to her while the child is conceived, he MUST pay support, even if the child is not his or if he is removed from the obligation, he mus pay any ordered while the decision was being made and has zero rights to have any returned. His rights to see his child are zero, his rights to a DNA test are little to none in most states and his rights to anything except to register with the Putative Father’s Registry every time he has sex are zero. While she can come back years later and demand child support, by law he has zero rights in abortion and only has rights to be involved if she adopts their child unless he registers stating he is the possible father. Now, as I pointed out, I have protested in these issues and those who are happy to demand women’s rights for abortion and etc have at best counter protested me for demanding fathers have some rights at all.

By KeepLifeLegal

May 3, 2011 10:08 AM | Link to this

I am appalled at the lack of Faith in all humankind and the hatred of unborn life. It would be apparent that your parents chose LIFE instead of thinking about if they could pay their bills or have their unexpected baby.

By null

May 3, 2011 9:53 AM | Link to this

Quentin I don’t really see your point… first of all, I am not an “abortion supporter”, I support the idea that people should be able to have that choice. I don’t wake up every morning and say I hope a bunch of girls/women decide to go have abortions today. Second, I am confused, you know of a 12 yr old that inpregnated his teacher and is now in jail? Is she in jail? She had an abortion? Should she not have if she did?

By Quentin

May 3, 2011 9:34 AM | Link to this

Null, many of us have tried that but between how often the accusations are false and the way judges actually protect many of them it means little. Besides, why do abortion supporters refuse to protest female child molesters who are getting child support from the boys they molest? I guess tossing a 12-year-old boy in jail unless he can pay child support to his teacher that molests him is OK by them since they will flat refuse to protest those cases when contacted to do so and yes I have actually tried. The most you will get is a few of them actually COUNTER protesting you to claim SHE is the victim of him. Been there, done that and those are the results.

By null

May 3, 2011 9:23 AM | Link to this

Maybe if the people who spent their time protesting the abortion clinics would also spend a little time protesting in front of the rapists and pedophiles homes their wouldn’t be as much of a need for those services?

By JS

May 3, 2011 9:22 AM | Link to this

@quentin: I’ll give you one reason why mothers have more rights here; they, by definition and instrinsic responsibility, take more risks. Fathers can, and far too often do, abrogate that responsibility. It’s a simple act of moving. When you get fathers having the babies, then we’ll have a different discussion. @The Bible also says I can take slaves from a foreign nation. I can stone my neighbors, as well, for a variety of sins. I’ve got a whole list of things the Bible says that you wouldn’t want to see acted upon. Did you knowthe Bible advocates rape? It could be interpreted that way, since it does say that masturbation is the greater offense. So where’s my Canadian slave that I can rape instead of jerking off? You also conflated the issue of what YOU consider to be ‘someone’ and what the Bible says. I know, in your mind, that it’s one and the same so that what you believe, the Bible obviously says.

By null

May 3, 2011 9:18 AM | Link to this

What if I said I don’t believe in God or the Bible? What if I knew of THOUSANDS of kids throughout the course of their unwanted lives were abused, neglected and killed? What if knew of things that happen to girls, not women, little girls that would make your skin crawl?

By Squirrellygirl

May 3, 2011 9:10 AM | Link to this

I don’t know how many of you are Christians or Jews, but if you read the Bible you will find that it is a sin to murder someone. I think an unborn baby is someone, and I’m pretty sure an unborn baby didn’t do anything to deserve the death penalty. For those women who say they should have say over their own bodies, I say yes you are right, except the unborn baby is not your body, it is the baby’s body. The baby is a human being, even if you want to call it by another name to lesson the baby’s importance in your own mind so that you can rationalize killing the baby. You can’t get away from that. I also find it comparable to how the Germans treated the Jews during the Holocaust. They didn’t consider Jews people, and this made it easier to rationalize murdering people. If you kill the baby and haven’t asked God to forgive you, you will have to answer to God for it. In addition, the tax payers never agreed that they should pay for abortions. There are two issues here. 1) Is abortion murder and against the law and 2) should tax payers be forced to pay for abortions even if it is deemed legal to murder unborn babies. Whether or not our courts deem it okay to murder a baby, it is not okay to make us pay for something that is so polarizing. That’s what Obama did when he made the tax payers pay for stem cell research. He said it wasn’t about religion it was about the law. However, Obama can pretend he doesn’t know the difference, but it is about religion and it is about the law, too. The law doesn’t seem to mean that much to Obama when he is manipulating it so that the “ends justify the means” like with his hc bill that according to Pelosi “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it”.

By Quentin

May 3, 2011 9:05 AM | Link to this

So what about the rights of the fathers? All we hear is the rights of the mothers but the left gets silent on the fathers having zero rights. Suddenly it is “They should have thought of that BEFORE having sex!” but for women it is different. And don’t bother trotting out the whole rape, molesting and incest arguments because the law has ALSO settled that those are NOT an excuse for a MALE victim to not pay child support to his attacker. How about this, try getting ANY of these people and groups that support abortion to a protest for those issues and watch how fast they instead protest AGAINST the rights of men to have any say. It is simple, if women want the right to abort to cover an affair from her husband, because they didn’t think BEFORE having sex like men are required or etc, then they need to take ALL the responsibilities too. That means he can “paper abort” under the same time constraints with no rights to the child but also can NOT be held responsible in any manner as well as she can not receive any government support.

By Freedomlover

May 3, 2011 8:55 AM | Link to this

Our nation has slaughtered 60 milliion future taxpayers. Due to our own selfishness, our nation is reaping what it’s sown. God not only punishes individuals, but nations. So you think what you do doesn’t effect anyone else? Think again!

By Not Rocket Science

May 3, 2011 8:47 AM | Link to this

Is it okay to kill a baby after leaving the womb? What about one day before leaving? What about the day before that? At what point is it acceptable? Of course, it never is, as killing him/her violates the baby’s right to life, one of all our unalienable rights. It has NOTHING to do with the rights of the woman (which should be supported as whole-heatedly as those of the baby).

By Anyone

May 3, 2011 8:34 AM | Link to this

Anyone who thinks this issue was settled in Roe v Wade has not read it. Anyone who thinks it’s okay to take the life of a child while in the womb has not given the issue enough thought.

By against women?

May 3, 2011 8:33 AM | Link to this

This has nothing to do with invading women’s lives. This is about protecting a human life that has a beating heart. Women still have the choice not to keep the baby. There is no way to make everyone happy is there?

By Perspective

May 3, 2011 7:32 AM | Link to this

The left always gets angry when someone disagrees with them.They resort to name calling and violence.Too many examples of it to list.

By why so angry?

May 2, 2011 9:51 PM | Link to this

Goodness, why are you all so angry about this? Once upon a time, women weren’t allowed to vote. Just because a law was once ‘settled’ doesn’t mean that it’s right.

By Judi

May 2, 2011 9:37 PM | Link to this

If Gingrich and Bachmann support this, you know it’s a BAD bill. This thing was already settled with Roe vs Wade. These idiot RWNJs don’t have anything better to do than get into every woman’s life. talk abut smaller government! These GOP bible thumping, corporation loving, racist, poor-attacking, heartless fools should just disappear.

By fastwillys

May 2, 2011 8:02 PM | Link to this

I couldn’t agree more with the aboveomments. They ran on getting jobs but they have yet to create even one. All they have done is attack settled law and social issues and bust unions. So far it looks like, from all reports, that schools and private industries are scheduled to loose at least 600 jobs over the next few months in the greater Cincinnati area.

By JT

May 2, 2011 7:18 PM | Link to this

Ok so I thought this issue was resolved before I was born. It’s funny people needs jobs yet the GOP talks about abortions. I thought they were against big government? People should answer to god about abortions not law makers.

By DMK

May 2, 2011 7:18 PM | Link to this

They are not residents of Ohio so they should keep their noses out of our business and keep their pandering opinions to themselves. Until they start paying taxes in the state they should butt OUT! Bachman is an idiot and Palin clone. Gingrich shouldn’t speak the adulterous cheat. He has no room to speak.

By urnidiot

May 2, 2011 6:35 PM | Link to this

@retired af - So as long as your gas is cheap, killin’ babies is ok? Oops, as long as you have a high paying job and cheap gas, killin’ babies is ok, right?

By retired af

May 2, 2011 5:56 PM | Link to this

i guess the right didnt get the message. the supreme court has already decided this issue. get to work on jobs and gas prices or we will vote for more change!