Reply With Quote
ahem...
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...ht=mens+rights
a little late bro
A little column I lifted from the "San Antonio E-N". Guess what is good
for the goose is good for the gander. Or some may think so.
Jonathan Gurwitz: Men seeking same imaginary rights as women
Web Posted: 03/19/2006 12:00 AM CST
San Antonio Express-News
Pro-life activists recently struck an ominous blow against the unlimited right to abortion in the United States.
No, I'm not speaking of the measure enacted by South Dakota lawmakers that flagrantly defies the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision and all but guarantees a high court showdown. More on this in a moment.
I'm speaking of the lawsuit filed in Michigan by the National Center for Men. The center styles itself as "the only organization in the world that has focused on all men's issues."
Among those issues: cir cision, which, according to the group's Web site, "represents an actual and symbolic assault on male sexuality"; life expectancy, which is about six years shorter for American men than it is for American women; and homelessness, which the group claims afflicts 10 times as many men as women.
You might get the impression that the National Center for Men is less about crusading for illusory men's rights than it is about provoking people into thinking about issues in different ways. You might be right.
The center has put a trademark imprint on its suit, calling it Roe vs. Wade for Men. It filed the suit on behalf of Matt Dubay, who claims the state of Michigan has violated his reproductive rights. He asserts a woman that he dated told him a medical condition made her incapable of becoming pregnant. She allegedly took the additional precaution during their courtship of using an oral contraceptive.
A few months after they broke up, the woman delivered a baby girl. A Michigan court ordered Dubay to begin paying $475 in monthly child support. Dubay and the National Center for Men object, claiming the court order violates the Cons ution's equal protection clause.
Here's how the center defines the issue:
"More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy.
"We will ask that men be granted equal protection of the laws which safeguard the right of women to make family planning decisions after sex."
Nonsense, you say? Perhaps so. An invitation to male irresponsibility? Absolutely. But the amazing thing is that it took 33 years for someone to postulate imaginary male rights to complement an imaginary female right to abortion on demand at anytime for any reason. That's one absolutist extreme in the abortion debate. The South Dakota Legislature offered up the other extreme when it criminalized all abortion procedures that aren't necessary to save the life of the mother.
A recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll shows the narrow bases of support for these two extremes. Only 19 percent of respondents said abortion should be legal in all cases, while 16 percent said it should be illegal in all cases.
Thirty-two percent said it should be legal in most cases, while 27 percent said it should be illegal in most cases.
You can parse those numbers in several manners, but the most meaningful interpretation is this: A strong majority of Americans, 59 percent, is pro-choice with limitations. Or put another way, a strong majority of Americans is pro-life with exceptions.
That's far less attention-grabbing news than the assertion of a male right to reproductive choice or the accusation that a Supreme Court led by John Roberts will somehow make abortion illegal. In the unlikely event the court did overturn Roe vs. Wade and strike down one absolutist precedent, it could not replace it with another absolutist precedent.
What the court would do in that unlikely cir stance is restore a legislative process it interrupted in 1973, a process that can't ignore the sentiments of a firm majority of the American people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected]
ahem...
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...ht=mens+rights
a little late bro
Mr. Dubay has the inalienable right to pull out.
or Mrs. Jane had the same right to say no and avoid having to choose abortion as birthcontrol.
I'm interested to read mikejones99's thoughts on this.
Further proof you are an idiot who doesn't know how to read.Dumbass.
Wait, oral contraceptive?
I do not approve of this. Pffft.
If you want to dance you have to pay the Piper.
Pay up Dubay.
Deadbeat dads are totally useless. And wannabe deadbeat dads are nothing less than obnoxious (those that support their children only because the Court makes them).
Dead beat dads are lame
You pathetic peice of . Try harder next time to up me on a debate since your pheonix online law degree does not give you the same comfort. And for the record, your statement was a generalization as well as mine. Therefore the specifications of the article were not at play.
Chump, read your own goddamned post before you post. You can't even comprehend yourself.
Oh, snap.You pathetic peice of . Try harder next time to up me on a debate since your pheonix online law degree does not give you the same comfort. And for the record, your statement was a generalization as well as mine. Therefore the specifications of the article were not at play.
Chump, read your own goddamned post before you post. You can't even comprehend yourself.
i'm sorry but chump is a pompous limp wristed moron who hardly ever takes a stand on any issue and just nitpicks at every single phrase. He's a waste of time. I'm stupid enough to respond though,...so half of it's my fault.
Your stupidity is all your fault.
I did read my post, it was funny.
Which is why I make mental notes of re s to never reply to.
Ok, er.
You still made a generalization about all men, and i responded back with a generalization on females(WHICH YOU ED ABOUT BECAUSE I WASNT TALKING ABOUT THE ARTICLE SPECIFICATIONS). You're post is funny to you, but is irrelevant to anything since it doesn't make sense.
Just because your post was funny to you, that doesnt make you less of a .
Well you have more patience than i do for sure.
There you go responding again.
What a dumbass.
And it was absolutely relevant. You're too stupid to realize that as well. Is your mom still up? She'll help you.
What are you talking about mommas for? Who came over and cluster ed your mommies yo!
your pathetic.
I was complimenting your mom for being so patient with you.
I was insulting you.
Damn, you really don't get anything, dumbass.
Have her show you the difference between "your" and "you're" tomorrow.
Go to sleep before you come across even worse than a bag.
What you have just witnessed between CD and gtown was a scripted internet brawl between two grown men in an attempt to clearly demonstrate "men's rights" to uncensored and unabashed dung flinging.
Their real names have been changed to protect the innocent.
(I tried to tie it in to the thread guys but in the future I'd appreciate it if you'd give me a little more to work with
Those two clearly are not the brightest tools in the shed
jochhejaam is a dumbass, those Michigan schools. Of course the law should be changed so s cannot steal mens money anymore. Single moms should be put on an island prison with Detroit fans that throw beer at that dump ( palace). Mexicans ride nascar? Detroit 9000 a good movie though.
Last edited by mikejones99; 03-26-2006 at 08:22 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
