So if we (women) do not have the bare basic right over our own bodies,

what rights do we really have in this land of liberty? There are no laws that countermand what a male only can do to his body. Therefore, of and by itself any law that decides what a female can and cannot do with her body is discriminatory. We do not need to talk about when life begins or anything else. When the law discriminates against me because I am a woman and can become pregnant, then that law is deciding my legal position by who I am and that means the law is not equal for all people. Therefore it is discriminatory.

For men would be a law prohibiting them from masturbating. I mean, think of the billions of potential lives squandered every time a male spills his "seed"! Really, it's no more ridiculous than valuing an embryo over a woman. Someone should pitch this to Santorum...

And the ban wouldn't apply to us women because no ova are sacrificed when we do it! :evilgrin:

Elle: Although Mr. Huntington makes an excellent point...I have to wonder if the defendant kept a thorough record of every sperm emission made throughout his life.

Professor: Interesting. Why do you ask?

Elle: Unless the defendant attempted to contact every single one-night stand to determine if a child resulted in those unions, he has no parental claim over this child whatsoever. Why now? Why this sperm?

Professor: I see your point.

Elle: And for that matter, all masturbatory emissions where his sperm was clearly not seeking an egg could be termed reckless abandonment.

Professor: I think you've just won your case.

but I don't know who it was.

That DU'er (I think it was a she, therefore, I use the pronoun SHE in this case) believed that, to decrease the need for abortions because of unplanned pregnancy should do the following:

Obviously, it's because of the irresponsibilty of women that unplanned pregnancy occurs. She either didn't take the pill right, or at all, or didn't ensure that he wore a condom, etc.

So--how about this:

All males, upon the onset of puberty, will be injected monthly with depo-provera---a reversable form of chemical castration. With DepoProvera, men are unable to ejaculate (and I think prevents them from having an erection as well, altho i'm not sure).

All males would be required, by law, to receive this shot. Any males who are past puberty once this law is enacted would be required to get this shot.

They can only QUIT getting the shot (and ergo, begin producing viable sperm) if they get a letter from their wife attesting that she agrees with the reversal of chemical castration.

That would allow men to have all the wonton sex they wanted and forego any 8-years-later paternity claims. It would also remove the burden of pregnancy from the woman, and place it squarely on the male's shoulders. Since we know women cannot, under any circumstances, be allowed to control their fertility or pregnancy, we must hand the reigns over to the men and give them the power they so wish to have.

See--THAT would be the government FORCING men to put THEIR lives up for government scruitny. No wife, no sex. No parental consent, no sex. No permission, no sex. It's just that simple, and would equally erode the rights of men AND women at the same time.

I guarantee that under this idea (again, as coined by another DU'er), not only would unplanned pregnancy rates drop, but so would abortion rates.

Surely we can't expect WOMEN to have the responsiblity. Men want it--they can fucking have it.

Oh wait...what's that I hear...no males signing up for THIS law? Oh ho ho. How quickly the shoe stops fitting the other foot when tried on.

deposit 20k into that woman's bank account. If no pregnancy occurs, he gets the money back. If a pregnancy occurs, then the woman can make the decision to have the child or not, either way she keeps the cash. If she has the child, the guy continues to deposit money in the account until the child reaches the age of 18. I had a thread about this once a while back.

along the lines of :

women are just looking for a cash cow

women lie about being on BC so that they can have 18 years of access to a man's bank account

they don't care about having a father in their child's life as long as they get the $$

blah
blah
blah

I had a friend who had a child with a guy she was thinking about marrying. Shortly after their son was born, they broke up (his wish), and he moved out. She went after him for child support and got the OH SO HIGH SUM of $37.50 per week.

Why so low?

Well, when she went to child suppt. court, she found out he had SIX OTHER CHILDREN---he told her he had none. The judge said that my friend should have been a better judge of character, and that his 6 other kids shouldn't do without because they had a mother with poor moral upbringing (not his exact words, but the gist of it).

$37.50 a week to feed, clothe, and nurture a child.

Even when we parted ways as friends, the child was 6 years old, dad was several YEARS behind in child support and had learned that as long as he didn't have a job, he couldn't be garnished. So he worked under the table at his girlfriend's company (didn't get married b/c then HER wages could be garnished). No taxable income, no garnishment.

And he has the audacity to call my friend a MONEY HUNGRY BITCH for complaining that she couldn't even buy him school clothes AND supplies AND all that shit when he started kindergarten because she didn't have enough $$.

But Mr. Asshole went out right after crying on the phone about how poor he and his now 8 children and girlfriend are, and bought a brand new SUV...in his girlfriend's name, of course, but with his money.

ass
hole