.
Bill Maher:
"When I hear from people that religion doesn't hurt anything, I say really? Well besides wars, the crusades, the inquisitions, 9-11, ethnic cleansing, the suppression of women, the suppression of homosexuals, fatwas, honor killings, suicide bombings, arranged marriages to minors, human sacrifice, burning witches, and systematic sex with children, I have a few little quibbles. And I forgot blowing up girl schools in Afghanistan."
Some say "The good outweighs the bad." If so what is that weighty good?
Many say "That is just the other religions." Is that true?
Does he have a valid point?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Zzyzx
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25141
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 55 times
- Been thanked: 93 times
Does he have a valid point?
Post #1.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Re: Y
Post #288[Replying to post 281 by suckka]
None of that has anything to do with the inequality present in the legal system. People lie. The law should be amended so that it is fair even if EITHER party lies. It should not be skewed to reward only the lies of one gender.
None of that has anything to do with the inequality present in the legal system. People lie. The law should be amended so that it is fair even if EITHER party lies. It should not be skewed to reward only the lies of one gender.
Re: Y
Post #289[Replying to post 283 by Hamsaka]
Yes, I'm thinking far ahead for others. (It's not a situation that has ever affected me or ever will. It's not personal to me). This topic is categorical for men.
What's wrong with equality?? It can be done. Simply.
A man can "reject" his offspring up to the date that the womb-owner can abort. If the woman does not inform the father within three weeks of the date by which the child could be legally aborted, he has three weeks to decide from he date he is informed.
Such a law provides fairness across both genders and does not allows for a dishonest person to enslave another person for a third of his life. Why should it be any other way that is unfair?
Yes, I'm thinking far ahead for others. (It's not a situation that has ever affected me or ever will. It's not personal to me). This topic is categorical for men.
What's wrong with equality?? It can be done. Simply.
A man can "reject" his offspring up to the date that the womb-owner can abort. If the woman does not inform the father within three weeks of the date by which the child could be legally aborted, he has three weeks to decide from he date he is informed.
Such a law provides fairness across both genders and does not allows for a dishonest person to enslave another person for a third of his life. Why should it be any other way that is unfair?
Re: Y
Post #290[Replying to post 285 by suckka]
Nobody is suggesting that a man have any control over a woman's body or that she should be forced to carry a baby longer than she wishes. I am suggesting that fetus/fathers be provided the same rights to disavow an offspring by legal fiat just as the woman can by abortion.
Nobody is suggesting that a man have any control over a woman's body or that she should be forced to carry a baby longer than she wishes. I am suggesting that fetus/fathers be provided the same rights to disavow an offspring by legal fiat just as the woman can by abortion.
Re: Y
Post #291[Replying to post 282 by enviousintheeverafter]
Yes, there is an inequality. A woman may LEGALLY trap a sexual partner and imprison him against his will for three decades. A man has no such legal opportunity. Men should be able to "abort" an offspring by declaring it so in a legal sense. If the mother wants the kid then that's fine and on her dime. (And even then, there's still inequality in that a man still does not have the option to raise a fetus that the mother wishes to abort).
Yes, there is an inequality. A woman may LEGALLY trap a sexual partner and imprison him against his will for three decades. A man has no such legal opportunity. Men should be able to "abort" an offspring by declaring it so in a legal sense. If the mother wants the kid then that's fine and on her dime. (And even then, there's still inequality in that a man still does not have the option to raise a fetus that the mother wishes to abort).
-
JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2576 times
Post #292
From Post 288:
Where applicable, please note some of the issues I present also apply to non-custodial females...
There's also the issue of child support, but even here, where a father is incapable of providing monetary support, and can show their inability to do so, they're often (rarely?) not required to - though that threshold may be as low or as high as perspective allows.
So then we get to the issue of the cost to society of supporting that child, through various programs paid for by "my" taxes. Here it's quite reasonable to consider that where "my" taxes are used to support "your" child, if and when you're capable of compensating the taxpayer, you should be expected to do just that. Even here, the father has the right to refuse to pay, up to and including a refusal to work for a paycheck. The rhetorical you also has the option of going "off the grid" to escape having to pay. Granted, the alternative is likely to spend time in jail, but that doesn't mean the refusal to pay can't be made.
That said, I rail against laws that allow for, "We'll collect this money for you, with lawyers provided by taxpayers, even as we refuse to offer the non-custodial parent a lawyer to help defend their rights". The courts never recognized me as anything but wallet. It was painfully, depressingly obvious that my rights meant nothing.
My payments were always a separate issue to my ex-wife's manipulations and refusals to allow me to see my son on the court ordered schedule. I NEVER had my son on his birthday, Christmas eve / morning, or any other important events in his life. I can't count how many times my ex found out I had a date for the weekend, only to have her bring my son over at the last minute, 'cause "he was missing you, surely you won't abandon him (said in front of him, as I'm sure you've gathered)". My gifts to my son would invariably break, go missing, or "took up so much space they had to be sold in a yard sale". A sale in which he never received the proceeds for his loss of the gifts I gave him. At the time, I was quite poor, and couldn't just run out and replace 'em.
I remember one time a chick I knew wanted to take my son and her daughter to Mousy World. All was going to plan, only to have him tell me at the last minute he didn't wanna go. I figured it was 'cause he'd outgrown the whole thing, so I didn't much fret it. But then the ex got remarried the following spring, and sure as grits are groceries, they took the boy to Mousy World, and good on 'em for it. When he returned, he was excited to tell how much fun it was. I won't lie, this upset me a bit. I told him such as, "I wish you woulda gone with us last winter when we went", only to hear the words I still hear to this day, "That's okay, Mom said you were taking me there to kill me". Just matter of fact, as if it was normal for him to hear such about me. It broke my heart. And don't it beat all, I can't pray for her death in a fire, for fear it'd upset our son.
So what could I do? Use what limited funds I had to hire a lawyer to help with these issues, risking a loss anyway, and jail for not paying child support, or pay the child support and continue to have a manipulative, vengeful woman restrict my rights, and the rights of my son?
/rant, I just thought it important to tell it.
Where applicable, please note some of the issues I present also apply to non-custodial females...
They have that right, by refusing to be a part of their child's life.Hatuey wrote: ...
I am suggesting that fetus/fathers be provided the same rights to disavow an offspring by legal fiat just as the woman can by abortion.
There's also the issue of child support, but even here, where a father is incapable of providing monetary support, and can show their inability to do so, they're often (rarely?) not required to - though that threshold may be as low or as high as perspective allows.
So then we get to the issue of the cost to society of supporting that child, through various programs paid for by "my" taxes. Here it's quite reasonable to consider that where "my" taxes are used to support "your" child, if and when you're capable of compensating the taxpayer, you should be expected to do just that. Even here, the father has the right to refuse to pay, up to and including a refusal to work for a paycheck. The rhetorical you also has the option of going "off the grid" to escape having to pay. Granted, the alternative is likely to spend time in jail, but that doesn't mean the refusal to pay can't be made.
That said, I rail against laws that allow for, "We'll collect this money for you, with lawyers provided by taxpayers, even as we refuse to offer the non-custodial parent a lawyer to help defend their rights". The courts never recognized me as anything but wallet. It was painfully, depressingly obvious that my rights meant nothing.
My payments were always a separate issue to my ex-wife's manipulations and refusals to allow me to see my son on the court ordered schedule. I NEVER had my son on his birthday, Christmas eve / morning, or any other important events in his life. I can't count how many times my ex found out I had a date for the weekend, only to have her bring my son over at the last minute, 'cause "he was missing you, surely you won't abandon him (said in front of him, as I'm sure you've gathered)". My gifts to my son would invariably break, go missing, or "took up so much space they had to be sold in a yard sale". A sale in which he never received the proceeds for his loss of the gifts I gave him. At the time, I was quite poor, and couldn't just run out and replace 'em.
I remember one time a chick I knew wanted to take my son and her daughter to Mousy World. All was going to plan, only to have him tell me at the last minute he didn't wanna go. I figured it was 'cause he'd outgrown the whole thing, so I didn't much fret it. But then the ex got remarried the following spring, and sure as grits are groceries, they took the boy to Mousy World, and good on 'em for it. When he returned, he was excited to tell how much fun it was. I won't lie, this upset me a bit. I told him such as, "I wish you woulda gone with us last winter when we went", only to hear the words I still hear to this day, "That's okay, Mom said you were taking me there to kill me". Just matter of fact, as if it was normal for him to hear such about me. It broke my heart. And don't it beat all, I can't pray for her death in a fire, for fear it'd upset our son.
So what could I do? Use what limited funds I had to hire a lawyer to help with these issues, risking a loss anyway, and jail for not paying child support, or pay the child support and continue to have a manipulative, vengeful woman restrict my rights, and the rights of my son?
/rant, I just thought it important to tell it.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Post #293
[Replying to post 290 by JoeyKnothead]
Prospective fathers should have the right to refuse fatherhood and child support obligations in accordance with abortion laws. In essence, a fathers abortion.
Prospective fathers should have the right to refuse fatherhood and child support obligations in accordance with abortion laws. In essence, a fathers abortion.
Re: Y
Post #294[Replying to post 279 by Hatuey]
Yes, men and women aren't equal in their sexual organs. It's so UNFAIR of the feminists to hog all of that birthing and keeping all that good luck away from the men.
Maybe once medical science improves a bit, men will be equal and be able to have the baby the woman doesn't want.
Then, the WOMAN would have to allow her mate to have an unwanted baby.
And then THAT would be unfair to the WOMEN.
So, who should decide if the pregnant person ( male or female ) should abort or not?
If a woman can have a baby without the consent of the father, the father should not be forced to pay, at least not for all of it.. Times have changed.. some laws are not keeping up.
Let's agree, for the sake of the argument, that it IS unfair for a man to pay for an unwanted child... that still doesn't mean the man should tell what a woman should do with her body.
Lucky for men that militant feminists like that aren't running the country.Hatuey wrote:Agreed. Try telling that to a militant feminist, though. Why does a woman get the right to destroy a potential offspring up to a certain month of gestation but not a father. Answer: inequality.
Yes, men and women aren't equal in their sexual organs. It's so UNFAIR of the feminists to hog all of that birthing and keeping all that good luck away from the men.
Maybe once medical science improves a bit, men will be equal and be able to have the baby the woman doesn't want.
Then, the WOMAN would have to allow her mate to have an unwanted baby.
And then THAT would be unfair to the WOMEN.
So, who should decide if the pregnant person ( male or female ) should abort or not?
But the father isn't having the pregnancy in his body. I agree that the father should have rights over his OWN body. Can you tell me why he should have rights over someone else's body?Hatuey wrote:Whatever limit is set for women to abort, so should the father have that same right.
You think that men should force women to take birth control or not?Hatuey wrote:No more women telling men that they're on the pill,
You think we should force women to tell the father of their pregnancy?Hatuey wrote:carrying a fetus to full term without the fathers knowledge,
I agree that those laws seem unfair. Men should not be forced into economic fatherhood if they didn't consent to raise a child with the mother.Hatuey wrote:then at birth telling the father that he is a slave for the next three decades through infant hood through college degree.
Gooses and ganders have different sexual organs, so in this case, this sexual case, the proverb doesn't apply as they are NOT the same in this regard.Hatuey wrote:What's right for the goose is right for the gander.
If a woman can have a baby without the consent of the father, the father should not be forced to pay, at least not for all of it.. Times have changed.. some laws are not keeping up.
Let's agree, for the sake of the argument, that it IS unfair for a man to pay for an unwanted child... that still doesn't mean the man should tell what a woman should do with her body.
Re: Y
Post #295[Replying to Blastcat]
You misunderstand my position. Please read back over my previous posts as I don't intend to defend positions that aren't mine that you erroneously attribute to me.
Example: NEVER have I even once implied that men have any rights at all over what women do with their bodies. I even stated the opposite in one of my posts of rebuttal. It'd be like me accusing you of approving of the flood and gods behavior therein.
If you care to debate my actual position then I will answer questions or concerns you have, then.
You misunderstand my position. Please read back over my previous posts as I don't intend to defend positions that aren't mine that you erroneously attribute to me.
Example: NEVER have I even once implied that men have any rights at all over what women do with their bodies. I even stated the opposite in one of my posts of rebuttal. It'd be like me accusing you of approving of the flood and gods behavior therein.
If you care to debate my actual position then I will answer questions or concerns you have, then.
Re: Y
Post #296[Replying to post 292 by Blastcat]
My SINGULAR point is that men should not be forced into economic fatherhood without consent. THAT IS HE POINT.
Men have ZERO rights over any woman's body. Duh. Never even implied otherwise.
Men should LEGALLY be allowed to denounce ALL responsibilities of fatherhood until past the date when an abortion would be legal for the mother. (Unless uninformed of the fact--then the father should be given an appropriate amount of time to decide upon fatherhood).
In other words it should not be LEGAL for fatherhood to be thrust upon any man who is not aware of has not agreed to such a role. THAT would be equality.
Of course men can't bear children or force the mother into any action with her body. How ridiculously absurd. The issue is that of LEGAL entrapment and slavery of men who had no choice in being a father. Simple. Really. Think about it.
Blastcat, since you had access to all my posts and were wrong to cut them into sections that did NOT express the clear intent I stated, I expect an apology and an a outline of joe our positions are in exact and complete agreement. Your fault for not reading into comprehension.
My SINGULAR point is that men should not be forced into economic fatherhood without consent. THAT IS HE POINT.
Men have ZERO rights over any woman's body. Duh. Never even implied otherwise.
Men should LEGALLY be allowed to denounce ALL responsibilities of fatherhood until past the date when an abortion would be legal for the mother. (Unless uninformed of the fact--then the father should be given an appropriate amount of time to decide upon fatherhood).
In other words it should not be LEGAL for fatherhood to be thrust upon any man who is not aware of has not agreed to such a role. THAT would be equality.
Of course men can't bear children or force the mother into any action with her body. How ridiculously absurd. The issue is that of LEGAL entrapment and slavery of men who had no choice in being a father. Simple. Really. Think about it.
Blastcat, since you had access to all my posts and were wrong to cut them into sections that did NOT express the clear intent I stated, I expect an apology and an a outline of joe our positions are in exact and complete agreement. Your fault for not reading into comprehension.
Re: Y
Post #297Hatuey wrote:
[Replying to post 285 by suckka]
Nobody is suggesting that a man have any control over a woman's body or that she should be forced to carry a baby longer than she wishes. I am suggesting that fetus/fathers be provided the same rights to disavow an offspring by legal fiat just as the woman can by abortion.
I think I understand your position now and have no doubt this thread will solve it. Really, it should be bronzed. Pregnancy can be hard to detect. The pill can fail. A woman may be against abortion. What could persuade the law to think of the man over the " best interest of the child?" What if the man changes his mind and begins a relationship with the child, what if the child wants it? Hard questions deserve a lot of thought.
