NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/11/30/hostin.abortion.pill.cnn

Apparently he'd never heard of a CONDOM. He slips his mistress this pill in her drink on two separate occasions to cause her to miscarriage. All because he didn't want any more children.

A coutry with legalised abortion has, in some places, fetal homicide laws.


:confused:

A coutry with legalised abortion has, in some places, fetal homicide laws.


:confused:

A federal one apparently, end of the vid mentions it.

A coutry with legalised abortion has, in some places, fetal homicide laws.


:confused:

Well, as far as I understand it, (most) countries that legalize abortion don't do that because they think eliminating the embryo is completely without "badness", but because they believe the women's right to their own body trumps the interest of keeping the embryo alive.

With a case like the one the OP links to, the former interest isn't the expressed/relevant one, but it is the man's disapproval of the thought of having another child that is going against the interest of keeping the embryo alive, and the legal system appears to make the choice that the former does not trump the latter, therefore creating a basis for criminalization of the termination of the embryo.

Quite apart form that he should be charged with violating the woman (no, I didn't watch the video, so sue me if that or anything else that makes my post look stupid has been mentioned there, too).

Well, as far as I understand it, (most) countries that legalize abortion don't do that because they think eliminating the embryo is completely without "badness", but because they believe the women's right to their own body trumps the interest of keeping the embryo alive.

With a case like the one the OP links to, the former interest isn't the expressed/relevant one, but it is the man's disapproval of the thought of having another child that is going against the interest of keeping the embryo alive, and the legal system appears to make the choice that the former does not trump the latter, therefore creating a basis for criminalization of the termination of the embryo.
This makes sense to me :)

Quite apart form that he should be charged with violating the woman (no, I didn't watch the video, so sue me if that or anything else that makes my post look stupid has been mentioned there, too).

They mentioned that in the video. As it happens the pill he was slipping her(ru468 or something) can be dangerous to the woman, so fetal homicide or not, he'd still be going to jail. Along with that he's being charged with a bunch of other crimes. So he's basically fucked.

Forgive me, but I misread the title as "Man charged with slipping his MATTRESS abortion pills" and my first thought was, "Christ, they regulate everything these days."

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/11/30/hostin.abortion.pill.cnn

Apparently he'd never heard of a CONDOM. He slips his mistress this pill in her drink on two separate occasions to cause her to miscarriage. All because he didn't want any more children.

Thats the whole point of a mistress. A wife takes care of the man's emotional needs (including children), and a mistress takes care of a man's physical needs. A man shouldn't need a condom for his mistress, she should be on the pill, or some other form of birth control. And if she gets preganant, hello abortion. If you're a women and think the arrangement sucks, then *don't* be someone's mistress.

This makes sense to me :)
Yay! Do I get something shiny?

They mentioned that in the video. As it happens the pill he was slipping her(ru468 or something) can be dangerous to the woman, so fetal homicide or not, he'd still be going to jail.

Even if it weren't dangerous to the woman, that whole "right to one's own body" also entails the right to carry to term if that is what she wants.. whatever such a crime's official name would be.

Along with that he's being charged with a bunch of other crimes. So he's basically fucked.

*cringes* Baaaaaad pun.

Thats the whole point of a mistress. A wife takes care of the man's emotional needs (including children), and a mistress takes care of a man's physical needs. A man shouldn't need a condom for his mistress, she should be on the pill, or some other form of birth control. And if she gets preganant, hello abortion. If you're a women and think the arrangement sucks, then *don't* be someone's mistress.
This is wrong on so many levels I'm not gonna touch it.

stupid typo's

SoWiBi likes irony. On both levels.

Forgive me, but I misread the title as "Man charged with slipping his MATTRESS abortion pills" and my first thought was, "Christ, they regulate everything these days."

:p

Thats the whole point of a mistress. A wife takes care of the man's emotional needs (including children), and a mistress takes care of a man's physical needs. A man shouldn't need a condom for his mistress, she should be on the pill, or some other form of birth control. And if she gets preganant, hello abortion. If you're a women and think the arrangement sucks, then *don't* be someone's mistress.

What despicable sexist horseshit. Would you be so kind as gb2/b/?

Thats the whole point of a mistress. A wife takes care of the man's emotional needs (including children), and a mistress takes care of a man's physical needs. A man shouldn't need a condom for his mistress, she should be on the pill, or some other form of birth control. And if she gets preganant, hello abortion. If you're a women and think the arrangement sucks, then *don't* be someone's mistress.

Don't become a wife either apparently. Oh you poor man, when Bottle gets ahold of you...

Thats the whole point of a mistress. A wife takes care of the man's emotional needs (including children), and a mistress takes care of a man's physical needs. A man shouldn't need a condom for his mistress, she should be on the pill, or some other form of birth control. And if she gets preganant, hello abortion. If you're a women and think the arrangement sucks, then *don't* be someone's mistress.

You're kidding, right?

What despicable sexist horseshit. Would you be so kind as gb2/b/?

Don't be such a shitist. There's absolutely nothing wrong with poor horseshit.

It occurs to me that if a woman has a "right" to prevent her eggs from being fertilized, a man has the same "right" with regard to his sperm. Perhaps even more in a Western European culture, as property rights revert to primogeniture without a will in place.

Thats the whole point of a mistress. A wife takes care of the man's emotional needs (including children), and a mistress takes care of a man's physical needs. A man shouldn't need a condom for his mistress, she should be on the pill, or some other form of birth control. And if she gets preganant, hello abortion. If you're a women and think the arrangement sucks, then *don't* be someone's mistress.

Hey, is it hard to hear us all the way back there in the 17th century?

It occurs to me that if a woman has a "right" to prevent her eggs from being fertilized, a man has the same "right" with regard to his sperm. Perhaps even more in a Western European culture, as property rights revert to primogeniture without a will in place.

Your rights over property are null and void once you surrender ownership.

Yay! Do I get something shiny?
Yes (http://users.telenet.be/anthrax/Shiny%20star.jpg)


Even if it weren't dangerous to the woman, that whole "right to one's own body" also entails the right to carry to term if that is what she wants.. whatever such a crime's official name would be.
There's that too.



*cringes* Baaaaaad pun.
Totally unintentional.


SoWiBi likes irony. On both levels.
I love you for pointing that out. :fluffle:
Hey, is it hard to hear us all the way back there in the 17th century?

Nah. It's the timewarp. It's getting really bad.
Your rights over property are null and void once you surrender ownership.

Mainly because if you surrender ownership it's not your property anymore.

What despicable sexist horseshit. Would you be so kind as gb2/b/?

Sorry you don't like it, but that is the way relationships work in many parts of the world.

It occurs to me that if a woman has a "right" to prevent her eggs from being fertilized, a man has the same "right" with regard to his sperm. Perhaps even more in a Western European culture, as property rights revert to primogeniture without a will in place.

Insofar as that it is a crime for a woman to collect a man's sperm and use it to impregnate herself if the man had made it clear he doesn't want his sperm to be suchly used (e.g. if the woman sneaks it from a used condom); there's precedence for that aplenty.

If, however, you choose to engage in an act that you are expected to know to potentially lead to a pregnancy, your 'right to your sperm' becomes negligible in contrast to the woman's right to the intactness of her uterus and its contents.

Yes (http://users.telenet.be/anthrax/Shiny%20star.jpg)
Yes!

Totally unintentional.
Right. Pic of you with a straight face or it didn't happen like you said.


I love you for pointing that out. :fluffle:

That makes two of us. ;P

Sorry you don't like it, but that is the way relationships work in many parts of the world.

Too bad your post was normative, not descriptive, eh? Something happening one way or the other does neither justify nor logically ask for 'moral support' for that way of things happening.

Too bad your post was normative, not descriptive, eh? Something happening one way or the other does neither justify nor logically ask for 'moral support' for that way of things happening.

What she said. It should be fucking obvious, too.

It occurs to me that if a woman has a "right" to prevent her eggs from being fertilized, a man has the same "right" with regard to his sperm. Perhaps even more in a Western European culture, as property rights revert to primogeniture without a will in place.

He does have that right. It's called using a condom.

He does not have the right to induce an abortion in a woman without her consent. In fact, given the fact that he is not a licensed medical professional, he doesn't have the authority to do so at all.

What she said. It should be fucking obvious, too.

I sorta made pointing out the fucking obvious my mission today, or so it seems.


Let's all welcome Dempub to the thread now, folks. *sits back and grabs chocolate pudding*

Sorry you don't like it, but that is the way relationships work in many parts of the world.

No, it's what happens in many parts of the TIMELINE, specifically about 1799 and before.

Arguing with you is way beneath me, though, so I won't.

Here's the written news report of that story...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071130/ap_on_re_us/miscarriages_charges;_ylt=Am_SSAHI9pKeXqjvr5VH6sqs0NUE

Some points I found interesting.

*On Thursday, Manishkumar M. Patel, 34, of Appleton, was accused of slipping the drug to the woman without her knowledge. He was charged with seven felonies and two misdemeanors, including attempted first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child, stalking, burglary and two counts of violating a restraining order. The nine charges carry a maximum penalty of 99 1/2 years in prison and a $92,000 fine.


* Wisconsin is one of 37 states with a "fetal homicide" law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Under the 1998 law, anyone who attacks a pregnant woman and injures or kills her fetus could face life in prison.

* The complaint said a search of Manishkumar Patel's residence Wednesday found an envelope containing pills labeled as mifepristone, or RU-486. Investigators said they asked him if he knew what kind of pills they were, and he responded, "abortion pills."

* Investigators had found an airline ticket in Patel's home for a flight scheduled to leave for Germany on Nov. 28, the day after he was arrested, Schroeder said.

If, however, you choose to engage in an act that you are expected to know to potentially lead to a pregnancy, your 'right to your sperm' becomes negligible in contrast to the woman's right to the intactness of her uterus and its contents

So why doesn't this apply to women as well? If you don't want to get pregnant, practice abstinence instead of infanticide.

So why doesn't this apply to women as well?

Because women don't have sperm.

So what? He didn't want the baby and all the chaos that would have come with that baby. Can't men also have a choice in this since this is a 50/50 teamwork thing?

No, it's what happens in many parts of the TIMELINE, specifically about 1799 and before.

Arguing with you is way beneath me, though, so I won't.

So in this day and age nowhere in the world is having a mistress culturally acceptable?

So what? He didn't want the baby and all the chaos that would have come with that baby. Can't men also have a choice in this since this is a 50/50 teamwork thing?

No. The unborn child has 'value of self' directly assigned to it through the laws of 37 states IF the Mother 'wants' it. Wisconsin, where this crime took place, is one of those states.

If, on the other hand, the mother didn't want the pregnancy to continue and the pregnancy was still in the first trimester (for example) then the unborn child would have no value of self assigned to it from the state laws.

Link to states with laws assigning the unborn the right to not be killed by anyone other than their mother... http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm

So in this day and age nowhere in the world is having a mistress culturally acceptable?

*cough*

Too bad your post was normative, not descriptive, eh? Something happening one way or the other does neither justify nor logically ask for 'moral support' for that way of things happening.

So what? He didn't want the baby and all the chaos that would have come with that baby. Can't men also have a choice in this since this is a 50/50 teamwork thing?

He has that choice in deciding how to have his own body participate in the reproductive process. He does not get to decide how someone else uses their own body in that process.

In other words, having sex with a woman does not give a man rights over that woman's body. If she becomes pregnant, it is solely up to her what to do about it.

So why doesn't this apply to women as well? If you don't want to get pregnant, practice abstinence instead of infanticide.
Everybody has the right to control how their own body participates in reproduction. Nobody has the right to force another person's body to participate in reproduction against that person's wishes.

For males, this means that you have the right to control where you shoot your sperm. However, once you have chosen to shoot your sperm into another person's body, it's no longer in your body. It's in theirs. They get to decide if they want it to stay there. You don't.

Get over it.

Don't become a wife either apparently. Oh you poor man, when Bottle gets ahold of you...
Meh. Just another troll harping about how female human beings should be treated like public toilets. Booooring.

So what? He didn't want the baby and all the chaos that would have come with that baby. Can't men also have a choice in this since this is a 50/50 teamwork thing?
Since when is pregnancy a 50-50 teamwork thing?

Sorry, but the pregnant person is the person who gets to make choices about their pregnancy. I 100% support a man's right to choose whether or not he wants to continue or terminate any pregnancy he experiences. I 100% oppose any man (or woman) who tries to force another person to continue/terminate their own pregnancy.

Since when is pregnancy a 50-50 teamwork thing?

Sorry, but the pregnant person is the person who gets to make choices about their pregnancy. I 100% support a man's right to choose whether or not he wants to continue or terminate any pregnancy he experiences. I 100% oppose any man (or woman) who tries to force another person to continue/terminate their own pregnancy.

I say that if a man wants a baby and his mistress doesn't, that woman has the right to surreptitiously give that man a vasectomy.

We must be fair.

I say that if a man wants a baby and his mistress doesn't, that woman has the right to surreptitiously give that man a vasectomy.

We must be fair.
Um, or we could just let everybody make decisions about their own reproductive organs, instead of fighting over what functions we get to force other people's bodies to undergo...

Nah. That would be too easy.

That is wrong in all ways http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/11/30/hostin.abortion.pill.cnn

Apparently he'd never heard of a CONDOM. He slips his mistress this pill in her drink on two separate occasions to cause her to miscarriage. All because he didn't want any more children.

Um, or we could just let everybody make decisions about their own reproductive organs, instead of fighting over what functions we get to force other people's bodies to undergo...

Nah. That would be too easy.

You'd think :)

This is a state law, which is good because it still makes the Connor Peterson Act unchallenged in Court. I'm afraid of the day that Peterson is used to overturn Roe.

I hope the dude gets the book thrown at him for the endangerment charges though.

Thats the whole point of a mistress. A wife takes care of the man's emotional needs (including children), and a mistress takes care of a man's physical needs. A man shouldn't need a condom for his mistress, she should be on the pill, or some other form of birth control. And if she gets preganant, hello abortion. If you're a women and think the arrangement sucks, then *don't* be someone's mistress.

First, if a man is going to marry, he should marry a woman that takes care of both of these needs. I know there is a stereotype of as soon as women get married they stop having sex with their husbands, but not all women are like that.

Second, In this case, it isn't the woman that is having a problem. It seems to me the man doesn't want the child, and the woman does, he then taking it into his own hands is not only killing the unborn child but is also removing the right for the woman to choose for herself. Personally, I think that if you don't want to have anymore children either alter yourself or take the necessary precautions to make it almost impossible.

Everybody has the right to control how their own body participates in reproduction. Nobody has the right to force another person's body to participate in reproduction against that person's wishes.

For males, this means that you have the right to control where you shoot your sperm. However, once you have chosen to shoot your sperm into another person's body, it's no longer in your body. It's in theirs. They get to decide if they want it to stay there. You don't.

Get over it.

If that is the case, what if the woman stole the man's sperm or raped him. In that case the man demanding that she get an abortion would jive, no?

This is an interesting story. A boyfriend spiking a smoothie so he would abort a fetus. What kind of punishment should this guy get? Discuss...

http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-abortionmiscarriages,0,7923215.story?track=rss

Should have gone with the Falcon Punch.

This is an infringement on the woman's right to self-choice in the matter. This is an assault. Even if the foetus would be unwanted by one or both, it doesn't change that this was forced on her through a spiked drink.

Thats the whole point of a mistress. A wife takes care of the man's emotional needs (including children), and a mistress takes care of a man's physical needs. A man shouldn't need a condom for his mistress, she should be on the pill, or some other form of birth control. And if she gets preganant, hello abortion. If you're a women and think the arrangement sucks, then *don't* be someone's mistress.

A better justification of marriage I have never heard. :D

Quality flamebait there.

What, no eb1l Hindus comments?

God damnit, what do we need to do to get some recognition. :(


...:p

What, no eb1l Hindus comments?

Who needs abortion when you have the Caste system?

Hell who needs birth control of any sort, when you have the Caste system? Just thinking about it is contraceptive enough for me.

EDIT: Much funnier and more pertinent reply by Khadgar (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13256909) at post #58

Who needs abortion when you have the Caste system?

Hell who needs birth control of any sort, when you have the Caste system? Just thinking about it is contraceptive enough for me.

Oh, you're telling me. It's really too bad that, from a standpoint of elitism, the caste system is still in effect. It may not be legally enforceable, but that doesn't mean a Brahmin won't look down his nose at a merchant when given the opportunity.

Oh, and the decision to abort is a huge decision, to some women. Since the value of the fetus to that woman can't be proven, it should be assumed to be at the top end of the range. The decision to abort was hers and hers alone, and true or not she can claim the maximum level of distress.

Civil case first, take everything he's got. Let him defend the criminal case with what's left.

*gavel*

What I don't get is why the guy felt the need to do this three times (twice successfully, and then the one he got caught on). You'd think after the first near disaster he'd decide it was easier just to buy a pack of condoms then keep taking his mistress out for "Mystery Milkshakes" every couple months.

What I don't get is why the guy felt the need to do this three times (twice successfully, and then the one he got caught on). You'd think after the first near disaster he'd decide it was easier just to buy a pack of condoms then keep taking his mistress out for "Mystery Milkshakes" every couple months.

It's really not funny, is it? What an asshole.

If that is the case, what if the woman stole the man's sperm or raped him. In that case the man demanding that she get an abortion would jive, no?

No. The man would, of course, immediately be freed from any responsibility for the kid (especially in a fiscal way of speaking), but he still has no right whatsoever over the woman's body.

What I don't get is why the guy felt the need to do this three times (twice successfully, and then the one he got caught on). You'd think after the first near disaster he'd decide it was easier just to buy a pack of condoms then keep taking his mistress out for "Mystery Milkshakes" every couple months.

I don't know about the cost of these pills, but I do know about the cost of condoms, and I'd wager that he opted for the most cost-efficient way.

Thats the whole point of a mistress. A wife takes care of the man's emotional needs (including children), and a mistress takes care of a man's physical needs. A man shouldn't need a condom for his mistress, she should be on the pill, or some other form of birth control. And if she gets preganant, hello abortion. If you're a women and think the arrangement sucks, then *don't* be someone's mistress.

Sadly that is the reality when it comes to mistresses.

The above is not a rare or uncommon view. In fact it is quite common.

It occurs to me that if a woman has a "right" to prevent her eggs from being fertilized, a man has the same "right" with regard to his sperm. Perhaps even more in a Western European culture, as property rights revert to primogeniture without a will in place.

surely then he would wear a condom.

If that is the case, what if the woman stole the man's sperm or raped him. In that case the man demanding that she get an abortion would jive, no?

No. The fact that she would have used his body against his will does not give him rights over her body, although he would certainly have the right to seek legal recourse for her actions.

No. The fact that she would have used his body against his will does not give him rights over her body, although he would certainly have the right to seek legal recourse for her actions.

Yeah, the crimes wouldn't just cancel out, they're quite different and don't 'jive.'

What, no eb1l Hindus comments?

God damnit, what do we need to do to get some recognition. :(


...:p

He found out the fetuses were girls.

No. The fact that she would have used his body against his will does not give him rights over her body, although he would certainly have the right to seek legal recourse for her actions.

He would most certainly not be obligated to support the kid, however. I hope.

He found out the fetuses were girls.

Hehe.

this man is RETARDED. WEAR A CONDOM

He would most certainly not be obligated to support the kid, however. I hope.


I think he actually is... - there was a case recently here where that was the situation and im pretty sure that the legal decision was that as the child was genetically his he had a legal (or was it moral and therefore legal) requirement to look after and support it, even if he had no intentions of having a child and took all reasonable precautions.

I think he actually is... - there was a case recently here where that was the situation and im pretty sure that the legal decision was that as the child was genetically his he had a legal (or was it moral and therefore legal) requirement to look after and support it, even if he had no intentions of having a child and took all reasonable precautions.

So the question is: is the man expected to take reasonable precautions against the woman taking and using some of his semen? For instance, would leaving the used condom in the bathroom rubbish be considered "not taking all reasonable precautions"?

What constitutes "theft" of bodily fluids which have been discarded?

I beleive in that case it was proven (she admitted) sabotage of his prophylactics.

I beleive in that case it was proven (she admitted) sabotage of his prophylactics.

That seems an odd result. Why can't he sue her right back: by her action she made him liable for ongoing and well-established costs, to wit: the child support.

Eh, there'd be a rule against that.

I think he actually is... - there was a case recently here where that was the situation and im pretty sure that the legal decision was that as the child was genetically his he had a legal (or was it moral and therefore legal) requirement to look after and support it, even if he had no intentions of having a child and took all reasonable precautions.

I can't speak of USAian law, but in Germany there have been decisions ruling that the man would not be liable for financial repercussions for him from the woman's decision to impregnate herself with his sperm against his will or knowledge (IIRC this was a "use semen from a used condom" story).

(I always wondered, though, how a court establishes that protection has always been used and such, as to fulfill the grounds on which such a lawsuit could be successful)

i think it was more she couldnt support the child, someone had to pay to support it, and he earned a substantial quantity of money... therefore he could.
But this is based on memory so could be faulty

I think he actually is... - there was a case recently here where that was the situation and im pretty sure that the legal decision was that as the child was genetically his he had a legal (or was it moral and therefore legal) requirement to look after and support it, even if he had no intentions of having a child and took all reasonable precautions.

That was my understanding of the case as well. Until some of the "feminists" here on NSG realize that the laws are written against men... I dunno its just sad.

No. The fact that she would have used his body against his will does not give him rights over her body, although he would certainly have the right to seek legal recourse for her actions.

And its my opinion that his legal recourse should include demanding she get an abortion. When someone commits a crime they forfeit their rights to society which then decides what should be done on behalf of the grievances of the victim.

Well, heres an analogy. A man has some wood in his basement. He happens to invite a woman over but in the course of her stay he leaves her alone for a few minutes to go take a piss w/e. She steals his wood, and has a house built. Now it makes no sense that the man shouldn't get his wood back just because she started building a house with it. The claim that its her house makes no sense since she built it in part with materials that weren't hers. To me he should be able to get his wood back, even if it means tearing the house down. At the least he shouldn't have to pay off the 20-yr mortgage she took out on her soon to be built house.

And its my opinion that his legal recourse should include demanding she get an abortion. When someone commits a crime they forfeit their rights to society which then decides what should be done on behalf of the grievances of the victim.
Absolutely. Only that as long as the man doesn't have to, e.g., pay child support, there is no 'grievances' for the male victim. Having someone who shares your genes run around isn't a grievance and/or affects you negatively in any way, unless of course you're asked to partake a certain role in said person's life. Therefore,a s I said, it should be within the man's right to refuse any liability from a pregnancy that had been achieved actively against his consent, but he still has no right to violate the woman's body.

Well, heres an analogy. A man has some wood in his basement. He happens to invite a woman over but in the course of her stay he leaves her alone for a few minutes to go take a piss w/e. She steals his wood, and has a house built. Now it makes no sense that the man shouldn't get his wood back just because she started building a house with it. The claim that its her house makes no sense since she built it in part with materials that weren't hers. To me he should be able to get his wood back, even if it means tearing the house down. At the least he shouldn't have to pay off the 20-yr mortgage she took out on her soon to be built house.
That's a poor analogy. In your case, the victim lacks some of his property he did not consent to being given away. In the sperm case, the man doesn't have any less "property" when the woman abuses his sperm than he'd have if it had just been thrown away in the trash with the used condom.

A somewhat more proper analogy, if you want to stick with wood, is the man giving some wood to a woman with the sole and clearly expressed wish that they use it to build a fire to warm themselves, but she takes it away and makes a spear out of it, kills someone with it, and is now sueing you to help pay the compensation money she has to pay the poor, speared victim - on the grounds that you, even though you didn't want such a usage, have provided the scratch materials that enabled her to the act of spearing that person.

Now, that's a piss-poor analogy too on many levels, but it takes care of at least one flaw of your one.

Sorry you don't like it, but that is the way relationships work in many parts of the world.
Your claims don't alter women's rights. Just because you think that a mistress has to do certain things doesn't mean she does. Ditto a wife.
So in this day and age nowhere in the world is having a mistress culturally acceptable?

Irrelevant.

Thats the whole point of a mistress. A wife takes care of the man's emotional needs (including children), and a mistress takes care of a man's physical needs. A man shouldn't need a condom for his mistress, she should be on the pill, or some other form of birth control. And if she gets preganant, hello abortion. If you're a women and think the arrangement sucks, then *don't* be someone's mistress.

When bottle gets ahold of this please TG me the results!!!! Anyone!

Thats the whole point of a mistress. A wife takes care of the man's emotional needs (including children), and a mistress takes care of a man's physical needs. A man shouldn't need a condom for his mistress, she should be on the pill, or some other form of birth control. And if she gets preganant, hello abortion. If you're a women and think the arrangement sucks, then *don't* be someone's mistress.

Number 49 on my list of 'why it is so awesome to be gay'.

Number 49 on my list of 'why it is so awesome to be gay'.

laughs at post. Looks at name - grosses out.

laughs at post. Looks at name - grosses out.

lol - I am but of a lucky few who like man love :fluffle:

What something to be grossed out, look at a twatt - looks like some sort of hairy out of space alien that wants to eat penis's up and curse the man with kids for the rest of his life.

And its my opinion that his legal recourse should include demanding she get an abortion.

Then you are no better than people who think a man should be able to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

Under no circumstances whatsoever does one person gain rights over another's' body.

When someone commits a crime they forfeit their rights to society which then decides what should be done on behalf of the grievances of the victim.

The right to bodily integrity is not forfeited. Even felons retain that right.

The right to bodily integrity is not forfeited. Even felons retain that right.

I think felons should lose rights based off what crimes they commit. For example, if I catch someone breaking into my house and stealing my furniture, I can take his wallet. Yay. Though I suppose this is handled in a sense anyway, through the justice system.

At any rate, that abortion-pill-slipping man should get some jail time for his intrusive and potentially harmful behavior.

And its my opinion that his legal recourse should include demanding she get an abortion.

In which case her counsel should rightly respond to his with the phrase, "Fuck off."

If he doesn't have to pay for support, then what the hell does it matter from there?

If that is the case, what if the woman stole the man's sperm or raped him. In that case the man demanding that she get an abortion would jive, no?
Still no. The woman should be held criminally accountable for what she did, because rape is wrong no matter who's committing it, but it's still her body that's at issue.

The man's body is not participating in the pregnancy, period. The person who's body is pregnant gets the final word.

Then you are no better than people who think a man should be able to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

Under no circumstances whatsoever does one person gain rights over another's' body.



The right to bodily integrity is not forfeited. Even felons retain that right.
Bingo.

It's interesting that so many people casually declare pregnant women (even those who have commited no crime whatsoever) to have less right to bodily integrity than convicted serial killers.

Look, folks, it's incredibly simple to work this issue out:

Is your body currently pregnant?

If yes, then you get to decide if you remain pregnant or terminate the pregnancy in question.

If no, then you do not get to decide whether the pregnancy will continue or terminate.

Then you are no better than people who think a man should be able to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

Under no circumstances whatsoever does one person gain rights over another's' body.



The right to bodily integrity is not forfeited. Even felons retain that right.

Spot on.

However there is a problem with the last part in that prisons are not conducive to keep one bodily integrity...