Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Fox Doc Argues Men Should Have 'Veto' Power Over Women's Abortions [View all]geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)245. You don't care about the kid. You flat out don't, since your position is that men should
be able to disown the kid and not provide for its needs if it suits their fancy.
You want women to bear ALL of the burden and risks of childraising.
That makes you nothing more than a typical woman-hating MRA.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
288 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Fox Doc Argues Men Should Have 'Veto' Power Over Women's Abortions [View all]
Capt. Obvious
May 2015
OP
When men face the possibility of death for childbirth, then they get a say
riderinthestorm
May 2015
#2
So you think a judge should have the power to control a woman's body, including
geek tragedy
May 2015
#15
What's scary is that this isn't the most repulsive piece of MRA dog feces
geek tragedy
May 2015
#152
Jury results (verdict: perfectly fine to advocate treating women's bodies as property of men)
geek tragedy
May 2015
#22
the anger and hostility towards someone objecting to male supremacism was startling
geek tragedy
May 2015
#47
They did not say overreact, they said stuff like it was "biased and hateful" to
geek tragedy
May 2015
#56
I get it. Some people think that misogyny and arguing against women's civil rights
geek tragedy
May 2015
#84
Yes. There should be at least one progressive discussion board on the internet
geek tragedy
May 2015
#90
kinda like, a gay once patted me on the ass, so homophobia is ok. or a black person
seabeyond
May 2015
#116
Attacking someone is not the best way to get them to take up the cause....
Spitfire of ATJ
May 2015
#167
They vote Republican because they're sexist assholes who fit in with that
geek tragedy
May 2015
#176
So, stating that men have a property interest in a woman's body is not offensive?
geek tragedy
May 2015
#40
Point 1: You're stating a falsehood, several of the comments were outraged
geek tragedy
May 2015
#50
there is absolutely NOTHING "reasonable" about proudly proclaiming that MEN have a right to
niyad
May 2015
#105
How precisely do you measure a valid analogy as "swinging at the fences?"
LanternWaste
May 2015
#129
A woman's right to choose is clearly defined in our Democratic Party Platform and objections to it
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#169
but, your opinion is that sexism, misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia
geek tragedy
May 2015
#70
I'm aware of that failing, but seeing as how the TOS has been effectively revoked
geek tragedy
May 2015
#93
I wasn't aware of this, zero tolerance for racism, transphobia and homphobia? That doesn't...
Humanist_Activist
May 2015
#240
hosts are constantly locking what they deem meta, with women issues. i would like a list of hosts.
seabeyond
May 2015
#63
i have seen it too many times not to be obvious and hosts names are connected
seabeyond
May 2015
#67
"maintain a 100% chance of serving on a jury." star, no hides, no posting on OPs. no blocking people
seabeyond
May 2015
#114
I guess the question is where does the line get drawn, where advocacy is per se trolling
geek tragedy
May 2015
#133
except you are saying MRA talking points fine on du. is KKK talking points? rw talking points? nt
seabeyond
May 2015
#161
what a cop out. that is pure MRA talking point. why are they allowed on du for discussion, not KKK
seabeyond
May 2015
#189
a pass. not hidden. so we allow KKK and rw talking points get a pass. not hidden, too?
seabeyond
May 2015
#198
That is giving them a pass. And yes- his opinions are equally sick and disturbing as anything the KK
bettyellen
May 2015
#265
sorry, but it was, in fact, hate speech--hatred against women's autonomy and control
niyad
May 2015
#141
Who the hell ARE these people? I hope they're proud enough to tell us who they are.
Hekate
May 2015
#146
And we do. The title in your reply is specifically why we should never ever be compelled to.
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#135
BECAUSE IT IS NOT HIS BODY AT RISK!!! he is not going to risk gestational diabetes, stroke,
niyad
May 2015
#100
So should at least one participant in this discussion. See above, and below nt
geek tragedy
May 2015
#30
Vasectomy is favorite for me. Then the guy with the attitude can keep all his little swimmers...
Hekate
May 2015
#157
A woman gets 100% choice over the pregnancy because she's the one who is pregnant
gollygee
May 2015
#21
Your misogyny is showing, and it is as ugly as it is hateful and irrational.
geek tragedy
May 2015
#28
textbook MRA argement. no control over woman, dont have to pay child support. nt
seabeyond
May 2015
#58
if i understand your post properly, you admit being an irresponsible sperm donor.
unblock
May 2015
#32
"If men could have babies, abortion would be a sacrament" - Bumper sticker I saw.
Tierra_y_Libertad
May 2015
#44
If he wants that men be able to make reproductive choices for women, then he'd better agree
MADem
May 2015
#55
So 1 person should have 100% sole decision making authority over whether 2 people have a child?
craigmatic
May 2015
#203
Women don't just 'generally' have the right to do what they want with their own bodies ...
polly7
May 2015
#210
If what you were saying was 100% true then they wouldn't have drug possession laws.
craigmatic
May 2015
#212
I think if he wants a child so bad that he would force a woman to carry one to term
polly7
May 2015
#219
I don't belive in the free market enough to be libertarian and on this issue the
craigmatic
May 2015
#229
My point was that there is no such thing as total freedom. There are laws and limits on things you
craigmatic
May 2015
#224
He does. At that moment when he decides to take off his pants. There's his shot at making
ScreamingMeemie
May 2015
#268
so you are anti choice, also? you cannot say you are pro choice, when your words say anti choice.
seabeyond
May 2015
#74
Sure you can you can e pro-choice and still go back and re-examine the issue. That's all I'm doing
craigmatic
May 2015
#250
You are re-examining whether women are autonomous beings with equal rights ....?
etherealtruth
May 2015
#263
It's "boring" to decisively conclude women should control their own bodies?? WTF dude? Shitty
bettyellen
May 2015
#267
Oh, ffs.... Your post is filled with RW and MRA rhetoric. Are you on the correct site?
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#77
Yeah. He did actually seem to imply that a woman should be forced to abort.
alphafemale
May 2015
#196
Actually I meant the man would get to sign away his rights and not have to support it.
craigmatic
May 2015
#202
Really 1959 mindset just because I don't automatically assume one person should make life choices
craigmatic
May 2015
#206
Women generally do discuss with their partners, they just shouldn't be legally compelled to.
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#208
I never called anybody a monster. I just said more conversation was needed.
craigmatic
May 2015
#211
Women generally do discuss with their partners, they just shouldn't be legally compelled to.
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#215
If they don't involve their partners, it's usually for good reason. You don't think there's anything
craigmatic
May 2015
#222
The only 'reason' needs to be, the woman does not choose to carry a child to term. Period.
polly7
May 2015
#223
You don't care about the kid. You flat out don't, since your position is that men should
geek tragedy
May 2015
#245
I think there some form of mediation for it not necessarily a lawsuit or a law but something.
craigmatic
May 2015
#257
So the born child's welfare is less important to you than allowing men to be free
geek tragedy
May 2015
#244
I'm no MRA. They blame feminism and the matriarchy. I realize all of the laws were written by men.
craigmatic
May 2015
#277
the system sucks- there's kids in abusive situations that don't get taken out.
craigmatic
May 2015
#279
I'm not backing away from my own opinions just because they're unpopular here.
craigmatic
May 2015
#285
A woman is not an interchangeable Lego part for your dick...she could die in childbirth.
Lars39
May 2015
#87
not all. he may have had a messy divorce or two. so allowed to be misogynist. (another poster
seabeyond
May 2015
#122
The "good answer" is for people to worry about the one body attached to their neck
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#119
The decision-making power over the pregnancy belongs with the person whose body is pregnant
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#109
so keith, if dad decides he doesn't want the kid, he can veto bringing the pregnancy to term
spanone
May 2015
#138
I don't want that control over men and I don't want them to have control over me.
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#160
more MRA? are you talking a baby, not a man, with circumcision? what women are
seabeyond
May 2015
#164
the risks associated with pregnancy hugely outweigh the risks associated with a vasectomy
uppityperson
May 2015
#197
Imagine that ... right wing nut job doesn't view women as EQUAL autonomous beings
etherealtruth
May 2015
#158
Sadly, that rightwing nutjob has people agreeing with him in this thread. nt
geek tragedy
May 2015
#159
Yeah Keith, what if the woman wants the baby and the man doesn't because he's a cheap bastard?
Manifestor_of_Light
May 2015
#163
I should have veto power over whether this guy gets to keep his genitals.
Arugula Latte
May 2015
#256