Roe v Wade for Men

[jcrawford]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060308/ap_ ... rhood_suit

The problem with this lawsuit is that it doesn't deal with married men's reproductive, procreative and adoptive rights within marriage, men's right to advocate abortions for the wives and daughters of married men, or men's right to medically abort women in the first place.
I could argue that unmarried persons don't have any right to reproduce at all. So, in cases like this lawsuit deals with, an unmarried woman could be forced to abort if she and her lover-boy can't, or don't want, to get married.

I would only argue as a legal theorist since there are no laws on the books requiring unmarried woman to abort at this time. However, the principle of terminating unwanted pregnancies by abortive medical procedures has become well established in law for over 30 years now, and it would be a case of gender and religious discrimination to deny Christian men the right to have their babies aborted when Jewish medical men and women already have the right to perform abortions on Christian women.

[ST88]

Biology dictates who gets pregnant. The only bugaboos with the male side of pregnancy are the social idea of ownership/parentage of the child, and the financial responsibility of same. These are matters of society and law. There is no valid reason that a male should have abortive rights over a female, but there is also no reason that a law could not be created that absolves a male from financial responsibility should that be the wishes of the male. But if we accept a society where we have the freedom to "love" whomever we wish whenever we wish, we should be able to have grown-up rules about who is forced to do what.

This part of the article caught my eye:

State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents.

I wonder what this says about our society, that an "ideal" household is made up of two wage-earners. If the judicial system wants to act as social engineers, then they should mandate what they feel is the morally correct version of a family. If financial support from two parents is good, why wouldn't financial support from three parents be better? Why is polygamy outlawed if "financial support of the children" is our standard?

[jcrawford]

This part of the article caught my eye:

State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents.

I wonder what this says about our society, that an "ideal" household is made up of two wage-earners. If the judicial system wants to act as social engineers, then they should mandate what they feel is the morally correct version of a family. If financial support from two parents is good, why wouldn't financial support from three parents be better? Why is polygamy outlawed if "financial support of the children" is our standard?

Seeing how the judicial system is rapidly abandoning any recognizable standards of decency and morality on which to base their arbitrary sexual, racial and religious decisions, I don't even understand why we don't have two or three supreme courts - one for the Jews, Christians and Muslims, one for the atheistic seccies and femmies, and one for judging the other two. Course, the last one would consist only of illegal aliens who are helping to create plenty jobs and babies in America.

[ENIGMA]

Seeing how the judicial system is rapidly abandoning any recognizable standards of decency and morality on which to base their arbitrary sexual, racial and religious decisions, I don't even understand why we don't have two or three supreme courts - one for the Jews, Christians and Muslims, one for the atheistic seccies and femmies, and one for judging the other two.

Then only the last one would be the Supreme Court then. Duh.

Also, the two other courts should, by all rights, should be used to try cases involving different types of pants-wearing members of our society.

Obviously, one major court can be established to deal with cases involving "Button then Zip" pantswearers, and the other can deal with cases involving "Zip then Button" pantswearers. It would be a severe injustice to allow "Button then Zip" justices to decide cases and legal matters for "Zip then Button" pantswearing citizens of this country. The third could perhaps decide conflicts of the other two and for the non-pantswearing citizens of this country.

This principle readily extends to businesses. Shouldn't a business that is run and managed by "Button then Zip" pantswearers be required to display their pantswearing affiliation to any prospective customers, or "Zip then Button" be made to do likewise? At the very least pants manufacturers should be mandated to provide such information. Not just pants manufacturers, but ultimately any business that deals in any issue that pantswearers may have any concern about should be illustrated in that manner.

It is readily a matter of concern to all "Button then Zip" pantswearers when the wife or minor of a "Button then Zip" pantswearer chooses to go to such places as "The Gap" and "Abercrombie and Fitch" or perhaps even "Old Navy" to acquire new pants and even potentially decide to *gasp* consider themselves "Zip then Button"... Obviously such matters of consent extend to the whole community of "Button than Zip" pantswearers and all such transactions should thus be restricted until a general concensus of all "Button then Zip" pantswearers agree that such a transaction is acceptable.

[jcrawford]

Seeing how the judicial system is rapidly abandoning any recognizable standards of decency and morality on which to base their arbitrary sexual, racial and religious decisions, I don't even understand why we don't have two or three supreme courts - one for the Jews, Christians and Muslims, one for the atheistic seccies and femmies, and one for judging the other two.

Then only the last one would be the Supreme Court then. Duh.

Not when the first two can invalidate the judgement of the last one by 2 -1 majority rule.

Also, the two other courts should, by all rights, should be used to try cases involving different types of pants-wearing members of our society.

All members of society can easily escape pant-swearing judgement by donning black robes and pretending they are competent SCOTUS judges themselves.

[Wyvern]

Kinda sad when someone is so curled up in their own worldview they can't see when they are being made fun of.

[McCulloch]

Kinda sad when someone is so curled up in their own worldview they can't see when they are being made fun of.

Please reread the Debate Forum Intro and Rules. 1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Please refrain from making personal remarks about other debaters that could easily be interpreted as being a personal attack.

[ST88]

Seeing how the judicial system is rapidly abandoning any recognizable standards of decency and morality on which to base their arbitrary sexual, racial and religious decisions, I don't even understand why we don't have two or three supreme courts - one for the Jews, Christians and Muslims, one for the atheistic seccies and femmies, and one for judging the other two.

Even if you don't, I do. Everyone is equal under the law, regardless of religion or political affiliation. There are no separate courts for different religions because (U.S.) law is not interested in morality, only in civic justice.

[McCulloch]

Seeing how the judicial system is rapidly abandoning any recognizable standards of decency and morality on which to base their arbitrary sexual, racial and religious decisions, I don't even understand why we don't have two or three supreme courts - one for the Jews, Christians and Muslims, one for the atheistic seccies and femmies, and one for judging the other two.

And just how would this work? When someone appeals to the Supreme Court, one would have to specify which court the Religious or the Secular one you wish to be heard by. Or maybe you would have everyone be identified by whether they are religious or secular. If you are religious (perhaps a mark on your forehead), then you will be heard by the Religious court. What about if there is a legal dispute between a Religious person and a Secular one? Who gets to hear that? Or perhaps Religious people should not interact with Secular ones. Let's establish Religious Apartheid. It did not work so well in Germany in the 30's and early 40's, but what the heck, why not try it again?

[jcrawford]

Seeing how the judicial system is rapidly abandoning any recognizable standards of decency and morality on which to base their arbitrary sexual, racial and religious decisions, I don't even understand why we don't have two or three supreme courts - one for the Jews, Christians and Muslims, one for the atheistic seccies and femmies, and one for judging the other two.

Even if you don't, I do. Everyone is equal under the law, regardless of religion or political affiliation.

That's just secular rhetoric about an unattainable ideal since it is obvious we no effectual religious courts for Christians, Muslims and Jews, and we are all judged by secular socialists and atheistic humanists.

There are no separate courts for different religions because (U.S.) law is not interested in morality, only in civic justice.

How can there be "civic" justice without Mosaic Civic Law?
Socrates didn't even know what justice was. Do you? Define it.