Abortion Violence.

[jcrawford]

While Americans are focused on violence in other parts of the world, domestic terrorists are hard at work killing all the unborn children of Christian, Jewish and Muslim men they can get their bloody hands on.

Christian and Jewish politicians in New York like Hill and Bill Clinton, bloody Bloomberg and Spitzer all support the indiscriminate killing of the unborn babies of married Christian, Jewish and Muslim men in America.

So who are the terrorists that Homeland Security is supposed to be protecting us from? Muslim, Jewish and Christian abortionists? Or are all the baby-killing medical doctors secular supremacists who coudn't care less whose babies they kill?

[jcrawford]

[You now seem to be saying that a Christian in a monogamous relationship needs permission to:

1. Go to the bathroom in a public bathroom.
2. Participate in any sports activity requiring group showers
3. Ditto for college showers.
4. Ditto for any doctors visits requiring 'personal examination.' (Do X-rays count?)

All granted by tacit agreement except #4 which would only rule out exams by abortionists.

However, your position would basically require that only the husband can attend at birth without the husband's consent. And if the husband is not around she gives birth by herself ???

Wife can have any doctor, mid-wife, and family member present she wants for purposes of home delivery or birthing in a maternity ward. What's wrong with that since that's what I granted my wife when she chose home birthing too. I just don't give abortionists any rights.

Maybe now we should have a 'check-off list' on marriage licenses for who can or cannot 'be exposed to' (Let's see honey, I think I'll check OK on the gynecologist, but not your buddies at the women's health club).

Not a bad idea as long as abortionists are free to wantonly kill men's fetal offspring without their consent. Better to just cancel and void the licenses of abortionists who refuse paternal notification than to change marriage licenses or marriage laws at this time.

[jcrawford]

JCrawford seems to be arguing the opposite. He believes that those who have no part in his religion should impose his perception of his rights upon someone who does not share his religious belief. The state and abortion providers have no part in his religion. He believes that his religion grants him the right to be informed and provide or withhold consent to medical treatment for his wife. If the wife of a man, such as JCrawford, seeks an abortion, she is, by her actions, declaring that she does not share his religious belief.

Putting aside anyone's religious beliefs for the moment, any married man has the right to demand the voiding of licenses to all medical doctors and insurers who refuse to notify the husband of a woman whose fetus is scheduled to be aborted or has been aborted and paid for by the employee health plan of the husband without his knowledge and consent. If married men don't have equal rights in America, what right do single men have to marry men?

[McCulloch]

[A]ny married man has the right to demand the voiding of licenses to all medical doctors and insurers who refuse to notify the husband of a woman whose fetus is scheduled to be aborted or has been aborted and paid for by the employee health plan of the husband without his knowledge and consent.

Now you've got me confused again. What relevance has the payment system? Are you trying to say that if the husband's health plan pays for the abortion, then the husband must be informed but if the woman pays for the abortion herself, or out of her health plan, then it is OK?
However, under the current law, you are incorrect. So, may I will read that as, "[A]ny married man should have the right to demand the voiding of licenses to all medical doctors and insurers who refuse to notify the husband of a woman whose fetus is scheduled to be aborted or has been aborted without his knowledge and consent." ?
I think that you have made it perfectly clear that you believe that married men should have that right. What you have not made clear, to me, is why? Do you believe that marriage grants (or should grant) the husband statutory rights over his wife's body?

If married men don't have equal rights in America, what right do single men have to marry men?

You have not explained why these two issues are related. If men do not have the right to carry concealed handguns, what right do the police have to practice shooting at the target range? I'm missing the logical link.

[McCulloch]

Better to just cancel and void the licenses of abortionists who refuse paternal notification than to change marriage licenses or marriage laws at this time.

I am unaware that there is anything in the marriage license or in the marriage law that grants the kind of rights you describe. I checked my marriage license (it is still in our filing cabinet 24 years after it was issued). There is no clause granting me the right to approve or deny any medical treatment for my wife. I am not an expert in family law, but I really doubt that there are any laws enacted by our federal or provincial governments which grant the kind of rights you describe. Perhaps you would be so kind as to post, or quote, or link to any such laws on the books in your country or state.

[jcrawford]

[A]ny married man has the right to demand the voiding of licenses to all medical doctors and insurers who refuse to notify the husband of a woman whose fetus is scheduled to be aborted or has been aborted and paid for by the employee health plan of the husband without his knowledge and consent.

Now you've got me confused again. What relevance has the payment system?

Why would an employee health plan pay for an employee's covered spouse getting an abortion without his knowledge and consent other than the fact that it is cheaper than paying for delivery in a maternity ward? Are male employees supposed to remain fools forever and never a whistle-blower?

Are you trying to say that if the husband's health plan pays for the abortion, then the husband must be informed but if the woman pays for the abortion herself, or out of her health plan, then it is OK?

I wouldn't advise my wife to pay for it out her own pocket and if her employee health plan pays for it without my knowledge and consent, her insurer and the abortionist could both lose their licenses to practice their profession any longer. Of course, if they pay satisfactory restitution for my loss of fetal life due to their medical malpractice or negligence, I might drop the case.

[Cephus]

Hoo-boy, if it wasn't bad enough that you're already a religious nutcase, you're also a racist nutcase. Will wonders ever cease?

Cephus, your remarks are definately uncivil. Please refrain from making personal and insulting comments about other debaters.

They might be uncivil, but they're 100% accurate and truthful.

[McCulloch]

I wouldn't advise my wife to pay for it out her own pocket and if her employee health plan pays for it without my knowledge and consent, her insurer and the abortionist could both lose their licenses to practice their profession any longer. Of course, if they pay satisfactory restitution for my loss of fetal life due to their medical malpractice or negligence, I might drop the case.

I do hope that you would plan to get and follow sound legal advice before launching such a suit. Otherwise you would probably just be wasting your own and the court's time and would be out-of-pocket for the costs.

[jcrawford]

However, under the current law, you are incorrect. So, may I will read that as, "[A]ny married man should have the right to demand the voiding of licenses to all medical doctors and insurers who refuse to notify the husband of a woman whose fetus is scheduled to be aborted or has been aborted without his knowledge and consent." ?

If all you inserted or changed in my claim is the word, "should," I would omit it because our unfettered right to demand anything we want doesn't necessitate it's being granted until the demand becomes legally irresistable and undeniable.

I think that you have made it perfectly clear that you believe that married men should have that right. What you have not made clear, to me, is why?

Because, as any reasonable lawyer in his sober mind will tell you, we do have that right.

Do you believe that marriage grants (or should grant) the husband statutory rights over his wife's body?

It's not necessary since married men have the right to sue anyone who conspires to inflict harm or damage to his wife's body or a fetus within it.

If married men don't have equal rights in America, what right do single men have to marry men?

You have not explained why these two issues are related.

The right to marry and procreate within marriage are a single issue.
If all men don't have equal marriage rights, why should any?

If men do not have the right to carry concealed handguns, what right do the police have to practice shooting at the target range? I'm missing the logical link.

Check with your local police precinct or the NRA on that one.

[jcrawford]

Better to just cancel and void the licenses of abortionists who refuse paternal notification than to change marriage licenses or marriage laws at this time.

I am unaware that there is anything in the marriage license or in the marriage law that grants the kind of rights you describe. I checked my marriage license (it is still in our filing cabinet 24 years after it was issued). There is no clause granting me the right to approve or deny any medical treatment for my wife. I am not an expert in family law, but I really doubt that there are any laws enacted by our federal or provincial governments which grant the kind of rights you describe. Perhaps you would be so kind as to post, or quote, or link to any such laws on the books in your country or state.

You are right. Legislative bodies in the US and Canada seem to have neglected to include any provisions in law which guarantee and protect the rights of married men. However, "it is never too late to legislate," is my legal motto and in the meantime, all men have the right to take their particular case for marital rights to courts of law which may find some current laws on the books rather antiquated and unsuitable for constitutionally governing a society with large populations of married Christian, Jewish and Muslim men without equal rights.

[jcrawford]

I wouldn't advise my wife to pay for it out her own pocket and if her employee health plan pays for it without my knowledge and consent, her insurer and the abortionist could both lose their licenses to practice their profession any longer. Of course, if they pay satisfactory restitution for my loss of fetal life due to their medical malpractice or negligence, I might drop the case.

I do hope that you would plan to get and follow sound legal advice before launching such a suit. Otherwise you would probably just be wasting your own and the court's time and would be out-of-pocket for the costs.

Of course. I would never attempt such an undertaking solely on my behalf only, seeing how my wife and I are well beyond the procreative and active reproductive stages of our lives. However, I certainly would lend my good name to any class action suit that some other married men may proceed with upon the sound legal advice of some Christian, Jewish and Islamic male lawyers who undoubtedly would be named as co-litigants in the civil rights and constitutional lawsuit against the immoral medical malpractices of certain medical doctors and their fellow conspirators in the 'health' insurance racket.

Whoever would have thunk that the feds would force big tobacco to pay 300 billion in restitution to states that had to pay for the hospital bills of Medicaid and Medicare patients whose lungs had gotten polluted from cigarette smoke. The day is soon coming when medical and insurance corporations will be forced to pay billions in reparations to married men whose fetuses were sucked out of the wombs of their wives without their written consent, or be forced to close shop.

How's the weather up there in my home town of Toronto today, anyway? Thanks for the two feet of snow you dumped on New York last week. Like old soldiers and unwanted abortionists though, it faded away one day and not a trace of the white stuff remains anymore.