Laws governing men's bodies

1. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago

   “Can you think of any laws that give government the power to make decisions about the male body?” Harris asked.
   
   After a long pause and a bizarre back-and-forth in which Kavanaugh asked for a more specific question and then claimed he thought Harris was “asking about medical procedures that are unique to men,” the judge eventually admitted that he could not think of any laws governing the male body.
   
   Good question, Senator Harris.
   
   Video: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4747580/ … -mans-body

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That is why conservatives and Republicans need to be avoided like the plague. In the face of this reality, I am appalled to consider the number of women that are determined to support reactionary groups to their own deficit.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Credence2, women support religions that are anathemas to women.  I find it beyond insane for any women to support & participate in religious institutions.  Religious institutions, for the most part, are anti-female.   Really, now?!!!

         replyreport
   2. 96

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      How foolish!  There are hundreds of laws governing the use of the male body.
      
      1. A male fist may not be planted on your nose.
      2. A male may not infuse his body with alcohol and drive a car.
      3. A male may not sell his organs or other parts (except blood)
      4. A male may be forced to join the military and die as a result (currently suspended but could be reinstated).
      5. A male may not cover his face (hide identity) in some circumstances.
      6. A male may not exhibit his genitalia in public.
      7. A male not introduce any of a hundred or more chemicals into his body.
      8. You may not utilize a male body to cause death, or hire the death, of another person....
      
      Wait.  That was the (poorly) hidden clause, wasn't it?  You're trying to say that "murder" is actually "controlling a woman's body" in an effort to conceal what is being done aren't you?  Wouldn't you be better off discussing what is "murder" or what is a "person" rather than trying to hide behind something else - to spin it into something it is not?

      replyreport
      1. 90

         MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Wilderness, no your answer was foolish. None of those laws you mention are exclusive to the male body. They apply to females as well. PrettyPanther asked about laws EXCLUSIVE to the male gender. Something that would count, but it doesn't exist is No male can have a vasectomy without a 14 day waiting period in which he must view certain videos explaining why it is dangerous to his sperm count and why having sex without conception amounts to murder. Or: no male can have a vasectomy until he has fathered a minimum of two children and can prove that fatherhood in a court of law.
         
         Think those sound foolish? Women who are not blinded by man's religion also think that male dominance of our reproduction systems are foolish. Everybody blames the woman if she wants an abortion, but nobody blames the male for being careless.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            +100000000000000000000000000000000000 in agreement w/you, MizBejabbers! This is nothing new for wilderness.  Answers he gives are oftentimes quite illogical veering into the irrational.  He is of the school that women should be in traditional roles.  I have experienced his atavistic responses countless times, MizBejabbers.   It is SO PAR for the course.  It is his premise that women should have a house full of children & not to be concerned about careers & improving themselves educationally nor socioeconomically.  So don't be surprised by his "answers."  I learned not to be...…..hmmmmm.  He loves to critique things that are progressive to women.  He routinely criticize women who choose career over motherhood.  Welcome to wilderness' universe...……let's return to a MORE ANCIENT time...……………….let's go back...…………..WAY BACK...………….

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               That has to be the biggest crock you've ever put on here, GM.  I've never said that people should have a house full of kids and I've never criticized a woman that chooses career over children.
               
               I have criticized the notion that the only thing in life that counts is a pot full of money or the notion that anyone valuing family over gold are foolish and wrong.  You, on the other hand, and stated that the only measure of success is gold, with family or children not counting for anything at all, simply because you find it so and give no credence at all to the values or goals of other people.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  My apologies to you, wilderness.  My sincere apologies.....Let's us start on a new foot now.

                  replyreport
                  1. 90

                     MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     GMW, how did that subject get introduced in here? He has Gish Galloped you into apologizing. See how he uses that to manipulate others. You didn't owe him an apology for introducing another forum into this one.

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        LOVE YOU, MizBejabbers.

                        replyreport
                     2. 83

                        gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        You know you're right.  He always does this.  He is on a FAR DIFFERENT wave length from the rest of us.  It is hard discussing anything w/him.  What is normal to us, he simply can't or won't fathom.

                        replyreport
         2. 96

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Really?  Allow me to quote the first line of the OP: “Can you think of any laws that give government the power to make decisions about the male body?”
            
            I do not see the term "only" or "exclusively" anywhere there.  In addition, it would be foolish in the extreme to discuss something a male cannot do with his female reproductive system, don't you think?
            
            In any case, the OP was about murdering children (at least that's how pro-life folks see it) while trying to avoid discussing that very thing.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                 MizBejabbers is discussing apples while YOU are discussing ORANGES.   There are no laws which EXCLUSIVELY control men's bodies the way that there are laws which EXCLUSIVELY control women's bodies!!!!!!!!!

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Reasonable as men do not have another person inside their bodies - a person that is being killed in the name of convenience in the opinion of lifers.

                  replyreport
            2. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               You knew your answer was a cute response to the imprecise wording of the question. This type of meaningless word play is common from you.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Just as you knew, quite well, that the argument is not control over women's bodies, but murder of children.
                  
                  It always seems odd to me that one side of the argument speaks only of control while the other only speaks of murder - neither side of the abortion debate is willing to address the "facts" the other side is concerned about.  It's as if they think that harping on control will make the pro-lifers forget somehow that children are being murdered, and that if we only talk of murder the pro-choice will "forget" that at least some control is being exerted over what a woman can do with their bodies.
                  
                  Neither is going to happen, but we'll still keep harping on it and ignoring what the other side has to say.  Just as you did when you "forget" about the child being killed.
                  
                  I've made it very, very clear in the past (and in a discussion with you as I recall) that I support abortion, to a point, but that that isn't all that the arguments are about.  Firmly pro-choice (to a point), I still acknowledge, hear and respond to the argument about murder even though I do not agree with it.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     No, it is about control. A fetus that fully depends on a woman's body to exist and survive is not a baby. Further, if a woman does not want that fertilized egg growing in her body, she has a right to have it removed. To create a law that gives a fertilized egg or fetus the right to use a woman's body against her will is the ultimate in controllng a woman 's body.

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000!

                        replyreport
                     2. 96

                        wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Whether I agree or not (I do) that is NOT the issue to the pro-lifers.  Their issue is the criminal murder of helpless babies - an issue you refuse to even acknowledge exists.  And why the debate will never end, for neither side will even acknowledge the points from the other side of the debate, for both consider them to be irrelevant.
                        
                        Until the definition of "human", or perhaps "people" is agreed on, the lifers will insist it is all about murder and the choicers will declare it is ONLY about control.  And neither recognizes anything the other side has to say, so the endless, fruitless debate rages on because both sides refuse to discuss the root issue.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Yes, we will never agree, which is why it went to the Supreme Court.

                           replyreport
                           1. 96

                              wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              And will never discuss the root of the problem, which is why it is still going on and there are still inroads being made in the right to have an abortion. 
                              
                              "Don't want to talk about murder?  Fine, we'll just keep chipping until there IS no more murder at all!"  You do realize that if it isn't shut down, and absolute definitions and limits set, all rights to an abortion will eventually be removed, just as the right to own weapons is being slowly taken away, step by step?
                              
                              Let me bring up another, related, topic - that of laws making double murder charges against people that kill a pregnant woman.  If that is appropriate, then abortion is also murder, so I assume you disagree with that, just as I do. 
                              
                              Why not attack those laws, working to reduce that double murder to murder plus destruction of property, or some such?  If successful, it would certainly shut down arguments that abortion is murder!

                              replyreport
                        2. 0

                           Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Correct Wilderness.  This discussion IS about murdering children...but if the thread was labeled that way, none of us would be involved in the discussion.

                           replyreport
            3. 90

               MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Bull hockey. We weren't talking about murdering children. You pro-lifers are only concerned with fetuses. After the kid is born, who cares, especially if it is a female. But you are Gish Galloping, Wilderness. Your aren't even staying on the subject, which is about laws concerning the restrictions on a man's body. The answer is still "NO". Unless you want to follow Jewish religious law and require circumcision. There is talk now to outlaw that as child abuse, then if it passes, you can cite that.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Sorry, Misbejabbers, but I'm firmly in the pro-choice group.  And the subject never was about restrictions on a woman's body; it was about abortion rights even though worded differently to try and hide or ignore the arguments about murder.  A poor way to respond to the one argument lifers consistently provide.

                  replyreport
                  1. 90

                     MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Wow, thanks for clarifying that, Wilderness. Sorry I misunderstood you.

                     replyreport
   3. 76

      lovetherainposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Murdering babies is now a "medical procedure"?

      replyreport
      1. 83

         gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         So, you are PRO-LIFE?  If you are PRO-LIFE, you also don't believe in any form of birth control.  Most pro-lifers are anti-birth control.  Abortion ISN'T murder.  There is nothing viable in the first stages of pregnancy.  Abortion is a MEDICAL PROCEDURE...………It has been used for thousands of years.   Women will always have abortions until a 100%, foolproof birth control is invented.  Until then, there will be ABORTIONS.  ABORTIONS are a fact of life.  In fact, it is FAR MORE HUMANE for a woman to have an abortion than to have an unwanted child which she will in all likelihood neglect, even abuse.  It is also FAR MORE HUMANE for a woman to have an abortion then to have a child then give it up for adoption.  Responsible, smart women have abortions, it is only the irresponsible, unintelligent women who have unplanned, unwanted children, knowing that they can't take care of them emotionally, financially, & psychologically.  Yes, I am STAUNCHLY PRO-CHOICE & have been since I was 19 years old!

         replyreport
2. 83

   gmwilliamsposted 5 years ago

   There are NO LAWS that govern men's bodies.  None whatsoever, just like there are NO RELIGIOUS LAWS which govern men's bodies.   The laws when they were in effect only governed women's bodies.    There are seldom laws for the oppressor but there are PLENTY of laws for the oppressed......hmmmmm.   Let us see how others will answer this question.....

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Men have always used religion and government to control women. I'm impressed she asked the question and I'm amused at his obvious discomfort trying to answer it.

      replyreport
   2. 83

      RJ Schwartzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      How about Selective Service ?

      replyreport
      1. 90

         MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Selective Service is a moot point because it is over and done with. It is also another valid point in the control of women. This so-called protection of women was just another way to keep them down. Many women were denied entry into the armed forces and the armed forces training academies for years. In Israel even women are required to serve in their armed forces.

         replyreport
3. 83

   gmwilliamsposted 5 years ago

   You see men don't view other men as threatening.  Men view women's bodies as threatening because women's bodies have the creative force & can do things which men's bodies are UNABLE to do.   Men also somehow view women as threatening, especially women's sexuality.   Men want either to subdue or punish women's sexuality.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I'm going to go out on a limb and agree with you that some men probably feel threatened by women.  But as to the argument that by having anti-abortion laws in place men are trying to keep women down - please provide historical evidence to back that up.

      replyreport
4. 83

   gmwilliamsposted 5 years ago

   Women's bodies are constricted by laws, either secularly or religiously.  In more stringent religious societies & cultures, women are even told how to dress.  The issue of modesty was instituted to control women's bodies.  Modesty was instituted by male religious authorities because they deemed women's bodies to be tempting to the male eye(as if males were deemed to be too infantile to control themselves), so to avoid such so-called temptation, women had to COVER up. 
   
   Women's sexuality was constricted until recently by secular laws; however, some religions such as extreme Islam, Roman Catholicism, some extreme Protestant sects, Eastern Orthodox, & Hasidic Judaism still strictly control women's reproductive freedoms although SMART women in such "faiths" refuse to follow such atavistic reproductive dictates & have small families.   Men's bodies AREN'T governed by laws- one can say men's bodies have carte blanche.  There are NO LAWS governing male bodies because the LAWMAKERS are MEN for the MOST PART!

   replyreport
5. 83

   gmwilliamsposted 5 years ago

   In the early 1900s when Margaret Sanger advocated for birth control, it was religious authorities who were against Ms. Sanger advocating birth control & greater reproductive freedoms for women.  Abortion was deemed illegal until 1973 because of the push from Roman Catholic leaders in America.    Roman Catholicism is still in the forefront in the push regarding turning back the clock on legalized abortion.  Not only Roman Catholicism but other conservative religions push for abolishing women's reproductive freedoms.   Somehow women's bodies are threatening to men which explains the needs for male lawmakers & religious authorities to curtail women's  physical & sexual freedoms. 
   Even the crime of rape is subjected to male control.  Rape is the only crime where the victim is blamed.  The victim is thought to have caused the rape somehow, either through body language, dress, or even attitude.

   replyreport
6. 83

   gmwilliamsposted 5 years ago

   This is an EXCELLENT post, PrettyPanther!  The BEST post ever!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know about that, but I DO know that a man who refers to birth control as "abortion-inducing drugs" should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court. This is not 1950.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Hold on PrettyPanther, you know better than to do that.
         
         The missing context:
         
         "What Kavanaugh actually said is complicated. He was paraphrasing an argument made by the Catholic group Priests for Life in their suit against the Obama administration over the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Speaking of the form necessary to get a religious exemption from the mandate, Kavanaugh said, “they said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objecting to.”
         Source:Vox article
         
         Then, when you look at the suit filed, their description included phrases like this;
         
         "36. Federal Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods include, among other drugs, devices and procedures, birth control pills, prescription contraceptive devices, Plan B (also known as the “morning after pill”), and ulipristal (also known as “ella” or the “week after
         pill”).
         
         ... and repeated use of this term: "abortifacients ."
         
         Now, considering that, and considering the type of wording the filers of the suit would probably use to describe it - do you really think Kavanaugh's "paraphasing" was what you claim it to be?
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            No, you are right.  I can give him a pass on that.  I should have dug a little deeper.  Of course, I still think he could be a threat to a woman's right to choose, based on his dissent in this particular case.
            
            "In context, it’s not totally clear whether Kavanaugh is endorsing Priests for Life’s claim that birth control causes abortion, or merely repeating it. Ultimately, though, his larger argument is quite clear: To him, the contraceptive mandate was an unacceptable infringement on the religious freedom of Priests for Life (even though Obama’s mandate allowed them to seek an exemption on grounds of religious freedom). This argument shows that if confirmed, Kavanaugh would be likely to rule in ways that would restrict contraceptive access in America.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Well then, that's progress PrettyPanther.
               
               As to your quote ... That's the great thing about opinions - we all get to have them.
               
               GA

               replyreport
7. 59

   Live to Learnposted 5 years ago

   I think the main problem is the two far ends don't understand, or respect, the reasons for firmly held beliefs. I don't think anyone is trying to control anyone else's body. I think pro life does not understand that to insist on preserving a life they could be ruining two lives.
   
   Instead of tying a woman's hands they should extend two out, to help. It could make all the difference in the world.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I fainted, yes I fainted.  I am in TOTAL AGREEMENT w/you!  Can't believe it!  You have said something...……….PROFOUND...……...Got to give you an :
      

      replyreport
8. 67

   Ceegenposted 5 years ago

   Men can't give birth. It is the one thing that is exclusive to women. So... What "choice" does the baby have? When the cells start to divide, it's alive. Textbook biology.

   replyreport
9. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   Interesting how today's voices for abortions forget that Margaret Sanger is also accused of using abortion to promote her extreme  racism,  also that she later wrote against abortions as well .
   Today she'd be "hung out to dry " , but go ahead and take her favorable opinions of abortion out of context .
   Do the pro-abortionists ever read a history book ?

   replyreport