Maine Voters Reject Gay Marriage

[TomSawyer65]

Barney Stinson wrote:

<quoted text>
the woman already made her choice when she had sex.

He said he was sterile ;-)

[TomSawyer65]

medic0506 wrote:

<quoted text>
what's in the womans uterus didn't get there by just the womans doing...where are the fathers rights considered in this debate?...right, the father has no say at all...how is that fair?

That isn't any of our business either.... take it up with the one you are impregnating........

[Cfoote]

Kay wrote:

<quoted text>
The contents of her uterus are none of your business, either. Get over it.

Ahh but it is our business as now a human being is involved and that life should be protected. If you have a meth lab inside your house it is none of our business what the contents of your home is? What if you are carrying explosives in your car? Is it none of our business the contents of your auto? Now Meth and TNT pail in comparision to a human life. Why would we not protect that, that much more? As one person stated your choice was made when you had sex. You can't blame ignorance as you knew what might have happened going in. Your choice is not just a convienance to rid yourslef of something. Here is an idea.. make sure you don't have to make a choice in the first place. Is that asking to much?

[Rick in Kansas]

Windy City Player wrote:

<quoted text>
Justify it how you want, but when an American cannot run a private business without losing his right to religion something is wrong.

Elaine Huguenin did NOT lose her right to her religious beliefs, she remains just as free to believe same sex relationships as immoral as she ever did, what she lost was a right that she never had, the right to use her claim of religious beliefs as an excuse to violate civil law. The fact of the matter is that she engaged in a prohibited discriminatory act, why she chose to break the law really doesn't matter nor should it excuse it. In order to ensure Mrs Huguenin's right to believe is protection against discrimination by others based on their beliefs, a trade off is made in that others have to be protected against discrimination by her based on her beliefs. I realize that you won't get it, but the truth is the truth.

[chief22]

quid pro quo wrote:

<quoted text>
Having sex does not equal consent to carry a pregnancy to term. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant, since the SCOTUS isn't standing at your door asking you what the law is or should be.

Pregnancy is a reasonable consequence to sex, if you are unprepared to accept the consequence, don't do the act.

[chief22]

quid pro quo wrote:

<quoted text>
Fathers don't have a right to decide what a woman does with her body or its contents. Fair? Do you think it would be fair to attempt to force a woman to give birth if she doesn't wish to do so?
If you want "fair", get a uterus and grow your own fetus. Otherwise, you don't have a say.

But a Father should have a say in what happens to his Baby.

[quid pro quo]

Cfoote wrote:

<quoted text>Ahh but it is our business as now a human being is involved and that life should be protected. If you have a meth lab inside your house it is none of our business what the contents of your home is? What if you are carrying explosives in your car? Is it none of our business the contents of your auto? Now Meth and TNT pail in comparision to a human life. Why would we not protect that, that much more? As one person stated your choice was made when you had sex. You can't blame ignorance as you knew what might have happened going in. Your choice is not just a convienance to rid yourslef of something. Here is an idea.. make sure you don't have to make a choice in the first place. Is that asking to much?

You are in sore need of an education. All of the examples you gave involved infringement of others' rights. Abortion does not.

Again, if the Justices of the Supreme Court are waiting for your say-so, let me know.

I suggest you learn how to spell first.

[independent]

The factionalizing of this country is going to be its downfall. That's why a democracy doesn't work without the periodic restructure of a revolt (elections) but when one political party begins to start a campaign for a specific factions' rights is when the problems begin. The country was set up as a nation of laws, not a special set for each faction that feels that these laws infringe on their rights. There is no right specific to gays but this faction is compelled to hold the rights of everyone at stake for their own means. Remember the fall of the Roman empire was due to much the same issues of each group claiming their rights and privileges. The laws were set up as a MAJORITY rule when an issue was decided. Now minority rules and it's actually going downhill from there - the government will take over and decide everything.

[medic0506]

quid pro quo wrote:

<quoted text>
Having sex does not equal consent to carry a pregnancy to term. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant, since the SCOTUS isn't standing at your door asking you what the law is or should be.

You seem very angry about this issue...are you not aware of the fact that having sex might result in a pregnancy?...you can justify it in your mind as "women's rights" if you want, but it's still murder, and it's wrong.
How about if the tables were turned a little, and the father had a right to say, "I want the child aborted", and the SCOTUS said that by saying that, he would be relieved from any child support obligations if the mother decided to have the child...you and most other women out there who adamantly defend your right to choose what to do with your bodies would be having a friggin' cow

[medic0506]

quid pro quo wrote:

<quoted text>
Fathers don't have a right to decide what a woman does with her body or its contents. Fair? Do you think it would be fair to attempt to force a woman to give birth if she doesn't wish to do so?
If you want "fair", get a uterus and grow your own fetus. Otherwise, you don't have a say.

I'm not claiming a man should be able to tell a woman what to do with her body...I'm saying that a father should have a right to say, yes i want my child to live, not be murdered...If the woman didn't want to deal with the possible consequences then she should have kept her legs closed.

[medic0506]

quid pro quo wrote:

<quoted text>
You are in sore need of an education. All of the examples you gave involved infringement of others' rights. Abortion does not.
Again, if the Justices of the Supreme Court are waiting for your say-so, let me know.
I suggest you learn how to spell first.

How does abortion not infringe on the rights of the babies that are killed, as well as, the fathers rights who in many cases would take care of that baby if the mother doesn't want it.

[quid pro quo]

medic0506 wrote:

<quoted text>
You seem very angry about this issue...are you not aware of the fact that having sex might result in a pregnancy?...you can justify it in your mind as "women's rights" if you want, but it's still murder, and it's wrong.
How about if the tables were turned a little, and the father had a right to say, "I want the child aborted", and the SCOTUS said that by saying that, he would be relieved from any child support obligations if the mother decided to have the child...you and most other women out there who adamantly defend your right to choose what to do with your bodies would be having a friggin' cow

What you seem unable to grasp is that if the government has the power to control a woman's reproductive decisions, it can as easily force a woman to abort as it can prevent her from doing so.

Both parents pay support as things stand right now. Not just fathers.

[quid pro quo]

medic0506 wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not claiming a man should be able to tell a woman what to do with her body...I'm saying that a father should have a right to say, yes i want my child to live, not be murdered...If the woman didn't want to deal with the possible consequences then she should have kept her legs closed.

What you think "should" be is irrelevant, since your body is not the one involved in carrying a pregnancy or undergoing the risks of pregnancy.

if you don't want to have to pay child support, keep you own pants zipped or wear a rubber. That's the extent of your say.

[quid pro quo]

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
But a Father should have a say in what happens to his Baby.

That's your opinion. I disagree that the law should require his input, since his body is not the one that is involved in carrying a pregnancy.

[quid pro quo]

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
Pregnancy is a reasonable consequence to sex, if you are unprepared to accept the consequence, don't do the act.

Again, you seem unable to understand the fact that whether a woman has sex or has an abortion, it's not your say.

You don't get to dictate.

[quid pro quo]

medic0506 wrote:

<quoted text>
How does abortion not infringe on the rights of the babies that are killed, as well as, the fathers rights who in many cases would take care of that baby if the mother doesn't want it.

Show me where in the Constitution fetuses have rights. I can show you that women do.

[OldSwiftBoater]

medic0506 wrote:

<quoted text>
How does abortion not infringe on the rights of the babies that are killed, as well as, the fathers rights who in many cases would take care of that baby if the mother doesn't want it.

I suggest that if you are aware of, or see any murders taking place that you call 911 immediately and report it! I am personally against abortion, but the bottom line remains and will always remain that it is a womens choice to make! Yes it sucks for the potential father, but it still doesn't change the fact that it is HER body! It has been the law for 36 years now and I highly doubt that it will change.

[medic0506]

quid pro quo wrote:

<quoted text>
Show me where in the Constitution fetuses have rights. I can show you that women do.

That's a cowardly way of saying that your "feelings" are more important than a human life...as long as it isn't your life

[medic0506]

quid pro quo wrote:

<quoted text>
What you seem unable to grasp is that if the government has the power to control a woman's reproductive decisions, it can as easily force a woman to abort as it can prevent her from doing so.
Both parents pay support as things stand right now. Not just fathers.

Doing away with Roe v. Wade would not give the government reproductive decisions, that's a falicy...it would simply make abortion illegal, or leave it to states to decide.

As for support, I have 19 years of paying support while my ex hasn't worked a day in her life that says different

[quid pro quo]

medic0506 wrote:

<quoted text>
That's a cowardly way of saying that your "feelings" are more important than a human life...as long as it isn't your life

No, it's simply a fact that fetuses do not have rights under the Constitution. Women do, and they include the right to decide what to do with her own body and its contents. Where you get the notion that "feelings are more important than a human life" I have no idea, and couldn't care less.