Nuh-uh! He doing that to try to get us put in prison.
2 Likes
Nuh uh! We’re safe. I have the best plant lawyer you can buy! 
1 Like
No my mellifluous metallic confrère…According to a recent “Stand Your Ground” law passed in South Carolina, defending your personal outdoor space from the depredations of any and all living things, including plants, is permissible under the law, to include lethal force if necessary.
However, mowing shorter than what is considered usual and normal, can result in a confiscation of related maintenance equipment.
Edit (I can still hear the screams)
1 Like
…
It seems the Pope, unsurprisingly, thinks abortion is murder, and has compared doctors who perform them to hitmen. The Belgium parliament is less than impressed…
“An abortion is a murder. Doctors who do that are — allow me to use that word — contract killers,” Pope Francis told journalists on his flight returning to Rome on Sunday following his visit to Belgium, which was overshadowed by the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal."
Maybe he’s concerned there will be less children for the catholic clergy to abuse?
“the Belgian government to call the Vatican to account over statements by the pope”
“It is absolutely unacceptable for a foreign head of state to make such statements about democratic decision-making in our country,” De Croo said during a session in the Chamber of Representatives. “We do not need lessons on how our parliamentarians democratically approve laws. Fortunately, the time when the church dictated laws in our country is long gone.”
In an opinion piece for Belgian newspaper De Standaard, VUB Rector Jan Danckaert said the pope’s statement “not only insults the doctors who perform abortions, but also Belgium and its population.”
I think Tim Minchin summed this one up for me:
1 Like
Prayer hooks? Is this like a shitty christian version of pirates of the Caribbean?
I’ve always been fairly entrenched within the womens choice corner, but that said im equally in the ‘if women can choose to kill or keep, men should have the option to financially support or not’.
But i openly admit that my political leanings are more centre-right, not sure how that would come across in the States… i guess if i lived there i would have voted for an independent as both of the political leaders running for office are collosal arseholes… much like the UK to be fair.
1 Like
I haven’t even played it yet but I am betting it is “Fuck the Mother-fucking Pope.” I’m going to give it a listen just because I like Tim and all the great songs he writes.
Yep! I enjoyed that completely. Now I’m going to go find 'Storm" and give it a listen. (My day is starting off good!)
1 Like
I am an atheist and I live in Europe. I am and always have been pro abortion. We need to leave women the choice (I am male).
I personally believe abotion should be legal until the baby is born but still attached with the umbelical chord, but I know it is quite an unpopular opinion, thus I am happy that we agree (in EU at least) to fit the term to 3 months into the pregnancy for “regular” pregnancies and until the end for pregnancies with severe medical conditions.
For the Pope: he does just what he is expected to do, and you cannot expenct much more from the absolut monarch of a microstate that goes around with a skirt like a woman
2 Likes
Here’s an alternative to those who want abortions banned…
Every male child will be forced to undergo a vasectomy at puberty. Only when he is in a committed relationship with someone who wants to co-parent with him and he is willing to sign an 18 year contract for being responsible for his share of financial, social, and emotional support of said child(ren), can that vasectomy be reversed. If the committed relationship should end for any reason, he must undergo a vasectomy again.
4 Likes
These are completely different things.
Bodily, medical autonomy has nothing to do with the financial support of a child. Men have bodily, medical autonomy, but in many places now, women do not.
Women bear financial responsibility for children they give birth to (name a state in the U.S. where the law says they do not) and men have the same responsibility.
3 Likes
Pro-Lifers (a misnomer if there ever was one) are only concerned about one thing. But the issue is multifaceted.
There is legal issue to who gets to decide what happens with a person’s body. It is not unusual for conservative to try to limit what is allowed - overstepping their boundaries in the process. Tatoos come to mind.
There’s also the legal issue of when the government can apply governing behavior. Birth to death seems to be the operative phrase here. (Yeah, it’s not quite clear cut as that.)
There is so much that is part of this issue that just gets lost.
No, there really isn’t. One either thinks they can have power over a woman’s bodily, medical autonomy or they don’t think that.
4 Likes
I never said they were the same thing, did i?!
No, i just stated that i’m equally pro both positions.
I’m not sure how it works in the US, but here in the UK, men HAVE to pay and financially support their child, irregardless of what may have happened.
This one strikes very personally for me as i have gone through this when i was young.
1 Like
I think the argument goes…
Women have body autonomy, a woman has the choice to either become a parent or not become a parent. She has the choice of bearing the financial burden or not.
A man, on the other hand, has no such choice. While a woman can relinquish parental rights through abortion or adoption. *Note: a father does not need to pay child support for an adopted baby. The point is, he also has no choice in the matter.
So, the argument is, why shouldn’t a man have the same right? If he lets the woman know, upfront, he is not ready to be a parent, why is he not allowed the same option? Why is he not allowed the same bodily autonomy as the woman, to not be chained to a child?
That is the way I have heard the argument posed.
That’s simply a ridiculous argument. It sounds like an attempt to equate bodily autonomy with wallet autonomy.
1 Like
It can and has been framed in that way Cog, but it’s not how i would frame it myself, as I feel that both positions are fair on their own merit.
I’ve always felt women should not only have just bodily autonomy, I feel they should have autonomy of their entire lives in general… likewise for men though.
It is not just a financial burden, again that is framed poorly and assumes that paying is the only issue.
But it can and often does, go far deeper.
For someone like myself, who has a child with and ex and is denied access at birth for absolutely no reason, with her essentially going “off the grid”… despite my best efforts in the courts… well i think if im denied the right to be a father, i shouldnt have to suffer the burdens of it.
This is why i respect both positions, i hold no grudges against my ex, she made her choice.
But i should have been allowed mine too.
From a personally perspective, yes financially it was a strain having to continue paying until she turned 18, but its more about having no say at all in a major event in your life.
But i’d say being denied access when i had done nothing wrong (ive never fought, smoked, done drugs and extremely rarely drunk alcohol) in my life, id say the real impact was on my mental health, rather then simply my wallet.
A libertarian neo con argument I have heard used. Its nonsense of course like all such neo fascist rhetoric. If men could carry babies you would not hear this shit.
Neo capitalism is ugly but that argument is probably the ugliest pile of camel crap I have read.
Yes if you are the father and you want visitation do it. Go to court as much as you like and get access. Otherwise you pay for renting someone else’s body.
I didn’t think I only included the financial burden in that. I also intended it to include fatherhood, family, and all associations. When a person is not ready, they are not ready. (And not asserting that I am a proponent of the position, only that I have heard it argued.)
I appreciate that, becoming a father is far more then just a financial situation.
I’m now a father to three sons with my fiancee and the fulfilment and love i feel for them, knows no bounds.
I’d honestly argue that the mental health side of it all was by far the toughest point to overcome.
You don’t have too, that is your choice and you are entirely welcome to it.
At least you appear to respect the position rather then pinning a load of political bollocks to it.
The problem is, because it’s become a political debate within the US, people are overlooking the actual point.
Sure, you can take it to court… lets say you win ‘access’ some people are lucky to get the odd weekend with their child… that is awful.
Well, there it is.
I think that you considering it suffering and a burden to live up to this financial responsibility sad, and sadly not uncommon.
Whether or not you are directly participating in the ongoing development of this fellow human being, you are, in part, directly responsible for their existence. Therefore, you are legally and (imo) morally obliged to provide financial support during that person’s childhood.
Participation in that child’s life in ways other than financial is a very separate subject. Being upset that you don’t see this person as you would like just doesn’t relieve you of financial responsibility. It isn’t a zero sum game.
1 Like