9 Comments »

1. 

   I’m not sure what your objective is but mate! I think you could post better stories because that is inconsequential crap. Real issues about fathers and children being denied contact is far more important. We have all seen it and it won’t pass muster.

   Comment by Buster — Sat 8th April 2017 @ 4:21 pm

2. 

   I give her some credit.
   It’s a very clever political stunt.
   Obviously will fail.
   But who knows it is America.
   Men who are caught urininating in public are registered as sex offenders for life.
   People voted for that to happen.

   Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 8th April 2017 @ 5:43 pm

3. 

   @Buster. To clarify my objective is to put before you and others the discrepancy with female law makers who invent laws that are for men only.

   Similar to the the lawmakers who put in place to take away any parents father or mothers access to children with little or no recourse.

   If you could point out the part where I a have ranked this post more important than fathers and children being denied contact. Let me know.

   My advice Buster is to not be so obtuse.

   Comment by Lukenz — Sat 8th April 2017 @ 6:05 pm

4. 

   I assume that this politician is drawing a comparison about total devotion.

   If there is only one woman for you, then you would only masturbate with her permission.

   If you want a say in her reproduction, she has a say in your sexual activity.

   I imagine the politician’s answer to the question raised would be – if the woman was sexually fulfilled she wouldn’t masturbate.

   Something along those lines – isn’t Texas a reasonably conservative state?

   Comment by Downunder — Sat 8th April 2017 @ 8:25 pm

5. 

   The morality is probably drawn from 1st Corinthians 7:4

   Comment by Downunder — Sat 8th April 2017 @ 8:57 pm

6. 

   I think all poor souls who think these rediculous ideas up should be forced to get together as a group and “mass debate” the subject. The conclusion will verify that they are all wankers. 🙂

   .

   Comment by Jack — Sat 8th April 2017 @ 10:33 pm

7. 

   You might draw a comparison with New Zealand’s Kate Sheppard, typically recognized as the hero of women’s rights and one person one vote.

   She was a Christian Democrat, whose political platform was prohibition.

   If the politician’s motivation is religious rather than feminist, you may find she is not as anti male as it appears, but that she has strong views on marriage.

   Comment by Downunder — Sun 9th April 2017 @ 3:54 am

8. 

   This is an interesting issue that shows us yet another example of feminist false reasoning, the same type of poor reasoning that has led to many of the changes in laws and attitudes that are now seriously harming men and society.

   This particular piece of feminist reasoning assumes that controlling men’s masturbation and choices over several medical services is comparable to controlling women’s abortion of a foetus. It doesn’t take much thinking to recognize that the comparisons are tenuous and the differences huge.

   For a start, a foetus fundamentally is made from contributions by two people, whereas masturbation is an individual activity that nobody else need contribute to and it doesn’t produce a being that contains someone else’s contribution. Aborting a foetus without the father’s agreement is destroying what a man has fundamentally contributed to making, and such abortion involves theft of the man’s contribution. Indeed, the feminists acknowledge the father’s contribution when it suits them; if they decide not to abort then they insist on recognizing his contribution and he must pay towards the upkeep of what he contributed to.

   Procuring a vasectomy or Viagara also does not involve something another person contributed to.

   Then there’s the little matter of the nature of the foetus, a new life with a unique combination of genes that can grow on its own initiative if the woman merely maintains her own life and a modicum of health. There is no comparison here with sperm that may be spilt through masturbation or a man’s procuring Viagara or vasectomy.

   Then there’s the magnitude and frequency of the activities. Abortion is a significant event that even if it were available on demand would seldom happen more than a small number of times for any one woman. The process of abortion (beyond the first day or so) involves medical procedures that carry risk. Masturbation is not an event of the same rarity or significance.

   Then Ms Farrar claimed that state controls on abortion are “healthcare restrictions” on women subjecting them to “fake science and medically unnecessary procedures”, therefore the same should be done to men trying to access Viagara and vasectomies. How controls on masturbation fitted in there is unclear, but such annoying details of logic never seem to concern feminists. Regardless, controls on abortion are not the same thing as healthcare restrictions; the reason for abortion often has little to do with health, and abortion is bad for some women’s health. Neither are controls on Viagara or vasectomy restrictions on healthcare. Anyway, a threat to a woman’s health due to carrying through the foetus is one of the grounds for legally obtaining an abortion under state controls in the US and many other countries.

   I am not against abortion at all but I believe it appropriate for a nation state representing its society to set rules and boundaries around abortion. I would like to see abortion made legal as a right to choose without having to participate in a dishonest process of making up health or mental illness and getting this rubber stamped in a fraudulent assessment. However, I don’t buy the feminist mantra of ‘a woman’s body, a woman’s (unencumbered) choice’. Even men don’t get an automatic choice to have removed whatever organ they might want removed, much less if that organ were a viable new life. For abortion I support foetal age restrictions if based on research of medical risks or other good reasons. Further, I would support a rule requiring parents to be provided with accurate, research-based information about the likely benefits, risks and consequences of abortion as our law requires for most other medical procedures. I would also support a requirement that the foetus’ father have an opportunity to contribute to the decision, for example by discussing it with the mother in the presence of a counsellor whose job it would be to assist both parties in expressing their wishes and in hearing the other partner. If such a meeting were unrealistic for a particular couple (e.g. if they were acrimoniously separated) then a process would suffice of written communication through a counsellor who meets separately with both parents, and this would need to be confirmed before any abortion becomes legal. After this communication process I would be happy for the woman to have the legal right to make the final decision. Obviously, if the foetus had been conceived through rape or illegally then the communication process would not be mandatory; this would include sexual violation through (e.g.) the woman’s false assurance of birth control in which case the woman would not have a right to contribute to or to make the decision about abortion (although there may need to be a medical risk criterion that would override the raped father’s decision). Finally, I would support a legal responsibility on abortion providers to hold a funeral for each foetus, that funeral using approaches in line with the religious beliefs or otherwise of both parents according to their wishes. The parents would not be legally obliged to participate in the funeral in any way but would have the opportunity to do so. The outcome for most aborting mothers (and fathers) would be positive, amounting to an acknowledgement and symbolic blessing of the ending of the life, the care taken in making that decision and the process involved. This in contrast to the current furtive process that leaves many women unresolved and carrying unnecessary shame.

   This process would involve some cost and so be it. The issue of ending lives is after all a significant one. The state can provide support for these costs to beneficiaries if necessary as it does for many other costs. Or the state might provide the required services from taxes as part of health care.

   Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 9th April 2017 @ 10:48 am

9. 

   Interesting thing is, that if you Google Jessica Farrah, what she claimed was that masturbation was a failure to protect the unborn child.

   One assumes then, that she thinks the sperm is the child, and that the egg is simply a place where it develops.

   Comment by Downunder — Thu 13th April 2017 @ 7:13 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Δ