FCC deregulates the media.

One-Eye · Post by **One-Eye** » 6/18/2003, 8:32 pm

I'm not saying it's fair. I'm just saying there's nothing legally we can do about it. I don't see a way we can legislate around the fact that women give birth, and thus have control over the fate of the child for its first 9 months, and men don't. What do you suggest?

Sufjan Stevens · Post by **Sufjan Stevens** » 6/18/2003, 8:36 pm

I can't suggest anything. Men aren't the carriers of the unborn children. Like you said, that's biology's way of working out.

If men don't want children, they can punch the pregnant woman in the stomach, but then again, I think that's murder. Yeah, so there's nothing men can do about it. I just wish they could have a say in the situation, but no matter what, it's the woman's choice in the end.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 6/18/2003, 9:09 pm

This is why abortion should be illegal. Both parties know what they are getting into. It is more fair that neither party have a choice in the matter (well actually they do: take the precautions so that a pregnancy doesn't occur, but that is besides the point) then one party having a choice and not the other. This reason along with the idea that forcing miscarriage is not murder.

One-Eye · Post by **One-Eye** » 6/18/2003, 9:33 pm

I don't think "fairness" is an excuse to bring unwanted babies into the world...

sandsleeper · Post by **sandsleeper** » 6/18/2003, 9:37 pm

yeah...

so howsabout that FCC?

One-Eye · Post by **One-Eye** » 6/18/2003, 9:39 pm

Sucks. I'm anti-monopoly.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 6/19/2003, 6:12 am

Aerin wrote:I don't think "fairness" is an excuse to bring unwanted babies into the world...

That is why I support the day-after pill and think it should be on drug store shelves. There are better solutions than abortions that are much healthier for the woman.

happening fish · Post by **happening fish** » 6/19/2003, 8:49 am

I don't think that means they should be outright illegal, though.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 6/19/2003, 8:59 am

topic mixing, but first, abortion.

ok: i had to really twist this one around in my head.

a) no matter what, dad can't force mom to
i) have the baby
ii) not have the baby
force is irrational, yadda yadda yadda. if the mother doesn't want the child (ie unplanned pregnancy) then she doesn't have to keep it.

b) mom can't force dad to keep the baby either. get rid of child support, etc etc. if the mother wants to have the child but the father isn't ready for the burden, then he has a right to disassociate himself from that child finanically and for that matter, all the other responsibilities pertaining to child rearing.

you can't have it both ways. what's right and just and moral for mom should be right and just and moral for dad, lest we face a contradiction.

moving on to the FCC, i saw this comment "i'm anti-monopoly"

which i found ironic, considering only one body can create a monopoly: the state.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 6/19/2003, 12:26 pm

even with media deregulation there is no fucking way a monopoly could ever occur. there are some 6 odd major conglomerates in the media market right now. no one could ever afford to buy the other 5.

happening fish · Post by **happening fish** » 6/19/2003, 2:22 pm

what if one bought another one, doubling its spending power?

One-Eye · Post by **One-Eye** » 6/19/2003, 7:27 pm

mosaik wrote:b) mom can't force dad to keep the baby either. get rid of child support, etc etc. if the mother wants to have the child but the father isn't ready for the burden, then he has a right to disassociate himself from that child finanically and for that matter, all the other responsibilities pertaining to child rearing.

If you believe that, then you must also believe that women have the same option. So what do you suggest happen to the children whose parents both decided to disassociate themselves from the responsibilities of child-rearing?

ClumsyMonkey.net

ClumsyMonkey.net

FCC deregulates the media.