Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NO, the whole diatribe is that you label something as convenience because you want to dismiss it and demean the person making the choice. Demean the choice, demean the person making the choice, and you think you can successfully win the debate. The problem is that even people who are pro-life, when faced with the actual situation, suddenly realize that it's not a matter of convenience. A woman choosing to take care of herself is not selfish. The rampant attacks on welfare mothers shows that we expect women to make decisions for her own benefit. The reverse side of that is that we still treat women like second-class citizens. She should keep her legs closed. Because a man will put his appendage into anyplace he can? And if she doesn't keep her legs closed, she should be punished by nine months of pregnancy, where she doesn't get to make decisions about her own body, and suffer the economic consequences for the rest of her life. No person can be free if they cannot make decisions about their own bodies. If you deprive someone of the ability to make those decisions, even just intermittently for nine-ten months at a time during their life, it's just as bad as depriving someone of that ability for their entire lives.
To sum this up. You are a product of your choices. Choose convenience or Choose responsibility. Clearly there will never be an agreement between these two sides.
Responsibility is to hard a concept for abortionists to understand.
Like when a child can't keep their hand out of the cookie jar and cries when they are punished for their impulsive and poor judgement.
Don't let the guy put his hand in your cookie jar and you have chosen the path of responsibility. If you do then be responsible for your actions. That is pro-choice.
I disagree 100%, you will lose in any court of law. Women have the right to abortion because they have the right to privacy in what they do with their body, if men start getting pregnant they have the right to an abortion also, just as they have all other rights over their own body.
Good afternoon,
How are you so sure I would lose? Actually, I wouldn't lose because I would never be in this situation and my arguments are academic.
The bottom line is, this hasn't come before the Supreme Court so both of what we state are opinions, so neither you nor I can be 100% sure either would lose.
You keep bring up right to privacy, yet continue to avoid the glaring Fourteenth Amendment violations here. When the Supreme Court created this abortion "right" federally, it also created an imbalance of rights by gender, which is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Biology is no excuse for gender discrimination, otherwise women would still be excluded from physically demanding careers and the military. They have leveled the physical rules to allow access to women and avoid discrimination, which was the correct decision.
Some women understand the "financial abortion" for men argument and it makes sense to them. Why do you fight against allowing this? What would you have to lose, if women still have the unilateral right to abort even with my solution? It's an expansion of rights, not a reduction of them.
One way of preventing all abortions would be to implement a law that requires all males to have reversible vasectomies. How about them apples? It would nip the problem in the bud. I demand that you get snipped until further notice. All of you. It's time you took this issue into your own hands. You want to full around with and lord over another person's body, then do so to your own.
Also jeffington, you are no longer allowed to have sex unless your intent is to breed. No ifs, ands, or buts about this one.
I have heard of men opting out of parenthood. Don't some men sign away their parental rights in order to get out of child support?
Good afternoon,
Great question, I'm glad you brought it up! The woman and most importantly, the court has to agree. A man cannot unilaterally sign over his rights and opt-out financially, yet a woman can unilaterally abort. Check your state laws.
Yet another post assigning responsibility to men, and giving a pass to women. I prefer equal responsibility or passes for both.
Women are not helpless children who can't say no to a man who doesn't want to wear a condom. I believe they are as intelligent as the men they are dealing with. I'm completely against men taking off morally, but I do believe they should have that right legally as long as the woman has the right to an abortion.
By the way, having an abortion is the epitome of having your cake and eating it too. I'm actually for this, I'm just amazed at how many pro-choice advocates are only pro-choice for women.
Is it your opinion a woman's right to privacy is negated if sperm is deposited within her body?
A man telling a woman what she should or shouldn't do with her pregnancy is reducing the relationship (if any) to one of owner and property.
Please explain to me what right a man should have to force a woman to follow through with a pregnancy if the two are not married and in agreement to the pregnancy?
If he is able to do so, what protections (insurance, housing, financial) will be offered to the woman to ensure that she is provided for in the event the pregnancy incapacitates her (one friend was bedridden for 4 months) preventing her from working, as well as insuring the child support will arrive every month without fail (as we all know there are deadbeats out there.)
What happens when daddy mets the woman of his dreams, marries, and stops coming around to see Junior?
What right will Junior have to any of Daddy's assets?
Yes, my perspective is that of a woman. Most single mothers and divorced women I have encountered have custody of their children and Dad shows up if/when he feels like it.
I am not trying to stir up trouble, but would like to learn the paternal perspective.
Last edited by OhBeeHave; 04-13-2011 at 01:26 PM..
Reason: Left off an important part of a sentence.
Yet another post assigning responsibility to men, and giving a pass to women. I prefer equal responsibility or passes for both.
Women are not helpless children who can't say no to a man who doesn't want to wear a condom. I believe they are as intelligent as the men they are dealing with. I'm completely against men taking off morally, but I do believe they should have that right legally as long as the woman has the right to an abortion.
By the way, having an abortion is the epitome of having your cake and eating it too. I'm actually for this, I'm just amazed at how many pro-choice advocates are only pro-choice for women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
What if the guy did wear a condom, only it's not 100% protection, and she got pregnant anyway? If the couple used birth control, and that birth control failed, do they get to have an abortion? Cause it's only irresponsible people you want to punish with pregnancy, right? Only irresponsible women?
Hi DC,
Where in my post did I say I wanted to punish anyone with pregnancy? If you read the above post throughly, and read my other posts in this thread, you would know that I do not care if a woman gets an abortion! My argument is to equalize the rights so a man can opt-out if she decides to keep the baby. If she gets one and he doesn't want it, too bad for him, it's her body. But if she keeps it and he doesn't want it, too bad for her, he should have the same right to opt out financially as she has.
I am not a pro-life or pro-choice person, so don't assume simply I took a contrarian position to one of your posts. I have called out the hypocrisy of pro-lifers in this thread on their stances for rape and incest. I don't care if abortion is legal or illegal. My arguments are for equal rights for men, since the SCOTUS has decided that abortion is a Constitutional right in Roe v. Wade.
If men, women or couples want to get an abortion, that's fine, it's not my business. But inequality IS my business.
Where in my post did I say I wanted to punish anyone with pregnancy? If you read the above post throughly, and read my other posts in this thread, you would know that I do not care if a woman gets an abortion! My argument is to equalize the rights so a man can opt-out if she decides to keep the baby. If she gets one and he doesn't want it, too bad for him, it's her body. But if she keeps it and he doesn't want it, too bad for her, he should have the same right to opt out financially as she has.
That's fair enough. No one should be able to force anyone into anything they don't want.
BUT
What happens when we get a he said/she said -- going in the agree to follow through with the pregnancy, but past the legal abortion stage -- he changes his mind?
To sum this up. You are a product of your choices. Choose convenience or Choose responsibility. Clearly there will never be an agreement between these two sides.
Responsibility is to hard a concept for abortionists to understand.
Like when a child can't keep their hand out of the cookie jar and cries when they are punished for their impulsive and poor judgement.
Don't let the guy put his hand in your cookie jar and you have chosen the path of responsibility. If you do then be responsible for your actions. That is pro-choice.
And it's your choice to call a women's life, her physical and economic well-being and the actions she takes to advance and protect that life, as mere convenience. Do you like women? Is that why you make the analogy of a woman to a child? She couldn't keep her legs closed, the silly little girl, and now she cries because she's getting punished for it. Do you see how demeaning and insulting your arguments are towards women?
What if I let the guy put his hand in my cookie jar, but before I did so, I did all the responsible things, I made him put a glove on his hand, I had a little mousetrap put in the cookie jar, and all my precautions fail. Does this little girl still need to be punished? People need to be punished for having sex?
The LIVING persons (woman) rights are way more important then a non living fetus's rights. You cannot have ruggedly you are not alive. The difference between man and womans rights is that he is not constantly participating in sustaining the growth of the unborn fetus. Completely different rights battle.
Good afternoon,
The living vs "non-living" point is taken and not really what I care about. I care about the living man's rights being balanced with the living woman's rights. If she decides to kill her baby, I'm 100% fine with it since the Supreme Court said it's legal. I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice.
As I said to another poster, this right given to women by the SCOTUS has limited rights to men. The way to balance it is to give men a financial and legal opt-out. Why are you not for this? It still allows women to still get a unilateral abortion, so you're not losing anything.
It's very surprising to see posters who claim to be pro-choice, come out against pro "financial/legal choice" for men.
The LIVING persons (woman) rights are way more important then a non living fetus's rights. You cannot have ruggedly you are not alive. The difference between man and womans rights is that he is not constantly participating in sustaining the growth of the unborn fetus. Completely different rights battle.
in a nutshell^^
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
