Men and Abortion---Reclaiming Fatherhood (lobby, Jesus, dollars, permit)

[gomexico]

Originally Posted by Eleanora1

Reproductive decisions should be ideally made by both parties.

I believe that's been the gist of what I've said throughout this discussion.

Originally Posted by Eleanora1

But if a woman get pregnant a man should not be able to force her into or out of an abortion.

Force? Absolutely not. And a woman should not have the unilateral right to force a man to accept an abortion.

Originally Posted by Eleanora1

Support for a woman by a man means that he accepts what she decides without threatening her.

Well, the "threatening" works both ways. When a woman threatens and/or aborts without consultation and/or agreement by the father ... that's wrong. No man shoul have to accept that (with the "standard" exceptions I've mentioned earlier in the discussion, of course).

Originally Posted by Eleanora1

If he doesn't like that decision he should rethink where he lets his sperm go.

Well, that's a two-way street, as well. The woman has the choice to use birth control measures, other than recreational abortion, and also to keep her legs together and not invite the deposit. It's not as if many women don't act irresponsibly and then seek to flush the resulting "problem" down the drain (so to speak).

Irresponsible behavior by both women and men have known consequences. "Corrective action" should be by agreement wherever possible.

[Eleanora1]

Originally Posted by gomexico

I believe that's been the gist of what I've said throughout this discussion.



Force? Absolutely not. And a woman should not have the unilateral right to force a man to accept an abortion.

I agree. Women should not have the right to force men into abortion.



They should also not be allowed to dictate what men do with their uteruses or ovaries or vaginas.



Take five seconds to think about what you're proposing. Do you really think women should have to get a man's permission before having an abortion? Let's be fair then. Allow women the same rights over men's private body parts. No man should be allowed to get a vasectomy without a woman's consent!

Well, the "threatening" works both ways. When a woman threatens and/or aborts without consultation and/or agreement by the father ... that's wrong. No man shoul have to accept that (with the "standard" exceptions I've mentioned earlier in the discussion, of course).

The only way a man can stop truly stop a woman from doing what she wants with his sperm is not put it into her uterus in the first place. Men need to face that face, stop trying to control women and get over it.

Well, that's a two-way street, as well. The woman has the choice to use birth control measures, other than recreational abortion, and also to keep her legs together and not invite the deposit. It's not as if many women don't act irresponsibly and then seek to flush the resulting "problem" down the drain (so to speak).

Irresponsible behavior by both women and men have known consequences. "Corrective action" should be by agreement wherever possible.

When the birth control fails he's not the one looking at pregnancy and labor and delivery. The physical risks are not the same for both parties. Until they are women should have the right to a safe and legal abortion in the name of protecting her health. Ultimately it all comes back to the same assertion over and over with you sexists: irresponsible women who need to be controlled. You need to acknowledge that you can't and stop trying to overrule what grown women do with their body parts.

[Annie53]

Originally Posted by gomexico

I believe that's been the gist of what I've said throughout this discussion.

Force? Absolutely not. And a woman should not have the unilateral right to force a man to accept an abortion.

Well, the "threatening" works both ways. When a woman threatens and/or aborts without consultation and/or agreement by the father ... that's wrong. No man shoul have to accept that (with the "standard" exceptions I've mentioned earlier in the discussion, of course).

Well, that's a two-way street, as well. The woman has the choice to use birth control measures, other than recreational abortion, and also to keep her legs together and not invite the deposit. It's not as if many women don't act irresponsibly and then seek to flush the resulting "problem" down the drain (so to speak).

Irresponsible behavior by both women and men have known consequences. "Corrective action" should be by agreement wherever possible.

So what exactly does that mean? Does that mean the man should get the deciding vote?

Why should the man get the deciding vote?

The only thing he has to lose {if he even sticks around} is money. The woman can't run away from the process, can she?

The woman could lose her health or her life and even more money than the man, since she could be unable to work during a good deal of the duration of the pregnancy. Even in this day and age, some women do die in childbirth. Even in this day and age, some women do get dangerously and violently ill from carrying a pregnancy. Who is going to pay the bills if the man disappears and the woman can no longer work due to a complicated pregnancy?

Considering all of this, just why should the man get the deciding vote, since he has the least to lose?

So the man and the woman do discuss the situation. The man votes to keep the pregnancy, the woman votes to end it. Since the man has the least invested in the situation....why should he get the deciding vote?

[Eleanora1]

Originally Posted by Annie53

So what exactly does that mean? Does that mean the man should get the deciding vote?

Why should the man get the deciding vote?

The only thing he has to lose {if he even sticks around} is money. The woman can't run away from the process, can she?

The woman could lose her health or her life and even more money than the man, since she could be unable to work during a good deal of the duration of the pregnancy. Even in this day and age, some women do die in childbirth. Even in this day and age, some women do get dangerously and violently ill from carrying a pregnancy. Who is going to pay the bills if the man disappears and the woman can no longer work due to a complicated pregnancy?

Considering all of this, just why should the man get the deciding vote, since he has the least to lose?

So the man and the woman do discuss the situation. The man votes to keep the pregnancy, the woman votes to end it. Since the man has the least invested in the situation....why should he get the deciding vote?

Prolifers neither care about nor respect women. We're irresponsible jerks to them who deserve to be punished with a pregnancy. This way they can protect innocent fetuses and uphold their idea of morality. If women die or get injured that doesn't matter as we deserve it as punishment for birth control failures which shouldn't take place in the first place if god really loved us.

[dreamofmonterey]

Originally Posted by chielgirl

You're blaming women for all the failures of men.
Or doesn't it matter that women may have the same problems - with your logic women caused all of the problems for themselves and men.

This is hysterically bizarre.

I agree. I am so very sick of US right to lifers which come up with new propaganda to force women into a "no choice" mentality.

"Kid rock", I mean please, if this is the best tripe they can come up with its pretty poor. An idiot celeb has trauma after f*** thousands of women, and now wants you to believe he has guilt for a dead baby

Until priests and the far right propose financial programs to help, abortion is the only viable alternative for the poverty stricken, unless they want the US to look like Mexico. Every unwed mother has 10 kids and no food...so if this is the agenda they want, then its about POWER AND CONTROL over women, nothing more. The poor mothers are easier to control and repress, and they cant get decent jobs.

And the same posters here ranting about employers providing maternity leave and health insurance are the same wackjobs that are against abortion...INTERESTING ISNT IT?

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by vamos

Holy cow. You don't have to be a feminist to understand logic and common sense. You certainly don't have to be "rabid," either.

All you have to have is the ability to put one and one together.

Unfortunately for you, you are completely blinded by your misogynist ideology - as is evidenced by calling anybody who understand reproductive rights a "rabid feminist."

Brought to you by the same fembots destroying the institution of marriage by relegating it to gold digger legalized prostitution, yet blaming gays, the gubbermint & the media. Brought to you by the same fembots peddling merry widow aspirations to impressionable young girls. Brought to you by the same fembots raised to be high end kept women (aka welfare queens), not life partners. Brought to you by the same fembots who vote against ERA and take every opportunity to obstruct all of womankind from making an honest living to preserve the social acceptance of their queen bee thrones. Not women. Defective males. Phylis Shlafly, Bryant, Palin, Coulter, Kern, Bachmann, O'Donnell... note the common themes? If you're unwilling to manipulate & lie through your teeth to make men think your idea was all their idea, you're not 'feminine'.

The accusation of rabid feminism is a misnomer for how dare you fail to passively accept abuse or fail to blithely smile along with women donning an ivory girl smile peddling malevolence. Yes, THIS feminist is calling defective males in female bodies out on the carpet. Put up or shut up, ladies. And I use that term loosely. No matter what choice a woman makes, there is no way to escape the consequence for whatever that decision may be. Abortion, adoption, or saying yes to life when you don't have what it takes is Sophies choice. Give birth to a crack addicted baby, you're going to prison. Give birth when you're mentally ill or have an unfit partner displaying his penchant for violence well after commitments are made, you're going to prison for child endangerment. The civilization we're living out offers plenty of opportunities for motherhood to be in prison, but not a whole lot of opportunity to build a real life. Interfering with that choice, but refusing to see the hideous circumstances dictating this reality, making a demented religion of refusing any responsibility for consequence to the children that do come into being, makes RTL hypocrites of epic proportion. Cows of Bashan every last one of them.

I suppose it's going to take red states legalizing white girl slavery, incest, rape & denying citizenship to red state females for them to rethink their social conservative dementia killing America. Blame widows and orphans for failing to have a proper animal husbandry owner. Submit to your husband in Arkansas means having sex with dogs. Submit to your husband in Kansas means going along with a threesome and having him murder you and your innocent teenaged children to avoid facing his own demons. Submit to your husband in Florida means obediently driving the getaway car for Clyde and facing the death penalty for doing so. Submit to your husband in Utah means giving birth to ten more or else he'll kill the hospital staff that consented to 'abuse his property' by tying her tubes, even when his signature is on the consent form. Submit to your husband, how dare you rob him of his 2nd amendment by removing the fire arms from the house while he's exhibiting signs of mental illness.

There's a vast world of difference between stay at home moms who refrain from economically disabling themselves (earning viable job skills) from those who willingly disable themselves (for profit). That's the difference between a feminist and a flake who would just assume trade 30yrs of her husbands health to keep her in the lifestyle she prefers. The difference between acknowledging the reality of poverty that most in this forum are oblivious to and having the compassion to invest in skills vs using religion as a means to tie a womans hands behind her back and turn the Bible into a brick to dash her brains out. Liberals don't create welfare queens in the pejorative sense. Social conservatives do. There's nothing but incentive for these particular 'working gals' to continue taking a dump wherever they please and having their DH's clean up after them as any other dog owner can attest. They don't have to care about the mother who resorts to prostitution to feed her kids after her husband abandons her. That prostitute is competition. "Man stealing" by profession isn't prostitution, Calista Gingrich???

[dreamofmonterey]

Originally Posted by chielgirl

Yes, they're called parents.
If the male doesn't want the "trauma" of abortion, they better do something.
Otherwise, their "trauma" is of their own making.
I like how the anti-choice continue to blame the woman.

owe you another rep but have to wait.

So now women are victims of incest and rape, AND we get to be forced to bring impoverished children into the world.

This thread is really making me pysically sick. I never realized the misogyny of women on the far right as well.

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by dreamofmonterey

I agree. I am so very sick of US right to lifers which come up with new propaganda to force women into a "no choice" mentality.

"Kid rock", I mean please, if this is the best tripe they can come up with its pretty poor. An idiot celeb has trauma after f*** thousands of women, and now wants you to believe he has guilt for a dead baby

Until priests and the far right propose financial programs to help, abortion is the only viable alternative for the poverty stricken, unless they want the US to look like Mexico. Every unwed mother has 10 kids and no food...so if this is the agenda they want, then its about POWER AND CONTROL over women, nothing more. The poor mothers are easier to control and repress, and they cant get decent jobs.

And the same posters here ranting about employers providing maternity leave and health insurance are the same wackjobs that are against abortion...INTERESTING ISNT IT?

Here's the sick joke, dream. Catholic Charities has a legitimate mission to offer an open door path for women who mean to say yes to life, and yet, there go the cows of bashan beating on them and being stingy with the help. The papacy refused to allow catholic charities to have a liason relationship/ display their literature in planned parenthood clinics, and then RTL turns around claiming themselves victims of planned parenthood railroading women into abortion. They're congenital liars.

If what they DO day in day out (evidenced in this thread) is add copious quantities of hatred and oppression into the world, these very same hypocrites are surruptitiously creating abortions. It's there plain as day in every instance they've politically assaulted single mothers through willful neglect writ. Abortion goes down because teen pregnancy is on the increase, attack the teens. See how this works yet? They could care a whit about children or women or the poor. Handy target practice. Useful cannon fodder. Useful scapegoats. A reliable supply of prostitutes.

[kshe95girl]

Originally Posted by dreamofmonterey

owe you another rep but have to wait.

So now women are victims of incest and rape, AND we get to be forced to bring impoverished children into the world.

This thread is really making me pysically sick. I never realized the misogyny of women on the far right as well.

Frightening that some of our own sex think this way, isnt it?

[dreamofmonterey]

Very hypocritical. Interesting the papacy had issues with advertising at planned parentood. Catholic Charities tries to get women to keep the child, but they dont explain how to get a decent job, or life when the man bails.

lol re:calista. she does look like a hooker.