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.
Hey; I’m a moderate. Unrestricted first trimester. Some restrictions moving through second trimester. Heavily, but not completely, restricted third trimester.
I’m not one of the radicals that want it banned totally or want zero restrictions at all.
Reasonable and fair, especially given the drugs that exist today to stop it just before it really gets going...
Including the choice to not hit the sack in the first place and the choice to practice some common-sense forms of birth control. But, you can't fix stupid.
Hey; I’m a moderate. Unrestricted first trimester. Some restrictions moving through second trimester. Heavily, but not completely, restricted third trimester.
I’m not one of the radicals that want it banned totally or want zero restrictions at all.
I would say most pro-choice people are on board with this timeline. And third trimester abortions are already heavily restricted.
Double standard. She can also keep her legs closed. See how easy that is? Taking this argument to a logical end if a woman decides to open her legs recognizing the risks just as a man should/does then if one side doesn't want to keep it/take care of it they shouldn't have to which is now "automatically" ONLY the women's right. It should be the right of either side...
No. You can't complain about women having abortions or sticking men with child support payments when men can just keep it in their pants and not impregnate women in the first place. No impregnating women = no pregnancies = no abortions nor child support payments. And if guys decide to have sex anyway and the woman gets pregnant, it is her legal right to deal with the pregnancy as she sees fit. The woman is the one who carries all the physical risks of a pregnancy, not the man. So, for men who disapprove of abortion or don't want to pay child support, avoid all of the above by keeping it in your pants.
Double standard. She can also keep her legs closed. See how easy that is? Taking this argument to a logical end if a woman decides to open her legs recognizing the risks just as a man should/does then if one side doesn't want to keep it/take care of it they shouldn't have to which is now "automatically" ONLY the women's right. It should be the right of either side...
Pretending that biological differences don't exist doesn't make it true. Women are the ones who get pregnant, which means they get control over what happens in their own bodies. Men get to control what happens with their bodies when they choose whether or not to have sex, but that doesn't mean they get to control what happens after that. So yes, no matter how much you want to complain, it's fair that men get to choose whether or not to have sex but they don't get to say whether a woman carries any resulting pregnancy or not, and they are still responsible for any child that they participated in creating if the woman chooses to have that child.
Men can keep it in their pants if they don't want any responsibility beyond that. See how easy that is? Ridiculous that you think women are the only ones who are supposed to give up control in this situation.
Okay, so following your logic men shouldn't have to pay a damn dime if they don't want the child since it's all the woman's decision.
In some circles that'd be a nice "concession" as currently, some places forbid women from getting abortions. They know they won't be able to raise the child on their own, but yet, you can have the government, or her impregnator tell her she must have the baby, but neither will help rearing the child (and this ain't some far right feminism line of thinking. I've talked with plenty of men who were raised by a single mother, wishing there would be laws to hold men who knock up women and run off without taking any responsibility). So to recap, the main point is forbidding them from getting abortions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj
We have to pay for YOUR decision for at least 18 years (or 22 if they decide to go to college) so yeah, we're being held hostage...
Again, not quite true, as men have the option to just run off and leave the woman on her own. Or just state that he's NOT going to raise the child. The decision to raise a child should be agreed upon by both in the couple, but face it, women do have a much higher stake in this, and that's why I feel they should have much more choices.
EDIT: Also, if she decides to get an abortion, they man is off the hook.
Last edited by ackmondual; 12-16-2017 at 07:09 PM..
Genuine questions to all those who say "women should be responsible for not getting knocked up by keeping their legs together"...
1) If a man is in a relationship, can he actually expect to use that as a VALID excuse when his wife/fiancé/girlfriend asks him why he cheated on her, and he responds "but, but, but... she spread her legs!? What other choice did I have!?"
2) If a woman were to pull off that similar stunt with a man, can she actually expect to use that as a valid excuse for cheating on her husband/fiancé/boyfriend? Man accuses woman of cheating on her. Her excuse is...
"But he bought me a drink and/or dinner!"
"He took off his shirt and showed me HIS awesome pecs!" (If we'd want to go further... "I wouldn't have cheated on you if YOU looked like that" )
Last edited by ackmondual; 12-16-2017 at 07:08 PM..
Too many people see the world in black and white. "If this would happen, then this wouldn't" or "if someone wouldn't do this, there wouldn't be a problem" etc.
But the world isn't black and white.
"Women just need to use birth control..." ALL birth control has a failure rate.
"Women just need to use abstinence..." In their marriages? Yeah, let's see how the men like that one.
"Women just need to keep their legs shut.." If women kept their legs shut as often as men liked, the men would be jumping off bridges.
"Women can give up the baby for adoption..." The fact of the matter is most people want to adopt newborn white babies that are perfect. As for the others, there are over 300,000 children in the foster care system right now, waiting for a permanent, loving home. Many of those children will be living on the street supporting themselves with prostitution and selling drugs to survive when they age out of foster care.
"Women can have the baby and give it up..." How insulting can you get to just skip over nine months of pregnancy and hours in labor like it was just nothing? And let's not forget how dangerous giving birth still is:
Each year in the U.S., about 700 women die of pregnancy-related complications
and 52,000 experience emergencies such as acute renal failure, shock, respiratory
distress, aneurysms and heart surgery. An additional 34,000 barely avoid death. (CDC)
And of course, the old favorite: "I would support abortion in the cases of rape or incest." Why? Why would you be such a hypocrite? What does how the child was conceived have anything to do being a good reason for abortion? If you say something like this, it merely tells me you are actually for abortion. You just want to pick which fetuses you want to be aborted, is all.
The thing is, no woman should be trapped in a pregnant body risking her life to give birth to a child she doesn't want just because of someone else's morality. I don't see these anti-abortionists parading in the streets demanding we stop the wars so more of our service men and women don't get killed. I don't see them standing up and saying capital punishment is wrong and protesting about that.
Likewise, I can't believe the anti-abortionists are out to save lives:
"Since 1973, anti-choice zealots have murdered 11 people, attempted to murder another 17,
and made 363 credible death threats. They have also been convicted of assault 153 times.
They have bombed 41 reproductive health clinics, made 619 bomb threats and 655 anthrax
attack threats, committed arson 173 times and vandalism 1,264 times, and thrown butyric
acid stink bombs at property and people, injuring 30. NOTE: these figures are publicly
available from FBI and DOJ crime statistics, not "alternative facts."
During the same time, one anti-choice protester has been murdered."
As for abortion being a religious problem:
If God has a problem with it, He needs to bring his Almighty ass down here and
tell everyone Himself. Self-appointed mouthpieces for God need to stop pretending
to speak for the Almighty. He's more than capable of speaking for himself
IF he is, in fact, "Almighty". (Dawn)
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.
)