Could abortion be considered a double standard?

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Yeah it's legal. But Republicans are doing their damnedest to shut down clinics- including the ones that provide birth control and completely non-abortion related women's care.

And the point of this whole thread was to debate the extent of the father's input on the decision. But if the woman wants an abortion and the man doesn't....well we're right back where we started now aren't we?

Here's the thing. I don't think it should be either parents' "decision". It is not about her or him it's about it. In a sense it is the baby's decision but the parents have to do the thinking for it.

"Are we going to be able to give this child opportunities to succeed or are we dooming him to repeat our mistakes?"
"Are we prepared to make this tiny little life our number one priority or are we going to be divided by this?"

The mother's needs are infinitesimal and the father's are irrelevant. If you aren't prepared to give up your wants and needs then, by all means, get an abortion because the last thing this world needs is more mistakes.

a reply to: pianoasis

and....you are still making it sound like the motives must be oh, so selfish!!!

with war it's oh....so patriotic!!!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: pianoasis

and....you are still making it sound like the motives must be oh, so selfish!!!

with war it's oh....so patriotic!!!

Look, I don't mean to incite you. I don't see the parallel you're making with war, I'd rather we keep this straightforward.

What I'm saying is the motives don't deserve to be selfish. I have no idea if they are or not I have never known anyone who has had an abortion.

a reply to: pianoasis

Why do people plan for and have children? I'll tell you why, for the most purely selfish reason; because they WANT them.

They want them for social status. They want them to project themselves into and onto. They want little copies of themselves running around. They want someone to love and someone to love them back. They don't want to be alone in old age.

Why do people choose NOT to have children? Purely selfish reasons, they don't WANT them.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Oh wow sorry for calling you out earlier you obviously know more about this than anyone in this thread. Somehow this post skipped my mind. I hope you aren't writing me a novel in response.

a reply to: pianoasis

well, the parents might considering quite a bit more than just themselves to begin with, there might be children that they have now, there might be health problems, a loss of needed income, I mean not all occupations are healthy for a pregnant women's fetus.

I mean, if a women is working that 40 hours plus like I described above to just help provide the basic necessities for the kids she has, she might actually wish that she could have the child that is developing in her womb, but well, feels it could be quite selfish to keep it when it means the kids she has will go without the things they need because she will no longer work.

and the war comes in because well....
the motives behind much of the rhetoric encouraging use to go to war is bases on much of the same fears as a women might have about a pregnancy, only with the pregnant women, the concerns might be much more provable, much more real, and really much more closer to home. same emotional composition.....
so why do some think that women should be able to just silence these emotions and not act on them, even if the danger that is posed to them is real and justified if the danged men can't even overcome a mythological threat of wmd's in iraq?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: pianoasis

well, the parents might considering quite a bit more than just themselves to begin with, there might be children that they have now, there might be health problems, a loss of needed income, I mean not all occupations are healthy for a pregnant women's fetus.

I mean, if a women is working that 40 hours plus like I described above to just help provide the basic necessities for the kids she has, she might actually wish that she could have the child that is developing in her womb, but well, feels it could be quite selfish to keep it when it means the kids she has will go without the things they need because she will no longer work.

and the war comes in because well....
the motives behind much of the rhetoric encouraging use to go to war is bases on much of the same fears as a women might have about a pregnancy, only with the pregnant women, the concerns might be much more provable, much more real, and really much more closer to home. same emotional composition.....
so why do some think that women should be able to just silence these emotions and not act on them, even if the danger that is posed to them is real and justified if the danged men can't even overcome a mythological threat of wmd's in iraq?

I've never seen it put better. The issue is so much bigger than you and I but you still have a bird's eye view. I don't have an answer to your question and that's rare for me.

This war is so ironic where we fight to end the fighting. I guess God does have a sense of humor. Try to be a soldier, darling...

I'm hesitant to admit but you're the only person whose left me speechless in years. I think this thread is complete.

a reply to: pianoasis

I agree 100% and starred your post. I too, wish people would focus on the well being of the baby. But they don't. Women smoke, drink and do drugs while pregnant. Men beat the women pregnant with their offspring. Babies are starved and neglected and beaten and placed in freezers for crying. Young children are molested and raped every minute of every day. Medical needs are neglected. Education is neglected. Discipline is neglected. I could go on, but I'm starting to depress myself.

And even if you waved a magic wand and eliminated ALL that, there would still be fetuses without developing kidneys or half formed brains. And when THOSE fetuses are aborted it's out of nothing but care and concern for that child and the impossibility of the quality of life for it.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

Bless your heart... Hugs.

originally posted by: pianoasis
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Oh wow sorry for calling you out earlier you obviously know more about this than anyone in this thread. Somehow this post skipped my mind. I hope you aren't writing me a novel in response.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not. It doesn't really matter. I DON'T know more about this than anyone else. All I know is that if I had had a choice, I would have had that baby. I would never have an abortion. She would have been 23 this year, and it still hurts.

But I know pregnancy on an intimate level and the sometimes difficult choices and misery that can come from it. I would never dream of taking such an EXTREMELY personal choice away from anyone. How people can presume to make that decision for other people, I will never understand.

originally posted by: Phage
Actually, the question can (and often does) go way beyond "double."
However from the point of view of your argument, all the male contributes is a pile of DNA. Stuff he sheds on an ongoing basis. The female is quite a bit more invested. Hardly an equal contribution.

The purpose of sex is reproduction. That PLAIN, that SIMPLE. Society does nothing but make excuses as to why it should behave a certain way, when it comes to the convenience of their lives.

And, the "rape" thing is just as bad as the homosexual community claiming their ways are "natural" because animals do it. Again, nothing but excuses to justify sin.

a reply to: JuJuBee

The purpose of sex is reproduction.

Humans are meant to overcome and defy nature. Do you know you who "Necessity" is? She's the Mother of Invention!

he pastor of a Dallas-area mega-church challenged married congregants during his sermon Sunday to have sex for seven days in a row -- and says he's practicing what he preaches. The Rev. Ed Young, 47, says he believes society promotes promiscuity, and he wants to reclaim sex for married couples. Sex should be a nurturing, spiritual act that strengthens marriages, he said. "God says sex should be between a married man and a woman," Young says. "I think it's one of the greatest things you can do for your kids because so goes the marriage, so goes the family."

www.cbsnews.com...

a reply to: JuJuBee

maybe you should try telling that to this guy??
historically speaking, I think married women have been told that they don't have a right to say no to sex more than they've been criticized for not saying no!

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: pianoasis

And even if you waved a magic wand and eliminated ALL that, there would still be fetuses without developing kidneys or half formed brains. And when THOSE fetuses are aborted it's out of nothing but care and concern for that child and the impossibility of the quality of life for it.

And what say you about Stephen Hawking? Whose to say, that child with 1/2 brain couldn't do something great???? Our weaknesses is someone else's strength.

Abort the baby because the baby's not "perfect"? Hmmmmm sounds SELFISH to me.

a reply to: JuJuBee
usually, the babies born with only have a brain only get to enjoy a few hours of agonizing pain because they aren't able to survive...
which kind of makes me wonder, who's selfish here, mothers who don't wish to see a baby suffer like that, or a bunch of people who seem to want to use the issue to feel morally superior?

a reply to: JuJuBee

And what say you about Stephen Hawking?

Stephen Hawking was born healthy. He developed Lou Gehrig's disease later in life.

Abort the baby because the baby's not "perfect"? Hmmmmm sounds SELFISH to me.

That would up to the woman bearing the responsibility for that child, and her family.

originally posted by: JuJuBee
The purpose of sex is reproduction. That PLAIN, that SIMPLE.

So, you never have sex, unless you want a baby?

I seem to remember a thread on ATS awhile back that asked a question:
Would denying sex long term be a justification for divorce...
come to find out, not only did many of the posters feel that yes, it would be, but well in some states I guess, it would legally be a justifiable reason.

originally posted by: JuJuBee

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: pianoasis

And even if you waved a magic wand and eliminated ALL that, there would still be fetuses without developing kidneys or half formed brains. And when THOSE fetuses are aborted it's out of nothing but care and concern for that child and the impossibility of the quality of life for it.

And what say you about Stephen Hawking? Whose to say, that child with 1/2 brain couldn't do something great???? Our weaknesses is someone else's strength.

Abort the baby because the baby's not "perfect"? Hmmmmm sounds SELFISH to me.

Just keep pumping out unwanted "babies" ---- because maybe, just maybe, one of them might fit into the 1/4 of 1% natural born genius range.

That is the dumbest arguement ever.

LIVING CHILDREN already here, some of them unwanted, are a realistic concern.

originally posted by: JuJuBee
And what say you about Stephen Hawking?

Interesting you should mention that... As you've been told, Stephen Hawking developed Lou Gehrig's disease.

Neuralstem, Inc. announced that it has received approval from the Food and Drug Administration to expand an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s disease) Phase II study to the University of Michigan.

The stem cells used in the study come from spinal cord tissue taken from a healthy, 8-week-old aborted baby.

Source

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

well you presumed wrong 60/40 in favour of the women, the OP isnt complaining about that women can have abortions without the mans consent he's complaining that women have the option of aborting the baby or keeping it the guy does not he is forced into the womens decision regardless of his own beliefs or viewpoint