It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

One Simple Question Makes Pro Choice Activists visibly uncomfortable

page: 11
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 04:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
True, but that doesn't change the fact that the woman makes all the choices here. If she wants to abort or to keep the man has no choice in the matter by law.



True .....

And judging by the many single mothers out there .... how many had not

aborted only to find out months later down the line that the man was not as

committed as he had professed to be and bailed out at the first hurdle


Bottom line and ultimately the woman ALWAYS carries the can!!




posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

It only makes sense though, legally, that the woman would have the final say, since she is the one with the most at statke here. Do you really think the law should force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy, so long as the father wishes it?



Of course not, but that is my question here too. If the woman can abort with no consent from the father should the father still be responsible if he elects to not want to be involved but the mother elects to have the child anyways?



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Abortion should be legal up unto the 21st year, after that they should be able to take care of theirselves



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I'm always conflicted about this.
I really don't like the idea at all.

That said, I detest the guilt tripping and stuff pro lifers go for. A lot of that side of the divide wouldn't even allow abortion to save a woman's life or following a rape.

I'm pro choice, because it's not up to me what someone does with their unborn child, it's their choice and as long as they get decent counselling about the whole thing then they should have the choice, not be hamstrung by someone else's opinion.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




Of course not, but that is my question here too. If the woman can abort with no consent from the father should the father still be responsible if he elects to not want to be involved but the mother elects to have the child anyways?


Probably not. But let me ask you this, should you as a tax payer, have to pay for dead beat dads?



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero


Of course not, but that is my question here too. If the woman can abort with no consent from the father


It is not IF the woman can abort .... As it is LEGAL she can do

as SHE chooses ... and requires no one else's consent as to what goes

on within HER body.



should the father still be responsible if he elects to not want to be involved but the mother elects to have the child anyways?


See the under ^^^^^ lined .... it is at that point that he has a say. If

he is that worried/concerned about abortion KEEP HIS PANTS ZIPPED.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

Probably not. But let me ask you this, should you as a tax payer, have to pay for dead beat dads?


Most likely will either way, so kind of moot. This isn't one mistake issue it is a plethora of mistakes on both sides to get to this point.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

he is that worried/concerned about abortion KEEP HIS PANTS ZIPPED.


And the woman to keep her legs closed?? Lol

You know the woman has many ways of prevention while the man has only one, which BTW the woman could demand him to use.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: XtrozeroAnd the woman to keep her legs closed?? Lol



No need IF she doesn't want to.... she has a legal *safety net*?

His is a *moral* dilemma!!?



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
if your (present or future) wife/husband just came out one day and announce to you that they didn't wish to have any more children so there'd be no more fun, what would your reaction be? Maybe your husband was feeling too much of a financial strain from trying to support the family he had or maybe your wife felt that she had more a handful trying to keep up with the kids now, or maybe it was the doctor who advised her that she should ensure that she not get pregnant, whatever.
the simple fact is that there really isn't any birth control method out there that is 100% effective outside of keeping your legs crossed, and the more effective the birth control method is the more costly it is. And, people do have very valid reasons for not wanting to become parents, either at the present time, or maybe not ever again! So, if you say they can just keep their legs crossed, well you must be willing to have your husband/wife decide that this is the best course of action sometime in future...and accept it without any repercussions whatsoever. otherwise, you are just talking crap!!



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Atsbhct

A women that does not want a kid can use birth control



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Serious question - why is it mostly the unattractive unsavory type of women who are most ardent pro abortion supporters? I think its bc the prospect of finding an elite stable husband is more unattainable for them, thus more abortions than their counterparts. Just a theory (im right).



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: dismanrc

You are just confused



Of course I am because I don't lockstep behind the liberial aggenda.




posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: sjake111
Serious question - why is it mostly the unattractive unsavory type of women who are most ardent pro abortion supporters?


LOL!!.... You make *supporters* sound more like cheer leaders!!

Abortion doesn't need supporting it is written into law and therefor a legal

procedure, so debating for or against is moot.

As for unattractive and unsavoury, that again is moot. As you should be aware

that *Beauty is in the eye of the beholder??



I think its bc the prospect of finding an elite stable husband is more unattainable for them. Just a theory (im right).


They are an *endangered species* ....I Haven't seen one of those around for a

long time.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Let's put women, maybe the most conservative, as the decision makers for erectile dysfunction drugs, strip clubs, porn, major league sports rules and drafts, fishing tournaments, deer hunting and monster trucks. Give the girls that work the streets a pension so they can move on to something else. I wonder what would happen.



I once had a man tell me that if men got pregnant, there would not be any "accidents" or unwanted pregnancies. Really. Has this man actually looked around at men and their responsible actions in the world.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: sjake111

this is a joke right? HAhahhaahha



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: sjake111
Serious question - why is it mostly the unattractive unsavory type of women who are most ardent pro abortion supporters? I think its bc the prospect of finding an elite stable husband is more unattainable for them, thus more abortions than their counterparts. Just a theory (im right).


Really, that's the reason.

I imagine professional women with careers with money or position never see children as a problem to their life.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: sjake111
Serious question - why is it mostly the unattractive unsavory type of women who are most ardent pro abortion supporters? I think its bc the prospect of finding an elite stable husband is more unattainable for them, thus more abortions than their counterparts. Just a theory (im right).


Serious answer. This is highly insulting to women in general. Plus I've known great looking women who are pro-choice. Stop basing your opinions on your (obviously) misogynist biases and sample sizes...



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Some of the (paraphrased) anti-abortion arguments I've seen in this topic include:



  • Women shouldn't be able to have abortions without consulting their husbands/partners.
  • If people are financially in need of health care cost assistance from the government, then they should also be subject to the government imposing its morality and limitations based thereupon on them.
  • Because contraception is abundant and abstinence is an option, abortion should only be acceptable in cases of rape or medical complications, irrespective of other circumstances. (E.g. you made your own bed now society will force you - and your child - to lie in it.)
  • Abortion after a certain point is riskier for the mother than before that point, so that should never be allowed (E.g. it shouldn't be the mother's choice to take said risk after carefully weighing her options - the choice should be imposed upon her, as though it isn't her own life she's risking.)
  • Because after a baby is born it's a baby and killing it is therefore murder, abortion is also murder. (Translation: Women and doctors who engage in abortion are murderers.)
  • Women most likely to have or support abortions are unattractive and "unsavory" types. (Somehow it always eventually progresses to this. Must make women feel great to know that if they have an abortion, someone might suspect they aren't pleasant to look at or "savor." Since that's what's most important about such a critical life decision.)



No offense is intended, sincerely, but all those arguments make me think of is this Carlin quote:

"These people aren't pro-life... they're anti-woman." While that might be a bridge a tad too far, as I'm sure most if not all making these arguments do love and respect women... a consequence of said love and respect, imho at least, has to be allowing them to make choices about their own bodies. Without that, it's just sentiment that can change on a dime when it comes time to impose our own morals on them.

I don't like abortions either. My mother had one before me. It was shocking to learn. Disturbing even. For a long time, in fact. But it was her choice, and I respect and support her right to have done it. Because I love and respect my mother, and do not see her as a murderer, or "unsavory."

Peace.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: AceWombat04




Abortion after a certain point is riskier for the mother than before that point, so that should never be allowed (E.g. it shouldn't be the mother's choice to take said risk after carefully weighing her options - the choice should be imposed upon her, as though it isn't her own life she's risking.)
Because after a baby is born it's a baby and killing it is therefore murder, abortion is also murder. (Translation: Women and doctors who engage in abortion are murderers.)


On the other side of that coin is the fact that there are times when carrying a pregnancy to term if far more riskier than the abortion, so, should we, in order to protect the women's life, insist that she aborts?? I mean, if the justification is that you feel that there is a need to interfere with the decision making of the women because you believe that her desision is endangering her life, shouldn't it work both ways especially if there is just a small increase in the risk of a later abortion but a rather large risk of trying to carry some pregnancies to term.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join