Men and Abortion

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
All of these fantasies about forcing the woman to carry the child are just that. Wild fantasies of men who would like to control what women do. It's ridiculous and would never in a million years happen.

I say have your fantasies. That's all it's every going to be.




posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's ridiculous and would never in a million years happen.


Never say never. Have you never heard of radical Islam? The social conditions that give women carte blanche in these matters are both artificial and tenuous. Eventually, liberty as we know it will cease to exist and the old order will prevail--might makes right.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Its not about controlling the Womans body, its about respecting the life that she has helped create.
If she doesn't want to run the risk of becoming pregnant, all she has to do is keep her legs crossed.

See, not all men dream about one day having a woman under their control.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Granted it took two people to conceive a child, but ultimately it is the woman's choice whether or not she wishes to keep it.

Last time I checked here in the USA, women had freedom of choice. I know some guys think they have a say in the matter, but they don't. The amazing change that the woman's body has to undergo, the raging hormones and ultimately the responsibility for raising the child falls to her. She has the final say, period.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
All of these fantasies about forcing the woman to carry the child are just that. Wild fantasies of men who would like to control what women do. It's ridiculous and would never in a million years happen.

I say have your fantasies. That's all it's every going to be.


have you ever sat down with some of these ultra conservatice christians? I have. I think they are behind this movement to get men to have a say in abortion, and they have managed to get a foothold in our local, state, and federal governments, our school system, ect.....

I've chatted with a few of these people.....was even in one of these ultra conservative churches when this movement first begun.....
I think this is what they want, as far as women goes:

fathers should be the ones who picks out your husband! he's wiser than you ya know.

once married, always married. you may separate for a small time, with the agreement of your husband of course, but your aim should always be the reunification of the family, even if he beat you half to death!!

the husband's word is God's law, delivered by Him, through your husband, obey it. ya, you may disagree with it, may even plead with your husband and God to change their minds, but in the end, you must obey it....regardless of how insane it is.....

anything, social service programs, divorce laws, ect, that compromises the man's rulership of the women is not Godly, and should cease to exist.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Religion isn't the only thing of importance. I am extremely anti-religion yet I still feel that men should have A SAY (not the final word which ends with women being locked up and used like the Queen Alien from Aliens) in whether or not the child will be aborted.
As for fathers choosing husbands etc...its all BS. Those types of behaviour won't fly in modern western society.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
All of these fantasies about forcing the woman to carry the child are just that. Wild fantasies of men who would like to control what women do. It's ridiculous and would never in a million years happen.

I say have your fantasies. That's all it's every going to be.


Oh please, if recognizing life and choosing to preserve it is "forcing" anyone to do anything then that’s pathetic and sad. This isn’t about control/force/ or religion, it about saving the life of another you helped create. If you think I’m a conservative Christian who’s into that ultra traditional social crap then you got another thing coming.


[edit on 25-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Oh please, if recognizing life and choosing to preserve it is "forcing" anyone to do anything then that’s pathetic and sad. This isn’t about control/force/ or religion, it about saving the life of another you helped create.

By infringing on the liberties of a life that already exists.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
have you ever sat down with some of these ultra conservatice christians?


I haven't sat down with them, but I've heard them on TV.


A lot of the conservative movement has to do with 'returning' to an old, (supposedly) proven way of doing things. There's a mindset that the world is out of control because we're not behaving the way we did in the 50s. Most prominently, women have stepped out of 'their place' and entered into the workplace and have gotten all uppity.


Women are no longer subserviant to men and the patriarchy. It's ok for people to believe that a fetus is a 'life' and that destroying it is murder, but once they start imposing that belief on other people it becomes an invasion of my beliefs and my rights. They can believe whatever they want as long as they don't force me to do something because of their beliefs.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Eventually, liberty as we know it will cease to exist and the old order will prevail--might makes right.


You may be right, but it won't be radical Islam that takes over, it will be radical Christianity.


Originally posted by JebusSaves
If she doesn't want to run the risk of becoming pregnant, all she has to do is keep her legs crossed.


And by the same token, if the man doesn't want to run the risk of losing control of his seed, all he has to do is keep his pants on.


Originally posted by JackofBlades
I still feel that men should have A SAY ... in whether or not the child will be aborted.


Then tell me SPECIFICALLY, what would this SAY look like?

This has been asked many times during this thread and never answered. So please, if you want him to have a say, what is it?

He asks, she says no. He begs, she says no. What then? Do you want him to be able to take her to court? To sue her? Do you suggest he have some sort of legal recourse? She has to pay a fine? What?

[edit on 25-7-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by JebusSaves
If she doesn't want to run the risk of becoming pregnant, all she has to do is keep her legs crossed.


And by the same token, if the man doesn't want to run the risk of losing control of his seed, all he has to do is keep his pants on.

You make it sound like i'm against that.
I'm not.
On the contrary, I believe if you are willing to have sex you are willing to have a child and look after and care for it.
If you aren't then the life of the foetus should not be taken just because you can't control yourself.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
But again as I stated above since there is no legal way to ensure this some people may be driven to extremes. If given the right circumstances I might just do something rash like decide that this child living is worth me facing a jury and possible prison time.

Kidnapping and locking her up? I would not think you a worthy parent anyway if you were willing to take a woman's freedom away in order to turn her into your incubation chamber. Impregnating a woman does not make her your property.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by WestPoint23
But again as I stated above since there is no legal way to ensure this some people may be driven to extremes. If given the right circumstances I might just do something rash like decide that this child living is worth me facing a jury and possible prison time.

Kidnapping and locking her up? I would not think you a worthy parent anyway if you were willing to take a woman's freedom away in order to turn her into your incubation chamber. Impregnating a woman does not make her your property.


No it doesnt, and i must say no one should be locked up if they intend to murder the unborn child.
Like i've stated, a few times, women should be given all the freedoms, until they murder the child without the consent of the father. THATS when she should face some form of legal prosecution UNLESS there are medical issues OR the child is the result of a rape.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Kidnapping and locking her up? I would not think you a worthy parent…


How can I be a parent if my child will be killed? If ensuring the life of my unborn child makes me a bad parent, well, I honestly don’t know what to say.


Originally posted by riley
By infringing on the liberties of a life that already exists.


I didn’t know the liberty to kill because you were careless was one afforded to human beings, interesting.


[edit on 25-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by JebusSaves
... without the consent of the father. THATS when she should face some form of legal prosecution.


So, you just want the man to have control of abortion instead of the woman.

If abortion is ok with the man, then it's ok.

If abortion isn't ok with the man, then it isn't ok.

It sounds like you want the man to have final say. What the woman wants doesn't really count unless the man's desires happen to agree with hers.

What's next in this little male-dominant scenario? The man doesn't have to support the child he didn't want?



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by JebusSaves
... without the consent of the father. THATS when she should face some form of legal prosecution.


So, you just want the man to have control of abortion instead of the woman.

If abortion is ok with the man, then it's ok.

If abortion isn't ok with the man, then it isn't ok.

It sounds like you want the man to have final say. What the woman wants doesn't really count unless the man's desires happen to agree with hers.

What's next in this little male-dominant scenario? The man doesn't have to support the child he didn't want?


Don't twist my words.
The man in this situation would have final say, however if it was the woman who wanted to keep the child and the man not, then she would have final say.
Its the person who wants the child to live, they are the one who has it.

I personally believe that BOTH parties should bring up the child even if one doesn't want, HOWEVER, as long as the man has no say over the abortion, another man should not be forced to pat child support if he doesn't want the child.

If you want to keep the right of choosing whether the child lives or dies, men should have the right to not have to support the baby.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by JebusSaves
If you want to keep the right of choosing whether the child lives or dies, men should have the right to not have to support the baby.


You know, it all sounds all very righteous and everything that whomever wants the child to live should have final say, but then you turn around and condone the right of a man to abandon the responsibility of the child he fathered if he doesn't want it.

In my world, a man would take responsibility of a child he helped create whether he wanted it or not.

I'm pretty tired of hearing all this about women 'murdering' their 'children' when the same people are saying that they would accept that, if only the man can have the choice of abandoning the child if he doesn't want it.

What's the difference???

Kind of difficult for me to see you as taking the high moral ground here...



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

You know, it all sounds all very righteous and everything that whomever wants the child to live should have final say, but then you turn around and condone the right of a man to abandon the responsibility of the child he fathered if he doesn't want it.

In my world, a man would take responsibility of a child he helped create whether he wanted it or not.

I'm pretty tired of hearing all this about women 'murdering' their 'children' when the same people are saying that they would accept that, if only the man can have the choice of abandoning the child if he doesn't want it.

What's the difference???

Kind of difficult for me to see you as taking the high moral ground here...



Again, i'm not condoning it, just like i don't condone murdering the child, however if we live in a society that allows the woman to choose if two peoples child lives or dies, then by the same token men should be able to decide whether they want to have a say in its life.

In my world BOTH people would take responsibility for creating a life, be it planned or accidental, and not decide to murder said child because THEY made a choice to have sex.

I would not accept it because i will never accept the murder of said foetus as a just cause of action in these circumstances.
BUT it is a fairer way to deal with the subject IF men have no say if the child lives or dies.

Please look over my entire comments before trying to portray my words out of context.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In my world, a man would take responsibility of a child he helped create whether he wanted it or not.


Accordingly by that same token a woman should take responsibility for a child she helped create, part of that responsibility is delivering the baby. If a man should be made to pay child support regardless of his view on the abortion issue why shouldn’t a woman be made to deliver the baby regardless of her view on the abortion issue? What you’re proposing is not in the least bit fair.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
How can I be a parent if my child will be killed? If ensuring the life of my unborn child makes me a bad parent, well, I honestly don’t know what to say.

Are you going to make sure the mother gets fed as well? Fresh air? How often? What about knives and forks? Are you going to hand feed her lest she perform the abortion herself with cutlery while you're not looking? What about healthy food? Shouldn't you also make sure her diet is healthy as it might shorten your baby's lifespan and that would be abuse on her apart.. after all when she becomes an incubator she ceases to be a person with free will.

Sorry but I very much doubt you have much respect for life [or just women] if you are willing to enslave one.

I didn’t know the liberty to kill because you were careless was one afforded to human beings, interesting.

So it's about carelessness of women? Alot of people seem to be pro-life just because they think women should be punnished for sex with childbirth.
It's funny how they don't really talk about male responsibility or carelessness.

Originally posted by JebusSaves No it doesnt, and i must say no one should be locked up if they intend to murder the unborn child.

The word 'murder' is also innacurate [though it sounds dramatic].. as is the word 'child'. It's is either a zygote [sp] or a fetus. Technically it's not even a baby so the words 'murder' and 'infanicide' are missleading and are just emotive buzz words designed to elevate a fetus to the same status as the mother. I personally do not consider the death of something not dissimilar to a tadpole [1-2 months] to be equal to a grown woman.. though I definently do not agree with the morality of elective late term abortions [if they exist] either. The word 'murder' also asserts that women who have abortions do so for malicious, sadistic reasons and as I do not know these women it's not my place to demonise them or to make moral judgements on why they made that choice.

Like i've stated, a few times, women should be given all the freedoms, until they murder the child without the consent of the father.

Should a woman ask for consent if she has her tubes tied? Yes the fetus would genetically be half his but it's still inside her body.. the word 'consent' implies that the guy is her boss.. 'consult' would be a better word and I agree that ideally she should consult him before making such decisions. If he says no however.. he should not have the final word.

THATS when she should face some form of legal prosecution UNLESS there are medical issues OR the child is the result of a rape.

And what if he's been abusing her? If she's poor? What if the relationship is unstable? What if he's a drug dealer and a bad influence? I've met many people who have chosen to be parents yet ended up just abusing and neglecting their kids.. what makes you so certain that a willing parent would be a good one?

[edit on 25-7-2006 by riley]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I agree with you. BOTH people should take responsibility for a pregnancy. I, for example, would not choose to have an abortion (except for health reasons). Even if I was raped, I wouldn't abort it - Shall we talk about morals, now?) I could just never insist that another woman make the same choice that I would. It's too personal a choice.

And nobody said it was fair. Yes it would be more fair if the man also had the right to choose not to support the child, but if your concern was 100% with the child, as you have both stated, you wouldn't even entertain the 'fairness' of a man's choice to abandon his offspring.

That's why I say this is more about the man having control over the woman (and being "fair) than it is about concern for the child. The idea that, in this one case in the universe, women have control over something that you don't just bothers you so much.

You tout this moral superiority, then claim "It isn't fair" that you don't have the same choice to abandon your child as the woman does to never bring it into the world in the first place.

I can only assume that if you (as men) did have the choice to abandon, you wouldn't have anything to complain about, right? It would be fair and you could abandon a born child and everything would be fine...

So all the little children whose fathers are now being forced to pay child support would have that support removed and then you'd be happy...

Am I right? Is this what you want? Is that 'fair' enough for you?





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join