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.

 

The Utter Insanity of Pro-Choice

page: 10
25
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by leo123

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
The emotional issues people who are for mens rights in abortion use are not an issue in the bottom line. If a woman wants to abort, her body her choice.


Fair enough, but her "choices" should stop with her body and she shouldn't be able to force a man to support a child he doesn't want.
It isnt forced if he made the choice to have sex in the first place.

By having sex a man is by default consenting to whatever outcome happens, because when man and woman have sex, one of two outcomes always happen-pregnancy or not.

If a man does not want to "support" his little spermlette, then keep those sperm in your own body away from baby producing eggs.

This entire issue is about choices, mens and womens. The choices are different, that is how God made us.

To be very honest, the men who are against abortion come off as slightly against women, and very very deadbeaty.

For the argument that a woman should be labeled a deadbeat for accepting child support (or some variation of the argument when a woman "forces" a man into fatherhood, haha) what world is a measly couple hundred dollars(the average payment per child) even remotely enough to fully financially support the child? Much less allow the mom to live high on the hog as well?

Children are supported in more ways than FINANCIAL and how much other support besides MONEY is a man going to give a child he clearly doesnt want? THAT is where Mom comes in to make up for the lack of a father.

And the entire abortion/not abortion situation is in the palm of a man's hand until he actually has sex, then the choices are no longer on the table for him.

And why are men having sex with women they DONT want babies with in the first place?




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benji1999
That is why I cannot see any reason why the man should be legally obliged for the financial upkeep of a prospective child that he has no say in whether he/she is born or not !


When you have sex with a woman, you do so with the full knowledge that it may result in a child that you will have to support. You're not being blindsided here. You know the way it works.

BEFORE you have sex:
You KNOW you can't decide whether she carries it to term or not.
You KNOW that if she does, you will be required to support it.

Knowing these truths, if you decide to give this woman your sperm, you WILL have to deal with the consequences.

BEFORE a woman has sex:
She KNOWS she can become pregnant.
She KNOWS she will have to make the choice whether to keep it or abort it.
She KNOWS she will have to provide support for the baby.

Knowing these truths, if she decides to accept your sperm, she WILL have to deal with the consequences.

They are different responsibilities and choices, but both parties have responsibilities and both have choices.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
never mind.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by verylowfrequency]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by leo123


All you are confirming to me is that you want women to be able to suck and blow at the same.



However, if women want ALL the say on how a pregnancy unfolds, which I don't have a problem with, they have to take ALL the responsibilities associated with THEIR actions including the issue that she shouldn't be able to impose upon the man financially if that is not his wish.


[edit on 15-4-2010 by leo123]
What does suck and blow at the same time mean?

Anyway, sorry to break it to you, but no woman can impose on a man financially what he did not CHOOSE to bring upon himself.

Those sperm?

Should have stayed in Rosy Palmer if he did not want an obligation for the next 18 years.

Whats that saying?

18 seconds of love 18 years of payin'

Sex=pregnant/not pregnant.

Quit making deposits in the bank you dont want a return on!



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
When you have sex with a woman, you do so with the full knowledge that it may result in a child that you will have to support. You're not being blindsided here. You know the way it works.

BEFORE you have sex:
You KNOW you can't decide whether she carries it to term or not.
You KNOW that if she does, you will be required to support it.


But we're going around in circles here !
A man only knows those two things because those laws are in place in a Western society.
The fact that that is how the law stands, does not necessarily make it right. The man should not be legally obliged to support the child when he has no say in it !
He is certainly morally obliged, but I can't see why he should be legally obliged to.
I totally agree with child support if the father leaves the mother after the child is born, or he leaves her following a planned pregnancy, but he shouldn't have to pay just because the female shirks the responsibilty that comes with her gender !


BEFORE a woman has sex:
She KNOWS she can become pregnant.
She KNOWS she will have to make the choice whether to keep it or abort it.
She KNOWS she will have to provide support for the baby.

Knowing these truths, if she decides to accept your sperm, she WILL have to deal with the consequences.

They are different responsibilities and choices, but both parties have responsibilities and both have choices.


By accepting to have sexual intercourse with the man, the woman is consenting to receive his sperm with all the physical consequences that entails for her. It's her choice, and her responsibility, because she is entirely in control of whether the sexual union takes place.
Men are biologically driven to ''spread their seed', while women are a bit more choosy in their sexual dalliances, because they are seeking out the best prospective father.
Sadly, nature and evolution are far from politically correct !



[edit on 15-4-2010 by Benji1999]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
ImaginaryReality1984’s half cocked (I made a funny) half mature quote below feeds into the half cocked half mature hotbakedtaters of the pretend world.

“I speak as a man who uses condoms properly and will soon be heading to the doctor for a vasectomy. Hey that's an interesting question, if a man has a vasectomy but it reverses itself (yes this happens) and a child comes about, should he also be forced to pay for it? I mean he has undergone surgery to prevent children, what more could you ask?"

One is set in her way of thinking of abortion as a right or solution, one way or another, defaulting the "body" excuse and the other thinks just because he played by HIS rules that he can twinkle toe away from being responsible for providing for his baby.
Speaking of car comparison, what if you obeyed ever single rule while driving your car. What if you played by the rules but you caused an accident?
Because you had two hands on the wheel, alert, cautious, that you are now entitled to brush it off, even if your accident might cause bodily harm on another? If the outcome didn’t go your way, you expect to be excused from the rest of the responsibility?
You default into excuses as to why you don't have to take care of your part, leaving her alone to take care of it all?
Abortion is murder. Female or male, with all of your excuses, most abortions happen simply because you don't want to take responsibility for whatever reason you may attempt to give.

Yes there are consequences to face for not stepping up and allowing someone their right live or when a man who is the father of a child, poorly attempts to logically erase his role of following through on what is truly being responsible.
In other words, he is just as selfish; self serving at the expense of his own flesh and blood, and maybe no one will notice he is no better than a deadbeat man/dad. Maybe if he is creative enough, others will wear the same selfish rose colored glasses and pat him on the back for being so creative.

I think men are beautiful! They are brave, powerful in mind and body, they deserve respect, they deserve to be heard without having to shout.
I wish you men would do more than talk about how things are unfair for you as fathers-to-be.
There are many women who would support your right to protect your child, you'd be surprised.
Change the laws for fathers to have the right to have a say in YOUR child’s right to life. I can only imagine the pain you feel when your partner or whatever chooses death to a child over being responsible and fair to you and the child.

IMO the "it's the woman's body, it's the woman's right's to..." is not exactly true.
That woman (except in rape) shared her body with you and that should apply if it resulted in creating a baby.
I'm not saying you should live together or even be in each others presence EVER again, but you two should communicate, mediate, what each hopes for.
If she isn't playing fair, the courts already have "standard" rules in their state that will be fair or somewhat fair that you could exercise. That is if your child was given the right to live.
Florida has something called "Fathers Rights" it was created quite a few years ago while Gov. Jeb Bush was in office I believe (I will have to look it up). It can be manipulated to injure the mother in the way of custody somewhat, if the father uses it for the wrong reasons. I guess it all boils down to who is truly focused on the best interest of the child and only the child.
I've seen first hand how each, male and female, use their rights to harm the other, forgetting about the children or the reason particular laws were created in the way of the "rights" of the children, women and men. Unfortunately it's the children not yet born who's right to live are silenced, buried under an avalanche of selfish people.
I'm curious, (to the men this would apply to), has anyone taken this issure to court, if so, has I haven't found anything?


[edit on 15-4-2010 by BakingCookiesbrb]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Monts
 


Nobody ever said is was an easy choice.

But where do you get the idea that the father has no input to the decision?

In the end, there can be only one final decision maker, but the father certainly has a role to play in reaching that decision.

In a lot of instances, that role is expressed as running away and denying responsibility. So in that respect, the father has made his choice very clear.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Once the sperm hits the egg its undeniably human. There is a 0% chance that the end result from its beginning/end would be anything other than a specific?unique human being. Basing a humans viability on its geographic location "the womb" is to say a human in the forest or a human swallowed by a killer whale is no longer human.
It being connected to the mother to stay alive is a necessity of that specific stage of human development. Conjoined twins do not have a right to kill their siblings based off same principle. Same as when the baby leaves the womb its taken care of by outside resources witch is a necessity of THAT stage of human development. Humans dont even have full kneecaps until 8-9 years old. Basing the option of "choice" off of geographic location, the way a human gets its life sustaining resources or its stage of development is fallacious.

The Roe V Wade case made a certain human who just so happened to be born a specific gender the ultimate ruler of the end of a humans development as long as it is still within a defined location.

Why is it that the males choice ends in sex were as the females does not with our current law. Not to say i think a male should have a choice in the matter... nor should the female though. The choice has been made. Lets spare the usual red herrings here.

1 billion humans world wide have been snuffed out since Roe V Wade do to this supposed "choice". --conservative estimates.

The genocidal maniacs of the 20th century are spinning in their graves with envy. No longer does a leader need to find a scapegoat to rid the world of unwanted people. All they have to do is give a certain portion of the population the false sense liberty by giving them the right to squash the liberty of non fully developed human.

Meh flame on.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
The crazy thing here is that abortion does happen naturally. Not every fertilized egg on this Earth becomes a baby. If a woman cannot carry to full term naturally, and miscarries or the baby is stillborn, or it is an etopic pregnancy, or if any number of other things happen that that prevents the WOMAN from delivering a baby successfully it can, but won't always, abort itself naturally.

Not every woman can become pregnant and carry to full term. I ovulate each month and do not fertilize the egg by CHOICE, this does not make me a "baby killer" or a "life hater". Since said egg is not a human. It is an egg. Just like the eggs in your fridge are not chickens, they are eggs.

Now the only way a man can have NO SAY whatsoever is if the woman involved allows him no say. This happens often, but not every woman behaves this way. Not every woman would choose to upset her relationship by doing this. And some seem to have no choice.

On a final note, my relationship with my living partner is more important to me than the "theoretical babies" that we might, and I use might strongly, conceive and carry to term. And if said partner and I were not in a financial, emotional, spiritual place than yes, I might abort, because our lives, being that we are already living and have CHOICE matter more to me than the fetus. If my partner wanted a baby, and I didn't, and I was "forced" to keep said baby, I would send his a@@ out on the street. Because ultimately, it is my body. But thankfully, we have had this conversation.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Monts
reply to post by jeanvaljean
 


Not necessarily, I am merely pointing out the fact that as soon as the embryo is implanted, the father has absolutely no say in abortion or birth, even though he is just as responsible for the pregnancy as the mother.

Being a guy myself, this really bugs me :/


The father is responsible for the conception but it is the women who must weather the pregnancy, the birth and in the event that the father decides not to be a part of the child's life, the women must bare the responsibility of caring for the child.

The fact of the matter is that women bare the vast majority of what is involved in having a child.(pregnancy, birth, raising) The father has the option to not participate in that childs life(except financially). Custody rights almost always go to the mother.

While there may be some men who wish to have a child, when the women doesnt, this is not the norm. And if that man wants to have a child and the women wants to have an abortion, the man should dump her and go find a women who does want to have a child with him.

I am a man I will never experience pregnancy and child birth, so I am going to default on the choice of the women, as it is her that will shoulder the majority of the health impacts and responsibility of deciding whether or not to go full term.

If men could get pregnant, the percentage of pro-life individuals would drop significantly.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiKFury
Once the sperm hits the egg its undeniably human. There is a 0% chance that the end result from its beginning/end would be anything other than a specific?unique human being.


Unless the fetus aborts naturally due to any number of complications that often arise during pregnancy.



1 billion humans world wide have been snuffed out since Roe V Wade do to this supposed "choice". --conservative estimates.

Roe v Wade is a US case, holding precidence in only the US. Are you really trying to say that 1 billion American Fetus' have been aborted since Roe v Wade? Further, are you trying to say that 1 billion fetus' have been aborted because of Roe v Wade?

Abortion existed well before Roe v Wade. Just because it wasnt talked about on tv or the radio doesnt mean it never happened during its prohibitions. Dozens of posts exist in this and other threads outlining the hidden costs of abortion prohibition.



The genocidal maniacs of the 20th century are spinning in their graves with envy. No longer does a leader need to find a scapegoat to rid the world of unwanted people. All they have to do is give a certain portion of the population the false sense liberty by giving them the right to squash the liberty of non fully developed human.


Right, so just because "a certain portion of the population" has the right to abort a fetus, it means they will abort the fetus?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
The father is not the only one responsible for conception, that is wrong. The woman must have good, healthy eggs to be fertilized, and the man must have good healthy sperm.

The simple fact of the matter is, if you are planning on having sex, you should be having this conversation with your partner. BEFORE YOU HAVE SEX!!!! Not doing so is irresponsible. There is no excuse for two consenting individuals that are engaging in sexual intercourse to not have this conversation. We all know the consequences of our actions when we have sex. No one can be surprised at the outcome.

It is much easier to have this conversation in the beginning, and find out if your partner and you are right for each other, and share the same views, than later when you are possibly discussing abortion. But even then, as for reasons I stated above in my first post in this thread. Abortion should ALWAYS be available, for those who want it. (not late term or whatnot, but at first).

And here is a question. What do people who put themselves on the pro-life side think of Plan B(the morning after pill)?

[edit on 15-4-2010 by worlds_away]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Monts
 


The frightening thing is that forcibly removing a fetus is even an option.

Its a sad thing that we humans have not set aside our infanticidal tendencies and learned to be responsible about our sexual urges. Think about it. If men showed restraint and stopped raping people and both men and women showed restraint and had only safe sex unless trying to have a baby then there would no need for abortion because there would be no unwanted pregnancy. But no, we're so intent on staying an immature species that we've invented a medical way to reach inside a woman and destroy her child before it has a chance to even be a child... Rather than take one iota of responsibility for ourselves and stop the madness we've found it easier to make mass infanticide legal...

Just reaffirms that we are a barbaric bunch of apes abusing our big brains.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Monts
 


i'm pro choice too! i believe you have the option NOT to have intercourse! i mean, there's only like a bazillion different ways to alleviate sexual tension. what's the point of risking your life, the life of your signfiicant other, and the potentiality of risking the life of any unborn children, when the solution is so simple! DON'T HAVE INTERCOURSE!


it's too obvious, i guess. I had three kids and finally realized how this was happening.
problem and (really obvious) solution.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


You use the term infanticide, yet for that to happen you need hmmmm? an infant! A fetus is not an infant! All bets for the fetus living are off, even naturally, until, and not even then, the fetus is born! Just because an egg is fertilized does not mean it will live to see the light of this world. Naturally. And even if it does, there can still be complications.

I said it once, but I'll say it again. Just because we can have sex and reproduce does not mean that EVERY fertilized egg will become an infant. Stillbirth, miscarriage, etopic pregnancy, unable to carry to term etc etc etc.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by worlds_away
 



All bets for the fetus living are off, even naturally, until, and not even then, the fetus is born!


We're placental mammals who are programmed by evolution to care and bond with our young. This programming is meant to prevent infanticide but we clever humans found a way around that because we'd rather kill our children (before they even become children) than take responsibility for our selfish sexual urges.

You can disagree with the terminology if you want but to me abortion is the continuation of what went on in ancient days when unwanted babies (often the diseased or deformed) were tossed out at birth - we just found a way to off them before birth which in my mind makes the act even more barbaric.

The fetus has a unique genetic code which will only exist once, that code is human so killing it is killing a human being. Of course it eases our primitive conscience to do it before the fetus can form completely or survive outside the womb.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 15-4-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
History of Abortion

"The first recorded evidence of induced abortion, is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BC.[3] A Chinese record documents the number of royal concubines who had abortions in China between the years 500 and 515 BC.[4] According to Chinese folklore, the legendary Emperor Shennong prescribed the use of mercury to induce abortions nearly 5000 years ago.[5] Many of the methods employed in early and primitive cultures were non-surgical. Physical activities like strenuous labor, climbing, paddling, weightlifting, or diving were a common technique. Others included the use of irritant leaves, fasting, bloodletting, pouring hot water onto the abdomen, and lying on a heated coconut shell.[6] In primitive cultures, techniques developed through observation, adaptation of obstetrical methods, and transculturation.[7] Archaeological discoveries indicate early surgical attempts at the extraction of a fetus; however, such methods are not believed to have been common, given the infrequency with which they are mentioned in ancient medical texts.[8]"

I bet we are not the first to have this debate.

Notice when you research abortion that in ancient times one of the common methods used in ancient abortions was use of an abortifacient, usually a plant. Today I would say we have something similar, the morning after pill.

Abortifacient

"History

The ancient Greek colony of Cyrene at one time had an economy based almost entirely on the production and export of silphium, a powerful abortifacient in the parsley family. Silphium figured so prominently in the wealth of Cyrene that the plant appeared on the obverse and reverse of coins minted there. Silphium, which was native only to that part of Libya, was overharvested by the Greeks and was effectively driven to extinction. The standard theory, however, has been challenged by a whole spectrum of alternatives (from an extinction due to climate factors, to the so-coveted product being in fact a recipe made of a composite of herbs, attribution to a single species meant perhaps as a disinformation attempt).

As Christianity and in particular the institution of the Catholic Church increasingly influenced European society, those who dispensed abortifacient herbs found themselves classified as witches and were often persecuted (see witch-hunt).[15]

Medieval Muslim physicians documented detailed and extensive lists of birth control practices, including the use of abortifacients, commenting on their effectiveness and prevalence. The use of abortifacients was acceptable to Islamic jurists provided that the abortion occurs within 120 days, the point when the fetus is considered to become fully human and receive its soul.[16]"

I wanted to toss out a couple of starting points in case anyone cared to find out a smidgen of the history of abortion. Maybe this can open up some new avenues of discussion.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Here we go again with this ridiculous debate. Battlelines and few actually listening. Why concern yourselves over an issue that, hopefully, you aren't going through or will have to? Why proselytize on an issue that doesn't concern you?

I am against abortion as a form of birth control. I believe that responsibility starts before the first kiss, BOTH OF YOU!!! I didn't come to this conclusion because of any statistics, science or because the Invisible Man in the Sky says that I should. I just do. That is for me and mine. I won't call a person that chooses this procedure, or the potential for this procedure, into task. I won't judge(not a Biblical thing). "Go in peace", as the religious say.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by InSpiteOf
 


Unless the fetus aborts naturally due to any number of complications that often arise during pregnancy.

Witch has anything to do with choice hence the natural part.

Roe v Wade is a US case, holding precidence in only the US. Are you really trying to say that 1 billion American Fetus' have been aborted since Roe v Wade? Further, are you trying to say that 1 billion fetus' have been aborted because of Roe v Wade? Abortion existed well before Roe v Wade. Just because it wasnt talked about on tv or the radio doesnt mean it never happened during its prohibitions. Dozens of posts exist in this and other threads outlining the hidden costs of abortion prohibition.

Im trying here to give a time frame here. Would you prefer i said 1973? Ok then. Since 1973 there has been a 1 billion abortions reported world wide. The hidden costs of abortion..... your talking theory here. Its funny when reading all the supposed monetary cost of raising these unwanted imaginary people that do not exist anymore. Or the psychological effects that just MIGHT have on the not so expecting mother. Hypotheticals are fun. Innocent until proven guilty... were have i heard that before. Or beyond a reasonable doubt. Silly things said by silly people right?

Right, so just because "a certain portion of the population" has the right to abort a fetus, it means they will abort the fetus?

36 million in the US 1 billion world wide..... were you just restating a fact or agreeing with me? Do all 10 year olds drive cars? No they do not because it is against the law. Some still do though witch is naughty. Your saying if 10 year olds were allowed to drive cars that the amount of 10 year olds driving cars would not increase? Pashah.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Women should have the right to choice. It is their bodies.

Men should EXERCISE their right to choice and always be picky about who they sleep with.

It seems pretty simple to me. I really don't understand what the problem is.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join