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: 11
25
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
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.


So then I take it once a woman consents to having sex, she cannot back away from that decision? She knows the outcome is either going to be sex or no sex, so she should consider her decision before she consents to sex in the first place. There go about 50% of rape cases right there.

All responsibilities lie with the man when the consequences are bad, all responsibilities lie with the woman when the consequences are good. Can all of you "strong women" really not see the double standards?

[edit on 16/4/2010 by Dark Ghost]




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 



If abortion is legal, than females should let the father have equal rights too.

Hypocrites.....


From your previous posts, it is obvious that your idea of equal rights entails the right of a man to force a woman to have an abortion.

Let me put it this way: if procreation consisted of both the male and female pulling a seed out of their noses, digging a hole in the garden, burying the seeds after blowing on them and watering regularly until a baby came out, then, yes, both parents should have an equal say in whether or not to terminate.

But in the real world, both creative components end up binding inside the woman. Inside her body; not your body, not the government's body - her body.

In any ethical society, there is a sacrosanct boundary that cannot legally be breached in a normally functioning human being, without their consent. It's made of skin. It is the most fundamental human right there is. It delineates the physical separateness of an individual.
All human beings have that right. Not just men.

If you feel entitled to violate that right in another person, then you lose the right to complain when someone does it to you.
Otherwise, you might come across as a hypocrite.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by jeanvaljean
 


Starred!


Some men posting obviously want final say not equal say. In essence they want the right to blackmail pregnant women with poverty if they do not have abortions. How classy.


edit. If men want the freedom of enjoying sex as a grown men they should man up if that sex results in pregnancy.. or stop winging like little boy and give up that enjoyable freedom of having sex. Women are not theme park rides where you can have fun then just walk away.. and if you choose to use them as such you deserve whatever consequences you get.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by riley]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
This case is unsolvable, sex leads to babys so never have sex unless you want babys. Imposiblle even with prevention means both male and female can not abstain from sex, or so it's both there fault when it happens and the baby is unwanted. Abortion is the fault of both parties, men should watch were they stick it in, and females should guit getting things stuck in them. Definatly it's the males fault, but lets be honest here the females are not all inocent I know from observable experience, a guy I once knew has two siblings the mother had three children all by three different men in different states. And she aint exactly virtuous and the men weren't aither. So therefore abotions are neaded because sex is fun taking care of babys is not. Infact it has nothing to do with the fetus but the parents . So therefore lets just call it what it is a mercy extermanation of a mistake, sorry little was gona be a person but you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, your creators were just #ing around.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Starred!


Some men posting obviously want final say not equal say. In essence they want the right to blackmail pregnant women with poverty if they do not have abortions. How classy.


You don't want equal rights. You want full rights for women, no rights for men on this issue. At least be honest. In your world view, because the women is the one having the child, men's input means nothing and unless he meets the demands of the woman, he is blackmailing her.


edit. If men want the freedom of enjoying sex as a grown men they should man up if that sex results in pregnancy.. or stop winging like little boy and give up that enjoyable freedom of having sex. Women are not theme park rides where you can have fun then just walk away.. and if you choose to use them as such you deserve whatever consequences you get.


If women want the freedom of enjoying sex as grown women they should woman up if that sex results in pregnancy.. or stop winging like little girl and give up that enjoyable freedom of having sex. Men are not theme park rides where you can have fun then just walk away..and if you choose to use them as such you deserve whatever consequences you get.

Wow, riley, it sure has a different ring to it when you reverse the genders, doesn't it?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Originally posted by riley
Starred!


Some men posting obviously want final say not equal say. In essence they want the right to blackmail pregnant women with poverty if they do not have abortions. How classy.


You don't want equal rights. You want full rights for women, no rights for men on this issue.

Full rights as in not having men treat women as incubators that can be switched on or off at his convenience depending on if he's ready to be a daddy?

At least be honest. In your world view, because the women is the one having the child, men's input means nothing and unless he meets the demands of the woman, he is blackmailing her.

Yeah okay.. now you be honest. You want men to be able to over-rule a woman's decision on if she will keep a baby or abort it. In other words a return to the "good old days" where a woman's fate depended on what a man chose for her.
You basically want women to "obey" men again. Yep that sounds like equal rights.

If women want the freedom of enjoying sex as grown women they should woman up if that sex results in pregnancy.. or stop winging like little girl and give up that enjoyable freedom of having sex. Men are not theme park rides where you can have fun then just walk away..and if you choose to use them as such you deserve whatever consequences you get.

Wow, riley, it sure has a different ring to it when you reverse the genders, doesn't it?

Oh how clever you reversed it!
Problem is you reversed this part:


Men are not theme park rides where you can have fun then just walk away..and if you choose to use them as such you deserve whatever consequences you get.

Women cannot just walk away and are the ones that carry that pregnancy and give birth. They have no choice but to deal with the consequences though cowardly men can just leave town if she doesn't abort it on his say so. If she wants to keep a baby she loves asking her to kill it to be "fair" on him is the lowest kind of blackmail. To say it's morally okay to threaten her with poverty is disgusting. If he wants full control over the fate over the pregnancies his sperm creates he should be more careful where he releases them. A man expecting a woman to kill her own baby because he only wanted the "fun" part of sex obviously does not give a crap about anyones rights but his own and so deserves none.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by riley]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Full rights as in not having men treat women as incubators that can be switched on or off at his convenience depending on if he's ready to be a daddy?

Who exactly is making these demands? Men just want a fair say in the matter. You know, like being told ASAP that she is pregnant and plans to keep the baby. A little courtesy...


Yeah okay.. now you be honest. You want men to be able to over-rule a woman's decision on if she will keep a baby or abort it. In other words a return to the "good old days" where a woman's fate depended on what a man chose for her.
You basically want women to "obey" men again. Yep that sounds like equal rights.

How about women take some responsibility by being open and honest with the man as soon as she knows she is pregnant? You know, ask if he wants to be a father and if he is willing to support her financially. What's the harm in that? You don't consider it blackmail that the father has to spend his life paying child support because a condom broke or the woman "forgot" to take the pill?


Oh how clever you reversed it!
Problem is you reversed this part:
[...]
Women cannot just walk away and are the ones that carry that pregnancy and give birth. They have no choice but to deal with the consequences though cowardly men can just leave town if she doesn't abort it on his say so. If she wants to keep a baby she loves asking her to kill it to be "fair" on him is the lowest kind of blackmail.

What about taking care of the woman when she is pregnant? What about buying supplies so that she is comfortable and put under less strain? What about having to sacrifice your free time? What about the actual costs associated with raising a child? What about the emotional strain of knowing your girlfriend/wife is going through physical pain and not knowing if she is taking the necessary, healthy steps leading up to child birth? Why don't you also consider the duration of pregnancy with the duration of childhood. Short term pregnancy is more of a burden, but in the long-term the costs and resources needed to raise a child are more stressful.


To say it's morally okay to threaten her with poverty is disgusting. If he wants full control over the fate over the pregnancies his sperm creates he should be more careful where he releases them. A man expecting a woman to kill her own baby because he only wanted the "fun" part of sex obviously does not give a crap about anyones rights but his own and so deserves none.

Threats? How about the woman makes it clear that she does not believe in abortion before she opens her legs? How about woman take into consideration the cost, time and effort needed to raise a kid before they force men into paying child support for the rest of their lives?

[edit on 16/4/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
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.


The problem I have is not with women exercising their right to choice, but with women shifting the responsibility of their pregnancy on many occasions to men, when it is the woman that initiates sexual intercourse in humans by giving consent.
Biologically, when a woman agrees to have sex with a man, she is saying ''you have my permission to impregnate me'', so it is unreasonable to not expect the man to follow up with his biological urges after being given the ''green light'' by the woman.
Of course, as I say, a man carries a moral responsibility to prevent pregnancy, as we are an intelligent species, and there is no excuse in a Western country for the man not to take precautions, but I find it strange that a man carries a financial burden to support a child that he has had no decision in whether they are born or not, and a child that only came into being by the woman's choice to instigate the sexual union with the man.




[edit on 16-4-2010 by Benji1999]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

So then I take it once a woman consents to having sex, she cannot back away from that decision? She knows the outcome is either going to be sex or no sex, so she should consider her decision before she consents to sex in the first place. There go about 50% of rape cases right there.

All responsibilities lie with the man when the consequences are bad, all responsibilities lie with the woman when the consequences are good. Can all of you "strong women" really not see the double standards?

[edit on 16/4/2010 by Dark Ghost]


I absolutely agree! Once a woman decides to have sex, consensually, then of course she cannot back away from that decision.

I am sure in the consideration she factors in all of her reproductive choices.

No double standard here, as men have all the chances in the world to exercise their choices too.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benji1999
but I find it strange that a man carries a financial burden to support a child that he has had no decision in whether they are born or not, and a child that only came into being by the woman's choice to instigate the sexual union with the man.




[edit on 16-4-2010 by Benji1999]
So once again we have abdication of sexual responsibility for men, another let's blame the female?

The baby came into being because a man decided he wanted to play the game of chance and sleep with a lady he wants to have babies with. The man is the only one who can control where his sperm end up. The woman has zero control over that.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
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.


I agree with what you say, and I'm in between on the abortion issue, as I think both options are wrong.
It does seem wrong to deprive the fetus a chance of life, considering in most cases it was the self-indulgence, recklessness and mistakes of the two parents that caused its existence in the first place.

It does seem to me that people do try and denigrate what the fetus really is, so as they can feel more comfortable and carry on enjoying their base,r selfish and irresponsible behaviour with near impunity.
I think a big problem is the ''sexualisation'' of sex( if you get what I mean
) in a pleasure-seeking, materialistic society, while ignoring and not acknowledging its primary and most important function in nature.
I suppose many of the care-free, irresponsible and promiscuous people in society are really just a symptom of the society that they grow up in.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
So once again we have abdication of sexual responsibility for men, another let's blame the female?


It's not so much ''blame the female'', but an acknowledgement of how the sexual and reproductive systems work in humans.
As has been pointed out before, the reproductive roles in men and women are vastly different, and with that difference comes a different level of choices and responsibility.

The argument for women's choice to decide whether to have the baby comes from the natural chronology of reproduction in humans. ie. A man deposits his sperm ( job done ! ), but the woman has to wait up to nine months to finish her side of it. Therefore, because the woman has to physically carry on the pregnancy after the man has finished his bit, it is argued that the woman should have full control, responsibility and choice over the subsequent consequences of her pregnancy - and I'd agree with that.

But that also should work for the pre-sexual element of her pregnancy, and that is the choice to engage in sexual intercourse.
Men are biologically driven to attempt to impregnate willing women, and women are a bit more choosy, as they are picking candidates to be prospective fathers for their children.
So based again on the natural chronology of events, a man is attempting to ''spread his seed'', but can only do so once the woman agrees to have sexual intercourse with him. Therefore, the responsibility falls on the woman as she instigates the potential pregnancy by giving consent, and is the ''last word'' on whether the sex takes place.

To reiterate once more, I am not saying that men don't share a moral burden of responsibility with women equally if she becomes pregnant, but I fail to see how one can logically argue that he shares the responsibility equally when the woman is the one who decides whether he has sex with her or not !



The baby came into being because a man decided he wanted to play the game of chance and sleep with a lady he wants to have babies with. The man is the only one who can control where his sperm end up. The woman has zero control over that.


Oh come off it !
I'm trying to put this tactfully; if a woman with full knowledge of the birds and the bees agrees to let a man have sex with her, then she knows full well how it's likely to ''end''.
By consenting to intercourse, she is consenting to the possibility/likelihood that he may well impregnate her.
To put it bluntly: there is no difference made between consenting to penetrative sex, and consenting to receive a man's sperm. They are one and the same.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benji1999
A man only knows those two things because those laws are in place in a Western society.


Right. And that's where we live. That is reality.



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 !


You were right when you said that we're going in circles.
When a man gives up his sperm to a woman, he is making, in essence, a legal contract: "If that turns into a baby, I will be partially responsible for supporting it."



He is certainly morally obliged, but I can't see why he should be legally obliged to.


How fair is it to hold the woman 100% responsible for an act that took two people? How is that morally or legally logical?



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 !


And what responsibility is that?



It's her choice, and her responsibility, because she is entirely in control of whether the sexual union takes place.


BS. A man isn't some animal that can't say no. He has as much control of whether or not the act takes place as the woman does. It's a MUTUAL act.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
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?


Good point. I wish I'd seen this post before my last response. At my age, I'm certainly not ever going to have to make this choice. And I'm not going to convince anyone who thinks differently.

So, I've said my part.
Thanks.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benji1999


The problem I have is not with women exercising their right to choice, but with women shifting the responsibility of their pregnancy on many occasions to men, when it is the woman that initiates sexual intercourse in humans by giving consent.
Biologically, when a woman agrees to have sex with a man, she is saying ''you have my permission to impregnate me'', so it is unreasonable to not expect the man to follow up with his biological urges after being given the ''green light'' by the woman.
[edit on 16-4-2010 by Benji1999]


Do WHAT? You're saying it is all a woman's CHOICE to have sex, and that men are just...what? Like any woman that consents, the men must be johnny able? Cause people are just somehow TIED to biology? (The 15th card of the tarot deck does come to my mind....)

That's some repressed thinking you have there, IMO. Men and women should get to know each other before they have sex, and if a man is so pro-choice maybe he shouldn't go jumping in bed with a woman that doesn't want kids that IS. It takes responsibility on both sides, and both sides have a lot of room to exercise choice, although like men and women, it may not be of exactly the same nature.

Women aren't dogs and men aren't either.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by intrepid
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?


Good point. I wish I'd seen this post before my last response. At my age, I'm certainly not ever going to have to make this choice. And I'm not going to convince anyone who thinks differently.

So, I've said my part.
Thanks.


But - I DID make that choice.

And so far - I am the only person in this thread who can honestly speak on the subject - - unless someone else wants to come forward.

My first pregnancy was a fourth month miscarriage.
My next two were live births.
My fourth pregnancy I CHOOSE abortion.

My oldest daughter became pregnant in her mid 20s. I simply supported her on what ever decision she made. She choose to keep her baby - - as she had been told she was physically incapable of conceiving a child - - and might never have the opportunity again. She almost lost him - required a Cerclage and complete bed. He was born at 6 1/2 months weighing 3 pounds - - spending the next 2 months in the hospital.

My youngest daughter has had 2 children and 2 abortions. YES - she was on birth control. Her doctor told her she is one of those "Fertile Myrtle" women - - and complete abstinence is her only safe bet. Which she is practicing at the moment.

I have ZERO tolerance for the "holier-than-thou self-righteous".

If it isn't right for you - - Don't Do It! Its that simple.

But - you will not take away my rights - - or dictate to me - - or be successful with your guilt trips.

So there.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust

Originally posted by leo123
If it takes two people to create a pregnancy, that has consequences upon both of them, logic dictates that both should have a say on how it unfolds.


On the contrary, there are different consequences for the man then there are for the woman. Different consequence dictate different choices.


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.

You can't have it both ways.


Alas, it is men that cannot have it both ways, much to their apparent dismay. If a man chooses to engage in sex, he knows full well that there is a risk of an unplanned pregnancy. Sex equates risk of pregnancy.

What you're implying is that a man should be able to engage in sex risk-free. There is no such thing as risk-free sex. It doesn't exist.


Given that the woman has all the choices, I guess it blew by you that she can engage in sex risk free today.

Hmmm?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
reply to post by jeanvaljean
 


Starred!


Some men posting obviously want final say not equal say. In essence they want the right to blackmail pregnant women with poverty if they do not have abortions. How classy.


edit. If men want the freedom of enjoying sex as a grown men they should man up if that sex results in pregnancy.. or stop winging like little boy and give up that enjoyable freedom of having sex. Women are not theme park rides where you can have fun then just walk away.. and if you choose to use them as such you deserve whatever consequences you get.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by riley]


Riley:

Your position defacto is that you not only want a woman to have complete control over her body, you also want her to have the ability to control the male too.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by leo123]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   



That is not my position at all. She does not remotely control his penis so he can choose not to have sex and choose not to risk getting her pregnant. He had complete control over his life when he unzipped his pants.

After a baby is born she is not forcing him to do anything either.. but he has a legal and moral obligation to take care of a child he sired he created. He would have known fatherhood would be a possibility when he CHOSE to have sex with her so winging about how she didn't kill his baby while it was in the womb on threat of poverty would just make him a scumbag rather than a "poor man who was controlled by a woman".

Women having the right to not be bullied into abortion or giving birth is NOT controlling men.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by riley]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Let's take care of the unwanted children we have here already before we think about forcing women to give birth against their will.

If this conception were a part of a mans body I don't think we would be discussing the morality of abortion, when life begins or whether or not this "life" had a soul. It would be of no more consequence than removing a mole. The rest of us would have little to say about it. Churches would balk but like church on Sunday and meat on Friday sooner or later the guys would get what they want. God or no God.

As a woman and as a human, if I don't have privacy rights to my own womb, do I have any privacy rights at all?



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join