The Utter Insanity of Pro-Choice

reply to post by andy1033


It comes down to the simple fact that men cannot have abortions. The day that men can physically bear a child is the day he can have make that kind of choice.

Originally posted by andy1033
But that argument can apply to the women, she knows if she has sex, that she may get impregnated. So what right does she have to an abortion, with your logic?

Because it is her body.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
Because it is her body.

Its his body too, the sperm was him and his.

If this is the best argument that females have come with, i am just surprised no male has not ever took something like this to supreme court or european court or what ever.

If you want equal rights, males have to have equal rights.

reply to post by LadySkadi


I don't understand.
What's so different with the late terms? Just because it's bigger and looks about 10x sicker?

Brain waves are detectable just as they would have been for earlier abortions. It's still a human fetus. What sets the two apart? I think it would make sense for people to be either oposed to all forms of abortion or for ALL forms of it.

reply to post by maria_stardust


i hate it when people say this. it's not HER body it's a separate being with a separate brain, heart, etc that is dependant on her body. It shouldn't justify murder.

Originally posted by maria_stardust

Originally posted by leo123
The other side of that argument is that the way matters stand today, women get all the choices but are able to offload part the consequences and responsibilities associated with THEIR choices.

I would hardly call that equality.

See my above post.

Men have a choice in whether or not they choose to engage in sex. There is always a risk of an unplanned pregnancy when engaging in sex. If men want to engage in sex then they had better be willing to accept the risk that goes along with it.

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

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.

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.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by leo123]

It's real simple.

It is Her body. She has the right to do with it as she chooses.
Having said that, we should not assume that Women will automatically chose to abort their babies, rather we should assume what is already known - that Women more often chose to keep their babies.

The basic problem, as I see it, is that of taking personal responsibility, in order to avoid running into these hard choices to begin with.
Men - put the rubber on or just shut-up if/when the inevitable happens.
Women - stick with proven birth control methods or keep your legs shut or You (and your baby) live with the result.

Sex in this society is completely out of whack from what nature intended it to be. You know it, I know it.
We are saturated with imagery and slick Madison Ave adverts from early childhood with SEX. They feed our primative needs and we feed them our cash.

It really is that simple

reply to post by Miss_Chievous666


I've answered that question here (see link), as well as mentioned how far I'm willing to engage in this conversation. As I said, I'm not here to change anyone's position on this, nor will anyone be changing mine...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Gwynniver


I endorse agree with most of your points, Gwynniver.
However, I believe that because the woman has the say in whether she has the child or not ( which she should ), then prospective fathers should have no legal obligation to financially support a child, because they have no say in whether it's born or not. Although, in many cases they have an indisputable moral obligation to support the child.
The pregnancy could have resulted from a number of different scenarios, from a 5-minute drunken fumble to a planned pregnancy in a stable relationship - but whatever the circumstances are - it's always the woman's choice to go through with the pregnancy, and that brings up the paradox that the OP outlines, in which the woman has all the say in whether the child is born, but the man has to face the financial/emotional consequences of the woman's decision regardless of his wishes and the circumstances of the pregnancy.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
The truth of the matter is whenever a couple engages in sex there will always be the risk of pregnancy regardless of any precautions (short of a woman having undergone a hysterectomy) that may have been taken. Added to this is the fact that it is a risk that is not shared equally as it is the woman who cares the burden of pregnancy, not the man. However, it is a risk that is equally assumed by both partners when engaging in sex.

I disagree that both the man and woman assume the risk equally.
You are correct that the woman solely carries the burden of pregnancy, but with that comes the burden of responsibility too.
In human beings, it is the female that controls and initiates sexual intercourse ( with the obvious exception of rape ) by giving consent to the male, so as soon as she agrees to his advances, she takes over the responsibility, because it's her that will have to deal with the physical consequences.
In essence, when a woman agrees to have sex with a man, she is biologically saying: ''I agree to accept your seed, get pregnant, and have your child''.
This is a point that is often overlooked when people point out that women have a right to control their own bodies - which is true - but they also control whether their body accepts the male seed or not, so impregnation is their responsibility.

Again, I would argue that morally there is equal responsibiltyetween the man and the woman in the consequences of their actions, but realistically and biologically I can't see it as anything other than the woman's responsibility, as she is the one that controls and decides whether to accept the man's seed or not.

Originally posted by andy1033
Its his body too, the sperm was him and his.

If this is the best argument that females have come with, i am just surprised no male has not ever took something like this to supreme court or european court or what ever.

If you want equal rights, males have to have equal rights.

That premise is practically laughable. The man is no longer in possession of his sperm because he freely gave it up.

Men have a choice as to whether or not they will engage in sex. If they they choose to do so, then they automatically assume all the risks that are inherent with that particular act. It may be a limited choice, but it's a choice nonetheless.

As I have stated previously, there can be no equal rights if there is not equal risk. The woman assumes a greater risk because it is her body that bears the pregnancy.

The moment another person has the ability to force a woman to act against her wishes regarding pregnancy is the moment she is stripped of her right to autonomy. Where's the equality in that?

Originally posted by maria_stardust
That premise is practically laughable. The man is no longer in possession of his sperm because he freely gave it up.

So when the baby is born and left the woman, the kid is not attached to the mother anymore. Same as when man gives sperm during sex.

So after the kid is born, does the child still belong to the mother of course it does, and it belongs to the father too.

Do you not see the paradox in this argument?

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.

Originally posted by andy1033
So after the kid is born, does the child still belong to the mother of course it does, and it belongs to the father too.

Do you not see the paradox in this argument?

Yes, once a child is born it belongs to both parents.

Until then it belongs to the mother because it is her body.

Originally posted by maria_stardust

Originally posted by andy1033
So after the kid is born, does the child still belong to the mother of course it does, and it belongs to the father too.

Do you not see the paradox in this argument?

Yes, once a child is born it belongs to both parents.

Until then it belongs to the mother because it is her body.

I do not understand how you can say its the mothers until it is born, without the father there would be no kid.

We are going round in circles, maybe one day the supreme court will handle this issue, or european court.

But they will have to give man the right to choose, if you want equal rights.

Originally posted by andy1033
But they will have to give man the right to choose, if you want equal rights.

What you are asking for is not equal by any stretch of the imagination. You're asking that men have the right to make a decision that affects a body that is not his own. There is no equality in that.

The fact remains is that both men and women have a choice when it comes to reproductive rights. They just happen to be a different set of choices. The choices will never be equal because the risks assumed by both parties are not equal.

It seems to me that what you are angling towards is the right for men to skate free from any financial obligations that may occur as the result of a woman choosing to bear the child of an unplanned pregnancy. Again, that equates to men having the ability to engage in sex risk-free. Sorry, but no dice.

reply to post by Benji1999


Basically, you stance is that men should be free to engage in risk-free sex because they cannot become pregnant.

If you're a guy, I feel sorry for any girl you may become sexually-involved with. Not that you would automatically be off the hook should an unplanned pregnancy occur.

Originally posted by Monts
What about the Father? Where is his choice?!?!?!?!

The father makes his choice to spill his seed into another human being. In giving up this precious cargo, he also gives up the choice about what happens should it become more than just sperm.

It's not fair, it's not fun, it's not desirable. But it's the way it is. If there comes a time when he can incubate the fetus in his own body, then it will be TOTALLY his choice whether or not to do so.

Life is not fair. If the father doesn't want to give up that choice, then he needs to find a way to make sure the woman doesn't get pregnant. Because if she does, it's too late for him to make the choice.

I don't personally believe in abortion, but I'm not in the business of telling other people what to do with their bodies. We all have to pay or live with our choices.

It's pretty clear that there's mostly one reason why men today think they should have a right to want a woman to abort their potential child, that is financial responsibility.

Women on the other hand have multiple reasons to want to abort a child both personal and financial. Perhaps that's why woman in America today own the right to choose whether or not to abort a pregnancy.

Like it or not that's the way it is men. Just remember you have a choice to choose who you have sex with, so maybe you should choose somebody that has the same values as yourself.

The other option if you want more control is to get yourself a woman from a 3rd world county or marry one of those beautiful Russian woman you see on the internet websites.

Why sit here and argue with women who are right? You have a choice who you choose as a sex partner or a life partner. Obviously you shouldn't choose the ones who your arguing with here or elsewhere. Then again you could choose to be celibate.


[edit on 15-4-2010 by verylowfrequency]

Originally posted by maria_stardust
Basically, you stance is that men should be free to engage in risk-free sex because they cannot become pregnant.

But men do engage in risk-free sex because it is entirely the woman's decision to engage in a sexual union with them, and therefore it is her that carries the responsibilties of the physical consequences that may occur to her.
The woman decides whether to receive the seed or not.
The woman decides whether to have the resultant child or not.
All the options and the power of the sexual and reproductive processes lie with the woman, and with those options and power also comes the responsibility.
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 !

If you're a guy, I feel sorry for any girl you may become sexually-involved with. Not that you would automatically be off the hook should an unplanned pregnancy occur.

If you'd bothered to read thorugh my post in an unbiased fashion, then you'd have seen that I mentioned that both parties do share the moral responsibility - and I would certainly take my share of the responsiblity if such an occurrence ever happened to me.
Still, it's easier to throw around cheap insults, I suppose.