Why is abortion illegal for men but not women?

Originally posted by Calender

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
Reply to post by Calender

 

Yes marriage would fix everything...because married couples do not get divorced or have abortions or abandon each other. A lot of people .make the premature step of getting married before they are mature enough to handle it. So part of this still boils down how responsible and mature people are as individuals.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

There is no doubt the the marriage institution itself is under attack. And in many respects people today have a much lower regard for it, and for their word when entering into a marriage contract.

There was a time when a person's word meant something. Now many today believe that their word is binding so long as it does not become inconvenient to themselves. Changing the problem of the threat to marriage in society today means the change of attitude by society as a whole for the better, which is not going to happen. This society is going down the garbage shoot.

Nevertheless the radical solution presented, along with people who were actually honorable and would be loyal to each other, and keep their word, that would solve a lot of it.

Excellent post! This has been deliberate, as diabolical as that sounds. All one has to do is read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx to see the abject hatred and contempt for the family unit by those who espouse Marxist communism. They believe in the elimination of the family unit and the absorption of the family into the State. Remember Hillary's "It Takes A Village"? Yep that's what that's all about, ripping the children from the family and having the State, or collective raise the child. And you will see evidence of this in the Nanny State, where the State will find new ways to tell us how to raise our children.

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by purplemer

 

I can't say that I would disagree with you necessarily. But if it is indeed a woman's choice, as perhaps it should be, then it is also her responsibility.

True, if they can murder the baby, just so they don't have to deal with it...what makes men so bad for wanting to not pay for it? A mistake is a mistake no matter who does it. If men have to prove to the court that they pay a certain amount every month for a child .......why is it that women don't have to pay child support????
Why does the government NOT require them to save their receipts and prove that they paid the same amount each month for th kid as well. Why do women escape ALL responsibility when it comes to kids......and men get nothing but demonization no matter what we do? Women should have to PROVE that they spend just as much on a kid as a man does, when a divorce happens. This would be equality. What we have NOW is favoritism for women and men getting the shaft.

reply to post by CobraCommander


Doctors are men aren't they, at least sometimes anyway and of course there are women that perform abortions as well so not sure I am following what you are trying to say. If you know yourself, why not elaborate a little?

Just happened to think: Is somebody having a hard time coming up with their child support? Is that what this is about?

reply to post by Phenomium


If a father demands it, he should be able to see complete accountability for how the money is being spent on his child. And once again I have to reiterate, that money cannot be spent on things like car payments, cable television, the heating bill. Those are all things that the mother would have to pay for on her own anyway, with or without a child. So really, the only thing that child support payments can be spent is food, for that child only, and clothing for the child. Especially if the kid is on the father's medical plan too which is most often the case. Also consider that whatever clothes, food, maybe some school items the kid needs, the father should only have to pay HALF those expenses. It is also important to note that most fathers who pay support, get no credit for when they make direct purchases for the child. Like buying the kid a new pair of sneakers for his birthday. or feeding the kid every weekend during visitation, etc.

Originally posted by Calender

Originally posted by korathin

Originally posted by Calender
Here's a radical solution. Sex should remain in the realm of marriage. No one should have sex outside the marriage bond. Once married and the man and wife have consented to being agreeable to having a child/children and rearing it then they can.. If they agree not to they can take measures that they don't, which aren't ever 100% sure. And if they then still do have a child, they will lovingly agree to take care of it.

If you are not mature enough to take care of your own children, if you don't have the funds to support one, then maybe you should think about waiting to get married. When you get married you are both stating you are mature enough for the relationship and are willing to take care of your marriage mate.

Problem solved. The incidences of unwanted pregnancy will drop 1000000 fold.

The problem with today's society, and even many people on this forum is that you want all of the fun but none of the responibility. The problem is, you can't have your cake and eat it too. There are consequences for our actions. If you do drugs, you have a high probability of developing mental disorders, going into poverty, loosing your job, contracting diseases, etc.

If you want unprotected sex with a partner you will not take care of you will risk STDs, emotional trauma, unwanted pregnancies, etc.

People think they have the right to do what they want without being responsible for themselves. Nutheads, everyone that thinks that way. Nutheads, murdering children in the womb because they are too selfish, too stupid.

Your arrogance and ignorance is the reason why the Church's are dieing. You are such a man-hating bigot, woman-worshiping chauvinist it is very pathetic.

Originally posted by Calender
Once married and the man and wife

Look at how he phrased it: "man and wife".

Why not "husband and wife" ? Or conversely "husband and woman". Why must people like you only come out of the wood work to preach when it is men demanding equality? But when women demand something your type is among the first to rush to provide it.

Did your mother molest or abuse you as a child? Do you blame your father for not protecting you or something? Is that where your hatred of boy's and men comes from?(Thats why Betty Friedan famous feminist hated men. Because she had an abuse mother so she blamed her father for not protecting her)

Either way arguments like yours only serve to rub salt into an open wound. You operate under the logic that "it is OK for society to whip men because it is the right thing to do" since you can no longer whip women. I guess your kind has got to get it's rocks off some how. You do know there is probably gay BDSM sites out their some where. That way innocent people won't be hurt to satisfy your itch.

Dear Korathin, thank you for your kindly worded and well-thought out reply. It shows the thoughts of a respectful and tolerant person. I'm sorry if I came across as arrogant or ignorant. I am the first to realize that I am nothing. To think different would be foolhardy. So, if again, you feel I was acting arrogantly in my radical statement, I apologize, and will no doubt study it and try to better myself and humble myself. Humility is a hard thing to achieve, and although I do not claim to have achieved it, I strive for it.

As for your kindly worded remarks about my private life, you have missed on all marks. I apologize about informing you of this, because you came across as so well-informed, and humble in your own reply that I am sort of baffled at how such an informed individual as yourself could come up with such crass insinuations. I'm sure your lack of arrogance and ignorance in this regard has lead you to such erroneous conclusions as the ones you have made, but to understand how you could be so wrong eludes my ignorant understanding.

Anyway, cheers. Keep up the good work and keep sharing the love.

Oh, and BTW, I agree with you about the Churches going down. Check out some of my threads about it.

edit on 1-6-2011 by Calender because: (no reason given)

I think my reply was justified. People like you litter the Republican Party(supposedly the "Mens Party") and use your views as justification for doing nothing in the face of a feminist engineered holocaust.

Maybe you walked into a battlefield unaware of the over all situation. If you did then you have my apologies. But if you didn't.. Well then I best end this reply.

reply to post by newcovenant


I think maybe you should read the article before commenting.

Originally posted by Phenomium

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by purplemer

 

I can't say that I would disagree with you necessarily. But if it is indeed a woman's choice, as perhaps it should be, then it is also her responsibility.

True, if they can murder the baby, just so they don't have to deal with it...what makes men so bad for wanting to not pay for it? A mistake is a mistake no matter who does it. If men have to prove to the court that they pay a certain amount every month for a child .......why is it that women don't have to pay child support????
Why does the government NOT require them to save their receipts and prove that they paid the same amount each month for th kid as well. Why do women escape ALL responsibility when it comes to kids......and men get nothing but demonization no matter what we do? Women should have to PROVE that they spend just as much on a kid as a man does, when a divorce happens. This would be equality. What we have NOW is favoritism for women and men getting the shaft.

edit on 1-6-2011 by Phenomium because: (no reason given)

Once upon a time, women were considered to be the nurturer, while the man was considered to be the "breadwinner". Of course with all the mixing up of traditonal roles, this is often no longer the case, although I maintain that biologically women still tend to be the nurturers. The woman's body even is set up to naturally feed the baby as an infant. The La Leche League is an organization with a mission to support the new mother in nurturing her newborn.
The younger generations of women have been encouragedby society to put off childbearing to nurture a career and fathers are encouraged to take a keener interest in their child's day to day care. Ideally, everyone can learn and grow and not be subservient to "roles" but still have an appreciation of the natural roles families have had for millennia.

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

if you know a guy that has had an abortion, I wanna meet em!!

Ummmm......I know of a guy.....my girlfriends nephew.......who pays court ordered child support on a child that was never claimed by either the childs mother or him as his and was proven by DNA testing to NOT be his child.........but the court has repeatedly ordered him to pay support for a child that is'nt even his and with whom he does'nt reside.........................We live under a judgement system........not a justice system...

YouSir

Originally posted by gandhi
He punched his girlfriend in the stomach.

He punched a baby, in the body.

That's illegal. I don't give a rats ass what his intentions were.

You're missing the point. If he could have made her had an abortion he would of. If it's not right for the man, it's not right for the woman. But we say women can have abortions against the will of the father, but not the other way round. If you think a punch in the stomach is anything but trivial in this situation I'd suggest you have your priorities all wrong. I'll copy and paste a post I made touching on this before

------------------

I think it's disgusting that abortion has been socially justified and promoted because people who traditionally oppose it have been right-wing Christians.

There's nothing extreme or right wing about opposing abortion. Many of the greatest Liberals and Left wing people of our times have opposed abortion. Think of probably the least insane, forward thinking religion on the planet? Most people would think Buddhism, Buddhists oppose abortion. Most hippies oppose abortion.

It's a disgusting act of murder and it's been justified under the guise of feminism and liberalism. Both of which are irrelevant to the issue.

Should abortion be made illegal? NO! DEFINITELY NOT! This is a sociological issue and a ban only causes people to seek out far more dangerous methods of abortion. But there needs to be a very serious conversation and some real policies and awareness campaigns, and education reforms and media responsibility - All these sort of things should be put into place to educate and dissuade people from getting into that situation. I think it was Noam Chomsky who said that somewhere between washing your hands and murdering your 3 year old there needs to be a conversation on the issue.

This idea that abortion is a woman's right and is generally a just action makes me sick to my stomach!

If a man was to put some pills or chemicals in his partners food or drink, and conspired against her to have a forced miscarriage against her will, he'd be in jail! But females up and down this country are getting abortions against the will of the father. There's absolutely no moral difference. But we excuse one because it's a females right to kill unborn babies. The ego involved in that line of thinking is despicable .

This isn't a hard line Christian vs normal and forward thinking people issue. It's about ethics, you have them or you don't. If you think 100-200 years down the line that abortion will be socially acceptable I think you're all in for a huge shock. It will be less acceptable than it's ever been. More and more we come to understand the value of human life, the value of the life of other sentient beings, this awareness is increasing exponentially every decade. 100 years down the line an unborn baby will not be readily killed, people will not celebrate the murderous actions of pretend feminists - I assure you of this.

I cannot lend myself to believe a ban is acceptable, it isn't, it doesn't address the causes of the problem, it simply takes away the right to a 'solution'. But socially abortion should be outright discouraged and something undertaken as a necessity, rather than abused by loose women who can't keep their legs closed.

If men were the sex to carry babies in today's political climate, we'd be shunned as murderers and probably get arrested for aborting babies against the will of our female partners.

Faux-Feminism is more important than the life of a baby though. Can't infringe on a woman's right to kill!

Originally posted by Wolvo

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by Wolvo

 

He's not justifying the method the attacker used. But he is pointing out that there are much deeper issues behind the reported attack. Why should a man be forced by law to be a father, when women have no such obligation?

omg, thats just sick, if you Didnt want to be a father? Maybe you should of put something on the end of it? Bit late once you concieve to have second thoughts (for a bloke).

edit on 31-5-2011 by Wolvo because: typo

And the women who have abortions against the will of the father. If she didn't want a baby maybe she should have closed her legs or put something in it?

Originally posted by dizzylizzy

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by LadySkadi

 

I don't think it was for shock value at all. This is reality. If a man does not want to be a father, the only thing he can do is try to kill the baby himself.

I dare say that if he could not be sued for child support, he never would have laid a hand on that woman.

If a man does not want to be a father why not tale precautions?

And if a woman doesn't want to be a mother, why not take precautions?

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by Wolvo

 

If a woman can sue for support, a man should be able to sue for punitive damages resulting from the intentional death of his child.

The woman carries the baby so he has no right to it, nothing to do with him. Unless she changes her mind and keeps it, then it his responsibility and he can be robbed of his money as it's definitely his responsibility

Originally posted by arriana

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Originally posted by Wolvo
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

Personally i dont see how its the womens liability? Well 100 percent anyway, takes two to tango. Yes both should take precautions, and both are to blame for the pregnancy. But its up to the women then to keep the child, if you were dead certain you Didnt want a child, you would of used protection. So would the women.

But what about men who do want the child? Can they sue for damages if the woman aborts?

Read that back again to yourself. Do you really feel like slapping yourself? You should. Firstly, if she doesn't want a child she would be on the pill, I know I would. Secondly its our bodies that go through the ordeal, and it IS an ordeal. Pregnancy causes lasting damage to a womans body, and its HER choice if she wants to go through that or not.

There are no equal rights in this situation, because the situation is not equal to start with!

And here you see the quasi-feminist propaganda. The life of an unborn baby is meaningless, the will of the father is meaningless, all that matters is women get to exercise their rights to kill their baby.

Brb, I'm gonna shoot my cat. It's my cat dammit!

It is actually possible to sue for mental damages isn't it? What would be more damaging mentally to a father who wants to keep their child? I propose more of an equalization of responsibility rather than a man being able to force a woman to keep or abort their child. Say a man wants to abort, then woman does not. The woman should then be responsible for the child, having gone through with it knowing that the father is in disagreement with it.

Equally if the man wants the child and the woman does not the man should be able to have the option of keeping the child. Pregnancy hurts you say? So does having someone kill your child.

What i'm trying to say is that abortion should be on equal terms. Agreed to by both parents.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
it's a provocative idea mostly because a woman can have a relatively mundane and sanitary procedure to effect the abortion, while a man must resort to violence if the mother wants to carry the child

it really makes you think about abortion as a violent act of murder in the end, and not a mundane and sanitary procedure

Abortion is a violent act of murder to an unborn little life. Somehow, out of convenience, people seem to think that the baby isn't a life until it is no longer inside the woman. That couldn't be further than the truth. I find it very sad how many self righteous.woman there are thinking it's their right to kill when it's not their authority.

When a man and woman copulate to create a child, they (should) do so with a current desire of bringing a life into this world. When things don't work out, they should both have equal rights and equal support to their child.
If a child is created unintentionally, it is the responsibility of both. As far as killing the child, neither has that authority except God. There are always other, more positive choices such as adoption. So many are out there unable to conceive who would love to care for a child.

As far as the woman who thinks it is alright to kill because of the damage it may do to her body?!?! Take a reality trip and stop being selfish. Did you bother thinking about the damage done to the fetus?? Of course not, as long as your Okay. It makes me sick to my stomach of the lack of natural affection in this world.

As for the guy in the article, he deserves everything he got.

Come on people, life is precious. Let's please hold it in higher regard!

Noah

Originally posted by xxgehenna
It is actually possible to sue for mental damages isn't it? What would be more damaging mentally to a father who wants to keep their child? I propose more of an equalization of responsibility rather than a man being able to force a woman to keep or abort their child. Say a man wants to abort, then woman does not. The woman should then be responsible for the child, having gone through with it knowing that the father is in disagreement with it.

Equally if the man wants the child and the woman does not the man should be able to have the option of keeping the child. Pregnancy hurts you say? So does having someone kill your child.

What i'm trying to say is that abortion should be on equal terms. Agreed to by both parents.

Then you're a bigot. The man should have no say over what a woman does with HER body. This isn't the 18th century. How backwards are you to consider the mans opinion as relevant or worth anything.

The way I see it is if it took 2 people to create that child then it should take those same 2 people to destroy it. Not just one or the other. Explain to me why a woman has the final say so? What if I as the father dont want my child murdered in a clinic? I have no say so in the matter. But on the other hand if I dont want the child Im thrown in prison for not being responsible for it.

No its not right and no its not equal. I dont agree with punching a woman in the stomach, but this issue needs to be looked into and men need to be given rights when it comes to their own children. It makes me sick to think that any woman, regardless of her mental state, can walk into a clinic and murder a child without the father even being told. That in itself should be illegal.

Then you're a bigot. The man should have no say over what a woman does with HER body. This isn't the 18th century. How backwards are you to consider the mans opinion as relevant or worth anything.

The problem is we are no longer talking about just the woman's body anymore. We are now talking about the body of a human child which does not and should not belong to the woman as it was not placed there by herself alone. But having just read your other posts in this thread I can see you were being sarcastic... atleast I hope you were.

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by FatedAxion

 

Cant say I disagree personally with this post. But if it is her body, her choice, then why is it the man's responsibility?

Agreed. Vis a vis if a man WANTS her to keep the child, he has no legal recourse while she is pregnant. It is completely the woman's choice to have the child or not. Therefore, it follows that responsibility has been legally removed from the man. Non sequitor.

To be sexually equal, and place rights and therefore responsibility on both parents, LOGICALLY the man and woman BOTH would have to consent to abort or not. If the fetus is magically "part of the woman's body" (and NOT the man's) while it is in her, then it is 100% her child. How does it again become a mutual child once it is born?

BTW just in case I need to state this for anyone who doesn't get the OP's point. This argument IS NOT about punching women and babies. It is about legal status of a fetus and parental rights.

reply to post by Phenomium


No one is murdering a baby with abortion.

Originally posted by NadaCambia
And the women who have abortions against the will of the father. If she didn't want a baby maybe she should have closed her legs or put something in it?

Not necessary, abortion is legal and it is just one of several reproductive choice available to women. It is called taking responsibility for her actions.