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.

 

Why is abortion illegal for men but not women?

page: 18
21
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by inanna1234

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Anthony1138
 


[

It makes you an elitist, and it makes you think money is the root of happiness.

Maybe we should just sterilize all those bothersome poor people...hey...maybe we should just kill the poor people themselves...they are just a scourge on society.




Uhhhh......Yes. We do need to sterilize poor people ( who cannot take care of themselves). Why keep producing when you are not able to properly care for the child? Oh, the government will take care of them...

Technically, that IS a burden on society.

So should we start sterilizing teenagers and college kids first? In my Country if you make less than 30 000 a year your poor. I think a lot of highschoolers would fit in this category so let’s start with them!


Good idea! Why not?

But in my opinion, welfare recipients should TOTALLY be sterilized first...no need for continued reproduction until they are able to sustain themselves.

I have been a welfare recipient. I honestly wished that I wasn't able to reproduce while on assistance, but I did.

It made for a very miserable life those years.


It funny because if you talk to a lot of people from other Western Countries, who have travelled a lot... they will tell you that you don't understand poor until you see the poor in America... That people in other Western Countries will never ever be able to reach the same level of poverty that an American can reach. Why is this possible when America has (I mean had) a lot more wealth then many other Western Countries? Where do you guys even draw your poverty line?




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by inanna1234

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by inanna1234

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Anthony1138
 


[

It makes you an elitist, and it makes you think money is the root of happiness.

Maybe we should just sterilize all those bothersome poor people...hey...maybe we should just kill the poor people themselves...they are just a scourge on society.




Uhhhh......Yes. We do need to sterilize poor people ( who cannot take care of themselves). Why keep producing when you are not able to properly care for the child? Oh, the government will take care of them...

Technically, that IS a burden on society.

So should we start sterilizing teenagers and college kids first? In my Country if you make less than 30 000 a year your poor. I think a lot of highschoolers would fit in this category so let’s start with them!


Good idea! Why not?

But in my opinion, welfare recipients should TOTALLY be sterilized first...no need for continued reproduction until they are able to sustain themselves.

I have been a welfare recipient. I honestly wished that I wasn't able to reproduce while on assistance, but I did.

It made for a very miserable life those years.


But isn't the whole basis of welfare designed to be temporary? So if a woman needs welfare for 3 months to leave an abusive husband, she should be automatically steralized? Even when she pays back the 3 months of welfare in taxes at the end of the year?


Yes. For those 3 months, yes.

It is/ was designed to be temporary, but for some reason, recipients are allowed to stay on the system from cradle to grave literally.

I know a person in her 70's that was on it before I was even born, and still is.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NadaCambia
 


I have as much right to say your crazy for not listening to another counter argument, it shows your mind is narrow.

STOP JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS!! Not once did I say, poor people should die, not once did I say another along the lines of hitler.

You (and others, but do not feel like posting a comment for every time someone says something to me) keep jumping to conclusions and filling in the blanks.

The fact you only listen to yourself, says your nuts.

The first few years of my life weren't the greatest, but I take all the time I am given and enjoy what little time I have on this earth, as should you. Is your life really so worthless that all you have to do is keep commenting saying I'm insane when you don't even read anything I posted.

I'm really tired of ats, all anyone does is judge each other, ridicule and mock each other cause one opinion doesn't match another one.

I can tell your American, you yank.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


I think sterilization is a permanent procedure.. It cant be done for 3 months lol



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
If it's under 3 months, it's okay. But even the situations I listed as ok for abortions, after three months is void due to activity in the brain. Under 3 months it's a husk, a tiny husk. No thought, no life. It is technically alive, but legally isn't declared alive.


One thing I find funny is the people bashing me for stating my opinions, are imbeciles because the law already supports everything I have stated about abortions.

Some do it cause they just don't want responsibility, more post to bash me because I stated that?

Seriously the more people bring up that NWO # and gods judging you crap. Need to get help, lots of it.

Btw earth can be overpopulated, why else would there be abortions clinics to begin with?
Example chinas overpopulation imagine that but every country, would you support any abortion then?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
WOW. Some of these comments must be trolling. I expect better.

This can be summed up as follows:

1. It is a mutual choice for two (or more!) consenting adults to have sex.
2. Some people choose to have sexual relations for purposes beyond procreation.
3. Some people want children; others firmly do not, and others are undecided.
4. It is necessary to have the discussion regarding STIs and pregnancy before the man and woman have relations involving the risk of either. Why would any sane individual want to get into bed with someone they could not talk to about the possibility of STIs or pregnancy?
5. Same-sex relationships do not rule out the possibility of STIs, clearly. As to pregnancy, obviously a male-male couple or a female-female couple (biologically) could not conceive save for a turkey baster, medical measures, or do the deed.

Most importantly:

Abortion must be kept safe and legal. It is not that way everywhere, and although I dislike using the term 'back alley abortion' that was and remains the reality in many jurisdictions.

As to mens' rights - someone with an XY chromosomal makeup has no uterus in which to carry an embryo/fetus. Pregnancy and childbirth are risky to those of us with an XX chromosomal makeup - statistically, carrying a pregnancy to term would be much riskier than abortion [citation needed as I do not wish to be flippant and say 'look it up yourself''.]

I am a never-married woman who is also a sexual being. I have taken the precautions recommended by my MD. I have never been pregnant. I am ultimately responsible for whatever could happen if I were to become pregnant. Both my methods of protection are nearly foolproof as to pregnancy. I have never had an STI; as stated before, condoms do not protect against all STIs. Appropriate checkups with my MD and practitioner have established that I am not in trouble.

I am pro-choice in all circumstances. If I were to become pregnant by some sort of 'miracle' (for lack of a better way to state) I would not be dependent on a man. The man with whom I am intimate and I have complicated lives. He has children with his ex and as with me, he is undecided as to whether he would want more. If he and I were to have an unplanned pregnancy, I would certainly take his wishes under extreme consideration. We can both support ourselves. The decision whether to carry a possible pregnancy, however, is with the woman. My intimate partner and I would not even consider signing a contract as to pregnancy. The idea is dehumanizing. It would be a non-enforceable contract. Were I to decide to have a child (and my birth control method is able to be checked by him - it truly would be an 'accident') I would expect myself to pay half and the other partner to pay half. It takes two.

It's my call morally and legally. Would I take him to court if I decided to keep an unplanned pregnancy? I don't expect I would need to as I do not sleep around. Were the matter to ever happen, he'd know it was an accident.

Emphatically, I do NOT approve of abortion as a method of birth control. Tentatively, I would consider an abortion beyond the second trimester of pregnancy (barring an extremely severe medical issue on the part of potential mother or fetus) to be wrong. Women should know our bodies and select against men who have ideas such as forcing the woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

At the moment, if my intimate partner and I were to conceive, we would have to handle it and both of us would be inclined to terminate the pregnancy. If he or I changed minds and wanted to have a child with one another, I would go to the OB-GYN for prenatal care, find a doula who will work with my OB-GYN, and we'd make it work.

Spiritually, I am inclined to believe that abortion is denying a soul its channel of birth (Linda Goodman, the astrologer) addressed this. I remain pro-choice and would make that painful choice in conjunction with my partner, both of us having knowledge of the karmic consequences. Or I would raise the child lovingly and he'd be paying half. The 'state' would not be involved.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 



People also look at this point of view and see it as population control, something that I agree that we do need.


I don't understand people who want to implement "population control".

If people are so concerned about the population...why don't they start with themselves? If all the advocates of population control offed themselves...wouldn't you have just solved the problem you are concerned with?


I doubt you guys are that committed to the cause though...I bet you are all for population control...as long as that control is implement on other people that you deem inferior.

So yes...you are both elitist.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Anthony1138
 



The first few years of my life weren't the greatest, but I take all the time I am given and enjoy what little time I have on this earth, as should you.


I bet aborted babies would love to have the chance to enjoy some time on earth.

Unfortunately, elitist like you advocate they are killed so they don't live an imperfect life.


If you don't see the hypocrisy in your views...maybe you should re-evaluate your beliefs...and maybe drop the ideals that are causing your contradictions in your views.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
This is THE MOST ignorant topic I have seen to date on this site.

I would like to know what solution to this "problem" for poor deadbeat dads you have cooked up in that mind of yours.

What really cracks me up ,some men think they know what its like to be pregnant or give birth or breast feed a child.

This process is not something to do to "make income" it is soooooo not worth the measley amount of money ordered to a woman for child support ,ofcourse unless you (the male) are some really rich sports star or the such. Then id ask you mister rich man ,why did you bed down with someone who was looking for a payday or had such low morals.

Listen men, you don't want to be trapped by some whore ,opportunistic woman looking to "steal" part of your pay check then stop sticking your member into women of that nature. If EVERYONE took more responsibility even just for knowing who your bedding then maybe things would be different. As long as people treat sex as something that is NO BIG DEAL then you will have these situations.

If there are really women out there that are hunting you guys down trying to get 20%or so of your minimum wage job then you better wrap it up if your gonna just sleep around. Wrap it twice if your so worried.

I mean jeez man, we aren't just talking unwanted lives ,you can catch things from unsafe sex that can TAKE YOUR LIFE.

As long as women are the ones carrying the child and going thru the birthing process then you (men) better make more quality choices in your women or make damn sure none of you stays in her because this is not going to change as long as that little fact stays that LITTLE fact.

I am a female ,just incase it isn't apparent, I would NEVER have sex with someone just to force them to have a baby. It would make my life just as if not MORE difficult than "his".



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


Just make birth control mandatory that way, we can avoid all these abortion arguments.
Seriously a middle class family produces 2-4 kids on average, poor families 6-8 kids, and in poor countries that number is even higher cause the kids keep dying.

200,000 kids die daily from hunger, sickness and other poor related deaths, so why keep defending them to have kids? Only someone sick and twisted would want endless suffering.

But birth control with welfare would save alot of money not just for families but over all the government cause, that's tax payers money going to a poor family, that keeps having kids, and cannot take care of a single one, so they have more for a higher baby bonus from the government.


Above top secret, needs a change in admins and mods, to many of them are emotionally distressed or get too involved with the thread.
Honestly CNN has much nicer folk on their forums, far less number schizophrenics and mentally ill.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by inanna1234
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


I think sterilization is a permanent procedure.. It cant be done for 3 months lol


True.(lol)

But they can be forced to use contraceptions.

And if they become pregnant, it should be understood to them they will have to take care of them on their own, no gov't assistance.

The state does not keep rewarding benefits when the person shouldn't be reproducing in the 1st place.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anthony1138
If it's under 3 months, it's okay. But even the situations I listed as ok for abortions, after three months is void due to activity in the brain. Under 3 months it's a husk, a tiny husk. No thought, no life. It is technically alive, but legally isn't declared alive.


One thing I find funny is the people bashing me for stating my opinions, are imbeciles because the law already supports everything I have stated about abortions.

Some do it cause they just don't want responsibility, more post to bash me because I stated that?

Seriously the more people bring up that NWO # and gods judging you crap. Need to get help, lots of it.

Btw earth can be overpopulated, why else would there be abortions clinics to begin with?
Example chinas overpopulation imagine that but every country, would you support any abortion then?


Did u not look at the pictures I posted links to have fetuses under 3 months old? I will post them again for you
fetus

Fetus 2

Fetus 3

Fetus 4

Fetus 5



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by arriana
I I had seen this thread before I joined ATS I would never have joined. The mindset of many of the men here is truly disturbing.
This a pretty typical anti female thread here on ATS. An OP starts a thread with a illogical and ridiculous statement (ie it is biologically impossible for men to have an abortion), then the rest of the anti female posters come out and post, usually keep her legs closed and other such dark age drivel. Fascinating to watch from a sociological pov, and predictible as hell.


Actually, this is a pro-female thread. Empowering women to take the responsibility that comes with the rights they enjoy and the choices they make.

No one here said anything about women keeping their legs closed except in response to women who say that men should be sterilized if they don't want to pay extortion fees.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I am questioning to myself if you are mentally healthy and stable. You take my words out of context, almost every time I post. Also may I point out I'm a guy, not a woman. (someone earlier was trying to raise an argument against me at the belief I was female)

But you still lack an understanding of my point. If someone is living off welfare, refuses to get a job and lives off taxpayers money, you want to support their family of 8? Why better yet, let's close down every abortion clinic and make birth control and condoms illegal.

Hey tons and tons of people are alive, yay everyone is happy. But wait. So many are on welfare due to a high unemployment rate, that the government cannot support them all, so what is it abandon funding for health care and schools so we can support all these deadbeats? Sure they are given a chance to live, but all at the same time? Suddenly a population explosion from 7 billion to 14.8 billion, resources become stretched tiny, countries start fighting for water and resources.

So something as positive as your intentions can lead to disaster, too much of anything can be bad thing.

Seriously anyone on welfare should be on birth control. Don't assume I'm some heartless monster, I see your side of things and if there was enough resources and room, I would be on your side too. But in a state of economic recovery, well there isn't enough to go around for everyone.

Call me whatever names you wish, it doesn't change anything, in fact it says how little you understand a balance of nature, we regulate other species, why shouldn't we regulate our own?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
As pointed out by others (and I agree with their opinions,) there are really three issues here, not one.

1) Does someone have the right to assault someone else? In my opinion, no. (And the law would seem to agree, except in self-defense.)

2) Does a father have the right to decide that a fetus should be aborted without the mother's permission? In my opinion, absolutely not. I believe it is a case of who suffers the greatest harm, whether physical or psychological. The only thing that could even tangentially be argued to "belong" to the father that is part and parcel of the fetus is his DNA. On the other hand, the fetus is literally a biologically integrated part of the mother, and aborting it without her permission requires that she suffer bodily harm i.e. assault. As we've already established that assault is illegal (and in my opinion unethical,) and as the woman would be suffering the greatest harm, the father does not have the right to initiate abortion without the mother's consent and cannot do so in the form of assault. (And the law would seem to agree here as well.)

3) Does a woman have the right to abort a pregnancy? There are two answers to this, the one based in opinion, and the one based in the law. Depending on independent state law, abortion is variously legal depending on circumstances. If it's legal in your state, you can do it. As to my personal opinion, I believe again that the mother incurs the greater harm if she is forced to carry to term a child that she does not wish to give birth to, and as this child is, again, biologically integrated into her own body, I believe she has the right to choose until such time as the baby is born. However, I respect and acknowledge the strong opinions many hold to the contrary, and I know that this is a sensitive and contentious issue, and always will be.

Just my two cents. Peace.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


Well, I've yet to hear how a man can be raped and impregnated. Men don't get pregnant, they can't get abortions. If a man wants a child he should find a woman that wants one also... If he doesn't want a child he should use protection or keep it in his pants.

It really shouldn't be that difficult to understand.


If you skim through the thread here, you will find a good link that references numerous cases where young teenage boys were raped, and then forced to pay support to their attacker.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Awwh damn, he got her pregnant and wasnt ready for kids? That poor guy! Oh no!
It must be her fault. I mean, she probably forced him not to use a condom, you know how women are like that.

I must admit i do find this slightly hilarious.
Men have been forcing women to have children against their will for...well, a pretty long time. At some points in history a womans soul duty was to raise a mans children or be outcast from society. But whatever.
I have no sympathy for this guy. Firstly, he should be more careful with the type of woman he's sleeping with (In this case, a GIRL of 17 years) and secondly, either take a male contraceptive pill OR (god forbid) wear a rubber.
Hey, if you cant do nither? Maybe you shouldnt be having sex??



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by arriana
No one is saying the woman shouldn't take precautions of course she should, and I have mentioned this in a previous post or 3.

The issue here is men thinking they have the right to force an abortion, or a pregnancy on a woman. There is no equality in that.


No one is forcing a pregnancy on a woman. If she does not want to get pregnant, it is HER responsibility to abstain, use her own protection, or insist that her male partner use protection.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SHABBYCAT
 


I am empathize but I can't understand it fully. Like trying to poop out a watermelon. More pain then I'd ever want to imagine.

You made a perfect point, if you don't want kids, don't have sex. I follow that rule with my life, until I met the right one.
And to other members of this forum that is my point, just don't have sex, or unprotected sex. What happened to the good old days where you waited till you were married? I don't believe in a sapient god but I believe in love and married. You should wait for that one special person, where you know it's right. Even if you have a crappy job, when there is love. Well that pretty much conquers everything.

Money does not buy happiness, it buys food, meds and shelter. To me that's all anyone needs. Everything else is material possessions that have no real value to nature.

Find the one you love, then have a kid. Just make sure that kid has a meal everyday and clothes on it's back everyday.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I think the point the OP was trying to make (hence the thread title) is: When a man gets a woman pregnant the man should be able to choose to have the baby aborted just as the woman has the choice. I for one agree with this.

-Alien




top topics



 
21
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join