Free Speech: Ex Had Abortion Against His Will

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Artificial Womb

They are already working on it.

And it will be a wonderously segregated and angry society when it comes.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


It's really not comparable in my opinion. Men cannot carry babies and really that is what it all comes down to. Until they can, yes women have more of a say. I don't think that it's always fair for a man to be obligated to a child he didn't want or for a man to mourn something he perceives as a loss, but those are consideration he should take into account before having sex. While accidents happen, they happen to the woman too and she must deal with the consequences of her decision as well. I don't think (with rare exception) that a woman just casually decides on an unwanted pregancy. Abortions are tough emotionally and physically, for that matter so is raising a child that you didn't plan on.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


True equality is hard to come by in terms of abortion when biology has dictated that the burden rests primarily on the female.

Im curious as to how much care YOU show the already born unwanted children of the world. Are you active in any way in terms of advocating for them or making their lives any better? Or is your concern only for the unborn?

reply to post by peck420


It will be a wonderful time in human history for fathers, and some mothers who cant or dont want to carry naturally. Hopefully, it will happen soon for all the men who clearly long to have babies and cannot find women willing to carry them.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Lol, if that's what you think.

The more technology replaces us, the more it segregates us.

Simple example: High school reading and writing proficiency before and after the advent of texting.

Once this artificial womb comes to pass there will be even more segregation than when artificial insemination came to pass.

Yay for technology!

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I fully agree. Just think of all the men who hate women for having abortions who will now be able to have a baby of their very own...

Here are a few snippets from the ABC News article on this issue. It's one of the more thorough articles I've read about this. I feel he's doing it for spite because he admitted even he wasn't sure if she had a miscarriage or not

Fultz, 35, claims that Lawrence was pregnant with his child during their six-month relationship last year. He admits that when the relationship ended, the baby was lost, but he does not know whether it was due to an abortion or a miscarriage. Fultz says that Lawrence would not tell him what happened.

and a real right to life group pulled their funding for the board when they found out about him not knowing.

A pro-life organization called Right to Life New Mexico had also originally endorsed Fultz's billboard and given their permission for him to use their logo. However, they pulled their endorsement when they discovered that Fultz was unsure whether Lawrence had an abortion or miscarriage.

Also the first board had to be taken down because he invented an organization whose acronym spelled the mother's first name.

The original billboard had two endorsements that have since been removed. The first was from N.A.N.I., an organization Fultz created for pro-life issues that stands for National Association for Needed Information. The acronym also happens to be his ex-girlfriend's first name.

Source

His defense of the board...

"My original intentions when I started this campaign were quite simple," Fultz said. "I just wanted to shed the light on pro-life issues and fathers' rights. I have had no closure over my own personal loss and that's where the billboard came into play."

A noble thing to do if done for the right unselfish reasons. However the article continues:

Last week, Otero County Domestic Violence Court hearing commissioner Darrell Brantley recommended an order of protection for Lawrence and that the billboard be removed by 8:14 a.m. on June 17 on the grounds of harassment.

So there's a history of trouble in the relationship and they only dated six months.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


George Carlin once said that the republicans only care about you on two occasions, while you're still in the womb and when you turn old enough to join the military. The day after I heard that I saw a billboard with a pro life advertisement on one side and a recruitment message for the Marines on the other....

Interesting coincidence or is it synchronicity?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Indeed. All men who want to be fathers will be able to, and they will not need to depend on women to spread their seed. They can have as many babies as their artificial womb can provide.

And for Peck420,

I dont think artificial insemination caused a divide. I dont notice a divide. It helped women who were single with no good prospects for marriage and a biological clock that was ticking loudly find an alternative to tricking some guy into fatherhood. Or having to deal with some guy who wanted the perks of fatherhood but not the responsibility.

Women havent run out in droves and abandoned men. It just allowed some people who for whatever reason did not find the right father for their child an honest option. Just like surrogacy has allowed some men the option of children without a wife/significant female other. (Ricky Martin, Elton John) Artificial wombs might make it less costly, so more men can afford it, not just superstars.

And who knows, the battle between the sexes was driven, biologically speaking, by our reproductive habits. I suspect that the more men actually have to bear the real burden of responsibility for children, (not just pay for them,) it will be better for relations between the sexes.

reply to post by tncryptogal


Yeah. Lol Carlin is pretty right on a lot of things.

Logical inconsistency is like nails on a chalkboard for me. If you love children and they are all Gods little angels, then love them after they are born too. And if murdering children is wrong, then it should be wrong during wars too, especially when those wars or conflicts are started for economic reasons, and not wars of self defense.

As I see it, the born children should take priority over the unborn. We can speculate how much a fetus suffers, but we really dont need to speculate how much a 4 year old who just got his or her legs blown off suffers. We can see it, and hear it. And those unwanted children in the states that so many of the loving anti abortion people ignore will end up having abortions, because some foster parent will molest them, or they will run away and end up prostituting, etc.

Actually caring for those children and helping them to have a better more stable life would reduce abortion enormously. But for some reason, anti abortion people tend to totally ignore that they could have a concrete impact on the number of abortions by caring for unwanted children in the US, and helping to ensure they have a good start in life, probably much more so that preaching to people who are on their way to the clinic.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Im curious as to how much care YOU show the already born unwanted children of the world. Are you active in any way in terms of advocating for them or making their lives any better? Or is your concern only for the unborn?

I have no intentions of tooting my own horn, attention whoring towards my own contributions to any cause. I will say I am active in this area and leave it at that.

That said, I'm not of the nature to begrudge a person their opinion on any topic based off of some other conditional actions they carry out that are circumstantial to the outcome of their cause. For example, you do not have to be a pet owner or donate money or time to your local animal shelter to firmly state that abusing a kitten is morally reprehensible and a crime. You don't need to donate money to MADD or SADD to state that drunk driving is an inexcusable crime that costs inncoent lives.

I also do not disagree with your biological differences comment, in fact I think it highlights the very dichotomy I earlier mentioned. "Equality" is a forced man-made concept, NOT a logical fact. My problem with the law is that it is painfully inconsistant. Either women and men are equal and thus, the law as written is discriminatory, or women and men are naturally inequal and most of the anti-gender discrimination laws are ridiculous and attemopt to legislate against unavoidable biases and biological inequalities. Another fascinating disconnect in the law is the way it treats a fetus. In some states, you have dual definitions of when life begins apparently. A woman can abort a child as a choice, yet if an attacker causes her to miscarry, the fetus is treated as a life by the courts and said attacker is charged with assaulting not only the woman, but also the fetus.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by gabby2011

 

I think the baby is "black" because its a "shadow" or a "ghost" not that the mother was black. Its a black silhouette to show it as missing. I dont think race is an issue here at all.

Whew...makes me happier to know that..but..I wonder if I am the only one who misinterpreted this? Hopefully I am

Originally posted by tncryptogal
Also the first board had to be taken down because he invented an organization whose acronym spelled the mother's first name.

Yeah. So much for him not disclosing personal information on his girlfriend. Thanks so much for posting more info in this.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
For example, you do not have to be a pet owner or donate money or time to your local animal shelter to firmly state that abusing a kitten is morally reprehensible and a crime. You don't need to donate money to MADD or SADD to state that drunk driving is an inexcusable crime that costs inncoent lives.

No you dont have to donate time and money to saving kittens to be able to make the claim that abusing them is wrong. But its not really the same thing. It would be more similar to the issue of fetuses vs live children if you only spoke out against killing kittens and abusing them when their eyes were closed, but as soon as their eyes were open, not caring at all how they were treated.

Or only caring if drunk drivers killed young people, but not people over 35.

Most people who advocate for an end to animal abuse dont draw an age limit after which they could give a damn less. And most drunk driving prevention groups also do not draw an age limit after which they no longer care if drunks kill or maim you. Standing out in rather stark contrast, are anti abortion people in general. (There are, of course, exceptions) They care about humans for the first 9 months of their existence as living things, and then, never again.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
"Equality" is a forced man-made concept, NOT a logical fact. My problem with the law is that it is painfully inconsistant. Either women and men are equal and thus, the law as written is discriminatory, or women and men are naturally inequal and most of the anti-gender discrimination laws are ridiculous and attemopt to legislate against unavoidable biases and biological inequalities.

No, you are missing a very important fact in this argument. That being, "equality" is equally fallacious among men as it is between men and women. All men are not more equal in FACT than men and women are equal in fact. Its self serving to make the very good point that equality is a factual untruth, and then refuse to acknowledge that completely just to build a case for treating women differently. (And generally less well than men, legally)

While child bearing is not an equal burden or responsibility, and it cant be for the first 9 months, you CAN extend equal sovereignty over ones own person to men and women. Which is how the abortion law actually works. The male has equal sovereignty over his body while the woman is pregnant as she does over her own. He just doesnt have equal sovereignty over what her body is manufacturing until it exits her body. And THAT is the problem men want their tiny investment to equal HALF the investment in the fetus. And it doesnt. A little in and out, a shudder, a moan, and some sperm does not equal the biological investment the woman is putting into that child. At all. She is providing 100% of the nutrition, shelter, and assuming all medical risks, including the potential of her death. Men want half ownership of the corporation, when they only bought one share of stock.

Although men and men are not really equal, and men and women are not really equal and women and women are not really equal, we CAN devise laws that work to provide equal opportunity to them. What they make of that opportunity will be a function of their ability.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Another fascinating disconnect in the law is the way it treats a fetus. In some states, you have dual definitions of when life begins apparently. A woman can abort a child as a choice, yet if an attacker causes her to miscarry, the fetus is treated as a life by the courts and said attacker is charged with assaulting not only the woman, but also the fetus.

I agree that IS a disconnect. I remember thinking when they first started doing that that it would lead to a challenge of Roe v Wade someday. In other words, I think its "disconnected" by design as a legal "in" to a future attempt to overturn R v W.



There should be a consistent definition for the child as a separate person, and that should be, when it can survive outside the mother, imho. I would not allow children of an age that incubation could preserve their life to be aborted, unless the life of the mother was at risk. It seems senseless and illogical to allow the fetus to be killed when it can simply be removed and incubated elsewhere. If someone kills a pregnant woman the age of the fetus would determine whether it was two murders, or a murder and a property crime.

Once a fetus is at the age where it can be kept alive outside the womb (consistently, not one offs) it should be considered its own person, and if society is willing to foot the cost of incubating the infant to the point where it is really self sustaining, then thats what we should do. If society is NOT willing to bear that cost, then the definition of "self sustaining" would need to be revised again to when the infant could survive with only normal care.

Its her body, I wouldn't want that slob anywhere near my kid. Really though, nobody has enough personal info for any kind of justification.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You are more than welcome. If anything I think the board is in bad taste. There were some comments about the guy on the original Arizona article that said he trolled community colleges looking for young girls. He's in his 30's and the girl is supposedly 18. Don't know if that's true, but it wouldn't surprise me. I know of guys here that would troll the high school if they knew they wouldn't get caught.

My opinion is that he did, in fact, do this just to hurt the girl. Especially seeing as how even he has doubts about his version of events.

K im not really one to consider abortion BUT......its her body. I see far too many men that run at the site or words "I'm Pregnant! what are we going to do?" i can tell you he aint there to give her an answer. And it being so flippen hard for men to consider simple procedures to curb unwanted pregnances I think she has full right to decide if she wants to fight a never ending battle. with the United States adopting more foreign babies over there own damn parentless children. It disgusts me to think that in real life a man would actually care. I have a seven yer old daughter and he biological father didn't give a F*%$ about her but when I gave his full blooded son up claiming I didn't know who the father was he was pissed. but he showed not for a termination over his daughter but tried to appeal adoption papers.

reply to post by peck420


how about federally mandated birth control

I don't know but are the guys protesting their girl aborting their child just worried about gene legacy? Or is it all about control? Is it something else?

Originally posted by Bramble Iceshimmer
I don't know but are the guys protesting their girl aborting their child just worried about gene legacy? Or is it all about control? Is it something else?

Something else: Love of your child, maybe? I'm a dad. I love my kids and I loved my kids since the day that my wife's preganancy tests showed the little pink plus sign. At that moment, I felt all of their little hopes & dreams melt together with my own and I spent the next 7 1/2 months eagerly waiting to look into their little faces, hold their little hands, and be their hero. Contrary to popular belief, moms don't hold exclusivity over parenting instincts and biological love. Dads, good, responsible dads, at least, experience it in spades just like mothers do. It's like you're standing there after the delivery holding something that is perfect, unsoured by this craphole of a society everyone has disintegrated, something that nobody has screwed up yet and you dedicate your entire life to trying to keep that little light shining as long as it possibly can.