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.
Originally posted by tncryptogal
reply to post by CobraCommander
First I want to say that fathers need to have a say in the abortion issue.
Secondly, I believe that most abortions are performed because women have gotten involved with men that don't want to share responsibility, leaving women the sole caretaker. I've never seen a happy, well adjusted couple in the clinic asking for an abortion. It might happen, but I bet it's rare.
So your saying, even though he admitted he wasn't sure if it was really an abortion or a miscarriage, that it's still okay to put up the board, including the first one that included her name?
Fathers should have a say in the matter, but it's not even been confirmed she had an abortion. If he wanted to fight for father's rights, he could have done it in a much more tasteful and much less spiteful manner. The first board had to be removed because it included the woman's name. There was a better way to go about this whole thing. I think he's doing it just out of spite, especially because he admitted he wasn't sure what happened with the ex-girlfriend's pregnancy.
It really ticks me off when this is an issue because birth control is so easily available to both sexes. I wish people of both sexes would learn to be responsible or keep it in their darn pants.
...most abortions are performed because women have gotten involved with men that don't want to share responsibility, leaving women the sole caretaker.
Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by CobraCommander
...and maybe he should have made sure he slept with someone who shared his same values and beliefs.
Originally posted by tncryptogal
reply to post by CobraCommander
I had the exact opposite situation. My husband encouraged me to abort both my pregnancies. I told him NO! A hundred times NO! Refusing to abort our son ended our marriage, but so be it. Maybe I should have put up a billboard calling him out to be a louse. That's why I gave him the choice to pay child support or not.
I still think the billboard could have been done more tastefully. In our area there are a lot of pro life boards. Each one featuring a cute baby doing something even cuter, with facts about when what they're doing occurs in the womb. I know those have changed some minds. The one that moved me is the one about when babies begin dreaming in the womb. I can't have kids anymore, but it's nice to learn about fetal development. Shock and awe only works until the shock wears off, then messages (pro or con) have to become more and more graphic. That's why I hope the pro-life organizations stick with the cute ones.
Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by e11888
So long as abortion is legal, the only issue at hand is the rights of the father.
EDIT to add, there is an article and discussion in this thread...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
...talking about the serious lack of a man's reproductive rights.edit on 9-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by confreak
Is the line for Free Speech being drawn, or is it vanishing? That is the biggest debate right now and it is sparked by different incidents.
A new incident was just reported in FOX News, reporting "a New Mexico man's decision to lash out with a billboard ad saying his ex-girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes has touched off a legal debate over free speech and privacy rights". (Source)
This is interesting because this is the kind of flares which is needed for the discussion of free speech to continue. This discussion and debate is important because either a line should be drawn, or the line should be abolished completely.
Right now a huge confusion exists, no one know whether a line is being drawn, or the line has vanished.
The above incident is going in court, what would the outcome of the proceedings mean for the debate?
Here is the billboard, decide for yourself:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/17737cde44b3.jpg[/atsimg]
I personally believe there should be a line, but it is hard to draw the line in an exact position.
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Originally posted by confreak
Is the line for Free Speech being drawn, or is it vanishing? That is the biggest debate right now and it is sparked by different incidents.
A new incident was just reported in FOX News, reporting "a New Mexico man's decision to lash out with a billboard ad saying his ex-girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes has touched off a legal debate over free speech and privacy rights". (Source)
This is interesting because this is the kind of flares which is needed for the discussion of free speech to continue. This discussion and debate is important because either a line should be drawn, or the line should be abolished completely.
Right now a huge confusion exists, no one know whether a line is being drawn, or the line has vanished.
The above incident is going in court, what would the outcome of the proceedings mean for the debate?
Here is the billboard, decide for yourself:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/17737cde44b3.jpg[/atsimg]
I personally believe there should be a line, but it is hard to draw the line in an exact position.
His wishes do not matter. The day he grows a uterus, he can do what he wants with it.
However, i would argue that he has a right to put this sort of thing up. It's probably not libel, as it offers no names. However, I'm no expert; it could cause harm to both of them in their community even without names, so it may still count.
Originally posted by e11888
I would like to counter argue the oppinion that his wishes do not matter in regards to his own child. The day that a woman can conceive a child on her own, she can do what she wants with THE HUMAN LIFE.
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Originally posted by e11888
I would like to counter argue the oppinion that his wishes do not matter in regards to his own child. The day that a woman can conceive a child on her own, she can do what she wants with THE HUMAN LIFE.
It's not an opinion, it's a fact; unless he trusses her up or kills her, there is no way he can stop her from doing whatever she wishes to her own body, including anything growing out of it. He has no control over her. Even if the law provided him such control, it is impossible for him to enforce, short of again, either incapacitating her or killing her.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but a man has no more say over abortions than a woman has over vasectomies.
Originally posted by e11888
That doesnt mean we should support Government funded organisations, like Planned Parenthood, that do nothing but promote the idea that the muder of a human child is sexy and cool while removing all rights from the father in the process. All it does is continue to let these people make profit off of the death of human children and spark the idea thats in some sick way killing your child means your pro woman's rights.
I understand that child birth is not an easy process. I understand that the woman has to go through pain and that her body may never be the same again. But guess what? That was her choice. She decided she wasnt going to use protection when birth control is readily available just as the man decided he wouldnt invest in a condom.
I personally stand at a cross roads here because Im both pro choice and pro life. I firmly believe that if it took 2 human beings to create a life that it should take both of those same human beings to destroy it.
The fact is a female can walk right into a clinic, regardless of her mental health status, and literally kill the child of a man who doesnt even need to be informed.
That in itself is wrong and if you cant see how theres really nothing more I can say.
But to say that if that same woman decides to have the child that the man is now responsible by the court of law, when she herself can waive that responsiblity, is insanity.
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Originally posted by e11888
I would like to counter argue the oppinion that his wishes do not matter in regards to his own child. The day that a woman can conceive a child on her own, she can do what she wants with THE HUMAN LIFE.
It's not an opinion, it's a fact; unless he trusses her up or kills her, there is no way he can stop her from doing whatever she wishes to her own body, including anything growing out of it. He has no control over her. Even if the law provided him such control, it is impossible for him to enforce, short of again, either incapacitating her or killing her.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but a man has no more say over abortions than a woman has over vasectomies.
Originally posted by e11888
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
See the problem is I, unlike yourself, believe that human life deserves more than being terminated on a cold hard table simply because people like you cannot understand the fact that what these women are doing is murder.
Women do not simply create a child out of thin air or by themselves and they shouldnt be able to terminate a life that took 2 human beings to create.
ALL MEN ARE WORTHLESS SCUMBAGS AND WILL WALK OUT ON YOU IF YOU EVER DECIDE TO GIVE BIRTH!
That is exactly the message you and organisations like planned parenthood are attempting to portray and honestly Im sick of it.
Throw men in jail when they dont want to have a child or even refuse to pay for childsupport which demands the father pay 150% of the cost of raising said child RUINING HIS LIFE IN THE PROCESSS (its always all about the woman)....
but by all means let the woman walk into a clinic and literally murder a man's child with no questions asked. Good logic sir, very good logic.
Are you on crack?
Originally posted by CobraCommander
She has no right to terminate the life of his seed after she has already consented to a sexual reproductive act. If it was rape, it might be a different story.
Short of that, if you want women to have the choice of abortion exclusively, then they can take the responsibility that goes along with that choice, and provide for that child themselves if the man is unable or unwilling to be a father. You can't have it both ways.
Appeal to emotion isn't an ineffective tactic in an argument of logic; what if the table is warm and fluffy? Does that make a difference?
The problem is that you regard a woman's life as being inferior to a man's desires (specifically yours). What she wants for herself should be trumped by what he wants, according to you. The fetus itself doesn't much matter to your argument; if it's a girl, it's just going to end up in this same situation where she has to bow to the desires of someone else against what she recognizes as best for herself.
Now, I want you to consider, very, very carefully here; I have a stake in this discussion. I was going to be a father, myself, and the woman I was with terminated the pregnancy at four months. Did it upset me? yeah, at first. In fact for a while I was pretty much like you, and the guy in the OP, thinking I should have been able to tell her no. Then I realized two things; One, I loved the girl. I didn't really want to be able to command her, especially not when it comes to something like her own pregnancy; no matter what, she ALWAYS has far more at stake than me. And two, I had no actual emotional investment in the fetus. I didn't know it. I spent no time bonding as a father to child. It didn't have a name. It didn't even have a fully-developed digestive tract. My part in making it amounted to absolutely no effort (Seriously, that was not "work" ) and I lost absolutely nothing from her decision. if she wanted to have a child with me, we could get right down to it and it'd be no problem with me; I don't have a "limited supply" after all.
Far from it. You can stop lying now; it's also counter-productive. I certainly don't consider myself a worthless scumbag, nor would I ever bail out on my responsibilities as a parent, should it ever occur.
What I'm saying is simply that the woman has far more at risk with the pregnancy than a man does. Vastly more. This is a small part of why her say should count more - the main reason is simply that it's her body, not his, and he doesn't have veto power.
What part of "the woman has higher risk and more burden" aren't you understanding? It's really not a difficult concept. Ever seen a single mother try to get to work when her regular babysitter is sick? Or how about when he kid brings home some bug from school? Children are an enormous financial burden, and since it's vastly easier for the man to walk out than the woman, this is the sort of situation you get.
Do men sometimes get screwed by the system? No doubt, it happens. The solution is to find a more informed method of adjudicating child support, and doing away with the tendency to automatically award custody to the mother. NOT by stripping the woman of her rights to self-determination.
If it's anyone's child, it's hers. I'm sorry, friend, but ejaculation is not sufficient basis to claim equal investment.
if I were I'd have better things to do than talk to you, don't you think?