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.

 

Free Speech: Ex Had Abortion Against His Will

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
So in other words, blackmail; "Either you surrender your right to self-determination and submit to my authority as a male, or I will leave you and your offspring to swing in the wind." You're asking for either the right to dictate to a woman, or the right to shirk your own responsibilities.


OMG now that is RICH.

So if I make a unilateral choice and you refuse to help me pay for the results than you're blackmailing me?

The rest of your post is just too silly to bother with.




posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by e11888
See now you're just trying to be cute. It matters not if the head was slashed off on the floor or in a bathtub with candles and flower petals. Its still murder nonetheless.


I'm guessing that you're basing your arguments here on late-term abortions. Let me fill you in on a secret.
No one who has a late-term abortion does so because they want to. Use that nerve bundle inside your noggin. If you really didn't ant a pregnancy, are you going to wait until the last minute to terminate it? Certainly not, you're going to go "Holy crap, I missed my period and test positive, I better deal with this ASAP." late-term abortions are due to some pressing necessity. In almost every case, the woman wanted to keep her pregnancy, but for whatever many possible reasons, is not able to. This includes everything from finding that the fetus is dead or non-viable, to risk to the mother, to who knows what - there are a LOT of issues that can arise.

Next, it is not murder. It's a medical procedure. I suppose you consider the removal of nonviable siamese twins to be murder, as well?


Inferior? Far from it. Women are obviously the stronger of our species and of that I have no doubt. I simply cannot see how a woman can literally ruin a man's entire life by making a single decision but she on the other hand is exempt from all legal repercussions regardless of that choice.


Yes, inferior; your position is that your "no" should invalidate her "yes", in a decision that affects only her. You are saying you must have power over her, that means you are superior, she is inferior. This is not difficult.

As I mentioned to the poster above, conception creates mutual obligation to be fulfilled upon birth. At any point this mutual obligation may be annulled, however, by the majority investor - the mother.

Your argument here is basically silly. You're saying you DON'T want her to be able to abort the child you don't want any responsibility for anyway, and that your inability to demand she not abort the kid you have no intent of caring for is "unfair" to you."

Are you perhaps one of those people who regards pregnancy as a sort of "punishment"?


So now it all comes out does it? Is this the reason behind this arguement and why you're so active in these discussions? Is it possible that you never really let that go? It could very well be possible that this is the only way you can deal with it by attempting to justify her actions.


I'm active in these discussions for the same reason I'm active in numerous discussions around here; The world is full of blithering idiots, and I feel it is my obligation, as an ethical person, to relieve them of their idiocy. This thread is simply the last on my to-do list before bed tonight.

That little portion of my life did in fact help me form my pretty secure position on the whole topic, yes. Unlike the majority of you, I actually have some backing to what I say. I don't expect you to give a good goddamn, really, but hey, give a fool a fish and he'll just beat himself in the face with it.


I understand the woman has more at stake, but like I said before, it was her decision not to use birth control (just as it was to not use a condom) and it is a responsibility to both the female and the male.


Yup. However the female can take responsibility by either carrying to term OR ending the pregnancy. If she carries to term, the male's obligation to the child kicks in; if she does not, then the male is freed of such obligation. In the former case, they knew what they were getting into, and good on them for being parents. In the latter, they knew what they were getting into, and good on her for handing the situation responsibly


But let me be clear, to justify the death of a human child by stating that its okay because you didnt know him or her is borderline HITLER type logic. Regardless if its been living for 2 months or 40 years you are still the father.


Godwin had to wait for the second page, I guess.

First off, no, "HITLER logic" would be me asserting that all fetuses are an imminent threat to the existence of America as a nation. Then after convincing the public of this, I would have all fetuses sent to prison work camps, where they would either be worked to death or, if not productive enough, gassed and incinerated.

Also? Hitler was killing people. People who someone did know, had emotional ties to, had history and aspirations and dreams and contributions to their community, who had strong family bonds and friendships, even up to the very point of their deaths. A fetus has absolutely none of these things.



I havent stated a single lie in this thread.


Everything you've said about planned parenthood is a bald-faced lie, actually.


We are no longer just talking about her body at this point. We are talking about the body of a human child growing in her body that wasnt placed there by herself alone.


Actually yes, we are still talking about her body. All the way up to birth, it is her body. And again, since you have some severe trouble understanding this concept, the investment is vastly inequal. As a male, your sole contribution to the situation is a cell. One singular cell. You have more investment in your toothbrush, frankly.


When the day comes that females can reproduce on their own will be the day that I will agree with you. But for now, as it takes two human beings to create a child, it should take those same two human beings to destroy it. She is no less responsible for being pregnant than he is for knocking her up.


And again, that responsibility can either be addressed by them both being parents for the resultant child or by her terminating the pregnancy. Since the latter option costs the male absolutely nothing, and he had nearly absolutely nothing invested anyway, he has no veto power whatsoever.


What part of she is equally responsible for being pregnant dont you understand? Its really not a difficult concept. Ever seen a single father try to work when his regular babysitter is sick? How about when the kid brings home some bug from school?


I have, in fact. However, if a pregnant mother ditches the relationship, the kid doesn't suddenly appear in the father's arms, does it? 'Course not. In hte vast majority of cases, it is the mother who ends up being caretaker for the child.


Children arent an enormous financial burden, they've been raised in everything from tents, cardboard boxes, mud homes, straw homes, wood homes, brick homes, public housing, mansions and castles.


Call your parents. Ask them roughly how much they spent on you - just you, not any siblings you have. From birth (hospital fees!) all the way to when you finally moved out (maybe they forwarded some rent?). And then tell them, to their faces next time you see them, "children aren't an enormous financial burden"

Oh how they'll laugh.


This idea of raising a child isnt something new and exciting.


Never said it was. Just that it's expensive.


Its easier for a man to walk out on a woman? Because last I checked you go to jail when you do that and dont pay child support..... but a woman can walk out on a single father and leave the entire family with nothing and the court system wouldnt shed a single tear. Trust me, Im good friends with 2 very loving single fathers.

Yes men get screwed over by the system when it comes to things like this. The problem is, women dont.


Then this is a problem with the courts, as I said, and has no bearing on reproductive rights.


Yes because she made the child all on her own. That means its her child. The father means nothing.


Insofar as when it comes to whether she can terminate or not? Absolutely correct, the father means nothing. He has no veto power over what she does with her own body.


I have no idea but I'm not going to back down simply because you can throw out insults and make up your own oppinions to make yourself feel better.


I don't recall insulting you. I did point out that you're lying. However, if I were smoking crack, I WOULD have better things to do than talk to you - like smoke more crack. ever met a crackhead? They don't have time for you

edit on 10/6/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/6/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
So in other words, blackmail; "Either you surrender your right to self-determination and submit to my authority as a male, or I will leave you and your offspring to swing in the wind." You're asking for either the right to dictate to a woman, or the right to shirk your own responsibilities.


OMG now that is RICH.

So if I make a unilateral choice and you refuse to help me pay for the results than you're blackmailing me?

The rest of your post is just too silly to bother with.


This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

At conception, both parties are making a tacit agreement; when that kid comes out, they will have mutual obligation as its parents.

Until that point, the woman has full authority over whether that point will be reached at all. The man - who has invested nothing in the pregnancy and loses nothing by its termination - has no veto power if she decided that no, they're not going to reach the "birth" stage.

Like the previous poster, you're basically arguing that you want the right to demand that a woman carry a kid to term even though you don't plan to care for it after it's born.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
This is not a difficult concept to grasp.


I know it's very easy.

Only the unilateral choice of a woman can create a child.

My body, my choice, our responsibility makes no sense.


Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
At conception, both parties are making a tacit agreement; when that kid comes out, they will have mutual obligation as its parents.


The only result of conception is a lump of tissue that a woman can unilaterally throw in the garbage for absolutely any reason. He is equally responsible for that, not her subsequent unilateral choice to create a child.


Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Like the previous poster, you're basically arguing that you want the right to demand that a woman carry a kid to term even though you don't plan to care for it after it's born.


Nonsense.

I shouldn't be forced to help pay for the results of another person's unilateral choices under threat of jail.

I should not be held responsible for her unilateral choice to abort (and I'm not of course). I also should not be held responsible for her opposite (and equally unilateral) choice to create a child.
edit on 10-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Total hypocrisy.

One minute you say the seed is a "gift" the next a responsibility. If I give you a television set does that mean I have to pay your cable bill until the TV wears out?

edit on 10-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander
One minute you say the seed is a "gift" the next a responsibility. If I give you a television set does that mean I have to pay your cable bill until the TV wears out?

edit on 10-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)


Yes, and not only that, if she unilaterally decides to smash the television over someones head (rather than simply watch it, or throw it away) you're equally responsible! If you didn't wanna be, than you shouldn't have given her the television!


edit on 10-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Having read the article and looked at the billboard here is what can be stated:
The person on the billboard does indeed have the right to the freedom of speech. He as the right to protest any issue that he feels affects him and say anything on said topics as that is guaranteed under the law. There can not be any more of a blocking of his right, nor should there be. Even the vile WBC has the right to protest and their message has, and continues to make headlines in the news. Should we even pay attention to this and what makes this so different than from any other anti-abortion signs or symbols that are used in the different protests? Anti abortion activists have been known to show more graphic pictures to try to sway opinions in their favor and this is just one more tactic that would be used. But the question could be asked, is he a member of any anti abortion group? Meaning does he actively attend any protests, any group meetings, on any group memberships, and actively participate in the actual debate and protests of such? As the answer is no, there is no such group, nor is he officially affiliated with any antiabortion group, then this is clearly a case of malicious intent towards his ex-girlfriend. In another article, it even states, that she did not have an abortion, rather she had a miscarriage, and this would only serve to further add to her emotional burden. Further points that are not brought up, and it is one side note that should be brought up, is who has rights to the mothers body, when neither person is married? There is no marriage, no reason for him to even know of her physical health, or well being, if she chooses not to tell him. Further, would it not be prudent for her to tell him that she is pregnant, that way even before the child is born, that all tests to determine, if he fights that the child is not his, can be conducted, and then all arrangements made? Another question would have to be raised, what if she had carried this to full term, would it had been a news worthy event, over the custody of a child? The answer is no, it would not have been, nor should it be. All this is can be construed as one mans attempt to strike out against his ex-girlfriend and cause her grief, over something that he did not know about what so ever. So in this case, the right to privacy must prevail over the freedom of speech. If he had all of the facts of what had happened and was not even given a second thought, then it should weigh in favor for him.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I dunno, why can't I run on obit for my unborn child in the paper if his Mom kills him?

"Life cut short via abortion, I'm sorry I'll never be able to look into your eyes, help you take your first step etc. etc. Survived by his Father Joe and his Mother Jane."


edit on 10-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


Our boards don't show aborted fetuses. Our boards show babies from newborn to one year old doing things like riding a Harley (Slogan: Born to ride! *Babies arms fully developed at xx weeks). All are like that. It's working. The nearest clinic is like two hundred miles away.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by tncryptogal
 


I haven't seen any lately, but I have had to shield young children in my care from seeing such grotesque signage along highways and at rallies. It is traumatizing to a child to see something like that. It can have lifetime repercussions.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
I think Ron Paul brought up a brilliant issue. If a murder takes place and the woman was pregnant, the suspect goes on trial for 2 murders. Yet its not conisdered murder to walk into a clinic and abort that very same child? Interesting.
edit on 10-6-2011 by e11888 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by e11888
 


Good point. I however, do no believe that a murder charge is justified anytime before 6 months, which is also at which point abortion is banned in most states. But that was sort of the point I was raising in my thread. Why is abortion illegal for men but not women?



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Abortion is not "killing a child". Killing a child would happen after becoming a living soul outside of the womb.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join