Abortion from a mans point of view, page 11


Pages: <<  8    9    10    11  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 19-9-2012 @ 06:29 PM by Charmed707
reply to post by windword


Originally posted by windword

You don't seem to understand the basics of female biology and ovulation or understand the life of the sperm. A woman can become pregnant up to 5 days after intercourse. Ovulation can be brought on, out of cycle, by sexual arousal, and happen hours, even days, after intercourse. Remedies like a diaphragm and the rhythm method will fail inder these circumstances.


That doesn't equal 'anytime' as you claimed.

Your argument is circular, illogical and based on your personal bias.


If mine is, then so is yours. I'm only speaking about the biological process while you're attributing subjective characteristics to it that you have formed an opinion about.

On one hand you say the women are not victims of their biology and then on the other hand you if a woman indulges her biological urges and gets pregnant, then ethically, she must bear the biological responsibilities forced on her by biology.


You have a choice whether to entertain your urges. Are pedophiles and rapists victims of their biology as well?

You place some sort of magical attributes on a biological process and then impose your personal morals accordingly.


You're the one treating the biological process of reproduction as a curse and acting like it's unique to humans.

You "believe" that the fertilized egg is sacred, therefore condemning a majority of the kinds of birth control being used today


You 'believe' that women are too stupid to realize the consequences of their actions and are therefore 'victims' who have authority over someone else's life.

Your only argument is that women should either abstain and ignore their physical needs, or get sterilized, ending any prospect of motherhood at a later date when they are ready, willing and able to be a parent.


Desire is not the same thing as a 'need'. You are 'ready' to be a parent when you're sexually mature. Someone who would abort their child, especially for a purely self-serving purpose, is easily a danger to any child they may have later on. Sterilization doesn't end any prospect of parenthood anyway. There is always the option of adoption.

Your viewpoint is unreasonable, outdated and puritanical. That sex Genii isn't going back into the bottle. Sexual expression isn't going to diminish, and stifling it is only going to make matters worse.


Your viewpoint in purely based on the twisted notion that an adult can be a victim of their own choices and actions. As for 'outdated', I don't conform to a certain mindset just because it is en vogue at the time. You're the one is trying to stifle the outcome of 'sexual expression'. Offering financial compensation to those who will get themselves sterilized would be an extremely good thing for all involved. Women who took the offer could have all the sex they want with no worry of getting pregnant. Not to mention it's good for eugenics purposes.

Victims often act out their abuses and the cycle of abuse continues and is perpetuated.


That doesn't even have any relevance to what I said.

You STILL haven't answered to the animal abuse problem. Do you condone animal abuse? Yes or no? If not, are you lending a hand in saving the animals from their biology?


reply posted on 19-9-2012 @ 06:37 PM by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by beezzer


Originally posted by beezzer
I wonder what the civil rights movement would have looked like if they just had blacks working on it?


Are you suggesting that only women have been working on the issues and laws of women's reproductive choices? Are you serious? They've been dictated by old white-haired men for MANY years! Men whose solution to discussing women's issues is to kick them out of the discussion!

Don't be ridiculous! If only women were working on it, there would be NO issue!


reply posted on 19-9-2012 @ 07:19 PM by TempleCat
Originally posted by Charmed707
reply to post by TempleCat


Your argument is based on the belief system that fetuses are not worthy of any rights and that women can be victims of their own actions. There are proponents of abortion that argue that babies in general don't have personhood- even after they born.


A fertilized egg doesn't have any rights. It doesn't live and breath on its own. It is not a viable human being. It does not think for itself. That's not a belief system. That's both biology and the law. Everyone is the victim of their own actions. Women take responsibility and make responsible decisions that are best for them and their children. You're advocating for irresponsibility.

A woman who gets pregnanat as a result of her actions is not having her rights violated.


In the Anti-Choice world, she is. When a woman gets pregnant because her birth control failed it is a violation of her rights to have the government force her into compliance and servitude.

But you don't have a problem with slavery- you think it's acceptable to force someone to pay for the choices of others.


Taking care of your own children is slavery? Again, the woman pays for the child through blood, sweat, tears, food, shelter, and care. Why are you giving the father a free pass? He was there for conception. He can be a responsible adult, too.

My point is that abortion is NOT an issue that only affects 'women's bodies'.


It certainly doesn't affect a man's body, does it? I've never known a man who could get pregnant.

....but genetics don't matter to you. The fact that it's genetically your child has no relevance in being able to avoid responsibility for it. Contribution to genetics doesn't mean he has a choice in whether his child will live or die. There's no logical reason why he should be obligated to pay for a woman's choice.


I never said that. Yes, genetically, each partner contributes 50% of the genes. That I did say. So if a man wants the woman to have an abortion that's ok with you? You seem awfully concerned in all these posts with the poor misunderstood man and how you and he should band together and control the womb of another person so you can abandon the baby after birth. Kinda creepy. He was there to do the deed. You've been talking in circles so much during this whole debate.

"it's all the woman's fault - All women get pregnant on purpose - The man shouldn't have to pay for his children - but the woman should be forced into motherhood - the man should own the woman because he doesn't have a uterus of his own - a fertilized egg is a walking, talking, breathing, functioning human being who is much less important after it is born - as long as the egg is in the woman it belongs to the government.. and the man!"

You should really listen to yourself.

...and he has 0% responsibility in choosing to grow a child that will need to be taken care of. Again, his actions in getting her pregnant doesn't mean he has any say whether an 'actual child' will be created or not. That's 100% the responsibility of the woman, therefore, the child's needs are 100% her responsibility.


Men don't have a uterus. The woman doesn't have any say whether an 'actual child' will accidentally be created or not when she has protected sex, either. Biology 101. Accidents happen.

That's not how it works. Women aren't forced to pay when they play... Consenting to sex is not consenting to parenthood.


Women truly are forced to pay mentally, physically, and financially. On top of that there are "those people" who love to persecute women, with their holier-than-thou control issues and their "women are evil and must be punished" mentality.

(Continued)



reply posted on 19-9-2012 @ 07:52 PM by TempleCat
Originally posted by Charmed707
reply to post by TempleCat


The woman is the one makes the choice to create a child. She chose not to have an abortion and chose to grow a child that would need to be taken care of.


Women don't always make a conscious choice to get pregnant. If they did they wouldn't use birth control. Wait a minute... You're taking the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" mentality. Now you're persecuting her for choosing not to have an abortion!

...but women own men?


Nope. Women own their own bodies.

You're advocating for the control of men and telling them that they're responsible for women's choices. I don't think you're really thinking this through.


I'm telling them they're responsible for the consequences of having sex. Just like women. Yet it's the women who has to carry the child and often takes 100% responsibility.

The notion that women have a 'right' to abortion and that men have no say in the matter and are still obligated to take responsibility is a modern social construct created by deadbeats.


Deadbeat dads? Yes, men should take equal responsibility. For the child's sake. First you're advocating for women to be forced into maternity, then you're advocating that they shouldn't because the man will have to share in being a parent.

Since when does having sex with someone equal caring about them? Even if he does care about her, that doesn't mean he doesn't care about his child....and if she kills his child. then he has absolutley no obligation to respect or support her in any way whatsoever. If women can make choices for men, then it's only logical that men can make choices for women.


Women are making choices for their own bodies and for what's best for the child. What works best for the father is often considered as well. Ultimately, he is not the one who takes the majority of risks to health, well being, and livelihood. The woman does.

If they don't even have to have their mother's life support, then forget all those trivial aspects. Besides, women are now financially independent and can pay for their own choices.


Many do. Child support isn't about the woman. It's about the child. Children do much better if the father is there both emotionally and financially. Wouldn't you want what is best for your kids?

You can't refute what I said.
The ONLY positive thing I can see coming from rampant abortion on demand is that it's killing western civilization faster.


Sure I can. In fact, I've refuted your path of reasoning several times. There are 314,411,944 people in America right now, by the way. I don't think western civilization is going to go extinct.


reply posted on 20-9-2012 @ 11:18 AM by windword
Originally posted by Charmed707
reply to post by windword


Originally posted by windword

You don't seem to understand the basics of female biology and ovulation or understand the life of the sperm. A woman can become pregnant up to 5 days after intercourse. Ovulation can be brought on, out of cycle, by sexual arousal, and happen hours, even days, after intercourse. Remedies like a diaphragm and the rhythm method will fail inder these circumstances.


That doesn't equal 'anytime' as you claimed.


Traditionally, it has been thought that ovulation takes place only once in every menstruation cycle. A growth wave of 15 to 20 egg-carrying cells called follicles occurs before ovulation. One follicle will become dominant while the others die off.

"It's been assumed until now that women have just one wave per monthly cycle, leading to one ovulation, but nobody has actually carried out detailed analysis before," said Roger Pierson, who led the study. "In fact, all the women in our study had at least two waves and 30 per cent of them had three."
www.newscientist.com...




Please tell me, when is it that a woman CAN"T get pregnant?



Your argument is circular, illogical and based on your personal bias.


If mine is, then so is yours. I'm only speaking about the biological process while you're attributing subjective characteristics to it that you have formed an opinion about.

On one hand you say the women are not victims of their biology and then on the other hand you if a woman indulges her biological urges and gets pregnant, then ethically, she must bear the biological responsibilities forced on her by biology.


You have a choice whether to entertain your urges. Are pedophiles and rapists victims of their biology as well?


More circular, irrelevant arguments.


You place some sort of magical attributes on a biological process and then impose your personal morals accordingly.


You're the one treating the biological process of reproduction as a curse and acting like it's unique to humans.


Is this an argument?


You "believe" that the fertilized egg is sacred, therefore condemning a majority of the kinds of birth control being used today


You 'believe' that women are too stupid to realize the consequences of their actions and are therefore 'victims' who have authority over someone else's life.

Your only argument is that women should either abstain and ignore their physical needs, or get sterilized, ending any prospect of motherhood at a later date when they are ready, willing and able to be a parent.


Desire is not the same thing as a 'need'. You are 'ready' to be a parent when you're sexually mature. Someone who would abort their child, especially for a purely self-serving purpose, is easily a danger to any child they may have later on. Sterilization doesn't end any prospect of parenthood anyway. There is always the option of adoption.


There you go again attributing the biological process with all knowing. Biological readiness is NOT the same being ready mentally, financially and spiritually. Really, do you care about the children at all, or just about forcing young girls to give birth as a punishment for their crime?


Your viewpoint is unreasonable, outdated and puritanical. That sex Genii isn't going back into the bottle. Sexual expression isn't going to diminish, and stifling it is only going to make matters worse.


Your viewpoint in purely based on the twisted notion that an adult can be a victim of their own choices and actions. As for 'outdated', I don't conform to a certain mindset just because it is en vogue at the time. You're the one is trying to stifle the outcome of 'sexual expression'. Offering financial compensation to those who will get themselves sterilized would be an extremely good thing for all involved. Women who took the offer could have all the sex they want with no worry of getting pregnant. Not to mention it's good for eugenics purposes.


"The Pill" has been "in vogue" since 1960. You would like to see it outlawed because it is an abortifacient. The IUD, which you would also like to outlaw for the same reason has been around since ancient Egypt.

It's okay, you can join us in the 21st century.


edit on 20-9-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 16-10-2012 @ 03:05 AM by Charmed707
Originally posted by TempleCat

A fertilized egg doesn't have any rights.


Somehow I think you would object if men in power decided that women don't have any rights.

It doesn't live and breath on its own.


There are people on life support who are in this condition as well. Babies, even after they are born can't live on their own without the sustenance of others. Neither can people with certain physical and mental disabilities.

It does not think for itself.


Again, babies, people in comas, and people with certain mental disabilities can't think for themselves either. These are not grounds for the loss of the right to life.

Everyone is the victim of their own actions.


No, they're not. I have NEVER been the victim of my own actions as an adult and neither has any other mentally healthy adult. You have 100% control over your own actions. I guess any murderer, rapist, burglar, robber etc. shouldn't be punished for their actions because they are just victims of their choices.

Women take responsibility and make responsible decisions that are best for them and their children.


Choosing death for someone else is never a 'responsible decision', any way you slice it.

When a woman gets pregnant because her birth control failed it is a violation of her rights to have the government force her into compliance and servitude.


What a laughable statement. When you use birth control, you are still taking the chance of a pregnancy occurring. No one forced you to take that chance.

Taking care of your own children is slavery?


That's EXACTLY what you just stated.

Again, the woman pays for the child through blood, sweat, tears, food, shelter, and care. Why are you giving the father a free pass?


She never even had to give birth to the child she created in the first place. Mothers get a free pass. There's no reason a father shouldn't.

He was there for conception.


A mother has no obligation to anything that she took part in conceiving. All he conceived was a 'blob of cells'. He took no part in deciding to grow 'an actual child'. The child is all the mother's responsibility if she was the sole decider in whether her child would be aborted or not.

It certainly doesn't affect a man's body, does it?


It has affected the stability of the mentioned societies. Why is it so hard for you to conceive of a different aspect of human existence other than the physical? Abortion has many times affected the father's well-being as well as that of other relatives of the child.

So if a man wants the woman to have an abortion that's ok with you?


I'm not the one who thinks abortion is an acceptable act. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

You seem awfully concerned in all these posts with the poor misunderstood man and how you and he should band together and control the womb of another person so you can abandon the baby after birth. Kinda creepy. He was there to do the deed. You've been talking in circles so much during this whole debate.


...coming from the person who stated that 'everyone' is a victim of their actions AND the person who thinks they have a right to control not only the life or death of their child, but also the paycheck of their baby daddy. If women who end up with an 'unwanted' pregnancy can legitimately, as you claim, play the victim of their actions, why can't the fathers of an 'unwanted' pregnancy claim to be a victim?

All women get pregnant on purpose


Any way you slice it, a fertile woman is always taking the chance of pregnancy when she decides to have sex.

The man shouldn't have to pay for his children


A woman doesn't even have to bear the child for 9 measly months if she doesn't want to, not even if the father is willing to take on full responsibility of the child for at least 18 years. The choice to have 'an actual child' is 100% the woman's choice, as you claimed. Therefore, it's 100% her responsibility.

but the woman should be forced into motherhood


The only way a woman can be 'forced' into motherhood is if she was raped.You're saying that men should be forced into fatherhood.

....continued


reply posted on 16-10-2012 @ 03:10 AM by TDawgRex
Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE


One very simple rule that everyone needs to learn that applies to every question:

The girl is always right, even when she isn't.

Learn it. Live it. Love it. Your life will be all the better for it.




edit on 23-8-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)


Growing up with five women in the house.

I find that remark offensive. Take it back.

Now go make me a sandwich and get me a beer while you're at it!

Back on topic. It's her body...who am I to judge?

If she doesn't tell me that she is getting a abortion, life continues.

I think that this is a personnal decision that one must make on their own.
edit on 16-10-2012 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 16-10-2012 @ 03:22 AM by Charmed707
Originally posted by TempleCat

the man should own the woman because he doesn't have a uterus of his own


"The woman should own the man because she can't take responsibility for her own choices"

as long as the egg is in the woman it belongs to the government.. and the man!"


Each human individual has certain rights- the right to life being the most essential. You suddenly want the child to belong to the father after it has left the womb. You want to shove off your responsibility.

You should really listen to yourself


You should really listen to YOUR self. You have said so many outlandish, off-the-wall, hypocritical things it's not even funny.

The woman doesn't have any say whether an 'actual child' will accidentally be created or not when she has protected sex, either.


You said that a CLUMP OF CELLS is created at conception, not an 'actual child' that has a right to life. So women have ALL the say in whether a child will be created or nor. And yes, she has full control in whether she becomes pregnant or not. She can be sterilized.

Women truly are forced to pay mentally, physically, and financially.


You really don't understand the concept of force. Even by your definition of force, women are not forced to 'pay'....yet you think men should be.

On top of that there are "those people" who love to persecute women, with their holier-than-thou control issues and their "women are evil and must be punished" mentality.


Replace 'women' with 'men' and it sounds awfully familiar.


reply posted on 16-10-2012 @ 03:51 AM by Charmed707
Originally posted by TempleCat

Women don't always make a conscious choice to get pregnant. If they did they wouldn't use birth control. Wait a minute... You're taking the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" mentality. Now you're persecuting her for choosing not to have an abortion!


Birth control only lowers the chance of pregnancy. There ARE methods of actually ensuring pregnancy won't occur- abstinence and sterilization. The only people I'm persecuting are those that play the helpless bystander when they land themselves in an obvious outcome.

Nope.


You ARE claiming ownership over a man if you think he should be forced to pay for your choices.

I'm telling them they're responsible for the consequences of having sex. Just like women.


Women are NOT currently held to be responsible for the consequences of having sex. By making abortion on demand a legal choice, you have completely separated child-rearing and the responsibilities that go along with it from the act of sex. When women consent to sex, they are not consenting to motherhood. Men aren't consenting to fatherhood either.

Yet it's the women who has to carry the child and often takes 100% responsibility.


They had 100% of the say in growing a child. There's no reason why anyone else should shoulder the responsibility of that decision.

For the child's sake.


Someone who would actually go through with the termination of their child's life doesn't care one iota about the child. Such a person would probably only ever go through with a birth of a child so that they can receive financial benefits.

First you're advocating for women to be forced into maternity, then you're advocating that they shouldn't because the man will have to share in being a parent.


I don't condone the act of abortion. I'm operating within your scenario of women having 100% of the say in abortion and pointing out your hypocrisy.

Child support isn't about the woman. It's about the child.


Not true in a lot of cases.

Children do much better if the father is there both emotionally and financially.


Children aren't entitled to sustenance from the mother. Nor are they entitled to it from the father. Mothers don't even have to uphold the most essential right for their children....and you have the nerve to act like you care about the child.

In fact, I've refuted your path of reasoning several times.


In fact, you haven't.

There are 314,411,944 people in America right now, by the way. I don't think western civilization is going to go extinct.


....but that population can't be sustained with birth rates below replacement level. Western civilization won't be the dominant force for long, not that I really care.

edit on 10/16/2012 by Charmed707 because: (no reason given)
Pages: <<  8    9    10    11  >>    ^^TOP^^