Abortion - Free Will and Responsibility of Women, NOT Mankind

Originally posted by Annee

I do know I would have been pissed if I did not have this choice. Even if I chose differently.

You would've been pissed, but the baby would've lived.

It wasn't a life or death situation for you... but it became one for the baby, and death won. That was your "choice". You should be ashamed of yourself rather than coming on here and boasting about your murder record.

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by Annee

I do know I would have been pissed if I did not have this choice. Even if I chose differently.

You would've been pissed, but the baby would've lived.

It wasn't a life or death situation for you... but it became one for the baby, and death won. That was your "choice". You should be ashamed of yourself rather than coming on here and boasting about your murder record.

You have your belief - - I have mine.

And absolutely - - it was my choice.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101



I like your point about free will. I make similar points regarding freedom of speech and liberty. Basically, it is good for people to have freedom. Because then they can act naturally, and I can exercise my right to avoid those that show themselves unworthy of my companionship.

Abortion is one such issue. I fully believe it should not be illegal (until we can address a few key issues). Conversely, I then have the right to have a horrible opinion of you, and not have interactions with you.

Seems to be the only way to answer the abortion question while maintain liberty

Originally posted by Annee

You don't pay taxes? But - - you use roads - sewer systems - parks - etc.

So you believe in stealing. Taking something you don't pay for.

I said I do sometimes give money to others and sometimes I chose not to. Why? Because I am pro-choice.
Which you are not. You think the Government should choose for us.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by Annee

 

Hopefully you are put in prison. Congratulations on killing your defenseless unborn child. You shouldn't even be a parent.

Go ahead and take pride in rolling in the blood of your child.

Please, plaster your face and name on MSM. Let everyone know you would kill more of your children. Wait. You're 65. Thank God.

Yeah, I am holier than you. I may have killed men, but at least I haven't killed a child, oh, and took pride in it.

Hopefully you didn't teach your daughter that as long as her baby isn't born yet, it is perfectly okay to kill him / her.

----------------------

The father should also have a say in the abortion. It takes two to get pregnant. If the father doesn't want the abortion, to bad so sad. You shouldn't have opened your legs.

edit on 6-11-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

erm...I think you are missing the edict to be civil in our Tees and Cees.

You don't have to approve of her actions. But it being "murder" is your opinion, not legal fact. In short, you are pulling all the hyperbole out that you can, when you should have just simply clicked off the thread. While you may be right that what she did was wrong, you don't do yourself any honor by behaving like a lunatic.

reply to post by milkyway12


I am a man. I have no stance on abortion on way or the other. I think it is one of the hardest choices a person would have to make.

Your post however makes me sick. You are a vile person. Who are you to pass judgement. Ever worn a condom? Then you too have taken part in stopping a life before it began. See how easy it is to pass judement on others. You should be ashamed.

You say you kill men? You are a creator of widows and orphans. You have ended lives and destroyed entire families. Yet you would condemn a person for removing a mass of cells from their own body?

Originally posted by troubleshooter

Originally posted by Blueracer

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

 

I have put forward this view many times...

Unless you are a women carrying the fetus it is none of your business.

How did that fetus come to be? Did she do it herself? If someone else was involved, I'd say it was the father's "business" too.

Once it is there in the physical domain of the women it is for the women alone to decide who else can be involved.

Of course it is, at least in my experience. Which is a lot of women (not all) only care about their own feelings and men are there just to take the crap and run around worrying about the woman's feelings and accepting anything the woman decides without complaints.

Experienced it a few times then decided to get myself a partner who understands relationships and children are a two way thing and both parties should agree on anything before going ahead.

I am saddened to see human fighting another human over this issue. Abortion is no simple matter, for it involves many complex issues that needs to be addressed, and cannot be simply attributed to one cause for a woman to abort or not abort.

Talk is often cheap, but when a female walks into the abortion clinic, many issues rages through her mind. No human will be spared from emotions, no matter how brave they are, for something is being done to one's body, regardless if abortion is banned or not banned.

Thus, the need for compassion.

For the religious faithfuls, in both the book of Bible and Koran, it was written that our Messiah was witnessed to a crowd gathering to stone a woman for adultry.

By biblical law, it was how punishment was to be carried yet.

Yet, our Messiah courageously stood up and addressed the crowd, and said 'let whomever is perfect, cast the first stone'.. The mob looked at one another and walked away.

Our Messiah then told the lady to 'sin no more'.

Why did he do such a thing? Afterall, it was our common Creator's guide on how justice is to be served - stoning.

But the thing is - The jews were no longer the chosen or perfect as when during the time of Moses. They had sinned just like any other human by the time of our Messiah's arrival. They had made a mess and corrupted the laws of God with dogma and self serving avarice within societies. Everyone of them were just as guilty as anyone else, just that they happened to not get caught with crimes or anti-social behaviour.

Take the case of the woman's adultry as an example:- what were the migitating circumstances that lead to such a situation? Where the witnesses' accounts reliable? What evidences were there?, etc, etc. Many questions were unanswered, except that a self righteous mob was ready to kill a woman.

Fortunately today, such laws had evolved to allowing the couple to divorce before a court, so that no lives be killed, a fairer system for all to co-exist, as each are not without sin, overt or covert.

Similarly, it is easy to condemn the woman who aborted the child. But what were the circumstances that led her to do such a thing? The failure is not hers, but ours - religion and society, whom had been given the task to administer to the needs of mortals and yet had failed to provide and counsel the woman to give birth.

Instead, religion and society create laws to criminalize abortion, and to condemn the women and staff performing such abortions, then wash our hands and await to condemn another troubled woman seeking for abortion, rather to find ways to reach out to them.

'Let he/she who is without sin, cast the first stone.'

Originally posted by TKDRL
Face it, in the whole pregnancy equation, us men have been reduced to simple sperm donors. Man wants a kid, woman don't, well tough luck. Vice versa, same story. We have zero say in the matter, and no I don't agree with it.

Yes that is all you are.
Unless teh woman has a ring on her finger from the father of the child the man have 'no' right whatsoever to dictate what the other must do to make them happy.

You can't expect someone to do all the work (the woman) and you get half of the reward.

In the case of a missing father or a rapist absolutely the child not only could but 'should' not be brought into the world. In the best case the male is either criminally irresponsible or just plain criminal in either case those traits could be passed along to the child.
There are too many responsible men, why breed down?

reply to post by VforVendettea


I take exception to this. When my wife was pregnant, she stayed home for the last 6 months. I would come home from work and make her supper. Then I would rub her feet while we watched TV. Often she would get her little desserts brought to her in bed at night, usually something I had to leave the house to go and get.

When my son was born, I changed his first 30 or so diapers. She may have pumped milk for him to drink (which I would bottle feed him), or sometimes he would feed directly.

His first 3 years of life i worked a night shift so I could tend to him during the day while mom worked. I usually got about 3 hours of sleep. But I read to him enough that he had 10 different books completely memorized.

Some men may not put in any work. But that isn't all of us. Some of us take our job of "Dad" very seriously.

Originally posted by VforVendettea

Originally posted by TKDRL
Face it, in the whole pregnancy equation, us men have been reduced to simple sperm donors. Man wants a kid, woman don't, well tough luck. Vice versa, same story. We have zero say in the matter, and no I don't agree with it.

You can't expect someone to do all the work (the woman) and you get half of the reward.

I think that "in a nutshell" is the premise of the OP.

Men are not entitled to any of the "reward", but they are required to pay for 1/2 of the same "reward".

0% decision right, 50% financial responsibility.

Originally posted by VforVendettea
In the case of a missing father or a rapist absolutely the child not only could but 'should' not be brought into the world. In the best case the male is either criminally irresponsible or just plain criminal in either case those traits could be passed along to the child.
There are too many responsible men, why breed down?

The sins of fathers are NOT the sins of the son/daughter.
Furthermore, Eugenics had been provened as failed science.

Still, it is up to the mother-to-be, to decide, not you or me, or religion, or society. We can only give her the best information avaliable so that she may make an informed choice, and not one that may hurt her, or cause regrets later.

Originally posted by 200Plus

I think that "in a nutshell" is the premise of the OP.

Men are not entitled to any of the "reward", but they are required to pay for 1/2 of the same "reward".

0% decision right, 50% financial responsibility.

edit on 6-11-2012 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)

If the institution of marriage is to be determined upon financial yardsticks instead of love, then I think it is better for one not to marry, or at least to comprehend first the meaning of love and its responsibilities to one another.

Love and to want to be married ( sharing the journey of life together exclusively ) is more than just dollars and cents.

True - the argument that love does not pay the rent, but if you truly love, then what would you not do to prove worthy of loving her/him and being loved in return? We work to live, NOT live to work. There is more to life than just money and the seeking of money at all and any cost, that you will only lose or not live life.

Regarding the abortion issue - the very pupose to marry is to share life together. To have or not to have a child yet is a couple's decision, and if childbirth rears up, it would be sharing , discussing and finding solutions between the 2, with their familes, friends and society if need be to help the woman make an informed decision.

I'm not sure how marriage plays a role here.

Single woman has the only say in keeping/aborting a child.
Married woman has the only say in keeping/aborting a child

or am I wrong?

+edit+
I admit that I might be jaded.

I was married and I am divorced. During the divorce hearing the judge gave me a 20 minute lecture on how I had more than a financial responsibility to the child. It was my role as a father to teach and mentor the child to be a memeber of society. Then said " I am granting you seven days a year visitation, restricted to daylight hours in the county of Los Angleles, under supervision". The ex had to provide herself or someone else to supervise. For four years she could not find anyone willing to supervise and wouldn't do it herself. I was still required to give 35% of my pay plus half of daycare costs however.

* I have never been convicted of a crime, I have an outstanding civilian and military record. The judge actually told me "due to your military training and experience, I feel that if you were alone with the child you could disappear". Yea fair and equal treatment under the law.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by Annee

 

Hopefully you are put in prison. Congratulations on killing your defenseless unborn child. You shouldn't even be a parent.

That is your belief.

Keep it in your own house.

I'm not interested.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Annee

You don't pay taxes? But - - you use roads - sewer systems - parks - etc.

So you believe in stealing. Taking something you don't pay for.

I said I do sometimes give money to others and sometimes I chose not to. Why? Because I am pro-choice.
Which you are not. You think the Government should choose for us.

Sorry.

But - you are not making any sense.

reply to post by Annee


That is why we SHOULD make it your interest. By charging you with murder. That is one of the FEW things government should be involved in. Some one needs to defend the child. It sure as hell isn't going to be you, you know, the mother.

This is one of the few things the government should be involved in, reiterated. Defending the rights of every citizen; last i checked, a baby didn't ask to be here. You created it, whether on purpose or accident, and you SHOULD be required by law to take responsibility for that life. If you do not want to take responsibility for that life, to bad, you shouldnt have gotten pregnant.

If you don't want him after he is born, then put him up for adoption.

reply to post by milkyway12


What about the father who also participated in the creating of the baby who already has relationship issues with the children he already has?

What about the child who was at a high risk of being born with serious birth defects which only increases as women get older.

If women have to keep their legs closed, then men have to keep their penises in their pants.

Originally posted by Annee

But - you are not making any sense.

You are not pro-choice because you think the Government should choose where my tax money goes. Your opinion is that Government choice is better than personal choice. There is nothing to make sense of, thats your stance.