Home - List All Discussions

A man's rights?

by: LindaMc

I usually try not to say things that sound crazy, when discussing the abortion issue, because I know that people don't respect the opinions of a crazy person so my argument would fail; but I may have done just that.
I was reading an argument on a facebook page, between two men, when a woman stepped in and told these men not to worry about issues that don't involve them, as abortion is a woman's issue because it involves a woman's body. I responded with this:
"I am just as much a part of my father (more so) as I am of my mother. Were I a man, who had fathered a child with a woman who planned to kill the child, then I'd go to extreme measures to save my child's life, even if it involved kidnapping her and keeping her locked up until the child's born."
Perhaps, I went "too far" in writing this (though, I would, were I a man) but I just don't understand why men seem to have no rights to their unborn child.
Why can't more be done for men? Such as, the right to prevent a woman from killing his child if the man agreed to "adopt" his child upon birth and pay for all medical treatment while she is pregnant? I am new to this forum and don't know if this has been discussed already, if so, I would appreciate links. I just don't understand why it is so commonly accepted that men have no rights to their unborn babies.

reply from: Banned Member

To my knowledge Christ was the only virginal conception in recorded human history. Therefore, abortion is most certainly a man's issue. Abortion doesn't merely cause lost fatherhood, it destroys fatherhood. And how many fathers, even husbands, are never told that their child was murdered in the womb by an abortionist?

reply from: Shenanigans

No.
Absolutely *****' not.
The Catholic church sums it up nicely "No evil may be done that good may come of it".
Yes, abortion is a grave act, and it kills an innocent child. But kidnapping a woman harms the woman, her family, her friends, plus it annoys the authorities. What if something were to go wrong in your kidnapping plans? What if the woman died? What if the child died in utero, how would you know? The damage the man would do to the woman would be irrepairable.
If a man is so "pro-life" he shouldn't shag some woman who may be pro-choice. Men cannot just use women as sex objects or control them.
Long and short of it, my advice to men, keep it in your damn pants and don't have sex till marriage if you don't want some woman killing your child.

reply from: joueravecfous

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because of the mindset that condones kidnapping women and keeping them locked up until the child's born. That doesn't sound crazy at all.

reply from: LindaMc

Then, I guess I am crazy. I don't condone kidnapping, it's evil, but I see it as the lesser of two evils, the other being allowing my child to be murdered.
I thank God that I am a woman and will never have to worry about such a situation. I'd certainly regret it while sitting in prison!

reply from: BossMomma

Why can't men reserve their sperm for women who want to be pregnant? You know, for all the pissing and moaning about a man's rights to his child we hear nothing about how many men actually contribute to abortion by turning their backs on their pregnant girl friends, or by beating them into a miscarriage. Men have the ultimate right to choose, they can choose to keep their sperm to themself until they find a mate ready to give them children.

reply from: mbrace5

Thank you for posting this question. If you look over some of my previous post you will understand why I say you are right. But, alot of women say its there body and they are the one that has to carry it etc. I am talking with a couple of our congressmen (one congresswoman) and they are looking at trying to get something done in NC.

reply from: LindaMc

Thank you for that, mbrace5. I would not know how to talk to a congressman myself, so I appreciate those that do for me.

reply from: SpitMcGee

Pregnancy takes place in a woman's body, so it's a woman's issue. The father plays no role in carrying and sustaining a pregnancy, so it's not really his business what happens with the pregnancy.
The presence of a man's DNA in a woman's uterus does not give him the right to legal control over that uterus.

reply from: mbrace5

Every body has there opinion and I value yours. Though I dont agree everybody has a voice. Many women feel that it is up to them. If they dont want the baby then they have the option of getting rid of it. If they want to keep it, then the man must pay for it.Wonder if they made that deal before she got pregnant? It is a very big double standard. I would hope that most people dont consider it DNA but a child. Thank You.

reply from: Banned Member

Hello LindaMc, here is a link that explores this very notion. You may get a headache from it but believe me when I tell you that once you have read it you will have heard every possible side of this argument. Good luck. Please post your thoughts at the end of it if you'd like.
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/FuseTalk/Forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=8083
It actually starts out in one direction but quickly ends up right where you want to go.

reply from: Sigma

While it does "take two to tango", the man contributes a tablespoon of semen while the woman contributes the time, materials, and use of her body for the entirety of the pregnancy. The contribution of genetic material is very small in comparison to the entire body the woman grows inside of her.
Don't pretend that you have a right to her body superior to hers. That's a form of rape, imo.

reply from: PanhandleGuy

Wait... So lemme' make sure I'm understanding this correctly.
A man being held hostage by a woman, so to speak, is a-okay, but a woman being held hostage, so to speak, by a man is a form of slavery? Really...?

reply from: Sigma

How is the man held hostage? His interests are, perhaps, held hostage but when compared to holding the woman's body hostage I think the woman is in the worse position.

reply from: PanhandleGuy

So indirect servitude is better than direct servitude, instead of all forms of involuntary servitude being wrong? Interesting.

reply from: Sigma

What would indirect servitude be?

reply from: SpitMcGee

What do you mean by this?

reply from: mbrace5

I find it interesting that the point of what I assume to be this thread has turned a bit. I am not a big fan of our wonderful courts getting into deciding our childrens fate. But, there are a number of cases where men have or are currently divorcing their wives because they didnt have a say in the birth of their child. One such case just ended with the husband getting alimony due to "emotional distress due to his wife's non concern with family matters". I thought that was a interesting quote by the judge upon granting the husband money from the wife. Sounds very much like he was tip toeing around the subject.

reply from: PanhandleGuy

What would indirect servitude be?
Child support.

reply from: Sigma

Eh, stuff like child support and taxes are hardly in the realm of the direct relation to slavery that giving away ownership of someone's body would be.

reply from: LindaMc

This is another good point. I am not one who likes to argue, and discuss issues, for the sake of getting my point across; when someone responds, I actually give thought to it, rather than come up with some clever counter. For expamle, some guy called me a phony, on the Scott Roeder thread, because he believes Roeder considers the unborn to be real people in need of defense, and that hurt me because maybe he's right.
My point here is, that I don't believe men have the rights they deserve regarding their children. If a woman chooses to have his child, he must pay child support. But, he has no voice in her decision. I hate to even bring this up though, the way our system is run, should a change be made in laws, what if they gave him the option to choose abortion rather than be obligated to child support payments? I just want men to have the legal right to prevent a woman from having his child murdered, if he agreed to take care of that child during her pregnancy and after birth.

reply from: LindaMc

Thanks. I will suffer through them all, even the one's by BossMomma telling men to kiss her ass.

reply from: Shenanigans

Men have every right and every choice not to have a child and not to pay child support.
Its called self control.
Or :
"Keep it zipped!"
Men might not like it, but tough damn sh1t. Women are not sexual objects. Women are not pieces of meat available for mens' pleasure.
If a man don't want a kid, if he don't want to pay child support don't, keep it in your pants.
If a man doesn't want a woman to kill his baby. Don't have sex with a woman of lower values.
How does a man know a woman has lower values? Because she's willing to have sex outside of marriage.

reply from: Sigma

It could be a better solution is for a man to be able to "abort" his rights and responsibilities during the time-frame that a woman can physically abort.
It would never be justified for a man to be able to compel a woman to remain pregnant against her will though.

reply from: PanhandleGuy

Eh, stuff like child support and taxes are hardly in the realm of the direct relation to slavery that giving away ownership of someone's body would be.
So, to ask the question yet again, is indirect servitude worse than direct servitude?

reply from: Sigma

Is indirect servitude worse? I assume you mean "is direct servitude worse".
If I take "direct servitude" to mean "slavery" and "indirect servitude" to mean "owing someone money" (to generalize your example), then yes slavery is worse than owing money to someone else.
Is this a fair representation of the meaning of those terms, as you use them?

reply from: Shenanigans

This mindset is what causes women to abort in a good majority of cases - men deciding to just have their fun and bugger off.
Men who nail a woman, get her pregnant and then just take off, or refuse to pay up, are the worst kind of scum.
If a man doesn't want a child, if he doesn't want to pay child support, if he doesn't want a woman pregnant with his child, all he has to do is NOT HAVE SEX!!
Men need to own up, they need to stop dancing around about how they're the victims in all of this. Poor ole us! They say! Those nasty feminists! Men have every right to avoid the responsibility of parenthood, its called controlling oneself.
A man has no sympathy from me when he gets a woman pregnant and then has himself a b1tch fest over how that woman is taking him to the cleaners with child support.
As for men who fight for their unborn children, who's mothers want to abort, well, that sucks for them, but again, they wouldn't be in that situation if they kept their sperm to themselves!

reply from: Sigma

I agree with everything in your post. Being scum is not illegal however, nor should it be.

reply from: mbrace5

Men have every right and every choice not to have a child and not to pay child support.
Its called self control.
Or :
"Keep it zipped!"
Men might not like it, but tough damn sh1t. Women are not sexual objects. Women are not pieces of meat available for mens' pleasure.
If a man don't want a kid, if he don't want to pay child support don't, keep it in your pants.
If a man doesn't want a woman to kill his baby. Don't have sex with a woman of lower values.
How does a man know a woman has lower values? Because she's willing to have sex outside of marriage.
Does this not work both ways? If she is not intending on getting pregnant then keep them closed? Or is this just her decision also and the mans fault that she wanted to have sex? Trust me, Abortion dont just happen out side the marriage. And, the man still doesnt have a voice.

reply from: Shenanigans

Of course it works both ways. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, don't have sex. Contraception is not 100%. It is unnatural, the woman taking BC is basically taking something to stop her body doing something it does naturally, the body has ways around such thing, and studies have found that if a woman uses the pill for example, for ten years, she has a 70% chance of getting pregnant on that pill.
There are about 1.2 million abortions every year. Women who have abortions, about 50 - 70% (depending on the study you see) claim they are having an abortion because of a contraceptive failure. That's over half a million abortions for failed BC.
It takes two to tango, as has been said.
If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, dont' have sex.
If a man doesn't want a baby, or to get a woman pregnant, or to be a dad, don't have sex.
The difference here is that the woman is the one who is maintaining the pregnancy. I am 100% Pro-Life, no exceptions, no compromise, no damn apologies, but even I understand that once the woman is pregnant, the man's opinion doesn't really factor into it, especailly in the eyes of the law. I will argue that a man has a right to an opinion, but it doesn't really matter as he made his choice when he dropped his panties.
Men have it easy. Waaaay easy. And they seem to think that that ease should continue, that they can brush off responsibility and parenthood because they want to continue their shagariffic ways. Doesn't work like that. Biology has given women the physical burden of pregnancy. If a man doesn't want a woman pregnant with his child, keep it in his pants. If a man wants a woman pregnant with his child, marry her.
As for abortions in marriage, well, that's a different kettle of fish entirely. But if a wife wants an abortion and the husband doesn't, well, then there's something incredily flawed with that marriage and I have to ask how quickly did they rush into it?
If a person doesn't have the "abortion" conversation before they marry then they're a moron.

reply from: LindaMc

Pregnancy was a chance you both took. It's suppose to be a gift from God; but, we are an ungrateful, reckless species.
I believe man and woman were created equally, but not like. We are given the task of child bearing because we are, by nature, more nurturing and attentive; not because we are better decision makers.
Nevermind, I don't even know why I bothered joining a pro-life America forum, this is the same America who elected Obama as it's president, and a congress that would elect (Obamaphile) Nancy Pelosi as it's speaker.
I'm afraid it's a lost cause.

reply from: mbrace5

Shenanigans, thanks for your comments. I, too am absolute Pro-Life. When a woman and a man lay down to have sex, they both know the risk. They should both live with the results. Contraceptive failure should never play a part. Its only an attempt to not get pregnant. But, they both know the end result that can happen. Its much like driving drunk but wearing your seatbelt.

reply from: Ana

But that's also saying that if you don't want to get in a car wreck, don't drive a car. If you don't want cancer, don't smoke/eat BBQ/anything with red dye/live near a telephone pole/breathe air, etc. Saying, "Keep your legs closed" doesn't work, because it's not how humans are wired. If we stressed thinking before acting ( what happened if there was a baby with this person? do they share my pro life/choice values? am I willing to be connected with this person the rest of my life? Is this moment worth the risk?) and we backed it up with proper education about BC and how it works (and doesn't work), we'd get a lot farther.

reply from: Shenanigans

Can't blame me. I'm not an American.
Nothing is a lost cause.
If you're Christian, if you truly believe that Jesus is Lord then there is always hope! That stinky maggot brain fart faced moron douche bag idiot scum bucket satan would have you give up hope, he'd have you feel that there is no chance to overthrow Roe or get rid of Obama or chance the world. That's how that catch you next Tuesday works, by removing hope, once you loose hope, you loose faith, and once you loose faith in Jesus you loose your eternal life.
And arse face down there in the pit doesn't want you to have eternal life with God.

reply from: Shenanigans

Its also human nature to be racist, to fear strangers and to spread our genes including by rape if needed. Its in human nature to steal for our benefit and to kill for our and our tribe's benefit.
Yes, biologically speaking we are hard wired to want to spread our genes. But we're supposed to have a higher brain function that can over ride all those pesky evolutionary programmes.
Accepting that we're all going to have sex just removes responsibility. People need to control themselves.
Saying "sex is what we're programmed to do" will of course lead to abortions. Because you're essentially encouraging, albeit apathetically, people to have sex, you throw them some condoms and a few packets of pills and when they fail, what do you think is going to happen? Abortions happen. Millions of them.
People need to grow a brain and get over this "we're hard wired for sex" BS.
We're hard wired to go out and bash our neighbour's brains in if his tribe happens to be closer to the best animal migration routes.

reply from: mbrace5

But that's also saying that if you don't want to get in a car wreck, don't drive a car. If you don't want cancer, don't smoke/eat BBQ/anything with red dye/live near a telephone pole/breathe air, etc. Saying, "Keep your legs closed" doesn't work, because it's not how humans are wired. If we stressed thinking before acting ( what happened if there was a baby with this person? do they share my pro life/choice values? am I willing to be connected with this person the rest of my life? Is this moment worth the risk?) and we backed it up with proper education about BC and how it works (and doesn't work), we'd get a lot farther.
Ana, my point is if TWO people lay down and make love, have sex or what ever one may want to call the situation, then they both should be adult enough to accept the results.

reply from: Sigma

I think Ana had a good example. If two people get into a car, they are not expected to be "adult enough" to accept a car wreck. They can get treatment and prevent pain etc etc. It may "build character" to do it without painkillers, but in no way is it required to accept the consequences of their actions.

reply from: Sigma

If we are not bound by biology then it doesn't matter what our bodies 'naturally' do.

reply from: mbrace5

I think Ana had a good example. If two people get into a car, they are not expected to be "adult enough" to accept a car wreck. They can get treatment and prevent pain etc etc. It may "build character" to do it without painkillers, but in no way is it required to accept the consequences of their actions.
It depends on whos fault the wreck is. If it is theirs, then they are required to accept the consequences . So, if two people get in bed and "have a wreck" by getting pregnant is it ok to just not accept the consequences?

reply from: Sigma

It doesn't matter who's fault it is, you will still get medical care. The fact that you knew it was a possibility you might wreck does not mean you cannot have painkillers or have surgery to fix your leg or whatever. You do not have to accept the 'natural consequences' of your actions.
The legal 'at fault' you cite are artificial consequences imposed by law. I'm talking about effects to your body.

reply from: mbrace5

It doesn't matter who's fault it is, you will still get medical care. The fact that you knew it was a possibility you might wreck does not mean you cannot have painkillers or have surgery to fix your leg or whatever. You do not have to accept the 'natural consequences' of your actions.
So people do not have to accept the natural consequences of there actions? Interesting! I will have to remember that in day to day life when someone pisses me off and I naturally consequence them my actions are ok if I want them to be. Cool!

reply from: Shenanigans

It doesn't matter who's fault it is, you will still get medical care. The fact that you knew it was a possibility you might wreck does not mean you cannot have painkillers or have surgery to fix your leg or whatever. You do not have to accept the 'natural consequences' of your actions.
The legal 'at fault' you cite are artificial consequences imposed by law. I'm talking about effects to your body.
The problem with this argument action and reaction.
The purpose of getting in a car, even drunk off your arse, is not to cause an accident. It is to get from point A to point B. It doesn't matter if the intentions of the driver was not to prang the car, and cars of course, weren't meant to be pranged.
However, two individuals involved in sex, well, the purpose of sex is to create a new human life. It doesn't matter if they try to avoid pregnancy, because the intention of sex isn't to avoid pregnancy, its to create a pregnancy.
It's like how the drunk drives slow and to the side of the road to avoid a crash. He may manage to get home in one piece, but eventually he's going to screw up and total the car. If, however, the guy is perfectly sober and gets in his car, and he drives at the speed limit and the weather is fine and no one else between point A and point B drives badly, then chances are, baring some defect in the car or other variables, is the car drive is safe.
Further, if you cause a prang, and are injured, you get medical care. The medical care you receive is not meant to lessen your responsibility and most importantly, it doesn't kill another human being.
Abortion for unplanned pregnancy, its entire purpose is to kill another human being.

reply from: Sigma

Certainly.
However, that doesn't take into account the 'artificial consequences' of our legal system.

reply from: mbrace5

Shenanigans, I agree. Some people are great speakers, ie Obama. But have no practicality. I have noticed that there are a number of people on here who have very straight forward viable answers. Alot dont have. I have and currently still do live with the thoughts of my child being aborted. That was 13 years ago and I didnt have a say in it. Until these people that say it is ok to do that have lived it, then they are not at all knowledgable on the subject.

reply from: Sigma

However, you cite the intentions of the driver but not the intentions of the two having sex. Very likely their intentions are no where even close to pregnancy.
This is very true, and I do not intend to lessen the importance of the abortion situation with this comparison. It's purpose is solely to refute the "you must accept the consequences of your actions" argument.
The medical care is not meant to lessen your moral responsibility, but your moral responsibility has no effect upon whether you must bear the burden of your wounds. You can get off scot free from your 'natural consequences' if medical science has that within it's power. In the same way, if you have an abortion to get out of your 'natural consequence' of sex it does not lessen that you were (partially) responsible for getting pregnant in the first place.
Since sex and getting pregnant is not illegal I am disregarding the legal ramifications of the car accident.

reply from: mbrace5

Certainly.
However, that doesn't take into account the 'artificial consequences' of our legal system.
I didnt say it did. But personally, by your post, If I think its ok... then that is good. I can continue to do it, over and over. Please read my post above!

reply from: Sigma

No, that is not exactly my argument.
I am not assigning moral value to any of the actions herein. I am reporting how our society works in regards to 'natural consequences'. I don't think there is any area of life that we must accept the 'natural consequences' of anything. I could be wrong though. So, yes, you could do it over and over and over. But I am not here telling you that it "is good" to do. Just that you could do it.

reply from: Shenanigans

Maybe I'm not making myself clear, recently I've noticed I've been dropping words from sentences and statements without realising it till I later poof.
The man who gets in the car drunk and drives and prangs said car, his intention was not to prang the car. But being drunk has blurred his ability to reason that drinking and driving is not a good thing to do and can result in an accident.
His intentions in this matter cannot be viewed as intentions crafted in a sober mind.
The second part of this that makes it an analogy to the pregnancy from sex, is the purpose of driving the car is not to crash.
Now, the people having sex, yes, they probably don't intend to get pregnant. But pregnancy is the entire purpose of sex.
Crashing a car is not the purpose of a car.
Cars were not created with the sole purpose of crashing.
Sex was "created" or exists with the sole purpose of pregnancy.
The intentions of the two having sex are moot as they're engaging in an action that's sole purpose is to result in pregnancy.

reply from: Ana

I disagree with the first one 100%... when have you ever seen a racist baby? That's learned behavior, not instinct. As far as the rest, sort of, but not really. Most of us have evolved beyond base instincts.
Totally agree!
Agree here as well.
Here is where we differ. Morally speaking, I agree that sex should be reserved for marriage. However when it comes to the morality of a persons private life, other than being a good witness, I stay out of it. Not every person who has casual or unmarried sex has an abortion. Not every woman who get's pregnant from said sex aborts either. There are millions of women who have had lots of sex with properly used BC and never had an abortion. The connection isn't wrapped up as tight as you're making it out to be.

reply from: Ana

But that's also saying that if you don't want to get in a car wreck, don't drive a car. If you don't want cancer, don't smoke/eat BBQ/anything with red dye/live near a telephone pole/breathe air, etc. Saying, "Keep your legs closed" doesn't work, because it's not how humans are wired. If we stressed thinking before acting ( what happened if there was a baby with this person? do they share my pro life/choice values? am I willing to be connected with this person the rest of my life? Is this moment worth the risk?) and we backed it up with proper education about BC and how it works (and doesn't work), we'd get a lot farther.
Ana, my point is if TWO people lay down and make love, have sex or what ever one may want to call the situation, then they both should be adult enough to accept the results.
While I agree with your premise, the fact is that consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy.

reply from: Ana

It doesn't matter who's fault it is, you will still get medical care. The fact that you knew it was a possibility you might wreck does not mean you cannot have painkillers or have surgery to fix your leg or whatever. You do not have to accept the 'natural consequences' of your actions.
The legal 'at fault' you cite are artificial consequences imposed by law. I'm talking about effects to your body.
The problem with this argument action and reaction.
The purpose of getting in a car, even drunk off your arse, is not to cause an accident. It is to get from point A to point B. It doesn't matter if the intentions of the driver was not to prang the car, and cars of course, weren't meant to be pranged.
However, two individuals involved in sex, well, the purpose of sex is to create a new human life. It doesn't matter if they try to avoid pregnancy, because the intention of sex isn't to avoid pregnancy, its to create a pregnancy.
Sex was "created" or exists with the sole purpose of pregnancy.
The intentions of the two having sex are moot as they're engaging in an action that's sole purpose is to result in pregnancy.
.
God's intention for sex is also bonding and nurturing with your partner, the act of making 2 people 1 flesh. Reproduction is only part of the factor, otherwise sexual desire would diminish with age and fertility.

reply from: Sigma

I don't think this example helps you out. Once you buy the car, you can do nearly anything you want with it. Similarly, sex can have pretty much any purpose you wish. There is no enforcable purpose to either.

reply from: mbrace5

It doesn't matter who's fault it is, you will still get medical care. The fact that you knew it was a possibility you might wreck does not mean you cannot have painkillers or have surgery to fix your leg or whatever. You do not have to accept the 'natural consequences' of your actions.
The legal 'at fault' you cite are artificial consequences imposed by law. I'm talking about effects to your body.
The problem with this argument action and reaction.
The purpose of getting in a car, even drunk off your arse, is not to cause an accident. It is to get from point A to point B. It doesn't matter if the intentions of the driver was not to prang the car, and cars of course, weren't meant to be pranged.
However, two individuals involved in sex, well, the purpose of sex is to create a new human life. It doesn't matter if they try to avoid pregnancy, because the intention of sex isn't to avoid pregnancy, its to create a pregnancy.
Sex was "created" or exists with the sole purpose of pregnancy.
The intentions of the two having sex are moot as they're engaging in an action that's sole purpose is to result in pregnancy.
.
God's intention for sex is also bonding and nurturing with your partner, the act of making 2 people 1 flesh. Reproduction is only part of the factor, otherwise sexual desire would diminish with age and fertility.
And I agree, thats why when two people become one flesh THEY should both be responsable for the birth of the child they created.

reply from: Ana

Yes they should. But you're talking about what should be rather than what is. If you want to end abortion, you have to deal with what is, right now.

reply from: BossMomma

Maybe I'm not making myself clear, recently I've noticed I've been dropping words from sentences and statements without realising it till I later poof.
The man who gets in the car drunk and drives and prangs said car, his intention was not to prang the car. But being drunk has blurred his ability to reason that drinking and driving is not a good thing to do and can result in an accident.
His intentions in this matter cannot be viewed as intentions crafted in a sober mind.
The second part of this that makes it an analogy to the pregnancy from sex, is the purpose of driving the car is not to crash.
Now, the people having sex, yes, they probably don't intend to get pregnant. But pregnancy is the entire purpose of sex.
Crashing a car is not the purpose of a car.
Cars were not created with the sole purpose of crashing.
Sex was "created" or exists with the sole purpose of pregnancy.
The intentions of the two having sex are moot as they're engaging in an action that's sole purpose is to result in pregnancy.
Not so. Sex has a double purpose, we do not "come into season" and just have sex to breed. Sex is also for pleasure and bonding between two lovers, spouses etc. Other advanced animals such as dolphins use sex and even masturbation just for fun.

reply from: galen

And after reading this thread the moral of the story is... don't have sex with someone unless you are SURE they hold the same values for life as yourself... Abistance untill marrige is a good way to start.

reply from: Infidel

I think these arguments come about in part due to the implication that a woman should not be forced to be pregnant against her will, which follows the implication that she is not responsible for condition if it was an unwanted consequence of sex.
Frankly, I don't think her intentions are really relevant to the question of whether she may end the life of her offspring in order to "undo" the consequence. I don't think whether she wanted a child or intended to become pregnant has much to do with whether she can ethically kill to change her circumstance. Whether she wanted to be pregnant or not, if she is, that can't be undone. The pregnancy will continue until she either gives birth, or her offspring dies or is killed.
She certainly has a "right" not to conceive, but that doesn't necessarily imply a "right" to kill her offspring, does it? I would say she also has a moral right to end her pregnancy as well, but I don't think that implies a right to kill in order to do so. I think some argue intentions in order to imply that she is somehow a "victim" (of circumstances, or by implication, even of her offspring) in order to strengthen the argument in favor of her "choice" to abort, but in reality, she absolutely had control over whether she would conceive. A woman knows that, if she has sex, conception might follow regardless of her intentions and any precautions she might take.
Once she conceives, her offspring are at her mercy, and completely dependent on her. Her "choice" to risk conception would have resulted in the forming of a human being, her offspring in her womb, and through no fault or conscious act of its own, it now finds its life in the balance.
Is the life of her unborn offspring less significant than her desires? Certainly once born, few would say it is...So why is it different before birth? Because it is dependent on her? It still is after birth, right? But she can give it away, so she can then be rid of it without killing it (after birth), right? Does this infer that we have a moral right to be rid of our offspring if that is our wish? Have we no responsibility to the offspring we bring into this world?
Is this an absolute right, the right to be rid of our offspring? If the only way we can be rid of them is to kill them, or neglect them to the point of death, then we are justified in doing so? And the only time their deaths are not justifiable is if we could have been rid of them without them dying? If killing my two y/o, or allowing her to starve, was the only way I could be rid of her, am I then justified based on my right to choose to avoid my parental responsibility? The father should certainly never be forced to pay child support.
If I have a right to refuse to provide the basic needs of my offspring prior to birth, why should I lose this right once they are born? I've been told that it's different after birth because "anyone can take care of the child then." So if I have a "right" to refuse, to whom does the obligation fall if I do? What if everyone else refuses as well? Can I simply allow her to starve, secure in the knowledge that "anyone could take care of her then?" Am I obligated to care for her until such time as a substitute can be found? If so, then I obviously have no "right" to immediate relief, the implication being that her life is more important than my desires.
So, if I have a right to be rid of my offspring, but not necessarily immediately upon deciding that is my wish, why would the same logic not apply prior to birth? It's not about any of this other BS, but just boils down to when the life of a human being becomes significant and why. I should think those who draw the line at birth would have a more difficult time rationalizing their position than some others. Of course, there are problems with other justifications as well.
Arguments like "inside my body, therefore under my control" obviously apply throughout pregnancy, but end at birth. The clear implication is that being inside you poses a threat or danger, since, if it did not, why would it automatically justify killing? Don't we generally weigh the significance of an imposition in order to determine the extent of action we can justify to avoid the imposition? We don't generally allow one human being to physically harm another in order to avoid a trivial imposition (relatively trivial, that is, since I certainly do not mean to "trivialize" the impacts of pregnancy on women), do we? For example, we have a right not to be spit upon, but that doesn't mean we have a right to kill someone to keep them from spitting on us, does it? I really don't think the fact that your offspring is inside you is a compelling argument for a right to kill it.

reply from: LindaMc

Thanks. I don't believe that anyone really believes these arguments, perhaps they just believe in arguing.

reply from: Rosalie

Maybe in your little world. A woman should never be forced to REMAIN pregnant OR have an abortion against her will because she is the only person who can decide whether any other entity has the right to live inside of her body and off her bodily resources (and therefore put her health and life at risk).
You don't lose that right. No one is REQUIRED to take care of their children after they are born. You can give them up for adoption.
No one can replace one particular pregnant woman during gestation; anyone can replace the mother once the child is born and no longer directly physically dependent on one particular person.
Were you really not aware of that?
Seems like you WERE aware of that and just decided to ignore it. I'm not surprised.

reply from: Rosalie

Thanks. I don't believe that anyone really believes these arguments, perhaps they just believe in arguing.
Or perhaps you don't udnerstand the actual arguments. It's very common to see 'pro-lifers' make up pro-choice arguments and then try to disprove them.
You don't want to listen to actual arguments because they don't fit your agenda.

reply from: LindaMc

The subject of the thread is a man's rights. He was talking about a father's child support obligations. A father cannot give the child up for adoption because he doesn't want to financially support it.

reply from: Rosalie

The subject of the thread is a man's rights. He was talking about a father's child support obligations. A father cannot give the child up for adoption because he doesn't want to financially support it.
Considering that Infidel started off his comment with this:
I think MY response to him was relevant.

reply from: LindaMc

I'm assuming Infidel is a man. Nice try though Rosalie.

reply from: Rosalie

How typical. So tell me, how far would you go? Would you strap the woman down? Would you beat her? Would you abuse her to keep her from aborting "your" child? Would it be okay to rape her, too, in order to make her submit? Does the idea of having control over women appeal to you?
You people are sick.
Helping to create a fetus does not give men any right to make decisions about the fetus because it is in the WOMAN'S body. And no one but the woman has any say.
In FUNCTIONING relationships, the man and the woman will talk and they'll reach some sort of an agreement.
If you do not have a functioning relationship, then maybe you should do something about it.
In any case, no one but the woman ever gets to make this decision. This is the woman's body, health and life at stake and therefore no one but her can make this decision.
What you call 'protecting a fetus' cannot happen without abusing women and gravely infringing upon their most basic rights. That's never acceptable. No one has any right to force women to risk their health and lives against their will just because there is a fetus they have helped to create inside of them.
Pregnancy is an unequal thing. There is an embryo/fetus living off the woman's body for 40 weeks; those are weeks of medical bills, changing her lifestyle, medical examinations etc. Many things can go wrong during those 40 weeks and the woman can end up with serious health issues; she may even die - despite modern medicine. Physically, all the man has contributed is however long it took to come. Everything else directly physically concerns the woman and the woman only. All the changes and all the risks are the woman's.
The only people incapable of understanding/accepting this are people with severe control issues.

reply from: Banned Member

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U29Piu3bfe4&NR=1

reply from: mbrace5

I am assuming Rosalie has an intimate knowledge of abortion because she seems to be an expert. I am sure she has seen what it does to most women that were pro choice when they walked in the clinic and are pro life when they walk out. And I am certain that she knows what it does to a family afterward. I am certain of these things so that must make her an expert!

reply from: Rosalie

You like to assume, but you are wrong. Though as almost every other pro-forced-birther, you are very quick in trying to pass off your assumptions as facts.

reply from: mbrace5

You like to assume, but you are wrong. Though as almost every other pro-forced-birther, you are very quick in trying to pass off your assumptions as facts.
So how am I wrong? You have lived in a family that went through this? Explain how your an expert then. I can tell you this, I have lived it! Have you? Or is that just your expert opinion?

reply from: Ana

The subject of the thread is a man's rights. He was talking about a father's child support obligations. A father cannot give the child up for adoption because he doesn't want to financially support it.
He can however prevent it from going up for adoption despite the mom's wishes. There was a huge case a few years ago where the rapest refused to sign parental rights away to the baby he had coceived through a violent rape, even though he was in jail.

reply from: Rosalie

You are insane if you think that I would ever share anything so personal here. Your post was just as assumption about my life and my experience, and you based it on nothing except the fact that I'm pro-choice and you can't stand that. How am I supposed to take any of what you say seriously?

reply from: Infidel

Intellectual dishonesty, or simple misunderstanding?
Obviously, all parents have a "right" to outsource childcare, either by hiring a nanny or other caregiver to care for the child, or relinquishing custody (along with responsibility) to a willing third party or parties.
Neither scenario implies a "right" to refuse to provide the needs of your biological child! What if you don't want the kid, but neither does anyone else? You certainly can not just walk away from that responsibility. It would be criminal in our society.
You like that "anybody can care for it after birth" argument, huh? Well let me ask you a few questions...
Are you asserting that it is acceptable to kill your unborn offspring because that is the only way you can be immediately rid of it, and that your right to be rid of it, if that is your desire, is absolute? You assert that a mother may not be compelled to wait until such time as she can be rid of her unborn offspring without killing it, but must be allowed to be rid of the child at all cost including the life of the child, simply in order to be immediately rid of it?
And this argument doesn't apply to a born child because she can be rid of it at any time without ending it's life?

reply from: Infidel

More on topic, it is generally assumed to be "fair" to "force" a man to provide the needs of a child he sires. The idea is that, if he didn't want the responsibility of a child, he should have kept his pants zipped, right? The "prochoice" position fails to hold a woman to this same standard of parental responsibility, possession of a womb essentially giving women preferential treatment in a blatantly obvious sexist double standard. Women have a "right" to kill their offspring in order to avoid parental responsibility based solely on their desires and how they feel parenthood might affect their health and happiness, but men receive no similar consideration. If they make the bed, they are expected to sleep in it, under penalty of legal repercussions, regardless of what the potential effects might be on their health and happiness.
For my part, I feel this is not unfair to men, even though parental responsibility is essentially "forced" on them. I really don't think it is intellectually honest to assert that they are "forced," since they obviously consciously create their dilemma by their own actions, but it is comparable to the "force" some suggest must be imposed on females in order to prevent them from killing their offspring. I acknowledge that it is a universal requirement for the young of our species to be cared for, and that the responsibility to provide that care logically falls on the parents, who created the child and the dependent relationship by their own conscious actions. It just contradicts accepted societal mores to not hold the mother to the same standard of responsibility. Both parents should be "forced" to accept that responsibility, and certainly neither should have a "right" to harm the child in any way.

reply from: Infidel

I'm assuming Infidel is a man. Nice try though Rosalie.
I take exception to the implication that men and women should be held to completely different standards. My gender should not determine what acts I can ethically be allowed to commit. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Ethical considerations should apply equally to either gender.

reply from: joueravecfous

Men's lives, health and bodies are not affected by pregnancy. The equality you espouse cannot occur until after birth.

reply from: Infidel

You apparently failed to understand exactly what it is I "espouse." I understand that there are gender specific roles in parenting. I understand that it falls on the mother to gestate the offspring. That is nature. We obviously differ in our views on whether that fact alone justifies killing the child.
The question here is essentially whether both parents should be held responsible for the child, or whether one or both parents have a right to refuse to accept that responsibility, and under what circumstances.
Do you assert that a man has an ethical right to refuse to pay child support after the child is born then?

reply from: Infidel

I'm guessing you've never been a father. I assure you that all my wife's pregnancies affected my life, health, and body. It is a big responsibility, becoming a father...

reply from: joueravecfous

Of course, but there are no direct physical ramifications. I'm speaking about direct effects, not philosophic or emotional ones.

reply from: joueravecfous

Sorry, I missed the first response. Yes, I do assert that men should not be forced to pay support. It is a horrible double standard and I would support the correction.

reply from: Infidel

If I stress out and get ulcers, how is that less "direct" (in a significant way) than your morning sickness? I thought the assertion was that any effect on "life health and body" was enough to justify refusal...
Are there degrees of "effects" that do not, in your view? If so, it would seem to me that you must concede that not every woman is entitled to abort according to your reasoning.

reply from: Infidel

I never wanted a kid, and never consented to have a kid, only to plow your lower 40, right? So if you're pregnant and want to keep the kid, tell me why I should be forced to suffer the physical effects of stress from worrying about some kid knocking on my door one day because he is looking for daddy? The emotional trauma for me, feeling as I do, could be quite severe. I may even be depressed to the point of being suicidal, just from the thought of it!
So why do I not have a right to insist you abort? Obviously my life, health, and happiness are at stake, and it's not a "baby" anyway, just a blob of cells at this point, right? So why is this tiny clump of tissue more important than I am? Why are women allowed to "force" me to undergo potentially fatal trauma over an insignificant blob of human tissue?

reply from: LexIcon

"potentially fatal trauma?" Strange, I hadn't pegged you as a drama queen.

reply from: Infidel

"potentially fatal trauma?" Strange, I hadn't pegged you as a drama queen.
I'm not certain whether you are joking, or have misunderstood my posts...I don't really care whether you are attempting to be insulting, or if this was a friendly attempt at humor, but I would like to feel that my point was clear to all.
Seriously, though, I hope everyone understands that I was playing "devil's advocate" in an attempt to make a point. I don't really think either parent should have a legal right to harm their offspring, born or unborn. The point I was trying to make should have been clear, but I will certainly elaborate if necessary.

reply from: Infidel

Intellectual dishonesty, or simple misunderstanding?
Obviously, all parents have a "right" to outsource childcare, either by hiring a nanny or other caregiver to care for the child, or relinquishing custody (along with responsibility) to a willing third party or parties.
Neither scenario implies a "right" to refuse to provide the needs of your biological child! What if you don't want the kid, but neither does anyone else? You certainly can not just walk away from that responsibility. It would be criminal in our society.
You like that "anybody can care for it after birth" argument, huh? Well let me ask you a few questions...
Are you asserting that it is acceptable to kill your unborn offspring because that is the only way you can be immediately rid of it, and that your right to be rid of it, if that is your desire, is absolute? You assert that a mother may not be compelled to wait until such time as she can be rid of her unborn offspring without killing it, but must be allowed to be rid of the child at all cost including the life of the child, simply in order to be immediately rid of it?
And this argument doesn't apply to a born child because she can be rid of it at any time without ending it's life?
Rosalie, did you not see this post when you were online today, or did you intentionally snub me? I would really be interested in reading your response. I honestly believe I have insights from which you might benefit providing you are receptive. I might, in turn, learn something from your sharing your own thoughts, so we have nothing to lose and a potential for a mutually beneficial exchange here if you will only humor me. I really am going somewhere with this, and could not be more sincere. I ask only for an honest response.

reply from: BossMomma

You like to assume, but you are wrong. Though as almost every other pro-forced-birther, you are very quick in trying to pass off your assumptions as facts.
Both sides here are all for forcing something on someone, pro-life wants to force women to let their babies live, Pro-choice wants to force a child to die so his/her mother can live as she wishes. Do stow the drama whore routine.

reply from: BossMomma

I'm guessing you've never been a father. I assure you that all my wife's pregnancies affected my life, health, and body. It is a big responsibility, becoming a father...
So lemme guess..you went through morning sickness, acid reflux, swollen ankles, knee and joint pain, sleep deprivation, back pain, pressure on the lungs, heart burn, fatigue, syncope, fluctuating blood pressure and sugar, mood altering hormone fluctuations, braxton hicks, constipation, labor and finally squeezing something the size of a watermelon out of an opening the size of a lemon? Yeah, when a man goes through all that then they can tell me how it affected their health, life and, body.

reply from: BossMomma

Yeah, to hell with the kid right? Leave it to pro-choicers to support f#cking over both born and unborn children in favor of a dead beat.

reply from: Infidel

Boss, I understand that your "baby daddy" left you with a lot of resentment toward males, so I'll overlook your misplaced bitterness. Please try not to let your irrational resentment toward all men blind you to the point I attempted to make here.
I'm not trying to take anything from you here, and there's really nothing for you to defend. I'm just saying that pregnancy affects both parents, which should not be interpreted as in any way attempting to minimize the role of women in procreation.

reply from: SpitMcGee

Women have the right not to conceive and the right not give birth. Both of these are important rights.
Bodily autonomy gives us the right to control our reproduction because reproduction is a bodily process. And by reproduction, I don't mean sex. I mean the entire reproductive process, which does not end at conception, but at birth.

At her mercy? Come on now. A fetus living in a woman's body employs nearly every one of that woman's organs on a 24-hour basis to sustain its growth. At whose "mercy" should a fetus be?

reply from: Infidel

Wouldn't killing her prior to birth deprive her of the choice whether or not to conceive and/or give birth? I would say the right to not be killed is even more important.
I disagree. Once you have conceived, you have reproduced. Choosing whether or not to reproduce is a separate question from whether you will kill your offspring. The former necessarily precedes the latter.
Care to address this?

reply from: BossMomma

LOL Whateve, pregnancy does not effect a mans health, life or, safety in any way.

reply from: spinvortex

LOL Whateve, pregnancy does not effect a mans health, life or, safety in any way.
I think the point was valid. You don't think a man can be stressed by his responsibility to his pregnant wife and unborn child? Surely you understand that stress affects your health? I don't think anyone argued that pregnancy affects the father to the extent it might the mother, and I did not interpret the argument as in any way diminishing the role of women in reproduction. The poster even specifically clarified that.
Are you really asserting that getting a woman pregnant in no way affects a man's life, even if you are unwilling to concede that it could conceivably affect his health? I think you are in denial. It's not that hard to understand.

reply from: BossMomma

LOL Whateve, pregnancy does not effect a mans health, life or, safety in any way.
I think the point was valid. You don't think a man can be stressed by his responsibility to his pregnant wife and unborn child? Surely you understand that stress affects your health? I don't think anyone argued that pregnancy affects the father to the extent it might the mother, and I did not interpret the argument as in any way diminishing the role of women in reproduction. The poster even specifically clarified that.
Are you really asserting that getting a woman pregnant in no way affects a man's life, even if you are unwilling to concede that it could conceivably affect his health? I think you are in denial. It's not that hard to understand.
And what exactly is a man's responsibility to his pregnant wife that stresses him out so much more than before she was pregnant? If it's the worrying that holy shyte I might have to cough up child support if she keeps it I feel no sympathy. Neither my husband nor my bf after my divorce underwent stress as they were typically in their own little world while I was in mine.
It was my big pregnant ass that took care of the cooking and the cleaning and then went to work and later when the kid was delivered (also my job) it was me who cared for the baby. Neither of them played any real part in parenting until the kids were toddlers and old enough to play with. Now, what exactly about pregnancy effects a man's life, health or, safety? And further more what does a man do for his unborn child? Nadda damned thing because he can't.

reply from: LindaMc

Had I not known better, I'd swear this poster was a pro-borter

reply from: DrPhil

I'm guessing you've never been a father. I assure you that all my wife's pregnancies affected my life, health, and body. It is a big responsibility, becoming a father...
So lemme guess..you went through morning sickness, acid reflux, swollen ankles, knee and joint pain, sleep deprivation, back pain, pressure on the lungs, heart burn, fatigue, syncope, fluctuating blood pressure and sugar, mood altering hormone fluctuations, braxton hicks, constipation, labor and finally squeezing something the size of a watermelon out of an opening the size of a lemon? Yeah, when a man goes through all that then they can tell me how it affected their health, life and, body.
So, to be fair, pregnancy does not effect a woman's "health, life, and body" unless she experiences all these symptoms. You will, of course, assert that you experienced each and every one...
Let's be honest here. In a later response, you as much as conceded that pregnancy affects the father, but simply asserted that you "have no sympathy" for him based on the implied assumption that men only real care about themselves, and not their children, or the mothers of their children.
I have noticed that you have shared much about your private life on this forum, and I think you thrive on responses from prolifers that emphasize your bravery and self sacrifice, essentially painting you as a heroine, while you paint men as villains. This latter is neither fair nor accurate, since you seem to be judging all men based on your experiences with "deadbeats." I think this serves your purpose, even though I suspect that, on an intellectual level, you realize what I'm saying is true.
In short, I believe you are "attention seeking," and your responses are intended to put the spot light back on you. I understand you've been hurt and treated unfairly, but I don't think you are owning your own responsibility for your choices, and are playing "the blame game" in order to elicit sympathy as part of your attention seeking. You are clearly emotionally needy (as are we all), and attempting to meet your emotional needs in the best way you can, and I don't fault you for that (we all do this, including me), but please do not allow these needs to eclipse all else, including reason and personal integrity. There are other things in this world that are equally important, and you can't reasonably expect to be allowed to make everything about you.

reply from: BossMomma

Well, if you don't want a kid then keep your sperm out of a woman's vagina, that way you don't get traumatized over having to be a man and no one has to die.

reply from: BossMomma

I'm guessing you've never been a father. I assure you that all my wife's pregnancies affected my life, health, and body. It is a big responsibility, becoming a father...
So lemme guess..you went through morning sickness, acid reflux, swollen ankles, knee and joint pain, sleep deprivation, back pain, pressure on the lungs, heart burn, fatigue, syncope, fluctuating blood pressure and sugar, mood altering hormone fluctuations, braxton hicks, constipation, labor and finally squeezing something the size of a watermelon out of an opening the size of a lemon? Yeah, when a man goes through all that then they can tell me how it affected their health, life and, body.
So, to be fair, pregnancy does not effect a woman's "health, life, and body" unless she experiences all these symptoms. You will, of course, assert that you experienced each and every one...
Let's be honest here. In a later response, you as much as conceded that pregnancy affects the father, but simply asserted that you "have no sympathy" for him based on the implied assumption that men only real care about themselves, and not their children, or the mothers of their children.
I have noticed that you have shared much about your private life on this forum, and I think you thrive on responses from prolifers that emphasize your bravery and self sacrifice, essentially painting you as a heroine, while you paint men as villains. This latter is neither fair nor accurate, since you seem to be judging all men based on your experiences with "deadbeats." I think this serves your purpose, even though I suspect that, on an intellectual level, you realize what I'm saying is true.
In short, I believe you are "attention seeking," and your responses are intended to put the spot light back on you. I understand you've been hurt and treated unfairly, but I don't think you are owning your own responsibility for your choices, and are playing "the blame game" in order to elicit sympathy as part of your attention seeking. You are clearly emotionally needy (as are we all), and attempting to meet your emotional needs in the best way you can, and I don't fault you for that (we all do this, including me), but please do not allow these needs to eclipse all else, including reason and personal integrity. There are other things in this world that are equally important, and you can't reasonably expect to be allowed to make everything about you.
And I think you, being the typical newb who reads a day or two's worth of posts and thinks he knows someone are a jack ass of epic proportions. I post here once in a great while, in between my kids and my career and my own pro-life work. I post my experiences so that other single mothers who read will see that they are not alone and that they can make it without murder. I do not ask sympathy, nor do I come here looking for help from a bunch of random forum posters whom I have never met in person.
My emotional needs are met by friends, family and, my significant other, one should never bring their emotional needs here as this forum is a crap shoot. I am perfectly reasonable, but a man whining about what he endures during pregnancy is laughable. His work doesn't even start until birth and if he is that worried about being a father and having to man up then maybe he should keep his sperm to himself. Women endure massive physical and emotional changes, many of which are unpleasant at the least.

reply from: BossMomma

Had I not known better, I'd swear this poster was a pro-borter
How do you get that from my post?

reply from: DrPhil

Well, if you don't want a kid then keep your sperm out of a woman's vagina, that way you don't get traumatized over having to be a man and no one has to die.
Yes, and to be fair, if you had kept your own knees together, we might not be having to listen to your irrational condemnation of males now, right? (Just helping you "keep it real")

reply from: DrPhil

Keep your legs together, and you won't have to be traumatized over being a woman, subjected to all the physical effects of pregnancy and bad treatment at the hand of males, who are all obviously scumbags. Fair enough?
You have totally missed every point made here, as far as I can tell.

reply from: DrPhil

I was reading here long before you joined this forum, and read nearly everything posted here, including your posts. I'm confident I know just about everything you ever shared here. I remember when you purported to be prochoice, and the circumstances surrounding your "conversion." I will, however, refrain from sharing my thoughts on that subject, since you are obviously not receptive to males. I do think you might benefit from counseling (with a female counselor, of course) to address the issues you obviously have regarding men.

reply from: BossMomma

You had a point? All I saw was a large grouping of assumptions about a person you don't know who has endured things that you couldn't possibly understand. And I did keep my legs together, it's more fun that way but you can still get pregnant.

reply from: BossMomma

I was reading here long before you joined this forum, and read nearly everything posted here, including your posts. I'm confident I know just about everything you ever shared here. I remember when you purported to be prochoice, and the circumstances surrounding your "conversion." I will, however, refrain from sharing my thoughts on that subject, since you are obviously not receptive to males. I do think you might benefit from counseling (with a female counselor, of course) to address the issues you obviously have regarding men.
I have no issue with men until they start pissing and whining over a female issue like pregnancy. It's bad enough that a large percentage of abortions are because the man was unsupportive or threatened harm to the woman, now they want to claim they suffer "suicidal anxiety" during a woman's pregnancy? I don't need counceling, men need to pull their heads out of their rectums.
I am not receptive to your attempt at psycho analysis, you don't know me, you don't know what I've been through as all you know if what I've shared. It's not the same as going through it. Now do you have anything intelligent to say or shall we return to the abortion topic at hand?

reply from: DrPhil

I don't believe this is true. You showed obvious resentment for males on this thread, despite the poster explaining that s/he was playing "devil's advocate" to make a point. The point was obviously that males could make some of the same arguments prochoicers make for a woman's "right" to have their offspring killed. It is obviously hypocritical to deny men a say in this "choice" based on the arguments presented, and clearly the prochoicers are reluctant to address this obviously (to me, at least) valid point.

reply from: BossMomma

Well, if you don't want a kid then keep your sperm out of a woman's vagina, that way you don't get traumatized over having to be a man and no one has to die.
Yes, and to be fair, if you had kept your own knees together, we might not be having to listen to your irrational condemnation of males now, right? (Just helping you "keep it real")
Actually on several occasions I did keep my knees together, unfortunately it doesn't prevent pregnancy it just makes conception more pleasurable..

reply from: DrPhil

Oh, and you view pregnancy as a strictly "female issue?" Isn't that a common prochoice position?

reply from: DrPhil

Clearly, this is my cue to not waste further time and effort attempting to reason with you. You are obviously being deliberately obtuse, since I'm certain you understood that "keeping your knees together" was a euphemism for abstinence.

reply from: BossMomma

Clearly, this is my cue to not waste further time and effort attempting to reason with you. You are obviously being deliberately obtuse, since I'm certain you understood that "keeping your knees together" was a euphemism for abstinence.
I was supposed to be abstinate with my husband? That is grounds for divorce in this country. A penis in a vagina does not become a pregnancy until the man makes his sperm deposit. Keep the sperm out of the equation and it's just pleasure and bonding.

reply from: BossMomma

Oh, and you view pregnancy as a strictly "female issue?" Isn't that a common prochoice position?
No, that's a common sense issue. The man's work does not come into play until birth. You tell me, what does a man do for a fetus besides add to it's genetic make-up in those delightful few moments of orgasm?

reply from: Spock

I provided both financial and emotional support for my wife during and after pregnancy, and the pregnancy definitely affected my life during and after. Obviously she alone did the gestating, but I don't think that was the point. I can say that the pregnancy affected my health as well, although admittedly (and obviously) not in the same way or to the same extent it affected her. I think the point was that women might say they could become suicidal if not allowed to abort, so pregnancy is life threatening even if there are no physical complications, but a man could conceivably make the same argument. I admit I may be oversimplifying the argument as I understand it, but I think I get the gist of it, and it's a valid point in my view. It challenges the prochoice contention that pregnancy is strictly a female concern, and that it only potentially affects the mother, therefore logically leaving the abortion decision solely up to the mother based on the assumption that only her life could conceivably be affected.
I don't think Momma got this at all. I thought it was a good point myself. If we assume that the potential for serious negative affects as a result of pregnancy exists during (and/or after) pregnancy in every case, and that this justifies abortion in every case, then we must either concede that the father is due the same consideration or accept that we are applying a double standard resulting in obvious gender bias. This basically implies that women are important, but males insignificant, that her life is a legitimate concern, justifying a "choice" to kill their unborn offspring, but his life is not!

reply from: joueravecfous

Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:
exhaustion
altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
nausea and vomiting
heartburn and indigestion
constipation
weight gain
dizziness and light-headedness
bloating, swelling, fluid retention
hemmorhoids
abdominal cramps
yeast infections
congested, bloody nose
acne and mild skin disorders
skin discoloration
mild to severe backache and strain
increased headaches
difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
increased urination and incontinence
bleeding gums
pica
breast pain and discharge
swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
inability to take regular medications
shortness of breath
higher blood pressure
hair loss
tendency to anemia
curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed and
are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
extreme pain on delivery
hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)
Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:
stretch marks
loose skin
permanent weight gain or redistribution
abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
pelvic floor disorder
changes to breasts
varicose veins
scarring from episiotomy or c-section
other permanent aesthetic changes to the body
increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
Occasional complications and side effects:
spousal/partner abuse
hyperemesis gravidarum
temporary and permanent injury to back
severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses
pre-eclampsia
eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
gestational diabetes
placenta previa
anemia
thrombocytopenic purpura
severe cramping
embolism (blood clots)
medical disability requiring full bed rest
diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
mitral valve stenosis
serious infection and disease
hormonal imbalance
ectopic pregnancy
broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
hemorrhage and
numerous other complications of delivery
refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
severe post-partum depression and psychosis
Less common (but serious) complications:
peripartum cardiomyopathy
cardiopulmonary arrest
magnesium toxicity
severe hypoxemia/acidosis
massive embolism
increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease
malignant arrhythmia
circulatory collapse
placental abruption
obstetric fistula
More permanent side effects:
future infertility
permanent disability
death.

reply from: Spock

Does anyone have a similarly bloated list of potential complications and side effects from abortion? It would seem to me that aborting does not eliminate the risks, it merely swaps one set of risks for another.

reply from: Spock

A pregnant woman is already exposed to the risks associated with pregnancy, since she is already pregnant, right? If she aborts, it would seem to me she has effectively expanded her list of potential risks to include the risks of both pregnancy and abortion. Shouldn't we logically be comparing the risks of childbirth against the risks of abortion if this is a valid point?
At any rate, I thought the thread was about men, and had evolved to a discussion of the potential effects of pregnancy on men, and the implications of these effects in light of justifications for the abortion decision?

reply from: SpitMcGee

Both procedures have their risks, but there are many more risks associated with full-term pregnancy and childbirth than there are for legal, non-late-term abortions.
But that's not the point anyway. The point is that the woman should have the right to choose which risky medical procedure is for her.

reply from: Spock

No, the point is that no one should have a right to cause their offspring to exist inside their bodies, then kill their offspring in order to prevent said offspring from being where they caused them to be.
See how that works? Anybody can just say "this is how it should be," but that's just their opinion, not a factual statement, and really proves nothing.

reply from: LindaMc

I hear a lot of rhetoric from pro-choicers describing the baby as like, a parasite, harming a woman's health, life, safety, etc., blah blahs....
I don't know why, because the things you write here tend to set me off, but I like you BossMomma. I've seen pics of you online, you're a pretty girl and it saddens me that you will never know what it's like to be loved by a good man, because the losers you loved before jaded you. We can't control who we fall in love with, emotions can't be forced or ignored; but we can choose who we spend time with. If we, as women, would be better at discerning the character of the men we meet, not date the bad actors, and give the nice "boring" guy a chance to melt our hearts, then we wouldn't give the losers a chance to destroy our hearts and lives. I know you say you're lesbian now, but you're still young, don't get into the habit of acting all stud now, it's a hard one to break, and there are good men out there, men with character, and they don't like stud-broads! LOL

reply from: LexIcon

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/unplannedpregnancy/possiblesideeffects.html

reply from: natalie

hi all,
I agree that an abortion is not just about the woman. A man should have a say in what happens to his child. I am very passionate about my pro- life stand. I am a mother to an unwanted at the time child. I never once thought about having an abortion. And now my son is my world. I wish his father felt the same. These women need to wake up and see that it isnt their bodies..... it is that baby's life and the fathers heart.

reply from: BossMomma

I hear a lot of rhetoric from pro-choicers describing the baby as like, a parasite, harming a woman's health, life, safety, etc., blah blahs....
I don't know why, because the things you write here tend to set me off, but I like you BossMomma. I've seen pics of you online, you're a pretty girl and it saddens me that you will never know what it's like to be loved by a good man, because the losers you loved before jaded you. We can't control who we fall in love with, emotions can't be forced or ignored; but we can choose who we spend time with. If we, as women, would be better at discerning the character of the men we meet, not date the bad actors, and give the nice "boring" guy a chance to melt our hearts, then we wouldn't give the losers a chance to destroy our hearts and lives. I know you say you're lesbian now, but you're still young, don't get into the habit of acting all stud now, it's a hard one to break, and there are good men out there, men with character, and they don't like stud-broads! LOL
I'm loved by a good woman, I'm a lesbian in a very happy relationship and no, I'm hardly a stud-broad. I act feminine, dress feminine and not masculine at all.

reply from: QueenJ

Oh my. You didn't just really say that, did you? Could you be any more offensive and dismissive? Did you, with absolute sincerity, pull out the tired, "if you just found the right man," line? Lesbians are not lesbians because they just haven't found the "right" man yet. Lesbians are lesbians because they are attracted to females. End of story.

reply from: QueenJ

Oh, and men? Say all you want about abortion. Express what you wish to happen to a pregnancy you've created to your heart's content. But when it comes down to it, women have the final say in what happens. Not fair? Life isn't fair. Deal with it.

reply from: QueenJ

The Possible Side Effects of an Appendectomy
Certain risks are present when any operation is performed under general anesthesia and the abdominal cavity is opened.
* Pneumonia and collapse of the small airways (atelectasis) often occurs. Patients who smoke are at a greater risk for developing these complications.
* Thrombophlebitis, or inflammation of the veins, is rare but can occur if the patient requires prolonged bed rest.
* Bleeding can occur but rarely is a blood transfusion required.
* Adhesions (abnormal connections to abdominal organs by thin fibrous tissue) are a known complication of any abdominal surgery such as appendectomy. These adhesions can lead to intestinal obstruction that prevents the normal flow of intestinal contents.
* Hernia is a complication of any incision. However, they are rarely seen after appendectomy because the abdominal wall is very strong in the area of the standard appendectomy incision.
The overall complication rate of appendectomy depends upon the status of the appendix at the time it is removed.
* If the appendix has not ruptured, the complication rate is only about 3%.
* However, if the appendix has ruptured, the complication rate rises to almost 59%.
* Wound infections do occur and are more common if the appendicitis was severe, far advanced, or ruptured.
* An abscess may also form in the abdomen as a complication of appendicitis.
* Occasionally, an appendix will rupture prior to its removal, spilling its contents into the abdominal cavity. Peritonitis or a generalized infection in the abdomen will occur. Treatment of peritonitis as a result of a ruptured appendix includes removal of what remains of the appendix, insertion of drains (rubber tubes that promote the flow of infection inside the abdomen to outside of the body), and antibiotics.
* Fistula formation (an abnormal connection between the cecum and the skin) rarely occurs. It is only seen if the appendix has a broad attachment to the cecum and the appendicitis is far advanced, causing destruction of the cecum itself.
The complications associated with undiagnosed, misdiagnosised, or delayed diagnosis of appendicitis are very significant. This has led surgeons to perform an appendectomy any time that they feel appendicitis is the diagnosis. Most surgeons feel that in approximately 20% of their patients, a normal appendix will be removed. Rates much lower than this would seem to indicate that the diagnosis of appendicitis was being frequently missed.
http://www.surgery.com/procedure/appendectomy/risks

reply from: BossMomma

Oh my. You didn't just really say that, did you? Could you be any more offensive and dismissive? Did you, with absolute sincerity, pull out the tired, "if you just found the right man," line? Lesbians are not lesbians because they just haven't found the "right" man yet. Lesbians are lesbians because they are attracted to females. End of story.
No sh!t, my relationship feels more natural than it ever did with a man. My girl friend and I don't argue, we disagree and then come to a compromise. There is equality between us, we are two women behaving as two women, no one plays at being a man in this relationship. Both of us have long hair well..mine has grown past my shoulders so that's long for me. We both wear dresses and skirts, we go shoe shopping, oogle cute baby clothes for my girls and all that fun stuff that most woman enjoy. And then, we go to the shooting range and unload a clip or two, good times.

reply from: QueenJ

That's awesome. I'm glad you're happy. It's always nice to hear about the success stories of love.
And as an aside, don't feel as though you have to prove your femininity to anyone. Who's to tell you or anyone else that going to the shooting range (for instance) isn't feminine? If you're a woman and you like doing it, then it's feminine! Socially constructed gender roles and stereotypes are so 1950. It's ridiculous that SO many people today seem to still be clinging on to those archaic ideas and standards. (Hopefully that all made sense!)

reply from: BossMomma

That's awesome. I'm glad you're happy. It's always nice to hear about the success stories of love.
And as an aside, don't feel as though you have to prove your femininity to anyone. Who's to tell you or anyone else that going to the shooting range (for instance) isn't feminine? If you're a woman and you like doing it, then it's feminine! Socially constructed gender roles and stereotypes are so 1950. It's ridiculous that SO many people today seem to still be clinging on to those archaic ideas and standards. (Hopefully that all made sense!)
It made sense. We do steryotypical female things because we enjoy them, we like getting our hair and nails done because lets face it, it feels good to look pretty. We enjoy our trips to the spa because we like the masseuse who turns us to complete mush. At the range we try to out do each other, who can get that perfect shot dead center, loser buys dinner. Just fun stuff.

reply from: CDC700

*Yawn*
Why is it that every time someone brings up a Man's right concerning his children, someone tries to drag gay women into it? If you feel the need to try to swap gender roles, that's your business. It's absolutely disgusting and immoral, but like so many other immoral things, it is becoming more "socially acceptable" in today's world. Being a woman "Loving" another woman does not give you any greater insight to this issue than a psychologically sound person. I believe God should have the final say when it comes to the birth of a child, and I have yet to hear of him coming into the picture with a syringe and pair of scissors. If a woman finds herself to weak to carry a child, it is indeed up to the father to provide the financial and emotional support she needs to carry the baby to term. If she doesn't want to be a mom after birth, that's up to her. The baby is God's child and the mother's body as well.

reply from: sweet

Father's are responsible for their children in the womb. They are supposed to protect their pregnant woman.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics