Pro-Choice: WHO's Choice Is It? [Archive]

Digital Masta

02-17-2006, 06:29 PM

what an interesting topic. You know, some states have the law where a women has to get a man's consent in order to have an abortion.

I am fiercey pro abortion. It is a females choice only. Men should just shut up and have nothing to do with it. I mainly mean in the cases where men are anti-abortion. However, if the couple is married, of course a man should have something to say about it. Like what if a man wants to have a kid but his wife doesn't? Then it's alright for men to be "anti choice"

However, one of the few feministrage things about me are when men are fiercely anti abortion and try to deny women the right to an abortion. For some women, being pregnant is nothing more than a parasite sucking at your vital juices and making you miserable for 9 months. Some women just screw up and need an abortion. if I were to somehow get pregnant right now, I most likey would opt for an abortion and my boyfriend would support me.

I dislike it when men are pro choice. If anyone here is very pro choice and you're vocal about it, expect to hear something from me :|. I'll try to be as nice as I can be though :angel:

Only if the couple is married should the man have a say?

The woman didn't get that way by herself. Its a team effort. Also women don't get abortions because of the woes of the 9 months of pregency...I think the ENTIRE LIFETIME you have to spend supporting the kid weighs slightly higher than the actual pregnancy.

That is also a team effort...assuming the man is around...if not then do whatever you want but if he is its not just her decision...granted in the end if she really wants to have it done she can have it done regardless. But to say that the man should just shut up and not say anything is foolish.

Also what if she does want to keep it and he doesn't? Should he be free to not take care of that child because...SHE wanted it not him and since he has no say, why should he take care of the kid?

The woman has to deal with it by herself for 9 months...after that its 2 people's responsibility, for the rest of their lives. Its short-sighted to think its only the woman's choice because of the 9 month pregnancy when after that your parents for the rest of your life.

By the way I am pro-choice just so you know.

MrQ

02-17-2006, 06:30 PM

Digital Masta

02-17-2006, 06:39 PM

The good ol' abortion guilt trip.

In the end...doesn't really matter what we think its still illegal to deny the right to it so what are we gonna do?

MrQ

02-17-2006, 06:53 PM

The good ol' abortion guilt trip.

In the end...doesn't really matter what we think its still illegal to deny the right to it so what gotta we gonna do?

I think it has something more to do with making people aware of this legal right they now have.

For a long time the proponents of abortion convinced us that babies in the womb are not human. Its easier for a woman to have an abortion if she thinks shes killing nothing compared to a baby.

Thankfully science has refuted this lie.

Digital Masta

02-17-2006, 06:54 PM

Unrelated note:

I see that you quoted me...
Wow I really need to re check what I type...seriously I think to fast for my fingers and so I think I type the right word when the grammar is entirely off.

GOD I SOUND LIKE A FOOL

Jess

02-17-2006, 06:57 PM

First off, let's get rid of the spurious argument that cases of rape, incest, and where the life of the mother is in danger are good examples of reasons why abortion on demand is needed. Almost everyone can agree that these cases can remain legal reasons to seek an abortion, though many Pro-Life people might argue that the child is innocent of any wrongdoing and doesn't deserve death. By far, the hardest case is when the life of the mother is in serious danger, because no one wants to be in the position of choosing one life over the other. In any case, these cases are, all together, still a vanishingly small fraction of all the abortions that take place in the United States today.

Pro-Choice's main argument is that it's the woman's choice to do what she wants with her body. She deserves to have "reproductive choice". The problem with this is she already made her choice when she had sex. Afterward, when she finds herself pregnant, it's no longer her choice, her choice was already made. She definitely doesn't have the right to kill another human being just because it's inconvenient for her to be pregnant or have a baby. All sort of things can be claimed. Her birth control method may have failed, but she chose to have the sex, therefore her time of choice is over, she made the choice to run the risk, she made the choice to play the odds, and she lost. Now the choice is out of her hands, because another person's life is at risk.

An interesting sidebar is that all this talk of a woman's reproductive rights completely ignores the rights of the father, who legally has no say in whether his partner murders his child.

Next a Pro-Choice person might argue that the woman's not murdering anyone because it's just a fetus the woman is having taken out of her body, a blob of flesh, if you will. Since premature babies can survive even when delivered very early, a Pro-Choice proponent might even concede that late-term abortions might be considered murder, since the baby could survive outside of the womb, but surely young fetuses, such as those in the first trimester, are only small blobs of cells. If, after all, the fetus cannot survive outside of the mother's body, it can't be considered a life, can it?

The problem is, when does one rule that a fetus (my, I am being politically correct here) is a person, when does it have the right to life? In other words, when can it be said to have a soul?

There are two extreme positions. First off, the fetus has a soul from the second of conception. Secondly, it doesn't have a soul until after it is outside of its mother's body. The number of premature babies and botched abortions that survive, however would seem to argue against the second extreme. As for the first extreme, some find it difficult to imagine anything with only 12 or 13 cells having a soul. Many would tend to think that it's somewhere in between the two extremes. Maybe the first point in time where a premature baby can survive outside the womb would be a good solution? Of course, this implies that as technology improves and as premature babies are able to survive being born earlier and earlier, that the soul arrives in the baby earlier and earlier to keep pace with technology.

In fact, there is no objective way to judge when a fetus becomes an unborn baby. Arbitrary dates can be set, but that's all they are-arbitrary. Since this is the case, wouldn't it seem that the only moral thing to do is err on the side of saving a life? Wouldn't you rather refuse to kill something that may not be human than kill a human being simply because its existence happens to be inconvenient at the time?

Of course, all of these suppositions ignore that fact that no matter when it is decided that a fetus is still non-human, and thus killable, it's still always a potential person. It will still develop into a human with a soul if allowed to mature. So even if someone believes they're only killing a non-human soulless blob of flesh, that blob of flesh may one day have become genius engineer or a great musical composer, or even just a loving parent, or someone's good friend. Thus I would argue that anyone that values human life (sometimes it seems like the existence of such people is a big supposition) would do whatever they could to avoid abortion on moral grounds.

Next a well-meaning Pro-Choice advocate might argue that it's cruel to allow an unwanted child to enter the world. It wouldn't be loved enough, it might be abused or live its life in poverty, it's cruel to allow such children to enter the world. I've always been especially angered by this argument, because it purposely avoids one of the most obvious solutions to avoiding abortion-adoption. There are so many couples that want a baby so desperately that they are willing to spend themselves into poverty on fertility treatments and adoption attempts. All we need is a well run adoption agency of some sort to connect babies with loving and capable parents. The woman with the unwanted baby will only have to carry the baby to term. After it's delivered the woman can get on with her life, and she doesn't have to kill her baby to do it. She gives it to a couple that will take care of it and love it, maybe even better than the girl could have done on her own.

Of course, this argument ignores the simple fact that it's never right to take a life simply because they might not have a life that someone else deems to be worth living. Who judges whose life will be worthy of living and whose won't? Poverty can hardly be used to determine who should live or not, unless someone seriously wants to argue that the poor should be killed for their own good as well? So, how about not being loved enough? Who determines how much a child should be loved? How should love be measured? How happy should a life be? Maybe a senior citizen's life should be ended. They may be in pain from arthritis or some other ailment, and they probably have lost many loved ones and friends to death anyway. Besides, their families don't always visit very often. They probably aren't very happy either. No one's seriously suggesting that seniors with non-fatal diseases should be killed for their own good, because they might be able to live a happier life than they're currently living, are they? Obviously this entire argument is spurious and can't be used as a strong support for abortion.

Some people also feel that abortion must be used to curb a growing world population. At least this sounds like a better reason than that the mother finds having a baby too inconvenient right now. Ignoring the draconian measures justified by this sort of reasoning in China, can anyone really believe, in light of my previous arguments, that this is the best way to go about such population control? If society is willing to kill a potential human through abortion to control the population, why should it stop there? This can easily lead to the sort of eugenics we already experienced back in the 1920's and 30's, or even a more arbitrary selection system. Some extremists might believe that the ends justify the means, but that's hardly a mainstream view.

Then there's the justification that people are going to get abortions anyway. The government should keep them legal so they can be regulated and kept safe, rather than having illegal procedures performed in back alleys that kill many women and leave others infertile. In the same vein, let's legalize illegal drugs. And hey, if we didn't make theft illegal, fewer thieves would feel they had a good reason to kill the people they robbed in order to keep the money they stole. It would save lives!

The truth is that this argument is the worst sort of relativism. Legalizing any sort of crime or evil simply in order to be able to say that society has control over it is foolish, first of all, because you're really allowing the vice to control you and your society. It's also ignoring the fact that this will be seen as justifying the behavior, whatever it is, as right and good under the laws of your society. In a few years this formerly undesirable behavior, under the sponsorship of society's laws, will become the norm.

Ignoring all religious references, most societies have a common set of rules. Whether you believe that these rules are set down by a Supreme Being or simply an effect of the fact that societies that don't hold these values aren't internally stable, it must be admitted that ignoring this common set of core human values is dangerous and foolish. Among the most basic of these values is that human life is a precious thing. Can we, as humans, ignore this?

Look, here's another way for me to put it. Pro-Choice people tend to have abortions, thus decreasing the number of children they have, whereas Pro-Life proponents conceive and bear their children, and if the child is unwanted it is adopted by parents that are probably horrified at the idea of killing their own unborn babe. Pro-Choice people are literally killing themselves off. Which seems like healthy behavior, and which seems self-destructive? Which seems like a healthy path for our society to follow, and which seems self-defeating?

Jay

02-17-2006, 06:59 PM

You know. I'm not at the least offended what eyez had to say...

I wasn't referring to you. It was just a stupid, retarded post.

eyez0nme

02-17-2006, 07:03 PM

What is this? How can you say we have a soul--what have you learned in biology? We came from Big Bang, and explosion of nothingness into somethingness, so how are absolutely sure we even have a soul?

Jess

02-17-2006, 07:11 PM

I use "soul" in this case to represent whatever a person considers valuable about human life - the reason we're something more than sacs of squishy flesh. Call it conciousness....call it what you will.

Jay

02-17-2006, 07:14 PM

What is this? How can you say we have a soul--what have you learned in biology? We came from Big Bang, and explosion of nothingness into somethingness, so how are absolutely sure we even have a soul?

How are YOU absolutely sure we came from the big bang?

conners

02-17-2006, 07:15 PM

It's very easy. If the man wants to carry the fetus for nine months it becomes his choice. Otherwise he has no say in the matter and if he wants a kid he can go adopt one.

Kids fucking suck. I'm never having any.

Edit: So what make's eyes so stupid, aside from his inability to tell Brits from Americans and the fact his handle makes him look like an attention whore?

Wait I just answered my own question, never mind.

conners

02-17-2006, 07:38 PM

Look, here's another way for me to put it. Pro-Choice people tend to have abortions, thus decreasing the number of children they have, whereas Pro-Life proponents conceive and bear their children, and if the child is unwanted it is adopted by parents that are probably horrified at the idea of killing their own unborn babe. Pro-Choice people are literally killing themselves off. Which seems like healthy behavior, and which seems self-destructive? Which seems like a healthy path for our society to follow, and which seems self-defeating?

That works both ways you know. A Pro-choice person will only have child they truly want and are willing to invest the effort into raising, so one would assume (or at least hope) that the child will be raised in a living enviroment and end up fairly stable. We all know that supportive enviroments are key to a child's later success and here the kid should get one.

On the flip side pro-lifers will be forced to sacrifice their own well being for unwanted children. Everyone's heard the story where dad had to drop out of college or high school to marry and support his girlfriend after he got her knocked up, right? Now instead of getting a pair of college educated people for the work force (the mom and dad) society is stuck with a pair of unskilled workers. Which case benefits society more? Two college graduates that will wait till later on in life to have fairly well raised kids or two people stuck in a relationship based over a baby they couldn't abort that will likely end up getting a divorce (which costs society money in terms of court time) and a kid wthat will likely have issues? Don't even get me started on the people that pop the kid out and then dump him in an orphanage to rot while other dipshit childless American parents run off to adopt Chinese babies.

As a general comment to pro-lifers, you know hundreds if not thousands of kids die every day in Third World countries, yet the largest pro-life organizations are dedicated to shoving their moral code down my throat and stop the killing of rather than helping save those poor dying kids.

Jay

02-17-2006, 07:40 PM

Edit: So what make's eyes so stupid, aside from his inability to tell Brits from Americans and the fact his handle makes him look like an attention whore?

Wait I just answered my own question, never mind.

:rofl:!!

It's very easy. If the man wants to carry the fetus for nine months it becomes his choice. Otherwise he has no say in the matter and if he wants a kid he can go adopt one.

The man always has a say. Always. Obviously it's the woman that has to carry the child and that's a big mental and physical upheaval, but don't assume that the man doesn't have a say - he's got to help decide if he wants to kill a bundle of cells and if he and his partner have the stability and cash flow to keep the kid and as such effectively start a family. If she decides to carry the child, he's got to help make the decision as to whether or not to put it up for adoption or keep it. Oh sure, it's more of a physical strain on the woman, I don't deny that - but also remember it's just as big a mental strain on the man.

LJGroh

02-17-2006, 07:44 PM

I'm anti-abortion, although I was pro-choice less than a year ago before I had a dramatic change of opinion on the issue.

conners

02-17-2006, 07:52 PM

The man always has a say. Always. Obviously it's the woman that has to carry the child and that's a big mental and physical upheaval, but don't assume that the man doesn't have a say - he's got to help decide if he wants to kill a bundle of cells and if he and his partner have the stability and cash flow to keep the kid and as such effectively start a family. If she decides to carry the child, he's got to help make the decision as to whether or not to put it up for adoption or keep it. Oh sure, it;s more of a physical strain on the woman, I don't deny that - but also remember it's just as big a mental strain on the man.

So right, lets say I have a little recreational sex this weekend. Well I will, but anyways birth control is used but the condom breaks and I got the little sperm cruising around inside of me. Problem. So what if I end up preggers? I'm supposed to put my college career on hold to deal with an unwanted kid. Drop out? Try to make it through finals with the little rat bastard kicking away inside my womb? No more hockey, no more football with the guys, no more anything basically. No man has any right to ask me give up all that because of a few hundred cells in me (the morning after pill will be used to deal with the fertiziled egg before it gets beyond that size). I have no problem with the boy trying to stand up for the kid, but I feel he should have no legal say, at least not at a level that can force me to give up nine months of my life.

Darkblade

02-17-2006, 07:54 PM

i cant believe no one has brought up the "exception"

A woman is raped and later finds out she is pregnant. Its bad enough the person was raped, but then be reminded of it another 9 months and then the pain of childbirth and then to look at the child every day?

anyways, bottom line is: I dont have a vagina, so its not my choice to make. It IS however my choice to take responsibility for my actions and practice either safe sex or abstinence.

LJGroh

02-17-2006, 07:58 PM

A woman is raped and later finds out she is pregnant. Its bad enough the person was raped, but then be reminded of it another 9 months and then the pain of childbirth and then to look at the child every day?

If the fact that the child is half hers genetically (no matter what kind of masochistic fuck-rag the father is) isn't enough for her to love it, than she should give it up for adoption, in my opinion. Because the father is a rapist isn't reason to kill the child, I don't feel.

Jess

02-17-2006, 07:58 PM

That works both ways you know. A Pro-choice person will only have child they truly want and are willing to invest the effort into raising, so one would assume (or at least hope) that the child will be raised in a living enviroment and end up fairly stable. We all know that supportive enviroments are key to a child's later success and here the kid should get one.

:confused:

Since when do you think pro-life people don't want their children?

I personally believe that a person in favor of killing a potential human that might inconvenience them or someone else demonstrates a selfishness that would lead to many more problems down the road than not.

You have no right to take someone's LIFE away from them because their life may not be your version of perfect.

Jay

02-17-2006, 08:01 PM

So right, lets say I have a little recreational sex this weekend. Well I will, but anyways birth control is used but the condom breaks and I got the little sperm cruising around inside of me. Problem. So what if I end up preggers? I'm supposed to put my college career on hold to deal with an unwanted kid. Drop out? Try to make it through finals with the little rat bastard kicking away inside my womb? No more hockey, no more football with the guys, no more anything basically. No man has any right to ask me give up all that because of a few hundred cells in me (the morning after pill will be used to deal with the fertiziled egg before it gets beyond that size). I have no problem with the boy trying to stand up for the kid, but I feel he should have no legal say, at least not at a level that can force me to give up nine months of my life.

So you're apt to go "fuck you man, I'm the woman who has to carry it so I get to decide on my own what I want to do with it"?

Your boyfriend must be one patient man, because that's a very selfish point of view.

BUT READ WHAT I SAID. I'm not disagreeing with you here - I'm just saying that some of the onus is naturally on the man as well, because it's his kid as well, not just the chick's.

eyez0nme

02-17-2006, 08:04 PM

Livre

02-17-2006, 08:07 PM

I'm pro-choice. If you want to have an abortion, you should be given all support to do so. If you want to give birth to a child, you deserve all the support that is offered is my stance. It's easy to go either way on the subject, but you need to respect the other side. There are countless arguements that can be made based on religion, the most clashing being Buddism and Christianity in the interpretation of the soul. But whatever you believe, you cannot force that will onto someone outside your own self. We all have our own paths to follow, and we need to respect the lives of others instead of throwing around remarks.

Jay

02-17-2006, 08:08 PM

How is that selfish? It's her body. It's her baby inside her body. Let her do whatever she wants with it, it's not our problem. Just don't ask--come begging us--for child support if you intend on keeping it.

*cough*

I'm just saying that some of the onus is naturally on the man as well, because it's his kid as well, not just the chick's.

:sarcasm:

conners

02-17-2006, 08:12 PM

I never said pro life children don't want their child. I was merely pointing out that people who are brainwashed into thinking that killing a culture of cells in a womb is morally wrong could easily get stuck with kids they don't want. I know kids to whom that happened in fact. They would have been much happier off whacking the fetus going to college, but now they got a kid they can barely afford and a shithole of a trailer. They can't even afford to take the kid to a doctor when he gets the flu.

What it comes down to is I don't see a fetus as having a soul, nor does a large section of the world. For example Hindus consider the soul to arrive at the time of birth, so killing a fetus before it is born doesn't do anything.

It's all a viewpoint issue, you see it as a child, which it does become and such things like partial birth abortions should be outlawed. But when I swallow a morning after pill I'm merely removing some unwanted cells from my body. There is no scientific way you can consider that small culture of cells a human. It has no developed nervous system, no internal organs or anything.

The system works both ways, I don't see how have the right or be selfish the the point of forcing your moral views on me. So basically we're at an impasse. Given that a pro lifers quality of life is in no way reduced if I go get an abortion (heck how would they even know?) under the American legal system they have no legal right to attempt to stop me.

conners

02-17-2006, 08:14 PM

So you're apt to go "fuck you man, I'm the woman who has to carry it so I get to decide on my own what I want to do with it"?

Your boyfriend must be one patient man, because that's a very selfish point of view.

BUT READ WHAT I SAID. I'm not disagreeing with you here - I'm just saying that some of the onus is naturally on the man as well, because it's his kid as well, not just the chick's.

Prolly why I'm single? No wait, definately why I'm single. I scare 'em away as fast as I can!

I agree the man does have some say in it. I just feel he does not deserve the legal right to block an abortion.

Jay

02-17-2006, 08:18 PM

I agree the man does have some say in it. I just feel he does not deserve the legal right to block an abortion.

Ayup, I agree there. The choice to have an abortion ultimately comes back to the chick, because she's the one that has to carry the child for nine months and put up with being miserable and feeling fat and being sick in the morning and all, but don't just cut the guy out entirely and say screw you, I'll do what I want.

^ My view right there. :)

conners

02-17-2006, 08:20 PM

Ayup, I agree there. The choice to have an abortion ultimately comes back to the chick, because she's the one that has to carry the child for nine months and put up with being miserable and feeling fat and being sick in the morning and all, but don't just cut the guy out entirely and say screw you, I'll do what I want.

^ My view right there. :)

If we did live in a system where the guy could veto my right to abort, I swear to god I'd puke on him every morning. Whoops sorry dear, bad case of morning sickness. Hey you know an abortion would solve all of this. Huuuurrrggghhhhh

LJGroh

02-17-2006, 08:20 PM

I'm pro-choice..as in the female having the choice of an abortion or not. If the girl decide to have the child then great for her. If not, then by all means go for the abortion. Who wants to raise a child when you can't even financially support yourself, especially when you are really young and alone.

Who said adoption wasn't an option? I'm all for not raising a kid you don't want, but who says there aren't others who -want- to raise it, and will give it a proper life?

Agree.

And what would be better anyway? Sending the child off to an orphanage or something where it'll have a broken upbringing at best?

At least that's giving the child a chance.

EDIT: Oh, are you saying that an orphanage is a broken upbringing, if so that's what I was replying to. If you weren't saying that an orphanage=broken upbringing, than ignore what I just said.

eyez0nme

02-17-2006, 08:22 PM

Prolly why I'm single? No wait, definately why I'm single. I scare 'em away as fast as I can!

I agree the man does have some say in it. I just feel he does not deserve the legal right to block an abortion.

Who said we're blocking it? We're encouraging it. Either you abort the fetus, or spend your whole life caring for a kid you and I don't give a shit about , and not make my life miserable in the process. Cause I ain't paying for no child support. You have a kid--it's your fucking problem. Girls, remember that.

conners

02-17-2006, 08:23 PM

Who said we're blocking it? We're encouraging it. Either you abort the fetus, or spend your whole life caring for a kid you and I don't give a shit about don't, and make my life miserable in the process. Cause I ain't paying for no child support. You have a kid--it's your fucking problem. Girls, remember that.

Now Jay, wanna play guess why he is single?

Livre

02-17-2006, 08:26 PM

It shouldn't be just a girl's problem, the guy did have some involvement you know. Don't blame it all on us.

akitaka

02-17-2006, 08:28 PM

Hmm. This has already been discussed, albiet quite a few months ago: http://www.outpostnine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=696&highlight=abortion

I didn't add a comment, however, so I'll just put something in.

==
Consensuality is the most important aspect, the way I see it. Nowadays, there are many people who don't even see themselves as parent-worthy, and yet feel that it's ok to have casual sex. Man or woman, the responsibility isn't apparent; this is a dangerous thing, even with birth control methods.

One person I know had this issue 2 months ago; his long-time girlfriend now have a daughter coming along, but before this, a painful arguement between their families erupted on abortion. His girlfriend wanted to keep the baby, but his family opposed. What was he to do?

Financially, he was unfit for the job; with no college degree or direction, it would be impossible to keep up without family help. I think this is what instigates the issue of abortion far more than reasons of personal preference ("it's my body", women's rights, rape victims).

In the end, though, he chose to walk the difficult road, and became a father. The last time I heard, his family conceded and will also help in care. Though they are stable as of late, the one event of concieving hit them very hard with reality; sex, though pleasurable, was designed for reproduction.

Like many people, they knew about it but weren't prepared to deal with it on their own.

eyez0nme

02-17-2006, 08:29 PM

Jay

02-17-2006, 08:30 PM

Now Jay, wanna play guess why he is single?

Sure.

Is it because he's a fucked up piece of humanflesh with really sexist views on upbringing a child?

:bang:

Livre

02-17-2006, 08:32 PM

You must understand--in order to get a woman, you must treat them like shit. I learned it from Montel, Sally, Maury, Ricki Lake, and the gang of other talk show. Look at them P.I.M.P.S and how they get girls.
And they love it.

You can never assume that that is reality. I'm a girl, and last time a guy tried to hurt me, I slammed him into a wall. If my boyfriend treated me like shit, he'd get it back in kind. Not all girls view that kind of man as attractive. Heck, I'm in a steady relationship with an engineering student. You're regarding women as objects that you do with as you please, who enjoy your abuse.

I hope you know what you're getting into.

conners

02-17-2006, 08:33 PM

Jay win a prize.

Eyez whore wins a kick to the balls with my hockey skates.

Hey Livre, I love ya mindset!

Jay

02-17-2006, 08:37 PM

You can never assume that that is reality. I'm a girl, and last time a guy tried to hurt me, I slammed him into a wall. If my boyfriend treated me like shit, he'd get it back in kind.

The last time I saw a guy treat a girl like shit I broke his jaw. And I've done much worse and will continue to do much worse to people who have the nerve to beat up on women. (Unless of course the woman's a bitch and asks for it - then she's on her own. :P)

eyez0nme

02-17-2006, 08:38 PM

I'm only bringing this up because my girlfriends doesn't want an abortion.

By next week I'll have her agreeing with me.

Livre

02-17-2006, 08:39 PM

The last time I saw a guy treat a girl like shit I broke his jaw. And I've done much worse and will continue to do much worse to people who have the nerve to beat up on women. (Unless of course the woman's a bitch and asks for it - then she's on her own. :P)

Well my opinion on it is, if I punch a guy, I expect him to punch me right back and not wimp out about it >> and vice versa. I hate it when someone says, 'I'd hurt you, but you're a girl'. It makes me feel like we're weaker and lesser.

Edit: And how will you do that? By hurting her because 'she likes it'?

Jay

02-17-2006, 08:42 PM

Well my opinion on it is, if I punch a guy, I expect him to punch me right back and not wimp out about it >> and vice versa. I hate it when someone says, 'I'd hurt you, but you're a girl'. It makes me feel like we're weaker and lesser.

Oh, I agree with you totally. I make it a point to look out for girls and to protect them (I said protect, I'm in no way OVER protective), but if a girl really wants to fight me, I'll happily fight her back.

That said, I don't hit a girl unless she says it's okay for me to.

conners

02-17-2006, 08:42 PM

The last time I saw a guy treat a girl like shit I broke his jaw. And I've done much worse and will continue to do much worse to people who have the nerve to beat up on women. (Unless of course the woman's a bitch and asks for it - then she's on her own. :P)

That's kinda sexist. Woman can fight their own battles you know.

You can hold the door for me though ;).

Praetorian

02-17-2006, 08:44 PM

It is a difficult subject - hopefully, I won't ever have to deal with it myself. I don't really believe in having sex with someone you aren't truly in love with. I don't mind that others do and definitely won't force that opinion upon others - I myself, even though I'm a seventeen year old male atheist, would definitely make an effort to try and have sex only after marriage or when I'm sure I'll definitely spend the rest of my life with that other person. I also want kids. Two or three. Preferebly at least one boy, and at least one girl. But I digress.

I have to admit, I'm kind of tired of people arguing abortion. Hardly anybody is ever going to change their minds about it, and there is no middle way. The whole male-involvement thing makes the issue only harder.

Jay

02-17-2006, 08:44 PM

That's kinda sexist. Woman can fight their own battles you know.

You can hold the door for me though ;).

No, not sexist. If a woman's getting beaten up on, she obviously CAN'T fight her own battle, sweety.

Praetorian

02-17-2006, 08:45 PM

No, not sexist. If a woman's getting beaten up on, she obviously CAN'T fight her own battle, sweety.

Would you help a physically not-so imposing man if he was being beaten up, too?

Livre

02-17-2006, 08:45 PM

I would ^^

eyez0nme

02-17-2006, 08:46 PM

Yo go girl!

Moderator, please delete this retarded thread, including the one about homosexuals.

Thank you.

Jay

02-17-2006, 08:51 PM

*snicker* I told you it was retarded at the outset. XD

Would you help a physically not-so imposing man if he was being beaten up, too?

Of course. If I didn't, that would be sexist.

eyez0nme

02-17-2006, 09:01 PM

Scenario 1:

Woman: I'm pregnant.
Man: OMG!
Woman: I want to give the baby up for adoption.
Man: Now, I want the baby!
Woman: Then I'm gettin an abortion.
Man: But I want a baby!
Woman: Tough shit.
(Woman gets the abortion)

According to the laws as they are now, that's fair.

Scenario 2:

Woman: I'm pregnant.
Man: OMG!
Woman: I want to keep the baby.
Man: No way, I'm not ready to be a father and pay out the ass!
Woman: Tough shit.
(Woman has the baby, takes the man to court and makes him pay child support.)

According to the laws as they are now, that's also fair.

But how, even by the most abstract interpretation of common sense, is either one fair to the man? I mean, where is the man's CHOICE in either situation?

eyez0nme

02-17-2006, 09:02 PM

Woman: I'm pregnant.
Man: Shit!
Woman: Don't worry, I'm getting an abortion.
Man: Cool.

(man goes back to sleep)

:clap: That's how we do things.

Jon885

02-17-2006, 09:03 PM

This is a tough one. A man might want children, and if his partner decides to have an abortion then he's going to be of the mind set that you took away a potential child of his, and you probably should take into consideration his feelings also. But I can't put myself in the position of a woman carrying a baby for 9 months either. Going through pregnancy is something that a lot of women wouldn't want to go through for various reasons, and I can understand why she would want an abortion.

On the other hand I can't imagine what a man is going through who's partner had an abortion, and he didn't agree that she should. I know that guy would probably be damaged for life no matter what logic you use to justify your position that what his partner did was right. I can't decide. I guess I can sympathize with both parties.

And I'm not sure if I'm pro choice or pro life anymore. I know I don't want abortion to be illegal yet though.

Jay

02-17-2006, 09:03 PM

.........In a roundabout way, eyez0nme, that makes sense.

Digital Masta

02-17-2006, 09:05 PM

.........In a roundabout way, eyez0nme, that makes sense.

It makes perfect sense.

Jay

02-17-2006, 09:08 PM

Yes, yes it does.

Now see, eyez0nme wouldn't be so hated if he stated his point in a clear manner, instead of saying "I'd fuck her and leave and let her deal with it".

Meh, maybe I'm just arguing semantics.

gyoza

02-17-2006, 10:48 PM

It's hard to know what to believe, because this is one of those debates where both sides will try to make their side look better. After all, they're called "pro-choice" and "pro-life", not "pro-death" and "anti-choice". Incidentally, I'm pro-life for religious reasons.

eyezonme: those scenarios you raised are tough. There is defintely an element of unfairness in those situations, but the problem is there are so many possible situations that could lead to an abortion, that it's impossible to create a one-size-fits-all law that ensures fairness in all situations. I guess all the guys can do is to act responsibly to prevent these situations from arising in the first place.

MrQ

02-17-2006, 10:52 PM

Angelyne

02-17-2006, 11:09 PM

Why do people even bother debating abortion? Abortion "debates" always almost entirely composed of unconstructive bickering, people posting links to propaganda sites that present opinion as fact, and loads of personal insults. Both sides are guilty of this, too.

Does anyone know someone who has actually changed their stance after participating in such a farce?

Pookie42

02-17-2006, 11:16 PM

I'm just gonna say i'm prochoice but i do believe an abortion shoudl be avoided if possible (therefore abstinence or safe sex pplz!) but when it comes down to it i might have to be a little Peter Singer on this and say its a question of sentience (sp?) and the mother's preference for her life and way of life outweighs that of a few hundred cells. And i agree with whever said earlier that there're already so many children dying in teh third world, lets save them instead of passively letting them die. Furthermore, although ideallyadoption should be an option, will bthere ever be enough parents unable to have their own children or wanting to adopt to balance out the numebr shoved into orphanages? (though actually i intend to adopt a child when i get older)

And yes i did watch that, several times before.

ZaichikArky

02-17-2006, 11:17 PM

I misplaced the quote, but what eyez said about treating women like shit is the most hilarious thing in this topic yet. Women hate being treated like shit. My boyfriend is one of the most kindest people I know. Usually not towards other men, but towards women he is very kind and sometimes overconsiderate. So guess what? I love him. Anytime he deviates from this, I get mad. He never tries to make me angry.

whoever posted that anti-choice website: I viewed the entire 4 or 5 parts of that documentary, and my opinion of abortion has not changed in the least. It was a highly educational video, however, it does not at all change my mind. I'm totally desensitized about the act of killing a fetus. It is sad that it is being killed, however, it was the parents' fault that it is being killed. THey should have been protected and they misjudged. From now on, they will think twice. At least, they should.

Sock Full of Boiled Dimes

02-17-2006, 11:33 PM

I'm just going to throw this out in the air and be a little off topic.

eyez0nme why aren't you banned yet?

Angelyne

02-17-2006, 11:34 PM

I'm just going to throw this out in the air and be a little off topic.

eyez0nme why aren't you banned yet?

I've been wondering this myself.

tambalina

02-17-2006, 11:50 PM

Now I am a board "lurker," but I thought I would throw my two cents in here since I actually have some background on this.

I was in college when I became pregnant. Being terrified, I went to my boyfriend at the time and asked AS A COUPLE what we should do about this. He made it very clear that he wanted to have the baby. We moved in together, I still continued to go to my classes until the morning sickness and fatigue got in the way. I also had a full-time job at the time and he was "looking for work."

It got to the point that we couldn't make ends meet and eventually moved into his mother's house. The entire time we were together he made it seem that he was excited about our baby as I was.

About three months after moving in, he came home from school and told me that he didn't know if he was ready to be a father and a husband (we became engaged right after the "wonderful" news.) He didn't want to be "tied" to someone the rest of his life. That is something a pregnant fiancee should never have to hear right after she hears the baby's heartbeat just the week before.

He told me that he thought it would be best if I had an abortion so that we didn't have to be connected for life. HE CHANGED HIS MIND. Rather than subject myself and my child to man that couldn't promise to take care of his responsibilites, I picked up my stuff left and never looked back. I have never once asked him of anything and have not seen him since that day. My son will be four this April and it has been a very blessed four years. My life would not be the same without him.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that having children is not something that should be taken lightly. ANY woman has to be prepared that the father of her child might someday change his mind about the whole thing and leave her and the baby.

Even if a man decides that he want to have a baby, it is no guarantee that he will stick around to take care of it. On the same token, I have seen many reluctant men become the best father a kid could ask for just at the first sight of seeing something so small and wonderful as their newborn baby.

It is sad to say that more often than not, the responsiblity of parenting usually becomes that of the mother. Because of that reason (and the fact that is is THEIR body and soul that becomes forever changed when she becomes a mother) the woman should be able to decide for herself what choice would be best for her.

I should also say that I am pro-choice, BUT I would never be able to have an abortion myself, accident or not. For me, from the time it is conceived, it is a human being through and through. But MY choice doesn't dictate that is is the right choice for EVERYONE. Everyone should be able to make that decision for themselves. And no one should ever be able to tell anyone else what they can or cannot do when it comes to life matters as important as bringing (or not bringing) another person into this world.

NERD

02-18-2006, 12:00 AM

That was a good post, tambalina. Great to see single parents doing well and kicking ass out there.

I find myself in the same position towards abortion- pro, but if it was my child, I don't think I could do it. But with that said, we are all very different, and we all have different principles in life. So let people make their own choices and live with them. There should be no law controlling such, and in my opinion, abortion counts as such.

OliveButtercup

02-18-2006, 12:07 AM

I'm only bringing this up because my girlfriends doesn't want an abortion.

By next week I'll have her agreeing with me.

wow
nineten

Shamu

02-18-2006, 02:12 AM

snip
I agree with you 100%! And good for you on staying strong! Raising a child on your own is one of the most difficult things someone can do.
I was married before I got pregnant. My daughter was planned and I even had three misscarriages before concieving her (we tried for several months to get pregnant and to actually keep the baby). And even after all that and two years after my daughter was born, and serious talk of having another baby (he was the one that brought the subject up), my ex-husband decided that being married and having a family just wasn't for him. (Side note Two years without him and I'm still going and even happier. Another side note, my daughter will be 4 next month).
I also agree that a woman should be able to choose, but I would never have one for myself. I know all to well the incredible feeling of holding your child for the first time and watching them grow. I could never give that up, no matter what my situation was.

Bob

02-18-2006, 02:31 AM

A man shouldn't have to pay child support if he wanted an abortion

Bob

02-18-2006, 02:47 AM

So right, lets say I have a little recreational sex this weekend. Well I will, but anyways birth control is used but the condom breaks and I got the little sperm cruising around inside of me. Problem. So what if I end up preggers? I'm supposed to put my college career on hold to deal with an unwanted kid. Drop out? Try to make it through finals with the little rat bastard kicking away inside my womb? No more hockey, no more football with the guys, no more anything basically. No man has any right to ask me give up all that because of a few hundred cells in me (the morning after pill will be used to deal with the fertiziled egg before it gets beyond that size). I have no problem with the boy trying to stand up for the kid, but I feel he should have no legal say, at least not at a level that can force me to give up nine months of my life.

But if you wanted to have the baby and the man didn't you wouldn't care if it ruined his life, would you?

Kaji

02-18-2006, 03:02 AM

I know a number of women who have had abortions and been haunted to the point of becoming suicidal as a result of it. Frankly, I think it just isn't worth it. If you don't want a kid, don't put yourself in a situation where you might have one and try being responsible for a change. You're an adult, part of being an adult is living with the consequences of your actions (and if you're a kid playing adult, well, welcome to the world we live in).

Frankly, part of the reason for this issue is the general breakdown of family life in reccent generations. Parents don't want to have to deal with their children if they fuck up their lives, and many children don't want anything to do with their parents if possible, thus leaving us with situations such as the single mother on her own on the street because her parents kicked her out because her boyfriend knocked her up. Unfortunately, people get so caught up in what's fair to them that looking out for the well-being of their fellow man (and particularly those who are in their own family, in this case) gets shoved aside. If people would care for those around them half as much as they cared about being sure that life gave them every penny they were owed, we wouldn't have nearly as many debates like this going on.

ZaichikArky

02-18-2006, 03:34 AM

As a point of reference, some states allow for minors to have abortions without their parents' knowledge, let alone consent.

in california's special election a few months ago, we all voted on a measure to change this. our state allows for minors to have abortions. However, by a small margin, we did not pass that bill. I am happy because I approve of minors having abortions. I do not believe it is wise for them to require parental consent.

NERD

02-18-2006, 04:00 AM

in california's special election a few months ago, we all voted on a measure to change this. our state allows for minors to have abortions. However, by a small margin, we did not pass that bill. I am happy because I approve of minors having abortions. I do not believe it is wise for them to require parental consent.

Oh no children shouldn't be having sex with people that are not priests!

Oh no they shouldn't have sex in the first place, it's not right!

Oh no children shouldn't be killing their own children, all life is precious!

Oh no this all can't be legal!

[/sarcasm off] Just making fun of people, but not thee, ZaichikArky

Roxie

02-18-2006, 04:00 AM

MrQ doesn't seem to realize that being pro-choice isn't equal to saying "abortions tickle, try it".

Also, I do not agree with Kaji's idea of "being responsible for once". Let me tell you that although having a child is one of the biggest life changing events to go through, it doesn't change everyone. Some people should not have ever had children, period. But since, there's not much we can do about that expect for destroy the idea that children are property and beef up their rights, let's try prevention, shall we?

An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We need to fight President Bush's insistence on abstinence only education. It simply does not work and leaves hormonally raging individuals completely incapable of making good decisions and knowing what to do if in trouble.

sedatedmonkey

02-18-2006, 04:08 AM

How do you know they're pro-abortion, though?

90% rule. In the US, the home office of PETA, the vast majority of members are on the left side of the political spectrum as it were. Such demographic is also predominantly pro-choice. A=B=C in a sense. It is a good bet, but there will be outlying contradictions in a minority sense of course.

sedatedmonkey

02-18-2006, 04:13 AM

But if you wanted to have the baby and the man didn't you wouldn't care if it ruined his life, would you?

Bob raises the unsaid question about the other half of the equation. Yes, a woman is the one to bear the pain of the birthing. However, if a woman so chooses, she can become a financial leech upon a man for a good 18 years or so of child support.

The answer to this potential dilemma: Be a real MAN. Not a player trying to score some tang. You won't have to worry about this situation. Keep it in your pants, and no one can nail you with child support.

Are there any Taoists left in the world?

Jon885

02-18-2006, 04:58 AM

ZaichikArky

02-18-2006, 05:06 AM

MrQ it froze my computer. Is this one of those "screamers" but instead of a lady screaming it's a fetus?

yes. it's a documentary describing abortion. Overall, it is not extremely biased HOWEVER it has strong anti-abortion tones. It is about the "silent scream" that is the fetus. The fetus is a sentient "animal". It feels when it's in danger. When it is being killed, it has its mouth open the whole time and it is pathetically trying to "swim away" from the suction. I found this to be slightly over the top, however it is true.

The site was very educational. the narrarator in the footage was dull, however his serious tone went well with the documentary.

Phroexx

02-18-2006, 05:51 AM

Any pro-killing babies on here look at the link I posted yet? Just curious to know if you can watch that and know the facts and still hold your position.

Whoever brings up rape and incest abortions should know thats the smallest percentage of pregnancies around. Dont use that as a figure to justify killing ALL babies who are not wanted. Gimme a break.

Oh, MrQ, you make me sad.

Didn't you know that was fake? (http://www.violence.de/prescott/humanist/abortion.html)

The perception of pain is a complex biological and psychological phenomenon that involves states of "consciousness" which can probably never be fully understood or known for certain stages of fetal development....
The cerebral neocortex that is responsible for complex perceptions is one of the last to develop....
Thus, it can be concluded that neither pain perception nor personhood exists at conception and that the beginning capacity for personhood may only begin at twenty-eight to thirty weeks in utero.

NERD

02-18-2006, 05:54 AM

Phroexx- the link does not work.

fa11en87

02-18-2006, 08:25 AM

Ugh, these issues seem to be never ending. I don't give a damn about the unborn child and that is all. Why can't everyone let eachother do their own thing about this?

Collapse

02-18-2006, 09:09 AM

Because it is a social issue after all. Indifference makes no definite step on the matter, that's why it's on the open.

Of course, I'm pro-life whatsoever, but it's also a dilemma for me since women also have the choice to abort what's inside of them. Heh, to me, any type of killing is still murder. At least, that's how I see it. So for me, it's quite the pain.

And no, I don't usually comprehend to phrases like "Oh my god, you're so narrow-minded!". Break please, that's pretty juvenile.

Praetorian

02-18-2006, 09:11 AM

I guess the point I am trying to make is that having children is not something that should be taken lightly. ANY woman has to be prepared that the father of her child might someday change his mind about the whole thing and leave her and the baby.

It is sad to say that more often than not, the responsiblity of parenting usually becomes that of the mother. Because of that reason (and the fact that is is THEIR body and soul that becomes forever changed when she becomes a mother) the woman should be able to decide for herself what choice would be best for her.

I agree with everything you've said, except for these parts. Single fathers whose mothers abandoned the children are not extremely uncommon. My stepfather had to raise my stepbrother and stepsister most of their lives because the mother suddenly decided she couldn't handle the children anymore when the oldest was aged three.

Also, I know what it's like being raised by a single mother, too.

Annoying MSN Person

02-18-2006, 09:32 AM

Could we please disable this guy's thread starting privileges?

As for abortion, I am all for reducing it dramatically.

There needs to be greater education and promotion of contraceptive methods to the wider population, and (aimed at US) cutting out faith based programs that rely on abstinence with no back up. You can pledge yourself to Jesus all you like, but Cletus in the backseat isn't going to take no for an answer.

You could work on building the self esteem of your children so they don't have to buy into the idea that sexualisation at a young age is a great way to get friends.

You can make sure that abortions are available to all who need them, with the proper counselling and advice to make sure the women and men in this situation are safe and well informed.

People have sex. We have a fucking biological need to do so, but face it. Puberty is outrunning the rate of maturity. Girls have breasts before they know what to do with them. There are going to be accidents. Removing the choice will force people into dangerous situations.

If you're pro life, at least acknowledge that if you want abortions to stop, you have to be prepared to put in a framework to bring them down. And I wish you would focus your attention on life suffering where it already exists, instead of a parasitical cell in a confused female.

The choice goes to the one with the uterus.

Roxie

02-18-2006, 02:56 PM

I agree with everything you've said, except for these parts. Single fathers whose mothers abandoned the children are not extremely uncommon. My stepfather had to raise my stepbrother and stepsister most of their lives because the mother suddenly decided she couldn't handle the children anymore when the oldest was aged three.

Also, I know what it's like being raised by a single mother, too.
Keeping in mind this is quite the international forum, single fathers are extremely uncommon in the USA, where Tam is from.

Phroexx

02-18-2006, 09:45 PM

Phroexx- the link does not work.
fixed. here it is. (http://www.violence.de/prescott/humanist/abortion.html)

Bob

02-19-2006, 12:16 AM

Bob raises the unsaid question about the other half of the equation. Yes, a woman is the one to bear the pain of the birthing. However, if a woman so chooses, she can become a financial leech upon a man for a good 18 years or so of child support.

The answer to this potential dilemma: Be a real MAN. Not a player trying to score some tang. You won't have to worry about this situation. Keep it in your pants, and no one can nail you with child support.

Are there any Taoists left in the world?

That applies to both genders or neither

NERD

02-19-2006, 12:36 AM

ZaichikArky

02-19-2006, 02:38 AM

It's all valid and good.

However, I still say lock this thread and the homosexuality thread started by eyez0nme. It only gives more room to argue without much productivity in between- someone comes up with a good argument, the other discounts the sources/general argument as total BS, flames exchanged, then the whole thread just dies, sucking up a lot of energy from the forum in the end.

In short, it's utterly pointless. In the end, it's the matter of whose voice is louder or more annoying at persistent range.

no... on the contrary I learned a lot about this thread. mainly about how adament I am about pro choice. I also learn about the technicalities of abortion. that pro life site is pretty cool and very educational. it is all silly to argue, but people just need to realize a women is free to do to her body as she pleases. If she has gender dysphoria, she can get a penis, ok? if she wants to abort her child, she can abort her child. If she wants a tattoo on her vagina, well... ok! if she wants a clit ring, fine by me. If she wants to kill herself, well that's very sad and wrong, but she can do this too and of course she can do all of the above in many modern societies....

I support women liberation *feminazi * XD.

Bob

02-19-2006, 03:28 AM

no... on the contrary I learned a lot about this thread. mainly about how adament I am about pro choice. I also learn about the technicalities of abortion. that pro life site is pretty cool and very educational. it is all silly to argue, but people just need to realize a women is free to do to her body as she pleases. If she has gender dysphoria, she can get a penis, ok? if she wants to abort her child, she can abort her child. If she wants a tattoo on her vagina, well... ok! if she wants a clit ring, fine by me. If she wants to kill herself, well that's very sad and wrong, but she can do this too and of course she can do all of the above in many modern societies....

I support women liberation *feminazi * XD.

Oh? Then it should be legal to kick pregnant women who want child support in the stomach if the father wanted an abortion

Stu

02-19-2006, 04:02 AM

Men should just shut up and have nothing to do with it. Wait, can we go back to the part where ZaichikArky explains to me why men cannot be entitled to an opinion on a topic that effects them? I understand that you don't have to like an opinion, or even respect an opinion, but to flat out say that men should not have an opinion is a bridge too far for some.

Or am I taking your quote out of context? Forgive me if I am.

[EDIT]However, I still say lock this thread and the homosexuality thread started by eyez0nme. It only gives more room to argue without much productivity in between- someone comes up with a good argument, the other discounts the sources/general argument as total BS, flames exchanged, then the whole thread just dies, sucking up a lot of energy from the forum in the end.

In short, it's utterly pointless. In the end, it's the matter of whose voice is louder or more annoying at persistent range.Errm... I disagree. I've seen bad taste on forums before, and this doesn't seem too out of line in my experience. Yes, a little heated, but welcome to the topic of abortion, my friend!

NERD

02-19-2006, 04:14 AM

snip

If you learned something from this, that's good. At least there was one purpose for this thread- to educate you. However, it becomes repetitive (no kidding!!!) when there's a thread with the same or similar topic keep popping up.

NERD

02-19-2006, 04:15 AM

[EDIT]Errm... I disagree. I've seen bad taste on forums before, and this doesn't seem too out of line in my experience. Yes, a little heated, but welcome to the topic of abortion, my friend!

You are not my friend, palooka. :bored:

Read my other comment before this one.

Stu

02-19-2006, 04:19 AM

However, it becomes repetitive (no kidding!!!) when there's a thread with the same or similar topic keep popping up.Which one is the repetitive one? The homosexuality one or the abortion one? They seem pretty different topics to me. It's likely that they're not the first threads to wrestle with the ideas of abortion and homosexuality on this board, but if we all did a forum search before hand, we'd be accussed of thread necrophelia.

Seems to me that many people have chipped in their own two cents on the topic, and we've read opinions from people all over the world. I think that's pretty sweet.

NERD

02-19-2006, 04:24 AM

Well, you also have to add in the fact that eyez0nme came up with this thread, and if you know nothing about the guy, do some research- on the second thought, don't.

I'm just sick of the fact that this guy always comes up with hot-button issues without presenting any fresh take on it, nor does he actually offer any valid points of his own, and his purpose of starting those threads seem to be get people pitted against each other and fight each other until one of them dies, or the thread simply dies. It's a different form of trolling, but equally, nay, more annoying.

The English major in me just died with that horrible run-on sentence.

Stu

02-19-2006, 04:28 AM

Well, you also have to add in the fact that eyez0nme came up with this thread, and if you know nothing about the guy, do some research- on the second thought, don't. You may have noticed I'm new here, but literally five minutes before I joined, I did a search on this guy's posts and I thought to myself, "wow, I'm not a big fan."

He really sold me when someone pointed out that the troops were in fact British soldiers attacking children to which he replied, "YA WELL AMERICANS WOULD LIKE TOTALLY DO THE SAME THING AM I RITE?" (paraphrasing a little)

ps calling me a palooka is ill advised. I don't consider myself a stupid washed up boxer. ^______^

NERD

02-19-2006, 04:31 AM

Well, now you know. I'd advise you to stay away from his threads, starting.... now. I'll do the same, of course, so stop quoting me, and stop bringing me back to this thread. I feel so dirty.

I'm not calling you a stupid washed up boxer, and hell, that was the best performance by Bruce Willis in my opinion. Don't take credit for that, I'm just quoting Tarantino. But you are not my friend, because I don't know you. So that's that.

Stay out of this thread. It will save time.

MrQ

02-19-2006, 04:38 AM

Oh, MrQ, you make me sad.

Didn't you know that was fake? (http://www.violence.de/prescott/humanist/abortion.html)

The perception of pain is a complex biological and psychological phenomenon that involves states of "consciousness" which can probably never be fully understood or known for certain stages of fetal development....
The cerebral neocortex that is responsible for complex perceptions is one of the last to develop....
Thus, it can be concluded that neither pain perception nor personhood exists at conception and that the beginning capacity for personhood may only begin at twenty-eight to thirty weeks in utero.

Soooo you are saying they doctored this video? That this baby doesnt feel pain? You have to be joking man. Wake the hell up.

Bob

02-19-2006, 04:39 AM

Soooo you are saying they doctored this video? That this baby doesnt feel pain? You have to be joking man. Wake the hell up.

You're like a retarded eyez0nme

Bob

02-19-2006, 05:01 AM

Quoth the pot to the kettle.

Who are you?

Bob

02-19-2006, 05:06 AM

Neither one.

Thats right, nobody

Bob

02-19-2006, 05:14 AM

Your powers of logic are astounding.

Logic is irrelevant

yao_yao

02-20-2006, 12:16 PM

There needs to be more education on contraceptives... face it, we have a biological drive to have sex, we're hardwired so that it feels good so we continue to do it.

Yes, abortion is a nasty thing, but if we had the education it wouldn't be needed.

Jay

02-20-2006, 12:22 PM

Oh? And what of condoms with a tiny hole in them and the 1% time that the Pill fails?

MNJetter

02-20-2006, 01:46 PM

MrQ, how old is that video? The guy's hairstyle and glasses makes him look like he came straight out of an 80's sitcom. Not to mention the women. Judging from the hairstyles and quality of the video, I'd say early 80's at most - if that's true, that was just a couple years after abortions became legal.

Medical science has changed a lot in the last couple of decades, and believe it or not, so has abortion science. I'm not saying this stuff simply doesn't happen any more, but I doubt the method for abortion is still exactly the same as you saw in the video. Why use a set of dilating rods when you have a drug that can induce it now?

As for the child feeling pain, reaction to physical stimulous is a far cry from the human emotion we know as pain. Even a single-celled organism will attempt to move away from what it percieves to be a danger. That video didn't prove anything on that note.

I am, for the record, ethically anti-abortion, and the video still made me sick. But I laugh in the face of anybody who uses it as a valid resource.

That said, I'd like to introduce a new argument into the thread.

I hate abortion, though I haven't got a religious reason for it. I think that they are given out way too lightly. However, I also think that that legal abortions is a fair sight better than forcing desperate, uneducated young girls to stick hangers up their vaginas in an attempt to do it themselves and end up dying of infection or bleeding too much. Yes, if you have sex, you really ought to be prepared to risk having children. I have absolutely no sympathy for people who have casual sex and end up getting pregnant. If you don't want a baby, either get yourself sterilized or don't have sex.
But that's been said before.

My basic point: I think abortions should be legal insofar as it keeps stupid and irresponsible girls from accidentally killing themselves. The baby, ironically, has nothing to do with my opinion on abortion.

kyaa the catlord

02-20-2006, 02:10 PM

Jay

02-20-2006, 02:11 PM

It's not hard to swallow for a lot of chicks I know... ;)

kyaa the catlord

02-20-2006, 02:13 PM

It's not hard to swallow for a lot of chicks I know... ;)

That gag reflex is overrated anyways.

Jay

02-20-2006, 02:15 PM

Gag reflex? What gag reflex...? :bang:

Encryp

02-20-2006, 02:18 PM

The final decision should be the womans i think, though they should at least consult the father even if it is not his choice.

I think stupid and irresponsible girls should not be having sex. I know, its a hard concept to swallow, but damn... Males of the world listen up, quit knocking up stupid chicks. The dumbing down of the species MUST stop. Unfourtanetly stupid people seem to breed the most.

kyaa the catlord

02-20-2006, 02:19 PM

Gag reflex? What gag reflex...? :bang:

Train your harem right and they will overcome it. :P

Jay

02-20-2006, 02:23 PM

My point is, they don't HAVE a gag reflex. I mean it's cool and all, but sometimes you just want that extra... tight... choke.

Y'know?

conners

02-20-2006, 02:31 PM

I think stupid and irresponsible girls should not be having sex. I know, its a hard concept to swallow, but damn... Males of the world listen up, quit knocking up stupid chicks. The dumbing down of the species MUST stop. :D

Yes, because when I go to the bar I hit on at least a dozen guys every night. Normally I can find at least one good lay, possibly two if he doesn't mind sloppy seconds. But you know I've never once had a guy try to get with me.

*sarcasm off*

Seems like trying to shut the stable door after the horse has left the barn. Teenagers fuck like rabbits, so you might as well accept it. The best bet seems to be making sure effective birth control is easy for them to get their hands on.

I like your eugenics idea though, maybe I should right up a little application for future drunken idiots at the bar. I'll need to see last year's W2, a transcript, standarized testing scores and at least one recent sports trophy! This is a much better system! :clap:

kyaa the catlord

02-20-2006, 02:37 PM

There's your problem, drinking at bars is a sure sign of dumbasshood.

Jay

02-20-2006, 02:45 PM

Hey, bars are good pickup areas.

kyaa the catlord

02-20-2006, 02:49 PM

Hey, bars are good pickup areas.

Yes, but drinking until you're drunk at a bar is dumb. :)

Jay

02-20-2006, 02:50 PM

Well what else do you go to a bar for, dipshit? To see how many pennies will fit into a pintglass? :D

kyaa the catlord

02-20-2006, 02:54 PM

Let the prey get drunk, then pounce.

Jay

02-20-2006, 03:05 PM

But what if you WANT to drink until you get drunk at a bar?

conners

02-20-2006, 03:16 PM

Well what else do you go to a bar for, dipshit? To see how many pennies will fit into a pintglass? :D

I wear something scandalous and sit there with some friends. The minute a guy hits on me, my six foot, 250 pound gorilla / friend stands up and says "What the fuck did you just say to my girl?" The guy gets worried and buys us all a free round to avoid getting the shit beat out of him. Good system.

Jay

02-20-2006, 03:18 PM

Oh, I can relate. I'm 6'4 and 240, I use my size to get away with a lot of shit. :D

kyaa the catlord

02-20-2006, 03:38 PM

But what if you WANT to drink until you get drunk at a bar?

Then you deserve to be ripped off for your liquor.

Personally, I prefer to be drunk and still have bank. :D

kyaa the catlord

02-20-2006, 03:39 PM

I wear something scandalous and sit there with some friends. The minute a guy hits on me, my six foot, 250 pound gorilla / friend stands up and says "What the fuck did you just say to my girl?" The guy gets worried and buys us all a free round to avoid getting the shit beat out of him. Good system.

That's a fine system. You keep the lesser beasts down while gathering rewards for your effort. I support this.

Jay

02-20-2006, 03:49 PM

I support it also.

Digital Masta

02-20-2006, 04:00 PM

Jay

02-20-2006, 04:03 PM

Dude, I'm 6'4" and 240, and I'm overweight. I'm not slightly built either.

Digital Masta

02-20-2006, 04:43 PM

Dude, I'm 6'4" and 240, and I'm overweight. I'm not slightly built either.

I'm a solid dude....I don't look my weight at all....I look like I'm like 220-230.

Jay

02-20-2006, 04:48 PM

I'll take your word for it. :D

Digital Masta

02-20-2006, 04:53 PM

Go into the picture thread

ZaichikArky

02-21-2006, 04:12 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/21/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html

Does anyone else find this apawling? I support late abortion in some cases. In cases where it endangers the mother. this is the case for most of partial birth as well as later abortions....

The federal law in the current case has no health exception, but defenders maintain that the procedure is never medically necessary to protect a woman's health.

I don't think this is accurate. Why would a woman chose to kill a healthy child when she is giving birth to it? She can just as easily adopt it away without endangering her and her infants health. Maybe some sadistic women just don't care, but I know if I or most other women were in that situation, we would chose to adopt away our infants.

I disagree with partial birth abortion TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. If the infant is endangering the woman, which it sometimes does, or if the infant is pronounced severely deformed inside the womb(this happens frequently with partial birth abortions), I believe it is the woman's constitutional right to adopt away it. However, if the woman is pregnant for about 6 months or more, PAST her 2nd trimester, why would she chose to kill the fetus? I don't understand this. Especially if it is a healthy fetus. I disagree with women who chose this, however, I am not sure if I think there should be an amendment against it.

What do others think about late and partial birth abortion?

Digital Masta

02-21-2006, 04:58 PM

I mean if you carry a child for 6 months already...you might as well...bite your lip and deal with the next 3 months and have the child

I'm okay with making late term abortion illegal because by that point a baby can be born...it may be premature and have some serious problems but it can potential pop out.

marycatherine

02-21-2006, 10:23 PM

It means they inherently know there is a God, without even them realizing it.

no it doesn't.
I know some atheists who just don't like the idea of killing. that doesn't mean they believe in a god of any sort...it means they don't like killing. And if they consider abortion killing, then they will be against abortion. I'm agnostic, leaning towards atheist. I don't really like the idea of abortion, but if a woman wants one, then she should be able to have it done. What I don't like at all is using abortion as a means of contraception - because it isn't. There are condoms and other birth control methods (pill, patch, ring, shot) that are good for that - and most of them are cheap.

As for men having a choice - the woman is the pregnant one, so if the man isn't going to stick around with her, why should she keep the kid for him if she doesn't want it? If they're in a good relationship and she just kinda doesn't want the kid, and he really wants the kid...then they have to talk it out and come to a conclusion or the relationship is really going to suffer and they'll both end up in a loss.

my 2 cents,
Mary Catherine

MNJetter

02-23-2006, 07:10 AM

I don't know what I think about the exact moment an embryo or fetus becomes a person, but I do think generally that if a fetus is able to survive outside the womb, a.k.a. premie births (like my best friend was), they should be considered real people. If so, killing them would seriously be no different from gunning somebody down.

Instead of partial birth, they should give people the option of a forced premature birth - take the kid out, stick it in the premature ward, and if it survives, take it off the parents' hands and send it out for adoption. If it doesn't, you had your abortion and nobody feels guilty. But charge the pregnant ones (or their insurance) all the normal money for a premature birth. A couple hundred thousand dollars in doctor's fees would probably be more effective in curbing abortions than simply making them illegal. :D

Beefychicken

02-24-2006, 11:53 PM

The reason why it's mostly the womans decision is because she carries the child in her womb for 9 months.

Beefychicken

02-24-2006, 11:54 PM

Ravage

02-25-2006, 05:50 AM

If the father wants the baby, then the mother should just shut the hell up and deal with the 9 months. I don't give a damn if it's your body or not. That baby has TWO parents. It's f*cken disgusting that a women can go out and kill a mans child and he has no say in it. If only the mother wants to abort: when the babies born, it goes to the father and the mother is removed from it's life unless the father says otherwise. If the father wants to abort, same thing. He's removed from the babies life unless the mother says otherwise. Simple. And I think you can figure out all the exceptions yourselves.

Jai

02-26-2006, 04:43 PM

Nasty issue eh.

If the father wants abortion and the mother refuses, the result should be simple - the father is henseforth absolved from any legal requirement to have any input in that childs upbringing. This would imply that any child support ordinarily payable would be void.

If the mother wants to abort and the father contests, now that is a messier issue. Guys are less likely to want to keep the child (love em and leave em and all) but im sure it happens. Ill go with "its her body, her choice", on the proviso that the above is considered fair. Anything else is "I want my cake and ill eat it too, because im a sexist feminist bitch" IMO.

NenMaster

02-27-2006, 02:56 AM

Matt W

02-27-2006, 03:13 AM

any woman who chooses to kill a baby should not be able to have another. Its pretty simple, dont want the child, dont have sex, but the whore is too stupid to do anything about it.

I also think the fee should be 10 time as much as it it, its to cheap and the whore doesnt loose anything. I also think fathers who piss off should always pay child support.

I think in extreme cases like rape and incest yes abortion is acceptable, but all others suck it up and deal with the consequences. There should always be repercussions when taking a life, i think stripping a woman of her fertility is a good repercussion.

In this day and age killing is nothing, can only imagine in 20 years

Ravage If the father wants the baby, then the mother should just shut the hell up and deal with the 9 months. I don't give a damn if it's your body or not. That baby has TWO parents. It's f*cken disgusting that a women can go out and kill a mans child and he has no say in it. If only the mother wants to abort: when the babies born, it goes to the father and the mother is removed from it's life unless the father says otherwise. If the father wants to abort, same thing. He's removed from the babies life unless the mother says otherwise. Simple. And I think you can figure out all the exceptions yourselves.

I haven't read most of this thread, but wow, those are two of the stupidist and most misogynist posts I've ever seen.

Roxie

02-27-2006, 03:16 AM

When are people going to realize that:

1. people are not going to not have sex
2. forcing someone to take care of a child does not a good parent make
3. If for the simple fact of medical safety alone, it should always remain legal.

And if you consider a pregnant woman a whore, what do you think of your mother?

NenMaster

02-27-2006, 03:30 AM

no i consider a woman who wants to kill a baby a whore, quick to drop her pantys but not quick to deal with her consequences.

also men who tell a woman to get one are no better

Roxie

02-27-2006, 03:41 AM

no i consider a woman who wants to kill a baby a whore, quick to drop her pantys but not quick to deal with her consequences.

also men who tell a woman to get one are no better
Wow. That's not even right.

There are plenty of women who are married who get abortions. They're whores too?

Ravage

02-27-2006, 03:50 AM

Where in my post is there any indication of me hating women? Please, point any such part out.

If anybodies got some gender hating issues it's you, Matt W. Not giving the right to the father to have some say in his childs fate is misandry at it's finest (or, in this case, worst).

NenMaster

02-27-2006, 03:57 AM

Wow. That's not even right.

There are plenty of women who are married who get abortions. They're whores too?
what do you think my answer is. :boggled:

Matt W

02-27-2006, 04:04 AM

If the father wants the baby, then the mother should just shut the hell up and deal with the 9 months. I don't give a damn if it's your body or not.

Your saying women should be forced to go through 9 months of potentially lethal hardship. Its her body, you cant force someone to go through that, its extremely difficult, and has lifelong effects on body and mind, not to mention how it completely changes her life for that 9 months. She is a living person, you have to respect her, you show no respect to her.

Ravage

02-27-2006, 04:04 AM

also men who tell a woman to get one are no better

What does it matter if a man tells a women to get an abortion? It's not like she has to listen to him. She can just give birth and make him pay f*cken child support. WHAT HAPPANED TO CHOICE? Oh, that's right! It's ONLY a double standard against men! Not that it matters of course.

*no women hating in this post. Only hate against the stupid bastards who made this mess in the first place...

NenMaster

02-27-2006, 04:20 AM

Matt W

02-27-2006, 04:28 AM

you more likely to die in a car crash than give birth, should we all contemplate the hardships of traveling in one and the effects it might be bring?

WHAT? Clearly, way more women give birth than die in car crashes. Are you saying people should be forced to travel in cars? This situation doesn't relate at all.

Roxie

02-27-2006, 04:30 AM

i cant respect anyone who has aborted a baby. pretty simple

you more likely to die in a car crash than give birth, should we all contemplate the hardships of traveling in one and the effects it might be bring?
We do. That's why we have tests so you can be licensed and consequences if you break driving laws.

NenMaster

02-27-2006, 04:45 AM

:) again i use driving as a example. your more likely to die, breaking or abiding the laws while driving than giving birth

Roxie

02-27-2006, 04:46 AM

:boggled: But that has nothing to do with abortion...

NenMaster

02-27-2006, 04:50 AM

WHAT? Clearly, way more women give birth than die in car crashes. Are you saying people should be forced to travel in cars? This situation doesn't relate at all.

i meant by my response that giving birth isnt as deadly as being a passnger / driving while being in a car crash.

its not like back in the middle ages, its relativly safe these days and using that as a way to justify killing the child it stupid

Roxie

02-27-2006, 05:03 AM

Ah, no one brought up the general dangers of child birth as a reason to have an abortion, but as a reason that you can't force a woman to have a baby.

NenMaster

02-27-2006, 05:21 AM

but you can force death upon anyone who doesnt want it.

its a end less cycle :)

these discussions lead nowhere, bunch of people with there views writting in stone arguing with people with there views written in stone. interesting hearing from pro choice people, will see if there views change when they cant have children or loose them.

Ravage

02-27-2006, 06:11 AM

Your saying women should be forced to go through 9 months of potentially lethal hardship. Its her body, you cant force someone to go through that, its extremely difficult, and has lifelong effects on body and mind, not to mention how it completely changes her life for that 9 months. She is a living person, you have to respect her, you show no respect to her.

Matt W, whether or not pregnancy is difficult or not is an opinion, not a fact. My opinion is it's a walk in the park compared to the mental anguish one must feel after losing their child. This pain is even worse when you know it could have been prevented.

There is only one point in this post I will concede to. Pregnancy is potentially lethal. If there is little to no doubt that the mother of the child is going to die if she gives birth, then the man should have no choice but to step back. But as you said, this is only potential. Certainly no reason to undermine a mans rights to what is half his. This is especially so if there is little to no doubt the mother will live.

Everything else you brought up can be avoided or the damages caused can easily be reduced to the point of being unoticed. My mother has given birth to 5 boys. 2 natural, 3 c-sections. Not a single scar is on her body from giving birth, nor any from being pregnant.

Do you want to know her secret? There is none. She merely got off her fat ass and exercised. And she used skin creams to avoid stretch marks. She looks the same as she did before giving birth. Well, besides the whole aging thing.

And the mental damages are no worse then what the man experiences. So that is moot point. This may come as a surprise to you Matt (I'm under the impression your a woman posing as a man), but men have feelings too.

And during the time the women is preggo, the man is most likely working his brains out to provide for his girlfriend/wife so she can fill that bottomless pit of a stomach. And all sorts of little goodies comin out of his pay check. This is becoming the exception, not the rule as of late. So I suggest all men who leave their pregnant women (I mean like end the relationship kind of leave. Not leaving on a buisness trip kind of leave...) automatically forfeit there rights to the child (unless the mother says otherwise)

So, what reasons are you left with? Only one potential scenerio, the whole lethal thing, and I have stated my stance on that.

The fact that your ignoring mens rights and feelings shows just how much you respect the male gender. Or rather, how much you disrespect it. As you so eloquently state, "She is a living person, you have to respect her". To this I say: Men are living people too. With emotions. He is not the ravaging, emotionless oppressor women love to make him out to be when things go wrong or when they need a short ego boost. Kill his child, and he will weep. Respect him. He is, as all people are, deserving of it. Just because I believe in true equality, rather then selective equality where one only seeks to aid a certain race/gender/religion/culture, does not make me a woman hater, nor does it mean I disrespect them. I simply view men as deserving of the same rights as any women, in all aspects of life and death. As I also believe women are deserving of the same things.

I wish that didn't sound so lame, but whatever.

Sorry for the late reply, I missed your post :P

'scuse the typos

Matt W

02-27-2006, 08:13 AM

Matt W, whether or not pregnancy is difficult or not is an opinion, not a fact. My opinion is it's a walk in the park compared to the mental anguish one must feel after losing their child. This pain is even worse when you know it could have been prevented.

Pregnancies are difficult, that is clearly a matter of fact. Ask your mom, I'm sure she will say they are difficult, but Im sure she feels it was worth it. However, pregnancies are more difficult for some than for others.

Everything else you brought up can be avoided or the damages caused can easily be reduced to the point of being unoticed. My mother has given birth to 5 boys. 2 natural, 3 c-sections. Not a single scar is on her body from giving birth, nor any from being pregnant.Do you want to know her secret? There is none. She merely got off her fat ass and exercised. And she used skin creams to avoid stretch marks. She looks the same as she did before giving birth. Well, besides the whole aging thing. And the mental damages are no worse then what the man experiences. So that is moot point. This may come as a surprise to you Matt (I'm under the impression your a woman posing as a man), but men have feelings too.

You know, not everyone is the same, and it is much harder for some than for others. Also, a pregnant women can suffer all sorts of health effects from being pregnant, such as becoming allergic to food she was not allergic to before. Some women develop lasting back problems. Lots of others too, although I am not an expert, however I know my mom developed a blood problem as a result of her third pregnancy. Mentally, there is post partum depression that some women suffer after giving birth, and it can be very serious and lead to suicide.

And during the time the women is preggo, the man is most likely working his brains out to provide for his girlfriend/wife so she can fill that bottomless pit of a stomach. And all sorts of little goodies comin out of his pay check. This is becoming the exception, not the rule as of late. So I suggest all men who leave their pregnant women (I mean like end the relationship kind of leave. Not leaving on a buisness trip kind of leave...) automatically forfeit there rights to the child (unless the mother says otherwise)

Well, what if he isn't, or what if they rely on her income and cant get by with her not working, or she loses out on the chance of a promotion or gets fired, or a million other what ifs. My point is, if she is being forced to have a child that she doesn't want by the mate, then the relationship probably isn't too good. In your earlier post, you said "If only the mother wants to abort: when the babies born, it goes to the father and the mother is removed from it's life unless the father says otherwise." Well, with him gone after the pregnancy, now she might face financial hardship, because she has lost her job, or lost the chance at a promotion, or the dad is a cheapskate and didn't compensate her for the money she lost because she wasn't able to work while she was pregnant. Or maybe he is an alcoholic, or abusive, or very unreliable, and she thinks he would be a terrible father. I just believe there are so many what ifs and different factors that can come into play that I believe it is a personal decision and depends on the women's personal situation and circumstances.

The fact that your ignoring mens rights and feelings shows just how much you respect the male gender. Or rather, how much you disrespect it. As you so eloquently state, "She is a living person, you have to respect her". To this I say: Men are living people too. With emotions. He is not the ravaging, emotionless oppressor women love to make him out to be when things go wrong or when they need a short ego boost. Kill his child, and he will weep. Respect him. He is, as all people are, deserving of it. Just because I believe in true equality, rather then selective equality where one only seeks to aid a certain race/gender/religion/culture, does not make me a woman hater, nor does it mean I disrespect them. I simply view men as deserving of the same rights as any women, in all aspects of life and death. As I also believe women are deserving of the same things.

I'm a guy, of course I respect guys, and I know they have emotions, I'm not trying to minimize that or say they don't suffer at all from abortions. But, I believe women go through all the stuff men do when it comes to abortion and kids, plus pregnancy which is a huge addition. I just don't believe fetuses are human beings yet, and I don't think its murder. You obviously do, and I respect that you have strong beliefs on the matter. But it is a matter of opinion, and I don't think it is fair to women to force them to endure so much hardship, physically, mentally, economically. It's there body, their decision. I dont think most women make the decision lightly.

MNJetter

02-27-2006, 08:46 AM

I just don't believe fetuses are human beings yet, and I don't think its murder. You obviously do, and I respect that you have strong beliefs on the matter. But it is a matter of opinion,

That's exactly the reason why pro-abortion and anti-abortion people can't seem to agree on anything. Different definition of the onset of humanity. For those who feel that a fetus is not a human being, it's not a problem. We say "I respect your opinion" and feel like it's fine either way because hey, it's not murder. I mean, if somebody started railing on you for voluntarily cutting off your big toe, would that make any sense? It may be impractical and uncomfortable, but it's your toe, your choice. It's not like cutting it off harms anybody else.

But for the other side, it's much more of a problem. What if some legislator in Washington decided that all children under the age of 5 are not human anymore, and it's okay to get rid of them if you don't want them? I know it's a ridiculous image, but if you seriously consider the possibility even for a moment, you get a little inkling of the horror that pro-lifers feel in all sincerity when they imagine condoning taking the life of a fetus. I'm not saying anybody's right or wrong. I'm just trying to get everybody to understand everybody's point of view (probably pointless on a forum, but hey, I'm an idealist :P)

And that's why it's such a sticky problem. By this time, with the exception of a few exceedingly idiotic racial supremacist groups, I think we all agree that black people are fully human. Different from a large percentage of opinion a hundred years ago in this country, but hey, people can change for the better. It's a non-issue now (on paper)that if you shoot someone regardless of race, you go to jail.

Why haven't we come up with a definition of humanity yet? I mean, non-religiously? Is it that extremely difficult for a scientist to pinpoint the moment in which an embryo or fetus ceases to be a tiny blob of cells attached to its host and unable to survive in any other fashion, and becomes an independant life? The moment we can all agree to figure out a secular definition, it will be much harder to argue against it. I mean, of course there will be dissent no matter what is discovered, but the government will finally have a solid foundation on which to build laws around. Politicians are just too chicken to lose poll points to encourage a solution to the argument. They like the argument, because with some strategic waffling on the issue, they can get both sides to vote for them, instead of being forced to one side.

Ravage

02-27-2006, 07:38 PM

Pregnancies are difficult, that is clearly a matter of fact. Ask your mom, I'm sure she will say they are difficult, but Im sure she feels it was worth it. However, pregnancies are more difficult for some than for others.

I hope you didn't expect my mother to agree with you! This women can't get along with other women, and tends to laugh at them! She said pregnancy was nothing more then a little physical discomfort. She tried to go into describing how it feels to have a baby in there, but I stopped her. Then she went on to compare current pregnant women to pregnant women of the past. You know, the ones who were like 8 months pregnant and still cleaning the house, milking the cows etc.? She said if you care about your body so much, you should take care of it during pregnancy. Now, this wasn't directed at YOU, just other women. My mommas cool like that :D. But there is one thing we disagree about. She said abortions should only be an option if it is life threatening. But I wasn't in the mood to argue with her. I know from experience, cuz we're always argueing about evolution (shes really religious...), that nothing I say will change her beliefs....

As for the rest of your post. I see where your coming from. Not a big risk taker, are we? :). Both of our stances are wrong. Yours completely disregards men. Mine doesn't give women complete control over her body.

This is one of those times when one must decide between the greater and lesser of the two evils. Which is where we disagree.

In my eyes, pregnancy is not that hard. The risks are triflingly minimal. Compared to simply ignoring the male and his thoughts/feelings on the matter, without ANY exceptions...There is little comparison to the two in my eyes. It is clear to me which is the greater evil of them. If I had my way, both parents would have a choice as both deserve so. The child has 2 parents, not just the mother. Regardless of where it is being grown. It is rightfully half his. I feel like I'm debating whether or not all black and latino people should go to prison because they commit most of the crimes. Such a thing is laughable, right? You can only make decisions like these when bad outcomes make up a sizable chunk of all possible outcomes of a certain situation. And compare the benefits to the damages. You would be hurting innocent people if you were going to send them to prison just because they 'might' be criminals. The risks involved in pregnancy are to small (though when they arise, they SHOULD take presedence over a mans rights. But never otherwise.) to deny 147,867,067 people such a thing. There is to large a chance that the pregnancy and childbirth will go 100% dandy.

I must ask you a hypothetical question.

If there were no risks to giving birth, dieing and health problems and what not, do you agree that the man has every right to have some say in what happens to the fetus? It is, after all, his fetus as well.

Again, 'scuse the typos. I'll probably notice them after I post as I usually do...

Roxie

02-27-2006, 08:41 PM

In my eyes, pregnancy is not that hard. The risks are triflingly minimal. Compared to simply ignoring the male and his thoughts/feelings on the matter, without ANY exceptions...There is little comparison to the two in my eyes. It is clear to me which is the greater evil of them.
Let me tell you something. Now, I don't usually say this, but I cannot believe what you just posted.

YOU ARE WRONG. [/rage]

Sorry about that....Now that's out of the way, pls, let me share some info about this...

Ask people other than your mother. Your mother was very lucky. However, she shouldn't make experience applicable to all women. That is very not cool.

Pregnancy is fuckload more than a "bit of discomfort" for all of the women I've ever known to be pregnant. Some doctors consider it a "sudden diesease state".

Complete List of Common Complaints (http://www.indiaparenting.com/pregnancy/data/preg12_00.shtml)
ACIDITY AND HEARTBURN

BREATHLESSNESS

BACKACHES

BLEEDING GUMS AND CAVITIES

BLURRED VISION

BUSTLINE INCREASES

CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME

CLUMSINESS

COMPLEXION CHANGES

DEPRESSION

FAINTING AND DIZZINESS

FATIGUE

FLUID RETENTION

HAIR AND NAILS

HEADACHES AND MIGRAINES

HOT FLASHES

INDIGESTION AND HEARTBURN

LEG CRAMPS

MORNING SICKNESS

NOSE BLEEDS

SLEEPING DIFFICULTIES

STRETCH MARKS, RASH AND ITCHINESS

URINATION (STRESS INCONTINENCE)

VAGINAL INFECTIONS (CAUSE OF THRUSH)

VARICOSE VEINS

* High blood pressure (Toxaemia, Pre-eclampsia or Hypertension)
* Hydramnios (excessive water retention around foetus, and therefore excessive weight gain)
* Troubled bowel movements (Diarrhea and Constipation)
* Vaginal infections (Vaginitis)
* Severe Itching

A lot of women start to lose teeth. Others get diabetes. There is swelling of the entire body, which is not comfortable at all. Your energy is sapped, you can't sleep as you did before, there are mood swings do to the flush of hormonal changes going on.

Oh, and then there are pregnacies that sometimes occur in the ovaries or the ovarian channels, which can cause death! Heaven help you if you have endometrisosis, like my mother had. She had a miscarriage or two, simply b/c of her uterine scarring. She was lucky I came out ok. She was bed ridden for the last 3 months with me, just to ensure I didn't fall the fuck out.

I seriously suggest you research this.

I reinstate, if you think pregnancy is not that difficult, I want to see you pass a 6lb baby's head through your anus and tell me otherwise.

By Trimester --Changes in A Woman's Body
From The Ohio State University Medical Center (http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/index.cfm)

1st Trimester
* The mammary glands enlarge causing the breasts to swell and become tender in preparation for breastfeeding. This is due to an increased amount of the hormones estrogen and progesterone. A supportive bra should be worn.
* A woman's areolas (the pigmented areas around each breast's nipple) will enlarge, darken, and may become covered with small, white bumps called Montgomery's tubercles (enlarged sweat glands).
* Veins become more prominent on the surface of the breasts.
* The uterus is growing and begins to press on the woman's bladder, causing the need for her to urinate more frequently.
* Partly due to surges in hormones, a pregnant woman may experience mood swings similar to premenstrual syndrome (a condition experienced by some women that is characterized by mood swings, irritability, and other physical symptoms that occur shortly before each menstrual period).
* Increased levels of hormones to sustain the pregnancy may cause "morning sickness," which is feelings of nausea and sometimes vomiting. However, morning sickness does not necessarily occur just in the morning and rarely interferes with proper maternal and fetal nutrition.
* Constipation may occur as the growing uterus presses on the rectum and intestines.
* The muscular contractions in the intestines, which help to move food through the digestive tract, are slowed due to high levels of progesterone. This may, in turn, cause heartburn, indigestion, constipation, and gas.
* Clothes may feel tighter around the breasts and waist, as the size of the abdomen begins to increase to accommodate the growing fetus.
* A woman may experience fatigue due to the physical and emotional demands of pregnancy.
* Cardiac volume increases by approximately 40 to 50 percent from the beginning to the end of the pregnancy, causing an increased cardiac output. An increased cardiac output may cause an increased pulse rate during pregnancy. The increase in blood volume is needed for extra blood flow to the uterus.

2nd Trimester
* Appetite may increase.
* The mother may be able to feel the movement of the fetus for the first time - a phenomenon called quickening - by 20 weeks.
* The uterus has grown to the height of the belly button, making the pregnancy visible.
* The skin on the belly may itch as it grows and there may be pain down the sides of the body as the uterus stretches. The lower abdomen may ache as ligaments stretch to support the uterus.
* The need to frequently urinate may decrease as the uterus grows out of the pelvic cavity, relieving pressure on the bladder.
* A mother's nose may become congested and she may experience nosebleeds. This is due to the increase in hormones (estrogen and progesterone) that affect the mucous membranes in the nose.
* A woman's gums become more spongy and may bleed easily. This is due to the increase in hormones (estrogen and progesterone) that affect the mucous membranes in the mouth.
* Varicose veins and hemorrhoids may appear.
* A woman may have a white-colored vaginal discharge called leukorrhea. (A colored or bloody discharge may signal possible complications and should be examined immediately.)
* The increasing weight gain may cause backaches.
* Skin pigmentation may change on the face or abdomen due to the pregnancy hormones.
* Heart burn, indigestion, and constipation may continue.

3rd Trimester
* Increased skin temperature as the fetus radiates body heat, causing the mother to feel hot.
* The increased urinary frequency returns due to increased pressure being placed on the bladder.
* Blood pressure may decrease as the fetus presses on the main vein that returns blood to the heart.
* Swelling of the ankles, hands, and face may occur (called edema), as the mother continues to retain fluids.
* Hair may begin to grow on a woman's arms, legs, and face due to increase hormone stimulation of hair follicles. Hair may also feel coarser.
* Leg cramps may become more frequent.
* Braxton-Hicks contractions (false labor) may begin to occur at irregular intervals in preparation for childbirth.
* Stretch marks may appear on the abdomen, breast, thighs, and buttocks.
* Colostrum (a fluid in the breasts that nourishes the baby until the breast milk becomes available) may begin to leak from the nipples.
* Dry, itchy skin may persist, particularly on the abdomen, as the skin continues to grow and stretch.
* A woman's libido (sexual drive) may decrease.
* Skin pigmentation may become more apparent, especially dark patches of skin on the face.
* Constipation, heartburn, and indigestion may continue.
* Increased white-colored vaginal discharge (leukorrhea) which may contain more mucus.
* Backaches may persist and increase in intensity.
* Hemorrhoids may persist and increase in severity.
* Varicose veins in the legs may persist and increase in severity.

Bob

02-27-2006, 08:45 PM

but you can force death upon anyone who doesnt want it.

its a end less cycle :)

these discussions lead nowhere, bunch of people with there views writting in stone arguing with people with there views written in stone.

Just in case you tards missed it the first dozen times

B RoCkS1010

02-27-2006, 08:54 PM

Matt W

02-27-2006, 09:10 PM

Ravage,

I typed out a long reply, but then my stupid antivirus thing came up and the screen froze, so its lost. My comp is being lame right now and I have class, Ill try to answer later

ZaichikArky

02-27-2006, 09:32 PM

that was very informative, Roxie. I can't begin to understand the pressures of giving birth. My mom too had a very easy pregnancy up until the end when they had to break something(pubic bone maybe?) to accomodate my large head :|(this was in the USSR, I'm not sure if they do something like that today), but other than that, she didn't have too much problems with the pregnancy. She then had 2 or maybe 3 abortions ^_^*. I wish she didn't. It was rather lonely being an only child through my childhood.

I hope to god that I will have an easy pregnancy >_<. If I'm lucky... but that's not for a few years yet. I'd almost want to adopt XD. Go through the headache with the paperwork rather than the problems pregnancy could cause. I know of some women who have gotten diabetes from miscarriages. How awful. If it's one disease I would hate to have, it's diabetes. I must eet chocolate. : ). And I intend to have two kids.

Ravage

02-27-2006, 09:42 PM

Sorry Roxie, but I would rather not submit my life to chance, letting it dictate my every move.

Leg cramps and heart burn are pathetic reasons, those and everything similar I would take over the bullshit your defending.

And as for the possibilty of dieing, I have already said what should be done during these cases. Maybe you missed it?

Women are said to be more empathetic. So, go ahead and try and put yourself in a fathers shoes. Now tell me what's worse. Having no control over your future son/daughter, or fatigue, irated skin, headaches and all that other stuff? If you have to think about that for more then 10 seconds, there is no hope for you.

Can you deny that under certain conditions, men have the right to have some power over their unborn childs future?

And to B Rock, argueing those points would be about as productive and meeningful as trying to prove to a Christian that there is no god.

When a women says 'no, I will not allow my baby to die. No matter what happens, s/he will live...' she is seen as a loving mother, unwilling to give up her beloved baby. Oh but when a man says 'no, I will not allow my baby to die. No matter what happens, s/he will live...' hes being disrespectful of women, a misogonyst. An oppressor out to make womens lives hell. But could it possibly be that maybe he is a loving father unwilling to give up his beloved baby? Oh, of course not. He's only a man, after all...

Not that I expect any of you ladies to understand, despite your 'greater empathy'.

I can already feel the heat from the flames....

'scuse the typos...

Edit:I'll pass a 6 pound baby out of my ass the day you do.

Ravage

02-27-2006, 11:15 PM

"Fallacy of "A woman's body, a woman's business"
By Warren Farrell
August 31, 2001
San Diego Union-Tribune

'We're thrilled" said the attorney after hearing of the recent New Jersey State Supreme Court frozen embryo decision. "Parenting is a matter of choice; it shouldn't be coerced."

For decades, men have pondered what it would be like to not be forced to be a parent. Currently, if a man and woman have unprotected sex, only the woman still has a choice: a choice to abort or sue for support.

If she falsely claims to be on birth control, he cannot successfully sue her, but he can be sued by her. In many states she can raise a child without ever telling the man he is the father, yet any time within 18 years, sue for support retroactively. (If you want your son to practice safe sex, explain to him that if he puts his body into a woman's body, he puts his life into her hands.)

But now, with frozen embryos, the old rationale -- "it's her body, her business" -- disappears. And with surrogate mothers and lesbian parents, two women fight each other for rights. Which calls forth arguments for the other woman's rights that are ignored when it is a man vs. a woman.

In the New Jersey State Supreme Court case, for example, the woman did not want her former husband to have the right to use their frozen embryos with his new wife. Although her body was not involved, she prevailed. The decision relied heavily on Davis vs. Davis, in which the woman won each time the case was appealed, even when her position and her husband's positions were reversed. Here's how:

Mary Sue Davis won custody of all of the frozen embryos created by her and her former husband, allegedly because she wanted to create children from them. However, when both of them remarried, their positions reversed: She no longer wanted to use the embryos to create children, but he did, because his new wife was infertile. Nevertheless, he still could not get the embryos -- even though he was in exactly the position that had allowed her to win the embryos.

The degree to which the argument that "it's a woman's body, it's a woman's business" is a smokescreen becomes apparent when two lesbians fight for primary parent time, and the feminist National Center for Lesbian Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union both fight for the parent time rights of the woman whose body did not bear the child -- calling their advocacy "cutting edge."

Interesting. When the body not being used is a man's, we hear that it's exactly because his body is not being used that he doesn't have equal rights; when the body not being used is a woman's, feminists declare she should have equal rights.

This double standard also makes surrogate mothering a tricky issue for feminists. On the one hand, surrogate mothering allows a woman options. But it also makes it apparent the issue is not "a woman's body, a woman's business" -- that the right to choose is not based on the womb, but on the intent of the contract. Thus the rationale is lost for women's rights prevailing over men's. Thus the opposition to surrogate mothering.

With frozen embryos, surrogate mothering, and lesbian rights, courts will no longer be able to make the easy choice of women over men, but will rely increasingly on contract law. And this will impact our sons and daughters.

When a couple is dating, it will be argued that their implied contract is short term; that a woman who has a fetus in her womb does not have the right to change that short-term contract any more than the surrogate mother has the right to change the contract. A law that allows either sex to unilaterally change a short-term contract into a long-term contract breaks contract law. A law that allows only women to break it violates the 14th Amendment's provision for equal protection of both sexes under the law.

A woman's body should be hers to control. When she chooses to share it with a man, she exercises that control. He makes a parallel choice. If together they produce a fetus, equality would dictate joint rights and joint responsibilities.

Just as the 20th century brought us the fight for women's equal workplace rights, so the 21st century will bring us the fight for men's equal reproductive rights -- men's ABC Rights and Responsibilities (in the areas of Abortion, Birth Control and Child Care).

"It's a woman's body, a woman's business" implies that were it a man's body, it would also be his business. Well, any time a man is asked to work to pay child support, he is using his body, his time, his life -- not for nine months, but for a minimum of 18 to 21 years. A woman has no right to a unilateral choice that affects the rest of a man's life any more than a man would have the right to a unilateral choice that affects the rest of a woman's life. That's one reason rape is a crime.

We are at a unique moment in history -- when a woman's body is affected, we say the choice is hers; but when a boy's body is affected, we say the choice is not his -- the law requires only our 18-year-old sons to register for the draft, and therefore potential death, if needed.

Male-female fusion does not create women's rights. It creates a fusion of rights."

Farrell is the author of numerous books on sexual politics, including "Father and Child Reunion" and "Why Men Are The Way They Are." (www.warrenfarrell.com).

Thank you Warren Farrell. I could not have said it better myself.

Ravage

02-27-2006, 11:27 PM

"Pennsylvania Abortion Case Raises
Question of Choice for Men
By Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson

John Stachokus, the Pennsylvania would-be father who lost his bid to block his ex-girlfriend's abortion, has found himself in a position familiar to millions of American men: He has a large personal stake in a decision in which he is not allowed to take any part. His wishes are irrelevant. When it comes to reproduction, in America today women have rights and men merely have responsibilities.

When a woman wants a child and a man does not, the woman can have the child anyway -- and demand 18 years of child support from the father. This remains true even if the father had made it clear that he did not want to have children, and even if the woman had previously agreed to respect his wishes.

For decades, leading feminist organizations such as the National Organization for Women and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League have argued that women should have reproductive rights because nobody should be able to tell them what to do with their own bodies. Thus the slogan "My Body, My Choice."

But the sacrifices required to pay 18 years of child support should not be discounted, either. The average American father works a 51-hour work week, one of the longest in the industrialized world. It is men, overwhelmingly, who do our society's hazardous jobs. Nearly 50 American workers are injured every minute of the 40-hour work week. On average, every day 17 die -- 16 of them male. Couldn't men who work long hours or do hazardous jobs -- and who suffer the concomitant physical ailments and injuries -- argue that their bodies are on the line, too? Where is their choice?

NOW and NARAL were legitimately concerned that the Pennsylvania anti-abortion injunction, which was issued on a temporary basis last Wednesday and dissolved the following Monday, could have established a precedent for giving men and the government control over an important aspect of women's lives. But when a woman forces a man to be responsible for a child only she wants, is she not exercising control over his life? And when the massive government child-support apparatus hounds the reluctant father for financial support, takes a third of his income and jails him if he comes up short, isn't the government exercising control over his life? Advocates of reproductive choice for men -- the right of an unmarried man to sign away his parenting rights and responsibilities upon learning of an unwanted pregnancy -- have a legitimate claim, based on the same arguments that feminists have used to support their case for choice for women.

When the situation is reversed and the woman does not want to have a child and the man does -- as is the case with Stachokus and his ex-girlfriend, Tanya Meyers -- once again, women have rights and men do not. A woman who doesn't want her child can terminate the pregnancy against the father's wishes, or put their child up for adoption, sometimes without the father's permission. In some states, she can even return the baby to the hospital within a week of birth. More than 1 million American women legally walk away from motherhood every year.

Perhaps, as some have argued, Stachokus was using his legal maneuvers as a way to exercise control over the ex-girlfriend who broke up with him. More likely he was simply a proud papa-to-be. Maybe he imagined his child to be a little daddy's girl, or a son he would proudly raise to be a man. Or perhaps he is just a stand-up guy who wanted to live up to what he sees as his responsibilities.

Even if Stachokus had persuaded Meyers to have their child, he probably would not have been allowed to be a meaningful part of his child's life. Meyers does not want to marry or stay with him. Legal precedents -- and a stubbornly held but baseless cultural notion that children fare better with their mothers -- suggest that, even though he was willing to take full or partial custody, he would have had little chance of getting it. Many unwed and divorced fathers face a difficult struggle to remain a part of their children's lives.

Custodial mothers frequently violate fathers' visitation rights, and courts do little to enforce them. Some custodial mothers move hundreds or even thousands of miles away from their children's fathers, and it is frequently difficult for these dads to maintain regular contact with their kids.

Stachokus may have ended up like the hundreds of thousands of American fathers who love children they are not able or allowed to see, and whose suffering is ignored by a society that seems capable only of denigrating fathers.

John, whatever move you made, you never had a chance. Welcome to modern American fatherhood."

This column first appeared in Newsday (8/7/02) and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (8/11/02)

Glenn Sacks writes about gender issues from the male perspective. He can be reached at Glenn@GlennSacks.com. Dianna Thompson is a founder and executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (www.acfc.org). She can be contacted by e-mail at DThompson2232@aol.com.

I should leave this stuff to the pros. Another well writen article.

MNJetter

02-27-2006, 11:49 PM

I agree that men should have a say in the matter. But I'm not sure how to go about enforcing the issue. The frozen embryo thing is not quite the same, in that the embryo was a test-tube fertilization, and not generally begun in the womb. I've never heard of them taking an embryo directly out of a womb and freezing it. Once it's in the womb, it's abort, miscarry, or somehow give birth, which is all in the woman's hands. I think the frozen embryo thing is silly (once it's not in the womb, it's no longer a question of the woman's freedom of body), but I don't really see how we can enforce a normally fertilized birth. How do you force someone to carry the child? Can you sue her for damages if she gets desperate and aborts it herself? (risky, but there are methods)

Sum-up: Ideally, I'm on the men's rights side of this issue. But I don't see a practical way to legally make it happen.

On another note, I think that forcing an unwilling father to pay child support is just sneaky and dishonest. It's like a con artist, only worse, since you're using an innocent child to con someone. If you want a baby, you'd better be willing to live with the responsibility for caring for one, whether the dad wants to be involved or not. If you don't want a baby, but have something against abortion, you're under no obligation to keep it. You can give it up for adoption, and then it's neither yours nor the father's problem. There's no scenario I can see in which a father, if he expressed his refusal to be involved with the child before it's born, to be forced to pay child support. (cases of a supportive father who tries to bail after the birth is a different story)

Ravage

02-28-2006, 12:18 AM

Ok Roxie. I know when I have made a false assumption, and am going to admit that pregnancy is difficult.

But do not over exaggerate it to prove your point.

I did what you suggested, and read a little about the more serious symptoms that you have brought forth. Because seriously, Sore legs and a fever just doesn't cut it.

Firstly, you say women start to lose teeth. This condition can be almost entirely avoided. This complication is called pregnancy gingivitis. 50-75% of all pregnant women develop this condition. It is reversible with proper home care, techniques, tools, and medicines.

Next up is Endometriosis (I'm sorry if I spelled that wrong). People with this shouldn't be getting pregnant, and if they do...realize it's probably not gonna go so smoothly... Don't know why I even acknowledged this one. It's not even caused by pregnancy :-/

As for the baby in the ovaries thing, "About 2 of every 100 pregnancies are ectopic. Thanks to new techniques for early diagnosis and medical care, they are usually treated by the eighth week of pregnancy, eliminating much of the risk to the mother." There you go, reduced to a minimal risk.

Diabetes. Pregnancy Diabetes are only temporary. "Pregnancy increases your body's resistance to insulin. Resistance to insulin develops in all mothers during pregnancy. In about 2-4 per cent of women this results in temporary diabetes.""Insulin treatment is usually stopped after the birth, because insulin resistance ends." It's gone after pregnancy, and the effects can, again, easily be minimized. Exercise and eat healthy :P. And get your man to do these things as well. I would do them regardless, simply to spend time with my wife/girlfriend. But I seem to be in the minority -_-;;;.

Because most of these conditions (the serious ones that you have listed. You can suggest more if you want. I wouldn't mind learning more about conditions that arise through pregnancy) are either temporary or rare (in adition to being able to minimize some of the effects. Even prevent a few), they should not be the ONLY determining factor in a situation like this on a large scale. It is akin to my previous analogy. Sending a person to prison solely because the group others associate him with have committed a certain percentage of what his peers would consider 'crimes', when he has done no such thing. You might stop a few would be criminals, but in the end you are STILL hurting Innocent people. If you prevent ALL men from having some power over something they helped conceive, then you are certainly preventing a number of women from going through physical pains. But you are also hurting men, the ones that truly want the baby and are obviously good fathers. When it is proven that theres little to no chance the women will have serious health problems during or after pregnancy, these guys should be the cause of an exception.

I'm not saying ALL fathers should have the right to their unborn fetus, because there are indeed some who don't deserve it. But to say that there are no exceptions, that ALL men are undeserving, and that ALL pregnancies end in the mothers death or possible health problems (which is what you suggest when you list a bunch of medical issues as reasons) is both heartless and ignorant.

Please don't flame me! ^_^

Sorry for any mistakes I have made in those medical conditions discriptions, stats, causes etc..

and 'scuse the typos

slinky

02-28-2006, 04:05 AM

Oy, what a mess this topic always is. How about this:

Woman (I refuse to use the word slut or whore - where's your scorn for the father?) gets pregnant. One of 4 situations will occur:

1) Woman and man both want kid
Both are responsible both financially and emotionally. No take-backs allowed by either party, period.

2) Neither woman nor man want kid
Early on in pregnancy, abortion to be performed with split cost, period.

3) Woman wants kid, man doesn't
Man signs document (before abortion cut-off point) to that effect and is absolved from financial or emotional responsibility with regards to the child. No take-backs allowed by either party without renegotiation.

4) Man wants kid, woman doesn't
Woman is compensated for bearing the child (not completely supported so she can live a life of luxury, mind you. But compensated for the toll taken on her body - based on complications arising from pregnancy. But also a base rate for carrying the child to term). After birth the woman is absolved from emotional and financial responsibility for child. No takebacks allowed by either party without renegotiation.

What do you think? Fair?

MNJetter

02-28-2006, 04:19 AM

2) neither man nor woman want kid

.....abortion should also be a choice here. Other than that, I think Slinky's list is the fairest solution I've seen here so far. We're never going to come up with a perfect one, obviously, but I think that one fits the bill for doing the most good for the largest number of people possible.

slinky

02-28-2006, 04:37 AM

Ravage

02-28-2006, 05:54 AM

Slinky...it's perfect :clap:

It might have it's own flaws, but it is far better then what we have now.

Sorry, had to edit like 3 times heh...

Roxie

02-28-2006, 04:34 PM

Ok Roxie. I know when I have made a false assumption, and am going to admit that pregnancy is difficult.
Thank you. That's all I was trying to get across.

But do not over exaggerate it to prove your point.
Where did I exaggerate at all? I got these from medical websites, I didn't make them up!

I did what you suggested, and read a little about the more serious symptoms that you have brought forth. Because seriously, Sore legs and a fever just doesn't cut it.
It's quite reprehensible that you shorten those list to "sore legs and a fever". It's not just those. It's the heartburn, constipation, morning sickness, back ache, mood swings. And what about the woman's job? This affects not just her body, but her entire life.

Firstly, you say women start to lose teeth. This condition can be almost entirely avoided. This complication is called pregnancy gingivitis. 50-75% of all pregnant women develop this condition. It is reversible with proper home care, techniques, tools, and medicines.
Which costs money.

Next up is Endometriosis (I'm sorry if I spelled that wrong). People with this shouldn't be getting pregnant, and if they do...realize it's probably not gonna go so smoothly... Don't know why I even acknowledged this one. It's not even caused by pregnancy :-/
The point wasn't about it being caused by pregnancy, but as a rebuff to you and your mother's idea about pregnancy being only "a little discomfort". Also, considering the fact that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, a woman might not know she has endometriosis until she's pregnant.

As for the baby in the ovaries thing, "About 2 of every 100 pregnancies are ectopic. Thanks to new techniques for early diagnosis and medical care, they are usually treated by the eighth week of pregnancy, eliminating much of the risk to the mother." There you go, reduced to a minimal risk.
Some women who've been in this condition didn't even know they were pregnant! In fact, alot just feel pain and pressure, not expecting a pregnancy.

Diabetes. Pregnancy Diabetes are only temporary. "Pregnancy increases your body's resistance to insulin. Resistance to insulin develops in all mothers during pregnancy. In about 2-4 per cent of women this results in temporary diabetes." That's an extremely low percentage. Based on that, it's not temporary for most of the women.

Because most of these conditions (the serious ones that you have listed. You can suggest more if you want. I suggest Five lists already. But I did forget the "mask of pregnancy" which is where your skin, on your face, will get big dark splotches b/c the homorones going crazy.

But to say that there are no exceptions, that ALL men are undeserving, and that ALL pregnancies end in the mothers death or possible health problems (which is what you suggest when you list a bunch of medical issues as reasons) is both heartless and ignorant.
When did I ever suggest that? Please, quote me where I said that. I took issue with you and your mother's notion that pregnancy is only "a little discomfort". It is not heartless, nor ignorant. There several risks involved in simply being pregnant that you will not know you'll suffer until you are pregnant.

I think 9 months of pretty much pain and suffering is a bit much to ask. Not b/c I'm heartless and cruel, but be cause you can't turn back the clock. I don't think it's fair. If you want a child that badly, adopt. There are lots of needy children out there.

Since you are so willing to deal with 9 months of sweating, pressured bladder, consitpation, backaches, fever, tooth loss/gum bleeding, hairloss, diabetes, spoltches on your face, swollen legs, ankles, feet, insomnia, hemorroids (An itching or painful mass of dilated veins in swollen anal tissue) mood swings, the intial morning sickiness (that is throwing up and nasuea), breathlessness, faitgue, depression, tender chest (so tender it hurts that just are), stretch marks, nosebleeds, and then the final cramps, and passing of a human head through your body, I hope you're the first one in line when the finally do develop a false uterus for men.

Or maybe you'll be as lucky as your mother was. We should all be so blessed, seriously, really.

4) Man wants kid, woman doesn't
Woman is compensated for bearing the child (not completely supported so she can live a life of luxury, mind you. But compensated for the toll taken on her body - based on complications arising from pregnancy. But also a base rate for carrying the child to term). After birth the woman is absolved from emotional and financial responsibility for child. No takebacks allowed by either party without renegotiation.

What do you think? Fair?
No, I don't think it is fair. This is a sticky situation and let me tell you, I really do wish they father could have some say if this #4 is the situation, but it's simply unjustifiable.

I say this because of the state and suffering a woman will usually experience in pregnancy. Changes that sometimes cannot be reversed, time off from work, the medical visits, the pain alone.

What if, like the female poster who talked about her experience of being pregnant, the man changes his mind? He can walk away, but the woman still has a baby to deal with, that she didn't want. Not that I think all men are scum who'll walk away, but that it is too easy (to walk away, simply because he doesn't have to bear the child) and too unfair to the woman who didn't want the baby.

It would be nice, it would be wonderful to have a fair solution. However, the nature of pregnancy itself is not fair. Or else the man and woman would swtich out mid 2nd trimester.

Ravage

02-28-2006, 09:16 PM

I would rather have a legal document be made available to men. If the women signs it, then if you have consensual sex and the woman gets pregnant (the document can only be used BEFORE the woman's pregnant mind you), then the document gives him the right to 'veto' your abortion. Unless there is a high risk that being pregnant or giving birth is life-threatening, or if the man bails, no abortion for you if the man says so. I would also suggest a type of 'court' where if a woman is suffering enough she might go and have her case heard. If it is agreed that the pain is to much, the contract is cancelled.

If the fetus is damaged because you threw yourself off some stairs or whatever, then your fined. I wouldn't trust myself to set the amount one is fined, but I would say somewhere up near $50k. That isn't too harsh, is it?

See? There is nothing wrong with this system other then the fact that it cannot be proven 100% that the mother purposefully had a miscarriage or not.

She would have signed the document of her own free will, thus not violating any of her rights.

And if she doesn't sign, the man knows what he's risking and has no right to bitch if she aborts.

Do you see the beauty in this? It's 100% fair. You don't have to sign the document, but you sign it knowing the risks involved.

Doubt it will get implemented though.

Does this work for you Roxie? ^_^.

'scuse the typos

JustTooCrazy

02-28-2006, 11:39 PM

Where did I exaggerate at all? I got these from medical websites, I didn't make them up!
Really? You're response says otherwise.
(read on)

That's an extremely low percentage. Based on that, it's not temporary for most of the women.

"Gestational diabetes mellitus appears in about 2%–5% of all pregnancies. It is temporary and fully treatable"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes#Gestational_diabetes

"Total overall USA population - usually quoted at about 3-4% for the overall nation in books"

http://www.plus-size-pregnancy.org/gd/gd_riskfactors.htm

I'm just pointing out false comments and contradiction.

MNJetter

02-28-2006, 11:57 PM

Oopsie, I meant to say "adoption" should be added to choice #2. Big typo. Not a big deal though - that's probably assumed. Both should be an option.

To Roxie:
Those physical symptoms described are all possible physical symptoms for any woman during more or less any type of pregnancy. Pregnancy is uncomfortable, but the vast majority of women don't have more than two or three of these symptoms at the same time. And it's only nine months. If pregnancy was really so hard that all of these symptoms were all true all the time, the human species would never have survived. I detest being rude, but I've been reading this argument for a while now. Quit making it sound like women are tragic heroes who almost die every time they have a child. It's a pregnancy, not a disease.

EDIT: Typo......me and English aren't working too well today. :P

Ravage

03-01-2006, 12:18 AM

MNJetter, how the hell did you say all of that in a single friggin paragraph???

Edit: sinlge->single. Dunno how I missed it...

Roxie

03-01-2006, 01:04 AM

Really? You're response says otherwise.

"Gestational diabetes mellitus appears in about 2%–5% of all pregnancies. It is temporary and fully treatable"

I'm just pointing out false comments and contradiction.
You misunderstand me.
I'm using what he posted, which wasn't the same are your quote..or your quote gives me a better understanding, than Ravage's.

It's not a fallicy, it's a misunderstanding. I thought we was saying 2%–5% of women with..not that only 2%–5% devlop it.

To Roxie:
Those physical symptoms described are all possible physical symptoms for any woman during more or less any type of pregnancy. Pregnancy is uncomfortable, but the vast majority of women don't have more than two or three of these symptoms at the same time. And it's only nine months. If pregnancy was really so hard that all of these symptoms were all true all the time, the human species would never have survived. I detest being rude, but I've been reading this argument for a while now. Quit making it sound like women are tragic heroes who almost die every time they have a child. It's a pregnancy, not a disease.
I acknowledge that not all women develop these symptoms, like Ravage's mother. However, in my experience, I've known only one woman to not have a complication. I just think there's more "a little discomfort" to most pregnancies. This is why I listed all possible physical symptoms and complications, not b/c I think most women go through that.

Nine months is quite a long time, I think, when your body goes through such rapid changes.

Anyway my overall arching point is, it isn't a piece of cake.
And you're not rude!

I would rather have a legal document be made available to men. If the women signs it, then if you have consensual sex and the woman gets pregnant (the document can only be used BEFORE the woman's pregnant mind you), then the document gives him the right to 'veto' your abortion. Unless there is a high risk that being pregnant or giving birth is life-threatening, or if the man bails, no abortion for you if the man says so. I would also suggest a type of 'court' where if a woman is suffering enough she might go and have her case heard. If it is agreed that the pain is to much, the contract is cancelled.

If the fetus is damaged because you threw yourself off some stairs or whatever, then your fined. I wouldn't trust myself to set the amount one is fined, but I would say somewhere up near $50k. That isn't too harsh, is it?

Yes, this sounds nice, but I wonder how would this work if 50% of US pregnancies are unplanned?

$50k is harsh. Most ppl in the US couldn't afford a fine like that. And court would take too long. They already do as it is.

Shamu

03-01-2006, 01:13 AM

Ok, so I was gonna rant to all you people that have never been pregnant and realized I'd just be wasting my breath.
I just have to laugh at a bunch of people that have never been pregnant arguing about how bad or not bad it is (this isn't really directed at you Roxie, but I think someone who's been through it should have a say in all this :P).
Anyways, I have been pregnant, 4 times. Only one made it past the first tri-mester, not because I had abortions, but because I had misscarriages. I don't really want to get into it in this thread, because it doesn't really pertain to the subject, but I will say again, that I am PRO choice! While I would never have one for myself, I know what it's like to carry a child for nine months (actually it's longer, 40 weeks) and what happens to your body during and after pregnancy. There is SO much that they don't tell you about pregnancy and what your body goes through, it's not even funny! Not to mention having to raise that child after it is born.
I personally feel that educating people is the way to go, rather than just telling people not to have sex. I have a feeling there would be alot less abortions if people were more educated on the subject. However, things happen and unwanted pregnancies can accur, even if you're very carefull, and it's not up to me to decide whether or not someone wants to have an abortion or not, because it's not my body.
So yeah, before y'all go around saying pregnancy is easy or whatever, talk to someone who has been there and done that.

Roxie

03-01-2006, 01:17 AM

Oh pls believe, I've talked to people who've "been there, done that". I know them all very well.

But I agree, an ounce of prevention...

Shamu

03-01-2006, 01:30 AM

You guys got Shamu upset. :(
Nah, not upset. Actually my "choice" just decided to climb on my dresser and play with the fish, so I couldn't really finish my thoughts very well :P
I'm just saying that if you've never experienced something, how can you know how it feels?
Being pregnant and giving birth was probably the most traumatic and difficult thing I've ever experienced. I don't regret it one bit. I mean, my daughter was planned, so I had an idea of what I was getting into when she was concieved, but it's still a life altering thing to happen to your body and I still have the scars (stretch marks and epesiotomies anyone?). It's ALOT to ask someone to go through.
And if everyone had to be careful about getting me upset on these boards, most of the Aussies would have been kicked out long ago *looks at Jay and Pooka* ;)

IRT Roxie, it's good to talk to pregnant women, you'll get a better idea of what to expect, but it's nothing compared to actually being pregnant (which if you'd like to be, I hope can experience it someday, it's incredible! ^_^).

Ravage

03-01-2006, 01:40 AM

What does it matter if they are unplanned? If you sign, have sex then get pregnant... Explain please :)

As for the fine. It would need to be large enough to make somebody think twice about what they're about to do. But what would you suggest it be?

I'm not even going to comment on the 'luck' of my mother, because everyone in my family has made it through as well as her but for a few stretch marks. Good luck maybe? Doubt it.

And Shamu, the day 100% of all pregnancies are life threatening or excruciating is the day you may rightfully bar 100% of all men the same reproductive rights that you have without exception. But as it stands, only 1 out of 3700 women die from complications of childbirth. If you'd like to add how many go through substantial suffering, then please do so. But I can guarantee it's not going to be 100%.

Why some women are willing to go through pregnancy for themselves or money but not the father, I will never understand...

MNJetter

03-01-2006, 01:40 AM

I'm not saying pregnancy is easy, not at all. But I'd go out on a limb and say that three miscarriages in four pregnancies is far from normal, so I don't know if your experience would be the same as the average experience.

And I agree wholeheartedly with Shamu's contention that proper education on the possibilities, side effects, and consequences of pregnancy would be the best solution to this problem. But of course, I think education is the best solution to most any problem. :P

Roxie: I guess it comes down to who you know specifically, then. I've only known one woman who had a complication during pregnancy other than the standard general discomfort symptoms. I know that pregnancy difficulties can depend a lot on lifestyle and genetics, but other than that I don't know a lot about the number of women who go through specific kinds of complications. Now I'm interested to know whether the majority of cases have complications or if the majority are relatively normal, not just based off anybody's personal experience, including mine. I wonder where one could go to find statistics like that? I suppose google is a good place to start....

Roxie

03-01-2006, 01:44 AM

What does it matter if they are unplanned? If you sign, have sex then get pregnant... Explain please :)
I mean, alot of people won't expect or think of signing those, thinking they won't get pregnant. And what about people under 18 who aren't allowed to sign contracts?
I'm not even going to comment on the 'luck' of my mother, because everyone in my family has made it through as well as her but for a few stretch marks. Good luck maybe? Doubt it.
Ok then. Good genes, how's that?

Ravage

03-01-2006, 01:59 AM

I mean, alot of people won't expect or think of signing those, thinking they won't get pregnant. And what about people under 18 who aren't allowed to sign contracts?

You have sex knowing the risks. If you don't think about signing/not signing before you go off and spread your legs, and if you horny bastard men are too stupid to present the contract knowing full well the implications of what could possibly happen, then there should be nothing to complain about cuz it's your own fault.

This is where we will most likely disagree I think. Make the contract available to underage boys as well. Before you shoot me down, remember that the female doesn't have to sign if she chooses not to.

I think I just opened the door to another debate >_>

Shamu, your right. You nor anybody else will change my mind. Which is why I suggested the contract. Me and Roxie would have been going in circles until the end of time :).

Shamu

03-01-2006, 02:03 AM

And Shamu, the day 100% of all pregnancies are life threatening or excruciating is the day you may rightfully bar 100% of all men the same reproductive rights that you have. But as it stands, only 1 out of 3700 women die from complications of childbirth. If you'd like to add how many go through substantial suffering, then please do so. But I can guarantee it's not going to be 100%.

LMAO....*sighs* Oh well, I tried. I guess you'll never get it. Yeah, the likelyhood of a woman dieing is very slim now, but it doesn't mean that it isn't a huge deal to give birth. And you're family is very lucky if they didn't have ANY problems at all. >_<
I've already said what I think about the topic of this thread many times and I don't feel like going through my entire pregnancy and labor experience to try and prove a point to someone that will never be able to understand. *waves and backs out of thread*

slinky

03-01-2006, 04:21 AM

No, I don't think it is fair. This is a sticky situation and let me tell you, I really do wish they father could have some say if this #4 is the situation, but it's simply unjustifiable.

I say this because of the state and suffering a woman will usually experience in pregnancy. Changes that sometimes cannot be reversed, time off from work, the medical visits, the pain alone.

What if, like the female poster who talked about her experience of being pregnant, the man changes his mind? He can walk away, but the woman still has a baby to deal with, that she didn't want. Not that I think all men are scum who'll walk away, but that it is too easy (to walk away, simply because he doesn't have to bear the child) and too unfair to the woman who didn't want the baby.

It would be nice, it would be wonderful to have a fair solution. However, the nature of pregnancy itself is not fair. Or else the man and woman would swtich out mid 2nd trimester.

But with #4 the woman would be compensated based on (an actuarial table of?) the level of complications and whatnot that she experienced through her pregnancy. Or, at least (which I didn't mention) at least give the man the opportunity to find a surrogate.

As for the changing of the man's mind - that was the reason for the "no takebacks" clause in all of the options. It is HE that's on the hook legally, financially, contractually, not the woman.

As for the switching out of the pregnancy - I think Kass said it well on another thread - there's a difference between what's fair and what's balanced.

marycatherine

03-02-2006, 11:04 PM

Ravage, I sugggest you re-read this!

heres the simple way to answer it.

Does the man carry the baby in his womb?
no
Does the man have to go thru all the labor?
no
Does the man have to breast feed the child if its breast fed?
no
exactly my point.

Men don't have to go through the 9 months of a life change that women do and live with some of the changes permanently.
I agree with B Rocks1010 on this one.

Mary Catherine

Ravage

03-02-2006, 11:47 PM

marycatherine, I suggest you read this:

"Social anxiety disorder, also called social phobia, is an anxiety disorder in which a person has an excessive and unreasonable fear of social situations. Anxiety (intense nervousness) and self-consciousness arise from a fear of being closely watched, judged and criticized by others.

Physical symptoms of anxiety, including confusion, pounding heart, sweating, shaking, blushing, muscle tension and upset stomach"

To avoid these symptoms, I have stayed indoors as much as I can. I've gone outside about 6 times over a period of 8 months. I'm like the whitest Native American I have ever seen.

Reading your reply is enough to make me shake and cause my heart to pound. If I got into another argument, such as the others, I would feel the stomach ache and sometime later, the back pains.

I was in misery 2 days ago because of this.

I am in misery now. I'm lonely and depressed. I feel like shit about myself.

But you know what? I don't bitch about it half the time I see other people bitch about stuff similar. Like your average pregnancy. In fact, I have yet to bitch about my own problems during any of this, despite being told 'I don't know how it feels'.

I do realise that because I'm used to this for dealing with it for so long, it might not seem so bad to me. But come on...

I do sometimes wish I only had to deal with this for 9 months and then have it fade away. But we can't all be so lucky, can we? This is going to be with me for a hell of a lot longer.

I really do hate playing the victim. It's so pathetic...

'scuse the typos

MNJetter

03-03-2006, 12:08 AM

Whooh, nine months. A whole one percent of your life.

The key difference between 9 months of "permanent life change" that a woman goes through in pregnancy and the 9 months or more of an equally horrendous disease or medical condition is that in the case of pregnancy, it's not really like you didn't choose to get into that situation. Pregnancy doesn't just sneak up on you like a virus. It happens as a direct consequence of the choice that you and your partner make. Therefore, you and your partner ought to be in on the decision about what to do with it. Yes, the woman has to carry the child, like B RoCkS1010 said. Yes, she has to go through labor. I disagree with the breastfeeding bit, which assumes that the woman is obligated to care for the child afterwards, or that the child cannot survive without breastfeeding. But the bottom line is that whatever she goes though, it's still not just her creation. Woman don't reproduce asexually. She might care for the first nine months of it within her body, but the little person inside her is fully half of her partner's genetic code.

Men don't have to go through the 9 months of a life change that women do and live with some of the changes permanently.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this. Men don't get pregnant, true. But there are other ways to change a life permanently that are at least as horrendous. And diseases and accidents usually aren't gender-prejudiced. Like Ravage's disorder - I know that's an incredibly tough thing to live with - or my back surgery last year, which took me about nine months to recover from. Let me tell you, I bet re-learning how to walk and dealing with the side effects of noxious anti-infection drugs are at least as taxing as swelling and morning sickness. And I didn't even make a lifestyle choice that led me to having an infection around the base of my spine. But I still don't complain. Maybe it makes it easier to live with something life-changing if you aren't feeling secretly guilty about getting yourself into the situation in the first place.

PopCulturePooka

03-03-2006, 12:43 AM

Question for the guys.

How many of you have actually been faced with a situation involving abortion or unwanted/unfeasible pregnancy?

Roxie

03-03-2006, 12:59 AM

I disagree wholeheartedly with this. Men don't get pregnant, true. But there are other ways to change a life permanently that are at least as horrendous. Whether or not there are other ways is not the arguement. And diseases and accidents usually aren't gender-prejudiced.
You're exactly right, however, this one is.

It's amazing you where able to comeback from the back sugery, I have seen how hard back problems (and their "cures") can debilitate people, first hand. I truly hope you can continue to recover and have less pain.

However, your agruement about it being a consquence of a behavior and secret guilt is tantamount to saying "You deserve this. If you just didn't have sex in the first place..."

This is ineffectual, b/c most of the human population is going to fail at abstinence. That's just how it is. The only way to deal with that is with full disclosure, safer sex education along extremely attainable access. Then there are those who didn't choose at all, but had that choice taken away from them.

But we, in this arguement, are past that point.

marycatherine

03-03-2006, 01:00 AM

Ravage, you could see a therapist about it? or y'know, don't come into controversial topics in a forum if they upset you so much.

MNJetter - Permanent damage from a pregnancy that could be avoided (by abortion) is very different from other permanent damage that's unavoidable (like getting sick and having to stay in a bed for months, ending up in a wheelchair, being paralyzed, going through rehab/physical therapy). They're all different circumstances that can be dealt with differently or with a different mind set.

If someone is forced to be a parent, odds are they won't be a good parent. (I think Roxie said this before)

Really though, people just deal with these things in various ways.

Feel free to take my opinion on this matter with a grain of salt...I've never been pregnant, so I haven't had to make a choice on whether or not I should have an abortion. I'd hate to have to make the choice if the circumstances ever come about. I think it'd be mainly my choice and not the father's choice, but I would take what he had to say into account.

Mary Catherine

yao_yao

03-03-2006, 11:54 AM

heres the simple way to answer it.

Does the man carry the baby in his womb?
no
Does the man have to go thru all the labor?
no
Does the man have to breast feed the child if its breast fed?
no
exactly my point.

Actually, men CAN breastfeed... rarely but there are some that can ;)

now that i've gotten your attention...

while I myself have not had an abortion, when I worked at the hospital I have seen plenty of people come in for abortions. Some were women using it as a form of birth control when their contraceptives failed, others when ultrasound or blood tests indicated a deformity, and even one to save the life of the mother.

I think abortion is a nasty, but necessary thing. A child is an innocent being, and I'd rather it not be born than raised in a family that doesn't want it.

MNJetter

03-03-2006, 01:10 PM

If someone is forced to be a parent, odds are they won't be a good parent. (I think Roxie said this before)

I do agree with that. But nobody said anything about forcing people to be a parent. Just carry the child. If I remember correctly from the very first post in this thread (granted, it was from Eyez, but it was still the first post), this thread's topic is not whether we ought to force people to raise the children they spawn instead of aborting them, or even if abortion is right or wrong. The question is whether or not the other half of a partnership should have a (legal?) say in whether or not a fetus is aborted. I think that generally the guy should have a say. If he says he wants it and skips out, there's always adoption if the mother still doesn't want it. (not an absolute rule, of course - pregnancies, more than most other situations, are very individualized and situations are different for everyone) If the pregnancy is severe enough to risk permanent damage, the mother should be able to override the decision.

And Roxie, thanks for the concern about my back. Because of that, I almost hate disagreeing with you :P. I didn't mean to accidentally imply the bit about "you deserve this, you shouldn't have had sex in the first place." I meant to more or less say it outright. I know it seems kind of heartless, but lack of self-discipline is no excuse. My boyfriend and I made a conscious decision not to (technically) have sex (there are lots of ways to get off without actually putting yourself in danger of pregnancy) until we can afford children. It wasn't all that incredibly difficult.

And just because a rule is supposedly going to be ineffectual doesn't make it the wrong thing to do. Just because children don't like to brush their teeth doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage them to do so. ;)

marycatherine

03-03-2006, 01:37 PM

nobody said anything about forcing people to be a parent. Just carry the child.

Then find someone else to carry the child. If she doesn't want to, maybe there's another girl out there who will.

And slightly off topic, haven't the Japanese come up with a way for men to carry children? I remember reading that a few months ago but I never heard anything else about it.

Mary Catherine

MNJetter

03-03-2006, 02:28 PM

Then find someone else to carry the child. If she doesn't want to, maybe there's another girl out there who will.

I think that has been suggested as an alternative.

If we could assume that a surrogate parent has been found, does the woman still have the right to abort - not just refuse to carry the child, but insist on killing it - despite the man's protests? I'm not just talking to MaryCatherine, I'm interested in everybody's take on this aspect.

Roxie

03-04-2006, 01:05 AM

I AM PISSED THE FUCK OFF!!!

FUCK YOU SOUTH DAKOTA AND THE ALL THE ONES THAT CAME WITH YOU!! :bang: :mad:

I just saw the Senator that spearheaded the ban on abortion in SD on PBA news.
The ban prevents women have been raped/incest from getting abortions.

The reporter asked the man (I'm sorry, I've forgetten his name in all my very angery ANGER) for a real life situation that would, in his mind, qualify a woman to get an abortion.

He said the woman have to have been physically forced brutal rape, savaged, sodomized, religious, a virgin (I swear I nearly heard "WASP" roll out of his mouth) who was planning to save herself until marriage. She might be so messed up that having this child would be danger to her physically & emotionally. He stressed the fact she'd have be brutally physically damanged (inside & out) by this rape.

I stopped through the house. That is unfuckingbeliveble.

MNJetter. That's great. However, you're in a very tiny percentage. We have to be realistic here. I'm not above teach absitenence in any way, but it's just not going to work for the majority of people, period.

Kids still get cavities, right?

And now this!

Most sexually active women aged 15-44 have used birth control. But who's paying for it? If Sen. Michael Enzi (R-WY) has his way, insurance companies in almost every state won't have to. Next week, the Senate will consider a bill introduced by Sen. Enzi that would allow insurance companies to ignore state laws that protect patients, including laws that prohibit insurance companies from covering some prescription drugs, but not birth control.

Mockguy

03-04-2006, 09:34 AM

rant

let me see, if I'm anti abortion, I'm a Zarquing macho man that wants the woman to suffer.

but If I'm Pro-abortion, I'm a inmature sad little jerk that deserves no woman, even though you just stated your boyfriend is pro-abortion and so are you...

God. you need to clear your head first, but my proposition is this: free operations on women that go to spring break/mardi grass/etc... after all unlike the men, the operation on women is 100% reversible, while for us men is a flip of the coin once we had the vasectomy.

so that way we skip the whole abortion thing and you women have the children when you do want to have one.

but seriusly, making an abortion a right on a medical scale (both body and mind) is best that just letting a woman say:"I don't want it, its my body, my life and it's not going to be born", why? because you may do it based in the momment only and might regret it later in life (scars in the uterus that dificult pregnancy later in life, represed regret as what would the kid be if he was alive and how your life would be with the kid at your side), the most human choice is: send him in to a orphanate (or what you may call them), child services etc... remember, Bethoven and the Pope were almost aborted before they were born.Also, there's the family, the is alway one relative that may be willing to help you with the kid. abortion is a last resort thing never the first.

and Roxie, I guess the person said that the raped woman would have to have clear signs of violence in her because imagine how many "violations" would be declared alongside with the: "I didn't see his face, car, dad, wallet, classes hours, body, voice, smell, nametags etc..." and the 15 yr teen would have a free abortion because she was dumb enough to have unprottected sex at an early age, the intention on the move was clearly against those that would take advantage of such right. regretfully innocents must pay for the wicked.

PopCulturePooka

03-04-2006, 10:00 AM

Wow Roxie.

Its true.
America is ran by fuckwits who deserve to be shot.

I'm sorry.

Move to Australia.

Our Abortion laws are much free-er.

marycatherine

03-06-2006, 07:17 AM

If we could assume that a surrogate parent has been found, does the woman still have the right to abort - not just refuse to carry the child, but insist on killing it - despite the man's protests? I'm not really sure what you mean here, but if it's "woman gets pregnant by man who wants kid and she doesn't, but they find someone who will carry the baby"...I don't really know how that would work. I suppose they'd have to abort, then get the first woman's eggs with the guy's sperm and then do the surrogate deal in the volunteering woman. I don't think it'll work if she's already pregnant tho. If it's the other scenario I was thinking "woman doesn't want to get pregnant but wants a kid with her eggs and his sperm" and they get a surrogate mother, then the surrogate shouldn't be allowed to abort unless giving birth is going to get her killed in the process - or *maybe* if while she's pregnant she goes through the worst of the symptoms that pregnant women can go through and she can't handle it physically. Basically, she can't just not want to be pregnant anymore, there has to be a physical condition (problem) for her to abort. that's my 2 cents, Mary Catherine

Roxie

03-18-2006, 04:18 AM

Now from planned parenthood

Last week when abortion was criminalized in South Dakota, you took action and wrote to Gov. Mike Rounds. Now we need your help to stop a similar ban in Mississippi — to prevent the domino effect.

The governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, recently said if an abortion ban reaches his desk, he will sign it. Ten more states have proposed criminalizing abortion as well. Act now to stop the dominoes from falling.

http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/mississippi_abortionban2/wxg383k4h5ktdk3?

OliveButtercup

03-18-2006, 04:26 AM

This is getting out of control. Last week I read they won't even let rape or incest victims have a choice if any of the state bans hold.

marycatherine

03-18-2006, 05:47 AM

I think in response to this, we should all toss metal hangers around the cities we live in with little tags on them that say "free abortion" on them - or something that's actually witty (sorry, long week, I'm about dead tired).

Karthak

03-18-2006, 09:26 PM

Lord Darkblade

03-20-2006, 07:18 PM

I have to side with the male rights activists for the most part of this, I am pro abortion in that you cannot force a person to do something (or not, pro suicide as well, at least in Britain its illegal but I don't understand why).

There are 4 scenarios as suggested before, if both parents want a child then both should be responsible equally, if neither wants the child it can be either aborted, brought to term and adopted etc but there should be no opt out (you cannot turn round at birth/whenever and say you now want it unilaterally).

When only a single partner wants the child and an opinion has been stated before (so one partner might have taken out a contract explicitly stating their views, the other partner signs to say that they have read this and understand the obligations given by this). Now if the man wants the child and the woman doesn't it becomes tricky as you cannot force the woman to not abort, however you could give the option of a "surrogate contract" and allow that to be used relieving the pregnant partner of all responsibilities beyond birth.

A pregnant mother should of course have to inform her partner as soon as possible about a pregnancy/birth and from this date (in writing ideally) the other party should have the chance to "opt out". My reasoning behind this is there are guys who had 1 night/ relationships and get a back order for child support 10 years later without knowing they have a child before this, if you want to raise a child on your own then you shouldn't be allowed a comeback later if you haven't told the other party.

At the end of the day "my body my choice" is correct but a unilateral decision should not be allowed to potentially ruin another persons life.

(Already been called a Nazi Male Chauvenist Pig for my views, never been in this situation and hopefully never will be, so flame away if you want to).