Men: Why Do You Oppose a Woman's Right to Abortion?

If Ticomaya does not understand me, I must say the same about him.

Why would you ask if I am serious about baldimo's evident hysteria? He seems to think everything is a personal affront.

I do "get out."

Why isn't it relevant for me to be a widower who raised his son?

0 Replies

Atkins wrote:

What about men who abandon their children?

Why don't we kill the men and their abandoned children? Let's get serious about Zero Population Growth!

Atkins wrote:

If Ticomaya does not understand me, I must say the same about him.

Perhaps we would both be better off if it remained that way?

Atkins wrote:

Why would you ask if I am serious about baldimo's evident hysteria? He seems to think everything is a personal affront.

You seem to think people who are not hysterical or angry are hysterical and angry. You might want to pay closer attention for a while longer before you try to make judgments about the level of frustration, anger, or hysteria in a poster's responses, because your intuition isn't cutting it.

Quote:

I do "get out."

I'm glad.

Quote:

Why isn't it relevant for me to be a widower who raised his son?

It seems to me to be as relevant on this thread as if I were to point out that I played soccer in college, and still do. That's why I asked you to clarify its relevancy, if any. You could still do so.

0 Replies

Atkins wrote:

I now understand your name, blue. What triggered this unnecessary and unreasonable anger?

Me, hysterical?

I feel no one has a right to have a child. I believe in a sensible policy called Zero Population Growth.

You make a case for the choice of the father. Should there be any choice for two high school kids but an abortion? What about men who abandon their children?

Don't confuse anger with impatience. I have none with what I consider foolishness. You are wandering on and off topic.

I am glad you understand my name. Most people have a lot of trouble with it's multi layered subtlety Laughing

You're quick though. I admire that.

0 Replies

I am steadfastly on topic.

When I was in college, many couples had abortions in states where abortion was legal or in England. Although I was never a party to an abortion, I always thought my friends did the right thing. They weren't in a position to raise a family in economic terms.

What about men who abandon the children they supposedly wanted?

0 Replies

"What about men who abandon the children they supposedly wanted? "

I say CASTRATE THEM!!!

Also, one abortion per female then "castrate" them too.

0 Replies

Atkins wrote:

I think baldimo is hysterical. I do not mean hysterical ha-ha, but hysterically red-faced and screaming. Why are you so angry? How high is your blood pressure?

I don't think that came across in my post at all. If I did then please explain. I was expressing a view that isn't ever talked about in the great abortion debate.

I have had a friend that was put in this position with long-term girl friend. About a month after they broke up he found out she was pregnant. She terminated the baby and he didn't even have a choice in the matter. He wanted to raise the child but he was never given the option. When she found out he wanted the child she did the low blow of telling him she did it because she knew he wanted the child. I know that isn't true but it was low and dirty to say.

I'm not the type of person to control anyone but my own children (God knows my wife isn't controlled) but I do have a strong sense of advocacy for father's rights because in this day and age fathers have no rights except the right to pay money.

Is there any thing wrong to show support for men who want to be fathers when they aren't given a choice?

0 Replies

Ehbeth cited and commented:

Quote:

Baldimo wrote:

You should <snip>

You should <snip>

It is about control all right but not for women's issues but more so for just plain power.

You sure know how to make something look like a control issue, Baldimo.

I rarely agree with Chrissee, but you've definitely made her argument here.

Magnificent.

Abortion is an individual decision. When potential parents cannot agree, the outlook for the child--and for society--is bleak.

Personally, I believe there should be much more birth control and many fewer abortions, but until other options are available, abortion must remain an option.

0 Replies

The real question in this debate is "when does a fetus gain rights." I the case of late term abortion, where a baby could be extracted and survive, there should only be an abortion when the mother is in GRAVE risk of death. At that point "it hurts a little" doesn't cut it. The arguement that the parent(s) cannot support a child financially doesn't cut it either. You would be on death row if you killed your 10 year old because you lost your job and had no money.
Ultimately, the "time of life" is a subjective state. I am not saying that banning abortion is a good answer, but it isn't that different from killing your own kid (man or woman). It is more or less a moral choice and you can't legislate morality, because making the "moral" choice requires a choice.
At what point does your seed become a person, and at what point does that "person" become entitled to the protection of the law?
What part of the constitution conveys a right to "privacy," which is the basis for the Row vs Wade decision. The idea that that decision is the end all and be all on the subject is like saying the Dred Scott ruling is the end all and be all on the slavery debate 150 years ago.
I wouldn't be a supporter of an abortion ban, but at this point a majority decision would be appropriate. It is a very sticky and subjective issue and the proponents of each stand should have the opporunity to reach a compromise. There will be people both for and against abortion who would be unhappy with any compromise but that is the only workable solution.

0 Replies

tony2481 wrote:

The real question in this debate is "when does a fetus gain rights." I the case of late term abortion, where a baby could be extracted and survive, there should only be an abortion when the mother is in GRAVE risk of death. At that point "it hurts a little" doesn't cut it. The arguement that the parent(s) cannot support a child financially doesn't cut it either. You would be on death row if you killed your 10 year old because you lost your job and had no money.
Ultimately, the "time of life" is a subjective state. I am not saying that banning abortion is a good answer, but it isn't that different from killing your own kid (man or woman). It is more or less a moral choice and you can't legislate morality, because making the "moral" choice requires a choice.
At what point does your seed become a person, and at what point does that "person" become entitled to the protection of the law?
What part of the constitution conveys a right to "privacy," which is the basis for the Row vs Wade decision. The idea that that decision is the end all and be all on the subject is like saying the Dred Scott ruling is the end all and be all on the slavery debate 150 years ago.
I wouldn't be a supporter of an abortion ban, but at this point a majority decision would be appropriate. It is a very sticky and subjective issue and the proponents of each stand should have the opporunity to reach a compromise. There will be people both for and against abortion who would be unhappy with any compromise but that is the only workable solution.

It should be a state issue and not a federal issue. I don't understand how an abortion is a privacy issue on a federal level.

0 Replies

tony2481 wrote:

It is more or less a moral choice and you can't legislate morality, because making the "moral" choice requires a choice.

Thjis idea that "you can't legislate morality" that has been repeated ad nausium is simply garbage. Thousands of our laws are based on morality so is seems fairly obvious that we can and do legislate morailty.

0 Replies

Certainly agreed. Maybe not even a state issue but a decision exclusive to the smaller jurisdictions. The only problem is, "the bigger the politician, the bigger the politics." The Schavio case is the perfect example of a political dog and pony show. Everyone had to get their hands in it (unnecessarily) to avoid alienating their base. Ultimately, the initial decision prevailed as it should, and ultimately, the federal inquisition did no harm. Nothing wrong with measuring twice before making the cut, proverbally speaking, but that is where the trouble starts.

0 Replies

tony2481 wrote:

At what point does your seed become a person, and at what point does that "person" become entitled to the protection of the law?
.

In arguments on this subject i have presented the idea that a fetus is not a being with rights under the law until it is no longer basically a parasite in its mother's body. I have yet to hear a good refutation of that idea. everyone likes to compare it to killing a ten year old. well, the difference is that you could give that child to any number of people who would love to have a child. as long as a baby is inside a woman and getting its nourishment from her, there's no way to let someone else have it, and if the mother doesn't want it, well, it's her body that is keeping it alive. once it's out, of course there's no excuse for killing it, because anyone else could raise it if the mother doesn't want to. that is why the comparison to killing an infant or child or anyone outside the womb just doesn't work. And as for men that want to keep the baby, sorry guys, learn to grow 'em yourself then. :wink:

0 Replies

dora17 wrote:

tony2481 wrote:
At what point does your seed become a person, and at what point does that "person" become entitled to the protection of the law?
.
And as for men that want to keep the baby, sorry guys, learn to grow 'em yourself then. :wink:

If that is the case then women should learn to care for the child her self and not seek legal action or state support for money. If the father has no right to claim the child prebirth then the mother should have no right to seek money post birth.

To call an unborn child a parasite is a little crass but if that makes it easier for you to abort it then so be it. It is kind of how the Nazi's dealt with the Jew's, they weren't seen as people but parasites.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

tony2481 wrote:
It is more or less a moral choice and you can't legislate morality, because making the "moral" choice requires a choice.

Thjis idea that "you can't legislate morality" that has been repeated ad nausium is simply garbage. Thousands of our laws are based on morality so is seems fairly obvious that we can and do legislate morailty.

US laws are not instilled by "morality" per se, although they may be rooted in the concept of right and wrong. The laws that exist, exist because the people want them (by referendum or by elected representatives). The "supreme court test" is especially subjective (for better or worse), and ultimately reflects the sentiment of the people, though the supreme court may lag behind the times. That is the basis of the "checks and balances" that are supposed to prevent the rash, knee jerk, bad decisions. The good ones are supposed to stand the test of time. If it were not for that, people of color would still be only considered 3/5ths of a person.

0 Replies

why we need mandatory abortions

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=28771&highlight=

0 Replies

You will find that a lot of bad ones are still in the books....

0 Replies

Dora,

I did, if I remember correctly, say that this is a decision that society has to make. Not that my opinion is "better" than yours.
Also, if I remember correctly, I did say that the right to an abortion ends when the child could survive outside the mother (when it is no longer a "parasite").
I will concede that there is a difference between a 10 year old and an unborn child, but there is also a difference between a tape worm and an unborn child.

0 Replies

tony2481 wrote:

US laws are not instilled by "morality" per se, although they may be rooted in the concept of right and wrong. The laws that exist, exist because the people want them (by referendum or by elected representatives).

Nice double-speak you've got going there!

"The laws that exist, exist because the people want them". Yep. And why do they want them?? For most people the answer is because the laws are what they see as "just" or "fair" - both of which are determined by one's moral values. Which takes you right back to legislating morality.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

You will find that a lot of bad ones are still in the books....

I guess i agree with you and the pig O'Reiley on this one. every law should sunset every 10 years. That way the rule of law won't fill up a small house with paper and won't require a dozen lawyers to find any particular one.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

dora17 wrote:
tony2481 wrote:
At what point does your seed become a person, and at what point does that "person" become entitled to the protection of the law?
.
And as for men that want to keep the baby, sorry guys, learn to grow 'em yourself then. :wink:

If that is the case then women should learn to care for the child her self and not seek legal action or state support for money. If the father has no right to claim the child prebirth then the mother should have no right to seek money post birth.

To call an unborn child a parasite is a little crass but if that makes it easier for you to abort it then so be it. It is kind of how the Nazi's dealt with the Jew's, they weren't seen as people but parasites.

I know it's a little crass, i do it to be a little crass... and it got a rise out of ya...sorry Smile

as far as the comment about growing babies themselves, i felt sort of bad about it afterwards. it's far too flip of a comment about something that is a really sad situation. it saddens me to think of a man that wants to keep a baby, and can't do it by himself, but what is a fair solution? as a woman not lookin forward to childbirth, i can't advocate making the woman bear the child against her will for someone else. it's sad, but i just don't think that you can give the father as much say as the mother, since she is the one whose body has to support the baby, by necessity. work on a way to implant fetuses in men's bodies. and i do agree that child support is frequently unfair to men.

as for the Nazi thing, come on... don't go for my silly baiting that way...it just makes it too much fun for me...

0 Replies

Men: Why Do You Oppose a Woman's Right to Abortion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know