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

Baldimo wrote:

tony2481 wrote:

Quote:

Actually, a recent study found that kids taught to abstain had a higher incidence of teen pregancy than those who were not exposed top such instruction

I would love to see that study. Please post a link if it is available.

I second that emotion.

Are you implying that the information is false?

I'd like to throw a hypothetical situation out there for the men in this discussion.

Suppose you were a low wage earner and you and your wife have three kids under 5 years of age. You are not making ends meet. She can't work because you can't afford childcare for 3 (it would add up to more than she could bring in by working). You don't have health insurance. Your wife has been getting as much free birth control as possible, but she becomes pregnant with a 4th child anyway. Your home is already at the breaking point. The two of you are not incredibly happy because of the stress of the bills and the kids and the knowledge that with each birth of an additional child, the resources for the kids you have must be redistributed among them so that your hopes for their future are diluted. Your wife's body is also stressed from the three successive births and breast feeding. She's mildly anemic and her pregnancy causes violent mood swings that make life at home even more unbearable -- especially for the kids. Both of you believe that the stress of another pregnancy and the forthcoming child will mean the end of your marriage. The idea of giving a child you created to strangers to raise is unbearable. Do you consider abortion? What if you want her to have an abortion and she doesn't? What if she wants an abortion and you don't? What is your responsibility to the children that you already have? Should you stop having sex with your wife until she reaches menopause to avoid further unwanted pregnancies?

dora17 wrote:

i'd be much more comfortable w/ the idea of considering a fetus as a human being from the instant an egg is fertilized if we would accord the same sort of respect and veneration to other life. I can't accept the right to life movement's sincerity until they give some consideration to the abhorrent treatment of other life, like factory farmed animals. If a embryo desrves consideration from the instant it begins existence, then why doesn't an animal that we know has some degree of intelligence and ability to feel pain, like a pig, deserve a decent existence? when the majority of right to lifers are also concerned with humane treatment of all life, i'll give their morals more credence. (of course, this is all off the topic that was originally the intention of the thread. sorry, atkins )

So ... if I understand your position correctly ... you are in favor of abortion because right-to-lifer humans kill animals for food and sport? Pleaes correct me if I'm wrong.

Ticomaya wrote:

dora17 wrote:

i'd be much more comfortable w/ the idea of considering a fetus as a human being from the instant an egg is fertilized if we would accord the same sort of respect and veneration to other life. I can't accept the right to life movement's sincerity until they give some consideration to the abhorrent treatment of other life, like factory farmed animals. If a embryo desrves consideration from the instant it begins existence, then why doesn't an animal that we know has some degree of intelligence and ability to feel pain, like a pig, deserve a decent existence? when the majority of right to lifers are also concerned with humane treatment of all life, i'll give their morals more credence. (of course, this is all off the topic that was originally the intention of the thread. sorry, atkins )

So ... if I understand your position correctly ... you are in favor of abortion because right-to-lifer humans kill animals for food and sport? Pleaes correct me if I'm wrong.

What I'm saying is I'd have more respect for the right to lifers' position if they held all sentient life in such high regard as they do an embryo, because it would make their position more consistent.

Chrissee wrote:

JTT wrote:

Chrissee was right earlier, even though she provided no proof.

No proof was needed except to examine the statement...

"Life begins at conception"

...to ascertain that it is simply false.

Sez you.

I'd put your belief about when "life" begins against my belief any day of the week. Apparently, you think life always exists, because both the egg and sperm are "living" before they join. That is a very interesting belief, to say the least.

And it still doesn't explain to me why, if life always exists, you think it's okay to kill a living baby.

Ticomaya believes life begins at conception. The great Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas believed life began forty-four days after conception at what is known as the quickening or the first time the mother feels the movement of the fetus. Aquinas thought God infused the fetus with a soul and made it human.

Here is a thought. If a man is aware of the pregnancy, and doesn't want the abortion, then he should be given the same rights as a father, who's child is about to be given for adoption, and yes i think the father should be able to even sue for support. Thanks to science, we are able to test for paternity while the child is in the womb.
DNA testing can be done as early as the second trimester of pregnancy, starting after the 12th week.
Men do suffer the consequences of irresponsible intercourse, and so should women. Honestly, i think this is the most fair way to approach this issue. And it would probably decrease the amount of children in single parent homes. It would probably also decrease the amout of fathers abandoning their children, because the system would be more fair.

Ticomaya wrote:

Chrissee wrote:

JTT wrote:

Chrissee was right earlier, even though she provided no proof.

No proof was needed except to examine the statement...

"Life begins at conception"

...to ascertain that it is simply false.

Sez you.

I'd put your belief about when "life" begins against my belief any day of the week. Apparently, you think life always exists, because both the egg and sperm are "living" before they join. That is a very interesting belief, to say the least.

And it still doesn't explain to me why, if life always exists, you think it's okay to kill a living baby.

It is an irrefutable scientific fact that in order for an egg to successfully fertilize, BOTH THE SPERM AND THE EGG MUST BE ALIVE. Only a fool would even question this fact.

Are they alive in the same way as a baby WILL be?

oh, and i think that a life begins at conception.

Quote:

Are they alive in the same way as a baby WILL be?

WRONG QUESTION.

The question should be:

Is a fertilized egg at the very instant of conception alive in the same way as a spermatazoa and an unfertilized egg a moment BEFORE fertilization?

So, you tell me, after all, you once were in that situation. How did you feel at the moment of conception? And how did you feel an instant before?

Quote:

Are they alive in the same way as a baby WILL be?

WRONG QUESTION.

The question should be:

Is a fertilized egg at the very instant of conception alive in the same way as a spermatazoa and an unfertilized egg a moment BEFORE fertilization?

So, you tell me, after all, you once were in that situation. How did you feel at the moment of conception? And how did you feel an instant before?

Chrissee wrote:

Quote:

Are they alive in the same way as a baby WILL be?

WRONG QUESTION.

The question should be:

Is a fertilized egg at the very instant of conception alive in the same way as a spermatazoa and an unfertilized egg a moment BEFORE fertilization?

So, you tell me, after all, you once were in that situation. How did you feel at the moment of conception? And how did you feel an instant before?

I wouldn't know, I don't remember anything before I was about 6 years old and then most of that is a little hazy due to a lousy dad who was a prick.

I do know an old guy who says he can remember being born.