abortion rights in the hands of MEN.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:35 pm

K.Snyder;1367601 wrote: If the child was discussed prior to sexual intercourse then perhaps this opinion would hold much firmer ground but the reality is I'd say this probably happens with 3% of the population 2% of which consists of teenagers wanting independence and to pi%% off their parents(males against stepfather and females against single "overbearing" mother - which argues in favor of sympathy among women choosing abortion due to the fact the father will move across country when told he has to change a diaper).

The fact is that people discussing children consist of people that are together with some shred of commitment and equally civilized.

When the child isn't discussed and the woman becomes pregnant then the male has taken part in an act that directly threatens the very health and well being of that child which negates any "moral divinity" one might think is present from those without a clue as to the reality of single mothers in the World and just how damn hard it is to raise a child by herself. Do you have any idea how much day care is?

Given the statistics of single mothers how in the hell can you or anyone expect women should trust a track record of males so horrendous I dare to challenge one's definition of "pig"!

Your opinion is obviously fitting for your personal virtue in life CJ, and not a hair beyond that perspective

Well then that gets to the point of both men/women, boys/girls not having enough knowledge about being sexually active. Either by GMC's notion of the atrocious acts of the religious movements, or by society's poor image of sex/sexuality it broadcast on T.V, Radio, Internet, Movies, or the fact that the parents of the children made are just as knowledgeable about sex and sexuality as the kids are thus producing kids who grow up to make just as bad or worse decisions when it comes to sex, or a combination of some or all of those. As I said why a child isn't discussed as a possibility of the outcome of sex with/without contraceptives I think is one of the common things that couples don't do, because of lack of knowledge, thus leading to the outcomes you mentioned from couples without proper knowledge about sex or about relationships in general.

If it is going to be my opinion it is going to be fitting to my personal virtue in life, I think that is a given.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Aug 30, 2011 7:19 pm

littleCJelkton;1367626 wrote: Well then that gets to the point of both men/women, boys/girls not having enough knowledge about being sexually active. Either by GMC's notion of the atrocious acts of the religious movements, or by society's poor image of sex/sexuality it broadcast on T.V, Radio, Internet, Movies, or the fact that the parents of the children made are just as knowledgeable about sex and sexuality as the kids are thus producing kids who grow up to make just as bad or worse decisions when it comes to sex, or a combination of some or all of those. As I said why a child isn't discussed as a possibility of the outcome of sex with/without contraceptives I think is one of the common things that couples don't do, because of lack of knowledge, thus leading to the outcomes you mentioned from couples without proper knowledge about sex or about relationships in general.

If it is going to be my opinion it is going to be fitting to my personal virtue in life, I think that is a given.So am I to assume that you feel men have no right to force a woman to give birth to a child that was not discussed prior to intercourse then?

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:44 pm

K.Snyder;1367647 wrote: So am I to assume that you feel men have no right to force a woman to give birth to a child that was not discussed prior to intercourse then?

Correct, though I also feel that if the couple is to a point in a relationship where they are involved in intercourse the woman should hold the man's decision in high regard. Just as he should hold any opinion she has in the same fashion.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:48 pm

K.Snyder;1367647 wrote: So am I to assume that you feel men have no right to force a woman to give birth to a child that was not discussed prior to intercourse then?

But I also feel that even though not discussed anyone who engages in sexual intercourse should understand there is always a chance that a pregnancy could occur. As I remember Jeff Goldblum pointing out as Dr, Ian Malcom in the first Jurrasic Park.

Life Finds a way

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:41 am

littleCJelkton;1367651 wrote: Correct, though I also feel that if the couple is to a point in a relationship where they are involved in intercourse the woman should hold the man's decision in high regard. Just as he should hold any opinion she has in the same fashion.

Ablow is arguing that the man should have the right to make the woman carry to term regardless of circumstances - He does not even seem prepared to make an exception in cases of rape or incest. Am I correct in that you don't agree with him on that particular point? He should onlyperhaps have a say in the decision not a right to make it.

But I also feel that even though not discussed anyone who engages in sexual intercourse should understand there is always a chance that a pregnancy could occur. As I remember Jeff Goldblum pointing out as Dr, Ian Malcom in the first Jurrasic Park.

Without proper sex education you get daft myths like, if you do it standing up you don't get pregnant, you can't get pregnant the first time or quite simply the girl doesn't want to lose the boyfriend and gives in to pressure not to use a condom or just they can't get hold of contraceptives - you can't get them from a chemist over the counter if you are a teenager can you. There's a difference between knowing something and understanding it or knowledge and wisdom if you prefer.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:19 am

littleCJelkton;1367652 wrote: But I also feel that even though not discussed anyone who engages in sexual intercourse should understand there is always a chance that a pregnancy could occur.You think men are conscious of the fact a pregnancy is possible equally as much as women?

Let's get a bit of perspective here...

"A woman has a right to force a man to nip off his testicles due to her wishing to not become pregnant" Is this statement true or false?

If it's a technical point that you're arguing then I'd say of course every man has the right to suggest the woman not terminate the pregnancy but I'm afraid that's where it ends...

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:21 pm

K.Snyder;1367687 wrote: You think men are conscious of the fact a pregnancy is possible equally as much as women?

No, as I said before I think the system in place leads to both men and women being not conscious about that possiblity, and I believe that is is actually one the biggest causes of the problem.

K.Snyder;1367687 wrote: Let's get a bit of perspective here...

"A woman has a right to force a man to nip off his testicles due to her wishing to not become pregnant" Is this statement true or false?

No a woman doesn't have that right. Though if they are in a relationship in which they are going to be sexually active, and want to make 100% absolutely postively sure no pregnancy is possible is to have the man get a orchiectomy or a castration and use his (hands, dildo, mouth, ect) to please her ,and/or the woman get a Oophorectomy/Hysterectomy. Or they can just agree to only ever perform Oral and or hand jobs. That understanding should be understood and the couple can proceed with them for the purpose of being able to have sex without pregnancy if they wish.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 9:24 pm

littleCJelkton;1367728 wrote: No, as I said before I think the system in place leads to both men and women being not conscious about that possiblity, and I believe that is is actually one the biggest causes of the problem.I don't know a single woman with any number percentage above 0 that hasn't consciously understood the possibility of her becoming pregnant. This response proves without doubt that men don't think nor worry about pregnancy as much as women, if at all, to the point not a single man could ever understandably come to the conclusion he could have an epsilon amount of say in whether a woman should have an abortion or not

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 9:49 pm

K.Snyder;1367759 wrote: I don't know a single woman with any number percentage above 0 that hasn't consciously understood the possibility of her becoming pregnant. This response proves without doubt that men don't think nor worry about pregnancy as much as women, if at all, to the point not a single man could ever understandably come to the conclusion he could have an epsilon amount of say in whether a woman should have an abortion or not

For obvious reasons a man can't worry about becoming pregnant, but they should conciously understand the possibility of impregnanting a woman and be ready to take responsibility for said actions, the idea that a man has no right to want to have a child by a woman he impregnated and no matter what his opinions are they don't matter lead to that man not taking responsibility for said pregnancy as he feels since his opinion or rights don't matter why should he have to do with her anything after getting a woman pregnant (weather she has an abortion or not). I am sure most if not all women in a relationship where there opinions or rights did not matter would want it to change or leave the relationship as well.

As I said Sex Pregnancy Child Care and Abortion all should all be a joint decisions of both individuals in said relationship, as said relationships should be to a level where The woman's wants, needs, opinions really care to the Male, and the Males vice-versa to the felmale. Is this the way it is? few and far between. Will it ever be that way in all relationships? Probably not, but as far as sexual activity goes in a relationship I feel that it should always be understood that pregnancy is always a posibility as such it should be planned ahead of time on what to do if such an event occurs.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:57 am

littleCJelkton;1367761 wrote: For obvious reasons a man can't worry about becoming pregnant, but they should conciously understand the possibility of impregnanting a woman and be ready to take responsibility for said actions, the idea that a man has no right to want to have a child by a woman he impregnated and no matter what his opinions are they don't matter lead to that man not taking responsibility for said pregnancy as he feels since his opinion or rights don't matter why should he have to do with her anything after getting a woman pregnant (weather she has an abortion or not). I am sure most if not all women in a relationship where there opinions or rights did not matter would want it to change or leave the relationship as well.

As I said Sex Pregnancy Child Care and Abortion all should all be a joint decisions of both individuals in said relationship, as said relationships should be to a level where The woman's wants, needs, opinions really care to the Male, and the Males vice-versa to the felmale. Is this the way it is? few and far between. Will it ever be that way in all relationships? Probably not, but as far as sexual activity goes in a relationship I feel that it should always be understood that pregnancy is always a posibility as such it should be planned ahead of time on what to do if such an event occurs.

the idea that a man has no right to want to have a child by a woman he impregnated

Of course he has a right to want to have a child by a woman he impregnated the question was should that right be superior to the woman's. Ablow says yes it should.

So effectively you agree with ablow that the man should have the right to force the woman to carry his child to full term regardless of circumstances. Why didn't you just say so in the first place? I don;t agree with you.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:03 am

What I find more interesting than anything else ....is that men are disscussing this topic between themselves .

Is anyone else uncomfortable with that?

don't get me wrong, to each their own and so forth and everyone has a right to occupy a thread ........I just find it interesting .....hey don't mind me or my sisters .........carry on .

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:15 am

gmc;1367763 wrote:

So effectively you agree with ablow that the man should have the right to force the woman to carry his child to full term regardless of circumstances. Why didn't you just say so in the first place? I don;t agree with you.

???? I don't see how believing in and equal opinion and right is the same as superior, but there are some people on FG who have came up with the silly equation of making Fake=Real and that belief gives them security and happiness, if you want to believe all men inherently are ablow because you somehow find comfort in knowing all men are going to be chauvinistic bastards then more power to you.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:17 am

fuzzywuzzy;1367776 wrote: What I find more interesting than anything else ....is that men are disscussing this topic between themselves .

Is anyone else uncomfortable with that?

don't get me wrong, to each their own and so forth and everyone has a right to occupy a thread ........I just find it interesting .....hey don't mind me or my sisters .........carry on .

I find it more interesting more women are not posting anything in this thread what reason could that be ????

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:24 am

what I'm thinking and what I write are two very different things .......i don't think you like women very much ....I think you have women in a certain area of your brain, to be for you, what you want them to be and that's all there is. Sad really .

because you somehow find comfort in knowing all men are going to be chauvinistic bastards then more power to you.

it's by that exact comment (and others) that tells me you are a chauvinistic barstard and you are so entrenched within it that you don't even know it....actually that's what I find sadder most of all.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 7:23 am

littleCJelkton;1367780 wrote: I find it more interesting more women are not posting anything in this thread what reason could that be ????

Why don't you tell us since you seem to know?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 7:44 am

fuzzywuzzy;1367776 wrote: What I find more interesting than anything else ....is that men are disscussing this topic between themselves .

Is anyone else uncomfortable with that?

don't get me wrong, to each their own and so forth and everyone has a right to occupy a thread ........I just find it interesting .....hey don't mind me or my sisters .........carry on .

I've never yet met a woman who wouldn't have her say if she had something to say.:sneaky:

I am male as it happens K snyder and littlecjelton I presume are male you i now know are female. There must be plenty of women who share ablows view otherwise there is no chance he would get away with those kinds of comments. Wonder what his wife thinks. There seem to be a lot of people who agree with ablow presumably a lot of women think he has a point as well. I think it's a load of cobblers meself.

I find it strange that in a country where people go on about keeping government out of people's lives they tolerate someone wanting to dictate when and under what circumstances you can have children and even when you should lose your virginity. Bloke loses it at 16 he's a man's man, you might not approve but good for him, (nudge nudge wink wink) girl does it she's a slut end of story.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:02 pm

I am male as it happens K snyder and littlecjelton I presume are male you i now know are female.

Ummm I've been here for years and you didn't know i was Female? go have a look at my profile pic GM. lol lol

that's so funny

on your last point. You have know idea the talk I have to listen to with the 15 16 and 17 year old boys at school. I have to walk away so I don't feel pedophilic. Trust me they are having sex.....in places and ways that I didn't even know of way back in my day. And yet they put down other boys who've 'slipped up' and gotten some girl pregnant.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:02 pm

littleCJelkton;1367761 wrote: For obvious reasons a man can't worry about becoming pregnant, but they should conciously understand the possibility of impregnanting a woman and be ready to take responsibility for said actions, the idea that a man has no right to want to have a child by a woman he impregnated and no matter what his opinions are they don't matter lead to that man not taking responsibility for said pregnancy as he feels since his opinion or rights don't matter why should he have to do with her anything after getting a woman pregnant (weather she has an abortion or not). I am sure most if not all women in a relationship where there opinions or rights did not matter would want it to change or leave the relationship as well.

As I said Sex Pregnancy Child Care and Abortion all should all be a joint decisions of both individuals in said relationship, as said relationships should be to a level where The woman's wants, needs, opinions really care to the Male, and the Males vice-versa to the felmale. Is this the way it is? few and far between. Will it ever be that way in all relationships? Probably not, but as far as sexual activity goes in a relationship I feel that it should always be understood that pregnancy is always a posibility as such it should be planned ahead of time on what to do if such an event occurs.You're speaking of a man's right to want the child which everyone in their right minds agrees with. The problem we're having is why birth and a man's wish to have and/or raise the child is connected in any way outside of an expected pregnancy.

You saying they should be connected while explaining why they're not is hardly anything I can understand.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:07 pm

littleCJelkton;1367779 wrote: ???? I don't see how believing in and equal opinion and right is the same as superior, but there are some people on FG who have came up with the silly equation of making Fake=Real and that belief gives them security and happiness, if you want to believe all men inherently are ablow because you somehow find comfort in knowing all men are going to be chauvinistic bastards then more power to you.CJ, an equal stance on abortion is far different than implementing said abortion. If we cannot logically proceed to the implementation of a belief system then that belief system is not only irrelevant but a falsehood that leads to more confusion than having never said anything at all

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 4:42 pm

K.Snyder;1367835 wrote: You're speaking of a man's right to want the child which everyone in their right minds agrees with. The problem we're having is why birth and a man's wish to have and/or raise the child is connected in any way outside of an expected pregnancy.

You saying they should be connected while explaining why they're not is hardly anything I can understand.

What?? my whole argument is that they are connected, but today's society has failed to teach to young men that they are thus they believe they have no reponsibility to a child because they are never taught to understand that there sexual desires for the that "HOT ASS" as most my age would call it stems from there natural urge to reproduce. They never make the connection but are driven to it and when a pregnancy happens they don't know what to do so often they run out on the women they impregnated or make the relationship so dismayed the woman has to leave. I believe at least for the U.S. since this is so rampant that it is common stereotype that a man just wants to Fu@# the next Cu$# that walks by and since he has no responsibility to begin with he definitely will not have responsibility for a child by the woman he had sex with, there for he already is not accepting the responsibility for the child so he forfeits the rights and the woman gets the to pick up whats left (children and rights). I guess GMC would say that because of the strangle hold the religious right has on society this is due to the fact that sex is a sinful act anyway thus the man is allowed to do this and the woman has to pick up the pieces and because the woman is the source of the original sin she is deem a harlet and the resources available to a single mother and her children are mediocre at best. Though I don't think if you don't first establish that the rights are equal you can't teach boys or girls that those rights are equal and to accept responsibility for those rights.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:25 pm

littleCJelkton;1367843 wrote: What?? my whole argument is that they are connected, but today's society has failed to teach to young men that they are thus they believe they have no reponsibility to a child because they are never taught to understand that there sexual desires for the that "HOT ASS" as most my age would call it stems from there natural urge to reproduce. They never make the connection but are driven to it and when a pregnancy happens they don't know what to do so often they run out on the women they impregnated or make the relationship so dismayed the woman has to leave. I believe at least for the U.S. since this is so rampant that it is common stereotype that a man just wants to Fu@# the next Cu$# that walks by and since he has no responsibility to begin with he definitely will not have responsibility for a child by the woman he had sex with, there for he already is not accepting the responsibility for the child so he forfeits the rights and the woman gets the to pick up whats left (children and rights). I guess GMC would say that because of the strangle hold the religious right has on society this is due to the fact that sex is a sinful act anyway thus the man is allowed to do this and the woman has to pick up the pieces and because the woman is the source of the original sin she is deem a harlet and the resources available to a single mother and her children are mediocre at best. Though I don't think if you don't first establish that the rights are equal you can't teach boys or girls that those rights are equal and to accept responsibility for those rights.And you want to argue in favor of suggesting men have the right to force a woman to birth a child after such a despicable portrait you've painted on the morals of "men"?

The fact is that there cannot be an equal say in abortion because only women give birth. Men having an equal right to birth and raise their child is candy and nuts but society should never make abortion illegal, it's highly unethical and stupid.

You're arguing on a sentiment that most everyone can relate, it's just not thought through that's all

I agree with your morals on the subject but it ends with everyone's right to their own opinion as defined by separate beings. Women aren't our muppets and they have their reasons

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 11:24 pm

K.Snyder;1367845 wrote: And you want to argue in favor of suggesting men have the right to force a woman to birth a child after such a despicable portrait you've painted on the morals of "men"?

The fact is that there cannot be an equal say in abortion because only women give birth. Men having an equal right to birth and raise their child is candy and nuts but society should never make abortion illegal, it's highly unethical and stupid.

You're arguing on a sentiment that most everyone can relate, it's just not thought through that's all

I agree with your morals on the subject but it ends with everyone's right to their own opinion as defined by separate beings. Women aren't our muppets and they have their reasons

Well were getting there, the stereotyped male sexuality that has become the norm in society today I think due to the lack of understanding the responsibiltiy of sex has led to not only the right of his decision and opinions being null when deciding abortion (if he has any or not), but with most any rights that have to do with children in general, I don't agree with ABLOW or the religious right that women should do as their " " superior" " male counterpart tells them, but what has happened because of the views such as those of the religious right is the side polar to that which pushes for less and less rights for men to be a part in their children's lives, and a part of the child making decisions. Then were back to the vicious circle of enforcing that stereotype as the man feels the only decision and responsibility he has in the reproductive process is the decision of what vagina to stick it in next, because of that is the only purpose the stereotyped male will have in the act of procreating.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:52 am

posted by littlekjelton

I guess GMC would say that because of the strangle hold the religious right has on society this is due to the fact that sex is a sinful act anyway thus the man is allowed to do this and the woman has to pick up the pieces and because the woman is the source of the original sin she is deem a harlet and the resources available to a single mother and her children are mediocre at best. Though I don't think if you don't first establish that the rights are equal you can't teach boys or girls that those rights are equal and to accept responsibility for those rights.

Ask yourself where do our attitudes with regards to single mothers and sex come from. The term original sin is not mine, nor do I share the belief in it. It's not my believes you are disparaging (or it seems you mean to be disparaging, excuse me if i read you wrongly).

It's the more secular societies where the stigma attached to it and the attitude towards bastards has become more accepting and more tolerant. At least now we don't shut them away and pretend it doesn't happen.

Rather than establish that the rights are equal you need to establish and accept that a woman has the right to make the decision about childbirth for herself in the first place. Men don't have an equal right I quite simply do not agree with ablow or you on that matter. It's mainly the religious right that have a problem with the notion of equality and believe the woman should be subservient to the man as per the bible, and believe they have a moral right to dictate when and in what circumstances people are allowed to have sex and children. You even have a presidential candidate that believes she should be submissive to her husband lucky for her he has given permission to be go for president then.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Sep 02, 2011 6:24 am

littleCJelkton;1367847 wrote: Well were getting there, the stereotyped male sexuality that has become the norm in society today I think due to the lack of understanding the responsibiltiy of sex has led to not only the right of his decision and opinions being null when deciding abortion (if he has any or not), but with most any rights that have to do with children in general, I don't agree with ABLOW or the religious right that women should do as their " " superior" " male counterpart tells them, but what has happened because of the views such as those of the religious right is the side polar to that which pushes for less and less rights for men to be a part in their children's lives, and a part of the child making decisions. Then were back to the vicious circle of enforcing that stereotype as the man feels the only decision and responsibility he has in the reproductive process is the decision of what vagina to stick it in next, because of that is the only purpose the stereotyped male will have in the act of procreating.Men have far more say in their children's lives now than they ever have in modern society. Now women cannot murder their own children only for the father to have to settle with "I don't have to tell you where she is".

The Girl in the Little Blue Dress - Dateline NBC - Crime reports - msnbc.com

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:55 pm

@ K ...how does that relate to the OP.???

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Sep 02, 2011 6:17 pm

Hmmmm ...did it ever occur to anyone, relationship or otherwise, that part of the responsibilty of a man, is to accept the wishes of the one carrying the fetus?

So if I'm in a relationship and "we" happen to decide that children will be born and we will be happy happy happy with that occurance .........then when it finally happens..... I"m not allowed to change my mind and abort it?

Must I be forced to carry the fetus to full term simply because I'm in a marriage or serious relationship?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Sep 02, 2011 6:51 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1367878 wrote: @ K ...how does that relate to the OP.???I was responding to littleCJelkton;1367847 wrote: but with most any rights that have to do with children in general, I don't agree with ABLOW or the religious right that women should do as their " " superior" " male counterpart tells them, but what has happened because of the views such as those of the religious right is the side polar to that which pushes for less and less rights for men to be a part in their children's lives, and a part of the child making decisions. which shows a misguided level of reasoning from which coincides with my disagreement to the OP...

How's it not relevant?

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:16 pm

Recently saw this article

Husband must pay up for sexless marriage. Is that a win? - Health - Sexual health - msnbc.com

If a woman has the right to legally force her man to have sex, and sex leads to kids should a man not have the right to legally force a woman to have the children that came about the sex he was legally forced to have?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:23 pm

littleCJelkton;1368495 wrote: Recently saw this article

Husband must pay up for sexless marriage. Is that a win? - Health - Sexual health - msnbc.com

If a woman has the right to legally force her man to have sex, and sex leads to kids should a man not have the right to legally force a woman to have the children that came about the sex he was legally forced to have?

Historically it was the other way round, the husband could force the bride to have sex or the marriage was not "consumated" - was not a legal marriage and he could walk away from it.

That led to many odd customs such as the family of the groom sharing the conjugal bedroom on the marriage night to witness the consumation of the marriage.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:34 pm

Or hanging the sheets out to demonstrate the blood left on it, as to recognise the bride was a virgin. In china it was the scribes and officials in the bedroom to document the exact time of ejaculation for royalty and ...also concubines.

bryn please tell me you're not going to get sucked in to that stupid crap of tabloid reporting, so littlecretin can make some kind of argument that forces women to bare children ...cause then we'd just have to bring up the enforced brothels of Nazi germany and Japan ........we don't need to go there.

TO FORCE A WOMAN TO HAVE A CHILD OR ABORT IT IS WRONG PEOPLE !!!!!!

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:38 pm

I know a woman who's hyman was rather strong so the honeymoon night was her spending a night in hospital to break it.........years later at their divorce and after two children he tried to use that unfortunate experience she had to go through against her by annulling their marriage because "HE" wasn't the one who broke the Hyman . Nice eh? and people wonder why she turned lesbian. sigh .

Oh and if you're wondering ? on the catholic record books (not in law of course) that's exactly how it is written..'annulment'

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 3:14 am

littleCJelkton;1368495 wrote: Recently saw this article

Husband must pay up for sexless marriage. Is that a win? - Health - Sexual health - msnbc.com

If a woman has the right to legally force her man to have sex, and sex leads to kids should a man not have the right to legally force a woman to have the children that came about the sex he was legally forced to have?

So in your twisted logic a woman who was raped should be forced to carry that man's child to term because she must have forced him in to it. New take on she was asking for it. What about cases of incest - do you think the woman should have no choice in the matter?

posted by bryn mawr

Historically it was the other way round, the husband could force the bride to have sex or the marriage was not "consumated" - was not a legal marriage and he could walk away from it.

Historically the woman did not have the right to refuse - it was his conjugal right the woman had no rights in the matter at all. It's only fairly recently that the concept of rape within marriage has come close to being accepted.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:45 pm

gmc;1368550 wrote: So in your twisted logic a woman who was raped should be forced to carry that man's child to term because she must have forced him in to it. New take on she was asking for it. What about cases of incest - do you think the woman should have no choice in the matter?

I know from just reading your post in here an in FG your smart enough to read so why don't you go read that post again, and all my post in this thread then comeback with a topic you haven't done over and over and over and aver again.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:38 pm

littleCJelkton;1368664 wrote: I know from just reading your post in here an in FG your smart enough to read so why don't you go read that post again, and all my post in this thread then comeback with a topic you haven't done over and over and over and aver again.

The article you posted a link to is spurious and you know it. I'm actually sticking to the thread topic, whether men should have the right to veto an abortion. Ablow makes no allowance for women who are raped or the victims of incest. Up until fairly recently a man had the legal right to demand his conjugal rights. rape within marriage happens although the courts have bigger problems dealing with that than they do "ordinary" rape. Many think if there are no signs of violence on the woman she didn't resist enough and must have been willing and even more think a man is entitled to force his wife and a husband can't be accused of raping his own wife. Funnily enough it is religious communities where such views are prevalent, the submissive wife just doesn't do the dishes when told.

Marital rape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1993, North Carolina became the last state to remove the spousal exemption.[23] However, as of 1999, 33 of 50 U.S. states regard spousal rape as a lesser crime [Bergen, 1999]. The perpetrator may be charged with related crimes such as assault, battery, or spousal abuse

So I'll ask you again, if a man rapes a woman, or if you prefer if a husband rapes his wife, should he then have the right to force her to carry his child to term bringing a child in to an environment where such abuse takes place.

This section from ablows articles shows a breathtaking ignorance

And I am absolutely certain that no woman needs to become pregnant who wishes not to become pregnant. Women taking full responsibility for their sexual activity and their bodies would mean that no woman would face the prospect of being compelled to bring a child to term.

It’s time to give men their due as fathers—from the moment of conception. Allow men who want to be fathers, and who could be good parents, to compel the women they impregnate to bring their children to term.

Now try asking a catholic woman in south america or in a state where they have just decided to close all the family planning clinics - planned parenthood I think you call them, whether she is being given a choice as to whether become pregnant or not. Next he'll be wanting men to have a veto on whether his wife is allowed to use contraceptives or not and compel doctors to contact the husband, or the parents if she is unmarried.

Many religious people have a problem with the concept of human rights where are all equal and entitled to exercise their free will.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:03 pm

gmc;1368687 wrote: The article you posted a link to is spurious and you know it.

Spurious: Not being what it purports to be; false or fake

If the man paid money for not having sex in a relationship and there is proof of that, and there is a documented ruling of the case how is it spurious? I love how your defense against ABLOW and all those crazy ideas is to take the complete opposite side of them which includes thinking everyone except women agree with them?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:54 pm

Your use of that article is spurious . and has nothing to do with the topic .

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:08 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1368724 wrote: Your use of that article is spurious . and has nothing to do with the topic .

The topic is abortion in the rights of men the article is about a man being forced to have sex in a marriage or pay up. If sex is what leads to kids yet abortions are used to stop that kid from being born. How is a article (be it a specific case to married men, but the article with ABLOW is a geared for a specific mean to) about a man's rights to perform or not perform the act that makes the kids that are or are not aborted not related to a man's rights on the abortion itself. Why does everyone disassociate sex with children? I am not saying it is going to happen every time but people should realize it is always a possibility (unless certain things are done as I stated in previous post which some of you seem unable to read), and not be like " what I had a kid", " I just had sex I wasn't supposed to have a kid" I have seen both men and women do this, and the disassociation of the article about sex and the article about abortion you people are making is just more proof how too many of us (even ones that are smarter than that) are not making a connection between sex and pregnancy.

,

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 3:45 am

littleCJelkton;1368702 wrote: Spurious: Not being what it purports to be; false or fake

If the man paid money for not having sex in a relationship and there is proof of that, and there is a documented ruling of the case how is it spurious? I love how your defense against ABLOW and all those crazy ideas is to take the complete opposite side of them which includes thinking everyone except women agree with them?

It's a classic diversionary tactic for someone that is having difficulty defending their position. - as opposed to someone using an article to highlight a point they are making. You're trying to take a general discussion and turn it in to one on a specific atypical, isolated incident completely different from the main topic. It's a separate issue.

So I'll ask you again, if a man rapes a woman, or if you prefer if a husband rapes his wife, should he then have the right to force her to carry his child to term bringing a child in to an environment where such abuse takes place. Put it another way do you agree with Ablow that the rights of the man supercede those of the woman. This isn't about being equal it's about a man being able to force a life threatening as well as a life changing decision on a woman. What about a situation where carrying a child to term could kill both mother and child - do you really think that decision should be the man's with a right to overrule the woman? Ablow would say yes it is.

I love how your defense against ABLOW and all those crazy ideas is to take the complete opposite side of them which includes thinking everyone except women agree with them?

You're dead right I take the complete opposite side of them, I disagree with him which is much the same as saying I take an opposing point of view. There is no common ground, anyone with half a brain would disagree with him, IMO and I can't imagine many women think he is right but no doubt there are a few. Ablow and his ilk believe the woman's right to choose is secondary to the man's, it's not about equality.

Quick taste of how the debate goes in the UK. We try to keep religion out of it.

Abortion law reform plans criticised by women's groups | World news | The Guardian

"Preventing abortion providers from offering decision-making support opens the door for organisations opposed in principle to abortion to become formally involved in counselling women on their pregnancy options," the letter says. "Previous governments have always acted on evidence and taken guidance from expert medical professionals. There is no evidence of a need for change in this area and no support from professional clinical organisations for such change."

Nick Clegg to vote against abortion counselling law | World news | The Guardian

"It is unethical for the NHS to be signposting, or even referring, women to organisations which make up information or which seek to persuade women either way though guilt, shame or lies."

The amendment was soundly defeated.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:53 am

gmc;1368836 wrote: It's a classic diversionary tactic for someone that is having difficulty defending their position. - as opposed to someone using an article to highlight a point they are making. You're trying to take a general discussion and turn it in to one on a specific atypical, isolated incident completely different from the main topic. It's a separate issue.

So I'll ask you again, if a man rapes a woman, or if you prefer if a husband rapes his wife, should he then have the right to force her to carry his child to term bringing a child in to an environment where such abuse takes place. Put it another way do you agree with Ablow that the rights of the man supercede those of the woman. This isn't about being equal it's about a man being able to force a life threatening as well as a life changing decision on a woman. What about a situation where carrying a child to term could kill both mother and child - do you really think that decision should be the man's with a right to overrule the woman? Ablow would say yes it is.

Is that not your tactic to make this whole discussion about one topic (about how ABLOW thinks this ABLOW thinks that I don't like ABLOW your better not like ABLOW did you say you agreed with ABLOW you did didn't you oh I hate ABLOW) the article I shown is both relevant to rights and sex and since sex is what makes kids which is what abortions try to get rid of I say it ties in very well. I have had no problem giving and defending my opinions and position though I am still waiting to hear yours well any opinion of yours that is not ( I don't agree with ABLOW oh now you agree with ABLOW ABLOW is wrong and your wrong if you agree with ABLOW)

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 5:44 am

littleCJelkton;1368838 wrote: Is that not your tactic to make this whole discussion about one topic (about how ABLOW thinks this ABLOW thinks that I don't like ABLOW your better not like ABLOW did you say you agreed with ABLOW you did didn't you oh I hate ABLOW) the article I shown is both relevant to rights and sex and since sex is what makes kids which is what abortions try to get rid of I say it ties in very well. I have had no problem giving and defending my opinions and position though I am still waiting to hear yours well any opinion of yours that is not ( I don't agree with ABLOW oh now you agree with ABLOW ABLOW is wrong and your wrong if you agree with ABLOW)

The thread was about what ablow believed and whether you agreed or not. I don't agree with ablow - how much clearer could I possibly be? It's the woman's right to choose when it comes to using contraceptives or having an abortion - is that clear enough for you? Yes I do think ablow is wrong in his opinion and you are wrong if you agree with ablow that should be pretty obvious, I would have thought. He has a right to hold his opinion just as i have a right to disagree and if necessary campaign with and support those who also disagree. Not everybody will agree on every subject I would discuss it and perhaps make you think about it because I find such discussions interesting but it's not going to ruin my day of you still hold to the same opinion at the end of it. If you agree wholeheartedly with him just say so - you're entitled to do so.

Some pro lifers are against abortion under any circumstances. I think they are wrong. I lot of pro-lifers like to believe all abortions are carried out simply for convenience and ignore any evidence that conflicts with what they want to believe. You can't discuss it rationally with them because they are not considering it rationally. Some believe sex education encourages promiscuity, that is a load of cobblers but again any evidence to the contrary is discounted as irrelevant because they prefer to keep their own belief that teenagers can't make rational decisions for themselves and not consider that a well educated teenager might decide not to get pregnant or indeed put off having sex till they are older. You yourself stated you KNOW the situation in other countries where they have sex education and freely available contraceptives despite the fact you clearly hadn't even looked at the experience of other countries. You just assumed that as it is in america it is elsewhere. Trust me on this it's not.

It's also a religious and sectarian issue - is the fertilised egg a life form, some say life exists from that point some say otherwise. Some argue that the sole purpose of having sex is procreation and god will decide whether you become pregnant or not and for that reason want to ban contraceptives as interfering with nature. Trouble is they want to impose the ban on everybody, even those heretics who do not follow the same religion. It's a mind set that causes conflict. We have a long history of sectarian religious warfare in the UK we prefer to keep religion out of such discussions.

The question below is a reasonable question in the context of this thread. It's intended to highlight a scenario where a blanket the man has the right to insist approach might not be the best one imo. It's a stark choice to make who should have the right to make it. In both cases I would say the woman.

So I'll ask you again, if a man rapes a woman, or if you prefer if a husband rapes his wife, should he then have the right to force her to carry his child to term bringing a child in to an environment where such abuse takes place. Put it another way do you agree with Ablow that the rights of the man supercede those of the woman. This isn't about being equal it's about a man being able to force a life threatening as well as a life changing decision on a woman. What about a situation where carrying a child to term could kill both mother and child - do you really think that decision should be the man's with a right to overrule the woman? Ablow would say yes it is. I am curious as to your opinion. If you don't want to give it that's fine by me you are not obliged to. It's not obligatory that you agree with me either. I disagree with lots of people about lots of things and still get on with them. It's a discussion forum - it's actually boring if everyone agrees.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:53 am

littleCJelkton;1368830 wrote: The topic is abortion in the rights of men the article is about a man being forced to have sex in a marriage or pay up. If sex is what leads to kids yet abortions are used to stop that kid from being born. How is a article (be it a specific case to married men, but the article with ABLOW is a geared for a specific mean to) about a man's rights to perform or not perform the act that makes the kids that are or are not aborted not related to a man's rights on the abortion itself. Why does everyone disassociate sex with children? I am not saying it is going to happen every time but people should realize it is always a possibility (unless certain things are done as I stated in previous post which some of you seem unable to read), and not be like " what I had a kid", " I just had sex I wasn't supposed to have a kid" I have seen both men and women do this, and the disassociation of the article about sex and the article about abortion you people are making is just more proof how too many of us (even ones that are smarter than that) are not making a connection between sex and pregnancy.

,CJ, you're comparing a case which the husband was sued to a case that demands a complete rework of legislation. Not to mention the immorality behind forcing a woman to birth a child, regardless of circumstances. This is beginning to become quite extreme to be honest and the only thing left to say is to honestly meditate on just how wrong it is to force anyone to do anything, outside of defending one's personal safety of course.

The former is everyone's right without a guarantee of success and the latter is law that everyone is subject to, so yes the article doesn't relate on point, but only relates to a sentiment attributed to your stance, which I assure you isn't held by the majority, not even close. "However, suing a spouse, or an ex-spouse, for monetary damages is rare, and success rarer still."

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:10 am

hhhmmm I had it wrapped up pages ago ...but I guess it's a discussion forum .

just put me back on the omnibus i only have a few stops to go .

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 1:40 pm

I think there are a lot of issues that intertwine. I haven't had a chance to read the thread yet but I read this post on facebook and have been thinking about it for some time. I believe that a person who wants to save a life should be given more weight than a person who wants to kill a life. But the matter is complicated because the life in question is inside of another person's body and so isn't an independent entity.

The question of rape is of course also another big issue but... if it was rape then there are criminal charges to consider. If a man is guilty of rape he obviously wouldn't have a right to "vote" on the issue. But rape isn't always so easy to prove. Do we think that a man would be persistent enough to submit to a rape trial to force the birth? If that's an option then women might threaten to charge with rape any man who tries to tell them what to do with the pregnancy. If that was the case then a man could be given the right but not end up exercising it regardless.

There's also the question of loss to the woman in income. So the man who wanted to force a birth would have to compensate the woman for all loss of income and potential income increases based her having to take on the job of the pregnancy.

So... it's not a simple of question of pro-life or pro-choice. Without following through on how the rest of it would be accounted for the question is moot.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 2:13 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1363431 wrote: [snip]but to have sex with a man and then either lose your child to him or be under his direction for the rest of your life is going back a thousand years. [snip]
This may have been addressed already but my instant reaction to this aspect is that soooooo many men have sex with a girl and get stuck with child support for the amount of time in question. Sometimes the girl even lies about taking birth control to trick him into it.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:47 pm

I'm actually amazed at this ...go through the entire thread and look at the light females in general have been portrayed.

Koan just in your two posts you have mentioned Rape _ one of the most under reported criminal offences on earth and in more places than not it's not even considered an offence. And just because you're accused of rape doesn't mean you get a conviction. it would be more likely a woman would go into hiding and not go through a trial where a conviction is unlikely and she is forced to carry that fetus.

You've also mentioned "killing" a life - well bugger us women because we just want to go around Killing things ...bad bad naughty women - some one must stop us before it gets out of control!! Oh I know ....lets ask a man to do it.

Loss of income - Why does it always come down to money? yep women want to attack the hip pocket of a man right? Or all she can think about is her own satisfaction of progressing her own status...How's that going to work in a marriage? Proving loss of income in a marriage just doesn't work and it's already taken care of during divorce anyway (half split of superannuation/retirement fund) and we still live in a draconian society where judges are more likely to turn around and tell a married woman "you were taken care of, weren't you?"

And if a man puts his faith in a woman and her promises of contraception then more fool him ...thats what condoms are for. Pregnancy comes a close second to what that woman could pass onto him .

Ablow argues for the forcing of women to bear children regardless of any of the arguments spoken of here ....even acknowledging the deep seated psychological harm it could bring about for the woman in question.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:49 pm

There, you see? This thread is moving along quite nicely...

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 9:43 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1368933 wrote: I'm actually amazed at this ...go through the entire thread and look at the light females in general have been portrayed.

Koan just in your two posts you have mentioned Rape _ one of the most under reported criminal offences on earth and in more places than not it's not even considered an offence. And just because you're accused of rape doesn't mean you get a conviction. it would be more likely a woman would go into hiding and not go through a trial where a conviction is unlikely and she is forced to carry that fetus.

You've also mentioned "killing" a life - well bugger us women because we just want to go around Killing things ...bad bad naughty women - some one must stop us before it gets out of control!! Oh I know ....lets ask a man to do it.

Loss of income - Why does it always come down to money? yep women want to attack the hip pocket of a man right? Or all she can think about is her own satisfaction of progressing her own status...How's that going to work in a marriage? Proving loss of income in a marriage just doesn't work and it's already taken care of during divorce anyway (half split of superannuation/retirement fund) and we still live in a draconian society where judges are more likely to turn around and tell a married woman "you were taken care of, weren't you?"

And if a man puts his faith in a woman and her promises of contraception then more fool him ...thats what condoms are for. Pregnancy comes a close second to what that woman could pass onto him .

Ablow argues for the forcing of women to bear children regardless of any of the arguments spoken of here ....even acknowledging the deep seated psychological harm it could bring about for the woman in question.

First of all, you'll get nowhere fast trying discuss legal issues irrationally. By irrational, I mean making blanket statements about the nature of men or women and summarizing history from the point of view of one gender.

As distasteful as the word "killing" is, you can't make it go away. Abortion is killing. Some may say (rightfully or not) that its no worse than swatting a fly but a fly gets swat and this particular fly has human DNA. So... sorry, but you have to call a woman's fetus human and it has a heartbeat so it is alive until rendered otherwise. By general principle more weight is usually given to saving a life than ending it. Just ask Kathleen (Kay) Carter denied the right to euthanasia. Not that I want to open that can of worms as comparison because Ms Carter was able to state her will to die and a fetus cannot. Regardless, in both cases the law weighs in on the side of living. That's just to consider the precedent. Precedents don't make the law right, just tells you how they're likely to vote.

At this point I've considered Ablow's proposal worthless for discussion because he fails to present all sides and aspects of the complications that will arise from his idea. What he seems to be saying to me is that somewhere in the fight for women's rights men's have been lost in the mire. To be honest, I may think Ablow is an ******* but I do agree that men are bowled over as being the lucky ones and sarcastically boo-hooed when they complain.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 9:48 pm

K.Snyder;1368845 wrote: CJ, you're comparing a case which the husband was sued to a case that demands a complete rework of legislation. Not to mention the immorality behind forcing a woman to birth a child, regardless of circumstances. This is beginning to become quite extreme to be honest and the only thing left to say is to honestly meditate on just how wrong it is to force anyone to do anything, outside of defending one's personal safety of course.

The former is everyone's right without a guarantee of success and the latter is law that everyone is subject to, so yes the article doesn't relate on point, but only relates to a sentiment attributed to your stance, which I assure you isn't held by the majority, not even close. "However, suing a spouse, or an ex-spouse, for monetary damages is rare, and success rarer still."
People consider their offspring to be extensions of themselves, carrying forward the legacy of their existence and assuring them immortality through ancestry. That makes fighting for the life of your unborn child rather like fighting for one's personal safety to me.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:19 pm

K.Snyder;1368845 wrote: CJ, you're comparing a case which the husband was sued to a case that demands a complete rework of legislation. Not to mention the immorality behind forcing a woman to birth a child, regardless of circumstances. This is beginning to become quite extreme to be honest and the only thing left to say is to honestly meditate on just how wrong it is to force anyone to do anything, outside of defending one's personal safety of course.

The former is everyone's right without a guarantee of success and the latter is law that everyone is subject to, so yes the article doesn't relate on point, but only relates to a sentiment attributed to your stance, which I assure you isn't held by the majority, not even close. "However, suing a spouse, or an ex-spouse, for monetary damages is rare, and success rarer still."

I agree it is pointless to dig up this rare case and that rare case being as wrong and horrible the conditions may have been in those cases, the subject as a whole is lost. Though if you were to read this thread up until now you wouldn't think so. As I thought I was the only one here who actually wanted to discuss what I believe to be the real issue here and that is abortion, as for my stance on the subject as I stated I believe that abortion is such a emotional topic because it is something that I think should be done only if cases of extreme measure as it does involve ending a life, but those cases of extreme measure I think are much more numerous than would lead anyone to believe that abortion is for emergencies (rape, incest, livelihood) only, these other reasons such as use as a contraceptive are the reason I believe there have been so many opponents to abortion (some extreme as in Ablow's case). Though I believe as stated prior in this thread that these other reasons of using abortion come from non existent or miss-guided idea of one, some, or all of the following concepts ( relationships, sex, kids, and abortion itself).

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:14 pm

The problem with society is that we end up having to approach everything from the worst case scenarios. That's really important. There are people who make a living off of suing other people. Where did we go wrong? It wasn't with the first abortion and it wasn't with the first time someone got pregnant by accident. Perhaps it's a problem with the law meaning more than morality.