abortion rights in the hands of MEN.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:32 pm

littleCJelkton;1368953 wrote: 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).

So in other words you don't think the woman should be allowed to make the decision for herself. Why not just say that? It's not an attitude I particularly agree with.

posted by koan

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.

It's a moot point. Some argue that using contraceptives is tantamount to killing and would ban them as interfering with god's will - as indeed ablow argues. When a foetus becomes human is also a moot point. It is killing but so is calling for a crusade and dropping bombs on people who haven't attacked you or supporting the death penalty or carrying a gun and being ready to use it. It's not actually the killing that bothers people it's the circumstances and how we view them. Bit brutal a way of putting it but that is the reality.

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

Compassion for the unborn doesn't extend much beyond their birth. Infant mortality in the US is among the highest in the developed world. Force women to carry a child to term but if it dies in the first year that is sad but is their fault for bringing a child in to the world they could not support.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:12 am

gmc;1368962 wrote: So in other words you don't think the woman should be allowed to make the decision for herself. Why not just say that? It's not an attitude I particularly agree with.

That is what you think I think, and if that is what makes it easy for you to make a valid case for you argument you are going to think I think that no matter what I say, and pick apart peices of this and that statement to make your self feel better by making it look like I said something to prove to yourself I think that.

What I do believe is a woman and a man both equally should have equal rights to choose what to and/or what not to do, though with out the right information on the subject in which they are going to make the decision in they are more likely to make a make wrong decisions in order to better the chances to make the right one I believe that the man and/or the woman should both be well informed and not miss-guided about the subject in which they make their decisions about.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:17 am

gmc;1368962 wrote:

Compassion for the unborn doesn't extend much beyond their birth. Infant mortality in the US is among the highest in the developed world. Force women to carry a child to term but if it dies in the first year that is sad but is their fault for bringing a child in to the world they could not support.

So at what point should the woman Know she can not support a kid before or after and abortion, before or after she gets positive pregnancy results, or before or after she has the sex that impregnated her. I am guessing if the woman cannot support the kid the man either doesn't want to or can not support it either, the same question is posed to the man on at what stage in each decision making process should he apply the knowledge he cannot or does not want to support a kid.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:21 am

gmc;1368962 wrote:

Compassion for the unborn doesn't extend much beyond their birth. Infant mortality in the US is among the highest in the developed world. Force women to carry a child to term but if it dies in the first year that is sad but is their fault for bringing a child in to the world they could not support.

It seems the people in this country that want less government interference, ie programs that help feed hungry, poor children, are the same ones that want to control women's reproductive rights. It's baffling that they don't see the irony.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:35 pm

littleCJelkton;1369003 wrote: So at what point should the woman Know she can not support a kid before or after and abortion, before or after she gets positive pregnancy results, or before or after she has the sex that impregnated her. I am guessing if the woman cannot support the kid the man either doesn't want to or can not support it either, the same question is posed to the man on at what stage in each decision making process should he apply the knowledge he cannot or does not want to support a kid.Would you feel it's acceptable for a mother to birth her child into a world of starvation? Let's say a woman is pregnant and she barely has enough money to support herself, would it then be ok to force her to birth the child?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 3:50 pm

Actually Ablow states that a man has to have the means to support the said fetus. So another words he forces her to have it then takes if off her . There's a lot of childless women who wouldn't mind their husbands going out to do this . (just to put an extra spin on htis because we're human and know at least from history how this kind of thing pans out)

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 8:05 pm

Here is my considered reframing of the question:

If a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy then a man should have the right as well, if he doesn't want to be a father and pay child support.

If a man doesn't have the right to force an abortion then he should have the right to force a birth.

Prove there is no logic in that.

eta: if a woman can force a birth then a man should be able to as well.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:37 pm

K.Snyder;1369037 wrote: Would you feel it's acceptable for a mother to birth her child into a world of starvation? Let's say a woman is pregnant and she barely has enough money to support herself, would it then be ok to force her to birth the child?

I feel it is a bad thing that a woman should have to do that, but I think the woman should apply the knowledge of "I can barley support myself, or feed myself" to " ===> " I won't be able to support another person"=====> " it is probably not a good Idea to make the decision to be involved in acts that are going to lead me to have to support another person". This type of thought process can go for the man as well.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:37 am

littleCJelkton;1369000 wrote: That is what you think I think, and if that is what makes it easy for you to make a valid case for you argument you are going to think I think that no matter what I say, and pick apart peices of this and that statement to make your self feel better by making it look like I said something to prove to yourself I think that.

What I do believe is a woman and a man both equally should have equal rights to choose what to and/or what not to do, though with out the right information on the subject in which they are going to make the decision in they are more likely to make a make wrong decisions in order to better the chances to make the right one I believe that the man and/or the woman should both be well informed and not miss-guided about the subject in which they make their decisions about.

I don't know what you think That's why I keep asking you. You refuse to answer a straight question. That's your prerogative I don't have any right to demand an answer it's just easier to because if it clear where you stand. . Incidentally I feel fine I don't need to make myself feel better about anything.

Perhaps you don't like thinking of it in such stark terms. There just can't be equal rights in the matter. Leaving aside any other issues around the matter and just looking at the issue of whether to have an abortion or not.

In a situation where the woman wants an abortion and the man doesn't want her to have it whose decision is it to make?

In a situation where the woman wants to have the baby but the man doesn't whose decision is it to make?

In a situation where carrying a child to term threatens the life of both mother and child whose decision is to make whether she does so?

In all cases I would say it is up to the woman. It can't be an equal decision unless they both agree to it. Where there is disagreement then I think the right to choose is the woman's and nobody else's her right takes priority. If you think in the first case the man's "rights" take precedence then essentially you don't think women should be allowed to make such a decision for themselves. If in the second you think the woman is right and should be allowed to have the baby against the wishes of the man then it's ever so slightly hypocritical and the woman does not have the right to choose unless she make the "right" choice. In the third case you think the man has a greater right essentially you are saying the woman and child are at his disposal to decide their fate regardless of what she might want. What they decide between themselves is up to them but in such a case i would say the woman has a greater right to decide than the man what she decides takes precedence.

There are a lot of issues around abortion you can discuss but what it boils down to is if a woman discovers she is pregnant and for whatever reason does not wish to proceed who has the right to tell her what to do? As a society we have decided that up to a certain point she can have an abortion. Many, mainly of a religious disposition, think that that decision should not be hers to make. I disagree. When you get to the point that these same people also wish to prevent the use of contraceptives and provide proper sex education as interfering with god's will and force everybody else not to use them and to comply with their wishes I start having very little time for them. Sadly they are prepared to use violence and intimidation to get their way even here though not so much with the violence.

So at what point should the woman Know she can not support a kid before or after and abortion, before or after she gets positive pregnancy results, or before or after she has the sex that impregnated her. I am guessing if the woman cannot support the kid the man either doesn't want to or can not support it either, the same question is posed to the man on at what stage in each decision making process should he apply the knowledge he cannot or does not want to support a kid.

In the UK and most of europe we have universal healthcare and a welfare state. We don't wash our hands of them that's why our infant mortality rate is not as high as it is in the states. That you as a society can tolerate children not receiving medical care as a fundamental right rather takes you off the moral high ground when it comes right down to it. Try and imagine living in a country where if your child is ill you can take to a doctor without the fear you might not be able to afford the treatment. Women with children get priority in what you call social housing, it's not luxury but it's not a death sentence either, why penalise the children. (yes it is open to abuse but the odd ones that fiddle the system don't make it a bad idea). lack of support from the father is a whole separate issue. The majority of single parents are actually as a result of divorce or death of a partner it's not necessarily as if they had a choice in the matter.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:13 am

koan;1369113 wrote: Here is my considered reframing of the question:

If a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy then a man should have the right as well, if he doesn't want to be a father and pay child support.

If a man doesn't have the right to force an abortion then he should have the right to force a birth.

Prove there is no logic in that.

eta: if a woman can force a birth then a man should be able to as well.

It's logical but the basic premise is wrong. (IMO that is ). They can only have equal rights if they have the same ability - the man can also give birth so she can have the right to terminate his pregnancy or force a birth. He cannot get pregnant so she cannot have equal rights with him. She can do something he can't why should he be able to override her wishes in the matter unless you are suggesting his wishes are superior or more important to hers.

Since the basic premise - that they have equal rights - is wrong then the logic is false. Ablow isn't arguing for equal rights he's arguing for the subordination of women to a man's will. I'm a bloke you know, how come no women are arguing the case?

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:03 am

gmc;1369177 wrote: It's logical but the basic premise is wrong. (IMO that is ). They can only have equal rights if they have the same ability - the man can also give birth so she can have the right to terminate his pregnancy or force a birth. He cannot get pregnant so she cannot have equal rights with him. She can do something he can't why should he be able to override her wishes in the matter unless you are suggesting his wishes are superior or more important to hers.

Since the basic premise - that they have equal rights - is wrong then the logic is false. Ablow isn't arguing for equal rights he's arguing for the subordination of women to a man's will. I'm a bloke you know, how come no women are arguing the case?

Does the woman have that ability that the man doesn't with out participation of the man? Should I have more rights than a blind or deaf person because I have the ability to see and hear? Should a person with great strength have more rights have the ability to lift heavier objects than others? Since when does your ability to something others can't dictate what rights a person should have or dictate what rights others shouldn't?

I have stated my opinions on everything you say but you continue to ask the same thing over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again.

You just don't read my opinions as you like to ask about rare cases #23 rare case # 42 and rare case # 56 and use them to make broad sweeping opinions that those case are the majority of what is happening in the debate on abortion, dancing around the blunt simple topic that is the root of the debate and that is abortion, which the cases of abortion that cause so much of heated debate are cases of abortion done are not because (as horrible as they are) the rape marital or otherwise, or incest, abortion case but the one where the woman, for many reasons (her herself because the man is irresponsible, or her and the man) do not want, and/or can not accept the responsible for a child kid, which more often than not a child comes as a surprise to the woman and/or man as if they didn't know having sex made children. You continue dance around the topic instead you continue the ABLOW thinks this, ABLOW thinks that, Oh no you don't think like ABLOW do you, I don't like ABLOW, ABLOW has bad Ideas, ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOWv ABLOW, ABLOWv ABLOW, ABLOW ABLOW, ABLOW!!!!!

I don't give a crap what he thinks, or what you think about him as i don't think it contributes to the actual root of the problem which has caused people like ABLOW to pop up and the root of the problem in your fears of people getting behind the smoke he is blowing up their rectums. We already have pretty much come to a collective conclusion that ABLOW is a right wing religously extreme A-hole whose views are wrong so why are do you keep betting around the bush?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:05 pm

Does the woman have that ability that the man doesn't with out participation of the man? Should I have more rights than a blind or deaf person because I have the ability to see and hear? Should a person with great strength have more rights have the ability to lift heavier objects than others? Since when does your ability to something others can't dictate what rights a person should have or dictate what rights others shouldn't?

The blind or deaf person has lost an ability they had or were born without one they could have had, the weaker person has the same ability as the stronger just not to the same extent. Comparing that with giving birth is hardly comparing like with like.

Posted by littlecjelton

You just don't read my opinions as you like to ask about rare cases #23 rare case # 42 and rare case # 56 and use them to make broad sweeping opinions that those case are the majority of what is happening in the debate on abortion, dancing around the blunt simple topic that is the root of the debate and that is abortion, which the cases of abortion that cause so much of heated debate are cases of abortion done are not because (as horrible as they are) the rape marital or otherwise, or incest, abortion case but the one where the woman, for many reasons (her herself because the man is irresponsible, or her and the man) do not want, and/or can not accept the responsible for a child kid, which more often than not a child comes as a surprise to the woman and/or man as if they didn't know having sex made children

Irrespective of the reasons for getting pregnant I think it is the woman's choice whether she has an abortion or not and no one has the right to take that choice away from her. How much clearer would you like me to be? It's not essential you agree with me and I'm not bothered whether you do or not but if in any circumstance you think the man has a right to force a woman to carry to term then we are clearly not going to.

Abortion is not the problem it is a symptom of a problem and the solution to one for some women. You can address all the social factors around why she wants the abortion and take steps to curb the number of teenage pregnancies or why the reasons why she feels economically she can't cope and make keeping it easier but you are not going to be able to do that unless you can get away from the condemnation and discuss it rationally.

Every time an egg is unfertilised that is a life that will not be born that is why the catholic church and others want to ban contraceptives because they see it as interfering with god's will and the only purpose of sex is to pre-create otherwise you should not be indulging especially if you are not intending to have children just yet. They also want to prevent proper sex education in the insane belief that it makes young people promiscuous. Abortion, for non medical reasons is a symptom of a problem not the problem itself.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:02 pm

gmc;1369204 wrote: The blind or deaf person has lost an ability they had or were born without one they could have had, the weaker person has the same ability as the stronger just not to the same extent. Comparing that with giving birth is hardly comparing like with like.

Aren't we all originally female and have added chromosome to make us male? doesn't that mean we are inherently born with the ability to give birth? I still am amazed for all the hype you have for the woman's rights you seem to take a stance that those with certain abilities should be allowed more rights than others with out them which is the same thinking that had got men to be oppressive against women, whites against blacks, Nazi against Jews.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:37 pm

littleCJelkton;1369210 wrote: Aren't we all originally female and have added chromosome to make us male? doesn't that mean we are inherently born with the ability to give birth? I still am amazed for all the hype you have for the woman's rights you seem to take a stance that those with certain abilities should be allowed more rights than others with out them which is the same thinking that had got men to be oppressive against women, whites against blacks, Nazi against Jews.

Which would rather suggest that the female is the default option and the male is an afterthought:sneaky:

Bollocks to this. You and I are not going to agree or come to an understanding. In truth I didn't expect to because when it really comes right down to it with morality and religious belief all you can do is talk round the subject and when necessary oppose those who are not prepared to accept that their view is not the only or necessarily the right one. Live and let live is all very well sometimes you need to fight for it. My ancestors on many occasions picked up a sword and went to war over such things. thanks to them I do not have to do so and live in a secular society and can say what I like, don't have to pander to the religious and don;t have to fear them. No one forces a religious person to have an abortion or use contraceptives or not go to church yet so many religious groups feel they have a right to impose their morality on others and prevent things like abortion regardless of the circumstances. Personally I am not in favour when it is for reasons of convenience and the necessity could have been avoided. But since I will never be faced with the choice I wouldn't prevent someone making that decision or condemn them for making it and don't think anyone should.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:57 pm

koan;1369113 wrote: Here is my considered reframing of the question:

If a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy then a man should have the right as well, if he doesn't want to be a father and pay child support.

If a man doesn't have the right to force an abortion then he should have the right to force a birth.

Prove there is no logic in that.

eta: if a woman can force a birth then a man should be able to as well.

Just recapping here . What Ablow is proposing has nothing to do with equal rights, or logic..........because there are no equal rights to begin with. And with the 'logic' you've mentioned here there is no justice. Women do not have equal rights in your country nor mine. So the premise that there is some kind of equality before this argument even begins is a nonscence. Especially when the new budget in the States is attacking mothers, children, and the elderly. You can't put men in the same poistion as women because they are not in the same position as women. In Ablows view men don't lose. Only the woman becomes criminally liable. He also states that there would be pyschological harm done to those women but the rights of the male overide that.

Again.....

"I believe that in those cases in which a man can make a credible claim that he is the father of a developing child in utero, in which he could be a proper custodian of that child, and in which he is willing to take full custody of that child upon its delivery, that the pregnant woman involved should not have the option to abort and should be civilly liable, and possibly criminally liable, for psychological suffering and wrongful death should she proceed to do so."

"I understand that adopting social policy that gives fathers the right to veto abortions would lead to presently unknown psychological consequences for women forced to carry babies to term. But I don’t know that those consequences are greater than those suffered by men forced to end the lives of their unborn children."

His argument has nothing to do with forcing men to go through with pregnancy, but only forcing women.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:42 am

gmc;1369219 wrote: Which would rather suggest that the female is the default option and the male is an afterthought:sneaky:

Bollocks to this. You and I are not going to agree or come to an understanding. In truth I didn't expect to because when it really comes right down to it with morality and religious belief all you can do is talk round the subject and when necessary oppose those who are not prepared to accept that their view is not the only or necessarily the right one. Live and let live is all very well sometimes you need to fight for it. My ancestors on many occasions picked up a sword and went to war over such things. thanks to them I do not have to do so and live in a secular society and can say what I like, don't have to pander to the religious and don;t have to fear them. No one forces a religious person to have an abortion or use contraceptives or not go to church yet so many religious groups feel they have a right to impose their morality on others and prevent things like abortion regardless of the circumstances. Personally I am not in favour when it is for reasons of convenience and the necessity could have been avoided. But since I will never be faced with the choice I wouldn't prevent someone making that decision or condemn them for making it and don't think anyone should.

Bullocks??? O.K I agree anyone can say anything they want, and as I see it that is exactly what ABLOW is doing. This thread on the other hand is more to the point of each how each person weighs what ABLOW says morally to that point it about what each person morally thinks about abortion. I see it personally as I like to get to the point more about abortion thus about (kids, sex, relationships) as they are key factors in determining the decision of abortion esspecially the cases in which people feel that the decision for an abortion was made for reasons such as contraception due to lack of basic knowledge of sexual activity. So I personally discuss the morality and judgement of people (men and women) who decide on abortions and those peoples morality and judgement when it comes to being sexual active, and their approach to having relationships, as I see the morality of each judgement proportional to each other. As for who should have the right to do what I believe everyone should be equal, from what I get about what your saying is rights should be based on abilities that person is born with which I find ironic because from my opinion the reason men have such a bad repoire when it comes to their history of allowing equal rights is that historically men believed they were (stronger, faster, smarter, ect) than women of which some of these Ideals ABLOW seems to follow, and yet though you keep saying ABLOW should and I am over exaggerating (be hung by his ball from a 30 story building on jupiter) you are making statements such as a person's rights should have some correlation to their abilities they are born with. Fuzzy on the other hand based on what I have read believes that since men (who all should be hung by his ball from a 30 story building on jupiter) didn't give equal rights in the first place and are not changing fast enough in her opinion, the only logical conclusion is no body should ever have equal rights realisticly or ideally which I would say corresponds with and Idea that a person rights should be congruent with their natural born abilities as no one every has exactly the same abilities as another rights would never be equal. So I believe this thread has gone from a thread about (do you agree or disagree with ABLOW) which I believe is a moot point to debate with the guy when he is not a member here and is not able to defend or give reasons as to why he thinks the way he does. TOO (what is your moral view on abortion and what decisions lead to one having to make a choice to abortion) which I believe gets more to the point. TOO. (do you believe everyone should have equal rights or not).

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:02 pm

littleCJelkton;1369325 wrote: Bullocks??? O.K I agree anyone can say anything they want, and as I see it that is exactly what ABLOW is doing. This thread on the other hand is more to the point of each how each person weighs what ABLOW says morally to that point it about what each person morally thinks about abortion. I see it personally as I like to get to the point more about abortion thus about (kids, sex, relationships) as they are key factors in determining the decision of abortion esspecially the cases in which people feel that the decision for an abortion was made for reasons such as contraception due to lack of basic knowledge of sexual activity. So I personally discuss the morality and judgement of people (men and women) who decide on abortions and those peoples morality and judgement when it comes to being sexual active, and their approach to having relationships, as I see the morality of each judgement proportional to each other. As for who should have the right to do what I believe everyone should be equal, from what I get about what your saying is rights should be based on abilities that person is born with which I find ironic because from my opinion the reason men have such a bad repoire when it comes to their history of allowing equal rights is that historically men believed they were (stronger, faster, smarter, ect) than women of which some of these Ideals ABLOW seems to follow, and yet though you keep saying ABLOW should and I am over exaggerating (be hung by his ball from a 30 story building on jupiter) you are making statements such as a person's rights should have some correlation to their abilities they are born with. Fuzzy on the other hand based on what I have read believes that since men (who all should be hung by his ball from a 30 story building on jupiter) didn't give equal rights in the first place and are not changing fast enough in her opinion, the only logical conclusion is no body should ever have equal rights realisticly or ideally which I would say corresponds with and Idea that a person rights should be congruent with their natural born abilities as no one every has exactly the same abilities as another rights would never be equal. So I believe this thread has gone from a thread about (do you agree or disagree with ABLOW) which I believe is a moot point to debate with the guy when he is not a member here and is not able to defend or give reasons as to why he thinks the way he does. TOO (what is your moral view on abortion and what decisions lead to one having to make a choice to abortion) which I believe gets more to the point. TOO. (do you believe everyone should have equal rights or not).Just because one feels abortion should be pro-choice doesn't mean that one person agrees with abortion...You're arguing on an altruism but are failing to take into account the countless circumstances that contributes to one even having to make the decision at all, let alone choosing abortion.

I personally do not like the idea of abortion but I also know that everyone has the right to their own choices. When you consider "social injustices" one may feel is attributed with an abortion then it's equally as prudent to consider the social injustice of making abortion illegal. Quite simply those opposed to ABLOW are those that feel the consequences are far more disastrous when making abortion illegal and I agree. That's even before considering the aforementioned countless reasons why there are abortions.

This whole idea of blaming the woman for abortion being pro-choice as well as blaming the woman for the reasons illegal abortion "should be implemented" is despicable.

A moral standard of how one feels about abortion is fine and dandy but jesus, how sexist does one have to be before anyone gets a grip?

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:11 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1369224 wrote: Just recapping here . What Ablow is proposing has nothing to do with equal rights, or logic..........because there are no equal rights to begin with. And with the 'logic' you've mentioned here there is no justice. Women do not have equal rights in your country nor mine. So the premise that there is some kind of equality before this argument even begins is a nonscence. Especially when the new budget in the States is attacking mothers, children, and the elderly. You can't put men in the same poistion as women because they are not in the same position as women. In Ablows view men don't lose. Only the woman becomes criminally liable. He also states that there would be pyschological harm done to those women but the rights of the male overide that.

Again.....

"I believe that in those cases in which a man can make a credible claim that he is the father of a developing child in utero, in which he could be a proper custodian of that child, and in which he is willing to take full custody of that child upon its delivery, that the pregnant woman involved should not have the option to abort and should be civilly liable, and possibly criminally liable, for psychological suffering and wrongful death should she proceed to do so."

"I understand that adopting social policy that gives fathers the right to veto abortions would lead to presently unknown psychological consequences for women forced to carry babies to term. But I don’t know that those consequences are greater than those suffered by men forced to end the lives of their unborn children."

His argument has nothing to do with forcing men to go through with pregnancy, but only forcing women.
Sorry. I haven't been clear.

I don't give a rat's ass about Ablow or the original article. I find interest in the general question of whether or not men, as women can, should be able to control how many offspring they have... and think that question is unlikely to ever be framed in a palatable way.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:57 pm

K.Snyder;1369330 wrote:

This whole idea of blaming the woman for abortion being pro-choice as well as blaming the woman for the reasons illegal abortion "should be implemented" is despicable.

A moral standard of how one feels about abortion is fine and dandy but jesus, how sexist does one have to be before anyone gets a grip?

As I said before I believe the woman should be free to choose to have an abortion or not, but abortion I believe is a decision that needs to be made in a dire situation in which other decision were ill advised or no even allowed in the first place (such as rape), though I believe that if other decisions were thought out prior to getting to the point that an abortion is the choice you have to think about making you might not of even reach that point in the first place. For this reason blame equally applies to the man and woman who made the decision to first have sex, as I believe that in order to have a decision for an abortion, the woman must have first have gotten pregnant, which means the woman must have first had sex with a man which means the man must have also decided to have sex with the woman. So I believe that somewhere earlier in the process sex===>pregnancy===>abortion it should have been realized that the the man and or woman do not want to or just can't accept the responsibility of having children. Of course there are going to be exception to the rule where a) all parties didn't have a choice deciding what to do at one or all of the sex===>pregnancy===>abortion process(such as rape), or there is unforeseen factors in the process (such as the fetus not fully developing), but I think that those cases are not the ones that are at the forefront of this morally charged debate. I think that too often (way to often for some) the man and woman both either use bad information in their decision making process, or just don't use the information given to them in the decision making process of being sexually active, when they make this decision with bad information or just don't care and a pregnancy is a result, then they have to then begin a new decision making process on weather or not to have an abortion when if pregnancy was in prior decision making processes abortion might not have been a choice needed to be made. It is these cases in which the couple or woman uses abortion as a means of correcting a mistake the couple the man or the woman made in somewhere in their or her decision making process of sex====>pregnancy===>abortion. As such some see the decision of having and abortion for making a mistake wrong as some people have moral view that people should take responsibility for their mistakes, and some believe that since the the fetus has the possibility of developing in to being another life some believe that laws should be passed to protect that possible life from people who wish to terminated because they don't want to take responsibility for their mistakes. I believe that because of the the number of abortions being made because either the Man didn't want to take responsibility for his actions and the woman can't do it alone, or the woman doesn't want to take responsibility for her actions, or both the man and woman don't want to take responsibility for their actions, when compared to the total number of abortions is larger than most would see as morally acceptable. I believe that this is part of what (though extremely wrong as they are) is the basis for ABLOW extreme views. I believe if all the cases of abortion were only those in which there were rape, incest, severely unhealthy or underdeveloped children, ect.., the case for ABLOW's views would be so negligable that his views would be turned down almost outright by almost everyone and there would be no thread here because there wouldn't be enough people who agree with ABLOW to worry about more people agreeing with him and spur the notion that a case needs to be made against his views for others to follow. Unfortunately, there are what I believe are far too numerous cases of abortion that are made because ill advised decision making processes were made prior too getting pregnant, and as a result there are those who see this as wrong and voice there opinion on it some opinions tend to be more extreme than the others which is the case of ABLOW.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:09 pm

That's very interesting . So women can be in control of their own reproductive organs but only by the moral standards set by others? You guys don't like abortion? So you give women the right of having a choice over their own lives and reproduction but then you moralise over it. So basically women can have abortions.......... but.....they are bad if they do....they are correcting a 'mistake' .......or ............must have a 'good reason' for it . poverty? rape? incest? lack of sex education? lack of contraception?

How about ............they like a guy enough to have sex with them but not reproduce with them? Does that make a woman bad if she has that attitude toward the male of the species? The morning after pill is a form of contraception..it's also an abortion aid. Not all abortion is surgical. Sometimes it's herbal. And has been around since the dawn of time .

there shouldn't be a moral judgement on abortion because it dictates a moral judgement on the woman herself .

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:35 pm

Lets put this another way. .....take for instance a woman having a baby for another couple . If you were to ask women if they would do it you would get many different answers. I would do it ......but only if I was simply the carrier. If my eggs were involved or the sperm of someone i was close to i couldn't do it . I couldn't give that baby away because I know what my own psychological make up is and couple that with emotional and hormonal turmoil of giving up a baby i simply couldnt do it. But, on the other hand if the eggs and sperm had nothing to do with me and I thiought the cause a good one, and considering I'm done with my own family reproduction I could carry for another couple. I have no problem with it and I could easily get through the emotional and hormonal processes like it was the flu because I already have experience with such. And I am aware of them.

If you were to ask a woman of say 16 and 25 who hasn't begun a family yet you would get a completely different answer .....or would you ? Ask a woman in the middle of making a family with a child on her hip and I can garrantee the answer would be a deadset NO. All women are in different hormonal and psychological and nuerological states all throughout their lives.

Now if you were to ask a male the same question it can't be answered with any possible accuracy because he could not know anything about the personal delemmas psychologically, nuerologically, emotionally or hormonally of what is involved in the process. Men go through a different process during their life span ......what men have in their favour is the withdrawal method.

There is a reason why men allude to not understanding women, and why men should never ever have a say in a females reproduction.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:59 pm

Do you, fuzzy, have any knowledge of the psychological and emotional damage a man experiences when a woman chooses to abort his child? It's a very extreme form of rejection... especially if they are in love with the woman.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:42 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1369365 wrote:

There is a reason why men allude to not understanding women, and why men should never ever have a say in a females reproduction.

Then women should not have a say in a males reproduction?

Wait how do you have a males or a females reproduction with out both a male and female having a say in both?

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:52 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1369365 wrote: Lets put this another way. .....take for instance a woman having a baby for another couple . If you were to ask women if they would do it you would get many different answers. I would do it ......but only if I was simply the carrier. If my eggs were involved or the sperm of someone i was close to i couldn't do it . I couldn't give that baby away because I know what my own psychological make up is and couple that with emotional and hormonal turmoil of giving up a baby i simply couldnt do it. But, on the other hand if the eggs and sperm had nothing to do with me and I thiought the cause a good one, and considering I'm done with my own family reproduction I could carry for another couple. I have no problem with it and I could easily get through the emotional and hormonal processes like it was the flu because I already have experience with such. And I am aware of them.

If you were to ask a woman of say 16 and 25 who hasn't begun a family yet you would get a completely different answer .....or would you ? Ask a woman in the middle of making a family with a child on her hip and I can garrantee the answer would be a deadset NO. All women are in different hormonal and psychological and nuerological states all throughout their lives.

Now if you were to ask a male the same question it can't be answered with any possible accuracy because he could not know anything about the personal delemmas psychologically, nuerologically, emotionally or hormonally of what is involved in the process. Men go through a different process during their life span ......what men have in their favour is the withdrawal method.

There is a reason why men allude to not understanding women, and why men should never ever have a say in a females reproduction.

What does this have to do with the act of having sex itself and either thinking your have no chance of making a child and being caught of guard when pregnancy occurs? That is a totally different case that has little to nothing to do with the cases of abortion mentioned, and if a woman has a sperm and egg injected in her then she of course knows full well that pregnancy is possible, I am failing to see how your trying to relate unless you are suggesting that women have the right to get injected with an embryo and then abort it whenever they want to choose to do so?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:03 pm

@ koan

rejection....hhhmmm = ego. People fall in and out of love everyday it should never be the basis of having a child together though . (as divorce rates would attest to)

I'm not male so I wouldn't even think of going there ........ But the onus of carrying a child is not his and he can move on accordingly and take up a relationship with another. A woman on the other hand would have a child in tow and added stresses in forming another relationship.

I have known two young men who have been through this one didn't really mind, but the other took it very hard. The first seemed to realise that he didn't really have affections for the girl and he would be paying for a child that he wouldn't see much of if the mother decided to move interstate (which she eventually did anyway) .

The other I actually heard him say (maybe out of personal frustration) "I own that kid" .....listening to him I immediately thought of the monty python song 'Every sperm is sacred' .......but to whom I wonder?

I'm amazed that out of every single woman in the world ...how many are there? (2,187,838,153 of child bearing age) a man can choose one single female and demand that she bear HIS child. What's so important about HIS sperm?. It just doesn't wash with me .

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:12 pm

your callousness towards the emotional capabilities of the opposite sex detracts from your argument.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:12 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1369359 wrote:

How about ............they like a guy enough to have sex with them but not reproduce with them? . .

That gets to the hart of one of my points if a guy likes a girl, or the girl likes they guy enough to have sex with them then it should be understood that pregnancy no matter what you do short of removing particular reproductive organs ( at which point I believe the person with said organs removed may not want to have sex anymore) pregnancy is "ALWAYS" a possibility and, it is this Idea that "YOU CAN NOT GET PREGNANT FROM HAVING SEX" if you do take that or take this or use that or use this, which is at the forefront of the reason why the cases of abortion that those who propose things like ABLOW does get formed. Again me personally, I believe one should be responsible for ones actions the good and the bad, and I believe a person has the right to choose what they want to do, one of those things a person can choose to do is have sex with someone, I personally feel that a person should have to take responsibility for the right to be able to do that. I believe that the cases of abortion that are the ones that ABLOW uses to back his cause with are the ones in which their is a lack of responsibility in the actions of the ones who participated in the action of sex. I believe that since these cases of abortion are more than alot of people morally think is an acceptable number ABLOW's ideas gets followers. Since ABLOW's Ideas are extreme and wrong in themselves they will attract the opposite Ideas to counteract them one such idea i believe is to take rights away from the person who is seeking to take rights away from your (man or woman).

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:12 pm

littleCJelkton;1369382 wrote: What does this have to do with the act of having sex itself and either thinking your have no chance of making a child and being caught of guard when pregnancy occurs? That is a totally different case that has little to nothing to do with the cases of abortion mentioned, and if a woman has a sperm and egg injected in her then she of course knows full well that pregnancy is possible, I am failing to see how your trying to relate unless you are suggesting that women have the right to get injected with an embryo and then abort it whenever they want to choose to do so?

Another words ........if you know nothing of what a woman goes through bodily or pyschologically during anytime of her life or during or after pregnancy then you cant possibly understand the abortion issue when it comes to the female psychology or body. Therefore you do not have the right to demand an abortion or force a woman to carry to full term just because one or two of your millions of sperm happened to hit ONE egg.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:15 pm

koan;1369384 wrote: your callousness towards the emotional capabilities of the opposite sex detracts from your argument.

That's not callous it's what I wittnessed. It's why I put in (proabably out of personal frustration) because I felt sorry for him and didn't want it sounding as if HE was callous.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:20 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1369386 wrote: Another words ........if you know nothing of what a woman goes through bodily or pyschologically during anytime of her life or during or after pregnancy then you cant possibly understand the abortion issue when it comes to the female psychology or body. Therefore you do not have the right to demand an abortion or force a woman to carry to full term just because one or two of your millions of sperm happened to hit ONE egg.

I would recheck that number again to nowhere near that number of sperm happen to make it towards the egg. So If I am to get this right were going back in full circle to since we can not know what it is like to get pregnant we should not have anything to to with pregnancy, so why should we have sex or donate sperm in the first place??

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:21 pm

littleCJelkton;1369381 wrote: Then women should not have a say in a males reproduction?

Wait how do you have a males or a females reproduction with out both a male and female having a say in both?

If a woman refuses to reproduce with a man then she has no right to dictate if or when a man reproduces with another woman. If you donate sperm you already lose the right to dictate as to where that sperm ends up anyway.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:30 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1369389 wrote: If a woman refuses to reproduce with a man then she has no right to dictate if or when a man reproduces with another woman. If you donate sperm you already lose the right to dictate as to where that sperm ends up anyway.
Uh O.K but how doo people who had sex not first come to terms to agree to have sex unless of course you are going to continue and play the "dumb" game and say oh wait a minute (duhhhhh? rape), when a man and woman decide to have sex usually it is a joint agreement thus how do you come to the conclusion that neither of them had a say in wanting to have sex with the other, which again sex is the reproductive process for humans well all mammals regardless of gender.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:37 pm

What????????

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:43 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1369392 wrote: What????????
Who, where, why, when, and how, oops where all pregnant abortions for everyone.

:yh_rotfl

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:48 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1369387 wrote: That's not callous it's what I wittnessed. It's why I put in (proabably out of personal frustration) because I felt sorry for him and didn't want it sounding as if HE was callous.
It's a mistake many people, myself included, make regarding world view. I think after so much percentage of my personal experience has followed a pattern that my experiences represent those of the greater population. There are a lot of people in the world.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:54 pm

koan;1369396 wrote: It's a mistake many people, myself included, make regarding world view. I think after so much percentage of my personal experience has followed a pattern that my experiences represent those of the greater population. There are a lot of people in the world.

I hope my personal expeirences aren't those of the greater population I doubt everyone in the world would want brain cancer at the age of 5, nor would I want the experiences of the greater population to be mine I have enough to deal with as it is.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:00 pm

Okay Koan are you for forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy she does not want?

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:19 pm

provided all her expenses are provided for, yes.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:20 pm

Is this the same conversation started on FB a few months ago?

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:31 pm

If there was an FB discussion I abstained for time to consider. I've thought about it and I feel that if one parent can choose to abort, either parent should be able to. I'm much more comfortable allowing either parent the right to force birth and neither the sole right to abort.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:32 pm

OpenMind;1369411 wrote: Is this the same conversation started on FB a few months ago?

I hope not the people on FB are horribly more bias and even more than Fuzzy.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:20 pm

Ultimately, until birth, the mother has total control over the options. If she decides to abort, it is usually wisest not to resist or counter unless you have a powerful argument to persuade her. Generally, mother knows best and to counter that particular instinct, you need to have the resources to take over from the mother instantly.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:53 am

koan;1369412 wrote: If there was an FB discussion I abstained for time to consider. I've thought about it and I feel that if one parent can choose to abort, either parent should be able to. I'm much more comfortable allowing either parent the right to force birth and neither the sole right to abort.

Essentially what you are saying is you don't believe the woman has a right to choose.

Not a position I can agree with. If you want to accept that for yourself you can do so. It's not a choice that should be imposed on others. In a good relationship it's a non issue but there are so many circumstances where allowing the male parent the right to force a pregnancy to be carried to term would be a very bad idea.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:06 am

I've no idea how you get that from what I said. Taking away right to choose means eliminating abortion as an option. What I've said is that both men and women should have the right to choose.

For every situation there are those who can manipulate circumstances to make it a very bad thing. That's what makes law and legal wording complicated. No matter how well they word something, someone somewhere will twist it around or find a hole in it. Most of the bad situations you are talking about would not be an issue as the woman would never tell the father she's pregnant in the first place. Paperwork reads "Father: Unknown"

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:23 am

OpenMind;1369421 wrote: Ultimately, until birth, the mother has total control over the options. If she decides to abort, it is usually wisest not to resist or counter unless you have a powerful argument to persuade her. Generally, mother knows best and to counter that particular instinct, you need to have the resources to take over from the mother instantly.

I am guessing you are taking for granted the woman, knows what it is like to be a mother prior to getting pregnant, if that is true than a woman would know what is needed to support to the child that she knows is a possibility if she is going to have sex with a man, and by the way if the prior is true I am guessing the man already knows how to be a father prior to having gotten the woman pregnant as well. If this is the case than yes I would agree with you the mother should make the decision but then again if all that were true I believe the "who's right is it to decide the abortion" question wouldn't be an issue because both the man "who already knows how to be a father" and "woman who already knows how to be a mother" would also have a good understanding of each other and take into account each others opinions, feelings, needs, and wants and be pretty comfortable reasoning, and comming up with a decision that is best for the couple, as I am assuming they already knew prior to becoming a couple "they knew how to do that too."

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:28 am

gmc;1369449 wrote: Essentially what you are saying is you don't believe the woman has a right to choose.

Not a position I can agree with. If you want to accept that for yourself you can do so. It's not a choice that should be imposed on others. In a good relationship it's a non issue but there are so many circumstances where allowing the male parent the right to force a pregnancy to be carried to term would be a very bad idea.

Essentially what you are saying is what you want koan to be saying. I in no way essentially got that from what koan said in the quote you used

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:44 am

koan;1369463 wrote: I've no idea how you get that from what I said. Taking away right to choose means eliminating abortion as an option. What I've said is that both men and women should have the right to choose.

For every situation there are those who can manipulate circumstances to make it a very bad thing. That's what makes law and legal wording complicated. No matter how well they word something, someone somewhere will twist it around or find a hole in it. Most of the bad situations you are talking about would not be an issue as the woman would never tell the father she's pregnant in the first place. Paperwork reads "Father: Unknown"

I feel that if one parent can choose to abort, either parent should be able to. I'm much more comfortable allowing either parent the right to force birth and neither the sole right to abort.

Essentially that means the male can override the wishes of the female in all circumstances except where she is deciding to carry to term.

If she wants an abortion and he doesn't then he would have the right to force carrying to term. She has no right to choose an abortion she must carry to term. If she wants a birth and he doesn't then she has the right to choose but only because she is making the "right" choice anyway. She can have an abortion but only if the father agrees. Effectively you have removed the right for her to make the decision on off her own back eliminating abortion as an option unless it's with the consent of the father is effectively the same as removing abortion as an option the woman can choose for herself. I might have misinterpreted what you said but in effect you have removed the woman's right to choose Not being able to make a choice without someone else's agreement means you are not actually free to choose what you wish to do. I assumed that meant you didn't believe she should have a choice. My apologies if I offended.

Most of the bad situations you are talking about would not be an issue as the woman would never tell the father she's pregnant in the first place. Paperwork reads "Father: Unknown"

It would be an issue if the only circumstance she can have an abortion is with the father's agreement. Father unknown would not allow her to have an abortion since the other parent cannot give consent. Effectively she would be deprived of a choice in the matter and would have to carry to term.

Not so long ago a girl pregnant with the father unknown was deemed as being feeble minded or put in to unmarried mothers homes to save shaming their families where the children were taken away from them immediately after birth. Some ended up in psychiatric homes. I sometimes think we haven't progressed much beyond those days.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:11 am

littleCJelkton;1369356 wrote: As I said before I believe the woman should be free to choose to have an abortion or not, but abortion I believe is a decision that needs to be made in a dire situation in which other decision were ill advised or no even allowed in the first place (such as rape), though I believe that if other decisions were thought out prior to getting to the point that an abortion is the choice you have to think about making you might not of even reach that point in the first place. For this reason blame equally applies to the man and woman who made the decision to first have sex, as I believe that in order to have a decision for an abortion, the woman must have first have gotten pregnant, which means the woman must have first had sex with a man which means the man must have also decided to have sex with the woman. So I believe that somewhere earlier in the process sex===>pregnancy===>abortion it should have been realized that the the man and or woman do not want to or just can't accept the responsibility of having children. Of course there are going to be exception to the rule where a) all parties didn't have a choice deciding what to do at one or all of the sex===>pregnancy===>abortion process(such as rape), or there is unforeseen factors in the process (such as the fetus not fully developing), but I think that those cases are not the ones that are at the forefront of this morally charged debate. I think that too often (way to often for some) the man and woman both either use bad information in their decision making process, or just don't use the information given to them in the decision making process of being sexually active, when they make this decision with bad information or just don't care and a pregnancy is a result, then they have to then begin a new decision making process on weather or not to have an abortion when if pregnancy was in prior decision making processes abortion might not have been a choice needed to be made. It is these cases in which the couple or woman uses abortion as a means of correcting a mistake the couple the man or the woman made in somewhere in their or her decision making process of sex====>pregnancy===>abortion. As such some see the decision of having and abortion for making a mistake wrong as some people have moral view that people should take responsibility for their mistakes, and some believe that since the the fetus has the possibility of developing in to being another life some believe that laws should be passed to protect that possible life from people who wish to terminated because they don't want to take responsibility for their mistakes. I believe that because of the the number of abortions being made because either the Man didn't want to take responsibility for his actions and the woman can't do it alone, or the woman doesn't want to take responsibility for her actions, or both the man and woman don't want to take responsibility for their actions, when compared to the total number of abortions is larger than most would see as morally acceptable. I believe that this is part of what (though extremely wrong as they are) is the basis for ABLOW extreme views. I believe if all the cases of abortion were only those in which there were rape, incest, severely unhealthy or underdeveloped children, ect.., the case for ABLOW's views would be so negligable that his views would be turned down almost outright by almost everyone and there would be no thread here because there wouldn't be enough people who agree with ABLOW to worry about more people agreeing with him and spur the notion that a case needs to be made against his views for others to follow. Unfortunately, there are what I believe are far too numerous cases of abortion that are made because ill advised decision making processes were made prior too getting pregnant, and as a result there are those who see this as wrong and voice there opinion on it some opinions tend to be more extreme than the others which is the case of ABLOW.The preaching is all very well CJ because the majority of people, to significant degree I might add, doesn't like the idea of using abortion like quarters at a car wash.

You're talking about moral standards that begin at child birth ie.. integrity, honor, respect blah blah blah as opposed to sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse and these "decisions prior" aren't related by knowledge of just the consequence in having a child.

Then there's the implementation of such a piece of legislation to make abortion illegal that is just so damn obscure that the only people that can imagine it is the narrow minded BS of logic that only the religious extremists can concoct in those tiny brains of theirs.

There's much more to women becoming pregnant than just this fascination with the act of conception. What if the male lies about wearing a condom? What if the male wants the child but neither can support the child? The actual health of the child yet the male still wants him/her because all he cares about is his own selfish desires which probably more than 90% of the time is the very reason the woman became pregnant only to have the tenacity to force her to birth? Perhaps there's an age limit, 12 perhaps? No? 13, 14?

Abortion isn't just abortion, it's a piece of the lives of these individuals who suffer it.

As I've said, the males want to have the child is equally as valid as the woman's but to actually go through with such a law as illegal abortion is utterly retarded because it's obvious the factors having been ignored

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:54 pm

gmc;1369468 wrote: Essentially that means the male can override the wishes of the female in all circumstances except where she is deciding to carry to term.

If she wants an abortion and he doesn't then he would have the right to force carrying to term. She has no right to choose an abortion she must carry to term. If she wants a birth and he doesn't then she has the right to choose but only because she is making the "right" choice anyway. She can have an abortion but only if the father agrees. Effectively you have removed the right for her to make the decision on off her own back eliminating abortion as an option unless it's with the consent of the father is effectively the same as removing abortion as an option the woman can choose for herself. I might have misinterpreted what you said but in effect you have removed the woman's right to choose Not being able to make a choice without someone else's agreement means you are not actually free to choose what you wish to do. I assumed that meant you didn't believe she should have a choice. My apologies if I offended.

It would be an issue if the only circumstance she can have an abortion is with the father's agreement. Father unknown would not allow her to have an abortion since the other parent cannot give consent. Effectively she would be deprived of a choice in the matter and would have to carry to term.

Not so long ago a girl pregnant with the father unknown was deemed as being feeble minded or put in to unmarried mothers homes to save shaming their families where the children were taken away from them immediately after birth. Some ended up in psychiatric homes. I sometimes think we haven't progressed much beyond those days.
Pro choice is about abortion being legal, not about granting a woman the sole right to make that decision. It was a better name than Pro Death.

I presented circumstances where allowing men input would by bypassed by single women claiming they don't know who the father is and you transformed that an interpretation in which a missing father is assumed to be against the abortion instead of for it. You are welcome to argue with yourself.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:40 pm

koan;1369410 wrote: provided all her expenses are provided for, yes.

OMG!!!! WOW !!! JUST WOW!!

Koan you realise what that is actually doing dont you? and you know who would be the biggest victims of this ???? young teen girls !!! you want to manipulate and enslave young teen girls.

don't know OM....I started this because of a news story about legislating the enforcement of women to bear children.

Pro choice is about abortion being legal, not about granting a woman the sole right to make that decision.

It is in this country, hence the privacy of it .......even a husband cannot demand to know whether his wife has had an abortion through any records.