The Utter Insanity of Pro-Choice

Originally posted by TaunyaD

And while I'd like to respect Pro-Lifers for their opinion, I'd feel much better if they would forgo having children of their own and instead start adopting some of the 500,000 unwanted children we have here in America.

I agree with the sentiment. Although I am loathe to call most of them "Pro-Lifers," I prefer, "Anti-abortionists." It is rare, by far even more rare than bigfoot sightings, to meet someone who is opposed to abortion who is truly "pro life." Virtually every one I have met who was opposed to abortion has been for the death penalty, war, etc.

I know true "pro-lifers" exist, but one rarely meets them in America.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Monts

 

He is not the one who could be prosecuted for his behavior when pregnant. (Endangering the fetus with drugs or alcohol, in some places, they are trying to prosecute for this) The pregnancy has zero necessary impact on his behavior.

He is not the one who may be endangering their career, by needing to take leave to give birth, or if there are complications, to carry the child to term.

Odds are, if the relationship breaks up, the mother is the one who will have to make the greatest investment in that child in terms of time, energy, and often, in money as well, as child support is not a guarantee.

REALLY? common sense should tell any woman not to drink alcohol or do drugs or smoke. any pregnant mom to be who smokes, drinks, does drugs or anything else to endanger the pregnancy is already unfit to be a parent. arguing that a woman could be prosecuted because of alcohol intake or drug abuse is laughable, as they should be prosecuted for endangering a man's child. if kicking bad habits is so terribly hard to do or ask to be done then you shouldn't be making stupid decisions such as having unprotected sex or taking the needed steps to not become pregnant.


the men in question are the ones who are real men who will stick around and raise the child like a man should. i mean arguing that a man should have HALF the say in this (i don't understand where the men getting final say argument is coming from) is the same man willing to take responsibility for his actions.


a man does take risks in damaging or ruining his career by having to call out or miss days at work to take care of the mother to be. a few examples, dr, appointments, having to take days off to tend to her if she is sick, lamaze classes, leaving mid shift to be there for the birth etc... there are many sacrifices a man makes (a real man anyway) during the pregnancy as well. also, i have worked with many pregnant women, all of whom have never come close to losing their career due to taking maternity leave. there are laws that prevent this from happening.


once again we are debating men who care enough to be in the childs life. i don't think the men in question who want to have a voice in having the child are the men who are just going to split when the woman gets pregnant.

so to say if the relationship is over and the parents split up, that the woman is most likely going to be the one to have to pick up the pieces and raise the child on her own is a bit condescending. if this is the case, you can most likely thank the courts who 95-100% of the time think the mother should be given sole custody of the child/children. men everywhere fight uphill battles to get custody of their children in breakups or divorces, and almost always loose automatically because society has this way of thinking that if a child is born from a woman, the child should live with that woman until legal adult age regardless of the circumstances.


my cousins' real mother is literally a crack addict, not to mention her new boyfriend is a registered sex offender over sex with a minor. when my uncle (who makes more then enough money to supply them with all their needs and is proven to be the one who should have custody) divorced her over this and sure enough, the idiot self-righteous judge said that no child should not be with their mother and granted custody to a woman who lived with a man who had already made passes at my 15 year old cousin.


if you think a man is not at all effected by pregnancy, you are wrong. who has to put up with violent mood swings and stress of having to wait on a bloated bitchy woman hand and foot, having to take trips to 7/11 at 1am for a marshmallow hot dog when they have to be up at 5am to get ready for work? all the calls to come home from work because they "need".

Originally posted by Hardstepah


REALLY? common sense should tell any woman not to drink alcohol or do drugs or smoke. any pregnant mom to be who smokes, drinks, does drugs or anything else to endanger the pregnancy is already unfit to be a parent. arguing that a woman could be prosecuted because of alcohol intake or drug abuse is laughable, as they should be prosecuted for endangering a man's child. if kicking bad habits is so terribly hard to do or ask to be done then you shouldn't be making stupid decisions such as having unprotected sex or taking the needed steps to not become pregnant.

And here is the real truth about many of you who just want "some say."

Originally posted by Hardstepah
i mean arguing that a man should have HALF the say in this (i don't understand where the men getting final say argument is coming from) is the same man willing to take responsibility for his actions.

How do you have "half" the say in an either/or decision? Explain that to me. There is no such thing as "half" say, or "some" say. You get to have input. The "final say" is the yes or no, either/or choice to carry or abort. It cant be 50/50. Its impossible. You cant half abort/half carry a baby. Or carry "some" of the child, but not all of it. The logic going on in that reasoning is astounding. And not in a good way.

And men like you shouldnt be so judgmental about women who get drunk and pregnant. That type of woman is probably the only reason some bloodlines continue to exist.

Well, the question seems to be, at its root:

Who gets to make the decision about whether or not a pregnancy continues or is terminated?

The answer generally centers around several possible candidates:

1) The Mother. (It's her body.)
2) The Father. (He'll end up being a parent too, y'know! So, obviously his opinion SHOULD COUNT.)
3) The Famil(ies). (Parents, grandparents, et al, have a certain potential stake in whether or not a baby comes to term. Whether it's to continue their lineage, or if they'll have to be the ones to take care of it if the parents are unfit.)
4) The "State" or "Government." (They seem to like sticking their fingers in everyone's pies and regulating things or, being most charitable, resolving disputes before or after they arise.)

So, the question becomes: Who gets to decide whether a pregnancy comes to term? Whose opinion is of supreme importance and when can they be overruled and by whom?

Are women property? Seems a silly question, but it has relevance. If they are property (some cultures DO consider them to be), then their owners retain any un-yielded rights over life, death, breeding, husbandry, etc.

If they're NOT property other than unto themselves, then they must have RIGHTS? How far do those rights extend? Into life-or-death decision making processes? ("Life" is not defined here, simply mentioned in general.) Into personal body issues? Do body issues extend to cover the generation of new life (which happens to be intimately connected to said original body for some time, though inevitably possessing a separate body of its own)?

If said girl / woman is not a minor, then legally (at least in the US) she is legally self-responsible. That is to say, parents or other do not have any legal control over her.

Why, then, should they demand things of her and expect compliance (or attempt to force compliance through legal means)? Are they implying that her legal rights to control over her life, liberty and property should be curtailed?

On the other side of the fence (since I see both sides), what rights do men have with respect to said conceived / implanted fetuses (whether naturally or artificially conceived / implanted)?

Effectively, they are co-owners of the fetus... They will certainly be held liable as a parent / "owner" for its maintenance, welfare and any criminal actions for up to 18 years (in the USA).

Why should a man under such circumstances NOT expect to have a say in whether said life / property comes into being? (Obviously, certain circumstances are exceptions, like rape or whatnot. But, barring those...)

How should disagreements between parties be resolved? Obviously the mother and father should talk about such things and resolve them between them as far as possible.

In fact, as others have mentioned, they should really discuss such things BEFORE copulating (with or without imperfect human-invented birth-control measures), so there AREN'T any such disgreements. If there ARE disagreements, perhaps no copulation should occur. In an ideal world, of course.

But, again, if there is no meeting of the minds between mother and father on whether to proceed to term (mother wants it, father doesn't; father wants it, mother doesn't), who gets precedence in the decision?

Should a father have the right to effectively "invade" a mother's body in the form of:

A) killing the fetus
or
B) forcing the mother to carry it against her will for 8+ months.

If she refuses to carry it to term, what, will they strap her down for 8 months so she can't abort it on her own?

Like it or not, we're not property like pigs or horses. Nobody owns us or gets to force us to mate or carry to term.

I must conclude that pro-choice (informed choice: AKA, knowing all support options available) is the correct path. Put all options on the table (adoption, let parents raise, give up rights to father, abort, etc. etc.), and then make a decision.

Once a decision's made, it's made. Short of strapping someone down.

Originally posted by Hardstepah
a man should have HALF the say in this (i don't understand where the men getting final say argument is coming from)

Great, so what happens when we give a man HALF a say in this.

Mother says abort. She gets 50% say.
Father says keep. He gets 50% say.

Umm, they're still 50 / 50, neck and neck. How does this HELP? It doesn't RESOLVE anything. You still don't have a quorum or a majority. You have 50% saying yes and 50% saying no. It's not even a simple majority (like 49% / 51%)...

HALF a say is meaningless in this context. How do you RESOLVE an argument when both opinions get EQUAL weight. For a MAJORITY OPINION some party has to have more weight and be MORE EQUAL than the other.

Who gets to be the tie breaker? The one who shouts the loudest? The one who has more friends that own guns? The one whose uncle is the town sheriff or municipal judge? =oP

Since it's mom's body, methinks mom gets extra points since it's her life that's potentially on the line if something goes wrong with the pregnancy, etc.
Game, set, match: mom!

(Oversimplifying ad absurdum, obviously. So, no need to point it out. But, you get the point, I HOPE.)

[edit on 21-4-2010 by mgmirkin]

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
It would be nice if this decision could be "fair" for both parties. However if we are completely honest, and if we really take into account who pays what in terms of reproduction, children are always "unfair" to the mother. By that I mean only that in terms of costs, she is always the one who pays the highest price for them in natural, or physical terms.

That is what is often forgotten by those who advocate men having an "equal" say in whether or not a child is aborted. Men do not pay the same price for keeping the child, they do not assume the same risks, they do not invest the same amount of energy, or suffer to the same degree, and so the idea that they should have an equal say in whether or not to proceed with the pregnancy is inherently "unfair."

If and when the risks and costs of pregnancy could be borne equally, then and only then should men get an equal say in whether or not to continue it.

Why, because they go through 9-months of labour? What about the upbringing of the child from infancy to adulthood (1-18)? What happens once the child is born and no longer inside the woman's body? Is it still unfair and unequal for the mother then? Who takes care of the mother, supports her and pays for supplies for the child?

Originally posted by riley
Of course their opinion gets taken into consideration. The issue is not whether he gets a say but whether he can have final say over a grown woman's body.

No, that is the Strawman that you and other posters keep using as justification for women to have full rights and power over whether they terminate a pregnancy - where the father's rights and desires have 0% relevance.

The issue at heart for most men is having their opinion factored into the decision of whether to have a child or not. Pregnancy is only but ONE part of creating a child. It is obviously a very important stage of development, but it is only the beginning. What happens in the 18 years following that pregnancy?

The decision whether to keep or terminate a pregnancy is ultimately with the mother, but she should be held accountable for that choice if it is made against the best interests of all the parties involved (her, father, families, society etc.).

[edit on 21/4/2010 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by Dark Ghost


I've already hashed this out with you but will say it one more time.

A man should NOT have the right to threaten a woman and child with poverty if she refuses to have an abortion on his say so. That is disgusting and so is your insinuation that women only refuse to abort to exploit men. Some women choose not to have abortions because they actually love and want the baby to live. Is that so hard to understand?..but you choose to believe that decision is just part of some eil plot to rule over a man's life. Disgusting.

Please do not reply to me anymore as it really feels like you are interrogating.
You have had your questions answered already and those answers are NOT GOING TO CHANGE no matter how you try to twist them to suit.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by riley]

Originally posted by riley
I've already hashed this out with you but will say it one more time.

A man should NOT have the right to threaten a woman and child with poverty if she refuses to have an abortion on his say so. That is disgusting and so is your insinuation that women only refuse to abort to exploit men. Some women choose not to have abortions because they actually love and want the baby to live. Is that so hard to understand?..but you choose to believe that decision is just part of some eil plot to rule over a man's life. Disgusting.

Please show me where I have said men should have the right to force women into poverty? You are misrepresenting what I and others have been saying in this thread. You are being stubborn and not willing to see the issue from the father's perspective.

riley, I know you have it in you to address this issue and put forth some quality information and advice. You are more than capable. Why are you taking the weaker option by grasping at Straw-men?

Please do not reply to me anymore as it really feels like you are interrogating.
You have had your questions answered already and those answers are NOT GOING TO CHANGE no matter how you try to twist them to suit.

That wasn't my intention and I do apologise if I made you feel this way. If that's what you want I will respect your wishes.

[edit on 22/4/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by Hardstepah
reply to post by DaMod

 

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by ker2010

 

No it's not your body if you want to kill yourself, only if you want to kill an innocent baby.

Get with the times man!!

i think maybe you should take your own advice. it's 2010.

who are you to decide if a woman can have an abortion, and who makes you the judge on what murder of a fetus is?

would you object to the dr. telling you have a tapeworm and take medicine to kill it? that's killing a fully developed living organism.

here's the difference between abortion and a teenager tossing a newborn in the dumps.

THE BABY IS BORN. it is a fully developed human being, not a stage in development but an actual, fully developed human baby. a fetus at 12 weeks is not a fully developed organism. go back to westboro


one more thing. if it isn't my body to commit suicide, who's body is it if not mine?

Please read this all the way through before you respond. Don't be a troll...

1. A tapeworm is not my own species.

2. An abortion is not medicine, it's a brain mushing suction cup.

3. A underdeveloped baby is still a baby.

4. Just because the baby is using their womb as a hotel room doesn't mean the manager can shoot the tenant.

5. If you kill a pregnant woman you get charged for 2 murders. (you have to see the hypocrisy in that!)

6. Wheres westboro?

7. An already born baby is not fully developed, not even close. (you should already know that)

8. Most women that receive abortions are not properly educated before the procedure and are often influenced by the staff to go through with it. There should be laws in place so these women can be properly informed and know about the risks and the inevitable psychological trauma that will follow.

WASHINGTON - Women who consult with pregnancy resource centers often get misleading information about the health risks associated with having an abortion, according to a report issued Monday by Democrats on the House Government Reform Committee.

Congressional aides, posing as pregnant 17-year-olds, called 25 pregnancy centers that have received some federal funding over the past five years.

Source

9. The father as a 50% participant in the creation of the fetus should have 50% say. PERIOD!

10. People do not seem to consider the potential of these aborted children if properly educated. We might have killed the kid that would discover FTL for all we know. Even in the sniveling lawyer business they still take into account potential life span and the court awards appropriately for permanent conditions. (Death is a permanent condition)

11. In most cases of abortion the mother is thinking about her life, herself, and her and aborts the baby for personal reasons without considering that it is in fact her child she is killing. That directly corresponds with the dictionary definition of "selfish"!

12. If abortion stays legal there should be limitations on how many are allowed per female. I've heard many stories of women that have had 3 or 4 abortions (some far more). They should have learned the first time IMHO. Abortion is not birth control.

Irene Vilar worries that her self-described "abortion addiction" will be misunderstood, twisted by the pro-life movement to deny women the right to choose.

Her book, "Impossible Motherhood," which will be released by Other Press on Oct. 6, chronicles her own dark choices: 15 abortions in 16 years, much of it as a married woman.

As press on the book has begun to leak out, Vilar -- a literary agent and editor --- says she has already sensed "an inkling of hatred."

Vilar has scheduled only closed-door interviews and will not do a book tour. At the urging of her husband, they have made sure all public property records do not reflect her name, so she cannot be targeted at their home.

Source

13. I speak for the aborted fetus... "I don't want to die". "Pwease don't kill me mommy I'll be good! I promise!".





[edit on 22-4-2010 by DaMod]

[edit on 22-4-2010 by DaMod]

Men don't have a say because it's not their body. If the day comes we have some scifi technology that allows the transfer of a fetus to a mans body, THEN he may have a say in the matter. If the woman doesn't want it, but the man does, then he can have it transfered into him, and he can carry it and give birth and raise it. But for now that does not exist. The woman is the one who has to give up everything. Change the way she eats and drinks and every vitamin and medication she takes, change everything she does. She is the one who has to be sick and miserable for 9 months. The man does not. Till men can carry babies, men don't get to have a say in what happens inside a womans body.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
Let's take care of the unwanted children we have here already before we think about forcing women to give birth against their will.

If this conception were a part of a mans body I don't think we would be discussing the morality of abortion, when life begins or whether or not this "life" had a soul. It would be of no more consequence than removing a mole. The rest of us would have little to say about it. Churches would balk but like church on Sunday and meat on Friday sooner or later the guys would get what they want. God or no God.

As a woman and as a human, if I don't have privacy rights to my own womb, do I have any privacy rights at all?

If you have privacy rights to your womb, then why did you let a male invade said womb?

It seems pretty simple to me, folks. Feel free to rant and complain about my stance all you want though, I know someone will.

- the act of aborting, or not aborting, is entirely in the mother's hands. The father may have contributed to the process, but in the end if the mother doesn't want the child then the father should have considered better planning before getting her pregnant. It's not that hard to sit down and go:

Guy: "Honey, I would like to have a child to raise. Would you?"
Girl: "Yes, I would."

Then you have sex, and make a baby (assuming you're not infertile).

Or,

Guy: "Honey, I would like to have a child to raise. Would you?"
Girl: "I don't think I'm ready / no I wouldn't."

In which case you don't get her pregnant and then you reconsider how important a child is to your relationship and future. If it means everything, you move towards a break-up / divorce so you can seek out a woman who does want a child.

It's not that hard people. When the baby is growing, it's the woman's choice. Before the sperm and egg meet it is both parents choice.



As for those nasty little things:

If a woman gives birth and the guy doesn't want it - he SHOULD pay childcare. It's his own fault for not communicating with the woman and practicing safe sex so she didn't get pregnant. He was an idiot, there are repercussions.

And as I said earlier,

If he wants a baby and she aborts he needs to consider if the relationship is the right one for him. If it is, he's patient and understanding and him and his wife try again when they're both ready. If not, they part ways and he pursues a woman who will want a child when he does.



Is that so hard to grasp?

~ Wandering Scribe

You see, men, we wouldn’t have this problem if we would just follow the instruction manual – Holy Bible.

The man is supposed to refuse to have sex with the woman until she marries him. Now men, if you can catch an intelligent, sexy woman that’s willing to wait until marriage then she’s the one for you. But before you get married you should discuss all possible scenarios regarding the abortion issue, birth control and career expectations and make sure you are both on the same page.

Once married, if there is an un-planned pregnancy, then men, you must refer to your instruction manual to determine if it’s moral to allow the human life inside her to be torn into pieces and have its skull crushed. Just remember, 6 weeks from fertilization the baby will have a pumping heart, brain activity and blood flowing through its veins.
en.wikipedia.org...

You must determine if you, your wife and the doctor will all be guilty of shedding innocent blood.

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. Prov 6:16-19 KJV

That should settle it for the both of you.

People with differing views could provide instructions from their own instruction manuals – if they have one.



JESUS|YESHUA|SON < YHWH|YAHWEH|FATHER > CREATOR|KING|SAVIOUR

Originally posted by FearNoEvil
You see, men, we wouldn’t have this problem if we would just follow the instruction manual – Holy Bible.

Well if we did that all women would have no more rights than cattle so what a woman wants wouldn't matter anyway.

I do respect that you speak about the man's responsibilty and that people should discuss their views before risking conception.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by riley]

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by FearNoEvil
You see, men, we wouldn’t have this problem if we would just follow the instruction manual – Holy Bible.

Well if we did that all women would have no more rights than cattle so what a woman wants wouldn't matter anyway.

I disagree with your view that the Bible places women on the same level as cattle.

A righteous man should give his own life to protect, provide and please his wife.
Husbands, love your wives , even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it - Eph 5:25 KJV

It pisseth me off when men use the Bible to make their wives their slaves. It pisseth me off even more when women take their unborn children to a butcher to have them slaughtered like CATTLE!



JESUS|YESHUA|SON < YHWH|YAHWEH|FATHER > CREATOR|KING|SAVIOUR