Could abortion be considered a double standard?

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: Hefficide

originally posted by: kellyjay
i think its odd when people refer to the fetus as a "clump of cells", that suddenly become intact lungs and intact hearts when PP is selling those parts for profit.

but thats none of my business *sips tea*

If you made it your business enough to research it you'd know that your statement is factually inaccurate.

its accurate in the sense that if the woman wants something the man is responsible, but if she doesnt want something he suddenly has no rights.

What the men can't put their big boy pants on and use their intellect and realize this is coming? Please.

and the woman cant put in her UID properly or take the pill how it is meant to be taken to avoid such a circumstance....but please carry on laying the blame at the mens feet

Your post was whining about the men. That is what my reply addressed.

its accurate in the sense that if the woman wants something the man is responsible, but if she doesnt want something he suddenly has no rights

But lets not continue this circle jerk. Here...I'll stop first.

Every girl I've known who had an abortion either did so 1. with the support of her male partner or 2. BECAUSE of the abusiveness of her male partner, in a way protecting the baby from a lifetime of said abuse but also severing the tie that would cause 18 years of further abuse on herself.

And....the law does a piss poor job of collecting unpaid child support. The existence of dead beat dads probably equals (if not exceeds) the number of abortions performed.

If all the guys involved were a decent, loving, respectful gentlemen and were willing to step up to the plate I highly doubt the number of abortions sought would be as high as they are now.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

Not to mention, if women's healthcare and birth control options and education were supported and expanded.

That is not, you will note, within the agenda of the anti-choice groups; they don't want to pay for anything that would save more "lives."

They only want to legislate and control.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie

And....the law does a piss poor job of collecting unpaid child support. The existence of dead beat dads probably equals (if not exceeds) the number of abortions performed.

Ain't that the truth. My daughter got all of $35 total in US government mandated child support.

On the other hand, her Canadian husband's drivers license and passport were put on hold because he was behind 2 months. He came to the U.S. with a Canadian company that closed its doors.

a reply to: Annee

Excellent point. Unless the man and the woman are both trying to have a baby, the man should always, 100% of the time, be wearing a condom. No excuses. Doesn't matter if the woman is using birth control, or says she is using birth control. No excuses.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Annee

Excellent point. Unless the man and the woman are both trying to have a baby, the man should always, 100% of the time, be wearing a condom. No excuses. Doesn't matter if the woman is using birth control, or says she is using birth control. No excuses.

"But that's too much trouble, and it doesn't feel good, and ... and ... and ..."

LOL ... now don't go being all logical and reasonable and such. We can't be actually preventing pregnancies now and avoiding the whole stupid question about abortion.

That's ... just far too reasonable.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Annee

Excellent point. Unless the man and the woman are both trying to have a baby, the man should always, 100% of the time, be wearing a condom. No excuses. Doesn't matter if the woman is using birth control, or says she is using birth control. No excuses.

Male Conraception is only a few years away. Will men use it?

Male contraception is coming. Vasalgel is a non-hormonal male contraceptive owned by the medical research organisation the Parsemus Foundation. It’s poised as the first FDA (Food and Drug Administration panel) approved male contraceptive since the condom. What's more, it's estimated to hit the US market around 2018-2020 - and could change the way we view contraception for ever. www.telegraph.co.uk...

a reply to: kellyjay

originally posted by: kellyjay

actually i didnt read what comment you quoted i thought you were talking about my other comment regarding double standards.

in response however, are you privy to some knowledge that the rest of us arent? or are you just defending PP because liberal? because ive seen videos and transcripts where they are clearly violating laws, and are speaking about selling baby parts...and before you go all "heavily edited on me" ive watched the unedited versions too, and the edited versoions are just condensed, not altered.

Because liberal? No. Because it is abundantly clear that the discussion of money pertained specifically to storage and shipping costs. No different than what a sperm bank or fertility clinic would charge for biological materials. Even shipping live animals carries the same general types of fees.

If laws were "clearly" violated then I assume that courts have found criminal activity? The standard in the US is the presumption of innocence. So it should be easy for you to source injunctions, charges brought, investigations that concluded wrong doing?

( Protip: There aren't any. All there really is at this point is some political pandering by a few Republicans in Texas, Republican POTUS candidates bloviating and Fox news making old people scared. )

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Annee

Excellent point. Unless the man and the woman are both trying to have a baby, the man should always, 100% of the time, be wearing a condom. No excuses. Doesn't matter if the woman is using birth control, or says she is using birth control. No excuses.

"But that's too much trouble, and it doesn't feel good, and ... and ... and ..."

LOL ... now don't go being all logical and reasonable and such. We can't be actually preventing pregnancies now and avoiding the whole stupid question about abortion.

That's ... just far too reasonable.

Oh, believe me ---- I know.

I got divorced right in the middle of the sexual revolution. I've heard all the excuses.

Most men never even asked about birth control. It was just assumed it was the woman's responsibility.

a reply to: Annee

I don't think they were held to much responsibility after the kid was born either....

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: kellyjay

originally posted by: kellyjay

actually i didnt read what comment you quoted i thought you were talking about my other comment regarding double standards.

in response however, are you privy to some knowledge that the rest of us arent? or are you just defending PP because liberal? because ive seen videos and transcripts where they are clearly violating laws, and are speaking about selling baby parts...and before you go all "heavily edited on me" ive watched the unedited versions too, and the edited versoions are just condensed, not altered.

Because liberal? No. Because it is abundantly clear that the discussion of money pertained specifically to storage and shipping costs. No different than what a sperm bank or fertility clinic would charge for biological materials. Even shipping life animals carries the same general types of fees.

If laws were "clearly" violated then I assume that courts have found criminal activity? The standard in the US is the presumption of innocence. So it should be easy for you to source injunctions, charges brought, investigations that concluded wrong doing?

( Protip: There aren't any. All there really is at this point is some political pandering by a few Republicans in Texas, Republican POTUS candidates bloviating and Fox news making old people scared. )

if it was abundantly clear there wouldnt be investigations, or people running to lawyers to try get restaining/gag orders would there....try reading the transcripts, would you like me to quote comments that were made and then the law proving illegality?

take example the WH, they come out and said the videos were fake...when asked how they knew that the rsponse was, "because PP said they were"

they havent done anything that remotely quashes the claims, yet those making the claims have video evidence....and theres another 8 videos to come, and the gentleman releasing the videos says they get worse..much worse

so we will see hmm?

OP, I'm sorry you feel you got gypped in your situation and I totally agree it wasn't fair for you to be excluded from the decision.

Personally, I think a fair way to address the situation would be the following:
A woman finds out she's pregnant. By law she must inform the man involved. He has 2 weeks to decide whether he intends to be involved or not. At that point he must file a form with the state (which of course is made available to the mother). If he puts in writing that he wants no involvement, then the woman knows up front that she will not be receiving any help from him and she can make her decision based on that knowledge. If he does want involvement then he's just signed himself up for 18 years of child support.

BUT even if he says he wants involvement ultimately it is her decision what to do with her own body. The state forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will is just as vile as forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will. My little system would only serve to identify the dead beats early on so the woman knows what she's up against. This way guys would no longer have the "oh poor me" of having to pay child support for a kid they don't give a damn about.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
Personally, I think a fair way to address the situation would be the following:
A woman finds out she's pregnant. By law she must inform the man involved. He has 2 weeks to decide whether he intends to be involved or not.

I couldn't agree more on your whole statement. It's clear, precise and logic.

Men should have a say, the way things are now are not fair.

I haven't read through all replies, but has anyone mentioned spermjackers? I also love it how a lot of people start a shaming campaign when anyone mentions them, either stating it's the man's fault for not recognizing a woman like that, or saying things like "either don't have sex or accept the consequences". Also, at some places you'll even have to pay child support if you were raped by the woman.

And on a side note:
Over and over I keep reading about these women not wanting their babies.

Did you ever stop and think that maybe they would LOVE to have that baby? That the abortion is a matter of self preservation, or even out of concern for the baby? As in my example above, what if a woman KNOWS that she AND the child will be abused by the jerk man?

And everybody is so quick to throw out adoption. What if the woman wants to keep the baby but knows that there is no way she can financially swing it? How heartbreaking to go through the entire pregnancy only to hand it over to strangers. As emotionally painful as an abortion may be to said woman, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the pain of really getting attached and then having to give it away.

I think a lot of pro-lifers, especially men, have a really basic idea of how the whole process goes down. It is so much more complicated than that, so many emotions, and no two circumstances are the same. I guarantee every abortion is not the result of a drunken whore who can't keep her legs together and then has the abortion because she doesn't want the baby.

Walk a mile in someone's moccasins before passing judgement, yo.

a reply to: csehszlovakze

Ha - I find it amazing how easily men are talked out of wearing a condom.

Somehow, I don't think there's too much arm twisting going on there.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Well, to be fair... We ( males ) do get pretty dumb when a woman smiles at us... or walks past us... or is in the same building as us... or drives by us on the freeway...

They just keep forcing us to want them. It's evil.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: muse7

I see the unborn baby as a human that should be afforded every and all rights as any other human.

No religion in my argument or stance on the subject.

But to each his own. I've no need to expand on my stance any further.

a reply to: Bone75

You may want to read Roe v. Wade and associated law.

Your graphic displays a fetus at maturity that would more than likely fall under the terms of "viability."

In short, your graphic is dishonest both in structure and intent.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Annee

I don't think they were held to much responsibility after the kid was born either....

I had to divorce my kids father because he didn't want to share me with his kids. He arranged his work schedule so he left for work 15 minutes before they came home from school. On weekends he just pouted. There was no "me". Had to get out before I snapped.

But, he was responsible otherwise. Never missed a child support payment.