Could abortion be considered a double standard?

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Child care is $200 per week. So anything under $800 per month isn't even covering child care while the custodial parent works.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

Beautifully said!

Irony: I was raised in a very pro-Reagan household, and went further left as I got older. One of the big reasons, aside from the Crystal Cathedral anyway: Pro-Lifers who are also Pro-War and Pro-Death Penalty. And anti-anything-for-the-poor.

But I am a 46 year old man with full custody of my children (born, thanks -- when I was making 70K a year) and I am pro-choice for the exact same reasons you are. I simply don't trust the motives or rhetoric of the Christian (demon) right.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

Bingo!

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Irishhaf

I happen to fall exactly into the group you are discussing, "fathers who got the short end of things" category and I openly criticize the type of thinking displayed in this thread as a straw man argument on several levels...

It's thinly veiled pro-life rhetoric, masquerading as something else.

It's an appeal to emotion, trying to present a total shift of power to a single side as an argument for equality.

It's a mess of false equivalencies.

When my parents divorced the legal pendulum was too far one way, and my father - a rather wealthy man - got away with not paying child support at all, and no court would force him to. In fact a Judge told my mother to "Get a third job" and "learn to manage money better".

By the time I got divorced, things had swung too far in the other direction and all my ex had to say was "He scares me" for a judge to see her as totally in the right.

What is being proposed by the OP is simply another massive swing to one side and does not benefit the child at all. It's all about ego, and that is just sad.

Why would it be a massive swing to any side ??

ANYTHING other than what we have now, is considered by all the fearful ones as being a swing back to the other side.

OK THEN, lets just leave it the way it is and carry on like none of it matters!!

All about ego, that IS what it is NOW.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: WanderingSage
Okay but if the roles are reversed and she wants it and he doesn't then he is still responsible. How is that right? He'll be responsible his whole life and not just for nine months.

I believe that a man should have the legal option to "opt out" in time for the woman to decide if she wants to be the sole caretaker or have an abortion. But that's not the way it is now, so it's kind of moot.

But the man has a LOT to lose when he has sex. He can lose the right to keep the baby, he can lose the right to opt out, he can lose 18 years of child support money... So, since he has SO MUCH to lose, he should be a LOT more careful

about who he has sex with and what protection he uses.

Also if the woman doesn't want to get pregnant then she shouldn't have sex. It's responsibility for your actions.

Likewise, if a man doesn't want to take the chance of handing the fate of his baby over to someone else, then he shouldn't have sex. It goes both ways.

Fact is, men can't carry babies. That's just a fact. Until they are, they have so much more to lose, so they should be HIGHLY selective. Instead of blaming the woman for doing what she does, take 100% responsibility of creating a life and be ready to either let it go or to pay for it for 18 years. You DO have a choice. Take advantage of it.

I am sorry about your pain.

A lot more careful about who he has sex with ??

So tell us, what are the signs we should all be looking for, when they want just a child and toss us to the door.

A whole HELL of a lot of women are doing this, I have seen it , and I have subsequently chosen VERY carefully.

Imagine how hard it is to look through the seas of women wondering which ones are not like the vast majority who are all single mothers and onto the 5th guy by now, with the 3-5th child.

Wow abortion rights have made things oh so much better !!!

NOT better for children, NOT better for men, and I would argue things have gotten much worse for WOMEN !

But I know, that is just part of having a "choice".

Frankly the majority of people seem to not be able to deal with these "choices".

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Crux of the irrational argument: fertilized egg (blastocyst), embryo, fetus equals "unborn human."

This is "political correctness" taken to a ridiculous extreme.

By the same logic, preventing a pregnancy (via contraception) is also "murder" because those little ova and sperm all "deserve a chance" to come together.

Monty Python considered the subject once upon a time: "Every Sperm is Sacred" ... check out the video if you want to see the ultimate result of the majority of "pro-life" sentiment.

They're not really "pro-life" though.

We should begin to call them what they really are, which is anti-choice

If you are really all for choice, do not hold men to having anything to do with children they had no choice in ANYWAYS.

Does this make sense ??

Give us lowly men this "choice" and everyone will simmer down.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... and yet, the callous murders committed by cops, and the millions of callous murders by bombs are just honky-donkey.

Absurd.

WTF are you on ??

You saying people who don't find it perfectly everyday normal and great on the subject of abortions also condone OTHER callous behavior ?

I think you have had one too many.

a reply to: Annee

If it actually works, you will see what the definition of "choice" really means.

It should be highly entertaining, and is about 20 years behind schedule.

I can see that women desire to be pregnant a hell of a lot more than they let on in this type of discussion.

This could change everything.

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 don't think anyone was....

Wait. So none of this is about dead babies?

If guys get to chose whether or not they have to pay after making a baby, the pro-life ones will shutter and move on to another cause? Is that what you are saying?

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

Just so you know. I am speaking from personal experience.

My ex-husband was adopted. He was one of the lucky ones.

I did choose my 2 LIVING children.

I'm from the 50s when babies were ripped away from unwed teen moms --- never to be seen again.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Annee

If it actually works, you will see what the definition of "choice" really means.

I would hope.

But, many men refuse to wear condemns.

Seriously, those men who should take male contraceptives --- probably won't.

a reply to: WanderingSage

You are absolutely right. If a woman becomes pregnant, and chooses to have the baby, the father is legally responsible. However, if she chooses not to, he has no say at all. Yes, that is a double standard. And, no, it doesn't make any difference that the woman is the one carrying the baby. That said as a woman, quite familiar with pregnancy.

I am very sorry to hear that someone chose to kill your baby, without even consulting you. Yes, baby, no matter what some claim. They don't harvest organs from clumps of cells. Clumps of cells don''t have arms and legs and faces, all visible before twelve weeks. Sorry, too, to Metallicus, for the same. You should have had a say.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

However, if she chooses not to, he has no say at all.

Of course he does. Well, he should be able to discuss it at least.

But you seem to think that the "father" should be able to forbid the woman from having an abortion. The man is always right?
How about wearing shoes, you think he should forbid her from doing that too? Stay home, where she belongs?

a reply to: ParasuvO

how many of the men though could actually support the women and child?? that is what it seems to be to me,
once the baby comes into the picture, well, if there was two paychecks it's cut down to one or if there was only one to begin with it just isn't going far enough and well, they can be one happy family that the gov't says is big enough to provide their needs but reality says it's now, and mom and the kids would be better off letting the gov't support them.... so well, out he goes. then the mother finds that although it's economically easier, it's much harder in other ways so well, she might sneak dad back in the house, and they can stay together till welfare is tipped off, or well she can find someone else....
it's hard to have a healthy family with the economy as screwed up as this one is!

originally posted by: ParasuvO
So tell us, what are the signs we should all be looking for, when they want just a child and toss us to the door.

A whole HELL of a lot of women are doing this, I have seen it , and I have subsequently chosen VERY carefully.

Imagine how hard it is to look through the seas of women wondering which ones are not like the vast majority who are all single mothers and onto the 5th guy by now, with the 3-5th child.

I think you've got it backwards, my friend. Instead of all these baby-hungry women running around and using poor men for sperm.....I think it's more like men impregnating women then walking away from their responsibilities...I think it's more like men treating women like sh*t to the point where women have no choice but to end the relationship.

I am a single mom. With 2 children, by 2 dads. Both times were planned and both times I told the guy "You can be as involved as you want to be." Guy 1 disappeared off the face of the earth 6 years ago. Not one dime, not one visit. Guy 2 keeps tabs on his son via e-mail and has given me $200 (total over the course of the pregnancy plus 1.5 years of the baby's life) he comes to visit every 3-6 months when it's convenient for him. I don't care, I was prepared to do the whole thing by myself in the first place. My point is that when given the chance a lot of men (not all) would rather be selfish and live their lives with the baby as an afterthought, meanwhile the woman is working, cleaning house, up to her eyeballs in dirty diapers and bills.

PS OP is complaining that men don't have a say in whether or not a woman has an abortion. All the pro-life shills jump on the train to complain about all the whores murdering babies. Now here you are complaining about all the single moms with the scads of babies created by different fathers? So basically the point of this whole thread is "Everything would be just fine if these pesky women would just do what we (men) tell them to."
Glad we cleared that one up!

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

next, judges will be ordering the men to marry!!!
ummm....wait it's happened in texas already....

Complaint filed against Texas judge over 'get married or go to jail' order

The judge last month gave Josten Bundy, 21, a choice of marrying his girlfriend Elizabeth Jaynes, 19, and being released on probation or spending 15 days in jail after he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault. Bundy, who had gotten into a fight with Jaynes's former boyfriend, chose to get married.

The judge also ordered Bundy to write Bible verses and attend counseling, according to a transcript of the proceedings obtained by broadcaster KLTV in Tyler, Texas.

ca.news.yahoo.com...

I've read this story several times and am still wondering, did the judge get the women's permission to push up the marriage date before he made this decision, or did he just punish her for his crime also?

a reply to: dawnstar

Too bad there's not a "don't treat your woman like sh*t" court order! Not just in this case, but in general.

I would say I'm curious to see how this couple will end up in 5 years....but I can take an educated guess:

Only the chick won't be that hot, and she'll have 2 kids, and the guy would have left her, and the OP and his cronies would be complaining about the guy being ordered to pay child support (which he'll be behind on) and the woman mooching off welfare.

a reply to: WanderingSage

It's my opinion that a man should get about 40% say in what happens to the baby, while the mother gets 60% say. The reason I believe this is because the man doesn't have to carry that child in his stomach for 9 months then painfully pop it out when its ready to be born.

a reply to: Annee

I am talking about situations where the man is blind sided and was told that she was on the pill. Of course you could say "well why didn't he where a condom?" but what kind of person would lie about being on the pill, the kind of person who deserves to be stuck with the child on her own.