My new Abortion Position

Please don't think it was an attack on your personally, it wasn't .. whatever your opinion is is your choice, all I want is for that opportunity to be given to others .. the choice to make decisions as to what is right for them,

 

And no one here sees how this situation, in which the men are no longer responsible for the sperm they deposit (how could they be if they have no choice in the matter on what happens to that sperm?), would have an overall effect of a lesser degree of welfare of the children in our society? Think it through people...

 

Ooh no, we'll lose child welfare the horror! But isn't this about a woman's right to choose? There was a Feminist opinion piece that advocated for something very similar to what Apostate just said. If we could create a man's right to choose that doesn't violate a woman's right to choose, would that not be in the interest of fairness? And isn't fairness the highest level of law and order?

If we can create a plausible solution for men and women, and the only thing we have to sacrifice is child welfare then tough (*)(*)(*)(*). I can think of many things worse. Since the mother would know where the man's going with life, bound by a contract, she should always be able to make the right decision.

There's no more need for child welfare with this advanced knowledge.

 

I'm not talking about govt benefits. I'm talking of welfare, as in the overall condition of our children. I believe it is harmed by the notion that men should not be held responsible for their sperm after sex. The notion that men aren't responsible for sperm after sex coincides with the notion that women have the choice to abort or not throughout the pregnancy, which is the pro-choice argument. The logical conclusion of this societal mindset is society not holding men responsible for a decision they have no say so in. I believe it is happening already in inner cities, and it is the reason we are seeing so many single mothers, with so many different fathers. Or at least one of the contributing factors.

 

The sperm they deposit? Jesus Christ you make a woman's uterus sound like a freaking bank.

Our uteruses are not men's personal banks. Yes once a man has 'deposited' his ejaculate it is no longer his property, sorry he can't have it back, we cannot just give men their sperm back. I know you're upset that you cannot withdraw your wiggly little peters after depositing them into a woman but it will ultimately be absorbed into her body, gonna be totally impossible to return them. Try an actual sperm bank if you want to keep tabs on what happens to your little soldiers after you 'deposit' them, gentlemen, or a condom, that should keep track of them.

Seriously. This argument you have about men 'owning' their sperm and being able to boss women around and force them to gestate and carry a pregnancy to term against their wills just because he ejaculated into her ONE time is getting stupider and more ridiculous by the minute.

No, he doesn't own her or get to make decisions about her autonomy after he (*)(*)(*)(*)s her. Get OVER IT.

If a man really loves her and cares about her he will care about HER say and HER well-being, and in return if she loves him she will also care about HIS say on the matter. But seriously, don't think that just because a guy met someone online, chatted her up, hooked up, made his little 'deposit' that he suddenly gets to come around and start telling her what she may or may not do with her own body. To think any man may do this is just so arrogant.

 

Awful choice of words on his part, but really are there any better words out there? Injected? You likely would've raised an objection to that as well.

You're right, it's not a bank. It's a literal death trap for men. A baby literally strangles a man to a woman's side forever. Either as a secondary purse(child welfare) or as the father(In which case he's willingly your second purse). Just as women shouldn't be trapped by what men do, men shouldn't be trapped by what women do. But that's not the lawful reality we live in. Women are lawfully superior to men, and you know it.

Having a child isn't a game, it's real and it's meaningful and it holds serious consequences. Unfortunately, for as much as women complain that men look at them from a sexual objectification standpoint, women look at men much more so from a sexual objectification standpoint. The Abortion discussion is proof. You'd think we would be equals under the law. Alas, not so. Women objectify themselves when it's convenient and crucify us for merely existing.

Except he never made that argument(and neither did I). Also, the fact is is that hyperbole aside the chance of a one-night pregnancy isn't all that high. Hence is why sex is a commitment and a couple literally goes at it for months or maybe even a few years before finally realizing the GF, Fiancee, Wife is preggers.

The question isn't about men "controlling women" but about what you said towards the end, if a man basically gives up, trusts his woman then maybe just maybe she'll grant us the "gift" of our opinion.

Our opinion shouldn't be a gift. It shouldn't even be so politically weak and fragile as that. But it is, abortion is a form of castration on a man. It elevates a woman's status to that of a demi-god Even if women themselves deny the demi-godhood with which they act as it regards abortion.

Well, I have a little wake up call: If it was consensual, you ladies opened your legs too. You're in this just as much as we are, so we deserve every bit the same rights that you have.

 

Assuming I get the drift here, it strikes me as remarkable that your attitude towards fatherhood so closely resembles that of pro-death women towards motherhood.

 

There is no way a man can prevent a pregnancy from ending with the birth of his child without grievously harming a woman.

We tend to call pregnant women mothers, which isn't really true. They are potential mothers and the man concerned is a potential father, but nobody, man nor woman, become parents until there is a born child to whom they have responsibilities.

That's the bottom line. Women do not have the right to walk away from a pregnancy and pretend it doesn't exist. Men don't have a pregnancy to walk away from.

Women only have the ability to prevent a pregnancy resulting in the birth of their child. Men don't, not because of the law, but because they don't have a uterus.

 

Actually this is not true.

Men can have their tubes tied so to speak....besides....there is more than one way to have sex besides vaginal intercourse.

In this day and age a woman who is not interested at the time in getting pregnant but for whatever reason be it medial or health related is not taking BC pills....should have ON HAND....Plan B or Morning After Pills which prevent the Egg from implanting in the uterine wall thus NO PREGNANCY.

Thus no reason for Abortion.

Easy Peasy.

AboveAlpha

 

Because they get to make different medical choices concerning their own autonomy? Hardly. Is a man legally superior to a woman because he gets to see his doctor about his prostate issues, but a woman can't see her doctor about her prostate because, oh wait, she doesn't have one! Just like a woman is somehow legally superior to a man because she gets to see a doctor about having her uterus scraped clean and he doesn't get to because he doesn't have one?

It's a very stupid claim. Just because men and women have different medical choices to make over their bodies does not mean one is superior or inferior to the other.

It's impossible to be equal under the law on the abortion issue as already elaborated thoroughly to you. Only women have uteruses. Men do not, so therefore only a woman may choose or not choose to have an abortion as per the law and what it allows. Men will never be able to make this choice, not at least until they start growing uteruses.

 

It's not my argument, it's the pro-choice argument. If the fetus is to be considered a lump of flesh to be dealt with as to how the woman desires, then the man can refer to his sperm that caused the pregnancy as a deposit of fluid, not to be considered to hold him legally or morally responsible for anything associated with it. Pro-choicers refuse to answer how men cannot take this position, if a woman has the sole choice in abortion. And they also refuse to consider the effects of this outlook on children in our society. I'm here to try and make them see.

I understand your argument about the woman having a right to receive medical treatment of her choosing, but I feel this right is not absolute. The reason it is not, is because of the societal effect of the pro-choice attitude toward abortion. The overall effect is more children born to single mothers. We are not doing our children a favor in this country by having the pro-choice outlook toward pregnancies. Imo, pro-choicers need to start looking at the results of their policies, and stop overreacting as if proposing consequences for sexual behavior is somehow bad for society. Or, we can ignore abortion's effects on family structure, like we do so often nowadays with other laws, and see if we can make it as a society without traditional families. It will be a fun experiment!

 

True...but that has to happen before sex.

No, not easy peasy..mistakes happen to everyone, including men.

Women don't get pregnant by themselves.

 

Said experiment started in the 70's and we're now in 2013. So it's a 43 yr old experiment in which we're 17 trillion in debt, in which our morals decayed, etc, etc.
Once a superpower in the world, the country's literally buckling on one knee and because that one knee is still superior to the rest of the world's junk(at the moment) they think we're at a good standing.

Utterly laughable.

 

How so?

 

We already know it's not absolute. Most states outlaw abortion beyond viability and most pro-choicers are ok with this. I personally would like to see all laws on abortion removed since the sole purpose of most of these laws is to delay a woman from having an abortion within a quick time frame and it only causes more pain and trouble for a woman who may need a late term abortion for health reasons. But that's just me, I can't speak for other choicers here.

In my opinion if we are to live in a free society people should be free to do as they like sexually speaking (so long as it is not rape, obviously). So if an individual chooses to be promiscuous he has that right to freely behave that way. Same for women. We live in a free society and people may do things that society finds morally unacceptable. I don't much care if people want to express disgust and admonish those who behave like this to try and discourage it, but I still don't believe we should pass laws to try and regulate people's personal and individual freedoms to the extent that it overrides them making choices about their own healthcare just to punish them for their sexual behavior.

People still want to have their traditional family structures, some people want to go for a more untraditional family structure. Again, in a free society these are the choices we may make.

 

You start with a misconception and then add a blatant falsehood in order to form a preconceived conclusion.

Find a single comment here from any pro-choice person that describes a fetus as a "lump of flesh", and you seem to be under the misconception that the sperm depositor is somehow responsible for maintaining a pregnancy .. payments made are for the child should it be born, not for the mother or the pregnancy.

Personally I would have no problem with a man declaring no interest in the pregnancy or the resulting child (should it be born) and he should be legally allowed to disavow himself from involvement on any level .. I just hope all those right-wing conservatives will accept the tax increases to cover the cost of welfare increases, but there again we often hear the mantra of "it's not my problem, so why should the government 'steal' my money etc etc etc". Seems to me that pro-lifers want to have their cake and eat it .. create a situation where more children are born reliant on welfare and then take away that welfare because they don;t want to pay for a situation they created.

Do you feel your right to your body is absolute .. if so why should a woman be any different, and what pro-choice attitude to abortion, are you alluding to pro-choicers wanting abortions to happen, because that is pure BS.

Pro-lifers also need to start looking at the results of their policies, more maternal deaths for one thing (guess what in those cases the fetus dies as well -two deaths instead of one), the only people overreacting is pro-lifers, abortion has no effect on society as a whole, none, nada, nil .. If Mrs Smith down the road has an abortion exactly how has it affected you, exactly how has it affected anyone other than her and immediate family?

I keep seeing this inane correlation between abortion and "traditional families", its bull-crap, there are many reasons why the "traditional family" is changing and abortion is not one of them, or do you forget that abortion has been around for centuries including when this so called "traditional family" existed, and what is a "traditional family", the version you are referring to didn't even exist less than 200 years ago.

By the late 14th century, the English word family, derived from the Latin word for household including servants and slaves, had emerged to designate all those who lived under the authority of the household head

in the 17th century the word exclusively referred to a man's offspring, as in the phrase 'his family and wife'

Not until the 19th century did the word commonly describe a married couple with their co-resident children, distinguished from a household or more distant kin

I cannot believe anyone would want to return to a time where women were not much more than chattel.

 

I know what the payments are for. My question is what legal or moral concept holds that men should pay for the support of a child that he didn't consent to?

I served in the military for 10 years, so I am already aware of situations in which I don't have absolute control over my body.

This country's abortion policies and organizations and activists spreading the idea that abortion is an easy way out of the consequences of sex are contributing to the erosion of the family in this country. This is because abortion reduces the value of life. It does this by reducing the state of pregnancy to purely a medical condition, not to involve the father. The father has absolutely zero rights. He literally would have to just sit and watch his wife smoke crack and/or participate in other hazardous activities to the unborn child, if she chose to do that. Abortion reduces the role of the father to a source of income. And you say this won't affect our society? I strongly disagree, and I believe the effects are right in front of everyone's faces.

 

already responded to so I will just copy it here

Personally I would have no problem with a man declaring no interest in the pregnancy or the resulting child (should it be born) and he should be legally allowed to disavow himself from involvement on any level .. I just hope all those right-wing conservatives will accept the tax increases to cover the cost of welfare increases, but there again we often hear the mantra of "it's not my problem, so why should the government 'steal' my money etc etc etc". Seems to me that pro-lifers want to have their cake and eat it .. create a situation where more children are born reliant on welfare and then take away that welfare because they don;t want to pay for a situation they created.

You did so by choice, you choose to relieve yourself of absolute control over your body .. how does that reflect on a woman forced to lose control over hers?

Rubbish, show me anywhere that abortion is shown as the "easy way" out, in fact this is extremely discourteous to all women who choose to have an abortion, you have absolutely no idea of the individual decisions made by each woman.

The USA's abortion policies are pretty conservative compared to what they could have been, the fact that the SCOTUS decision allows states to impose restrictions at all was a conservative measure.

By consequences you mean punishment, sex creates nothing more than a risk of pregnancy, and not even a very high risk at that, and please do provide your evidence to support that abortion is contributing to the erosion of the family.

Then it has done so for thousands of years even through your much loved period of the "traditional" family.
Life only has as much value as another places upon it, your life means a whole lot more to your family than it does to someone in another country.

Your family's life's have more value than your friends
Your friends life's have more value than your neighbors
Your neighbors life's have more value than countrymen
Your countryman's life's have more value than another countries.

Nature places no more value on your life than any other life on this planet.

It is a medical condition, can you prove otherwise?
A man is not a father until after the birth, prior to that he is a potential father.

As it should be, it is not his body that is being used as a gestation chamber .. why should he have rights over another persons autonomy.

Absolute pure hyperbole .. taking any drug not prescribed is illegal, he can report the woman for doing so, just as he could if she were not pregnant.
So now you are advocating to restricting what a woman can or cannot do within the confines of the law, and yet you say you don't want to control women.

err, how is that possible, he is not liable to pay anything if an abortion is performed.

No it doesn't and you haven't shown it to be anything else than what you believe to be, what evidence do you have to support this belief?

 

I chose to sign a document, and that indirectly led to 50+ different involuntary vaccinations, some of them painful and controversial, and that is different from a woman choosing to have sex and that indirectly leading to pregnancy? The only difference I see is a pen is used in one act, and a penis in the other. Both actions are reasonably assumed to have the mentioned consequences.

Good post, I'll get to the rest later, I'm slower.

 

By signing that document you created a legal contract that I'm sure had somewhere in it that you agreed to conduct any item the Marines felt necessary .. basically you signed away your individual autonomy, a woman engaging in consensual sex is doing just that, giving consent for sexual intercourse, that does not imply consent to pregnancy, and even if it did consent is an on going thing, it can be removed at anytime unless a fixed term contract is in force (such as the one you had while in the Marines) - for the time of the contract you have given permission, anything beyond that would require your further consent .. ie you could not be injected with anything without your consent after you had finished your term (contract) with the Marines. A doctor cannot treat you without consent even if that treatment could save your life, unless you are not in a position to give consent ie in a coma, or unconscious .. even then consent is usually sort from the next of kin.

Pregnancy is not a de facto conclusion to sexual intercourse, if it were then there would be a very good case to say consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, in fact if either party were using contraception then the implied decisions is NOT to become pregnant they are actively trying to prevent it and any pregnancy occurring can be defined as an accident and we do not expect people to suffer the consequences of an accident do we?

 

Yes, but some of those vaccinations, like anthrax, had controversial/unknown effects. The reasonably expected degree of foresight of this vaccination through my signing of the document (especially pre-9/11) is imo, about the same reasonably expected degree of foresight that pregnancy would be the result through sex.

 

My final post for tonight (it's 2am where I am and I have work at 6.30am)

The point is that the contract you signed gave the Marines your unabridged consent to anything they deemed necessary, a couple indulging in protected sexual intercourse would be like you having a clause in your contract stating that there are certain things you do not consent to ergo they consent to sex but not to pregnancy.

 

Actually women now can get pregnant by themselves.

It is now possible and this has already been done several times that Genetic Engineers can take a stem cell from a woman and use it to fertilize an Egg Cell.

Thus Men are no longer needed for Pregnancy or to propagate the species.

As far as women being lawfully superior to men...HELL! Who cares!!!

We get to urinate standing up!

Plus we don't have to go through menstruation monthly as well as a great deal other number of perks.

This is the way I see it.

If you are a male.....and are straight.....THEN BE A MAN!!!

I find it absolutely RIDICULOUS for any supposed men....small m....to be intimidated or angry or feel they are being subjugated by a Woman.....unless of course if one is into that kind of thing....because as far as I am concerned it's ALL GOOD!!!

I LOVE EVERYTHING THERE IS ABOUT WOMEN.....even the mood swings and other issues that Men just don't relate to as it is in our NATURE not to relate to such things.

Biggest turn off for a Woman.....some guy doting upon her to the point every 60 seconds this insecure guy will ask her...."Are you happy?" "Am I paying enough attention to you?"......and the biggest turn off of them all....some guy asking a woman...."Please...could you let me know if I am or am not fulfilling your needs?"

YUCK!!!!

Then just as bad a turn off to women is some idiot....thinks he is an Alpha Male....and purposely make sure to point out a woman's faults....of course he will point out a different fault every 10 minutes or so and because this woman has probably already had a Father or ex-boyfriend who blamed her for every issue they ever had in their lives so this woman is already sensitive having self esteem issues due to such men.

So once this woman FINALLY get's out on her own and away for her abusers and finally starts dating again she encounters another guy and starts dating and on her first date the idiot goes and takes away her menue and tells the waiter...."I will be ordering for the lady."

And then this guy wonders why she is ticked off!!??

As far as from my perspective a MAN...cap M.....has it pretty good.

All we have to do is open up a few car doors and ask our dates what they might be interested in for dinner and ACT LIKE MEN!!!!

So the LAST thing either group of women want to hear and see are a guy asking her..."Am I doing this right? Because I can do it different....or perhaps this is a better way?"

And the other women don't want to hear..."Hey! How's about swinging that ass over to the fridge and getting me a cold one Honey?"

What I do is say....."Hey....I am getting a beer....would you like one or would you prefer something different?"

Then if I get lucky and she is going into the shower the next morning...THEN I might say...."I must admit I do so much enjoy watching your nude body in motion.....it is like a work of art that keeps on giving."

Then I will take a shower after her instead of getting in with her because I know since she has showered already she will be making me breakfast by her decision and hers alone while I get cleaned up.

Such is the NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS!

AboveAlpha