Bloody typical hypocritical male thinking - won't have a vasectomy (even a reversible one) can't wear condoms straight but has the gall to get on the internet and berate women for choosing abortion Bring on the male pregnancies I say!!!
And you spoke of ignorance? The very links I showed you go into detail about how costly reversals are, and how many of them don't even work! Abortion is immoral, it's inhumane and it proclaims female supremacy over at the very least the male, and we can debate that it's supremacist against the fetus as well. Your group is so immoral, so inhumane and so without principle that you would argue against strengthening your own moral position on the guise of "controlling a woman's body". Tell me, Okgrannie, is the government shackling you? Are you being dragged to dungeons? No, these are reasonable limits on a very dubious and questionable moral practice. These limits also serve as a deterrence from the same kind of negative behavior that made it rampart to begin with. In fact, as long as the moral balance isn't shifted I would argue that it's still an unconstitutional practice. As Abortion is clearly a 21st century example of separate, but equal.
Tell me, if we were to "stop" abortions - how would you go about stopping someone determined to have one? Prevent her from going over the Canadian border? Tie her down for nine months? Tell me how you would stop someone who is determined to have an abortion - and while you are at it have a think of what happens when abortion IS illegal and tightly regulated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertram_Wainer Consider too that my state of QLD has some tough anti=abortion laws and our rates of abortion are much the same as the USA's Oh! and BTW http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/ff_vasectomy/ Still undergoing research but hopefully in the near future ..
Why are you having me answer questions that I've already answered? I've said that we should have economic and social considerations for making it less likely for an abortion to happen. Otherwise, why would I bother trying to give Abortion the moral standing that it does not have? Now I will say this: If such a future procedure succeeds and if it eliminates some of the long-term sexual health problems that men face when it comes to sterilization then I would support that and I would heavily consider having such a procedure at a time I'm comfortable. But I will not have forced sterilization on me, under the guise of satisfying a woman's desire. A child has economic productivity that can make it much more worth it for a family(raising a child's like an investment in many ways). What does sterilization do for me? What economic or social benefit do men get for caving to women? Sex? So we're right back to where we started on Gender/Sexual politics. "War on women"? Pfft, that's a Joseph Goebbels-style Big Lie. It's always been a war on men.
You refuse a procedure on yourself because you do not wish it but would force a procedure (childbirth) on women who do not wish it. It has been quite some time since women were declared equal under law Sorry you find that inconvenient
If they don't wish it, they shouldn't have intercourse. Same goes for men. Abortion is literally a religious symbol of female naivety when it comes to politics. There's nothing righteous, morale or justified about butchering a baby's head and the only justification being that it's inside the womb . Abortion for them is a rallying crying point to the delusion of some war against women that doesn't exist. Perpetuated by the morons who believe it. It's like saying the Third Position is Racist, when in fact racist policies were a minor part of the centralized government programs. In an era where even a "Liberal" Government was racially focused. 30 or 40 years ago, sex, family raising and society were valued. Now, there is no such value. And we can thank that to the "Feminist" Movement and the delusions that spurned from it. Speaking of procedures "forced" against people, what about circumcision? There's laws against female circumcision, but men can get operated on without permission. Your entire movement, your entire belief system is based around intellectual dishonesty and perpetual crying.
Ah! Here we are at last - contraception by abstinence - yeah riiiiight 8 BIllion people on this planet really shows how well that works And does it work for the 54% who are having sex but whose contraceptives fail? The majority of women who are in a stable relationship at the time? Are you insisting that women NOT have sex during marriage unless they want a child? As for the illusion that things were better back 50 years ago - you might find that the TV shows of the time did not reflect true reality of the society
It's stunning isn't it? People having intercourse with the intention of bringing a child, maybe even two in the world? If you take out all of the third world countries, you'll find that there's literally no separation among the developed ones. In other words, we're hamstringing our development with contraceptive restrictions. We're not the ones who needs to curb our population growth. But the Ukraines and the Somalia's of the world. I didn't advocate for abstinence, I advocated for the common sense of not being in a relationship, even a casual one if you're *NOT* ready for it. Condoms, nor pills, nor Abortion itself is going to make people better parents(in fact, as I've said time and time again, it's only made us worse off). It only delayed the time when these morally deficient parents *become* parents. And they're only morally deficient thanks to liberal sexualization, and the liberal outlook on "parenting". This movement destroyed a crucial bane of society that's deteriorated so much that it's beyond the point of repair. So I'd like to say thank you on be half of all the fatherless/motherless children. They shouldn't have married unless they factored a child into their future to begin with. I mean, married couples make substantially more than singles(Well, no duh. More peeps in the household.) And the costs wash themselves out. If I marry a woman, I have the full expectation and I should prepare myself to be a father within 2-4 years time. This is only common sense There's nothing moral about your justification, or your excuses. You'd just like to defy the socio-economic sexual realities of human relations so that you can have your cake and eat it too. The Pro-Choice crowd is a politically childish position. Any position that needs to be excused is childish. There's also nothing "equal" about it, in fact the greatest oxymoron is that not a single one of you have been able to argue how your position equates a man to a woman in society. Interesting, so if I show statistics that prove otherwise will you consider the damage that's been done? http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1337.pdf Again, on behalf of all the children, I'd like to thank sexual liberals very much . You really helped them you know that?
Then take it up with your girlfriend. Why are you bringing your personal relationship problems to the Internet anyways?
I don't have "personal relationship problems". "us" refers to guys in general, period. Me, personally as a guy I'd rather not have a vasectomy unless I absolutely had to. A vasectomy is far more personal and potentially permanent. So I want to ask: Why should guys have to make such a long-term and often irreversible decision for women? A decision that our body naturally does anyway by lowering the sperm count. Women cry out that it's "their body" and absolutely, when their health is threatened. But in a normal pregnancy, with a consenting couple, that's a father's kid. That's a father's pride and joy(or well, at least it used to be). When women complain about the seeming lack of loyalty, faithfulness, etc. Well, you gals created that circumstance in the first place. They're only naturally taking advantage of what was given to them. (To their detriment. Because if they understood Sexual Politics, they'd realize it loses their own standing as men and we can be crucified for it, and our long-term interests are put at bay). To be a gentleman is to "white knight" these days(but that's not to say gentlemanly behavior is necessarily rejected. It, like all else should be at the whim of the woman's control)
You don't think pregnancy and childbirth are personal and permanent? The damage to woman's body is permanent, and unlike a vasectomy which cannot be detected, much of the damage from pregnancy/childbirth is considered unattractive. Pregnancy/childbirth takes a year out of a woman's life, she cannot usually carry on with life as usual. A vasectomy takes a few days, and even those few days are not a total loss. I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say a man's body naturally lowers the sperm count, because men can father children into their nineties. In "the good old days" fathers sometimes wanted their children, and sometimes they didn't. It didn't make as much difference to them, because 1. it wasn't their bodies affected, and 2. children weren't as expensive to rear. No, that's always been the situation with men. And until the recent development of DNA testing, it was all too easy for a man to walk away and deny parentage.
It seems most pro-choicers want men to serve as sperm banks only, and that any choices regarding having children should be strictly up to the woman. If she wants to abort at 8 months for whatever reason, the man should have no say so. Too bad if the man prepared emotionally or financially to care for the child. I guess what pro-choicers want is for this emotional and financial preparation by men to cease to exist. Because that is what would happen when we have no say so in having children. Why should men even begin to prepare at all for raising a child until the moment the child is born, if a woman can decide to nullify all those plans with one doctor's visit?
Men have ALL the say-so. All they have to do is refuse to have sex with a woman. No matter how much she begs.
Consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy. For men too. Therefore, we are not responsible for whatever the woman does with our sperm afterwards. Get rid of child support laws. That's what the pro-choice movement wants.
Perhaps you're right, I'm uncertain about that. I do know that if that is instituted as general policy, there will be many many MORE abortions, so those advocating for that position should be aware what they're asking for.
I'm just taking the position of pro-choicers and playing it out in society. And this is what it leads to. If you want women to have complete control on what happens to that sperm in her, then you are going to have to relinquish the responsibilities the state imposes on men for what happens to that sperm later.
...which would lead to more abortions and more welfare babies. Be careful what you wish for. Granted, the woman has the final say, because it is her health and life that is threatened by pregnancy. But in reality, most abortion decisions are made mutually. Taking abortion rights away from women would also take them away from men. Abortion rights allow couples to share in the decision to have a baby, and once the baby is born, they share in expenses and child care. That seems fair to me, and about as fair as it can be.
Sounds fine to me. There will probably be more abortions because of it, but I think it is perfectly fair to give men a legal window of opportunity to sign away all parental rights to his potential offspring. If a woman can have a child without even informing the father and give it up for adoption and just lie and say he's not involved then I think he should be able to give up his rights in the same way a woman can in an adoption setting. However if he swears up and down that he'll be a father and be there to help her raise and support it though and then she gives birth and suddenly he's out of the picture I think he should have to pay child support since he promised he would and now her window of opportunity for abortion is long gone.
I like that argument . I never truly thought of it from that perspective(or not in those terms), I was only thinking of equality in parentage. (As well as the Moral base). That is certainly another argument that can be had for proposals such as mine which would establish Abortion truly as the law of the land. Instead of as an unequal law, which holds women to a higher political class than both men and infants.
I know what happens in "most" cases...right now. I'm simply saying that in some cases a man can leave a relationship with a pregnant woman, and have no legal responsibility whatsoever for the sperm he left in her. The reason he is not responsible is because the choice as to what happened to the sperm he left in her was 100% up to the woman. So how can he legally be held responsible for anything associated with the child? If he wants to? I'm not talking about what most people would do. What most people do changes with time.
As typically done by abortionists, you dismiss the alternative view and replace it with your own bias. While that is convenient to your arguement and conscience, it does nothing to resolve the problem. I mentioned third trimester abortion because that is clearly murder and there is no medical reason for abortion at that point. Your example of a stillborn fetus is not relevent - the baby is already dead, it is not killed through an abortion. Fetal incompatibility with life is extremely rare, about 2/3's spontaneously miscarry in the first trimester, and almost all of the rest are identified early in the 2nd trimester (about week 16-1. I did not mention first trimester abortion because those cases are very difficult morally, that is when issues of rape are resolved, and there are medical reasons for first trimester abortion. I oppose abortion as simple birth control, but I also realize there are situations at that stage in which abortion has to be considered and a ban is not a good approach. In your closed mind, you assume the worst about my opinion - thats part of the problem your attitude brings. There is room for discussion and agreement, but your hard line all-or-nothing attitude makes that impossible, and your position is as poor as the hard line ban-all-abortion attitudes you hate.
Wonderful thing being able to dictate to others who, how and when they should have a relationship, be it casual or not, and who has said you can't be puritan, that is entirely your choice .. however why should others adhere to your personal preferences when you steadfastly refuse to offer them the same. Your dreams mean a lot to you, not so much to other people and that includes those you are in a relationship with .. sure they may support what you want, doesn't mean that they should obey your every wish. Related, not intertwined, intertwined alludes to them being hand in hand, not so as the data shows. Does your unwanted babies retort extend to those who give up children for adoption? Why should a woman think that, do you think as a matter of course that every time you get into a car you will be involved in an accident ... as car accidents are far more likely to happen than pregnancy (30% chance of a car accident against 15-20% for pregnancy (or 4% if you factor in contraception)) We don't know when that 30% will occur, but we know it does occur. Surely not, isn't that just getting rid of the child for "convenience" sake, I mean she had sex she should take the responsibility. Isn't that the mantra of pro-lifers when it comes to abortion. If they were you can almost guarantee that abortion would be enshrined law without any recourse to go against it. Who said they are superior, that is just pro-lifer hyperbole. Her legally protected status is the same as yours or mine, you have the same rights as she does when it comes to your body autonomy .. what pro-lifers are advocating is new extra rights for the fetus that over rule the already existing rights of the woman (or man). No it isn't a political right, it is a right on it's own merit, the same right you have over your own body autonomy and you seem to forget that the involvement of a man in act of conception is no longer a required item. Again it is only pro-lifers who are trying to claim some sort of "demi-god" status, the status to inflict their views onto others. I do, and if you ever get pregnant than I would support your right to abort or not .. until that time your argument is moot I don't know what fantasy you have been reading, it doesn't matter if a woman has sex every night for a year .. that is still a separate act from pregnancy . .hell even your courts treat pregnancy as a separate act. Do you really think that two people lose their individual identity when they form a relationship, and of a couple were having sex that much the chances are they are TRYING to have a baby, so the decision has already been made. This is where you go astray, abortion is not a political right, the political decision came a long time after and is merely to confirm an already existing right that each and every person has body autonomy . .your rights are in no way infringed, there is nothing in abortion laws that effects your personal body autonomy, where as laws against abortion effect a woman's body autonomy .. so why should hers be effected and not yours? Yep I am, you know why. because my mother made a choice (a word foreign to pro-lifers), if she had chosen otherwise it would have effected nobody else, I certainly wouldn't have been bothered about that choice and neither would anyone else. Everyone of those 7 billion mothers made the choice to remain pregnant and give birth, while others chose not to .. how does that make those who didn't wrong .. is this a "might means right" type of argument, because it doesn't work the way of lumping all into categories, each of those women are individuals who made choices for themsleves .. that is what you want to remove. In your opinion, yet you have not given a single relevant reason why abortion has no justification. No natural law behind it - Rubbish, naturally 1/4 of all pregnancies fail to implant No Moral basis - Rubbish - Whose moral basis, yours, mine or any of the other 7 billion people on this planet, and what do you base that moral basis on . .religion .. ok which one, because everyone of them has as much right to proclaim their is the right way as you do. No it is not a "conscious decision by our "society" to propel women above men and children due to the "hardship of pregnancy"", it is a conscious decision to recognize the individual choices that a woman can and should be able to make .. how would you feel if your individual choices were removed from you? No I didn't, that was you. The quotes around naturally are to show that it is not a necessity for sexual intercourse to take place in order to procure a pregnancy. Again by whose morals are you judging .. yours, mine etc etc Hmm, show me where I argue "we were progressive". Marriage is primarily a religious item, prior to religious involvement marriage was a social contract enabling any children to be recognized as legitimate offspring of both partners and to further power structures, which is why many marriages in history were undertaken not for love but for political and power, and why children born out of wedlock were not recognized. Here follows a 'potted' history of how marriage evolved; 1. Arranged alliances Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds. 2. Family ties Keeping alliances within the family was also quite common. In the Bible, the forefathers Isaac and Jacob married cousins and Abraham married his half-sister. Cousin marriages remain common throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, Rutgers anthropologist Robin Fox has estimated that the majority of all marriages throughout history were between first and second cousins. 3. Polygamy preferred Monogamy may seem central to marriage now, but in fact, polygamy was common throughout history. From Jacob, to Kings David and Solomon, Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives. (Of course, though polygamy may have been an ideal that high-status men aspired to, for purely mathematical reasons most men likely had at most one wife). In a few cultures, one woman married multiple men, and there have even been some rare instances of group marriages. 4. Babies optional In many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another wife if a woman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring. "The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive," 5. Monogamy established Monogamy became the guiding principle for Western marriages sometime between the sixth and the ninth centuries There was a protracted battle between the Catholic Church and the old nobility and kings who wanted to say 'I can take a second wife,' The Church eventually prevailed, with monogamy becoming central to the notion of marriage by the ninth century. 6. Monogamy lite Still, monogamous marriage was very different from the modern conception of mutual fidelity. Though marriage was legally or sacramentally recognized between just one man and one woman, until the 19th century, men had wide latitude to engage in extramarital affairs. Any children resulting from those trysts, however, would be illegitimate, with no claim to the man's inheritance. Men's promiscuity was quite protected by the dual laws of legal monogamy but tolerance basically enabling of informal promiscuity. Women caught stepping out, by contrast, faced serious risk and censure. 7. State or church? Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed. 8. Civil marriage In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States. 9. Love matches By about 250 years ago, the notion of love matches gained traction, meaning marriage was based on love and possibly sexual desire. But mutual attraction in marriage wasn't important until about a century ago. In fact, in Victorian England, many held that women didn't have strong sexual urges at all. 10. Market economics Around the world, family-arranged alliances have gradually given way to love matches, and a transition from an agricultural to a market economy plays a big role in that transition. Parents historically controlled access to inheritance of agricultural land. But with the spread of a market economy, "it's less important for people to have permission of their parents to wait to give them an inheritance or to work on their parents' land, so it's more possible for young people to say, 'heck, I'm going to marry who I want.'" Modern markets also allow women to play a greater economic role, which lead to their greater independence. And the expansion of democracy, with its emphasis on liberty and individual choice, may also have stacked the deck for love matches. 11. Different spheres Still, marriage wasn't about equality until about 50 years ago. At that time, women and men had unique rights and responsibilities within marriage. For instance, in the United States, marital rape was legal in many states until the 1970s, and women often could not open credit cards in their own names, Women were entitled to support from their husbands, but didn't have the right to decide on the distribution of community property. And if a wife was injured or killed, a man could sue the responsible party for depriving him of "services around the home," whereas women didn't have the same option. 12. Partnership of equals By about 50 years ago, the notion that men and women had identical obligations within marriage began to take root. Instead of being about unique, gender-based roles, most partners conceived of their unions in terms of flexible divisions of labor, companionship, and mutual sexual attraction. So your "version" of what makes a "good" marriage only really came into existence about 50 years ago, and prior to 250 years ago marriage was not based on love at all. Yep and that is based more around poverty and inequality than single parent households, and you assertion doesn't hold any water when actually compared to the reality. Crime rates in the USA have fallen, yet we have more single mothers, by your assumption crime rates should be increasing - shouldn't they? - Phillip Cohen See again you are mistaken, the "family unit" as you call it was the invention of necessity for woman who had no rights, this was then hi-jacked by religion and turned into some kind of right-wing wet dream. All well and good, so why not conduct your relationships how you see fit and let others do the same, without the monologue of how right you are and who wrong they are. Glad to oblige, hopefully you have come up with something a little less inane than what you have offered so far. There is a difference between discussing compromises on opinions and being given an ultimate of if you don't do it I will leave .. that latter part is abuse. Not in the slightest, I would stand up for a man if a woman were to doing the exact same thing you are advocating, emotional blackmail is emotional blackmail regardless of who is doing it. There are plenty of cases of women using blackmail on a man and they are just as bad as a man doing it to a woman. A man saying to a woman "unless you continue this pregnancy I am leaving" is blackmail pure and simple. Not in the slightest, ultimately it is the womans choice whether to continue the pregnancy or not, if the man chooces to leave then that is his choice, it is not the fact of him leaving it is the initial threat in order to try and force a woman to do something she doesn't want to do, or didn't you know marriage is about compromising, we left the world of the mans word is law many years ago. It isn't and I haven't, this is a conclusion you came to all on your own coloured by your own presumption. Then one would hope that you find out prior to engaging in a long term relationship. For interest only one of the biggest reasons for the increase in divorce is the no-fault divorce law signed by Governor Ronald Reagan, coming into effect on January 1, 1970. 1965 there were 479,000 divorces (2.5 in 1,000) 1970 there were 708,000 divorces (3.5 in 1,000) 1975 there were 1,036,000 divorces (4.9 in 1,000) Also of interest is that the divorce rate in 2012 was lower than 1970 ( 3.4 in 1,000). Tell that to the thousands who decide not to have children, they don't seem to adhere to your viewpoint that having a child or family is "crucial" to their relationship .. If it is your opinion then one can only hope you meet someone of the same ilk. Only in same way it is your right to question her, isn't that what building a relationship is about, finding out about each other. If your hand gives a better argument than your mouth then it would be worth while. You position is for male dominance, hence why you hark back to a time when rape in marriage was legal and women had no standing.
Are you sure you're not letting YOUR bias affect your view here? Most third trimester abortions are done for the health and life of the mother and for fetal abnormality. They make up a small percent of all abortions done yet somehow third trimester keeps creeping it's way into the discussion in place of first trimester abortions which happen the most out of all three trimesters. I just find this so odd. Sometimes women have to have an abortion to remove the deceased and now decaying fetus to prevent sepsis, other horrific complications and even death. That is what it is called, an abortion. Just because the fetus is already dead does not make it any less of an abortion. I've been debating this issue for over 15 years now, so forgive me if I come across as hostile at times. That's just what happens when you debate for a long time. So what exactly is the problem that you see with abortion? That it's used as birth control or something? (Which by the way, it is a form of birth control because it prevents birth). About 90% of all abortions are going to happen in the first trimester and clearly you have no problem with first trimester abortions (up to a point). But I am not understanding your problem with it.
That's not an argument that justifies abortions; it's simply an argument against the "the women chose to have sex" argument. Other than the self defense argument (which I don't feel like debating all over again), which arguments do you have, which justify abortion being legal?
Try going through the 100 or more threads here and you will see numerous arguments in favor of abortion, I'm not here to be your teacher.
