Aborted fetus = Lucky bastard?

[jillian]

what the hell do you think "MEN COMPLAIN" means to a man supporting the standard of living of a baby mamma?

It means their perception is that they support mommy's lifestyle...the rest of the article makes it clear that perception is NOT ACCURATE. So you don't get to use it to support your conclusion.

Amazing how that works.

 

[frazzledgear]

I've never become pregnant except by express design. You should never impregnate anyone except by express design. If you do, be prepared to deal with the fact that you cannot force a woman to bear your child.

Adults were once presumed under the law to be able to make decisions and understand the possible consequences of those decisions -and that by engaging in consensual sex, both parties had also given implied consent to the possibility of pregnancy and parenthood. Neither had any "right" to end that pregnancy, neither had any "right" to duck out on that while only the other was legally held responsible. The law held both parties morally and financially responsible for that pregnancy and child.

Now the law has changed but only for women. The law STILL says men have not only given their implied consent to possible parenthood by consenting to sex, but they may NEVER withdraw that implied consent under any circumstances. Even the use of condoms and a (failed) surgical sterilization does not in any way mean a man has withdrawn this implied consent to possible parenthood. But the law today is based on a notion that women have NEVER given even implied consent to possible pregnancy by engaging in the identical act. And furthermore, even if a woman gave her direct consent and intentionally became pregnant -she can withdraw that consent at any time. Right up until mere seconds before her child draws its first breath. Only men can NEVER withdraw their implied OR direct consent to possible parenthood AT ANY TIME. They can only choose not to have sex in order to avoid unwanted parenthood. Which means that in reality, the future of that child and his father is hers to toy with. She can give her direct consent to have a man's child, remain pregnant for the full 40 weeks, wait until that fetus is viable and STILL have that child killed right in the process of being born. Or she can force a man to be a parent against his will. Whatever she decides can be based on nothing more than her personal WHIM, just woke up on the wrong side of the bed that day -whatever.

The law in effect says a woman has only consented to sex while a man has not only given his implied consent to parenthood, but also given the woman the sole power to decide whether HIS child will live or die, whether he will be forced to parenthood against his will -all because they BOTH engaged in the very same act that should have identical potential consequences for BOTH. Only way for a man to avoid any risk of unwanted parenthood is to forfeit all acts of sex -while legally women are ONLY consenting to having sex and are "victims" of that act if it happens to result in pregnancy. A "victim" of an act they CONSENTED to when that consequence is a well known consequence? While only the man is legally presumed to have consented to possible parenthood by consenting to sex? That is pretty amazing if you think about it. Does that mean only men are responsible for their own actions when they pick up an STD by consenting to sex -but women are just pathetic "victims" of that too?

There is a striking social phenomenon as a result of legalizing abortion -an unforeseen one but one that should have been once the law placed all accountability and responsibility for pregnancy solely on men and excused women who were allowed to legally avoid unwanted parenthood but also given the FULL RIGHT to not only force men to be parents against their will, but given the right to also kill that man's child even at the very last minute even for no other reason but her personal WHIM.

In the past a man could not blame the woman for being held responsible for that unwanted pregnancy. Both parents were in the same boat whether both, one or neither of them liked it or not. The law held both responsible for that pregnancy and child. But now the law allows women an escape that no man is allowed unless a woman ALLOWS it -and the law will back her up no matter what she decides she will force on that man -whether to kill his child or be forced to parenthood against his will. So when a man is being forced to be a father against his will, he knows EXACTLY who to blame for it. He correctly sees that it is the woman who is forcing him to parenthood against his will, not the law forcing them both to be accountable for that pregnancy and child. Now the law simply backs up her "right" to force him to be a parent against his will (and likewise would back her up if she chose to kill that man's child). While it will never force the same unwanted parenthood on her, and would never give a man the right to kill her child on the grounds that HE doesn't want it to live - even though both engaged in the very same act.

Which is why prior to legalized abortion, the most common cause of death among pregnant women was from complications of pregnancy. But now THE most common cause of death among pregnant women by far and away - is HOMICIDE. And murdered by the father of her child. Too many men not only know exactly who to blame for being forced to parenthood against their will -they act on it and kill both the woman and the child. Not exactly an act that celebrates a woman's reproductive "rights" when in reality, many men apparently see it is their subjugation to a woman's whims.

The law should treat both equally. Either both are morally and financially responsible for that child and neither may kill that child. Or neither partner has consented to the possible consequences of sex and neither can be forced to be parents against their will. But it should be the LAW that applies equally to both, not allow one gender the sole "right" to make a decision that has profound consequences for the other -who has no say at all. Since sex is the way to get pregnant, its hard to argue that only males know it is a possible consequence and ONLY males have given irrevokable implied consent to it.

 

[Care4all]

Adults were once presumed under the law to be able to make decisions and understand the possible consequences of those decisions -and that by engaging in consensual sex, both parties had also given implied consent to the possibility of pregnancy and parenthood. Neither had any "right" to end that pregnancy, neither had any "right" to duck out on that while only the other was legally held responsible. The law held both parties morally and financially responsible for that pregnancy and child.

Now the law has changed but only for women. The law STILL says men have not only given their implied consent to possible parenthood by consenting to sex, but they may NEVER withdraw that implied consent under any circumstances. Even the use of condoms and a (failed) surgical sterilization does not in any way mean a man has withdrawn this implied consent to possible parenthood. But the law today is based on a notion that women have NEVER given even implied consent to possible pregnancy by engaging in the identical act. And furthermore, even if a woman gave her direct consent and intentionally became pregnant -she can withdraw that consent at any time. Right up until mere seconds before her child draws its first breath. Only men can NEVER withdraw their implied OR direct consent to possible parenthood AT ANY TIME. They can only choose not to have sex in order to avoid unwanted parenthood. Which means that in reality, the future of that child and his father is hers to toy with. She can give her direct consent to have a man's child, remain pregnant for the full 40 weeks, wait until that fetus is viable and STILL have that child killed right in the process of being born. Or she can force a man to be a parent against his will. Whatever she decides can be based on nothing more than her personal WHIM, just woke up on the wrong side of the bed that day -whatever.

The law in effect says a woman has only consented to sex while a man has not only given his implied consent to parenthood, but also given the woman the sole power to decide whether HIS child will live or die, whether he will be forced to parenthood against his will -all because they BOTH engaged in the very same act that should have identical potential consequences for BOTH. Only way for a man to avoid any risk of unwanted parenthood is to forfeit all acts of sex -while legally women are ONLY consenting to having sex and are "victims" of that act if it happens to result in pregnancy. A "victim" of an act they CONSENTED to when that consequence is a well known consequence? While only the man is legally presumed to have consented to possible parenthood by consenting to sex? That is pretty amazing if you think about it. Does that mean only men are responsible for their own actions when they pick up an STD by consenting to sex -but women are just pathetic "victims" of that too?

There is a striking social phenomenon as a result of legalizing abortion -an unforeseen one but one that should have been once the law placed all accountability and responsibility for pregnancy solely on men and excused women who were allowed to legally avoid unwanted parenthood but also given the FULL RIGHT to not only force men to be parents against their will, but given the right to also kill that man's child even at the very last minute even for no other reason but her personal WHIM.

In the past a man could not blame the woman for being held responsible for that unwanted pregnancy. Both parents were in the same boat whether both, one or neither of them liked it or not. The law held both responsible for that pregnancy and child. But now the law allows women an escape that no man is allowed unless a woman ALLOWS it -and the law will back her up no matter what she decides she will force on that man -whether to kill his child or be forced to parenthood against his will. So when a man is being forced to be a father against his will, he knows EXACTLY who to blame for it. He correctly sees that it is the woman who is forcing him to parenthood against his will, not the law forcing them both to be accountable for that pregnancy and child. Now the law simply backs up her "right" to force him to be a parent against his will (and likewise would back her up if she chose to kill that man's child). While it will never force the same unwanted parenthood on her, and would never give a man the right to kill her child on the grounds that HE doesn't want it to live - even though both engaged in the very same act.

Which is why prior to legalized abortion, the most common cause of death among pregnant women was from complications of pregnancy. But now THE most common cause of death among pregnant women by far and away - is HOMICIDE. And murdered by the father of her child. Too many men not only know exactly who to blame for being forced to parenthood against their will -they act on it and kill both the woman and the child. Not exactly an act that celebrates a woman's reproductive "rights" when in reality, many men apparently see it is their subjugation to a woman's whims.

The law should treat both equally. Either both are morally and financially responsible for that child and neither may kill that child. Or neither partner has consented to the possible consequences of sex and neither can be forced to be parents against their will. But it should be the LAW that applies equally to both, not allow one gender the sole "right" to make a decision that has profound consequences for the other -who has no say at all. Since sex is the way to get pregnant, its hard to argue that only males know it is a possible consequence and ONLY males have given irrevokable implied consent to it.

You have said SEVERAL TIMES in your post said that a woman can kill her fetus up to the point of delivery....I believe you are WRONG on that and would like a link for proof....and I would also like proof of any woman killing her viable baby right before birth because she felt like excercising her control over the man and over her baby to be.

You made some good points frazzle but they all fell apart when you emphasized that women kill their babies to be up to the point of birth....(As if all women do this and WOULD do this.... rubbing their hands together saying goodie, goodie, goodie, I get to kill my child now even though it is breathing and viable.... on that, i can say....kiss my grits )

Abortion has never been completely illegal in this country, even before Roe v wade, over 30 states had abortion as a legal procedure for women.

Do we make the man marry the woman if he gets her pregnant since that is what is the right thing to do...have the child have both parents in his life?


It will never be equal between man and a woman when it comes to pregnancy and childbirth imo frazzle, it can be equal from the point of birth, minus the man's lack of ability to breast feed....

a man's seed is the only thing that can get a woman pregnant....if you hold him to that, since the man is suppose to be the king of the castle, then maybe we would have less "sex" before marriage, which is the main root cause, for an unwanted pregnancy and abortions...before rubbers and especially bc pills.... men were afraid of getting a girl pregnant because he knew he would have to marry the girl, if he was to save any kind of "face" in his community... Should this attitutde be the one to come back in to play to reduce unwanted pregnancy?
care

 

[Ravi]

Frazzled, I agree with Care, let us see your evidence. I'm willing to bet you won't have any.

As for your implied consent argument...you may give such implied consent but I bet their are millions of people that do not.

 

[Shogun]

Frazzled, I agree with Care, let us see your evidence. I'm willing to bet you won't have any.

As for your implied consent argument...you may give such implied consent but I bet their are millions of people that do not.

oh well. thankfully we have you around to be our compass of the people.

 

[Ravi]

oh well. thankfully we have you around to be our compass of the people.

Yes, you are.

 

[Shogun]

indeed, your opinion and a ton of grass clipping make me a wealthy man.

 

[Ravi]

You're welcome.

 

[Shogun]

tell it to your zipper, ravir.

 

[Ravi]

You're such a wus.

 

[Shogun]

If I call you a ***** are you going to assume the double standard and cry foul?

 

[Ravi]

If I call you a ***** are you going to assume the double standard and cry foul?

When have I ever done that? You really, really have a reading comprehension problem.

 

[Shogun]

When have I ever done that? You really, really have a reading comprehension problem.

I bet we can blame it on a penis somehow.

 

[Ravi]

You aren't even going to attempt to explain your reasoning as to why giving away sperm gives one the final say.

That's why I called you a wus.

 

[Shogun]

You aren't even going to attempt to explain your reasoning as to why giving away sperm gives one the final say.

That's why I called you a wus.

and neither will you explain how a mutual zipper decision exempts you from the same question regarding why you'd give up your eggs is the exact same mutual risk.


Again, im sure there are a pair of testicles behind this diabolical plan to put women back into the kitchen... uh, via equal prenatal rights... or something.


watch how an evil testicle tried to put this poor woman back into the kitchen.

I bet Cobra Commander is the real guy behind the guy inside the testicle suit.

 

[manifold]

You aren't even going to attempt to explain your reasoning as to why giving away sperm gives one the final say.

That's why I called you a wus.

You really shouldn't use that word. It's demeaning to disenfranchised white males everywhere.

 

[Care4all]

I bet we can blame it on a penis somehow.

maybe i've missed this, being sort of a newbie and all....

how many children have you had out of wedlock that you are paying child support for shogun?


care

 

[Shogun]

maybe i've missed this, being sort of a newbie and all....
how many children have you had out of wedlock that you are paying child support for shogun?
care

none. and im 31. personal Responsibility =/ external big brother control

 

[manifold]

maybe i've missed this, being sort of a newbie and all....

how many children have you had out of wedlock that you are paying child support for shogun?


care

I think if anything you might have it backwards. You should really ask him how many tramps he has impregnated that choose to have his bastard seed scraped out of their uterus without his permission.

 

[Shogun]

You really shouldn't use that word. It's demeaning to disenfranchised white males everywhere.

you probably dont want to hit her up for anything that touches on equality..


without at least sending up a burnt offering of testicles first, at least..