Abortion is sexist

[Dirt McGirt]

Amazing how most of the pro lifers support killing someone for stealing a TV. I guess all that right to life crap ends when someone tries to take a $200 flat screen.

Me, I'm consistent. I support abortion and killing someone over a TV. I'm pro-death.

 

[nomdeplume]

The unborn aren't protected by the constitution. It will be a sad day if they ever are.

A sad day for Satan.

 

[stivex]

Exactly when a fetus becomes a "person" is the key issue. There's no consensus on it, so it is hard to base policy on it.

True, but that wouldn't help our discussion of the sexism behind abortion. It is equally the man and woman's fault for having unprotected sex. (Yes, there are always exceptions to every rule. so, let's not go there right now.)

Now, if the result of willingly having unprotected sex is pregnancy. Why then, considering the DNA is comprised also of the man, does the man have no choice to be a father? He doesn't even get the choice of his money. The woman gets to choose if the baby lives or dies (a fetus is alive, btw). Then based on the decision of live or death determines whether or not the man gets child support taken out of his check, or statys with the woman to raise the child (thereby subjecting himself to child support AND alimony if it doesn't work out).

The man has no say. His opinion matters not one ounce legally. That is the problem.

Wouldn't the woman have some responsibility to bare a child as a result of having unprotected sex? The man is stuck with the options of flushing the fetus of his offspring, forking over child support, or sticking with the woman (thereby sharing finances and all that with her per a relationship). Of those things the man has to look forward to, none of those are solely his choice. The woman decides whether or not to keep the baby. The woman has to agree to a relationship. In some states, child support is an automatic give-in.

No wonder there are so many gay men nowadays. <----- (a joke, btw)

 

[editec]

True, but that wouldn't help our discussion of the sexism behind abortion. It is equally the man and woman's fault for having unprotected sex. (Yes, there are always exceptions to every rule. so, let's not go there right now.)

Now, if the result of willingly having unprotected sex is pregnancy. Why then, considering the DNA is comprised also of the man, does the man have no choice to be a father? He doesn't even get the choice of his money. The woman gets to choose if the baby lives or dies (a fetus is alive, btw). Then based on the decision of live or death determines whether or not the man gets child support taken out of his check, or statys with the woman to raise the child (thereby subjecting himself to child support AND alimony if it doesn't work out).

The man has no say. His opinion matters not one ounce legally. That is the problem.

Wouldn't the woman have some responsibility to bare a child as a result of having unprotected sex? The man is stuck with the options of flushing the fetus of his offspring, forking over child support, or sticking with the woman (thereby sharing finances and all that with her per a relationship). Of those things the man has to look forward to, none of those are solely his choice. The woman decides whether or not to keep the baby. The woman has to agree to a relationship. In some states, child support is an automatic give-in.

No wonder there are so many gay men nowadays. <----- (a joke, btw)

Head's up. folks.

Many children are conceived even, when people are having protected sex.

Other people's reproductive decisions are none of our god damned business.

Other people's sex lifes, likewise NONE of our business.

 

[Steerpike]

The man has no say. His opinion matters not one ounce legally. That is the problem.

That's because there's no reasonable way to implement it. By its nature, the decision has to come down to one person.

 

[editec]

That's because there's no reasonable way to implement it. By its nature, the decision has to come down to one person.

Stop making sense, Steer.

It only pisses them off.

They're on a mission from GOD!

 

[Shogun]

Wrong again. There is no equality in this issue simply because there is no equal situation. A man does not get pregnant. If he did, he'd have the same option to decide what gets done with his body.

again, they BOTH have the means to restrict pregnancy. either by choosing not to **** or using preventative measures. Crying that there is simple "no equality possible" isn't impressive at all given how we try to pretend that women are physically equal to men in every other category of life. Like I said, EQUALITY is a *****, Ravi. Stop crying about the even footing that your suffrage movement strove for.

 

[Shogun]

The unborn aren't protected by the constitution. It will be a sad day if they ever are.

yea ravi.. it's so SAD to protect distinct genetic human beings from bitches who can't be responsible with their cum catchers. yea.. thats the ticket.

 

[Shogun]

Head's up. folks.

Many children are conceived even, when people are having protected sex.

Other people's reproductive decisions are none of our god damned business.

Other people's sex lifes, likewise NONE of our business.

well, no they ARE when they result in the killing of a human despite every other range of options to prevent pregnancy. Do you turn your head and look the other way when some woman drowns her new born child? At what age does a kid deserve federal protection from a killer parent? I mean, if you can rationalize late term abortion as none of your business then why give a **** about toddlers? It's none of your business, right?

 

[AllieBaba]

You are so revolting.

 

[Shogun]

That's because there's no reasonable way to implement it. By its nature, the decision has to come down to one person.

oh it's reasonable... just not to those who dont WANT paternal influence. Im sure this same "unreasonable" conjecture came up when women wanted equality too.

 

[Shogun]

Stop making sense, Steer.

It only pisses them off.

They're on a mission from GOD!

Do you think for a second that IM on a mission from god?

 

[editec]

well, no they ARE when they result in the killing of a human despite every other range of options to prevent pregnancy. Do you turn your head and look the other way when some woman drowns her new born child? At what age does a kid deserve federal protection from a killer parent? I mean, if you can rationalize late term abortion as none of your business then why give a **** about toddlers? It's none of your business, right?

I'll say it again, Shogun

Other people's reproduction decisions are NONE of you business.

Their SEX LIFEs also, none of your business.

If you object to abortions, don't have one.

I can't possibly make that any clearer.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's the rote response when they don't want to talk about it any more. Attack the religion of the posters you don't agree with. Well, only if they're Christian. Or accuse them of being Christian when in fact they aren't. Either way, it's the tried and true diversionary tactic of the bigoted.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'll say it again, Shogun

Other people's reproduction decisions are NONE of you business.

Their SEX LIFEs also, none of your business.

If you object to abortions, don't have one.

I can't possibly make that any clearer.

I guess it's his business if he's the other half of the equation; i.e., the father of the child, or the sex partner.
Dumbass.

 

[Shogun]

I'll say it again, Shogun

Other people's reproduction decisions are NONE of you business.

Their SEX LIFEs also, none of your business.

If you object to abortions, don't have one.

I can't possibly make that any clearer.

so, then, i take it you just don't care if parents kill kids in general then? I mean, it's none of our business, right?


i won't kill my 4 year old either.. does that mean YOU get to?

 

[Shogun]

It's the rote response when they don't want to talk about it any more. Attack the religion of the posters you don't agree with. Well, only if they're Christian. Or accuse them of being Christian when in fact they aren't. Either way, it's the tried and true diversionary tactic of the bigoted.

i sure don't fit that mold though, do I baba?

 

[Ravi]

again, they BOTH have the means to restrict pregnancy. either by choosing not to **** or using preventative measures. Crying that there is simple "no equality possible" isn't impressive at all given how we try to pretend that women are physically equal to men in every other category of life. Like I said, EQUALITY is a *****, Ravi. Stop crying about the even footing that your suffrage movement strove for.

Shog, as soon as you are able to become pregnant, it will become an equality issue. Until that time, there is no equality possible.

I think it would also obligate the state to care for a child if the state forces a woman to give birth. Because at that point, the state is responsible for life.

Suck it up and quit your bitchin.

 

[BrianH]

It can't really be fairer than it is, just by its very nature. Every solution boils down to a veto power for one person or the other. Since that's the case, it makes more sense for it to go to the woman.

The only problem I have with that, is that "naturally" it takes a man and a woman to make a child. Not one or the other. It does not make sense that only a woman should have the power to control the life of a mutual creation. It totally excuses the woman for taking responsibility for her actions. If the woman chooses to have the baby, and the guy wants to abort it. He is unwillingly forced to deal with his responsibility of his actions. And the bad part is, no one cares. They say, "well he should have kept it in his pants". He's then forced to pay money for 18 years for a child he didn't want. However, on the other hand, a woman doesn't keep her pants on and gets pregnant. She wants to abort the child and NOT take responsibility for her actions. And the law says that this is ok. While at the same time, the father of the child may want to raise it. Well, too bad for him. He just has to deal with his offspring being terminated against his will. IMO, it does not make logical sense that it should only be up to the woman. I think that if the man is willing to raise a child that the woman wants to abort, then she should have to give birth and hand it over to the father. And if the woman aborts it, the man should be able to press charges. This creates a problem we have today with some women getting pregnant and/or not using any form of preventatives because they know whatever happens, they'll get a paycheck every month. And if they don't want the child, then no biggie, they'll get rid of it.

 

[Care4all]

The only problem I have with that, is that "naturally" it takes a man and a woman to make a child. Not one or the other. It does not make sense that only a woman should have the power to control the life of a mutual creation. It totally excuses the woman for taking responsibility for her actions. If the woman chooses to have the baby, and the guy wants to abort it. He is unwillingly forced to deal with his responsibility of his actions. And the bad part is, no one cares. They say, "well he should have kept it in his pants". He's then forced to pay money for 18 years for a child he didn't want. However, on the other hand, a woman doesn't keep her pants on and gets pregnant. She wants to abort the child and NOT take responsibility for her actions. And the law says that this is ok. While at the same time, the father of the child may want to raise it. Well, too bad for him. He just has to deal with his offspring being terminated against his will. IMO, it does not make logical sense that it should only be up to the woman. I think that if the man is willing to raise a child that the woman wants to abort, then she should have to give birth and hand it over to the father. And if the woman aborts it, the man should be able to press charges. This creates a problem we have today with some women getting pregnant and/or not using any form of preventatives because they know whatever happens, they'll get a paycheck every month. And if they don't want the child, then no biggie, they'll get rid of it.

it boils down to one thing, the father will never, ever, in his entire life of living, have to go thru 9 months of gestation, to deliver his child. He will never have to put his body at risk, he will never acqire high blood pressure becvause of pregnancy, he will never have to be cut opened with a c-section to see his child be born, he will never get an epidermal, he will not ever have to stretch out his vagina or have to get it stitched to tighten it because of delivering his child, he will never have to go through an eptopic pregnancy or have to take in 40 units of other people's blood becuse of it.....

SHALL I GO ON......?

I think anyone, using any kind of logic....can understand it brian....especially if you consider what i was ''saying'' above....and I am prolife, but i can certainly understand WHY it is up to the woman in the end....

MEN should accept this reality....if they DO, then it is easier to understand why the man's final choice of when and if, to ''cover up'', IS HIS last chance to determine his paternal destiny....

care