If men are truly serious about being Pro-Life.....

[progressive hunter]

LOL. You are making an absurd argument.

Tell me this of the 60 million Americans aborted since 1973, how many resulted from birth control failures?

I have no idea.

But are you telling me that if a woman is on the Pill, and gets pregnant, you are ok with her having an abortion?

No. Abortion is murder. Unlike you, I want the unborn protected.

Unlike you, I don't want a government that claims sovereignty over the contents of our bodies.

LOL. So you prefer murdering the innocent unborn. Ugh.

Why so murderous?

I don't think laws can prevent all evil. If attempting to prevent evil does more harm than good, it's not worth doing. In my opinion, taking away the most fundamental aspect of individual liberty (control over one's own body) from half the population is worse than killing something that is 'unborn', regardless of whether you consider it person or a soul or state property.

but the child she carries is not her body,,,and protect children is in no way evil,,,true evil is killing children

 

[WinterBorn]

I'm saying birth control is not 100% effective.

but her keeping her legs closed is,,,

And not having a man willing to have sex is too.

LOL. You are making an absurd argument.

Tell me this of the 60 million Americans aborted since 1973, how many resulted from birth control failures?

I have no idea.

But are you telling me that if a woman is on the Pill, and gets pregnant, you are ok with her having an abortion?

No. Abortion is murder. Unlike you, I want the unborn protected.

Hence my solution.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have no idea.

But are you telling me that if a woman is on the Pill, and gets pregnant, you are ok with her having an abortion?

No. Abortion is murder. Unlike you, I want the unborn protected.

Unlike you, I don't want a government that claims sovereignty over the contents of our bodies.

LOL. So you prefer murdering the innocent unborn. Ugh.

Why so murderous?

I don't think laws can prevent all evil. If attempting to prevent evil does more harm than good, it's not worth doing. In my opinion, taking away the most fundamental aspect of individual liberty (control over one's own body) from half the population is worse than killing something that is 'unborn', regardless of whether you consider it person or a soul or state property.

but the child she carries is not her body,,,and protect children is in no way evil,,,true evil is killing children

It is still destroying the body autonomy that we hold sacred in other areas. If my sister or my child were to be in an accident, and needed a blood transfusion, and I was the only person with the right blood to save her, I could not be forced to give my blood. Hell, if someone needed an organ transplant, unless the person was a donor, you cannot take organs from a dead body to save a life.

All that said, I do not believe in abortion-on-demand beyond the first month or so. But if the woman's life is in danger, or the fetus is not viable, I think it should be up to the individual.

 

[progressive hunter]

No. Abortion is murder. Unlike you, I want the unborn protected.

Unlike you, I don't want a government that claims sovereignty over the contents of our bodies.

LOL. So you prefer murdering the innocent unborn. Ugh.

Why so murderous?

I don't think laws can prevent all evil. If attempting to prevent evil does more harm than good, it's not worth doing. In my opinion, taking away the most fundamental aspect of individual liberty (control over one's own body) from half the population is worse than killing something that is 'unborn', regardless of whether you consider it person or a soul or state property.

but the child she carries is not her body,,,and protect children is in no way evil,,,true evil is killing children

It is still destroying the body autonomy that we hold sacred in other areas. If my sister or my child were to be in an accident, and needed a blood transfusion, and I was the only person with the right blood to save her, I could not be forced to give my blood. Hell, if someone needed an organ transplant, unless the person was a donor, you cannot take organs from a dead body to save a life.

All that said, I do not believe in abortion-on-demand beyond the first month or so. But if the woman's life is in danger, or the fetus is not viable, I think it should be up to the individual.

so you want to kill one person to save a mothers autonomy??? kinda self defeating isnt it,,,

would be better to kill the mother along with the child or she keep her legs closed,,,


and not a single prolife person thinks when her life is in danger or the child is not viable not to do it

what do you think about my other ideas???

 

[gipper]

but her keeping her legs closed is,,,

And not having a man willing to have sex is too.

LOL. You are making an absurd argument.

Tell me this of the 60 million Americans aborted since 1973, how many resulted from birth control failures?

I have no idea.

But are you telling me that if a woman is on the Pill, and gets pregnant, you are ok with her having an abortion?

No. Abortion is murder. Unlike you, I want the unborn protected.

Hence my solution.

Your solution is absurd and you know it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They should not have sex with a woman unless that woman wants a child.

Since no birth control is 100% effective, men should adamantly refuse to have sex with a woman unless she wants to be pregnant.

It takes sperm to get pregnant.

It's not about being "pro life" - everyone is pro life.

It's about being hostile towards privacy rights and seeking to compel conformity.

 

[progressive hunter]

They should not have sex with a woman unless that woman wants a child.

Since no birth control is 100% effective, men should adamantly refuse to have sex with a woman unless she wants to be pregnant.

It takes sperm to get pregnant.

It's not about being "pro life" - everyone is pro life.

It's about being hostile towards privacy rights and seeking to compel conformity.

oh great,,,case law clayton is here to set the record straight

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

your deflection is noted and ignored,,

Deflection? Is there some other way for women to get pregnant besides having sex with men?

thats why I said they need to keep their legs closed,,


and is there a special web site you guys go to every morning to get your daily talking points???

And this would be an example of the authoritarian right seeking to compel conformity.

 

[progressive hunter]

your deflection is noted and ignored,,

Deflection? Is there some other way for women to get pregnant besides having sex with men?

thats why I said they need to keep their legs closed,,


and is there a special web site you guys go to every morning to get your daily talking points???

And this would be an example of the authoritarian right seeking to compel conformity.

or it could be a humane person trying to stop the killing of children,,,

 

[WinterBorn]

Unlike you, I don't want a government that claims sovereignty over the contents of our bodies.

LOL. So you prefer murdering the innocent unborn. Ugh.

Why so murderous?

I don't think laws can prevent all evil. If attempting to prevent evil does more harm than good, it's not worth doing. In my opinion, taking away the most fundamental aspect of individual liberty (control over one's own body) from half the population is worse than killing something that is 'unborn', regardless of whether you consider it person or a soul or state property.

but the child she carries is not her body,,,and protect children is in no way evil,,,true evil is killing children

It is still destroying the body autonomy that we hold sacred in other areas. If my sister or my child were to be in an accident, and needed a blood transfusion, and I was the only person with the right blood to save her, I could not be forced to give my blood. Hell, if someone needed an organ transplant, unless the person was a donor, you cannot take organs from a dead body to save a life.

All that said, I do not believe in abortion-on-demand beyond the first month or so. But if the woman's life is in danger, or the fetus is not viable, I think it should be up to the individual.

so you want to kill one person to save a mothers autonomy??? kinda self defeating isnt it,,,

would be better to kill the mother along with the child or she keep her legs closed,,,


and not a single prolife person thinks when her life is in danger or the child is not viable not to do it

what do you think about my other ideas???

I think your ideas all involve you still being able to get laid when you want, while forcing others to bear a child they do not want.

 

[WinterBorn]

Unlike you, I don't want a government that claims sovereignty over the contents of our bodies.

LOL. So you prefer murdering the innocent unborn. Ugh.

Why so murderous?

I don't think laws can prevent all evil. If attempting to prevent evil does more harm than good, it's not worth doing. In my opinion, taking away the most fundamental aspect of individual liberty (control over one's own body) from half the population is worse than killing something that is 'unborn', regardless of whether you consider it person or a soul or state property.

but the child she carries is not her body,,,and protect children is in no way evil,,,true evil is killing children

It is still destroying the body autonomy that we hold sacred in other areas. If my sister or my child were to be in an accident, and needed a blood transfusion, and I was the only person with the right blood to save her, I could not be forced to give my blood. Hell, if someone needed an organ transplant, unless the person was a donor, you cannot take organs from a dead body to save a life.

All that said, I do not believe in abortion-on-demand beyond the first month or so. But if the woman's life is in danger, or the fetus is not viable, I think it should be up to the individual.

so you want to kill one person to save a mothers autonomy??? kinda self defeating isnt it,,,

would be better to kill the mother along with the child or she keep her legs closed,,,


and not a single prolife person thinks when her life is in danger or the child is not viable not to do it

what do you think about my other ideas???

Really? Not a single person thinks abortion should not be used when the life of the mother is in danger or the child is not viable? Those are the only reasons late term abortion are legal. And you remember how much of a fit the anti-abortion people threw about that. Enough that the president lied about the baby being born, wrapped in a blanket, and then the Dr and mother decided whether it lived.

 

[progressive hunter]

LOL. So you prefer murdering the innocent unborn. Ugh.

Why so murderous?

I don't think laws can prevent all evil. If attempting to prevent evil does more harm than good, it's not worth doing. In my opinion, taking away the most fundamental aspect of individual liberty (control over one's own body) from half the population is worse than killing something that is 'unborn', regardless of whether you consider it person or a soul or state property.

but the child she carries is not her body,,,and protect children is in no way evil,,,true evil is killing children

It is still destroying the body autonomy that we hold sacred in other areas. If my sister or my child were to be in an accident, and needed a blood transfusion, and I was the only person with the right blood to save her, I could not be forced to give my blood. Hell, if someone needed an organ transplant, unless the person was a donor, you cannot take organs from a dead body to save a life.

All that said, I do not believe in abortion-on-demand beyond the first month or so. But if the woman's life is in danger, or the fetus is not viable, I think it should be up to the individual.

so you want to kill one person to save a mothers autonomy??? kinda self defeating isnt it,,,

would be better to kill the mother along with the child or she keep her legs closed,,,


and not a single prolife person thinks when her life is in danger or the child is not viable not to do it

what do you think about my other ideas???

Really? Not a single person thinks abortion should not be used when the life of the mother is in danger or the child is not viable? Those are the only reasons late term abortion are legal. And you remember how much of a fit the anti-abortion people threw about that. Enough that the president lied about the baby being born, wrapped in a blanket, and then the Dr and mother decided whether it lived.

thats not what I said,,,
and no I dont remember them losing it
and what lie did trump say???

 

[Darkwind]

They should not have sex with a woman unless that woman wants a child.

Since no birth control is 100% effective, men should adamantly refuse to have sex with a woman unless she wants to be pregnant.

It takes sperm to get pregnant.

This is incorrect.

REAL MEN already don't have sex with women they are not prepared to support or support their children.

It is called Character, and only real men have it. Those who sleep with women with no intention of paying for the consequences of their actions are NOT men.

This entire thing is a false premise.

 

[danielpalos]

we need a law where a women has to sign off that she would have an abortion if she got pregnant before having sex with her,,,

and it would put both the man and women in jail if she did


NO SEX FOR YOU!!!

Actually, I can have all the sex I want.....I have a surefire way to not become pregnant. Actually two surefire ways....

is it wrong to get a vasectomy and ask women if they want to have my baby?

 

[Lysistrata]

They should not have sex with a woman unless that woman wants a child.

Since no birth control is 100% effective, men should adamantly refuse to have sex with a woman unless she wants to be pregnant.

It takes sperm to get pregnant.

Better yet, pass a law making them get vasectomies which are reversable when and ONLY when they get married and they and their spouse put in writing that they are ready to procreate.

easier for women to just keep their legs closed and stop raping men,,,

The OP was simply suggesting that men not do something. Isn't that easier than your suggestion that women keep our legs closed.

As part of my Catholic childhood, I learned that there was a requirement "to avoid the near occasion of sin." Since I understand that the Christian standard is no sex before marriage, and sexual faithfulness to the spouse thereafter, merely "avoid the near occasion of sin." Not only will you not get someone pregnant, Jesus will love you when you get to Heaven.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

They should not have sex with a woman unless that woman wants a child.

Since no birth control is 100% effective, men should adamantly refuse to have sex with a woman unless she wants to be pregnant.

It takes sperm to get pregnant.

Better yet, pass a law making them get vasectomies which are reversable when and ONLY when they get married and they and their spouse put in writing that they are ready to procreate.

easier for women to just keep their legs closed and stop raping men,,,

Yeah, because it is solely women's fault.

well they are the ones getting pregnant and having abortions

They aren't the only ones involved in getting pregnant. Or has no one explained the Birds & the Bees to you.

Pro Life = Punish "sluts" - that is all it is.

 

[Lysistrata]

They should not have sex with a woman unless that woman wants a child.

Since no birth control is 100% effective, men should adamantly refuse to have sex with a woman unless she wants to be pregnant.

It takes sperm to get pregnant.

The Left now teaches abstinence.
Is there nothing Trump can’t do?

Those on the "right" are those who have been pushing "abstinence" to the public, even wasting taxpayer money on it. The "left," whomever that happens to be, is merely pressing the "right" on the issue of whether or not the rightees actually follow their own standard. I would expect that the rightees are all virgins on their wedding nights, so imbued are they with virtue and a deeply rooted sense of personal responsibility.

 

[rightwinger]

Before intersectional feminism aka cultural marxism ruined western women, it was mostly up to them to act as moderators to biological male impulses, to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies and absentee fathers.

In other words, before women were allowed to enjoy sex as much as men.

And why do men who are serious about stopping abortions need someone else to moderate them? Why can't men, especially strong alpha men, control their own impulses?

The left who loves to brag about how much they respect mother nature and cherish science are proven hypocrites when it comes to natural patterns of human behavior. For thousands of years human society operated by a certain code ingrained in our very DNA and now all of a sudden we want to just throw all of that out the window. And you wonder why men are turning to drugs, suicide and violently lashing out at society?

Even the most conservative "alpha male" can be tempted by a decent looking, easy woman. Men are dumb like that. But really, it's the non-conservative men you need to worry about. The ones who have no intention of sticking around to support their kids, the ones who will encourage and intimidate that drunk teenage girl he impregnated at a party to have an abortion.

Tempted? Perhaps.

Unable to resist? No.

The male sexual drive can be overwhelming and cause all sorts of unpredictable behavior. Especially when you add alcohol or drugs into the mix.

In wild animals, it's almost always the female who chooses which male is suitable.

If you cannot control your impulses, you shouldn't be allowed to live in a free society.

My dog LOVES steak. But I can put my steak dinner on the coffee table and he knows he will be punished if he touches it. He doesn't touch it. Do men have less impulse control than a well trained dog?

No

 

[progressive hunter]

They should not have sex with a woman unless that woman wants a child.

Since no birth control is 100% effective, men should adamantly refuse to have sex with a woman unless she wants to be pregnant.

It takes sperm to get pregnant.

Better yet, pass a law making them get vasectomies which are reversable when and ONLY when they get married and they and their spouse put in writing that they are ready to procreate.

easier for women to just keep their legs closed and stop raping men,,,

The OP was simply suggesting that men not do something. Isn't that easier than your suggestion that women keep our legs closed.

As part of my Catholic childhood, I learned that there was a requirement "to avoid the near occasion of sin." Since I understand that the Christian standard is no sex before marriage, and sexual faithfulness to the spouse thereafter, merely "avoid the near occasion of sin." Not only will you not get someone pregnant, Jesus will love you when you get to Heaven.

well it is the women getting pregnant and having abortions not men,,,

 

[WinterBorn]

They should not have sex with a woman unless that woman wants a child.

Since no birth control is 100% effective, men should adamantly refuse to have sex with a woman unless she wants to be pregnant.

It takes sperm to get pregnant.

Better yet, pass a law making them get vasectomies which are reversable when and ONLY when they get married and they and their spouse put in writing that they are ready to procreate.

easier for women to just keep their legs closed and stop raping men,,,

The OP was simply suggesting that men not do something. Isn't that easier than your suggestion that women keep our legs closed.

As part of my Catholic childhood, I learned that there was a requirement "to avoid the near occasion of sin." Since I understand that the Christian standard is no sex before marriage, and sexual faithfulness to the spouse thereafter, merely "avoid the near occasion of sin." Not only will you not get someone pregnant, Jesus will love you when you get to Heaven.

well it is the women getting pregnant and having abortions not men,,,

Not without the men.

And a woman is fertile for about 6 days out of 28. Men can get a woman pregnant 365 days a year.