But of course. All you are is a uterus on legs, y’know. Your only value as a human being is the ability to pop out babies.
'Cause it’s not like sex has been clinically shown to have wonderful physical, emotional, hormonal, relationship and immune enhancing properties. No, the only reason women would want sex is for babies (or, for those dirty whores, orgasms.)
:rolleyes: (<—not at you, but at the mindset of the person who would say this unironically.)
The way we usually think of personhood and human dignity demands such a point: You’re either a person or you’re not; “all men are created equal.” If it develops gradually, then someone can be half a person or .71828 of a person. Since what’s unique about us is our ability to reason better than other animals, maybe that’s what gives us moral value, so retarded people aren’t worth as much: they’re undermenschen.
If you say a zygote is a person, you avoid all that gross Nazi stuff, but you’re stuck telling 16-year-old girls they have to have babies they’re no way in hell equipped to handle, while some of them bleed to death on coathangers–all in the name of morality. The choice sucks.
I’ve been watching this thread with interest, and Kanicbird is standing tall, but he is taking a beating from most of the posters here. Not because his arguments are poor, it’s just that most people in today’s society think the things he is saying could be out of an 1872 Girls School Textbook on Chastity.
Is the problem Kanicbird’s thoughts or the modern society which creates the thoughts that are espoused by the other posters in response for him?
I am a man, so I can never get pregnant or have an abortion. I was a single man who got a girl pregnant 5 years ago. I didn’t have a “choice”. My “choice” was whether or not she wanted the baby. If she didn’t, then no sweat off my back. If she did, then it was punishing child support payments for 18-21 years. So, 50% of the population knows what it is like to not have a say in the pregnancy matter. It sickens me to hear these promiscuous women demand absolute control over their bodies when it comes to pregnancy, but when a man complains about his lack of choice, he should just “keep it in his pants”.
Well, sure he should. But you all should keep your pants on sometimes.
No. Not today’s liberated woman. She should be able to fuck who she wants, when she wants, get as drunk and high as she wants while subsequently fucking who she wants, and consequences be damned, she can get an abortion afterwards if she wants. The man would have been a bad father anyways because he was just looking for an easy piece of ass. (Which if you think about it ladies, was YOU)
I can’t even put this into a decent debate because it is too emotional. Five years ago, I didn’t have a choice. The girl had all of the power. I had a whiskey bottle and tears and hope for MY next generation.
Fast Forward Five Years. My daughter had her 4th birthday party this weekend. I have pictures for anyone who is interested. She is taking swimming lessons and dance classes. A Zygote? A Fetus? A Contract? A Choice? A “I want a license to get laid whenever I want?”
Her name is Hannah.
It is as immoral to abort the baby of a rape victim as it is to abort the baby of someone who just doesn’t feel like raising one. However, in the case of rape it may well be the lesser of two evils. Say we don’t allow this exception, and the mother kills herself instead. Now there are two innocent lives lost, instead of just one. Being less wrong doesn’t make it morally neutral, just more understandable and acceptable.
No kidding.
Despite your angry ranting, you do bring up the true point that biology means we have to be unfair to someone. I, however, have no problem choosing to put a financial burden on a man when a living child’s welfare is at issue, rather than putting a burden of physical servitude* on a woman in the name of an entity that doesn’t have the neural equipment of your average rat.
It is unfair to men. It’s less unfair than giving the choice to someone other than the pregnant woman, or letting a kid who had no choice in the matter suffer hardship.
*For those who haven’t been pregnant - don’t kid yourself that the only “real” burden on a woman would be some major health risk, or the risk/pain of delivery. Being pregnant sucks a lot of the time. Puking almost constantly, never getting more than 1.5 hours of sleep at a time, chronic headaches, extreme fatigue, dietary restrictions, hemorrhoids, take your pick.
I would love to see pictures of Hannah. I bet she’s amazing.
This is my son Kyle, last Halloween. I got pregnant with him at 17*, and decided to keep the fetus. I haven’t asked his father for a dime in 10 years, after he made it abundantly clear he didn’t want to be a father. I rather wish he had let me know that he didn’t want to be a father back when I was pregnant and might have made another choice instead of doing it all alone (or at least, knowing would have given me the *informed *choice to do it all alone, which would have spared all three of us a great deal of anguish), but the world is what it is and people are what they are and Kyle’s a great kid. And I agree with you that men should not have to be fathers or financially support their children IF they make that intent clear in writing to the mother and the court during the time when it’s legal to abort a fetus and IF they have no further contact with the child ever (assuming the woman decides to bear it). No, that’s not the way the law is, but it’s the way the law *should *be, you’re absolutely right. A “father’s abortion” should be just as much a legal right as a mother’s.
This is my daughter, Caileigh. I think that picture was taken when she was about a week old. She was technically so preemie as to be legally abortable in my state when she was born. She felt no pain for three weeks, until she reached what would have been 27 weeks in utero. None of the babies in the ISCU did, and I watched a lot of them come in and go home in the three and a half months we were there. Here’s a more recent picture of her, taken this spring.
Please don’t think I’m a militant child hater or “pro-abortion”. I am 100% pro-CHOICE. I made the CHOICE to have my son at 18 (my birthday came between conception and the birth) and live a life completely different than what I or my parents had dreamed of for me. I’ve seen pre-“viable” fetuses grow up before my eyes with amazing (and expensive) medical care. But I will fight to my literal dying breath for every woman out there to make a different CHOICE than the CHOICE I made.
I’m not pro-abortion. If I was, I would have had one (or two), and I’d counsel other women to have them instead of their wanted and cherished babies.
*The first time I had consensual sex, using three forms of birth control, I hasten to add. I’m such a dirty whore.
netsplit you bring in some hard situations, which would (and do) happen. I admit that situations happen that really suck, but I can’t justify the murder of a innocent 3rd party for the actions of 2 consenting people. Actually in the case of rape, I can’t see justification for murder of the innocent 3rd person either, but respect the right of the woman to chose to carry the baby to term.
I also admit that people can and do disagree with me as to when that 3rd party life begins, which is why practically (real world) I am pro-abortion, but it does not negate my contention that anti-abortion except for rape is a viable viewpoint.
It depends on how far you want to go. I believe that removal of the uterus is 100% effective, as well as castration, in which case you can do what ever you want. It’s the concept that you are playing with someone else’s life is the issue.
If you are willing to reduce your chance of conception to near zero and take the risk, if a babytrion is created however I feel you do have a moral obligation to carry it to term, though you can adopt it out.
Every person is a wonderful creation. Please do NOT EVER again try to put words in my mouth WhyNot.
I think this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship. 
To steal from Bogey. But, it’s true. You are a good family lady, and I am a family guy. We have differing positions on abortion, but live in the same situation.
I can’t for the life of me understand why you would be pro-choice (see, I said it) after having two beautiful children. Kyle and Caileigh…I dated a girl 7 years ago who had kids named Kyle and Carliegh…wow…
But, anyhoo, who said that you were a “dirty whore” because of the situation when you were 17? Was it your dad? It certainly wouldn’t have been me, had you used 3 methods or none.
I think that you and I can be the two that understand each other in this unsolvable debate…
Can you state your position on abortion? I didn’t get if from your earlier post.
That post, btw, raises a number of issues outside the bounds of the discussion we’ve been having so far, and really doesn’t touch on the main issue. The human reproductive process is asymmetrical, and although our current laws about child support and abortion may not be perfect, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect them to be symmetrical.
Maybe men are off the hook on child support if they ask for an abortion and the woman refuses (unless there are health issues involved). Maybe women don’t get child support if they have sex outside of marriage. Maybe the marriage contract has a pre-nup about abortion, and under what conditions it will be acceptable, and who will be responsible for what if one party goes against that agreement. I don’t know the answers to those hypotheticals, but just because they exist doesn’t mean we should outlaw abortion.
It’s a complicated issue, and the best solution is going to be complicated.
Don’t assume that because others don’t agree with you that they don’t understand you.
Yes, John. My position, as far as how the law should be in regards to abortion, is that it should be illegal, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
I brought the father into the debate as an ancillary comment, and did not intend to hijack the thread.
I appreciated WHYNOT’s comments on her family as it is a refreshing change from the 19 year old male virgin Southern Baptist arguing against the 34 year old woman who hates children, but has lived with 3 different guys.
I would dispute your point about the hypothetical man who demands an abortion, but the lady he got pregnant carries the (fetus/baby/semi-baby) to term. He is in no way off the hook for child support in any state in the U.S. I would love a cite…
He’s not saying that is reality. He’s saying that they are hypotheticals that could exist.
I guess, Hentor, that I’m talking to the people who say that “pro-life” arguments mean that we should stone women for fornicating…
That implies a lack of understanding…
Let me expound… I’m a Southern Baptist.
I’ve heard it all from my grandmother. I’ve heard the hellfire and brimstone talks.
I’ve still yet to hear about how we are going to drag the fornicating, adulterous whores down to the town square and give them what they deserve.
Where are these “fundamentalists” who advocate murdering women who have pre or extra marital sex? Did I miss a 700 club episode?
The only thing I have heard is that if you have sex…consensual sex, whether you are a man or a woman, that such activity, (sigh) whether you take birth control pills, or wear condoms, diaphragms, or chastity belts, that there will be a chance of pregnancy.
The man is already up to getting his balls in a fricking rack for 18-21 years if that happens. The woman, in the opinion of these crazy religious wackos, has agreed to sex, so she shouldn’t be surprised that said sex resulted in a pregnancy.
I’ve got DirectTV, and I know that good Zebra fucking makes more little Zebras that get eaten by Wildebeasts…(another issue)
So, why should human females (and males) not know that carnal lusts and vaginal sex can lead to children?
Since we know that, we are taking implicity responsibility…man and woman…
I just reread the post. You are right. Apologies all around…
OK. And I didn’t consider it a hijack, as this thread is sort of all of the place. It’s just that you interjected some new issues, and I wasn’t sure where you wanted to go with them.
I didn’t say that was the way things were, but that is one the things we might consider. I couldn’t tell from your post, but it seemed you thought the process wasn’t fair-- ie, that a women gets all the choice, but the man is stuck with the consequences. That is a real issue, and I don’t know what the answer is.
In a way, if you support that position (the man must pay child support, regardless), then you (the general “you”) are making the same argument that **Kanikbird **is making-- you knew you could be creating a baby, so tough shit.
One thing to keep in mind is that until your grandmother (or someone like her) posts those views, then you’re arguing a strawman here. I don’t see anyone making the argument that women should be stoned to death if they get pregnant outside of marriage.
But keep in mind that most of us pro-choice people simply don’t buy the argument that a fetus is a human being, with all the rights of a human being. If you do think it is, then I can see how you come to your position. It’s an insurmountable problem to resolve, and we just have to agree to disagree.
Some of us just like to point out, though, that the idea that there is a “moment of conception” is simply wrong. There is no moment-- even something that seems as obvious and singular as conception is a process, not an event.
That was EXACTLY my point. As a man, I (the general I) am told that I should keep my hard dick in my pants if I want to stay out of paying child support. Yet, if you (the general you) were to tell a woman to quit spreading her legs, then that would be insensitive, and violating a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, and calling a woman a “dirty whore” for wanting to have sex, etc. etc.
No, I would agree with Kanicbird in that if a man sticks his erect penis in a woman, the condom, pill, or whatever, that hee is taking the same chance and SHOULD, note the word, SHOULD be responsible for any potential child that results.
But the inequality comes when the woman is not held to the same standard…
You misread my post. There are several posters in this thread that accuse a pro-life (or whatever term) person like me of wanting to punish women for having sex outside of marriage. Feel free to read all 200 plus posts. The accusations fly; we are not simply feeling that innocent human life is there, we want women to be “slaves” as was a post on page 5…
Well, are we restricting ourselves to Christian Fundamentalism in it’s current form in the United States? 'Cause I know a few Muslim Fundamentalist women who might have something to say about that.