[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I view this with the thoughts of the woman first, the fetus second.
Right, this is what we keep hearing. The woman gets to murder because the unborn human is in the womb. The philosophical reason why murder is acceptable are never given, it’s just “in the mother.”
no forced pregnancies and no back alley abortions.
The only “forced” pregnancies are technically rapes. Other than that, contraception was not used properly. I fail to see how the baby deserves murder because of the mother’s poor planning. [/quote]
yes… the woman’s right is paramount
and yes… forced pregnancies happen
so if a woman doesn’t have a right in your arguments, the men really don’t have a right
but… you and I both know we will never agree. No amount of rhetoric will change the fact that a woman, a fully grown human being, has rights above that of a fetus.
I don’t think anyone who’s actually parented a child ever views abortion as a first line of birth control. But, I’d much rather see the procedure safe then go back to pre-1973 standards.
Also, if gender disqualifies you from ever having to have an abortion, you should probably (myself included) shut the fuck up. BTW Pat, you’re the grumpiest fuckin’ deadhead I’ve ever seen.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Amused59 wrote:
But, I’d much rather see the procedure safe then go back to pre-1973 standards.
Safe for whom? Over 90% of all abortions are abortions of convenience. If it was illegal maybe women would think twice before spreading their legs.
Interesting how personal responsibility goes out the window gradually…
(Oh that’s so mean Mick…)[/quote]
how does it help the discussion to say things in such an insulting way such as “women would think twice before spreading their legs.”?
why the smear campaign?
your credibility goes out the window and you sound like a misogynist
and another man calling it “personal” responsibility… yah… so you men really are acknowledging you are not responsible and you don’t have rights in regards to this issue. Those are your words.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
and another man calling it “personal” responsibility… yah… so you men really are acknowledging you are not responsible and you don’t have rights in regards to this issue. Those are your words.[/quote]
If men don’t have rights, they don’t have responsibility.
Perhaps I’m reading your post wrong, but I figured I’d throw that out there.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
and another man calling it “personal” responsibility… yah… so you men really are acknowledging you are not responsible and you don’t have rights in regards to this issue. Those are your words.
If men don’t have rights, they don’t have responsibility.
Perhaps I’m reading your post wrong, but I figured I’d throw that out there.[/quote]
oh those aren’t my words Mak, those are the words of some of the male posters
you didn’t catch me in a mess up, I was just repeating
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Safe for whom? Over 90% of all abortions are abortions of convenience. If it was illegal maybe women would think twice before spreading their legs.
Interesting how personal responsibility goes out the window gradually…
(Oh that’s so mean Mick…)[/quote]
And perhaps men should think twice about where they stick their cocks.
Unless you can cure all of societies ills that require abortion to be necessary, then you’re not going to see it go away anytime soon.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I view this with the thoughts of the woman first, the fetus second.
Right, this is what we keep hearing. The woman gets to murder because the unborn human is in the womb. The philosophical reason why murder is acceptable are never given, it’s just “in the mother.”
[/quote]
The philosophical reason why it is “murder” is also never given, therefore no one needs to defend against that accusation.
murder:
Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries. Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification.
See, abortion is not murder.
Murder is a legal definition and as such up for debate.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[…]If men don’t have rights, they don’t have responsibility.[…][/quote]
We’ve covered this before: the right to child support is the child’s right towards the parents once it’s born - not a right of the mother towards the father as so often implied.
So, while the fathers have no right over their partner’s bodies (and rightly so), and vice versa btw - they are subject to their children’s rights.
It says something about all those alledgedly committed fathers that so many of them seem to leave the responsibility to their former partners, who will then have represent their children against them - which in turns creates the erroneous impression that it’s the mothers they are paying child support for.
In plain words - there is no excuse for trying to sneak out of parental responsibilities like paying child support, or actually bringing up the child. Yet so many men do.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
[…] But, the fact remains that if women didn’t spread their legs when they shouldn’t there would be no problem.
The truth stated so cruely seems harsh huh? [/quote]
Yes, those evil women with their feminine wiles - making men forget all about taking on their own responsibility for contraception. An unwanted pregnancy is the result of both partners’ (in-)actions.
[quote]makkun wrote:
We’ve covered this before: the right to child support is the child’s right towards the parents once it’s born - not a right of the mother towards the father as so often implied.
So, while the fathers have no right over their partner’s bodies (and rightly so), and vice versa btw - they are subject to their children’s rights.
It says something about all those alledgedly committed fathers that so many of them seem to leave the responsibility to their former partners, who will then have represent their children against them - which in turns creates the erroneous impression that it’s the mothers they are paying child support for.
In plain words - there is no excuse for trying to sneak out of parental responsibilities like paying child support, or actually bringing up the child. Yet so many men do.
Makkun[/quote]
I’m pretty narrow minded on this. If I was put in this situation like this… I would try and get full custody. I personally don’t want someone I don’t trust to raise my kids ad fritter away my money on something other than the children.
To be honest, if I ever tried to get out of supporting my children, I would ask that you all beat me to death with a rusty barbell.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[…]I’m pretty narrow minded on this. If I was put in this situation like this… I would try and get full custody. I personally don’t want someone I don’t trust to raise my kids ad fritter away my money on something other than the children.[/quote]
Well, normally it should be assumed you only have sex with people you trust. Yes, relationships and trust can break down spectacularly - but it’s not that easy to get sole custody of your child just because you don’t trust or like the other person anymore. Custody is not about entitlement - it’s foremost about responsibility towards the child, not about the conflict with the mother. I would worry about that first, not how the money my child is to receive from me by law is spent.
I would think just for giving a thought about it, you don’t fit into that demographic - lots of men unfortunately do. And that’s a shame. Beating them with barbells will help less than making sure they learn that being an irresponsible fathers is not a manly but a cowardly thing to do.
This is the part in the Internet debate where you start throwing around shit that I didn’t say, nor did I intend.[/quote]
So what did you mean then? Your statement was:
‘But, the fact remains that if women didn’t spread their legs when they shouldn’t there would be no problem.’
Let’s analyse:
You specify ‘women’, not ‘men and women’ or ‘people’.
You use the pejorative ‘spread their legs’ which again puts the responsibility (dare I say blame) with the women.
You use ‘when they shouldn’t’ implying there are guidelines for said women when it is appropriate to engage in sexual activity and when not. I’d be interested (but slightly fearful to learn) what those guidelines are. Remember the OP talked about a couple that is engaged - how much more appropriate can it get?
You state that if women did not engage in the above, ‘there would be no problem’. Ergo: You lay the responsibility for the problem clearly again with women.
So in summary, I think you just did say that - but I take it with great relief that you may have not meant that. I’m happy to move on then.
Good that we agree with the ‘evil’ bit - I admit that was a bit of rhetoric I used there - just like you with the ‘spreading their legs’ comment.
But wait - what you say now is that while both partners bear responsibility (to which I agree), it is indeed the woman’s responsibility (and right) to decide whether to have an abortion. Cool - I can live with that, as I believe indeed that it’s the women’s decision and it’s not for anyone to interfere.
[quote]I wonder how you’ll try to twist that one.
I can’t wait.[/quote]
See above - just followed your line of arguing. But hey, we all go a bit heated sometimes.