aguyuno
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Posted: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:31:48 +0000
Note: Please, before posting here, keep in mind that I'm a pro-choicer but I was also an avid supporter of the various ideas supporter in that "Male's right to financial abortion" (or whatever they called it) thread. Essentially, I understand that the abortion is ultimately the females choice, but that if she chooses to keep the child while he doesn't want it, he should be able to severe all financial ties with the child. It is only fair, after all.
Note2: I'm also against women who are pro-life who b***h out other women who have abortion, since it shouldn't be their choice what they do EITHER. But I'm specifically refering to men here; if someone else wants to discuss the woman thing, by all means, do so. But please do it in another thread - you can talk about it here or whatever, if you want, but if I hear anyone go OMG UR SEXAST WUT ABOT DUM WOMEN, I will not even bother responding and will just block you and report your post. Kay? Kay.
Note3: This has been put in here as an edit, because far too many twits feel like commenting without actually bothering to read my entire post. So, I'm going to state this - OPINIONS ARE FINE. If you're male, and you're pro-life, but you AREN'T TRYING TO GET IT BANNED (you simply are against it), that's FINE. I've no issue with you! It's the males who take their opinion and try to make it a LAW, even though that law only downtrods on a group that has nothing to do with it! That's all I'm trying to say.
Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are certain things I'll never really understand in terms of judgment passing. I mean, it's bad enough to do it anyway, but listening to people make arguments against things they should really have no say over drives me mental. People claiming they should be able to use racist slurs (The "N" word especially) even though, really, why do they want to use it ANYWAY? Straights who claim that homosexuals shouldn't have rights, despite the fact that since when is it their choice as to what I do in my bedroom? Religious people (As in, NOT scientologists) who make fun of scientology repeatedly, which I find amusing because, as ridiculous as scientology is, I don't find the concept of Xenu any less (or any MORE) believable then, say, Eve being born of Adam's rib, and them starting the human race as we know it - a hilarious concept, considering how science has proven that incest results in severe mental deficiency of the child that comes from it.
But this thread does not revolve around any of these topics. No, this thread revolves around men who feel they should be able to be against a woman having full bodily integrity - that is, having control over what is intruding on her body. The hell? Where did THIS idea suddenly spawn from?
Well, let's take a look:
My DNA is in there, so I get a choice too!
Why does your choice override hers? Sure, it's a given that you should be able to give your input, but any one with even a fleck of knowledge in their brain should know that, in this case, the female gets to ultimately decide what's happening with it.
It'd be like if your daughter (As an adult, living autonomously of you I mean) wanted implants, and you said no. Then, when she gets them, you go on some sort of huge tyrade about how she shouldn't get to choose because "Your DNA is in her"! You really think that s**t would fly in courts? Haha, no.
It's the same thing here, friend.
But I want the kid!
Then adopt! Or find a partner who WILL have a kid with you if it's so important! Don't just expect your wife to have your child because YOU want it. You should've talked to her about it before hand so that this wouldn't happen.
And if you did and she just changed your mind, while I can understand you being pissed off to a large extent, it IS still her choice ultimately. NOT yours. Live with it.
It's against my religion!
And I care because..?
Seriously, mate, what makes you think your RELIGIOUS beliefs suddenly trump HERS? What if it was my belief that my wife had to cut off both big toes and her right ear - would she automatically have to do that just because it's part of my religion? Perhaps in the 1600s, sure, but not these days, mate. This is the bloody 21st century - get with the times!
She's killing potential life
This argument is stupid for two reasons.
1) It's not 'potential life' - it IS life. Last I checked, a fetus was living. No one, not even pro-choicers, claim that it's non-organic, because that would be retarded. It's not fully developed, obviously, but it IS alive. It is, however, not a person and thus it does not have the same rights as a 'person' does.
2) But let's pretend it IS a person for a second, and go with point 2. If a man is trying to rape you, is it not within the self defence clause that you can use sufficient force to stop them from using your body against your will? And if that means you have to stab or shoot the guy, wouldn't that be legal? A fetus can't exactly exist outside of the woman's womb, obviously, however it IS her body - if it's against her will for it to be using her body, then she has the right to use sufficient force to stop it from doing so. Simply removing it would, obviously, kill it in general, so it hardly matters how they go about it.
The other point though is...
By that logic, aren't people on their period killing potential life too? Hey, that egg could've been a child!
And what about you? I'm sure you've masturbated before, or had oral sex, or done something in general that causes you to ejaculate NOT during intercourse - wouldn't that be wasting potential life too? Hey, that sperm could've been used to fertilize someone! *Gasp* You're a bloody murderer!
Obviously, no one would ever argue something that retarded. But maybe we should - perhaps doing so would make you idiots think for a while. Just like that bill that wasn't meant to pass but rather just make people think, that stated that since people who 'aren't going to have kids together' (ie, homosexuals) can't marry, neither should straights who don't want kids/can't have kids be able to.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used to be of the variety where abortion was okay in instances of rape and such, but that if it was just from being too rowdy they should face consequences, however ED threads have since changed my opinion as I've thought about it more and I'm now fully pro-choice.
This said, even when I was 'conditionally pro-choice', I never argued against abortion. Why? Because I felt that even if it wasn't necessairily something I agreed with, it was NOT something I had the right to put any input into in terms of making it illegal or whatever.
Discuss:
- Why in the HELL is it okay for people who are inaffected by abortion to make the choices about it?
- Your reasons for being a pro-lifer/pro-choicer
- Abortion
Note2: I'm also against women who are pro-life who b***h out other women who have abortion, since it shouldn't be their choice what they do EITHER. But I'm specifically refering to men here; if someone else wants to discuss the woman thing, by all means, do so. But please do it in another thread - you can talk about it here or whatever, if you want, but if I hear anyone go OMG UR SEXAST WUT ABOT DUM WOMEN, I will not even bother responding and will just block you and report your post. Kay? Kay.
Note3: This has been put in here as an edit, because far too many twits feel like commenting without actually bothering to read my entire post. So, I'm going to state this - OPINIONS ARE FINE. If you're male, and you're pro-life, but you AREN'T TRYING TO GET IT BANNED (you simply are against it), that's FINE. I've no issue with you! It's the males who take their opinion and try to make it a LAW, even though that law only downtrods on a group that has nothing to do with it! That's all I'm trying to say.
Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are certain things I'll never really understand in terms of judgment passing. I mean, it's bad enough to do it anyway, but listening to people make arguments against things they should really have no say over drives me mental. People claiming they should be able to use racist slurs (The "N" word especially) even though, really, why do they want to use it ANYWAY? Straights who claim that homosexuals shouldn't have rights, despite the fact that since when is it their choice as to what I do in my bedroom? Religious people (As in, NOT scientologists) who make fun of scientology repeatedly, which I find amusing because, as ridiculous as scientology is, I don't find the concept of Xenu any less (or any MORE) believable then, say, Eve being born of Adam's rib, and them starting the human race as we know it - a hilarious concept, considering how science has proven that incest results in severe mental deficiency of the child that comes from it.
But this thread does not revolve around any of these topics. No, this thread revolves around men who feel they should be able to be against a woman having full bodily integrity - that is, having control over what is intruding on her body. The hell? Where did THIS idea suddenly spawn from?
Well, let's take a look:
My DNA is in there, so I get a choice too!
Why does your choice override hers? Sure, it's a given that you should be able to give your input, but any one with even a fleck of knowledge in their brain should know that, in this case, the female gets to ultimately decide what's happening with it.
It'd be like if your daughter (As an adult, living autonomously of you I mean) wanted implants, and you said no. Then, when she gets them, you go on some sort of huge tyrade about how she shouldn't get to choose because "Your DNA is in her"! You really think that s**t would fly in courts? Haha, no.
It's the same thing here, friend.
But I want the kid!
Then adopt! Or find a partner who WILL have a kid with you if it's so important! Don't just expect your wife to have your child because YOU want it. You should've talked to her about it before hand so that this wouldn't happen.
And if you did and she just changed your mind, while I can understand you being pissed off to a large extent, it IS still her choice ultimately. NOT yours. Live with it.
It's against my religion!
And I care because..?
Seriously, mate, what makes you think your RELIGIOUS beliefs suddenly trump HERS? What if it was my belief that my wife had to cut off both big toes and her right ear - would she automatically have to do that just because it's part of my religion? Perhaps in the 1600s, sure, but not these days, mate. This is the bloody 21st century - get with the times!
She's killing potential life
This argument is stupid for two reasons.
1) It's not 'potential life' - it IS life. Last I checked, a fetus was living. No one, not even pro-choicers, claim that it's non-organic, because that would be retarded. It's not fully developed, obviously, but it IS alive. It is, however, not a person and thus it does not have the same rights as a 'person' does.
2) But let's pretend it IS a person for a second, and go with point 2. If a man is trying to rape you, is it not within the self defence clause that you can use sufficient force to stop them from using your body against your will? And if that means you have to stab or shoot the guy, wouldn't that be legal? A fetus can't exactly exist outside of the woman's womb, obviously, however it IS her body - if it's against her will for it to be using her body, then she has the right to use sufficient force to stop it from doing so. Simply removing it would, obviously, kill it in general, so it hardly matters how they go about it.
The other point though is...
By that logic, aren't people on their period killing potential life too? Hey, that egg could've been a child!
And what about you? I'm sure you've masturbated before, or had oral sex, or done something in general that causes you to ejaculate NOT during intercourse - wouldn't that be wasting potential life too? Hey, that sperm could've been used to fertilize someone! *Gasp* You're a bloody murderer!
Obviously, no one would ever argue something that retarded. But maybe we should - perhaps doing so would make you idiots think for a while. Just like that bill that wasn't meant to pass but rather just make people think, that stated that since people who 'aren't going to have kids together' (ie, homosexuals) can't marry, neither should straights who don't want kids/can't have kids be able to.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used to be of the variety where abortion was okay in instances of rape and such, but that if it was just from being too rowdy they should face consequences, however ED threads have since changed my opinion as I've thought about it more and I'm now fully pro-choice.
This said, even when I was 'conditionally pro-choice', I never argued against abortion. Why? Because I felt that even if it wasn't necessairily something I agreed with, it was NOT something I had the right to put any input into in terms of making it illegal or whatever.
Discuss:
- Why in the HELL is it okay for people who are inaffected by abortion to make the choices about it?
- Your reasons for being a pro-lifer/pro-choicer
- Abortion
