|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:21 am
Tiger of the Fire Yes. I disagree to any papers what so ever. The mans word should be more then good enough to give up fathe rhood if a woman's word is the same for an abortion. If a woman agree to be a mother and then suddenly decides to abort she dosn't even have to tell her husband or boyfriend and no responcibilty or consoquence is placed on her. But when a man does the same he gets slapped with child support. No, not fair. Would you agree that a woman seekign to abort the child he wishes to keep and raise should be held ot the same standards if such a system were implimented? It still would not create a fairness and equality standard if not. He would have to prove he never intended to be a father if she pleads to a court, where he would still have no say over whether or not she can abort. Unfortunately, it takes a woman's word AND a medical procedure to allow a woman to give up her parental responsibilities. So it would take a man's word AND a legal document to allow a man to do so. Not fair, but maybe fair er. If a really fast court system were implimented, I would agree that any disputed unexpected pregnancy (man wants the child, woman doesn't or woman wants the child, man doesn't) should be taken to that court and desided before the second trimester is over. In a case where the woman wishes to abort and the man wishes to keep the pregnancy and raise child, it would be up to the man to prove that the woman agreed to have the pregnancy or that the termination of the pregnancy would cause him undue mental and emotional trauma. Yeah, so I've thought this through before...I think it might work somewhat (at least more than the current system, which sux big time).
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:40 am
But what does she need to have the medical procedure? Nothign other then her word. She dosn't need to sighn an agreement, dosn't need to proove anything, dosn't need to tell any one. For it to be fare then, a man only need say he no longer wishes to be the father, and then fill out the necesarry paperwork so that when the child is born they can not put the "fathers" name down on the birth cirtificate. No agreements, no need to proove anything. Mearly an official statement to the woman declaring he is no longer the child's father. No coart rullign needed. No lawers. Nothing else other then his decliration.
I'm glad we agree one somthign though. Probelm is, such a coart would never come to pass. Never come to existence. Such a suggestion would be shot down before yu could even finish your argument. And I doubt it would be used very much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:21 am
WatersMoon110 Lady_Amalthea You know, I've talked to a lot of pro-choicers about the issue of men who want the child and they always rebuttal with, "But he isn't the one who has to carry it", or "He shouldn't have had sex with a pro-choicer" etc. This is part of the cold, heartless, mentality of the pro-choice crowd. I know this, as a fact, because I used to be vocally pro-choice so I know what kind of ideology they have and I'm so ashamed I used to think like that too cry I can't speak for anyone but myself, and I won't try to. But it is sad that this man, who wanted this pregnancy to continue and wanted to raise and love the resulting child, did not get that chance. But I would disagree that EITHER side of this issue is "cold" or "heartless". I would also say that we have no idea what the woman involved is/was feeling, or what situation led her to make the choice she did. If you feel that when you were "vocally pro-choice" your mentality was "cold" and "heartless", I can't tell you that is or isn't true. If you would have told this grieving man that "he shouldn't have had sex with a pro-choicer" I would have probably called you a little cold, as I would to anyone who made such a mean and horrible remark to a grieving person. But I can honestly say that I wouldn't tell him, or anyone else that. I have adviced men who are against abortion to make sure that they don't have sex with women who are Pro-Choice, so they won't be in this tearful, difficult situation. But it isn't as though this poor guy can do anything about his previous choice after the fact. I think that situations like this are horrible. When one person involved wants to keep a pregnancy and the other doesn't, there is always going to be heartache. I hope for a fool-proof 100% effective form of contraceptive (as well as financial help for pregnant women and children living in poverty), that will (hopefully) keep this sort of mess from ever happening again. Unless this woman was one the extremely rare cases who could not carry through a pregnancy due to serious health problems then, yes, I would say it's cold and heartless to kill her unborn. It's even more so because the father wanted the child, which is 50% his. It's cold and heartless when someone destroys a life because 9 months of naturally carrying them is inconvenient to them. It's cold and heartless when a father has no rights until the child is born. It's cold and heartless when someone puts a woman in a place where she is forced into having an abortion. It's cold and heartless that young pregnant women and single mothers are looked down upon by many in our society. It's cold and heartless that killing a human being is called "choice" If you accept that killing an unborn for someone’s convenience should be kept legal then, yes, you have a cold and heartless ideology. I'm no better since I thought this way too; it was hard to admit I was wrong and there is no excuse for my former beliefs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:18 am
WatersMoon110 La Veuve Zin WatersMoon110 I hope for a fool-proof 100% effective form of contraceptive (as well as financial help for pregnant women and children living in poverty), that will (hopefully) keep this sort of mess from ever happening again. Or at least one that's 99% effective and free. Or 99% effective and doesn't triple your risk of heart disease? OH WAIT THOSE ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE TO MEN. I'll stop ranting while the snark's still at normal levels... stare Are you talking about condoms or the male birth control pill? Because condoms are very effective, but not fool-proof, and I don't think the male birth control is out yet. And free condoms are much more likely to have defects than the ones you pay (a lot) for. Oh! And there are female condoms (which are increadably expensive) which are made of poly-eurothane (I spelled that wrong), so good for people with latex alergies. But these are less fool-proof, since people will likely be tempted to use them along with male condoms, and that makes them both much more likely to break. Yeah, I was kind of vague... sweatdrop ...sort of started out as a simple add-on rant.... Anyhoo, I've found good quality condoms for free, and vasectomies are very safe. And they should be free. Basically, birth control is a lot easier for men than it is for women. Why should women have to mess with their hormones? I've used the female condoms. They look weird and they can hurt because of the stiff plastic rings. stressed Male polyurethane ones make so much more sense but you rarely find them given away for free. Women need to have higher standards, put their feet down and say NO CONDOM, NO p***y! scream
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:27 am
Lady_Amalthea WatersMoon110 Lady_Amalthea You know, I've talked to a lot of pro-choicers about the issue of men who want the child and they always rebuttal with, "But he isn't the one who has to carry it", or "He shouldn't have had sex with a pro-choicer" etc. This is part of the cold, heartless, mentality of the pro-choice crowd. I know this, as a fact, because I used to be vocally pro-choice so I know what kind of ideology they have and I'm so ashamed I used to think like that too cry I can't speak for anyone but myself, and I won't try to. But it is sad that this man, who wanted this pregnancy to continue and wanted to raise and love the resulting child, did not get that chance. But I would disagree that EITHER side of this issue is "cold" or "heartless". I would also say that we have no idea what the woman involved is/was feeling, or what situation led her to make the choice she did. If you feel that when you were "vocally pro-choice" your mentality was "cold" and "heartless", I can't tell you that is or isn't true. If you would have told this grieving man that "he shouldn't have had sex with a pro-choicer" I would have probably called you a little cold, as I would to anyone who made such a mean and horrible remark to a grieving person. But I can honestly say that I wouldn't tell him, or anyone else that. I have adviced men who are against abortion to make sure that they don't have sex with women who are Pro-Choice, so they won't be in this tearful, difficult situation. But it isn't as though this poor guy can do anything about his previous choice after the fact. I think that situations like this are horrible. When one person involved wants to keep a pregnancy and the other doesn't, there is always going to be heartache. I hope for a fool-proof 100% effective form of contraceptive (as well as financial help for pregnant women and children living in poverty), that will (hopefully) keep this sort of mess from ever happening again. Unless this woman was one the extremely rare cases who could not carry through a pregnancy due to serious health problems then, yes, I would say it's cold and heartless to kill her unborn. It's even more so because the father wanted the child, which is 50% his. It's cold and heartless when someone destroys a life because 9 months of naturally carrying them is inconvenient to them. It's cold and heartless when a father has no rights until the child is born. It's cold and heartless when someone puts a woman in a place where she is forced into having an abortion. It's cold and heartless that young pregnant women and single mothers are looked down upon by many in our society. It's cold and heartless that killing a human being is called "choice" If you accept that killing an unborn for someone’s convenience should be kept legal then, yes, you have a cold and heartless ideology. I'm no better since I thought this way too; it was hard to admit I was wrong and there is no excuse for my former beliefs 1. Being Pro-Choice and getting an abortion are two different things. Many people who are Pro-Choice will never abort (and some even are personally Pro-Life and wouldn't even abort an unexepected pregnancy. There are even people who are politically Pro-Life and yet get abortions! 2. You said that Pro-Choicers were "cold" and "heartless", then claimed that you previously being one made this true. You didn't say that you felt that aborting or aproving of abortion was such. You are more than free to feel that something/someone is "cold" and "heartless". But calling an entire group of people so, because you disagree with them, is both wrong and unneeded. 3. Quote: It's cold and heartless when someone puts a woman in a place where she is forced into having an abortion. It's cold and heartless that young pregnant women and single mothers are looked down upon by many in our society. I don't think that you can: A. Blame Pro-Choicers for these. B. Find any Pro-Choicers who would disagree that these are both cold and heartless. Forced abortion (either purposely like in Saipan or culturally like in India) are both horrible and wrong, and not a choice, so they don't fall under the concept of Pro-Choice. Pro-Choicers want the woman to be able to choose what she will do. Pro-Abortion people want to force the woman to abort. Pregnant women and single mothers being threated badly is horrible. Unfortunatly many people (who are probably on both sides of this debate) continue to treat these people badly. Pro-Choicers should, and most do, support people who choose to remain pregnant and raise children, because that is their choice! Like I said, you are free to believe that abortion and the concept of choice are "cold" and "heartless". But continuing to call all Pro-Choicers such will get you more long posts from me about why stereotyping people is wrong. *grin*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:31 am
La Veuve Zin WatersMoon110 La Veuve Zin WatersMoon110 I hope for a fool-proof 100% effective form of contraceptive (as well as financial help for pregnant women and children living in poverty), that will (hopefully) keep this sort of mess from ever happening again. Or at least one that's 99% effective and free. Or 99% effective and doesn't triple your risk of heart disease? OH WAIT THOSE ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE TO MEN. I'll stop ranting while the snark's still at normal levels... stare Are you talking about condoms or the male birth control pill? Because condoms are very effective, but not fool-proof, and I don't think the male birth control is out yet. And free condoms are much more likely to have defects than the ones you pay (a lot) for. Oh! And there are female condoms (which are increadably expensive) which are made of poly-eurothane (I spelled that wrong), so good for people with latex alergies. But these are less fool-proof, since people will likely be tempted to use them along with male condoms, and that makes them both much more likely to break. Yeah, I was kind of vague... sweatdrop ...sort of started out as a simple add-on rant.... Anyhoo, I've found good quality condoms for free, and vasectomies are very safe. And they should be free. Basically, birth control is a lot easier for men than it is for women. Why should women have to mess with their hormones? I've used the female condoms. They look weird and they can hurt because of the stiff plastic rings. stressed Male polyurethane ones make so much more sense but you rarely find them given away for free. Women need to have higher standards, put their feet down and say NO CONDOM, NO p***y! scream Very much agreed. I've only used one female condom, but I thought it hurt less than the ridged male condoms (friction = ouch for AJ). Vasectomies are wonderful for men who never want any (more) children! I wish that they were cheaper or free, because of how effective they are. I'm still hoping for a 100% effective, fool-proof contracptive someday. Then no one will ever have to get an abortion unless it is for health reasons (like a dead fetus that doesn't miscarry, etc.)!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:32 am
Tiger of the Fire But what does she need to have the medical procedure? Nothign other then her word. She dosn't need to sighn an agreement, dosn't need to proove anything, dosn't need to tell any one. For it to be fare then, a man only need say he no longer wishes to be the father, and then fill out the necesarry paperwork so that when the child is born they can not put the "fathers" name down on the birth cirtificate. No agreements, no need to proove anything. Mearly an official statement to the woman declaring he is no longer the child's father. No coart rullign needed. No lawers. Nothing else other then his decliration. I'm glad we agree one somthign though. Probelm is, such a coart would never come to pass. Never come to existence. Such a suggestion would be shot down before yu could even finish your argument. And I doubt it would be used very much. Agreed. Without such a court, it should only take the man signing a legal document for him to opt out of parenting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:48 am
she was not calling choicers cold and heartless as people, but the ideology behind it, the system that would allow a woman to kill her child and call it a choice. although it is a fine line, it is still a line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:24 am
divineseraph she was not calling choicers cold and heartless as people, but the ideology behind it, the system that would allow a woman to kill her child and call it a choice. although it is a fine line, it is still a line. And she is free to believe that it is "cold" and "heartless". She, and everyone else is free to believe whatever they like. But saying that all Pro-Choicers are "cold" and "heartless" is both a horrible stereotype (which cannot be proven) and wrong. She didn't say that she believes the all to be such, she said that they were and I challenged that and will continue to challange it. Stereotypes are both almost always wrong (because there are almost no generalities shared by large groups of people) and prove to hurt the person who makes them. When one dismisses any group by all being something (like the horrible Pro-Life = anti-women stereotype that I challenge in the PCG and the Debate) one does not allow logic and facts to the contrary to register in oneself and one removes the possibility of one's own personal growth in that area. Are there "cold" and "heartless" Pro-Choicers? I'm sure there are plenty. There are also probably Pro-Lifers who hate women (I think I've met a couple in the Debate). But by no means are the entire groups any one thing. She did state: Lady_Amalthea This is part of the cold, heartless, mentality of the pro-choice crowd. I know this, as a fact, because I used to be vocally pro-choice so I know what kind of ideology they have and I'm so ashamed I used to think like that too I would say that she is calling Pro-Choicers "cold" and "heartless" and that is what I objected and continue to object to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:33 pm
WatersMoon110 1. Being Pro-Choice and getting an abortion are two different things. Many people who are Pro-Choice will never abort (and some even are personally Pro-Life and wouldn't even abort an unexepected pregnancy. There are even people who are politically Pro-Life and yet get abortions! You may not choose to kill your unborn, but that doesn't change the fact that other people are getting killed before they're born, legally. Quote: 2. You said that Pro-Choicers were "cold" and "heartless", then claimed that you previously being one made this true. You didn't say that you felt that aborting or aproving of abortion was such. You are more than free to feel that something/someone is "cold" and "heartless". But calling an entire group of people so, because you disagree with them, is both wrong and unneeded. No, I claimed the ideology is cold and heartless. I don't believe anyone is cold or heartless, people are not monsters, we just chose to do and think bad things. 3. Quote: It's cold and heartless when someone puts a woman in a place where she is forced into having an abortion. It's cold and heartless that young pregnant women and single mothers are looked down upon by many in our society. I don't think that you can: A. Blame Pro-Choicers for these. B. Find any Pro-Choicers who would disagree that these are both cold and heartless. I wasn't suggesting that these points were strictly part of the pro-choice ideology, my bad if I wasn't putting that across Quote: Forced abortion (either purposely like in Saipan or culturally like in India) are both horrible and wrong, and not a choice, so they don't fall under the concept of Pro-Choice. Pro-Choicers want the woman to be able to choose what she will do. Pro-Abortion people want to force the woman to abort. I didn't mean, so much, "force" as in dragging a woman to a clinic and holding her down, rather, the amount of pressure that is put on women to abort. Quote: Pregnant women and single mothers being threated badly is horrible. Unfortunatly many people (who are probably on both sides of this debate) continue to treat these people badly. Pro-Choicers should, and most do, support people who choose to remain pregnant and raise children, because that is their choice! As long as abortion is legal, women will be pressured to have them. To simply say "I believe in choice" is not a realistic ideology. That's like ridding of cops and expecting people to use their judgement and not commit crime; it's not realistic. Quote: Like I said, you are free to believe that abortion and the concept of choice are "cold" and "heartless". But continuing to call all Pro-Choicers such will get you more long posts from me about why stereotyping people is wrong. *grin* As mentioned above, I believe that support legal abortion is cold and heartless, but the people supporting it are not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:11 am
Tiger of the Fire Hmmm..I disagree. No agreement is sighned by both man and woman when a woman decides to abort. If that be the case then a man not opting to be a father should have every right to say "My DNA, sure. Not my kid though, not my problem." Not moral, mabey. But fair. Woman can opt not to be mothers by having abortions. Men should be able to have a similer right. Sadly, they do not. Of coarse there comes about the problem when the woman wants the child. She feels she can force her opinoins oin the man. Its his child too she will say. Its his flesh and blood as well. Well, he didn't have to carrey it for nine months, he didn't have to feed it for nine months. He didn't do any of the work other then puign it there. Why then when so many woman say he can't have a say during the nine motnhs of growth and development before birth should responcibility be suddenly forced on him when the child is born? Then men should be able to declare that they do not accept responsibility for the child, since (if abortion is kept legal) women can too. ((I mean, it's better than men FORCING women to abort just because "it's their child too")) Bob: Honey, I don't want a kid yet! Mary: Well, we're going to have one and YOU have to pay for it! Later, at whatever legal housing..Official: Mary Doe, do you hereby [[insert load of fancy talk here]] realize that Bob will not have responsiblity or custody over the child? Mary: Yes. Official: And Bob, you relinquish ALL rights over the child in exchange for illeginimacy ((or whatever it's called)) and you'll not have to pay stuff and the child welfare thing? Bob: Yes. Now Bob has a get-out-of-pregnancy card too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:12 am
WatersMoon110 Tiger of the Fire But what does she need to have the medical procedure? Nothign other then her word. She dosn't need to sighn an agreement, dosn't need to proove anything, dosn't need to tell any one. For it to be fare then, a man only need say he no longer wishes to be the father, and then fill out the necesarry paperwork so that when the child is born they can not put the "fathers" name down on the birth cirtificate. No agreements, no need to proove anything. Mearly an official statement to the woman declaring he is no longer the child's father. No coart rullign needed. No lawers. Nothing else other then his decliration. I'm glad we agree one somthign though. Probelm is, such a coart would never come to pass. Never come to existence. Such a suggestion would be shot down before yu could even finish your argument. And I doubt it would be used very much. Agreed. Without such a court, it should only take the man signing a legal document for him to opt out of parenting. ..Hot Damn, I just made a long-a** post but then realized I overlooked the fact that YOU just posted it! blaugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:37 am
..Le Chat du Noir.. Tiger of the Fire Hmmm..I disagree. No agreement is sighned by both man and woman when a woman decides to abort. If that be the case then a man not opting to be a father should have every right to say "My DNA, sure. Not my kid though, not my problem." Not moral, mabey. But fair. Woman can opt not to be mothers by having abortions. Men should be able to have a similer right. Sadly, they do not. Of coarse there comes about the problem when the woman wants the child. She feels she can force her opinoins oin the man. Its his child too she will say. Its his flesh and blood as well. Well, he didn't have to carrey it for nine months, he didn't have to feed it for nine months. He didn't do any of the work other then puign it there. Why then when so many woman say he can't have a say during the nine motnhs of growth and development before birth should responcibility be suddenly forced on him when the child is born? Then men should be able to declare that they do not accept responsibility for the child, since (if abortion is kept legal) women can too. ((I mean, it's better than men FORCING women to abort just because "it's their child too")) Bob: Honey, I don't want a kid yet! Mary: Well, we're going to have one and YOU have to pay for it! Later, at whatever legal housing..Official: Mary Doe, do you hereby [[insert load of fancy talk here]] realize that Bob will not have responsiblity or custody over the child? Mary: Yes. Official: And Bob, you relinquish ALL rights over the child in exchange for illeginimacy ((or whatever it's called)) and you'll not have to pay stuff and the child welfare thing? Bob: Yes. Now Bob has a get-out-of-pregnancy card too! Already talked about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:53 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
