|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:08 pm
The problem though is that, admitedly, for right now, he does have to deal with it. For right now he can't have casual sex and not have to worry. Thats actualy a myth I guess some woman don't get about men and the way most laws work. If he dosn't want to be a father, he has to deal with social stigmata about being a dead beat that dosn't care for his family, even when it may not be his family in his opinoin since he never wanted a kid. He has to deal with child support, he has to deal with contently being accosted by family and friends because he simply did not want this child and so chose to leave the girl or ignore her.
Most work places tend to look down on a man who leaves his girld fried or what ever because he dosn't want the kid. He's called irrisponcibal. SOme times his employers will think that if he can't be responcibal with a kid or at the ver least sex, what will make him responcibal in managment or for a promotion. And then he's forced to help take care of a child he never wanted in the first place.
Its a double standard and its flat wrong. This ultimetly goes back to woman having an option out of parenting but men don't. If women can have the choice to abort, then men should have the option not to pay child support. YOu can say its diffrent, and you knwo what, you're right. Why can women choose not to see the ones growing in them as their children, but men can't? Why can women have a way out of parenting but men can't?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:34 pm
WatersMoon110 La Veuve Zin And Waters: ZOMG NO ONE DIES IN AN ABORTION!! ABORTION IS NOTHING LIKE MURDER!! AT ALL!! NO COMPARISON WHATSOEVER!!! Sorry, triggered the sarcasm valve there... xp Perhaps, before you get all sarcastic about something I've said, you could try fully reading my post. This is really getting old. If you are going to make fun of me, you could at the very least have the decency to do it about things I've actually said as opposed to things I haven't said and often don't mean at all. I said that because shoplifting doesn't involve someone dying, it makes it HARDER to compare it to abortion than it is to compare murder to abortion. Hon, I wasn't making fun of you, just of other people's rhetoric. sad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 1:11 am
Tiger of the Fire The problem though is that, admitedly, for right now, he does have to deal with it. For right now he can't have casual sex and not have to worry. Thats actualy a myth I guess some woman don't get about men and the way most laws work. If he dosn't want to be a father, he has to deal with social stigmata about being a dead beat that dosn't care for his family, even when it may not be his family in his opinoin since he never wanted a kid. He has to deal with child support, he has to deal with contently being accosted by family and friends because he simply did not want this child and so chose to leave the girl or ignore her. Most work places tend to look down on a man who leaves his girld fried or what ever because he dosn't want the kid. He's called irrisponcibal. SOme times his employers will think that if he can't be responcibal with a kid or at the ver least sex, what will make him responcibal in managment or for a promotion. And then he's forced to help take care of a child he never wanted in the first place. Its a double standard and its flat wrong. This ultimetly goes back to woman having an option out of parenting but men don't. If women can have the choice to abort, then men should have the option not to pay child support. YOu can say its diffrent, and you knwo what, you're right. Why can women choose not to see the ones growing in them as their children, but men can't? Why can women have a way out of parenting but men can't? See, I agree with that last paragraph. I think it's wrong that men HAVE to pay child support no matter how much they didn't want the kid. If they opt out of parenting while she's pregnant, I don't think they shuold have to pay child support, and I don't think that's irresponsible. Of course I'd hope that the couple would make the choice about the pregnancy together, but if he really doesn't want it and she does, that option should be there. I also meant that if a guy gets a girl he slept with once pregnant, and didn't really know anything about her - a one-night stand, say - and she didn't know who he was particularly, just took him home that night... he can go without worry if he uses a condom. I'm not saying lots of people do this, but he won't worry if he used a condom. If she unluckily fell pregnant, he's already out of the picture and on to the next girl. And she is left unable to continue having casual sex UNLESS she aborts. I hope that makes sense. :/ If it comes out unclear I'm sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:38 am
No, he's not out of the picture. If she wanted him all she has to do to day is submit for a DNA testing of the child. We have technology to find these things out now very very early on, so he's not off the hook. Sorry, he still dosn't have it easier then the woman.
And, actualy, its perfectly possible to have sex while you're pregnant, you just have to know how.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:43 am
La Veuve Zin WatersMoon110 La Veuve Zin And Waters: ZOMG NO ONE DIES IN AN ABORTION!! ABORTION IS NOTHING LIKE MURDER!! AT ALL!! NO COMPARISON WHATSOEVER!!! Sorry, triggered the sarcasm valve there... xp Perhaps, before you get all sarcastic about something I've said, you could try fully reading my post. This is really getting old. If you are going to make fun of me, you could at the very least have the decency to do it about things I've actually said as opposed to things I haven't said and often don't mean at all. I said that because shoplifting doesn't involve someone dying, it makes it HARDER to compare it to abortion than it is to compare murder to abortion. Hon, I wasn't making fun of you, just of other people's rhetoric. sad I'm sorry. I seem to be overly defensive lately, and I totally overreacted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 6:49 pm
There is plenty of pressure on women to abort. It's not just prolifers saying it either. Women are fired, lose scholarships, get kicked out of homes, lose their partners, etc. There is a lot of prejudice against unwed mothers, which is stupid considering men aren't looked down on the same way for being unwed fathers. Suddenly women are stupid for getting pregnant but guys aren't for getting them pregnant? There are few daycare programs in the US that would make it possible for poor women to work and care for a child at the same time. The best this country does for poor women who want to keep their babies is give them a small check, which usually isn't enough to cover the costs of childcare. If that money was instead diverted to programs that would provide free or low-cost daycare and low-cost prenatal care, then women wouldn't feel as much pressure to abort.
There are protests to abortions, but women can have abortions without their employer, parent, partner, or school ever finding out. They aren't penalized for having one. There is pressure in the sense that strangers or even people you know would look down on you if you have one, but if you do, first of all, they don't have to know unless you tell them. Secondly, even if you do, you won't lose your job. You won't lose your scholarship. You might get kicked out, you might lose your partner. You won't have to take on another job to pay for both you and your child, or have to accept welfare because you can't afford childcare and you need to stay off of work.
In simpler words...there's more practical pressure to abort than not to abort because this country is not set up in a way which allows women under a certain level of wealth to both work and keep their child. Adoption is not a good answer, because the adoption system sucks. Seriously. Kids go in and they don't come out again. It's neglected, which means the people put in its care get neglected too, and all sorts of abuses go on with it.
Abortion is used as a way for lawmakers to ignore women because with abortion available, women don't "need" things like childcare services, they choose it, and if they can't afford it, they should get abortions.
As Talon-chan says, that's not why abortion is degrading to women. That is how abortion is used to exploit women.
I have different reasons for believing that abortion is degrading to women. This form of using an abortion is degrading to women. And believing in using abortion to "save" women from the problems women who keep their children face is degrading, to me. If people would rather have a woman get an abortion she doesn't want than help her so that those problems aren't an issue, they don't believe in that woman's freedom to choose. They just want an easy solution that makes them feel good at night with, "Oh, see? We just helped women get out of that problem!" ignoring the fact that the woman only took it because the other option given to her was complete and utter failure, a poor future for herself and a "bad quality of life for the baby."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 9:21 am
lymelady In simpler words...there's more practical pressure to abort than not to abort because this country is not set up in a way which allows women under a certain level of wealth to both work and keep their child. Abortion is used as a way for lawmakers to ignore women because with abortion available, women don't "need" things like childcare services, they choose it, and if they can't afford it, they should get abortions. Well said, the lot of it. If you really want to be pro-choice, you should work for change so that it's just as easy for a woman to keep a pregnancy as it is for her to abort one. Legalising abortion doesn't solve the entire problem of reproductive choice. Advocating legal abortion without any support for women who want to stay pregnant is essentially supporting forced abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:34 pm
La Veuve Zin Well said, the lot of it. If you really want to be pro-choice, you should work for change so that it's just as easy for a woman to keep a pregnancy as it is for her to abort one. Legalising abortion doesn't solve the entire problem of reproductive choice. Advocating legal abortion without any support for women who want to stay pregnant is essentially supporting forced abortion. And on the "flip side" if one really wants to be Pro-Life, one should be out there working to make sure that the adoption system is fixed and that there is help for women who can't afford to carry a pregnancy to term (live birth is thousands of dollars in a hospital, c-section is much more). Really, along with debating about the morals and legality of abortion, people on both sides of the issues need to remember that there are people suffering right now. There are women who feel that they can't keep a pregnancy they want because of finances, and there are women who feel obligated to keep a pregnancy when they don't want a child, but feel the abortion system is not stable enough to put children into. I am really of the opinion that prenatal care and pregnancy should be free, for all women. I also believe that good birth control should be widely available for free. I think that this would cut down on abortion a great deal. But I still believe that abortion should be safe and legal, as well as very rare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:40 pm
lymelady There are protests to abortions, but women can have abortions without their employer, parent, partner, or school ever finding out. They aren't penalized for having one. There is pressure in the sense that strangers or even people you know would look down on you if you have one, but if you do, first of all, they don't have to know unless you tell them. Secondly, even if you do, you won't lose your job. You won't lose your scholarship. You might get kicked out, you might lose your partner. You won't have to take on another job to pay for both you and your child, or have to accept welfare because you can't afford childcare and you need to stay off of work. 1. You don't lose scholarships for having a child. In fact, you often gain more financial help (since you are a mother going to college and eligable for more scholarships and because you no longer have to declare your parents even if you aren't 24 yet). 2. I thought it was illegal to fire someone for being pregnant or a parent. Isn't that discrimination? I do agree that society looks down on single mothers (and for some reason, many Pro-Lifers I've met on other sites do also, and that I really don't get). Women who are known to have gotten abortions are also looked down on, but it's not as easy to spot them. I think that both social taboos are lessening. There are just so many single mothers and women who have aborted, that most people know at least one of each, and that makes it less scary for them. People fear what they don't understand, but they are coming to understand that sometimes unexpected things happen, and different choices are made by different people...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:03 pm
Both are true Waters, but there have been instences (which Lyme can point out since I don't have the sources on hand nor know where to look) where woman have lost jobs or scollerships for things they did not do or minor offences that should not result in a lost job/schollarship, while at the same time they were pregnant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 10:17 pm
Crud. Now I need to re-dig, unless I posted them somewhere in here before. Which I probably did.
The instance that got me looking into the rest of them was from an article I read in the Pro-Choice guild. I should be able to find that one easily enough, unless they delete things there.
The problem with finding the sources is that the ones I had weren't from pro-life or pro-choice sites, they were regular news articles, and that's hard to find unless it's recent. I can definitely go to a pro-life site and find tons, but how many of them are exaggerated and how many of them are on target, no one really knows. It'll have to be tomorrow though, I'm falling asleep at the keys.
It's sort of like how minorities get fired for things like, "Complaints from customers" or "fails to sufficiently perform" even though there's no way to tell if there were any complaints and the sufficient performance is subjective in a lot of cases. They can't put on paper, "Terminated for pregnancy," but they can pick something else. From a business point of view, if you're looking at having your worker go on maternity leave or hiring someone new when the job doesn't require much training or expertise, which one is going to save you money? Especially considering women below a certain level of wealth don't sue that often.
I do know someone who's gotten hit with the pregnancy prejudice stick though, and I know she's very proactive about helping other women who go through similar things, so I'll ask her if she can help me with sources.
I agree with you though. It's not just the pro-choice side that needs to be active in helping women who want to keep pregnancies. Though there are things like crisis pregnancy centers, we don't do enough. The adoption system is still utter crap (sorry for the language, but that's what it is). There's almost no birth control initiative on the pro-life side (though some forms of birth control are considered abortions by many pro-lifers, like EC, which thins the uterian wall and makes it so the blastocyst ((or was it gast...gah too late at night crying )) can't stick to the uterus so the already-conceived human will get the flush), there are very few daycare programs set up, there's just not enough care for the woman and child after birth. I mean, there's care from individuals, but they aren't organized into groups, so they don't reach people the way that organizations do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:47 am
Tiger of the Fire Both are true Waters, but there have been instences (which Lyme can point out since I don't have the sources on hand nor know where to look) where woman have lost jobs or scollerships for things they did not do or minor offences that should not result in a lost job/schollarship, while at the same time they were pregnant. Wow - there really are some horrible people out there. For most of a pregnancy, the women can usually do her job just as well as she did before she got pregnant. Really, she should take them to court, but of course who has the money for lawsuits when you're expecting...? It really makes me sad that some people will insist upon getting around the law just to discriminate against someone...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:53 am
lymelady I agree with you though. It's not just the pro-choice side that needs to be active in helping women who want to keep pregnancies. Though there are things like crisis pregnancy centers, we don't do enough. The adoption system is still utter crap (sorry for the language, but that's what it is). There's almost no birth control initiative on the pro-life side (though some forms of birth control are considered abortions by many pro-lifers, like EC, which thins the uterian wall and makes it so the blastocyst ((or was it gast...gah too late at night crying )) can't stick to the uterus so the already-conceived human will get the flush), there are very few daycare programs set up, there's just not enough care for the woman and child after birth. I mean, there's care from individuals, but they aren't organized into groups, so they don't reach people the way that organizations do. And the thing is, both Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers should be involved in things like bettering the adoption system, getting financial and other help for pregnant women (especially those who are keeping their pregnancies), and getting safe, effective birth control (including EC or not) to women, and supporting organizations that do such things. Though Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers disagree about abortion, we almost all agree that discrimination against pregnant women and single mothers is wrong, that birth control should be used if people aren't going to remain abstinent, that no one should ever feel the need to abort because they can't afford the pregnancy they would otherwise keep, and that the adoption system needs help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:48 am
WatersMoon110 lymelady I agree with you though. It's not just the pro-choice side that needs to be active in helping women who want to keep pregnancies. Though there are things like crisis pregnancy centers, we don't do enough. The adoption system is still utter crap (sorry for the language, but that's what it is). There's almost no birth control initiative on the pro-life side (though some forms of birth control are considered abortions by many pro-lifers, like EC, which thins the uterian wall and makes it so the blastocyst ((or was it gast...gah too late at night crying )) can't stick to the uterus so the already-conceived human will get the flush), there are very few daycare programs set up, there's just not enough care for the woman and child after birth. I mean, there's care from individuals, but they aren't organized into groups, so they don't reach people the way that organizations do. And the thing is, both Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers should be involved in things like bettering the adoption system, getting financial and other help for pregnant women (especially those who are keeping their pregnancies), and getting safe, effective birth control (including EC or not) to women, and supporting organizations that do such things. Though Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers disagree about abortion, we almost all agree that discrimination against pregnant women and single mothers is wrong, that birth control should be used if people aren't going to remain abstinent, that no one should ever feel the need to abort because they can't afford the pregnancy they would otherwise keep, and that the adoption system needs help. I'll drink to all of that. Whilst I would like abortion to remain legal, I believe all circumstances barring that the woman does not want to be pregnant should not have to take place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:04 am
Rinaqa I'll drink to all of that. Whilst I would like abortion to remain legal, I believe all circumstances barring that the woman does not want to be pregnant should not have to take place. Isn't it sort of early to be drinking? *wink* I hope that someday, abortions will never be done again. Simply because there will be a 100% effective, fool-proof contraceptive so that no one who uses it ever gets unexpectedly pregnant. As well as fetal transplant surgery, which would be a very quick, safe procedure with almost no recovery time that would allow the unborn to be safely moved to the womb (or artificial womb) of someone who wants to carry them. And such good medical technology on top of that, so that no one need ever abort for health reason and no unborn humans would ever die in the womb. Until that day, I believe that abortions should be kept safe and legal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
