Here is how it is done LN: It is NOT solely your choice

[Yurt]

From an avi you thought would suit jackass:

my body
my sexuality
my uterus
my vagina
my morals
my life

my choice


What about the choice of the father LN? You think you got that child all by yourself?

What if your life affects others? Is it still only "your" choice? What if your morals affect others? Is it still only "your" choice?

I don't understand at all how women think that just because the baby "grows" inside of them that they have absolute say over it. It boggles the mind.


ps:

LN, notice my avi is still the same..........

[nevadamedic]

From an avi you thought would suit jackass:

my body
my sexuality
my uterus
my vagina
my morals
my life

my choice


What about the choice of the father LN? You think you got that child all by yourself?

What if your life affects others? Is it still only "your" choice? What if your morals affect others? Is it still only "your" choice?

I don't understand at all how women think that just because the baby "grows" inside of them that they have absolute say over it. It boggles the mind.


ps:

LN, notice my avi is still the same..........

But it's the woman's body..............

[PostmodernProphet]

But it's the woman's body..............

odd then, that the DNA doesn't match......seems like it's the kid's body to me.....

[Yurt]

But it's the woman's body..............

are you being rhetorical or serious?

[nevadamedic]

are you being rhetorical or serious?

Well it is...............

[darin]

her loose morals
my body
my sexuality
my penis
my semen
my life
my money


ALL HER choice

[LiberalNation]

I don't understand at all how women think that just because the baby "grows" inside of them that they have absolute say over it. It boggles the mind.
They have absolute say over there bodies. That shouldn't change cuz a baby happens to be inside.

[Abbey Marie]

They have absolute say over there bodies. That shouldn't change cuz a baby happens to be inside.

The baby doesn't just happen to be inside. Mommy had sex and put it there.

[PostmodernProphet]

Well it is...............


seriously, it isn't.....not by any stretch of the imagination....not from the moment the egg is fertilized....after that it is a seperate living entity.....a human entity.....now you can pretend that since it is still developing that it doesn't have the rights that a birthed child does, but it doesn't change the scientific fact that it is a seperate living being from the mother......

[nevadamedic]

The baby doesn't just happen to be inside. Mommy had sex and put it there.

Not everytime, there's always a turkey baster. :laugh2:

[Mr. P]

...
I don't understand at all how women think that just because the baby "grows" inside of them that they have absolute say over it. It boggles the mind.


....

Boggles my mind that some men think just because they planted a seed then they have total control.

Then ya know, they do have total control...He controls whether he screws her, uses a condom or some other method...

Don't like the possible end of the game, the consequences? Don't play. This is a game only controlling immature men play. IMO

[Abbey Marie]

Not everytime, there's always a turkey baster. :laugh2:

People who use artificial insemination generally really want a baby and would tend not to abort.

[82Marine89]

They have absolute say over there bodies. That shouldn't change cuz a baby happens to be inside.

Abortion should not be used as birth control. Since she had consensual sex and it resulted in the creation of a human life, the father should have a say in the child's future. I would gladly take custody of any child I am responsible for.

[LiberalNation]

Mommy had sex and put it there.
Unless she was raped, ect.

[LiberalNation]

I would gladly take custody of any child I am responsible for.
Many guys wouldn't or even pay child support and then it always falls to the mom to raise the kid.

[Abbey Marie]

Unless she was raped, ect.

True (though I'll bet that a very small minority of pregnancies are the result of rape). So, are you saying that a woman whose pregnancy is the result of consensual sex should not be allowed to abort?

[LiberalNation]

No I'm refuting that a baby is always the result of a woman choosing to have sex.

[MtnBiker]

Many guys wouldn't or even pay child support and then it always falls to the mom to raise the kid.

How do you know that?

[Mr. P]

How do you know that?

It's a fact, MB.

[LiberalNation]

Look up some statistics if you want proof.

[MtnBiker]

Look up some statistics if you want proof.

I'm not the one that made the claim! I cannot just believe that statement, do you have and evidence to support such a claim?

[LiberalNation]

Not asking you to believe it, it is my opinion.

[MtnBiker]

Not asking you to believe it, it is my opinion.

You said there were statistics. Where are they? What do you base your opinion on?

[Yurt]

The baby doesn't just happen to be inside. Mommy had sex and put it there.

???????????????????

The stork brought it, DUH................

[LiberalNation]

I said you could look up statistics. I'm not wasting time doing it for ya cuz you believing me is not worth that much work to me.

Base my opinion on personal experience, things I've read, ect.

[MtnBiker]

I said you could look up statistics. I'm not wasting time doing it for ya cuz you believing me is not worth that much work to me.



Supporting your baseless claims are not important to you? Should your opinion be important to anyone else?

[Yurt]

They have absolute say over there bodies. That shouldn't change cuz a baby happens to be inside.

Any more reason than that? So a man's semen inserted into a woman's body immediately loses "ownership" of the man, because when it enters into the woman (in a most miraculous way) it becomes the WOMAN's sole possession?

So you are saying, that a baby is ONLY the women's possession? Is that right?

[LiberalNation]

No and no in this case. The last thing I want to do tonight is look up links to "win" this debate. Argue with Mr. P maybe he will seeing as he also believes it's fact.

[LiberalNation]

Any more reason than that? So a man's semen inserted into a woman's body immediately loses "ownership" of the man, because when it enters into the woman (in a most miraculous way) it becomes the WOMAN's sole possession?

So you are saying, that a baby is ONLY the women's possession? Is that right?
Her body is her possession. It residing in it is immaterial and doesn't negate her right to do what she wishes with her own body. Sucks for the unborn baby her rights trumps it.

[MtnBiker]

No and no in this case. The last thing I want to do tonight is look up links to "win" this debate. Argue with Mr. P maybe he will seeing as he also believes it's fact.

There is nothing to look up, just your baised unfounded opinion.

[Abbey Marie]

???????????????????

The stork brought it, DUH................

Dang stork. I knew he looked kind of shifty.

[LiberalNation]

Okay but you also haven't proven my biased unfounded opinion wrong with any proof of your own so I think I'll keep it.

[Mr. P]

There is nothing to look up, just your baised unfounded opinion.

You're wrong, MB. Drop it..Or check all the court cases for non-support, abandonment etc

Did I miss something today that you guys are going after LN for..seems like it. Donno.

[nevadamedic]

Any more reason than that? So a man's semen inserted into a woman's body immediately loses "ownership" of the man, because when it enters into the woman (in a most miraculous way) it becomes the WOMAN's sole possession?

So you are saying, that a baby is ONLY the women's possession? Is that right?

Possesion is 9/10th's of the law :laugh2:

[MtnBiker]

Ok, men are pigs, kill all the babies you want.

[LiberalNation]

You forgot the many. I didn't say all or even most.

[Abbey Marie]

No I'm refuting that a baby is always the result of a woman choosing to have sex.

If you re-read my post, I didn't say she chose to have sex; I said she "had sex". That covers both consenusal and non-consenusal sex. The only thing it doesn't apply to is artifical insemination. Anyway, it's irrelevant, because you appear to believe that the woman should be allowed to kill the baby if she chooses, regardless of how the sex happened. The point stands that in the vast majority of cases, purposeful selfish activity put the baby inside; it didn't just happen to start growing there.

[LiberalNation]

Rape is having sex. When most people use the word sex that don't use it in a way to be interchangable with rape.

[Mr. P]

Rape is having sex. When most people use the word sex that don't use it in a way to be interchangable with rape.

Rape is not having sex, it's a violent crime.

[PostmodernProphet]

No I'm refuting that a baby is always the result of a woman choosing to have sex.

uhh...I have to concede she's right.....I can think of many times a woman chose to have sex that a baby didn't result......

[nevadamedic]

Rape is having sex. When most people use the word sex that don't use it in a way to be interchangable with rape.

Rape is considered rape.

[Black Lance]

Her body is her possession. It residing in it is immaterial and doesn't negate her right to do what she wishes with her own body. Sucks for the unborn baby her rights trumps it.

LN, do you acknowledge that it is "an unborn baby", a human life? If so, don't you think that murder is a rather extreme form of birth control?

This whole "right to her own body" argument is really nothing more than a strawman erected by liberals to distract attention away from the baby. The same leftists who argue against abortion on the basis of "my body, my choice" very rarely voice oppose madatory vaccinations, and only occassionally support legalizing harmful drugs like heroine and cocaine. Why does "my body, my choice" apply to a womans baby, but not her blood?

[nevadamedic]

You're wrong, MB. Drop it..Or check all the court cases for non-support, abandonment etc

Did I miss something today that you guys are going after LN for..seems like it. Donno.

Yup, I guess she's the boards victim of the week. I think it all started over her avatar.

[nevadamedic]

I think we could drop the whole abortion issue on this thread, im pretty sure LN wont be getting pregnant..............

[LiberalNation]

LN, do you acknowledge that it is "an unborn baby", a human life? If so, don't you think that murder is a rather extreme form of birth control?
Yes and yes.

It is extreme but in some cases could be needed for the health or well being of the mother. Giving the unborn equal rights to the born would open up a whole new can of worms. Is the woman who miscarriages now guilty of manslaughter if it can be shown she did anything that might have contributed to i. Ect.

[nevadamedic]

Yes and yes.

It is extreme but in some cases could be needed for the health or well being of the mother. Giving the unborn equal rights to the born would open up a whole new can of worms. Is the woman who miscarriages now guilty of manslaughter if it can be shown she did anything that might have contributed to i. Ect.

She should be charged with Manslaughter if she does anything to cause a Miscarrage.

[PostmodernProphet]

She should be charged with Manslaughter if she does anything to cause a Miscarrage.

I am confused.....why would you state that, when you stated you believe the child is the woman's body......would you charge her with manslaughter if she removed a wart from her finger?.....aren't you being inconsistent?

[red states rule]

She should be charged with Manslaughter if she does anything to cause a Miscarrage.

Not manslaughter - first degree murder

[Trinity]

I think in certain circumstances abortions should be allowed such as rape or incest. But just because is not a good enough reason.

Let me tell you a story I had 2 children from the same father at a very young age the father and I broke up and he caused a lot of drama in my children's and my life. He started making death threats about the children and I was in no position to be able to properly care for them at that time so I put them up for adoption. A couple I got to meet, took them in adopted them and raised them as their own they turned out great!

When I went to my oldest daughter's high school graduation do you know what she said to me? She said thanks mom for not aborting me!

[darin]

Rape is not having sex, it's a violent crime.

...which is 'about sex'.


I can't believe that 'just because a woman loans her 'egg' to a guy's 'seed', and rents her body for 40 weeks, she can absolutely do WHATEVER THE HELL she wants with the created life, and the father has NO legal say in the matter' and you're OKAY with that.

[red states rule]

I think in certain circumstances abortions should be allowed such as rape or incest. But just because is not a good enough reason.

Let me tell you a story I had 2 children from the same father at a very young age the father and I broke up and he caused a lot of drama in my children's and my life. He started making death threats about the children and I was in no position to be able to properly care for them at that time so I put them up for adoption. A couple I got to meet, took them in adopted them and raised them as their own they turned out great!

When I went to my oldest daughter's high school graduation do you know what she said to me? She said thanks mom for not aborting me!


Great story - very heart warming

To me, any abortion is killing an innocent unborn baby.

[Trinity]

Great story - very heart warming

To me, any abortion is killing an innocent unborn baby.

I agree.

I can see it, if it is going to cause the mother physical or mental harm to carry a baby. But even in the case's of rape the mother could still carry then give the baby up. There are many many couple's that are more then willing to adopt a new born baby.

[red states rule]

I agree.

I can see it, if it is going to cause the mother physical or mental harm to carry a baby. But even in the case's of rape the mother could still carry then give the baby up. There are many many couple's that are more then willing to adopt a new born baby.

The photos of the aborted babies is sickening - yet there are those who say this is a US Constitutional right

[Monkeybone]

if it is her body and her choice, and the guy has no legal say...then why should the guy have to pay child support?

this is one of those yes and no issues. i agree with Trin, incases of incest and rape..i can sorta understand not wanthing to go through with the whole preggers things. but if it is the result of consenual sex, then abortion should only be done if the mothers life is in danger. and i think that the guy should have a say, unless it was like a one night stand or something

[Trinity]

The photos of the aborted babies is sickening - yet there are those who say this is a US Constitutional right


Yeah I know someone posted a bulletin with photos and music on myspace not to long ago and it was really sad almost made me cry.


I'll have to see if I can locate it and post it here.

[Trinity]

Here is a link to a site on aborted babies............... There are no pictures on the first page when you go to this site you will have to click on the links to see the photos.

WARNING these images are very graphic WARNING


http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm#galleries

[jimnyc]

I've had this discussion many a time and still refuse to waver from my position. Putting criminal issues aside and considering consensual sex...

It takes TWO to decide to engage in sex. It takes TWO for the woman to "receive" the "offering" and become pregnant. Now inside her body is a living human being. Part of that being is from both the woman AND the man. I think a man should have 100% EQUAL rights and say in all matters related thereafter. No abortion should EVER be performed without consent of BOTH, even though I don't believe it should ever happen at all. Unless the man has done something criminal, he should be along for the ride and be involved in every aspect, every choice and every decision. I don't give a rats ass if it's the womans body, the baby inside is the child of BOTH.

[dan]

I don't know, I'm only speaking from personal experience here (people I've known, I've never been in this situation, thank God), but it seems to me the only time the guy isn't involved is either when the man completely severs ties with the woman or when the woman specifically doesn't want him to be involved.

Is it fair for a poor woman, who can barely afford to pay for herself, to have to have a baby as punishment for having sex? Won't that ruin her life as well as her relationship with her child? Now, I admit that anybody in that position shouldn't be having unprotected sex to begin with, but even protected isn't 100% all the time.

But, there seems to be a general consensus among the conservatives on this board that with abortion legalized, every woman in the country will never use birth control again, and will just get an abortion whenever she needs to. I find that offensive, having seen two of my very close friends going through an abortion because they made one stupid, drunken mistake. It wasn't a casual decision, and I would definitely say it messed them up permanently.

On the other side of the spectrum, I have a friend who's 22, had sex with her boyfriend who she'd been dating since middle school. She got pregnant, he dumped her. Now, at 22 years old, she's living with her mom, the two of them and the baby in a one bedroom apartment, she had to drop out of school, and as much as I hate to say it, her life is in very bad shape right now. She's a good mother, but I have to wonder if there's some deep-down, possibly subconscious resentment toward the child.

[Mr. P]

...which is 'about sex'.


I can't believe that 'just because a woman loans her 'egg' to a guy's 'seed', and rents her body for 40 weeks, she can absolutely do WHATEVER THE HELL she wants with the created life, and the father has NO legal say in the matter' and you're OKAY with that.I am pretty sure it's agreed and accepted by professionals that rape is NOT about sex.

I never said the "father" shouldn't have legal say.


I agree.

I can see it, if it is going to cause the mother physical or mental harm to carry a baby. But even in the case's of rape the mother could still carry then give the baby up. There are many many couple's that are more then willing to adopt a new born baby.

I knew a women many years ago that gave her newborn up for adoption and was affected mentally by it. I think the same women would have been affected if she had aborted too, but who knows?

[Nukeman]

if it is her body and her choice, and the guy has no legal say...then why should the guy have to pay child support?

this is one of those yes and no issues. i agree with Trin, incases of incest and rape..i can sorta understand not wanthing to go through with the whole preggers things. but if it is the result of consenual sex, then abortion should only be done if the mothers life is in danger. and i think that the guy should have a say, unless it was like a one night stand or somethingYou posted what I was thinking as well. If the woman has sole say in the matter because its "her body" than why does LN make a comment like I know a lot of men abandon thier woman and dont pay child support. I mean after all he didn't have a say in her body but once its born its his responsibilty.

Hey LN you cant have it both ways. If you want the man to be responsible and take care of his child than he has to HAVE A SAY IN THE PREGNANCY as well.

I do believe that abortion should remain legal for CERTAIN problems and conditions. IT SHOULD NEVER BE USED AS BIRTH CONTROL. After all its not control at that point it is termination (murder).

I like what Jimmy said above me and can agree 100%

[Nukeman]

I am confused.....why would you state that, when you stated you believe the child is the woman's body......would you charge her with manslaughter if she removed a wart from her finger?.....aren't you being inconsistent?

He post so much he cant keep track of what the hell he's thinking or talking about..... IMO

[JohnDoe]

Abortion should not be used as birth control. Since she had consensual sex and it resulted in the creation of a human life, the father should have a say in the child's future. I would gladly take custody of any child I am responsible for.


Most men don't.

I would venture to say that less than a half of 1 percent, want the children they have Fathered.

45% of all babies born in the USA are born to SINGLE MOTHERS, who took on the responsibility of their mistake, while the FATHER is impregnating the next girl and no where to be found.

Seriously, this is a huge problem with MEN not using BIRTH CONTROL, a condom, especially in this day and age of aids and if they get the woman pregnant and she wants to have the baby as these 45% have, then they should own up, and marry the girl, or at least support the girl and his child.

If the penalty for having a baby out of wedlock is greater for the MALE, then maybe they would think twice before sticking their pee pee in to a woman!

The woman is born to breed...subconscious is telling her to get pregnant imo, even if she doesn't think she wants to get pregnant...her body is calling her to do such....during a certain window of time.... In other words, she can't be trusted...so, if all men used a "cover" then there would not be as big a problem with abortion.

And if men were truely held responsible for the care of their own child, (instead of the gvt), and the mother of their child, then maybe, just maybe, they would be more careful and less unwanted pregnancies would occur.

From a woman's point of view.


And Yurt, do you think that if it were men that carried babies, that you would feel that you had the right to tell another MAN that he could not choose what to do with his body... Do you think he would stand for that kind of control from others over what he does?

Let me be clear, that I am prolife.

I just don't think the answer to reduce abortion is necessarily to ban it....

The sin that caused the other sin, is what needs to be nipped in the bud.

In other words, until society makes it a disgrace that ANYONE, MALE AND FEMALE, have sex outside of marriage, (Which is adultery, permiscuity, fornication...), I can't see abortions reduce...unless of course more and more woman decide to have their babies OUT of wedlock, WHICH hurts the child's chances of a good life in the future because they are without a father.

Obviously many women are failing at birth control. This is a fact. Men now need to take on the responsibility AGAIN, as they once did, for the most part...and keep their zippers zipped, UNLESS they are ready, willing and able to be a dad, and husband.


I know I am dreaming.... :(

[Nukeman]

I don't know, I'm only speaking from personal experience here (people I've known, I've never been in this situation, thank God), but it seems to me the only time the guy isn't involved is either when the man completely severs ties with the woman or when the woman specifically doesn't want him to be involved I agree with you here usually it is one or the other who leave COMPLETELY..


Is it fair for a poor woman, who can barely afford to pay for herself, to have to have a baby as punishment for having sex? Won't that ruin her life as well as her relationship with her child? Now, I admit that anybody in that position shouldn't be having unprotected sex to begin with, but even protected isn't 100% all the time.

This is what the courts are for. She needs to sue the father and get the child support, however if she never wants to see the father again than she shouldn't ecxpect anything.. By the way birth control pills are free at planned parenthood, also condoms are generaly given out at most colleges.. Cost of control should not be a factor..


But, there seems to be a general consensus among the conservatives on this board that with abortion legalized, every woman in the country will never use birth control again, and will just get an abortion whenever she needs to. I find that offensive, having seen two of my very close friends going through an abortion because they made one stupid, drunken mistake. It wasn't a casual decision, and I would definitely say it messed them up permanently.

I dont think every woman will stop using birth control becasue of legel abortion I do believe that with easy access to abortion woman and men take a more cassual attitude towards preventing.. There is always adoption as an option, if its local a lot of the time the adoptive parents will even let the mother be a part of the lie of the child. After all it is what is the most important person here.


On the other side of the spectrum, I have a friend who's 22, had sex with her boyfriend who she'd been dating since middle school. She got pregnant, he dumped her. Now, at 22 years old, she's living with her mom, the two of them and the baby in a one bedroom apartment, she had to drop out of school, and as much as I hate to say it, her life is in very bad shape right now. She's a good mother, but I have to wonder if there's some deep-down, possibly subconscious resentment toward the child

Obviously her "boyfriend" is a piece of shit and should be shot. He should also be forced to pay child support. As foir college she being a "single parent" has access to a whole slew of programs designed to help and better her life. She just needs to LOOK for these programs and speaak to a financial advisor at the school..

If she doesn't take advantage of these programs then ultimately myself and other like me will end up footing the bill for her the rest of her life..

[JohnDoe]

I am pretty sure it's agreed and accepted by professionals that rape is NOT about sex.

I never said the "father" shouldn't have legal say.



I knew a women many years ago that gave her newborn up for adoption and was affected mentally by it. I think the same women would have been affected if she had aborted too, but who knows?
I am certain abortion would have been just as hard on this woman, she probably wanted her child, loved the dad....? Either one, would be hard, but abortion would be FINAL, and could hurt her worse, mentally.

[Nukeman]

Most men don't.

I would venture to say that less than a half of 1 percent, want the children they have Fathered.

I take estreme xception to this staement. Your making it out the 99.5% of all men out there are selfcentered bastards. All of MY friends except one take full responsibility for their children (always have always will)


45% of all babies born in the USA are born to SINGLE MOTHERS, who took on the responsibility of their mistake, while the FATHER is impregnating the next girl and no where to be found.

Statistics can say what ever you want. The percentage in minorities is much higher than in whites. Also it doesnt mention how many CHOSE to exclude the father from the equation (as I understand it this is becoming more prevelent in college educated women)

Seriously, this is a huge problem with MEN not using BIRTH CONTROL, a condom, especially in this day and age of aids and if they get the woman pregnant and she wants to have the baby as these 45% have, then they should own up, and marry the girl, or at least support the girl and his child.AGREE 100%


If the penalty for having a baby out of wedlock is greater for the MALE, then maybe they would think twice before sticking their pee pee in to a woman!oNCE AGAIN AGREE 100%

The woman is born to breed...subconscious is telling her to get pregnant imo, even if she doesn't think she wants to get pregnant...her body is calling her to do such....during a certain window of time.... In other words, she can't be trusted...so, if all men used a "cover" then there would not be as big a problem with abortion. By taking this rout you most also take into consideration that MEN are born to spread their seed. At least that is what anthropologist would have us believe..


And if men were truely held responsible for the care of their own child, (instead of the gvt), and the mother of their child, then maybe, just maybe, they would be more careful and less unwanted pregnancies would occur.Could not agree more.....


I just don't think the answer to reduce abortion is necessarily to ban it....

The sin that caused the other sin, is what needs to be nipped in the bud.Yep!!!!


In other words, until society makes it a disgrace that ANYONE, MALE AND FEMALE, have sex outside of marriage, (Which is adultery, permiscuity, fornication...), I can't see abortions reduce...unless of course more and more woman decide to have their babies OUT of wedlock, WHICH hurts the child's chances of a good life in the future because they are without a father.

Obviously many women are failing at birth control. This is a fact. Men now need to take on the responsibility AGAIN, as they once did, for the most part...and keep their zippers zipped, UNLESS they are ready, willing and able to be a dad, and husband.


I know I am dreaming.... :(
All true!

I agree with you on a lot of these points but I do take exception to the first bit at the top. I think most men actually care what happens to their children. A lot of the time life is made very difficult by the woman and the government for the man to have adaquit time with their children.

[darin]

I am pretty sure it's agreed and accepted by professionals that rape is NOT about sex.


That's PC crap.

Rape is absolutely about Sex. I'm looking for a link to a good editorial I had on the subject - but while I find that, ponder this:

22 year old Soldier on leave from Fort Hood Texas, back home to Minnesota. He's at a bar. Meets a hot young thing. They share a few drinks, then head back to his place and screw most of the night. Soldier drives her home then, the next day flies back to Texas. When he reports in he's arrested. The girl was 17 using a fake ID. He's charged with 'rape.'

That's a TRUE story. This one had a happy ending, though, as the girl's parents did not press charges when they found out the circumstances - but if they had, he likely would have been convicted of 'rape'. Tell me, friend - tell me that was about 'control'.

The whole "Rape is about CONTROL" line is SUCH bullshit. It's along the lines of "Gay is NORMAL!" It's designed to allow liberals to teach kids about sex - I mean, just knowing about SEX and encouraging SEX in children won't lead to RAPE...because...Rape isn't about sex, right?? Right?

:-/

[darin]

One of the stranger claims made in recent days is that "rape is not about sex."

Over and over it has been said that rape is not about sex, it is about power and control. "Rape is best characterized as torture that uses sex as a weapon. Like a torturer, the rapist uses sexual acts to dominate, humiliate, and terrorize the victim". Perhaps one might understand that that is the victim's interpretation, but we are told that "Rape is not about sex to the rapist; it has to do with control and power."

Not just sometimes, but every time.

Hogwash. Utter hogwash. Despite my problems with Alas, a Blog, on this particular point which Ampersand is correct:

Men who rape women don't do it because they hate women, but because they don't give a **** about women (at least, not the women they rape). They want something, they take it, and they're by-and-large indifferent to how the person they "take" it from feels.

This is why the "rape isn't about sex, rape is about violence" analysis falls short. It's not true - not from the point of view of many rapists - and it denies the true horror of the situation. Many rapists don't rape because they hate and want to hurt women; it's not that personal. Rapists rape because they want sex; they don't consider the woman's feelings at all...

Now don't get me wrong. There are cases in which rape is simply used as a tool of violence, as a way to dominate or control someone. Homosexual rapes by heterosexual males likely often fall into this category (except in situations when men subsitute for women due to a lack of women), as would ritualistic rapes by serial killers and a large number of wartime rapes. But to argue that the casual rapist isn't raping for sex but for violence, power, and control is rather like saying that the mugger mugs people as an act of violence rather than because he wants their money or that the shoplifter shoplifts purely out of kleptomania or to get revenge on the store, not in order to, you know, get stuff free. Or that the person who murders witnesses isn't doing it to keep them from talking but just for the sake of the violence itself.

This is not to say that rape isn't an act of violence, power, and control, but to say that these are usually tools used to get sex rather than ends in and of themselves.

One argument against this is that sex is so available that no one needs to rape in order to get sex; therefore sex cannot be the motivating factor. Perhaps. But money is available as well, and people still steal. The issue isn't whether or not the rapist can obtain sex elsewhere. The issue is that the rapist's motivation is sex when he wants, with whom he wants, and how he wants. He apparently calculates that he can get a "better deal" by taking what he wants than through other means. Perhpas this calculation is wrong - to continue an analogy, lots of criminals probably make less through robbery than they could through honest work - but this doesn't change the fact of the motivation.

So why do we hear that rape is about power and violence?

Two reasons:

The most obvious is that we tend to look through the eyes of the victim, for whom the violence and the loss of control to the rapist is the major event. The victims are usually bothered by the violation, not by the fact that they had sex. So we tend to project the consequences of the rape and the victim's attitudes onto the perpetrator: the violence is what affected her, so that must have been his goal.

The second reason is more controversial, and is something htat I more or less have thought up myself. To explain my hypothesis is really the point of this whole piece:

The more casually a society takes sex, the less of an impact the act of rape has in terms of sex. Therefore, in order to have rape be a serious crime, one has to redefine it away from sex.

Of course, one might argue that they didn't use to take rape seriously at all. I think it's not so much that as that people were in denial over it, suggesting that the woman either was lying or that for some other reason rape had not occurred. And it must also be pointed out that in the less humane societies of old, people were brutal enough that rape did not always seem so terrible in comparison to other things that people did to one another. In a society where pickpockets were hung publicly, the violence was casual enough that however seriously rape was taken, it wouldn't necessarily carry the same weight it does in our comfy modern times.

In any case, though, with sex being a privae topic and officially relegated to marriage and whatnot, the idea of forcing someone to have sex carried with it the idea of a pretty intense violation. Someone was being forced to go through a very private and intimate experience. But if sex is no more intimate than shaking hands, then rape is no more serious than grabbing someone's hand without their permission (or holding onto it, as the case may be).

Which leads in to the reason why we keep hearing that rape is not about sex. It is philosophically untenable to keep pushing the boundaries of the sexual revolution without making rape seem less and less violative by comparison, as the act which is coerced in rape becomes less and less private, personal, and valued in society. So the only way to retain the sense of horror at rape is to alter the rationale for rape being bad; that the goal is total violation, so that the violence becomes the issue; rather than the horror coming from the intimacy of the act which was forced upon the victim, which is the old rationale.

http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2006/03/rape-is-about-sex-duh.html

[darin]

Is it fair for a poor woman, who can barely afford to pay for herself, to have to have a baby as punishment for having sex? Won't that ruin her life as well as her relationship with her child? Now, I admit that anybody in that position shouldn't be having unprotected sex to begin with, but even protected isn't 100% all the time.

Adoption.



On the other side of the spectrum, I have a friend who's 22, had sex with her boyfriend who she'd been dating since middle school. She got pregnant, he dumped her. Now, at 22 years old, she's living with her mom, the two of them and the baby in a one bedroom apartment, she had to drop out of school, and as much as I hate to say it, her life is in very bad shape right now. She's a good mother, but I have to wonder if there's some deep-down, possibly subconscious resentment toward the child.

Adoption.

[Mr. P]

That's PC crap.

Rape is absolutely about Sex. I'm looking for a link to a good editorial I had on the subject - but while I find that, ponder this:

22 year old Soldier on leave from Fort Hood Texas, back home to Minnesota. He's at a bar. Meets a hot young thing. They share a few drinks, then head back to his place and screw most of the night. Soldier drives her home then, the next day flies back to Texas. When he reports in he's arrested. The girl was 17 using a fake ID. He's charged with 'rape.'

That's a TRUE story. This one had a happy ending, though, as the girl's parents did not press charges when they found out the circumstances - but if they had, he likely would have been convicted of 'rape'. Tell me, friend - tell me that was about 'control'.

The whole "Rape is about CONTROL" line is SUCH bullshit. It's along the lines of "Gay is NORMAL!" It's designed to allow liberals to teach kids about sex - I mean, just knowing about SEX and encouraging SEX in children won't lead to RAPE...because...Rape isn't about sex, right?? Right?

:-/

In this case the term 'rape' is used as a legal term. The 'act' of rape is still a violent crime.

[darin]

The 'act' of rape is still a violent crime.

...sometimes. Sometime's it's drunken...sometimes it's a "crime" where both parties have given their consent. Sometimes it's because a man wants to have sex with a woman, or vice-versa. Sometimes it does involve violence. Not every time. Thus, it's just not honest to say "(all) Rape is about CONTROL and VIOLENCE".

[Mr. P]

...sometimes. Sometime's it's drunken...sometimes it's a "crime" where both parties have given their consent. Sometimes it's because a man wants to have sex with a woman, or vice-versa. Sometimes it does involve violence. Not every time. Thus, it's just not honest to say "(all) Rape is about CONTROL and VIOLENCE".

I think it's honest to say any unwanted sexual act involving penetration, commonly called 'rape', is an act of Control and Violence, Criminologist and Psychiatrist would agree.

[darin]

I think it's honest to say any unwanted sexual act involving penetration is an act of Control and Violence, Criminologist and Psychiatrist would agree.


It's an act of violence committed against somebody - sure...sometimes. But violence and control are simply means to an end - sexual release.

And frankly, penetration or lack-of-it isn't required for for an "Act of sexual violence and control" to happen.

[PostmodernProphet]

I would venture to say that less than a half of 1 percent, want the children they have Fathered

if that's the case, I thank God that almost all the men I know belong to that half of one percent........

[Mr. P]

It's an act of violence committed against somebody - sure...sometimes. But violence and control are simply means to an end - sexual release.

And frankly, penetration or lack-of-it isn't required for for an "Act of sexual violence and control" to happen.
But it is for rape.

[JohnDoe]

Rape/Incest is less than 2% of all unwanted pregnancies that go for an abortion, it is a very small amount and the discussion on abortion shouldn't FOCUS on these circumstances.

First, let's look at the bigger picture, then there should be a separate focus on these cases unusual cases imo. Plus, most women raped DO NOT get pregnant from the rape, for two reasons...1 the likelyhood that the rapist is raping her during her fertile stage is small and secondly, I read that women under great stress do not produce a hormone that makes the fertilized egg NOT STICK to the wall of the uterus....or something like this...(plus the morning after pill)

[dan]

The woman is born to breed...subconscious is telling her to get pregnant imo, even if she doesn't think she wants to get pregnant...her body is calling her to do such....during a certain window of time.... In other words, she can't be trusted...so, if all men used a "cover" then there would not be as big a problem with abortion.

But, going along with this, if woman is instinctively born to breed, then man is instinctively born to pass his seed to as many women as possible. Using this argument kind of negates the "man must be held responsible" part of the argument, in my opinion.


I know I am dreaming....

I agree with most of what you said, but, sadly, this is probably the truest statement in your post.


That's PC crap.

Rape is absolutely about Sex. I'm looking for a link to a good editorial I had on the subject - but while I find that, ponder this:

22 year old Soldier on leave from Fort Hood Texas, back home to Minnesota. He's at a bar. Meets a hot young thing. They share a few drinks, then head back to his place and screw most of the night. Soldier drives her home then, the next day flies back to Texas. When he reports in he's arrested. The girl was 17 using a fake ID. He's charged with 'rape.'

That's a TRUE story. This one had a happy ending, though, as the girl's parents did not press charges when they found out the circumstances - but if they had, he likely would have been convicted of 'rape'. Tell me, friend - tell me that was about 'control'.

The whole "Rape is about CONTROL" line is SUCH bullshit. It's along the lines of "Gay is NORMAL!" It's designed to allow liberals to teach kids about sex - I mean, just knowing about SEX and encouraging SEX in children won't lead to RAPE...because...Rape isn't about sex, right?? Right?

Not every rape happens like this. What about the guy on the street who drags a girl into an alley, beats her, and rapes her? That's got pretty much nothing to do with sex, and all the "it's the liberals' fault!" rhetoric in the world won't convince me otherwise.


Adoption.

This just seems like an ideal more than a solution. Do you really expect every girl who gets pregnant to carry the child for nine months, only to give it away, all because she wasn't allowed to have an abortion (which would, 99% of the time, "punish" the girl as much as having to carry the child would).

Not to mention the fact that childbirth is not 100% safe. There are many complications that can arise. What would you think of a case where a woman, faced with no other options, carries a child that she is wanting to put up for adoption, only to die during childbirth?


And frankly, penetration or lack-of-it isn't required for for an "Act of sexual violence and control" to happen.

Then, how can you possibly say rape is all about sexual release?

[JohnDoe]

if that's the case, I thank God that almost all the men I know belong to that half of one percent........

pmp and nuke,

I should have worded this better...What I think is that less than 1% of the men that have fathered the babies of the women that have abortions.

Not the men that have sex and get their girlfriend pregnant who share in the parenthood responsibility, not the men that are married to the woman they get pregnant.

I am speaking of the cases where the women are standing in the line at the abortion clinic.

Do you really believe that the men that got these women pregnant are on their knees begging them to not abort and have their babies?

I don't.

I believe that if the woman's boyfriend, IN MOST CASES, wanted to have their child, the woman would not hesitate to have their loved ones child, especially knowing that they would be committed to it.

I realize that there have been a handful at most, of exceptions to this...

I know the exceptions are few and far between and again, as with rape/incest pregnancies, are near nil, and should be reviewed and considered AFTER we look at and try to solve, the bigger picture.

[Mr. P]

I think Ru-486 (the morning after pill) is a great invention.

[PostmodernProphet]

I believe that if the woman's boyfriend, IN MOST CASES, wanted to have their child, the woman would not hesitate to have their loved ones child, especially knowing that they would be committed to it.

at this point, I will again disagree with you.....

I will accept the correction of your post regarding less than one percent of men involved in the pregnancy of a woman getting an abortion.....

but I would say that if a woman is irresponsible enough to get an abortion, she isn't likely to have made a different choice simply because she thought the man would have been responsible.....and if she was, she would suck as a mother anyway.....(oh, I was ready to kill you, but I thought your father was going to take care of you)

I would say the women who wouldn't consider abortion if their mate was more repsonsible, are more likely to be the ones who keep the child as a single parent, or put the child up for adoption

[darin]

But it is for rape.

...which isn't about control or violence - but sometimes USES those things to achieve it's goal - Sexual release.

[darin]

Not every rape happens like this. What about the guy on the street who drags a girl into an alley, beats her, and rapes her? That's got pretty much nothing to do with sex, and all the "it's the liberals' fault!" rhetoric in the world won't convince me otherwise.


Right - in that case a man wants to have sex, so finds the first woman he can.


This just seems like an ideal more than a solution. Do you really expect every girl who gets pregnant to carry the child for nine months, only to give it away, all because she wasn't allowed to have an abortion (which would, 99% of the time, "punish" the girl as much as having to carry the child would).


yeah. I fully expect every woman who has consensual sex to carry a resulting baby to term. If she cannot handle raising a child, I'd expect her to be woman-enough to realize the fact, and offer the human to others who could.

I fully hope a woman who was actually raped to carry THAT baby to term, too.



Not to mention the fact that childbirth is not 100% safe. There are many complications that can arise. What would you think of a case where a woman, faced with no other options, carries a child that she is wanting to put up for adoption, only to die during childbirth?


Nor is abortion. I'd like to see stats showing complications from birth vs. abortions. In the case you mention? I don't think anything about it. It's sad she died, but it's joy over the new life she's delivered.



Then, how can you possibly say rape is all about sexual release?

I don't say rape is all about sexual release. My statement you've quoted was in response to Mr P's comment about violence and control - I was saying "Penetration isn't required for sexual violence and control to happen."

[JohnDoe]

at this point, I will again disagree with you.....

I will accept the correction of your post regarding less than one percent of men involved in the pregnancy of a woman getting an abortion.....

but I would say that if a woman is irresponsible enough to get an abortion, she isn't likely to have made a different choice simply because she thought the man would have been responsible.....and if she was, she would suck as a mother anyway.....(oh, I was ready to kill you, but I thought your father was going to take care of you)

I would say the women who wouldn't consider abortion if their mate was more repsonsible, are more likely to be the ones who keep the child as a single parent, or put the child up for adoption

perhaps....

but I respectfully, still disagree.

Also, I don't believe that there is an "attachment" to a woman's child from the moment of fertilization. It takes some time for hormones to take over, and give them the internal knowledge that they are pregnant....I would say at about 6-8 weeks when morning sickness can come on, would wake them up to it.... Yes, they have missed one period, but I am not certain there is a mental attachment yet. They feel nothing inside....the growing baby is way too small, less than an inch and not formed yet, in their womb.

NOT a glob of cells that mean nothing, but not formed as a human yet, not a "fetus" yet....

So, I asked myself, why would this be built in to the woman's pregnancy? The early weeks of NOT having an attachment to this new forming baby of theirs?

The only thing I could come up with is that until the age of modern medicine, most women lost their babies, spontaneus abortion during the embryo phase of life(natural) or they miscarried if closer to the fetus stage where the baby is fully formed....this takes place at around 10 weeks.

Note, I said fully formed NOT fully developed. Fully formed, is a fetus. This means that all the cells in the embryo have gone to the areas of the body that they are suppose to be and have formed the "shell" of what will develop over the next 6 months. They have hands, head, arms, feet, legs, eye sockets, blood vessels and all proper organ cells in place to continue to develop.

NOT going to term with pregnancy was common. God, just must have somehow put in to women, during this early period, of not being attached, so to help these women deal with the physical and mostly mental LOSS of their child. They wouldn't "hurt" so much in the mind, heart, and soul after losing their child very early on....

having a child was a true Blessing back then....the more children, the more blessed one was....(mainly because we lived off of the land back then and tilled the soil ourselves and those with many children, had a huge workforce to till their soil...to farm and do choirs...the wealthy had the most children because the wealthy had big estates to handle....thus many wives were also allowed and encouraged...from what I have read about it)

Even in the Jewish census, they did not count children in many respects, until they were of 6 months in age, because most children born alive would die before then.... I kid you not!

Now, getting back to abortion in the early embryo stage....if the girl is not told over and over again that from fertilization, it is her baby, and reminded that it is a "baby", she probably will not find it difficult to abort...(If the father abandon's her).

I truely do not believe there is a true connection in their head that an abortion in the early stage, is killing a child. I could be wrong...?

[nevadamedic]

I am confused.....why would you state that, when you stated you believe the child is the woman's body......would you charge her with manslaughter if she removed a wart from her finger?.....aren't you being inconsistent?

Because I can.

[Black Lance]

Yes and yes.

It is extreme but in some cases could be needed for the health or well being of the mother.

What if killing the father is somehow needed for the well-being of the mother? Would you also consider that acceptable?



Giving the unborn equal rights to the born would open up a whole new can of worms. Is the woman who miscarriages now guilty of manslaughter if it can be shown she did anything that might have contributed to i. Ect.

Not neccesarily, we could simply pass laws that set aside different penalties, or none at all, for accidentally killing an unborn child as opposed to someone who has been born. There are practical differences between the two cases that would have to be addressed.

[Hagbard Celine]

This is the same, stale argument recycled for the umpteenth time. Religious fanatics believe a zygote has rights and that birth control is a slap in the face of God. Reasonable people think the choice to get an abortion is one that should be left between the parents of the unborn child--the law reflects that. End of story.

[Black Lance]

This is the same, stale argument recycled for the umpteenth time. Religious fanatics believe a zygote has rights and that birth control is a slap in the face of God. Reasonable people think the choice to get an abortion is one that should be left between the parents of the unborn child--the law reflects that. End of story.

Stupid fanatics trying to make the world a better place, what's wrong with them?

[JohnDoe]

She should be charged with Manslaughter if she does anything to cause a Miscarrage.


Intentionally?

or even unintentionally?


Either way, the woman is NEVER CHARGED, even if she had an abortion during the times where it was illegal.

The Doctor who performed it was punished, or the person that performed it was punished, but not the mother to be from what I have been told.

[JohnDoe]

The unborn, undeveloped, baby in the womb should have no rights, other than the one we are arguing over, which is whether to have: "the right, to be born or not''....imho.

[Hagbard Celine]

Stupid fanatics trying to make the world a better place, what's wrong with them?

Hey if you want to make the world a better place, why don't you try feeding poor people and lowering the cost of medical care. Oh wait, you would consider that an "entitlement" so nevermind. :rolleyes: hypocrite.

[Mr. P]

...which isn't about control or violence - but sometimes USES those things to achieve it's goal - Sexual release.

This :wank2: is Sexual release. Unwanted sex by force is about control and more often than not is violent.

I don't have anything more to say about it.

[darin]

This :wank2: is Sexual release. Unwanted sex by force is about control and more often than not is violent.

I don't have anything more to say about it.

Then the last thing you have to say about it is flat-out WRONG. A man rapes a woman to have sex with her. He uses violence and control as a means. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

[PostmodernProphet]

A number of things I feel I must respond to....

first of all,
"I truly do not believe there is a true connection in their head that an abortion in the early stage, is killing a child."

of course you are right....for two generations now society has been telling girls that an abortion is NOT killing a child, why would she believe it was? Thus, she would not find it difficult to abort the child, whether or not the father was 'responsible'.

"if the girl is not told over and over again that from fertilization, it is her baby, and reminded that it is a "baby", she probably will not find it difficult to abort."

again, society goes further, telling her not only that it isn't HER baby, but telling her it isn't A baby.

"God, just must have somehow put in to women, during this early period, of not being attached, so to help these women deal with the physical and mostly mental LOSS of their child. They wouldn't "hurt" so much in the mind, heart, and soul after losing their child very early on."

Knowing full well what the experience of miscarriage does to a family, I can tell you there IS no such autonomous physical method of protection.

"The only thing I could come up with is that until the age of modern medicine, most women lost their babies, spontaneus abortion during the embryo phase of life(natural) or they miscarried if closer to the fetus stage where the baby is fully formed....this takes place at around 10 weeks."

This presumes that the only people who miscarry are people who do not want a child. As such, it is a faulty argument for this debate.

"So, I asked myself, why would this be built in to the woman's pregnancy? The early weeks of NOT having an attachment to this new forming baby of theirs?"

Scientifically, it is easily explainable.....the attachment doesn't occur because the woman is not yet aware she is pregnant.....most women will not even suspect they are pregnant for five weeks, might go buy a drug store pregnancy tester at 6-7 weeks.....

"NOT a glob of cells that mean nothing, but not formed as a human yet, not a "fetus" yet...."

sorry, but that glob of cells is never going to get any more 'human' than it was immediately after conception....and a simple DNA test will prove it....

now, all that aside, the question is, what is the woman's state of mind at the moment she decides to abort....I think we have to agree that at that moment, she is aware she is pregnant....

your argument requires me to believe that the majority of women would not feel free to abort the child if only the father were responsible....if that argument is true, then the decision on whether or not to abort has absolutely nothing to do with attachment to the child, but rather is based on attachment to the father......

[PostmodernProphet]

that birth control is a slap in the face of God

it really sucks for the zygote, too.....

[dan]

This :wank2: is Sexual release.

Sorry, but that cracked me up. I literally LOL'ed in the office here, and then had to make up an excuse as to why I was laughing.


Right - in that case a man wants to have sex, so finds the first woman he can.

I don't know. You seem to be trying to give rapists a pass, which is weird. I think there's a lot more going on psychologically with a rapist than "I'm horny, that looks like a good place to put my schlong."


yeah. I fully expect every woman who has consensual sex to carry a resulting baby to term. If she cannot handle raising a child, I'd expect her to be woman-enough to realize the fact, and offer the human to others who could.

I think a large part of this is just that you're a little older and wiser. While I definitely agree that in a perfect world, there'd be no need/desire for the existence of abortion, but think back to when you were, say, 18. When you had the opportunity to have sex, was the first thing that crossed your mind, "well, maybe I shouldn't, she could get pregnant"? Kids have been obsessed with sex for years and society being what it is, it's only going to get worse. I think we're past the point of considering mass abstinence as a viable option, so what can we do?


I fully hope a woman who was actually raped to carry THAT baby to term, too.

I think that's very unfair.


Nor is abortion. I'd like to see stats showing complications from birth vs. abortions. In the case you mention? I don't think anything about it. It's sad she died, but it's joy over the new life she's delivered.

But, is it fair to make an immediate, gut-reaction decision regarding something this important, then simply "don't think about" the negative consequences?


It's sad she died, but it's joy over the new life she's delivered.

But, this logic dictates that the entire purpose of life is to procreate. And, while I definitely think this was how people felt a long time ago, I believe our society has evolved to a point where that doesn't need to be our main goal in life. Where you see joy over a new life, I see tragedy over a wasted life.


I don't say rape is all about sexual release. My statement you've quoted was in response to Mr P's comment about violence and control - I was saying "Penetration isn't required for sexual violence and control to happen."

Right, so to me, this quote clearly shows that Mr. P is right. If rape was about sex, then penetration would be the only desirable result.

[darin]

I don't know. You seem to be trying to give rapists a pass, which is weird. I think there's a lot more going on psychologically with a rapist than "I'm horny, that looks like a good place to put my schlong."

Not even CLOSE. I'm saying, let's not give a WOMAN a pass (about killing her child), AND let's just be honest about what motivates rape.



I think a large part of this is just that you're a little older and wiser. While I definitely agree that in a perfect world, there'd be no need/desire for the existence of abortion, but think back to when you were, say, 18. When you had the opportunity to have sex, was the first thing that crossed your mind, "well, maybe I shouldn't, she could get pregnant"? Kids have been obsessed with sex for years and society being what it is, it's only going to get worse. I think we're past the point of considering mass abstinence as a viable option, so what can we do?

It's a systematic problem; without clear answers. I don't have answers, really - but I know the answer is NOT in aborting babies as we do today. I know the answer MUST include giving the father legal input on the baby's life or death.

One thing which likely contributes to unwanted pregnancies is our society's casual take on sex. We're sexing children at younger and younger age. We're not applying ANY context to sex other than "If you love that person" or, "If you are sexually-attracted to that person, just be (BIGQUOTEYFINGERS)"Safe."


I think that's very unfair.


It's unfair to the child to kill him/her, too. It's not about fair, it's about 'right'.



But, is it fair to make an immediate, gut-reaction decision regarding something this important, then simply "don't think about" the negative consequences?


I absolutely think about the negative consequences. The mother dying in childbirth IS a negative. I stated that. I'd even go so far as to say if a qualified doctor was of the opinion carrying the baby to term would cause unreasonable risk to the life of the mother, an abortion is a viable alternative.



But, this logic dictates that the entire purpose of life is to procreate. And, while I definitely think this was how people felt a long time ago, I believe our society has evolved to a point where that doesn't need to be our main goal in life. Where you see joy over a new life, I see tragedy over a wasted life.

Absolutely not. I'm saying, a birth is to be celebrated, a death to be mourned. I can't see in my statement where you'd get the idea I think sex is for procreation - it's absolutely for recreation between a committed man and woman. It's a tool used to bond man and woman; it's a physical and psychological bonding.


Right, so to me, this quote clearly shows that Mr. P is right. If rape was about sex, then penetration would be the only desirable result.

I'm not even sure what you're saying. You can't pull one reply I've made out of context and make an argument about something else. I was talking about sexual assault. Rape an sexual assault are different. Often, rape is ABSOLUTELY about sex/sexual release. Sometimes rapists use violence and control to get what they want. Sometimes people don't have to rape another person for that sexual release - hence, sexual assault. I think that's pretty clear. Make sense?

[Black Lance]

Hey if you want to make the world a better place, why don't you try feeding poor people and lowering the cost of medical care. Oh wait, you would consider that an "entitlement" so nevermind. :rolleyes: hypocrit.

The church is by far the largest private sector provider of charity in the Western world. There is substantial disagreement about whether the government can do a better job managing health care, or anything else, than the private sector already does. Liberals are not the only people with an idea of what constitutes a better world.

[dan]

I'm not even sure what you're saying. You can't pull one reply I've made out of context and make an argument about something else. I was talking about sexual assault. Rape an sexual assault are different. Often, rape is ABSOLUTELY about sex/sexual release. Sometimes rapists use violence and control to get what they want. Sometimes people don't have to rape another person for that sexual release - hence, sexual assault. I think that's pretty clear. Make sense?

I was thinking you were using 'sexual assault' and 'rape' interchangably, which I was, and do.

[OCA]

Not everytime, there's always a turkey baster. :laugh2:


I swear to Christ! You are such a fucking moron.

[OCA]

Unless she was raped, ect.

wow, that accounts for about 1% of all abortions.

[OCA]

Many guys wouldn't or even pay child support and then it always falls to the mom to raise the kid.

Lie. Nowadays it is nearly impossible NOT to pay child support, garnished wages, confiscated tax returns etc. etc.

LN, you are a stupid child and know very little about this subject.....best to just shut the fuck up before you embarrass yourself further.

[OCA]

No I'm refuting that a baby is always the result of a woman choosing to have sex.

ROTFLMFAO! The stork brings it!:laugh2::laugh2:

[OCA]

Her body is her possession. It residing in it is immaterial and doesn't negate her right to do what she wishes with her own body. Sucks for the unborn baby her rights trumps it.

You know you support infanticide, right?

[OCA]

if that's the case, I thank God that almost all the men I know belong to that half of one percent........

Exactly, every guy I know with children including myself have never expressed an ounce of regret or showed any inclination of not wanting towards their children, they and I would gladly take a bullet for them.

That 1/2 of 1 percent was bullshit.

[Abbey Marie]

If you want to understand the motivations of a rapist, just take a look at your local sex offenders registry. Many if not most of these are the scummiest, ugliest, most repulsive looking men you will ever see. I highly doubt they can get someone to have sex with willingly, and I'll bet most of them couldn't afford to pay for it regularly, either. IMO, they are the classic "losers" of society, who decide to take by force what they can't otherwise get.

And while I do not think Darin's explanation covers all rapists' motivations, as some surely are just in it for the sick high that violence and forced submission bring, it surely does explain date rape quite well. And for that alone, it is a valid argument worth exploring.

Pedophiles are a whole other subject, though...

[Abbey Marie]

Exactly, every guy I know with children including myself have never expressed an ounce of regret or showed any inclination of not wanting towards their children, they and I would gladly take a bullet for them.

That 1/2 of 1 percent was bullshit.

Ditto, for almost every guy I know.

[LiberalNation]

Lie. Nowadays it is nearly impossible NOT to pay child support, garnished wages, confiscated tax returns etc. etc.
All you have to do is move to a different state and not let anyone know where you are going.

[nevadamedic]

All you have to do is move to a different state and not let anyone know where you are going.

Bullshit, they track you by your social security number.

[LiberalNation]

wow, that accounts for about 1% of all abortions.
and that doesn't change the fact that not all pregnancies come about when a woman chooses to have sex.

[Kathianne]

If you want to understand the motivations of a rapist, just take a look at your local sex offenders registry. Many if not most of these are the scummiest, ugliest, most repulsive looking men you will ever see. I highly doubt they can get someone to have sex with willingly, and I'll bet most of them couldn't afford to pay for it regularly, either. IMO, they are the classic "losers" of society, who decide to take by force what they can't otherwise get.

And while I do not think Darin's explanation covers all rapists' motivations, as some surely are just in it for the sick high that violence and forced submission bring, it surely does explain date rape quite well. And for that alone, it is a valid argument worth exploring.

Pedophiles are a whole other subject, though...

I agree that Darin's explanation would account for some percentage of date rape. As for looks and sex, I don't think there's alot of excuses there. Very fat, ugly guys, super skinny geeky guys, all account for lots of marriages, which at one time or another must have meant they dated. Now poor hygiene, sure. That shouldn't be too difficult to fix.

Seriously, I think most rapists hate women and have a power problem.

[LiberalNation]

Bullshit, they track you by your social security number.
They must not be good trackers. I have several male relatives not paying their child support even tho the woman have taken them to court to demand it. They just moved and the cops haven't bugged them since.

[nevadamedic]

I agree that Darin's explanation would account for some percentage of date rape. As for looks and sex, I don't think there's alot of excuses there. Very fat, ugly guys, super skinny geeky guys, all account for lots of marriages, which at one time or another must have meant they dated. Now poor hygiene, sure. That shouldn't be too difficult to fix.

Seriously, I think most rapists hate women and have a power problem.

Rape has very little to do with sex actually, it is more about contol.

[nevadamedic]

They must not be good trackers. I have several male relatives not paying their child support even tho the woman have taken them to court to demand it. They just moved and the cops haven't bugged them since.

Then they arn't using their social security number, once the employer put's it in the system, it can b found immediatly.

[Mr. P]

All you have to do is move to a different state and not let anyone know where you are going.

You are naive, the second you have a legitimate job that withholds tax and you file tax a return the whole world knows where you are.

[Kathianne]

Rape has very little to do with sex actually, it is more about contol.

Which is basically what I was saying. So, do you have a criminology, sociology, or psych degree? I mean you have it down as 'fact.'

[OCA]

All you have to do is move to a different state and not let anyone know where you are going.

You are completely naive, they will and are going to find you.

[OCA]

and that doesn't change the fact that not all pregnancies come about when a woman chooses to have sex.

No but i'd say 99% is a supermajority, wouldn't you?

[OCA]

They must not be good trackers. I have several male relatives not paying their child support even tho the woman have taken them to court to demand it. They just moved and the cops haven't bugged them since.

Wow, your family is full of fucking degenerate scumbags, isn't it? Your genetics suck, don't pass them on.

Eventually these losers will get caught, wanna bet paychecks?

[OCA]

You are naive, the second you have a legitimate job that withholds tax and you file tax a return the whole world knows where you are.

Exactly, these degenerate relatives of hers must be a bunch of jobless lazy fucks, the minute one of them uses their S.S.# for anything, hell even just to get a hunting license....BOOM! they are pinched.

[OCA]

Which is basically what I was saying. So, do you have a criminology, sociology, or psych degree? I mean you have it down as 'fact.'

Kath didn't you know? He sits on the web all day long which makes him an expert on most everything.

[Kathianne]

They must not be good trackers. I have several male relatives not paying their child support even tho the woman have taken them to court to demand it. They just moved and the cops haven't bugged them since.

So what employment or assets do they have? Perhaps self-employed, but then there would be a lien on any equipment, houses, cars, etc. they own.

[nevadamedic]

Which is basically what I was saying. So, do you have a criminology, sociology, or psych degree? I mean you have it down as 'fact.'

I actually when I was an EMT volunteered with the Crosis Call Center on the Suicide Hotline and I was a rape advocate. I would goto the hospitals with the rape victim's and help them through the process. I have over 120 hours of initial training and tons of continuing education on the subject, so I do have some experience on these two subjects.

I also dealt with it happening to my daughter by a 60 something year old man and the asshole only got 2-10 years in prison and he comes up for Parole in Oct. and we were told that he will probably get out since the prisons are so over crowded. So a guy that took the innocence of a little girl gets about 14 months in Prison and get's released, whats the justice in that?

[Abbey Marie]

I agree that Darin's explanation would account for some percentage of date rape. As for looks and sex, I don't think there's alot of excuses there. Very fat, ugly guys, super skinny geeky guys, all account for lots of marriages, which at one time or another must have meant they dated. Now poor hygiene, sure. That shouldn't be too difficult to fix.

Seriously, I think most rapists hate women and have a power problem.

It's more than fat, ugly or skinny, which I tried to convey by using the word "scummiest". It's not a question of just looks, it's bone-deep loserdom, and women can smell it from a mile away. Take a look some time at a site. There are exceptions, but the vast majority are as I have described.

Also, for there to be a date-rape, there has to be some sort of date/relationship. I'm willing to bet that most of these guys don't ever get to the "date" stage.

[LiberalNation]

So what employment or assets do they have? Perhaps self-employed, but then there would be a lien on any equipment, houses, cars, etc. they own.
Only 2, they are kinda drifter. Work someplace for a little while move on, repeat.

[nevadamedic]

It's more than fat, ugly or skinny, which I tried to convey by using the word "scummiest". It's not a question of just looks, it's bone-deep loserdom, and women can smell it from a mile away. Take a look some time at a site. There are exceptions, but the vast majority are as I have described.

Also, for there to be a date-rape, there has to be some sort of date/relationship. I'm willing to bet that most of these guys don't ever get to the "date" stage.

The majority of rapes are commited by someone the victim knows.

[Abbey Marie]

The majority of rapes are commited by someone the victim knows.

How well do they usually know the person?

I had two near-misses, and in both cases they were complete strangers to me.

[Mr. P]

Only 2, they are kinda drifter. Work someplace for a little while move on, repeat.

And that will be for the rest of their lives because this dept doesn't go away.
It would have been much easier to deal with it for 18 yrs. and have it done.

[Abbey Marie]

And that will be for the rest of their lives because this dept doesn't go away.
It would have been much easier to deal with it for 18 yrs. and have it done.

Lol. Are they as persistent as the student loan people?

[Mr. P]

Lol. Are they as persistent as the student loan people?

From what I understand from some guys I've worked with owing child support, yes.

[JohnDoe]

I actually when I was an EMT volunteered with the Crosis Call Center on the Suicide Hotline and I was a rape advocate. I would goto the hospitals with the rape victim's and help them through the process. I have over 120 hours of initial training and tons of continuing education on the subject, so I do have some experience on these two subjects.

I also dealt with it happening to my daughter by a 60 something year old man and the asshole only got 2-10 years in prison and he comes up for Parole in Oct. and we were told that he will probably get out since the prisons are so over crowded. So a guy that took the innocence of a little girl gets about 14 months in Prison and get's released, whats the justice in that?

We have more people in Prison than any other westernized country per capita.

Our prisons are filled with non-violent Drug users, and small time dealers.

I'd say we need to build more prisons if we keep adding things that "break" the Law....oh goody, more tax dollars to waste on the non-violent, while the violent and dispicable are set free early. Better to put druggies in rehab and make room for the sickos to stay their full sentence.

[jimnyc]

Lol. Are they as persistent as the student loan people?

Just as bad! My eldest brother has 4 children, 2 from his first marriage and 2 with his current wife. The ex is in South Carolina and he's since moved to Georgia. His ex is a nutcase and constantly tries to get him in hot water. He was out of work on disability for a 75% torn rotator cuff and she didn't give a damn that he was having trouble making ends meet. He sent money every time but wasn't always able to send enough as he has kids to care for at home too. His ex doesn't even use the money to help his youngest boys but that's besides the point. When she goes after him, he gets accosted from both SC and GA!

As others stated before, it's a responsibility and should and must be paid. They WILL eventually get to you, unless you choose to live in a box in the streets for the remainder of your time. Between work, home ownership, vehicle ownership, licenses, credit cards, phone bills... They will track you down and it's just a matter of time.

[Yurt]

I've had this discussion many a time and still refuse to waver from my position. Putting criminal issues aside and considering consensual sex...

It takes TWO to decide to engage in sex. It takes TWO for the woman to "receive" the "offering" and become pregnant. Now inside her body is a living human being. Part of that being is from both the woman AND the man. I think a man should have 100% EQUAL rights and say in all matters related thereafter. No abortion should EVER be performed without consent of BOTH, even though I don't believe it should ever happen at all. Unless the man has done something criminal, he should be along for the ride and be involved in every aspect, every choice and every decision. I don't give a rats ass if it's the womans body, the baby inside is the child of BOTH.

What he said

[Yurt]

It really should be equal say. Of course the problem some might raise will be, if its a tie, who decides? We could say that the one who wants the child will get full custody. However, what if it is the woman who wants the abortion and of course it is the woman who has to experience the birth. IMO, that was a risk she took.

[red states rule]

We have more people in Prison than any other westernized country per capita.

Our prisons are filled with non-violent Drug users, and small time dealers.

I'd say we need to build more prisons if we keep adding things that "break" the Law....oh goody, more tax dollars to waste on the non-violent, while the violent and dispicable are set free early. Better to put druggies in rehab and make room for the sickos to stay their full sentence.

Perhaps we have more people breaking the law - that is why they are in prison

Why do those on the left always seem to want to give people a pass when they break the law? (Unless the alleged crime was committed by a Republican then libs want to enfore the letter of the law)

[PostmodernProphet]

Bullshit, they track you by your social security number.

to be fair, some states really suck at tracking down delinquent payers....

[Missileman]

I think a man should have 100% EQUAL rights and say in all matters related thereafter.

The role played by both between the time of conception and the time of birth is NOT 100% equal. The health risks and physical damage to the body caused by pregnancy are all borne by the woman. IMO, the man's 100% equal rights (and responsibility) start when the baby is born, and not a moment sooner.

[jimnyc]

The role played by both between the time of conception and the time of birth is NOT 100% equal. The health risks and physical damage to the body caused by pregnancy are all borne by the woman. IMO, the man's 100% equal rights (and responsibility) start when the baby is born, and not a moment sooner.

And when that woman decided to have sex and get pregnant, it was the responsibility and choice of BOTH. Once the life is formed, there is now a Mommy AND a Daddy. A woman should not be able to arbitrarily decide to waive the mans rights to fatherhood. If she is concerned about health risks, she should have thought that over before MUTUALLY having sex and getting pregnant.

By your logic, should a man walk away from a woman denying him any say in the matter, he should still be financially responsible. But before birth, he should have no say should the woman decide to end the life of the child?

Sorry, I ain't buying it. It takes two to tango.

[Missileman]

And when that woman decided to have sex and get pregnant, it was the responsibility and choice of BOTH. Once the life is formed, there is now a Mommy AND a Daddy. A woman should not be able to arbitrarily decide to waive the mans rights to fatherhood. If she is concerned about health risks, she should have thought that over before MUTUALLY having sex and getting pregnant.

By your logic, should a man walk away from a woman denying him any say in the matter, he should still be financially responsible. But before birth, he should have no say should the woman decide to end the life of the child?

Sorry, I ain't buying it. It takes two to tango.

With the knowledge that the woman is free to do as she pleases with her body, the man should take steps to increase his chances of having a say in the decision before MUTUALLY having sex and getting her pregnant. It's called a wedding ring.

[red states rule]

With the knowledge that the woman is free to do as she pleases with her body, the man should take steps to increase his chances of having a say in the decision before MUTUALLY having sex and getting her pregnant. It's called a wedding ring.

Could not have said it better


:clap:

[jimnyc]

With the knowledge that the woman is free to do as she pleases with her body, the man should take steps to increase his chances of having a say in the decision before MUTUALLY having sex and getting her pregnant. It's called a wedding ring.

And out of wedlock, they are both still responsible for having sex and creating the pregnancy. You can't just lay the blame solely on the man. With life comes responsibility and consequences, which both should face equally. Which is why I have no problem with men being forced to financially support a child they helped bring into this world. But if you want to deny a man a right to something that is a part of him, then he should have the right to be free of financial responsibility as well if he chooses.

IMO, when a woman becomes pregnant, she has accepted the fact that she is carrying a life made by two. As men should take precautions to avoid situations they may not care for, so should a woman.

[Abbey Marie]

With the knowledge that the woman is free to do as she pleases with her body, the man should take steps to increase his chances of having a say in the decision before MUTUALLY having sex and getting her pregnant. It's called a wedding ring.

Not clear what you mean here. That wedding ring can't let the man stop the woman from getting an abortion if she wants one.

[Missileman]

Not clear what you mean here. That wedding ring can't let the man stop the woman from getting an abortion if she wants one.

Indeed, but the wedding ring increases the potential weight his opinion might carry in the discussion. I'm saying if a man is THAT interested in protecting his parental rights, especially knowing that the decision is ultimately the woman's, that he should take the step necessary to enhance his position BEFORE planting his seed.

[Yurt]

The role played by both between the time of conception and the time of birth is NOT 100% equal. The health risks and physical damage to the body caused by pregnancy are all borne by the woman. IMO, the man's 100% equal rights (and responsibility) start when the baby is born, and not a moment sooner.

So the person that puts the tires on the car bears the ultimate responsibility for that car?

Look, women know that men's semen can get them pregnant. Women know that it is because of men's semen they become pregnant. Without that semen, we would not exist. God has seen that it is women who have the special duty to "grow" the child. If not "god" then "nature" has seen to it.

To argue that just because a person "houses" the child for 9 months inside her body gives her a greater authority over the LIFE of the child is ludicrous.

Let's follow this logic all the way through, as it seems to pervade many posters on this thread.

It is "solely" the woman's" choice because she bears the child. She alone decides whether that child lives or dies.


If that is so, why put the burden on the man after the child is born? What if the man did not want the child? Risk you say (and I say that the woman also bore the risk). Yet, you also that only the woman gets to make the decision on the life or death of the child in the womb. It is illogical and wholly unfair. It is also, for those who do not believe in "god" completely against nature.

To say that once a man gives his sperm to a woman, that sperm now completely and totally belongs to the woman is naive. It takes two, not one to create that life. It is illogical that you can now say that only "one" has the decision regarding that life.

For there is not one person here who supports the woman's "right" who would say:

if the man wants the abortion, it is his "right" to demand it.

[Missileman]

So the person that puts the tires on the car bears the ultimate responsibility for that car?

Look, women know that men's semen can get them pregnant. Women know that it is because of men's semen they become pregnant. Without that semen, we would not exist. God has seen that it is women who have the special duty to "grow" the child. If not "god" then "nature" has seen to it.

To argue that just because a person "houses" the child for 9 months inside her body gives her a greater authority over the LIFE of the child is ludicrous.

Let's follow this logic all the way through, as it seems to pervade many posters on this thread.

It is "solely" the woman's" choice because she bears the child. She alone decides whether that child lives or dies.


If that is so, why put the burden on the man after the child is born? What if the man did not want the child? Risk you say (and I say that the woman also bore the risk). Yet, you also that only the woman gets to make the decision on the life or death of the child in the womb. It is illogical and wholly unfair. It is also, for those who do not believe in "god" completely against nature.

To say that once a man gives his sperm to a woman, that sperm now completely and totally belongs to the woman is naive. It takes two, not one to create that life. It is illogical that you can now say that only "one" has the decision regarding that life.

For there is not one person here who supports the woman's "right" who would say:

if the man wants the abortion, it is his "right" to demand it.

Pre-marital sex comes with consequences. For women the consequences include pregnancy. For men, the consequences include the possibility that an egg they fertilize might be terminated without their consent. They are consequences that can easily be avoided.

[Yurt]

Pre-marital sex comes with consequences. For women the consequences include pregnancy. For men, the consequences include the possibility that an egg they fertilize might be terminated without their consent. They are consequences that can easily be avoided.

Are you effing dense? Men do NOT have the consequences of pregnancy?

So then if the man says get an abortion, and the woman says no, you support that the man should NOT have to pay child support?

I seriously cannot believe anyone would say that men have no consequences for sex, pre-marital or otherwise. The man's body ALSO produced that child.

To say man has no choice is devoid of logic.

[Missileman]

Are you effing dense? Men do NOT have the consequences of pregnancy?

Don't get your panties in a knot. I said the consequences INCLUDE, I didn't say the consequences ARE ONLY.


So then if the man says get an abortion, and the woman says no, you support that the man should NOT have to pay child support?

One of the other included consequences of pre-marital sex for men is having to pay child support if the woman chooses to have the baby.


I seriously cannot believe anyone would say that men have no consequences for sex, pre-marital or otherwise.

I'm not sure who you're talking to with this comment...I've suggested no such thing.


To say man has no choice is devoid of logic.

Again, the man can choose to protect his reproductive rights with a wedding ring. If he chooses to engage in pre-marital sex, then he is subject to the possible consequences.

Taken to the extreme, what you are advocating is the right for a man, once he's dumped his load, to hold a woman hostage to prevent her from taking a morning after pill and once her pregnancy is verified, continue holding her hostage until she bears his fruit.

[Abbey Marie]

Indeed, but the wedding ring increases the potential weight his opinion might carry in the discussion. I'm saying if a man is THAT interested in protecting his parental rights, especially knowing that the decision is ultimately the woman's, that he should take the step necessary to enhance his position BEFORE planting his seed.

I agree that men should make better decisions. Everyone should. But the key point here is that, given the fact that even after marriage, all he can do is hope to convince his wife to keep the baby, shouldn't the law give men some rights to stop an abortion?

[Missileman]

I agree that men should make better decisions. Everyone should. But the key point here is that, given the fact that even after marriage, all he can do is hope to convince his wife to keep the baby, shouldn't the law give men some rights to stop an abortion?

Are there really so many wives getting abortions against the wishes of their husbands that we need to create new laws for it?

[JohnDoe]

And when that woman decided to have sex and get pregnant, it was the responsibility and choice of BOTH. Once the life is formed, there is now a Mommy AND a Daddy. A woman should not be able to arbitrarily decide to waive the mans rights to fatherhood. If she is concerned about health risks, she should have thought that over before MUTUALLY having sex and getting pregnant.

By your logic, should a man walk away from a woman denying him any say in the matter, he should still be financially responsible. But before birth, he should have no say should the woman decide to end the life of the child?

Sorry, I ain't buying it. It takes two to tango.


It certainly takes 2 to Tango, but it takes ONLY ONE to carry to term, a baby.

Sorry, it is not the same. A man will never die from childbirth, a man will never have a miscarriage, a man can never lose his life from carrying the baby, a man will never have to go through the pains of Labor or Delivery, a man will never get high blood pressure from carrying the child, a man will never get constipation from carrying the child.

They are not on equal footing, by ANY means, until the child is born, and even then the mother is usually FAVORED over the man in divorce custodies.


If God thought you were RESPONSIBLE enough to carry your child to term, He would have made you capable of child birth! NOT! ;)

[JohnDoe]

I agree that men should make better decisions. Everyone should. But the key point here is that, given the fact that even after marriage, all he can do is hope to convince his wife to keep the baby, shouldn't the law give men some rights to stop an abortion?That is personal and should be between the married couple to decide imo, we don't need big government getting in on making this personal decision between a husband and a wife while abortion is legal? the husband and wife can go for counciling at their church or outside their church to work on their marriage being saved because I honestly can not see a couple staying married with a relationship like the one you described...?

[jimnyc]

It certainly takes 2 to Tango, but it takes ONLY ONE to carry to term, a baby.

Sorry, it is not the same. A man will never die from childbirth, a man will never have a miscarriage, a man can never lose his life from carrying the baby, a man will never have to go through the pains of Labor or Delivery, a man will never get high blood pressure from carrying the child, a man will never get constipation from carrying the child.

They are not on equal footing, by ANY means, until the child is born, and even then the mother is usually FAVORED over the man in divorce custodies.


If God thought you were RESPONSIBLE enough to carry your child to term, He would have made you capable of child birth! NOT! ;)

If the woman wants an abortion, and the man doesn't, you feel the womans choice trumps because of possible medical issues and therefore it's her right to solely decide the outcome and abort the baby. But his choice has no bearing.

And if a man wants the abortion, and the woman doesn't, and decided she has no problem with the potential medical issues, the baby will be born and now the man is financially responsible. But his choice has no bearing.

So basically, they have a mutually and consensual sexual relationship, a baby is formed, and then the man should lose all rights from that point until said child is delivered?


They are not on equal footing, by ANY means, until the child is born, and even then the mother is usually FAVORED over the man in divorce custodies.

And that's wrong as well, even if case study shows otherwise. First and foremost should be the best interest of the child. Who is more responsible for caring? Who has more time for the baby? Who has better means to care for the baby? Has either a criminal past that should play a part? Who offers better living conditions?

The mere fact that she is a woman should not sway a judge in either direction. The totality of the situation should dictate the outcome.

[JohnDoe]

Are you effing dense? Men do NOT have the consequences of pregnancy?

So then if the man says get an abortion, and the woman says no, you support that the man should NOT have to pay child support?

I seriously cannot believe anyone would say that men have no consequences for sex, pre-marital or otherwise. The man's body ALSO produced that child.

To say man has no choice is devoid of logic.
The man's consequence of premarital sex is that the woman he slept with and got pregnant, has the sole responsibility of child birth, she can kill his child or she can have his child and He has to live with her decision.

That's his punishment for the fun.

Her punishment is childbirth...labor and delivery if she chooses to have the child. (Eve, and all women thereafter, was punished with Labor and Delivery pains for giving Adam that forbidden fruit of knowledge)

Or abortion, which is also a very heavy mental burden to carry... and more than likely, WILL come back to haunt her...when her head is sitting on straight, somewhere down the road.

[jimnyc]

That's his punishment for the fun.

Why should a man be punished at all?

[JohnDoe]

Jim, do you think that there should be a law, forcing the man that got the woman pregnant, to marry the pregnant woman? And if he did not marry the mother to be of his child to be he should go to jail?

Since abortion is legal, I do not believe that the man should have any LEGAL say so in what the girl does with her pregnancy. I do believe he should have say in their personal discussions over it, but in the end, if he can not convince the pregnant girl to go through carrying his child to term, I do not think we should have big government forcing this to happen.

And yes, if she does chose to have his child, he should be held fully responsible to supporting that child.

You, are taking the 1% or less of men that insist on their girlfriends delivering their child when their girlfriends did not want to, and trying to write off the kazillion of men that could not be happier that they were not stuck with the burden of being a father and having to pay child support.

Exceptions don't ususally 'make the rule'....they are as we call them, 'exceptions to the rule'.

In otherwords, as I mentioned earlier, the discussion on whether abortion should be legal or not, should not be made on exceptions but on the whole, bigger , picture imho.

These 'sidebars' do not help settle the over all issue among the differing parties.

[jimnyc]

Jim, do you think that there should be a law, forcing the man that got the woman pregnant, to marry the pregnant woman? And if he did not marry the mother to be of his child to be he should go to jail?

Absolutely not. While I think stable parents are in the best interest of the child, whether or not they are married shouldn't preclude the man from having say in said babies future.


Since abortion is legal, I do not believe that the man should have any LEGAL say so in what the girl does with her pregnancy. I do believe he should have say in their personal discussions over it, but in the end, if he can not convince the pregnant girl to go through carrying his child to term, I do not think we should have big government forcing this to happen.

The in that respect, big government shouldn't step in on force financial responsibility on a man if his desire was abortion. You have no issue with the government forcing responsibility on a man but think they should play no part in forcing responsibility on a woman.


And yes, if she does chose to have his child, he should be held fully responsible to supporting that child.

I agree, but all decisions getting to that point should be the responsibility of both, and the choice of both.


You, are taking the 1% or less of men that insist on their girlfriends delivering their child when their girlfriends did not want to, and trying to write off the kazillion of men that could not be happier that they were not stuck with the burden of being a father and having to pay child support.

I'd like to see statistics to backup the statement that only 1% of men want their child to live when a woman chooses to have an abortion. And I've written no one off. I have tried to illustrate both sides of the spectrum, showing that regardless of the wishes of EITHER, the decision should be equal.


Exceptions don't ususally 'make the rule'....they are as we call them, 'exceptions to the rule'.

In otherwords, as I mentioned earlier, the discussion on whether abortion should be legal or not, should not be made on exceptions but on the whole, bigger , picture imho.

These 'sidebars' do not help settle the over all issue among the differing parties.

And my stance is that there shouldn't be any rule at all, other than mutual responsibility and choices for both parents.

[JohnDoe]

Why should a man be punished at all?

with that attitude....

Why should a women be punished at all?

:D

[jimnyc]

with that attitude....

Why should a women be punished at all?

:D

Not sure I see where she is being punished. She should have known full well going into the 'party' what the responsibility was. The only time I can fathom someone thinking a woman was being 'punished' for carrying a child would be if she were raped and then forced to carry the baby against her wishes.

[JohnDoe]

Absolutely not. While I think stable parents are in the best interest of the child, whether or not they are married shouldn't preclude the man from having say in said babies future.



The in that respect, big government shouldn't step in on force financial responsibility on a man if his desire was abortion. You have no issue with the government forcing responsibility on a man but think they should play no part in forcing responsibility on a woman.



I agree, but all decisions getting to that point should be the responsibility of both, and the choice of both.



I'd like to see statistics to backup the statement that only 1% of men want their child to live when a woman chooses to have an abortion. And I've written no one off. I have tried to illustrate both sides of the spectrum, showing that regardless of the wishes of EITHER, the decision should be equal.



And my stance is that there shouldn't be any rule at all, other than mutual responsibility and choices for both parents.

Look it up Jim...there have been LESS than a handful of lawsuits from men that wanted their child, who tried to get her to deliver said child. 3 cases that I know of....but I accept that I could have missed a couple.

[jimnyc]

Look it up Jim...there have been LESS than a handful of lawsuits from men that wanted their child, who tried to get her to deliver said child. 3 cases that I know of....but I accept that I could have missed a couple.

But you're leaving out every case that was never brought before a court. If you want to change your statement to mean that very little men have brought the issue to court, I won't argue that. But to just state that 99% of men that get a woman pregnant don't want the baby that a woman chooses to abort is ludicrous, IMO.

[JohnDoe]

Not sure I see where she is being punished. She should have known full well going into the 'party' what the responsibility was. The only time I can fathom someone thinking a woman was being 'punished' for carrying a child would be if she were raped and then forced to carry the baby against her wishes.


She is being punished by having to carry the baby until term that she does not want and having to go through Labor and Delivery, where her private parts may NEVER be the same, without further surgery to tighten them up...you don't give enough credit to the women that do choose to have your babies....it is not an easy street being pregnant.

She is being punished by having to wear the scarlet letter, with a pregnancy outside of marriage..... She would be forced also to take care of this child for the next 20 years..... She can also lose promotions, have to quit school etc if she carries the baby to term, and the man, what does he lose...?

Nothing, by making her go through with the pregnancy.

[jimnyc]

She is being punished by having to carry the baby until term that she does not want and having to go through Labor and Delivery, where her private parts may NEVER be the same, without further surgery to tighten them up...you don't give enough credit to the women that do choose to have your babies....it is not an easy street being pregnant.

She is being punished by having to wear the scarlet letter, with a pregnancy outside of marriage..... She would be forced also to take care of this child for the next 20 years..... She can also lose promotions, have to quit school etc if she carries the baby to term, and the man, what does he lose...?

Nothing, by making her go through with the pregnancy.

But she CHOSE to have sex. How can she be being punished for something she willfully participated in, knowing full well what the possible outcomes can be?

If I drink too much liquor, am I being unduly 'punished' when I get a hangover? It may sound like an absurd analogy to you, but like I said before, with decisions come responsibility, and part of that responsibility is living up to the consequences that come with it. That is not punishment, it's life.

[JohnDoe]

But you're leaving out every case that was never brought before a court. If you want to change your statement to mean that very little men have brought the issue to court, I won't argue that. But to just state that 99% of men that get a woman pregnant don't want the baby that a woman chooses to abort is ludicrous, IMO.


What are you trying to say Jim? That MOST MEN are weak and MOST MEN that truely wanted the baby of their girlfriend didn't really try to save their baby's life? Then I would say that they really did not want their baby in the first place if they didn't at least try.

So, I stick with what I have said.... IF the man really WANTED his baby to be, the woman in MOST CASES, would have it...EXPECIALLY if the boyfriend married her.... it's called a wedding ring, where both parties are in this, together, as one.

Jim, if the millions of fathers to be each year, filed suit against the mothers to be, to have their child, SOMETHING in our laws would change by their movement, to have a say so....but they don't.

Abortion was not a law put on the books by WOMEN, it was put on the books by the majority of men....abortion is indirectly, the easy way out for MEN, from this female's perspective. :)

In the "old days" he was forced to marry the girl he got pregnant, through the pressures of society. He no longer has that responsibility.

[JohnDoe]

But she CHOSE to have sex. How can she be being punished for something she willfully participated in, knowing full well what the possible outcomes can be?

If I drink too much liquor, am I being unduly 'punished' when I get a hangover? It may sound like an absurd analogy to you, but like I said before, with decisions come responsibility, and part of that responsibility is living up to the consequences that come with it. That is not punishment, it's life.Then what are the man's consequences of what you say is just 'life' in these circumstances? Does he have to carry the baby for 9 months while everyone looks on? Does he have to gain 25-50 lbs during 9 months, does he get his private parts stretched out of shape, does he go through the pains of delivery, does he get high blood pressure from it and constipation and hemaroids from it? Does he have to worry about medical bills and going in to the doctor every month for a check up? Does he have to have a sonogram? Does he have to stop drinking during the 9 months? Does he have to change his diet? Does he have to take all kinds of yucky vitamins? Does he take the chance of loosing his job and career path? Does he have to quit going to school? Does he have the label put on him as an unwed mother, the known statistic of failure?

[jimnyc]

What are you trying to say Jim? That MOST MEN are weak and MOST MEN that truely wanted the baby of their girlfriend didn't really try to save their baby's life? Then I would say that they really did not want their baby in the first place if they didn't at least try.

And how do you know they didn't try? They have no case in court and they know it. Unfortunately, as it stands now, the man doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. I'm just one person, and I know of a few friends that HAD girlfriends that have had abortions while they were delighted about the news and wanted to be Daddies.


So, I stick with what I have said.... IF the man really WANTED his baby to be, the woman in MOST CASES, would have it...EXPECIALLY if the boyfriend married her.... it's called a wedding ring, where both parties are in this, together, as one.

And a wedding ring and/or marriage makes no difference whatsoever in the current legal standings. It should not take a marriage to force both parents to have responsibility and choices.


Jim, if the millions of fathers to be each year, filed suit against the mothers to be, to have their child, SOMETHING in our laws would change by their movement, to have a say so....but they don't.

And there could be a billion lawsuits every year over speeding tickets, but that doesn't necessarily mean the laws will be changed. Unfortunately, most men realize they are behind a stone and have no valid legal argument as it stands right now. The proper way to change this is not to file suits contrary to our laws, but to lobby to have said laws changed.


Abortion was not a law put on the books by WOMEN, it was put on the books by the majority of men....abortion is indirectly, the easy way out for MEN, from this female's perspective. :)

In the "old days" he was forced to marry the girl he got pregnant, through the pressures of society. He no longer has that responsibility.

Anything to backup that statement that it was men more responsible for creating the current abortion laws?

And you make it sound as if men created a law to avoid responsibility, yet it's currently only the womans choice as to whether or not said abortion is performed. Do you think men created a law, and then force women to have abortions?

[jimnyc]

Then what are the man's consequences of what you say is just 'life' in these circumstances? Does he have to carry the baby for 9 months while everyone looks on? Does he have to gain 25-50 lbs during 9 months, does he get his private parts stretched out of shape, does he go through the pains of delivery, does he get high blood pressure from it and constipation and hemaroids from it? Does he have to worry about medical bills and going in to the doctor every month for a check up? Does he have to have a sonogram? Does he have to stop drinking during the 9 months? Does he have to change his diet? Does he have to take all kinds of yucky vitamins? Does he take the chance of loosing his job and career path? Does he have to quit going to school? Does he have the label put on him as an unwed mother, the known statistic of failure?

The consequences for his actions are the same, to be responsible for what he helped create.

If women don't like the aspects of the childbirth experience, then they shouldn't be stupid enough to be having sex without first considering what their responsibilities will be if they get pregnant. If the man doesn't like to be a father, or having financial consequences, then he should have taken better consideration as well.

[Trinity]

Abortion was not a law put on the books by WOMEN, it was put on the books by the majority of men....abortion is indirectly, the easy way out for MEN, from this female's perspective. :)

In the "old days" he was forced to marry the girl he got pregnant, through the pressures of society. He no longer has that responsibility.


Have to agree here!

[Trinity]

Here is a link for those interested on The History of Abortion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

[JohnDoe]

The consequences for his actions are the same, to be responsible for what he helped create.

If women don't like the aspects of the childbirth experience, then they shouldn't be stupid enough to be having sex without first considering what their responsibilities will be if they get pregnant. If the man doesn't like to be a father, or having financial consequences, then he should have taken better consideration as well.


I am prolife.

But I have been playing devil's advocate, and giving a female perspective.

I bet ya forcing the man to marry the woman he gets pregnant would NEAR END our unwanted pregnancy problems, including abortion! :D

Why are men having sex without using a condom in this day and age of AIDS?

To me, it is no longer the girl that has to take the pill, it is a guy that SHOULD BE wearing the condom for safety reasons!

It's all on your shoulders in Today's world and YOU men are failing!!!! :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

I bet ya forcing the man to marry the woman he gets pregnant would NEAR END our unwanted pregnancy problems, including abortion! :D

While it very well may help the situation, or at least make people think a little harder about their actions, it would just cause the divorce rate to skyrocket further than it already has.


Why are men having sex without using a condom in this day and age of AIDS?

Goes both ways, why would a woman allow a man to have sex with her without a condom?


To me, it is no longer the girl that has to take the pill, it is a guy that SHOULD BE wearing the condom for safety reasons!

IMO, it should be a mutual decision. If either is fearful for safety reasons, they should agree to use a condom. If either is fearful of pregnancy, they should mutually decide which method to use for prevention.


It's all on your shoulders in Today's world and YOU men are failing!!!! :laugh2:

Be careful with the capital "YOU". Not all men are alike. I was married before I had my son. It was a conscious decision by both of us to decide to have a child. I was elated when I heard the news and am doing everything humanly possible to be the best father I can possibly be. I am fully aware of any possible consequences that come with having sex, and even before I was married I would have rather died than not absorb my portion of responsibility towards a child of mine.

[Mr. P]

Jim, what would a law look like to you that gives a man a legal say?
I am curious to see what a law that would force another person to perform against their will would look like.

As for that hangover, you have some options to treat it, who should dictate which one is best for you, your drinking buddy? What if they say suffer you bastard you knew the consequences of drinking.

[jimnyc]

Jim, what would a law look like to you that gives a man a legal say?
I am curious to see what a law that would force another person to perform against their will would look like.

Of course I can't present a legal standpoint for you as I'm no attorney, but I can do my best to illustrate my thoughts. My belief is that their should be a law concerning the decision over an abortion. No abortion should be performed without the consent of BOTH parents. I personally feel no woman should be allowed to waive a mans rights without a court order.

And you should be able to see a law that that forces a person to perform against their will, it's already on the books. If a man gets a woman pregnant and she carries to term, and he's against it, he'll legally be forced to "perform" in the form of financial responsibility.


As for that hangover, you have some options to treat it, who should dictate which one is best for you, your drinking buddy? What if they say suffer you bastard you knew the consequences of drinking.

Those involved in creating their consequences should dictate what is best. I'd say in the situation you present, the man with the hangover has a choice as to his remedy. But the original point of my statement is that his hangover is not 'punishment' for drinking, it's consequences of his own actions.

[Trinity]

Those involved in creating their consequences should dictate what is best. I'd say in the situation you present, the man with the hangover has a choice as to his remedy. But the original point of my statement is that his hangover is not 'punishment' for drinking, it's consequences of his own actions.



That's true if your going to drink know your limit.:cheers2:

[Yurt]

Of course I can't present a legal standpoint for you as I'm no attorney, but I can do my best to illustrate my thoughts. My belief is that their should be a law concerning the decision over an abortion. No abortion should be performed without the consent of BOTH parents. I personally feel no woman should be allowed to waive a mans rights without a court order.

And you should be able to see a law that that forces a person to perform against their will, it's already on the books. If a man gets a woman pregnant and she carries to term, and he's against it, he'll legally be forced to "perform" in the form of financial responsibility.


Those involved in creating their consequences should dictate what is best. I'd say in the situation you present, the man with the hangover has a choice as to his remedy. But the original point of my statement is that his hangover is not 'punishment' for drinking, it's consequences of his own actions.

counselor

[Abbey Marie]

Are there really so many wives getting abortions against the wishes of their husbands that we need to create new laws for it?

I'll bet it happens all the time, but who could know the answer to that? I don't think abortion clinics ask if the husband is against the abortion, nor would they report the info if they did.

One could compare this a common anti-death penalty argument. Even if one innocent wanted-by-it's-father child, is saved from the death penalty known as abortion, isn't that enough for us to ban the practice?

[Mr. P]

Of course I can't present a legal standpoint for you as I'm no attorney, but I can do my best to illustrate my thoughts. My belief is that their should be a law concerning the decision over an abortion. No abortion should be performed without the consent of BOTH parents. I personally feel no woman should be allowed to waive a mans rights without a court order.

And you should be able to see a law that that forces a person to perform against their will, it's already on the books. If a man gets a woman pregnant and she carries to term, and he's against it, he'll legally be forced to "perform" in the form of financial responsibility.



Those involved in creating their consequences should dictate what is best. I'd say in the situation you present, the man with the hangover has a choice as to his remedy. But the original point of my statement is that his hangover is not 'punishment' for drinking, it's consequences of his own actions.

First if BOTH consent we wouldn't have this issue. Lets move past that. What rights does a sperm donor have that trumps the mothers interests or rights? The man is a donor, if she decides to carry the process to the natural completion of his donation shouldn't he step up and fulfill the consequences of his donation? Yes, this is why men pay when they play. It makes your performance example moot.

But you said something I need to point out...

Those involved in creating their consequences should dictate what is best. I'd say in the situation you present, the man with the hangover has a choice as to his remedy.
Can't have it both ways.

[jimnyc]

First if BOTH consent we wouldn't have this issue. Lets move past that. What rights does a sperm donor have that trumps the mothers interests or rights? The man is a donor, if she decides to carry the process to the natural completion of his donation shouldn't he step up and fulfill the consequences of his donation? Yes, this is why men pay when they play. It makes your performance example moot.

Sperm donor? I'd rather call him the "father". And he wouldn't be trumping her interests or rights, just asserting that the decisions should be EQUAL.


But you said something I need to point out...

Can't have it both ways.

"the man with the hangover has a choice as to his remedy."

It's not both ways, the man making the choice in this scenario is not denying anyone else's rights.

[Mr. P]

Sperm donor? I'd rather call him the "father". And he wouldn't be trumping her interests or rights, just asserting that the decisions should be EQUAL.



"the man with the hangover has a choice as to his remedy."

It's not both ways, the man making the choice in this scenario is not denying anyone else's rights.

What rights? Deposit rights? The decision can not be equal, it's imposable, someone has to have the final say.

[jimnyc]

What rights? Deposit rights? The decision can not be equal, it's imposable, someone has to have the final say.

The rights to their child. Why you would want to ridicule the situation and refer to the fathers as "donors" or that they make "deposits" is beyond me, but I'm not going to debate stuff like that.

And that someone should be the courts if the couple cannot come to an agreement. Just because they disagree, that doesn't mean the decision by default should go to the woman. More power to you if you feel a woman has a right to kill something that is a part of you, without you having a say, but I'll remain with my beliefs as well.

[Abbey Marie]

What rights? Deposit rights? The decision can not be equal, it's imposable, someone has to have the final say.

True enough. So let's say dad is one vote for life. Baby would choose to live, so that's 2 votes. Looks like Mom is outvoted.

[Mr. P]

The rights to their child. Why you would want to ridicule the situation and refer to the fathers as "donors" or that they make "deposits" is beyond me, but I'm not going to debate stuff like that.

And that someone should be the courts if the couple cannot come to an agreement. Just because they disagree, that doesn't mean the decision by default should go to the woman. More power to you if you feel a woman has a right to kill something that is a part of you, without you having a say, but I'll remain with my beliefs as well.

So if there is a disagreement, you want the government to decide private individual issues for you? I don't.

[jimnyc]

So if there is a disagreement, you want the government to decide private individual issues for you? I don't.

As opposed to a woman thinking she'll deny my rights as if I'm nobody, absolutely. I'll be damned if I'll sit back idly while someone tells me I have no rights to what I equally helped create.

If I ever had the unfortunate opportunity to have sex with a woman that felt such a way, I'd pull out on time purposely and place my "deposit" right in her face where it belongs.

[Mr. P]

As opposed to a woman thinking she'll deny my rights as if I'm nobody, absolutely. I'll be damned if I'll sit back idly while someone tells me I have no rights to what I equally helped create.

If I ever had the unfortunate opportunity to have sex with a woman that felt such a way, I'd pull out on time purposely and place my "deposit" right in her face where it belongs.

What rights? Where are they written? What if you never even knew about this fertilization?

I would have to take the position that no one except the mother has any rights until the birth. She has rights because this cell mass is part of HER body.


I'd pull out on time purposely and place my "deposit" right in her face where it belongs. Don't lose yer cool man..amazingly this thread has yet to degenerate to the level they always do..So far, I think it's been a good exchange.

Abbey, a cell mass can't vote. :slap:

[jimnyc]

Don't lose yer cool man..amazingly this thread has yet to degenerate to the level they always do..So far, I think it's been a good exchange.

My apologies.

It's just one of those subjects that will go on forever as there is no clear winner or loser, just beliefs and opinions. I've stated enough of mine in this thread, so it's best I stay out of it to keep my emotions from making statements instead of my head.

[OCA]

My apologies.

It's just one of those subjects that will go on forever as there is no clear winner or loser, just beliefs and opinions. I've stated enough of mine in this thread, so it's best I stay out of it to keep my emotions from making statements instead of my head.

No, no Jimmy! The pearl necklace facial comment was immature but................you know how I appreciate appropriate immaturity! :dance:

[jimnyc]

No, no Jimmy! The pearl necklace facial comment was immature but................you know how I appreciate appropriate immaturity!

I only apologized for throwing the statement in Mr. P's direction. I like him and always have, even if we disagree on this issue. But I'd still do what I said if I could!

[Missileman]

But she CHOSE to have sex. How can she be being punished for something she willfully participated in, knowing full well what the possible outcomes can be?

The man CHOSE to have sex also, knowing full well that if he gets the woman pregnant, his wishes dealing with matter may or may not count for anything...that decisions are totally at the discretion of the woman. If the man is unprepared to live with that possible outcome, he shouldn't put himself in that position.

[Pale Rider]

What rights? Where are they written? What if you never even knew about this fertilization?

I would have to take the position that no one except the mother has any rights until the birth. She has rights because this cell mass is part of HER body.

Don't lose yer cool man..amazingly this thread has yet to degenerate to the level they always do..So far, I think it's been a good exchange.

Abbey, a cell mass can't vote. :slap:

"Cell mass" Mr. P? You call a human being a "cell mass?" Isn't "person" more appropriate? Because if you unraveled the DNA on that "living person," it would equally reflect BOTH the mother AND the father. It's not "just" the mothers. So how can decisions pertaining to it be JUST the mothers?

I'll go this far... the mother should probably have a majority vote on matters of pregnancy simply because the little human IS inside HER. But the father should have some say. It would NOT be there if not for him.

[Abbey Marie]

What rights? Where are they written? What if you never even knew about this fertilization?

I would have to take the position that no one except the mother has any rights until the birth. She has rights because this cell mass is part of HER body.

Don't lose yer cool man..amazingly this thread has yet to degenerate to the level they always do..So far, I think it's been a good exchange.

Abbey, a cell mass can't vote. :slap:

Neither can the father, so I guess he is no more important than the "cell mass".

[Missileman]

I'll bet it happens all the time, but who could know the answer to that? I don't think abortion clinics ask if the husband is against the abortion, nor would they report the info if they did.

One could compare this a common anti-death penalty argument. Even if one innocent wanted-by-it's-father child, is saved from the death penalty known as abortion, isn't that enough for us to ban the practice?

You want to put the reproductive and medical rights of all women in the hands of men on the basis of a maybe? Like I asked before, what's the next step in this process of yours? Do men also get to hold their freshly seeded "garden" hostage to see if their seed took root? Do they get to prevent a woman from taking a morning-after pill? What about the use of post-coital spermicide?

What I see being proposed is post-consensual-sex-rape. Men get a say before the sex takes place, and in the event of pregnancy, after birth. It isn't possible to write a law that gives a man equal legal standing during the 9-months of pregancy. In order to give the man rights, you have to totally remove the woman's.

[Mr. P]

Neither can the father, so I guess he is no more important than the "cell mass". That's it. BTW my 'cell mass' reference is early on when in fact it is nothing more IMO. When it becomes a human being is another topic.


You want to put the reproductive and medical rights of all women in the hands of men on the basis of a maybe? Like I asked before, what's the next step in this process of yours? Do men also get to hold their freshly seeded "garden" hostage to see if their seed took root? Do they get to prevent a woman from taking a morning-after pill? What about the use of post-coital spermicide?

What I see being proposed is post-consensual-sex-rape. Men get a say before the sex takes place, and in the event of pregnancy, after birth. It isn't possible to write a law that gives a man equal legal standing during the 9-months of pregancy. In order to give the man rights, you have to totally remove the woman's.
That's pretty much how I see it too.

[Mr. P]

"Cell mass" Mr. P? You call a human being a "cell mass?" Isn't "person" more appropriate? Because if you unraveled the DNA on that "living person," it would equally reflect BOTH the mother AND the father. It's not "just" the mothers. So how can decisions pertaining to it be JUST the mothers?

I'll go this far... the mother should probably have a majority vote on matters of pregnancy simply because the little human IS inside HER. But the father should have some say. It would NOT be there if not for him.

Early on it's not a 'person', it's a cell mass. When does it become a person is another topic though..this one is about the mans right in a decision..

These threads always become convoluted with multiple issues, I think we should strive to address one at a time.

[Yurt]

=Mr. P;98720]First if BOTH consent we wouldn't have this issue. Lets move past that.


What if the woman changes her mind? Are you still of the same opinion?


What rights does a sperm donor have that trumps the mothers interests or rights?

Mr. P, it is about equal rights, the equal rights to decide the fate of the child. That child as you know, was created by BOTH parties. Yet because one party "houses" the life, you grant that party all power over that life? Is that right? Or am I misunderstanding your stance?



The man is a donor, if she decides to carry the process to the natural completion of his donation shouldn't he step up and fulfill the consequences of his donation? Yes, this is why men pay when they play. It makes your performance example moot.

Sit back and think for a second. You believe the woman should have all the right to the life of this potential human being, yet, you give no such "right" to the man, because he is only a "donor." Men play, and then they pay, according to you. What is that unborn life "playing" with, if not paying for?




Can't have it both ways


This is the dilemma, who makes that decision? I asked this question above, yet no one has answered it.

[Mr. P]

Ok folks. Say Mom wants the baby and Dad doesn't.

Who trumps who then?

[Yurt]

Ok folks. Say Mom wants the baby and Dad doesn't.

Who trumps who then?

Not sure why you want to trump everything, I am talking about equal rights. So, if one wants the child, the child will be born. That is equal. That is the risk they two adults took. Both knew that sex might create this/that/the child, thus if a tie, the child is the "life"breaker.

What is more fair to you?

[Missileman]

Not sure why you want to trump everything, I am talking about equal rights. So, if one wants the child, the child will be born. That is equal. That is the risk they two adults took. Both knew that sex might create this/that/the child, thus if a tie, the child is the "life"breaker.

What is more fair to you?

It's impossible to have equal rights for the man and the woman in regards to a pregnancy. You're talking about taking away a woman's rights and giving them to a man.

[manu1959]

They have absolute say over there bodies. That shouldn't change cuz a baby happens to be inside.

then she can support it herself

[Black Lance]

It's impossible to have equal rights for the man and the woman in regards to a pregnancy. You're talking about taking away a woman's rights and giving them to a man.

Where is that right derived from?

[JohnDoe]

then she can support it herself

And HOW, may I ask, does releasing the man of his obligation to his child HELP reduce abortions and help those babies that you and others SUPPOSEDLY LOVE AND WANT TO SAVE from being killed???

Seems just a tad hypocritical, no?

[JohnDoe]

What if the woman changes her mind? Are you still of the same opinion?



Mr. P, it is about equal rights, the equal rights to decide the fate of the child. That child as you know, was created by BOTH parties. Yet because one party "houses" the life, you grant that party all power over that life? Is that right? Or am I misunderstanding your stance?




Sit back and think for a second. You believe the woman should have all the right to the life of this potential human being, yet, you give no such "right" to the man, because he is only a "donor." Men play, and then they pay, according to you. What is that unborn life "playing" with, if not paying for?






This is the dilemma, who makes that decision? I asked this question above, yet no one has answered it.

Yurt, do you not think that the mother and father to be, of their own child, could not come to an agreement together, thus you need BIG GOVERNMENT to Force them to talk to one another about this decision?

I honestly do not understand this SUPPOSED BIG issue that doesn't even EXIST in any kind of numbers?

Now these men on this board, want to PRETEND that all men are as decent as they say they are, and all men want their babies of all the girls they got pregnant, but that is about as far from reality as the man from mars imho, and this time WASTED discussing this as though these men are some kind of HEROS and should have control and rights over the woman, is about as much as I can stand without puking!

And it does NOTHING at all, to help come to any kind of resolutions that can and will reduce the amount of abortions that occur in our society today.

Most women do not hide the pregnancy from their husband either!

But all of these exceptions to the rule are focussed on, by both sides of the issue, just to FIGHT about it with eachother, and MORE babies continue to die. :(

[jimnyc]

Now these men on this board, want to PRETEND that all men are as decent as they say they are, and all men want their babies of all the girls they got pregnant, but that is about as far from reality as the man from mars imho, and this time WASTED discussing this as though these men are some kind of HEROS and should have control and rights over the woman, is about as much as I can stand without puking!

First off, you're strictly concentrating on abortion, which in fairness to you is the main thing being debated here. But my position remains the same if it's the man who wants the abortion and the woman wants to carry to term, their should be equal consideration for both.

And you can capitalize "pretend" all you like, but generalizing about people you know nothing about isn't very bright. Are you inferring that my words are not genuine, or that the friends I have had in situations discussed here were not genuine? Just because you know of, or associate, with men that aren't "decent", don't take it out on those of us with different views.

[Missileman]

Where is that right derived from?

It's called dominion over your own body.

[Missileman]

First off, you're strictly concentrating on abortion, which in fairness to you is the main thing being debated here. But my position remains the same if it's the man who wants the abortion and the woman wants to carry to term, their should be equal consideration for both.


There IS equal consideration for both where it's practical, possible, and logical...BEFORE and AFTER the pregnancy. It's neither practical, possible, or logical DURING the pregnancy.

[JohnDoe]

First off, you're strictly concentrating on abortion, which in fairness to you is the main thing being debated here. But my position remains the same if it's the man who wants the abortion and the woman wants to carry to term, their should be equal consideration for both.

And you can capitalize "pretend" all you like, but generalizing about people you know nothing about isn't very bright. Are you inferring that my words are not genuine, or that the friends I have had in situations discussed here were not genuine? Just because you know of, or associate, with men that aren't "decent", don't take it out on those of us with different views.



PRETEND that all men are as decent as you say you are......

That was noting that you have said you would be decent to the girl you got pregnant, but that you are generalizing or PRETENDING that ALL men are as decent as you....and I respectfully disagree with that...

And I am a pretty bright person....no need to cut me down personally for my opinion Jim! :D

[jimnyc]

That was noting that you have said you would be decent to the girl you got pregnant, but that you are generalizing or PRETENDING that ALL men are as decent as you....and I respectfully disagree with that...

And I am a pretty bright person....no need to cut me down personally for my opinion Jim! :D

My bad, I took your comment about pretending to mean we weren't being 'honest' in our beliefs and debating. My apologies. Btw - I thought you were a guy until yesterday! Not that I shouldn't be polite to everyone, but I generally try to be even more respectful to the ladies. :)

[Black Lance]

It's called dominion over your own body.

Where is that dominion derived from?

[JohnDoe]

Where is that dominion derived from?

Free will?

[Black Lance]

Free will?

How does "dominion over your own body" derive from free will?

That question is answerable easily enough from the conservative/Locksian perspective, of course, but I want to hear how the liberal pro-choice crowd answers it.

[Missileman]

Where is that dominion derived from?

Each individual in a free society is born with it. It's full potential is reached at adulthood. The answers to your last two questions are painfully obvious, are you going to get to the point eventually?

[Missileman]

but I want to hear how the liberal pro-choice crowd answers it.

How about how someone from the conservative pro-choice crowd?

[JohnDoe]

How does "dominion over your own body" derive from free will?

That question is answerable easily enough from the conservative/Locksian perspective, of course, but I want to hear how the liberal pro-choice crowd answers it.
All I am saying is that God gave us Free will and that this might cover what you asked, who gave the woman Dominion over her own Body....and the man Dominion over his own Body.

We have Free will to choose what we do in life, whether it be for the Good or for the Bad.... and from that Free will, given to us by God, we choose to follow Him or we choose not to.... if He wanted us perfect from the very beginning, He would have made us perfect. But instead, He gave us Free will...and I can't begin to understand it all, and why we were given the ability to defy God, but we were given it? Probably so that we could choose Him instead of made to honor Him, but like I said, I honestly don't know?

[jimnyc]

There IS equal consideration for both where it's practical, possible, and logical...BEFORE and AFTER the pregnancy. It's neither practical, possible, or logical DURING the pregnancy.

I respectfully disagree yet again.

It's practical as it's a child derived from both people, an as such I believe both should decide on the outcome. It's quite possible for equal consideration as hopefully they will come to an agreement, and if not, the courts should then decide what is in the best interest. And it's quite logical to allow a father to have a say in the future of his child's life.

While you may be of a differing belief, that simply just does not make it impossible.

IMO, in a specific scenario, if a woman refuses to carry a baby to term, she should then be held financially responsible for denying the father his opportunity to be that father. As it stands, if she carries to term against the fathers wishes, he is held financially responsible as the father. He is the father of that baby no matter how you slice and dice it.

[Missileman]

I respectfully disagree yet again.

It's practical as it's a child derived from both people, an as such I believe both should decide on the outcome. It's quite possible for equal consideration as hopefully they will come to an agreement, and if not, the courts should then decide what is in the best interest. And it's quite logical to allow a father to have a say in the future of his child's life.

IF the father and mother both carried half of the baby for nine-months, you might have an argument. As it's only the woman's body that's subject to the possible negative physical consequences, it is impossible to give the father any say in the matter without taking away the woman's right to control what happens in/with her body.




IMO, in a specific scenario, if a woman refuses to carry a baby to term, she should then be held financially responsible for denying the father his opportunity to be that father. As it stands, if she carries to term against the fathers wishes, he is held financially responsible as the father. He is the father of that baby no matter how you slice and dice it.

What would be the father's damages? You'd then have to PROVE that the baby would have survived the entire pregnancy.

Men are perfectly aware of the possible consequences of getting a woman pregnant, including getting vetoed on anything to do with the pregnancy. Those consequences are easily avoidable and we don't need to consider holding women's bodies hostage for those too stupid to avoid them.

[Kathianne]

IF the father and mother both carried half of the baby for nine-months, you might have an argument. As it's only the woman's body that's subject to the possible negative physical consequences, it is impossible to give the father any say in the matter without taking away the woman's right to control what happens in/with her body.





What would be the father's damages? You'd then have to PROVE that the baby would have survived the entire pregnancy.

Men are perfectly aware of the possible consequences of getting a woman pregnant, including getting vetoed on anything to do with the pregnancy. Those consequences are easily avoidable and we don't need to consider holding women's bodies hostage for those too stupid to avoid them.

To me here is the big problem, a result of 'abortion as legal.' What if the sperm donor wishes NOT to be a father? But the 'mother' or 'egg supplier' wishes to carry to term. Why should the 'sperm donor' be responsible for the 'child' until 18 or later?

[Missileman]

To me here is the big problem, a result of 'abortion as legal.' What if the sperm donor wishes NOT to be a father? But the 'mother' or 'egg supplier' wishes to carry to term. Why should the 'sperm donor' be responsible for the 'child' until 18 or later?

How is men being financially responsible for their babies a result of legalized abortion?

[jimnyc]

IF the father and mother both carried half of the baby for nine-months, you might have an argument. As it's only the woman's body that's subject to the possible negative physical consequences, it is impossible to give the father any say in the matter without taking away the woman's right to control what happens in/with her body.

And yet you're advocating taking the fathers right away to be a father. Just as a man knows his consequences, financial consideration, a woman knows her consequences going into it. If the man has no right to disregard his responsibility, neither should the woman.


What would be the father's damages? You'd then have to PROVE that the baby would have survived the entire pregnancy.

Only beyond a reasonable doubt, and considering the overwhelming of pregnancies that go to term are successful, even I could convince a jury of that. Not to mention, unless their was some sort of major medical condition, a doctor could easily testify as to whether or not the baby likely would have survived.


Men are perfectly aware of the possible consequences of getting a woman pregnant, including getting vetoed on anything to do with the pregnancy. Those consequences are easily avoidable and we don't need to consider holding women's bodies hostage for those too stupid to avoid them.

And women fully know the consequences too. To claim to be a "hostage" at a later time would be lame and a cop out. If you claim she is solely responsible for her own body, then she should take that into consideration when having sex. Sounds more like she would be the stupid one to me.

[Kathianne]

How is men being financially responsible for their babies a result of legalized abortion?

Guys cannot demand or withold a woman getting an abortion. If she chooses to, regardless of their wishes, that's that.

If she chooses not to, against their wishes, they are responsible.

Note: If the guy COULD insist on the egg donor carrying to term, against her wishes, they would be on their own, raising the child. Reverse, not so.

[Missileman]

And yet you're advocating taking the fathers right away to be a father.

No, I'm not. I'm saying the father's right to be a father doesn't exist until the baby is born.


Only beyond a reasonable doubt, and considering the overwhelming of pregnancies that go to term are successful, even I could convince a jury of that. Not to mention, unless their was some sort of major medical condition, a doctor could easily testify as to whether or not the baby likely would have survived.

If an abortion is performed in the first few weeks of a pregnancy, a doctor couldn't testify to anything about the condition of the fetus other than maybe about some possible genetic defects, and then only if tests were performed. But for the sake of argument, let's say that viability could be established...what damages did the father sustain? Would the woman be forced to pay non-child support?




And women fully know the consequences too. To claim to be a "hostage" at a later time would be lame and a cop out. If you claim she is solely responsible for her own body, then she should take that into consideration when having sex. Sounds more like she would be the stupid one to me.

Forcing a woman to carry a baby to term would be nothing other than a hostage situation.

I didn't say women should have no consequences, but the consequences for the man and woman are different, the woman's doesn't include getting vetoed.

[Missileman]

Guys cannot demand or withold a woman getting an abortion. If she chooses to, regardless of their wishes, that's that.

If she chooses not to, against their wishes, they are responsible.

Note: If the guy COULD insist on the egg donor carrying to term, against her wishes, they would be on their own, raising the child. Reverse, not so.

The men would be held financially reponsible for their babies whether abortion existed or not. I still don't get how you arrive at the conclusion that men's financial responsibility is a product of abortion.

[jimnyc]

I'll just have to agree to disagree with those of different beliefs. All this typing is making my fingers hurt and having me smoke too much in my computer room!

Like I stated earlier, it's an argument over beliefs, so the debate is never ending. I applaud everyone for well thought out and reasonable responses! Even if I stand my ground, I always learn a little from a thread of this size and have a better understanding of those with differing beliefs.

[Kathianne]

The men would be held financially reponsible for their babies whether abortion existed or not. I still don't get how you arrive at the conclusion that men's financial responsibility is a product of abortion.

What is the male's responsibility after an abortion?

[Missileman]

What is the male's responsibility after an abortion?

He has none, which is why your statement that abortion has caused men to be financially responsible for their babies is confusing.

[Kathianne]

He has none, which is why your statement that abortion has caused men to be financially responsible for their babies is confusing.

Actually my original point, which you derailed; was that for males that did not wish their babies carried to term, meaning aborted, which IS the law of the land, are still held financially responsible for a birthchild they never wanted. Seems that if a woman may have an abortion against the father's will, then a woman that chooses to have the baby, against the father's will, should be hold solely financially responsible.

[Missileman]

Actually my original point, which you derailed; was that for males that did not wish their babies carried to term, meaning aborted, which IS the law of the land, are still held financially responsible for a birthchild they never wanted. Seems that if a woman may have an abortion against the father's will, then a woman that chooses to have the baby, against the father's will, should be hold solely financially responsible.

I've yet to express an opinion on that, but I can see arguments for both sides. It does appear to be an idea that would lead to more, not fewer abortions though.

The knife should cut both ways and men should be able to opt out. It's a decision that should be made early enough though to allow the woman an option to abort if she decides she isn't interested in going it alone. That said, if we allow men to opt out, then you and I are going to have to support that baby whether we want to or not.

[Kathianne]

I've yet to express an opinion on that, but I can see arguments for both sides. It does appear to be an idea that would lead to more, not fewer abortions though.

The knife should cut both ways and men should be able to opt out. It's a decision that should be made early enough though to allow the woman an option to abort if she decides she isn't interested in going it alone. That said, if we allow men to opt out, then you and I are going to have to support that baby whether we want to or not.

Sorry, not me. I was married with 3 children, none before nuptials. Went over 2.5 years of now ex paying $50 a month in child support. Never went to welfare of any sort. I worked most weeks 85 hours, some at 95. Family helped, private school waived tuition. It's possible, for those that care about success of their kids.

[JohnDoe]

Actually my original point, which you derailed; was that for males that did not wish their babies carried to term, meaning aborted, which IS the law of the land, are still held financially responsible for a birthchild they never wanted. Seems that if a woman may have an abortion against the father's will, then a woman that chooses to have the baby, against the father's will, should be hold solely financially responsible.

how much ''say'' do you want to give them kathianne?

Do you really believe that welfare should be paying for these children instead of the guy and gal that didn't use birth control/protection?

seriously it is a silly argument from the right wing imho, who supposedly believes in self responsibility and small gvt., don't you think?

also, it is cold hearted imo to make the women THAT DO CHOOSE NOT TO ABORT/KILL their baby, also make them provide for their baby alone, without the father's financial and physical help.

I honestly do NOT in any way think this is a Christian like position to take, and as said, am surprised that those on this board that supposedly care enough to want to save the baby's life by banning abortion.... while on the other hand want to doom those babies they saved, to poverty and a very hard life....of a single parent child?

[Missileman]

Sorry, not me. I was married with 3 children, none before nuptials. Went over 2.5 years of now ex paying $50 a month in child support. Never went to welfare of any sort. I worked most weeks 85 hours, some at 95. Family helped, private school waived tuition. It's possible, for those that care about success of their kids.

Very commendable, but I'll wager few would follow a similar path. Our tax dollars would go to pay for the vast majority.

[Kathianne]

Very commendable, but I'll wager few would follow a similar path. Our tax dollars would go to pay for the vast majority.

And that should be our problem, why?

[JohnDoe]

Guys cannot demand or withold a woman getting an abortion. If she chooses to, regardless of their wishes, that's that.

If she chooses not to, against their wishes, they are responsible.

Note: If the guy COULD insist on the egg donor carrying to term, against her wishes, they would be on their own, raising the child. Reverse, not so.

Men have always been held accountable with child support, though the gvt has gotten better at tracking the dead beat dads???

Even before abortion was legal?

Am i misunderstanding your thoughts Kathianne?

[JohnDoe]

And that should be our problem, why?it's the laws already on the books that would put it on to the tax payer....

and please tell me again HOW this reduces the killing of the unborn and puts responsibility on the one that made the mistake?

and also, why you want to reward the woman that aborts, and punish the woman who chooses not to KILL her child?

[Kathianne]

Men have always been held accountable with child support, though the gvt has gotten better at tracking the dead beat dads???

Even before abortion was legal?

Am i misunderstanding your thoughts Kathianne?

Here's My Deal, jd. Fathers of children should be held reponsible until the child reaches 18 or what the courts render. On the other hand, when we are addressing abortion, seems inherently unfair to say that while a woman should 'control her body', she has power of life and death over that issue.

If she chooses to abort, she and father are left without responsibility, regardless of the father's wishes.

If she chooses to carry to term, the father is responsible for at least the next 18 years, regardless of the father's wishes. Something is wrong here.

[PostmodernProphet]

the only fair solution is to wait until the kid reaches the age of 18...THEN ask them if they want to be aborted.....

[JohnDoe]

Here's My Deal, jd. Fathers of children should be held reponsible until the child reaches 18 or what the courts render. On the other hand, when we are addressing abortion, seems inherently unfair to say that while a woman should 'control her body', she has power of life and death over that issue.

If she chooses to abort, she and father are left without responsibility, regardless of the father's wishes.

If she chooses to carry to term, the father is responsible for at least the next 18 years, regardless of the father's wishes. Something is wrong here.

ok.

Now let's put your views in to Reality.

Don't you think that most men would be telling those 45% delivering babies as single mothers that they should abort, so that these guys won't have to foot the bill? Guys that didn't take precautions but enjoyed the fun, who are not ready for fatherhood WOULD ALL CLAIM that they did not want the child and the mother to be, would be left with the bill?

So, I respectfully disagree with this "idea" from the right, that this 'is only fair...', cuz it's not....



Jimminee Christmas, do you all think these 45% that are single mothers are all there by choice....they want to be parents on their own, by themselves? I don't think so.... yes, I believe there are a few of them, that may not want the dad around, and for good reason, but I don't think the most of them want to be doing this on their own.... I just don't!

[LiberalNation]

A lot of girls (at least nearly everyone I've talked to) in my high school get offers from their boyfriends to pay for an abortion when she gets pregnant. Not many take them up on it tho. They seem proud in an odd way to be pregnant.

[JohnDoe]

Here's My Deal, jd. Fathers of children should be held reponsible until the child reaches 18 or what the courts render. On the other hand, when we are addressing abortion, seems inherently unfair to say that while a woman should 'control her body', she has power of life and death over that issue.

If she chooses to abort, she and father are left without responsibility, regardless of the father's wishes.

If she chooses to carry to term, the father is responsible for at least the next 18 years, regardless of the father's wishes. Something is wrong here.

And I AM NOT saying I am pro abortion here:

But, without a doubt, in the majority of all cases of motherhood, the Mother usually carries at least 80-90% of the responsibility in rearing that child.

As with you, doing it alone, and your hubby not doing shitola for you and his kids but giving a few bucks, here and there.

The CHOICE should be up to the mother....and the Father should be financially, in the very least, responsible in my opinion, if she chooses to do the RIGHT THING, and bears this child, instead of killing it.

[Kathianne]

And I AM NOT saying I am pro abortion here:

But, without a doubt, in the majority of all cases of motherhood, the Mother usually carries at least 80-90% of the responsibility in rearing that child.

As with you, doing it alone, and your hubby not doing shitola for you and his kids but giving a few bucks, here and there.

The CHOICE should be up to the mother....and the Father should be financially, in the very least, responsible in my opinion, if she chooses to do the RIGHT THING, and bears this child, instead of killing it.

So because I chose to get married to the ahole, prior to conception of the kids, then he chose to be a bigger ahole during the divorce, (for which he did have to pay back child support at the end of), should I have been free to take them out, since it was just a matter of timing?

Yes I'm being facetious, but the whole argument is just idiotic.

[JohnDoe]

I am viewing it, as it is today, where abortion IS legal....

Because of the unfairness that is involved with the one guy, here or there, who wants to have the baby and where the mother to be does not want to bear this child, you want to set free ALL OTHER MEN from their obligation of fatherhood and make all of these women who have chosen to do the RIGHT thing, by not aborting, do it on their own, with no responsibility financially from the father of the child???

[Mr. P]

The financial responsibility should be 50/50 for unwed parents if Dad doesn't want it and Mom carries to term. That is the only equality there can ever be. IMO

[Said1]

Any more reason than that? So a man's semen inserted into a woman's body immediately loses "ownership" of the man, because when it enters into the woman (in a most miraculous way) it becomes the WOMAN's sole possession?

So you are saying, that a baby is ONLY the women's possession? Is that right?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that my daughter is my possession. Not her father's, mine. Even if we were still together, I would still feel this way.

I'm not playing the 'I've had a baby" card, BUT my opinions on so MANY things have change since having a child. My daughter is my possession and I pitty the poor fool who tries to fight me on that.

I should also add that I try to fight that instinct as much as possible when the situation calls for it, however, like I said, it's an instinct. It's not really something I can put into words. Sure her father has rights, which I respect,, but make no mistake, she is my child.

I probably seem like a total psycho now, but whatever. :laugh:

[Pale Rider]

A lot of girls (at least nearly everyone I've talked to) in my high school get offers from their boyfriends to pay for an abortion when she gets pregnant. Not many take them up on it tho. They seem proud in an odd way to be pregnant.

Well you've got nothing to worry about. Who in their right mind would want to touch a skank like you?

[Said1]

Well you've got nothing to worry about. Who in their right mind would want to touch a skank like you?

Sure, she's gay or whatever, but she's not a skank. That's not necessary.

[Mr. P]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that my daughter is my possession. Not her father's, mine. Even if we were still together, I would still feel this way.

I'm not playing the 'I've had a baby" card, BUT my opinions on so MANY things have change since having a child. My daughter is my possession and I pitty the poor fool who tries to fight me on that.

I should also add that I try to fight that instinct as much as possible when the situation calls for it, however, like I said, it's an instinct. It's not really something I can put into words. Sure her father has rights, which I respect,, but make no mistake, she is my child.

I probably seem like a total psycho now, but whatever. :laugh:
So what's new?

Seriously, how you feel seems totally normal to me. The woman grows this child. That is a bond that a donor can NEVER have.

[JohnDoe]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that my daughter is my possession. Not her father's, mine. Even if we were still together, I would still feel this way.

I'm not playing the 'I've had a baby" card, BUT my opinions on so MANY things have change since having a child. My daughter is my possession and I pitty the poor fool who tries to fight me on that.

I should also add that I try to fight that instinct as much as possible when the situation calls for it, however, like I said, it's an instinct. It's not really something I can put into words. Sure her father has rights, which I respect,, but make no mistake, she is my child.

I probably seem like a total psycho now, but whatever. :laugh:

THIS is what I was trying to explain to these men!!!! You said it best though!!! roflmao :clap:
oh, and you are NOT a psycho! lol

[Mr. P]

THIS is what I was trying to explain to these men!!!! You said it best though!!! roflmao :clap:
oh, and you are NOT a psycho! lol

No she's worse, she Canadian! :laugh2:

[Said1]

So what's new?

Seriously, how you feel seems totally normal to me. The woman grows this child. That is a bond that a donor can NEVER have.

I know it's normal.....NOW. I also think people make very different decisions when they are faced with making the 'choice'. I was always pro-abortion, until I had a child. Now, I'm against it, but I also know that ardent anti-abortionists have abortions too.I forget my point....I was going somewhere with this...too much alcohol..... I'm babbling, I hope you enjoy!

[Said1]

No she's worse, she Canadian! :laugh2:

Go eat a Joe Louis........Moon Pie in your world. :finger3:

[nevadamedic]

Go eat a Joe Louis........Moon Pie in your world. :finger3:

:laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

No she's worse, she Canadian! :laugh2:


Oh noooooo, a Canadian? lol! Hey, I am less than 100 miles from the Canadian Border....I can relate, (at least weather wise) with Canadians.... :D

:cheers2:

[Said1]

:laugh2:

Aside from language, there isn't much difference between you southerners and frenchmen. Joe Louis and Pepsi, Moon Pie and RC. Le meme chose.

[nevadamedic]

Aside from language, there isn't much difference between you southerners and frenchmen. Joe Louis and Pepsi, Moon Pie and RC. Le meme chose.

Except that we are brighter then the French. :finger3:

[Mr. P]

Aside from language, there isn't much difference between you southerners and frenchmen. Joe Louis and Pepsi, Moon Pie and RC. Le meme chose.

NOW YOU CROSSED the LINE!

I'll bet the French don't have boiled peanuts! HAHAHA!

And they shouldn't have Moon Pies either! A Moon Pie by any other name is NOT a Moon Pie and they only go with RC! :slap:

[Pale Rider]

Sure, she's gay or whatever, but she's not a skank. That's not necessary.

The hell it's not. She's a filthy liberal America hater. Everytime I see that burning American flag avatar, it tells me that.

If you "LIKE" her burning American flag avatar, then I don't think much of you either.