Men don't have the right to choice!

[Bruzilla]

I take offense at your scorn. I was not seeking any sympathy nor understanding. I was merely responding to the mistaken viewpoint that all women are doing the work at home while all men are sitting about doing nothing but clipping toenails and sleeping in the recliner.

 

[ylexot]

This is why it makes me laugh my head off to hear these kennedys say that legalizing drugs won't encourage people to use them. All you have to do is look at sexual promiscuity and unwanted pregnancy since the invention of the Pill, then look abortion rates since it became legal. Case made.

Interesting. I never thought to equate the two...

 

[camily]

Safe sex (prevention of sexually transmitted diseases) is (or should be) the concern of both parties. Pregnancy (since pregnancy is just a woman's body) should be the concern of the woman. If she does not want to get pregnant, she should not have sex or insist on some form of contraception.

Without a doubt I agree. I was just meaning that if a man doesn't want that responsibility, HE needs to take action to prevent it. There are women that would intentionally get pregnant for her own personal agenda, or just by "mistake" so he needs to not rely on her to cover things that effect him for the rest of his life.

 

[camily]

"clipping toenails and sleeping in the recliner."

That was funny! Sorry to have caused offense.

 

[BS Gal]

I take offense at your scorn. I was not seeking any sympathy nor understanding. I was merely responding to the mistaken viewpoint that all women are doing the work at home while all men are sitting about doing nothing but clipping toenails and sleeping in the recliner.

I'm just wondering if when you are done with her, I can move it? I hate working 40+ hours/week and doing any housework.

 

[FromTexas]

Without a doubt I agree. I was just meaning that if a man doesn't want that responsibility, HE needs to take action to prevent it. There are women that would intentionally get pregnant for her own personal agenda, or just by "mistake" so he needs to not rely on her to cover things that effect him for the rest of his life.

But Larry was arguing that if a woman does that, the man should have the choice to walk away without being responsible to any degree (financially or otherwise). It is hypocritical to make the argument a woman has the choice to not take responsibility, but if she chooses responsibility, that she can force a man into being financially responsible, as well.

If she can decide not to have responsibility and abort, Larry is saying the guy should be able to say during the pregnancy, "Hey! I want it aborted because I don't want responsibility. If you choose to have it, that is your choice, but you can not hit me up for anything after. You got your choice, and I got mine."

You are balancing it to where the woman has complete control over what the man does or doesn't have to do, but you are giving the woman complete control over what she can do. It is discriminatory.

 

[Bruzilla]

In my little fiefdom, there will be no abortion. People will suffer the consequences of their actions AND will be punished if they are a poor parent.

Yeehaw... now you've shifted the conversation around to my favorite variation of the theme: should a woman be allowed to have an abortion in order to save her own neck? If there is no abortion, and women must suffer the consequences of getting pregnant, shouldn't that also mean that she should suffer a consequence of death if that is what is required for the child to be born?

In my little myopic world, I think that if you're going to make the case that abortion is wrong, murder, etc., then it has to be wrong all the time and that a child's right to life is absolute regardless of the consequences. If the child dies during birth, then that's the breaks for the kid. And if the mom dies during birth, that's the breaks for the mom.

I await the spears and daggers.

 

[ylexot]

Without a doubt I agree. I was just meaning that if a man doesn't want that responsibility, HE needs to take action to prevent it. There are women that would intentionally get pregnant for her own personal agenda, or just by "mistake" so he needs to not rely on her to cover things that effect him for the rest of his life.

The point is that they should not affect him for the rest of his life. He has no say in the option to terminate the pregnancy. Therefore, it is also not his responsibility if she chooses to keep it. It should be the responsibility of the woman because she has control.

 

[FromTexas]

The point is that they should not affect him for the rest of his life. He has no say in the option to terminate the pregnancy. Therefore, it is also not his responsibility if she chooses to keep it. It should be the responsibility of the woman because she has control.

I would say that only applies if he makes it clear early enough in the pregnancy that he will have nothing to do with it and makes it legal. If he encourages the pregnancy in any way, then he should be responsible. It can't be a decision made after the fact.

However, since we are just talking hypotheticals based on the discriminatory nature of prowoman's choice, it really matters in the least because it can't be changed.

 

[Bruzilla]

Here's something else to consider. I was listening to Hannity yesterday, and he was talking to the head of NARAL, Nancy Keenan, about why she opposes Judge Alito. One of her big issues was with his view that women must inform their husbands if they intend to get an abortion. They do not need consent, just to inform. Keenan made the point that most couples already talk about this, and the only impact this law would have would be to force women in abusive relationships to inform their husbands. She also felt that it was wrong for the federal government to mandate what a woman and husband talk about.

I was thinking she made a pretty good point, that most women would discuss an abortion with their husband, and that those who wouldn't would probably have a good reason not to. But then I thought about it from the man's side, and I started thinking that maybe there's other reasons why she might not tell her husband... like maybe he wants to have kids and she doesn't, or maybe he feels they're ready to be parents and she wants to wait, or maybe she has an issue with sharing her husband's attention with a kid, etc. Anyway, I was thinking that maybe there is a legitimate need after all.

So, in the end, would the number of marriages that Keenan referred to, and the potential danger that such a discussion could place the wife into, exceed the need for a husband to know that his wife is pregnant and/or terminating the pregnancy in a case where there's no danger and it's just a difference in parental desires?

 

[FromTexas]

Or where she is cheating on her husband who has already had a vasectomy and she gets pregnant...

 

[vraiblonde]

a woman be allowed to have an abortion in order to save her own neck?

Nope.

Pro-abortion nutties act like this happens all the time - "abortion to save the life of the mother". Give me a friggin' break.

First of all, I heard a pro-lifer correct an abortion proponent the other night - "Quit saying 'the life of the mother' - she's not a mother until she gives birth. "



And second, you're more likely to die from a space ship falling out of the sky and crushing you than you are to die in childbirth. Women back in the day gave birth all the time without incident, so quit acting like death in childbirth is such an epidemic.

This whole argument is a straw dog. They weren't getting anywhere with the "right to choose" argument, so they upped the ante with the "saving the life of the mother" crap. My kids do this all the time, so I recognize it when I see it - making up a far-fetched scenario to get the powers that be to give them whatever silly thing they want, so that they can then abuse the privilege.

 

[ylexot]

Here's something else to consider. I was listening to Hannity yesterday, and he was talking to the head of NARAL, Nancy Keenan, about why she opposes Judge Alito. One of her big issues was with his view that women must inform their husbands if they intend to get an abortion. They do not need consent, just to inform. Keenan made the point that most couples already talk about this, and the only impact this law would have would be to force women in abusive relationships to inform their husbands. She also felt that it was wrong for the federal government to mandate what a woman and husband talk about.

Actually, the big problem is that this is not necessarily the view of Alito. His view was that the law passed by the legislature did not violate the fed or state constitutions. He did his job.

 

[Bruzilla]

Actually, the big problem is that this is not necessarily the view of Alito. His view was that the law passed by the legislature did not violate the fed or state constitutions. He did his job.

I'm not wondering about if Alito did his job or not. I was wondering about how people thought the weighing of the priorities should be.

 

[vraiblonde]

and the potential danger that such a discussion could place the wife into

What danger? That he's going to smack her up? If that's what she's afraid of, he's probably ALREADY smacking her up - what's the difference?

I would say that if a woman wants an abortion and is afraid to tell her husband (not her boyfriend, her HUSBAND!!), then being pregnant is the least of her worries. I'd sterilize her in a heartbeat and maybe lobotomize her while I've got my tools out.

 

[Bruzilla]

I'd sterilize her in a heartbeat and maybe lobotomize her while I've got my tools out.

No wonder Larry has been so cranky lately. He must not be sleeping well at night.

 

[vraiblonde]

He must not be sleeping well at night.

With all his snoring and gasping for air, it's ME that's not sleeping well.

Give me a scenario where a woman would get pregnant, want an abortion, but not want to tell her husband.

 

[Larry Gude]

Bruz...

You said:

I think that if you're going to make the case that abortion is wrong, murder, etc., then it has to be wrong all the time and that a child's right to life is absolute regardless of the consequences

I used to agree with that; murder is murder, abortion is murder, end of story.

Where I've changed is that in the case of murder, let's say I'm going to 7-11, walk in at the wrong time and a robbery turns into a homocide, up until my death I was a fully functioning person, not dependant on a mothers womb AND her willingness to take care of herself for my direct benefit.

So, my death is a crime of taking from me everything I had as an individual; autonomy being very chief among them.

Vrai got me to see that, frankly, if the mother doesn't give a #### and is going to smoke crack, drink and so on during the preagnancy and God knows what else when I'm an infant, well, you simply can't FORCE the mother, in a free society, to CARE. You can't make her take care of herself. You can't make her NOT let her boyfriend hit her in the stomach with a baseball bat or keep her from plopping me in a dumpster when I'm born or all the other horrors we hear about.

So, yes, it is a life, it is human but there has to simply be the acknowledgement that the mother is and should be in charge here.

I used to and still do feel that a mother being able to choose to have an abortion has serious negative consequences on aimless children, especially teenagers. When they're searching for meaning in life and come up against the fact that they are not precious or priceless UNLESS mom chose to have them, to not dispose of them, that it was an OPTION, it makes them wonder that much more; 'what's the meaning or point of life if my being here is basically no more consequential than choosing to have a puppy or not?'.

On the other hand, if kids understand that life in and of itself is pointless and has no meaning, that one GIVES life meaning, they become very liberated and never again suffer from "What's it all about? Why am I here?"

And on that basis, I can accept abortion. When I was younger it was simply inconceivable that a mom would NOT want her child. Life teaches. Better to not bring that child into life than have it tortured and broken by some wretch.

 

[Bruzilla]

Give me a scenario where a woman would get pregnant, want an abortion, but not want to tell her husband.

I'll cop to any charges of male chauvinism here, but here are some that I think could be valid:

A woman views her marriage as being on the skids and is fixing to "move on" and doesn't want a child to cloud the issue.

A woman who does not want to have a child, for whatever reason, while her husband does.

A woman who's playing utility infielder at the local Dew Drop In and gets pregnant with what could be the other guy's baby and decides that abortion is the better part of valor and preferred to telling the husband that the kid's not his(especially in cases where it could be real obvious it's not.)

A woman is very vain and worries more about her figure than her husband's desire to procreate.

 

[vraiblonde]

When they're searching for meaning in life and come up against the fact that they are not precious or priceless UNLESS mom chose to have them, to not dispose of them, that it was an OPTION, it makes them wonder that much more; 'what's the meaning or point of life if my being here is basically no more consequential than choosing to have a puppy or not?'.

This actually makes a fabulous guilt trip.

"I could have aborted you but I didn't! Because YOU ARE BETTER than the riff raff that got sucked out of their mother's womb. YOU ARE SPECIAL in that you are my child, a child of brilliance, and I HAVE WORKED DAMN HARD so that you could live up to your potential, unlike the blobs of blood jelly that got thrown in the trash. YOU HEAR ME, MISTER??? Now get your act together and quit making me sorry I didn't abort you!"

Natural selection, indeed.