Abortion Debate Forum - It's My Body!

*star*

replied on May 11th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

Re: It's My Body!

meblonde01 wrote:

"Woman's Choice" Crap
OK, so you're having an abortion. What about the father? Does he have a choice? You see, fathers have to pay child support. What if us men don't want the child? We have NO CHOICE but to pay child support until the child becomes legally independent. That goes on for MUCH longer than the 9 months you mothers have to carry the thing around in your stomach for. Where's the MAN's choice?

I have never thought about it from a man's point of view. Does the father of an unborn child have any rights? I'm just wondering because I have no idea. It does seem kinda strange and almost unfair that if the child was born, he is financially responsible for 18 years, but why wouldn't he have a say if the woman wanted to abort it?

|

familyjewels

replied on May 11th, 2007

New User

following that logic

anything that lives in a body has the right not to be killed. That means viruses, bacteria, parasites, and all those wonderfull things should not be killed. It not your body being killed, so you shouldent have a say in whether it gets destroyed. those things have just as much right tobe in your body as you do.

Quote:

OK, so you're having an abortion. What about the father? Does he have a choice? You see, fathers have to pay child support. What if us men don't want the child? We have NO CHOICE but to pay child support until the child becomes legally independent. That goes on for MUCH longer than the 9 months you mothers have to carry the thing around in your stomach for. Where's the MAN's choice?

then dont have sex. By choosing to have sex you choose to have a chance at having a kid. The man's choice is whether or not to have sex, thats where it is.

Quote:

And what if you get an abortion, and the man doesn't want you to? What, now the father--who would be otherwise legally obligated to take responsibility for the child--has absolutely no authority or input on the matter? Now the child is beyond his responsibility simply because the irresponsible, whimsical, emotional, unloving mother says so?

the mother gets to "say so" because the father wont have another organism living off of him for the next 9 months. Maybe in the future well be able to have guys carry it ( kinda creapy, but what ever floats your boat), but atm its a female only thing.

|

Birch

replied on May 11th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

Re: It's My Body!

meblonde01 wrote:

Not only is the womb not strictly the female's body, but the baby itself has a body! I would love to see little unborn children protesting abortion with signs reading, "No, it's MY body, woman!" Unfortunately, they're quite unable to do that at the age at which they're still found in their mother's body.

The point here is that the feminist bullcrap about the woman having a choice over her own body is completely irrelevant. If you wanna get a tattoo, go right ahead. It's your body. If you wanna stab scissors into a baby's skull, scrape him off your uterus, pull him out piece by piece, or poison his food supply with iodine, that's NOT ok, and that's NO LONGER YOUR BODY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. The child has just as much right to that womb as you do, and it CERTAINLY has more right to its own body than you do.

"Woman's Choice" Crap
OK, so you're having an abortion. What about the father? Does he have a choice? You see, fathers have to pay child support. What if us men don't want the child? We have NO CHOICE but to pay child support until the child becomes legally independent. That goes on for MUCH longer than the 9 months you mothers have to carry the thing around in your stomach for. Where's the MAN's choice?

And what if you get an abortion, and the man doesn't want you to? What, now the father--who would be otherwise legally obligated to take responsibility for the child--has absolutely no authority or input on the matter? Now the child is beyond his responsibility simply because the irresponsible, whimsical, emotional, unloving mother says so?

BULL.

I'm not at all advocating the idea that abortion should be ok, I'm simply pointing out the feminist bullcrap that plagues the abortion debate. It's inconsistent, illogical, immoral, and irresponsible.

Are these your words, meblonde01? Confused

I thought I read this bullsh*t before: http://othello.alma.edu/~07tmhopk/abortion debate.html

Give credit where credit is due.

And, um, why did you have your abortion?

|

Birch

replied on May 11th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

What Didn't Make It In Your Post.

ultra religious site that can't be taken seriously wrote:

The abortion debate has gone on long enough, and it's time for a change. Is abortion wrong? Just as homosexuality, infidelity, lying, stealing, manipulating, pride, greed, and paganism are all sins, so could be abortion. We don't need to justify it by defining life or humanity in a certain way, and we don't need to fear women's rights or the safety and security of the child's mother.

Christians won't be able to convince non-Christians that abortion is wrong, because non-Christians don't believe in the authority that is the true basis for morality. It's the same reason homosexuality will never be a sin in the world's eyes--they don't believe in the One who judges sin, the One who is able to declare them righteous and washed of their sins before the God of creation.

You wanna end abortion? It won't happen. But just as any other moral crime our society embraces, the only way to make a difference is to change the people. The only way to change the people is by the power of the Holy Spirit. When people come to Christ, they will have a natural desire to do good. They'll embrace the God of creation and accept Him as their absolute authority on morality and all other issues. They'll struggle, and they might even sin every now and then (Oh, no! Christians, sin? No wai!). But they'll be convicted. And once their foundation is the same as ours--the Rock that is Jesus Christ--then they'll be able to build their own moral beliefs upon that foundation.

|

Emma2

replied on May 11th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

familyjewels wrote:

following that logic

anything that lives in a body has the right not to be killed. That means viruses, bacteria, parasites, and all those wonderfull things should not be killed. It not your body being killed, so you shouldent have a say in whether it gets destroyed. those things have just as much right tobe in your body as you do.

Quote:

OK, so you're having an abortion. What about the father? Does he have a choice? You see, fathers have to pay child support. What if us men don't want the child? We have NO CHOICE but to pay child support until the child becomes legally independent. That goes on for MUCH longer than the 9 months you mothers have to carry the thing around in your stomach for. Where's the MAN's choice?

then dont have sex. By choosing to have sex you choose to have a chance at having a kid. The man's choice is whether or not to have sex, thats where it is.

Quote:

And what if you get an abortion, and the man doesn't want you to? What, now the father--who would be otherwise legally obligated to take responsibility for the child--has absolutely no authority or input on the matter? Now the child is beyond his responsibility simply because the irresponsible, whimsical, emotional, unloving mother says so?

the mother gets to "say so" because the father wont have another organism living off of him for the next 9 months. Maybe in the future well be able to have guys carry it ( kinda creapy, but what ever floats your boat), but atm its a female only thing.

youre an fool comapring viruses to human beings...you seriously have no valid or intelligent points.

|

Birch

replied on May 11th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

Also...

This man who wrote this article which you so mercilessly copied and posted also says this:

wrote:

9/11 versus Abortion

Fatalities
2,602 vs. 1,303,0002

Murderers' Reasons
Religious. The Koran commands that Muslims kill non-Muslims. Salvation is almost guaranteed for those who give their lives in Jihad. The 9/11 attackers believed they were doing the will of God, fulfilling the ultimate purpose of existence. Though terribly deceived, these men were willing to lay down their lives to serve their Allah.

Selfishness. American women did not want the inconvenience of having children, which was most often the result of pre-marital/extra-marital sex--adultery and immorality. There are no reports of medical necessity for these abortions. These women did not want to spend the time, money, and effort for 9 months of their lives to carry a baby to term.

Alternatives
To the Muslim mind, there were no perceived alternatives. The will of Allah meant salvation to them, and anything less was unacceptable.

The women could have given their babies to local hospitals, no questions asked. This is one reason the infamous "Roe" from Roe v Wade is now against abortion--women can get rid of their children without any further effort on their part. The women could have given their children up for adoption, or even chosen to raise them themselves.

Government response
Take away American civil liberties, increase the power of the federal government, engage in two wars, cause more (accidental) civilian casualties than the attackers killed on 9/11, make America the world's most hated nation, increase hatred of Christianity (to the secular mind, Bush=fundamentalist Christian), huge steps are taken to prevent further deaths, etc.

Continued unconstitutional government protection. Abortion deaths maintain a level of well over 1,000,000 every single year.

Public response
Outrage against the Muslim religion. The American public forces its own religious and moral beliefs on Muslims, insisting that killing is wrong. Everyone agrees that it's not OK to kill for your religion. General sentiment: "I don't care that your beliefs say you're supposed to kill us--my beliefs say you're wrong."

Heated debate. It's ok to kill unborn children--the feelings and convenience of the woman come first. The general sentiment can be stated: "I should be able to kill unborn children if I want; don't force your religious beliefs on me!" and "I think abortion is wrong, but I won't force my beliefs on you."

And, this gentleman says this:

jackwipe wrote:

Roe, from the infamous court case Roe v Wade, has now turned her back on the legal abortion she once embraced. She argues that there are so many things in place to help mothers take care of their children or give the responsibility to someone else that abortion is no longer good for either the mother or the child. You can, for instance, simply drop off a baby at a hospital--no questions asked--and the hospital will care for the child and find a suitable home for it. This frees the mother from any further emotional, physical, or economic responsibility, and gives the child a chance for a great life. There's no reason for a mother not to carry her child to term.

[Emphasis mine.]

|

meblonde01

replied on May 11th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

Emma2 wrote:

familyjewels wrote:

following that logic

anything that lives in a body has the right not to be killed. That means viruses, bacteria, parasites, and all those wonderfull things should not be killed. It not your body being killed, so you shouldent have a say in whether it gets destroyed. those things have just as much right tobe in your body as you do.

Quote:

OK, so you're having an abortion. What about the father? Does he have a choice? You see, fathers have to pay child support. What if us men don't want the child? We have NO CHOICE but to pay child support until the child becomes legally independent. That goes on for MUCH longer than the 9 months you mothers have to carry the thing around in your stomach for. Where's the MAN's choice?

then dont have sex. By choosing to have sex you choose to have a chance at having a kid. The man's choice is whether or not to have sex, thats where it is.

Quote:

And what if you get an abortion, and the man doesn't want you to? What, now the father--who would be otherwise legally obligated to take responsibility for the child--has absolutely no authority or input on the matter? Now the child is beyond his responsibility simply because the irresponsible, whimsical, emotional, unloving mother says so?

the mother gets to "say so" because the father wont have another organism living off of him for the next 9 months. Maybe in the future well be able to have guys carry it ( kinda creapy, but what ever floats your boat), but atm its a female only thing.

youre an fool comapring viruses to human beings...you seriously have no valid or intelligent points.

I agree, I won't say fool, but I do not even think human beings and viruses are the same. Please!

why abort? why not give up for adoption?

|

Birch

replied on May 11th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

meblonde01 wrote:

I agree, I won't say fool, but I do not even think human beings and viruses are the same. Please!

why abort? why not give up for adoption?

Well, why did you have an abortion? Wink

Could it be because abortion is an alternative to pregnancy, whereas adoption is an alternative for parenting? I dunno...maybe that's it. Rolling Eyes

|

Birch

replied on May 11th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

On the subject of men, we had a good thread going titled "Father's Rights" that anyone interested in the subject might want to take a gander at.

http://ehealthforum.com/health/topic74722. html

|

acountrygirlcansurvive

replied on May 11th, 2007

New User

unfortunately that's the way biology is. it's a woman's body not the man's plain and simple. i guess it goes down to this. i wouldn't want government or anyone else forcing me to do something i don't want to or am unwilling to do for any reason. most humans wouldn't. it's called free will. where would it end? i dunno i guess i'm on neither side because i don't think i should have the right say a woman has to be pregnant. i also don't want to hurt a living thing and would not have an abortion but, that's in fact my choice and who am i to force my opinions and choice on another? it's a very hard debate that has no end. Confused

|

acountrygirlcansurvive

replied on May 11th, 2007

New User

Re: Also...

Birch wrote:

This man who wrote this article which you so mercilessly copied and posted also says this:

wrote:

9/11 versus Abortion

Fatalities
2,602 vs. 1,303,0002

not a nice persons' Reasons
Religious. The Koran commands that Muslims kill non-Muslims. Salvation is almost guaranteed for those who give their lives in Jihad. The 9/11 attackers believed they were doing the will of God, fulfilling the ultimate purpose of existence. Though terribly deceived, these men were willing to lay down their lives to serve their Allah.

Selfishness. American women did not want the inconvenience of having children, which was most often the result of pre-marital/extra-marital sex--adultery and immorality. There are no reports of medical necessity for these abortions. These women did not want to spend the time, money, and effort for 9 months of their lives to carry a baby to term.

Alternatives
To the Muslim mind, there were no perceived alternatives. The will of Allah meant salvation to them, and anything less was unacceptable.

The women could have given their babies to local hospitals, no questions asked. This is one reason the infamous "Roe" from Roe v Wade is now against abortion--women can get rid of their children without any further effort on their part. The women could have given their children up for adoption, or even chosen to raise them themselves.

Government response
Take away American civil liberties, increase the power of the federal government, engage in two wars, cause more (accidental) civilian casualties than the attackers killed on 9/11, make America the world's most hated nation, increase hatred of Christianity (to the secular mind, Bush=fundamentalist Christian), huge steps are taken to prevent further deaths, etc.

Continued unconstitutional government protection. Abortion deaths maintain a level of well over 1,000,000 every single year.

Public response
Outrage against the Muslim religion. The American public forces its own religious and moral beliefs on Muslims, insisting that killing is wrong. Everyone agrees that it's not OK to kill for your religion. General sentiment: "I don't care that your beliefs say you're supposed to kill us--my beliefs say you're wrong."

Heated debate. It's ok to kill unborn children--the feelings and convenience of the woman come first. The general sentiment can be stated: "I should be able to kill unborn children if I want; don't force your religious beliefs on me!" and "I think abortion is wrong, but I won't force my beliefs on you."

And, this gentleman says this:

jackwipe wrote:

Roe, from the infamous court case Roe v Wade, has now turned her back on the legal abortion she once embraced. She argues that there are so many things in place to help mothers take care of their children or give the responsibility to someone else that abortion is no longer good for either the mother or the child. You can, for instance, simply drop off a baby at a hospital--no questions asked--and the hospital will care for the child and find a suitable home for it. This frees the mother from any further emotional, physical, or economic responsibility, and gives the child a chance for a great life. There's no reason for a mother not to carry her child to term.

[Emphasis mine.]

well..there are also no medically necessary reasons for erection dysfunction drugs, penile pumps, female birth control pills (which put the burden on women for contraception), or male enhancement pills but, that's ok because heaven forbid men be inconvenienced by not being able to get it up when they want to!!! just a rant! sorry

|

meblonde01

replied on May 11th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

acountrygirlcansurvive wrote:

unfortunately that's the way biology is. it's a woman's body not the man's plain and simple. i guess it goes down to this. i wouldn't want government or anyone else forcing me to do something i don't want to or am unwilling to do for any reason. most humans wouldn't. it's called free will. where would it end? i dunno i guess i'm on neither side because i don't think i should have the right say a woman has to be pregnant. i also don't want to hurt a living thing and would not have an abortion but, that's in fact my choice and who am i to force my opinions and choice on another? it's a very hard debate that has no end. Confused

you are right it is a debate that has no end. It's nice to be able to voice your opinion and show what other people have written or said about the subject. I'm not real sure about a mans rights myself. Becasue if I wanted to have the baby and he didn't he really wound not have any choice that way either. I guess you could say it's a lose lose situration for a guy. I wonder if an man has ever went to court over the fact he didn't want his child aborted? That would be interesting to know. I like your horse picture country girl.

|

Birch

replied on May 11th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

Ah, tis lovely to be ignored in post, but not in spirit. By ignoring me, you are empowering me.

It is okay; clearly you have issues with your own abortion history and that is is rough going. I hope you have sought counseling and will eventually come to terms with your own abortion. The abortion that you had. That abortion that made you irresponsible. And condemned you to hell. And all that jazz. Razz

|

Emma2

replied on May 11th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

Birch wrote:

Ah, tis lovely to be ignored in post, but not in spirit. By ignoring me, you are empowering me.

It is okay; clearly you have issues with your own abortion history and that is is rough going. I hope you have sought counseling and will eventually come to terms with your own abortion. The abortion that you had. That abortion that made you irresponsible. And condemned you to hell. And all that jazz. Razz

didn't know you had the power to condemn anyone to hell....are you god? lmao ...

|

acountrygirlcansurvive

replied on May 11th, 2007

New User

thanks meblonde. i like your avatar too..cute.
i think there have been cases where a man has tried to sue to get his partner to not abort but, it was thrown out because it's like making her a handmaid. you should read the handmaid's tale or watch the movie...scary stuff.

|

meblonde01

replied on May 11th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

acountrygirlcansurvive wrote:

thanks meblonde. i like your avatar too..cute.
i think there have been cases where a man has tried to sue to get his partner to not abort but, it was thrown out because it's like making her a handmaid. you should read the handmaid's tale or watch the movie...scary stuff.

I have not read it or seen it. or even heard about it. But I will check it out thanks.

|

Carifairy

replied on May 11th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

I personally believe that men should be able to opt out of child support, you want the baby, then you can take care of it by yourself.

This is why communication is key!!

My husband and I never ever want babies, hence my tubal ligation and 3 abortions.

I would have never ever married a man that was pro life, or that did not support my choice to have an abortion should my tubal fail.

People need to discuss this stuff more often, instead of 'expecting' their significant others to be all happy and excited when one of them gets knocked up.

|

Tylanas

replied on May 11th, 2007

Especially eHealthy

As far as men are concerned:

They have no rights until the baby is out of the mother's body. Then, if she wants to give it up to adoption and the father has been thoughroully checked and is a good man, he should have rights to the child first before any stranger does. This needs to be discussed during the pregnancy though; and I need to stress that this will only matter in cases where the mother doesn't want to abort. If she wants to abort, tough luck to the dad. He should have worn a condom. I think in couples that are close with one another, a desicion can be reached that makes both of them happy. Either the woman decides to have an abortion and the man is okay with it, or he's not and he leaves.

Personally, I am pro-choice. My fiancee is somewhat pro-life because he views abortion as a waste of life, and I can respect that view way more than most other pro-life views, mostly because his view isn't rooted in christianity. Secondly, he isn't totally against abortion. His mother had one. I haven't discussed this with my fiancee but if I do become pregnant, I will carry to term and give it up for adoption - to a gay couple! I hated the idea of adoption because I don't want my baby dissapearing into the system. I also wouldn't have wanted to know the child or the parents. It seemed like a far more painful desicion than an early-term abortion. But I'd be totally comfortable - even happy - to help a gay couple have a child.

|

Meandering Away

replied on May 11th, 2007

Active User, very eHealthy

Eiri wrote:

As far as men are concerned:

They have no rights until the baby is out of the mother's body. Then, if she wants to give it up to adoption and the father has been thoughroully checked and is a good man, he should have rights to the child first before any stranger does. This needs to be discussed during the pregnancy though; and I need to stress that this will only matter in cases where the mother doesn't want to abort. If she wants to abort, tough luck to the dad. He should have worn a condom. I think in couples that are close with one another, a desicion can be reached that makes both of them happy. Either the woman decides to have an abortion and the man is okay with it, or he's not and he leaves.

.

what, so now men should be vetted before they become fathers, what about women, what happens if your deemed not good enough.Do they take away your choice, what criteria do we use, if a man has another child he dosen't pay for, then he will not be good enough, what about women who have had an abortion, will they be allowed by you to be mothers.That is no way a decision both can be happy with that is like it or lump it

jinks013 wrote:

Since no one else who is pro fetal life seems to be able to..

To jinks, there is no such group as pro fetal life, just like there is no such group as pro abortion choice.Pro life are against all forms of premature death, can a fetus be executed in the gas chamber, can a fetus take up arms and go to war.Pro life are against the death penalty, wars, euthanasia and abortion, please educate yourself about what pro life really is,thank you.

|

12 3 >>