Male Rights During a Womans Pregnancy

[Jerry]

**Mod, please delete**

 

[talloulou]

Boy one thread on abotion is about the severely retarded and the other is all about God!

No wonder it's such a devisive issue:roll:

 

[Jerry]

Boy one thread on abotion is about the severely retarded and the other is all about God!

No wonder it's such a devisive issue:roll:

Oh? Who's talking about the severely retarded? I'd like to peek in on that conversation.

 

[vergiss]

You said your self said "If offered a training position in a facility that performs abortions, I would probably accept".Therefor you would help contribute to a institutin that murders innocence



I would prefere that they be rounded up by authorities tried and covicted in court and then executed for their crimes.In my opinion there is more shame of being tried in front of the whole world in a court of law and then executed for despicable crimes than just a bullet to head with no trial and not shamed before the whole world.

You're sick. You're a bloody psychopath. If there's any justice in this world, you will put that bullet through your own miserable head.

 

[jamesrage]

You're sick. You're a bloody psychopath. If there's any justice in this world, you will put that bullet through your own miserable head.

Whats that you baby murdering supporting rat nazi?

You change your avatar to show your true self.

Here is a picture that reflects what you are.

Here is a picture that has some good advice for you.

 

[Mark A Shrider]

I've always wondered why women were given total control over abortion when the life inside her womb is not completely her own.

Women are given a safety net if they feel they've made a misstake in the heat of the moment. However, men do not have that luxury. Men have to make their choice prior to the passion of a heat of the moment situation. But, if the woman chooses to have that child she will likely sock it to that man for support. And of course, the man should pay support for their offspring.

If abortion were treated as murder like it really is then this poll wouldn't even exist.

 

[easyt65]

I've always wondered why women were given total control over abortion when the life inside her womb is not completely her own.

Especially with all the emotion, hormones, etc affecting her mind and/or judgement. :roll:

 

[Stace]

I've always wondered why women were given total control over abortion when the life inside her womb is not completely her own.

Women are given a safety net if they feel they've made a misstake in the heat of the moment. However, men do not have that luxury. Men have to make their choice prior to the passion of a heat of the moment situation. But, if the woman chooses to have that child she will likely sock it to that man for support. And of course, the man should pay support for their offspring.

If abortion were treated as murder like it really is then this poll wouldn't even exist.

Well, yes, men need to think about stuff like this every time they have sex....they release sperm every single time they ejaculate (unless, of course, they have infertilitiy problems), therefore, every single time they have unprotected sex, they could impregnate a woman. Women, on the other hand, only release an egg once a month, and many women do not know their own cycles well enough to know when to expect ovulation to occur. Ideally, people would discuss things like birth control and pregnancy BEFORE they have sex with a new partner, but this obviously isn't an ideal world, and unforseen things do happen. In which case, the decisions are left to the women because men cannot carry pregnancies to term, nor is there any way to transfer a pregnancy from one woman to another, or to an artificial womb setting. Until one of those two things are possible, the end responsibility will always lie with the woman, because ultimately, it is her life and her body that are being changed. The man could walk away at any time. Without abortion, the woman cannot.

 

[easyt65]

The man could walk away at any time.

I am afraid you are wrong, although you make it sound so clinically sterile and easy. If a woman finds herself pregnant, pro-abortionists have stripped the man of his right to know that he has a baby (the potential to have a child as the woman is pregnant), whether he is just a boyfriend or even the HUSBAND! If the woman does not want the child, she can dispose of the fetus without ever having to notify the father.

If the father does not want to be a father, he has no choice these days but to support the 'unwanted result of ejaculation' (as it has been described to me - NOT MY WORDS) if the woman sues him for support. The whole decision to have the babyrests with the woman, thanks to pro-abortionists, and the man, who has had no say in the matter, will be at the legal/financial whim of the woman who could legally have money directly removed from the father's paycheck without him ever seeing the money and without agreeing to it - the act not being optional! The pro-abortionist argument is that men should have no say in the matter because it is the woman's life and only affects HER body/life, but that is BS. He has no say in her life, but SHE gets to dictate what happens with HIS life without any say so, as in the example above?!

If you really want the guy to have no say in the matter, then the law should be that if the woman decides to have the baby, she does so with the full knowledge that the man has no obligation whatsoever, tjhat the entire responsibility is hers and not one that she has the right to FORCE on the man! Personally, I believe any man who gets a woman pregnant should support her and the babby, but that wayof thinking is 'old school' and 'outdated'. Of course the pro-abortionist believe in it, too, as long as that is what the woman wants and the man has no say in the matter - HIS life, future, and finances, as is HER body, is HER decision!

 

[Stace]

You know, eastyt65, I'm not even going to bother actually responding to your post, because it seems to be directed at these fictional pro abortionist people.....I have yet to see one around here, so perhaps you should be posing your questions elsewhere.

 

[easyt65]

You know, eastyt65, I'm not even going to bother actually responding to your post, because it seems to be directed at these fictional pro abortionist people.....I have yet to see one around here, so perhaps you should be posing your questions elsewhere.

'Fictional'? Look back at how many times it has been posted in this thread alone and by how many people who have said that abortion is and should completely be a woman's choice, that it does not affect a man in any way, and that while a woman is stuck with the decision a man can just walk away - which I even QUOTED.

True, the person who posted that may not be a pro-abortionist - I know how much people who are in favor of abortions being readily available to anyone who wants one, even as a post-sex contraceptive, HATE being called that - but the rabid, bulldog attitude reflected in that statement, that the woman is the ONLY person affected by a pregnancy, is the only one the pregnancy affects and therefore should be the only one who should have a say in the decision is a BS bi-product (that has infected so many women) of those very same and very real pro-abortionists.

They are the very same people, by the way - as we have discussed - who wanted to give total strangers the right to take our under-aged daughters out of school to get an abortion without having to inform the parents or get their consent. Thank the Lord more intelligent people have stepped in and gotten legislation passed in about every state outlawing that practice, but it should never have been considered in the 1st place!

But please fogive me if I am tired of hearing how the woman's life is the only one affected by Pregnancy and therefore should be the only one to have any say, even notification, of the pregnancy and/or decision! It is TOTAL BS!

 

[talloulou]

You know, eastyt65, I'm not even going to bother actually responding to your post, because it seems to be directed at these fictional pro abortionist people.....I have yet to see one around here, so perhaps you should be posing your questions elsewhere.

:rofl

I agree his post was very concise, to the point, and tough to argue with. Best harp on a word that you object to and run..................:rofl

 

[talloulou]

'Fictional'? Look back at how many times it has been posted in this thread alone and by how many people who have said that abortion is and should completely be a woman's choice, that it does not affect a man in any way, and that while a woman is stuck with the decision a man can just walk away - which I even QUOTED.

True, the person who posted that may not be a pro-abortionist - I know how much people who are in favor of abortions being readily available to anyone who wants one, even as a post-sex contraceptive, HATE being called that - but the rabid, bulldog attitude reflected in that statement, that the woman is the ONLY person affected by a pregnancy, is the only one the pregnancy affects and therefore should be the only one who should have a say in the decision is a BS bi-product (that has infected so many women) of those very same and very real pro-abortionists.

They are the very same people, by the way - as we have discussed - who wanted to give total strangers the right to take our under-aged daughters out of school to get an abortion without having to inform the parents or get their consent. Thank the Lord more intelligent people have stepped in and gotten legislation passed in about every state outlawing that practice, but it should never have been considered in the 1st place!

But please fogive me if I am tired of hearing how the woman's life is the only one affected by Pregnancy and therefore should be the only one to have any say, even notification, of the pregnancy and/or decision! It is TOTAL BS!

No don't get caught up in defending the use of a word. That's B.S, really. Just go back to your original post, change the word she so heartily objects to, and then repost.:rofl I can't wait to hear her witty comeback.

 

[easyt65]

No don't get caught up in defending the use of a word. That's B.S, really. Just go back to your original post, change the word she so heartily objects to, and then repost.:rofl I can't wait to hear her witty comeback.

You're absolutely right:


I am afraid you are wrong, although you make it sound so clinically sterile and easy. If a woman finds herself pregnant, pro-choice advocates have stripped the man of his right to know that he has a baby (the potential to have a child as the woman is pregnant), whether he is just a boyfriend or even the HUSBAND! If the woman does not want the child, she can dispose of the fetus without ever having to notify the father.

If the father does not want to be a father, he has no choice these days but to support the 'unwanted result of ejaculation' (as it has been described to me - NOT MY WORDS) if the woman sues him for support. The whole decision to have the babyrests with the woman, thanks to pro-choice advocates, and the man, who has had no say in the matter, will be at the legal/financial whim of the woman who could legally have money directly removed from the father's paycheck without him ever seeing the money and without agreeing to it - the act not being optional! The pro-choice advocates argument is that men should have no say in the matter because it is the woman's life and only affects HER body/life, but that is BS. He has no say in her life, but SHE gets to dictate what happens with HIS life without any say so, as in the example above?!

If you really want the guy to have no say in the matter, then the law should be that if the woman decides to have the baby, she does so with the full knowledge that the man has no obligation whatsoever, tjhat the entire responsibility is hers and not one that she has the right to FORCE on the man! Personally, I believe any man who gets a woman pregnant should support her and the babby, but that wayof thinking is 'old school' and 'outdated'. Of course the pro-choice advocates believe in it, too, as long as that is what the woman wants and the man has no say in the matter - HIS life, future, and finances, as is HER body, is HER decision!

 

[Stace]

:rofl

I agree his post was very concise, to the point, and tough to argue with. Best harp on a word that you object to and run..................:rofl

That's not what I said, so what exactly are you agreeing with?

 

[Stace]

'Fictional'? Look back at how many times it has been posted in this thread alone and by how many people who have said that abortion is and should completely be a woman's choice, that it does not affect a man in any way, and that while a woman is stuck with the decision a man can just walk away - which I even QUOTED.

Sweetie, you and I may have joined this forum in the same month, but I'm quite obviously a lot more involved in it than you are - so trust me, I know what has been said and what hasn't. But your example there? Has NOTHING to do with the term "pro abortionist", which is a fictional term, as I still have yet to see any proof of anyone actually being FOR abortion.

True, the person who posted that may not be a pro-abortionist - I know how much people who are in favor of abortions being readily available to anyone who wants one, even as a post-sex contraceptive, HATE being called that - but the rabid, bulldog attitude reflected in that statement, that the woman is the ONLY person affected by a pregnancy, is the only one the pregnancy affects and therefore should be the only one who should have a say in the decision is a BS bi-product (that has infected so many women) of those very same and very real pro-abortionists.

So, then, why don't you tell us how pregnancies and abortions affect a man? If he didn't even know that he had impregnated a woman, how does it affect him at all? And if the woman decides to go through with the pregnancy, and does decide to go after him for child support (which would really only happen if he chose to not stay with her; I've never heard of a man that actually stuck around to help raise the kid that paid "child support" in the sense that we are discussing), how does it really affect him, other than taking money out of his pocket? Like I said, if he didn't want a kid, he is the one that is responsible for preventing that.

They are the very same people, by the way - as we have discussed - who wanted to give total strangers the right to take our under-aged daughters out of school to get an abortion without having to inform the parents or get their consent. Thank the Lord more intelligent people have stepped in and gotten legislation passed in about every state outlawing that practice, but it should never have been considered in the 1st place!

I have NEVER heard of a total stranger being able to take a child out of school, and especially not to have an abortion. Every school I've ever attended (and there were a lot of them) only allowed children to be taken out of classes by certain people (namely, the parents and other appointed guardians), and I'm also pretty certain that there are already laws in effect in most states where a girl has to be a certain age before she can get an abortion without her parents knowing.

Thank the Lord? Who is that? Sorry, but that religious stuff doesn't work with me.

But please fogive me if I am tired of hearing how the woman's life is the only one affected by Pregnancy and therefore should be the only one to have any say, even notification, of the pregnancy and/or decision! It is TOTAL BS!

Not really, but please, keep telling yourself that. It's quite amusing.

 

[talloulou]

with the term "pro abortionist", which is a fictional term, as I still have yet to see any proof of anyone actually being FOR abortion.

The term may be derogatory and you may not like it but that doesn't make it a fictional term.

I agree not all prochoicers are proabortionists. However some are. Example

"Honey I'm pregnant and I want an abortion." -proabortionist

"I'll support whatever you decide. It's up to you."- prochoicer

Simple. I'll refrain from using the term 'cause you're right it certainly doesn't apply to every prochoicer but it clearly applies to some.

Can we agree on that?

So, then, why don't you tell us how pregnancies and abortions affect a man? If he didn't even know that he had impregnated a woman, how does it affect him at all?

If she has an abortion and the guy never finds out he may never be affected. I don't necessarily believe that not telling him is "right" though. Just 'cause you can do something without anyone ever knowing you did it doesn't mean what you did was "right."

However if she keeps the kid without telling him and the kid rings his doorbell in a few years he is very affected.

how does it really affect him, other than taking money out of his pocket? Like I said, if he didn't want a kid, he is the one that is responsible for preventing that.

Yeah like "money out of your pocket" is no big deal. If it's no big deal then why shouldn't men be allowed to legally choose not to pay it? Any why is the man the one responsible for a pregnancy? If a condom breaks or birth control fails, how's that his fault? Why does a woman get to decide not to let a mistake change her life, yet the man gets no say over whether his life is changed or not?

 

[steen]

Sorry, that's the best I can do under these circumstances. If you reflect on the rest of your last post you will see that you are projecting the wrongs of others onto me though.

Hmm, it could be that I have now started reacting the same way regardless of who tells me nonsense.

So there you have identified the source of your tumoil....though indirectly and likely inconclusively....you have some history with liberal Christians, perhaps not unlike jimmyjack?

Do I remind you of liberal Christians in general, or anyone specific?

Hehehe, I am a liberal Christian myself. :2wave:

 

[steen]

...If scripture is to be seen as the divinly inspired word of God, than anything within the bible must be seen as God's word = "because God says so".

Ah, but God didn't say anything about Scientists, YOU did.

However, if you wish to correct someone on a technicality, it could be done like this......

......at which point I would agree, perhaps point out that the bible is the divinly inspired word of God and that is where I got "because God says so" from, and life goes on.

See? No need for accusations of spitting in God's eye, bearing false witness, defying God, lying in God's name, etc.

It is not the bible I am criticizing, it is your misrepresentation that your claims about scientists were from God rather than from you.

You basically insinuated that I made up what I said when in fact I was reflecting the book of Revelations.

"reflecting"? That aside, I have no problem seeing the book of Revelations as a story, as a weird myth. In Denmark, it was never considered a part of the Lutheran bible, and nobody ever bothered with it.

Your passive aggressiveness started in post 87, before I said "because God says so", so the source of your anger can not be those words.

Actually, it started with suspicion in post 82 after your claim about scientists in post 72.

And as that clearly was your fabrication rather than that of the Bible, there is nothing "passive" about my objection to you mis attributing your false claims about science to God, and thus blame God for your own falsehood.

I conjecture that the source of your anger

What "anger" Good heavens, man. If you see mere disagreement with your false claims as "anger," then you are going to have a tough time handling being on any discussion board.

is in my having a shadow of a doubt in science.

Not at all. I merely asked your basis for making such false claims about science.

I said that scientists would be fooled, and that this diseption would be accomplished by the very scientific methid and norms of peer review that are held so deer, so sacrid, so holy by scientists now.

"sacred and holy"? Not at all. But all I am doing is asking for some actual evidence for the claim you made about scientists, you know, this CLAIM: "He will give scientists every evidence and proof that they may wish. He will show his lie of the origin of man. He will demonstrate every sign, miracle and wonder so that no one can doubt him."

And it still leaves the question of what you mean with these claims, how that has relevance to science, and what the evidence for this claim of yours actually is.

It seems like you are implying that the Scientific Theory of Evolution somehow "will" be validated even though it already is, making your argument absurd. It also seems like you are trying to claim that Scientists have a "wish" for certain evidence that all Scientists want, even though scientists disagree about all sorts of stuff, and there probably is not much data that they all would 'wish" for at the same time. So how do your idea handle opposing wishes, f.ex? And then the question is what "lie" he will show of the origin of man? After all, Science has resolved most of that already, so there isn't much that he could "show" in that area.

And as far as signs, miracles and wonders, they really don't have much to do with science.

So all in all, your claim seems rather odd, peculiar and frankly rather ridiculous. That's the reason why I asked you: "Why would they need that? Scientists are pretty good at ferreting out factual answers on their own."

That's when you came up with your weird claim of what God had said, when really it was you trying to interpret God's word instead, interpret it to fit whatever political agenda you are running on this.

If the idea of being fooled angers you,

Angers? Not at all. Scientists do get fooled at times. That is what the Scientific Method weeds out.

then that tells me that you were fooled....bad....link that to my previous conjecture of your having an issue with liberal Christians, and pending further information, one may hypothesize that you were fooled by liberal Christians.

You are not making sense here at all. Where have I been fooled? And why would I have an issue with 'liberal Christians" the ones who lie to me are generally the radical fundamentalist literalists, like the creationists (They lie ALL THE TIME) and the anti-choice fundie misogynists who make false claims about fetal development and such.

So your hypothesis seems mainly founded on incredible ignorance about me, my posts and the Christians that lie to me. That's why it always is better to have some foundation and factual information to base hypotheses on.

You were lied to and your trust was betrayed. I'd be p!ssed as well.

In THAT you are right. hence, when creationist and pro-life liars lie to me, I confront them.

I'll drop my conjecture because it really is non of my business.

Which conjecture?

I love you, brother; and I forgive your transgressions against me.

Huh? What did I do?

 

[RightinNYC]

Moderator's Warning:

Everyone needs to calm down in this thread. jamesrage, vergiss, if you can't debate the topic without calling each other names, attacking each other, and making incredibly inappropriate suggestions, you'll both be suspended. It IS possible to have a debate without making fools out of yourselves.

 

[jamesrage]

S Has NOTHING to do with the term "pro abortionist", which is a fictional term, as I still have yet to see any proof of anyone actually being FOR abortion.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/22/BAG5QGRAKC1.DTL
These look like people who are for abortion.

This Sub-human proably would support abortion seeing how he was a strong supporter of Eugenics.

 

[Alastor]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/22/BAG5QGRAKC1.DTL
These look like people who are for abortion.

This Sub-human proably would support abortion seeing how he was a strong supporter of Eugenics.

Ironically enough, the person in your second picture also abhorred individual liberties, and was also good at throwing out labels on people; whether accurate or not.

Also, this is a discussion about men's rights during a pregnancy. To come in and turn it into yet another of your personal hissy-fits about abortion, James, is rude and inconsiderate to everyone here.

In my opinion at least.

 

[jamesrage]

Ironically enough, the person in your second picture also abhorred individual liberties, and was also good at throwing out labels on people; whether accurate or not.

Also, this is a discussion about men's rights during a pregnancy. To come in and turn it into yet another of your personal hissy-fits about abortion, James, is rude and inconsiderate to everyone here.

In my opinion at least.

I was responding to this statement which I beleave to be a false statement.
"Has NOTHING to do with the term "pro abortionist", which is a fictional term, as I still have yet to see any proof of anyone actually being FOR abortion."

 

[vergiss]

Moderator's Warning:

Everyone needs to calm down in this thread. jamesrage, vergiss, if you can't debate the topic without calling each other names, attacking each other, and making incredibly inappropriate suggestions, you'll both be suspended. It IS possible to have a debate without making fools out of yourselves.

Erm, hello? He's been saying I (as in me personally) should be murdered. Pardon my lack of restraint in the face of death threats.

Let's not forget that this is his second such Mod warning in as many days. What are you doing? Suspend him already.

 

[vergiss]

To those who say men should be legally required to be notified, yadda yadda - yes, I believe it's morally the right thing to do to notify the male involved. However, wouldn't that turn into a case of male consent? If he didn't want her to get one, he could just pretend he wasn't notified.