M.Dancer Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 Dancer, I read PeterF's 2 posts on this thread. True, his view is that any abortion is a form of birth control. I tend to agree with him. In this day and age, any woman who does not want to get pregnant has all kinds of options to prevent unwanted pregnancy. IMO unwanted pregnancy is not excusable, except in the case of rape.Sorry if I intervened in your comment to PeterF. It just seemed to me that you assumed that PeterF was advocating that multiple abortions were acceptable. I absolutely reject that any woman should use abortion as contraception as a normal course. What I want is that after the second abortion, the state refuses to fund any subsequent abortion for that woman. Might be semantics on my part. All contraception is birth control but not all birth control is contraception. Contraception prevents pregnancies. Abortion ends them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 That being said, I believe if you cannot make the decision in the first three months you do not get to have an abortion. If you waffle for that long, you are too unsure. Those of us who were/are absolutely without-a-doubt-sure that we wanted an abortion made sure it was done as soon as possible. In other words I believe that abortion should only occur within the first trimester Wow, I agree 100% Drea! I think this is the first time we have ever agreed on something like this. Now, would you be prepared to support harper in intorducing legislation supporting this? Or at the very least amending the Canada Health act to not have late term abortions 'paid' for by the government? ie: abortions are 'free' in the first trimester only? That would encourage women to at least make their decisions quickly and as humanely as possible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 White Doors, (OMG we agree!) yes I would be agreeable to legislation that allowed for first trimester abortions only. Second trimester, under certain circumstances -- because there have been women whose periods continue and they do not know they are pregnant until other signs of pregnancy arise. Third trimester -- definitely not unless it is determined that the mother will die if the pregnancy continues... And I agree that those on welfare should not have MORE children -- especially all with different fathers. I would advocate that those on the government teat be forced to take birth control. Our tenant started when she was 17. She now has three little boys 10, 7 and an infant. All with different fathers. What does the future hold for her and her boys? How will she pay for their post secondary education? Will she have another one when this latest one reaches the age of 3? In BC single parents on welfare must start looking for work or begin a training program when the youngest reaches age three. So what do they do to keep the welfare coming in? Have another one at the taxpayer's expense -- sheesh! She really wants a girl so I expect she will get pregnant again. What a shame for her kids -- although she must be doing a pretty good job as they are good kids -- in hockey, soccer, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 God that is stupid. Bad reasons are just as good as good reasons? So if a woman was on her 6th late term abortion, all on the gov't tab to boot...there's no defect in the system? Well, there would certainly be a defect in the woman, which you seem ready to enable. Absolutely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 Absolutely. Must be neat having all the answers to such a divisive issue. Truth is, I bet you have hardly spent any time at all thinking about it. You picked a side and stuck with it didn't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margrace Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 God that is stupid. Bad reasons are just as good as good reasons? So if a woman was on her 6th late term abortion, all on the gov't tab to boot...there's no defect in the system? Well, there would certainly be a defect in the woman, which you seem ready to enable. How many babies have you had? Are you willing to put your name on a list to adopt babies instead of using abortion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 How many babies have you had? Are you willing to put your name on a list to adopt babies instead of using abortion? Ahhh.. I see, because we are men we are not allowed to have a position on the issue is that it? pity the 21st century WASP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margrace Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 Ahhh.. I see, because we are men we are not allowed to have a position on the issue is that it?pity the 21st century WASP. Where did I put men only on my post? It seems to me that people who protest about abortions do not care about the babies, they only want to punish the mothers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted December 1, 2007 Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 Must be neat having all the answers to such a divisive issue.Truth is, I bet you have hardly spent any time at all thinking about it. You picked a side and stuck with it didn't you? It is neat actually. And, yes, I have picked a 'side' and have stuck with it. The side I picked is the side of "A womans right to choose". I'm sticking with it because I find the other sides concept of some abortions are ok but some arn't therefore a pregnant woman seeking abortion must convince a team of doctors or M.Dancer, or you, that her reasons for seeking an abortion are worthy and just. I believe a woman need not convince anybody of anything in regards to abortions. If she wants to end her pregnancy then she need not seek permission of anyone to do so. So, yes, WD, I've never really thought about it... I just woke up that morning with that strongly held belief. Perhaps tomorrow I will wake up and believe something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margrace Posted December 1, 2007 Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 What I would like to see is everyone who is against abortion signing a paper to adopt these unwanted babies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 How many babies have you had? Are you willing to put your name on a list to adopt babies instead of using abortion? How many non sequitors do you post a day? Would you be willing to put your name on them for professional review? Not withstanding, I will do one better, I will not conceive any unwanted children and take personal responsibility for my life and the lives of those I am charged with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 I would like to see people who support abortions be taxed heavily to pay for them, and perhaps do community service and empty their charnel trash of the fetal cadavers.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 (edited) Answer the question MDancer... Are you willing to sign a paper and take on those unwanted babies? What onus do you put on yourself for forcing women to give birth? If not, then we know for sure that you talk big but act small. And how do you know you have never impregnated someone? How do you know for sure that some g/friend back in your youth didn't get pregnant and abort without your knowledge? What you don't know doesn't hurt you does it? Now you can go through life agonizing over all your young sexual exploits... I'm with Peter. It is a woman's decision alone. So if you had gotten a woman pregnant, it would not be your decision anyway. *I still believe in limits in number of abortions one person may have... and time limits on the procedure. Edited December 2, 2007 by Drea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 (edited) Answer the question MDancer... Are you willing to sign a paper and take on those unwanted babies? What onus do you put on yourself for forcing women to give birth? If not, then we know for sure that you talk big but act small. This question presupposes that the woman has no choice whatsoever in the making of the baby. I'd like to see a man use that argument when brought up on charges for failure to pay child support. Why is it horrid to "force a woman to give birth," but quite alright to force a man to pay for it? Why is it enlightened to celebrate a woman's choice, but decry a man's choice as "selfish and irresponsible?" I've yet to hear a feminist respond to this rather obvious double standard with any degree of coherence. It's one of those insane feminist reasonings that defy and actually deny logic...murder is freedom and good on one hand, but freedom is mysogynistic and bad on the other. Edited December 2, 2007 by ScottSA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 (edited) This question presupposes that the woman has no choice whatsoever in the making of the baby. I'd like to see a man use that argument when brought up on charges for failure to pay child support. Why is it horrid to "force a woman to give birth," but quite alright to force a man to pay for it? Why is it enlightened to celebrate a woman's choice, but decry a man's choice as "selfish and irresponsible?" I've yet to hear a feminist respond to this rather obvious double standard with any degree of coherence. It's one of those insane feminist reasonings that defy and actually deny logic...murder is freedom and good on one hand, but freedom is mysogynistic and bad on the other. Well I guess you will hear it from me first then. I do not believe that a pregnancy resulting from a one-night stand should have the man "on the hook" financially for the child. If the woman wants to have the child then she should take on the responsibility herself. Child support should only come into play when the couple has been in a relationship. I think there would be alot more abortions, alot less single mothers and alot less men on the financial hook if this was enacted as law. That the woman would have to prove she and the guy were in a relationship and therefore both responsible for contraception. Or the man (if he wants her to give birth) should also have to prove they were in a relationship and that he will be financially responsible. You see Scott, I do believe the contraceptive onus is on the woman as she is the one who has to deal with the consequences of unprotected sex. If she goes for a one-nighter and gets pregnant, it's no one's fault but her own. Only spoiled (or stupid) little biatches believe they should be paid to get laid. (meaning child support not sex for money) Edited December 2, 2007 by Drea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 This question presupposes that the woman has no choice whatsoever in the making of the baby. I'd like to see a man use that argument when brought up on charges for failure to pay child support. Why is it horrid to "force a woman to give birth," but quite alright to force a man to pay for it? Why is it enlightened to celebrate a woman's choice, but decry a man's choice as "selfish and irresponsible?" Before a baby is born, before it can survive on its own independent of the mother's body, it's a fetus. Once it's born, it's a person. So if a man refuses to pay child support, he is hurting the person he had a hand in creating. It may not be fair,* but it's less fair to the innocent baby to go without the financial support. The man has just as much a choice in the making of a baby as a woman does. If the baby is born, BOTH must therefore provide monetarily for it. But the man isn't being forced to be a daddy; he's not being forced to raise it. He's not being forced to spend one minute of time with it. He's just being forced to help pay for its upbringing because the child, who is the only innocent party, deserves that. But where you would get the idea that people "celebrate" a woman having an abortion is beyond me. *Many women think its not fair that a man who doesn't want a baby doesn't have to physically go through an abortion. They think it's not fair that a pregnancy doesn't physically affect the man at all. But that's the way of it. Life isn't "fair" when it comes to unwanted pregnancies-- to either either sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 AW, the way I look at it is that the woman (who gets the shitty end of the stick regarding unwanted pregnancy) should be responsible for her own body. If she has the right to get rid of the fetus, the man should have the right not to pay for the child if the woman decides to have it. She has all the power and that is simply not *fair. We women want to be taken seriously, to be treated as equals. How can we do this if our decisions (to keep a child or to abort) directly impacts the man (who has no say whatsoever in whether of not the pregnancy goes to term)? How can we say on one hand that he has no control over whether the child is born or not, yet he must financially contribute if the woman decides to give birth? It is not fair, but it should be and we should work towards making it "fairer" to all parties (man, woman and child). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 (edited) AW, the way I look at it is that the woman (who gets the shitty end of the stick regarding unwanted pregnancy) should be responsible for her own body. If she has the right to get rid of the fetus, the man should have the right not to pay for the child if the woman decides to have it. She has all the power and that is simply not *fair.The choice to keep the child or not must be 100% the woman's however, the man should be given a one time option give up his parental rights/obligations. A woman can still choose to keep the child anyways but she must support it on her own. If the man chooses to accept the parental rights then he cannot revoke them later. If he gives them up he cannot get them back.It is unfair to allow the mother to have it both ways. If she wants to have 100% power over the choice to have the baby then she has to give the same choice to the father. However, once the mother makes her choice she cannot change her mind so fairness requires that the must father be prevented from changing his mind later. Edited December 2, 2007 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 The choice to keep the child or not must be 100% the woman's however, the man should be given a one time option give up his parental rights/obligations. I do not agree, it is the woman who must deal with aborting or being pregnant therefore she is the only one who can make the decision. A woman can still choose to keep the child anyways but she must support it on her own. If the man chooses to accept the parental rights then he cannot revoke them later. If he gives them up he cannot get them back. I agree, he should be able to say "no thanks I do not want to be a father, so if you decide to go through with the pregnancy you are on your own". He should then be absolved of any financial or parental rights or responsibilites. It is unfair to allow mother's to have it both ways. If they want to have 100% power over the choice to have the baby then they have to give the same choice to the fathers. The father does not carry or abort therefore he does not have a say. Sorry but that is life. BUT if he does not want the child, he should not be morally or financially responsible. Like I said, a one nighter is different than a couple in a relationship. The couple would discuss whether or not to go through with it and the complexities of doing so. With the one nighter the guy is like "WTF? I gotta pay this biatch the rest of my life?" Not fair. She makes the decision and he pays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 (edited) I do not agree, it is the woman who must deal with aborting or being pregnant therefore she is the only one who can make the decision.I think you misunderstood me - I agree it should be 100% the mother's choice. The only choice that the father has is whether he wishes to give up is parental rights/responsibilities (i.e. the father would become the legal equivalent of an anonymous sperm donor).The other part is important too: if the father does tell the mother that he will assume his parental rights/responsibilities then he can't change his mind later (i.e. he is in the same position as the mother). Edited December 2, 2007 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 (edited) AW, the way I look at it is that the woman (who gets the shitty end of the stick regarding unwanted pregnancy) should be responsible for her own body. If she has the right to get rid of the fetus, the man should have the right not to pay for the child if the woman decides to have it. She has all the power and that is simply not *fair. Sure she should be responsible for her own body. But the man should be responsible for his wallet, too. He knows the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy just as much as a woman does. He's not stupid. He's not a passive participant. If he wants to risk creating another life, he has to be responsible. Even when a woman gets an abortion she isn't being given a 'get out of jail free' card since she still has to physically have the abortion. I don't see that as a day in the park. But the woman doesn't have all the power. The man has the power to use birth control or to say "no." I don't believe a one night stand is something a man has no control over. I give men more credit than that. Furthermore, I don't look as a child that is his too as not having "consequences" -- I see an unwanted pregnancy as a huge consequence for both parties. We women want to be taken seriously, to be treated as equals. How can we do this if our decisions (to keep a child or to abort) directly impacts the man (who has no say whatsoever in whether of not the pregnancy goes to term)? How can we say on one hand that he has no control over whether the child is born or not, yet he must financially contribute if the woman decides to give birth? As I already pointed out, the man isn't being forced to be a daddy. He doesn't have to spend any time with the child. A woman who would rather not have a child but doesn't believe in abortion has to not only contribute financially to the child's upbringing, but carry it to term and raise it after. Alone. That's not exactly "fair" either, but it's a consequence of the woman being in the position to make that choice. But once the baby is born, it's not about the man or the woman-- it's about the child. I don't see how we women could take men seriously if they could simply walk away from unwanted pregnancies. But really, if men and women want to be treated as equals, then they should be talking about what would happen if an unwanted pregnancy were to occur before having sex. They shouldn't just hop in the sack for a one night stand, letting the chips fall where they may. I don't see how either the man or the woman is taking the other "seriously" in that situation. It is not fair, but it should be and we should work towards making it "fairer" to all parties (man, woman and child). What's fair about the man not having to take any responsiblity for the child he had as much a hand in creating as the mother did?-- How is that in any way fair to the child? Like I said, he's not being forced to be a daddy. He's not being forced to raise the child. He could have said "no" to having sex. He's not powerless. As I said, life isn't fair. It's not fair that the woman can make the ultimate decsion to abort or give birth. By the same token, it's not fair that when both parties don't want to have a child the woman is the only one that has to deal with it physically. But we have to ultimately take responsiblity for our actions. Both men and women. Edited December 2, 2007 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 I believe a woman need not convince anybody of anything in regards to abortions. If she wants to end her pregnancy then she need not seek permission of anyone to do so. The Supreme Court agrees with you to wit the case Tremblay v. Daigle. Tremblay v. Daigle [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530, was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in which it was found that a fetus has no legal status in Canada as a person, either in Canadian common law or in Quebec civil law. This, in turn, meant that men, while claiming to be protecting fetal rights, cannot acquire injunctions to stop their partners from obtaining abortions in Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tremblay_v._Daigle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 *Many women think its not fair that a man who doesn't want a baby doesn't have to physically go through an abortion. They think it's not fair that a pregnancy doesn't physically affect the man at all. But that's the way of it. Life isn't "fair" when it comes to unwanted pregnancies-- to either either sex. Yup. Case in point. The "life's not fair" argument. Let's try using that on a woman when she's "denied" an abortion. I'm sure you'll be there to tell her lifes not fair, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 What's fair about the man not having to take any responsiblity for the child he had as much a hand in creating as the mother did?-- How is that in any way fair to the child? Like I said, he's not being forced to be a daddy. He's not being forced to raise the child. He could have said "no" to having sex. He's not powerless. As I said, life isn't fair. It's not fair that the woman can make the ultimate decsion to abort or give birth. By the same token, it's not fair that when both parties don't want to have a child the woman is the only one that has to deal with it physically. But we have to ultimately take responsiblity for our actions. Both men and women. You see, every single one of these arguments applies to the woman too, yet you blithely struggle to make them fit only one sex. Surely you must be aware of the logical inconsistencies here? Tagging a platitude about how we all must take responsibility doesn't really address anything...the meat of your argument is pure inconsistency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 The way I see it the woman has two sets of choices while the man has only one choice. Her first choice is whether or not to have sex. His first (and only) choice is whether or not to have sex. While she makes her second choice (abort or continue pregnancy), he blows in the wind with no control over her decision. He cannot force her to have the child nor can he force her to abort. Yet she CAN force him to be a father if she decides to keep the child. Yes, we women have the burden of aborting or carrying the child. Yes, women have the ultimate choice. Where does the man's choice come in? Why does he have to "blow in the wind" not knowing whether or not he will be a father? Either he has the power to decide if the child is born or not, or he doesn't. Cannot have it both ways. IMO men are left at the whim of the woman's decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.