mcsluggo Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Navy, you ask how many prochoice have more kids than abortions. I'll go one better. I am prochoice. My wife and I have had no abortions that I know about, and we've adopted 2 medically needy kids (you know, the type of kids most often aborted). We still do respite care and are making plans to foster another kid later in the summer. Some people are for freedom of choice while actually acknowledging and addressing the costs of such choices. The blanket attacks on all pro choice people as lazy people simply chosing abortion as a contraceptive are pretty darn far from the truth. Is it so hard to believe there are people out in the world who take stands opposite to your beliefs out of something other than greed, lazyness or evil? Sometimes the stands are taken out of empathy and other times they are taken on principles. when is that dude EVER not both lazy, and down right harmful to his "own side" in ANY debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 His picture is on the board.Unless he has many ex-girlfriends who have had abortions' date=' she knows it's about her. And so would anyone who knows him. [/quote'] Of course, anyone who knows him would also know her, and know she had an abortion. She gave the "mother" a face and a name by bringing the law into this, and turning the anonymous (to the general public) mother into a person. Again, until that happened, I would venture a guess that 99% of the people who saw the sign assumed it was a pro-life group's sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 And yet those 2 are not the same, when it comes to an analogy. exactly!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 all the "conservatives" on this board turn to downright moist panied commies when it comes to this issue... out come the wails from the afflicted for exact equality for all.in what other situation does even the PINKEST of liberals whine for to such an extent for something so closely approaching equality for everyone with very different situations...? seriously Your comparison is wrong because this involves murder, and whenever a story is posted about a disgusting murder, you have practically everyone - libs and conservs alike - rising up in judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 all the "conservatives" on this board turn to downright moist panied commies when it comes to this issue... out come the wails from the afflicted for exact equality for all.in what other situation does even the PINKEST of liberals whine for to such an extent for something so closely approaching equality for everyone with very different situations...? seriously Oh, they don't. At all. They are the staunchest allies of institutionalized racial discrimination. Congratulations, oh enlightened ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Wait, the mother physically being impacted for 9 months overrides the man being physically impacted for a minimum of 18 years? Ah, got it. The man is a father for 18 years, but the mother is only a mother for 9 months, therefore the pregnancy affects the father vastly more than the mother. I'm astounded that I'd never grasped that concept, before. But you've convinced me. The father should have the authority to forbid or to order an abortion, without the mother's consent, because the decision affects him 20 times more than it affects her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The 18 years of paying through the nose isn't just a punishment, or a way to be unfair to you. If there is a child born into the world, the back and forth between the mother and father about who is at fault and who is a bad person and blah blah blah becomes meaningless. The child's needs have to come first. Allowing a father "to sign away his rights and responsibilities" only makes sense if the child's needs are meaningless in the equation, and you view it only as a way of making sure that those evil women don't get to pull a fast one on those poor downtrodden fathers. We're just going to continue talking past each other. I respect your position. I just wish there was respect for fathers who WANT their kids, but have no say in whether they live or die. I'm not holding my breath though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Ah, got it. The man is a father for 18 years, but the mother is only a mother for 9 months, therefore the pregnancy affects the father vastly more than the mother. I'm astounded that I'd never grasped that concept, before. But you've convinced me. The father should have the authority to forbid or to order an abortion, without the mother's consent, because the decision affects him 20 times more than it affects her. He also said physical when he meant financial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 We're just going to continue talking past each other. I respect your position. I just wish there was respect for fathers who WANT their kids, but have no say in whether they live or die. I'm not holding my breath though. Again, how would this work? How would you do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 You guys are soooo worried about 9 months of inconvenience. But 18 years of paying through the nose is fine. See previous response. I'll save you the trouble though. "Incubator, incubator, incubator." "Reality. Reality. Reality." is more accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pick6 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I think in some states, including Virginia, a father can sign away all rights to a child, but both parties have to agree on letting him be relieved of child support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Ah, got it. The man is a father for 18 years, but the mother is only a mother for 9 months, therefore the pregnancy affects the father vastly more than the mother. I'm astounded that I'd never grasped that concept, before. But you've convinced me. The father should have the authority to forbid or to order an abortion, without the mother's consent, because the decision affects him 20 times more than it affects her. Then what's the logic to support an argument that a women has full authority, simply due to her having 20 times less of an effect ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 We're just going to continue talking past each other. I respect your position. I just wish there was respect for fathers who WANT their kids, but have no say in whether they live or die. I'm not holding my breath though. I have the ultimate respect for such men. I just don't have any solution to this dilemma that gives them the control they want over the situation. Ultimately, it's not their body and personal autonomy at stake. I can't change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Your comparison is wrong because this involves murder, and whenever a story is posted about a disgusting murder, you have practically everyone - libs and conservs alike - rising up in judgment. wrong. people can have different opinions on abortion. and with good reason... abortion is a HUGE thing. (for the record i am very weakly pro choice for society, but extremely anti abortion personally) I am not talking about abortion. I am talking about the finanancial responsibilty of fathers to children. Abortion is being thrown into the discussion BY OTHERS as a complete red herring. and what is worse, it is being thrown into the discussion by people that don't believe that women should be allowed to have abortions to say that since she crassly chooses NOT to have an abortion a man should be exept from support. and further more the turds making this argument aren't even trying to be sly (which would be annoying enough) but are HONESTLY arguing that men should NOT live up to their responsibilites as fathers because the mother had the otpion to abort the pregnancy and chose not to (and they never had the option to FORCE an abortion... life is so unfair) the argument is so crass and disgusting it makes me want to vomit and kick a puppy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Girl gets pregnant. She doesn't want the baby. What are her options? Donate her body for the purpose of carrying the fetus to term. (At which time, more options open up for the two of them.) Guy knocks up girl. He doesn't want the baby. What are his options? Demand that somebody else donate her body to carrying the fetus to term. (At which time, the two of them then have options identical to the above.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Oh, they don't. At all. They are the staunchest allies of institutionalized racial discrimination.Congratulations, oh enlightened ones. uhm.. what does this even MEAN? (in english, please) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 And yet those 2 are not the same, when it comes to an analogy. My point is that those two are not the same. Guess that means that you got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Again' date=' how would this work?How would you do this?[/quote'] Personally, I would outlaw abortion except in the "usual suspects" list of cases. But that's just me. I realize that's not the law of the land, and that legally I am incorrect as to the fetus' status, I get it all. I really do. I truly understand where your side is coming from. And my personal experience absolutely does cloud my judgement in this case. I can barely afford to live because one day my wife said "welp, I'm done. That'll be $1,000 a month, please." (Without the please.) We also went through a miscarriage before my youngest daughter was born. That was devastating enough. I simply can't imagine HER, DECIDING to cause that kind of heartache. I may be wrong. I may be dead wrong. I may be an idiot. Frankly, I don't care what the prevailing opinion is. But I know this. When I have to defend myself on these hot-button issues, I ALWAYS come down on the side of equality. There may be quibbles as to whether equality is "fair" in a given case. But in spite of my reputation here, that IS where I stand. ---------- Post added June-7th-2011 at 02:57 PM ---------- uhm.. what does this even MEAN? (in english, please) Affirmative action is your baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Originally Posted by honorary_hog Oh, they don't. At all. They are the staunchest allies of institutionalized racial discrimination. Congratulations, oh enlightened ones. uhm.. what does this even MEAN? (in english, please) I assume, he's talking about affirmative action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Oh, they don't. At all. They are the staunchest allies of institutionalized racial discrimination.Congratulations, oh enlightened ones. Gee, how did I know that we were going to wind up discussing the terrible unfair way that the world constantly picks on white wealthy American male Christians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Affirmative action is your baby. I am sorry but ... did you just go full Palin or what? WHAT THE EFF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 We're just going to continue talking past each other. I respect your position. I just wish there was respect for fathers who WANT their kids, but have no say in whether they live or die. I'm not holding my breath though. By constantly harping on how unfair it is that they have to pay child support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Personally, I would outlaw abortion except in the "usual suspects" list of cases. But that's just me. I realize that's not the law of the land, and that legally I am incorrect as to the fetus' status, I get it all. I really do. I truly understand where your side is coming from. That's another issue. Presuming that abortion remains legal, how could a father's "rights" be protected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 That seems like a positively medeival rule. I can't imagine a situation where someone else has the power to veto my medical decisions. Truth be told I am pro choice but at the same time I have children of my own. It may sound medievil to you but the current status of men having no rights at all in this critical decision doesn't work either. From the sound of many of you its as if the man is responsible for protection, and for the outcome of whatever the woman decides is right. It takes two to tango. Yes she carries the baby for 9 or 10 months on average but that is the only time in this process when this is exclusive to one of the two people involved yet some people seem to forget about the next 20 years and dismiss that. Whenever coming to a compromise both sides must be able to come to the table and give up something otherwise compromise isn't ever going to happen. As a man the current system favors the woman completely and that's wrong. Again it takes two to make a baby, it shouldn't come down to just one to make decisions on what happens with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I may be wrong. I may be dead wrong. I may be an idiot. Frankly, I don't care what the prevailing opinion is. But I know this. When I have to defend myself on these hot-button issues, I ALWAYS come down on the side of equality. There may be quibbles as to whether equality is "fair" in a given case. But in spite of my reputation here, that IS where I stand. I'm not trying to be a jerk when I say this. It is equal. You can't tell her what to do with what goes on inside her body, and she can't tell you what to do with what goes on inside your body. And if a child is born of your union, both of you have to pay for it. It really is just about as equal as it can get under these circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.