abortion rights in the hands of MEN.

[fuzzywuzzy]

sorry post twenty one .

[littleCJelkton]

fuzzywuzzy;1365030 wrote: Christ!!! and I was called sexist and racist? I know I'm going to get a ban warning for this but it's just too much .......

"procreating as the woman's choice does, as both are men and women are naturally physically attracted to those who seem more able to produce health babies. A woman's hour glass figure, slim physique, big hips/ass, and large breast, are all pros for baby making. A slim physique and hourglass figure mean the woman is healthy thus the baby most likely will be too, big hips mean ample room for a baby during pregnancy which means better chance of having the baby and having a healthy one, larger breast mean ample milk for the baby once made. "

You ****ing idiot!!! and I was accused of living in the dark ages ? ****!!!


Still at it I see, I doubt you care for the opinion I have but I too wonder about your cognitive mental capacity at times too. Have you read other post on here those by Spot? Ahso? Scrat? Bryn Marr? even GMC here. If so then you would know better then just to snipet a part of my entire quote to make it seem some sort of sexist undertone. Do you really believe those who read this are all that stupid?

[fuzzywuzzy]

Nope just you really .

[littleCJelkton]

gmc;1365037 wrote: So are you against allowing the woman to choose whether she has an abortion or not? Yes or no?

I never accused of of holding those views I criticised I was pointing out most pro-life advocates are also pushing a oppressive religious agenda. In some states they are charging mothers who have had a still birth with murder.

Outcry in America as pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges | World news | The Guardian


If you read the post you would know I am for a women's right to choose to have an a abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's life is at risk. I don't believe the woman's right to have an abortion just because she can't bear the responsibility (time, money, effort) of raising one as I believe it is her and the man who helped her responsibility to put forth the (time,money,effort) in to raising the child as it is the responsibility for anyone who enjoys the act of procreation. Though to just debate Pro-life vs Pro-choice and not look at the real problem with our society not having responsible sex, is like Debating weather the color of the coastal dikes are blue or red when a tidal wave is coming in.

So to answer you question I am pro-choice, but understand that choices lead to actions and I am also pro "take responsibility for your actions".

[littleCJelkton]

fuzzywuzzy;1365119 wrote: Nope just you really .


I thought that only on christian issues you would continue to hinder your own debate as you debated, but I see you do it here as well do you do it on all threads?

[fuzzywuzzy]

You see what's funny about you, is most times you've spoken about sex you've used the term Pro-creation .....I don't recollect any man who's had their head submerged within my ample breasts ever thinking about the 4 am cries of a screaming baby. Hmmm I wonder why that is ?

I have sex, I make love ...I do not pro-create, I am never in the mood for pro-creation......I get into the mood for sex. And by the way as you look upon my ample bosom and pleasing physique (that apparently men are attracted to because they believe I'll breed well)..would you like to check out my pedigree and teeth too?

And tell me something when a woman is raped how many wittnesess do you need to prove that rape so a judge unknown to a woman can decide whether or not she is allowed to abort a fetus? Or in the case of incest ...how you going to prove that on a wide scale basis when most won't admit or disclose to anyone that they are in an incestuous relationship ? and why incestuous? plenty of babies healthy and wanted etc have been born to consenting incestuous relationships.

and again I ask you why is it so clear cut to you that a woman in any other circumstance than you have mentioned cannot have an abortion because she's in a marriage or long term relationship ....Lets say a woman comes home from the doctors after just finding out she's become pregnant, walks into her marital bedroom and finds her husband in the bed with another woman.....are you saying she has no right to choose not to have the offspring of that man ?

What of a woman who is in a marriage or long term relationship and is raped and does decide to continue the pregnancy but the husband wants to get rid of it? Does he have a say in that case?

If you give men the right over a woman to stop her choice of abortion then you also give him a right over her to enforce one . It goes hand in hand.

[gmc]

littleCJelkton;1365120 wrote: If you read the post you would know I am for a women's right to choose to have an a abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's life is at risk. I don't believe the woman's right to have an abortion just because she can't bear the responsibility (time, money, effort) of raising one as I believe it is her and the man who helped her responsibility to put forth the (time,money,effort) in to raising the child as it is the responsibility for anyone who enjoys the act of procreation. Though to just debate Pro-life vs Pro-choice and not look at the real problem with our society not having responsible sex, is like Debating weather the color of the coastal dikes are blue or red when a tidal wave is coming in.

So to answer you question I am pro-choice, but understand that choices lead to actions and I am also pro "take responsibility for your actions".


Id ablow and his kind get their way it will not be a woman's choice but to a court to decide whether she has the baby or not. The implication being that she has to prove that the abortion is sought for "good" reasons. They also seek to prevent the use of contraceptives by anyone. They make no bones about that, it is the imposition of their religious values on everybody they want.

Though to just debate Pro-life vs Pro-choice and not look at the real problem with our society not having responsible sex, is like Debating weather the color of the coastal dikes are blue or red when a tidal wave is coming in.

So to answer you question I am pro-choice, but understand that choices lead to actions and I am also pro "take responsibility for your actions".[/


You can't separate the two. Having responsible sex means allowing proper sex education and the free availability of contraceptives which they also tend to be against seeming to believe if you don't tell children about sex they not will have it. The circumstances under which a woman becomes pregnant still should not remove her right to choose whether or not to carry a baby to term. Effectively it seems you are arguing for a system where others get to sit in moral judgement on the behaviour of a sexually active woman. You also seem to assume that most abortions are carried out purely as a means of contraception, true many are left with that as a choice having been denied the choice about becoming pregnant in the first place by religious authorities. The number of abortions and deaths of the mothers that can result is far higher on countries where abortion is not allowed than in those where it is.

Stillbirth is a natural abortion it seems even that is a crime in the eyes of some people and must have been caused deliberately.

[littleCJelkton]

fuzzywuzzy;1365124 wrote: You see what's funny about you, is most times you've spoken about sex you've used the term Pro-creation .....I don't recollect any man who's had their head submerged within my ample breasts ever thinking about the 4 am cries of a screaming baby. Hmmm I wonder why that is ?

I have sex, I make love ...I do not pro-create, I am never in the mood for pro-creation......I get into the mood for sex. And by the way as you look upon my ample bosom and pleasing physique (that apparently men are attracted to because they believe I'll breed well)..would you like to check out my pedigree and teeth too?

And tell me something when a woman is raped how many wittnesess do you need to prove that rape so a judge unknown to a woman can decide whether or not she is allowed to abort a fetus? Or in the case of incest ...how you going to prove that on a wide scale basis when most won't admit or disclose to anyone that they are in an incestuous relationship ? and why incestuous? plenty of babies healthy and wanted etc have been born to consenting incestuous relationships.

and again I ask you why is it so clear cut to you that a woman in any other circumstance than you have mentioned cannot have an abortion because she's in a marriage or long term relationship ....Lets say a woman comes home from the doctors after just finding out she's become pregnant, walks into her marital bedroom and finds her husband in the bed with another woman.....are you saying she has no right to choose not to have the offspring of that man ?

What of a woman who is in a marriage or long term relationship and is raped and does decide to continue the pregnancy but the husband wants to get rid of it? Does he have a say in that case?

If you give men the right over a woman to stop her choice of abortion then you also give him a right over her to enforce one . It goes hand in hand.


I will let you continue to display to all on FG how to discredit your own opinion which I find quite amusing because you do it so proficiently.

[littleCJelkton]

gmc;1365125 wrote: Id ablow and his kind get their way it will not be a woman's choice but to a court to decide whether she has the baby or not. The implication being that she has to prove that the abortion is sought for "good" reasons. They also seek to prevent the use of contraceptives by anyone. They make no bones about that, it is the imposition of their religious values on everybody they want.



You can't separate the two. Having responsible sex means allowing proper sex education and the free availability of contraceptives which they also tend to be against seeming to believe if you don't tell children about sex they not will have it. The circumstances under which a woman becomes pregnant still should not remove her right to choose whether or not to carry a baby to term. Effectively it seems you are arguing for a system where others get to sit in moral judgement on the behaviour of a sexually active woman. You also seem to assume that most abortions are carried out purely as a means of contraception, true many are left with that as a choice having been denied the choice about becoming pregnant in the first place by religious authorities. The number of abortions and deaths of the mothers that can result is far higher on countries where abortion is not allowed than in those where it is.

Stillbirth is a natural abortion it seems even that is a crime in the eyes of some people and must have been caused deliberately.


You again continue to debate with others opinions throwing my own in with them to somehow relate the too together. I can not speak on the religious authorities or any others behalf besides mine, I don't assume pregnancies are carried out as a means of abortion, I know that the majority of abortions that are carried out in countries that allow contraceptives are use as a means of contraceptive when the pill/condom doesn't work or when the man/woman having sex just now figured out that there was a responsibility with having sex/making love/engaging in intercourse/Pro-creating/ making whoopie/ F!@cking what ever you want to call it, and I know that since those are the majority of the cases of abortion that is why the debate of pro-life vs pro-choice is so heated if it was just rape or incest or a mother's health I don't think it would be as heated of a topic.

[fuzzywuzzy]

littleCJelkton;1365246 wrote: I will let you continue to display to all on FG how to discredit your own opinion which I find quite amusing because you do it so proficiently.


Interesting that you would use the 'flick of the hand business' as to say 'be gone with you girl this is not your business' ...Why are you posting in MY thread? ....did you or did you not state that you only agree with abortion in cases of rape or incest?????

I know that the majority of abortions that are carried out in countries that allow contraceptives are use as a means of contraceptive when the pill/condom doesn't work or when the man/woman having sex just now figured out that there was a responsibility with having sex/making love/engaging in intercourse/Pro-creating/ making whoopie/ F!@cking what ever you want to call it, and I know that since those are the majority of the cases of abortion ..........


excuse me??? do you have the figures to back that up? AND WHEN DID IT BECOME YOUR BUSINESS AT ALL as to why a woman wants an abortion ...what's it to you anyway??? considering women do not have to give an excuse I wonder why you would say such a thing!!!



So to answer you question I am pro-choice, but understand that choices lead to actions and I am also pro "take responsibility for your actions".[/


And for your information .....Women ARE taking responsibility for THEIR pregnancies in aborting them or having the pregnancy come to full term. Its only you who feels that the only 'type of responsibility' is to have a pregnancy come to full term.

[gmc]

littleCJelkton;1365247 wrote: You again continue to debate with others opinions throwing my own in with them to somehow relate the too together. I can not speak on the religious authorities or any others behalf besides mine, I don't assume pregnancies are carried out as a means of abortion, I know that the majority of abortions that are carried out in countries that allow contraceptives are use as a means of contraceptive when the pill/condom doesn't work or when the man/woman having sex just now figured out that there was a responsibility with having sex/making love/engaging in intercourse/Pro-creating/ making whoopie/ F!@cking what ever you want to call it, and I know that since those are the majority of the cases of abortion that is why the debate of pro-life vs pro-choice is so heated if it was just rape or incest or a mother's health I don't think it would be as heated of a topic.


This thread started with an article about someone who wants to give the man a right to veto abortion and also would like to see the availability of contraceptives - on the grounds it is against god's will. It wasn't actually about what you thought and in a general debate I quite frankly don't want every comment taken to be personal when I am merely responding to points made. If you want to discuss things fine but in a discussion forum not everyone will agree with you.

I don't assume pregnancies are carried out as a means of abortion, I know that the majority of abortions that are carried out in countries that allow contraceptives are use as a means of contraceptive when the pill/condom doesn't work or when the man/woman having sex just now figured out that there was a responsibility with having sex/making love/engaging in intercourse/Pro-creating/ making whoopie/ F!@cking what ever you want to call it, and I know that since those are the majority of the cases of abortion that is why the debate of pro-life vs pro-choice is so heated if it was just rape or incest or a mother's health I don't think it would be as heated of a topic


How do you know that? Do you have research to back that up or is it just something you have been told and because it fits in with your preconceptions you don't challenge it. It's not just the use of contraceptives it's whether there is a sensible approach to sex education as well. In counties where sex education starts early and they don't have the same hangups about the notion of sexually active teenagers the number of teenage pregnancies is considerably lower. Give girls the knowledge and they can make informed choices. The age at which teenagers become sexually active is also higher in those countries. Getting pregnant while at school is looked on as being stupidity. When you look at the abortion stats, especially for second and third abortions the bulk are older women where they are being carried out for medical reasons and sometimes social reasons.

Bear in mind Ablow wants to ban the sale of ALL contraceptives even to married women. NB: I know you don't hold that viewpoint please read the previous statement carefully before you object that you don't hold that view.

At the end of the day it is the woman's choice you do seem to think it should not be because you assume any woman having an abortion is just doing it for convenience as a casual thing and that someone else should make the decision for her. In the olden days in the UK girls who got pregnant as teenagers could sometimes find themselves institutionalised as being feeble minded. If they weren't institutionalised they were stuck out of sight and the babies taken away from them. Recently legal changes have allowed adopted children to track down their parents, some of the stories are heart wrenching. At least now single parents don't have that kind of stigma attached although many - especially among the religious fraternity think they should. Nothing better fun for the unco guid than to be able to remind someone they are a bastard and give charity to the fallen.

posted by fuzzywuzzy

You see what's funny about you, is most times you've spoken about sex you've used the term Pro-creation .....I don't recollect any man who's had their head submerged within my ample breasts ever thinking about the 4 am cries of a screaming baby. Hmmm I wonder why that is ?


Under circumstances like those whose thinking?:sneaky:

[littleCJelkton]

gmc;1365263 wrote:

How do you know that? Do you have research to back that up or is it just something you have been told and because it fits in with your preconceptions you don't challenge it. It's not just the use of contraceptives it's whether there is a sensible approach to sex education as well. In counties where sex education starts early and they don't have the same hangups about the notion of sexually active teenagers the number of teenage pregnancies is considerably lower. Give girls the knowledge and they can make informed choices. The age at which teenagers become sexually active is also higher in those countries. Getting pregnant while at school is looked on as being stupidity. When you look at the abortion stats, especially for second and third abortions the bulk are older women where they are being carried out for medical reasons and sometimes social reasons.




As I said in my first post I just last semester had to right a college research report for such a topic I could trudge up all the facts but here are some

here's one

There are numerous reasons why women find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy and want to have an abortion. There have been several recent surveys done in the US that showed certain characteristics regarding patients who have abortions performed:

20% were age 19 or younger and 57% were in their twenties. 72% had never been married, and 59% had at least one child. A little more than 60% were below the 200% of the federal poverty line, including 30% who were living in poverty. More than half of the patients had attended college or received a college degree. 31% of respondents were black, and 19% were Hispanic. 61% were less than 9 weeks gestation.

The most common underlying reason for abortion were 1) they could not afford a child now and unmarried (42%), 2) it would interfere with their education (38%) 3) it would interfere with their employment (38%), and 4) they were students or planning to study (34%). Other reasons are having relationship problems, not ready for another child, or don’t want people to know they had sex or got pregnant, the health of the fetus, victim of rape, or became pregnant as result of incest.

and another

The decision to have an abortion is rarely simple. Most women base their decision on several factors, the most common being lack of money and/or unreadiness to start or expand their families due to existing responsibilities. Many feel that the most responsible course of action is to wait until their situation is more suited to childrearing; 66% plan to have children when they are older, financially able to provide necessities for them, and/or in a supportive relationship with a partner so their children will have two parents. (from a pro-choice sight)

I believe that if the woman doesn't have the resources to be responsible enough to support a baby because of (money, no marriage, education, or employment) then they should not be having sex in the first place. I feel the same should go for a man in my opinion right now I feel more needs to be done to hold men responsible for the children they produce. I don't believe contraceptives should be banned but I believe that it should be taught that contraceptives never work 100% of the time. Now as I said before I believe that both the man and woman should have equal rights and responsibilities in choosing who/when/where/how they are sexually active as such both should have equal rights in the outcome of being able to have the right and responsibility to choose who/when/where/how they are sexually active, but I don't believe that a person should get the right to choose and not bear the full responsibility of those choices. The fact a woman be it you want to say by(nature, god, whatever) is the one that holds the child and goes through pregnancy should not give her anymore rights over a man say in a pregnancy, as going through pregnancy for a woman is one of the responsibilities that is the outcome of (f*#cking/ having sex/ making love/ ect..,) just like I don't believe men who tend to be bigger/stronger then women should have more rights then women because society naturally feels men should provide/protect the family.

[gmc]

So your assertion that you KNOW the situation in other countries

that the majority of abortions that are carried out in countries that allow contraceptives are use as a means of contraceptive when the pill/condom doesn't work or when the man/woman having sex just now figured out that there was a responsibility with having sex/making love/engaging in intercourse/Pro-creating/ making whoopie/ F!@cking what ever you want to call it, and I know that since those are the majority of the cases of abortion


is based on extrapolating from research you have done in the states and the assumption that as it is in america so must it be elsewhere. That is not so, this may be a shock to you but america is a foreign country where customs and social mores are not the same as elsewhere. America has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the western world despite being a most overtly religious nation. Maybe you coukld learn something from more secular nations.

The fact a woman be it you want to say by(nature, god, whatever) is the one that holds the child and goes through pregnancy should not give her anymore rights over a man say in a pregnancy, as going through pregnancy for a woman is one of the responsibilities that is the outcome of


That is your opinion but it is not one you or anyone else has to impose on others. Nature/god whatever as well as giving the woman the responsibility of childbirth presumably also gave women the intelligence to decide for themselves when it is best to bring a child in to the world. Who are you or anyone to advocate taking that god given right away from her. (for want of a better way of putting it since I am not particularly religious) the religiously inspired misogyny of ablow and his ilk has its origins in ancient Israel/Palestine, when vengeful and ignorant tribal lore was written down by frightened men (the nastier authors of the Bible) trying to defend their prerogatives to bully women, murder rival tribes, and steal land. It's the 21st century we should be able to leave such attitudes behind us. If you claim for yourself the right to be free and to make your own life choices the only justification you have for depriving women of the same right is you think them to be inferior and not caoable of making choices for themselves. It's like the medieval scholars who believed women were merely the vessels for the man's seeds and had no intellectual capacity beyond that, perversely they also believed educating them was a waste because it gave them ideas beyond their station in life - but I digress.

I believe that if the woman doesn't have the resources to be responsible enough to support a baby because of (money, no marriage, education, or employment) then they should not be having sex in the first place. I feel the same should go for a man


You also do not have the right to impose your beliefs about when and why people should have sex on others either. No free man or woman should tolerate such arrogance. Most sensible people don't have kids until they are ready given a choice. Again I am not suggesting you want to impose your beliefs but you clearly find nothing absurd in your assertion. Ablow and his ilk clearly would like to impose their beliefs by force of law if necessary.

[Odie]

men have no right if a woman wants an abortion, its not his body, it was his fault for not wearing protection.

[gmc]

Two questions 1) how did someone like him get on to mainstream news channel?

2) did he get his qualifications by post?



If they are real it's depressing that someone intelligent can actually be educated and still believe that kind of crap. Then again warren jeffs is intelligent as well and they seem to share similar views on the role of women in society.

posted by odie

men have no right if a woman wants an abortion, its not his body, it was his fault for not wearing protection.


You can just hear the reasoning, don't worry about getting pregnant god will decide whether I have a child or not.

[Odie]

gmc;1365565 wrote: Two questions 1) how did someone like him get on to mainstream news channel?

2) did he get his qualifications by post?



If they are real it's depressing that someone intelligent can actually be educated and still believe that kind of crap. Then again warren jeffs is intelligent as well and they seem to share similar views on the role of women in society.

posted by odie



You can just hear the reasoning, don't worry about getting pregnant god will decide whether I have a child or not.


I was just talking generally......geez!

[gmc]

Odie;1365566 wrote: I was just talking generally......geez!


I was just being facetious.:-5:-5

At least so far as the two questions were concerned.

[littleCJelkton]

gmc;1365401 wrote:

You also do not have the right to impose your beliefs about when and why people should have sex on others either. No free man or woman should tolerate such arrogance. Most sensible people don't have kids until they are ready given a choice. Again I am not suggesting you want to impose your beliefs but you clearly find nothing absurd in your assertion. Ablow and his ilk clearly would like to impose their beliefs by force of law if necessary.


So at what point does someone have the right to make sure others around them ( in this case make sure the government legislates judges upon and enforces) laws that make people responsible for their actions? If a person chose to go around and break in to other people's houses an steal something, do we just let him/her because they have a right to choose to do so? Or if a person wants to choose to go around raping little children, or a person wants to choose to murder those around him/her? Is their a point in which a person looses his or her rights due to the inability to carry the responsibilities that come along with them or would you rather we have a society that has freedom of choice and no responsibility?

[Odie]

gmc;1365590 wrote: I was just being facetious.:-5:-5

At least so far as the two questions were concerned.


well, you could have told me that:-5

sorry!

[gmc]

Odie;1365613 wrote: well, you could have told me that:-5

sorry!


It's that transatlantic miscommunication differing sense of humour thing lon was on about on another thread.

posted by liittlecjelkton

So at what point does someone have the right to make sure others around them ( in this case make sure the government legislates judges upon and enforces) laws that make people responsible for their actions? If a person chose to go around and break in to other people's houses an steal something, do we just let him/her because they have a right to choose to do so? Or if a person wants to choose to go around raping little children, or a person wants to choose to murder those around him/her? Is their a point in which a person looses his or her rights due to the inability to carry the responsibilities that come along with them or would you rather we have a society that has freedom of choice and no responsibility?




Did you ethics class not cover that one?

Human society has always sat down and discussed what laws they want to govern themselves varying between an egalitarian approach and one where a ruler or a ruling elite laid down the law or controlled the decision making process. It's a never ending to and fro. Laws are primarily designed to protect the weak from the strong and their abuse of power. Your nation borrowed heavily from one such early model and learned from what happened in europe and decided that religion should play no part in governing because of the oppression that that led to - you cannot have equality where one religion is seen as the "correct one".

Ablow is arguing from a position that he has the right to dictate how people live their lives and whether they should use contraceptives or not. Abortion is an emotive issue that he conflates with contraception and women's rights to pursue his own religious agenda. He's wants religious oppression and the superiority of the laws of god (as he sees them) over those of man. Society has ways to sit down and work out a compromise. When that fails you go to war or have what we now call social conflict with one side demanding more rights and the other saying no you are not worthy. You've have taken all the nations wealth and that is not fair or just. You are exploiting me I will not stand for that. I live in a country that was torn apart over the issue of who ruled - divine right of kings backed up the the church or the people choosing their leaders. Divine right to rule lost the argument and religion lost it's once all powerful place in society. How did america end up giving the vote to women? At some point society as a whole must have decided they were actually intelligent enough to vote sensibly. Some denominations think women cannot be priests but people sit down and decide for themselves what they want to happen and change things to a more egalitarian state. Religion it seems can change with the times.

The fact a woman be it you want to say by(nature, god, whatever) is the one that holds the child and goes through pregnancy should not give her anymore rights over a man say in a pregnancy, as going through pregnancy for a woman is one of the responsibilities that is the outcome of (f*#cking/ having sex/ making love/ ect..,) just like I don't believe men who tend to be bigger/stronger then women should have more rights then women because society naturally feels men should provide/protect the family.


You may believe that I don't, I think it's nonsense if there are more that think like I do than there are like you then society changes the law. You can use persuasion all you like to talk women out of it you don't have the right to take away the choice any more. Most of society thinks whether to use contraception or not or and when to have sex should be left up to the individual, most of society is easy going which is why the religious right is getting away with some of the daft things it is doing, eventually they will annoy enough people and get a good smacking and then it will start all over again.

[littleCJelkton]

gmc;1365725 wrote: It's that transatlantic miscommunication differing sense of humour thing lon was on about on another thread.

posted by liittlecjelkton

You may believe that I don't, I think it's nonsense if there are more that think like I do than there are like you then society changes the law. You can use persuasion all you like to talk women out of it you don't have the right to take away the choice any more. Most of society thinks whether to use contraception or not or and when to have sex should be left up to the individual, most of society is easy going which is why the religious right is getting away with some of the daft things it is doing, eventually they will annoy enough people and get a good smacking and then it will start all over again.


Fortunately for you more people think like you do and we therefore have a plethora of people who believe people should have all the rights in the world too choose what they want to do act upon their choice and carry none of the responsibility for their action. You've seen it in the way the wall street ran things during the last downturn, how government is running things now, the Anthony case, the Simpson Case, the London Riots, The Catholic church sexual abuse scandal, I could continue but my thread would never end. I believe at some point people will change things, not because they are annoyed but because the level of lying/ stealing/ cheating/ killing/ raping is just too much to bear and therefore will start making rules that will force people to take responsibility for there actions unfortunately for us things have gotten so bad that those laws could be somewhat if not majorly oppresive, the case being for such stern action " people can't handle responsibility".

[gmc]

littleCJelkton;1365791 wrote: Fortunately for you more people think like you do and we therefore have a plethora of people who believe people should have all the rights in the world too choose what they want to do act upon their choice and carry none of the responsibility for their action. You've seen it in the way the wall street ran things during the last downturn, how government is running things now, the Anthony case, the Simpson Case, the London Riots, The Catholic church sexual abuse scandal, I could continue but my thread would never end. I believe at some point people will change things, not because they are annoyed but because the level of lying/ stealing/ cheating/ killing/ raping is just too much to bear and therefore will start making rules that will force people to take responsibility for there actions unfortunately for us things have gotten so bad that those laws could be somewhat if not majorly oppresive, the case being for such stern action " people can't handle responsibility".


Fortunately for me?! That almost sounds like a threat. Every oppressive regime has justified oppression as being for the good of society, or to correct the ills of society as they see it. Sounds like you want to impose some kind of religious dictatorship on America. Happily I am not an american and live in a country where people have little inclination for blind obedience to religious leaders or indeed any leader. I think your ethics course must have missed out big chunks of philosophical debate and you donl;t seem to appreciate of doping research before you come to any conclusions, rather than using research to confirm already held prejudices. The rules for society are already there having been arrived at by consensus over the years, you can't rewrite them without the consensus of the people and the odds of you being able to impose your own are pretty slim I would say.

Came across this in the Washington post

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -of-death/

Obamacare is predicated upon massive tax increases to finance universal coverage. It is more than an unsustainable multitrillion dollar entitlement program - it is an assault upon traditional America. This proposal panders to the feminist lobby, especially Planned Parenthood - the nation’s largest provider of “family planning” and abortion services. Free birth control has nothing to do with “protecting women’s health.” Rather, it is about consolidating the sexual revolution. The post-1960s left has been at war with Christianity. Its aim is to erect a utopian socialist state - one built upon the rubble of Judeo-Christian civilization. In short, liberals want to create a world without God and sexual permissiveness is their battering ram. Promoting widespread contraception is essential to forging a pagan society based on consequence-free sex.




Do people like him actually get taken seriously in the states?

This guy also believed in the importance of family, church and state, and that the tolerance of homosexuality and liberal values in general were bad for society and people should be forced to take responsibility for their actions.

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

[Saint_]

littleCJelkton;1365791 wrote: Fortunately for you more people think like you do and we therefore have a plethora of people who believe people should have all the rights in the world too choose what they want to do act upon their choice and carry none of the responsibility for their action.


Every action carries responsibility in our country. Don't think so? Try robbing a bank.

Name one thing that people can do without consequence.

You've seen it in the way the wall street ran things during the last downturn,


The banks took responsibility. Thousands of them went out of business!

how government is running things now,


I LIKE how the government is being run!

the Anthony case, the Simpson Case,


Are you slamming a jury of twelve men and women true?

the London Riots, The Catholic church sexual abuse scandal, I could continue but my thread would never end. I believe at some point people will change things, not because they are annoyed but because the level of lying/ stealing/ cheating/ killing/ raping is just too much to bear and therefore will start making rules that will force people to take responsibility for there actions unfortunately for us things have gotten so bad that those laws could be somewhat if not majorly oppresive, the case being for such stern action " people can't handle responsibility".


We have those rules already. Every example you listed is either in the process of being dealt with by the law or has already been decided. The problem is that you, personally, don't think the laws are strict enough.

Well tough. Laws are enacted by majority vote.

There was a king in ancient times named Dracon and his laws were so severe and lacking in compassion and humanity that we still call views like his...and YOURS..

"Draconian."

"Death penalty for jaywalking." I'd rather not live in a world like yours, thank you very much!:-5

[littleCJelkton]

gmc;1365811 wrote: Fortunately for me?! That almost sounds like a threat. Every oppressive regime has justified oppression as being for the good of society, or to correct the ills of society as they see it. Sounds like you want to impose some kind of religious dictatorship on America. Happily I am not an american and live in a country where people have little inclination for blind obedience to religious leaders or indeed any leader. I think your ethics course must have missed out big chunks of philosophical debate and you donl;t seem to appreciate of doping research before you come to any conclusions, rather than using research to confirm already held prejudices. The rules for society are already there having been arrived at by consensus over the years, you can't rewrite them without the consensus of the people and the odds of you being able to impose your own are pretty slim I would say.

Came across this in the Washington post

KUHNER: Obama's culture of death - Washington Times



Do people like him actually get taken seriously in the states?

This guy also believed in the importance of family, church and state, and that the tolerance of homosexuality and liberal values in general were bad for society and people should be forced to take responsibility for their actions.



Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf


Fortunately my generation has already been oppressed to the point were we can't make enough money, we get arrested or posed as terrorist for speaking out, and through cultural, social, and just plain living experience we learn that those who we look up to (parents, teachers, priest, police, mayors, presidents) have no responsibility for what they do and thus we in turn find that there are so much things to take responsibility of because others feel they have the right not to take responsibility for there actions, but in turn we then get burdened with our reponsibilities and those of others that the majority of us give up and in by learning from what those around us have done begin not taking responsibility for our own actions such as (sex, financial, or governmental). I don't want to see anything forced upon anyone your free to think what you may, though as you pointed so well out with your historical reference when there are extremes going toward one way it tends to go extreme the other way

[littleCJelkton]

Saint_;1365841 wrote: Every action carries responsibility in our country. Don't think so? Try robbing a bank.

Name one thing that people can do without consequence.




I am glad to see we can come to an agreement thus why I thing consequence is going to have a nasty comeback, maybe even a draconian one it has happened quite a few times in the past already.

[gmc]

littleCJelkton;1365844 wrote: Fortunately my generation has already been oppressed to the point were we can't make enough money, we get arrested or posed as terrorist for speaking out, and through cultural, social, and just plain living experience we learn that those who we look up to (parents, teachers, priest, police, mayors, presidents) have no responsibility for what they do and thus we in turn find that there are so much things to take responsibility of because others feel they have the right not to take responsibility for there actions, but in turn we then get burdened with our reponsibilities and those of others that the majority of us give up and in by learning from what those around us have done begin not taking responsibility for our own actions such as (sex, financial, or governmental). I don't want to see anything forced upon anyone your free to think what you may, though as you pointed so well out with your historical reference when there are extremes going toward one way it tends to go extreme the other way


Liberal democracy, for all it's faults is the way we developed structures to try and control the swings between the extremes. To paraphrase winston churchill democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. Currently You have a corporatist government in the United States you really need to sort it out. The structures for doing so peacefully are already in place. Ablow and his type are not progressive they want to go back to an age when superstition ruled and questioning anything was a challenge to authority. Many of your fundamentalist religious leaders now say openly they are against democracy and that too many people have rights that should not have and are against a secular society because it protects the right of people not to be persecuted by the religious. I have little time for fundamentalism of any kind. They can't win the logical argument about abortion and in ablow's case the use of contraceptives as well so they resort to bullying and shouting down any who disagree and encourage terrorist attacks on abortion clinics.

don't assume pregnancies are carried out as a means of abortion, I know that the majority of abortions that are carried out in countries that allow contraceptives are use as a means of contraceptive when the pill/condom doesn't work or when the man/woman having sex just now figured out that there was a responsibility with having sex/making love/engaging in intercourse/Pro-creating/ making whoopie/ F!@cking what ever you want to call it, and I know that since those are the majority of the cases of abortion that is why the debate of pro-life vs pro-choice is so heated if it was just rape or incest or a mother's health I don't think it would be as heated of a topic


You are entitled to your own opinion but that doesn't mean you should make up your own facts. Perhaps you should do more research on what actually happens in countries where sex education starts early, the reality is if you let teenage girls know the facts of life and the consequences of unprotected sex they elect overwhelmingly to bide their time before becoming sexually active and tend not to become pregnant as teenagers, The religious in america have a twisted unhealthy obsession with sex. They do in europe as well we're just less in thrall to religion.

Fortunately my generation has already been oppressed to the point were we can't make enough money, we get arrested or posed as terrorist for speaking out, and through cultural, social, and just -------




So what happened?

[fuzzywuzzy]

mikeinie;1363467 wrote: If a woman wants an abortion:

“ this is my body, you can’t tell me what to do, this is my responsibility, you have nothing to do with this”

If a woman wants to keep a baby:

“ you did this to me, this is your child I am carrying, you are responsible, you need to step up”

Men can’t win..


now you know the choices women go through and what they have to deal with ...lets just leave it up to them shall we?

sorry I've seen it all now ...now robbing a bank is the same as becoming pregnant......hmmm I rest my case ....for the rest of the world to decide .

[southern yankee]

littleCJelkton;1364363 wrote: I love it not only do you put the "He said, she said, I said, you said, they said, we said, what we're going to say" argument for religious arguments you use it for everything. Plus the appearent fact you can't read very good makes you just worthless to have a discussion with much less a debate you are obviously taking a staunch sexist stance here and that is hindering you from making any kind of rational discussion. So let me go over this.

I never said women shouldn't be having sex if they don't want children, I said neither men or women should be having sex (it takes two to tango) unless there able to handle the responsibility of sex which is having kids. If you read right I said removal of the ovaries and/or testicles are a way to go(but if you knew anything about modern contraception you would of known that after having those procedures the sexual drive for an individual drops to like nothing because you can't enjoy it as much because you cant have kids), but you have shown before on other post and when responding to other posters you either don't read well or don't care at all about other opinions. This is obviously an ethics discussion about the ethics of who has the choice to have the say in a case of abortion, but the root of that problem stems from the ethical dillema of abortion itself which ultimately stems from the ethics of having responsibility for one's(both man and woman) actions, namely sex. I am still waiting to read something of actual disscussion or debate material not just the ranting "he said, she said, i said" I continue to go in circles to try to confuse your argument, because your all wrong I am right even though I don't read entirely what you say, tactic you been so diligently using thus far. wow, pretty rude wouldn't you say. until a man can become able to have a child. nothing more needs to be said:mad:

[littleCJelkton]

gmc;1365883 wrote:

You are entitled to your own opinion but that doesn't mean you should make up your own facts. Perhaps you should do more research on what actually happens in countries where sex education starts early, the reality is if you let teenage girls know the facts of life and the consequences of unprotected sex they elect overwhelmingly to bide their time before becoming sexually active and tend not to become pregnant as teenagers, The religious in america have a twisted unhealthy obsession with sex. They do in europe as well we're just less in thrall to religion.




I get my opinions from the fact's I showed you a few such facts in this thread and just saw on our local news station a brief about a story in which the local PA and NJ governments conducted a survey that showed teen sexual activity, pregnancy, and dropouts up. Then on another local news station about the rising number of children in families below the poverty level. So I see all around me examples of my opinions form from the facts actualized in my ex girlfriends 2 of whom are single moms, and 4 of whom have had at least one abortion due to the facts of a)no money sometimes no job b)no responsibility from the male partner c)no help from the parents. I see it in the girlfriends and ex girlfriends of all of my friends I know my self at least 15 girls who have had abortions because of they have gotten pregnant before they could handle the responsibility of such action. I am not sure what you mean by early, but in my country sexual education usually starts at about 13 14 in school though most know about sex somewhat at the ages of 10-12 if that is not early I am not sure what is. I am not sure about other countries though I don't think my country could help another countries problems with sexual education/responsibilty or much less anything else despite how our disfunctional government likes to try, until it fixes on it's own problems.

[littleCJelkton]

southern yankee;1365923 wrote: wow, pretty rude wouldn't you say. until a man can become able to have a child. nothing more needs to be said:mad:


Are you implying I don't think men today should not be just as responsible for there actions and women, is so pleas read again. I believe that both men and women should be responsible for their choices, and the actions they take based on those choices, sex being one of those acts.

[littleCJelkton]

gmc;1365883 wrote:

So what happened?


plain living experience we learn that those who we look up to (parents, teachers, priest, police, mayors, presidents) have no responsibility for what they do and thus we in turn find that there are so much things to take responsibility of because others feel they have the right not to take responsibility for there actions, but in turn we then get burdened with our reponsibilities and those of others that the majority of us give up and in by learning from what those around us have done begin not taking responsibility for our own actions such as (sex, financial, or governmental). I don't want to see anything forced upon anyone your free to think what you may, though as you pointed so well out with your historical reference when there are extremes going toward one way it tends to go extreme the other way

[gmc]

littleCJelkton;1365954 wrote: I get my opinions from the fact's I showed you a few such facts in this thread and just saw on our local news station a brief about a story in which the local PA and NJ governments conducted a survey that showed teen sexual activity, pregnancy, and dropouts up. Then on another local news station about the rising number of children in families below the poverty level. So I see all around me examples of my opinions form from the facts actualized in my ex girlfriends 2 of whom are single moms, and 4 of whom have had at least one abortion due to the facts of a)no money sometimes no job b)no responsibility from the male partner c)no help from the parents. I see it in the girlfriends and ex girlfriends of all of my friends I know my self at least 15 girls who have had abortions because of they have gotten pregnant before they could handle the responsibility of such action. I am not sure what you mean by early, but in my country sexual education usually starts at about 13 14 in school though most know about sex somewhat at the ages of 10-12 if that is not early I am not sure what is. I am not sure about other countries though I don't think my country could help another countries problems with sexual education/responsibilty or much less anything else despite how our disfunctional government likes to try, until it fixes on it's own problems.


what you said was

I know that the majority of abortions that are carried out in countries that allow contraceptives are use as a means of contraceptive




You don't know, you assume that because that's what it's like in America it's the same everywhere. Early is in primary school - before the opposite sex becomes more than a nuisance. Maybe you could learn from other countries.

The Big Question: Why are teenage pregnancy rates so high, and what can be done about it? - Big Question, Extras - The Independent

BBC NEWS | Special Report | 1999 | 04/99 | Teen pregnancy | Teenage pregnancies: the picture worldwide

It's a problem you will never sort out so long as you let the religious set the agenda. We have similar problems here and for the same reasons. You could argue, justifiable I think, that the high abortion rates and high teenage pregnancy rates are due to the prurient religious groups that we allow to influence policy.

[littleCJelkton]

gmc;1365963 wrote: what you said was



You don't know, you assume that because that's what it's like in America it's the same everywhere. Early is in primary school - before the opposite sex becomes more than a nuisance. by 13 14 Maybe yo could learn from other countries.

The Big Question: Why are teenage pregnancy rates so high, and what can be done about it? - Big Question, Extras - The Independent

BBC NEWS | Special Report | 1999 | 04/99 | Teen pregnancy | Teenage pregnancies: the picture worldwide

It's a problem you will never sort out so long as you let the religious set the agenda. We have similar problems here and for the same reasons. You could argue, justifiable I think, that the high abortion rates and high teenage pregnancy rates are due to the prurient religious groups that we allow to influence policy.


See we are getting somewhere I actually agree with many of the statements you just said, as I said before and as is shown in your article the sexual education system is broken for kids/teenagers in the countries where you see high teen pregnancy, high teen abortion rates, and high abortion rates overall that are also countries that allow contraceptive use. As I said teaching kids/teens the responsibilities "having kids" is almost non existent compared to the STD scare that I and the teens prior to me get in sex ed.



one quote stood out for me that I thought was good

Yes, children can discuss sex during their primary school years but it is discussed in an atmosphere of talking about relationships and caring and respect for others.

if you are going to having caring and respect for others in a sexually active relationship then I think that means caring and respecting what both the Man and Woman have to say and want in such a relationship, for all choices such from choice of contraceptives-the positions used during sex- up to pregnancy- abortion- or child names.

[gmc]

littleCJelkton;1366064 wrote: See we are getting somewhere I actually agree with many of the statements you just said, as I said before and as is shown in your article the sexual education system is broken for kids/teenagers in the countries where you see high teen pregnancy, high teen abortion rates, and high abortion rates overall that are also countries that allow contraceptive use. As I said teaching kids/teens the responsibilities "having kids" is almost non existent compared to the STD scare that I and the teens prior to me get in sex ed.



one quote stood out for me that I thought was good

Yes, children can discuss sex during their primary school years but it is discussed in an atmosphere of talking about relationships and caring and respect for others.

if you are going to having caring and respect for others in a sexually active relationship then I think that means caring and respecting what both the Man and Woman have to say and want in such a relationship, for all choices such from choice of contraceptives-the positions used during sex- up to pregnancy- abortion- or child names.


The problem with some religious people is they see sex as just another bodily function whose main purpose is procreation, It's like having a ****, you need to do it but you don't talk about it in public. Worse if they take on board the concept that sexual lust was to blame for the fall from grace then anyone who actually enjoys it is perverted and a sinner. It makes it difficult to have a sensible approach to sex education.

Ablow has, in my opinion, a perverted view of human nature and seems to see women as of value only because of their use in procreation.

[littleCJelkton]

gmc;1366066 wrote: The problem with some religious people is they see sex as just another bodily function whose main purpose is procreation, It's like having a ****, you need to do it but you don't talk about it in public. Worse if they take on board the concept that sexual lust was to blame for the fall from grace then anyone who actually enjoys it is perverted and a sinner. It makes it difficult to have a sensible approach to sex education.

Ablow has, in my opinion, a perverted view of human nature and seems to see women as of value only because of their use in procreation.


I know, there for I don't delve to much in to what he has to say, but at the same time I don't believe the best stance to take when debating what he says is one that is the polar opposite of him.

[gmc]

littleCJelkton;1366122 wrote: I know, there for I don't delve to much in to what he has to say, but at the same time I don't believe the best stance to take when debating what he says is one that is the polar opposite of him.


It's waste of time debating things with the village idiot all you can do is prevent them from getting in a position to harm anybody.

[littleCJelkton]

gmc;1366146 wrote: It's waste of time debating things with the village idiot all you can do is prevent them from getting in a position to harm anybody.


So back to the real question I have being that we have Identified that the views of the religious right which you show hatred towards with such fervor are some what extreme( maybe due in part to the rampant irresponsibility of those having sex today, or maybe there just a bunch of ignorant power hungry a** H****, maybe a bit a both), but besides those irrelevancies, we pretty much agree that both men and women should have equal rights, and that those rights carry certain responsiblities. So, since the rights and responsibilities of both men and women should be equal why should a man have less of a right to see a child born to life or put to death as compared the rights the woman who he helped conceive the child with?

[gmc]

littleCJelkton;1367200 wrote: So back to the real question I have being that we have Identified that the views of the religious right which you show hatred towards with such fervor are some what extreme( maybe due in part to the rampant irresponsibility of those having sex today, or maybe there just a bunch of ignorant power hungry a** H****, maybe a bit a both), but besides those irrelevancies, we pretty much agree that both men and women should have equal rights, and that those rights carry certain responsiblities. So, since the rights and responsibilities of both men and women should be equal why should a man have less of a right to see a child born to life or put to death as compared the rights the woman who he helped conceive the child with?


The woman has the greater responsibility in bearing the foetus the man has none at all. Indeed the man is actually incapable of conceiving in the first place - His role is almost incidental to the process she can pick whoever she wants. The day a man can carry and give birth to a child is the day he can claim he has an equal right to determine what happens to that foetus. To suggest that a man should be able to go to court to prevent an abortion of a child he claims is his is simply a device to remove the woman's choice for dubious religious reasons. Unless she chooses to tell him he will have no knowledge of the matter in any case. If the good lord saw fit to trust the woman with that capability then presumably he also saw fit to give them intelligence to decide when they carry to term or not. Unless you are suggesting that woman are not capable of making such decisions which is the position ablow takes. It's very stone age, women and children belong to the man and have no rights in their own right.

Hatred is too strong a word, but history and indeed the present day are full of examples when the only way to stop religious oppression has been to literally go to war against it. They will brook no dissent why should I, or anyone else let them away with it.

We don't actually agree that men and women have equal rights when it comes to having children. At the end of the day the woman has to agree to bear someone's children. If she decides not to that is her prerogative. It is also her right to choose when to become pregnant, ablow would deprive her of that right as well. He can live as he chooses but idiots like him claim the right to dictate to others, it's as simple as that and given enough leeway they would dictate. You live in a secular society because these battles have been fought in the past and the religious lost they seem to be gearing u for another attempt at control, and in the states they seem to be making headway. You have my sympathy.

[littleCJelkton]

gmc;1367225 wrote: The woman has the greater responsibility in bearing the foetus the man has none at all. Indeed the man is actually incapable of conceiving in the first place - His role is almost incidental to the process she can pick whoever she wants. The day a man can carry and give birth to a child is the day he can claim he has an equal right to determine what happens to that foetus. To suggest that a man should be able to go to court to prevent an abortion of a child he claims is his is simply a device to remove the woman's choice for dubious religious reasons. Unless she chooses to tell him he will have no knowledge of the matter in any case. If the good lord saw fit to trust the woman with that capability then presumably he also saw fit to give them intelligence to decide when they carry to term or not. Unless you are suggesting that woman are not capable of making such decisions which is the position ablow takes. It's very stone age, women and children belong to the man and have no rights in their own right.

Hatred is too strong a word, but history and indeed the present day are full of examples when the only way to stop religious oppression has been to literally go to war against it. They will brook no dissent why should I, or anyone else let them away with it.

We don't actually agree that men and women have equal rights when it comes to having children. At the end of the day the woman has to agree to bear someone's children. If she decides not to that is her prerogative. It is also her right to choose when to become pregnant, ablow would deprive her of that right as well. He can live as he chooses but idiots like him claim the right to dictate to others, it's as simple as that and given enough leeway they would dictate. You live in a secular society because these battles have been fought in the past and the religious lost they seem to be gearing u for another attempt at control, and in the states they seem to be making headway. You have my sympathy.


I see so why should a man have any responsibility to his child or a woman who he got pregnant? If he has no right in the say of the life of a child he produced why should he have to help raise the child in any way finacial or otherwise? What then if a man has no right and thus no responsibility to the child why then have courting, relationships, or marriages, why not just have all men's sperm donated in a bank and then when a woman's ready she can go to the bank and have them take her egg and a sperm slap the two the together and stick-em back in. Then from there if she decides to go along with it though therm that's her decision.

[gmc]

littleCJelkton;1367265 wrote: I see so why should a man have any responsibility to his child or a woman who he got pregnant? If he has no right in the say of the life of a child he produced why should he have to help raise the child in any way financial or otherwise? What then if a man has no right and thus no responsibility to the child why then have courting, relationships, or marriages, why not just have all men's sperm donated in a bank and then when a woman's ready she can go to the bank and have them take her egg and a sperm slap the two the together and stick-em back in. Then from there if she decides to go along with it though therm that's her decision.


I'm not saying he has no right I am saying he does not have an overweening right. The laws relating to paternity go back to the days when a woman was not able to earn a living for herself and if she became pregnant as well as not being able to support the child she also had the hatred and disdain of the community to deal with. It's within living memory that a woman had to give up work if she got married and had no rights in the case of a divorce and could be totally left destitute if she left her husband - whatever the reason. Even now you have those who complain easy divorce has led to the breakdown of the family, in reality marriage is as popular as ever it's just not the only choice any more. At least we have progressed in that we no longer force girls to go in to hiding and forcibly give up their babies for adoption so as not to shame their families. There are still many employers that will not take on a single FEMALE parent, often without finding out why she is a single parent. Most get to that point through being widowed or divorce, not every single parent is a feckless wastrel as the media seem to apply and the religious would like to believe.

You go on about responsibility but if a a girl becomes pregnant because she is unable to access contraceptives and is only told don't have sex - which is one of the strongest drives for any human whose fault is that? It's a choice people have to make, people like ablow have no right to dictate to others how to live their lives. I thought you did an ethics course, did you not cover how attitudes and laws have been changes over the years and in particular the notion that he church was the sole arbiter on the matter?

Posted by littlecjelkton

Yes, children can discuss sex during their primary school years but it is discussed in an atmosphere of talking about relationships and caring and respect for others.

if you are going to having caring and respect for others in a sexually active relationship then I think that means caring and respecting what both the Man and Woman have to say and want in such a relationship, for all choices such from choice of contraceptives-the positions used during sex- up to pregnancy- abortion- or child names.




Put another way of you talk about sex education in an adult fashion and start in primary schools you have fewer problems than if you approach it from the perverted belief that it is sinful and shouldn't be enjoyed.

[K.Snyder]

I think the moment society attempts to control the "moral integrity" of individuals is the day society plunges into chaos.

I will say that everyone has their reasons for anything they do, lest they be defined as insane, which I'm comfortable with, so suggesting anyone has the "moral obligation" to force someone to carry to term then they my friend are a complete nincompoop!

Society is dependent upon people's moral values not vica versa...

The only right a collective society has is to observe society and make decisions based off of statistics that suggest how to improve said society. Those decisions are to be made by the people regardless of representation

Does the father have equal the right to birth and raise that child? Yes

But the father also should choose his partner based off of similar opinions and values that increase the liklyhood of harmony from which the majority seems to LOVE to define as "Heaven" which is fine with me it just pisses me off when people go willy nilly in supermarkets asking women to drop their pants in the middle of the isle to then have the tenacity to force that woman to bear a child she more than likly can appreciate more than some moron with hungry eyes

Get a grip!

[fuzzywuzzy]

littleCJelkton;1367265 wrote: I see so why should a man have any responsibility to his child or a woman who he got pregnant? If he has no right in the say of the life of a child he produced why should he have to help raise the child in any way finacial or otherwise? What then if a man has no right and thus no responsibility to the child why then have courting, relationships, or marriages, why not just have all men's sperm donated in a bank and then when a woman's ready she can go to the bank and have them take her egg and a sperm slap the two the together and stick-em back in. Then from there if she decides to go along with it though therm that's her decision.


That's called IVF and it's already being done .......And to your last point ..I'm good with that.

K it's words like yours and GMCs' that would make a woman want to have a baby to you and have you in the picture for the rest of that childs life. Women respect men as yourselves. See littleCretin, when a woman is threatened in any way she will not co operate and women on the whole will retaliate. It's quite simple really.

[littleCJelkton]

gmc;1367349 wrote: I'm not saying he has no right I am saying he does not have an overweening right. The laws relating to paternity go back to the days when a woman was not able to earn a living for herself and if she became pregnant as well as not being able to support the child she also had the hatred and disdain of the community to deal with. It's within living memory that a woman had to give up work if she got married and had no rights in the case of a divorce and could be totally left destitute if she left her husband - whatever the reason. Even now you have those who complain easy divorce has led to the breakdown of the family, in reality marriage is as popular as ever it's just not the only choice any more. At least we have progressed in that we no longer force girls to go in to hiding and forcibly give up their babies for adoption so as not to shame their families. There are still many employers that will not take on a single FEMALE parent, often without finding out why she is a single parent. Most get to that point through being widowed or divorce, not every single parent is a feckless wastrel as the media seem to apply and the religious would like to believe.




So when a man is attracted to a woman and courts her, begins a relationship with her, marries her, and some point withing that process begins sexual activity with that woman which then has the ultimate goal of having and raising kids, at what point does that man expecting doing these processes that have become the societies normal processes to reproduction have a right to the say in having children.

Should there be a legal bill written up for couples to sign before having sexual activity to outline that the sexual activity that the two individual have together is entirely for non-procreation purposes until the two have agreed at a later time that they are ready to have a kid together? That way any pregnancies that are result of said sexual intercourse in such agreements abortion will already be agreed upon.

I just find it strange to have to explain that if a relationship is to the level that the two are having sexual intercourse than such legal documents should not have to be made as the two individuals in said relationship should already have a mutual understanding and respect for each other (physically/emotionally/mentally) that such a decision on pregnancy, abortion, or sex to begin with, is made with both individuals needs and desires in mind as neither individual in said relationship would want the others needs and desires to go overlooked. Though, from what I have studied and seen is that a suprisingly large number of these decisions on sex,pregnancy, and/or abortion are made in relationships where the couple doesn't have much more than maybe the basic physical respect and understanding for each other. It is these relationships that are more likely to result in the woman using abortion contraceptive or the man leaving the pregnant mother thus making her one of the single moms that get stereotyped as a "feckless wastrel" as you put it. Since these types of relationships and the results of said relationships have become so rampant society I would suppose society sees it as a problem and there will be a lot of ideas thrown around to fix said problem not all of them good as history has shown both government and religious solutions to problems have not always been the greatest but at least are a starting point.

[gmc]

So when a man is attracted to a woman and courts her, begins a relationship with her, marries her, and some point withing that process begins sexual activity with that woman which then has the ultimate goal of having and raising kids, at what point does that man expecting doing these processes that have become the societies normal processes to reproduction have a right to the say in having children.






Clearly it has to be a joint decision. If a couple can't decide on whether and when to have children then probably it is a sign that they need to find another partner. They should perhaps have discussed it beforehand. The man does not own the woman in our society or the rights to force her to have children. It used to be, quite literally, that woman and children were the man's possessions, his chattels or slaves if you prefer, that's why fathers still traditionally give away their daughters at weddings it's a hangover from when it was literally the case he was giving his daughter to someone. Amongst the wealthy especially as a kind of brood mare to keep the family lines intact or for political ends. People decry the divorce laws but the rise in divorce is more due to a woman not having to put up with an untenable situation. There are still people who believe a man has a right to hit a woman that does not do as she is told or that rape within marriage does not exist because the man has a right to sex. It's a lot worse living in a society where women can't divorce the husband.

In short no man has the right to dictate when a woman becomes pregnant. I find it shocking you can suggest he should. No offence but it suggests a rather mechanistic approach to relationships - Most people look for mates not just brood mares. If the man has been unsuccessful in persuading the woman he married to have children I suggest he end the marriage and try again, please tell me you are not suggesting he has a right to force the issue.

Should there be a legal bill written up for couples to sign before having sexual activity to outline that the sexual activity that the two individual have together is entirely for non-procreation purposes until the two have agreed at a later time that they are ready to have a kid together? That way any pregnancies that are result of said sexual intercourse in such agreements abortion will already be agreed upon.


That is absurd although I believe such agreements are common in the states before marriage - called prenuptial agreements. Personally I think if you need that perhaps you need to reconsider why you are getting married in the first place. Either party can end the relationship so where is the problem? As to sex before marriage it's up to the individuals involved. There are plenty of women who read more in to a sexual relationship than the man does, it's part of life's rich tapestry. Equally there are blokes who read more in to a sexual relationship than the girl does. They rationalise subsequent rejection by calling the girls a slag, bike etc etc when sometimes all it boils down to is the girl wasn't that impressed and is moving on. Equally if they can't persuade in the first place somehow it's the girl's fault - think they're too good or they wouldn't touch them with a barge pole etc etc. Dented egos can be very fragile but neither is to blame so why the condemnation? Grow up, move on and be more careful next time.

I just find it strange to have to explain that if a relationship is to the level that the two are having sexual intercourse than such legal documents should not have to be made as the two individuals in said relationship should already have a mutual understanding and respect for each other (physically/emotionally/mentally) that such a decision on pregnancy, abortion, or sex to begin with, is made with both individuals needs and desires in mind as neither individual in said relationship would want the others needs and desires to go overlooked. Though, from what I have studied and seen is that a suprisingly large number of these decisions on sex,pregnancy, and/or abortion are made in relationships where the couple doesn't have much more than maybe the basic physical respect and understanding for each other. It is these relationships that are more likely to result in the woman using abortion contraceptive or the man leaving the pregnant mother thus making her one of the single moms that get stereotyped as a "feckless wastrel" as you put it. Since these types of relationships and the results of said relationships have become so rampant society I would suppose society sees it as a problem and there will be a lot of ideas thrown around to fix said problem not all of them good as history has shown both government and religious solutions to problems have not always been the greatest but at least are a starting point


People can make up their own minds about these things. We all make mistakes in picking partners. I think you are putting your own interpretation on what you are studying rather than seeing what your research is suggesting. Part of the problem is you see sex as being something that should only be engaged in within a marriage type situation to produce children. Anyone who sleeps around is a bad person. A lot of these unwanted pregnancies boil down to lack of perceived choice and lack of knowledge, where the girl is well informed and can access contraceptives they are more able to say no to peer pressure (usually from the boys) to have sex. They are also more confident and able to make better decisions. Just saying they shouldn't be doing it does not work. The abstinence programmes in Texas and elsewhere they have been used have all resulted in increased numbers of pregnancies and abortions a situation made worse by religious inspired attacks on women's health clinics.

Most people settle down with a long term partner - married or not as the case may be- sometimes you have to kiss a lot of frogs to find the right prince.

I pointed you to the situation on other countries where teenage pregnancy is far lower in the united states and also where sexual activity starts at a later age. It's not just the teaching about the mechanics of sex that make the difference. Maybe you should wonder why is the states so radically different from other western countries, what are you doing wrong? Sadly the answer comes back to you need to adopt a more liberal approach and treat children like the adults they will soon be. Yours is hardly an example most countries would actually want to follow.

Why can't you just accept that people are going to have sex and the best thing you can do is ensure children know as much about it and the relationship side as well, make sure they can assess contraceptives and stop kidding yourselves that you or ablow or anyone else have any right to dictate how people live their lives.

There are many Christians who see sexual lust as the original sin, that's their choice but they have a prurient interest in sex, why do you tolerate them trying to dictate and impose that kind of perverted view of the world on everybody else? Much more fun to be able to tut tut at the sinner and lecture them about their wicked ways than actually do anything constructive to help them because it conflicts with cherished prejudices. The best thing you can do is keep religious groups out of it - if only you could. Society has to agree rules on how to deal with societal issues but no group should really be claiming to have all the answers or dictating what to do.

[littleCJelkton]

gmc;1367440 wrote: People can make up their own minds about these things. We all make mistakes in picking partners. I think you are putting your own interpretation on what you are studying rather than seeing what your research is suggesting. Part of the problem is you see sex as being something that should only be engaged in within a marriage type situation to produce children. Anyone who sleeps around is a bad person. A lot of these unwanted pregnancies boil down to lack of perceived choice and lack of knowledge, where the girl is well informed and can access contraceptives they are more able to say no to peer pressure (usually from the boys) to have sex. They are also more confident and able to make better decisions. Just saying they shouldn't be doing it does not work. The abstinence programmes in Texas and elsewhere they have been used have all resulted in increased numbers of pregnancies and abortions a situation made worse by religious inspired attacks on women's health clinics.


Is that not the idea of making an opinion (you form an hypothesis and then test it in the real world if it doesn't get contradicted often) then there must be som truthe to it. I don't think sex has to be confined to marriage but as you point out I agree the that girl and boy should both be more well informed and free to access contraceptives, but I believe being well informed means that you know even with contraceptives there is still a chance for pregnancy and there should be an understanding between the informed individuals about what to do if pregnancy is a result of them having sex again I don't know why you throw what religious or more specific (christian) groups do in with your response to my opinion so I won't answer that part of your response.

[littleCJelkton]

gmc;1367440 wrote:

I pointed you to the situation on other countries where teenage pregnancy is far lower in the united states and also where sexual activity starts at a later age. It's not just the teaching about the mechanics of sex that make the difference. Maybe you should wonder why is the states so radically different from other western countries, what are you doing wrong? Sadly the answer comes back to you need to adopt a more liberal approach and treat children like the adults they will soon be. Yours is hardly an example most countries would actually want to follow.




I never said the U.S example is one any country to follow? I wouldn't want to, nor do I think most Americans which maybe is why so many of them don't care about sexual education and come out either misinformed or not informed at all about it.

[littleCJelkton]

gmc;1367440 wrote:

Why can't you just accept that people are going to have sex and the best thing you can do is ensure children know as much about it and the relationship side as well, make sure they can assess contraceptives and stop kidding yourselves that you or ablow or anyone else have any right to dictate how people live their lives.




I never said I didn't accept that people are going to have sex, though it is a persons responsibility to get informed about it and as I think you and I agree a person should have a right to all available information on said subject they are become more knowledgeable about.

[littleCJelkton]

You keep talking as if since a man can not go in to labor, therefore a man can have no desire to ever want to have kids, and all sexual desires a man has are just a result of a some what abhorrent nature that is like a disease that comes along with getting that extra gene in a fetus which results in having a penis. So since a man's sexual desires are for his own piggish needs he should not have a say if he wants a child, but should be willing to ready to deposit sperm if a female decides she wants one.

[gmc]

littleCJelkton;1367559 wrote: Is that not the idea of making an opinion (you form an hypothesis and then test it in the real world if it doesn't get contradicted often) then there must be som truthe to it. I don't think sex has to be confined to marriage but as you point out I agree the that girl and boy should both be more well informed and free to access contraceptives, but I believe being well informed means that you know even with contraceptives there is still a chance for pregnancy and there should be an understanding between the informed individuals about what to do if pregnancy is a result of them having sex again I don't know why you throw what religious or more specific (christian) groups do in with your response to my opinion so I won't answer that part of your response.


You're quite right I do have a down on the religious right but that's because they are invariable behind the more extreme anti-abortion movement and also couple it with attempts to curb any kind of realistic sex education that would actually cut the number of abortions amongst teens. They prevent any kind of rational discussion on the subject. Also I suspect I was thinking more of that Kuhner article rather than the one originally posted.

I never said the U.S example is one any country to follow? I wouldn't want to, nor do I think most Americans which maybe is why so many of them don't care about sexual education and come out either misinformed or not informed at all about it.


I know you didn't I was suggesting America could perhaps learn from other countries rather than assuming everyone else is like them and nothing needs to change. You yourself made the point

I don't assume pregnancies are carried out as a means of abortion, I know that the majority of abortions that are carried out in countries that allow contraceptives are use as a means of contraceptive when the pill/condom doesn't work or when the man/woman having sex just now figured out that there was a responsibility with having sex/making love/engaging in intercourse/Pro-creating/ making whoopie/ F!@cking what ever you want to call it, and I know that since those are the majority of the cases of abortion that is why the debate of pro-life vs pro-choice is so heated if it was just rape or incest or a mother's health I don't think it would be as heated of a topic


You don't know, you choose ro believe that because it fits in with your preconception and what you want to believe about those who have abortions. In this country as well we get people who argue against sex education blithely ignoring the facts and experience from different countries. Holland is mainly protestant, germany and austria are mainly catholic but don't klet religion get too much in the way of common sense.

You keep talking as if since a man can not go in to labor, therefore a man can have no desire to ever want to have kids, and all sexual desires a man has are just a result of a some what abhorrent nature that is like a disease that comes along with getting that extra gene in a fetus which results in having a penis. So since a man's sexual desires are for his own piggish needs he should not have a say if he wants a child, but should be willing to ready to deposit sperm if a female decides she wants one.


No I keep saying no one should have the right to force such a choice, the notion that abortion is equally traumatic for the man is absurd IMO and that he should have the right to overrule the woman it is not one I can agree with. It treats woman as if they are no more than the recipients of a man's seed and his to do with as he wills. That attitude comes from religion.

posted by me

In short no man has the right to dictate when a woman becomes pregnant. I find it shocking you can suggest he should. No offence but it suggests a rather mechanistic approach to relationships - Most people look for mates not just brood mares. If the man has been unsuccessful in persuading the woman he married to have children I suggest he end the marriage and try again, please tell me you are not suggesting he has a right to force the issue.


Well! Do you think he should because that seems to be what you are suggesting?

[K.Snyder]

littleCJelkton;1367564 wrote: You keep talking as if since a man can not go in to labor, therefore a man can have no desire to ever want to have kids, and all sexual desires a man has are just a result of a some what abhorrent nature that is like a disease that comes along with getting that extra gene in a fetus which results in having a penis. So since a man's sexual desires are for his own piggish needs he should not have a say if he wants a child, but should be willing to ready to deposit sperm if a female decides she wants one.If the child was discussed prior to sexual intercourse then perhaps this opinion would hold much firmer ground but the reality is I'd say this probably happens with 3% of the population 2% of which consists of teenagers wanting independence and to pi%% off their parents(males against stepfather and females against single "overbearing" mother - which argues in favor of sympathy among women choosing abortion due to the fact the father will move across country when told he has to change a diaper).

The fact is that people discussing children consist of people that are together with some shred of commitment and equally civilized.

When the child isn't discussed and the woman becomes pregnant then the male has taken part in an act that directly threatens the very health and well being of that child which negates any "moral divinity" one might think is present from those without a clue as to the reality of single mothers in the World and just how damn hard it is to raise a child by herself. Do you have any idea how much day care is?

Given the statistics of single mothers how in the hell can you or anyone expect women should trust a track record of males so horrendous I dare to challenge one's definition of "pig"!

Your opinion is obviously fitting for your personal virtue in life CJ, and not a hair beyond that perspective