Why Are Men Trying To Make Abortion Decisions???

rainingsun · Post by **rainingsun** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:49 pm

Shweet tatersalad wrote: Hey now every one ,thanks for the support,but i was ready too take this fight on myself.

but if you feel as i do,and want too line up with me that s ok,but don't do it for me,do it for the country you love.It's hard for outsiders too know what it's like too have too be everyones big brother or sister,they think money grows on trees here.

YOU GUYS ARE CRACKIN' ME UP! WE ALL HAVE SUCH A LOVE HATE THING GOING ON RIGHT NOW YA KNOW I JUST DON'T WANT TO SPOIL THE MOMENT OR ANYTHING. lol JUST KIDDIN..........MAYBE..

rainingsun · Post by **rainingsun** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:57 pm

Rapunzel wrote: CC, anything I say to Tater will be too harsh for you because I'm not fawning over your beloved. But surely thats better than worshipping the ground he walks on and making you jealous? :sneaky:

Commercials for third world countries are made by charities who feel sorry for people that are in desperate poverty because of OUR governments. They are trying to help them. Thats why they suggest abolishing third world debt - because WE put them in that debt. Without our "helpful interference" they'd probably be thriving and exporting their food to the Western world profitably! Instead, THEY put all the hard work in then WE take over, WE export the crops and WE profit!

How is that fair?

And, btw, there are ALWAYS going to be people who treat their kids badly, thats a tragedy that has nothing to do with third world poverty!

It's I think less a matter of treating kids badly as it is being able to give them a fighting chance at life. As far as the third world debt and it's connection to abortion, women's rights, and poverty......as patriots we must look after our own first. If we can't take care of ourselves, the chances of us being there for others is pretty slim. Right now as far as abortion and "pro creation" control we don't seem to be doing a very good job taking care of ourselves....as far as the "WE" is concerned.

rainingsun · Post by **rainingsun** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:02 pm

Rapunzel wrote: Tater, you're being a silly arse! :p

You know you can post what you like but you're saying it's all right for you to make derogatory remarks about the poverty in Africa when you haven't a clue what you're talking about and you're also making derogatory remarks about me, insinuating I'm a black in white clothing by calling me Kunta Kinte (which you can't even spell) and telling me I don't understand because I haven't walked in your shoes!

Well I DO understand that the US DOESN'T "hand out" money, it INVESTS it - and it wants it back with interest!

And I wouldn't want to walk in your shoes because they're probably too big and too smelly! :p

The U.S. does hand out money. If they were that successful at getting it back with interest we certainly wouldn't be carrying such a large amount of our own debt. If you go to the bank and invest your money in a CD that will benefit you down the road wouldn't you expect to making a profit in the interest? Each one of us in our own right are guilty of such things like that.

rainingsun · Post by **rainingsun** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:04 pm

CheshireCat wrote: Hey, Tater never said anything about Africa, you brought that up. I don't think he insulted you either.

We were talking about birth control and you went off about Africa.

agreed....

rainingsun · Post by **rainingsun** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:11 pm

Lulu2 wrote: Can we get back to teens having abortions? People never consider that contraceptives do fail, and people who use them don't always do it correctly. Many young men refuse to be responsible for birth control at all...should they then be involved in a girl's decision to terminate a pregnancy?

Like many things in this world that people try to make clear cut, this is one of them. The man's involvment is such a decision should purely revolve around the type of relationship at hand. It is up to both to use protection. It only takes one to refuse though if the other will not use it. It would be nice for a man to be involved in that decision if for one.....it is his child and not some politician making that decision for strangers. Two if the relationship is a good and equal one. The woman has the final say and that's that. There's a fine line in being involved as a support system and saying that he'll be there for the child if she does keep it, helping her to feel good that she can have it and it will be taken care of, and the man actually making the decision.

rainingsun · Post by **rainingsun** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:24 pm

Shweet tatersalad wrote: OK drop it every one,We are sinking to level we don't want too go too.

They should ate Sally Struthers went they had the chance,when she was there doing those adds for save the children.

I for one no longer want too involve myself is this crap or some one with a God complex.

So lets let this rest,If America wants too invest in Africa then let it be.Thats how we got into the civil war in the first place.

And CC,you need stay out these things because you get along and they pull that first,Because they don't think you have a mind of your own,and you do!

But you stand the chance of never being taken seriously.

so In closing I will walk away and live too fight another day for a cause worthy of My attention.Like when the toast falls too the floor it always falls butter side down.

And yeah,I do have spelling problems,In school they thought I was retarded,turns out A.D.D. was'nt invented yet.But the U.S.M.C. fixed all that for me.

Don't ever say if the U.S. want to then let it be. We are the U.S. Mr. Marine, and you the USMC are yourself a prime representative. You may have to take orders from your commanding officer in the chow hall or the battlefield, but not here. You are not a robot. Just because the military didn't issue you an opinion doesn't mean that you can't have one no matter who agrees or doesn't. I mean that with endearing sincerety. Though Gee for some reason I had the impression you were a marine before you said you were. I don't know what could have given it away.......lol. Just food for thought before I go tough guy..............your uniform doesn't work to compensate for any shortcomings and charm in the cyber world. You might think you're a smooth talker but you might want to get some sand paper for those rough edges. Catcha later gator! APRIL

rainingsun · Post by **rainingsun** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:30 pm

Regardless Of Any Stray From Subject, Assertive Comments Or Subtle Ones.....i'm Really Happy About The Replies And I Love Reading Them! You Guys And Gals Are All Really Great And Hope To Catch Up Sometime With You All In Other Topics As Well. April

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 3:50 am

RedGlitter wrote: RainingSun said:

...why wouldn't you?"

Simply because it's not my place to that's why. You have to respect that teenager or not, they are a separate entity from you. You control your OWN body. After childhood it is not your place to exert control over theirs. You don't want them getting pregnant or impregnating? Then teach them better! Tell them about other alternatives and leave the choice up to them. That's too bad that there will always be unwanted pregnancy but that's human nature and as long as we're all human you are not going to prevent that. Besides, controlling your child's reproductive system by forcibly putting chemicals in their body smacks of naziism.

Smacks of parenting to me. You crack me up. You gonna let your teenager smoke? :wah:

Shweet tatersalad · Post by **Shweet tatersalad** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:21 am

[QUOTE=Rapunzel]And MAYBE you and rainingsun don't actually [know what you're talking about!

People are ALWAYS saying "If African families have less kids there'd be less poverty"

There was no mention of Africa until this post^

Like I said ,This not worth fighting over and I am letting it go.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:51 pm

Accountable wrote: Smacks of parenting to me. You crack me up. You gonna let your teenager smoke? :wah:

You call forcing birth control chemicals into your kid's system parenting? That's pretty sick, Accountable.

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:30 pm

rainingsun wrote: A fifteen year old has barely a clue of where they reside on a map! You really think that the reality of pregnancy is going to hit them before it happens. If children this young have the same true understanding of responsibility as an adult, why is the drinking age 21? I'd really love to see one of these anti abortion official's daughter at about that age, wind up in a situation like that, and for them to say " no...sorry...just because you're barely in highschool doesn't mean I'm not gonna make you go through something that could kill you if something goes wrong." oh please! "you're still growing, just hit pueberty, no it won't hurt, here practice with this watermelon!" Am I the only one that thinks this way? Is it fair to bring a child into this world to live in poverty with a 16yr. old, or bring a child into the world just to be given up to an adoption agency. That's like telling the 16yr. old mom she's being punished by making her go through with the pregnancy, then the child is paying with it's life for it's mother's mistakes. Gee, your mom made a mistake so she was just going to have to go through with it and give you up because she couldn't take care of you....allwell...her fault. What is wrong with this world. A law such as regarding abortion is such a broad range of things, and there is no reason that a man should be the one making it.

I misread your title.......I thought you were talking about father's rights, not male lawmakers/politians.

So I will expound on the rights of fathers.........they have them. If a woman does not want the child but the father does........does the father have a right to have that child born and take custody? YES.........I think he does.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:30 pm

RedGlitter wrote: You call forcing birth control chemicals into your kid's system parenting? That's pretty sick, Accountable.Parents force all kinds of chemicals on their kids. Why is this any different? How is it sick? Better to allow them to get pregnant and get an abortion??

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:48 am

nvalleyvee wrote: If a woman does not want the child but the father does........does the father have a right to have that child born and take custody? YES.........I think he does.

If the woman wants the child, but the man doesn't, he's still got to pay maintenance...

CheshireCat · Post by **CheshireCat** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:56 am

Bill Sikes wrote: If the woman wants the child, but the man doesn't, he's still got to pay maintenance...

Sticky situation...

The man does not have to endure the pregnancy or risk his life to have the baby.

Again I will stick my neck out here and say that contraception is ultamately left to the woman. In this day and age, you do not have to be pregnant if you do not choose to be

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:00 am

CheshireCat wrote: Again I will stick my neck out here and say that contraception is ultamately left to the woman.

Hopefully a "male pill" will become available widely and as cheaply.

CheshireCat wrote: In this day and age, you do not have to be pregnant if you do not choose to be

That's always been the case[1], hasn't it?

[1] except for certain criminal acts.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:05 am

So---you're saying that a six-cell embryo is more important than a woman whose birth control device has failed her?

CheshireCat · Post by **CheshireCat** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:07 am

onsekiz wrote: Babies have the right to live. I don't care what ignorant mothers think.

Excuse me?

Defend calling women ignorant!

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:09 am

Is this an intellectual decision or a religious one?

CheshireCat · Post by **CheshireCat** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:10 am

Bill Sikes wrote: Hopefully a "male pill" will become available widely and as cheaply.

That's always been the case[1], hasn't it?

[1] except for certain criminal acts.

That would be nice Bill. A male pill, nice indeed.

I have always found that to be the case. Women do not have to have "accidents" when it comes to birth control.

I know I sound like an arrogant #@%$#.

Sorry

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:23 am

I see...and what's "a decent reason?" Contraceptive failure? Rape? Incest?

CheshireCat · Post by **CheshireCat** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:29 am

onsekiz wrote: Hey, anybody supporting abortion (with no decent reason) is ignorant in my opinion. It's not about being women, or man, or animal, or alien, or G. W. Bush.. That's only my humble opinion, sorry if I hurt you.

You didn't hurt me, this is a hot topic and everybody has their opinion. I think you are using the wrong word here.

ig·no·rant ADJECTIVE:

Lacking education or knowledge.

Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.

Unaware or uninformed.Doesn't fit with what you are saying.

Maybe the Teens were Ignorant of contraception, that's why they became pregos

Tigerlily · Post by **Tigerlily** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:41 am

loads of women of my generation have had teenage pregnancies late 60s early 70s. Sheer carelessness cause the situation, not even ignorance, and at a time when educational opportunities were opening up for girls. I have no problem with that at all. I would have had a problem with a child being born to a child, as I would if my child(16) had a child - because I would have to look after both of them, and I've got other plans.

rainingsun · Post by **rainingsun** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:51 am

RedGlitter wrote: You call forcing birth control chemicals into your kid's system parenting? That's pretty sick, Accountable.

NO! I'll tell you what's sick, people who still talk their children about the birds and the bees instead of sex, babies and genitals.....parents who'd rather allow their kids to smoke (whatever their taste is) in front of them so that they don't go out "and smoke it somewhere else anyway" instead of putting the fear of God, mother nature, and your foot into them. What's sick are the parents who allow their children around climbing the curtains in a gov't office that assists low income families and expect to not be treated like a low income family. ( I'm in that tax bracket so don't worry, I know what i'm talking about). What's sick are the parents who try so hard to be friends to their children that the only thing that DOES strike the fear of God into them is the stop of the credit card you issued them when they turned 12, or the parents who use the excuse that they wanted to give their kids privacy when the cops are asking how you don't know that they were puffin' the magic dragon........that's sick.

daBunnyWendy7 · Post by **daBunnyWendy7** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:55 am

Why Are Men Trying To Make Abortion Decisions???

1.rainingsun 15yr o's "punishment"watermelon,mistake NOT...,IMHO...BABY.PERIOD.END OF STORY .However tiny,STILL a baby she MADE a BABY , NOT a mistake.

2.Accountable Parents,NOT child.CHILD's chance at greatness OR mediocrity DUE to POVerty,Avoid ,masturbation safer.SHE LOVED YOU SO MUCH she knew she couldn't take care of you"agree"LOVE & opportunity to BE anything IS THE HEART of issue"honed in FAST,I just started reading,will comment further but insanity a t airport precludes concise reply of length SPECIALLY since there has been so much discussion on this thread.MY reply is just to th first three.ONE,a baby,real,containing ALL germs of abilities,intelligences,personalities,genetic variables INCLUDING those he/SHE will gift to THEIR PROGENY,EVERTHING they are OR EVER WILL BE is distilled w/in that tiny PERSONand...WORSE she'd endure due to MODERN meds.is stetchmarks upon flesh w/o application of effective self control WHICH WE ALL LERN

Tigerlily · Post by **Tigerlily** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:22 am

I found that really difficult to read, sorry, so not sure of the point you are making.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:28 am

Wendy, I too have trouble understanding your posts and it's a shame because I can tell you have important things to say.

Onsekiz, I won't rake you over the coals for calling abortive woman ignorant. Not because you're right, you aren't; however I too hold unpopular opinions, so you can keep yours.

Accountable, yes I do think controlling your kid's body with birth control whether they want it or not is unacceptable. Are the risks of heart disease and tumors less important than a potential pregnancy that if you've done your job right, probably won't even happen?

Since when are there no accidents? I can't believe I read that. How many of you knew that vomiting and the basic flu can thwart birth control pills? How many of you knew that a simple few hours' difference in the time between dosages can mess up birth control? Have you ever read the package insert that clearly states that "while 97% effective, the pill is no guarantee that you will not become pregnant while using the pill?" Do you think rubbers don't tear? What about vaginal films that don't dissolve properly? What about faulty IUDS and diaphragms that need refitting from time to time? The fact is accidents do happen and women who have taken precautions against conception should not be browbeaten for choosing to terminate a pregnancy that was never wanted.

Any reason for an abortion is a "decent reason." It's also no one's concern but the mother's.

Men cannot get pregnant so therefore the burden is on the woman. As long as she carries that baby and gives it birth, it will be hers. This is just the way it is. It may take two but it is not a fair deal by any means. I don't feel a woman needs to consult anyone if she wants an abortion for any reason. Is the man going to carry that kid for nine months and use up his bodily resources to develop it? The decision is that of the woman.

Raining Sun, yes it is "sick" to tell one's kids that "daddy planted a seed in mommy's cabbage patch" or whatever other insipid things people tell their kids

but that's people for you. You can only raise your own kids and hope you do a better job.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:32 am

R'G: "The fact is accidents do happen and women who have taken precautions against conception should not be browbeaten for choosing to terminate a pregnancy that was never wanted."

EXACTLY! I became pregnant as the result of contraceptive failure. I didn't want to become pregnant and was conscientiously trying to do all I could to prevent a pregnancy which could not be completed. I didn't feel guilty then and don't feel guilty now that I terminated it.

daBunnyWendy7 · Post by **daBunnyWendy7** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:40 am

LOL Goodgrief did post this with notes from 3 in the morning.WAS alert but took brief notes for response to each post read thus far beginning from 1st on this string.Duh.so sorry I goofed and pasted from my notes as I was in a hurry to reach PHX sky harbor very early to meet needs of harried travelers delayed by hurricane affecting eastern seaboard flights.I speak varying degrees of sev languages and sign so it's advantageous for everyone I'm there early for rush.LOL looks like I was inebriated?ha ha Goooood grief.ha ha

Retyping now will post shortly; I am poor typist.sigh

Wendy:wah: :rolleyes:

daBunnyWendy7 · Post by **daBunnyWendy7** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:59 pm

FYI accurate info on abortion in USA so we know exactly the level of abortion deaths and adoptive parents seekin children IN US alone,INTERRETINGLY almost PERFECCTLY MATCHED unwanted babies who die in abortions alone compared to those in US wanting children .Posting opinions next AFTER some FACTS.

47,282,923 Total Abortions since 1973

2004 1,293,000 There were nearly 3,600 abortions per day in 2000,

149 per

hour, about one every 24 seconds.

For every 1,000 live births, there were 306 abortions in 1997.

There were more that 140,000 second and third trimester

abortions in 2000.

In 2000, more children died from abortion than Americans

died in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World Wars I

and II, the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf Wars combined

A survey of women seeking abortions indicated that only 7%

of women cited typical “hard cases (rape, incest, or some

health concern with either the baby or the mother) as the

primary reason they were seeking abortion.At an average cost of $372, the abortion business is a $400

million a year industry.]Nearly half of all abortions are obtained by women who

have already had at least one abortion. In 1994 and 1995,

women who had already had 3 or more abortions obtained

7%, or nearly 100,000, abortions each year.Responses listed as primary reason %

Social Reasons (given as primary reason)

- Feels unready for child/responsibility 25%

- Feels she can't afford baby 23%

- Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities 19%

- Relationship problem/Single motherhood 8%

- Feels she isn't mature enough 7%

- Interference with education/career plans 4%

- Parents/Partner wants abortion 93%

(Approx.)

"Hard Cases" (given as primary reason)

- Mother's Health 4%

- Baby may have health problem 3%

- Rape or Incest 7%(Approx.)

Poll Fact: An April 2004 Zogby poll found that 56% of Americans support legal abortion in only three or fewer circumstances: when the pregnancy results from rape or incest or when it threatens the life of the mother.

*Source: Lawrence Finer, et. al, "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives" Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Vol. 37 No. 3 (Sept., 2005) p. 110.

With the end of World War II came an increased interest in adoption, particularly adoption of healthy, young infants. For a while during the late 1940s and the early 1950s, the number of infants placed by adoption almost equaled the number of applicants.(Kadushin, A. Child welfare services. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1980, p474)source Princeton Brookings Institute(Princeton University)

Wendy

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:40 pm

Lulu2 wrote: R'G: "The fact is accidents do happen and women who have taken precautions against conception should not be browbeaten for choosing to terminate a pregnancy that was never wanted."

EXACTLY! I became pregnant as the result of contraceptive failure. I didn't want to become pregnant and was conscientiously trying to do all I could to prevent a pregnancy which could not be completed. I didn't feel guilty then and don't feel guilty now that I terminated it.God, this looks cruel to read. Please know I don't mean it cruelly, but no, you were not doing all you could to prevent a pregnancy.

RedGlitter wrote: Accountable, yes I do think controlling your kid's body with birth control whether they want it or not is unacceptable. Are the risks of heart disease and tumors less important than a potential pregnancy that if you've done your job right, probably won't even happen?See, this is where you and I are absolutely in lock-step agreement. Good parents doing the right things the right ways likely won't have this problem. I would look on giving the fictional vaccine as an act of parental desparation at best, laziness at worst, that should have been avoided, but still far better than giving up.

Yes, risk of heart disease or tumors of a nature acceptable to the rigorous testing of the FDA is far more acceptable than killing a baby, which is what I consider abortion. Absolutely more acceptable.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:34 pm

In other words, if she didn't want to get pregnant she shouldn't have had sex, am I correct? Again we fault the woman. This is just plain wrong. It is easy for men to say this because, as I keep pointing out, men don't have to worry! So they can play while the woman pays...dearly. I am all for sex as a part fo life and if someone becomes pregnant unwantingly, I am not going to make them feel bad for terminating. That is between them and their god if they have one.

I think on the rest Accountable, you and I just have to accept our differences.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 4:48 am

RedGlitter wrote: In other words, if she didn't want to get pregnant she shouldn't have had sex, am I correct? Absolutely. She can only control her own behavior. If the guy was here posting, I'd say the same thing. Having sex risks pregnancy. Why is it such a sin to acknowledge that fact??

RedGlitter wrote: Again we fault the woman. This is just plain wrong.A woman's behavior is a woman's responsibility. A man's behavior is a man's responsibility. With behavior comes consequence, and we should be willing to take responsibility for our actions. Why is sex any different?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BTW, Lulu, I know it's none of our business, but since you revealed such a personal fact about yourself, I'll ask. When you took responsibility for your actions by having an abortion, did you give the guy a chance to share in the responsibility? If so, did he?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 5:39 am

daBunnyWendy7 wrote: FYI

I'm not going to read that. Please use a more reasonable font and colour scheme.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 5:41 am

RedGlitter wrote: Men cannot get pregnant so therefore the burden is on the woman. As long as she carries that baby and gives it birth, it will be hers. This is just the way it is. It may take two but it is not a fair deal by any means. I don't feel a woman needs to consult anyone if she wants an abortion for any reason. Is the man going to carry that kid for nine months and use up his bodily resources to develop it? The decision is that of the woman.

I think that's absolute claptrap. The only thing right in the above paragraph is

"It may take two but it is not a fair deal by any means", IMO.

Lizard Lips · Post by **Lizard Lips** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 8:21 am

Shweet tatersalad wrote: maybe some men take a interest because they pay child support too women who lied about there method of birth control?

Millions more men have abandoned the children before they were born.

It does seem as though it's the men who are more rabid about being anti-abortion. It's a means of control over women, IMO.

Women should have that exclusive right over her own body. And BTW, I'm personally "pro-life" though I think that term is an oximoron. Policitally, I'm "pro-choice" & I don't believe in ANY restrictions on abortion, whatsoever.

We absolutely need to have more & better means of contraception in this country. It needs to be readily available to any girl/woman who desires it.

Any pharmacist who refuses to fill a legal prescription for contraception due to their own beliefs should be prosecuted & stripped of their license. Go into a different profession if you are that easily offended.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:27 am

"BTW, Lulu, I know it's none of our business, but since you revealed such a personal fact about yourself, I'll ask. When you took responsibility for your actions by having an abortion, did you give the guy a chance to share in the responsibility? If so, did he?"

+++++++++++++ What an incredibly boorish question you just asked! But, since I believe I know what it is you're implying, I'll answer it honestly. YES...he was aware of the contraceptive failure and YES he and I came to immediate agreement that continuing the pregnancy was an impossible thing.

And no, I'll not give any more details.

"Please know I don't mean it cruelly, but no, you were not doing all you could to prevent a pregnancy."

What you implied above is that, I was irresponsible by having sex when I knew I wouldn't continue a pregnancy. I don't call that "cruel." I call it arrogant, unrealistic and blind.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 2:30 pm

Lizard Lips wrote: It does seem as though it's the men who are more rabid about being anti-abortion. It's a means of control over women, IMO.

I would argue with that. Most men I know are pro-abortion. Some for reason of conscience, some because they are afraid they will appear "anti-woman" and non-pc, and maybe some because it's a easy way out of responsibility. On our other board LL, I posted a survey commissioned by The Center for the Advancement of Women, a pro-choice advocate organization, headed by former Planned Parenthood prez Fey Wattleton. It was a 140 pg report conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates and their survey found that "Of 3,329 women surveyed, 51 percent wanted to ban abortion altogether or to limit it to cases of rape, incest, and where the mother's life is endangered. Another 17 percent said the procedure should be available under stricter limits than now apply." Wattleton, a national leader of the pro-choice movement, said, ""There is significant and growing support for severe restrictions on abortion rights."

I couldn't find it at JV, but I'll keep looking. This is not a male v female argument . 68% of women disagree with you on this issue, LL.

Lizard Lips · Post by **Lizard Lips** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:03 pm

Adam Zapple wrote: Most men I know are pro-abortion.

I've never met anyone who is "pro-abortion." I think it's an inflammatory term made up by the anti-abortion crowd. Kind of like the inflammatory term "partial birth abortion."

I don't care what 68% of all women believe. I only speak for myself. And as I said, I'm personally against abortion. But because I only speak for myself, I'm politically for choice & with zero restrictions.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:11 am

Lulu2 wrote: "BTW, Lulu, I know it's none of our business, but since you revealed such a personal fact about yourself, I'll ask. When you took responsibility for your actions by having an abortion, did you give the guy a chance to share in the responsibility? If so, did he?"

+++++++++++++ What an incredibly boorish question you just asked! But, since I believe I know what it is you're implying, I'll answer it honestly. YES...he was aware of the contraceptive failure and YES he and I came to immediate agreement that continuing the pregnancy was an impossible thing.

And no, I'll not give any more details.

"Please know I don't mean it cruelly, but no, you were not doing all you could to prevent a pregnancy."

What you implied above is that, I was irresponsible by having sex when I knew I wouldn't continue a pregnancy. I don't call that "cruel." I call it arrogant, unrealistic and blind.I disagree, and was uncomfortable treading the territory. I'll step back, out of respect for you. Please accept my apologies for crossing that line. :yh_flower

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:16 am

Lizard Lips wrote: [...] And BTW, I'm personally "pro-life" though I think that term is an oximoron. Policitally, I'm "pro-choice" & I don't believe in ANY restrictions on abortion, whatsoever.[...]That's pretty much my position. No legal limitations, only moral.

I would support legally defining a fetus as a citizen. That is the route I'd prefer in order to make abortion illegal.

Tigerlily · Post by **Tigerlily** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:30 am

If I got pregnant I'd have an abortion now. I've reached an age where I want to do other things than be a mother. I really don't think anyone has the right to criticise anyone else's choice in this matter. How can anyone know of someone's else's circumstances? The reason for making abortion legal is to prevent the back-street knitting needle situation which used to flourish, because there will always be women who, for whatever reason, are driven to despair by pregnancy.

And no, I wouldn't tell my husband. Not his choice to make.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:38 am

"I really don't think anyone has the right to criticise anyone else's choice in this matter. How can anyone know of someone's else's circumstances? "

+++++++++++ Precisely! How CAN anyone know? And yet, far too many people are willing to deny a woman's choice in continuting/terminating a pregnancy.

My question would be...what gives anyone else the right to interfere with my zygote?

daBunnyWendy7 · Post by **daBunnyWendy7** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:31 pm

ok. 1 st I want to start by saying I can appreciate the fact that A Woman consideing or having had an aborton is going to feel at best censured and most likely judged harshly whenever this discussion is broached.YES it iS your body. NO ,however "it", your "zygote",very short timeframe you CAN refer to an individual,the BABY developing,as such, is not "yours" . We do not own our offspring after their birth.DO we?

I will retype the thoughts I clumsily posted from my notes on notepad on my laptop in a hurry around 2 am on way to customer service at internat'l airport.

SORRY I goofed w pasting the wrong section of notes BUT it's better to post fact before discussing them. PLEASE let's remember the goal is intelligent discussion of facts and expanding everyone's views and more knowledge IS a good thing.

IF something I post hurts your feelings I'm sorry.Just realize I feel this is a DISCUSSION NOT judge jurror/jury and executioner/s IMO:-6

Best things hapen by mistake sometimes.I will send those again.stupidly bad typist.LOL EVERYONE's likely to agree.ha ha:rolleyes:

Wendbunny

daBunnyWendy7 · Post by **daBunnyWendy7** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:20 pm

Why Are Men Trying To Make Abortion Decisions???

SHOULDN'T they ? be WHY are WE humans killing tiny defenseess babies ? The odd thing IS that the # of adoptive parents seeking children they are unable to bear OR ARE smply desirous of giving loving nurturing homes to those nwanted or unplanned for individuals who thrugh no fault of their own were brought into this world by those who were NOT PREPARED to follow through with their parental RESPONSABILITIES.

We ALL would agree that A CHILD has RIGHTS not only to decent care from their parent BUT to LIFE itself.A developing baby,fetus,a baby,A ROSE IS A ROSE & BY ANYOTHER NAME WOULD SMELL AS SWEET? that baby IS real,containing ALL germs of abilities,intelligences,personalities,genetic variables INCLUDING those he/SHE will gift to THEIR PROGENY,EVERTHING they are OR EVER WILL BE is distilled w/in that tiny PERSONand...WORSE she'd endure due to MODERN meds.is stetchmarks upon flesh her lack of application of effective self control(yes his,too) WHICH WE ALL LEARN

rainingsun · Post by **rainingsun** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:54 pm

nvalleyvee wrote: I misread your title.......I thought you were talking about father's rights, not male lawmakers/politians.

So I will expound on the rights of fathers.........they have them. If a woman does not want the child but the father does........does the father have a right to have that child born and take custody? YES.........I think he does.

Thankyou for that. You didn't have to, and like I said before even those who disagree, or responses I don't agree with that I reply to, is no less interesting for me. It's what makes the world turn 'round.

rainingsun · Post by **rainingsun** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:06 pm

Bill Sikes wrote: If the woman wants the child, but the man doesn't, he's still got to pay maintenance...

Depending on the legal circumstances of the area...(sarcasm)

rainingsun · Post by **rainingsun** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:11 pm

CheshireCat wrote: Sticky situation...

The man does not have to endure the pregnancy or risk his life to have the baby.

Again I will stick my neck out here and say that contraception is ultamately left to the woman. In this day and age, you do not have to be pregnant if you do not choose to be

not if raped. I think maybe people focus more on abortions for consenting adults with less of a mention I should say, to abortion permitted to those who did not choose to be. ....did that make any sense? I'm half asleep right now so let me know if it didn't.