What?!?!?!?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 8:57 pm

Scrat wrote: Why not? Because you should be smart enough to keep track of your genetic material?

Don't be a fool. You as a male have the means to prevent pregnancy much more conveniently than a woman does. A woman basically has no choice if she concieves or not, for her it is automatic. She only has a choice after the fact and when the the halfman is running in the other direction.

Even when you use birth control it is not 100%, my sister has 3 kids. She wanted one, she had no idea that she could get knocked up simply by allowing her husband to look in her general direction. Lucky for her and the kids he is not a coward.

Be smart, think with the head on your shoulders.

DG's story is all too common, this is why I believe the way I do. I also believe that life starts at conception but circumstances play a part in the process. The final decision lays with the woman because she has the ultimate responsibility whether she chooses it (preggers) or not.
So naturally, you release the man of all responsibility as well, since he has no say in the decision, right?

erasamus snoggle · Post by **erasamus snoggle** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:01 pm

Government has no business legislating abortion or birth control. During the first triemester, a decision to abort should be left up to the individual who is pregnant. After that time, it should be a medical decision based primarily on the woman's health - both mental & physical. Not ever ejaculation deserves a name.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:04 pm

erasamus snoggle wrote: Government has no business legislating abortion or birth control. During the first triemester, a decision to abort should be left up to the individual who is pregnant. After that time, it should be a medical decision based primarily on the woman's health - both mental & physical. Not ever ejaculation deserves a name.So naturally, you release the man of all responsibility as well, since he has no say in the decision, right?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:54 pm

Scrat wrote: Wrong IMO AC. His responsibility was to keep track of his genetic material. If the child is born he has a responsibility for it.

Whether he likes it or not. LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP.
Two leapers, Scrat. Two people responsible. Therefore two people involved in the decison-making. If you take the rights away, you take the responsibilities away as well.

If she gets to have an abortion without his right of input, she shouldn't get to give birth and expect his responsibility.

You can't have it both ways. You can't give her all the rights but only half the responsibility. Hell, less than half, if I follow your line of reasoning.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:58 pm

Nobody has a right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Period.

What if the man objects ?

What if the man wants the child ?

Its part his creation.

Doesnt the man have a right to his child ?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:59 pm

mnclcats wrote: Ok - I don't agree that abortion should be legal for those who use it as a form of birth control, but what about the cases of say; rape, health issues to the mother or baby or both, etc.? What makes these politicians think they can "rule" over a person's body because of their "opinion" and the way they (politician) feel?

Obviously a very touchy subject with most people and varying opinions as well - just wanted to post my opinion on this matter, thanks for listening.

Welcome, mnclcats (I've gotta figure a way to shorten that). Well, I guess if you're going to jump into the pool, may as well pick a warm spot, eh? :-6

When you say health issues, do you draw a distinction between physical health and mental health? I ask because many do not, which leaves mental health wide open to interpretation.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:00 pm

Nomad wrote: Nobody has a right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Period.

What if the man objects ?

What if the man wants the child ?

Its part his creation.

Doesnt the man have a right to his child ?

IMO, absolutely!

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:04 pm

Scrat wrote: I could care less about the leapers. What counts is the third individual, the child. What about the childs rights?

Rights ?

She just aborted the childs rights.

Case over.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:05 pm

Scrat wrote: I could care less about the leapers. What counts is the third individual, the child. What about the childs rights?
You took the child's rights away when you gave exclusive abortion rights to the woman. Every post has been geared that way.

I'm the one that has been arguing for the child.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:07 pm

Scrat wrote: I can't believe we're going here again. This is unbefreakinglievable!!! Nobody has a right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Period.

I do believe in parental conscent in these matters and I certainly am against taxpayers subsidizing womens rights to an abortion (I don't like any kind of tax at all. If we had a VAT tax on cloths I would wear rabbit skins) but I won't ever say a woman can't have an abortion if she wants one.

This was post #1. Where is your concern for the child?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:12 pm

mnclcats wrote: Thanks AC!

I guess it could be both, if the mother is sane but there are severe health issues - that needs to be taken into account; and if the mother has developmental disabilities - that also needs to be taken into account. After I re-read what I wrote, it makes it seem like I'm against abortion and for it - I think my issue really deals with the political side of issues. Whether or not people think it's bad or good - I have a hard time with government having control over someone's "body" in what they decide to do with it. I think I'm over-thinking this whole thing and maybe I just got ticked reading that article - plus I wanted to post something after reading through a bunch since I just joined the other day.

Thanks again for the welcome and listening to me "chat".

I'm right with you. To me it's a moral issue until the gov't recognizes the fetus as a citizen. In either case, it's not the politician's place to dictate how a doctor can practice medicine.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:17 pm

Scrat wrote: I don't have a good answer.

Suffice to say if you're a guy and you get into this situation you are a dumbarse. If the kid is born you pay. If she chooses to abort it, tough.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
That's a copout. We're not talking about rape here. The lady has as much responsibility to keep her legs closed as the man has to keep his fly zipped. The law currently permits her full veto power over any decision. It only stands to reason that she should have the lion's share of the responsibility as well.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:21 pm

Scrat wrote: I don't have a good answer.

Suffice to say if you're a guy and you get into this situation you are a dumbarse. If the kid is born you pay. If she chooses to abort it, tough.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Not everything is as black and white as that.

Real people with real values can be involved. Im talking about the kind of gut wrenching heartache that goes with the reality that an individual may desperately want the child while he has no voice in the matter. Its not really that flippant of an issue to just say tough then be done with it.

Sorry but it sounds like you have blinders on.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:24 pm

I'd high-five you, but I don't want to break your glasses.

Alfred · Post by **Alfred** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:56 am

Accountable wrote: You took the child's rights away when you gave exclusive abortion rights to the woman. Every post has been geared that way.

I'm the one that has been arguing for the child.

Accountable wrote: That's a copout. We're not talking about rape here. The lady has as much responsibility to keep her legs closed as the man has to keep his fly zipped. The law currently permits her full veto power over any decision. It only stands to reason that she should have the lion's share of the responsibility as well.

ok how does his denying responsibility for a child he doesn't want help the child when its born?

i'd say its pretty logical that 2 people supporting 1 child is easier than 1 parent taking the lions share.

yes i know abortion doesn't help the child either so unless both parents are fit and willing to be parents then the child is the one that loses. what great odds.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:31 am

Scrat wrote: We both know that it does not happen that way. What you usually get is a welfare case. I don't give a ripping rats arse about the rights of the guy as opposed to hers, when it becomes a party of 3, regardless of who does what, when, how, or how many times.

Take care of your responsibilities or just get lucky.What of the woman's responsibility? What of equal rights? The woman's not a victim & shouldn't be treated as one.

Both are accountable for their actions; both should have equal say in whether the child is born or murdered - sorry, aborted. Tie goes to the baby. Therefore, each partner should have veto power over any abortion decision.

That's the way they should take care of their responsibilities. I noticed your writing style changes when you know your wrong.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:36 am

Alfred wrote: ok how does his denying responsibility for a child he doesn't want help the child when its born?

i'd say its pretty logical that 2 people supporting 1 child is easier than 1 parent taking the lions share.

yes i know abortion doesn't help the child either so unless both parents are fit and willing to be parents then the child is the one that loses. what great odds.
Congratulations! you've pointed out the huge flaw in our society's insistance on avoiding responsibility. Abortion (of a pregnancy as a result of consentual sex) is a copout, an escape from responsibility.

The way the law is set up now, if the woman wants to chuck her responsibility down a sink, the guy's off scott free. If she decides she wants to stand accountable for her actions, she has a choice whether to force him to do the same. She has all the choice, but only half the responsibility. He is at her mercy. Where's the "equal rights" the feminists fought so hard for?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:47 am

Scrat wrote: We both know that it does not happen that way. What you usually get is a welfare case. I don't give a ripping rats arse about the rights of the guy as opposed to hers, when it becomes a party of 3, regardless of who does what, when, how, or how many times.

Take care of your responsibilities or just get lucky.

Thats not even a rational reply.

Not giving a rats arse about half of the whole situation means you've not thought it through well. Kind of an Archie Bunker mentality. Reasoning with you would be draining.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:53 am

Nomad wrote: Thats not even a rational reply.

Not giving a rats arse about half of the whole situation means you've not thought it through well. Kind of an Archie Bunker mentality. Reasoning with you would be draining.
Doesn't that make his reasoning .... half-arsed? :yh_rotfl I kill me!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:26 am

Scrat wrote: Alright AC yes, I think that abortion is wrong. I know that taking a life is wrong in this situation.

I don't like the thought of it period.

But since you can't have everything you want in life, and in some cases there are shades of grey, I say that because a woman has no choice on conception (it is an automatic process within her body) she has the trump card in the process.

Any male with more brains than a common arctic rodent we all know should be aware of this, and keep track of his genetic material.

Keep from tossing the babies in the river and you won't have to drag them out further down.
Of course she has a choice!! What is it, spontaneous conception?? :yh_rotfl

Get off the victim train, man. She is an equal participant in all consentual sex. That's why it's called consentual. She can consent, she can also decline.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:02 am

Scrat wrote: Well I live in a society that greatly overdoes it in the arena of casual sex AC.

Doesn't this society glorify sex? Sex is used to sell everything, it's everywhere you look all the time. If a woman is a virgin she's some kind of freak and the same goes for men.

Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton make millions by prostituting themselves. It's all about sex, freedom and money AC. And nothing else.

I already stated the reasons I think it is a womans right.

The solution to the problem is not in sight, its just part of life and we all have to roll with lifes punches.

I have work to do see you tonight.
Enjoy work. On your break, try to figure out how personal responsibility fits into the mix.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:22 am

Accountable wrote: Enjoy work. On your break, try to figure out how personal responsibility fits into the mix.

You mean personal responsibility for just one party right ? :rolleyes:

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:05 am

I thought this whole argument would go away when they invented that morning after pill. What ever happened to that?

I'm on the pro-choicers side, if only because I think bring an unwanted or neglected baby in to the world is worse that not bringing it in at all.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:36 pm

If they pass the ban, except for medical conditions, rape, and sexual molestation. How many cases of false accusations of rape are gonna occur?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:53 pm

Sheryl wrote: If they pass the ban, except for medical conditions, rape, and sexual molestation. How many cases of false accusations of rape are gonna occur?
Yup. Every attempt to force improvements through dictates come with unintended consequences. Look at the welfare system.

Alfred · Post by **Alfred** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 8:21 pm

Accountable wrote: Of course she has a choice!! What is it, spontaneous conception?? :yh_rotfl

Get off the victim train, man. She is an equal participant in all consentual sex. That's why it's called consentual. She can consent, she can also decline.

your right both people have the right to do with there bodies as they please, this includes who they may or may not chose to have a child with.

having said that the baby is in the mothers body and its her right to do with it as she pleases, keep it or not, either way she is responsible for the childs upbringing.

as for the father he did not give away his share of the responsibility either. since the baby is his, and since it was his choice to have sex with the woman, its his responsibility to pay for his share of the child.

2 people 2 different responsibilities but a shared one.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 8:56 pm

Alfred wrote: your right both people have the right to do with there bodies as they please, this includes who they may or may not chose to have a child with.

having said that the baby is in the mothers body and its her right to do with it as she pleases, keep it or not.

as for the father he did not give away his share of the responsibility either. since the baby is his, and since it was his choice to have sex with the woman, its his responsibility to pay for his share of the child.

2 people 2 different responsibilities but a shared one.
Absolutely! But his share is greatly reduced because with choice comes responsibility.

In my ideal world, in which aborting a baby conceived from consentual sex would be so abhorrent and illogical as to be laughable, The choice in question would be whether to have sex. Both the man and woman would necessarily have to agree to have sex; either has veto power - meaning if one does not consent, the act does not happen. The consequence of not having sex is inconsequencial. The consequence of having sex is the chance of becoming pregnant. The responsibility would be to raise the child their choices created - shared responsibility. Don't waste your time posting about acceptance of that responsibility.

But in our skewed world of convenience at all costs, the a-moral of society has seen to it that there is another choice: whether to stand accountable for the earlier choice, or evade responsibility it by killing the baby. This new choice is not equal. Only the woman has veto power. No matter how much the man wants or does not want the child, it is the woman's choice.

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

The choices:

A. Both want the child to be born

B. Both want to kill the child

C. She wants to kill the child; he want it to be born

D. He wants to kill the child; she wants it to be born

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

The consequences

A. Baby is born. Both are responsible to raise the child or put it up for adoption (people always forget adoption)

B. Baby is killed. Both are responsible to pay the assassin.

C. Her choice is honored. He is bereft of family, and is sometimes expected to pay for a murder he was against.

D. Her choice is honored, and he is expected to pay child support, thus holding him to a higher standard than the woman is.

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

Do the math. Her wishes hold sway 3-to-1 over his wishes, so she should have 3 times the responsibility. It doesn't work that way in reality, but that's how it should be in this f*cked up world that kills children because people don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:31 pm

Yuuuu maka me smile!

Alfred · Post by **Alfred** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:56 am

Accountable wrote: Absolutely! But his share is greatly reduced because with choice comes responsibility.

In my ideal world, in which aborting a baby conceived from consentual sex would be so abhorrent and illogical as to be laughable, The choice in question would be whether to have sex. Both the man and woman would necessarily have to agree to have sex; either has veto power - meaning if one does not consent, the act does not happen. The consequence of not having sex is inconsequencial. The consequence of having sex is the chance of becoming pregnant. The responsibility would be to raise the child their choices created - shared responsibility. Don't waste your time posting about acceptance of that responsibility.

ideal situation only, so whats the point of mentioning a dream?

Accountable wrote: But in our skewed world of convenience at all costs, the a-moral of society has seen to it that there is another choice: whether to stand accountable for the earlier choice, or evade responsibility it by killing the baby. This new choice is not equal. Only the woman has veto power. No matter how much the man wants or does not want the child, it is the woman's choice.

Do the math. Her wishes hold sway 3-to-1 over his wishes, so she should have 3 times the responsibility. It doesn't work that way in reality

how does it not work that way?

you seem to think that just because the man is ecconomically liable that he is the only one providing for the child. and you also seem to think that just because the woman may not want the child keep the child that she does not feel guilty or responsible for its death. her decisions have consequences which affect her all the way.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:40 am

Alfred wrote: ideal situation only, so whats the point of mentioning a dream?
The ideal is always a worthy goal to strive for. If we don't work toward the ideal, we settle for less than we should be.

Accountable wrote: Do the math. Her wishes hold sway 3-to-1 over his wishes, so she should have 3 times the responsibility. It doesn't work that way in reality[/qote]

[quote=Alfred]how does it not work that way?

you seem to think that just because the man is ecconomically liable that he is the only one providing for the child. and you also seem to think that just because the woman may not want the child keep the child that she does not feel guilty or responsible for its death. her decisions have consequences which affect her all the way.
My point is that she decides where his money will go, and whether he will be able (or have to) to fulfill his responsibilities. He's powerless. How is that fair?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:45 am

Alfred wrote: her decisions have consequences which affect her all the way.Her decisions have consequences which affect both of them all the way.

She should have to deal with the consequences of her decisions. That's life.

He shouldn't have to deal with the consequences of her unilateral decisions. That's tyranny

Alfred · Post by **Alfred** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:19 pm

Accountable wrote: Her decisions have consequences which affect both of them all the way.

She should have to deal with the consequences of her decisions. That's life.

He shouldn't have to deal with the consequences of her unilateral decisions. That's tyranny

thats true, and she always does no matter what the outcome.

so should she keep the child against his wishes why is he free of his responsibility towards the child? that child is half his and half his responsibility wether he wants it or not.

so on one hand your saying that he should have the right to chose wether the child lives or dies and in the other your saying that he should have the right to wave his responsibilities to the child because he doesn't want it.

thats saying that the father only has to deal with the consequences of actions that were in part his only when he wants too. while the mother lives throught them 100% of the time.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:02 pm

Alfred wrote: thats true, and she always does no matter what the outcome.

so should she keep the child against his wishes why is he free of his responsibility towards the child? that child is half his and half his responsibility wether he wants it or not.

so on one hand your saying that he should have the right to chose wether the child lives or dies and in the other your saying that he should have the right to wave his responsibilities to the child because he doesn't want it.

thats saying that the father only has to deal with the consequences of actions that were in part his only when he wants too. while the mother lives throught them 100% of the time.

A caring man mourns an aborted child as much as the mother does. The consequences are real for both. The decision is only real for one. The only responsibility that law can force is financial responsibility. Since the mother gets to choose life or death for the baby, the father should be allowed to choose whether to financially support her decision. Unless and until society grants human status to unborn humans, that's as good as it gets.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:13 pm

Scrat wrote: How many men don't want to take responsibility for their actions? One hell of a lot. I don't know how many times I've heard the line "Oh my god, that was recreational sex not procreational sex!!!!" Wah Wah Wah!!

I like the 3 to 1 setup, I have very little respect for my fellow men. I've seen stupidity that makes Larry Curly and Moe look like Einsteins. If your stupid enough to go there without covering your butt you deserve what you get.

What in the hell does responsibilty really have to do with it?

When it comes to responsibility AC I see next to none in everyday life on matters like this. Especially when considering the younger generation. I don't even consider it a relevant part of this discussion. It isn't about responsibility, it's about what you can get.

Which brings me here to Jives's post. Sometimes it is best not to be born.
Gee. It sounds like you would go for mandatory abortion unless adults are approved for parenthood.

I don't give a damn if it's hard. I don't give a damn how much they "wah wah wah". Choices have consequences. Unfortunately, people like you who think it's too much trouble to hold people accountable are in charge now. That's why we have such a victim state. That's why so many people are ceding their responsibilities to the government, because it's hard to have responsibilities.

Your attitude, which permeates our society today, is a cancer that is killing the very thing that makes us great. Nobody wants to be responsible, even for putting a little peer pressure on irresponsible people. It's hard.

Stand up and be a goddamn man! You say you don't like abortion, but it's too inconvenient to hold adults accountable for their actions. You're worse than those you say you don't respect, because you know better.

Alfred · Post by **Alfred** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:21 pm

Accountable wrote:

I don't give a damn if it's hard. I don't give a damn how much they "wah wah wah". Choices have consequences. Unfortunately, people like you who think it's too much trouble to hold people accountable are in charge now. That's why we have such a victim state. That's why so many people are ceding their responsibilities to the government, because it's hard to have responsibilities.

so what about holding the father accountable?

your saying that he should have the right to wave financial responsibility simply because he does not want a child and now your attacking scrat because,

people like you who think it's too much trouble to hold people accountable
so what about holding the father accountable, you seem to be forgeting his responsibilities in light of the mothers choice.

so if neither parent agrees on whether to keep the child, then what?

is it decided apon a long hard and impersonal court case?

or would you go against one parties wishes and leave the baby alive just because no agreement can be reached. thats just as unfair.

the main problem with abortion in society is that it is too much of a convinience and not used as a last resort like it should.

either way this whole arguement has now been brought down to the point where its just a simple matter of personal belief and is being argued emotionally and not logically like it should.

i have nothing more to say on the matter, you know my oppinion whether you like it or not.

good day

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:34 am

Accountable wrote: I don't give a damn if it's hard. I don't give a damn how much they "wah wah wah". Choices have consequences. Unfortunately, people like you who think it's too much trouble to hold people accountable are in charge now. That's why we have such a victim state. That's why so many people are ceding their responsibilities to the government, because it's hard to have responsibilities.

Alfred wrote: so what about holding the father accountable?
I'm sorry it wasn't clear. This paragraph is about holding both parents responsible. Abortion tries to give them an 'out' when an 'out' is not warranted; indeed, it ought to be a felony.

We (society) find it so troublesome to accept consequences for our actions, that we choose to sacrifice our progeny than go through all that hassle. It's a harmful unnecessary complication. It cheapens us.

The only way to change it is for individuals to speak out against it. I hope the seed I've planted will take root, if not with you then with someone else that reads this thread.