abortion rights in the hands of MEN.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 3:35 pm

FOX News' Dr. Ablow Wants Male Veto Over Reproductive Rights

Doctor Ablow is recieving a lot of air time recently .

here are some of his comments

"I believe that in those cases in which a man can make a credible claim that he is the father of a developing child in utero, in which he could be a proper custodian of that child, and in which he is willing to take full custody of that child upon its delivery, that the pregnant woman involved should not have the option to abort and should be civilly liable, and possibly criminally liable, for psychological suffering and wrongful death should she proceed to do so."

"I understand that adopting social policy that gives fathers the right to veto abortions would lead to presently unknown psychological consequences for women forced to carry babies to term. But I don’t know that those consequences are greater than those suffered by men forced to end the lives of their unborn children."

a return to White slavery me thinks.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:28 pm

I think the fact the woman must carry term gives her the final decision. No matter how painful that may be for the man. And having had that experience, and wanting the child, it was painful for a very long time.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:00 pm

Well, I can see that BOTH parents should be involved in any decision regarding the prospective child.

I can't go along with the crap about criminal charges should the mother decide to terminate, but if the male parent can show intent and capacity to care for the child after birth, that should certainly be considered before abortion.

I am sorry she has to carry the kid, but unless she was raped - in which case the male parent should be in jail, and therefore not capable of caring for the kid - she did get into this by her own actions and I don't see where being unwilling to carry to term justifies abortion.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:04 pm

People seem to think that the majority of women don't feel pain over the decison either . but to have sex with a man and then either lose your child to him or be under his direction for the rest of your life is going back a thousand years.

Lets face it if it was your decision to carry your baby to full term then you would keep it....How the hell does somone or a justice system MAKE you have the baby???

and to say that there are "unknown psychological consequences for women forced to carry babies to term." ...UUUMMMM helloooo???? what about all those girls right up until the 70's who were made to give up there babies after being sent to mother institiutions for the term of their pregnancies???? I'm no pyschiatrist but I've seen the data ...wonder why he hasn't .

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:06 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1363415 wrote: a return to White slavery me thinks.White?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:28 pm

"she did get into this by her own actions " could you explain that please?? I'm sorry I don't understand what getting into something means .........Oh I get it ..A female had sex...yes I can see how that could be very perplexing for some .

So lars marc if I had sex with you and got pregnant you therefore are allowed (and by law if this gets through) have a say over my body?? And what I choose to do with it?

and you've mentioned BOTH PARENTS...you're not a parent until a baby is born up until that time you're just a dna donor. And the law states in most countries that no one is responsible to put in any claim for up to 12 to 20 weeks. Within this time period women are able to make up her mind whether or not she wants to be a mother it's for no one else to interfere. ;et alone a bloody man that doesn't know the withdrawal method at the very least . And the majority of abortions are not from women who don't take contraception but those who are taking contraception when they got pregnant so the intent of not wanting to become pregnant is there already .

Okay tell me the difference here two examples ......a man fines out his one night stand, fiancee, girlfriend or wife has become pregnant and locks her in the house or a room for three months so she can't get an abortion.

Then you have a man who takes a woman to court, and very quickly mind you because there is a very small time to get this through a justice system before it's too late ......and has a room full of other people make a decision concerning whether she HAS to bring her pregnancy to full term, altimately forcing her to become a mother for someone else in the most horrid of ways.....

what is the difference here???

Of course not wanting to carry a baby to full term justifies the termination of the pregnancy.....why would it not? That's the whole point of abortion .

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:29 pm

Accountable;1363432 wrote: White?

Both really but this kind of thing already happens in Africa and Asia ....so it was a definitive word to mean western society.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 4:20 am

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..

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:42 am

Does he also advocate the free availability of contraception and comprehensive sex education from the onset of puberty?

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:18 am

Well, Fuzzy, I can only say that if she doesn't really want to deal with all that, then she should simply go get the abortion and not tell the "sperm donor".

Then there are no questions about all that.

If it was a one night stand, then who the hell is going to care except her, it seems.

Surely "not wanting to be pregnant" cannot be the only justification for an abortion. I guess though that if the potential mother is lacking the responsibility to protect against being knocked up by any Tom, Dick or sperm donor she meets at a bar the little bastard wouldn't have much of a chance at life anyway, so she might as well nip it in the bud, and move on.

Now that we have THAT out of the way,

I think I was referring more to the idea of two people who actually care about each other, and the fact that they may now have a surprise.

Now they, as a pair have a decision to make. How could she still feel that he has no right to be part of the decision making process?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:44 am

He can change his mind and just walk away from the situation she cannot, she is committed once the decision is made he is only involved in it. He might have some claim to having a say but he has no right to force a woman to carry a baby to term against her wishes. It's a mindset that belongs back in the days when women were owned by their menfolk first by the father then by the man he gave her to. and had no say in their lives and when they were bred and women were only the vessels in to which men placed their seed. We still talk about loose women - as in one who isn't yet owned by anyone and therefore not worthy of respect.

Can't believe this guy actually gets any air time. Does no one laugh at these people? How can you talk about the life to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness unless you happen to be female in this day and age.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:06 pm

I am, in no way, in favor of legal restrictions on women being able to have an abortion, other than perhaps a restriction on late term (third trimester, or thereabouts)

And do not agree at all with the "good doctor".

I am saddened by the apparent flippancy with which many people today look upon accidental pregnancy and termination of same.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:02 pm

LarsMac;1363509 wrote: I am, in no way, in favor of legal restrictions on women being able to have an abortion, other than perhaps a restriction on late term (third trimester, or thereabouts)

And do not agree at all with the "good doctor".

I am saddened by the apparent flippancy with which many people today look upon accidental pregnancy and termination of same.

I think the flippancy is more imagined than real, it fits in better with the idea that girls that get pregnant by "accident" (for want of a better word) are somehow less than worthy. Did the US not recently cut finance to all your family planning clinics, or whatever you call them, recently?

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:18 pm

gmc;1363513 wrote: I think the flippancy is more imagined than real, it fits in better with the idea that girls that get pregnant by "accident" (for want of a better word) are somehow less than worthy. Did the US not recently cut finance to all your family planning clinics, or whatever you call them, recently?

Well, sadly, yes.

It seems that too many people, particularly on the right side of the political spectrum, have long believed that "family planning" is another term for "Abortion" .

Don't most girls get pregnant (at least the first time) by accident?

I know I was one of those accidents. So was my first child, and at least two of my grandchildren.

I don't really think that American society is quite as rigid about girls as they used to be.

I am certain that if all the "accidental" pregnancies were terminated, the population of the world would be significantly smaller.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:49 pm

LarsMac;1363517 wrote: Well, sadly, yes.

It seems that too many people, particularly on the right side of the political spectrum, have long believed that "family planning" is another term for "Abortion" .

Don't most girls get pregnant (at least the first time) by accident?

I know I was one of those accidents. So was my first child, and at least two of my grandchildren.

I don't really think that American society is quite as rigid about girls as they used to be.

I am certain that if all the "accidental" pregnancies were terminated, the population of the world would be significantly smaller.

Well in then third world there are millions of women who would actually like to have a choice in the matter. But between the pope and Christian fundamentalists who think they know best it's an uphill battle. If you want to do something major to curb world poverty and over-population educate the women and let them decide when they become pregnant.

It's funny how those who want to curb the power of government to interfere with their freedoms see nothing wrong in dictating to others how to live their lives.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:05 pm

gmc;1363520 wrote: Well in then third world there are millions of women who would actually like to have a choice in the matter. But between the pope and Christian fundamentalists who think they know best it's an uphill battle. If you want to do something major to curb world poverty and over-population educate the women and let them decide when they become pregnant.

It's funny how those who want to curb the power of government to interfere with their freedoms see the irony see nothing wrong in dictating to others how to live their lives.

Probably more like billion, Brother.

However, reviewing the abortion stats in the "Western World," it seems that education hasn't been much help in preventing unwanted pregnancy.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:15 am

LarsMac;1363523 wrote: Probably more like billion, Brother.

However, reviewing the abortion stats in the "Western World," it seems that education hasn't been much help in preventing unwanted pregnancy.

If you look at the stats for those western countries where they start teaching sex education early on and also have contraceptives freely available to teenagers if they want them you will find they have lower rates of teenage pregnancy than countries like the US and the Uk where they tend to think teaching about sex makes teenagers promiscuous, in fact the opposite is true with teenagers in holland, sweden etc becoming active at a later age. Abstinence programmes just don't work however much people wish they did. There's a direct correlation between sex education and the level of unwanted pregnancies. Deliberately depriving people of information to suit a religious agenda is a form of oppression.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Aug 03, 2011 6:28 pm

I'm not sure that an unwanted pregnancy and an accidental pregnancy go hand in hand . An accidental pregnancy still has the element of choice. An unwanted pregnancy is just that, unwanted. If a women is taking contraception and becomes pregnant then it's obviously an unwanted pregnancy, it's not accidental because precautions are put in place.

Someone made the comment (on another site)about if you are in a relationship then it's certain that the man has a say . I'm sorry, I disagree with that. Because it still brings the emphasis that a woman is owned if she has a boyfriend or fiancee or husband.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:56 am

Dr Ablow belongs in an age when women and children were the property of men and had no life beyond what society determined was appropriate. Behind it is the basic assumption that they are not actually capable of deciding for themselves and therefore the decision should be made for them.

KUHNER: Obama's culture of death - Washington Times

The proposal is profoundly immoral. Contraception violates the natural moral order. It decouples sexual intercourse from its main purpose: procreation. It entrenches the hedonistic ethic that sex is about recreation and individual gratification. It strikes at the very heart of a functioning, self-renewing civilization - having children and perpetuating one generation to another. This is why practically every major religion and most cultures have rightly believed that birth control, pornography, homosexuality and adultery are wrong. They threaten the basic institution of society: the traditional family. The family existed before the state; its importance transcends the state. Hence, our ancestors understood that moral standards must be upheld, not demolished. The breakdown of the family inevitably leads to social collapse.

I suspect in the US women have a fight on their hands for the basic human right to choose when they have children.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:34 am

gmc;1363942 wrote: Dr Ablow belongs in an age when women and children were the property of men and had no life beyond what society determined was appropriate. Behind it is the basic assumption that they are not actually capable of deciding for themselves and therefore the decision should be made for them.

KUHNER: Obama's culture of death - Washington Times

I suspect in the US women have a fight on their hands for the basic human right to choose when they have children.

You are correct.

The latest angle from the right is this tack that if a pregnancy terminates, for any reason, it should be investigated as a homicide.

Making any abortion murder.

Colorado, Georgia and a couple of other states had referendums stating such a notion.

Fortunately, all were defeated, rather soundly.

But, these folks won't give up.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:33 am

that's right Lars. Good to see you guys know stuff. this is what women in america are facing . It's also sneaking into Britain.

Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.

2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."

3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)

4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.

5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.

7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.

8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.

9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.

10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).

whether you are for or against termination of pregnancies ....remember they are trying to stop any form of contraception as well.

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:23 pm

Clodhopper;1363418 wrote: I think the fact the woman must carry term gives her the final decision. No matter how painful that may be for the man. And having had that experience, and wanting the child, it was painful for a very long time. agree compleatly. plus men makes up all these laws. and they will never get pregnant. WHAT'S WRONG with this PICTURE???????:mad:

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:41 am

southern yankee;1363999 wrote: agree compleatly. plus men makes up all these laws. and they will never get pregnant. WHAT'S WRONG with this PICTURE???????:mad:

Sorry, but it is not so cut and dried as you might like to think.

There are a number of female politicians that are solidly in the "pro-Life" camp.

This is not about man vs. woman.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:53 am

Let's address some of these. I happen to agree with some of them.

2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."

I have mixed feelings here. I feel there is abuse when it comes to the laws we currently have. An angry woman only has to point a finger and say the word to ruin a guys life. I think there is too much potential for abuse as things are. Especially when dealing with foolish young people.

4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.

Okay, just one question. Where are the fathers? It's not my responsibility to be a father to all these poor waifs that are produced nowadays. Not to mention the abuse of the system I have seen.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:59 pm

I just did a study on this for my college ethics class the big problem with abortion being that it stems from having kids, and that is the outcome of having sex. I found that what is a major cause of having unwanted pregnancies is the fact that when an someone enters the sexually active stage in their life they are not taught very well sexual education by both the school system or by their parents, thus they then think you have sex "because it feels good" where the real reason it "feels good" is to make you want to do it in order to have kids. I also find they also fail to realize that even though with a condom and pill your 99.9999777% less likely to have children 99.99999777% out of the population of the just the U.S still leaves for a lot of unwanted births. Then also that 99.9999999777% is being that the condom is used exactly right and the birth control is taken on time. So really what I got from what I studied the best approach will be to get children to understand that sex first and foremost is the way to reproduce, and as such if you are going to take part in such an action you must take responsiblity for such actions. So if you are going to have sex make sure you are willing and able to raise a child with the person you are going to have sex with because that is always a chance (unless you have your ovaries or testicles removed) that you will have a baby. Since the responsiblity for having sex to produce the kid falls on both the parents it would be ethical that both the parents have equal weight when deciding to have the child or not.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Sun Aug 07, 2011 12:27 pm

FOXNews...home of the New Facism.

Attached files

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:50 am

Wow!! just Wow!!!

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:56 am

Actually Larsmac it is because it means men will have control. And before you go down the women are legisstators too route........tell me something ....Do you think rich women in Saudi Arabia live the same lives as women on the streets? Do you see them covered up? On the ski slopes? At the beaches? Do you think these female politicians are living the same lives as the avarage woman in America? do you honestly think these women have never had an abortion? or feared during their studies they may have had to have one ? (not casting dispersions here but) or maybe she could afford to have the inplant contraception method.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:04 am

littleCJelkton;1364195 wrote: I just did a study on this for my college ethics class the big problem with abortion being that it stems from having kids, and that is the outcome of having sex. I found that what is a major cause of having unwanted pregnancies is the fact that when an someone enters the sexually active stage in their life they are not taught very well sexual education by both the school system or by their parents, thus they then think you have sex "because it feels good" where the real reason it "feels good" is to make you want to do it in order to have kids. I also find they also fail to realize that even though with a condom and pill your 99.9999777% less likely to have children 99.99999777% out of the population of the just the U.S still leaves for a lot of unwanted births. Then also that 99.9999999777% is being that the condom is used exactly right and the birth control is taken on time. So really what I got from what I studied the best approach will be to get children to understand that sex first and foremost is the way to reproduce, and as such if you are going to take part in such an action you must take responsiblity for such actions. So if you are going to have sex make sure you are willing and able to raise a child with the person you are going to have sex with because that is always a chance (unless you have your ovaries or testicles removed) that you will have a baby. Since the responsiblity for having sex to produce the kid falls on both the parents it would be ethical that both the parents have equal weight when deciding to have the child or not.

So women shouldn't be having sex unless they want children? It falls on both the parents huh? you're not up to date with the different types of contraception, the snip, and hysterectomys are you? Ethical ???? who's ethics? Sex feels good because you may want to have kids one day??? You've never experienced IVF have you, nor adoption. Since when do we bring in the "ethical" and "enjoying sex to breed" argument over men having control over a woman to the point where he can force her to have a baby????........that's ethical?

woah this is gunna be good !!! Too late in the evening to begin right now though.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 9:30 am

fuzzywuzzy;1364322 wrote: So women shouldn't be having sex unless they want children? It falls on both the parents huh? you're not up to date with the different types of contraception, the snip, and hysterectomys are you? Ethical ???? who's ethics? Sex feels good because you may want to have kids one day??? You've never experienced IVF have you, nor adoption. Since when do we bring in the "ethical" and "enjoying sex to breed" argument over men having control over a woman to the point where he can force her to have a baby????........that's ethical?

woah this is gunna be good !!! Too late in the evening to begin right now though.

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.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:26 am

littleCJelkton;1364195 wrote: I just did a study on this for my college ethics class the big problem with abortion being that it stems from having kids, and that is the outcome of having sex. I found that what is a major cause of having unwanted pregnancies is the fact that when an someone enters the sexually active stage in their life they are not taught very well sexual education by both the school system or by their parents, thus they then think you have sex "because it feels good" where the real reason it "feels good" is to make you want to do it in order to have kids. I also find they also fail to realize that even though with a condom and pill your 99.9999777% less likely to have children 99.99999777% out of the population of the just the U.S still leaves for a lot of unwanted births. Then also that 99.9999999777% is being that the condom is used exactly right and the birth control is taken on time. So really what I got from what I studied the best approach will be to get children to understand that sex first and foremost is the way to reproduce, and as such if you are going to take part in such an action you must take responsiblity for such actions. So if you are going to have sex make sure you are willing and able to raise a child with the person you are going to have sex with because that is always a chance (unless you have your ovaries or testicles removed) that you will have a baby. Since the responsiblity for having sex to produce the kid falls on both the parents it would be ethical that both the parents have equal weight when deciding to have the child or not.

It would also be ethical to leave the decision in the hands of those who have to make those live choices when and if they have a baby at all. Some of the legislation being proposed is intended to prevent the ready access of even married women to contraceptives driven by a belief that believes the only place for sex is within marriage and it's only purpose is to produce children. It is exerting the right of the state to determine the sexual behaviour of it's citizens.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:32 am

It's interesting to note that in other species family/litter size is mostly determined by the instincts of the female. That said, those other species rely solely on intuition whereas the human species is in the beginning stages of employing the use cognitive thought - some more than others.

Good to see you, CJ. Hope all is well!

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:04 pm

gmc;1364380 wrote: It would also be ethical to leave the decision in the hands of those who have to make those live choices when and if they have a baby at all. Some of the legislation being proposed is intended to prevent the ready access of even married women to contraceptives driven by a belief that believes the only place for sex is within marriage and it's only purpose is to produce children. It is exerting the right of the state to determine the sexual behaviour of it's citizens.

Well the legislative process is corrupt and unnecessarily convoluted in order to allow for that corruptness. Thus you get legislation in which lawmakers may either through bribery or just plain staunchness in an Ideal (much like is seen by some on FG) you get legislation that in the lawmakers point of view "is for the best society". If someone had the idea that parents/school/society taught children the responsiblity of having sex properly, and that those who got married should have kids, then they will think it would be justified in there intention to pass such laws banning contraception. How well lawmakers are versed at what actually is going on, or how deep someone's arm is down their pocket (I.E a religious group, a corporate lobbyist) is the topic for another thread.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:07 pm

Ahso!;1364381 wrote: It's interesting to note that in other species family/litter size is mostly determined by the instincts of the female. That said, those other species rely solely on intuition whereas the human species is in the beginning stages of employing the use cognitive thought - some more than others.

Good to see you, CJ. Hope all is well!

yeah been busy registering for school and changing jobs then going from working at one location for my job to another one.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:07 pm

littleCJelkton;1364394 wrote: Well the legislative process is corrupt and unnecessarily convoluted in order to allow for that corruptness. Thus you get legislation in which lawmakers may either through bribery or just plain staunchness in an Ideal (much like is seen by some on FG) you get legislation that in the lawmakers point of view "is for the best society". If someone had the idea that parents/school/society taught children the responsiblity of having sex properly, and that those who got married should have kids, then they will think it would be justified in there intention to pass such laws banning contraception. How well lawmakers are versed at what actually is going on, or how deep someone's arm is down their pocket (I.E a religious group, a corporate lobbyist) is the topic for another thread.

Let me put this to you another way. They think it is justifiable to use the full force of the state to dictate when people can have children. It is not simply about abortion which they are using as an emotive subject to cloud the real issue. It is religious oppression, what is actually going on is irrelevant because they are religious bigots and do not think anyone else's point of view is of any consequence. You may think it is an ethical question open for debate, they do not.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Mon Aug 08, 2011 6:58 pm

gmc;1364399 wrote: Let me put this to you another way. They think it is justifiable to use the full force of the state to dictate when people can have children. It is not simply about abortion which they are using as an emotive subject to cloud the real issue. It is religious oppression, what is actually going on is irrelevant because they are religious bigots and do not think anyone else's point of view is of any consequence. You may think it is an ethical question open for debate, they do not.

Well like I said the legislative process is corrupt and unnecessarily convoluted to allow for that corruptness so those in power and those with money stay the ones in power and money. Unfortunately I nor any one I know who agrees with that has the gumption, money, resources, willingness, or know how to change anything about it though from what I hear over in the U.K they are starting to try in some sort of way with all those riots.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:37 am

littleCJelkton;1364449 wrote: Well like I said the legislative process is corrupt and unnecessarily convoluted to allow for that corruptness so those in power and those with money stay the ones in power and money. Unfortunately I nor any one I know who agrees with that has the gumption, money, resources, willingness, or know how to change anything about it though from what I hear over in the U.K they are starting to try in some sort of way with all those riots.

You live in a democracy - whatever happened to one man can make a difference and that go getter attitude americans are supposed to have? it's your generation this kind of legislation is targeted at, they are basically saying you cannot be trusted with making the decision as to when and with whom you can choose to breed and you shouldn't be having sex until they tell you it's OK according to their rules. No system of government is going to be perfect but that doesn't mean you have to put up with this crap, Have they got you so downtrodden you have just given up?

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:08 am

gmc;1364463 wrote: You live in a democracy - whatever happened to one man can make a difference and that go getter attitude americans are supposed to have? it's your generation this kind of legislation is targeted at, they are basically saying you cannot be trusted with making the decision as to when and with whom you can choose to breed and you shouldn't be having sex until they tell you it's OK according to their rules. No system of government is going to be perfect but that doesn't mean you have to put up with this crap, Have they got you so downtrodden you have just given up?

Americans are not just downtrodden thanks to 9/11 and the fear that came out of it speaking out against the crap too forcefully or starting to do something about it makes you a terrorist, and thus so you rights are stripped so they can come after you how they wish. That is how it was under Bush under Obama he doesn't use that tactic until after the fact, first Obama says all the problems are the GOP's fault in congress for saying "NO" to every Idea he has and the GOP of course never has any worthwhile Ideas themselves just not what Obama wants, and if your not content with this "Nah uh - Uh huh, Yes it is - No it isn't" circus of a government and start speaking against then you are put on the terrorist watch list your phones are tapped and you get arrested for something or the other. I guess you could also blame the individualistic society we are raised in in which a person grows up not to care about others or there opinions/feelings just our own, thus it makes it harder for more than a few people to come together to stand against something because none of us can get along with each other. I love how people who don't live in America always call it a democracy its not a democracy it is more like and authoritative republic, in which the senate/congress have most of the power so who ever has control of congress has the power, and since republican/democrat became the staple they have the power and have to make sure no one else gets it so they bend over for this corporation or that religion to appease and other mass organization that can amass enough like minded people to change the status-quo. Though the good thing about it is eventually it will break down in its own greed and I think we are seeing signs of it starting to fail with the recent debt ceiling mess.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:53 am

littleCJelkton;1364485 wrote: Americans are not just downtrodden thanks to 9/11 and the fear that came out of it speaking out against the crap too forcefully or starting to do something about it makes you a terrorist, and thus so you rights are stripped so they can come after you how they wish. That is how it was under Bush under Obama he doesn't use that tactic until after the fact, first Obama says all the problems are the GOP's fault in congress for saying "NO" to every Idea he has and the GOP of course never has any worthwhile Ideas themselves just not what Obama wants, and if your not content with this "Nah uh - Uh huh, Yes it is - No it isn't" circus of a government and start speaking against then you are put on the terrorist watch list your phones are tapped and you get arrested for something or the other. I guess you could also blame the individualistic society we are raised in in which a person grows up not to care about others or there opinions/feelings just our own, thus it makes it harder for more than a few people to come together to stand against something because none of us can get along with each other. I love how people who don't live in America always call it a democracy its not a democracy it is more like and authoritative republic, in which the senate/congress have most of the power so who ever has control of congress has the power, and since republican/democrat became the staple they have the power and have to make sure no one else gets it so they bend over for this corporation or that religion to appease and other mass organization that can amass enough like minded people to change the status-quo. Though the good thing about it is eventually it will break down in its own greed and I think we are seeing signs of it starting to fail with the recent debt ceiling mess.

Well we call it a democracy in deference to your sensitive natures because some get annoyed when you use words like corporatist or fascist. Europe and the UK have their problems along those lines as well but we have a better tradition of public protest and civil disobedience I think. Taking the **** out of the establishment is a national pastime and we don't like politicians that play the patriotic card very much. I don't need lectures on patriotism from a ******** like you is a good response.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:08 pm

well you folks in the UK had it right with this classic

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:20 am

shortly after your founding fathers wrote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

they started qualifying it. You've been fighting ever since against those who think it's all men except for them over there. This is all just another round in the same never ending war. Some of these clowns think women have no real purpose outside of belonging in a marriage bed. So long as people are ready preach their beliefs make them the chosen people you will always have to stop them trying to take control. While of course respecting their right to believe as they choose.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:34 pm

Not that I don't enjoy going off topic,but on the topic I think we to determine if men should have (more,equal,less) rights then women in the decision of abortion. I think if we are going to have a law on abortion, we should first determine what those rights are then we can determine the law that would properly enforce those. We can then worry about what to do get a government that can properly legislate. judge, and execute the law.

Though more to the point of the problem of the of abortion and the ethical diliema that brings up so much emotion on both sides of the pro(choice)-pro(life) debate. As I said the purpose of having an abortion is to get rid of a kid most likely(other than rape/incest) due to the fact that the woman or couple is not ready to accept the responsibility (time money effort) to raise a kid. As I said before kids are a product of sexual reproduction so if sexual reproduction is first and foremost for having kids then why are so many heterosexual couples having sex without knowing that a kid is a possible outcome? I say it is because people of this generation (mainly between 13-28), but everyone in general have had little to no or even worse improper sexual education thus they believe " you have sex because it feels good" not " sex feels good because it makes you want to have it because your body naturally wants to reproduce to keep you species alive"

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:51 pm

Though more to the point of the problem of the of abortion and the ethical diliema that brings up so much emotion on both sides of the pro(choice)-pro(life) debate. As I said the purpose of having an abortion is to get rid of a kid most likely(other than rape/incest) due to the fact that the woman or couple is not ready to accept the responsibility (time money effort) to raise a kid. As I said before kids are a product of sexual reproduction so if sexual reproduction is first and foremost for having kids then why are so many heterosexual couples having sex without knowing that a kid is a possible outcome? I say it is because people of this generation (mainly between 13-28), but everyone in general have had little to no or even worse improper sexual education thus they believe " you have sex because it feels good" not " sex feels good because it makes you want to have it because your body naturally wants to reproduce to keep you species alive"

Actually it's not as simple as that, quite often it''s because the pregnancy isn't viable for some reason for medical reasons, The baby may have died in the womb, or carrying to term puts the life of the mother, baby or both at risk. These clowns would like to out mothers who have stillborn babies on trial for murder expecting them to prove they did nothing to abort the foetus. It's easier not to think about why women have abortions and just assume they are all callous murderers using it as a form of contraceptive.

Perhaps the first ethical dilemma you have to decide is who actually has the right to make the decision about whether to become pregnant in the first place and whether to carry to term or not. It's not just about abortion these clowns want to prevent access to contraceptives, thus preventing women actually having a choice. When a religious leader bans the use of contraceptive for his flock and they choose to obey that is their choice when they try and force the same on everybody else is that ethical?

I think if we are going to have a law on abortion, we should first determine what those rights are then we can determine the law that would properly enforce those. We can then worry about what to do get a government that can properly legislate. judge, and execute the law.

By what right does anyone take away someone's choice as to when and if they get pregnant and then once pregnant if they are going to carry it to term or not. The religious argue that the only purpose of sex is procreation anything else is a mortal sin. Should we even be allowing the adherents of a stone age religion to enter the debate? Just because you claim the moral right doesn't mean you should have it.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:47 pm

gmc;1364946 wrote: Actually it's not as simple as that, quite often it''s because the pregnancy isn't viable for some reason for medical reasons, The baby may have died in the womb, or carrying to term puts the life of the mother, baby or both at risk. These clowns would like to out mothers who have stillborn babies on trial for murder expecting them to prove they did nothing to abort the foetus. It's easier not to think about why women have abortions and just assume they are all callous murderers using it as a form of contraceptive.

Perhaps the first ethical dilemma you have to decide is who actually has the right to make the decision about whether to become pregnant in the first place and whether to carry to term or not. It's not just about abortion these clowns want to prevent access to contraceptives, thus preventing women actually having a choice. When a religious leader bans the use of contraceptive for his flock and they choose to obey that is their choice when they try and force the same on everybody else is that ethical?

.

By what right does anyone take away someone's choice as to when and if they get pregnant and then once pregnant if they are going to carry it to term or not. The religious argue that the only purpose of sex is procreation anything else is a mortal sin. Should we even be allowing the adherents of a stone age religion to enter the debate? Just because you claim the moral right doesn't mean you should have it.

your just as off point as the he said she said" debating fuzzywuzzy uses on this yet you tend to make everything about the "Gov/Religion/Corporation vs the right of the people". I am more interested in what your and others opinion is on what rights men should have in deciding on the birth/abortion of a baby,

and your comment about not making abortion not as simple as ""being a problem of not wanting a kid which is the result of sex someone wasn't ready to accept the responsibilty for"" Uses a more rare case (baby died in womb) that is not "quite as often as you think " well at least not in the U.S., but by putting it in the subject of the the debate you made the subject "not simple" by adding a more complicated rare case, then argued against the complicated case you added as if it was some bad idea I or someone your debating with agreed with?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:22 am

littleCJelkton;1364977 wrote: your just as off point as the he said she said" debating fuzzywuzzy uses on this yet you tend to make everything about the "Gov/Religion/Corporation vs the right of the people". I am more interested in what your and others opinion is on what rights men should have in deciding on the birth/abortion of a baby,

and your comment about not making abortion not as simple as ""being a problem of not wanting a kid which is the result of sex someone wasn't ready to accept the responsibilty for"" Uses a more rare case (baby died in womb) that is not "quite as often as you think " well at least not in the U.S., but by putting it in the subject of the the debate you made the subject "not simple" by adding a more complicated rare case, then argued against the complicated case you added as if it was some bad idea I or someone your debating with agreed with?

I put that example in the subject to illustrate the point. It's a complex issue you seemed to be suggesting there is only one selfish reason why people have abortions. Anyway I'm not going to labour the point.

It's quite simple, it's the woman's right to choose. Those who would take way that right have to make a case. Those who believe that once a woman becomes pregnant she loses all capacity to decide what is best for her and her baby have to make a case. Those who argue that using contraceptives is against nature, or god's will, have to make a case. If they impose their religious views on others and want the full sanction of the state to be used against those who are not That is religious oppression.

The man comes in to it if the woman decides she wants to tell him. If he wants to keep the baby and she doesn't it is her wishes that are paramount. Women have a choice in who they procreate with, the days when a woman belonged to the the father until he gave her away as a mate belong in the past Is that simple enough for you?

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:49 am

gmc;1364988 wrote: I put that example in the subject to illustrate the point. It's a complex issue you seemed to be suggesting there is only one selfish reason why people have abortions. Anyway I'm not going to labour the point.

It's quite simple, it's the woman's right to choose. Those who would take way that right have to make a case. Those who believe that once a woman becomes pregnant she loses all capacity to decide what is best for her and her baby have to make a case. Those who argue that using contraceptives is against nature, or god's will, have to make a case. If they impose their religious views on others and want the full sanction of the state to be used against those who are not That is religious oppression.

The man comes in to it if the woman decides she wants to tell him. If he wants to keep the baby and she doesn't it is her wishes that are paramount. Women have a choice in who they procreate with, the days when a woman belonged to the the father until he gave her away as a mate belong in the past Is that simple enough for you?

The reason for having abortion is not to have a kid that you were going to have. The reasons you don't want to have the kid can vary, but to deny that the majority of what makes the abortion debate so heated is that the majority of the cases of abortion are for women who had sex with men in which she/the man she had sex with/both didn't realize the resposiblity that came with the act of enjoying procreation. To deny that is much like how our government worked this past month when deciding that Medicare/Medicade/Social Security weren't a majority of what contributed to the debt, or that not increasing revenues on anyone poor/average/wealthy/super wealthy and just cutting plans was going to be enough. Though the reason I stated is not the only reason ( I have stated before others rape, incest, and as you stated still born"which is not an abortion as the baby died already"), it is the reason why most occur, and the reason why so many don't like the act to the point they just rather ban the act all together.

As for the arguing the cases of those who believe this, and those who argue that, are all cases of you debating someone else other than me again, as those opinions are not my own nor have I stated so. I don't believe contraceptives are against nature or religion, I think you should be able to uses contraceptives if you want to but other than straight out removing your testicles/ovaries, you have only homosexual relations, or you have non vaginal sex (i.e anal/oral/toys) you are always going to have a chance of making a child when and as such should be willing to take on that responsibility if such an event occurs (both men and women). Does a man not also have a choice in who they procreate with? I would believe a man's choice in who to procreate with has just as much influence on the outcome of if a pregnancy happens when 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. This same goes for men's attractivenes tall, dark, handsome, broad shoulders. More height in a man not gives off the impression he will be more able to physically defend the woman and the child but also that he has larger testicles and/or penis thus able to deposit more semen deeper in the vagina thus creating a better chance of pregnancy, Dark means tan which gives the impression the man is outside alot which not only is healthy but dates back to more pre-historic days when humans hunted and showed the man was out alot on the hunt which will give the impression he can better supply the woman/baby with food. Broad shoulders show the man is in shape and strong thus able to defend the woman/baby from threats. If a man's choice to have procreation doesn't matter, then yes when a pregnancy occurs a man shouldn't have a right to say anything about if the child is or isn't born, but then if the man has no right or say in the act of procreation other than just a semen donor, then a man should have to bear no responsibility for the outcome of the child.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 9:29 am

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 ? ****!!!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 9:54 am

littleCJelkton;1365009 wrote: The reason for having abortion is not to have a kid that you were going to have. The reasons you don't want to have the kid can vary, but to deny that the majority of what makes the abortion debate so heated is that the majority of the cases of abortion are for women who had sex with men in which she/the man she had sex with/both didn't realize the resposiblity that came with the act of enjoying procreation. To deny that is much like how our government worked this past month when deciding that Medicare/Medicade/Social Security weren't a majority of what contributed to the debt, or that not increasing revenues on anyone poor/average/wealthy/super wealthy and just cutting plans was going to be enough. Though the reason I stated is not the only reason ( I have stated before others rape, incest, and as you stated still born"which is not an abortion as the baby died already"), it is the reason why most occur, and the reason why so many don't like the act to the point they just rather ban the act all together.

As for the arguing the cases of those who believe this, and those who argue that, are all cases of you debating someone else other than me again, as those opinions are not my own nor have I stated so. I don't believe contraceptives are against nature or religion, I think you should be able to uses contraceptives if you want to but other than straight out removing your testicles/ovaries, you have only homosexual relations, or you have non vaginal sex (i.e anal/oral/toys) you are always going to have a chance of making a child when and as such should be willing to take on that responsibility if such an event occurs (both men and women). Does a man not also have a choice in who they procreate with? I would believe a man's choice in who to procreate with has just as much influence on the outcome of if a pregnancy happens when 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. This same goes for men's attractivenes tall, dark, handsome, broad shoulders. More height in a man not gives off the impression he will be more able to physically defend the woman and the child but also that he has larger testicles and/or penis thus able to deposit more semen deeper in the vagina thus creating a better chance of pregnancy, Dark means tan which gives the impression the man is outside alot which not only is healthy but dates back to more pre-historic days when humans hunted and showed the man was out alot on the hunt which will give the impression he can better supply the woman/baby with food. Broad shoulders show the man is in shape and strong thus able to defend the woman/baby from threats. If a man's choice to have procreation doesn't matter, then yes when a pregnancy occurs a man shouldn't have a right to say anything about if the child is or isn't born, but then if the man has no right or say in the act of procreation other than just a semen donor, then a man should have to bear no responsibility for the outcome of the child.

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

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 10:12 am

I think that was in my original post .....how disgusting is that eh?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 11:00 am

fuzzywuzzy;1365039 wrote: I think that was in my original post .....how disgusting is that eh?

Not that particular incident. Ablow may as well come right out and make clear that he believes women should have no civil rights at all.