The term "human rights" conveys a specific meaning. If you use it in an unconventional manner, you will lose people in the discussion. It seems you are talking more directly about wealth distribution.
Should men have a say in abortion ?
- Thread starter RainbowSingularity
- Start date
Even people who say abortion is murder don't really think it is. If they did they'd be pushing for capital punishment or at least prison sentences for the physician and for the women having abortions.
Abortion is a phony "crime" designed to oppress women and nothing else.
Nobody is disputing the beginning of life. The egg and sperm were both alive long before conception and there's no crime in killing them then. And conception is not some magic moment when it becomes an "other" life; it's just another moment.
For the most part, yes.
No goods; basic social services. Not benevolence: social justice.
You don't seem to have any concept of that.
Or respect for life.
You know more about that than I do.
Not once. Your standard technique is to change the other person's meaning by substituting different words.
Yes. Repeatedly. And you rant and rave and attack and malign ---
but you never answer.
Juvenile/immature humans between newborn and 12 years old; 13-19 are adolescents, but there is overlap.
Forcing anyone to bear and raise children they don't want and can't care for adequately is cruel, but all-too-usual punishment by patriarchies for the crime of being female. That's all this whole fuss is about: you're scared shitless of women, so you hate them, so you try to control them by a three-prong approach: through economics, through physical intimidation and through reproductive bondage.
Yet here you are, disqualified, by your own admission, yet offering input on a subject.
Thats an immensely naive understanding on the role of the legal system and how societies implement, establish and reinforce values they wish to be socialized around.
Your brutal attitude to life aside, at least you are now somewhat the wiser in addressing the origins of life.
Of course pregnancy is a risk of sexual contact, for both parties. Birth control can be neglected or fail, and participants can lie about their protection, these are some of the reasons that abortions are relied upon, as a backup to some failed aspect of birth control. If we are going to allow the woman a mulligan for her misstep, then we should grant one for the man when the woman wishes to continue with the pregnancy.
A man can’t account for his gametes when they’re being held hostage by the woman. If she’s unwilling to return them, she should be required to take sole ownership and responsibility for them.
If it shouldn’t be there, then she should be more than happy to rid herself of the mess it created.
Life itself compels women to have abortions, most often for the same reason a man would request one of a woman, because they don’t want to become a parent at that time.
He’s demanding no stake in her medical decision, he is requesting to have the same right to not become a parent that she has. If she continues with the pregnancy, he currently loses that right and she assumes a tenfold risk to her own health. Regardless of his motive for her to terminate, agreeing to his request will medically do far less harm to herself. And as for control, her continuing with the pregnancy is not an exercise in control over him on her part?
When your reason fails, you can always be counted on to bring out the ideological tar and feathers.
What the hell does the above non sequitur have to do with this:
Maybe you could attempt to make sense of the statement, since iceaura seems incapable or unwilling to do so itself.
It sees Nazis under its bed, and it struggles with vocabulary.
In medical use, the word "foeticide" is used simply to mean causing the death of the fetus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foeticide#Use_during_legal_abortion
Since you seem to have Nazis on the brain, maybe you’d prefer a more sanitized term like Final Solution.
I’ve considered the risk of termination from the outset of the proposition. I’ve noted numerous times that termination is far less risky than a continued pregnancy. The only way for a woman to eliminate the risk of a continued pregnancy is to terminate it, its one of many reasons women choose to have abortions. Did you even bother to read the nonsense you generated above before you posted it?
Sperm donors want to contribute their “waste” without having to be responsible for the pregnancies they generate. A man unwilling to become a father is functionally no different than a commercial sperm donor, except he's not be paid for his services.
If a women has the right to abandon parenthood during the first half of a pregnancy, so should the man.
Well since most fucks don’t result in pregnancy, most fucks in this regard are free. Laws are changing all the time, so maybe the government will eventually come through on this one.
Why is it relevant when a fetus is granted protection? It might have something to do with when the law establishes a legal limit in pregnancy for the option of feticide/abortion/termination/baby killing. Did I leave any of your favorites out?
I’m pro-feticide in this case, so my position is in the best medical interests of the woman. If a woman wishes to assume the added risk of a continued pregnancy over the objections of the man, then let her also assume sole responsibility for the outcome.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
the money is already theirs because they own their own tax
asserting that their tax money should not be equally distributed to pay for food housing and health care seems a bit of a stretch of the meaning of "human rights".
loosing an audience that are pre-disposed to be lost to a convenient psychopathic pre-determination is not a loss but a state of reality.
the loss can not occur because the win will be a loss
you already know this.
but THAT is you game.
Don't be silly.
Our society has decided that a woman's rights should be respected and protected.
Not at all. I'm telling the goverment to butt out of women's bodies and I'm telling the anti-abortion gang to butt out of women's bodies. That's pretty consistent.
?? Not true at all. Parole is determined, among other things, by whether a prisoner can support him or herself outside prison.
Agreed. Nor do women decide to get an abortion merely because the fetus "exists in a state of dependence."
That's a lot like telling an ocean: Don't be wet.
Only as secondary criteria amongst individuals judged as already guilty of misdemeanors.
In most cases, I would say that would be primary.
Thank you for acknowledging that their dependence has a bearing on their fate.
Ah! So have you gotten an abortion, then, for that reason?
You are neither directly in government, nor are you directly a candidate for abortion, so your vocal disgruntlement in the face of topics on which you deem yourself unqualified appears to be growing.
Of course the obvious alternative is that you don't really support these bizarre guidelines for advocacy and you are just plying a double standard to defeat your opponents.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
like being a little bit too black
touching a white women
smoking a joint and being a little bit too black and not paying the bribe...
etc etc... yes its terribly civilized.
Thank you for acknowledging that independence is only of prime consideration in packaging an individuals welfare, not engineering their destruction.
Why?
Did you have an abortion for a different reason?