Should men have a say in abortion ?

[billvon]

Reducing the odds does not equal "anyone".

Right. I didn't claim it did. I claimed that education reduces the odds of smoking or massive drinking for women - and indeed, for anyone (not just women.)

The fact that even health professionals can succumb to the habit indicates it's not something that is curbed solely from access to knowledge.

Correct! It's just one way to reduce the incidence of those vices. You are catching on! Great!

Yet even you can work with the issue of reducing the odds, under certain conditions, without having recourse to outright prohibition on the platform of legislation.

DING DING DING! And I support and applaud people who work to educate women (and society at large) to reduce the odds of unwanted pregnancy, the need for abortions, health-damaging amounts of drinking, and smoking. No need to ban smoking, drinking - or abortion. Glad you agree.

 

[parmalee]

"Restricting choices" is rarely an effective social policy ... If it's a not so unncommon scenario for a woman to face the dilemma of choosing whether to abort her pregnancy or take"motherhood as punishment", It would seem her choices are already quite restricted.

You're the one pushing the "motherhood as punishment" line; everyone else sees the compelling a person to carry a pregnancy to term, against her wishes, as a punishment. Not surprising, really, as the "motherhood as punishment" notion really stems from the anti-abortion crowd who, say, makes exceptions in cases of rape and incest. The logic: since you engaged in sex willingly, you ought to be punished for it. So much for "sanctity of life" and all that.

 

[Musika]

You're the one pushing the "motherhood as punishment" line; everyone else sees the compelling a person to carry a pregnancy to term, against her wishes, as a punishment. Not surprising, really, as the "motherhood as punishment" notion really stems from the anti-abortion crowd who, say, makes exceptions in cases of rape and incest. The logic: since you engaged in sex willingly, you ought to be punished for it. So much for "sanctity of life" and all that.

You are not capable of discussing this topic.

 

[Musika]

Right. I didn't claim it did. I claimed that education reduces the odds of smoking or massive drinking for women - and indeed, for anyone (not just women.)

Correct! It's just one way to reduce the incidence of those vices. You are catching on! Great!

DING DING DING! And I support and applaud people who work to educate women (and society at large) to reduce the odds of unwanted pregnancy, the need for abortions, health-damaging amounts of drinking, and smoking. No need to ban smoking, drinking - or abortion. Glad you agree.

Sorry, my bad.
I read your comment as saying "It doesn't happen to anyone"

Of course, education and access to good medical care will reduce the instances of women doing that. (of anyone doing that, actually.)

 

[wegs]

"Restricting choices" is rarely an effective social policy ... If it's a not so unncommon scenario for a woman to face the dilemma of choosing whether to abort her pregnancy or take"motherhood as punishment", It would seem her choices are already quite restricted.

Not every woman will view an unwanted pregnancy in the same light, but every woman should have reasonable, safe options afforded to her. Would you agree?

What are your views on the “morning after” pill?

 

[Jeeves]

It will be interesting to see if mods have access to the version you wrote before you edited it to this.

The first sentence is still there, exactly as before. The edit was simply to complete the story of those poor women you want to punish.

I am pretty sure that if anyone told anyone they should go get raped that they would earn themselves a lengthy time out.

If the mods see fit to suspend me for telling you to walk mile in your victims' shoes, that's fine.
Your side has state legislators passing laws that do exactly that to women.

 

[Write4U]

For all those pro-lifers who are so determined to save the unborn on the premise of "sanctity of life", let Carlin straighten out your thinking about our moral adherence to the "sanctity of life".

 

[Jeeves]

I think the ''why'' is simply a result of many pro-life people gaining a sense of moral superiority when it comes to things that don't affect their lives.

That's the actual supporters of bad laws. I have a pretty good idea what moves them.
I was talking about the tactics of these duplicitous internet advocates for anything-but-social-justice. They don't only twist and churn reproductive rights issues, they do the same with end-of-life decisions, equal marriage, public education, fair employment .... Some of them even advocate for those abhorrent monuments to the valiant defenders of slavery.

 

[parmalee]

You are not capable of discussing this topic.

You are not capable of communicating in English: Extraneous? Odd choice--especially as you stuck with it--but workable; though, within the immediate context of what was being discussed, you actually seemed to be struggling with the concept. Your understanding of the term "motherhood"--the state of "being a mother," but here, specifically, simply the state of being one who has given birth--is by no means incorrect, but you're unlikely to find anyone who uses the term in that manner.

Then there's your seeming inability to comprehend most of that to which you are responding. And your inability to recognize that most of RainbowSingularity's responses to you are both on topic and relevant to what you have said.

Ideas of reference, and possibly delusions of reference--and, worse yet, projection (I might be thinking of another thread here). Again, these present a real impediment to effective and meaningful communication.

Incidentally, I have inhabited two worlds in which persons were inclined to appropriate ordinary, everyday terminology and assign wholly new and very specific meanings to them, though not wholly unrelated to the more commonplace meanings. I'm comfortable with it--in it's appropriate context. But were I to use, say, spurs or traces outside of their usual context, and with their more contemporaneous assignations, I would not be surprised by some backlash and criticism.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

"motherhood as punishment"

Who actually said that?

 

[Jeeves]

Who actually said that?

I did. In the context of: You're scared shitless of women; therefore you need to keep them subjugated through procreational bondage, to punish women who have sex by forcing them to carry a baby to term, regardless of how it was engendered, what it does to her life, whether the baby itself is viable, and whether she can take care of it. This was distributed over a number of posts, in whole sentences, with content and grammar and everything, but Musika distilled it down to his usual inappropriate bumper-sticker.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I did. In the context of: You're scared shitless of women; therefore you need to keep them subjugated through procreational bondage, to punish women who have sex by forcing them to carry a baby to term, regardless of how it was engendered, what it does to her life, whether the baby itself is viable, and whether she can take care of it. This was distributed over a number of posts, in whole sentences, with content and grammar and everything, but Musika distilled it down to his usual inappropriate bumper-sticker.

I wasn't paying attention to this thread on purpose.

Hence, I can wait if Musika wants to elaborate on what he meant, I think.

 

[billvon]

To the pro-life men - why should you (and men in general) have a say in abortion? That's the question, really. Nothing more or less.

You have stated why you feel abortion is wrong in this thread, (and other thread derailing comments beyond that), but not why you should have a voice in the matter?

It was addressed way back when. In short, if you want to play direct involvement as the first and last word in advocacy, society starts to look strange, and it's not too difficult to fast track any sort of agenda.

No, you did not. Here's what you said in that post:

Should civilians have a say on how military personnel are deployed?
While i think most civilians wish to be able to have an ability to choose, how many are willing to put their own life, income and career on the line ?
is the concept of risk equal to a civilian's ability to conceive the reality that they have no personal risk or physical bodily accountability from ?
a body of their peers, whom decide what is legally just for military deployment ? peers = the armed forces

Those might well be questions that interest you. They are not an answer to the question "why should you (and men in general) have a say in abortion?"

 

[iceaura]

I understand that it's popular to imagine what others are saying rather than ask for a clarification, but I prefer not to.

You instead lie about what others are saying, in order to attack them personally.
Like this:

I am pretty sure that if anyone told anyone they should go get raped that they would earn themselves a lengthy time out.

But curiously enough, lying about whether someone did that is protected.

Sometimes in discussions like these, it is apparent that certain parties hold it as more important to sustain their hatred of the opposition than work in any way to solve or de-escalate the issue at hand.

You and the rest of the fundies being the prime and shining example of that general approach here - sometimes minus the "hatred" bit, which was a lie anyway (so it might as well be about you along with the rest of your projections).

The fact that even health professionals can succumb to the habit indicates it's not something that is curbed solely from access to knowledge.

Or by punitive legislation, or anything else. So that consideration - "solely" - is obviously irrelevant here, and you had no good reason to post it.
Back to the topic:
or rather, to the next attempt at avoiding the topic:

My query is what is the eqivalent extraneous factor you see present in this debate about abortion.

Despite your efforts to avoid the topic, this is not a debate about abortion. It is a debate about how much coercive control and punitive authority men should have over what happens inside a woman's or girl's body, and why.
And equivalently extraneous factors - no more relevant than sprained ankles - are the content of every single one of your posts here so far.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I forgot to mention I'm extremely stupid; a two year old can out wit me!

So....

:EDIT:

Oh, that may be an expression of anger where I don't care about your opinions anyway cause you're a bunch of fucking morons anyway.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Come on retards, convince everyone!

All you are is disgusting....

 

[Musika]

No, you did not. Here's what you said in that post:

Should civilians have a say on how military personnel are deployed?
While i think most civilians wish to be able to have an ability to choose, how many are willing to put their own life, income and career on the line ?
is the concept of risk equal to a civilian's ability to conceive the reality that they have no personal risk or physical bodily accountability from ?
a body of their peers, whom decide what is legally just for military deployment ? peers = the armed forces

Those might well be questions that interest you. They are not an answer to the question "why should you (and men in general) have a say in abortion?"

I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve by unpacking the hyperlink already given in the quote, but it's pretty much identical to why civilians should have a say in how the military is utilized.
Haven't we been through all this before? Fast tracking silly agendas? Playing Gianna Jessen as the ultimate authority on the subject by playing the same game rules and so forth?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve by unpacking the hyperlink already given in the quote, but it's pretty much identical to why civilians should have a say in how the military is utilized.
Haven't we been through all this before? Fast tracking silly agendas? Playing Gianna Jessen as the ultimate authority on the subject by playing the same game rules and so forth?

And this doesn't touch upon abortion, does it?

Speak up!

:EDIR:

Don't be a coward.

 

[Musika]

Not every woman will view an unwanted pregnancy in the same light, but every woman should have reasonable, safe options afforded to her. Would you agree?

If the whole society is geared up on an unreasonable foundation, then what becomes reasonable is simply sustaining the malady. If the legal, social and biological realities are completely at odds with each other (of which, the subject of abortion is but one example that pales in comparison to others), then it is chaos and a race to the bottom without the "reasonable" safeguards and chaos and a race to the bottom (although arguably, at a slower pace) with them.

What are your views on the “morning after” pill?

It doesn't essentially change the predicament or the attitudes that give the problem form (but for as long as one remains oblivious to those factors, one could say it is more efficient).

 

[Musika]

And this doesn't touch upon abortion, does it?

Speak up!

:EDIR:

Don't be a coward.

Google Gianna Jessen (if you dare), and prepare yourself for a silly argument.