Abortion: Why Men Don't Get A Say

[Si modo]

If you are finished insulting me you might notice, I was asking you to clarify, Ms. Defensive.

Punctuation can be useful.....did you happen to notice the question mark?

Oh, reallly? Disingenuous much?

K. I'll ask a question, Madeline-style: When did you stop taking your antipsychotics?

Get a grip, lunatic.

Fine, don't clarify. But don't bitch about being misunderstood then, either. You don't get to have it both ways.

I don't clarify a thing to disingenous questions, especially when my views are crystal clear in this thread alone.

The sooner you get a grip on distinguishing between your hallucinations about what others say and what they actually say, the happier you might be.

 

[FA_Q2]

so to recap: Madeline never wants to see the system even try to be fair towards men, or children?

Got it

Well that is rather blown out of proportion. We have finally agreed that the system is unfair. The difference here is weather the solution of allowing men off the hook costs too much. I am unsure but am leaning on the side that it is. Maddie seems to think so as well. The rest of you seem to disagree. It is possible that we will not find a middle ground but statements like this only serve to ensure that and stop the debate. We would all like the system to be fair but fair is not the goal in life. Life is never fair and that is a fact. I rarely think in terms of fair or not as that line of thought never really works. What we need is a system that is functional and give the most opportunity to all parties and the child may well suffer more than is worth should the father be allowed his fair shake. As the laws and practice stands now there needs to be major reform. The system is unbelievably broken but then again I am weary of a solution the gives the father full ability to walk away.

Where, other than in your head, did she say any such thing?

That is one of the unintended consequences that come from allowing the man to walk away. There are plenty of situation where a woman is willing but unable to fully support a child without something from the father. In that situation, she may be forced to abort because having the child would not be financially sound. Allowing the father to walk WILL result in outcomes like this increasing. Even though adoption is also an answer it is also a poor one. There are consequences that will be paid in the name of fairness if the father were allowed to walk. You must realize this. The question that must be answered is whether or not the freedom in this case is worth the cost.

Here's a thought. Rather than making a man pay for a child he never wanted in the first place; rather than tossing him in prison if he doesn't pay for something he never wanted; and if the mother cannot afford to raise the child on her ownl and rather than the child be raised in a one-parent household with a reluctant and likely uninvolved father; the mother could give the baby up for adoption.

But, I suppose the ego of the mother is too great to consider the best option for the child.

Did you not read what I wrote? I mentioned adoption as well as stating that is also a bad rout to take. In a large number of cases, children in that state are not exactly the best cared for. There are FAR too many children in adoption already that are not wanted and cannot find a good home. None of this is ideal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Uh, men are the cause, I am told.

Then someone lied to you. COUPLES are the cause. It's a joint activity.

Cecilie, did you read the article linked in the Op? It is a strange crime and what prompted all this convo.

Did he rape her? No? Then my statement stands. COUPLES are the cause of pregnancy, not men.

As for the people in your OP - and I'm going to be nice and not comment on your source - he's an utter, worthless dickwad if the story's true, but she's not exactly a feminist - or feminine - heroine for her fantastic life choice in dating, screwing, and getting pregnant by Prince Charming there.

 

[Si modo]

Well that is rather blown out of proportion. We have finally agreed that the system is unfair. The difference here is weather the solution of allowing men off the hook costs too much. I am unsure but am leaning on the side that it is. Maddie seems to think so as well. The rest of you seem to disagree. It is possible that we will not find a middle ground but statements like this only serve to ensure that and stop the debate. We would all like the system to be fair but fair is not the goal in life. Life is never fair and that is a fact. I rarely think in terms of fair or not as that line of thought never really works. What we need is a system that is functional and give the most opportunity to all parties and the child may well suffer more than is worth should the father be allowed his fair shake. As the laws and practice stands now there needs to be major reform. The system is unbelievably broken but then again I am weary of a solution the gives the father full ability to walk away.


That is one of the unintended consequences that come from allowing the man to walk away. There are plenty of situation where a woman is willing but unable to fully support a child without something from the father. In that situation, she may be forced to abort because having the child would not be financially sound. Allowing the father to walk WILL result in outcomes like this increasing. Even though adoption is also an answer it is also a poor one. There are consequences that will be paid in the name of fairness if the father were allowed to walk. You must realize this. The question that must be answered is whether or not the freedom in this case is worth the cost.

Here's a thought. Rather than making a man pay for a child he never wanted in the first place; rather than tossing him in prison if he doesn't pay for something he never wanted; and if the mother cannot afford to raise the child on her ownl and rather than the child be raised in a one-parent household with a reluctant and likely uninvolved father; the mother could give the baby up for adoption.

But, I suppose the ego of the mother is too great to consider the best option for the child.

Did you not read what I wrote? I mentioned adoption as well as stating that is also a bad rout to take. In a large number of cases, children in that state are not exactly the best cared for. There are FAR too many children in adoption already that are not wanted and cannot find a good home. None of this is ideal.

Hmm, I was not aware that there are too many children up for adoption (domestic) who are not wanted. Do you have any support for that?

 

[California Girl]

If you are finished insulting me you might notice, I was asking you to clarify, Ms. Defensive.

Punctuation can be useful.....did you happen to notice the question mark?

Oh, reallly? Disingenuous much?

K. I'll ask a question, Madeline-style: When did you stop taking your antipsychotics?

Get a grip, lunatic.

Fine, don't clarify. But don't bitch about being misunderstood then, either. You don't get to have it both ways.

If you didn't keep misinterpreting what other people say, there would be no need for them to clarify.

Si said not one fucking word about 'forcing' women to have a child. She said "could", not "must". It isn't Si that needs to clarify, it's you that needs to learn to read and comprehend the actual words and not the words that the voices in your head tell you are there.

Clear?

 

[newpolitics]

Here's a thought. Rather than making a man pay for a child he never wanted in the first place; rather than tossing him in prison if he doesn't pay for something he never wanted; and if the mother cannot afford to raise the child on her ownl and rather than the child be raised in a one-parent household with a reluctant and likely uninvolved father; the mother could give the baby up for adoption.

But, I suppose the ego of the mother is too great to consider the best option for the child.

Did you not read what I wrote? I mentioned adoption as well as stating that is also a bad rout to take. In a large number of cases, children in that state are not exactly the best cared for. There are FAR too many children in adoption already that are not wanted and cannot find a good home. None of this is ideal.

Hmm, I was not aware that there are too many children up for adoption (dometic) who are not wanted. Do you have any support for that?

How many kids go from foster home to foster home, abused, neglected, who get so fucked up by the time they are teens, that they commit suicide? I'm not saying this a majority, but I am saying that there definitely too many kids that don't have a proper home. It's not like a stork just magically delivered these unclaimed babies to the perfect home with the perfect family. These kids get bounced around.

 

[JBeukema]

It is the very best science has to offer as of this time. "Gender equality" is impossible as regards abortion.

I thought you were opposed to abortion, Pixie Stix? If so, why would you want men to be able to strong-arm women who do not want one into an abortion?

Where, other than in your head, did she say any such thing?

That is one of the unintended consequences that come from allowing the man to walk away.

Fail. Just because she can't hunt a man down a year after she bangs him and demand money for 18+ years doesn't mean, by any stretch, that he somehow gains any legal authority to force her to abort.


And since when is abortion so horrible to you people? Mad and the rest won't shutup about how much they want to be able to kill their unborn children.

 

[JBeukema]

so to recap: Madeline never wants to see the system even try to be fair towards men, or children?

Got it

Well that is rather blown out of proportion. We have finally agreed that the system is unfair. The difference here is weather the solution of allowing men off the hook costs too much. I am unsure but am leaning on the side that it is. Maddie seems to think so as well. The rest of you seem to disagree. It is possible that we will not find a middle ground but statements like this only serve to ensure that and stop the debate. We would all like the system to be fair but fair is not the goal in life. Life is never fair and that is a fact. I rarely think in terms of fair or not as that line of thought never really works. What we need is a system that is functional and give the most opportunity to all parties and the child may well suffer more than is worth should the father be allowed his fair shake. As the laws and practice stands now there needs to be major reform. The system is unbelievably broken but then again I am weary of a solution the gives the father full ability to walk away.

It is the very best science has to offer as of this time. "Gender equality" is impossible as regards abortion.

I thought you were opposed to abortion, Pixie Stix? If so, why would you want men to be able to strong-arm women who do not want one into an abortion?

Where, other than in your head, did she say any such thing?

That is one of the unintended consequences that come from allowing the man to walk away. There are plenty of situation where a woman is willing but unable to fully support a child without something from the father. In that situation, she may be forced to abort because having the child would not be financially sound. Allowing the father to walk WILL result in outcomes like this increasing. Even though adoption is also an answer it is also a poor one. There are consequences that will be paid in the name of fairness if the father were allowed to walk. You must realize this. The question that must be answered is whether or not the freedom in this case is worth the cost.

By that 'reasoning', divorce forces women to lock their children in the car and push it into the river

 

[JBeukema]

Si modo wrote:

Here's a thought. Rather than making a man pay for a child he never wanted in the first place; rather than tossing him in prison if he doesn't pay for something he never wanted; and if the mother cannot afford to raise the child on her ownl and rather than the child be raised in a one-parent household with a reluctant and likely uninvolved father; the mother could give the baby up for adoption.

But, I suppose the ego of the mother is too great to consider the best option for the child.

So your solution is to (a) force women to have babies they do not wish to carry to term by denying them abortion rights and then (b) allowing men to compel women to give those babies up for adoption if the father does not want to be obligated to pay support?

Seriously, call your doctor.

 

[JBeukema]

Women do understand that they will not get pregnant if they don't have sex don't they ?

Uh, men are the cause, I am told.

Then someone lied to you. COUPLES are the cause. It's a joint activity.

But sex is evil because it penetrates and degrades women.

Ergo, men are Satan.

Ergo, men are the root of all the world's ills.

Maddie is a FemiNazi.

 

[California Girl]

so to recap: Madeline never wants to see the system even try to be fair towards men, or children?

Got it

Well that is rather blown out of proportion. We have finally agreed that the system is unfair. The difference here is weather the solution of allowing men off the hook costs too much. I am unsure but am leaning on the side that it is. Maddie seems to think so as well. The rest of you seem to disagree. It is possible that we will not find a middle ground but statements like this only serve to ensure that and stop the debate. We would all like the system to be fair but fair is not the goal in life. Life is never fair and that is a fact. I rarely think in terms of fair or not as that line of thought never really works. What we need is a system that is functional and give the most opportunity to all parties and the child may well suffer more than is worth should the father be allowed his fair shake. As the laws and practice stands now there needs to be major reform. The system is unbelievably broken but then again I am weary of a solution the gives the father full ability to walk away.

It is the very best science has to offer as of this time. "Gender equality" is impossible as regards abortion.

I thought you were opposed to abortion, Pixie Stix? If so, why would you want men to be able to strong-arm women who do not want one into an abortion?

Where, other than in your head, did she say any such thing?

That is one of the unintended consequences that come from allowing the man to walk away. There are plenty of situation where a woman is willing but unable to fully support a child without something from the father. In that situation, she may be forced to abort because having the child would not be financially sound. Allowing the father to walk WILL result in outcomes like this increasing. Even though adoption is also an answer it is also a poor one. There are consequences that will be paid in the name of fairness if the father were allowed to walk. You must realize this. The question that must be answered is whether or not the freedom in this case is worth the cost.

Adoption is not a 'poor choice'. It is a wonderful, incredible, brilliant thing to do. My family is enriched by our adopted relatives. They are as much family to me as if they were born into it.... in fact, we are more grateful for them. We consider ourselves blessed by adoption.

 

[Si modo]

Did you not read what I wrote? I mentioned adoption as well as stating that is also a bad rout to take. In a large number of cases, children in that state are not exactly the best cared for. There are FAR too many children in adoption already that are not wanted and cannot find a good home. None of this is ideal.

Hmm, I was not aware that there are too many children up for adoption (dometic) who are not wanted. Do you have any support for that?

How many kids go from foster home to foster home, abused, neglected, who get so fucked up by the time they are teens, that they commit suicide? I'm not saying this a majority, but I am saying that there definitely too many kids that don't have a proper home. It's not like a stork just magically delivered these unclaimed babies to the perfect home with the perfect family. These kids get bounced around.

That doesn't address my question. Could you please address my question.

 

[JBeukema]

If imperfections in the foster/adoption system make adoption a 'poor choice', then all the bad parents in the world surely make keeping your baby a poor choice, too...

Or maybe some people just can't understand why anyone would not want to kill their baby.

Baby-haters like Sy and Mad should be granted their wish and sterilized so they never have to endure the torment of pregnancy or motherhood.

Sorry we can't do anything for the penis envy.

 

[ConHog]

If imperfections in the foster/adoption system make adoption a 'poor choice', then all the bad parents in the world surely make keeping your baby a poor choice, too...

Or maybe some people just can't understand why anyone would not want to kill their baby.

Baby-haters like Sy and Mad should be granted their wish and sterilized so they never have to endure the torment of pregnancy or motherhood.

Sorry we can't do anything for the penis envy.

They just don't get it, or rather they don't care. As long as you have a system which gives all of one party all the power there are going to be members of the other party who simply say fuck it and refuse to take care of their obligations. Is is right on their part? OF course not, but it is reality. Many fathers simply look at the situation and realize they weren't consulted about the child, they probably won't have input into the raising of the child, and that they probably won't ever develop a bond with the child, so why should they have to help finance the child? That's a cold hard reality. IF on the other hand men were consulted, and given a say in the matter, that would stop that argument cold. Any sane sensible woman would of her own accord include the man in the decisions. Many women find themselves in these positions are neither sane nor reasonable.

 

[Ravi]

If imperfections in the foster/adoption system make adoption a 'poor choice', then all the bad parents in the world surely make keeping your baby a poor choice, too...

Or maybe some people just can't understand why anyone would not want to kill their baby.

Baby-haters like Sy and Mad should be granted their wish and sterilized so they never have to endure the torment of pregnancy or motherhood.

Sorry we can't do anything for the penis envy.

I don't think penis envy is in play here, but nice old fashioned and sexist insult.

Buttemia on abortion: It is killing babies, but hey, that is better than expecting men to pay child support.

Your answer to the fact that only women have the final authority over their own body (a simple, biological fact) is to commit another wrong by also excusing men from taking care of their children.

Two wrongs don't make a right and you are a hypocritical moron.

 

[ConHog]

If imperfections in the foster/adoption system make adoption a 'poor choice', then all the bad parents in the world surely make keeping your baby a poor choice, too...

Or maybe some people just can't understand why anyone would not want to kill their baby.

Baby-haters like Sy and Mad should be granted their wish and sterilized so they never have to endure the torment of pregnancy or motherhood.

Sorry we can't do anything for the penis envy.

I don't think penis envy is in play here, but nice old fashioned and sexist insult.

Buttemia on abortion: It is killing babies, but hey, that is better than expecting men to pay child support.

Your answer to the fact that only women have the final authority over their own body (a simple, biological fact) is to commit another wrong by also excusing men from taking care of their children.

Two wrongs don't make a right and you are a hypocritical moron.

If a baby inside a woman is solely her "property" with a man having no right to have any input into the decision making then what changes if the woman decides to keep the baby and wants child support? At what point do you say "Okay now the man has ownership to?"

Speaking of hypocrites.

 

[syrenn]

If a baby inside a woman is solely her "property" with a man having no right to have any input into the decision making then what changes if the woman decides to keep the baby and wants child support? At what point do you say "Okay now the man has ownership to?"

Speaking of hypocrites.

So women take the blame for having the baby and poor men have to pay child support. And women take the blame for having an abortion for taking men's choices away and its not fair to them.

No one is claiming that a baby inside of a woman's body is solely her "property". A woman's body is solely her property, and if she chooses not to carry a child that is her choice.

 

[ConHog]

If a baby inside a woman is solely her "property" with a man having no right to have any input into the decision making then what changes if the woman decides to keep the baby and wants child support? At what point do you say "Okay now the man has ownership to?"

Speaking of hypocrites.

So women take the blame for having the baby and poor men have to pay child support. And women take the blame for having an abortion for taking men's choices away and its not fair to them.

No one is claiming that a baby inside of a woman's body is solely her "property". A woman's body is solely her property, and if she chooses not to carry a child that is her choice.

Yes yes, I understand that you a view a baby inside a woman's body much like you view an unwanted soda can in your car. It's your and if you just want to toss it out, then who's to stop you. But that is because YOU have no care for what a man wants or how he feels, you just know that he's a dirtbag if he says fuck you and walks away from you and the child if you don't even bother to consult him on the decision making process (and yes I realize some men just walk away b/c they are scum, just as some women do, but there are many others who walk away b/c they are discouraged b/c women like you AND the system treat them as if they have nothing of value except a wallet.)

Why you think it is appropriate to leave a man completely out of a decision that will affect him for his entire life is beyond me, but its not surprising.

 

[Colin]

If a baby inside a woman is solely her "property" with a man having no right to have any input into the decision making then what changes if the woman decides to keep the baby and wants child support? At what point do you say "Okay now the man has ownership to?"

Speaking of hypocrites.

So women take the blame for having the baby and poor men have to pay child support. And women take the blame for having an abortion for taking men's choices away and its not fair to them.

No one is claiming that a baby inside of a woman's body is solely her "property". A woman's body is solely her property, and if she chooses not to carry a child that is her choice.

Yes yes, I understand that you a view a baby inside a woman's body much like you view an unwanted soda can in your car. It's your and if you just want to toss it out, then who's to stop you. But that is because YOU have no care for what a man wants or how he feels, you just know that he's a dirtbag if he says fuck you and walks away from you and the child if you don't even bother to consult him on the decision making process (and yes I realize some men just walk away b/c they are scum, just as some women do, but there are many others who walk away b/c they are discouraged b/c women like you AND the system treat them as if they have nothing of value except a wallet.)

Why you think it is appropriate to leave a man completely out of a decision that will affect him for his entire life is beyond me, but its not surprising.

Where did she say any of that? Seems your mysoginistic attitude is affecting your interpretation of things. No surprise there.

 

[ConHog]

So women take the blame for having the baby and poor men have to pay child support. And women take the blame for having an abortion for taking men's choices away and its not fair to them.

No one is claiming that a baby inside of a woman's body is solely her "property". A woman's body is solely her property, and if she chooses not to carry a child that is her choice.

Yes yes, I understand that you a view a baby inside a woman's body much like you view an unwanted soda can in your car. It's your and if you just want to toss it out, then who's to stop you. But that is because YOU have no care for what a man wants or how he feels, you just know that he's a dirtbag if he says fuck you and walks away from you and the child if you don't even bother to consult him on the decision making process (and yes I realize some men just walk away b/c they are scum, just as some women do, but there are many others who walk away b/c they are discouraged b/c women like you AND the system treat them as if they have nothing of value except a wallet.)

Why you think it is appropriate to leave a man completely out of a decision that will affect him for his entire life is beyond me, but its not surprising.

Where did she say any of that? Seems your mysoginistic attitude is affecting your interpretation of things. No surprise there.

LOL - you are one major ass kisser.

I don't hate women. I hate people who use children as weapons. Be they male or female.