Abortion: Why Men Don't Get A Say

[PixieStix]

In your opinion yes, and i understand that. In my opinion women are not captive vessels. They are not incubators on demand. If a woman does not want to carry a baby she doesn't have to.

As i have said before in other threads: Have the thimble full of cells Cesarean Sectioned out and give them to whom ever wants them.

Captive vessels? Thimble full of cells cesarean sectioned out?

Yes pix. vessel was your choice of words for a woman. If a woman is forced to give birth then that is a captive vessel. As far as i am concerned life does not start until it is birthed. Cesarean section is NOT a violent abortion, it is a form of birth. If men are whining about wanting a child, fine, have the cells removed and given to the father to gestate.

This is just looking to justify your position with no real facts to your supposition, it is just silly. The woman having all the power is just not right, it is unequal and unfair. But this isn't really about what's fair is it?

 

[Madeline]

Agreed. But who is doing the whining in this thread? The men.

If pirck men as you so rightly put it don't want to pay for a baby for 18 years then its up to THEM to control their sperm. If they make a woman pregnant and she keeps it ,tough shit for them its their responsibility.

Again in my opinion once men give a woman sperm, his options are gone in any and all decisions regarding a woman's body after that. If that is not a position men wants to be in they THEY are need to control their sperm.

This post supposes that it only takes sperm to make a baby

No, it is the men who are whining they are being treated unfairly. If they do not want to be "treated "unfairly" they they have ALL the control to keep their sperm to themselves and NOT put themselves in such a position.

It takes two to make a baby. If that baby comes to term then both must pay for its support.

Only ONE person carries the baby. The person doing the carrying is the ONLY one who has the right to choose to do so or not. Again if men dont like that option they have the right to keep all of their spem to themselves.

Once again, PixieStix, you elevate the "rights" of anyone available over those of the woman with respect to that woman's own body. Why is that? How much of this is anger/condemnation on your part towards women who have sex and risk an unwanted pregnancy? Why could possibly be more personal and private than a woman's values and behavior regarding sex?

A wart is also a "living tissuse". Removal kills the wart. You cannot argue for the government to step into a woman's most private life to assert control over her body against her will unless you "romanticize" zygotes beyond any scientific reason.

At its base, all this agitation against the abortion rights of women you don't know -- to be backed up by the heavy boot of government -- has to be founded in emotionality and religion. Why's your emotion and religion supposed to govern my body? In a democracy where we are all equal, why's my values inferior to yours as respects my private life?

 

[PixieStix]

This post supposes that it only takes sperm to make a baby

No, it is the men who are whining they are being treated unfairly. If they do not want to be "treated "unfairly" they they have ALL the control to keep their sperm to themselves and NOT put themselves in such a position.

It takes two to make a baby. If that baby comes to term then both must pay for its support.

Only ONE person carries the baby. The person doing the carrying is the ONLY one who has the right to choose to do so or not. Again if men dont like that option they have the right to keep all of their spem to themselves.

Once again, PixieStix, you elevate the "rights" of anyone available over those of the woman with respect to that woman's own body. Why is that? How much of this is anger/condemnation on your part towards women who have sex and risk an unwanted pregnancy? Why could possibly be more personal and private than a woman's values and behavior regarding sex?

A wart is also a "living tissuse". Removal kills the wart. You cannot argue for the government to step into a woman's most private life to assert control over her body against her will unless you "romanticize" zygotes beyond any scientific reason.

At its base, all this agitation against the abortion rights of women you don't know -- to be backed up by the heavy boot of government -- has to be founded in emotionality and religion. Why's your emotion and religion supposed to govern my body? In a democracy where we are all equal, why's my values inferior to yours as respects my private life?

Now, a baby is equal to a wart...got it

Stop trying to bring religion into it, nobody else has but you.

 

[dilloduck]

This post supposes that it only takes sperm to make a baby

No, it is the men who are whining they are being treated unfairly. If they do not want to be "treated "unfairly" they they have ALL the control to keep their sperm to themselves and NOT put themselves in such a position.

It takes two to make a baby. If that baby comes to term then both must pay for its support.

Only ONE person carries the baby. The person doing the carrying is the ONLY one who has the right to choose to do so or not. Again if men dont like that option they have the right to keep all of their spem to themselves.

Once again, PixieStix, you elevate the "rights" of anyone available over those of the woman with respect to that woman's own body. Why is that? How much of this is anger/condemnation on your part towards women who have sex and risk an unwanted pregnancy? Why could possibly be more personal and private than a woman's values and behavior regarding sex?

A wart is also a "living tissuse". Removal kills the wart. You cannot argue for the government to step into a woman's most private life to assert control over her body against her will unless you "romanticize" zygotes beyond any scientific reason.

At its base, all this agitation against the abortion rights of women you don't know -- to be backed up by the heavy boot of government -- has to be founded in emotionality and religion. Why's your emotion and religion supposed to govern my body? In a democracy where we are all equal, why's my values inferior to yours as respects my private life?

Anyone available ? Dramatic but not true. Pixie is only arguing for the rights of the father and wart-----er I mean child .

 

[PixieStix]

mdn, you are likely funner than a bag of kittens to debate with, but IME no one ever EVA changes their mind on abortion, and if it's okay I wanted to just explore the narrower question of whether anyone thought it was reasonable for men to override a woman's decision as to her own body?

As an aside: the pre-Roe v. Wade era contained many tragedies for women with unwanted pregnancies. Outlawing abortion does not end it (and likely does not drop the rate) but it does make life much more dangerous for women who are not rich.

I thought you had a childhood friend who committed suicide because of not being able to face being pregnant.

Now you joke about kittens.

When did you decide you are pro-abortion, was it before you were born or after. That is the real test, can you say your life is not worth living, if your life is worth living its true to say any other human born feels the same.

If anyone is able to make a decision before they are born, I'd like to meet that person.

Hind sight is 20/20. I think most of us would have said, "hey heck yeah, I want to live, Thanks Mom"

 

[Si modo]

I thought you had a childhood friend who committed suicide because of not being able to face being pregnant.

Now you joke about kittens.

When did you decide you are pro-abortion, was it before you were born or after. That is the real test, can you say your life is not worth living, if your life is worth living its true to say any other human born feels the same.

If anyone is able to make a decision before they are born, I'd like to meet that person.

Hind sight is 20/20. I think most of us would have said, "hey heck yeah, I want to live, Thanks Mom"

Yeah, I would say that's a safe bet.

 

[Madeline]

No, it is the men who are whining they are being treated unfairly. If they do not want to be "treated "unfairly" they they have ALL the control to keep their sperm to themselves and NOT put themselves in such a position.

It takes two to make a baby. If that baby comes to term then both must pay for its support.

Only ONE person carries the baby. The person doing the carrying is the ONLY one who has the right to choose to do so or not. Again if men dont like that option they have the right to keep all of their spem to themselves.

Once again, PixieStix, you elevate the "rights" of anyone available over those of the woman with respect to that woman's own body. Why is that? How much of this is anger/condemnation on your part towards women who have sex and risk an unwanted pregnancy? Why could possibly be more personal and private than a woman's values and behavior regarding sex?

A wart is also a "living tissuse". Removal kills the wart. You cannot argue for the government to step into a woman's most private life to assert control over her body against her will unless you "romanticize" zygotes beyond any scientific reason.

At its base, all this agitation against the abortion rights of women you don't know -- to be backed up by the heavy boot of government -- has to be founded in emotionality and religion. Why's your emotion and religion supposed to govern my body? In a democracy where we are all equal, why's my values inferior to yours as respects my private life?

Now, a baby is equal to a wart...got it

Stop trying to bring religion into it, nobody else has but you.

A zygote is not a baby, PixieStix. Only through application of your values, your emotionality and/or your religion does that tissue acquire the significance you want to imbue it with. And then you want to elevate the zygote to a position so high, it warrants government action to severely curtail the rights of the woman to decide what will happen to her own body!

You also seem willing to do this where the male who impregnated her is concerned. The irony of your "Geez anyone else but her" POV as to who gets to decide what she will do is that the criminal in the Op sought to use force to compel his girlfriend to get an abortion she did not want.

So I guess in your view, government gets to choose and men get to choose, but the woman herself does not?

How is this even remotely rational?

 

[Si modo]

Once again, PixieStix, you elevate the "rights" of anyone available over those of the woman with respect to that woman's own body. Why is that? How much of this is anger/condemnation on your part towards women who have sex and risk an unwanted pregnancy? Why could possibly be more personal and private than a woman's values and behavior regarding sex?

A wart is also a "living tissuse". Removal kills the wart. You cannot argue for the government to step into a woman's most private life to assert control over her body against her will unless you "romanticize" zygotes beyond any scientific reason.

At its base, all this agitation against the abortion rights of women you don't know -- to be backed up by the heavy boot of government -- has to be founded in emotionality and religion. Why's your emotion and religion supposed to govern my body? In a democracy where we are all equal, why's my values inferior to yours as respects my private life?

Now, a baby is equal to a wart...got it

Stop trying to bring religion into it, nobody else has but you.

A zygote is not a baby, PixieStix. Only through application of your values, your emotionality and/or your religion does that tissue acquire the significance you want to imbue it with. And then you want to elevate the zygote to a position so high, it warrants government action to severely curtail the rights of the woman to decide what will happen to her own body!

You also seem willing to do this where the male who impregnated her is concerned. The irony of your "Geez anyone else but her" POV as to who gets to decide what she will do is that the criminal in the Op sought to use force to compel his girlfriend to get an abortion she did not want.

So I guess in your view, government gets to choose and men get to choose, but the woman herself does not?

How is this even remotely rational?

There you go again. Pixie hasn't mentioned religion. YOU have.

Do you often argue with yourself?














Because, that's just bizarre.

 

[PixieStix]

Once again, PixieStix, you elevate the "rights" of anyone available over those of the woman with respect to that woman's own body. Why is that? How much of this is anger/condemnation on your part towards women who have sex and risk an unwanted pregnancy? Why could possibly be more personal and private than a woman's values and behavior regarding sex?

A wart is also a "living tissuse". Removal kills the wart. You cannot argue for the government to step into a woman's most private life to assert control over her body against her will unless you "romanticize" zygotes beyond any scientific reason.

At its base, all this agitation against the abortion rights of women you don't know -- to be backed up by the heavy boot of government -- has to be founded in emotionality and religion. Why's your emotion and religion supposed to govern my body? In a democracy where we are all equal, why's my values inferior to yours as respects my private life?

Now, a baby is equal to a wart...got it

Stop trying to bring religion into it, nobody else has but you.

A zygote is not a baby, PixieStix. Only through application of your values, your emotionality and/or your religion does that tissue acquire the significance you want to imbue it with. And then you want to elevate the zygote to a position so high, it warrants government action to severely curtail the rights of the woman to decide what will happen to her own body!

You also seem willing to do this where the male who impregnated her is concerned. The irony of your "Geez anyone else but her" POV as to who gets to decide what she will do is that the criminal in the Op sought to use force to compel his girlfriend to get an abortion she did not want.

So I guess in your view, government gets to choose and men get to choose, but the woman herself does not?

How is this even remotely rational?

Not one person has convinced me of why the woman gets to choose and why the man does not. Choice only applies to the female gender according to some of you. If the same principle is applied equally then he should also have a choice because the child would be depending on him for sustenance.

 

[PixieStix]

Now, a baby is equal to a wart...got it

Stop trying to bring religion into it, nobody else has but you.

A zygote is not a baby, PixieStix. Only through application of your values, your emotionality and/or your religion does that tissue acquire the significance you want to imbue it with. And then you want to elevate the zygote to a position so high, it warrants government action to severely curtail the rights of the woman to decide what will happen to her own body!

You also seem willing to do this where the male who impregnated her is concerned. The irony of your "Geez anyone else but her" POV as to who gets to decide what she will do is that the criminal in the Op sought to use force to compel his girlfriend to get an abortion she did not want.

So I guess in your view, government gets to choose and men get to choose, but the woman herself does not?

How is this even remotely rational?

There you go again. Pixie hasn't mentioned religion. YOU have.

Do you often argue with yourself?














Because, that's just bizarre.

I never bring religion into this, no need. Common sense will suffice

 

[dilloduck]

Once again, PixieStix, you elevate the "rights" of anyone available over those of the woman with respect to that woman's own body. Why is that? How much of this is anger/condemnation on your part towards women who have sex and risk an unwanted pregnancy? Why could possibly be more personal and private than a woman's values and behavior regarding sex?

A wart is also a "living tissuse". Removal kills the wart. You cannot argue for the government to step into a woman's most private life to assert control over her body against her will unless you "romanticize" zygotes beyond any scientific reason.

At its base, all this agitation against the abortion rights of women you don't know -- to be backed up by the heavy boot of government -- has to be founded in emotionality and religion. Why's your emotion and religion supposed to govern my body? In a democracy where we are all equal, why's my values inferior to yours as respects my private life?

Now, a baby is equal to a wart...got it

Stop trying to bring religion into it, nobody else has but you.

A zygote is not a baby, PixieStix. Only through application of your values, your emotionality and/or your religion does that tissue acquire the significance you want to imbue it with. And then you want to elevate the zygote to a position so high, it warrants government action to severely curtail the rights of the woman to decide what will happen to her own body!

You also seem willing to do this where the male who impregnated her is concerned. The irony of your "Geez anyone else but her" POV as to who gets to decide what she will do is that the criminal in the Op sought to use force to compel his girlfriend to get an abortion she did not want.

So I guess in your view, government gets to choose and men get to choose, but the woman herself does not?

How is this even remotely rational?

Because the woman DOES get to choose. Why do you continue to ignore the fact that we are talking about women who consented to sex, not raped ?

 

[Si modo]

Now, a baby is equal to a wart...got it

Stop trying to bring religion into it, nobody else has but you.

A zygote is not a baby, PixieStix. Only through application of your values, your emotionality and/or your religion does that tissue acquire the significance you want to imbue it with. And then you want to elevate the zygote to a position so high, it warrants government action to severely curtail the rights of the woman to decide what will happen to her own body!

You also seem willing to do this where the male who impregnated her is concerned. The irony of your "Geez anyone else but her" POV as to who gets to decide what she will do is that the criminal in the Op sought to use force to compel his girlfriend to get an abortion she did not want.

So I guess in your view, government gets to choose and men get to choose, but the woman herself does not?

How is this even remotely rational?

Not one person has convinced me of why the woman gets to choose and why the man does not. Choice only applies to the female gender according to some of you. If the same principle is applied equally then he should also have a choice because the child would be depending on him for sustenance.

That's why taking that requirement for child support away from the man who does NOT want the pregnancy to come to term is not only in the best interest of Choice, but the fair thing to do.

 

[Madeline]

PixieStix wrote:

Not one person has convinced me of why the woman gets to choose and why the man does not. Choice only applies to the female gender according to some of you. If the same principle is applied equally then he should also have a choice because the child would be depending on him for sustenance.

You are being willfully resistant to common sense, PixieStix. Why should women of reproductive age be the only US citizens to lose their liberty without committing any criminal act? The question is not "why shouldn't men have a choice", for the love of God. I'm sure if your neighbor alters his outdoor lighting scheme, it affects you. Should that give you the right to dictate to him what lights, if any, he may have?

What is about women you see as so stunningly defective that IYO they "need" men and the government to dictate fundamental life choices to them?

 

[Samson]

he should also have a choice because the child would be depending on him for sustenance.

That's why taking that requirement for child support away from the man who does NOT want the pregnancy to come to term is not only in the best interest of Choice, but the fair thing to do.

Its interesting to me that you girls are actually more sympathethic to horn-dogs than most men are.

How do I support this POV? Is there a poll of men that agree and disagree on the issue?

No, I couldn't find one: However, I can find a LOT of legislation passed into law by men.

 

[dilloduck]

So you support the idea that if one has a uterus they get more choices ?

 

[Si modo]

he should also have a choice because the child would be depending on him for sustenance.

That's why taking that requirement for child support away from the man who does NOT want the pregnancy to come to term is not only in the best interest of Choice, but the fair thing to do.

Its interesting to me that you girls are actually more sympathethic to horn-dogs than most men are.

How do I support this POV? Is there a poll of men that agree and disagree on the issue?

No, I couldn't find one: However, I can find a LOT of legislation passed into law by men.

A man does not have to be a 'horn dog' to find himself in an unexpected pregnancy situation.

And, I'm not really understanding your question(s). Could you please clarify?

 

[Si modo]

PixieStix wrote:

Not one person has convinced me of why the woman gets to choose and why the man does not. Choice only applies to the female gender according to some of you. If the same principle is applied equally then he should also have a choice because the child would be depending on him for sustenance.

You are being willfully resistant to common sense, PixieStix. Why should women of reproductive age be the only US citizens to lose their liberty without committing any criminal act? The question is not "why shouldn't men have a choice", for the love of God. I'm sure if your neighbor alters his outdoor lighting scheme, it affects you. Should that give you the right to dictate to him what lights, if any, he may have?

What is about women you see as so stunningly defective that IYO they "need" men and the government to dicate fundamental life choices to them?

You are arguing with yourself, again. Pixie said nothing about women being defective. You did.






How bizarre that you use a messageboard to argue with yourself. Freaky bizarre, as a matter of fact.

 

[Madeline]

dilloduck wrote:

Because the woman DOES get to choose. Why do you continue to ignore the fact that we are talking about women who consented to sex, not raped ?

Why is the woman's right to choose objectionable? She gets to choose all the other things her body does, just as any grown man does. I'm mystified at this anger towards women merely because their reproductive system allows them options men do not have.

That's more or less the biology of the species. Go hate on God and pray we develop asexual reproduction; it would make just as much damned sense.

 

[Madeline]

he should also have a choice because the child would be depending on him for sustenance.

That's why taking that requirement for child support away from the man who does NOT want the pregnancy to come to term is not only in the best interest of Choice, but the fair thing to do.

Its interesting to me that you girls are actually more sympathethic to horn-dogs than most men are.

How do I support this POV? Is there a poll of men that agree and disagree on the issue?

No, I couldn't find one: However, I can find a LOT of legislation passed into law by men.

Not me. I support the rights of the child to be supported by both parents. Dun want to pay child support? Sue for custody.

 

[Madeline]

So you support the idea that if one has a uterus they get more choices ?

Biology is destiny in this regard, dilloduck.