Posted on 06/20/2010 6:03:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
If both men AND women could keep their legs closed until they were married and ready to have children, it wouldn’t be a problem.
That’s what I did and I’m not a rocket scientist.
Exactly.
"Dating" these days (as opposed to what was called "dating" 50 years ago) doesn't mean getting to know someone through an extended period of social activities together (dinner, movies, sport/entertainment events, a kiss under the porch light, etc.) with an eye toward the possibility of the formal commitment of marriage. Instead, "dating" (not even "exclusive" dating) means full sexual intercourse, often without protection.
It's strange that most modern men approach a woman--even in a very casual relationship--with these demands and expectations, and then they are so surprised at the resulting pregnancy. I don't think this surprise is because sex education isn't being taught, I think it's because marriage isn't being taught.
My cousin’s ex-girlfriend had an abortion and randomly told him about it much later.
THanks to both of you.
Describing a man as “just a sperm donor” is objectification.
It cheapens human life, just like describing a woman as “just a piece of @$$.”
A lot of life’s problems in this area could be avoided by recognizing a few very simple truths: women sell sex, and men are the buyers. There isn’t anything inherently wrong with that, as long as the price is high enough: true love, marriage, a lifetime of commitment.
Problems arise when it’s sold cheaply, or given away. The woman is perceived as stupid, or a slut; the man is seen as a genius.
Very good point and well said.
I am not argueing about the morality of abortion, I think it is wrong.
What I am saying is when a man is given rights to a child without the benefits of marriage, it cheapens marriage and eventualy eradicates marriage and thus, social stability.
I am not arguing the morality of abortion, I think it is wrong.
Women are more than donors if the child is grown in her body. Men have little physical cost to pregnancy and childrearing. Marriage is the door that has traditionally given men legal access to their children. Marriage is more important to society and commitment to chldren’s well being than any other institution.
Men need to keep it zipped until they are married.
I think it’s because marriage isn’t being taught.
You understand what I am trying to say!
Marriage is not being taught because marriage has been marginalized and has become irrelevent in the face of “rights”.
A lot of lifes problems in this area could be avoided by recognizing a few very simple truths: women sell sex, and men are the buyers. There isnt anything inherently wrong with that, as long as the price is high enough: true love, marriage, a lifetime of commitment.Problems arise when its sold cheaply, or given away. The woman is perceived as stupid, or a slut; the man is seen as a genius.
The man would be less of a genius if he had no access or claim to children of marriageless sex or of adultery. Both men and women would be seen as stupid sluts.
Thank you so much, Kaslin.
You’re welcome
And thank you, tet68, mrsixpack36, Controlling Legal Authority and Philo1962.
Not all men are inherently without conscience or consideration, and I see it as unfair to paint with the broad brush that you do.
Was the fetus/baby your cousin’s?
Here’s a flaw in your theory: a married woman may abort her husband’s child, the law allows it, society does not condemn her for it and because it’s *her body*, he has no say so whatever, but is left to grieve alone.
Not all men are inherently without conscience or consideration, and I see it as unfair to paint with the broad brush that you do.
I did not say that this is a good or correct law. Married men have interest in their wives pregnancy. I never said that men are without a conscience, I said that they should wait for marriage and keep it zipped. In my perfect world an unmarried man has no claim on an infant.
Yup. He wondered why the hell she would tell him, long after.
It really made him think about the issue.
Sounds like she was confessing, to get it off her chest. But, was this an attempt to hurt your cousin?
Amen! That, plus a great picture, would make a dynamite billboard.
If the man has no rights over whether the child is born, then he should have no responsibilities at all towards the child either.
There was a scene in the movie "The Time Traveler's Wife" where the guy decides to have a vasectomy because he couldn't deal with his wife's miscarriages. The wife in the movie treats it as an unforgivable offense against her rights. I couldn't help thinking, that if the script had had her deciding to be sterilized, women would have been outraged of the guy had objected to her exercising her reproductive choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.