Posted on 02/03/2014 10:35:02 AM PST by carlo3b
I FINALLY BELIEVE, IT IS THE WOMAN’S SOLE RIGHT TO CHOOSE..
For me, it came down to a matter of nature, and fairness. I thought it through, and in doing so, I made sure that I really thought it all the way through..
After all of my many years of standing on the sidelines and observing, as was what I have been instructed to do, as a man, I have concluded that it should be the ultimate decision of the woman to decide whether she should be a mother..
In balancing, deliberating, and reasoning, there was but one undeniable truth, if it was the genius of our reproductive system, and the female of our species was chosen by design, biologically, to bear the burden of child creation, she alone should carry the decision of whether she wishes to reproduce. As such, she alone carries the burden of who should be the sperm donor, where and when the reproductive act should transpire. FAIR, and EQUITABLE, RIGHT?
We all know, or at least we should take a great deal more into consideration before and after making that decision, about how important it is in choosing to have a child or children, how that child will be raised. But one step at a time..
Can we agree that the choice of becoming a mother carries more than a simple yes or no. Far be it for me to interfere with the dynamics that should be considered in a woman’s priority process, but the requirements in that decision, by nature and necessity, is how and why to choose the potential male donor, for a milieu of reasons. By carrying the SOLE access to the starting point of reproduction, also carries the sole responsibility for the results of that decision, the wellbeing of the resulting baby..
Assuming we are all on the same page, the donor (THE MALE OF THE SPECIES) has a limited, but vitally important contribution in the process, the seed, or sperm. The donor, has decisions to make as well, first and foremost, does he agree with her choice of him as the contributor, and her choice of where and when, and even in some cases, with all of the new technologies, how..
As a summary, how many choices are involved in the decision to reproduce for the woman; • Do I want to reproduce, or will the act be for some other reason that I should take the risk? • What are the criteria for choosing a potential mate, or participant? • Who will be the contributor, or partner, for whatever reason? • What planning, or precautions, if any, should be required before the act? • When and where the act should take place? • What will I do if the act has produced the intended results, a child? • What if the planning went awry and there are unintended consequences? • What if I become pregnant, who else should suffer the resulting consequences? • Are there any limitations on my decisions? • What if I didn’t plan, what are my responsibilities? • What is my last resort?
As we have outlined, there are a list of choices that a woman has with her reproductive activities, and natural tools to consider, all of which she has the ultimate choice to advance, or reject along the way. With all of these options, who should be responsible for her decisions, other than the one that made them?
So, since I had no choice, no rights to contribute to her decisions, and, unless I was the contributor to the act, leave me or anyone else that were forced out the resulting process, out f the problems, RIGHT?
GOOD LUCK, AND GOD BLESS
A man..
Will we see another zot?
Not only that, slavery was justified as a “necessary evil” as well. It was an accepted practice around the world and is still accepted in some cultures today.
If you really want to flip out a pro-abort, mention orphanages and the ability to sell babies. Suddenly, they manage to find compassion for the babies.
Now that you’ve explained yourself, I’ve posted much the same. Democrats claim they want to make abortion safe, legal, and rare. That is a marketing ploy, and it’s worked for them. We should use it against them.
Safe means we force abortion clinics to follow the same medical standards as every other health care provider. It sickens me to even say they’re health care providers, but that’s how abortion is currently being marketed to the masses. If they ARE health care providers, then they better follow the same safe operating rules, right? That’s a logically consistent view that would use the left’s own lies against them.
In regards to rare, the left really means at any time for any reason. That is NOT the mainstream point of view by any means. The vast majority of Americans do not favor unlimited abortion, but the vast majority are also not ready to lock up mothers who have abortions as though they’re murderers.
The left is very good at incrementally getting whatever it wants. We need to do the same, because it works. They also excel in deception to market their ideas. I don’t think we should resort to lies, but I agree that we can use their own marketing to beat them!
The “choice” is to have sex or not. Once you have another human on board, killing it is by definition “murder”.
Same liberal BS concerning abortion.....and it took him how long to conclude this???
Like you wrote, it’s not just a uterus once a baby is conceived. I don’t know of ANY pro-life person who wants to tell women what to do with their uteruses (uteri?). It’s all about the new life. That’s the game changer. That’s when it becomes society’s interest—the separate life that’s residing in the woman’s uterus. No matter what one feels about liberty, small government, etc., it’s that small life that changes everything.
How long had he been on FR??
Oh I understand it well
But given the prevailing and varied views of when “life” begins in America (and around the globe), and our political and judicial estblishment that has instituionalized this act as an individual, not societal, choice
you are never ever never going to make all abortion, at every stage of conception, ILLEGAL
We can educate evangelize, focus on legislation banning this act in the late2d/3rd trimester, and focus on legislation that protects citizens who refuse to participate in or subsidize it
what part of this do you not understand?
Since 01-07-2000.
You are a horse’s ass.
This is incoherent - what sort of case were you even trying to make?
It depends on whether it occurs naturally or whether it is human-assisted.
What part of FR’s position on Life is non-negotiable do you not understand?
WOW....I’m astonished!!!
That's a far left gimmick / talking point. Not what it is about by any means - just a distraction tactic.
It appears to me he is arguing against having to support the child(ren) he fathers - which in a roundabout way COULD mean he is ok with abortion.
But it SHOULD mean he is ok with abstinence - on HIS part.
Wow.
I saw this posted earlier, and I can’t believe a class of ‘00 (Carlos!) rode the lightning in such a spectacular way. I scanned the OP looking for a clever hook or something, and thought maybe I was missing something. I’m sorry to have seen it happen, and I’m sure you are too, but I don’t see that you had much of a choice in the matter.
As you say, murder’s not a matter for debate. And you just can’t be a FReeper if you’re OK with murder.
Stay well, Jim. And regards to the Missus.
There is no justification for murder of a child.
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.