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..
Lots of folks are lamenting his unintended opus, but opus he did.
Jim (courtesy ping) is iron-sided about Free Republic’s being 100% pro life.
Anyone who preaches abortion or not stepping up and supporting his own progeny is pretty much toast around here.
Thank you, Jim dear.
Well, you can talk to the kitteh food, but you won’t get much in the way of an answer.
Enjoy!
He did have some major health issues not that long ago. It certainly does not sound like the carlo I have known.
I’m just giving you a hard time. No one wants that job. And no one expects you to be on top of it 24 hours a day.
“It certainly does not sound like the carlo I have known. “
Prolly the NSA !
Hardly. I have maintained for years that conflating those two issues is precisely why we can not get rid of abortion.
The pro-choice crowd has lain all the philosophical groundwork needed to hang them by their own petard. We've not been able to do so because pro-life women lack the conviction and courage to force women to live by, or even face, the thornier consequences of the "independence" their feminist sisters have secured for them.
In effect, they'd rather see babies die than let men off the paternity hook by acknowledging abortion is solely the responsibility of women.
I think they made a movie about that guy who cut off his arm to save his life. He was a rock climber and got stuck or something.
>> Gee, after all these years I would never have figured you for the head in sand type, dude!
I hope carlo3b recalibrates his libertarianism.
The popular, liberalized Libertarian Party has dismissed the value of life and embraced law that forces citizens into servicing homosexuality — it is a devious platform that is ensnaring folks with malleable moral views.
Remember, carlo3b, a woman’s liberty must not be defined by having the right to kill.
You know, my mother told me a few days ago that she supports ‘a woman’s right to choose.’
If only, if ONLY I’d had a chance to retort before the rest of the family pushed me away from the topic. I wanted SO much to say, ‘You look me in the eye, mom, and tell me that it was your right to kill me before I was born.’
Sometimes I can’t stand my family.
I can’t see abortion being a Libertarian issue with the Libertarian creed of “freedom”. Nothing is more oppressive than killing people.
Awww.......
“You are either pro-God and pro-life and defend it to the hilt or you are part of the enemy. Period.”
I don’t recall God saying “Thou shalt be pro life”
He has not spoken to me in that way. Anything else is man’s interpretation of god’s word. And man can make mistakes in interpretation.
In any event, I think God did say thou shalt not kill. But we are imperfect beings in an imperfect world and we have changed “thou shalt not kill” into “thou shalt not kill except for self defense or possibly if it is Bin Laden, Hitler, etc.”
And even if god said “thou shalt not abort”, I think given the imperfect world we live it, we should modify that to “thou shalt not abort except in cases of rape, incest, or life of mother at stake.”
The art of family diplomacy... don’t let it rot your gut. Pray for them and move along.
No doubt the “choice” position is more about declaring autonomy than anything else. It’s truly a bizarre, irrational declaration.
There is a world of difference between killing and murder. God has sanctioned killing, but He has not sanctioned murder.
Murder IS causing the wanton death of a human being, without justification, cause or reason.
You want to modify God’s Word?
Are you hammered right now?
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.