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..
There should be more such descriptions IMO. Because it strips away the dependability people insulate themselves with.
Look at the gay thing. It’s all about happy well built rich guys with great senses of humor and fashion...on TV. In reality it’s about dying of multiple diseases, suffering mental issue after mental issue, rest area sex and chaos following one around.
With any liberal issue it’s about hiding the truth. And people will go along with it so they don’t have to think about it.
When they have to.... Things change.
Oops...The DENIABILITY people insulate themselves with.
Sorry about that.
I thought about Carlo's health issues, too. Hopefully, this (strange post) has nothing to do with that. Maybe he was trying to be too clever by half...and got terribly tripped up.
If you can say this, “GOOD LUCK, AND GOD BLESS”
“A man.”
while fully advocating for MURDER, and murder it is, no more, no less, no rationalization you can add to it changes it....ever. So what kind of a “man” would advocate for sheer murder, turn his back on millions of innocents, say “Leave me out of it.” afterwards, and think that in any way absolves your guilt having just smacked G-d in the face???
Carlo, if you can “think it all the way through,” and come up with this kind of a decision, remember how many “innocent” Germans said the same damn thing. Go ahead and throw them in the ovens, just leave me out of it. No matter what you do from this day forward, you will never be able to take these words OR what they mean back for as long as you live and G-d will NOT forgive you either.
You have not chosen wisely and this might be the worst thing you could possibly have done to yourself and your soul. You have turned your back on your humanity and you don’t even seem to understand what you have done. This is a very sad day.
Thank you.
Back in the 18th Century, novelist Johnathan Swift wrote "A Modest Proposal", wherein he suggested that the impoverished Irish might ease their economic troubles by selling their children as food for rich gentlemen and ladies. He wrote "A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout."
It was satirical hyperbole, intended to provoke debate.
I think carlo3b intended to do something similar, and went about it in a clumsy manner.
BTW, “God” and “Bible” begin with capital letters.
"Why do I read them ? It is because Carlo has this refreshing naivate that puts a smile on my face. I find them to be plain, not very intellectual, but very addicting nonetheless."
In my experience, having an inflated opinion of one's own intellect, especially compared to that of others, goes hand in hand with "enlightened", moderate views on abortion, homosexuality, etc.
(Huge sarc tag on "enlightened).
Debate is one thing. This was not open to debate. He made absolute statements. What about “I am FOR a woman’s right to choose” to murder her own child anytime of the day or night or years or week, just leave me out of it and that makes ME not guilty didn’t you understand?
Which part of smell those ovens but leave me out of it don’t you understand? Ain’t no halfway. You aquiesce, you are complicit, and you are guilty. Period.
The most fundamental liberty is life itself, and a child doesn’t give up that right simply because it is dependent on its parent. Although some might consider an unborn child an extension of the mom’s body, it’s not. It’s medically and scientifically a separate entity.
I’ll be honest and say I’m not ready to execute a woman for using the morning after pill (as though it’s the same as a first degree murder). I don’t think it’s morally right to interfere once conception has occurred, but I’m not ready to go that far. Nor am I ready to do as some have and start shooting abortion doctors. That’s morally evil in my opinion, but one could reasonably make the argument that it’s OK to kill to prevent a murder.
I don’t want ANY abortions to occur unless the life of the mother is in imminent danger. Some tell me that never occurs. Other have said a pregnancy can indeed risk the life of the mother. I’m not a medical doctor. I don’t know. If the latter is true, however, that would be the only moral reason I can think of for terminating a pregnancy. That includes in cases of rape and incest, because the unborn child is not guilty and does not threaten the life of the mom.
I don’t consider myself pro-abortion simply because I’m not willing to go to such extremes as executing women who have abortions or killing abortion doctors (to defend the unborn). I don’t think I could vote for a law that equated abortion from conception on as first degree murder, but we aren’t anywhere close to making decisions like that in this country.
Would I definitely tell a woman that she should never have an abortion because it’s a sin? Definitely yes.
Would I vote to imprison abortion doctors who violate existing law, like ones who performed partial birth abortions? Certainly.
Would I vote to severely limit abortion in nearly all cases, excluding rape and incest? Yes.
Let’s move the laws of this country much closer to making abortion very, very rare, and then we can contemplate the legal/moral ramifications of going further. Regardless of what’s done legally, abortion will always be morally wrong of course, but we don’t enact the same punishment for every crime or make every immoral act illegal.
“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..”
Uh, no you haven’t. You are a moron and have proven it with this thoughtless screed. I didn’t see one mention of the right of the unique person that was created upon conception. How about his/her rights?
You see, upon conception a unique being is created, with their own unique DNA. That unique human will grow to be an independent human being, with their own intellect (which upon birth will outwit yours,) with their own soul and finally with their own unique physical being.
That conception has never resulted in creating anything that is not human. It has never resulted in the birth of a basketball, puppy or cadillac cars! It is a person with unique DNA at the point of conception.
If you want to make a case to murder children, then make it. Don’t hide behind being a metrosexual that wants to bed every Fluke in town.
“Someone wrote me privately and asked what of in the case of rape. I’m very sorry for the rape victim, but I will say in public, I don’t believe murdering the innocent unborn baby is the answer.”
Once I came to the conclusion that it IS murder, then I too had to accept that reality in ALL cases. As hard as it is to state such things, I stand with you.
Indeed.
In other mammals and in humans, if you put a lot of biological stress like malnourishment on the mother, more than likely there will be a spontaneous abortion aka miscarriage.
Nature or God or whatever has deemed the life of the mother to be more important than the life of a child if the choice is to be made.
Nature likely does this in mammals because if the mom is malnourished, she is unlikely to be able to produce enough milk and still live so nature gives the baby the boot out the door.
Do you realize how disconnected this post is from your moniker?
“Nature likely does this in mammals because if the mom is malnourished, she is unlikely to be able to produce enough milk and still live so nature gives the baby the boot out the door.”
I don’t get your point. How is that relevant to abortion, the unnatural killing of an unborn baby? A naturally occurring miscarriage is nothing at all like an abortion. Are you saying an abortion is never necessary to save the life of a mother, because nature will miscarry in those cases? I don’t know if that’s true or not, because I’m not a doctor.
As a conservative libertarian, I’m quite familiar with the excess of law and the its numerous moral violations. But that doesn’t change the fact that abortion is legal killing.
As I mentioned in the preceding sentence to the one you quoted, the point is in the context of man’s law.
I appreciate your point.
Even humans conceived in test tubes deserve the full rights of personhood. It’s a human, damn it!
>> Its disconcerting....a breach in the ranks where we least expect it
I wouldn’t be surprised if carlo3b was experimenting a particular point of view. But what he must understand is the intrinsic humanity of the conceived individual; something the liberalized Libertarian Party has marginalized.
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.