Right to Choice vs. Choice for Men

Woahhs

[Lorianne]

I'm not talking about biological differences. I'm specifically talking about SOCIETAL inequities between individuals who procreate based on whether they are male or female. I chose my words carefully. They have meaning.

Pregnancy as a biological state is not the problem which causes abortion. It is how one individual who procreates is treated differently by society than the other individual who was an equal party to the same procreative act which created then new life.

[snowstorm12]

I think the invention of more full proof male birth control options will help in men having more control over their reproductive rights. If health classes stressed the use of BACKUP methods of birth control (not just one contraception method or condom use) and personal responsibility for birth control, (not just take a woman's word or man's word for it) all parties would be better off and I think unintended pregnancy would become non existant.

Secondly, the law has put the final decision on whether a person want's a fertilized egg to grow to a full term baby solely on the women, for practical reasons. It would be pure chaos otherwise. The opt out of fatherhood option wouldn't work either because then government would force tax payers to pick up the bill even worse than they do now and that simply won't fly with taxpayers.

I would support an opt out of fatherhood contract before sexual relationship takes place if the welfare state was obliterated completely and forever.

[Jim Noble]

>>It is how one individual who procreates is treated differently by society than the other individual who was an equal party to the same procreative act<<

The female "procreative act" lasts nine months.

[demosthenes the elder]

interesting concept. thanks for the ping.

[demosthenes the elder]

"Murder" is a legal term, with a specific meaning of an unjustified and illegal killing of one human being by another. As abortion is currently legal, it is clearly not murder at this time.

It is, however, without question the killing of one human being by another. That, no matter how anyone wishes to sing and dance, is a simple fact. (Oh, yes, I will agree that there is some room for argument about at what point fetal development is significant enough, well-enough established, entrenched, whatever). However, barring the unforseen, odds are that a fuzed zygote with fully recombined genes will in the fullness of time develop into a fully human child.

What remains the question at the heart of the issue is whether, to any given person, this matters... and how much does it matter in comparison to other factors.

That -and no other- is the crux, and it is an ugly one.

[demosthenes the elder]

Ever heard of a vasectomy?
What about (gasp! the horror!) abstinance?

Both are (by rational standards) fool-proof.

[demosthenes the elder]

here's a notion:
Enforce responsibility.

Preventative measures:

Teach abstinance first and foremost in sex ed.

Reward abstinance and return teen sexuality and unwed pregnancy to their previous status as shameful acts and conditions. Carrot AND stick makes for disciplined people, not just carrot alone.

If you are female and on any form of government subsidy, you get a depo shot before you get your check every month.

As soon as a male depo shot equivalent is developed, the same as above applies to males.

If you are female and have been foung guilty of brooding more than one child out of wedlock on the taxpayer's dime or on the dime of the "father(s)", you get a taxpayer-funded permanent tubal ligation.

If you are a male and have been found guilty of siring more than one child out of wedlock on the taxpayer's dime or without funding that child's support, you get a taxpayer-funded permanent vasectomy.

Use public humiliation as a disincentive measure. People who get abortions should have their mugshots on a special page devoted to that purpose in their local newspapers. People are less likely to do things they feel are wrong if they know damned well they will get caught out.

Corrective measures:

Paternity MUST be verified by DNA testing before any man can be forced to pay child support. Any man can demand DNA testing of any child he is accused of siring, at will - the mother has no say at all in the matter. No man who is excluded from the possibility of paternity will be held financially accountable for either the mother or child by the Federal Government or that of any State or lesser Municipality. Those States which currently do not honor DNA proof of non-paternity are to correct their laws and pay indemnities to those men they have unjustly penalized.

Punitive measures:

"Deadbeat dads" are to be castrated. Perhaps to include removal of the penis.

"Welfare cows" are to have hysterectomies, perhaps also the removal of their vaginas.

[demosthenes the elder]

good point. though I am sure it is a rare scenario, I am also sure it does indeed arise.

[victim soul]

read later and bump

[MHGinTN]

Secondly, the law has put the final decision on whether a person want's a fertilized egg to grow to a full term baby solely on the women, for practical reasons. It would be pure chaos otherwise. Nonsense! Can a woman choose to abandon her crib-bound infant to starvation and death? 'To require her focused care would be pure chaos' ... see the nonsensical exclusion flaw in your statement? [And we won't even bother to address your misaligned notion of 'fertilized egg', since every freeper knows that as soon as fertilization occurs there is no longer the unit called 'egg'. Oh!... and the phrase 'grow to a full term baby' is obviously weighted to speciously imply 'before birth, not fully a human being' so we don't need to shoot holes in that flawed notion either since every freeper knows that even a blastocyst is an individual human life in the normal expression of humanity at that age for the lifetime already begun at conception.]

[SpookBrat]

Lorianne, go to the Planned Parenthood “thanks for being there” boards and read for yourself direct posts from women who chose abortion and read WHY they chose it. It has nothing to do with this "society" crap.

It has everything to do with not taking personal responsibility. It has everything to do with selfishness. It is denying the natural feminine compassion for the life growing inside the womb because the baby is in the way.

You will read post after post after post from women who felt their baby would keep them from finishing high school or college, or keep them from getting their dream job they have worked so hard for. You will hardly EVER read a post from a woman who felt society failed her because she had a bigger responsibility than the man. I have never seen one. All I ever see in those posts is pure selfishness. “My life this and my life that, blah, blah, blah”.....

[Woahhs]

...that will only push potentially sympathetic women over to the RATS ...

And it will push sympathetic men away from the RATS. That's the point.

...this is not the argument by which to win the Hearts and Minds of the Sheeple...

I think you're forgetting we already lost that argument. How much failure do we have to log before we recognize the need for something completely different. The sheeple are quite content with things just as they are. We have to up the stakes, and do it in a way that they can't refute.

Pro-Lifers can not make this a battle of Men vs. "Unprincipled Women" if our goal is to save the lives of unborn children.

My contention is this is precisely what we need to do. As long as we allow women to diffuse responsibility, we're going to continue to lose.

[Woahhs]

They already know. Ask the typical young women in your life. They know it's a baby, and they want to have the option to abort anyway. The two most important things in their lives are "me" and "now."

As admirable as your "life support" paradigm is, it just doesn't acknowledge the general public has to be given a self-serving reason to embrace a new paradigm. Sad to say, popular culture is quite content with it's current paradigm, and our condemnation is not going to move them any more than it has for the last thirty years. They don't want it to change.

Your citation of the O'Conner opinion should make it clear to you these people know what they want, and all their reasoning is designed to let them have it: nothing else. That's their weakness. They've invested nothing in preserving the old "heads I win," because they expect society to cede that to them anyway. All the effort has been directed at establishing a new "tails you lose" landscape. Why do you think all this "my body, my choice" hokum hasn't shown the slightest concern with legalizing prostitution? It's not a principle, it's a tactic. Women like choices; women despise competition.

What makes the "choice" worth making for women is the fact that currently, they're the only ones that have it. Women have become complacent about getting pregnant and/or birth control precisely because they still have options left. (men have always been relatively complacent about pregnancy because they can't get pregnant)

Now the more hardened women will still abort with impunity, but those women who do not relish the prospect of aborting alone or parenting alone are going to choose sleeping alone, or at least making damn sure they practice scrupulous birth control. And I don't believe it would take long before the those women, envious of their competetive disadvantage with the men, do what women always do...hiss, spit, and start demeaning and ostrasizing their "unprincipled" rivals.

[Mudboy Slim]

"...you're forgetting we already lost that argument. How much failure do we have to log before we recognize the need for something completely different. The sheeple are quite content with things just as they are. We have to up the stakes, and do it in a way that they can't refute."

I really do wish you all the success in the world, my FRiend, but I totally disagree that the argument has been lost. By retaking the Senate, we have greatly improved the chances of tipping the balance of power in the SCOTUS to the point that the un-constitutional Roe v. Wade decision can be overturned which will throw the abortion debate back to the State legislatures where it belongs. Once there, arguments like yers will become much more pursuasive and productive, IMHO.

FReegards...MUD

[Woahhs]

By retaking the Senate, we have greatly improved the chances of tipping the balance of power in the SCOTUS to the point that the un-constitutional Roe v. Wade decision can be overturned which will throw the abortion debate back to the State legislatures where it belongs.

From your keyboard to God's ear, MbS. I will admit to extreme cynicism in that I truly expect the Pubbies to sell us out and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the effort to "get along" with the Rats.

[MHGinTN]

They already know. Ask the typical young women in your life. They know it's a baby ... Uh, I don't know where you're finding the typical young women in your life (I'm too mature to be spending much recreational time with young women, it's not fulfilling when we have so little in common), but I have my contacts through a few speaking engagements where Q&A plays a part, and discussions carried on regarding the issues of abortion, with the young friends of my step-daughter and step-son (late teens, early twenties). The lack of understanding regarding the 'thingy' in the womb of a pregnant female is astonishing, forcing me to believe what they're being taught in High School is designed to foster ignorance and pliability for social engineering. I'm for giving them a chance to reject that perspective by being given the scientific facts and the social ramifications. Oh! And life support isn't just a female thing, it is an issue already required of fathers and mothers, and it is an issue that will have heavy implications for the society regarding care for the little ones who will be rejected by females and males unwilling and/or unable to handle the responsibilities of child rearing. [Have you chosen to view my suggestion only from the most simplistic perspective ... and missed the societal implications?]

[Woahhs]

[Have you chosen to view my suggestion only from the most simplistic perspective ... and missed the societal implications?]

Perhaps I have. Would you elaborate a bit more?

[MHGinTN]

As a society, we could switch our perspective to actually consider the unborn as individual human beings deserving of the life support they are receiving (and it begins with implantation, as the start of a lifetime continuum hallmarked by more than one episode where the individual will likely require some life support from fellow humans). Then, to make it illegal to withdraw or forcefully terminate life support will impact individual women, fathers of the children conceived, and the society as a whole, the society which will of necessity have to spend to raise and protect children not afforded care and sustenance from biological parents. Men are currently forced to pay years of child support (and rightly so, if the man is the father), while a woman would be required by law to fulfill life support for only a limited number of months before having the child taken from her responsibility, unless she opts to care for the little one after birth also (speaking of course only in reference to those pregnancies where a woman rejects the newly conceived indivudal human life and responsibility of life support). Society will be forced to provide for a certain percentage of the little ones protected from serial killing by abortionists, so it will cost something to become more in line with our espoused values of endowed right to life from our Creator.

By refocusing on the issues from a life support perspective, we immediately recognize that an individual human being is already in existence, not coming to existence, that such life support requirement is already a part of our society ... we will be extending that relationship to included the class of human beings currently disenfranchised of their God-given life with our heinous abortion on demand culture.

Think of the absurdity of espousing 'life is an endowment' not a document provided right, existing duplicitously with 'a woman's right to choose a serial killer to eliminate a nuisance in her life' existing because of free choices she made regarding sex. Remove the requirement for men to support their conceived children and you repudiate the right for the children to continue in their life time, by default, implying there is a choice to support life or not support life. There should be no choice, except in rare cases where a woman's life will be radically endangered by continuing a pregnancy ... and in such cases medical intervention ought be aimed at saving her and the one on life support.

[Z in Oregon]

I mean conceived in the course of consensual relations...regardless of whether the couple wanted a conception to occur, no abortion should proceed post-conception against the objections of the baby's father, so long as the relations resulting in conception were themselves consensual.

[Z in Oregon]

So, have men treated more fairly. Get more women to go work so the father can stay home and raise the kids.