Troll is now well fed.
Abortion isnt JUST what were talking about here. The topic of abortion is a multifaceted subject that has many different sub topics and views. This would be a pretty boring discussion thread if we all just agreed that since abortion is legal (in the US atleast) then we should all respect that view and not have our own opinions about the subject. Why have a discussion thread if we are all to just agree and not talk about the intricacies of the subject.
its just amazing that certain people can only deal with an issue in terms of how it would effect them. like how this became an issue of mens rights when that’s fundamentally irrelevant.
Read my post #226 where I specifically statestated that someone took what I said out of context and I was NOT talking about men’s rights.
You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
I don’t see how that contradicts what I just said. Of course the woman’s opinion can be influenced by those she cares to take input from, but ultimately the choice is still hers and hers alone.
edit: @last post on previous page (drakey’s)
I was only speaking to Fancy Pants views specifically, read above, she said a mans opinion should not have any say in the decision and ALL I’ve done is disagreed with that and said SOME woman want to know the mans opinion to help her make her decision.
I have also said many times that yes it is ultimately the woman’s decision in the end.
I swear you people need to read every post more carefully in here before you start to argue. A lot of you have argued with me when we are actually saying the same thing, this is a very inefficient way to have a debate.
youre assuming that the woman seeking the dudes opinion would be a positive thing
You’re not understanding what I’m saying. I was clarifying what Pants said because you misunderstood. She did not say any man should not have any impact on any woman’s decision. She said your (general your) opinion should not be relevant to a woman’s situation and her decision of how to act upon that situation.
Let me also stress the word should. That means it is not a required factor. If the woman decides anyone’s opinion is relevant to her choice and if it influences her own opinion, it will impact the woman’s decision.
The right to an abortion means that anyone’s opinions are null and void when it comes to HER choice because SHE might not have a supportive partner. The best case scenario of a supportive partner is not why there are protections to a women’s right to choose an abortion. that kind of example has been used by the anti-abortion camp for decades
the scenario you gave is a best case scenario and a fantasy for many women contemplating an abortion. The Opinion of the fetus-father/baby-daddy, while valid in a relationship does not matter in the end because it is a womans body. Just admit it. The round robin “but what about the feelings of a loving man” argument is played out. You have a relationship where you and the your wife can decide not to hoover the fetus. Great. If you stay involved in the child’s life there is a good chance they will grow up to be a productive member of society.
While you and your family had a good experience with adoption, there are hundreds of thousands of kids in America who will never get adopted and get bounced around from foster home to foster home and suffer because of that. The adoption argument will only be valid when there is not a single child in cps.
And yes, by trying to give an example about making a decision “together” you are talking about rights. By giving a scenario where man’s opinion “should” be valid you are leaving open the possibility of a woman doing the opposite and spurning said loving mans opinion and that sounds cruel and hurtful to me.
You and your wife had a CHOICE and you CHOSE to have a baby. Just admit the CHOICE to have an abortion is equally valid for a woman. a woman who has to carry the child and support it if the man leaves.
I never said a woman shouldn’t have the choice. I never even said I’m pro life, I’m just bringing up alternative views for others to look at because I think this subject is to complicated to be as black and white as some people are implying.
Also I now see what ur saying about what Fancy Pants was trying to say and I agree. I mostly responding negativly to Fancy Pants because of her crass tone and, what seems like, just a general hatred for men. IMO if you are going to act like that I’m not going to be swayed by what you say and you really have no place in a DISCUSSION thread.
fancypants doesn’t know what the fuck she’s doing.
She has the silver bullet argument and she has absolutely no idea what to do with it, except throw a tantrum.
She basically demands that no one except fertile females of child-bearing age capable of giving birth without miscarriage have any right to discuss or debate abortion.
This is an international forum. People are reading this who have likely NEVER heard ANY discussion or debate about abortion. Abortion is sharply restricted in most countries, and there is NO debate or discussion about this issue at all, because it’s NOT an issue at all - unlike in the US.
So, she has the superior argument, but instead of using it constructively, she’s basically just taking the position of “FUCK OFF - you have no right to even discuss this”.
Now, instead of reading the anti-abortion arguments in the context of a discussion in which they are countered by superior arguments, people from various countries will either go about their business living in a society in which women DON’T have this right, or at some time in the future, they will hear these same anti-abortion arguments presented as common knowledge without any dissenting opinion to counter them.
https://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02map.htm
https://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm
https://reproductiverights.org/en/document/world-abortion-laws-2009-fact-sheet
In general, governments don’t like change. They tend to think of change as being destabilizing, a threat to status quo. No matter what the personal, religious, or philosophical beliefs of those that hold power in countries that have restricted abortion, they don’t want it discussed or debated.
Shutting down discussion or debate is the interest of the anti-abortion position, because they don’t have the better argument. It’s EXACTLY the opposite of the pro-choice interest.
Fancypants backed off a bit and said that men COULD have opinions, but they don’t matter because they’re irrelevant to the law. Are you fucking kidding? Men vote. If you think reproductive rights are safe in the US, you’re batshit fucking crazy. Pick up a fucking newspaper.
The electoral shift in the 2010 mid-terms put plenty of batshit crazy douchebags into State Legislatures across the country, as if there weren’t enough in the state governments already. Now they’re starting to push through their legislative agendas, which, of course, are not just pro-life, but insane and punitive - more like legislative FUCK YOUs.
Here, check out this fucking cunt bastard Bobby Franklin in Georgia:
https://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/02/miscarriage-death-penalty-georgia
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/antiabortion-georgia-lawm_n_827340.html
While I COMPLETELY agree with Fancypants that women have a NATURAL right to choice, the legal right in the US is in danger.
Men vote. So they DO have a very real say in what your rights are. You may not like that idea, but that’s reality. And if you want men to understand you and your position, then you must discuss and debate the issue with them.
If you can’t or don’t want to do that, fine with me, but it’s annoying and counterproductive to substitute immature tantrums for debate and discussion - which is a form of communication, rather than a shit-flinging contest.
Could not of said it any better myself.
/
|
|
|
|
This
Personally I think that man can partake in the abortion debate because, in the political arena, a country that takes a stance on abortion or gets involved in the decision making of abortion, it also takes a stance on human rights. In the general discussion of human rights, men certainly have a right to comment, just as women do. Essentially any law restricting what a woman is allowed to do to her own body, and make demands of what a woman must endure, impacts her rights as a person. When you make laws that tell persons what they must endure, it does go against their freedom.
Should we tell people in general they aren’t allowed to protect their person from harm, or discomfort? Let’s not forget that pregnancy definitely IS harmful uncomfortable to a woman. If a law is made demanding a person must endure discomfort, how much discomfort to we permit? It is a slippery slope, and this is a big reason why I say this debate is more complicated than it may, at first, seem.
I have a bit of an moral quandary. If there was a person who needed you to survive. Essentially a parasite. Would you say it is ethical to kill this person who requires you to live? What about if this person needed to torture you for a year to survive? To save yourself you must kill this person. Would you be a reprehensible person to kill this person torturing you? If you don’t kill this person you are left horribly scarred and disfigured. Does that impact your decision? What if this person through this torture put your life at risk? What if even if your life was at risk, but if you survive you are horribly scarred, and after all that the person who requires you to survive may die anyhow? Does that change anything?
Well said good sir
God dammit this is annoying me. The expression is getting down to brass tacks. There is no tax involved.
really, then how about this /
Tacks from here on out
That’s not a tantrum - that’s jus cuz I felt like it.
[COLOR=‘Red’]/THREAD[/SIZE]