| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"The Chastening of Lesbos" |
| Date: |
11 Mar 2005 11:57:03 AM |
| Object: |
Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
There is a fundamental mismatch between the statements "A woman has the
right to choose abortion" and "A fetus has the right to life." Both fail
to address the other's premise, and you can not arrive at either simply by
inverting the other. That pro-lifers would chafe at being called
"anti-choice", and pro-choicers at being called "pro-abortion"-- this is
the entire abortion debate writ small.
"Pro-choicers don't favor abortion, we favor the right of the woman to
choose whether or not to have an abortion!"-- I have heard this countless
times- said with minor variations and varying degrees of condescension-
yet still fail to understand why I'm supposed to find this so admirable.
Absent any moral consequence of abortion- if the fetus is indeed a
"nothing"- the woman's right to choose either would pretty much be an
assumed in our society, and not at all a commendable or courageous belief.
Oh, I can say I'm pro-choice but "don't like" abortion personally
(although- in truth- many pro-choicers just plain *really fucking like*
abortion), but I only "don't like" it only in the sense that I that don't
like Nicholas Cage movies or girls with crooked teeth-- if other people
choose to avail themselves of them, I'm not going to lose any sleep over
it. If, however, I'm pro-choice for the person who wants to lynch negroes,
I may not be favoring any particular action at any particular time, but it
would seem I've already come to a conclusion about the moral status of the
negro-- that is, even in being "pro-choice", there is an implicit moral
judgment about the action being chosen.
Pro-choicers make a point that they support neither forcing the woman to
give birth nor forcing her to have an abortion. (When asked why more
anti-choicers don't support forced abortion, Malapert claimed the
capriciousness of such a move would put our sex-punishing agenda into a
too-embarassing relief.) Again, when divested of all moral consequence, I
fail even to see why *forcing* a woman to have an abortion is such an
egregious violation of rights. If I bite into an apple, and another person
immediately yanks it out of my mouth, I'm inclined to consider it more a
nuisance than an infringement of rights, especially since I can simply
reach back into the basket of apples in front of me and get another one.
When one already believes the fetus isn't a human being and/or doesn't
have a right to life, the issue of "choice" appears as a triviality-- as
trivial as me saying I'm pro-choice because I believe people have the
right to buy either pink or yellow cantaloupes. You don't call a belief by
what is contingent or trivial about the belief, you call it by what is
essential, what is decisive, and what is unique about it; for the
pro-choice belief, what is decisive is not the status of the woman's
right-- this is only contingent on the status of the fetus' right, on the
moral nature of the act of abortion.
It is completely ungrounded- despite the fact that it has been made into
consensus in the t.a pro-choice echo chamber- for pro-choicers to protest
the term "pro-abortion" on the grounds that- if "pro-life" means believing
all pregnancies should be carried to term- then "pro-abortion" means
believing all pregnancies should be terminated. Again, you do not arrive
at the meaning of one by inverting the meaning of the other, and there is
no reason to assume that two words, when prefixed by "pro-", would
function in the same way (indeed, "pro-abortion" functions identically to
most "pro-" terms, including "pro-Israel", "pro-tobacco", and "pro-gay".)
Part of making arguments is making concessions, and just about the first
concession you can make is to call subscribers of opposing arguments by
the names they want to be called. In spite of numerous reservations, I
have always used the phrase "pro-choice" to describe people who are
pro-abortion, and I ask that I not be called "anti-choice" in return, and
from there we can move on to more substantiative disagreements and
hopefully more productive discussions. You resent being called
pro-abortion just because you think a woman has the right to abortion?
Well I resent being called "anti-choice"-- as if "pro-life" were some
catch-all term for people who think abortion should be illegal for
any-old-reason. In point of fact, I don't think criminalizing abortion
across-the-board is especially feasible in the short term, nor did I ever
consider criminalization as either the beginning or the end of what
pro-lifers can do. Nor, for that matter, do I think fear of punishment
should ever be the basis of moral behavior. One thing is certain however;
I cannot call myself pro-choice. If I believe what is living and growing
in the womb is a human being, how could I, in good conscience, say that
its life or death is somebody else's choice?
--
----> ROBERT CAPONI: The man who with the power of his brain plumbed
the depths of the mysteries of the Universe. <---------
€ http://home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow € http://tagutcow.yafro.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Mayo-nize Your Turkeyburger - - - - - - -
.
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
11 Mar 2005 02:01:06 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:57:03 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) in alt.abortion with message-id
<tagutcow-1103050533500001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com> wrote:
There is a fundamental mismatch between the statements "A woman has the
right to choose abortion" and "A fetus has the right to life." Both fail
to address the other's premise, and you can not arrive at either simply by
inverting the other. That pro-lifers would chafe at being called
"anti-choice", and pro-choicers at being called "pro-abortion"-- this is
the entire abortion debate writ small.
"Pro-choicers don't favor abortion, we favor the right of the woman to
choose whether or not to have an abortion!"-- I have heard this countless
times- said with minor variations and varying degrees of condescension-
yet still fail to understand why I'm supposed to find this so admirable.
Did it ever occur to you that no one cares how you find it? It is
fact - deal with it.
Absent any moral consequence of abortion- if the fetus is indeed a
"nothing"- the woman's right to choose either would pretty much be an
assumed in our society, and not at all a commendable or courageous belief.
Irrelevant.
Oh, I can say I'm pro-choice but "don't like" abortion personally
(although- in truth- many pro-choicers just plain *really fucking like*
abortion), but I only "don't like" it only in the sense that I that don't
like Nicholas Cage movies or girls with crooked teeth-- if other people
choose to avail themselves of them, I'm not going to lose any sleep over
it. If, however, I'm pro-choice for the person who wants to lynch negroes,
It is generally understood that the definition of the word
'choice' when used in this context is shorthand for the
freedom of a pregnant woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or to terminate it. Any attempt to expand the
usage of the word beyond this narrow definition is nothing
more than an attempt create a situation which can be argued
because no argument can be sustained within the original and
correct usage.
If you are speaking to a group of programmers and mention
the word 'bug' no one will assume you are peaking of
termites, and if you are playing golf you are not likely to
insist an eagle is a birdie even if they both have feathers.
Attempts to expand the word 'choice' as used here is a
transparent and pathetic ploy.
I may not be favoring any particular action at any particular time, but it
would seem I've already come to a conclusion about the moral status of the
negro-- that is, even in being "pro-choice", there is an implicit moral
judgment about the action being chosen.
Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".
Pro-choicers make a point that they support neither forcing the woman to
give birth nor forcing her to have an abortion. (When asked why more
anti-choicers don't support forced abortion, Malapert claimed the
capriciousness of such a move would put our sex-punishing agenda into a
too-embarassing relief.)
Nonsense.
Again, when divested of all moral consequence, I
fail even to see why *forcing* a woman to have an abortion is such an
egregious violation of rights.
According to the law it is, and that is a lot more substantial than
what you 'see' or do not 'see'.
Why do so many people think the world must function based upon what
they 'see', 'think', or ho something 'seems' to them?
If I bite into an apple, and another person
immediately yanks it out of my mouth, I'm inclined to consider it more a
nuisance than an infringement of rights, especially since I can simply
reach back into the basket of apples in front of me and get another one.
When one already believes the fetus isn't a human being and/or doesn't
have a right to life,
Please give me a reference to exactly where I can find this 'right to
live' so many talk about but no one seems to be able to find. I have
been trying for years.
the issue of "choice" appears as a triviality-- as
trivial as me saying I'm pro-choice because I believe people have the
right to buy either pink or yellow cantaloupes.
It is trivial.
You don't call a belief by
what is contingent or trivial about the belief, you call it by what is
essential, what is decisive, and what is unique about it; for the
pro-choice belief, what is decisive is not the status of the woman's
right-- this is only contingent on the status of the fetus' right,
A fetus has no rights.
on the
moral nature of the act of abortion.
"Moral" has been addressed previously.
It is completely ungrounded- despite the fact that it has been made into
consensus in the t.a pro-choice echo chamber- for pro-choicers to protest
the term "pro-abortion" on the grounds that- if "pro-life" means believing
all pregnancies should be carried to term- then "pro-abortion" means
believing all pregnancies should be terminated.
Why? What else would you call this position?
Again, you do not arrive
at the meaning of one by inverting the meaning of the other, and there is
no reason to assume that two words, when prefixed by "pro-", would
function in the same way (indeed, "pro-abortion" functions identically to
most "pro-" terms, including "pro-Israel", "pro-tobacco", and "pro-gay".)
Not really. I am pro-choice and do not care if no abortion was ever
done again as long as that was the choice of the women involved.
Part of making arguments is making concessions, and just about the first
concession you can make is to call subscribers of opposing arguments by
the names they want to be called.
Nonsense.
In spite of numerous reservations, I
have always used the phrase "pro-choice" to describe people who are
pro-abortion,
I have never seen anyone post here who advocated abortion for all
pregnancies.
and I ask that I not be called "anti-choice" in return
That is a descriptive term for someone who opposes the right of a
pregnant woman to have a choice as to whether to terminate her
pregnancy or complete it. I will continue to use it to describe
anyone who holds this position.
, and
from there we can move on to more substantiative disagreements and
hopefully more productive discussions. You resent being called
pro-abortion just because you think a woman has the right to abortion?
No, because I, for one, do not advocate a pregnant woman get an
abortion. Nor do I advocate she not get an abortion. I do not care
what her choice is as long as she has a choice.
Well I resent being called "anti-choice"-- as if "pro-life" were some
catch-all term for people who think abortion should be illegal for
any-old-reason.
Pro-live is to vague a term and carries little meaning.
In point of fact, I don't think criminalizing abortion
across-the-board is especially feasible in the short term, nor did I ever
consider criminalization as either the beginning or the end of what
pro-lifers can do. Nor, for that matter, do I think fear of punishment
should ever be the basis of moral behavior. One thing is certain however;
I cannot call myself pro-choice. If I believe what is living and growing
in the womb is a human being, how could I, in good conscience, say that
its life or death is somebody else's choice?
A fetus is not a human being, and no one says you must get an
abortion. If you don't want one don't get it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
11 Mar 2005 01:28:02 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:57:03 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of
farmyard animals:
There is a fundamental mismatch between the statements "A woman has the
right to choose abortion" and "A fetus has the right to life." Both fail
to address the other's premise, and you can not arrive at either simply by
inverting the other. That pro-lifers would chafe at being called
"anti-choice", and pro-choicers at being called "pro-abortion"-- this is
the entire abortion debate writ small.
"Pro-choicers don't favor abortion, we favor the right of the woman to
choose whether or not to have an abortion!"-- I have heard this countless
times- said with minor variations and varying degrees of condescension-
yet still fail to understand why I'm supposed to find this so admirable.
Absent any moral consequence of abortion- if the fetus is indeed a
"nothing"- the woman's right to choose either would pretty much be an
assumed in our society, and not at all a commendable or courageous belief.
Oh, I can say I'm pro-choice but "don't like" abortion personally
(although- in truth- many pro-choicers just plain *really fucking like*
abortion),
Well, here's where your 'argument' goes right in the shitter. You're
an idiot. When you can present an argument that's above a 5th-grade
level, come on back.
[snip]
---
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god;
because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
11 Mar 2005 11:58:12 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:57:03 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
There is a fundamental mismatch between the statements "A woman has the
right to choose..."
A woman has the right choose. The fundamental belief of a Pro-Choicer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
11 Mar 2005 03:29:11 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:58:12 -0500, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:57:03 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
There is a fundamental mismatch between the statements "A woman has the
right to choose..."
.... whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
(Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language)
A woman has the right choose. The fundamental belief of a Pro-Choicer.
It is, however, the choice to terminate her pregnancy. Prior to fetal
viability this involves the death of the embryo/fetus and is thus an
abortion. Unfortunate, but unavoidable. After fetal viabilty the
pregnancy can be terminated pre-term by a premature birth.
Claiming the Pro-Choice is for the right to choose an abortion implies
that right in the third trimester -- which is false when it comes to
viable fetuses. However we do support the right of the woman to
terminate her pregnancy, even in the third trimester. We are
Pro-Choice, not pro-abortion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 06:46:10 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:29:11 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:58:12 -0500, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:57:03 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
There is a fundamental mismatch between the statements "A woman has the
right to choose..."
... whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
Indeed, and that is what I am implying.
(Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language)
A woman has the right choose. The fundamental belief of a Pro-Choicer.
It is, however, the choice to terminate her pregnancy.
And her choice to keep the pregnancy.
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 07:02:22 AM |
|
|
Paul Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:58:12 -0500, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:57:03 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
There is a fundamental mismatch between the statements "A woman
has the
right to choose..."
... whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
(Source: The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the English Language)
A woman has the right choose. The fundamental belief of a
Pro-Choicer.
It is, however, the choice to terminate her pregnancy. Prior to
fetal
viability this involves the death of the embryo/fetus and is thus an
abortion. Unfortunate, but unavoidable. After fetal viabilty the
pregnancy can be terminated pre-term by a premature birth.
Claiming the Pro-Choice is for the right to choose an abortion
implies
that right in the third trimester -- which is false when it comes to
viable fetuses. However we do support the right of the woman to
terminate her pregnancy, even in the third trimester. We are
Pro-Choice, not pro-abortion.
Do you support the right for a man to walk away from any responsiblity
if he gets a woman pregnant?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
13 Mar 2005 10:52:29 PM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
Paul Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:58:12 -0500, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:57:03 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
There is a fundamental mismatch between the statements "A woman has the
right to choose..."
... whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
(Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language)
A woman has the right choose. The fundamental belief of a Pro-Choicer.
It is, however, the choice to terminate her pregnancy. Prior to fetal
viability this involves the death of the embryo/fetus and is thus an
abortion. Unfortunate, but unavoidable. After fetal viabilty the
pregnancy can be terminated pre-term by a premature birth.
Claiming the Pro-Choice is for the right to choose an abortion implies
that right in the third trimester -- which is false when it comes to
viable fetuses. However we do support the right of the woman to
terminate her pregnancy, even in the third trimester. We are
Pro-Choice, not pro-abortion.
Do you support the right for a man to walk away from any responsiblity
if he gets a woman pregnant?
Not any responsibilities he agreed to. That's likely an issue between him and
the woman, though.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 8, San Antonio 0 (March 12)
NEXT GAME: Monday, March 14 vs. Cincinnati, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 08:00:39 AM |
|
|
On 12 Mar 2005 05:02:22 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:58:12 -0500, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:57:03 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
There is a fundamental mismatch between the statements "A woman
has the
right to choose..."
... whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
(Source: The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the English Language)
A woman has the right choose. The fundamental belief of a
Pro-Choicer.
It is, however, the choice to terminate her pregnancy. Prior to
fetal
viability this involves the death of the embryo/fetus and is thus an
abortion. Unfortunate, but unavoidable. After fetal viabilty the
pregnancy can be terminated pre-term by a premature birth.
Claiming the Pro-Choice is for the right to choose an abortion
implies
that right in the third trimester -- which is false when it comes to
viable fetuses. However we do support the right of the woman to
terminate her pregnancy, even in the third trimester. We are
Pro-Choice, not pro-abortion.
Do you support the right for a man to walk away from any responsiblity
if he gets a woman pregnant?
It is questions like this that show the true reasons behind the
anti-abortion movement. It is nothing to do with saving fetuses. It
is that someone was burned by child support and in his anger and
frustration wants to burn women in general.
There is no right for anyone to walk away from any responsibilities
that they have agreed to. There is no obligation for anyone to
perform any duty that others wish to impose upon them but which they
have not agreed to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 08:12:30 AM |
|
|
Paul Anderson wrote:
On 12 Mar 2005 05:02:22 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:58:12 -0500, Somewriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:57:03 GMT, (The
Chastening of Lesbos) wrote:
There is a fundamental mismatch between the statements "A woman
has the
right to choose..."
... whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
(Source: The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the English
Language)
A woman has the right choose. The fundamental belief of a
Pro-Choicer.
It is, however, the choice to terminate her pregnancy. Prior to
fetal
viability this involves the death of the embryo/fetus and is thus
an
abortion. Unfortunate, but unavoidable. After fetal viabilty the
pregnancy can be terminated pre-term by a premature birth.
Claiming the Pro-Choice is for the right to choose an abortion
implies
that right in the third trimester -- which is false when it comes
to
viable fetuses. However we do support the right of the woman to
terminate her pregnancy, even in the third trimester. We are
Pro-Choice, not pro-abortion.
Do you support the right for a man to walk away from any
responsiblity
if he gets a woman pregnant?
It is questions like this that show the true reasons behind the
anti-abortion movement. It is nothing to do with saving fetuses. It
is that someone was burned by child support and in his anger and
frustration wants to burn women in general.
There is no right for anyone to walk away from any responsibilities
that they have agreed to. There is no obligation for anyone to
perform any duty that others wish to impose upon them but which they
have not agreed to.
The woman has a right to walk away, all she has to do is pay someone to
kill the unborn. You are scared to face the fact that men have no
choice and you could care less. Screw the fact that the unborn is just
as much a part of him as her. What if the man wants to raise the
child? Why can't he be able to have the "CHOICE" to offer that? Why
can't he have the "CHOICE" to walk away from being a parent if she
chooses to have the child? Why must he face two options...go to jail
or pay for 18 years. What if he can't afford to pay? What if he has
other goals in life?
Those are reasons you would find justifiable for a woman. If she isn't
ready, you don't mind her just paying someone to kill the unborn. If
she has unfinished goals in life and she needs an abortion to finish
them..say go to college..you have no problem with abortion.
The FACT of the matter is, you are not really pro-choice, you will
ALLOW men to be discriminated against and you could care less. You
ignore that.
It is so obvious in your post, you COMPLETELY ignored my question and
tried to side step it and twist it.
Answer these questions.
Do you find the following reasons justifiable in a woman's choice to
abort..
1) She is not ready, financially
2) She has other goals in life, finish an education for example
3) She just doesn't want to be a parent
Are those reasons good enough reasons for her to abort?
Now, change it and replace She with he
She continues with the pregnancy, he pays or goes to jail
Or what if he wants to raise the child and she can walk away free and
clear? Her body will heal, she can go on and he will raise the child.
After all, she is killing a part of him and he may not want the child
to die.
You guys are just so full of double standards.
Personally, I have never been "burnt" with child support. My children
live with my wife and I. We GLADLY accepted our responsibilities. We
now want no more children, so I took the responsibility to ensure that
we will not have any more. I love my children, and I will gladly
support their needs.
I have seen men burnt though, I see many of them in jail because they
couldn't afford the STEEP child support payments. Fathers are NOT
treated fairly at all, and you could care less. You pretend you care
about women, I don't believe you for a second.
Maybe you should see some of the decent men who tried to pay their
child support and couldn't, they lost their homes because they couldn't
afford to support themselves. Maybe you should open your eyes up, but
you refuse too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Helen Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 05:04:53 PM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1110636750.597053.119440@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why must he face two options...go to jail
or pay for 18 years. What if he can't afford to pay? What if he has
other goals in life?
He should have thought of that before he had sex with the women. If he's
too poor to buy a box of condoms he shouldn't be sleeping with women.
Those are reasons you would find justifiable for a woman. If she isn't
ready, you don't mind her just paying someone to kill the unborn. If
she has unfinished goals in life and she needs an abortion to finish
them..say go to college..you have no problem with abortion.
So you believe she should be punished and forced carry the fetus to term?
Make her pay any way you can. You never seem to mention the welfare of the
born child. Why is that? Your interest ends with the birth? Maybe those
of you who feel the women and any child born should pay for her mistake
should put your money where your mouth is.
HH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 10:53:18 PM |
|
|
Helen Miller <Miller@Helen.com> wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
Why must he face two options...go to jail
or pay for 18 years. What if he can't afford to pay? What if he has
other goals in life?
He should have thought of that before he had sex with the women. If he's
too poor to buy a box of condoms he shouldn't be sleeping with women.
The usual anti-choice hypocrisy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 05:22:05 PM |
|
|
Helen Miller wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1110636750.597053.119440@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why must he face two options...go to jail
or pay for 18 years. What if he can't afford to pay? What if he has
other goals in life?
He should have thought of that before he had sex with the women. If he's
too poor to buy a box of condoms he shouldn't be sleeping with women.
"Should've thought of that before having sex"
"If they're too poor, they shouldn't have sex"
That's the exact same argument pro-lifers use to assail women.
Those are reasons you would find justifiable for a woman. If she isn't
ready, you don't mind her just paying someone to kill the unborn. If
she has unfinished goals in life and she needs an abortion to finish
them..say go to college..you have no problem with abortion.
So you believe she should be punished and forced carry the fetus to term?
Make her pay any way you can. You never seem to mention the welfare of the
born child. Why is that? Your interest ends with the birth? Maybe those
of you who feel the women and any child born should pay for her mistake
should put your money where your mouth is.
HH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 05:27:53 PM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer wrote:
Helen Miller wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1110636750.597053.119440@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why must he face two options...go to jail
or pay for 18 years. What if he can't afford to pay? What if he has
other goals in life?
He should have thought of that before he had sex with the women. If he's
too poor to buy a box of condoms he shouldn't be sleeping with women.
"Should've thought of that before having sex"
"If they're too poor, they shouldn't have sex"
That's the exact same argument pro-lifers use to assail women.
And equally valid.
Of course, a woman can choose to terminate the pregnancy and avoid
further responsibility, and the man cannot make that choice. Personally,
I'm glad a man cannot legally force a woman to have an abortion, though
undoubtedly there is often coercion. One more reason to outlaw abortion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
13 Mar 2005 02:23:24 PM |
|
|
In article <42337af9$0$32620$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>,
michael.calwell@btopenworld.com says...
"Should've thought of that before having sex"
"If they're too poor, they shouldn't have sex"
That's the exact same argument pro-lifers use to assail women.
And equally valid.
Of course, a woman can choose to terminate the pregnancy and avoid
further responsibility, and the man cannot make that choice.
Then again, a man never has to take the risk that he may become pregnant
(despite using contraception) simply by having consensual sex. Nor does
he ever have to face having to become pregnancy and carry through a
pregnancy (despite the very real threats to health and life and total
disruption of work, education, leisure, responsibilities etc), in order
for his biological children to come into existence.
Swings and roundabouts.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 05:33:22 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell wrote:
Frank Dwyer wrote:
Helen Miller wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1110636750.597053.119440@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why must he face two options...go to jail
or pay for 18 years. What if he can't afford to pay? What if he has
other goals in life?
He should have thought of that before he had sex with the women. If
he's
too poor to buy a box of condoms he shouldn't be sleeping with women.
"Should've thought of that before having sex"
"If they're too poor, they shouldn't have sex"
That's the exact same argument pro-lifers use to assail women.
And equally valid.
Equally invalid.
Of course, a woman can choose to terminate the pregnancy and avoid
further responsibility, and the man cannot make that choice.
Correct.
Personally, I'm glad a man cannot legally force a woman to have an abortion, though
undoubtedly there is often coercion. One more reason to outlaw abortion.
Ummm.. coercion is a reason to outlaw coercion, not abortion. Juries can
be coerced into an undesirable result, do you support abolishing juries?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 05:38:32 PM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer wrote:
Michael Calwell wrote:
Frank Dwyer wrote:
Helen Miller wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1110636750.597053.119440@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why must he face two options...go to jail
or pay for 18 years. What if he can't afford to pay? What if he has
other goals in life?
He should have thought of that before he had sex with the women. If
he's
too poor to buy a box of condoms he shouldn't be sleeping with women.
"Should've thought of that before having sex"
"If they're too poor, they shouldn't have sex"
That's the exact same argument pro-lifers use to assail women.
And equally valid.
Equally invalid.
Ah, so you DO see abortion as a mechanism of easing the course of male
sexual irresponsibility!
Of course, a woman can choose to terminate the pregnancy and avoid
further responsibility, and the man cannot make that choice.
Correct.
Personally, I'm glad a man cannot legally force a woman to have an
abortion, though undoubtedly there is often coercion. One more reason
to outlaw abortion.
Ummm.. coercion is a reason to outlaw coercion, not abortion. Juries can
be coerced into an undesirable result, do you support abolishing juries?
Nope. It's not coercion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
13 Mar 2005 02:29:05 PM |
|
|
In article <42337d78$0$32620$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>,
michael.calwell@btopenworld.com says...
Ummm.. coercion is a reason to outlaw coercion, not abortion. Juries can
be coerced into an undesirable result, do you support abolishing juries?
Nope. It's not coercion.
Nor is it coercion when a woman freely chooses not to continue a
pregnancy or freely chooses to continue a preganancy.
What is it about you, Michael, that you apparently don't believe a woman
can make rational decisions for herself about her own health, regardless
of what her partner might or might not wish her to do, and regarddless
of what you might or might not wish her to do?
What is it that you think gives you the right to dictate to another man
or woman what medical or surgical treatment they must or must not have
for their health condition? Not even a man's or woman's doctor has the
right to do that! What makes you think you have that right?
Do you think other men or women have or should have the right to decide
for you what medical treatments you must have or must not have for your
medical conditions, and if not, why not?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 10:44:20 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Frank Dwyer wrote:
Michael Calwell wrote:
Frank Dwyer wrote:
Helen Miller wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1110636750.597053.119440@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why must he face two options...go to jail
or pay for 18 years. What if he can't afford to pay? What if he has
other goals in life?
He should have thought of that before he had sex with the women. If
he's
too poor to buy a box of condoms he shouldn't be sleeping with women.
"Should've thought of that before having sex"
"If they're too poor, they shouldn't have sex"
That's the exact same argument pro-lifers use to assail women.
And equally valid.
Equally invalid.
Ah, so you DO see abortion as a mechanism of easing the course of male
sexual irresponsibility!
Ah, so you see enslavement and killing women as a means to enforcing
your perverse notion of sexuality.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 05:46:14 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell wrote:
Frank Dwyer wrote:
Michael Calwell wrote:
Frank Dwyer wrote:
Helen Miller wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1110636750.597053.119440@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why must he face two options...go to jail
or pay for 18 years. What if he can't afford to pay? What if he has
other goals in life?
He should have thought of that before he had sex with the women.
If he's
too poor to buy a box of condoms he shouldn't be sleeping with women.
"Should've thought of that before having sex"
"If they're too poor, they shouldn't have sex"
That's the exact same argument pro-lifers use to assail women.
And equally valid.
Equally invalid.
Ah, so you DO see abortion as a mechanism of easing the course of male
sexual irresponsibility!
How I see it doens't matter. All that matters is how it is. Sometimes it
is a mechanism for men to be irresponsible, but one can reasonable
assume that most times it isn't.
Of course, a woman can choose to terminate the pregnancy and avoid
further responsibility, and the man cannot make that choice.
Correct.
Personally, I'm glad a man cannot legally force a woman to have an
abortion, though undoubtedly there is often coercion. One more reason
to outlaw abortion.
Ummm.. coercion is a reason to outlaw coercion, not abortion. Juries
can be coerced into an undesirable result, do you support abolishing
juries?
Nope. It's not coercion.
You're claiming juries can't be coerced?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 05:53:38 PM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer wrote:
"Should've thought of that before having sex"
"If they're too poor, they shouldn't have sex"
That's the exact same argument pro-lifers use to assail women.
And equally valid.
Equally invalid.
Ah, so you DO see abortion as a mechanism of easing the course of male
sexual irresponsibility!
How I see it doens't matter. All that matters is how it is. Sometimes it
is a mechanism for men to be irresponsible, but one can reasonable
assume that most times it isn't.
How would you defend the latter against the former (assuming that the
latter is in any way defensible).
Of course, a woman can choose to terminate the pregnancy and avoid
further responsibility, and the man cannot make that choice.
Correct.
Personally, I'm glad a man cannot legally force a woman to have an
abortion, though undoubtedly there is often coercion. One more
reason to outlaw abortion.
Ummm.. coercion is a reason to outlaw coercion, not abortion. Juries
can be coerced into an undesirable result, do you support abolishing
juries?
Nope. It's not coercion.
You're claiming juries can't be coerced?
No, I said that outlawing abortion (an act of commission) is not a form
of coercion,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 08:04:28 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell wrote:
Frank Dwyer wrote:
"Should've thought of that before having sex"
"If they're too poor, they shouldn't have sex"
That's the exact same argument pro-lifers use to assail women.
And equally valid.
Equally invalid.
Ah, so you DO see abortion as a mechanism of easing the course of
male sexual irresponsibility!
How I see it doens't matter. All that matters is how it is. Sometimes
it is a mechanism for men to be irresponsible, but one can reasonable
assume that most times it isn't.
How would you defend the latter against the former (assuming that the
latter is in any way defensible).
I wouldn't. I don't believe either requires any defense. The former is
most often just a byproduct of a decision the woman makes.
Of course, a woman can choose to terminate the pregnancy and avoid
further responsibility, and the man cannot make that choice.
Correct.
Personally, I'm glad a man cannot legally force a woman to have an
abortion, though undoubtedly there is often coercion. One more
reason to outlaw abortion.
Ummm.. coercion is a reason to outlaw coercion, not abortion. Juries
can be coerced into an undesirable result, do you support abolishing
juries?
Nope. It's not coercion.
You're claiming juries can't be coerced?
No, I said that outlawing abortion (an act of commission) is not a form
of coercion,
You can't outlaw it because someone may be coerced into one. That's not
a valid reason.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 10:27:55 AM |
|
|
On 12 Mar 2005 06:12:30 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:...
Do you support the right for a man to walk away from any
responsiblity
if he gets a woman pregnant?
It is questions like this that show the true reasons behind the
anti-abortion movement. It is nothing to do with saving fetuses. It
is that someone was burned by child support and in his anger and
frustration wants to burn women in general.
There is no right for anyone to walk away from any responsibilities
that they have agreed to. There is no obligation for anyone to
perform any duty that others wish to impose upon them but which they
have not agreed to.
The woman has a right to walk away....
What part of "agreed to" do you not understand?
, all she has to do is pay someone to
kill the unborn. You are scared to face the fact that men have no
choice and you could care less.
And *again* you resort to lies about me when you cannot support your
position. And again you show you do not understand "agreed to."
Screw the fact that the unborn is just
as much a part of him as her. What if the man wants to raise the
child?
That the other group of anti-abortionists -- men who were denied
*their* child because a woman was not willing to risk her health and
life for his wishes. As far as I know every state in the union has
provisions for a man to claim paternity of his child.
Why can't he be able to have the "CHOICE" to offer that?
He does have the choice to offer to raise or help raise his child. He
does not have any right to the use of the woman's body to produce that
child.
Why
can't he have the "CHOICE" to walk away from being a parent if she
chooses to have the child?
If he did not agree to have responsibility for that child he should be
able to relinquish any right to legal paternity. (See the second
part of what I wrote: "There is no obligation for anyone to perform
any duty that others wish to impose upon them but which they have not
agreed to.")
Why must he face two options...go to jail
or pay for 18 years. What if he can't afford to pay? What if he has
other goals in life?
Did he agree to support the woman's choices? If not, then he should
not be required to do so.
Those are reasons you would find justifiable for a woman.
And yet again you lie about me. It does not make for a useful
discussion when you claim that I hold a position that I do not.
If she isn't
ready, you don't mind her just paying someone to kill the unborn.
Why do you lie about me? Are you really so stupid that you cannot
understand the Pro-Choice position?
.....
Answer these questions.
Do you find the following reasons justifiable in a woman's choice to
abort..
1) She is not ready, financially
2) She has other goals in life, finish an education for example
3) She just doesn't want to be a parent
Are those reasons good enough reasons for her to abort?
No. In all of those cases she can give the child up for adoption.
None of those are justification for an abortion. Which, of course, is
why you constantly lie about my position.
Now, change it and replace She with he
She continues with the pregnancy, he pays or goes to jail
Did he agree to support her? If so "There is no right for anyone to
walk away from any responsibilities that they have agreed to."
Was there no prior agreement? If so "There is no obligation for
anyone to perform any duty that others wish to impose upon them but
which they have not agreed to."
If you feel a paternity law is unjust you should work toward fixing
that rather than trying hurt others.
Or what if he wants to raise the child and she can walk away free and
clear? Her body will heal, she can go on and he will raise the child.
A full term pregnancy and childbirth is a great bodily harm and her
body will never fully recover. What justification can you give to
force the woman into slavery to the man's wishes?
After all, she is killing a part of him and he may not want the child
to die.
If she kills his child it is murder and she should be charged with
such. If he wishes the unborn child to live he can take it when she
has it removed from her body.
You guys are just so full of double standards.
Personally, I have never been "burnt" with child support. ...
Given you record of lies I do not believe what you claim.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 10:38:55 AM |
|
|
Paul Anderson wrote:
On 12 Mar 2005 06:12:30 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:...
Do you support the right for a man to walk away from any
responsiblity
if he gets a woman pregnant?
It is questions like this that show the true reasons behind the
anti-abortion movement. It is nothing to do with saving fetuses.
It
is that someone was burned by child support and in his anger and
frustration wants to burn women in general.
There is no right for anyone to walk away from any
responsibilities
that they have agreed to. There is no obligation for anyone to
perform any duty that others wish to impose upon them but which
they
have not agreed to.
The woman has a right to walk away....
What part of "agreed to" do you not understand?
Oh, so if he doesn't agree and she does, it's o.k. then right? She can
just walk away by hiring someone to kill the unborn.
Where is the agreement?
Or how about if he doesn't agree and doesn't want to be a father?
Where is the agreement?
, all she has to do is pay someone to
kill the unborn. You are scared to face the fact that men have no
choice and you could care less.
And *again* you resort to lies about me when you cannot support your
position. And again you show you do not understand "agreed to."
Would you like to start with your lie...
"It is nothing to do with saving fetuses. It
is that someone was burned by child support and in his anger and
frustration wants to burn women in general."
Screw the fact that the unborn is just
as much a part of him as her. What if the man wants to raise the
child?
That the other group of anti-abortionists -- men who were denied
*their* child because a woman was not willing to risk her health and
life for his wishes.
Strawman, very weak.
You are proving my point...screw the father. Why don't you just come
out and admit it? Why are you hiding and afraid to say how you really
feel?
As far as I know every state in the union has
provisions for a man to claim paternity of his child.
Not in the case of the unborn child.
The point you are missing.
Why can't he be able to have the "CHOICE" to offer that?
He does have the choice to offer to raise or help raise his child.
He
does not have any right to the use of the woman's body to produce
that
child.
Why don't you just come out and say it? Screw the father..right?
Why
can't he have the "CHOICE" to walk away from being a parent if she
chooses to have the child?
If he did not agree to have responsibility for that child he should
be
able to relinquish any right to legal paternity. (See the second
part of what I wrote: "There is no obligation for anyone to perform
any duty that others wish to impose upon them but which they have not
agreed to.")
Want to talk to a few hundred serving time in prison? See what they
tell you about the "impose" part.
Why must he face two options...go to jail
or pay for 18 years. What if he can't afford to pay? What if he has
other goals in life?
Did he agree to support the woman's choices? If not, then he should
not be required to do so.
Does she have an option to walk away from parenthood?
Answer: Yes
Does he, if she chooses to keep the child and "force" him to pay
support?
Answer: No
You figure it out.
Those are reasons you would find justifiable for a woman.
And yet again you lie about me. It does not make for a useful
discussion when you claim that I hold a position that I do not.
If she isn't
ready, you don't mind her just paying someone to kill the unborn.
Why do you lie about me? Are you really so stupid that you cannot
understand the Pro-Choice position?
You support a woman's right to choose right?
Answer: yes, so you claim
Is one of those choices abortion?
Answer: Yes
Does abortion kill the unborn?
Answer: Yes
There was no lie
....
Answer these questions.
Do you find the following reasons justifiable in a woman's choice to
abort..
1) She is not ready, financially
2) She has other goals in life, finish an education for example
3) She just doesn't want to be a parent
Are those reasons good enough reasons for her to abort?
No. In all of those cases she can give the child up for adoption.
None of those are justification for an abortion. Which, of course,
is
why you constantly lie about my position.
If you truly mean that, I would gladly reconsider some of my statements
about you. However, women do abort for those reasons. Are you willing
to speak out against their "choice" to abort for those reasons?
Now, change it and replace She with he
She continues with the pregnancy, he pays or goes to jail
Did he agree to support her?
He doesn't have to agree. The courts will force him.
If so "There is no right for anyone to
walk away from any responsibilities that they have agreed to."
Was there no prior agreement? If so "There is no obligation for
anyone to perform any duty that others wish to impose upon them but
which they have not agreed to."
If you feel a paternity law is unjust you should work toward fixing
that rather than trying hurt others.
Or what if he wants to raise the child and she can walk away free
and
clear? Her body will heal, she can go on and he will raise the
child.
A full term pregnancy and childbirth is a great bodily harm and her
body will never fully recover. What justification can you give to
force the woman into slavery to the man's wishes?
After all, she is killing a part of him and he may not want the
child
to die.
If she kills his child it is murder and she should be charged with
such. If he wishes the unborn child to live he can take it when she
has it removed from her body.
And the only way to do that is for her to carry to term.
You guys are just so full of double standards.
Personally, I have never been "burnt" with child support. ...
Given you record of lies I do not believe what you claim.
Hey, if you got something to prove it..go for it.
As it stands, until you can prove your claim..and it is a claim, you
are a liar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 12:41:03 PM |
|
|
In article <1110645535.053030.258200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
On 12 Mar 2005 06:12:30 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:...
Do you support the right for a man to walk away from any
responsiblity
if he gets a woman pregnant?
It is questions like this that show the true reasons behind the
anti-abortion movement. It is nothing to do with saving fetuses.
It
is that someone was burned by child support and in his anger and
frustration wants to burn women in general.
There is no right for anyone to walk away from any
responsibilities
that they have agreed to. There is no obligation for anyone to
perform any duty that others wish to impose upon them but which
they
have not agreed to.
The woman has a right to walk away....
What part of "agreed to" do you not understand?
Oh, so if he doesn't agree and she does, it's o.k. then right? She can
just walk away by hiring someone to kill the unborn.
Where is the agreement?
Or how about if he doesn't agree and doesn't want to be a father?
Where is the agreement?
Actually, it is called an "implied agreement"
, all she has to do is pay someone to
kill the unborn. You are scared to face the fact that men have no
choice and you could care less.
And *again* you resort to lies about me when you cannot support your
position. And again you show you do not understand "agreed to."
Would you like to start with your lie...
"It is nothing to do with saving fetuses. It
is that someone was burned by child support and in his anger and
frustration wants to burn women in general."
Calling people a liar is pretty much all you do, isn't it? You are a
one trick pony.
Screw the fact that the unborn is just
as much a part of him as her. What if the man wants to raise the
child?
That the other group of anti-abortionists -- men who were denied
*their* child because a woman was not willing to risk her health and
life for his wishes.
Strawman, very weak.
You are proving my point...screw the father. Why don't you just come
out and admit it? Why are you hiding and afraid to say how you really
feel?
Note that Osprey has no position, he just doesn't like yours.
Bored...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 04:14:39 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:41:03 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
<dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <1110645535.053030.258200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
On 12 Mar 2005 06:12:30 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:...
Do you support the right for a man to walk away from any
responsiblity
if he gets a woman pregnant?
It is questions like this that show the true reasons behind the
anti-abortion movement. It is nothing to do with saving fetuses.
It
is that someone was burned by child support and in his anger and
frustration wants to burn women in general.
There is no right for anyone to walk away from any
responsibilities
that they have agreed to. There is no obligation for anyone to
perform any duty that others wish to impose upon them but which
they
have not agreed to.
The woman has a right to walk away....
What part of "agreed to" do you not understand?
Oh, so if he doesn't agree and she does, it's o.k. then right? She can
just walk away by hiring someone to kill the unborn.
Where is the agreement?
Or how about if he doesn't agree and doesn't want to be a father?
Where is the agreement?
Actually, it is called an "implied agreement"
The same sort of "implied agreement" of a woman who has sex to
carrying a pregnancy to term. Both are bogus. Marriage is a mutual
agreement to support each other -- which includes supporting the
woman's choice to have and raise and support children.
, all she has to do is pay someone to
kill the unborn. You are scared to face the fact that men have no
choice and you could care less.
And *again* you resort to lies about me when you cannot support your
position. And again you show you do not understand "agreed to."
Would you like to start with your lie...
"It is nothing to do with saving fetuses. It
is that someone was burned by child support and in his anger and
frustration wants to burn women in general."
Calling people a liar is pretty much all you do, isn't it? You are a
one trick pony.
Screw the fact that the unborn is just
as much a part of him as her. What if the man wants to raise the
child?
That the other group of anti-abortionists -- men who were denied
*their* child because a woman was not willing to risk her health and
life for his wishes.
Strawman, very weak.
You are proving my point...screw the father. Why don't you just come
out and admit it? Why are you hiding and afraid to say how you really
feel?
Note that Osprey has no position, he just doesn't like yours.
Not to mention that the position of mine that he dislikes is his
strawman, not my position. He refuses to read and accept what I
write.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
13 Mar 2005 02:17:13 PM |
|
|
In article <42336847.894644811@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
elcoyote@netzero.net says...
The same sort of "implied agreement" of a woman who has sex to
carrying a pregnancy to term. Both are bogus. Marriage is a mutual
agreement to support each other -- which includes supporting the
woman's choice to have and raise and support children.
Or not, of course. Many marriages do not have offspring - because the
man and/or the woman do not want children. (Marriage does not
automatically imply that the bride is willing to go through with one or
more pregnancies.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 05:40:01 PM |
|
|
In article <42336847.894644811@news.la.sbcglobal.net>, Paul Anderson
<elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:41:03 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
<dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <1110645535.053030.258200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
On 12 Mar 2005 06:12:30 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:...
Do you support the right for a man to walk away from any
responsiblity
if he gets a woman pregnant?
It is questions like this that show the true reasons behind the
anti-abortion movement. It is nothing to do with saving fetuses.
It
is that someone was burned by child support and in his anger and
frustration wants to burn women in general.
There is no right for anyone to walk away from any
responsibilities
that they have agreed to. There is no obligation for anyone to
perform any duty that others wish to impose upon them but which
they
have not agreed to.
The woman has a right to walk away....
What part of "agreed to" do you not understand?
Oh, so if he doesn't agree and she does, it's o.k. then right? She can
just walk away by hiring someone to kill the unborn.
Where is the agreement?
Or how about if he doesn't agree and doesn't want to be a father?
Where is the agreement?
Actually, it is called an "implied agreement"
The same sort of "implied agreement" of a woman who has sex to
carrying a pregnancy to term.
Agreement with who?
Both are bogus.
I never said I agreed with it.
Marriage is a mutual
agreement to support each other -- which includes supporting the
woman's choice to have and raise and support children.
I think were also referring to when a couple isn't married.
, all she has to do is pay someone to
kill the unborn. You are scared to face the fact that men have no
choice and you could care less.
And *again* you resort to lies about me when you cannot support your
position. And again you show you do not understand "agreed to."
Would you like to start with your lie...
"It is nothing to do with saving fetuses. It
is that someone was burned by child support and in his anger and
frustration wants to burn women in general."
Calling people a liar is pretty much all you do, isn't it? You are a
one trick pony.
Screw the fact that the unborn is just
as much a part of him as her. What if the man wants to raise the
child?
That the other group of anti-abortionists -- men who were denied
*their* child because a woman was not willing to risk her health and
life for his wishes.
Strawman, very weak.
You are proving my point...screw the father. Why don't you just come
out and admit it? Why are you hiding and afraid to say how you really
feel?
Note that Osprey has no position, he just doesn't like yours.
Not to mention that the position of mine that he dislikes is his
strawman, not my position. He refuses to read and accept what I
write.
Osprey has no real reason to read what people write - he usually can't
understand it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 07:24:00 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:40:01 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
<dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <42336847.894644811@news.la.sbcglobal.net>, Paul Anderson
<elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote:
.....
Or how about if he doesn't agree and doesn't want to be a father?
Where is the agreement?
Actually, it is called an "implied agreement"
The same sort of "implied agreement" of a woman who has sex to
carrying a pregnancy to term.
Agreement with who?
Beats me, ask the Pro-Lifers who claim she agreed to carry to term
when she had sex.
Both are bogus.
I never said I agreed with it.
Marriage is a mutual
agreement to support each other -- which includes supporting the
woman's choice to have and raise and support children.
I think were also referring to when a couple isn't married.
Yeah, but if you don't add the disclaimer they come back with some
nonsense about married men not having any rights over their children.
....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 04:08:39 PM |
|
|
On 12 Mar 2005 08:38:55 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
On 12 Mar 2005 06:12:30 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:...
Do you support the right for a man to walk away from any
responsiblity
if he gets a woman pregnant?
It is questions like this that show the true reasons behind the
anti-abortion movement. It is nothing to do with saving fetuses.
It
is that someone was burned by child support and in his anger and
frustration wants to burn women in general.
There is no right for anyone to walk away from any
responsibilities
that they have agreed to. There is no obligation for anyone to
perform any duty that others wish to impose upon them but which
they
have not agreed to.
The woman has a right to walk away....
What part of "agreed to" do you not understand?
Oh, so if he doesn't agree and she does, it's o.k. then right?
What the ***** are you talking about?
.....
Why do you lie about me? Are you really so stupid that you cannot
understand the Pro-Choice position?
You support a woman's right to choose right?
Answer: yes, so you claim
The right to choose whether or not to terminate a pergnancy
Is one of those choices abortion?
Answer: Yes
No.
Does abortion kill the unborn?
Answer: Yes
No.
There was no lie
You are an idiot.
....
Answer these questions.
Do you find the following reasons justifiable in a woman's choice to
abort..
1) She is not ready, financially
2) She has other goals in life, finish an education for example
3) She just doesn't want to be a parent
Are those reasons good enough reasons for her to abort?
No. In all of those cases she can give the child up for adoption.
None of those are justification for an abortion. Which, of course,
is
why you constantly lie about my position.
If you truly mean that, I would gladly reconsider some of my statements
about you. However, women do abort for those reasons. Are you willing
to speak out against their "choice" to abort for those reasons?
Women do not abort for those reasons, no matter what they or anyone
else says. Those are the reasons they do not want a child. They
abort the pregnancy because unless they want a child there is no
reason to suffer the harms and risks of a full term pregnancy and
childbirth.
Now, change it and replace She with he
She continues with the pregnancy, he pays or goes to jail
Did he agree to support her?
He doesn't have to agree. The courts will force him.
If you had read a couple of lines further you would have seen where I
wrote: "If you feel a paternity law is unjust you should work toward
fixing that rather than trying hurt others."
If so "There is no right for anyone to
walk away from any responsibilities that they have agreed to."
Was there no prior agreement? If so "There is no obligation for
anyone to perform any duty that others wish to impose upon them but
which they have not agreed to."
If you feel a paternity law is unjust you should work toward fixing
that rather than trying hurt others.
Or what if he wants to raise the child and she can walk away free
and
clear? Her body will heal, she can go on and he will raise the
child.
A full term pregnancy and childbirth is a great bodily harm and her
body will never fully recover. What justification can you give to
force the woman into slavery to the man's wishes?
After all, she is killing a part of him and he may not want the
child
to die.
If she kills his child it is murder and she should be charged with
such. If he wishes the unborn child to live he can take it when she
has it removed from her body.
And the only way to do that is for her to carry to term.
She is not a slave. No one gets to command her body against her
wishes. (that paternity suits nail innocent men is not justification
to try to enslave women.)
You guys are just so full of double standards.
Personally, I have never been "burnt" with child support. ...
Given you record of lies I do not believe what you claim.
Hey, if you got something to prove it..go for it.
As it stands, until you can prove your claim..and it is a claim, you
are a liar.
Ahh... Prove my claim that I do not believe your *****? How do
you propose I do that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-Abortion / Anti-Choice |
12 Mar 2005 08:32:01 PM |
|
|
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:42336128.892821789@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On 12 Mar 2005 08:38:55 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
On 12 Mar 2005 06:12:30 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:...
Do you support the right for a man to walk away from any
responsiblity
if he gets a woman pregnant?
It is questions like this that show the true reasons behind the
anti-abortion movement. It is nothing to do with saving fetuses.
| | | | | | | | | |
