Mark Sebree wrote:

Martin McPhillips wrote:

Birth control has a failure rate that is non-zero.

Since when?

Mark Sebree wrote:

Martin McPhillips wrote:

"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1133381501.544059.191390@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Martin McPhillips wrote:

"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1133380284.321797.27710@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

What's more, ethically, the woman is the only one that
can
make the decision, and it is her decision that counts
the most.

And the only ethical time to make that decision is
before getting pregnant.

How can one make a decision about a current pregnancy
BEFORE one is
pregnant? Especially about an unplanned pregnancy?

You're correct. My comment is ambiguous. What I
meant to say is that the only ethical time for
a woman to make a choice as to whether she has
a child or not is before conceiving a child.

A child does not exist until after the pregnancy successfully
completes. And then it is not a decision whether or not she has a
child, because one already exists. The only decision she can make at
that point is whether she wants to raise it herself or give it up for
adoption.

Yeah, that's why it takes in norishment while still in the womb.
Because it's not a living child.

The only possible time that a woman can make a decision about whether
or not to continue a pregnancy is after the pregnancy already starts.

Abortion is generally not an ethical choice
because it takes a life.

You cannot define the ethics of other people. And nobody is required
to accept your opinions about their behavior, or follow your uninformed
dictates.

By trying to convince us that abortion is good and anyone who doesn't
think so is a terrorist, you have been trying to define ethics for
pro-lifers.

We are not obligated to except you BS beliefs and we do not
have to except your lies for truth.

What's more, nobody and nothing has the right to use of another's body
without that person's continuing consent. If the consent is not given
in the first place or is withdrawn, then the usage MUST stop, or the
person who's body is being used has the right to take whatever measures
are necessary to end that unwanted use.

Or is withdrawn? So they can go to bed and she's allowed to change her
mind at the last second?

What gives her the right to jerk him around
like that?

The other like does not matter, because the woman has the right to
control who and what has use of her body.

And she also has the right to use a guy to get an orgasm and not care
about his feelings of THEIR child should one be conceived? Total double
standard.

The single unambiguous
exception is to save the life of the mother.

And the rest of the unambiguous exceptions are any time that the women
do not want to remain pregnant. They are just as unambiguous, and just
as pertinent.

One should not get pregnant,

Which the person cannot truly control.

Yes the person can control it. By keeping their pants on.

which includes
taking the risk of getting pregnant,

Birth control has a failure rate that is non-zero.

Since when?

if one is not prepared to have the child.

Does that include married couples that never want to have children?

You do not have the right to dictate other people's lives and actions
to them. Just because you want to live a celibate life does not mean
that the rest of us do.

By giving the woman full control over what happens to the child you are
allowing her to take full control over the man's life.

Where does she
get off deciding he can't be a father if he wants to be?

So the
concept of "unplanned pregnancy" (unless the
result of a rape) is a means of evading
the ethical responsibility of stewardship
over a newly conceived life.

Wrong. It means that the pregnancy was NOT PLANNED, hence the name.
Forcing the woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy is nothing less
than slavery.

Slavery?!

You are giving the woman full control over the status of the
family.

What happened to equality?

And there is nothing ethical about forcing the woman to suffer and
destroying her life and her future just because you want to punish her
for having sex, or want to force her to live a joyless life.

There is nothing ethical about the woman killing the child just so she
can punish a man because she believes all the lies of the feminist
movement about men treating women like trash in order to have power
over them.

Mark Sebree

On 2005-11-30 11:59:02 -0800, "Gaia" <starchaser@inorbit.com> said:

If the *father* is a lying, abusive, and self-centered *****...that
answer is undoubtedly YES. In any other case, the same answer applies...

Are you speaking of Osprey?

Spartakus wrote:

<rc022586@reinhardt.edu> wrote...

Mark Sebree wrote:

However, the woman is not the man's slave nor is she subject to his
orders. Since she is the one that is pregnant, she is the one that

the final say in the matter. She does not even have to tell her

that she is pregnant.

You people are a piece of work you know that. You talk about how bad

is for a woman to be submissive to a man, but admire a couple where

man is whipped and the woman walks all over him.

Dr. Freud, please pick up the white courtesy phone...

Oh don't deny it you know it's true. That doublestandard's been around
since the sixties.

What's more, ethically, the woman is the only one that can make the
decision, and it is her decision that counts the most. Therefore,
there is no reason that she should include anyone else in that

if she does not want to do so.

It's his baby too, *****.

So he can gestate it for nine months and birth it himself. What's the

for this week's Anti-Choice Dumb-Off anyway?

So he's just a baby making machine is that all? His sole purpose is to
help conceive and then after that he doesn't even matter is that it?
Remember that double standard I mentioned above?

Mark Sebree wrote:

Mark Sebree wrote:

rc022...@reinhardt.edu wrote:

Did the woman make the baby by herself or did she have help from the
man?

Who's body is the embryo/fetus in and living off of? Is she the slave
of the man, subject to his orders and whims?

I'll assume that you already know the answer, so I'll close with this,
ethically it is only right that the man have a say in whether or not
the be baby be born because he helped to conceive him.

However, the woman is not the man's slave nor is she subject to his
orders. Since she is the one that is pregnant, she is the one that has
the final say in the matter. She does not even have to tell her S.O.
that she is pregnant.

You people are a piece of work you know that. You talk about how bad it
is for a woman to be submissive to a man, but admire a couple where the
man is whipped and the woman walks all over him.

I do not see that at all. For some reason, you seem to think that
equal partners is a bad thing. And I do not see where get that the man
is "being whipped" or that the woman is "walk[ing] all over him". It
is her life and her body, so it is her choice.

What's more, ethically, the woman is the only one that can make the
decision, and it is her decision that counts the most. Therefore,
there is no reason that she should include anyone else in that decision
if she does not want to do so.

It's his baby too, *****.

So? It is her body that it is using, so she has final say in the
matter.

He helped make it he has equal say in what
happens to it.

And if they disagree? Anti-choice advocates/terrorists never seem to
want to answer that question, since it tends to reveal their prejudices
and their agendas.

What agenda?

As a father if someone goes after my kid, I'm gonna
rataliate.

You think that's a bad thing?

I hope you're not a parent.

That was the whole purpose of the liberation movement
right? Equality between the genders?

Yes. When a man gets pregnant, he can make the same decision that
women make when pregnant, whether to continue the pregnancy or get an
abortion.

Oh wait that's right. That
equality stuff was just bunk.

Not at all. You just cannot handle the concept of women being equal to
you.

Nor you men to women.

Hypocrite.

You seem to think that one must be the ruler and the other must be the ruled. Unlike
you, I know that this is not the case, and the the couple being equals works much
better.

Then act like it for once in your life

instead of parroting a belief
system from the sixties that was created by a bunch of anti-men
feminists who think men are only good for nagging at and walking all
over.

Mark Sebree

Mark Sebree

Mark Sebree wrote:

Johnny wrote:

"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
news:f8oqo19hga6rvg83nknakl72old1bu3m69@4ax.com...

Oops,

Facts 1, GOP 0

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4379422.stm

Why didn't they interview any men?

Probably because they could not find any men that had been pregnant,
much less had gotten an abortion.

The blatant sexist bias in the Pro-Choice area is soooo blaringly evident.

Why? Because the researchers only interview people that were pertenant
to their study? That is just good research practices.

What a joke of a study in a time when we are into gender equality.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!

The study is serious. You are the joke. If you can produce any men
that have been pregnant and have gotten an abortion, I am sure that the
scientific community would be happy to include them in their surveys
and studies dealing with pregnancy. Otherwise, their opinions and data
is not pertenant to what they scientists are researching, which in this
case was post-abortion depression, and whether or not there was any
significant elevated risk of depression that could be tied directly to
the abortion and not to other causes.

If you think that men's opinions are of any use in this type if study,
why don't you describe the results of your last mammogram and PAP
smear.

Mark Sebree