|
RainydayNE -> RE: Acceptable Murder (3/5/2009 4:20:58 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: UPSG
quote:
ORIGINAL: kittinSol
Of course condoms aren't infallible: that's why abortions are necessary at times. My heart bleeds for men who were tricked into fathering offsprings against their will: but in the end, there is another person born partly because of them that needs to be fed, clothed and brought up. I have a feeling that this 'Roe for men" thing is a way for some men to try and get their own back and regain a kind of power they feel they have lost. The problem with that is that their children still need to eat. This isn't a perfect world: perhaps men should abstain from sexual activity altogether, since women are such manipulative creatures [8|] .
Kittin, as a matter of observational science pregnant women already carry another human life - a child or children - in them. Birthing this human out of the womb does not magically turn it into a child. In fact a fetus requires food as well, it is also harmed by say... the mother smoking crack (even though it is regarded as an abstract choice as those that ponder when human life begin scratch the tops of their heads beffudled) not so unlike a 4 year old child (mind you that looks different and is cognitively different than a 15 year old and 72 year old person) smoking crack would have his or her brain chemistry altered over time.
So, providing for a child, protection and nurturing of a child, begins months before that child's birth. When a woman aborts - or toss a child in a dumpster - she declines her motherly obligation. Is a 17 year old boy so much more sinister than the 25 year old woman that wants to "party like a rock star" when they both decline their obligation? I think not. The 25 year old woman is given legal protection to do so so long as she aborts the child before birth.
What "Roe for Men" ask is that if the woman wants the child let her take on full financial responsibility for her choice. If something is a choice of a biologically separate person, than another person that was given no say or choice in that matter should not be responsible for anothers choice (e.g. a man has no say in whether his child can be born).
Women when they want an abortion insinuate it takes only one to create the child, ergo "It's my body, it's my choice" (strangely that argument does not work for crack smoking, heroin use, or attempting suicide, in which case the state may incracerate a person). But when they want the child all of a sudden every pro-choice woman amazingly comprehends the contribution of the father in creating that child - then it becomes, "Be a man," I didn't do this on my own and it took the two of us.
Your comments presume that if a man does not want a child he should ensure he does not get a woman pregnant - otherwise he ought 1950ish style stand up and "Be a man." Yet, your comments are silent on women taking responsibility not to get pregnant - as though they have no choice or are to dumb to figure out they do not have to allow a penis with no condom on inside them. But we don't demand women stand up 1950ish style and be "real women."
At any rate, it is clear you and I don't see eye to eye on this. Disagreement is part of life. I suspect there are other things in life we probably find agreement on though. So, I hope our disagreement does not leave hard feelings (I realize certain issues arouse passion or annoyance in us all) and we can still remain friends.
oh oh oh oh oh!! exactly exactly exactly!!
see, i STILL see that nobody is dealing with any of this. "it's her body" is just standard rhetoric you can throw out and everybody just goes "well okay."
but hey, it's his MONEY, too isn't it?
if a woman can go "i don't want to have this baby, no matter how much you do," why can't a man go "i don't want to PAY for this baby if you have it, no matter how much you want me to."
it's his money, he can do what he wants.
women often cite how having a baby at a bad time can totally derail their lives. being strapped with child support can often to the same thing to a man. nobody's concerned about that.
and UPSG points out TOTALLY the hypocrisy in a lot of it -- suddenly, when the kid is there, people go running after the dad saying "It took both of you to make that little guy! Be a MAN!" But nobody cares about his contribution until the kid is there and costs money. =p
i don't see it as men trying to get back power they lost. i see it as a way for them to get some sort of equality in this. again, i have to ask, what is more important -- a life, or potential for it, or money? sure the children still need to eat, but if the mother wants to assume sole responsibility in whether they live or die, then she can tend to their needing to eat. if she won't take his opinion into account, why does she have the right to demand money from him?
i see the refusal of women to admit that men have SOME right here as an attempt for them to "get revenge" for all the inequality that we have had to deal with for so long. i don't think this is the right way to go about it at all.
and what about men who would assume TOTAL responsibility for a child, if they were just given the chance? i'm very lucky in that my Dom is like this. if something were to happen and i couldn't deal with raising the baby, he would take it, and i could run for the hills and never see him or the baby again. i'm very lucky there, but at the same time, i wonder just how many other men are like this? my issue isn't with keeping it alive, 9 months is fairly short in relation to the EIGHTEEN YEARS of financial responsibility (child support, garnishments, being called a "dead beat" if they don't do exactly what the chick wants them to do, dealing with women who can use access to the child as a weapon) that women still insist men have to shoulder. why should a man have to pay for all of it? is it possible that women LIKE inequality when it's to their favor? women still expect to have doors opened for them, but why? they demand that fathers support the kids, but why? In the animal world, very few fathers do much of anything for their kids. =p
and before anybody says anything about it, yes i know what it's like growing up without a dad. i have no idea where the guy is or even if he's stll alive. but the difference there is that he made a vow to my mother and broke it. they were a unit and he bailed out. she never held her "power" to kill us over his head. and sure it sucked, like nothing else. i wish he had been here all the time. if he HAD, alot of bad things that happened may not have happened. fathers are important, no matter how much we may try to diminish their importance.
i sometimes wonder if the automatic bristling to this segment of the father's rights movement could somehow a sign that allowing indiscriminate abortion COULD really be a slippery slope.
i also don't like the way that SOME women use this to evade any responsibility to avoid pregnancy. there are some of them out there who use it like The Pill version 2.0, and i firmly believe that is wrong. you have to take responsibility for getting pregnant, but women get the out, by some mystical right to decide the fate of a lifeform that was created by TWO people.
yes it is my body, yes it is my uterus, but the lifeform in there is not me. i'm just trying to explain how i feel about this, because the moment you mention being pro-life everyone thinks you're either a brainwashed chick or you're trying to turn back the clock or something ridiculous like that. i believe the life form has rights, too -- it isn't it's fault that it's there. it didn't beat me over the head with a club and jump in while i wasn't watching. i ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED in an activity that put it there, and to just go "oh i don't want this" and have it hacked up and sucked out -- where is my personal responsibility in that?
AND still, of course, i see no one dealing with fetal pain. you never ever do. people just plot that out and pretend like it's a nonissue, but for that fetus, it is an issue. the brain is fully developed at a VERY early age, it is conscious enough to experience discomfort.
i'm a vegetarian because i don't like the idea of cows going down conveyor belts to be dismembered while they're fully conscious. i don't like the idea of it happening to a fetus either.
a fetus is a form of human life. it isn't going to randomly turn into a duck or a horse, it will become a human.
but my stance does not negate reality. even though i'm an AR person, i stll know that dogs who attack will have to be euthanized. as a pro-life person i still know that not every woman participated in what got her pregnant. and not every woman can SURVIVE being pregnant, through no fault of her own.
but the demand of financial responsibility on men can ruin their lives, too. and if women have the right to KILL, men should have the right not to pay.
|
|
|
|
