If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Father's importance no laughing matter
In article , nimue says...
Banty wrote: In article , nimue says... Banty wrote:http://www.adoptioncouncil.org/docum...onFactbook.pdf In article , nimue says... snip Give it up, you never supported C4M in the first place, who do you think you are kidding. Did you really think that I didn't see this coming. I have seen your tactics so often before on usenet. Someone comes into a controversal subject, 'pretends' to agree with it but then comes off asking some very pointed (not general) questions, then when they get their answers they do a 180 and no longer support that issue. Jeez, did you really think you were the first to do that. Actually I think she did. I did. I don't now -- it's too dangerous. She views it as a "trade off" for women opting out of childrearing via abortion. That's the rationale Andre is pushing, right? Supposedly. I just don't think he is as honest as MSNothing. And btw, didn't you mean to say "Men and women should be forced to support those children". No wait , no you didn't that wasn't a slip. You really did mean to say that didn't you. Also, please point to where I want to take the choice away from women and give it to men. Men can't get or force an abortion, therefore men never had the choice in the first place and under C4M they would still would not have that choice, so when abortion is taken away, it isn't given to men, it simply doesn't exist any longer. See how fair that is, no of course you don't because you are woman firster , for all your bluster about supporting C4M you just couldn't muster any support from anyone here that they actually believed you. Well, neither one of you favor fairness for all. Really? Why don't I? For starters, you're perfectly willing to write off the concerns of men who would want the baby. I am. I don't think you can tell another person what to do with their bodies. I feel bad for those men, but I can't imagine forcing people to do something so significant and potentially damaging to their bodies when they don't want to. Well, a lot of our society has decided the answer to that moral dillemma the way you describe. I happen to think a life is a more compelling concern. I think the compelling concern is the lives of living people already in this world. What about their lives? Not in the same kind of immediate danger. Responsible people don't live so as to cause damage and death to get out of their fixes. And we're having all kinds of problems propping our societal decision up - confusion over murder laws concerning pregnant victims, C4M, even over testing of infants for HIV. Sorry, but there are problems surrounding all kinds of social decisions. Welfare, school vouchers, treatment of mental illness -- there are issues around EVERYTHING. Trust me -- take away the right to choose and the problems won't go away. They may change, but there will be plenty of problems. Oh, you might want to read this. http://www.geocities.com/trampolineone/ You had to go back to the *early 1950's* for this?? This child is now older than I am! Attitudes and laws have changed tremendously sincd then! Here's a much better source for you: http://www.adoptioncouncil.org/docum...onFactbook.pdf To go a bit further, you don't even seem to be tending to the impact of the abortion on the woman. Physically, financially. Nada from you on that. As far as financially, the cost of an abortion is nothing compared to the cost of bearing a child. Nothing. The difference is tens of thousands of dollars, possibly even more, and I am just talking about conception to birth. I am not including the cost of raising a child. As for physically, again, the effects of an abortion on a person's body are nothing compared to the effects of pregnancy and childbirth. But these are NOT NOTHING. It's cost AND a medical or surgical procedure to go through. You can't wave that away by comparing it to something else. Actually, you can. You see, in this situation, there is a clear choice -- abort or have a baby. That's it. So you need to weigh BOTH options. If you are looking at it from a physical and a financial perspective -- as you were -- the least expensive and least potentially harmful choice is clear. No, you can't, and you're totally missing my point! Under C4M, the man can not have any responsibility to the child, as the woman can have an abortion. But, apparently you're ready to see the man walk away completely free, while the woman not only has to pay for an abortion, she has no compensation for the pain and trouble of having a medical procedure performed on her or taking very serious hormonnal medications. "It would have been more if you had the child" is no compensation at all, indeed it's a dismissal. THAT's what I'm talking about. That hardly is fair even if you do say abortion is OK. That's the second reason why I don't think you're really missing the mark on fairness as much as MsNothing is IMO. Or having true sympathy for women for that matter. Banty |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Father's importance no laughing matter
On Jul 8, 8:26 pm, Banty wrote:
In article , nimue says... Under C4M, the man can not have any responsibility to the child, as the woman can have an abortion. But, apparently you're ready to see the man walk away completely free, while the woman not only has to pay for an abortion, she has no compensation for the pain and trouble of having a medical procedure performed on her or taking very serious hormonnal medications. "It would have been more if you had the child" is no compensation at all, indeed it's a dismissal. THAT's what I'm talking about. That hardly is fair even if you do say abortion is OK. That's the second reason why I don't think you're really missing the mark on fairness as much as MsNothing is IMO. Or having true sympathy for women for that matter. Banty- The whole basis of the "my body, my choice" thing is that biology has situated women differently than men and therefore women have the sole say in these matters. Well, okay, but that means they get to be the ones who have to go through the abortions too. After all, with power comes responsibility. If the man wants the child and the woman doesn't, she can abort it regardless of his wishes. Where is his compensation for that situation? Where is the "true sympathy" for men at having their precious child aborted by a woman who decided she didn't feel like being pregnant? Yes, a man doesn't have to worry about the burdens of pregnancy. And there's where you stop your comments. But that's not reality. You're only showing one side of the coin. It goes further than that -- the other side of the man's coin is that he has no control over the fate of his child. If the woman wants the child born, it will be born. If she doesn't, it won't. Doesn't matter if he yearns to be a father, if he's wanted a family all his life. Nothing matters but her wishes for her body. So that's where her compensation is for the pain and trouble of having the abortion or going through the pregnancy -- the assurance she has that even if the man chooses to opt out, she still has the ability to keep the child if she wants it. That's the benefit she has that men don't. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Father's importance no laughing matter
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Father's importance no laughing matter | Fred Goodwin, CMA | General | 343 | July 14th 07 09:31 PM |
Father's importance no laughing matter | Fred Goodwin, CMA | Solutions | 343 | July 14th 07 09:31 PM |
Father's importance no laughing matter | Banty | Solutions | 0 | July 8th 07 10:11 PM |
Father's importance no laughing matter | Banty | General | 0 | July 6th 07 08:25 PM |
Father's importance no laughing matter | Banty | Solutions | 0 | July 6th 07 08:25 PM |