Abortion: A Father's Right to Choose

[Lycandom]

He's choosing to give up all responsibility and be lazy and careless, so if he ends up dealing with a pregnant girlfriend then he gets to shut the fuck up and help her in whatever way she asks with absolutely zero complaints of any kind.

If the guy doesn't even attempt to use protection then yeah he should shut up and help her.

Besides, women are equally stupid. That's a good part of the reason why we have abortion in the first place: to prevent them from reproducing to get them to fix their mistakes.

I can see why you consider it a reason (high-five), but in seriousness, stupid people shouldn't be making big decisions that need intellectual thought. (no offense to anyone)

(Be sure to read my last post.)

[Lycandom]

[EDITED OUT] Sorry double post again. **** submit button.

[Skaladora]

There are plenty of contraceptives for men to use already.

Yeah, but men are stupid.

You're just jealous.

Actually, I'm a man. So I should know.

[Blouman Empire]

There are plenty of contraceptives for men to use already.

Yeah, but men are stupid.

I'm sure you are.

[Hiddenrun]

I would not support forcing a woman to bring a fetus to term. Under any circumstances.

I would, however, want 'first dibs' at the child if the mother didn't want it, or was declared unfit, if I was in fact the other half of the equation.

Not her parents. Not her sister, not her best friend. Me.

[Dempublicents1]

I would not support forcing a woman to bring a fetus to term. Under any circumstances.

I would, however, want 'first dibs' at the child if the mother didn't want it, or was declared unfit, if I was in fact the other half of the equation.

Not her parents. Not her sister, not her best friend. Me.

I would hope that you'd want to be a part of raising your child even if the mother did have custody. And, under current law, unless being around you would somehow be harmful to the child, that would be your right.

[Hiddenrun]

I would hope that you'd want to be a part of raising your child even if the mother did have custody. And, under current law, unless being around you would somehow be harmful to the child, that would be your right.

If the woman doesn't want the child, or isn't fit to raise a child, I'd want sole custody. My first wife thought motherhood was a great idea, until she got so fucked up that she actually put our child in danger. In that case, I'm very glad that my parental rights prevented her from fobbing off our child on her mother. No point in sharing custody with an unfit parent.

[Saint Clair Island]

Yeah, but men are stupid.

You're just jealous.

Actually, I'm a man. So I should know.

I meant a different sort of jealousy.... well, to cite an example, let's say a straight guy comes home from his umpteenth successive night of unsuccessfully attempting to enhance his meaningless existence by failing to convince women to let him stick his penis in them, starts a thread on the internet and calls it "Women are stupid". Y'know.

[Muravyets]

Actually, I'm a man. So I should know.

I meant a different sort of jealousy.... well, to cite an example, let's say a straight guy comes home from his umpteenth successive night of unsuccessfully attempting to enhance his meaningless existence by failing to convince women to let him stick his penis in them, starts a thread on the internet and calls it "Women are stupid". Y'know.

I think maybe you mean resentment, not jealousy.

[Skaladora]

I meant a different sort of jealousy.... well, to cite an example, let's say a straight guy comes home from his umpteenth successive night of unsuccessfully attempting to enhance his meaningless existence by failing to convince women to let him stick his penis in them, starts a thread on the internet and calls it "Women are stupid". Y'know.

Actually, I have a boyfriend, so no, I'm not basing myself on my inability to get some to say men are stupid.

I'm just doing a "Why, thank you, Captain obvious!" moment.

Men generally think with the littlest of their two heads, hence why so few of them actively and intelligently manage contraception.

[Saint Clair Island]

I meant a different sort of jealousy.... well, to cite an example, let's say a straight guy comes home from his umpteenth successive night of unsuccessfully attempting to enhance his meaningless existence by failing to convince women to let him stick his penis in them, starts a thread on the internet and calls it "Women are stupid". Y'know.

Actually, I have a boyfriend, so no, I'm not basing myself on my inability to get some to say men are stupid.

I'm just doing a "Why, thank you, Captain obvious!" moment.

Men generally think with the littlest of their two heads, hence why so few of them actively and intelligently manage contraception.

Meh, if I have to explain the joke, it probably wasn't good enough the first time.

*retires*

[DaWoad]

I would hope that you'd want to be a part of raising your child even if the mother did have custody. And, under current law, unless being around you would somehow be harmful to the child, that would be your right.

If the woman doesn't want the child, or isn't fit to raise a child, I'd want sole custody. My first wife thought motherhood was a great idea, until she got so fucked up that she actually put our child in danger. In that case, I'm very glad that my parental rights prevented her from fobbing off our child on her mother. No point in sharing custody with an unfit parent.

i dont believe you

[The Black Forrest]

(Note: I'm only being a little sarcastic. I do think most anti-choicers are just plain liars about their motives, but I also do believe that another significant number of them are just really that confused.)

I am anti-choice. I don't think women should have the right to tell me no!

I am also not a liar! I will love you in the morning!

[Surote]

(Note: I'm only being a little sarcastic. I do think most anti-choicers are just plain liars about their motives, but I also do believe that another significant number of them are just really that confused.)

I am anti-choice. I don't think women should have the right to tell me no!

I am also not a liar! I will love you in the morning!

No,Women go through the pain they get to choose

[Lycandom]

The Black Forrest wrote:

I am anti-choice. I don't think women should have the right to tell me no!
I am also not a liar! I will love you in the morning!

I think there is a difference between Anti-Choice and Pro-Life. When you are truly pro-life you don't believe in taking anyone's rights away, you just want to give the new life a fighting chance. When you are Anti-Choice, you don't think there should even be the option. See, Pro-Lifers don't say there shouldn't be a choice they simply say that you shouldn't choose that option because (various reasons) and Anti-Choosers say you don't get a choice.

Black Forrest, I'm glad that you don't use people, shows good character.

[Bottle]

See, Pro-Lifers don't say there shouldn't be a choice they simply say that you shouldn't choose that option because (various reasons) and Anti-Choosers say you don't get a choice.

If only this were true.

Unfortunately, the "pro-life" movement IS anti-choice. The "pro-life" movement, including every single mainstream organization that identifies with that label, advocates removing choice in the area of women's reproductive health care. They advocate bans on abortions or laws which make abortions impossible to obtain. They are actively and constantly working to make sure that abortion is not an available option.

So, while it might be nice to parse things differently, I think it's naive to try to claim that "real" pro-lifers still support the right to choose. That's simply not true, because the people who support the position you're describing are identified as "pro-choice."

[Lycandom]

The "Movement" doesn't represent everyone. Only the leaders of the "movement" get to say what the "movement" represents. I believe in what I said.

Real Pro-Lifers do believe what I said, I never said that we were abundant.

[Dempublicents1]

See, Pro-Lifers don't say there shouldn't be a choice they simply say that you shouldn't choose that option because (various reasons) and Anti-Choosers say you don't get a choice.

If only this were true.

It sometimes is, actually. Even the latest polls on the matter make it clear that most people who identify as pro-life are actually pro-choice. While there is a sub-set of the pro-life movement that focuses on making abortion illegal, there are far more people who are pro-life, but do not seek to change the law on the issue.

Unfortunately, the "pro-life" movement IS anti-choice. The "pro-life" movement, including every single mainstream organization that identifies with that label, advocates removing choice in the area of women's reproductive health care. They advocate bans on abortions or laws which make abortions impossible to obtain. They are actively and constantly working to make sure that abortion is not an available option.

I think you're correct about the actual organizations that identify as such. I think that has more to do with the fact that, since the people who identify as pro-life but don't want to ban the procedure aren't really looking to change the law, they're less likely to create/join such groups.

So, while it might be nice to parse things differently, I think it's naive to try to claim that "real" pro-lifers still support the right to choose. That's simply not true, because the people who support the position you're describing are identified as "pro-choice."

The problem is that it's silly to use the term "pro-life" in opposition to the term "pro-choice." All it does is introduce confusion. The term "pro-life" makes more sense in a discussion of the morality of abortion or of its advisability than it does in a discussion of the legality of abortion (where the term "pro-choice" resides). If we're looking for a position that is actually opposed to "pro-choice", it makes more sense to go with a term like "anti-choice", or, if you're looking for a pro- term, "pro-ban."

[The_pantless_hero]

I would hope that you'd want to be a part of raising your child even if the mother did have custody. And, under current law, unless being around you would somehow be harmful to the child, that would be your right.

If the woman doesn't want the child, or isn't fit to raise a child, I'd want sole custody. My first wife thought motherhood was a great idea, until she got so fucked up that she actually put our child in danger. In that case, I'm very glad that my parental rights prevented her from fobbing off our child on her mother. No point in sharing custody with an unfit parent.

i dont believe you

But his avatar is Reagan, you have to believe him!

[The_pantless_hero]

I think there is a difference between Anti-Choice and Pro-Life. When you are truly pro-life you don't believe in taking anyone's rights away, you just want to give the new life a fighting chance. When you are Anti-Choice, you don't think there should even be the option. See, Pro-Lifers don't say there shouldn't be a choice they simply say that you shouldn't choose that option because (various reasons) and Anti-Choosers say you don't get a choice.

Your logic and complete separation from reality makes me think you should be taking something.

[Lycandom]

Pantless said:
Your logic and complete separation from reality makes me think you should be taking something.

Maybe, you just don't get it. Perhaps you should hit the books.

Maybe you'd understand it better pantless if someone else (Dempublicents1) said it to you:

Bottle wrote:

Lycandom wrote:
See, Pro-Lifers don't say there shouldn't be a choice they simply say that you shouldn't choose that option because (various reasons) and Anti-Choosers say you don't get a choice.

If only this were true.

It sometimes is, actually. Even the latest polls on the matter make it clear that most people who identify as pro-life are actually pro-choice. While there is a sub-set of the pro-life movement that focuses on making abortion illegal, there are far more people who are pro-life, but do not seek to change the law on the issue...people who identify as pro-life but don't want to ban the procedure aren't really looking to change the law, they're less likely to create/join such groups.

The problem is that it's silly to use the term "pro-life" in opposition to the term "pro-choice." All it does is introduce confusion. The term "pro-life" makes more sense in a discussion of the morality of abortion or of its advisability than it does in a discussion of the legality of abortion (where the term "pro-choice" resides). If we're looking for a position that is actually opposed to "pro-choice", it makes more sense to go with a term like "anti-choice", or, if you're looking for a pro- term, "pro-ban."

The people who use the term pro-life use it incorrectly. You can see this in the case of execution. Not all pro-life groups are against execution even though that is a clear Life issue. Dem is right, Pro-choice and Pro-life don't match as a pair. Pro-life belongs to those people who are, as I said, searching not to change the law, but to advise people and educate them on the issue. Pro-choice should be used along with perhaps the term, Pro-No Choice?