Are You Pro or Anti Choice?

[winebeavis]

Originally Posted by luddite

Time to open another can of worms.

When does "Life" begin ?

At 12 weeks ?

At birth ?

When the swimmer breaks into the egg ?

Depends on who you ask. That's the question that forms the crux of the argument for most people.

[Mal Hombre]

Well,I'm Pro Choice too,It seems to Me that You can't have real democracy if women are told what They can or can't do with Their own bodies.

[scoundrel]

There has to come a point when a baby is too far down the line to be aborted. In Britain the legal time limit is 24 weeks, and there has been some discussion around this, but it is not very likely that there will be a change in the law any time soon.

But on the principle of abortion, it is no man's place to say to any woman that in principle she may not have an abortion if this is her decision; it's her body, no one else's. I will say though that I would strongly disapprove of her decision to have an abortion if it was for a frivalous reason, such as wrong sex of the baby. Incidentally it is no man's place to say to a woman that she should have an abortion if she wants to keep her baby, though if she is endangering her own life, the temptation to try to overrule her will be strong.

[MisterMacky]

Originally Posted by qwerty007

*

So at the end of the day a married man has no say what soever on the birth of a child he played a part on conceiving,

The best option then is to have no children but only adopt a child. Adopting a child solves the problem of female special rights and solves the question of equal rights for a man from having an say in a child he conceived because the adopted child was not part of the family.

Everyone is happier.

[qwerty007]

Originally Posted by MisterMacky

So at the end of the day a married man has no say what soever on the birth of a child he played a part on conceiving,

Could you imagine the revolt if you tried to enact legislation that a pregnant married woman needed her husbands permission to have an abortion? Not to mention that it would be constitutionally illegal. Some women would have the right to an abortion but some would need permission - cetrus paribus.

Why not just take away their Christian Louboutin's, keep 'em away from voting and put them back in the kitchen, while we're at it?

IMO - Pandora's box is open, as we post here on a porn forum.

Education and access to contraceptives is key. The pill, condoms and every thing else should be covered under medicare and should be available to every woman- no charge. (As was mentioned before)

You can have the 'heartbeat' debate all you want, but at the end of the day - it is her body.

[otokonomidori]

A few people I know who it would have been better if they had been aborted - so I'm all for it.

[MisterMacky]

Originally Posted by qwerty007

Could you imagine the revolt if you tried to enact legislation that a pregnant married woman needed her husbands permission to have an abortion? Not to mention that it would be constitutionally illegal. Some women would have the right to an abortion but some would need permission - cetrus paribus.

Why not just take away their Christian Louboutin's, keep 'em away from voting and put them back in the kitchen, while we're at it?

IMO - Pandora's box is open, as we post here on a porn forum.

Education and access to contraceptives is key. The pill, condoms and every thing else should be covered under medicare and should be available to every woman- no charge. (As was mentioned before)

You can have the 'heartbeat' debate all you want, but at the end of the day - it is her body.

You have said that mean have no rights to the children they have conceived. Men should have no rights what so ever to any degree concerning matters of the children they have helped to conceive.

If, as you say, men who have played their role in conceiving a child should have absolutely no say, no part, no role whatever in the rearing of a child after birth except as a meal ticket i.e. child support.

The solution to that problem then is to render sterilization procedures to every single living and breathing woman of child bearing age in these contiguous United States.

If women may never again have children except by adoption of a children, then the question of special rights and the so-called sanctity of life will no longer have any meaning. The children in and of themselves are not the issue. The issue of special rights has far less to do wit the actual production of children than it does in extending the special rights and privileges of women.

[winebeavis]

Originally Posted by MisterMacky

So at the end of the day a married man has no say what soever on the birth of a child he played a part on conceiving.

That's what winebeavis is saying.

Originally Posted by MisterMacky

You have said that mean have no rights to the children they have conceived. Men should have no rights what so ever to any degree concerning matters of the children they have helped to conceive.

Drawing the line on what's a child and what's a fetus is important. It's preposterous to assert that men have no rights or say in their live, minor, unemancipated, children. Pretty sure nobody is claiming that.

Originally Posted by MisterMacky

If, as you say, men who have played their role in conceiving a child should have absolutely no say, no part, no role whatever in the rearing of a child after birth except as a meal ticket i.e. child support.

The solution to that problem then is to render sterilization procedures to every single living and breathing woman of child bearing age in these contiguous United States.

Huh? That really doesn't make sense. Are you serious or just trying to make some absurdism ad nauseam point? Not sure anybody is suggesting that a woman's right to make her own decisions regarding her body have anything to do with child rearing.

[Sharkhunter]

There are naturally time limits that need to be looked at, but I think most western European democracies have got it right.

It may be skewed slightly by my being proactively childfree, but for me being pro-choice is pretty much a no-brainer. People who know me well often think this surprising as I am fairly conservative generally.

[qwerty007]

Originally Posted by MisterMacky

You have said that mean have no rights to the children they have conceived. Men should have no rights what so ever to any degree concerning matters of the children they have helped to conceive.

First off, let's get some terminology straight.

When a sperm and an egg come together in a woman's womb, it is called a fetus.

A fetus (pronounced /ˈfiːtəs/; also spelled foetus, fœtus, faetus, or fætus, see below) is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate after the embryonic stage and before birth.

In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development starts at the beginning of the 11th week in gestational age, which is the 9th week after fertilization.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

So, using your statement, I will make the change:

Men should have no rights what so ever to any degree concerning matters of the FETUS they have helped to conceive.

Correct!

They are most welcome to give input and support and make their wishes known, but at this point in time, they have NO LEGAL RIGHTS over the fetus INSIDE the woman's body.

Originally Posted by MisterMacky

If, as you say, men who have played their role in conceiving a child should have absolutely no say, no part, no role whatever in the rearing of a child after birth except as a meal ticket i.e. child support.

Once it becomes a child, it is a different situation. Now it is a living, breathing, human being and is no longer a fetus.

Originally Posted by MisterMacky

The solution to that problem then is to render sterilization procedures to every single living and breathing woman of child bearing age in these contiguous United States.

Why do you see a problem? What problem is that?

Originally Posted by MisterMacky

If women may never again have children except by adoption of a children, then the question of special rights and the so-called sanctity of life will no longer have any meaning.

Sanctity of life?

Separation of church and state. You can believe whatever you like, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. (On a side note, life nowadays doesn't seem to be so sanct amongst the living and breathing - perhaps that would be a good place to start. Less war...more love)

Originally Posted by MisterMacky

The children in and of themselves are not the issue. The issue of special rights has far less to do wit the actual production of children than it does in extending the special rights and privileges of women.

Extending the special rights and privileges of women?

Hardly.

You have the right to do what you like with your body. Why would you try to force a special set of rules on someone else?

My question for you is this:

Why do you want to set up special rules and regulations for others, according to your moral standard? Belief in a higher being is between the individual and that being - not to be legislated or judged by others. It is even written in the Bible, that "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"....in other words - it's none of your business what other people (in this case women) do with their bodies.

Most modern nations have recognized this already.