Abortion’s forgotten victim: The aborted baby’s father

[J]

There are three main victims whenever an abortion occurs; the baby (of
course), the mother, and the forgotten victim, the father. Only the
mother has any rights, both the child and the father have none. The
SCOTUS needs to redress this issue.






http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/14/abortions-forgotten-victim-the-aborted-babys-father/



by Raimundo Rojas




The articles and blog posts leading up to the 40th commemoration of
the single greatest American tragedy all tell a similar story. The
thread that runs common through all the stories is the unimaginable
numbers. And the numbers drive the narrative of a nation painfully
realizing that there are now fifty-five million children, who have
been poisoned, dismembered, shredded and suffocated by abortionists
who were given the right to do so by judicial fiat.

Much, and rightly so, is also being written about the walking wounded
� the tens of million of women who have been physically and
psychologically injured by abortion � some tragically suffering
irreparable harm. Their struggle to cope as they come to terms with
their abortion experience must be documented and repeated so that
others can avoid the loss and pain.

But little has been written or noted about the other immediate victim
of abortion � the aborted child�s father.

Everyday more the collective mindset of �rights� gains ground in this
country. We see sophisticated advertisements on all media for a
myriad of issues � from animal rights to gay rights, from the right to
bear arms to women�s reproductive rights. It�s the catchiest of all
catch phrases � our rights.

Forty years ago, however, the Supreme Court opined that men have zero
reproductive rights � none what so ever. Because of Roe v Wade a man
in these United States has no say as to when he can be a father. He
can�t decided how many children he will have nor how to space them
out. He is even powerless to defend the life of the child he has
already conceived.

In a day in age when every special interest group clamors for
distinction on the rights totem pole, fathers remain at the bottom of
the heap. For 40 years we have not had a say. For 40 years our
reproductive rights have been denied. For 40 years we�ve been
helpless, as we�ve been forced to stand by and watch our children
taken to the slaughter.

The tragedy that is Roe v Wade must end because there must be no more
dead children, or injured mothers, or fatherhood denied. Enough.













J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

[Davej]

On Jan 14, 1:42 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> There are three main victims whenever an abortion occurs; the baby (of
> course), the mother, and the forgotten victim, the father. Only the
> mother has any rights, both the child and the father have none.

Better keep your pants on then J. Maybe you can keep an aspirin stuck
in your zipper.

[m...@privacy.net]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:42:24 -0800, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

> There are three main victims whenever an abortion occurs; the baby (of
> course), the mother, and the forgotten victim, the father. Only the
> mother has any rights, both the child and the father have none. The
> SCOTUS needs to redress this issue.

Ha! I saved over $100k in child support payments by paying women that I
knocked up to have an abortion.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Jan 14, 7:42 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> There are three main victims whenever an abortion occurs; the baby (of
> course), the mother, and the forgotten victim, the father. Only the
> mother has any rights, both the child and the father have none.

[snipped for brevity]

Why should some irresponsible jerkwad be granted rights over those of
the woman he got pregnant?

[Alan Ferris]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:42:24 -0800, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

>There are three main victims whenever an abortion occurs; the baby (of
>course), the mother, and the forgotten victim, the father. Only the
>mother has any rights, both the child and the father have none. The
>SCOTUS needs to redress this issue.

Damn right, implant the foetus in him.
--
Ferrit

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWhXGhv-tTo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7bsUttGho8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60mZsohBr3Q

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <vbn8f8lg9ke8dv5n2...@4ax.com>,

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

> There are three main victims whenever an abortion occurs; the baby (of
> course), the mother, and the forgotten victim, the father. Only the
> mother has any rights, both the child and the father have none. The
> SCOTUS needs to redress this issue.

Yes, they need to confirm the status quo. Because NOBODY but the person
carrying the fetus is entitled to decide.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[MarkA]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:42:24 -0800, J wrote:


> There are three main victims whenever an abortion occurs; the baby (of
> course), the mother, and the forgotten victim, the father. Only the
> mother has any rights, both the child and the father have none. The
> SCOTUS needs to redress this issue.
>
>

STAN/LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

REG: But... you can't have babies.

STAN/LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.

REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the
foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

STAN/LORETTA: (crying)

JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't
actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even
the Romans', but that he can have the *right* to have babies.

FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right
to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

REG: What's the point?

FRANCIS: What?

REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he
can't have babies?!

FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

.....

Oh, wait, this ISN'T a lead in to a Monty Python sketch? Sorry.

Now, for something completely different.....

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[Robert H]

BUT...you got to be honest and admit, there is a double standard. I am
not agreeing with J, but, I am saying there is a "wrong" here. Not
everything is a right, just because it's a law.

A woman can freely choose to escape being a mother, or having any
financial responsibility of raising a child. While a man can not. In
fact a woman can "enslave" him for 18 years if she chooses too. So
just because it's a law that gives a woman the right to choose,
doesn't mean it's equal and fair.
It's not.

There should be put in place a law that allows a couple to sign a
contract BEFORE pregnancy. That says both parties agree that either
one can freely choose to walk away from any parental responsibility.

Now, for the record (because I know how much the pro-choice side loves
to lie and make up stuff), I do NOT support nor endorse any man to
walk away from his parental and/or financial responsibilities. I
think a man should stand up, without being forced to, and take on his
responsibility.

[MarkA]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 03:42:36 -0800, Robert H wrote:

Sorry, but I just can't <snip> a most excellent Monty Python sketch!

The double standard exists because of the facts of biology. If either
parent could be the one to gestate the fetus, it would clearly be more
equitable. However, the biological reality is that it is the woman who
carries the baby, and incurs all the medical risk, discomfort, and impact
on her career, education, etc. No matter how much the father might want
the baby, he has no right to force a woman to continue an unwanted
pregnancy. Nor does he have any right to force a woman to have an
abortion if she doesn't want one.

So, yes, the woman has the final word, and the man has a responsibility to
his child, whether he wants it or not.

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[Robert H]

No, the double standard exist because the law says the father will be
responsible. Biolgy has nothing to do with saying who will be
responsible. So you are wrong.

[ken]

On Jan 14, 11:42 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote this shit:

> SCOTUS needs to redress this issue.

No they don't, Fool!

> The tragedy is that J Young wasn't aborted

True!

[J]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:08:21 -0800 (PST), ken <flak...@att.net>
wrote:

Since this line appears nowhere in this thread and yet you posted it
as if it had, I must assume you are a forger. Your credibility is
zilch.



>
>True!
>






J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

[elizabeth]

> responsible. So you are wrong.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, you lie again, because BOTH parents are responsible for a child.
Since men and women are not equally situated for gestation, as is your
wont, you have no valid point.

[ken]

On Jan 16, 9:37 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:08:21 -0800 (PST), ken <flakey...@att.net>

> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 14, 11:42 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote this shit:
>
> >> SCOTUS needs to redress this issue.
>
> >No they don't, Fool!
>
> >> The tragedy is that J Young wasn't aborted
>
> Since this line appears nowhere in this thread and yet you posted it
> as if it had, I must assume you are a forger. Your credibility is
> zilch.
>
>
>
> >True!
>
> J Young

> jdyou...@ymail.com

Which is, at the least, TWICE your credibility!

[Moses]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 03:42:36 -0800 (PST), Robert H <cra...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> There should be put in place a law that allows a couple to sign a
> contract BEFORE pregnancy. That says both parties agree that either
> one can freely choose to walk away from any parental responsibility.

Oh sure. Then we can have millions of children and their mothers added to
the welfare rolls. If you have sex you consent to having children.

[Robert H]

On Jan 16, 3:13 pm, Moses <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM>
wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 03:42:36 -0800 (PST), Robert H <craz...@comcast.net>

> wrote:
>
> > There should be put in place a law that allows a couple to sign a
> > contract BEFORE pregnancy. That says both parties agree that either
> > one can freely choose to walk away from any parental responsibility.
>
> Oh sure. Then we can have millions of children and their mothers added to
> the welfare rolls. If you have sex you consent to having children.

Hey, I'm calling for equality.

Wow..I like that..."If you have sex you consent to having children"

Hmm, does that rule apply to women?
If so, then why would you support her having the right to choose to
get out of it?

[Father Haskell]

On Jan 14, 2:42 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:

(snip)

Fixed that for you.

[Brian E. Clark]

In article <76a8f40b-2bc9-495b-b84d-c1c5f44d58d4
@j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...

> > The double standard exists because of the facts of biology.  [...]

> No, the double standard exist because the law says the father will be
> responsible.

What an absurd response. The law is based on the biological
facts of pregnancy, and there is no way to change those
laws without wreaking tremendous harm on women or on
children.

Should a man should have the right to force a woman to
undergo an abortion? Should a man have the right to force a
woman to carry a child to term? Those are the only options
here, if the law were to be applied equally in the way you
seem to desire.

--
-----------
Brian E. Clark

[Robert H]

On Jan 16, 8:27 pm, Brian E. Clark <brianecl...@newsgroup.reply.only>
wrote:
> In article <76a8f40b-2bc9-495b-b84d-c1c5f44d58d4
> @j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, craz...@comcast.net says...

>
> > > The double standard exists because of the facts of biology.  [...]
> > No, the double standard exist because the law says the father will be
> > responsible.
>
> What an absurd response. The law is based on the biological
> facts of pregnancy, and there is no way to change those
> laws without wreaking tremendous harm on women or on
> children.
>
> Should a man should have the right to force a woman to
> undergo an abortion?

A woman should have the right to force a man into enslavement?

Should a man have the right to force a
> woman to carry a child to term?

Should a woman have the right to force a man into financial payments
for 18 years?

Those are the only options
> here, if the law were to be applied equally in the way you
> seem to desire.

If you believed in equality, you would see the inequality.

[alen]

On Jan 17, 7:13 am, Moses <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM>
wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 03:42:36 -0800 (PST), Robert H <craz...@comcast.net>

> wrote:
>
> > There should be put in place a law that allows a couple to sign a
> > contract BEFORE pregnancy. That says both parties agree that either
> > one can freely choose to walk away from any parental responsibility.
>
> Oh sure. Then we can have millions of children and their mothers added to
> the welfare rolls. If you have sex you consent to having children.

YES, so a woman has no right to accept a man
by her own free choice before pregnancy and ignore
him afterwards.

More importantly, however, the supposed right of a woman
over her own body, on which the right to abortion is based, can
be denied on a basis that has nothing to do with religion.

The modern concept of the liberty of the individual began
with the puritan revolution against king Charles I in England.
The puritans rebelled against the tyranny of the english
state church, the head of which was the monarch himself.
This led to the questioning of the divine right of the king to
rule, and to the argument that, since his power depended on
the people, his sovereign right was also derived from them.
This natrually led to the concept that the sovereignty of the
people was derived from an element of sovereignty within each
individual person, and this led to the concepts of the liberty
and rights of each individual person vis a vis every other
person. The individual person was always identified by the
autonomy and independence of every person as expressed
by the separation and independence of every person's physical
body from that of every other person. This was always the
fundamental means of identifying the individual.

In the case of pergnancy, these fundamental conditions do
not exist. There is no independence and autonomy expressed
by the separation and independence of the bodies of a
mother and her unborn child, since these do not exist. Therefore
any arguments supposing her liberty and autonomy vis a vis her
unborn child are null and void, because no liberty or autonomy
exists in the relationship between herself and her child, as it does
between herself and another person who is entirely physically
separate from her.

The supposed right to abortion has therefore always been a
monumental lie, and an abuse and misuse of every single
concept associated with the liberty, rights, and sovereignty
of the individual person, which obtain only in circumstances
in which the person can be identified as a physically natural
'individual', which is not the case in pregnancy.

Alen

[June G]

"Robert H" <cra...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:67ad116f-5acc-4e48...@4g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...

I can sympathise with your point of view, Robert, but once a child is born
it becomes its welfare that is important. I think a fairer solution (not
exactly equal, but a lot fairer) would be that the father has to (a) pay
child support for the first 9 months of the child's life, after which he can
choose to either stop paying and relinquish all rights to contact the child,
or (b), carry on with child support for 18 years and have full rights of
joint custody etc. I say 9 months (to equal the gestation period) because
looking after a newborn is a full-time job and the mother needs that time to
recover from the birth and to organise herself into a position of being able
to provide financially for the child. This would have to be agreed legally
before time runs out for the woman to abort, so that she knows where she
stands, and the man would not be allowed to change his choice from (b) to
(a) if she carries to term, although he would be allowed to change from (a)
to (b). Your thoughts?
--
June G
# 364

[Dakota]

Why not give the woman the same choice. She can support the child for
nine month then hand the child to the father and say goodbye.

Both schemes are absurd. If a child results from sex, the support
responsibility should be shared by both participants.

[Dakota]

Interesting point, Alen. You're saying that a physically natural
individual with rights does not exist before birth. Therefore, the
embryo or fetus is a non-person with no right to inconvenience the
person inside whom it is growing. It's much more clear to me now.
Thanks for posting.

[MarkA]

In that case, there is no argument for the fetus being a distinct human
being, with a "right to life". It is an abnormal growth in a woman's
uterus, and she is free to rid herself of it if she so chooses.

>
> The supposed right to abortion has therefore always been a monumental
> lie, and an abuse and misuse of every single concept associated with the
> liberty, rights, and sovereignty of the individual person, which obtain
> only in circumstances in which the person can be identified as a
> physically natural 'individual', which is not the case in pregnancy.

Again, you try to make the argument that a pregnant woman gives up her
autonomy, and is reduced to the status of a pot of soil, to be used by the
fetus growing insider her. Hear this and hear it well: once a woman is
born, NOBODY has the right to take away her autonomy and authority over
her own body, got it? Not her parents, not her spouse, not her
government, not her clergy, and certainly not a microscopic clump of cells
stuck to the inside of her uterus.

[Robert H]

On Jan 17, 10:07 am, "June G" <juneg...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> "Robert H" <craz...@comcast.net> wrote in message

First June,

Thank you. Thank you for being probably the ONLY reasonable one in
this newsgroup who can be reasonable.
Thank you for at least acknowledging the problem.

Second, I agree with what you said. Something should be put in place
where it's fair to both. I'm not saying a woman should not have the
say in her body. She should, it is her body. And she does have the
ultimate say. No one else should tell her what she should do.

But we both agree, we have a flaw in the system. It's not really
equal.

Lets say a woman wants to get an abortion for the following reasons.

She can't afford to raise a child.
She wants to continue her education, and having a child would hold her
back.
She just isn't ready to be a mother.

All three are good reasons to want to have an abortion. I'm not saying
abortion is the "right" choice, but I can certainly understand those
reasons.

Well, she simply can choose to have an abortion, and life goes on

Now, lets flip it.

Woman and man meets. They like each other, they date and eventually
they have sex. Both of them have discussed children and he has made it
very clear that he doesn't want any children. So he uses protection
and he thinks she is using protection. We both know that condoms can
fail and if a woman misses even one day of birth control she can
become pregnant. It happens.

So she gets pregnant. She wants to have the child, he doesn't. Because
he either:

a) Can't afford to raise a child
b) Wants to continue his education and having to support a child would
hold him back
c) He simply doesn't want any children in his life at this point.

But he doesn't have a way out. She can hold him for 18 years if she
wants too.

Now is it fair, that she has the option to get out of it and he
doesn't?

No, it's not.

Is it right that he supports, absolutely. I'm not suggesting any man
walk away.

But what I am saying is we have a system with a double standard. And
it's not right. Just because a law says something, doesn't mean it's
fair and/or right. I think we both agree. So something should be put
in place where a man can have a legal binding contract with an
agreement with a woman, that opts him out of any financial
responsibility.

This should be agreed upon BEFORE any sexual intercourse. Both should
agree on this. If they can't, then they should really re-think their
relationship. And if they can't agree, and STILL have intercourse and
she becomes pregnant...well then, he should have walked away when he
had the chance.

I like your proposal too. And again, thank you for being open minded
enough to recognize and realize...we have a double standard in this
country. And really, that is all I'm asking for...for it to be
recognized.

[Robert H]

On Jan 17, 12:02 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/17/2013 9:07 AM, June G wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "Robert H" <craz...@comcast.net> wrote in message

What you're failing to recognize is that we have a double standard in
this country.

I'm not saying that both should not support and have the
responsibility. They should, absolutely.

But we have a double standard in this country and I'm glad to see that
people like June, even though we disagree on issues, is open minded
enough to recognize it and be willing to look at it from a logical
point of view.

[June G]

"Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:kd9aru$pq$1...@dont-email.me...

Sure, why not? The mother can, however, put the child up for adoption if
she can't cope with the financial responsibility; a man can't.

> Both schemes are absurd. If a child results from sex, the support
> responsibility should be shared by both participants.

Well, I agree, because to me the child's welfare is the most important
thing, but I can see how it's unfair to men when it's the choice of women
that puts them in that position. My 'scheme' is only an idea - we all know
that nothing will change, and it's difficult to envisage a scheme that would
be fair to all three parties. I think it's naive to say that everything
should be agreed before a couple have sex - ideally it should, but I don't
think such reasoning can be heard when the hormones are talking.

[Robert H]

On Jan 17, 6:31 pm, "June G" <juneg...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> "Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:kd9aru$pq$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1/17/2013 9:07 AM, June G wrote:

> >> "Robert H" <craz...@comcast.net> wrote in message

You got it!

[alen]

On Jan 17, 10:07 am, Robert Parker <robpar1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 07:03:17 -0800 (PST), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 17, 7:13 am, Moses <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM>
> >wrote:
> >> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 03:42:36 -0800 (PST), Robert H <craz...@comcast.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > There should be put in place a law that allows a couple to sign a
> >> > contract BEFORE pregnancy. That says both parties agree that either
> >> > one can freely choose to walk away from any parental responsibility.
>
> >> Oh sure. Then we can have millions of children and their mothers added to
> >> the welfare rolls. If you have sex you consent to having children.
>
> >YES, so a woman has no right to accept a man
> >by her own free choice before pregnancy and ignore
> >him afterwards.
>

> Often after seducing a woman a male will show him self as a self righteous
> control freak. In which case the woman has a right to change her mind. If
> she has the assholes baby he maintains some control over her. This is bad.
> Only rarely would a pregnant woman reject a decent man. So the right of a
> woman to reject a male after being seduced, then getting rid of the
> unwanted child by abortion is the correct course.

You appear to have a bias towards contemptuously regarding
your fellow males as 'assholes', and ignoring the choice
the woman made. In other words, any woman can
do what she likes with a man!? Is a woman, in your view,
by definition, a blameless angel, incapable of doing anything
wrong, while a man is always the one that does wrong??

> >More importantly, however, the supposed right of a woman
> >over her own body, on which the right to abortion is based, can
> >be denied on a basis that has nothing to do with religion.
>

> That's right it has nothing to do with religion, and only the religious
> objects to abortion. And that's a minority of religious freaks. Most
> religious people follow the teachings of Jesus, and other teachers to leave
> the judging to God. It's chicken shit religious nuts like you that cannot
> mind your own damn business. You're going to hell for going against the
> teaching of Jesus. If your stupid religion is correct.

If a parent kills a newborn infant, should we
'mind our own business' then also?

> Snip a slanted and inaccurate history lesson.

>
> >In the case of pergnancy, these fundamental conditions do
> >not exist. There is no independence and autonomy expressed
> >by the separation and independence of the bodies of a
> >mother and her unborn child, since these do not exist. Therefore
> >any arguments supposing her liberty and autonomy vis a vis her
> >unborn child are null and void, because no liberty or autonomy
> >exists in the relationship between herself and her child, as it does
> >between herself and another person who is entirely physically
> >separate from her.
>

> B.S. the unborn baby is part of her body like a tumor, and a potential
> danger to her body. The unborn baby (fetus) has no right to unwanted use of
> her body.

Everybody knows what a tumor is, and everybody
knows what an 'unborn baby' is, including yourself.
Pregnancy, therefore, is two persons linked together
without relative autonomy on either side. The 'use
of her body' concept is an arbitrary and biased
criminalisation of the child in favour of the mother,
whose autonomy and rights exist only relative to other
independent human beings.

>
> >The supposed right to abortion has therefore always been a
> >monumental lie, and an abuse and misuse of every single
> >concept associated with the liberty, rights, and sovereignty
> >of the individual person, which obtain only in circumstances
> >in which the person can be identified as a physically natural
> >'individual', which is not the case in pregnancy.
>
> >Alen
>

> The anti-woman anti-legal abortion religious nuts hold that the zygote is a
> human with all the rights of any human through all the stages of pregnancy.
> I agree no human has the right to use another persons body without the
> ongoing consent of that person. So a woman has the rights to abort at any
> stage of the pregnancy.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Again, ''use of a body'' is an arbitrary and hostile
criminalisation of the child by an arbitrary and
false redifinition of a connection of two beings without
autonomy on either side.

Alen

[alen]

> About eight o'clock- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The woman has autonomy only relative to
other separate, independent human beings.
She has no autonomy relative to her fetus,
since she is not even physically independent
of the child. There are two distinct beings
involved, but not two independent, autonomous
beings. To destroy one in favour of the other
is murder (NOW YOU HEAR THAT WELL!)

Alen

[Dakota]

Don't restrict the choice to women. Regarding consensual sex, both
participants have made a choice. Of course it's naive to assume that
anyone would stop in the heat of passion and head for a lawyer's
office. It's much easier to pull a condom out of a pocket or purse.

[Robert H]

On Jan 17, 10:11 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/17/2013 5:31 PM, June G wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:kd9aru$pq$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> On 1/17/2013 9:07 AM, June G wrote:

> >>> "Robert H" <craz...@comcast.net> wrote in message

Isn't it odd that you will consider the male to be responsible because
both has consensual sex and made that choice? But you refuse to hold
the woman to those same standards?

It could be that the main reason most men are pro-choice is because by
having a woman choose to abort, it's his only way out.

[Dakota]

There is no child until birth. There are not two distinct beings
involved until birth.

[Robert H]

Yea, that helps you accept abortion doesn't it?

Well a rapist and serial killer kind of does the same thing. You have
to dehumanize the victim first, otherwise it's very hard for you to
accept reality. That a human being is being killed.

Hey what ever helps you get through life. If that's what you have to
do...that's what you have to do I guess.

[Dakota]

There are significant differences between the man and the woman when a
pregnancy is involved. For example, the man is not liable to die from
complications associated with pregnancy. The man will not have to take
time away from his job for doctor visits, giving birth, recuperation,
nursing, and other infant care responsibilities. The man will not have
to buy a new wardrobe. For the most part, his life is unchanged except
perhaps for worrying about paying child support or that the woman will
abort the pregnancy.

>
> It could be that the main reason most men are pro-choice is because by
> having a woman choose to abort, it's his only way out.
>

Do you have any statistics to back up your claim that most men are
pro-choice?

[Dakota]

I am not pro-abortion. I share with Bill Clinton the idea that
abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. That is why I support
comprehensive sex education in public schools. I also support Planned
Parenthood because they offer a comprehensive list of services
intended to ensure that all pregnancies are intended.

>
> Well a rapist and serial killer kind of does the same thing. You have
> to dehumanize the victim first, otherwise it's very hard for you to
> accept reality. That a human being is being killed.
>

Rapists and serial killers have living, breathing victims.

Here's the reality: There is no child until birth. There are not two

distinct beings involved until birth.
>

[SkyEyes]

On Jan 14, 12:42 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> There are three main victims whenever an abortion occurs; the baby (of
> course), the mother, and the forgotten victim, the father. Only the
> mother has any rights, both the child and the father have none. The

> SCOTUS needs to redress this issue.

No, SCOTUS does *not*. The mother is the one who would be taking all
the risks carrying the baby to term, and it's the mother's body - not
the father's - that is changed forever after pregnancy and childbirth.

In short, if men could get pregnant, abortion wouldn't just be legal,
it would be free, and they'd serve beer.

I'm not even remotely bothered if a guy gets down in the dumps if a
woman aborts his conceptus. Any many who would "suffer" that much
over an abortion is the type of narcissist who feels it's all about
*him*, anyway. He'll live to fight another day. A woman carrying a
baby to term *might not*.

It's got to be the woman's call, and ONLY the woman's call.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[skye...@yahoo.com]

On Jan 16, 1:13 pm, Moses <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM>
wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 03:42:36 -0800 (PST), Robert H <craz...@comcast.net>

> wrote:
>
> > There should be put in place a law that allows a couple to sign a
> > contract BEFORE pregnancy. That says both parties agree that either
> > one can freely choose to walk away from any parental responsibility.
>
> Oh sure. Then we can have millions of children and their mothers added to
> the welfare rolls. If you have sex you consent to having children.

No you *don't*. The Religious Reich would like to force everyone to
think that way, but the fact is, in 21st Century western society, sex
and reproduction are uncoupled - and most of us like it that way.
Birth control isn't perfect yet, so even people using it faithfully
and according to directions run a small risk of getting pregnant by
accident. Those people certainly did *not* consent to having
children.

As much as you might like to, you don't get to say who gets to have
sex and who doesn't, or put any kind of condition on their sexual
experience.

Try looking at the conservative way: by MINDING YOUR OWN BUSINESS.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Jan 18, 9:15 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 12:42 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > There are three main victims whenever an abortion occurs; the baby (of
> > course), the mother, and the forgotten victim, the father. Only the
> > mother has any rights, both the child and the father have none. The
> > SCOTUS needs to redress this issue.
>
> No, SCOTUS does *not*.  The mother is the one who would be taking all
> the risks carrying the baby to term, and it's the mother's body - not
> the father's - that is changed forever after pregnancy and childbirth.
>
> In short, if men could get pregnant, abortion wouldn't just be legal,
> it would be free, and they'd serve beer.
>
> I'm not even remotely bothered if a guy gets down in the dumps if a
> woman aborts his conceptus.  Any many who would "suffer" that much
> over an abortion is the type of narcissist who feels it's all about
> *him*, anyway.  He'll live to fight another day.  A woman carrying a
> baby to term *might not*.
>
> It's got to be the woman's call, and ONLY the woman's call.

What if the man and woman are in a long term relationship?

If there's no threat to her life or health, should not the man have
some say?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<1459f6f0-856e-4de5...@r3g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 18, 9:15 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 12:42 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > There are three main victims whenever an abortion occurs; the baby (of
> > > course), the mother, and the forgotten victim, the father. Only the
> > > mother has any rights, both the child and the father have none. The
> > > SCOTUS needs to redress this issue.
> >
> > No, SCOTUS does *not*.  The mother is the one who would be taking all
> > the risks carrying the baby to term, and it's the mother's body - not
> > the father's - that is changed forever after pregnancy and childbirth.
> >
> > In short, if men could get pregnant, abortion wouldn't just be legal,
> > it would be free, and they'd serve beer.
> >
> > I'm not even remotely bothered if a guy gets down in the dumps if a
> > woman aborts his conceptus.  Any many who would "suffer" that much
> > over an abortion is the type of narcissist who feels it's all about
> > *him*, anyway.  He'll live to fight another day.  A woman carrying a
> > baby to term *might not*.
> >
> > It's got to be the woman's call, and ONLY the woman's call.
>
> What if the man and woman are in a long term relationship?
>
> If there's no threat to her life or health, should not the man have
> some say?

Of course he has some say, and the two of them should discuss what to do.

But the only person who can make the ultimate decision is the woman. It
can't be any other way, because she's the one who would be taking all
the risks.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[MarkA]

No, to destroy one in favor of the other is self-defense. If there were
absolutely no adverse consequences to pregnancy, your argument
might have some validity. But, it doesn't. Whether or not two distinct
beings are independent and autonomous is completely irrelevant. All it
means is that the fetus depends on the mother for survival, which is not
in question.

[MarkA]

Red herring. I fully accept that a fetus is human. It is a human that is
committing an act that would be a felony if it were done by a "post-born"
person to another without her consent.

Here's the bottom line: you think the fetus has a right to appropriate the
use of a woman's body against her will in order to survive, and I don't.

[Robert H]

That's not the issue. The issue here is the inequality. A woman can
choose to get out..a man can't.
If a woman wants to enslave the man, she can.

>
> > It could be that the main reason most men are pro-choice is because by
> > having a woman choose to abort, it's his only way out.
>
> Do you have any statistics to back up your claim that most men are
> pro-choice?

Nope, but it's a pretty safe bet.

[Robert H]

What ever you say. You can justify it how ever you wish. But I know
why, so don't think you're fooling me.

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 08:55:10 -0600, Robert Parker <robpa...@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:

>On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:13:58 -0800 (PST), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>

>Many men are in fact assholes and you seem to be one of them. Many women
>are in fact self centered sluts, for such a couple to have a child is a
>tragedy. Forcing a woman to have a unwanted child is the worse kind of
>child abuse.

>
>>> >More importantly, however, the supposed right of a woman
>>> >over her own body, on which the right to abortion is based, can
>>> >be denied on a basis that has nothing to do with religion.
>>>
>>> That's right it has nothing to do with religion, and only the religious
>>> objects to abortion. And that's a minority of religious freaks. Most
>>> religious people follow the teachings of Jesus, and other teachers to leave
>>> the judging to God. It's chicken shit religious nuts like you that cannot
>>> mind your own damn business. You're going to hell for going against the
>>> teaching of Jesus. If your stupid religion is correct.
>>
>>If a parent kills a newborn infant, should we
>>'mind our own business' then also?
>>

>A new born infant is no longer dependent on the woman's body for a life
>support system. All though it might be kinder to the child to kill it,
>being unwanted is a terrible thing. Adopted children often seek out their
>birth parents to ask one question. "Why didn't you want me?"


"Because we live in the United States, a country notoriously indifferent
to the poor, and I was too poor to take care of you. The choice was to
give you up for adoption or let you die."

[Dakota]

No need to continue this discussion. You've think you've got it all
figured out but you're simply fooling yourself.

Bye now. Please don't vote. Please don't breed.

Plonk.

[Robert H]

Lol

another coward

[alen]

It is not irrelevant. Every concept of individual liberty
and human rights was originally conceived as associated
with autonomy and independence. Such concepts could
otherwise never have come into existence at all. Just
think carefully about it! Without autonomy and independence
there is no such thing as individual liberty.

From this it follows that the liberty of the mother does
not exist in respect of her unborn child. Accusing the
child of unilaterally taking over the mother, as if it were
a deliberate adult invader and tyrant, is a fabrication
used to excuse murdering the child.

Alen

[alen]

Pregnancy is a natural condition, inherent in the
design of nature, through which we all come into
being on earth. It is not an act 'committed' by a fetus,
since it is incapable of any act, and is less responsible
for the situation than the mother herself, since it cannot
be assigned any responsibility or 'blame' at all.

Alen

[alen]

That is not a reality. It is a verbal fabrication which
doesn't describe anything real.

Alen

[Bruce Dollep]

J submitted this :
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:08:21 -0800 (PST), ken
> <flak...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 14, 11:42ï¿œam, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote this
>> shit:

>>
>>> SCOTUS needs to redress this issue.
>>

>> No they don't, Fool!
>>
>>> The tragedy is that J Young wasn't aborted
>
>
>
> Since this line appears nowhere in this thread and yet
> you posted it as if it had, I must assume you are a
> forger. Your credibility is zilch.
>
>
Man I really hate that!


.

[Dakota]

If it is incapable of any act and cannot be assigned any
responsibility or blame, it cannot be assigned any rights.

[Robert H]

I wonder if that's how rapist and serial killers view their prey prior
to them committing their act?
If the victim is incapable of an act and is not responsible or blamed,
maybe it's easier for them to dehumanize their victim.

Hmmm, kind of like what a lot of you do with the fetus. It's easier
to dehumanize it. Therefore, you don't have to feel guilty.

[June G]

"alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:368ed43c-b5e1-4614...@vb8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

[snip]

> Pregnancy is a natural condition, inherent in the
> design of nature, through which we all come into
> being on earth.

Have you noticed that it's always a man who claims that pregnancy is
natural? Pregnancy and childbirth have not been natural since we stood up
on two legs and developed a large brain with the concomitant large skull.
Natural bodily functions don't kill or severely compromise health; pregnancy
and childbirth do both.

> It is not an act 'committed' by a fetus,
> since it is incapable of any act, and is less responsible
> for the situation than the mother herself, since it cannot
> be assigned any responsibility or 'blame' at all.

Actually it _is_ an act 'committed' by a foetus. Everything to do with
pregnancy and childbirth is initiated by the ovum in the first place, then
the zygote, embryo and foetus. The woman has no control over the process at
all. Furthermore, if this process happens to a woman against her will, she
has every right to remove it, just as you have the right to remove an
opportunist intruder into your house.
--
June G
# 364

[alen]

On Jan 20, 6:31 am, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, alen wrote:
>
>
>

[...]

> >>> Well a rapist and serial killer kind of does the same thing. You have to
> >>> dehumanize the victim first, otherwise it's very hard for you to accept
> >>> reality. That a human being is being killed.
>
> >> Red herring.  I fully accept that a fetus is human.  It is a human that is
> >> committing an act that would be a felony if it were done by a "post-born"
> >> person to another without her consent.
>
> >> Here's the bottom line: you think the fetus has a right to appropriate the
> >> use of a woman's body against her will in order to survive, and I don't.
>
> >> --
> >> MarkA
> >> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
> >> About eight o'clock- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Pregnancy is a natural condition, inherent in the
> > design of nature, through which we all come into
> > being on earth. It is not an act 'committed' by a fetus,
> > since it is incapable of any act, and is less responsible
> > for the situation than the mother herself, since it cannot
> > be assigned any responsibility or 'blame' at all.
>
> > Alen
>
> If it is incapable of any act and cannot be assigned any

> responsibility or blame, it cannot be assigned any rights.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

That doesn't work either. A helpless sick person, who cannot
act or be blamed for anything does not lose all his or her
right to life, and neither does a fetus.

I find it incredible how determined people are to try every
possible form of thinking that might enable murdering the
unborn. Have they no anxiety at all about the prospect of
making themselves to be murderers and the supporters
of murderers?

Alen

[alen]

My answer to you is already in my post itself

Alen

[Dakota]

A helpless sick person who cannot act? Are you talking about someone
who is brain dead like the late Terri Schiavo? The courts agreed that
her rights expired when her brain turned to mush.

[MarkA]

Even if your whole "autonomy and independence" argument were relevant, it
is invalid. The mother and fetus *ARE* separate entities, and can be
separated, and can be dealt with separately. By your argument, I would
have no right to have my diseased appendix removed, because it is not
already separate from me.

>
> From this it follows that the liberty of the mother does not exist in
> respect of her unborn child. Accusing the child of unilaterally taking
> over the mother, as if it were a deliberate adult invader and tyrant, is
> a fabrication used to excuse murdering the child.

It is not a fabrication, it is an accurate description of the biology.
The mother is perfectly capable of surviving without being pregnant, and
derives no benefit from the pregnancy. The fetus is a parasite in every
sense of the term, except that it is the same species. The mother does
have the right to defend her body against an unwanted invader, whether it
be a tapeworm or a fetus. There is absolutely no reason why a woman
should have to give up her OWN "right to life" just because she becomes
pregnant.

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[MarkA]

Speaking as one of "those people", I would say that I have no anxiety at
all. I consider "murder" to be something that happens to one who is
already born. A fetus is not a baby, any more than an acorn is an oak
tree. Furthermore, in order for a fetus to develop into a baby, it must
use the body of an adult woman, subjecting that woman to considerable
health risk, not to mention social/financial stress. If that woman
chooses not to endure such risk, she has absolutely no obligation to the
fetus to allow it the continued use of her body.

I know that has been explained to you several times already, and you
continue to insist that, once a woman becomes pregnant, she gives her
right to control her own life and health, and becomes nothing more than a
life-support system for the fetus, who now owns her.

[Robert H]

Her rights expired???

I'm not saying she wasn't clinically dead or anything like that, but I
don't recall the courts saying that.

[Robert H]

Hmm, would she have benefited if her mother aborted her?

 The fetus is a parasite in every
> sense of the term, except that it is the same species.

So you were a parasite that should have been exterminated? After all,
you tried to kill your mother, right?
You harmed her, right? You were unwanted, right?

[Gwen Bennet]

On Jan 16, 6:42 am, Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 9:12 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:42:24 -0800, J wrote:
> > > There are three main victims whenever an abortion occurs; the baby (of
> > > course), the mother, and the forgotten victim, the father. Only the
> > > mother has any rights, both the child and the father have none. The

> > > SCOTUS needs to redress this issue.
>

> > STAN/LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
>
> > REG: But... you can't have babies.
>
> > STAN/LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
>
> > REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the
> > foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
>
> > STAN/LORETTA: (crying)
>
> > JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't
> > actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even
> > the Romans', but that he can have the *right* to have babies.
>
> > FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right
> > to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
>
> > REG: What's the point?
>
> > FRANCIS: What?
>
> > REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he
> > can't have babies?!
>
> > FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
>
> > REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
>
> > .....
>
> > Oh, wait, this ISN'T a lead in to a Monty Python sketch?  Sorry.
>
> > Now, for something completely different.....

>
> > --
> > MarkA
> > Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
> > About eight o'clock
>

> BUT...you got to be honest and admit, there is a double standard. I am
> not agreeing with J, but, I am saying there is a "wrong" here. Not
> everything is a right, just because it's a law.
>
> A woman can freely choose to escape being a mother, or having any
> financial responsibility of raising a child. While a man can not. In
> fact a woman can "enslave" him for 18 years if she chooses too. So
> just because it's a law that gives a woman the right to choose,
> doesn't mean it's equal and fair.
> It's not.

>
> There should be put in place a law that allows a couple to sign a
> contract BEFORE pregnancy. That says both parties agree that either
> one can freely choose to walk away from any parental responsibility.
>

> Now, for the record (because I know how much the pro-choice side loves
> to lie and make up stuff), I do NOT support nor endorse any man to
> walk away from his parental and/or financial responsibilities.  I
> think a man should stand up, without being forced to, and take on his
> responsibility.

Are you still arguing this? You were responsible for the daughters you
sired with your first wife. It was your duty -as their father - to pay
for their expenses, Why in the world would you still complain about
this when the money that was technically theirs went on their well-
being and expenses?

[Gwen Bennet]

On Jan 17, 4:14 pm, Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > Both schemes are absurd. If a child results from sex, the support
> > responsibility should be shared by both participants.
>

> What you're failing to recognize is that we have a double standard in
> this country.
>
> I'm not saying that both should not support and have the
> responsibility. They should, absolutely.
>
> But we have a double standard in this country and I'm glad to see that
> people like June, even though we disagree on issues, is open minded
> enough to recognize it and be willing to look at it from a logical
> point of view.

Personally, I find it incredibly betraying that a woman who falls
pregnant, who attempts to take responsibility for her pregnancy, is
barred from doing so, by forcing her to have a child she is not
prepared to care for it, because of a value system placed by your
gender.

The responsibility of her pregnancy is her own, since it's her
responsibility, and only hers, to manage what happens to her body,
autonomously. It isn't anybody else's responsibility to decide whether
or not she keeps it, lest she is deemed unfit through a ruling in
court of law to handle it. Yet, we have men like YOU, Heishman, who
want to usurp her power and then lay ALL of the responsibility on her
shoulders, once the child is born.

Once that child is born, it is the responsibility of the parents to
manage its well-being; this includes the child's basic needs,
education, traveling domestically and internationally, solving
problems, critically thinking, and not just stuffing it with food and
over presenting it with gifts and excuses why it can't be accountable
for its actions.

[June G]

"alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message

news:093cb034-59b4-411b...@pu9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> My answer to you is already in my post itself

No, that was your answer to someone else. I've refuted it.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<585549e3-9bc2-4fe7...@vb8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Why would we be since there's no murder?

Murder is a legal concept and abortion is legal in the US. Therefore, it
CANNOT be considered murder.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[alen]

> # 364- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

'refuted' - you have a very high opinion
of your own opinions, don't you!

Alen

[alen]

On your own head be it!

> I know that has been explained to you several times already, and you
> continue to insist that, once a woman becomes pregnant, she gives her
> right to control her own life and health, and becomes nothing more than a
> life-support system for the fetus, who now owns her.
>
> --
> MarkA
>

> If you can read this, you can stop reading now.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I have never said any such thing. If you want to refer to
what I said you might take the trouble to quote what
I actually said, without mistranslating it into expressing
your own opinions.

Alen

[Robert H]

Yea she does!!
And when you can out smart her, she will do a tuck and run.

She tried playing word games with me, but got herself twisted up and I
turned the tables.

[Robert H]

On Jan 21, 10:13 am, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:

You know what? I misspoke. I thought you were talking about Jeanne
Douglas.

June G. is one of the more rational ones, her and I don't agree on a
lot of topics but she does try to see the other side of an argument.
I can't say that about most of the others in this newsgroup.

[alen]

On Jan 21, 11:48 am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <585549e3-9bc2-4fe7-a969-4b51bc0cd...@vb8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

> "Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

More useless verbosity. If you take a life in the
remotest wilderness, where there is no jurisdiction,
or legal concepts, it is murder. Murder is a type
of physical fact, or event, which cannot be legally defined
out of existence.

Alen

[MarkA]

I was wanted, which is why my mother was willing to share the use of her
body with my fetal self, for which I am forever grateful. Not everyone is
so lucky.

[MarkA]

"The supposed right to abortion has therefore always been a monumental
lie, and an abuse and misuse of every single concept associated with the
liberty, rights, and sovereignty of the individual person, which obtain
only in circumstances in which the person can be identified as a
physically natural 'individual', which is not the case in pregnancy."

Perhaps you've never really thought about the implications of your
position. If a pregnant woman is no longer an 'individual', and no longer
has the "liberty, rights, and sovereignty of the individual person", as
you claim, how is that any different from being the property of the fetus?

[June G]

"alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message

news:bd14c5ef-9983-484b...@v9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...

Heck, yes! Do you have a low opinion of your opinions? Well, that would be
fitting.

[Robert H]

But you wanted to hurt your mother!! You wanted to possibly kill her.
According to you, her body should have just naturally rejected you.
How could you be wanted, if her body wanted to reject you?
You were a parasite! Wouldn't "she" have benefited if she aborted
you?
You care about your mother right? You should be asking her why.

I hope you realize how ridiculous all this sounds. It is about as
ridiculous as
some of the arguments you pro-abortionist come up with.

>which is why my mother was willing to share the use of her
> body with my fetal self, for which I am forever grateful.

Guess what, without abortion...she would not have any other choice
but to share the use of her body. Because you were taking over
regardless.

[MarkA]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 04:08:44 -0800, Robert H wrote:

>>
>> >> It is not a fabrication, it is an accurate description of the
>> >> biology. The mother is perfectly capable of surviving without being
>> >> pregnant, and derives no benefit from the pregnancy.
>>
>> > Hmm, would she have benefited if her mother aborted her?
>>
>> >  The fetus is a parasite in every
>> >> sense of the term, except that it is the same species.
>>
>> > So you were a parasite that should have been exterminated?  After
>> > all, you tried to kill your mother, right? You harmed her, right? You
>> > were unwanted, right?
>>
>> I was wanted,
>
> But you wanted to hurt your mother!! You wanted to possibly kill her.
> According to you, her body should have just naturally rejected you. How
> could you be wanted, if her body wanted to reject you? You were a
> parasite! Wouldn't "she" have benefited if she aborted you?
> You care about your mother right? You should be asking her why.
>
> I hope you realize how ridiculous all this sounds. It is about as
> ridiculous as
> some of the arguments you pro-abortionist come up with.

It DOES sound ridiculous, it's just that you don't seem to realize that it
is YOU who is being so. I can't imagine an argument you could make that
would convince me that, once a fertilized oocyte takes up residence in a
woman's uterus, she involuntarily abdicates control over her own body to
that microscopic clump of cells. What you call "murder", I call
"self-defense".

[alen]

What we need is the objective humility necessary
to discover truth, not the blind falsehoods that come
from over-confident, self-congratulating pride.

Alen

[Robert H]

On Jan 22, 9:26 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 04:08:44 -0800, Robert H wrote:
>
> >> >> It is not a fabrication, it is an accurate description of the
> >> >> biology. The mother is perfectly capable of surviving without being
> >> >> pregnant, and derives no benefit from the pregnancy.
>
> >> > Hmm, would she have benefited if her mother aborted her?
>
> >> > The fetus is a parasite in every
> >> >> sense of the term, except that it is the same species.
>
> >> > So you were a parasite that should have been exterminated? After
> >> > all, you tried to kill your mother, right? You harmed her, right? You
> >> > were unwanted, right?
>
> >> I was wanted,
>
> > But you wanted to hurt your mother!! You wanted to possibly kill her.
> > According to you, her body should have just naturally rejected you. How
> > could you be wanted, if her body wanted to reject you? You were a
> > parasite!  Wouldn't "she" have benefited if she aborted you?
> > You care about your mother right? You should be asking her why.
>
> > I hope you realize how ridiculous all this sounds. It is about as
> > ridiculous as
> > some of the arguments you pro-abortionist come up with.
>
> It DOES sound ridiculous,

Intentional too.

it's just that you don't seem to realize that it
> is YOU who is being so.

I think you are being ridiculous too. I am being so intentionally
though.

> I can't imagine an argument you could make that
> would convince me that, once a fertilized oocyte takes up residence in a
> woman's uterus, she involuntarily abdicates control over her own body to
> that microscopic clump of cells.

Well, she does. It's call nature, that's just how it is. And believe
it or not,
you are still nothing but a clump of cells.

[alen]

> About eight o'clock- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

She voluntarily connected herself with a fetus
when she consented to a sexual relationship.
The existence of the fetus within her is a direct
result of her own actions. To deny her own role
and blame the fetus in order to kill it is murder.

Alen

[alen]

There are simply two beings temporarily linked together,
without independence of one another. Neither is the
'property' of the other, or superior or inferior to the
other. Such forced distinctions and qualifications are
improper and uncalled for.

Alen

[MarkA]

That's right, a woman only has the right to her own destiny when she isn't
a slut. The guy who has sex with her, of course, is blameless. How a
woman winds up being pregnant is irrelevant to the question of whether a
woman has the right to abortion.

Please, keep beating the drum that abortion is murder, even when the
pregnancy is the result of rape. Let's see how many MORE seats the GOP
can lose, if they stay on that message!

BTW, when I get in my car, I don't "consent" to being seriously injured in
a crash, but I know that it can happen. If an accident does happen, I
seek whatever medical attention is needed to restore me to my pre-injury
state of health.

[MarkA]

Nature doesn't tell us what is right and wrong, only what is possible and
what is impossible. With available medical technology, it is possible to
terminate a pregnancy. Whether it is right to do so is the topic of
discussion. In the contest of conflicting interests, you side with the
fetus, while I side with the woman. I think your position is unjustified,
while you think my position is evil.

Anything else left to discuss?

[MarkA]

You owe me a new irony meter! From my perspective, it is the religionist
who is full of self-congratulatory pride. Nothing too arrogant about
believing the entire Universe was created for the benefit of humankind, is
there?

[MarkA]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 07:37:00 -0800, alen wrote:


>> Perhaps you've never really thought about the implications of your
>> position. �If a pregnant woman is no longer an 'individual', and no
>> longer has the "liberty, rights, and sovereignty of the individual
>> person", as you claim, how is that any different from being the property
>> of the fetus?
>>
>> --
>> MarkA
>> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight
>> o'clock- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> There are simply two beings temporarily linked together, without
> independence of one another.

Wrong. The fetus is dependent on the mother. The mother is not dependent
on the fetus in any way.

> Neither is the 'property' of the other, or superior or inferior to the
> other.

However, the fetus can use the mother's body, and possibly cause permanent
injury, even death, with complete impunity, while to woman has no
authority to protect her own health and well-being? That doesn't sound
like a very balanced relationship to me.

> Such forced distinctions and qualifications are improper and uncalled
> for.

No, such distinctions are necessary and important. The situation involves
two entities trying to control a single resource. To claim that the woman
must cede all claims to her own autonomy to an unwanted invader in her
uterus is depraved.

[Robert H]

In this case it does. Because if it were not for a woman choosing to
kill the fetus, nature is going to take over and do what nature does
naturally.
And if the body "naturally" rejects the fetus, then nature will abort.

only what is possible and
> what is impossible.  With available medical technology, it is possible to
> terminate a pregnancy.

Which is the interference with nature. And just because it's medical
technology, it doesn't make it right.

 Whether it is right to do so is the topic of
> discussion.  In the contest of conflicting interests, you side with the
> fetus, while I side with the woman.

I'm not going to interfere with a woman's choice. It's her body. Yes,
I'm going to say a fetus has a right to live. Because the woman made
the decision to commit the act that created that life. And I think she
should be responsible enough to accept it. But if she wants to abort,
then that is her choice. I call it irresponsible. And whether you care
what I think or not, it doesn't change my mind one bit.

 I think your position is unjustified,
> while you think my position is evil.

If it's "evil", I think God would decide.
I think it's wrong.

[elizabeth]

End abortion now.\
Castrate all males and store sperm
Cheap, 100% safe and 100% effective.
No other way exists to end abortion.

> She voluntarily connected herself with a fetus
> when she consented to a sexual relationship.

Nope. And if men would stop forcing women to have sex, if men would
be responsible about procreation, then perhaps, you might have a
point, but all you prove is that your mother regrets not aborting.

> The existence of the fetus within her is a direct
> result of her own actions. To deny her own role
> and blame the fetus in order to kill it is murder.

Abortion never has been murder.
Even when it was illegal.
You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts, and you don't
get to define terms, esp legal terms.

[MarkA]

That's a double standard. If you start growing a tumor in your colon,
hopefully you're not foolish enough to let it keep growing, because that
is what nature does naturally? Is it wrong to hire a surgeon to resect a
cancerous bowel? Is it wrong to poison bacteria to prevent them from
taking over your lung?

>
>
> only what is possible and
>> what is impossible.  With available medical technology, it is possible
>> to terminate a pregnancy.
>
> Which is the interference with nature. And just because it's medical
> technology, it doesn't make it right.
>
>  Whether it is right to do so is the topic of
>> discussion.  In the contest of conflicting interests, you side with
>> the fetus, while I side with the woman.
>
> I'm not going to interfere with a woman's choice. It's her body. Yes,
> I'm going to say a fetus has a right to live. Because the woman made the
> decision to commit the act that created that life. And I think she
> should be responsible enough to accept it. But if she wants to abort,
> then that is her choice. I call it irresponsible. And whether you care
> what I think or not, it doesn't change my mind one bit.
>

I think that, when a woman finds out she is pregnant and doesn't want to
be, having an abortion IS the "responsible thing to do". Other animals
can have hundreds, sometimes thousands of offspring, with a 99% mortality
for the newborns. We can do better than that. I don't think there's
anything magical about a developing fetus, well before the point where it
has a functioning nervous system.

[Alan Ferris]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:50:39 -0800 (PST), Robert H <cra...@comcast.net> wrote:

>I'm not going to interfere with a woman's choice. It's her body. Yes,
>I'm going to say a fetus has a right to live. Because the woman made
>the decision to commit the act that created that life.

Do you change your mind when she has no choice? Many women do not get that
choice.
--
Ferrit

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Atheist #1211
EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.

SERV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWhXGhv-tTo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7bsUttGho8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60mZsohBr3Q

[Alan Ferris]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 07:30:57 -0800 (PST), alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:

>
>She voluntarily connected herself with a fetus
>when she consented to a sexual relationship.
>The existence of the fetus within her is a direct
>result of her own actions. To deny her own role
>and blame the fetus in order to kill it is murder.

So you would hold a different opinion when she has not consented. Many women,
even in marriage have no choice.

[Alan Ferris]

There are distinctions. She is not reliant on the foetus. She is the one
losing vital minerals to it. She has a choice in the matter, you don't at it
is nothing to do with you.

[MarkA]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 21:28:40 +0000, Alan Ferris wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:50:39 -0800 (PST), Robert H <cra...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>I'm not going to interfere with a woman's choice. It's her body. Yes, I'm
>>going to say a fetus has a right to live. Because the woman made the
>>decision to commit the act that created that life.
>
> Do you change your mind when she has no choice? Many women do not get
> that choice.
> --
> Ferrit

He can't very well claim it's "murder" if the sex is voluntary, but not
murder if the sex is involuntary, can he?

That simple truth, is, ultimately, what will keep abortion legal in the
USA. If you insist that abortion is murder, you have no choice but to
deny abortion to a raped 15 year old girl. No matter how much you resent
"slutty women" getting abortions to "avoid responsibility", most people
recognize that forced pregnancy is monstrous. As long as the GOP keeps
beating that drum, they will keep driving more and more young voters away.

That actually presents an interesting dilemma for the future of the GOP:
if they give up being anti-abortion and anti-gay, in order to make
themselves more appealing to younger voters, what do they have left to
stand for? Championing the rights of the insanely wealthy?

[Alan Ferris]

The reality is that some women do not get a choice about sex even in marriage.
Some will make the choice not to bring a child into that abusive marriage where
it is likely to only meet violence.

[alen]

No. All women who support abortion should
be simply abandoned by all men forever.

> > She voluntarily connected herself with a fetus
> > when she consented to a sexual relationship.
>
> Nope.  And if men would stop forcing women to have sex, if men would
> be responsible about procreation, then perhaps, you might have a
> point, but all you prove is that your mother regrets not aborting.
>
> > The existence of the fetus within her is a direct
> > result of her own actions. To deny her own role
> > and blame the fetus in order to kill it is murder.
>
> Abortion never has been murder.
> Even when it was illegal.
> You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts, and you don't

> get to define terms, esp legal terms.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Modern feminism! Women are, by nature,
innocent and blameless and incapable of
doing wrong, while everything that goes wrong
is the fault of men. All women who believe this
kind of garbage should also be abandoned by
all men forever.

Alen

[SkyEyes]

On Jan 22, 4:01 pm, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:18:19 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 21:28:40 +0000, Alan Ferris wrote:
>

> >> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:50:39 -0800 (PST), Robert H <craz...@comcast.net>

> >> wrote:
>
> >>>I'm not going to interfere with a woman's choice. It's her body. Yes, I'm
> >>>going to say a fetus has a right to live. Because the woman made the
> >>>decision to commit the act that created that life.
>
> >> Do you change your mind when she has no choice?  Many women do not get
> >> that choice.
> >> --
> >> Ferrit
>
> >He can't very well claim it's "murder" if the sex is voluntary, but not
> >murder if the sex is involuntary, can he?
>
> >That simple truth, is, ultimately, what will keep abortion legal in the
> >USA.  If you insist that abortion is murder, you have no choice but to
> >deny abortion to a raped 15 year old girl.  No matter how much you resent
> >"slutty women" getting abortions to "avoid responsibility", most people
> >recognize that forced pregnancy is monstrous.  As long as the GOP keeps
> >beating that drum, they will keep driving more and more young voters away.
>
> >That actually presents an interesting dilemma for the future of the GOP:
> >if they give up being anti-abortion and anti-gay, in order to make
> >themselves more appealing to younger voters, what do they have left to
> >stand for?   Championing the rights of the insanely wealthy?
>
> The reality is that some women do not get a choice about sex even in marriage.
> Some will make the choice not to bring a child into that abusive marriage where
> it is likely to only meet violence.

Indeed. Some fates are worse than death - especially when death comes
before one is even conscious or able to feel pain.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<74825a75-5a48-435f...@sb6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Dearie, women can live a whole lot easier without men than men can live
without women. It's the Power of Lysistrata.

> Modern feminism! Women are, by nature,
> innocent and blameless and incapable of
> doing wrong, while everything that goes wrong
> is the fault of men. All women who believe this
> kind of garbage should also be abandoned by
> all men forever.

Nobody believes that except for a few loons.

But since men have held all the power for millennia, most problems ARE
their fault. Part of the responsibility for being in charge is taking
credit of your own mistakes.

[SkyEyes]

NO. You do *not* get to name the price for a woman's having voluntary
sex. Whether you like it or not, in this day and age sex and
reproduction has been uncoupled, and it's perfectly possible to want
sex with a particular person without wanting to reproduce with that
person. You don't get to say differently.

> The existence of the fetus within her is a direct
> result of her own actions. To deny her own role
> and blame the fetus in order to kill it is murder.

Yes, you must make women pay, mustn't you? Dog forbid any woman has a
moment's happiness in life without having to PAY THE PRICE.

<Spit>

Misogynists like you make me sick.

[SkyEyes]

On Jan 18, 2:42 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 18, 9:15 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 14, 12:42 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > > There are three main victims whenever an abortion occurs; the baby (of
> > > course), the mother, and the forgotten victim, the father. Only the
> > > mother has any rights, both the child and the father have none. The
> > > SCOTUS needs to redress this issue.
>
> > No, SCOTUS does *not*.  The mother is the one who would be taking all
> > the risks carrying the baby to term, and it's the mother's body - not
> > the father's - that is changed forever after pregnancy and childbirth.
>
> > In short, if men could get pregnant, abortion wouldn't just be legal,
> > it would be free, and they'd serve beer.
>
> > I'm not even remotely bothered if a guy gets down in the dumps if a
> > woman aborts his conceptus.  Any many who would "suffer" that much
> > over an abortion is the type of narcissist who feels it's all about
> > *him*, anyway.  He'll live to fight another day.  A woman carrying a
> > baby to term *might not*.
>
> > It's got to be the woman's call, and ONLY the woman's call.
>
> What if the man and woman are in a long term relationship?

What of it? That doesn't mean that the woman has to want to bear his
brats. It's perfectly possible to love a man without wanting his
children. Get over your romantic notions.

> If there's no threat to her life or health, should not the man have
> some say?

There's *never* "no threat to her life or health," never. Pregnancy
is exceedingly risky for humans; best case, the woman's body is never
the same again. Worst case, she dies. Frequently she must go the
rest of her life with pregnancy-induced traumas or diseases like
diabetes. Unless you REALLY REALLY REALLY want a child with a
particular man, there's absolutely no sense in letting an accidental
pregnancy go to term. Especially in view of the fact that the human
population is currently at 7 billion and counting.

This notion that because a man contributes a few teaspoons full of
sperm he gets to have a say in a pregnancy is *really* nefarious.

It's the woman's call. ALWAYS.

[Robert H]

This is when you know that the person is getting desperate.
Come on, you meant to tell me you don't know the difference between
a tumor and a fetus?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > only what is possible and
> >> what is impossible.  With available medical technology, it is possible
> >> to terminate a pregnancy.
>
> > Which is the interference with nature.  And just because it's medical
> > technology, it doesn't make it right.
>
> >  Whether it is right to do so is the topic of
> >> discussion.  In the contest of conflicting interests, you side with
> >> the fetus, while I side with the woman.
>
> > I'm not going to interfere with a woman's choice. It's her body. Yes,
> > I'm going to say a fetus has a right to live. Because the woman made the
> > decision to commit the act that created that life. And I think she
> > should be responsible enough to accept it.  But if she wants to abort,
> > then that is her choice. I call it irresponsible. And whether you care
> > what I think or not, it doesn't change my mind one bit.
>
> I think that, when a woman finds out she is pregnant and doesn't want to
> be, having an abortion IS the "responsible thing to do".

I don't think it's responsible at all. I think it's a cowards way out.