Take away our right to vote next?Follow

These liberals, even the ones on this forum, know that abortion is murder.

Yup. Materbation too. Every sperm is sacred.

That's your supposition, and has nothing to do with what I actually said. All I did was list the laundry-list of complications--from minor discomforts to life-threatening emergencies--that are commonly experienced by pregnant women and said that the person who faces those issues needs to be the primary one making the decision on whether or not to accept them as the cost of doing business.

[quote
Women share half of the responsibility of raising children.[/quote]

No one's disputing that. However, my point, into which you are too busy interjecting your own inferrences to actually address, is that WOMEN bear ALL the burden of actually BEARING a child. Raising the kids is another issue entirely--my post discusses ONLY pregnancy and the immediate consequences of pregnancy and childbirth, and these are issues which ARE exclusive to women. I never discussed the joint or solo raising of kids until others brought it up.

If we still to the IMMEDIATE consequences of pregnancy and childbirth on one's person, livelihood, social situation, and health, almost all the problems, from minor inconvenience to major danger, falls upon the woman. Therefore, it seems quite LOGICAL that the person with the lion's share of say in whether or not to go through that ordeal (and even woman who want children and are happy to be pregnant do find it an ordeal in some regard, Praetorian's pie-in-the-sky romanticism notwithstanding) needs to be the person who will actually experience it.




Considering that my post dealt with nothing more than the realistic facts of what pregnancy entails, I think I can safely say that the only "shit on all men" happens in your inferrences, and not in the text of what I actually wrote.



None of which actually has anything to do with the post that you are ******** about in the first place, considering that post itself never actually addressed the financial burden of childrearing, but merely the physical, emotional, employment and social strains of childBEARING.



Not disputing this, but it's not exclusive to men--women struggle under it too. However, it is actually irrelevent, since again, parenting is not what my post was about. My post was about the issues related to pregnancy.



If you've ever read another of my posts--and there have been many of them--discussing my husband, you would know that isn't true. There are scumbag men, yes. There are also scumbag women. There are good men, there are good women. I never made a generalization either way--I simply said, in a subsequent post to the one you are actually railing against, that there are man men who turn out to be deadbeats, the truth of which I don't think is up for debate.



You and Praetorian just really need to pick up a dictionary and look up the difference between "many" and "most." I said "many" which in no means generalizes the sex as a whole. You guys are inferring "most" which does. Try arguing again what I actually say, hmmm? Won't that be a refreshing change...?



Yeah, I was one of those kids, what's your point?



My mom used to make me get her fresh beers from the fridge and open them for her so she wouldn't have to stumble to the fridge herself. You wanna swap "my mom was a useless *****" stories? I can meet you toe to toe all day. Again, what's your point?



Psst, Praetorian, over here! Pay attention: THIS is an example of what a generalization actually looks like. Compare and contrast it to my posts, where I use qualifiers like "some" or "many" if you can't see the difference.



Again, this is your inferrence, which has little to nothing to do with what I actually said.



Statistically speaking, what's the percentage of men who spent 30 years inhaling fibers in textile mills, or working as cocktail waitresses in smoke-filled bars? No one ever denied that men work dangerous jobs--but women do, too. Often you just find them in different KINDS of dangerous jobs.





Ahh, self-serving, biased, *****-worshipping statistics from a *****-worshipping website called "menstuff." And you don't think those statistics might not be just a LITTLE bit skewed with regards to acknowledging the types of jobs woman often do? Gotcha.


And once again, all this has nothing to do with a post that discussed ONLY the immediate consequences of pregnancy and whether or not a man's inability to experience those consequences should entitle him to a equal share in the decision to remain pregnant.

[quote]
And you had nothing to say about men dying at a younger age? The difference is a full five years. Explain this. I sure can.[/quote]

Mostly it has to do with wars, which several times a century kill off tens of thousands of very young men, thus skewing the average life expectancy of men downward.


[quote]
Oh, outside of rape, they dont have a choice in having sex? [/quote]

Again, irrelevent to the point I was trying to make, which is that once a pregnancy is in place, the choice of whether or not to continue it needs to rest on the person who is going to be most immediately and most non-negotiably impacted by it. And that is inarguably the woman.


[quote]
No, I don't. But you seem so hell bent on tearing men down that I had to counterbalance it.[/quote]

Your male insecurity is showing throught, considering pointing out how inconvenient/painful/dangerous pregnancy is can in no way be construed as "tearing men down."

You can make all the inferrences you like, but ultimately, they have nothing to do with what I actually said.

[quote]
Ahhh, so you don't understand the social pressures that are put on us (with its tremendous negative effects), you will not make an attempt to see it, nor do you care. [/quote]

I understand them. I just don't believe, as you do, that they are the exclusive province of men.

[quote]society places a huge burden on us in childrearing[/quote]

Exactly: childREARING. Considering my post was about childBEARING, your whole diatribe has exactly nothing to do with nothing.


[quote]If you are unwilling to attempt to understand our side of the fence, good luck having people see yours.[/quote]

I can understand your side of the fence, but the backyard I'm arguing from is on a completely different block than the one you're trying to chime in from.

For your reference, I picked up on the post when you said



Which is meant to fully discredit a man's stance on the issue. In your chestnut statement, you make it sound as if a father's monetary investment is expected (or worse, trivial), and then you spend the rest of your post detailing the pains of childbirth. The father is expected to provide financial support as it is expected the mother go through the pain of childbirth. You, however, seem to trivialize the fathers involvement as a "tired old chestnut" and then dedicate 99% of your post to the sacrifices of the mother. How SHOULD a guy see this post? Its so one-sided is laughable.


You made this point. You tried to discredit a valid statement. All of my posts were not trying to discredit the pain of childbirth, they were targeted at this chestnut-colored gem you offered up - the one that passed men off as trivial. Stop saying I am not arguing your point, because I am arguing the most offensive point in your posts. You made it a point to say a father's financial burden is nothing more than a "tired old chestnut." These were your words. You typed them. I argued them.

Note to the public speakers, if you do not argue a point your opponent brings up you concede the point. Obviously, Ambrya can't get this through her head - I have pretty much accepted that portion of her posting, although it is irrational to think that most women will go through all of said situations (but they will certainly go through some, and an unlucky few will experience many), as it is irrational to think that the father won't have to deal with several of them - albeit on a smaller scale - as well.




As I pointed out, that is not all you did. You downplayed and cast as trivial the man's primary role in child-rearing since the beginning of time. you wrote us off as some workhorse who is expected to work himself into an early grave, the tired old chestnuts that we are.

Fine. It seems that according to you, abortion boils down to the discomfort of the mother. Forget the decision to have sex before. Forget the consequences after. Forget everything else, we all must focus on your one point and make a decision from there. Fortunately, most rational thinking people won't disregard all other points and focus on one point that serves their rationale.


Edited, Jul 5th 2006 at 8:18pm EDT by ManifestOfKujata

BS.

I am dating a girl who got pregnant at 17. Guess what? She has a college degree now and she lives on her own. She is now 26. She did it without the help of the father.

Her best friend, who got pregnant at the same point in her life, now has her masters. She currently has three children by three different fathers - not that I am judging, but the thought that they will always be "welfare" moms is wrong (most do end up putting more into the system than what they take).

Edited, Jul 5th 2006 at 8:27pm EDT by ManifestOfKujata

Boy, you just don't seem to get that there is a world of difference between "Some" and "many" and "most" and "all" do you?

They're all one syllable words...I'm sure you could comprehend them if you tried.

I never said that ALL teenage moms would turn out to be welfare moms. However, it's a safe assumption that MANY will struggle financially as a result of being a single, underaged mob. Maybe, MAYBE we can even boost that up to "MOST." Your girlfriend and her friend are lucky, and they are exceptional, but in no way, shape, or form are they representative of the general population of underaged mothers, MANY of whom would have a much better shot at a productive life if they hadn't, in fact, become underaged mothers.

vanelr wrote, in a post only indirectly related to yours, the statement in question. He did not make this statement to you. His argument was that a father is bound financially by law to any child he has, so he should have a say in an abortion. All YOU claimed was that it was a "tired old chestnut." He made a simple claim, you quoted THE ENTIRE SENTENCE and then made your remark. You included the financial aspect in your quote, and if you did not want to attempt to discredit the entire sentence, do not quote the sentence as a whole. Its a simple as that.

But the fact of the matter is you did include it. And from what can be understood from your quote is that you feel the father doesnt get a say even if he decides to make a financial commitment.

Outside of finances, though, did you even consider the guy's emotional state (*gasp* guys have emotions). You are trivializing the father's wants and needs. When you say a father shouldnt get a say - or that we should feel "lucky" if we get one - you are saying that everything he feels for the unborn should not matter (as is all his other opinions on the matter). News flash: if the mother has an abortion, it can devistate the father - particularly if he is religious - for the rest of his life. You do not take this into consideration, that some guys would be devistated over this, nor do you show any hint that you care. You place almost all of your stock in the mother's side while telling the father "eh, I simply don't care about your emotional state in this situation, its her body, fuck your feelings, even if you will take this pain to the grave." BOTH sides should be considered, not just the mothers.



Kindly quote me on where I claimed you stated this. I said: "I have pretty much accepted that portion of her posting, although it is irrational to think that most women will go through all of said situations..." Never did I claim you said all women would go through all experiences, just that it would be irrational to do so. I can play this game too, see?



I just read through your wall of text in that post, and I couldnt find this claim.

Saying a father is "bound financially by law" is vastly different from the sort of sacrifice and obligation you're espousing as being the role of fathers. So "trivializing" an argument that posits some say in the matter based upon a LEGAL obligation, which I am inferring from vanelr's text is not one he actually welcomes and which I know for fact many men DO NOT willingly embrace, is still in no way equivalent to what you claim I did, which is trivializing the hard work and decication of fathers who take their committment seriously. So we are once again back to the fact that you're railing against an implication I never made.




Fine, I'll own that I trivialized his argument and the hypothetical paternal obligation stated in his argument...however, the role of the father in his argument bears no resemblence whatsoever to the type of father you seem to be wanting to claim I dissed. So, again, your diatribe still has nothing to do with anything I ever actually said.




I won't argue there. The financial committment is "optional" because even if it's required by law, it can still be sidestepped and frequently is. The negative impact of a pregnancy on the woman who carries it is NOT optional. Therefore, her potential, very real, and potentially fatal consequences clearly outweigh an obligation on the father's part which, according to vanelr's statement, is merely a legal one, and therefore give her the deciding vote in the abortion decision.



So, if the woman in your life told you that she wanted you to insert knitting needles through your ********* and leave them there for nine months, and go around naked that entire time so that every casual acquaintance and coworker could be aware of what you had done, thus making them forever regard you differently and possibly affecting your employment when, aside from the discomfort, infection set in and hospitalized you, you'd give her a 50/50 vote on whether or not you should do it? Even if she made it clear that she would be emotionally scarred for life if you didn't do it? Even if she made if clear that she was completely willing to bear the financial burden of supporting you when the infection debilitated you permanently and would work hard to do so?

Why not? Sure, it's your body and health, but it's HER emotional well-being. Why shouldn't she get an equal vote in whether or not you insert knitting needles through your balls? Especially if she's willing to pay money for it?

It cuts both ways--you, too, get the majority vote in what happens regarding your body, because it's YOUR body, and no one else's emotions, or pocket-book, bears equal weight in the decisions which affect it.



The implication was there that I was being "irrational" but I will admit that it might have been more inferrence on my part.



From my response to Praetorian on page 1:

Fact: women, on the whole, experience all the things I listed. Some women experience them to a greater degree than others, some experience very few of them, but on the whole, all those problems occur very commonly in pregnancy.

You're a fine one to talk about "walls of text" after that rant you posted.

Apples and oranges Nobby, and you know it. The rate of death from abortions, both legal and illegal is far more influenced by the general quality of medicine then whether the abortion is actually legal or illegal (or whether legal abortion is easily available).

In 1972, the last year prior to Roe v. Wade, there were 24 deaths from legal abortions in the US. There were 39 deaths from illegal ones. That's hardly an epidemic. In fact, both numbers decreased steadily over time as medicine improved over the course of the century. The pro-choice advocates of the day chose to widly diseminate data from the early 1900s in order to hype the dangers faced by women attempting to obtain abortions. Claims that "5,000 to 10,000 women die from illegal abortions each year" were passed around as fact.

As I've said many times. I'm pro-choice. However, I don't believe that Roe v. Wade was a good judicial decision. It was based on false information. It greatly overstepped the bounds of what our judicial branch is supposed to do. And the "problem" it purported to solve wasn't even that significant of a problem, much less a constitutional crisis.

There is absolutely no constitutional reason why a state's citizens cannot, through their own legistlatures, make the decision as to whether and to what degree abortion will be allowed in their state. Seems reasonable to me to actually let a democratic process determine this sort of thing.

Why all the talk about a few back alley abortions if Roe vs Wade is overturned. Why not more talk like : I quote Harry Trumen ( If it saves ONE american life. it was worth it)

You're being too literal. The "permanent debilitation" aspect was the closest equivalent the analogy would allow to the cost of caring for a child--something which is a major committment and expense. It was not an implication that women are regularly permanently debilitated in pregnancy and childbirth (though, while you haven't met them, there are some cases where that does, in fact, happen, and even more cases where pregnancy-related complications take many months to recover from--I think I covered the whole "major abdominal surgery" blithely passed off under the euphemism C-section. Some women bounce right back, but others can still have pain bending over and doing such basic tasks as driving some six months or more down the line.)



They don't roam the streets naked, but pretty much every man and his dog knows she's pregnant, because it's printed on her body for all the world to see. Everyone sees it, everyone knows it, everyone feels free to comment upon it even when they don't know her. Hell, complete strangers feel like they have complete liberty to walk up to her and TOUCH her. They expect her to smile and act as if they aren't being insufferably intrusive when they ask personal questions about her medical condition. If they know she's unmarried, they speculate and make assumptions about her sexual mores. Being pregnant means your life becomes an open book. Having YOU naked in the analogy was the only way to insure that your "condition" was as exposed and potentially humiliating as a pregnant woman's would be.



You're missing the point. The point is that if someone you were close asked you to do something to your body that you DID NOT want to do, something that would be uncomfortable if not outright painful and could and regularly does have implications for your health, employment, and the way people around you regard you, you would not, in fact, give them a 50/50 vote in the matter. And why? Because YOU'D be the one experiencing it, not them. No matter how emotionally invested they might be in that hypothetical "something," and no matter how willing they were to help you deal with the consequences, you flat out wouldn't give them a majority vote. Don't bother denying it, because we both know you wouldn't.

So why, then, should a woman who DOESN'T want to bear a child give someone who WON'T be bearing that child a 50/50 vote as to whether or not she DOES bear that child? If you wouldn't do it, why should she?



There's a difference between a "comparison" and an "analogy." God, you're obtuse.



Courtesy of www.m-w.com:
analogy
One entry found for analogy.
Main Entry: ****·o·gy
Pronunciation: &-'na-l&-jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike


Italics and bold are mine.

Considering it wasn't a comparison at all, save your pity. It was an analogy intended to open your eyes to the way you would behave were you faced with a situation like that which an unwillingly pregnant woman faces with regards to pain and public censure. You are just too determined to wallow in your, "You said something I don't like so therefore everything you say is obviously wildly wrong" rut to expand your imagination enough to see it.

"You know, if all these straw men would just wisp up and take care of all their little straw babies, we wouldn't have to have this debate every three months." --Sammy

Yeah, but without a good dose of contraceptive RoundUp(tm) the new grass just keeps coming back week after week. How's a strapping Bahia or Augustine grass supposed to make ends meet if the little lady of the yard can't keep her roots from spreading for every good looking fertilizer that comes along?

Totem

the concept of freedom, the foundation this country was built on, is being tested.

freedom is about letting people live their lives as they choose. it is why we dont have alot of sector violance, and civil disturbances.

i do not agree with abortions either, but more important to me is the FREEDOM that i enjoy to live my life as "I" choose. as part of that freedom, i have to acknoledge that not every one agrees with what i think is right or wrong. and for the privelige of being able to live as "I" choose, i have to also allow people who dont agree with me to live as "THEY" choose.

i do not feel i have the right to dictate to anyone else what they can or cannot do with their own bodies. i also feel NO MAN has ANY right to tell women as a whole what they will and will not do with their bodies.

im aginst abortion, but banning it strips freedom away from other people. how long before something YOU care about is stripped away? like which religion you subscribe to? what is tought in your schools (F-CAT anyone?), where you will live (imminent domain?), who you will kill in a war.

this is an attack on the very foundation of this country. weather you believe in abortions or not, stripping away the rights of someones own body is WRONG. and that is exactly what you are doing by banning them.

freedomn gives you the right to not have an abortion. it gives you the right to not be a part of one. but it doesnt give you the right to strip the rights away from someone else because of what you personally believe.