The men on c-span talking about abortion should STFU.

[rubberducky]

Until it has been certified that they can give birth, sorry you have no say about what the hell I do with my body. This is a passionate issue for me. If men had to give up 9 months of thier life and THEN go through the pain of birth, things would change radically. Then the guilt will be heaped upon the woman. You give the child up ...guilt. You have the child and raise the child alone....guilt. Poor kid dosen`t have a dad. If you have a loving marriage and have your child. How very lucky you are. Men deserve to have much more responsibility put on thier shoulders if they want to stop abortion. My mother always told my brother "if you choose to have sex with her, take a good look at her. If she gets pregnant do you want to spend the rest of your life with her". An awful lot of BAD marriages could result from that. Contraception should be a given in ANY society. Abortion should be a last resort, BUT it should always be accessable for every woman having to make such a difficult choice. What a sad thing that women even have to worry about access to contraception and abortion because of men ruling on such things. Women will always be second class citizens as long as this is even allowed to be argued about by people who have not "walked in thier shoes".

[Kerrytravelers]

1. If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

[rubberducky]

5. My sig line!

[Kerrytravelers]

7. I love Gloria!

A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Another classic.

[MotorCityMan]

14. Also, if men had babies

good birth control would be cheap and available everywhere, abortion would be a God given right, and they would get a week off every month for their "time of the month".

I noticed years ago that in the letters to the editor section of the local paper, when the topic was abortion, the vast majority, not just against it but strongly against it, were by men.

I've always believed that men should not even be involved in the debate as they will never be in the situation of having an unwanted, potential new life growing in them.

[Patsy Stone]

21. I always say

If men could get pregnant, abortion would be free with a fill-up.

[Kerrytravelers]

58. Bwwwwaaaaahhhhh !!!!!!!! **snort**

[Nikki Stone1]

2. K & R

[rubberducky]

4. Thank you!

[Nikki Stone1]

10. No problem. I'm always good for a recommend when the cause is right.

...

[go west young man]

3. I was listening to that. It's surreal how many religious fanatics

there are in this country. Those types would rather point the finger at others and try to control other peoples lives than have to fix thier own screwed up existences. I totally agree with your post.

[rubberducky]

Thank you!

[glowing]

6. I agree with most that you say... but being pregnant is not giving up

your life. that is the only comment I disagree with. In today's world it is a sacrafice. But giving life to a child is an amazement.

[rubberducky]

9. Oh! how I agree with you!

Having a child is THE most wonderous event ever. I raised mine alone, many hardships, but I wouldn`t change one minute of it. BUT, I can understand women who choose not to go through what I went throughI can understand thier choice and respect thier right to that choice.

[Clark2008]

133. Kicking your thread

And... pointing out my two lovelies in my sig line.

I've also lost two babies (well, they were blastocasts - I lost them early in my pregnancies).

I'm not too happy with my flabby belly after having given birth two weeks ago, but I wouldn't trade my little girl (or my little boy) for all the money in the world. Hell, I wouldn't trade them for world peace because I'm selfish.

But, I agree with this thread. And, thankfully, I have a hubby who DOES shut up about it because he has no womb.

[durrrty libby]

8. Yes ducky, I agree with.you . I feel practically vomitous, when I see male politicos

blathering on about a subject that should be off limits to them

They need to be supportive or STFU.

I like your Mom. I gave my sons the same schpeel. So far so good.

[rubberducky]

11. I just strongly feel that they have NO right to decide what I do with my body.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. My mom always said

we wouldn't have a population explosion if the partners in the sexual act were never sure which one of them would get pregnant. She said the most kids they would have would be 2--or if the man got pregnant first, probably one.

[rubberducky]

13. Love to your mom!!

Very, very smart lady!!

[Coexist]

16. your mom was wise.

nicely put.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

24. Thank you

She still is - 88 years old and still going. She raised two kids as a single mom back in the '50s when it was shameful to be divorced. Went back to school while working to get her teaching degree. Luckily, her parents were able to help her by giving us a roof over our heads for a couple of years--never went on welfare because of that. Learned early that discrimination against women was wrong because it hurt families.

[juno jones]

15. I made my choices

and have three sons to show for it. But I know what it is like to make that descision and support the choices of those who must make it. IMO, Men do not belong in this conversation. If you would want a woman to bear your child then you had not better need to force her to do so. If you would coerce a woman for selfish reasons would you be a really ideal parent? Preganancy is not a cakewalk, yes, my sons were worth it, but I have lingering physical problems from my pregnancies (the second/third were twins) and would strive not to paint pregnancy as ALL flowers, babies, clouds and roses. It is a trade off, physically and mentally. It was worth it to me because the fathers of my children were wonderful, liberal, soft-spoken and charming men and my children have turned out much the same. And my family was there to help.

I got my tubes tied after the second pregnancy. I no longer wanted to have to rely on the law's good graces in the matter of my fertility.

[Morgana LaFey]

38. That's a superb argument I don't believe I've ever heard before

But I'll certainly not forget it now:

Men do not belong in this conversation. If you would want a woman to bear your child then you had not better need to force her to do so. If you would coerce a woman for selfish reasons would you be a really ideal parent?

[rubberducky]

17. This was not meant as a men bashing thread.

Just as a woman empowering thread. Women are the ones who do the raising and the sacrificing to raise so many children from broken homes. Yes many are ordered to pay support and do pay. But, How many give of themselves?? Don`t hand me that you spend a week-end with them. Are you there when they are cutting thier teeth, or go to school, or thier first heartbreak?? If your woman chooses not to go through all that choosing to let that embryo develop entails. Will you support her??

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. Oh Come On Now.

"Women are the ones who do the raising and the sacrificing to raise so many children from broken homes"

What a crock. There are tons of single dads sacrificing their asses off too. Furthermore, if the court system didn't engage in such sexism when making their custody rulings, maybe that many MORE men would be able to be the ones raising their kids. In todays day and age, TONS of dads are doing an equal or greater part in the raising of the children. There are so many more who want so badly to be the parent raising them, but are cut off from doing so because of overwhelmingly slanted sexist decisions from courts giving that authority to the mother. Thankfully, such things are lessening, but not nearly enough. We have a huge long way to go for the courts to start being fair in such matters.

[LeftyMom]

51. The majority of men who sue for custody get it. That's national, some localities differ.

For the most part, women get primary custody because men don't want it. When both parties want it, shared parenting is the norm unless there's a good reason for another arrangement, such as abuse, drug problems or instability.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. That's Not Even Close To Being True.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GumboYaYa]

134. Here is an article from St. John's Law review that refutes your statement.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3735/is_199804/...

It is very well documented and footnoted. Quite simply, there is a presumption in our society that women make better parents.

Over the past generation, we have made great strides as a society in focusing on gender equality for women and expanding opportunities for young girls and women. At my kids school, they have all kinds of programs for young girls, Girls on the Run, Dauhter Project etc.

Men and young boys are being shortchanged. I understand that scoiety is patriarchal and men (some men, the rich white ones) have benefitted greatly from that. But there are a lot of men who suffer from the expectations imposed on them as men in the patriarchal society. Not everyone can be at the top of the heap and when you get told all your life that you have to be at the top of the heap to be a man, and the failure to be a "man" in sociey's eyes (our your own) can lead men to do some really heinous things to themelves and others.

I am not defending patriarchal society, but simply recognizing that men also suffer from it. When posters lump all men together with broad sweeping generalizations and fail to recognize the pervasive destructive effect of patriarchal society on everyone; they are simply being the other side of the sexism coin.

[Hosnon]

151. Great point.

99.9% of men in the U.S. may benefit form our patriarchal society (which is an implausible percentage to begin with), but that still means that 150,000 men are given all of the "duties" with none of the "privileges".

Edit: Substance, i.e., decimal problem...

[Manifestor_of_Light]

202. My ex punished me for having a child he didn't want.

He was quite selfish. So we got a divorce, and I had to pay him child support and private school tuition. He got custody, even though I was not an unfit mother.

It was more important that he go after me and punish me for having a healthy, bright, delightful child.

He has had the same job, with steady raises, since 1981. I have not had a career or a steady job since 1994, even though I have far more education than he does (he doesn't even have a bachelor's degree. I have three degrees including a Juris Doctor). My parents had to help pay my child support to keep me out of jail when I could not get a job, temporary or permanent.

[bliss_eternal]

59. Sexist...?

You just called the courts, sexist?!
OMFG!

Coming from you, I'm apt to laugh myself silly.

[LeftyMom]

62. He owes me an irony meter. Thank goodness he didn't call them homophobic too, or I'd be in a crater.

[bliss_eternal]

65. OMG....!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

67. In Matters Of Custody? Absolutely. That's A No Brainer.

Not every court, of course, but when looking at them overall as a group there is a huge problem with bias due to gender in matters of custody. It's a real shame too. But thankfully progress is being made and the day will come when the ignorance associated with that bias and sexism, as is associated with any other form of bias and sexism, is gone.

[bliss_eternal]

71. No-brainer...?

...guess that explains how you came up with it!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

77. Instead Of Wasting Your Time Replying With Nonsense Attack, Maybe You Should Spend It Browsing The

internet to find supporting evidence for the ridiculous premise that started this whole discussion. I put 200 dollars on the table for you to claim. Do you not need it? I'd wager you are only replying with attack because you are incapable of actually defending your position or refuting mine. If you were able to do so legitimately, I'm certain you'd be well on your way to taking that 200 dollars by now.

So instead of the baseless nonsensical attacks, how bout actually providing any substance supporting the ridiculous premise that the courts are fair and equal in how they hand out custody. That was the context. Oh yeah, remember that? Context? Yeah, actually responding to context? That novel concept?

200 bucks on the table for ya. It's yours for the taking.

Ready, set, GO!

[bliss_eternal]

83. Ooooh....the big strong man is telling me how to spend my time...!

Thank you, Thank YOU big strong man! How EVER would I plan my day if not for you?

Yah. I'm taking advice from you............................................................................................... NOT!

[kevinbgoode]

109. Maybe he can also explain why women are still being paid LESS

for a lifetime of work than men.

Or will that be summarily dismissed as the privilege of the golden peepee?

I wonder. . .aren't there more deadbeat dads out there than dads trying to get custody in the male-dominated, male-created, historically male-endorsing court system?

If there is anger about bias in the court system in regards to family law, why doesn't he take it to those male-dominated, male-only operated CHURCHES which lobbied for such legislation based on their archaic woman-as-property codes?

[bliss_eternal]

84. Look at you...

all true to your word.

NOT!

I'm as snarky and immature as EVER, and YOU'RE STILL HERE!

(bliss singing and swaying back and forth in sing song)...
Thought you were leaving...thought you were leaving...thought you were leaving....!

(bliss does happy dance)

MWUHAHAHA...
Hahahahahahaha!

[kevinbgoode]

108. Well, thank goodness that the MEN have always so historically

been so passionate and so dedicated to FAIRNESS in this society. That must be why the woman couldn't own property. . and couldn't vote until 1920. So who the hell invented sexism and injustice and now wants to tell the rest of us all about it?

[Hosnon]

152. And of course...

Because men screwed up, historically, in numerous areas, then it is justified to screw them today in other areas.

[qdemn7]

69. But it's turned into a male-bashing thread...

"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Another classic." Yes, it sure is, been hearing that phrase for 30+ years now. Talk like that for 30+ years now, and women still have no idea why men don't want to commit.

Now having said that, Abortion should be safe, legal and available, just like contraception. Men should pay their support. But, when it comes to child support, I'll have more empathy for women when women start being jailed for not allowing visitation by the children's fathers. To even half percentage that men are for not paying their support.

[bliss_eternal]

75. Perhaps...

...if men didn't constantly show up to threads like this to tell women what they are or are not entitled to in life, it would not.

BTW, much of what some of you may see as bashing, I see as women defending their rights. Rights that are slowly but surely being erased and eradicated by administrations such as this one.

Oh and while you are demanding visitation rights for fathers, make sure ALL fathers WANT them.
...and also make sure all those fathers don't have other issues. For example, they aren't going to abuse the children--physically,mentally or sexually, attempt to abuse their mother, etc.

Sometimes visitation is denied because it is in the best interest OF THE CHILD. Not because the woman "just feels like it."

Just fyi.

[OzarkDem]

90. Women defending their rights

is not male bashing, but I agree, its often wrongly interpreted that way, especially here. I thought we were all supposed to be liberal and enlightened here.

Maybe sometimes its easy to forget, but its ok for women to defend their rights and occasionally point out when the playing field isn't so "level".

[bliss_eternal]

98. Well said...!

'Alleged' liberal is a good term to remember. You never know when you are communicating with someone that isn't what they'd like us to think they are. Some are just more obvious about it than others.

[Captain Hilts]

18. It's like a woman talking about the draft. It lacks something....nt

[Nikki Stone1]

19. Considering that women are in combat and are included in the 2003 draft legislation

that's a bad example.

Try again, kiddo.

[rubberducky]

20. You go Nikki Stone1 !!

[Captain Hilts]

22. Women have never been drafted and don't have to register. nt

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kevinbgoode]

111. Neither do older men

and they are the ones deciding to send people off to war.

[Silent3]

25. And infertile women... they should STFU too!

The issue has nothing to do with them, so they can keep their mouths shut as well. Grrr!!!

I'm a pro choice male, so it's not like I've got a lot of patience for anti-choice men, or anti-choice women for that matter. I'd even agree with you to the extent that I understand that women are certainly closer to the issue of abortion, and it's an issue which is far more relevant and personal to them.

The idea that men shouldn't discuss the issue at all, however, that they can't have anything at all relevant to say and should keep their opinions on abortion quietly to themselves... that's ludicrous. It might be emotionally satisfying to you to vent your anger at anti-choice males this way, but it's not a reasonable position.

Sometimes people who are not personally invested in a particular issue can sometimes have interesting views which arise from their ability to be more objective and dispassionate. Since you can evaluate anyone's arguments on a case by case basis once you get to hear them, why categorically rule any entire class of people wholesale as not possibly having anything of value to say before you hear what they have to say?

[JerseygirlCT]

26. Those men, like anyone else, need to STFU when it comes to someone

else's personal medical decision.

It's that simple.

I don't get to decide for another woman; those men don't get to decide, period.

It's not a societal issue, that needs to be debated among all citizens.

It's a private medical issue, that needs only one person's input: the woman who finds herself pregnant and doesn't want to be.


edited for clarity

[Silent3]

29. Talking is talking...

Talking is not deciding.

[JerseygirlCT]

30. Until the boys decide that they ought to do more than talk - they

ought to infringe on the rights of women across the country to make personal, private medical decisions themselves, without government interference.

You are certainly welcome to an opinion. It means little to nothing -- as does mine for anyone but me.

You are not entitled, nor is anyone else, to impose your thoughts on the issue on someone else's decision.

These guys aren't talking about their personal opinion on the subject. They're talking about limiting women's reproductive rights.

[Silent3]

32. So, do you also believe that...

...infertile women should never voice opinions on abortion either? It's the only consistent position to take here.

[JerseygirlCT]

36. I know for a fact that infertility isn't always forever

But beyond that, of course, if her opinion on this is meant to control someone else's choice.

They are absolutely entitled to an opinion on their own situation.

They are entitled to a general opinion about abortion, though no guarantee that anyone else should find it interesting.

They are not entitled to restrict another woman's free exercise of her right to make her own personal medical decisions.

[Silent3]

40. Who's arguing for the right of men to actually impose a lack of choice on women?

I'm sure not. I'm arguing free speech. I should think that would be clear.

[JerseygirlCT]

41. And I suppose the morans on CSpan were simply sharing their

personal opinion, not intending that their personal opinion would in fact be codified into law, thereby restricting women's rights?

You can say whatever the heck you want. If you choose to ACT on it, that's a whole different matter.

This is not something that ought to be up to any group of people to decide.

[Silent3]

44. What possible meaning does "freedom of speech" have...

...if any speech that anyone else decides is potentially threatening to another freedom is denied a priori?

[JerseygirlCT]

46. They're allowed to say it: we don't have to like it or support what they say

And once their speech turns into action, then it becomes a problem when that action is intended to deny someone else basic rights.

[Silent3]

50. Sounds like we're in agreement then.

Perhaps just a little difference on emphasis.

[kevinbgoode]

112. It is fascinating that the members of the very minority which denied

free speech to the majority for so many years in this country are so very interested in demanding the right to participate in decisions that primarily affect others. And since they hold most of the public offices in this country, they certainly aren't going to allow any discussion to be introduced for everyone to discuss their bodies.

I thought men already aired their "free speech" on this issue, many years ago. You know, back when they imposed the decisions on others without permitting any exercise of free speech by those who were most affected by those decisions. Wasn't that enough of an expression of free speech? I mean, has there ever been a shortage of "free speech" being exercised in expressing opinions on the lives of others by the group who has always run the show?

[bliss_eternal]

115. I don't understand a world...

where women are routinely denied birth control by pharmacists(most male) that claim it's "against their moral beliefs." Why do they get so moral when it comes to women?

Do these same male pharmacists also deny unmarried men, Viagra and the other "male enhancement" drugs? By not denying it, are they not contributing to men having pre-marital sex, having affairs with married women, or sex with single, unmarried women--or worse yet (GASP) divorced women (don't tell the pope)...

Why does this grand morality only kick in, regarding women's bodies, choices and rights?

[Silent3]

118. What exactly are you saying?

Some men have "used up" the right that all men have to free speech on a particular subject, so free speech for all men when it comes to abortion has somehow expired?

For the nuance-detection impaired: I'm pro choice. I support a woman's absolute right to choose.

I'm also pro free speech, so, at the very same time I'm pro choice, I also don't like the idea that a whole class of people "should STFU", because they don't meet someone else's criteria for having the "right" to speak on a particular subject.

For the nuance-detection impaired: I'm pro choice. I support a woman's absolute right to choose.

[badgerpup]

52. This reminds me...

and NO disrespect intended, truly...

Of that old 'joke' where the Pope is telling people they must not use birth control.

An older matron disagrees strongly with him-
"Hey! You no playa da game, you no make-a da rules!"

Boils down to that, I guess.

[originalpckelly]

68. Or more importantly, the way Padres give marital and sex advice.

"Excuse me sir, but you're not supposed to be doing either, how the fuck would you know enough to lecture someone else?"

[badgerpup]

91. Azackly!

Only you said with more dignity than I did...

[OzarkDem]

93. Not if it doesn't concern their own body, no

Women don't exist to bear unwanted children for those who can't conceive, if that's the point you're trying to make.

As she said, its a woman's personal medical decision. No one else gets a say, man or woman, fertile or infertile.

[kevinbgoode]

110. I think we live in a society in which men believe it is their inherent

right, by possession of their glorified golden peepee, to make all decisions for all people. If we look at this country's history, that's the way civil rights were handled. They still like to play the role that people should come to Daddy for the right to vote, or the right to own property, or the right to control their own bodies. Everything and everyone belongs to Daddy.

That is the society they created for themselves. . .and they seem to struggle with the idea that they are entitled to meddle in everyone else's affairs, but no one gets to air an opinion about their lives.

I tried this little experiment on one of the classes I teach last semester. When South Dakota had forced their heinous little no abortion bill down the throats of the population, I told the students that men can no longer masturbate until they get an ejaculation permit at the same time they receive a marriage license. After all, I reasoned, each time a drop of sperm was spilled, there were potentially thousands of human lives that could have been created.

The uproar was deafening from the males. The same guys who had no trouble telling women they should not be "murdering" the "baby" (fetus) had no intention of taking any responsibility themselves.

So I asked the class that, if abortion was murder, then was a miscarriage considered manslaughter? Naturally, someone said "well, that is different - it isn't the woman's fault." And I replied - it might not have been intentional, but if you claim life begins at conception, a child died and the parent (mother) is responsible. What should her jail sentence be?

There was silence.

Even more silence when I asked if the male should be considered an accomplice because he willingly fertilized the egg in the first place without intent to marry.

[bliss_eternal]

113. Wonder what they would have said...

...if you inquired about jail time for men, after charging them with wreckless abandonment (for mastubatory emissions)?

Excellent arguments, btw. You sound like a thought provoking teacher! Something the generation of students really needs. I'm concerned about their lack of critical thinking skills. Way to go!

[durrrty libby]

28. Sorry man, Not interested in your "interesting views"

If the woman you are involved with is interested in your views, then fine and dandy. Otherwise

zip it.....

[Silent3]

31. It's a (relatively) free country (for who knows how much longer)...

...and I'll speak my mind aloud on any subject I like, and I expect everyone else to enjoy the same degree of freedom. When what someone else is saying is bullshit, I'll call 'em on it. That's how it works in a free society.

You have every right to be disinterested in my views. You have every right to wish I'd be quiet, and to say so. But if you ever actually tried to enforce my silence or anyone else's, male or female, on any issue, I'd fight back, and fight back hard.

[durrrty libby]

33. woop dee dooda

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Abortion is a female specific human right. As a male I support that right.

And, I have no right as a male, who will never have to make such a choice, to instruct women in general, or individual women, what to do with their own bodies.

[JerseygirlCT]

37. Thank you, exactly. nt

[Silent3]

39. I don't men have any right to tell women what to do with their bodies either...

...I already said I'm pro choice. It's the a priori call for the silencing of male opinions on the subject I'm objecting to.

But, of course, I know such subtle distinctions and internet forums don't mix. Raw emotion and lack of subtlety rule the day. I'll still voice my opinions anyway.

[Morgana LaFey]

48. But here's the problem

You say you're pro Choice. Great. I choose to believe you.

But there are really only two view on this subject: aye or nay. So what you're lobbying for is for anit-choice males to have a say-so in what women do with their own bodies, their own reproductive systems, their own lives.

That doesn't make sense to me, IF you are truly pro-Choice -- unless your argument is really just a knee-jerk reaction to the "no males allowed" sentiment.

So I find your positions internally terribly inconsistent.

[Jim Lane]

106. Not inconsistent -- the attack on RTLers is question-begging

Those of us on the pro-choice side believe that reproductive rights are civil rights and that each woman is entitled to make the choice for herself, without governmental coercion. If, somehow, abortion laws could be put to a special plebiscite in which only women (or only fertile women) could vote, and the result were a prohibition on abortion, it would still be wrong. The wrong is in the restriction of individual rights, not in specifically the male restriction of female rights.

The other side, however, doesn't accept that framing of the issue. Whether an abortion is a purely personal choice that affects no one except the woman making the decision is precisely where the disagreement is.

We see terminating a pregnancy as a civil right, one not properly subject to majoritarian infringement. Other people, however, would see such a "right" in owning an AK-47, or even in choosing not to serve a black customer at a private restaurant. Deciding which rights merit this kind of consideration is, inevitably, a political decision. That means the decision is open to participation by men, infertile women, people who don't own restaurants, etc. My interpretation of Kerry4kerry's posts is that he was, quite properly, acknowledging this fact. He was also recognizing that people who disagree with him have a right to express their opinion. They even have the right to seek to influence public policy in ways that Kerry4kerry and I oppose.

There's also a practical point here. I suspect that this "men should STFU about abortion" is offputting to many men and makes it somewhat harder to win them over to the pro-choice side.

[Morgana LaFey]

128. Oh, blah and blather

And I frankly don't care how "offputting" this or ANYthing is to those pweshus widdow men who can't stand being excluded from anything. I'd like to tell them to grow the hell up; not EVERYTHING in this world has to be about or include them.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. This Is A Very Good Post. I Totally Agree And Think You Did A Great Job Making Rational Points.

[Silent3]

45. Gee...

...are you sure I wasn't being to "Ramboish"?

[ismnotwasm]

74. Not at all.

That's a rather nasty straw man argument. Females are the subjugated sex here, the ones with choice being given and taken away by LAW, by LAW mind you -- a subject that shouldn't even be open to discussion or debate.

It's a private decision between a woman and her healthcare provider.

[Silent3]

76. I'm not saying it isn't a private decision between a woman...

...and her health care provider. If fact, I totally agree with that. I'm making a point about free speech, which is apparently a bit too much subtlety for this thread.

[ismnotwasm]

80. I see.

Than why not just say "I support a woman's absolute right to choose?" Tossing the free speech argument is an old male trick for any number of conditions subjugating women. I, for one am sick of it. It never fails to appear, and that's why this thread doesn't seem subtle enough for you.

I understand you probably mean well. May men who make that point do.

[Silent3]

117. I'll let the politicians...

...talk in soundbites and worry about phrasing things oh-so-carefully in the hope that either (1) everyone gets to hear exactly what they want to hear, regardless of what I say or mean, or (2) my meaning is so simple and clear that (almost) no one can be stupid enough or devious enough to misconstrue it.

I'm pro choice, and I support a woman's absolute right to choose.

Hell, I did in fact say right up front in my first post in this thread that I'm pro choice. Did I need the exact phrasing "I support a woman's absolute right to choose"? Am I supposed to say that, and only that? I must stop right there, simply because anything more might be construed as "an old male trick"? Do I need to repeat my pro choice position every other sentence of every post, so that no matter where someone jumps into the thread, there's, oh, a 60% chance that they'll get that I'm pro choice?

I'm pro choice, and I support a woman's absolute right to choose.

People wondering why the level of political discourse in this country is so sad need look no further than a thread like this. It's all raw emotion. Very few people want to hear anything other than "Rah! Rah! Pro choice!" echoed back and forth -- proudly displaying the hot buttons that politicians and the media have learned to push.

Oh, by the way, did I mention that I'm pro choice, and that I support a woman's absolute right to choose?

[OzarkDem]

92. Expressing a view is one thing

Enacting public policy that strips those rights from women is something else entirely. What the OP was probably trying to say is that women's POV is almost never heard on this issue these days unless they're supporting the right wing agenda.

Pro-choice women have lost their voice in the media on this issue and have certainly been overruled by men in public policy related to choice, birth control, etc.

Never in a million years would I have believed women's reproductive rights would have been eroded so drastically and never would I have expected so many men in my own party to jump on the GOP bandwagon.

[JerseygirlCT]

27. Well, it's an extremely easy position to take -- you get to sound

all holy and sanctimonious, while it's never something you'd actually have to face yourself.

[durrrty libby]

35. They get all Ramboish and abusive if we don't think their opinion is important.

Look at this guy. Wowza I've seen the Neanderthal attitude many times

[originalpckelly]

73. "all holy and sanctimonious, while it's never something you'd actually have to face yourself"

In a real relationship with equal partners, all decisions are made through consensus.

Especially if the father wants to be responsible and do all he can to take care of the child.

Unless you've been a guy in that situation, maybe you should STFU about that, eh?

[Lars39]

81. The *woman* is still the one facing possible death and/or maiming.

[JerseygirlCT]

119. The guy's involvement in the decision is only at the woman's

invitation.

So long as it's her body, it's her decision.

[originalpckelly]

122. It really isn't her or his decision. They both are talking about killing someone in existence.

It may be a puny form of human development, very weak and vulnerable, but is a form of human development none the less.

Your absolute lack of respect for other humans is very prominent in your answer. It is a selfish answer with no regard to the health of the child.

[JerseygirlCT]

123. There is no "child" yet. There is an embryo, or perhaps a fetus.

And your lack of concern for the actual, not potential, life involved speaks volumes.

[originalpckelly]

124. Potential life?

Excuse me, but last time I checked even an embryo is alive, and most certainly a fetus is. She or he has human DNA. She or he has the same DNA as she or he will when born.

By having an abortion, a living organism in existence that is a part of the human species will be taken out of existence.

[JerseygirlCT]

126. Yes, potential. Not something capable of living without

the blood and sustenance of the woman. Not capable of life without the woman, and enough time to reach its potential.

When fetuses can be removed from a woman and implanted in another willing carrier, then cool. Until that time, the woman whose body is involved is the decision-maker, period.

You're welcome to your anti-abortion views. Don't have one, then. It's really that simple.

[originalpckelly]

127. It's called "responsibility". You know that fetus didn't decide to create itself.

Someone somewhere had to do it, and if she or he isn't a result of rape, then the mother made the choice.

[Lars39]

131. The woman is responsible for her own life.

Only she can decide if she wants to risk a pregancy to raise a child in the conditions she is able to provide.

[originalpckelly]

136. "The woman is responsible for her own life."

Only when a woman is not pregnant or doesn't have children. Just as a man must be responsible for his children, so too must a woman be as equally responsible.

[Lars39]

147. Women should not lose rights over their own body because they are pregnant.

Even a normal pregnancy carries the very real risk of death or maiming. Insisting a woman remains pregnant against her wishes is barbaric.

[originalpckelly]

157. Have you ever compared the number of deaths per 100,000 for pregnancy complications...

and some other cause of death?

Do that and get back to me on the horrible horrible things I'm making someone do. I mean after all, we can be completely certain none of the abortions that happen in America are ever for anything other than rape/incest or medical complications, can't we?

[Warren DeMontague]

164. So you think it's okay for women to get first trimester abortions - which, as I'm sure someone as

informed as you on this issue knows, is when the vast majority of abortions take place in this country...

in cases of rape, incest or medical complications. Under those circumstances, apparently, for those "reasons", you're okay with abortion. But not "on demand".

How do you propose enforcing that? Women who want abortions should... what- stand in front of long card tables and humbly explain to total strangers why they should be permitted to end their pregnancy? A woman says she was raped, but can't prove it. Then what? Will she need 3 male witnesses to the rape, like in Islamic fundamentalist countries? What about women who lie? What should be the punishment for them?

[Lars39]

If Sally down the street wants to have an abortion because

she just doesn't want to have a baby, that is her right and her choice and no one has the right to force her to go thru with the pregnancy. No one.

[originalpckelly]

169. No one has the right to force her to go through with her pregnancy.

Unfortunately, there is a point at which her choices cause other humans to lose their choices, and if the damage done to the other person is severe enough she loses the right to make that choice. That's unfortunately the case with abortion, it may not always be, but as of right now it is.

[Lars39]

173. Nope.

The "host" must be willing.

[Warren DeMontague]

150. And once again, it boils down to clenched fist, puritannical rage that women are "getting away with"

having -heavens!- sex.



The choice involved in or morality you impose onto the act of sex has no bearing on whether or not a woman should have control over her body. What the abortion "debate" is about, make no mistake, is whether government should be in the business of forcing women to remain pregnant against their will.

Your bullshit platitudes about "responsibility" have jack diddly shit to do with whether or not that's a legitimate proposition.

[originalpckelly]

162. Oh yeah, yeah, I'm just against sex. It has nothing to do with not wanting our society...

to legitimize killing humans just because they're not wanted.

[Warren DeMontague]

163. If you think that a fertilized egg is a human being from the second of conception onward,

what difference does it make if it got their through rape or through "irresponsibility"?

[Lars39]

168. Conception includes IMPLANTATION.

You are advocating forced pregnancies.

[originalpckelly]

172. Oh that poor dear, that rabid embryo came out of nowhere crawled up into her...

put down roots and refused to leave for nine months, and at no time did she do anything to cause it! And hell, if it weren't for that kind doctor who would relieve her suffering, that damn parasite would have stayed the whole damn nine months! Damn thing probably wasn't even human!

[Warren DeMontague]

174. Yeah. What "she did to cause it". You're not hung up on the sex & morality aspect, no.

Paging Dr. Freud.

Look, either that single cell is a human being with full rights under the 14th amendment, or it's not. How it got there is immaterial to that argument.

[originalpckelly]

182. You need to look up thread and see how this started for context.

This is what happens when other people butt in without paying attention to what was previously posted.

[Warren DeMontague]

195. Oh, I know EXACTLY how this thread started.

It's about uptight male pro-lifers with control and sex issues, who don't understand that their personal beliefs about when life begins don't have to be legislated onto other peoples' bodies.

Who isn't "paying attention to what was previously posted"? You've posted these excact same bullshit anti-choice arguments in god knows how many threads, claiming "science" says a fertilized egg is "a human being", being shot down on that- bitching about womens' irresponsibility for having sex that you don't approve of, and never ONCE answering perfectly legitimate questions about ethical consistency (if a fertilized egg is a "human being", after all) regarding the birth control pill, or IVF clinics. Never once explaining when asked how, for instance, women would need to "prove" they had been raped or victimized by incest before you would deign to "permit" them control over their own bodies.

Frankly, we've heard it all before. We KNOW you think a microscopic fertilized egg needs more rights than any loose woman who has the temerity to fuck without your permission. We KNOW that you assert axiomatic bullshit regarding the mystical, magical transmogrification of a sperm and unfertilized egg into a "baby" with "rights" at the second of conception, never once bothering to run through the real-world implications of granting rights to single cells. Okay? We get it, and you're not going to convince the vast majority of Americans who are pro-choice, much less the even vaster majority of DUers who are, with these fucking arguments, because we've heard them all before, and when all is said and done the decision needs to remain in the hands of women and their doctors.

...Next!

[Lars39]

175. She fucked. Get over it.

She still has control over what goes on in her body.

[Warren DeMontague]

176. .

[originalpckelly]

180. Yes, true, but she doesn't have the right to take another person out of existence.

[Lars39]

183. What person?

[originalpckelly]

184. Oh I'm so sorry, I really, really am so profoundly sorry.

I hope your highness can forgive me, a mere mortal, for not sticking to the approved words.

[Lars39]

187. What's the matter? Tired?

Wimp. You've got 9 more months, dude.

[originalpckelly]

189. Oh no, I'm just trying to stay within the words your highest of highness approved for me to use.

What other words am I not allowed to use?

[Warren DeMontague]

196. I can say my cat is a person.

That doesn't make him one.

[originalpckelly]

198. Your cat is a member of different species.

But of course, humane states have laws against even killing cats outside of a medical setting.

[Warren DeMontague]

201. And if states really wanted to be humane they would pass laws against murdering your sperm.

I'm still waiting: IVF Clinics. The Birth Control Pill. How you propose having women "prove" they've been raped before you would "permit" them control over their own bodies. And why rape even matters, if a single cell is a human being, no dissenting opinion allowed.

Hmmm. I think I've asked you variations on these same questions, what, seven times in this thread? Maybe you just missed it.

[Warren DeMontague]

171. One of these days I'd like to get an answer about the birth control pill, IUDs, and IVF clinics.

I mean, if a fertilized egg is a capital-H HUMAN BEING and a capital-B BABY then that applies to cells in fertility clinics just as it applies in the wombs of women who ignore your edicts about keeping thine sinful legs crossedeth.

But I won't hold my breath.

[Warren DeMontague]

149. And you feel the same way about your Sperm, I assume.

Around, and around, and a-fucking-round we go with this. Every god-damn time. Never fails.

If you wish to BELIEVE that a fertilized egg, a single cell, is a human being from the second of conception, that is your business. But there is a huge chasm between having that belief for yourself and writing it into LAW for everyone else. Because it is NOT universally accepted that a single cell is a "human being" that should have "rights". And sperms and unfertilized eggs are alive, too. The sperm and egg, the second before they join in fertilization, have the exact same DNA as the fertilized egg- the exact same potential life. And they are, without a doubt, "alive", just as the fertilized egg is.

So what is it? Do sperms and unfertilized eggs deserve "rights", too?

And if a fertilized egg is a "human being" with "rights", what about the birth control pill, which most "pro-life" groups consider an abortifacent and morally equivalent to an abortion? Should it be criminalized as well? How about IUDs? The workers in IVF clinics who discard fertilized eggs as a matter of course (you know, the ones that those righteous "pro-life" values are keeping from being used in stem cell research) ... are the people who work in IVF clinics mass murderers? Should they get the Death Penalty just as other mass murderers would?

Are you gonna answer any of these questions, this time around? Oh, I doubt it. My guess is, you'll ignore 'em, and continue to spout this identical line of anti-choice bullshit that has been rebuffed, and debunked, and had its "science" argued into the fucking ground--- time, and time, and time again around these parts.

[Warren DeMontague]

154. So let me be sure I've got it all straight:

This:



should be considered by law to be the equivalent of this:



but this:



and particularly this:



do not get "rights".

Right?

And let's be absolutely fucking clear on this... as far as you're concerned, anyone who does NOT accept your axiomatic decree that THIS:



is the SAME THING AS THIS:



has, as you put it, an "absolute lack of respect for other humans".

...Right?

[originalpckelly]

158. Without this:

There will be none of these:


That's what I'm saying, and biology agrees with me.

[Warren DeMontague]

160. And that and four bucks will buy you a coffee at starbucks. What's your point?

Without these





you won't get this, either:



Biology agrees with that, too.

But what you're trying to do is say "Science proves that a fertilized egg is a person with rights from the second of conception." that's like saying "Science proves God doesn't want you to screw before marriage". If you want to try to make that particular faith-based case, go to town- but science proves no such thing.

[originalpckelly]

165. These only have the DNA of the people who produced them:

These have unique DNA:

[Warren DeMontague]

167. 23 + 23 = 46. No DNA is magically manifested in the process of conception.

Everything - all the genes, all the DNA- comes from the sperm or the egg, which you (with your callous disregard of precious human life) steadfastly refuse to grant full citizenship and rights under the 14th amendment to.

Fantasies about the Holy Ghost flying in and depositing fairy dust in there the second sperm meets egg notwithstanding, everything that is in the fertilized egg is in the unfertilized egg and sperm before conception. EVERYTHING.

[originalpckelly]

178. You need to go pull out your little biology book. No one's DNA is an exact match for their parents.

It's called genetic recombination, go look it up if you don't believe me. Quite frankly, if you don't know this, then you aren't even near capable of having this discussion.

[Warren DeMontague]

194. Uh Huh. Genes recombine, but there's nothing there that isn't there to begin with.

I'm well aware of that, I actually took science classes that hadn't yet had their curriculum destroyed by agenda-crazed fundy fuckshits. that. What I don't *believe* is your assertion based upon your opinion that the single celled product of conception with it's 46 chromosomes, recombined but still containing the exact same (barring completely random mutations) genetic material as the sperm and egg, are a full "human being" which needs to immediately, from the second of conception onward, be accorded rights under our Constitution.

See, most people -and I know I've said this to you before, but it seems you have a listening and/or comprehension problem- grasp that their is a continuum of life and existence between sperm & egg, fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, fetus and baby. And as such, there is a difference between terminating a pregnancy at 1 or 2 months, and terminating one at 8 months, which doesn't really happen except in the fantasies of Right Wing AM Radio hosts. And as such, they grant that along that continuum, particularly in the first trimester, the rights of the woman in whom the pregnancy takes place (remember her? the "poor dear" you keep lecturing to keep her legs crossed?) supercede any "rights" the potential person inside her may have. That's the situation that has existed since Roe v. Wade, and most of us think it works pretty well.

Quite frankly, if you think the act of genetic recombination is what magically manifests a human being with rights in a single fertilized egg, I don't see why you're pathologically unwilling to answer questions about A) The birth control pill, and B) IVF Clinics and I really don't get why you're excessively hung up on whether women who have sex are "to blame" for being pregnant or not.

If the act of recombination in the genetic merging of the 2 23 chromosome gamets (which, according to you, are not "alive") results in a full, single-celled human being that needs to be accorded rights which supercede any rights the fornicating sinner, er, sorry, woman in whom that cell must reside at least until viability.. yeah, so if a single cell is a "person", then it's a "person" whether it was created through rape, or In Vitro Fertilization, or even a woman fucking without your express permission.

Rather than issue snide little asides about biology, maybe you'd care to address that. But I won't hold my breath.

[originalpckelly]

197. So, theoretically, if you're right and it's all a + b = a + b...

then siblings ought to have identical DNA. Who knew all siblings were identical twins?

[Warren DeMontague]

200. Huh? No, 23 chromosomes come from the mother, 23 come from the father.

I don't know where you're getting these interpretations, but it's pretty funny that you're accusing ME of being the one with a weak grip on the science of the whole thing.

Not all sperms and unfertilized eggs contain the same 23 chromosomes, do they? Each one, like a fertilized egg, is unique, and theoretically 'precious'. Hell, I could call sperms little "persons", and ask why you heartlessly murder billions of them every time you ejaculate.

But you bring up an interesting point about identical twins- if fertilization, genetic recombination and DNA is all it takes to make a "human being" with "rights" out of a sperm and egg, is it okay to abort one egg of a pair of twins? After all, if ALL THERE IS to a "human being" is a single cell with that unique recombined genetic code, in twins there's two of 'em. So they really ought to be considered the same "person".

Shouldn't they?

[Warren DeMontague]

47. The problem is anyone who wants to make decisions about what OTHER people should be allowed to do

with their own body.

People need to understand that their head is on top of their neck, and not everyone else's, for a reason- so that if they find some particular behavior morally reprehensible, they are free to not engage in it themselves.

It's this puritannical need to fucking tell everyone else what to do that I don't get.

[The Straight Story]

49. Maybe not on whether they should get one, but they can have plenty of input on how

Because that is something that concerns men like me - if my wife were to get one I would want to make sure it was safe, that there was proper oversight, etc just like with any other medical procedure/hospital/dr office/etc.

There is also the age old argument - if the woman chooses to have it, should the man who did not want it be forced to pay since it is his body that has to work for the next 18 years or go to jail. His choice is to not to have a choice (of course, he had the choice not have sex, but then so did the woman).

Overall, I think it is none of my damned business what people do with their bodies.

I am pro-choice, and I vote - so I do have something to say about and my vote can help the cause of keeping it legal.

[RedCappedBandit]

54. I agree..

also, whenever I do something with my own body that wont hurt anybody else, nobody should be able to stop me!



But I don't see that happening any time soon.


However, I must point out that I don't think theres anything wrong with men discussing the issue.. as it can have impact them sometimes. One of your other posts makes it seem like men are never the ones doing the child raising..

[gollygee]

55. For pro-choice men: Why we get frustrated

No, we aren't frustrated at you specifically. We're frustrated at a culture where we, women, are not considered trustworthy to know when we can handle going through a pregnancy and having a baby or not. We aren't considered mature enough? smart enough? whatever to handle that responsibility. We have groups of men who take great delight in telling us what we can and can't do with our bodies.



Our culture is still patriarchal, and it is frustrating.

[mondo joe]

60. Would you rather have a bunch of women deny you the choice?

Abortion isn't a men vs women issue. Statistically there's very little difference between men and women on abortion rights. Women also make up the majority of voters - but you can see where that's left us.

Personally, I don't want anyone to say what I can do with my body. The gender of anyone trying to interfere in my choices doesn't much matter.

[gollygee]

63. No, of course not

I'm just trying to point out where the frustration comes from. I don't think anyone should be able to vote on whether people should have civil rights. Any civil rights - the right to marriage, the right to full control over our bodies - all of that should be off the table as far as voting goes. Why we get to vote on whether we think other people should be able to have abortions or get married is beyond my comprehension. These things should simply be, and should not be decided by the electorate.

Anyway, when you're a woman and you see men talk over and over again about how women have abortions without thinking about it and how women wait until 8.5 months and then abort healthy fetuses because women are irresponsible and therefore need to have their reproductive rights controlled, you get very frustrated. If we vent, it isn't because we don't appreciate your support.

[Warren DeMontague]

132. I'll add this. I flew 3,000 miles to be at the big pro-choice march in DC in April of '04

I didn't have a single woman tell me they weren't glad I was there.

[Lars39]

61. Been a while since I've seen that pic. Still makes me think very mean

ugly thoughts.

[gollygee]

66. Whenever I think about this issue, I think of that photo

They're so happy.

[bliss_eternal]

88. We really should have it copied

and placed onto the mugger of (pro-choice)women's self defense classes.
If I saw all of them coming at me in that picuture--I'd TOTALLY kick some ass!

Or at the very least, put it on a dart board, to place in planned parenthood clinics. You know, so the ladies and gentlemen working so hard for our rights, can let off a little steam on their breaks.

[bliss_eternal]

57. Say it loud--I stand with you, sister...!

Kicking and recommending!

[ismnotwasm]

64. Men have the choice to not ejaculate

After that choice regarding pregnancy ends.

[bliss_eternal]

85. Yeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssss!

[originalpckelly]

70. And what about the women who oppose abortion?

[bliss_eternal]

86. They weren't spouting off on cspan...

...or perhaps the op may have included them.

But for what it's worth, they are entitled to their opinion, regarding their individual lives and bodies. They can keep their opinion to themselves regarding my body, my choice and any other woman's, as far as I'm concerned.

[Rage for Order]

72. As long as so much as a penny of my taxes finances abortion...

Or any other government policy, I'll reserve the right to have an opinion on the matter. That's like saying people who aren't in the military can't have a say in matters of war. Neither position makes sense. When the government acts, it acts on behalf of the entire nation, both men and women.


<spelling edit>

[LeftyMom]

82. Do you have an opinion on tricare's reimbusement policy for appendectomy too?

Yeah, thought not.

Only women's health care is a constant front burner political issue. Think about why that is.

[Rage for Order]

89. Yes I do

I think reimbursing people for appendectomies is a good thing . But feel free to continue being snippy

[LeftyMom]

97. I don't need your permission

either to post snarky comments on the internet or to use my uterus as much or as little as I please.

[bliss_eternal]

87. There ARE private clinics...

...women aren't dependent on YOUR taxes to make their own choice. So they aren't dependent on your opinion either. But thanks for sharing just the same.

[EFerrari]

95. The government has no right to act on my body.

[originalpckelly]

96. Indeed, but what gives you the right to act on someone else's body?

[bliss_eternal]

100. Please, try not to be coy.

Those of us that are pro-choice aren't "acting on someone else's body."

WE are merely TRYING to protect a woman's right to decide for herself what she does in regard to HER body, which include HER reproductive rights. As a pro-choice advocate, I would not be inclined to tell a woman what to do if she were pregnant. I would encourage her to do what SHE FEELS is right for her.

I'm for keeping abortion SAFE, which means keeping it legal.

[kevinbgoode]

114. You shouldn't have to even explain that - they know what you mean.

Besides, they are members of the minority group which never had a problem making decisions on everyone else's bodies, minds, rights, and everything else - for 230 years.

And for most of that time in this country's history, the majority of us weren't allowed to have an opinion. "Free speech" and the right to have an "opinion" was a luxury reserved for themselves.

[bliss_eternal]

116. I know....

...that's why I asked them not to be coy.

Some around here find what they think are clever ways of baiting women into argument, only to attack them on their beliefs. Or they flat out play word games. (sigh)

Good to see you!

[Ilsa]

78. Regarding the adoption issue.. the man in Texas who has fertilized

eggs in storage with his ex-wife doesn't want to give them to her to have and raise. He said he couldn't imagine going through life wondering about his kids "out there", even though he knows the woman who would be their mother. Yet, for some reason, even after pregnancy and birth, women are expected to be able to turn over the babies and move on. It simply isn't that simple.

[defendandprotect]

79. Right -- and who would listen to these idiots?

This is C-span . . . yet on it goes with groups of white males arrogantly blabbing on and on --
and here we are with the results of their stupidity -- Global Warming, 6.7 billion people on the planet -- and women still suffering patriarchy all over the world . . . women and children suffering sexual abuse and WARS.

I've frequently suggested to C-span that if they can't have gender balance in discussion groups, then don't cover the event.

[EFerrari]

94. "M#therf#cker, when was the last time you were pregnant?"

-- Whoopi Goldberg.

[bliss_eternal]

101. Right on, Whoopi...!

Thanks for this--love her!

[NaturalHigh]

99. Right...men should not express an opinion about abortion.

Yet, we're always supposed to vote for the pro-choice candidate and fight for abortion rights. That theory is getting old.

[bliss_eternal]

102. ...and so is the idea

that women don't ALLOW you to have an opinion or to express it. Read the op. She is talking about control, rights and "the powers that be" spouting off on cspan, about what women should or should not do. As if women are belongings and property, not thinking, feeling individuals with the ability to make decisions independent of men.

Given that we live in a male dominated society, we are all quite well informed of "what a great many men think" about abortion, thank you. It's only EVERYWHERE.

Clearly you can vote for whoever you please. We certainly don't NEED you to fight for abortion rights, if that's not something you choose to do. Thankfully there are men that BELIEVE they ARE OUR rights, and SUPPORT us in that--who also are willing to stand beside us and fight that battle. Men like that choose not to DICTATE what our choices should be. Men that don't shout us down, or tell us "put choice aside" or "don't worry about that now" because they want "to win the election."

There IS a difference, and some of us are quite aware of it.

[NaturalHigh]

103. Gee, thank Bliss.

So it's okay with you if I vote for a pro-life candidate, maybe even offer an opinion once in a while about abortion. Glad to hear that I have your permission.

On edit: I would like to point out, though, that the OP wants men on Cspan to STFU about abortion. That's what I was replying to.

[bliss_eternal]

104. What do I care, how you vote...?

It's a free world. It's your choice. But I would wonder why you were here if you did--the admins. probably would too.

I happen to respect (and agree) with the op. I see nothing wrong with her post. She was venting, and is entitled. I wish people like that would stfu about choice, too. If you take her comments personally, that's your choice.

For the record, I consider myself pro-life, pro-choice and pro-peace. I consider the opposition hypocrites to call themselves pro-life. I (and most pro-choicers) call them anti-choice. Just fyi. Thanks!

[NaturalHigh]

105. You would wonder why I was here if I voted pro-life?

You might have missed this, but there are some pro-life Democrats around. Generations of my family and lots of friends come to mind.

[bliss_eternal]

107. No.

I didn't say that. Instead of trying so hard to pick a fight and create an argument where there is none, maybe you could read what I actually wrote.

I would wonder why you were here if you voted for an anti-choice candidate. There's a difference.

There are Democratic candidates that are anti-choice, but most (to my knowledge) are pro-choice.

I'm well aware that there are anti-choice individuals that consider themselves Democrats. I've encountered some here. I know some personally, in the real world. I don't understand it, but it's not for me to understand. It's their right and their personal decision. Again, your choice--why should I care? I don't.

[JerseygirlCT]

120. Men are free to express an opinion on whatever they like

Their opinion on someone else's abortion (and of course, with men it will always be someone else's abortion) shouldn't matter one whit.

This isn't an issue we should even be voting on. It should be seen for what it is: an intrinsic right of a woman to control her own body and make her own medical decisions.

[NaturalHigh]

135. If that's true...

then a candidate's position on abortion rights shouldn't affect whether or not I vote for him or her. So long as I'm satisfied with the candidate's positions on other issues that affect me (wages, taxes, immigration, war, etc), I shouldn't worry about whether or not he or she is pro-choice or pro-life.

Thanks for clarifying.

[spoony]

142. Pretty much.

Spot on per usual

[GumboYaYa]

121. This isn't a sex issue. What the original poster said is true for men and women.

No other man or woman should tell a person what they can do with their body. It has nothing to do with the fact that men can't have a baby and everything to do with the fact that an individual woman is the only person who should make decisions about her body. Just like men should not tell her what to do with her body, other women should not either.

It is a shame that the original poster has turned what is an obvious statement that everyone should agree upon into a sexist rant.

[originalpckelly]

125. In anything that doesn't harm anyone else, everyone should have complete freedom.

In our society we make the presumption that all people have all rights, and only when those rights conflict with the ability of other people to enjoy their rights do they then fall under the category of things that need to be regulated.

[Warren DeMontague]

129. Yup.

Zactly.

[Warren DeMontague]

130. It's extremely simple: My Body, My Business. Your Body, Your Business. Here's a simple test:

If you are aware of a body doing something with itself that you morally don't approve of- like, getting an abortion, using birth control, having consenting adult gay or hetero sex, smoking a joint, taking its clothes off to appear in consenting adult porn, deciding on an appropriate end-of-life strategy to deal with its terminal illness, etc. etc. Ask yourself two questions:

One, does this behavior pose a threat of immediate, direct physical harm to me and/or mine?

and Two, is the body in question attached to my neck and head?

If the answer to both questions is "No", it's None of your fucking business.

[originalpckelly]

137. This leaves open a ton of different situations where people traditionally would intervene:

"One, does this behavior pose a threat of immediate, direct physical harm to me and/or mine?

and Two, is the body in question attached to my neck and head?"

If I've seen another person just get hit by a car, I wouldn't have the right to call 911 if I follow your test.

1. It's not going to pose a threat of immediate, direct physical harm to me and/or mine.

2. And the body in question is not attached to my neck and head.

[Warren DeMontague]

138. You missed the part about "seeing a body do something you morally object to"

That carries with it the implication of deliberate choice.

Whatever, you know exactly what I'm saying. It's about trying to tell other people what not to do. It's not about calling 911 when someone gets hurt.

[originalpckelly]

139. So if someone's trying to commit suicide, I shouldn't call 911?

[Warren DeMontague]

140. Snarf.

If that person is terminally ill and they've made that decision rationally with their doctor, fucking A no you shouldn't.

Beyond that, though, no matter how many red herrings you want to throw out, as a general point I stand by my premise. As a broad-based philosophical starting point, what people do with their own bodies, insofar as they aren't harming or endagering anyone else, for the most part isn't any of other peoples' fucking business.

And either you pretty much agree, or I missed the sarcasm tag that should have come with this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[originalpckelly]

141. Of course, you assume that someone else wouldn't be harmed by a person committing suicide..

what about the emotional harm to their family members who love them? I agree with you on the whole terminally ill suicide thing, most people with common sense probably do, but people commit suicide all the time, people who are not terminally ill.

I mean if someone's going to jump off a building and no one on the street below knows about it, it's very possible someone down below would be injured or killed.

It's called empathy. It's the ability to think about how other people feel or would feel as a result of yours or someone else's actions.

[Warren DeMontague]

143. No, it's called continuing to throw out bullshit red herrings.

Either debate the topic at hand or don't, but I'm not going to play this dumb-ass game with you.

[originalpckelly]

144. The problem is that there is a larger principle and reality you don't seem to grasp...

and it appears to be impacting your feelings about the issue at hand.

[Warren DeMontague]

148. And what would that be, O swami of projection? nt

[Hosnon]

153. Meh...trying to express public policy axiomatically no

longer seems to impress me.

For one, semantics will always get you...

[Warren DeMontague]

156. Ok, how's this for an axiom:

If you don't like abortion, don't have one.

[Dave From Canada]

145. Then don 't ask men to pay for it, through tax dollars or otherwise.

Also, 50% of which you're terminating belongs to the male. Oh, and the last time I checked, people had freedom of speech, even men speaking about abortion. I think you should STFU.

[originalpckelly]

146. I honestly don't think people can belong to people, whether it's the mother or the father.

What's with this ownership mentality?

[RB TexLa]

155. None of it belongs to the male after it is given to the female

Now before when it is in the male's body no one else has any right to it or say about it. If a man has a medical procedure to prevent a female from having his sperm that is his business, she has no right and no say. She has no right to be notified of the procedure. Same thing once it is given to her, the male has no say and no right to be notified of any medical procedures.

[The Straight Story]

159. Does that include child support if she keeps it? (nt)

[RB TexLa]

161. The laws regarding privacy and children can seem to conflict but they really don't

If man doesn't want the risk of being responsible for a child financially, then he shouldn't let a woman have his sperm. We always have our choice first, we don't have to allow them to have our sperm.

[The Straight Story]

166. It is a choice both make at the outset

and if she owns the sperm, then she owns the end result of it if she chooses to keep it.

Not to mention the age old argument - what if the condom breaks, etc and so on.

If he gives it to her, and she now owns it, then the male is not responsible for what she chooses to do with it, she is.

Should he have to use his body for 18 years to work and pay for someone else's decision? If she can dictate to him how he is to live the next 18 years and he can't dictate what happens in 9 months - how is that fair to either?

[RB TexLa]

170. I didn't use the term owns

I said each person controls free of others what is in their body. That doesn't relieve a father of financial responsibility to a child.

A court can dictate to a father that he has to pay money to provide for a child. Nothing else regarding his life can be dictated to him.

[The Straight Story]

177. You said:

"None of it belongs to the male after it is given to the female"

If it does not belong to the male then it does to the female, which implies ownership.

And while the courts may be the one who says that the man must pay, the question is - is that right?

If we allot that the female has control over her body and her destiny, do we not allot the same to the male if the choice she makes brings a life into the world? If we make the man pay for a child he does not want, he now has to use his body to pay for it by law.

[RB TexLa]

181. I noticed I used the word belongs. Was using the same term to answer the post I was responding to

The courts have non-custodial parents pay regardless of their gender.

Are you advocating a law requiring females to obtain consent before giving birth? Or a repeal of child support laws?

[The Straight Story]

193. Advocating only this:

The same logic be applied to both male and females as it is a life changing event for both - I sure as hell don't think a woman should be forced to have a child. I also don't think a man should have to pay for a child if he decides in the same 9 months he does not want the responsibility of a child.

After the child is born, then all bets are off if neither party has done anything during that time.

A person's body is their own - and they should be able to make decisions regarding it. The argument from the right is 'hey, it's only 9 months, if you don't want it, give it up for adoption' to which we reply, rightly, fuck off. Forcing someone to use their body for something they don't want is wrong in this case.

The man in this case should not have a say in how the woman uses her body - if she does not want the kid, or the pregnancy, she should have a choice to modify that.

The many has no say in that choice, it is not his body. But after the baby is born, if the woman chooses to have the child, his body can face jail time if he does not use it to work to pay for it's existence (not to mention working to pay for his own).

IMHO changing the laws to reflect this would lead to more abortions, which the right does not like

BUT if we apply the same logic to the woman in regards to pregnancy to men we come to the issue being discussed here (civilly I might add, for which I thank you).

Whomever has the choice has the responsibility.

[originalpckelly]

179. Well, excuse me, but to fulfill that financial obligation the father must use his BODY...

to work, or do I just not get something about that?

[RB TexLa]

185. I don't think you are going to find a great concern for people who don't work

unless ordered to pay child support.

[originalpckelly]

186. Oh no, because in your perfect world no one has to work hard to pay child support.

It just comes out of nowhere, and it doesn't involve a father using his body.

[RB TexLa]

188. Most people work. If they have child support to pay or not.

[originalpckelly]

190. Yes, but unless they make more than they use, they have to work harder.

Maybe even get a second job! OMG!

[RB TexLa]

191. Then they should have done a better job of protecting themselves

I got mine snipped and clipped. It's nothing I ever have to worry about.

[originalpckelly]

192. Hey, I'm just sayin'.

I agree that guys have to be responsible, I just want to make sure you get the idea that a child forces someone to care of it in a society that doesn't kill people just because their "unwanted". Someone somewhere is forced to use their body.

[kevinbgoode]

199. I can't believe this thread is still circulating. . .

but let me just throw my two cents worth in. . .

to me, this is about more than just the perception by women that MEN feel they are justified in having "opinions" about how decisions over her body.

This is about the whole foundation of our society and our culture.

I can understand that straight men seem increasingly shrill about their right to participate in discussions about issues directly affecting another group. What I can't understand is how they seem to arrogantly ignore their own social history.

When has every citizen in this country been allowed to engage in a debate about the rights of straight white males? When those rights were enumerated into the Constitution, only straight white males who owned property were entitled to vote on their own rights. No one else was allowed to participate in those decisions or engage in that discussion. However, for every other group of Americans since that time, straight white men have not only had the privilege of participating in the discussion, but by virtue of their grip on institutional power, had complete control over whether anyone else had any citizenship rights at all. This pertains to, and affected, the MAJORITY of the population of this country. Women weren't the ones deciding they had the right to vote. Ethnic minorities weren't the ones deciding if they had a right to vote or use the same water fountain. We see it today in the debates over same-sex marriage, or marriage equality - the heteros demand they get to "vote" on the rights of the minority as if they are as affected by that vote as those who are oppressed.

This is, unfortunately, part of the problem our country has faced from the beginning. It was, after all, an imperfect union which was radically created from an even more tyrannical world history - but it was imperfect. And 230 years later, that imperfection still affects and influences the way groups view each other and it rears its head in this kind of debate.

It is not only the logical concept that a woman alone should make decisions directly affecting her body. To me, that is obvious - but it is also the notion that sometimes it appears that the same men who (even when they are supportive) demand participation in that discussion come from a group which historically never allowed any discussion on their OWN rights other than amongst THEMSELVES.

If we are going to make progress in this country on recognizing the dignity and individual worth of EACH citizen, we have to recognize that past and find ways to work around that. Part of that is to find ways not to blame those men today for the imperfections of our Founders - but on the other hand, those men need to be willing to accept those imperfections existed and are sometimes still asserted today, whether they consciously realize that or not.