I've been saying this for years.....

It takes two to procreate, why does only one get to make the decision?

I'll start by saying that I am pro choice, but at the same time why is the "choice" only one sided? If the man wants to have the baby and the woman doesn't he has zero recourse, yet if the woman wants the baby and the man doesn't she can have him on the hook financially for 18 years.

(01-26-2017 08:00 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

It is an interesting and for sure controversial paradox under our current paradigm. I have to say Im in the personal responsibility ranks. You make a child?...you support it like a man if she decides to carry it to term. I do though fully understand the heavy heartbreak of some men that feel that their child was murdered. It is a fcked up thing.

You guys realize how easy it is to flip this around? It would give a single guy free reign to screw who he wants and when he wants with zero repercussions.

(01-26-2017 08:16 PM)miko33 Wrote:  You guys realize how easy it is to flip this around? It would give a single guy free reign to screw who he wants and when he wants with zero repercussions.

IOW what women have now?

Property rights issue until 20 weeks?

(01-26-2017 08:35 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Property rights issue until 20 weeks?

Not quite sure I get what you're saying..

This, to you, is "property"?

(01-26-2017 08:16 PM)miko33 Wrote:  You guys realize how easy it is to flip this around? It would give a single guy free reign to screw who he wants and when he wants with zero repercussions.

I fully understand. That is why I said "some" men..above.

At some point as a society...we have to understand that "responsibility" comes first. That applies to BOTH parties. There is almost ZERO reason for unwanted pregnancies. We have the medical technology easily accessible to prevent this problem...especially if both parties are protected. The likely chance of getting pregnant using proper contraception is extremely rare. Abortions should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother. The rest? You made it?...you raise it..or..give it up to a family that will love it.

(01-26-2017 08:16 PM)miko33 Wrote:  You guys realize how easy it is to flip this around? It would give a single guy free reign to screw who he wants and when he wants with zero repercussions.

Not necessarily....

If the rule was if either parent wanted the child, it would overrule the abortion desire, then your hypothetical does not occur.

(01-26-2017 08:41 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-26-2017 08:16 PM)miko33 Wrote:  You guys realize how easy it is to flip this around? It would give a single guy free reign to screw who he wants and when he wants with zero repercussions.

I fully understand. That is why I said "some" men..above.

At some point as a society...we have to understand that "responsibility" comes first. That applies to BOTH parties. There is almost ZERO reason for unwanted pregnancies. We have the medical technology easily accessible to prevent this problem...especially if both parties are protected. The likely chance of getting pregnant using proper contraception is extremely rare. Abortions should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother. The rest? You made it?...you raise it..or..give it up to a family that will love it.

Rape and incest are horrible but I have to ask.... Why is it ok to abort a baby conceived in it but not from a drunken one night stand? What is different about the baby?

(01-26-2017 08:39 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(01-26-2017 08:35 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Property rights issue until 20 weeks?

Not quite sure I get what you're saying..

This, to you, is "property"?

Once the child can live outside the womb, it should not be either the fathers or mothers choice. Prior to that, could it of be argued along property rights lines?

(01-26-2017 08:49 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(01-26-2017 08:39 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(01-26-2017 08:35 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Property rights issue until 20 weeks?

Not quite sure I get what you're saying..

This, to you, is "property"?

Once the child can live outside the womb, it should not be either the fathers or mothers choice. Prior to that, could it of be argued along property rights lines?

If we define human life as "can sustain outside the womb sure"... But that's not a clear line.

Some kids born at 20 weeks survive, others do not.

(01-26-2017 08:45 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(01-26-2017 08:41 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-26-2017 08:16 PM)miko33 Wrote:  You guys realize how easy it is to flip this around? It would give a single guy free reign to screw who he wants and when he wants with zero repercussions.

I fully understand. That is why I said "some" men..above.

At some point as a society...we have to understand that "responsibility" comes first. That applies to BOTH parties. There is almost ZERO reason for unwanted pregnancies. We have the medical technology easily accessible to prevent this problem...especially if both parties are protected. The likely chance of getting pregnant using proper contraception is extremely rare. Abortions should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother. The rest? You made it?...you raise it..or..give it up to a family that will love it.

Rape and incest are horrible but I have to ask.... Why is it ok to abort a baby conceived in it but not from a drunken one night stand? What is different about the baby?

Nothing is different about the fetus. It is victim of an irresponsible or violent act.

She's right.

But then again, it's women who are the victims! I thought we went over this.

(01-26-2017 08:45 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(01-26-2017 08:41 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-26-2017 08:16 PM)miko33 Wrote:  You guys realize how easy it is to flip this around? It would give a single guy free reign to screw who he wants and when he wants with zero repercussions.

I fully understand. That is why I said "some" men..above.

At some point as a society...we have to understand that "responsibility" comes first. That applies to BOTH parties. There is almost ZERO reason for unwanted pregnancies. We have the medical technology easily accessible to prevent this problem...especially if both parties are protected. The likely chance of getting pregnant using proper contraception is extremely rare. Abortions should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother. The rest? You made it?...you raise it..or..give it up to a family that will love it.

Rape and incest are horrible but I have to ask.... Why is it ok to abort a baby conceived in it but not from a drunken one night stand? What is different about the baby?

It has the genes of a rapist

(01-26-2017 09:28 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  She's right.

But then again, it's women who are the victims! I thought we went over this.

The victim starts at conception. At some point we need to be adults and eliminate that unless we want it.

I was staunchly pro choice for years...

The minute I saw the first ultrasound of my oldest son at 16 weeks it was like a knowledge bomb went off....I realized how much of a selfish prick I had been because of the convenience it would have provided and that this was a human being on that screen.

Possession nine-tenths of the law?

(01-26-2017 09:38 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I was staunchly pro choice for years...

The minute I saw the first ultrasound of my oldest son at 16 weeks it was like a knowledge bomb went off....I realized how much of a selfish prick I had been because of the convenience it would have provided and that this was a human being on that screen.

I would not pry and do not want to know if you ever used that "convenience" before that event...but..you touch on what bothers me about the Pro Choice radicals. Abortion should NEVER be used because you were simple irresponsible. There are thousand upon thousands of couples who can not conceive that would welcome and love any child as their own.