|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am always on the fence with this issue. I'm not pro-abortion just to be pro-abortion, nor am I anti-abortion just to be anti-abortion.
If a man and a woman agree to the abortion, then I'm not going to judge them. I would not ever request this myself, but I am not in their shoes, and I am not their keeper. Yes, I feel that the child is a child at conception, but I also believe in personal accountability as well as referential moralism, and they have to live with this decision, as does, sadly, the deceased child.
However, if the man wants to keep the child, and the woman wants to abort it just because she wants nothing to do with the baby and/or father, or for whatever reason, then the abortion should NOT be allowed. In addition, once the child is born and the father is given his rightful custody, then the woman should be required to help support the child.
Feminists would argue that this is the woman's decision to make. However, they will be the first to also argue that if the pregnant woman keeps the baby against the man's wishes, that he must then PAY for that decision (I also agree that he must pay for the decision). Double standard, as always, for the extreme feminists.
I hope that NOW and other organizations are reading our work here as a reference point of how a movement can be fair and effective without constant hatred.
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I hope that NOW and other organizations are reading our work here..."
You can bet your sweet bippy they are.
"... as a reference point of how a movement can be fair and effective without constant hatred."
They have no interest in doing this. They are hardcore feminists whoo believe that men are a lower form of life.
But I digress.
I, too, believe that abortion is wrong. But the two issues MUST be separated. Reproductive choice for men applies whether or not abortion is legal for women. Yet the issue gets lumped-in deliberately so that the feminists only have one side to fight against.
Divide and conquer. If we manage to gain the support of those who are agnostic to abortion itself yet support of a man's right to choose, then we gain a lot. That part of Roe v. Wade may be "adjusted" by the Supreme Court. Then the pro-life community can attack what's left.
The challenge I see is that there are dyed-in-the-wool pro-life advocates that might also refuse to separating the issues. They don't detract from us, they just fail to add to our numbers. This approach can't help but help our position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" "... as a reference point of how a movement can be fair and effective without constant hatred."
They have no interest in doing this. They are hardcore feminists whoo believe that men are a lower form of life. "
However, if we offer them no ammunition, then...
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, if we offer them no ammunition, then...
...that person is a rad-fem anti-male gender bigot because that person does nothing, and to do nothing is to support gender feminism.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm confused by this comment. What does it mean?
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm confused by this comment. What does it mean?
Oh that. I'm just being a smart ass. LOL! I never take stuff too seriously. I saw the "..." and filled in the blank.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that no matter what happens a fair and balanced discision has to be found for the sexes.
If we obligate one parent we should obligat the other.
If we absolve one we should absolve the other.
If a woman wants an abortion its her choice, but a man should have the choice to walk away regardless.
If we take away the choice to abort than we should take away a man's right to walk away as easily.
I am pro-life in the simplest version I can be. I think that abortion is murder and if I abort a child I am a murderer. Im not going to bitch about anyone else. Legal or not legal its a moral issue and I have to choose the right thing here.
Everyone here has their choice on the matter Im not making this a battle of the wills or rights or wrongs. Its a life at conception because if left in the environment it will grow to an adult human. So thats how I define it.
Though in the Paradox men should have a legal balance to protect the rights and intersts of the individual.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 01, @05:12PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"I hope that NOW and other organizations are reading our work here as a reference point of how a movement can be fair and effective without constant hatred."
I think you're a troll trying to make it look like men's activists are proposing to control women's privacy and autonomy. Men's reproductive rights has nothing to do with forcing women to bring a pregnancy to term. What it does call for is giving men the equal choice to decline parenthood.
The definitive site on this issue isn't www.mensactivism.org, it's www.choiceformen.com. Go there and educate yourself on this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I hope that NOW and other organizations are reading our work here as a reference point of how a movement can be fair and effective without constant hatred."
I think you're a troll trying to make it look like men's activists are proposing to control women's privacy and autonomy.
Mitchell:
I don't see how the quote given above in any way indicates that you are a troll trying to make it look like men's activists are proposing to control women's privacy and autonomy.
I've tried to stay out of the mud slinging contests that this person so frequently starts, but you are a relatively new contributor here, and I'd hate to see you waste time that could be used on activism. (A note to others: Mitchell has already engaged in activism associated with this site. See the thread on the Chicago Tribune's attempt to justify statutory rape by women. He's written to the Cubs and to the Tribune.) So, Mitchell, please consider ignoring this person.
I'm not sure if this is an emotionally overwrought, self-righteous, aggressive person who believes he/she supports men's rights or if this is a feminist troll. I am sure, however, that this person has succeeded in wasting the time of many people who contribute here. That is time that could be used to further the rights of men. Or, for that matter, to clean out the basement.
This individual consistently attacks many people here, who are active and who have better things to do than respond, but who nonetheless get caught up in wasteful, useless arguments.
Please just write this person off. Believe me, you'll lose nothing of value by doing so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ "I hope that NOW and other organizations are reading our work here as a reference point of how a movement can be fair and effective without constant hatred."
I think you're a troll...]
I don't want to start a pissing contest here, but as I recall, there was at least tacit agreement that someone who posts here and includes an identifier, either a handle at the bottom of the post or an account ID, was NOT to be regarded as a troll. The person attributed to the original statement is labeled "ppmnow," has an account ID, and seems to be offering intelligent discussion.
And I interpret his statement as one of pointing out the virtue of our (supposed) approach to gender issues as being on a higher moral plane than NOW, etc. I don't regard it as negative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To whomever:
If you are going to post here and sling accusations about, please be kind enough to not post anonymously.
As for me, if you want me you can reach me at ppmnow@hotmail.com. I won't comment on the subject of trolling in this thread again.
By the way, am I the only person here that feels this is an attempt to divide two organizations working for a common cause: Men's rights?
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, am I the only person here that feels this is an attempt to divide two organizations working for a common cause: Men's rights?
First of all, good response.
Second, you may be right WRT the above question, but it's not my impression. I think this person has no real interest in choiceformen.com and would like to disrupt them as much as us. This person is a troll. It just wants to sidetrack us while it aggressively postures.
Again, you've made a fine response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I defer to you, Thomas, as you have more experience in this forum than I.
Thank you.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, am I the only person here that feels this is an attempt to divide two organizations working for a common cause: Men's rights?
Mitchell,
It does seem that AU is trying to create a division. That has happened before in the past and routinely fails now. This of course is different from some of the heated debates that we get into. Those debates have a distinctly different tone and they are accepted.
We can strongly disagree, get angry, or whatever and we still come together on common issues. I find this happens at my local men's activist group also. Some of the debates can go on for months. But we have agreed that it is always more important to set aside our differences and move the cause forward where we find agreement and consent.
This is quite different from the rad-fem organizations where they demand uniformity of thought and action from their members. In those organizations, when a person disagrees they are excommunicated from the core group and kept on the outside.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for clearing that up for me, Warble.
This is an exceptional point to make to any/all members of this kind of cause: Although we may, on occassion, disagree, it is indicative of a strong organization that we still stand together and work as many voices tuned to one cause.
Extreme feminists, eat your hearts out.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a pro-life person, I can't fathom that there is anything fair about abortion. However, your proposal would be a start.
Perhaps if we stopped looking at reproductive issues as "rights" and instead viewed them as obligations and responsibilities we could scoot further along toward both fairness and humaneness?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 07, @09:17AM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne.
I couldn't agree more.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 01, @08:28PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"Note that this MAY be a possible dividing point with the pro-abortion crowd. There may be many women who favor male reproductive choice who also demand the right to safe and legal abortion."
O my goodness is the power base of the radical feminists eroding some more? Will the last psycho radical feminist leaving their roach infested house please turn out the lights? Even the bugs will be rejoicing when you are gone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that among the catastrophic results of an overturning of Roe v. Wade, would be a significant loss of sympathy for the "reproductive choice for men" arguments and men's issues in general.
-----
This signature has been infected with Anthrax. Take your medicine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roe v. Wade is based on a mistake by the Supreme Court regarding interpretation of feticide laws v. medical ethics rules of the 17th century.
This is just one example of what happens when a Union becomes a People's Republic where nine individuals hold total sway over consent of the governed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even if you don't agree that trying to deny women free will over their own bodies by trying to force them to carry their unwanted pregnancies to term (and screw the coathanger tragedies) would be a bad thing, you should still be able to understand that the mere suggestion would reflect extremely poorly upon a men's group trying to establish similar reproductive choices for men. Regardless of your true intentions on the matter, it would suggest that the feminists are right and you really do see women not as equals but instead as the property of men. Perhaps some in the Religious Right may feel that their Bible tells them that this is so, but I think for men's issues to get the respect they deserve among the larger population, a more egalitarian approach is called for.
-----
This signature has been infected with Anthrax. Take your medicine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subversive wrote:
Even if you don't agree that trying to deny women free will over their own bodies by trying to force them to carry their unwanted pregnancies to term (and screw the coathanger tragedies) would be a bad thing, you should still be able to understand that the mere suggestion would reflect extremely poorly upon a men's group trying to establish similar reproductive choices for men.
I have always been pro-choice (and continue to be)but that is because I think that the decision to become a parent is one of the most important, far-reaching choices that any person can make and no one can make that choice for them.
Evidently, I am wrong. Increasingly I am told that the abortion decision is about a woman's right to do with her body as she pleases. Women get the choice because it is their body; men don't.
Frankly, if it's not about the choice to be a parent and is simply about ensuring that women don't have to undergo the discomforts and risks (now greatly reduced by modern medicine) of pregnancy then I'm not so sure that I am pro-choice. The issues are too great and the lives of at least two others are too intimately involved to elevate a woman's aversion to mood swings and weight gain to be the deciding factor.
Having been repeatedly told, though, that Roe v. Wade, the right to privacy and abortion are based on a woman's right to control her own body and therefore biology creates a right to choice that men don't have, I actually sat down and read Roe v. Wade to see if that's what it said. It doesn't. Those who would tell you that are ill-informed and, I presume, re-interpreting in light of the the whole "Our Bodies, Our Selves" movement that came about after Roe v. Wade.
From Blackmun's Opinion of the Court:
On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree...In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions.
If the right of privacy they articulated isn't based on female bodily self-determination, what did they base it on?
These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships and child rearing and education. (Citations deleted)
In short, it's about the right for an individual to make decisions for themselves about their closest, most important relationships without compulsion by the state.
What are the factors that convinced the Justices that the state shouldn't interfere in the abortion decision>
The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.
Note that only one sentence deals with the risks of choosing to undergo pregnancy. All of the rest are issues related to the decision to become a parent. All are issues that men face equally and are equally harmed by government interference in that choice.
Anyway, to me, to reduce the abortion decision to "a woman's free will over her own body" and present it as a choice to undergo pregnancy rather than a choice to become a parent is to trivialize the decision unconscionably.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 04, @01:05PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Men will only have reproductive choice when techniques of in vitro pregnancy have been developed. Feminists are frantically opposing this developpment ( by means of their control of research funding ) because it will dramatically re-empower men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, I'd like to bring up the "Last Clear Chance" doctrine of law, defined in Blackstone's Legal Dictionary as follows:
The "last clear chance doctrine" is that a party who has the last clear chance to avoid damage or injury to another is liable (citations); that negligence of party having last opportunity of avoiding accident is sole proximate cause of injury(citations); that if one has opportunity of avoiding injurying another he must at his peril exercise theopportunity (citations). It places liability upon him who commits the last proximate negligent act.
I really fail to see how the "Last Clear Chance doctrine" DOESN'T apply to abortion, since the woman obviously the "party having last opportunity of avoiding accident."
If anyone can tell me how, please explain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no problem with women "having the right to their own bodies" provided that men would enjoy the same right. Since they do not, to take what many men;s activists consider a triviality, which is that infant males are often routinely circumcised--depriving them of sexual physiological functions (e.g., the presence of a foreskin prevents a woman's lubrication from being quickly pumped out, as in the case with a circumcised organ)--and because women want to take so much of the conttol over every aspect of reproduction from men (even to the point of being able to name a non-biological father, who would have no recourse against paternity fraud), that I'm beginning to think it is fair to repeal Roe vs Wade, reset the clock, and begin from the beginning to establish series of reforms that would be fair to BOTH sexes. The situation can only get worse for men otherwise, since the trend is toward ever increasing control of every aspect reproductive 9and its consequences) behavior by women.
I think men's activists have to be willing to go along with repealing Roe vs. Wade if women are unwilling to budge on issues of concern to the mens movement, such as equitable child support awards, relief from paternity fraud, and so on. Since women are unwilling to budge, we have to stand up to them and say, "fine, you won't be fair to us, so we see no reason to extend to you the same rights that you would not extend to us." No more Mr. Nice Men's Activist!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
