I'm against abortion myself, but....

[SoyLeche]

Yea but in this case it doesn't apply. The definition of Pro Life is different from what some people think it is. Pro Life means you protect the sanctity of life, no matter what the instance was that the person became pregnant. YOu can't say I am pro life myself but support women's right to choose. That makes you pro choice.

The terms get in the way - mostly because they both want to make their position sound better. Neither "pro" is the "anti" of the other.

We should just call them what they are: "Pro-allow-abortion" and "Anti-allow-abortion"

 

[Evelyn]

And what constitutes "support"?

Does simply not forceably getting in people's way
(ie. not policing and jailing them)
equate "support"?

God does not forceably get in people's way of having abortions...
Does that make God pro-choice?
God does not forceably get in people's way of doing anything.
That would make God pro-choice in all circumstances.
(including out of the womb murder/theft/rape etc etc etc)

Yes, I am pro-choice in the same capacity God is.

Don't worry, He'll be at the voting booths if the opportunity arises.

 

[rheff78]

The terms get in the way - mostly because they both want to make their position sound better. Neither "pro" is the "anti" of the other.

We should just call them what they are: "Pro-allow-abortion" and "Anti-allow-abortion"

I'm fine with that. I'll be ANti-allow-abortion.

 

[SoyLeche]

I disagree..Your talking about a man beign able to force a woman to have a surgery against her will that is not "medically necessary"..Or a man beign able to force a woman to carry a child for nine months and give birth against her will..I mean what exactly is "legal say"..If a man could override a womans decision especially to NOT have an abortion you are talkign about the equivelant of rape..For someone to be able to legally have say so in a woman aborting her child against her will not only are you stealing and robbing from her at the time you are forcing her to live the rest of her life mourning over her lost baby.....Having said that? I do wish my husband was dead set against it and adamently was opposed to me having one.I think he might have been a little or a lot more careful and so woudl have I.

Maybe I got you wrong or misunderstood you...

Blessings

Dallas

If a man chooses to not have an abortion, but the woman wants an abortion, the man pays all medical costs durring pregnancy and takes full responsibility of the child after birth.

If the woman doesn't want an abortion, I'm not all that opposed to making the man take responsibility even though he wanted an abortion. I just don't think that they should be allowed if the man wants the child.

In my scenario (which I haven't thought through entirely), an abortion would require both parties to be on board with the idea. If either didn't want an abortion, there will be no abortion.

 

[DallasApple]

why do you think there are so many problems in the world

Thats a whole other thread! LOL!

Love

Dallas

 

[SoyLeche]

I'm fine with that. I'll be ANti-allow-abortion.

Me too.

 

[Gentoo]

If a man chooses to not have an abortion, but the woman wants an abortion, the man pays all medical costs durring pregnancy and takes full responsibility of the child after birth.

It's not always that cut and dry either, SoyLeche. What if the woman would be mentally and/or emotionally harmed from either carrying the child to term, or knowing that she is being forced into it?

This is just me speaking here, but I would be filing for divorce if my husband were to do that to me.

 

[DallasApple]

If a man chooses to not have an abortion, but the woman wants an abortion, the man pays all medical costs durring pregnancy and takes full responsibility of the child after birth.

If the woman doesn't want an abortion, I'm not all that opposed to making the man take responsibility even though he wanted an abortion. I just don't think that they should be allowed if the man wants the child.

Im more inclined to agree with that than not.If the father wants to have the baby and she doesnt... I can see your point.Its isnt really fair for the man to have to lose a child and live with it forever either.

Blessings

Dallas

 

[SoyLeche]

It's not always that cut and dry either, SoyLeche. What if the woman would be mentally and/or emotionally harmed from either carrying the child to term, or knowing that she is being forced into it?

This is just me speaking here, but I would be filing for divorce if my husband were to do that to me.

Life sucks sometimes.

 

[Gentoo]

Life sucks sometimes.

That's what I mean though, there are no easy answers. But I'm the type to make my own decisions, in or out of a relationship, and I'm more than willing to let others make their own difficult choices.

 

[DallasApple]

If a man chooses to not have an abortion, but the woman wants an abortion, the man pays all medical costs durring pregnancy and takes full responsibility of the child after birth.

If the woman doesn't want an abortion, I'm not all that opposed to making the man take responsibility even though he wanted an abortion. I just don't think that they should be allowed if the man wants the child.

In my scenario (which I haven't thought through entirely), an abortion would require both parties to be on board with the idea. If either didn't want an abortion, there will be no abortion.

O.K good then you were freaking me out I thought you also meant he could legally force her to abort against her will...Im relaxing now..LOL!

Blessings

Dallas

 

[Evelyn]

That's what I mean though, there are no easy answers. But I'm the type to make my own decisions, in or out of a relationship, and I'm more than willing to let others make their own difficult choices.

That's the thing, as a society we do intervene in people's lives if the choice harms others. And in this case, it's the ending of a life.

Although, I will tell you from experience that terminating the pregnancy doesn't fix whatever problems existed prior.

 

[rheff78]

ok, now let me interject here. I'm a Pro Lifer or Anti-Allow-Abortion. In my view the husband does have that right.

 

[Evelyn]

ok, now let me interject here. I'm a Pro Lifer or Anti-Allow-Abortion. In my view the husband does have that right.

Be careful with that though. There is something wrong with determining whether someone should live or not (whether it be the female/male or both) simply based on whether they are "wanted". So giving the man rights doesn't necessarily fix the problem.

It's got a Hitler tone to it you know?

 

[rheff78]

Be careful with that though. There is something wrong with determining whether someone should live or not (whether it be the female/male or both) simply based on whether they are "wanted". So giving the man rights doesn't necessarily fix the problem.

It's got a Hitler tone to it you know?

I know what you mean. But, you know the church's stance on taht right? If both of them are in peril and only one life can be saved, you save the baby.

 

[3.14]

lets consider the options

woman wants baby dad doesn't: dad gets screwed
dad wants baby woman doesn't: dad gets screwed
woman doesn't want baby but dad does and no abortion: dad gets custedy over the baby but if the mother ever wants it back dads screwed
dad doesn't want baby but woman does and no abortion: dad still has to pay alemony, if he ever want to see his child again hes screwed


the dad pretty much always gets screwed in this systeem

 

[DallasApple]

Be careful with that though. There is something wrong with determining whether someone should live or not (whether it be the female/male or both) simply based on whether they are "wanted". So giving the man rights doesn't necessarily fix the problem.

It's got a Hitler tone to it you know?

I would not compare it to Hitler.People dont intentionally get pregnant because they want to wipe out thier own offspring.I've met many woman who have had abortions.And they did not derive one ounce of pleasure or happiness out of doing it.Thier is a "relief" factor in a lot of them..But most have subsequent and sometimes severe turmoil even if its later in life.

Hitler is the wrong choice of words.IMHO.

Blessings

Dallas

 

[SoyLeche]

lets consider the options

woman wants baby dad doesn't: dad gets screwed
dad wants baby woman doesn't: dad gets screwed
woman doesn't want baby but dad does and no abortion: dad gets custedy over the baby but if the mother ever wants it back dads screwed
dad doesn't want baby but woman does and no abortion: dad still has to pay alemony, if he ever want to see his child again hes screwed


the dad pretty much always gets screwed in this systeem

Under which scenario? Our current scenario or the one I have put forward? I'd disagree that the dad should get totally screwed in your 3rd option - only half way.

Since screwing was what got them into the mess though, I don't mind them getting screwed at the back end.

 

[Evelyn]

I know what you mean. But, you know the church's stance on taht right? If both of them are in peril and only one life can be saved, you save the baby.

That is the overwhelming opinion of the elite within the Church. But its not conclusive or dogmatic in any sense of the word. The intention of the Church is to save innocent lives. Once you get into "Which innocent life should I save?"...that gets a little more tricky. But yeah, I think most catholics (laity and clergy) alike would tell you that they would save the baby.

 

[Evelyn]

I would not compare it to Hitler.People dont intentionally get pregnant because they want to wipe out thier own offspring.I've met many woman who have had abortions.And they did not derive one ounce of pleasure or happiness out of doing it.Thier is a "relief" factor in a lot of them..But most have subsequent and sometimes severe turmoil even if its later in life.

Hitler is the wrong choice of words.IMHO.

Blessings

Dallas

You took it farther then I even intended it.

The only connection I was making was with deciding if the infant is "wanted" or not.