StarGateWars Forums

You can thank Psyko for this topic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-ch ... 45214.html

Clearly that article is insane comparing women to animals and endangering life, didnt read it all as I cant stomach more than a few minutes of right wing church nutters but that was clearly the way it was going.



For a more sensible question on the subject of abortion

What about the rights of the father ?

How is it right that a father can have his unborn child killed against his will just because the mother doesnt want it

Takes two too tango yet only one currently gets the choice over the outcome

MEZZANINE wrote:Clearly that article is insane comparing women to animals and endangering life, didnt read it all as I cant stomach more than a few minutes of right wing church nutters but that was clearly the way it was going.

That is absolutely hilarious. Go back and reread the article.

MEZZANINE wrote:Clearly that article is insane comparing women to animals and endangering life, didnt read it all as I cant stomach more than a few minutes of right wing church nutters but that was clearly the way it was going.



For a more sensible question on the subject of abortion

What about the rights of the father ?

How is it right that a father can have his unborn child killed against his will just because the mother doesnt want it

Takes two too tango yet only one currently gets the choice over the outcome

It's actually a giant article written by a liberal woman bashing the right wing church nutters and their laws.

The father has no right to force a woman to carry a child to term. Also, if you provide that right to a man it can give rapists who impregnate their victims the right to block the woman from abortion (likely leading to suicide). It gets sketchy all-around if you allow men to assert their rights over a woman's right to decide how/when she will be a mother.

As to my response to the article, it will have to wait until I'm not at work or exhausted. I do think Jack should post his opinions before I respond.

Obviously, if a rapist impregnates a women and the women chooses to abort, the rapist has no rights in the matter. further, not only does the rapist not have a say in the woman's choice of abortion but if caught and convicted has given up all rights altogether.

I'm confident that granting a right of say in the choice of abortion to men that the law can be written in a way to exclude rapists and forced pregnancies.


Edit: i should add that i am AGAINST abortion, unless in extreme cases such as the well-being of mother/baby. Abortion (even if pregnant for 1 day) IS murder, PERIOD!

[KMA]Avenger wrote:Edit: i should add that i am AGAINST abortion, unless in extreme cases such as the well-being of mother/baby. Abortion (even if pregnant for 1 day) IS murder, PERIOD!

i would have thought you would be all for freedom of choice tbh, what if the child is going to be brought into a hostile family full of abuse, wouldnt they be better of not knowing about it , and since it does not have consciousness it would be unaware of anything

[KMA]Avenger wrote:Obviously, if a rapist impregnates a women and the women chooses to abort, the rapist has no rights in the matter. further, not only does the rapist not have a say in the woman's choice of abortion but if caught and convicted has given up all rights altogether.

I'm confident that granting a right of say in the choice of abortion to men that the law can be written in a way to exclude rapists and forced pregnancies.


Edit: i should add that i am AGAINST abortion, unless in extreme cases such as the well-being of mother/baby. Abortion (even if pregnant for 1 day) IS murder, PERIOD!

I'm pro-choice.

You can't give men "a say" in abortion. If you did, it's a 1v1 vote. Would the man saying he wants the baby automatically remove the woman's choice not to have the child and then force her to carry the child to term because of the demands of the man who got her pregnant? That is not right. No woman who does not wish to be pregnant or carry the child to term is going to accept that.

The "right wing church nutters" say the woman should never have had sex without intending to be pregnant. The bigger nutters would say she should have been married first. Maybe so, but it is her body and if there is a mass of cells multiplying inside her that she wishes to stop, she should be allowed to make that decision on her own.

At least until the technology is out there where they can remove the zygote from the woman and place it in the father or in an appointed surrogate so the child can be born and given to the doting father. If he wants the child, he should pay for such a procedure, too. Until such a system is put in place, the right to choice is solely the mother's.

Some VERY valid points BUT, i disagree for 1 simple reason, the child (even a foetus) has no voice but if it could speak at 1 day old i would imagine it would choose life. i'm no religious nut, i'm simply pro-life.
If the women doesn't want to be pregnant then she has 2 choices...keep her legs closed or use contraception, it's that simple mate. that is 2 choices more than an unborn child has.

People (especially Americans) go on about liberty and rights, what about the right of an unborn child to live? the child did nothing wrong but has to accept the ultimate in punishment without so much a whimper? how is this moral or even civilised??

1v1 is not ideal in any situation, and is a tough nut to crack...so to speak, i don't have a real solution to this. all i can come up with is that a farther can have the right to take it court (free of any and all charges. lets not argue this as it is besides the point ultimately) and put his case across. i'm not in favour of this solution by any means, but it is an option.

At the risk of sounding jaded; the world is too full of crap for a child.
A child can be a great source of joy, a tremendous fount of pain, but most of all, why would you want to subject a child to the horror that is this world, the morose masses, the ignorant population.. no. No one in their right mind would want to inflict this world on a child.

Any other day, I would argue that the human desire to procreate without regard for the child they will set on this world borders on psychopathic and sadistic, in some cases even genocidal and always a crime against human rights.


On this day, however, I share in a millionth of a percent of the pain of losing a child, and I cannot help but understand why certain people have children and why others refuse to. I did not want the point to be left unmade, though.

its an individuals choice,

enough unwanted children are brought into the world as it is, I'd rather that they were clinically terminated then face years of suffering and neglect..

I don't think it is something I could or would choose for myself, but I have friends that have, I don't think them a lesser a person for it..

and why the option of embro/foetus transplants hasn't been fully explored idk,

fem fatale wrote:enough unwanted children are brought into the world as it is, I'd rather that they were clinically terminated then face years of suffering and neglect..

And then there is that as well, of course. Well said.

Psyko wrote:You can't give men "a say" in abortion. If you did, it's a 1v1 vote. Would the man saying he wants the baby automatically remove the woman's choice not to have the child and then force her to carry the child to term because of the demands of the man who got her pregnant? That is not right. No woman who does not wish to be pregnant or carry the child to term is going to accept that.

And what of the right of the man to not father a child? If a man impregnates a woman, but doesn't want to be a father, he has no choice should she decide to keep the baby. Only fair that it would work the other way around. Actually, it's a bit more less than fair. Whereas the woman is only encumbered for 9 months, the man would have to pay child support for 18 years.

Psyko wrote:The "right wing church nutters" say the woman should never have had sex without intending to be pregnant. The bigger nutters would say she should have been married first. Maybe so, but it is her body and if there is a mass of cells multiplying inside her that she wishes to stop, she should be allowed to make that decision on her own.

Yup, it's absolutely **Filtered** insane to expect a woman to take on any responsibility whatsoever.

Psyko wrote:It's actually a giant article written by a liberal woman bashing the right wing church nutters and their laws.

Correction, it's actually a giant article written by a feminazi frothing at the mouth with feminist bile attacking mostly made up issues. The article is more about men vs women than anything else, she just uses abortion and, to a lesser extent, contraception as a platform to spew her nonsense.

Psyko wrote:

MEZZANINE wrote:Clearly that article is insane comparing women to animals and endangering life, didnt read it all as I cant stomach more than a few minutes of right wing church nutters but that was clearly the way it was going.



For a more sensible question on the subject of abortion

What about the rights of the father ?

How is it right that a father can have his unborn child killed against his will just because the mother doesnt want it

Takes two too tango yet only one currently gets the choice over the outcome

It's actually a giant article written by a liberal woman bashing the right wing church nutters and their laws.

The father has no right to force a woman to carry a child to term. Also, if you provide that right to a man it can give rapists who impregnate their victims the right to block the woman from abortion (likely leading to suicide). It gets sketchy all-around if you allow men to assert their rights over a woman's right to decide how/when she will be a mother.

As to my response to the article, it will have to wait until I'm not at work or exhausted. I do think Jack should post his opinions before I respond.

Yeah didnt read much, guess I read the bits were she was quoting the right wing church nutters lol Kinda of a skimmer when reading, look for the interesting or provocative bits.

On rapists ( which I would assume to be a tiny minority of the babies terminated ), I would agree the father should have no rights.

BUT

In the vast majority of normal cases I think the father should have a say

If either sexual partner is so dead set against having children they should have used contraception. Once they have both decided to go ahead without it they with that decision accept the consequences.



Frankly Im sick of the 'rights' subjects, every time I hear it seems to be giving more rights to either women or to some minority group often through what is called 'positive discrimination'. Positive discrimination has nothing to do with equal rights, it takes away rights from one group to appease another, and it always seems to be the White Male that gets screwed over.

Jobs should be given to the best 'person' for the job regardless of sex, race, age, disability etc, not used to make up quota's or show how politically correct you are.

Fathers should have the same rights as Mothers. Anyone who has experience of them knows that family courts are the only legal form of sexual discrimination left in the UK. The assumption that women automatically make better parents is BS, and the lack of enforcement when it comes to Fathers access to their children is a disgrace.

Back on the Abortion subject, why should 'Pro-Choice' only apply to women, wheres the mans choice & voice ? Having a Pole instead of a Hole dont mean we dont have feelings or want kids. If neither partner want a child fine, but if either one does and is willing to take on custody and raise that child then killing the child is sickening.

As for Maintenance or Child Support, the door swings both ways, I believe men ( or woman ) not raising the child should support their child regardless of if they wanted them, both men and women need to accept responsibility for not using contraception. I dont see why other tax payers should foot the bill for it.

Maybe people should choose not to **Filtered** and get pregnant until they can handle the consequences responsibly thus removing the choice to commit murder or not. Abortion is a hideous crime and its murder and sadly big business, **Filtered** all you liberals and pro choicers..you have no clue WTH kind of destruction thats been wrought on this country and now the world. Choices have consequences,,CHOOSE to do the right thing instead of choosing to cover your ass after "oops" happens. Idiots.