Christian Abortion Hypocrisy [W: 439]

[year2late]

Women do know how babies are created, right? And if they aren't forced to have sex... then they had a choice.

If they are aware of this... and choose to risk pregnancy... well they know they have to accept the consequences, right? Same as men.

Left wing hypocrisy in a nutshell. You want autonomy for women and chains on men.

I am the first to say that historically men have gotten crappy treatment in the support/custody venue. I took great strides to make sure I did not do this to my ex. I saw no reason for a protracted expensive legal battle that would inevitably affect our son negatively.

I have witnessed (and put my two cents worth in) when I saw my friends do this.

Frankly, now that many of my friends are the breadwinners in their families...they are now getting similar "man treatment" It is just as wrong as when it happens to men.

That being said....as a man your biological choices have to do with conception. Once impregnated, the ultimate biological choice is the womans. If she chooses to remain pregnant, after that it is about the kid....and frankly...the taxpayers. As a taxpayer, hell if I am going to pay anything to support your child unless you help pay first.

I do not care what the woman is using for contraception...if YOU do not want to be a father...suit up.

 

[year2late]

Women do know how babies are created, right? And if they aren't forced to have sex... then they had a choice.

If they are aware of this... and choose to risk pregnancy... well they know they have to accept the consequences, right? Same as men.

Left wing hypocrisy in a nutshell. You want autonomy for women and chains on men.

And they have one additional choice you do not have....because it is her body.

 

[Celebrity]

And they have one additional choice you do not have....because it is her body.

A born child is not her body, and she still has the choice of closed adoption that men do not have.

I am the first to say that historically men have gotten crappy treatment in the support/custody venue. I took great strides to make sure I did not do this to my ex. I saw no reason for a protracted expensive legal battle that would inevitably affect our son negatively.

I have witnessed (and put my two cents worth in) when I saw my friends do this.

Frankly, now that many of my friends are the breadwinners in their families...they are now getting similar "man treatment" It is just as wrong as when it happens to men.

That being said....as a man your biological choices have to do with conception. Once impregnated, the ultimate biological choice is the womans. If she chooses to remain pregnant, after that it is about the kid....and frankly...the taxpayers. As a taxpayer, hell if I am going to pay anything to support your child unless you help pay first.

I do not care what the woman is using for contraception...if YOU do not want to be a father...suit up.

"I'm not racist, I have black friends" is not a valid argument.

If a woman does not want to be a mother, then a closed adoption is an option for her. Not so for men. How many pro choice people are against adoption?

 

[calamity]

I agree. My post was satire.

The area where we need to expand abortion is an abortive option for men which allows them to cut ties with civility, instead of physically abusing pregnant women or running off to another country to avoid paying child support.

The Christian abortion hypocrisy is that they do not support children. But it's not just Christian hypocrisy. Pro choice people aren't advocating for a real solution to child support either. And that solution is publicly funded, not abuse of men on the basis that biology implies financial support.

If children are a benefit to society, which is what I believe the anti-abort argument is implying, then society should find a way to fund children. But, for some reason, the anti-abortion crowd has an immediate disconnect whenever that is brought up.

 

[Celebrity]

If children are a benefit to society, which is what I believe the anti-abort argument is implying, then society should find a way to fund children. But, for some reason, the anti-abortion crowd has an immediate disconnect whenever that is brought up.

Some of the pro life crowd is against funding early childhood education, and I'm sure some of the pro choice crowd is as well. As far as Christianity is concerned, it is hypocritical to neglect born children in that way. As far as feminism and misandry are concerned, it is also hypocritical to demand autonomy for women while financially abusing and enslaving men. So there is hypocrisy on both sides. It's important to recognize this hypocrisy and have a discussion about why pro choice people stick closely with a dynastic model which arranges societal wealth into classes of biological families.

 

[calamity]

Some of the pro life crowd is against funding early childhood education, and I'm sure some of the pro choice crowd is as well. As far as Christianity is concerned, it is hypocritical to neglect born children in that way. As far as feminism and misandry are concerned, it is also hypocritical to demand autonomy for women while financially abusing and enslaving men. So there is hypocrisy on both sides. It's important to recognize this hypocrisy and have a discussion about why pro choice people stick closely with a dynastic model which arranges societal wealth into classes of biological families.

That's why winning the ovarian lottery is so important. You want to be sure yo mama picks a baby daddy who, if he doesn't stick around, can at least pay. IMO, I probably agree in that we need to take that drawing out of the equation.

I doubt you'll get many anti-abortionists to agree though.

 

[Lursa]

Women do know how babies are created, right? And if they aren't forced to have sex... then they had a choice.

If they are aware of this... and choose to risk pregnancy... well they know they have to accept the consequences, right? Same as men.

Left wing hypocrisy in a nutshell. You want autonomy for women and chains on men.

No women that gets pregnant can avoid paying the consequences, there is no escape. There are only 4 scenarios:

--she has a kid
--miscarriage
--abortion
--dying during pregnancy/childbirth

And she can die or suffer permanent health damage from the first 3 too.

However men escape consequences in*all but one of those*. If they are pissed they get stuck with that one...then since they know it before they have sex...either dont have sex or accept that your consequence is that you dont have control over the woman's choices.

Are you suggesting that men dont have control over their own decisions? That they are some kind of victims when they know ahead of time and can choose?

 

[Lursa]

A born child is not her body, and she still has the choice of closed adoption that men do not have.

I believe this is wrong and that the laws should be changed...every man should have the option to keep his own child first.

But that's the opposite of the discussion where men want an 'opt out of child support' free card.

And it's equal once there is a kid: both parents are held responsible. If the woman isnt the custodial parent, she pays child support. Family courts are not completely fair with respect to offering fathers custody yet...but that is the way they are moving more and more.

 

[Lursa]

If a woman does not want to be a mother, then a closed adoption is an option for her. Not so for men. How many pro choice people are against adoption?

That's not completely true. Single fathers can also take advantage of safe harbor laws where kids can be dropped off with no questions asked.

 

[Celebrity]

No women that gets pregnant can avoid paying the consequences, there is no escape. There are only 4 scenarios:

--she has a kid
--miscarriage
--abortion
--dying during pregnancy/childbirth

And she can die or suffer permanent health damage from the first 3 too.

However men escape consequences in*all but one of those*. If they are pissed they get stuck with that one...then since they know it before they have sex...either dont have sex or accept that your consequence is that you dont have control over the woman's choices.

That's why women should seek the best medical care for their personal medical conditions. Forcing men to suffer because women suffer is exactly the kind of misandric, abusive behavior of which I have grown intolerant. This is not a victimhood contest, and if I am not your doctor then your death or permanent health damage are not on my hands. If you want to steamroll over every logical argument with the absolutist idea that no one should ever touch women because it's all her problem, then you must concede that women's rights are prioritized over men's rights (substitute freedoms for rights at your discretion), which is discrimination against men.

The discussion of death during pregnancy and permanent health damage as a result of decisions which only women and not men make is better suited to the healthcare forum. Here in abortion it amounts to whining and no suitable solution can arise from it. Universal coverage for pregnant women would be an example.

Are you suggesting that men dont have control over their own decisions? That they are some kind of victims when they know ahead of time and can choose?

I am suggesting that women make their decisions about their own personal business in a hospital and don't force men to become involved. A woman should be no more able to make choices for men than a man is allowed to make choices for women. When a woman brings her decision outside of a hospital and into a courtroom, it begins to affect other people, including men. Sometimes people on the pro choice side forget that. Men do not have control when their wages are imputed, or they are forced to go to prison for a decision that they did not make, and indeed some are victims of this type of abusive behavior.

 

[Celebrity]

I believe this is wrong and that the laws should be changed...every man should have the option to keep his own child first.

But that's the opposite of the discussion where men want an 'opt out of child support' free card.

And it's equal once there is a kid: both parents are held responsible. If the woman isnt the custodial parent, she pays child support. Family courts are not completely fair with respect to offering fathers custody yet...but that is the way they are moving more and more.

Then why are you bringing it up? It's not equal once there is a kid. Forcing men and women to be part of their biological children's lives makes as much sense as criminalizing adoption. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your claim that family courts are "moving" in the right direction? Frankly, where women have an option that men do not, I see no equitable destination and no motion toward that point.

There is no reason to force men or women to be in a relationship with someone who they have never met, or do not know. For instance, dowries and arranged marriage have been made illegal (for the most part) in the developed world, although I think it is still unfortunately legal to arrange marriage of minors.

 

[year2late]

No women that gets pregnant can avoid paying the consequences, there is no escape. There are only 4 scenarios:

--she has a kid
--miscarriage
--abortion
--dying during pregnancy/childbirth

And she can die or suffer permanent health damage from the first 3 too.

However men escape consequences in*all but one of those*. If they are pissed they get stuck with that one...then since they know it before they have sex...either dont have sex or accept that your consequence is that you dont have control over the woman's choices.

Are you suggesting that men dont have control over their own decisions? That they are some kind of victims when they know ahead of time and can choose?

I chose to remain pregnant. I was in good health, good age, great insurance and access to top notch medical care.

I suffered several major complications and in addition I needed a C-section. I was off almost 6 months and lost out on a promotion that was mine to take.

A man avoids those consequences completely.

 

[Lursa]

That's why women should seek the best medical care for their personal medical conditions. Forcing men to suffer because women suffer is exactly the kind of misandric, abusive behavior of which I have grown intolerant. This is not a victimhood contest, and if I am not your doctor then your death or permanent health damage are not on my hands. If you want to steamroll over every logical argument with the absolutist idea that no one should ever touch women because it's all her problem, then you must concede that women's rights are prioritized over men's rights (substitute freedoms for rights at your discretion), which is discrimination against men.

The discussion of death during pregnancy and permanent health damage as a result of decisions which only women and not men make is better suited to the healthcare forum. Here in abortion it amounts to whining and no suitable solution can arise from it. Universal coverage for pregnant women would be an example.



I am suggesting that women make their decisions about their own personal business in a hospital and don't force men to become involved. A woman should be no more able to make choices for men than a man is allowed to make choices for women. When a woman brings her decision outside of a hospital and into a courtroom, it begins to affect other people, including men. Sometimes people on the pro choice side forget that. Men do not have control when their wages are imputed, or they are forced to go to prison for a decision that they did not make, and indeed some are victims of this type of abusive behavior.

Good medical care does not save everyone. In any case, those are the only 4 consequences and all have risks. And no women are claiming victimhood. This has been our lot for...ever.

It's pretty sad that you think women are making their choices just to punish men...THAT shows a bitter resentment against women.

And you seem to want to ignore this reality, this consequence: your consequence is that you dont have control over the woman's choices. *And you know this ahead of time*

If you dont like it or dont want to accept it...dont have sex with that woman. Why is that not an acceptable choice for men? You keep total control over your parenthood or lack of it. Why be so foolish as to place your future in women's hands if you feel that they are going to punish you? Or act in a manner you dont like?

The rights being prioritized here are a) the kids' and b) the taxpayers. Because the taxpayers get stuck paying when the bio parents dont. And if you are looking for 'fair,' then that is not remotely fair...'we' didnt knowingly contribute DNA to that kid.

 

[Lursa]

Then why are you bringing it up? It's not equal once there is a kid. Forcing men and women to be part of their biological children's lives makes as much sense as criminalizing adoption. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your claim that family courts are "moving" in the right direction? Frankly, where women have an option that men do not, I see no equitable destination and no motion toward that point.

There is no reason to force men or women to be in a relationship with someone who they have never met, or do not know. For instance, dowries and arranged marriage have been made illegal (for the most part) in the developed world, although I think it is still unfortunately legal to arrange marriage of minors.

Er...you brought up the closed adoptions. And yes, more and more men are given equal priority in custody cases. Are you denying that? And most of the judges are still men....

And I have no idea what your last para is about, how it relates to the discussion at all.

 

[Lursa]

I chose to remain pregnant. I was in good health, good age, great insurance and access to top notch medical care.

I suffered several major complications and in addition I needed a C-section. I was off almost 6 months and lost out on a promotion that was mine to take.

A man avoids those consequences completely.

The complete denial that they can 100% choose their own destinies always kills me. :roll:

It's the entitlement view that they are still entitled to sex without consequences, as they have been since time immemorial. Unfortunately, technology and civilization have caught up with them now. Men can no longer have sex without consequences. If they dont want to get stuck with a kid or 18 yrs of payments...they would be smart to protect themselves and choose wisely.

Really low-hanging fruit:

Are the family courts biased against men? | Child Protection Resource

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...orce-custody-partner-husbands-wives/10225085/

Men’s rights, recognized: The pro-father evolution of divorce and paternity law.

 

[Celebrity]

Good medical care does not save everyone. In any case, those are the only 4 consequences and all have risks. And no women are claiming victimhood. This has been our lot for...ever.

Good medical care is a good way to address a medical issue.

It's pretty sad that you think women are making their choices just to punish men...THAT shows a bitter resentment against women.

I do not bitterly resent women, I bitterly resent abusive women and men.

And you seem to want to ignore this reality, this consequence: your consequence is that you dont have control over the woman's choices. *And you know this ahead of time*

This is false. It is not "my" consequence that I don't have control over women's choices. It is a consequence of the law being written in a way which is discriminatory. My consequence is being a victim of discrimination.

If you dont like it or dont want to accept it...dont have sex with that woman. Why is that not an acceptable choice for men? You keep total control over your parenthood or lack of it. Why be so foolish as to place your future in women's hands if you feel that they are going to punish you? Or act in a manner you dont like?

If you don't like it or don't want to accept it, don't have sex with a man. Why is that not an acceptable choice for a woman? You keep total control over your parenthood or lack of it. Why be so foolish as to place your future in men's hands if you feel that they are going to punish you? Or act in a manner you don't like?

The above is satire of your hypocrisy and misandry.

The rights being prioritized here are a) the kids' and b) the taxpayers. Because the taxpayers get stuck paying when the bio parents dont. And if you are looking for 'fair,' then that is not remotely fair...'we' didnt knowingly contribute DNA to that kid.

Is it abusive or protective of children to force two parents to engage in a civil union or marriage? If you can't justify marrying two people for the sake of the child, then I don't think you can justify sending a check. Taxpayers getting stuck investing in future taxpayers makes sense to me and if any pro choice or pro life taxpayer really cares about children, they should enthusiastically support children to whom they did not "knowingly contribute DNA."

Frankly Lursa, there is no substantial difference outside of biology between a kid who has your DNA and a kid who doesn't. It's racist and cruel to espouse this dynastic approach to procreation. Your argument shows that you are not "pro choice" but instead "pro women." And I have shown that you are willing to prioritize taxpayers over children living in poverty.

 

[Celebrity]

Er...you brought up the closed adoptions. And yes, more and more men are given equal priority in custody cases. Are you denying that? And most of the judges are still men....

And I have no idea what your last para is about, how it relates to the discussion at all.

So just to be clear: if more and more men are given equal priority in custody cases, then it's more equitable for women, even if abortion is made as criminal for women as it is for men.

Yes that's true for custody. But not for abortion. I think we're getting a little off topic here. My point is that if women have the option to disavow parentage, so should men. You seem to disagree to the point that you want closed adoption to be illegal. I'm not sure why you brought up the legal status of adoption. It is what it is.

 

[Lursa]

Good medical care is a good way to address a medical issue.

It doesnt matter....one way or another, those are the 4 consequences...with good or bad medical care. If it's not one, is one of the others :doh

A woman does not escape consequences if she gets pregnant.

 

[Celebrity]

It doesnt matter....one way or another, those are the 4 consequences...with good or bad medical care. If it's not one, is one of the others :doh

A woman does not escape consequences if she gets pregnant.

It doesn't matter. Good to know.

 

[Lursa]

So just to be clear: if more and more men are given equal priority in custody cases, then it's more equitable for women, even if abortion is made as criminal for women as it is for men.

Yes that's true for custody. But not for abortion. I think we're getting a little off topic here. My point is that if women have the option to disavow parentage, so should men. You seem to disagree to the point that you want closed adoption to be illegal. I'm not sure why you brought up the legal status of adoption. It is what it is.

Men do. Before they have sex. Are you saying this is a lie?

And cool...we wont bring up potential changes to laws that might make things better :mrgreen:

 

[Lursa]

Frankly Lursa, there is no substantial difference outside of biology between a kid who has your DNA and a kid who doesn't. It's racist and cruel to espouse this dynastic approach to procreation. Your argument shows that you are not "pro choice" but instead "pro women." And I have shown that you are willing to prioritize taxpayers over children living in poverty.

Except that men and women are responsible for their DNA and that is what you are complaining about....your DNA being brought to fruition against your will.

If you dont want to be held accountable for that DNA...do not give it away.

 

[Lursa]

It doesn't matter. Good to know.

Exactly...women pay the consequences for having sex that results in pregnancy.

Why should men be allowed to avoid their consequence for the exact same thing?

 

[Celebrity]

Men do. Before they have sex. Are you saying this is a lie?

Women also have a choice before sex, and they have a medical decision after sex. The medical decision should be limited to medicine only, and not infringe on the rights of others. Having an operation is not a license to be a parasite.

And cool...we wont bring up potential changes to laws that might make things better :mrgreen:

Oh we certainly will. I'm not here to discuss any changes to healthcare law. I'm here to discuss changes to the law regarding abortion, which is the topic of this forum. Men should have a choice in the matter, and a choice is not being forced to go to prison because you're poor.

Exactly...women pay the consequences for having sex that results in pregnancy.

Why should men be allowed to avoid their consequence for the exact same thing?

Why should men be allowed to avoid the consequences of a choice which is only made by a woman? Are you seriously asking me that question?

Why should women be allowed to avoid the consequences of a choice which is only made by a man?

The previous question is satire of your question.

 

[Lursa]

If you don't like it or don't want to accept it, don't have sex with a man. Why is that not an acceptable choice for a woman? You keep total control over your parenthood or lack of it. Why be so foolish as to place your future in men's hands if you feel that they are going to punish you? Or act in a manner you don't like?

The above is satire of your hypocrisy and misandry.

How is it satire? It's the truth and women live by it. If we dont want to accept the consequences of a pregnancy, we shouldnt have sex.

And if we do so, intentionally or accidentally or drunk or stupidly or disillusioned thinking a man loves us...it doesnt matter... we still have to pay the consequences I listed. We *have no escape.*

Heh, I get it now...we can make choices that men have no control over. That's it, isnt it? Yeah, I've seen alot of men posting about that resentment. That's the part about being 'punished,' eh?' That women can escape from *men controlling them,* even tho they cant escape the consequences of pregnancy.

Wow.

 

[Lursa]

Women also have a choice before sex, and they have a medical decision after sex. The medical decision should be limited to medicine only, and not infringe on the rights of others. Having an operation is not a license to be a parasite.

You keep saying medical decision. Each one is a consequence....a painful possibly life-altering one. So now you think that men should be able to TELL a woman which of those she must accept? Just for a man's convenience (in which his life or health is never in jeopardy)? And if she doesnt pick the painful, life-altering choice for your convenience, then she's a parasite???

We cannot escape consequences of a pregnancy and accept that. If we choose to have sex, we have to accept that.

Why cant men accept that if they have sex resulting in a pregnancy, their consequence is that they dont have control over a woman's decision?

Please tell me why? It's a very specific question.

You can avoid parenthood...you just dont want to give up sex without consequences