Who's right to choose, a womans right to choose.

[Kreskin]

Well seeing as emotion and personlizing the issue is now the course of action here, even participated in by the mods, I think this debate is over as far as I'm concerned.

If you would like to go back to the beginning and try doing this again using a rule of law and a measure of maturity. I'll be glad to particapate.

For the record, just once again for those of you that can not read or read objectively.

I put forth an arguement for discussion, it does not necessarily reflect my beliefs...oh forget it, what's the point, with the expressed maturity and under developed hyper emotion shown by several of the parties that do not want to discuss this rationaly or intellegently, including a mod, there really is no debate, just pointing fingures and reading into commentary to extract what you want.

Grow up.

Thanx for the laughs and exposing the hypocracy.

Yes Bear, you're the only one who can read objectively. And amazingly you haven't expressed your beliefs, just presented discussion points. And as usual you're the only one who is rational and intelligent.

Maybe you can share your real beliefs next time. I'm on the edge of my seat awaiting the rational intelligence.

 

[CDNBear]

Yes Bear, you're the only one who can read objectively. And amazingly you haven't expressed your beliefs, just presented discussion points. And as usual you're the only one who is rational and intelligent.

Maybe you can share your real beliefs next time. I'm on the edge of my seat awaiting the rational intelligence.

I have not tried to make this personal, you and others have. Is that now the norm for debate here? As perscribe by the mods?

I have attempted to diffuse each personalization, if you can not se that, perhaps the problem does not lie with me.

I do not believe in forcing a woman to have an abortion. I have not stated anything to the contrary.

Yet you and other have inferred as much.

Am I pro choice? It really isn't up to me now is it. I have no interest in defining laws that do not pertain to me. It should be a womans issue to decide the cousre of the legal tides. I think Draconian for male law makers to force their will on the opposite sex.

Yet my character is drawn into this.

I have merely asked, why the woman can "opt" out, if she feels that she is not at that point in life. But the man does not have that choice.

Not one of you have addressed that at all. You have merely gone on a smear campain to denigrate me into silence. A habit I rarely run from, but usually get warned about by you mods, when I hang in and bully back. Now you are the bully and I am merely trying to get an answer that addresses the question not the emotion the question provokes.

So if you are finished with you attacks on my character and are done smearing me. Perhaps a mature answer to the question is in order, minus the emotion and hyperbol. Or should I just prepair for another round of attacks and deflection?

If you really believe that you have read my words objectively and responded correctly, I can assure you have not, just look at your attacks, and the disection of my statements to smear me, instaed of answer the question. Objective? Not really. I have read objectively, and have agreed on many points put forth. That is objective.

 

[Kreskin]

Bear, if I told you that the Native community has the ability to paddle rowboats to Siberia to find land and work would that be reason for me to suggest the eradication of Native land claims? Since I have no say as to express my belief whether or not they can paddle those rowboats then because they have the options we'll just close the pocketbooks and call it a day. That is the depth and equivalent of your "discussion point". So before you start preaching rational intelligence perhaps you should do a personal audit.

 

[CDNBear]

Or perhaps you should read a little of my critasisms of my own people. But your analogy is flawed in the fact that they can not just merely pull up stakes and invade a soviergn nation. That job has been taken by the US.

I see where you're coming from. I agree that it is not a palletable course of action or option for some, including myself. But that does not mean that it is not a legal option.

I'm not questioning the morallity or ethics of it. I am questioning the legality.

Here's an analogoy that would best describe my partaking here...

A defence attorney, does not support rape murder, torture or theft(well that one is debatable), but yet he defends his client to the full extent of the law.

So with that in mind, can we please cease the smear campain? I see that your last post was not a smear, but I'm not holding my breath that this does not occure again. But I do thank you.

i realise the emotion that is involved in the issue, but I am trying to get to the heart of the legallity not the emotion, that is possible.

 

[Curiosity]

I think in sum.....

The arguments while emotional were presented well because it is an impossible situation for agreement even when being discussed regarding "possibilities" rather than "actualities" in our lives.

The situation of having unprotected sex with anyone - should be a matter of knowing your partner, having already discussed the "possibilities" or "preventions" etc., and protecting oneself from being put in a really tough position by having a few minutes of nature's nasty little imperious rule over our bodies.

Nature only cares about procreation no matter what stage of our lives we are in. Some people actually discuss more about buying cars, best vacation spots, favorite movies, where they will go out to dine, more often than how they wish to handle prevention of pregnancy.

If you don't know exactly the "rules" with your partner of the possibility of creation and how you both are going to handle it for the benefit of "all"..... then give it a pass until you have protection.

Not easy - but the unwanted consequences are horrendous. You are playing with human lives here. One not even begun.

While women have equality in our society - there is little equality in the matter of gestation - especially unwanted gestation and life altering decision-making.

Women need to upgrade their worth a notch and be ever careful who they choose to have sex with and how the act is accomplished in safety and on equal terms. If a woman thinks she may lose the "love of the moment" because she wants to pass on intercourse until things are settled and discussed, she may lose the "love"anyway through more hazardous happenings.

Men need to regard a complete act of intercourse as a gift he can give a woman with whom he can share the responsibility of the creation of a child...if that is the outcome. He needs to know what the woman would do in every instance, and be assured she is using protection - if not - he must be fully responsible
for it, or choose to avoid intercourse in which he could impregnate.

 

[selfactivated]

Ok Im gonna prolly get smacked for this but I cant stay quiet. (theres a news break for ya)

Kreskin, I totally see Bears point. He has made it quite clear in his wording and because it is a volital subject EVERYONE has personalized it including me. Personally I was thankful that the "fathers" of my kids "opted out". I found a man that couldnt have kids and he loved my children (he beat the daylights outta me! but loved the kids lol) It seems to me your not REALLY reading the question objectively. I dont know if its the subject OR you have a personal problem with Bear (it seems you do by some of your sharper comments) Personally Id like to see Bear reword the question in another thread and we start over with the premise that personal attacks arent ok. At this point its just one stick after another and who learns from that? But hey your the mod so your rules rule eh?

 

[Ariadne]

I have not tried to make this personal, you and others have. Is that now the norm for debate here? As perscribe by the mods?

I have attempted to diffuse each personalization, if you can not se that, perhaps the problem does not lie with me.

I do not believe in forcing a woman to have an abortion. I have not stated anything to the contrary.

Yet you and other have inferred as much.

Am I pro choice? It really isn't up to me now is it. I have no interest in defining laws that do not pertain to me. It should be a womans issue to decide the cousre of the legal tides. I think Draconian for male law makers to force their will on the opposite sex.

Yet my character is drawn into this.

I have merely asked, why the woman can "opt" out, if she feels that she is not at that point in life. But the man does not have that choice.

Not one of you have addressed that at all. You have merely gone on a smear campain to denigrate me into silence. A habit I rarely run from, but usually get warned about by you mods, when I hang in and bully back. Now you are the bully and I am merely trying to get an answer that addresses the question not the emotion the question provokes.

So if you are finished with you attacks on my character and are done smearing me. Perhaps a mature answer to the question is in order, minus the emotion and hyperbol. Or should I just prepair for another round of attacks and deflection?

If you really believe that you have read my words objectively and responded correctly, I can assure you have not, just look at your attacks, and the disection of my statements to smear me, instaed of answer the question. Objective? Not really. I have read objectively, and have agreed on many points put forth. That is objective.

Okay, so let's agree that no one is going to force a woman to undergo dangerous surgery that will likely result in psychological scars and possibly physical ones.

Now let's go back to the choices ... since obviously no one wants to deliberately hurt themselves, abortion is pretty much off the table.

A man and woman get pregnant and they have to deal with it. How is the woman going to opt out?

 

[CDNBear]

Are you going to bring any reason to the table.

Abortion is legal, whether you like it or not is irrelivant, whether YOU think it is safe, or not is irrelivant.

The facts are that thousands of abortion happen yearly in North America, that do not result in death, disfiguring or long term ramifications.

Please address the issue with the law in mind, not your personal opinion or emotion. That is the premiss of the debate, not whether abortion is or is not a viable option.

 

[Ariadne]

Are you going to bring any reason to the table.

Abortion is legal, whether you like it or not is irrelivant, whether YOU think it is safe, or not is irrelivant.

The facts are that thousands of abortion happen yearly in North America, that do not result in death, disfiguring or long term ramifications.

Please address the issue with the law in mind, not your personal opinion or emotion. That is the premiss of the debate, not whether abortion is or is not a viable option.

Abortion is legal, but it's not everyone's choice. Many people consider abortion to be murder, so all of those people cannot choose abortion. No one has the right to tell people to have an abortion if it is against their principles and therefore it is not an option for many people. How are those women going to opt out of their pregnancy? Vasectomies are legal too ... but no one is telling men that they can opt out of pregnancy by getting one.

I doubt you know how abortion effects women. It's the sort of thing that women never admit to because of the life long psychological scarring. Furthermore, it may be legal, like smoking, but many people don't think highly of women that undergo the procedure.

 

[CDNBear]

Abortion is legal, but it's not everyone's choice. Many people consider abortion to be murder, so all of those people cannot choose abortion. No one has the right to tell people to have an abortion if it is against their principles and therefore it is not an option for many people. How are those women going to opt out of their pregnancy? Vasectomies are legal too ... but no one is telling men that they can opt out of pregnancy by getting one.

I doubt you know how abortion effects women. It's the sort of thing that women never admit to because of the life long psychological scarring. Furthermore, it may be legal, like smoking, but many people don't think highly of women that undergo the procedure.

This comment solidifies the fact that you have not read a thing I have said.

Feelings, beliefs and opinions are a personal choice. And rightly so. But that does not change the LAW. Regardless of the people involved' position on abortion as an option. Does not change the LAW.

My point is the LAW is flawed and favours women. I do not expect you to understand that, because you have a bias.

You see, I have no bias, so I can accept that abortion isn't for everyone. I can also accept the mans pivotal role. But none of that makes the LAW any more balanced or equal.

Hey, I wasn't out in the 60's, screaming for womans lib, if you want equality, it should be equal.

 

[Ariadne]

This comment solidifies the fact that you have not read a thing I have said.

Feelings, beliefs and opinions are a personal choice. And rightly so. But that does not change the LAW. Regardless of the people involved' position on abortion as an option. Does not change the LAW.

My point is the LAW is flawed and favours women. I do not expect you to understand that, because you have a bias.

You see, I have no bias, so I can accept that abortion isn't for everyone. I can also accept the mans pivotal role. But none of that makes the LAW any more balanced or equal.

Hey, I wasn't out in the 60's, screaming for womans lib, if you want equality, it should be equal.

I am of the opinion that you will continue to state that people are not understanding, not reading, not getting it and so on until they agree with you that women have it easy with an unwanted pregnancy. It seems clear to me that you are not entering a debate with an open mind, but rather presenting a viewpoint with the expectation that people agree with it.

I see you do have a bias, that being that you expect women to have an abortion if the man doesn't want children. Because the option is legal, you think that men should be able to cause a woman to terminate the pregnancy if that pregnancy inconveniences him. The only way to give men the legal right to opt out of pregnancy via abortion is to give men the right to force women to have abortion. Men should not have the right to force a woman to carry a child or to have an abortion.

Let's look at the law: "Forcing a woman," wrote the Chief Justice, Brian Dickson, "by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and this a violation of her security of the person." - thanks to Dr. Henry Mortgentaler (http://www.duhaime.org/family/ca-abor.aspx).

 

[selfactivated]

Hey, I wasn't out in the 60's, screaming for womans lib, if you want equality, it should be equal.

Ive been screaming THIS since the 70's!! (I was born in the 60's )

Women scream equality to the point of inequality! No you cant force an abortion on a person BUT if that person "opts" to have that child and the other "opts" not to then by damned WHY should a man be FORCED to be a "daddy " to a child that was concieved without a plan or a relationship? Woman have the option to abort, give up for adoption (even if the man wants the child) or have the child. What are the mans options? NONE! They are FORCED to be parents, financially strapped to a situation they are emotionally bankrupt (sorry not a slam just a fact) to deal with!

Where's the equality in that?????

 

[CDNBear]

I am of the opinion that you will continue to state that people are not understanding, not reading, not getting it and so on until they agree with you that women have it easy with an unwanted pregnancy. It seems clear to me that you are not entering a debate with an open mind, but rather presenting a viewpoint with the expectation that people agree with it.

I see you do have a bias, that being that you expect women to have an abortion if the man doesn't want children. Because the option is legal, you think that men should be able to cause a woman to terminate the pregnancy if that pregnancy inconveniences him. The only way to give men the legal right to opt out of pregnancy via abortion is to give men the right to force women to have abortion. Men should not have the right to force a woman to carry a child or to have an abortion.

Let's look at the law: "Forcing a woman," wrote the Chief Justice, Brian Dickson, "by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and this a violation of her security of the person." - thanks to Dr. Henry Mortgentaler (http://www.duhaime.org/family/ca-abor.aspx).

I've read that, so your point was...
Abortion bad.

Once again you have monumentally missed the point.

You obviously have no intentions of using reason to address this discussion.

I'm not looking for you to agree with me, I am trying to get you to answer a question. That question does not pertain to your hate of men, your feelings on abortion or any other emotion you may throw out.

You can not argue the point, without resorting to attacking my character, so I guess you have lost or can not read it. So here it is again. Do not read into it, do add to it, it is the simplest question to answer. I'll even rephrase it for you.

If a woman feels she is not at that point in her life, where she is comfortable with being a mother and she does not have hystyerical, unfounded fears or personal affronts to abortion or adoption, she can "opt" out of motherhood.

If the man feels he is not at that point in life, he has no legal option.

In this fact of law, is there, or is there not an imblance?

Note, nowhere in there, have I advocated the forced abortion of a child. So please address the facts, not something you make up about me or my character or my motives.

 

[CDNBear]

Ive been screaming THIS since the 70's!! (I was born in the 60's )

Women scream equality to the point of inequality! No you cant force an abortion on a person BUT if that person "opts" to have that child and the other "opts" not to then by damned WHY should a man be FORCED to be a "daddy " to a child that was concieved without a plan or a relationship? Woman have the option to abort, give up for adoption (even if the man wants the child) or have the child. What are the mans options? NONE! They are FORCED to be parents, financially strapped to a situation they are emotionally bankrupt (sorry not a slam just a fact) to deal with!

Where's the equality in that?????

Thanx for actually understanding the question self.

I'm sure my kudo's will be met by some as just me propping up a supporter of my point of view. They would be wrong, as much as I like the fact that I have a supporter, I like the fact that she read and understands to question, without reading into it or adding a slant that is not there. But if those detracters were to say pm, caracal and ask if I support ideas, that differ from my own, they would likely find an answer they do not like.

 

[selfactivated]

I got ya from page one. I believe its all about choices BUT the choices should be on an equal standing! Its NOT just a womans life thats changed Its a mans life too. I know that sounds simpistic but equality IS simplistic. Its equally a mans choice to have his life change as it is the womans.

Just my two cents

 

[Ariadne]

Ive been screaming THIS since the 70's!! (I was born in the 60's )

Women scream equality to the point of inequality! No you cant force an abortion on a person BUT if that person "opts" to have that child and the other "opts" not to then by damned WHY should a man be FORCED to be a "daddy " to a child that was concieved without a plan or a relationship? Woman have the option to abort, give up for adoption (even if the man wants the child) or have the child. What are the mans options? NONE! They are FORCED to be parents, financially strapped to a situation they are emotionally bankrupt (sorry not a slam just a fact) to deal with!

Where's the equality in that?????

I find it very hard to believe that a child could be put up for adoption while the father, who obviously was in the picture throughout the pregnancy, is standing by asking for custody. This has been thrown around as a reality since the first post but I don't believe it. I would be very interested in reading a link to that information.

 

[Ariadne]

I've read that, so your point was...
Abortion bad.

Once again you have monumentally missed the point.

You obviously have no intentions of using reason to address this discussion.

I'm not looking for you to agree with me, I am trying to get you to answer a question. That question does not pertain to your hate of men, your feelings on abortion or any other emotion you may throw out.

You can not argue the point, without resorting to attacking my character, so I guess you have lost or can not read it. So here it is again. Do not read into it, do add to it, it is the simplest question to answer. I'll even rephrase it for you.

If a woman feels she is not at that point in her life, where she is comfortable with being a mother and she does not have hystyerical, unfounded fears or personal affronts to abortion or adoption, she can "opt" out of motherhood.

If the man feels he is not at that point in life, he has no legal option.

In this fact of law, is there, or is there not an imblance?

Note, nowhere in there, have I advocated the forced abortion of a child. So please address the facts, not something you make up about me or my character or my motives.

There are two ways to give you the equality you want.
1. permit men to force women to abort children
2. prevent women from having an abortion and thus level the playing field.

Which one are you advocating?

... or are you just complaining for the sake of complaining?

 

[selfactivated]

I find it very hard to believe that a child could be put up for adoption while the father, who obviously was in the picture throughout the pregnancy, is standing by asking for custody. This has been thrown around as a reality since the first post but I don't believe it. I would be very interested in reading a link to that information.

I dont throw around stories if their not true. I have SEVERAL male friends in that perdicament.

 

[CDNBear]

There are two ways to give you the equality you want.
1. permit men to force women to abort children
2. prevent women from having an abortion and thus level the playing field.

Which one are you advocating?

... or are you just complaining for the sake of complaining?

Neither and no.

And again you bring up the abortion issue. Is that all you have? Your continued, childlike responses do you a disservice. I am not complaining, as you assert, that is your prejection of your hatred of men.

Let me ask you this,,,

Do you believe a lawyer that defends a rapist, murderer or thief. Does so because he/she advocates or supports those activities?

So far the only conclusion that can be drawn from the lack of addressing the issue and contiuously bring this back to abortion (of which your ficsation is desturbing), is that you neither understand how to answer the question or you are unable to. Which would it be?

 

[Ariadne]

I dont throw around stories if their not true. I have SEVERAL male friends in that perdicament.

Wow, so you know quite a few men that get women pregnant outside of marriage and then cannot justify to the courts that they should have custody of their children? The only reason I found for that happening is that the best interests of the child dictate that the child should not be with the father.

My brief research leads me to believe that a birth father has rights when a woman is interested in putting their child up for adoption, however the rights of the child trump the rights of the parents. If you could link to some legal information or something that says participating fathers cannot have custody of a child, I would like to read it. So far, I can only find information stating that the father has rights but he cannot be completely absent from the picture. Complete absence during the pregnancy leads everyone to believe he's not that interested in the child.