|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 10, 2004 9:10:27 GMT -5
I defy you to find me ONE (1) real-life example of this happening.
And then I'll tell you that the man in question has no power not because the woman CAN get an abortion, but because he CHOSE to involve himself with a woman of such low character that she would manipulate him so.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility? You're arguing it should be absolute for women, why not for men? If men find themselves with horrible, manipulative women, it's their own fault.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 10, 2004 12:28:32 GMT -5
I know of plenty of situations where a woman has aborted a baby that the father wanted. I also know of cases where the man was forced to pay eighteen years of child support to a woman that tricked him into providing her a second income via child support. If women want to continue the injustice of having the sole decision they should have the sole responsibility. At least for the ones that get knocked up out of wedlock.
|
|
|
|
Post by Favre on Mar 10, 2004 19:00:29 GMT -5
I know of plenty of situations where a woman has aborted a baby that the father wanted. I also know of cases where the man was forced to pay eighteen years of child support to a woman that tricked him into providing her a second income via child support. If women want to continue the injustice of having the sole decision they should have the sole responsibility. At least for the ones that get knocked up out of wedlock. GOD I love you!  |
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 10, 2004 19:20:57 GMT -5
Zero argument here, except I don't think even a married man should be forced to have more children than he wants to. What? If a woman's married, she should be free to "accidentally not take the pill" on four different occasions, resulting in seven kids, instead of the three she agreed to when they discussed it originally? That's retarded.
I don't think anyone should have to have kids they don't want, EVER.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 10, 2004 19:23:42 GMT -5
Oh, and by the way, I meant one example of a woman manipulating a man into buying her a car by threatening abortion.
The lack of power being his own fault holds true, however, in the case of a man who's child is aborted against his will. My questions for him are: did ya not talk about this up front? Are you so blind that you didn't see that she would not keep her promises? Why were you having sex with a woman who had such poor character?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ted on Mar 10, 2004 23:16:16 GMT -5
If "poor character" is defined as willing to have an abortion whether or not the father agrees, it would seem that your own character meets this description head on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 11, 2004 19:06:27 GMT -5
Feminists are ugly, sexually repressed women. More generally, feminists are people (not necessarily women) who enjoy watching oprah and lifetime television; they perpetually feel like victims; they can't get over the fact that women are not as strong or as emotionally stable as men. Feminists are dissatisfied with life, and they live a pathetic existence. "Feminist" is also a category of "Top Ten Types of Liberal Lunatics". See: www.geocities.com/fulke1mc2/liberal_lunatics.html |
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 11, 2004 19:07:40 GMT -5
I could say the same about women who get knocked up by guys who run on them. Didn't they talk about this upfront?  |
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 11, 2004 19:19:50 GMT -5
Great list. I've got to say though, I own 3 pairs of those tight pants. And that enviromaniac, today it's tree hugging, what's next, mudhumping(I used the toned down version ofcourse)?
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 15, 2004 21:04:39 GMT -5
To Ted:
I argue that the law should be written to allow women to do such things, not that I would do it myself. I would never get involved with someone without it first being very clear to them that I am not ready to have a child and that, while I use two methods of birth control in a responsible attempt to prevent pregnancy, in the event that I became pregnant, I would abort their child. I say this up front. Then it is their choice whether to become involved with me.
To Mike
Not! I'm living proof to the contrary.
Nope . . .
triple nope . . .
again, nope.
Define strong. I routinely beat my brother at cycling (although he doesn't average 3 hours a day as I do) and I'd be willing to bet that if men got pregnant, 4 out of every 5 children after the first would not make it to term because of the general weakness men have when it comes to pain. WIMPS!
Unstable? Many men run around with hair trigger machoism, ready to maul someone if they're bumped into in a crowd. While many women are emotional harpies, I'd say that's FAR, FAR preferable to the idiots who have their penises out ready to fight all the time.
I take this opinion as being indicative of the quality of women you CHOOSE to surround yourself with . . . probably because it makes you feel superior.
To Ian (in his favorite format):
I could say the same about women who get knocked up by guys who run on them.
So could I. Your point???
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 16, 2004 16:58:33 GMT -5
Your point that it is all the man's fault is ridiculous. I've made this point before and you labled me a sexist.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 16, 2004 20:23:35 GMT -5
Your point that it is all the man's fault is ridiculous. I've made this point before and you labled me a sexist.
Please be more specific. I do not recall ever having argued that "it" is ALL the man's fault. "It" is far too general a term. I have argued that a man can ask each woman he gets involved with what her position on abortion is. I have argued that he can forego sex until he knows a woman well enough to predict whether she has been truthful with him about her position on abortion or whether she will try to manipulate him. If she ends up lying and aborting against his will, is that his doing? No. But he was responsible for 50% of what got him into the situation.
I am going to interpret the second half of your rather cryptic post as you arguing that the same logic above is analogously applicable when talking about a woman becoming a single mother because she stupidly trusted a deadbeat dirtbag. You are arguing that women should ascertain the character of the men they get involved with before conceiving children with them, and that if they follow such a policy, women should have no problem staying home to raise the kids.
I'll explain how it's different: If a man stupidly trusts a woman who betrays him and aborts his child, the impact is emotional and may last forever. However, when a woman trusts a man who betrays her and leaves her to support herself and her children, not only is she emotionally impacted, she is affected financially, AND her children will be negatively affected on both fronts. This situation is much more analogous to when a woman forces a man to have children he doesn't want by lying to him about being on birth control.
The solution for most people is to simply make sure one REALLY, REALLY knows the character of the person one has sex with.
I think this should be encouraged, but I am totally against writing it into law. I think that both men and women should be legally free to do pretty awful things to each other, and let the "market" sort it out. There should be no protections for women who end up with fatherless children, no forced child-support, no say for men in whether or not women have their children, and no fault divorce.
If you argue that such a policy would result in the decline of the family, I have to ask you: exactly what impulses in people would lead to such a decline, and what makes you think that writing a law or two against them is going to make them disappear?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 18, 2004 12:22:50 GMT -5
Just like more Republicans supported the civil rights act, more Republicans supported giving women the right to vote. www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/anthony/nytimes.htmlThe Vote in Detail. The roll call on the amendment follows: FOR ADOPTION - 56. Republicans - 36. Capper, Cummins, Curtis, Edge, Elkins, Fall, Fernald, France, Frelinghuysen, Gronna, Hale, Harding, Johnson, (Cal.,) Jones, (Wash.,) Kellogg, Kenyon, Kayes, La Follette, Lenroot, McCormick, McCumber, McNaty, Nelson, New, Newberry, Norris, Page, Phipps, Poindexter, Sherman, Smoot, Spencer, Sterling, Sutherland, Warren, Watson. Democrats - 20. Ashurst, Chamberlain, Culberson, Harris, Henderson, Jones, (N. M.,) Kenrick, Kirby, McKellar, Myers, Nugent, Phelan, Pittman, Ransdell, Shepard, Smith, (Ariz.,) Stanley, Thomas, Walsh, (Mass.,) Walsh, (Mon.) AGAINST ADOPTION - 25. Republicans - 8. Borah, Brandegee, Dillingham, Knox, Lodge, McLean, Moses, Wadsworth. Democrats - 17. Bankhead, Beckham, Dial, Fletcher, Gay, Harrison, Hitch*censored, Overman, Reed, Simmons, Smith, (Md.,) Smith, (S. C.,) Swanson, Trammell, Underwood, Williams, Wolcott. Paired. Ball and King, for, with Shields, against: Calder and Townsend, for, with Penrose, against; Gerry and Johnson of South Dakota, for, with Martin, against; Gore and Colt, for, with Pomerone, against. Absent and Not Paired. Owen, Robinson, and Smith of Georgia. The vote came after four hours of debate, during which Democratic Senators opposed to the amendment filibustered to prevent a roll call until their absent Senators could be protected by pairs. They gave up the effort finally as futile. |
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 19, 2004 14:17:37 GMT -5
Oops, that's right, I should have said "conservative" not "republican," to nip this ridiculous attempt to re-write history in the bud.
Stupid "conservatives," then.
|
|
ldd
Pup
Posts: 4
|
Post by ldd on Jun 6, 2004 13:23:53 GMT -5
It has been interesting reading some of the posts here concerning "feminism". I'm probably telling a bit about my age here, but I was a young woman when Gloria Steinem, et al, began their crusades for "women's rights". The biggest factor at the time for me to jump on the band-wagon was for "equal pay". I was getting ready to enter America's workforce, and by God, I certainly wanted to equal pay for equal work. And while the pay gap between men and women has closed considerably - it is still there unfortunately - I have found (through life experience and some inner reflection) that "feminism" has done more to hurt the moral and social fiber of this country, than I'm sure it ever intended.
I served in the Army for 20 years... I was one of the pioneers of feminism. When I joined the ranks, the army was comprised of no more than 8% women. Today, that number is closer to 15%. Most of my career, I was the lone woman in my duty section. I was told (early on) that I had taken some poor guy's job because I had enlisted, or that I should "go home, take off my shoes, cook dinner and get pregnant". But through the years, those opinions changed. I believe they changed because my peers and myself simply did our jobs and took responsibility and contributed to the team. The "feminists" out on the street corners did not change the world. Women, themselves, quietly proved that they were able enough and smart enough to compete in the workplace. I will guarentee you that I received the same pay for the same job that I did while I was in the service. I earned the promotions that I got (many of them earlier than normal) because I met and exceeded standards that both genders were required to meet.
But there have been trade-offs for the "milestones" that mark women's victory in the workplace and elsewhere---women no longer stay home to raise their children. They allow strangers to raise them. --- and women now allow themselves the "freedom" of abortion if an unwanted pregnancy comes their way, because they didn't have the moral fortitude to abstain or the clarity of thought to use condoms. Rape is another matter -- but I digress.
Women are now purposely (and selfishly) getting pregnant in order to raise a child alone -- what signal does that send to a child about the value of family? Or especially to boy children without a father? What does that teach them about thier own worth as a father or even a man? It is clear to me why so many young men don't stick around to father or care for their children.
The "feminist" movement in America made some great strides in attaining economic freedom for women, but at the same time it blurred the lines for social and moral conscience.
We can't have it both ways, ladies. If you're going to work as a firefighter, don't gripe about how heavy the hoses are -- or your lack of privacy in the firehouse. You made the choice. Deal with it. There are more opportunities for women than ever before - but that doesn't relieve you of any personal responsibility for the choices that you make in life, or for the consequences that you create because of those choices.
"Feminism" has become a war cry and an attitude that is used to bash males in society. When it all started -- we just wanted to be thought of as equal -- for some reason now, it seems that victory has been redefined as the total vanquishment of the male gender, and our social culture in this country has truly suffered for it.
|
|
