I’m sorry to say. But if I help Create life, then by Goddess I’m going to have a say so. If that potential Life lives or dies. And that is my Right as a human being, And as a Father or Mother. If my “daughters” Are pregnant then Their Mother will have a “say”. And I best get out of her “Way.” When that happens. And pity the poor kid that made her kid pregnant.

(As To a Rapist, Have him “fixed.” and pay restitutions to the life that he damaged. Abort the Baby, unless the woman wants the Baby to be born. )

As to Incest, I really don’t know. Some Incest Made Babies are loved, others non-loved. I truly don’t know.

As to Danger to Health, save the mother, Rescue the Baby. Unless the mother wants to be a martyr.)

BTW- I’ve noticed the participants in these forums are very well educated. (Its quite different then the normal “porn” site.) I really don’t know what this means. But it’s an interesting observation.

Blissed your English, I'm a Dixielander. You best not challenge me to a bad spelling showdown. This redneck will make you cry.

dauphinb · 12-04-06 06:31:58

Elfman wrote:

A beleif in Moral and ethical certainty (whether based on a religious faith or not) is a dangerous thing.

Truer words were never spoke! The recent course of U.S. politics has, sadly, utterly destroyed any doubts I may have had on this point.

blissed · 12-04-06 21:33:40

msnevil wrote:

I’m sorry to say. But if I help Create life, then by Goddess I’m going to have a say so. If that potential Life lives or dies. And that is my Right as a human being, And as a Father or Mother. If my “daughters” Are pregnant then Their Mother will have a “say”. And I best get out of her “Way.” When that happens. And pity the poor kid that made her kid pregnant.

Oooooh I think your post has too much provado. You need to calm down a bit and try and convince people instead of hitting them over he head.

Anyway seeing through all that I think there is a point of empathy.
I know someone who had an abortion and when the girl tells her father she's pregnant he goes ballistic, but later on, you find him sat in his car in the garage crying. So he is hurting, and usually he dearly loves his daughter as that man did, having spent nearly half his life looking out for her. But I think when the anger has gone away and positive emotions take over that if you love, care for and respect someone you'd be happy to have them as the final arbiter. because it is about respect and where that respect isn't forthcoming her position needs to be reinforced legally.

Anyway, if she decides to have the baby, then everyone gathers round to discuss how the new person is going to be provided for, and they have to be positively welcomed into the world.

Last edited by blissed (13-04-06 02:32:57)

msnevil · 13-04-06 04:49:15

Yes, Perhaps too much provodo. But when you have kids, Your outlook usually changes. The family becomes the center of your life. While You want the best for your children. They must make thier own decision. As your exp Shows.

But I don't Want the state to legislate their "pro-abortion" morality on me. (as shown on this forum.) Nor do I want the Religious right legislating their “anti-abortion” on me.

The government has no business in the Abortion issue. The Family is the final arbitrator to the abortion debate. Not the state. And I have the right to know what happens to my daughters.

If my kids wants to abort. I can’t stop her, but I will be her Father. No matter what the state tells me.

blissed · 13-04-06 10:28:43

Yeah it's all about love isn't it. The laws only there really to protect people who haven't got any of that.

.

Last edited by blissed (13-04-06 10:28:58)

Elfman · 13-04-06 11:27:26

Incidentaly guys FYI the legal situation in Britain is that an underage girl can obtain an abortion without parental consent. There is a debate going on over here at the moment. I attach a hyperlink from last Novembers "Guardian" you might be interested in reading.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0 … 18,00.html

Elfman.

Nowaysis · 13-04-06 14:37:57

msnevil wrote:

"What I was explaining is that I don't think the participants' (other than the pregnant one) right to be heard should be made law as in many cases that infringes upon the females basic human rights and so can not be a viable option."
So the Man has No Basic human rights. And The Family has no Basic human rights.

What part of basic human rights gives any of these people the right to force a woman to bear a foetus (later child) she does not want (and has good reason to not want)?

blissed · 14-04-06 03:44:46

Thanks x

.

Last edited by blissed (14-04-06 04:05:06)

msnevil · 14-04-06 06:47:59

Liandra, I am sorry that your ex was a rotton Father.

My Mother was never around, And my Father\Grandmother raised me. My Mom wanted to Abort me, My Dad stopped her. I was one of the lucky ones. I had a partial family that loved me, and cared for me.

Others don't have that option. So perhaps abortion is a better altenative. I don't Know. But I do know, that without my Father. I wouldn't be here today.

cynicism · 17-04-06 02:53:43

msnevil wrote:

"What I was explaining is that I don't think the participants' (other than the pregnant one) right to be heard should be made law as in many cases that infringes upon the females basic human rights and so can not be a viable option."
So the Man has No Basic human rights. And The Family has no Basic human rights.
[snip]

[strong feelings warning!]

The man was involved in a few seconds of ejaculation that was presumably enjoyable. The woman gets stuck with 9 months of discomfort and many hours of pain, not to mention a huge disruption to her regular life, and possible loss of job/career.

That's not equal. So no, the man does not have equal rights here. He can be heard, but the ultimate decision should and must be the woman's.

If you come up with a way for the man to bear the baby through the pregnancy, then maybe he can lay claim to the foetus. Without that, he has NO right to insist that the woman carry the child to term - he can ask, but nothing more.

msnevil · 17-04-06 05:32:48

The Man should provide for the life he made. He should pay for the future pain\misery he will cause in her. By the sweat of his brow, he should provide for that which he created.

The "old ways" is what my family has taught me. My duty to my wife, my family, my future.

Almost religions teach this. Most laws establish this. The responsibility of Man for his fellow man.

Its not about sexual freedom. But on the duty of life itself. Dharma.

Belgareth · 17-04-06 11:35:53

Liandra wrote:

msnevil wrote:
Simple : I oppose the law that allows woman to abort babies with out the father's knowledge\Consent. And I also opposed the law that allows teens to abort babies without the parents approval.
But how would this be mediated? There is a danger if the father of the foetus or the parents of the pregnant teenager are mentally controlling/ abusive? She could be bullied into a decision that is totally against her wishes.
What if having to get the parents aproval is so daunting the teen opts for suicide, or attempts some dangerous act to cause a miscarriage?

I must agree with these arguments. In my dim and distant past (well not that distant) I was working with battered wives, which included women other than marital partners and also their offspring. It is frightening to be confronted by women and teenage children who have been continuously abused and raped over long periods and who have no way of extricating themselves from the situation because of their fear of their location being discovered if they run away. These women should not have to suffer the constant reminders of their being abused everytime they look at the consequent offspring.

Inherently I do not agree with abortion but there are circumstances, other than for clinical reasons, in which it is essential for the mother, if she is to retain even a modicum of her sanity.

Laws are pervasive and do little to account for special situations, therefore the legal framework is not the answer. Unfortunately society often judges on what it sees, or wishes to see, rather than the truth.

msnevil · 17-04-06 18:24:41

Belgareth should we make a law to cover all people for the actions of a Few?

While I agree, Like you and liandra stated. There are special circumstances like Rape, Abuse, And Neglect. That the Father\Parents should not be contacted for the Abortion.

What I disagree with though. Is the non contacting of the Father\Parents Due to the actions of the Few. Or some vague "feel good" slogan like Female sexual freedom.

And I also disagree that the Father has no resposibility for the "Unborn Child".

That's pretty much what the Debate is about. But in honesty, I oppose "elective abortions". But not in cases of rape, incest, abuse, possible neglect, Birth defects, and endangerment to the female's health. So I have been accused of Anti-abortion By the Left, and Pro-abortion by the Right. But being in America. There is no in the middle. Just the extreme left\right. (Which I'm wondering goes for the world as well?)

I think the worse "Evil" that was Caused By Roe-vrs-Wade (1973 American law case) was the resulting Government Control of Abortions. (Not that it was allowed.) And the resulting Action of the state becoming the Ward for Abortion rights. Not the American people or the State's.

gala · 17-04-06 21:39:19

dear liandra,

i totally love you.

sincerely,
gala

Belgareth · 18-04-06 18:43:52

msnevil wrote:

Belgareth should we make a law to cover all people for the actions of a Few?
While I agree, Like you and liandra stated. There are special circumstances like Rape, Abuse, And Neglect. That the Father\Parents should not be contacted for the Abortion.
What I disagree with though. Is the non contacting of the Father\Parents Due to the actions of the Few. Or some vague "feel good" slogan like Female sexual freedom.
And I also disagree that the Father has no resposibility for the "Unborn Child".
That's pretty much what the Debate is about. But in honesty, I oppose "elective abortions". But not in cases of rape, incest, abuse, possible neglect, Birth defects, and endangerment to the female's health. So I have been accused of Anti-abortion By the Left, and Pro-abortion by the Right. But being in America. There is no in the middle. Just the extreme left\right. (Which I'm wondering goes for the world as well?)
I think the worse "Evil" that was Caused By Roe-vrs-Wade (1973 American law case) was the resulting Government Control of Abortions. (Not that it was allowed.) And the resulting Action of the state becoming the Ward for Abortion rights. Not the American people or the State's.

I accept that this subject is fraught with difficulties and I also appreciate that I was arguing a specific viewpoint. However, there is the overlaying issue of why a mother wishes to terminate a pregnancy.

There is high percentage of unwanted pregnancy which is due to agressive male attitudes, although this is not technically rape or abuse, but in these cases is the female simply supposed to accept the fact and get on with it and what rights does the father have in this scenario?

Does a male have the right to effectively demand that his partner becomes pregnant because he wants a child? Does the father have a right here?

If a woman becomes pregnant due to the fact that she was looking for sex and got rather more than that, does she have a right to terminate and does the father have a right to stop it. In fact would he even care?

I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with you. These are questions not statements and certainly not answers. I am simply turning the coin over, in order to examine the other side.

aven frey · 19-04-06 08:13:24

msnevil wrote:

What I disagree with though. Is the non contacting of the Father\Parents Due to the actions of the Few. Or some vague "feel good" slogan like Female sexual freedom.

Careful msnevil one of the most problematic things about the pro life argument is the misconception that abortion facilitates wanton, irresponsible promiscuity . Pro choice is not really about 'female sexual freedom' (even though this is far more intricate then a feel good slogan!) its about finally acknowledging womens, not the states, not a mans, not gods, jurisdiction over her own body. It is though the states responsibility to uphold human rights.
If you don't want to be accused of anti abortion sentiments then you shouldn't flippantly throw around pro life propaganda.

msnevil · 20-04-06 04:08:37

As a libertarian, I fight for every bodies rights. Man, woman and kid. Against the oppressive Authoritarian Regime of the far left and far right.

I'm sorry but my viewpoint in not limited to "female’s only".

And we are only belaboring the points. Lets find something else to debate on. End of subject for me.

Besides, I need to put on my "tin foil" hat, and finish watching "The Triangle". Or I'm going to have another "late fee".

Last edited by msnevil (20-04-06 04:23:42)

Nowaysis · 20-04-06 09:37:17

Everybody's rights you say, but don't you see a problem, even a paradox, when you start to argue that one person's right to have offspring (e.g. the father, or the presumptive grand parents), should override another person's right to have final say on what happens with her body?

msnevil · 20-04-06 21:22:32

In agreement, not overide.

Nowaysis · 20-04-06 22:46:23

But that seems to lead to the possible extreme case, where a woman does not (for legitimate reasons) want to bear a child to term, but is forced to do so because she cannot reach an agreement with the father or her parents (if she is underaged). How is that any different from their "rights" overriding hers?

Also, looking through the thread again I found this passage.

Simple : I oppose the law that allows woman to abort babies with out the father's knowledge\Consent. And I also opposed the law that allows teens to abort babies without the parents approval.

I'd really like to make a clear distinction here, knowledge is nowhere near the same thing as consent.

Personally, I feel that it would be morally right of the mother to contact the father, to let him know that she is pregnant, and if they are on at least friendly terms discuss their now joint situation (assukin he has any wish to take responsibility for the child once it is born). However, that is a far cry from demanding mutual consent from both parents before perfoming an bortion.

Also, I'm not at all sure it would be morally justifiable to force the mother by law to contact anyone at all, unless she is for some reason deemed not fit to make such a desicion alone (age, mental powers, distress, etc.). This conditional contact clause, should not however, in my opinion, mean that underaged mothers have to receive their parents' consent. And furthermore, it might in such a case be wiser to bring in a hopefully neutral socialworker to counsel the mother-to-be-(or not).

#26 12-04-06 02:27:59

Re: Sex

#27 12-04-06 05:58:00

Re: Sex

#28 12-04-06 06:31:58

Re: Sex

#29 12-04-06 21:33:40

Re: Sex

#30 13-04-06 04:49:15

Re: Sex

#31 13-04-06 10:28:43

Re: Sex

#32 13-04-06 11:27:26

Re: Sex

#33 13-04-06 14:37:57

Re: Sex

#34 14-04-06 03:44:46

Re: Sex

#35 14-04-06 06:47:59

Re: Sex

#36 17-04-06 02:53:43

Re: Sex

#37 17-04-06 05:32:48

Re: Sex

#38 17-04-06 11:35:53

Re: Sex

#39 17-04-06 18:24:41

Re: Sex

#40 17-04-06 21:39:19

Re: Sex

#41 18-04-06 18:43:52

Re: Sex

#42 19-04-06 08:13:24

Re: Sex

#43 20-04-06 04:08:37

Re: Sex

#44 20-04-06 09:37:17

Re: Sex

#45 20-04-06 21:22:32

Re: Sex

#46 20-04-06 22:46:23

Re: Sex

Board footer