"Yeah, well, you can take whatever you want, but unless you know a way to join our family, emotionally & legally, your "taking issue" on what might go on between me and my husband is completely irrelevant. "
Not just you and your husband, but all of us, my personal life is my reference, you both agree to a child, you get pregnant, then you change your mind and abort the child, where is your husbands decision in this - what if he wants to keep it, why is it ethical for you to get 100% of the decision making process in wether the child lives or dies? Because it is your body? Well it was his semen - that counts for nothing? I wanted my child, it was murdered.
"That is what divorce is for. You want me to feel sorry for men because they can't give birth to their own spring and need us women for it? "
Divorce would not have helped my situation, we weren't even married yet, just engaged, but we were going to be married in 2 months. How would divorce have kept my child alive that she murdered?
"And you were surprised that a family of religious nuts did not want a child out of wedlock??? "
We were to be married within 2 months, but you have hit the nail on the head, we had already been engaged for 5 months, my child was about 4 months old when murdered - we don't live in a black and white world, shades (pun intended) of gray everywhere. I am sure along with my not wanting to get "saved" and adopt their religion, her getting pregnant before the marriage was a bad problem for this man to deal with.
"Nothing short of locking them up in dungeon, both arms and legs tied to the wall, for the whole duration of the pregnancy. "
Why should it be so? Why couldn't I have ANY say in wether my child lived or died? I waited until I was financially secure to ask her to marry me and start a family, I wanted my child and there were no financial reasons to murder it, only religious ones.
"If a woman does not want to be a mother at that point in her life, or ever, there is nothing else in the world that will make her carry a child to term."
I have an article I will post for you at the end of this, but the point is, why does she get 100% say in the life or murder of my child and I get zero - you really find no ethical issues with this? Why? Is it because it is HER body and just my semen?
" You should have a system of adoption in place afterwards, because keeping her chained in the dungeon for her entire life so that she also unwillingly suffers the joys of motherhood might not be practical. "
She did not have to kill my child, I would have gladly kept the child and raised my child, if her and her father did not want to deal with the child, they had options other than her being a mommy slave for her whole life.
"If abortion is illegal in one country, a woman will cross borders."
It was illegal, she found a doctor who did illegal abortions, I turned him in to the local authorities and they did nothing, I went to a social worker and she said look shades - you have to understand, if we don't let this doc operate illegally here, there will be an explosion of unwanted kids - so they turned the other way - well about 5 months later this illegal doctor made the front page because he left a girl in his office to do her own abortion - 8 months into the pregnancy - he fled to canada the last I heard.
" If she can't, she will find a back-alley room in which to have it aborted by a witch doctor, in an unsanitized environment. If even that is unavailable, she will poke her insides with a stick, drink rat poison, or risk her life in other ways to get rid of that little bit of flesh that is hijacking her body and her life."
She did this, you are very aware of what is happening in the real world, but it would not have hijacked her life, she could have given up mothership if she wanted - why does the man get ZERO say in this decision if he is willing to raise the child and absolve her of any responsibility?
"At the end of the day, the question boils down to whether or not you want women to end their unwanted pregnancy in sanitary conditions & at the hands of qualified doctors, or risk their lives in the process."
At the end of the day I want to know why this society let my child be murdered and why I had zero say in the matter?
"I have not attacked your person, and there is no problem except possibly a personal one (yours) at an emotional level, because you have not had children and you would have wanted to. "
Perhaps it is emotional, I am personally affected by this stuff, but you really believe it is ethical that when 2 people decide to have a baby, conceive it, and then the woman because it is her body can kill it and the man gets zero rights to his child? She didnt have to give up her youth or life slaving away as mommy, she could have relinquished her rights and I would have taken full responsibility.
"So what if you need more immigrants to sustain stable population in the US? "
Right, the first posts I made said that was fine to depend on immigrations, but don't complain about the immigration because your native daughters stopped bearing children, that seems foolish to me. That is why I chided my nascar and french friends, not because of the immigration, but because of thier bitching about the immigration. Blessed is the USA and France that have new cultures permeating our country and adding to the melting pot.
"The world has too much aggregate population growth already, and if in some parts population stagnates or decreases, that sounds like a good thing to me. "
We had a huge growth spurt in the third world the past 50 years, one that never happened before and will never happen again on this planet, I just ponder that isn't it better to have the growth spurts in developed country with good health systems and quality of life than in disease infested areas where you fight over worms and feces ridden water?
Now for the article I promised - they make this case from the mans side, but why couldn't my fiance have relinquished her rights as a mother and give me our child instead of murdering our baby? She chose to have sex after we were engaged, we waited a year for that and you make a good point that conceiving the child out of marriage was a problem for her dad, but the child would have been born after we were married, I think the biggest problem for her father was that I was never going to be part of his church and religious views and that would always cause stress for him and his other children that were holy rolling snake dancing tongue speaking pentecostal bible thumpers - so my child is dead now.
How come she gets 100% of the choice wether our baby lived or died and society accepts this as ethical?
hisside.com
March 20, 2005
Schwyzer v. Alkon: Should Men Have Reproductive Rights?
Nationally syndicated advice columnist Amy Alkon believes that men, like women, should have reproductive rights. Condemning women who get pregnant intentionally and "turn casual sex into cash flow sex," she notes:
"In no other arena is a swindler rewarded with a court-ordered monthly cash settlement paid to them by the person they bilked...Penelope Leach, in her book Children First, poses an essential question: 'Why is it socially reprehensible for a man to leave a baby fatherless, but courageous, even admirable, for a woman to have a baby whom she knows will be so?'...the law, as written, encourages unscrupulous women to lure sex-dumbed men into checkbook daddyhood."
The "Choice for Men" movement seeks to give unmarried fathers the right to relinquish their parental rights and responsibilities within a month of learning of a pregnancy, just as mothers do when they choose to give their children up for adoption.
Feminist Gender Studies professor Dr. Hugo Schwyzer, Ph.D calls Choice for Men "profoundly offensive," explaining that "every man who ejaculates inside a woman, whether or not contraception is used, is signaling his willingness to become a father...the only real choice that men deserve in this situation is whether or not to have sex in the first place."
Schwyzer and Alkon joined Glenn on March 20, 2005.
To learn more, see:
Glenn's co-authored column 'Sperm Theft' Ruling a Step Forward for Men's Reproductive Rights (Houston Chronicle, 3/6/05, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, 3/9/05)
Amy Alkon's new column Fetal Attraction
Hugo Schwyzer's criticisms of Choice for Men--see Hugo on Choice for Men, Crying with rage at Amy Richards and Amy Richards and Choice for Men
Slate's Dahlia Lithwick slams Glenn's co-authored column Pennsylvania Abortion Case Raises Question of Choice for Men (Newsday, 8/7/02)--see Lithwick's Dad's Sad, Mad: Too Bad: Why dads don't count when it comes to abortion (Slate, 8/7/02)
Interview with Kim Gandy, President of the National Organization for Women (NOW), on the 30 year anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
Glenn's column 30 Years After Roe v. Wade, How About Choice for Men? (Mail & Guardian, 1/27/03)
Feminist abortion rights advocate Amy Richards' account of her selective abortion--When One is Enough (New York Times, 7/18/04)
NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Right to Life
The National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles' Choice for Men page
Barry Deutsch (aka Ampersand) against Choice for Men here, here, here and here.
The National Center for Men's Voluntary Fatherhood Project
Hugo Schwyzer on His Side: Is the Men's Movement Misogynistic? (1/23/05)
Amy Alkon on His Side: The Advice Goddess: 'I'm Not Anti-Male' (5/2/04)
His Side: Masculists, Feminists Rumble Over Choice for Men (10/19/03) |
