[glockdoc21]

Originally Posted by Sierra9

Are you an obstetrician?

close

[HollowHead]

Originally Posted by RicoGordo

Murder is well covered in the Old Testament, but there is nothing in there about abortion.

Why is that? Why does Norton continue to ignore this question?

Because he is a male. If men became pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. HH

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by HollowHead

Because he is a male. If men became pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. HH

Bing-****ing-go.

[norton]

Originally Posted by HollowHead

Because he is a male. If men became pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. HH

Men see abortion as an viable means of eliminating a financial and emotional debt they are in part responsible for.

The stories of back alley abortions are overblown. Sure they happened, but not in the volume they occur in today, now that we have money making clinics set up.

Abortion is a huge business. How Dr's who perform these on healthy fetuses live with themselves is beyond my comprehension.

I have several Registered Nurses in my family. Their stories on flushed baby parts would make you sick.

I don't know about abortion being mentioned in the Bible. But it would be covered under murder. Thats what it is.

Sorry if you don't like it. I just refuse to go along with the crowd on this one. I have personal reasons for this, and will not share them on the internet. But my family knows.

[Smithers]

Originally Posted by Bushflyr

Perfect example of what would happen here if the anti-choice zealots got their way. Go GOP, overturn Roe vv.Wade.

You're quite ignorant on the subject. Elaborating would be futile in your case.

It's a state issue in any case.

Ps I'm dumbfounded this subject would show up on Glocktalk
unless in the ladies only forum.

[tsmo1066]

Originally Posted by Gallium

My opinion is, with your clearly articulated positions on abortion, it looks like you are good to go for when you get pregnant!

It sounds like you are implying that men should have no voice or opinion in the abortion debate since only women get pregnant.

If so, do you likewise feel that men should legally be exempt from FINANCING the upbringing and support of children? A baby is as much a product of the man as the woman, and the upbringing and support of a child for 18 years after birth is as much the responsibility of the man as the woman. To argue that men should be held financially and physically accountable for abortion decisions while being denied any voice in abortion policy is sexist as hell...not to mention undemocratic.

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by tsmo1066

It sounds like you are implying that men should have no voice or opinion in the abortion debate since only women get pregnant.

If so, do you likewise feel that men should legally be exempt from FINANCING the upbringing and support of children? A baby is as much a product of the man as the woman, and the upbringing and support of a child for 18 years after birth is as much the responsibility of the man as the woman. To argue that men should be held financially and physically accountable for abortion decisions while being denied any voice in abortion policy is sexist as hell...not to mention undemocratic.

In a perfect world men - like you, should only have a say in a pregnancy when they are the biological donor for the fetus, or if they have to foot the bill for the welfare and upkeep of either (or both) the host and the fetus.

...in other words, politics and religion have no place in deciding who should or should not have an abortion.

[tsmo1066]

Originally Posted by Gallium

In a perfect world men - like you, should only have a say in a pregnancy when they are the biological donor for the fetus, or if they have to foot the bill for the welfare and upkeep of either (or both) the host and the fetus.

...in other words, politics and religion have no place in deciding who should or should not have an abortion.

The problem right now, though, is that men like me DON'T have a say in pregnancy/abortion decisions, even if we are the father of the child in question. The woman has absolute decision making authority on whether to keep the child or not, and the courts will see to it that we pay for that child, even if we personally don't want it.

It may sound crass, but the bottom line right now is that the woman gets all the 'choice', and the man gets the bill for it.

That's not particularly "fair", but such is life and we men do, at least, get a voice in abortion policy. I tend to bristle, however, whenever someone tries to argue that men shouldn't even have a voice in the debate (apologies if that was not what you were implying). Men who have to spend years toiling and supporting children are just as impacted by the abortion decision as the women who carry those children to term.

[RicoGordo]

Originally Posted by norton

Men see abortion as an viable means of eliminating a financial and emotional debt they are in part responsible for.

The stories of back alley abortions are overblown. Sure they happened, but not in the volume they occur in today, now that we have money making clinics set up.

Abortion is a huge business. How Dr's who perform these on healthy fetuses live with themselves is beyond my comprehension.

I have several Registered Nurses in my family. Their stories on flushed baby parts would make you sick.

I don't know about abortion being mentioned in the Bible. But it would be covered under murder. Thats what it is.

Sorry if you don't like it. I just refuse to go along with the crowd on this one. I have personal reasons for this, and will not share them on the internet. But my family knows.

It is your opinion that it is murder because it is your opinion that an 8 week old "baby" is a person.

There is clear disagreement among reasonable minds about just how long after conception a sperm and egg become a person. Given that, you'd think that the Bible would save something to say about it.

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by tsmo1066

The problem right now, though, is that men like me DON'T have a say in pregnancy/abortion decisions, even if we are the father of the child in question. The woman has absolute decision making authority on whether to keep the child or not, and the courts will see to it that we pay for that child, even if we personally don't want it....

Of course you have a say in pregnancy/abortion decisions.

There are two very simple steps.

1. Choose who you sleep with wisely.

2. Ensure that your sperm is incapable of reaching her eggs. NO SPERM would be the most elegant solution of all (it was mine).

Saying you have NO SAY in a pregnancy/abortion decision is precisely like calling the police to your house because your kid brother is ranting he's going to kill himself, then complain that the police are not giving you any say in how the scenario unfolds.

So...I maintain my assertion, and add to it that the best way to win the abortion discussion is to avoid getting someone else pregnant unless you are planning on raising a child together.

Otherwise leave abortion decisions to those who actually have to carry the fetus. I HAVE NEVER SEEN A FETUS POSE AN IMMINENT LIFE THREAT TO A MAN - (except where the pregnant chic wanted pickle flavored ice-cream, and she wanted it NOW).

[JuneyBooney]

Originally Posted by HollowHead

Saw the story tonight, also. It seems that the "only in the event to save the mother's life" laws are so ambiguous, doctors walk away rather than risk their license, and women die. Sad. HH

I agree.

[WilliamDahl]

Originally Posted by JW1178

I thought they at least had coathangers in Ireland. Hook, loop, pull.

Shop vacs?

[kat1950]

Originally Posted by tsmo1066

Under Ireland's socialized medical system, the government will reimburse the hospital and doctor for treatment of any injuries she sustains as a result of the miscarriage, but not for performing an abortion absent a demonstratable threat to the mother's life.

For the hospital, the decision to abort or not when the pregnant woman originally came in complaining of back pain came down to "If we abort now and the government beauacracy disagrees that her life was in peril, we don't get paid. If we ride out the miscarriage and hope for the best, we get full reimbursement."

The socialized reimbursement system adds a financial incentive and beaurocratic angle to what would otherwise be a matter of discussion strictly between the doctor and a medical review board on whether the doctor acted appropriately and her life was in danger.

Edited to add: Don't take this post as implying that Ireland's strict anti-abortion law is defensible. I don't believe it is. I'm just pointing out that the socialized medicine aspect does play a role in such cases.

Government involved in health care, all you liberal ignorant idiots that wanted it you now got it here, this incident will be common place here so get used to it, and for all you liberal old people, your life will be in the hands of 15 people deciding whether your just too old to receive life saving treatment, no use wasting any money when you will probably die in a couple of years of old age. Welcome to the world you Idiots Wanted.

[HollowHead]

Originally Posted by kat1950

Government involved in health care, all you liberal ignorant idiots that wanted it you now got it here, this incident will be common place here so get used to it, and for all you liberal old people, your life will be in the hands of 15 people deciding whether your just too old to receive life saving treatment, no use wasting any money when you will probably die in a couple of years of old age. Welcome to the world you Idiots Wanted.

Even under the mess that is Obamacare, you still have the right to pay over and above and dictate your treatment as you see fit. Again, nothing to do at all with the story at hand here. HH

[WilliamDahl]

Originally Posted by HollowHead

Even under the mess that is Obamacare, you still have the right to pay over and above and dictate your treatment as you see fit. Again, nothing to do at all with the story at hand here. HH

Besides, it's not really "healthcare", it's just a new form of taxation.

<sarcasm>
Isn't socialism *grand*???
</sarcasm>

[tsmo1066]

Originally Posted by Gallium

Of course you have a say in pregnancy/abortion decisions.

There are two very simple steps.

1. Choose who you sleep with wisely.

2. Ensure that your sperm is incapable of reaching her eggs. NO SPERM would be the most elegant solution of all (it was mine).

Saying you have NO SAY in a pregnancy/abortion decision is precisely like calling the police to your house because your kid brother is ranting he's going to kill himself, then complain that the police are not giving you any say in how the scenario unfolds.

So...I maintain my assertion, and add to it that the best way to win the abortion discussion is to avoid getting someone else pregnant unless you are planning on raising a child together.

Otherwise leave abortion decisions to those who actually have to carry the fetus. I HAVE NEVER SEEN A FETUS POSE AN IMMINENT LIFE THREAT TO A MAN - (except where the pregnant chic wanted pickle flavored ice-cream, and she wanted it NOW).

Your post makes no sense.

1) Birth control isn't 100% effective

2) The very fact that you are discussing the woman carrying the fetus to term indicates that you realize we are talking about abortion/pregnancy decisions once the woman is, in fact, pregnant.

Again, men have no say in the decision to abort/continue a pregnancy, even though they are every bit as impacted by that decision as the woman who carries the child to term. To argue that men should also be banned from the abortion debate itself is ludicrous, not to mention contrary to the very basis of democracy.

[Rabbi]

Originally Posted by RicoGordo

Murder is well covered in the Old Testament, but there is nothing in there about abortion.

Why is that? Why does Norton continue to ignore this question?

Just a point of clarification. (and I think a damned important one)

The "Old Testament" is not the entire canon of the Hebrew Bible. As a matter of fact, the Jews find the term rather offesive, but that is not my point. The "Old Testament" is the part of the the Hebrew scriptures that Christianity uses...and they do not use it all.

The Hebrew writings do talk about abortion.

(this is a normative and authoritative traditional Jewish source)

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954946.html

For those who dont want to read about it...guess what, Abortion IS ok in some cases. The most notable being, if it threatens the mothers life.

Judaism sees an unborn child as "potential life" and the mother as "life." In the Jewish way of thought, which places a hierarchy on action, Life is more important than potential life.

Life is often not a black and white journey. I understand, that for many reasons people dont agree with my statements but can you really not see the valid logic in why someone might things this way? Even if you see it another way?

[WilliamDahl]

What I've never understood is why conservatives tend to oppose abortion. I figure that the liberals are more likely to be getting pregnant and wanting an abortion and since the children of liberals are more likely to end up liberals, abortions are just decreasing the numbers of potential liberals. As far as I'm concerned, that's a *good* thing. In fact, we should be encouraging MORE liberal women to get abortions!

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by kat1950

Government involved in health care, all you liberal ignorant idiots that wanted it you now got it here, this incident will be common place here so get used to it, and for all you liberal old people, your life will be in the hands of 15 people deciding whether your just too old to receive life saving treatment, no use wasting any money when you will probably die in a couple of years of old age. Welcome to the world you Idiots Wanted.

While I always have, and continue to oppose the ACA, you're stilling spreading the death panel myth that was debunked 3 years ago.

Unless of course you care to direct us to where in the ACA we find details of this panel.

-ArtificialGrape

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by tsmo1066

Your post makes no sense.

1) Birth control isn't 100% effective

2) The very fact that you are discussing the woman carrying the fetus to term indicates that you realize we are talking about abortion/pregnancy decisions once the woman is, in fact, pregnant.

Again, men have no say in the decision to abort/continue a pregnancy, even though they are every bit as impacted by that decision as the woman who carries the child to term. To argue that men should also be banned from the abortion debate itself is ludicrous, not to mention contrary to the very basis of democracy.

If my post made "no sense", what does it say of the person who would respond in great detail to something nonsensical? When I see nonsensical things, I simply keep on driving.

Birth control if done properly, is 100% effective. So far mine has been 100% effective.

Abortion/no abortion decisions are things that need to be discussed in great detail long before the act of copulation begins.

If you chose who you screw wisely, you will absolutely have a say in if she aborts or not aborts the fetus - because it would have been something both of you rationally discussed without being in heat. If at that forum you realize you are not in concord, the prudent thing to do would be to ensure the statistical odds of her getting pregnant approaches 1/infinity, or better, find someone to screw who takes your opinion into consideration.

My initial argument still stands. Abortion has no business being in the province of the government. It should almost solely rest in the hands of the person that has to carry the baby to term, or not carry the baby. Every man should consider pregnancy and childbirth a natural possibility of copulating some chic and plan accordingly.

[Bucknasty]

Originally Posted by norton

Its a good thing for democrats the soon to be aborted fetus can't vote.

What an ignorant ****ed up thing to say. You should be ashamed.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[WilliamDahl]

Originally Posted by norton

Its a good thing for democrats the soon to be aborted fetus can't vote.

And what makes you think that they won't end up voting? They don't let a little thing like *death* prevent someone from voting for their socialist agenda, why should they allow something as inconvenient as not being born prevent them? Yeah, there's that slightly inconvenient issue of not having a birth certificate, but some will argue that that same issue did not prevent them from putting an illegal candidate in office.

Personally, I don't have a problem with abortions, other than the fact that it is probably not a fiscally efficient means of birth control. I figure that the conservatives will either be responsible in their sexual activities and either not have sex if they are not willing to have a kid or they will take precautions to minimize the chance of a pregnancy occurring. That just leaves the liberals and since the child of liberals is more likely to become a liberal, then abortions on them just means that it cuts down the number of potential liberals. I consider this a GOOD thing. In fact, the more I think about it, I believe that ALL liberals should have abortions.

NEGATIVE POPULATION GROWTH FOR LIBERALS !!!

[JW1178]

I agree. An aborted fetus is the potential offspring of the kind of person that wod get an abortion. Abortion might be the only chlorine our gene pool has.

It's kind of line the "free" contraception thing, it might save us a whole lot of money in the long run.

We can't stop the stupid from breeding, but if we can slow it down a bit, that wod e nice.

[tsmo1066]

Originally Posted by Gallium

If you chose who you screw wisely, you will absolutely have a say in if she aborts or not aborts the fetus - because it would have been something both of you rationally discussed without being in heat. If at that forum you realize you are not in concord, the prudent thing to do would be to ensure the statistical odds of her getting pregnant approaches 1/infinity, or better, find someone to screw who takes your opinion into consideration.

My initial argument still stands. Abortion has no business being in the province of the government. It should almost solely rest in the hands of the person that has to carry the baby to term, or not carry the baby. Every man should consider pregnancy and childbirth a natural possibility of copulating some chic and plan accordingly.

I would start by saying that what you state above is wishful thinking. Whether one chooses wisely or not, LEGALLY the man has no say-so in the abortion decision, until the bill comes due. At that point the courts can and will force a man to pay for the child (and continue paying for it for 18 years) whether he wanted it carried to term or not. Should the woman discuss this in advance with her mate and treat it as a mutual decision? YES. Does the law require any such thing? NO.

All the law currently allows is that men still have a vote, and the governmental policies on abortion still lie in the arena of public debate, and to argue that men shouldn't even get that limited voice on policies that can directly impact their lives as much as that of the mother and child is ridiculous.

As for abortion not belonging in the province of government, well, all I can say is that IT IS in the province of government, like it or not, and as long as such remains the case, men can and should have a seat at the table in determining those policies.

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by tsmo1066

...
As for abortion not belonging in the province of government, well, all I can say is that IT IS in the province of government, like it or not, and as long as such remains the case, men can and should have a seat at the table in determining those policies.

I cannot make it any simpler than this:


If you find a girl who is closed minded to having an abortion, don't screw her if you don't want her deciding how to deal with the life that is emanating from her body.

Yeah, men are on the hook for SUPPORT, but in the history of mankind, WOMEN are the primary caretakers of children.

How many kids do you have?