OBleedingMe
TMF Expert
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2001
- Messages
- 530
- Points
- 0
A recent experience with a close friend of mine has opened up my eyes to just how sexist and bigoted the abortion laws really are.
Take these scenarios:
1. A man and woman have consensual sex. The woman becomes pregnant, and does not wish to carry the child to term. The man also does not want the child. She has it aborted in the first trimester.
2. A man and woman have consensual sex. The woman becomes pregnant, but does not want the child. The man does. She aborts it.
3. A man and woman have consensual sex. The women becomes pregnant, and wants the child. So does the man. The woman carries the child to term.
4. (now pay attention) A man and woman have consensual sex. The woman becomes pregnant, and wants the child. The man does not. She carries the child to term, and the man must become the woman's indentured servant for the next 18 years.
Now, here's my problem: A woman has a CHOICE, but a man does not. Zero, nada, zip. Why should a man have to pay for a woman's CHOICE? If she wants the child, then SHE can pay for it, SHE can raise it.
A man has absolutely no right under the law to force a woman into motherhood. No woman, therefore, should have a right to force a MAN into fatherhood. Why should he have to pay for HER choice? Why should HIS life's DESTINY be decided by a woman? A man cannot force a woman to carry the child to term and claim responsibility for it, so why should a woman force a man to pay for a child he does not want?
Take one of the staples of the abortion doctrine: A woman should be allowed to have sex purely for sexual gratification. A man should also have this right. But he does not. He is forced to take responsibility. The decision is all the woman's, not his.
Now, I'm not saying that a woman should be forced to have an abortion. Absolutely not. But I AM saying that a man should have a choice of taking responsibility for his actions, just like the woman does. If the father does not want the child, then he shouldn't have to pay for it. Plain and simple. It's a woman's destiny, and she has control over it, and a man should have control over his own destiny as well.
Oh, and no arguments that the man should have kept it in his pants. That line of logic won't work, because a woman doesn't have to spread her legs, either. In fact, for anyone who's pro-choice to disagree with my statements here would cause them to create a double standard similar to the system they rebelled against, thereby making them hypocrites.
The problem here is that a woman has a right to shirk her responsibilities as a mother, but a father does not. He must support the child, even if he didn't want it. That is just as bad (in the eyes of a feminist logic) as forcing a woman to carry a child to term.
Women consistently state that a man will NEVER know the hardship of labor and child gestation. This is true, just as a WOMAN will NEVER know how it feels to be an indentured servant to another person for 18 years and having absolutely no choice in the matter.
This isn't Dominatrix-Land, where at the whim of a hormonally imbalanced female, a man's life and career is ruined. In fact, that's ANOTHER staple of the abortion doctrine - a man doesn't have a right to hinder, impede, or "oppress" a woman's future life and career through child bearing. NEITHER SHOULD A WOMAN.
Intelligent comments welcome.
Take these scenarios:
1. A man and woman have consensual sex. The woman becomes pregnant, and does not wish to carry the child to term. The man also does not want the child. She has it aborted in the first trimester.
2. A man and woman have consensual sex. The woman becomes pregnant, but does not want the child. The man does. She aborts it.
3. A man and woman have consensual sex. The women becomes pregnant, and wants the child. So does the man. The woman carries the child to term.
4. (now pay attention) A man and woman have consensual sex. The woman becomes pregnant, and wants the child. The man does not. She carries the child to term, and the man must become the woman's indentured servant for the next 18 years.
Now, here's my problem: A woman has a CHOICE, but a man does not. Zero, nada, zip. Why should a man have to pay for a woman's CHOICE? If she wants the child, then SHE can pay for it, SHE can raise it.
A man has absolutely no right under the law to force a woman into motherhood. No woman, therefore, should have a right to force a MAN into fatherhood. Why should he have to pay for HER choice? Why should HIS life's DESTINY be decided by a woman? A man cannot force a woman to carry the child to term and claim responsibility for it, so why should a woman force a man to pay for a child he does not want?
Take one of the staples of the abortion doctrine: A woman should be allowed to have sex purely for sexual gratification. A man should also have this right. But he does not. He is forced to take responsibility. The decision is all the woman's, not his.
Now, I'm not saying that a woman should be forced to have an abortion. Absolutely not. But I AM saying that a man should have a choice of taking responsibility for his actions, just like the woman does. If the father does not want the child, then he shouldn't have to pay for it. Plain and simple. It's a woman's destiny, and she has control over it, and a man should have control over his own destiny as well.
Oh, and no arguments that the man should have kept it in his pants. That line of logic won't work, because a woman doesn't have to spread her legs, either. In fact, for anyone who's pro-choice to disagree with my statements here would cause them to create a double standard similar to the system they rebelled against, thereby making them hypocrites.
The problem here is that a woman has a right to shirk her responsibilities as a mother, but a father does not. He must support the child, even if he didn't want it. That is just as bad (in the eyes of a feminist logic) as forcing a woman to carry a child to term.
Women consistently state that a man will NEVER know the hardship of labor and child gestation. This is true, just as a WOMAN will NEVER know how it feels to be an indentured servant to another person for 18 years and having absolutely no choice in the matter.
This isn't Dominatrix-Land, where at the whim of a hormonally imbalanced female, a man's life and career is ruined. In fact, that's ANOTHER staple of the abortion doctrine - a man doesn't have a right to hinder, impede, or "oppress" a woman's future life and career through child bearing. NEITHER SHOULD A WOMAN.
Intelligent comments welcome.