A Man's Right to Choose

  • Thread starter Thread starter DanielJohn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lordssoldier said:
I believe a man should always get the right to choose. some nights she don’t want it, but i say, girl flip over and give it up. MY right to choose. Friday night, I wanted to watch the new night at the museum, because ben stiler is mass funny, she wanted to watch walk to remember, I won, because MY RIGHT to CHOOSE…another example, she wanted chinese and I hate chineses foods so I told her either pizza or sandwiches at quiznos and she had some choice but over all her choices were two choices from MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE. see fellas, our women are stronger because we use MAN’S RIGHT TO CHOSE. If I was choosing, flush the fetus down the poopchute and dump the dame is my advice.

be strong like christ men.
Click to expand...
A troll by any other name is still a troll.
 
DanielJohn said:
My main purpose in writing this post was to expose what appears to be an obvious flaw in our legal system (no matter which side of the abortion debate you stand on). If they’re going to keep making abortion legal, then they should at least require the mother to certify the father’s consent for the abortion, if in fact she gave him consent to create his offspring inside of her. Right? That’s the thing I wanted to write civil officials about. It seems like a no-brainer to me. If the father’s signature is required, then we will be putting the “choice” on his conscience and we will never see an unborn child’s father act upon the crazy kidnapping caper I mentioned. 👍
Click to expand...
No, because if you legislate that, then it will be even EASIER for men to force women into abortion, which they already do 64% of the time. Women don’t always choose abortion, men do many times because they don’t want to have to pay child support. Don’t believe me? Just read some of the stories out there. Therefore, it’s not a man’s right to choose what a woman does because if you make it legal for men to have to sign the child away, it will also make it legal for men to say that a woman must end her pregnancy if he doesn’t want the child. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

The best ways to go about ending abortion are:
  1. Help women going through the thought of abortion. Support them, help them, bring them to a crisis pregnancy center, a woman’s shelter, help with transportation, babysitting, etc.
  2. Reveal the truths about abortion, like the fact that it’s physically and mentally unhealthy for women and their families.
  3. Reveal the truths about pregnancy, such as fetal stages, and how much it benefits the health of women.
These are the things that must be done, not limiting a woman’s rights by what a man wants of her.
 
MoonChild02 said:
if you make it legal for men to have to sign the child away, it will also make it legal for men to say that a woman must end her pregnancy if he doesn’t want the child.
Click to expand...
I may have explained poorly. Perhaps I should say, “man’s right to defer” instead of “man’s right to choose.” He would not be choosing: no abortion or abortion. He would be choosing: no abortion or defer to woman. What I see in our civil law is a natural law being violated. I’m looking at the lifespan of the unborn seed that is destroyed in the womb. He or she was created by two people. If both people exercised their natural choices at the time the unborn seed is created (ie. she wasn’t raped), then natural law requires that both people exercise the same two choices at the time of the unborn seed’s destruction (I’m not pro-abortion; I’m just saying that if civil law is going to keep abortion legal, then it needs to follow natural law). These two creation choices and two destruction choices are similar:

Creation Choices
1st choice is for woman: no sex or defer to man
2nd choice is given to man by woman: sex or no sex
  • Sex without woman’s consent is a man exercising a choice the woman didn’t give him
Destruction Choices
1st choice is for man: no destroy or defer to woman
2nd choice is given to woman by man: destroy or no destroy
  • Destroy without man’s consent is a woman exercising a choice the man didn’t give her
So, except for rape, the woman getting the abortion should be required to certify that the man has deferred this choice to her. He needs to be going into the abortion clinic with her to sign a consent form. If she wants the abortion and he doesn’t want to sign, then he will know not to expect her to care for his child after the delivery. I agree with you on the 3 action items you mentioned. People need to be educated, not just legislated! You can’t have one without the other. God bless you.
 
flyingfish said:
I read what you wrote, but I have to say, I still don’t understand why it’s moral to kidnap a woman you impregnated to prevent her from having an abortion but immoral to kidnap a random woman to prevent her from having an abortion.
Click to expand...
Under a perfect civil law, both actions would be moral, but they would not be kidnappings, they would be citizen’s arrests due to abortion being illegal. Unfortunately, we’re under an imperfect civil law where abortion is legal. So it’s difficult to sort out these two cases. If you pray over the following verse, then I think you will understand:

“if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially his family, he has denied the faith and is WORSE than an unbeliever” (1st Timothy 5:8)

Here’s what this verse tells me. If I don’t help someone else’s child, then I am an unbeliever. But if I don’t help my own child, then I am WORSE than an unbeliever. This helps me see that it’s a GREATER sin of omission for me to not help my own child than it is for me to not help someone else’s child. So if I see two pregnant women walking into an abortion clinic and one of them is my wife, then it’s a GREATER sin of omission for me to not try to change my wife’s mind than it is for me to not try to change the other woman’s mind. The question I posed is whether or not the GREATER sin of not trying to change my wife’s mind would be great enough of a sin to justify me kidnapping her as a last resort. So far, I have only one yea and many nays.

One thing I should have mentioned in the kidnapping scenario is that the man who is doing that would be weeping during the whole ordeal. The sole driving force behind his actions would be a father’s love for his own child (like when David was fasting and weeping - 2nd Samuel 12:13-23). The kidnapper would not be anything like what we normally think of a kidnapper as. The normal kidnapper is angry, violent, and disrespectful to the dignity of the one he has kidnapped. The man I envision in my crazy kidnapping scenario is the opposite type of man, one who is only doing it as a last resort because of a serious legal flaw (the one that allows a woman to get an abortion before the man who impregnated her has deferred the choice to her). Unless this legal flaw is fixed, we will see men kidnapping women they impregnated. It’s just a matter of time before the gap between a man’s love for his own child and a woman’s hate for his child is a wide enough gap to drive a man into kidnapping her.
 
There is Biblical a commandment against killing (abortion), but none against kidnapping (although it would, if done for proft, fall under theft).

Some French or American person invented the idea of human rights only a couple of centuries ago. It is not in the Bible. We should not make reference to them in moral discussions, since they are a mere human chimera and false idol. Instead we should be guided by the Bible alone.
 
DanielJohn,

Once again, you are leaving the woman’s role out, and reducing her to a sperm receptacle and baby decanter. Plus, it is NOT scientific to leave out social norms. I will attempt to re-write your rules, repairing these errors. I will, however, try to leave out morality, since its effect on biology is minimal.

Law 1: “Sex” is an attempt by two humans to procreate, thus insuring species survival. [That’s the best biological definition of sex that I know.]

Law #2: Both genders of humans sometimes attempt to prevent conception. This does not affect rule #1.

Law #3: When both partners agree to have sex, it is called consensual intercourse. When both partners do not agree, it is exploitation of the person who did not agree. This exploitation ranges from being taken advantage of, through prostitution, to rape.

Law #4: Since sex is ordered towards procreation, attempting sex with a partner of the same gender will never be successful at reproducing, and is therefore disordered.

Law #5a: Because of Law #2, consenting to sex does not constitute permission to attempt conception. Both partners must make it clear whether they are attempting reproductive sex or sterile sex. If both partners do not agree, then sex should not be attempted. The best way humans can insure this is the human institution of marriage.

Law 5b. When both partners have agreed to perform procreative sex, preventing the birth of any child that results violates Law 1, and is disordered. Because it absolutely opposes Law 1, it is absolutely disordered.

Law #6 really doesn’t belong here, as it is not biological, but moral.

The scientific conclusion would be that both contraception and abortion interfere with the species’ chance of survival.

Morally, since we may not do evil that good may result, the kidnapping idea is out. So there are two answers:
  1. Outlaw abortion.
  2. Never have sex with anyone unless there is an explicit agreement that the woman will give birth if she becomes pregnant, and that both partners will support the child that results.
(Aside: Note that Law 5a is included in the correct practice of NFP.)

Firmly, Ruthie - a thinker, not a decanter.
 
DanielJohn said:
Excellent points vera dicere. The kidnapper should in the very least explain everything in a letter to the family and friends of the woman, so that they don’t worry and so that the police don’t waste 9 months looking for her. They would all know the approximate date of him turning himself over to the authorities. He would be treating her well. It’s quite possible that she would even have a change of heart during the 9 months.
Click to expand...
You can’t possibly be serious! “Dear So-and-So, I’ve just kidnapped your daughter, but don’t worry I’ll release her in 9 months.” And the other letter: “Dear police, I’ve just kidnapped a person. But don’t trouble yourselves rescuing her. I’ll just turn myself in 9 months from now.” :eek:
DanielJohn said:
My main purpose in writing this post was to expose what appears to be an obvious flaw in our legal system (no matter which side of the abortion debate you stand on). If they’re going to keep making abortion legal, then they should at least require the mother to certify the father’s consent for the abortion, if in fact she gave him consent to create his offspring inside of her. Right? That’s the thing I wanted to write civil officials about. It seems like a no-brainer to me. If the father’s signature is required, then we will be putting the “choice” on his conscience and we will never see an unborn child’s father act upon the crazy kidnapping caper I mentioned. 👍
Click to expand...
This makes no sense. The father’s signature? How do you know you’re the father? Because she slept with you? What makes you so sure you’re the only one she slept with?
 
SugarMagnolia said:
This makes no sense. The father’s signature? How do you know you’re the father? Because she slept with you? What makes you so sure you’re the only one she slept with?
Click to expand...
Did you just hear a giant ballon pop? This quote above is what did it. Thank you SugarMagnolia for helping me see how stupid this whole idea was! 😊

A man just has to accept that a woman might have his child put to death. If abortion becomes illegal and education improves, then she is less likely to do it. And if he marries her first like he’s supposed to, then there’s almost zero chance of her doing it.
 
Actually, abortion is permissible if the woman is certain to lose her life if she continues with the pregnancy. An example would be an ectopic pregnancy, where the fetus attaches to the wall of the Fallopian Tube. Let’s not forget that the mother also has a right to life, not only the child. A mother might morally choose to end her pregnancy if it means her life will end, especially if she has other young children to raise. Other mothers might reasonably choose to die so that their child might live. There’s no greater gift than to give your life for another. But in these situations, it should be the mother’s decision, not the government’s or the church’s decision. The decision should be between only the woman and God. These are some reasons why abortion should not be completely banned. As an aside, sexual relations are just as much for mutual enjoyment as they are for conception. Sexual intimacy is a gift from God to be enjoyed, just as eating is for both enjoyment and sustenance, just as hearing and vision are for enjoyment as well as for functioning in this world. As to the kidnapping theory, what if the couple are married and the wife agreed to have children prior to the marriage but, once pregnant, then wants an abortion? Should the man legally be able to force the wife to have the child? Where do you draw the line? Joe
 
Should I stop enjoying Mozart and Beethoven and only use my ears to hear the cries of the needy? Why can’t I have both? Joe
 
Actually, abortion is permissible if the woman is certain to lose her life if she continues with the pregnancy.
Click to expand...
Not true. An abortion is the deliberate destruction of human life. It is never allowed as a preventive measure. We may not do evil that good may result. See CCC 1789.

Ruthie
 
CCC 1789 says nothing about abortion. Allowing a woman with an ectopic pregnancy to die, even though her fetus cannot possibly survive, is a grave, evil sin. Your obsession with the pro-life movement blinds you to the truth. What I wrote previously, I received from Catholic Radio only a week ago. Don’t spread lies that can hurt people just so you can satisfy your obsession with banning abortion.
 
vera_dicere said:
No. Absolutely not. It is not moral to kidnap the woman. You may be saving that child but think of the harm you’re doing to the woman, her family and friends. Not to mention the nusiance you will be causing the police and authorities as they search for her.

There is also the risk of the woman dying in your care. Unless the man has medical knowledge, then anything could go seriously wrong with teh pregnancy. What if the woman refuses to eat? Will the man force an NGT down her throat? Will he keep her unconscious?

Then there’s the part when the woman gives birth. Something could go wrong, and you could end up with a murder charge as well as a kidnapping one, then you’d end up in prison or on death row. How will that help your child?

I am as pro-life as they come, but what you are proposing is morally repugnant. Quite frankly, it reeks of a man wanting to control a woman, which is counter to both morality and church teaching. Men cannot just treat women like a quick bit of fun and then get angry that the woman wants an abortion.

Here’s the solution: don’t have sex outside of wedlock. You can not be 100% sure that the woman you shag is going to keep that child.
Any woman who would shag out of wedlock, her morality is already been established, so a man cannot be upset when she aborts.

Sex is not a toy. God did not make sex for just the man to use on a Friday night with some floozey. God created sex for marriage for a reason. And this is that reason. And the “abortion” conversation is one that must happen before marriage, before sex, for just this reason.

Men like this do not gain my sympathy. Women are NOT the property of men. If you don’t want your unborn child being slaughtered, don’t create one in the womb of a woman your’e not married too!
Click to expand...
I mostly agree with you, especially in that a lot of the men are the ones pressuring the woman to have the abortion (in some high profile cases, going so far as to kill the woman when she refuses). However, in the parts I’ve highlighted above, what about when the woman is the man’s wife? He didn’t “shag her for a bit of fun”, or have sex outside of wedlock, yet, according to our laws, abortion is still entirely her “choice”. The husband has no say in whether his child lives or dies. He’s completely (along with his child) at his wife’s mercy. It is rare, but it does happen. On a parenting website I frequent, one of the birth boards (forums for people w/ kids born in the same month and year to chat) had this occur. The woman got pregnant when her child was just a few months old, and the thought of having another baby so soon horrified her, and she was considering abortion, despite her husband wanting the child (more horrifying were the number of women who were encouraging her to have the abortion if that’s what it would take to make her “happy”. One poster actually wrote “if no baby=happy mommy then terminate” :(:mad:. Yes, the culture of death is raging among us! :gopray:).

Although I don’t agree w/ the OP premise, the laws definately need to be changed to give the biological fathers some rights. If they’re forced to pay child support if the mother wants to keep the child and they don’t, then the mom shouldn’t be able to have an abortion if the father wants the baby. Something has to change.

In Christ,

Ellen
 
ALLGIRLS said:
Although I don’t agree w/ the OP premise, the laws definately need to be changed to give the biological fathers some rights. If they’re forced to pay child support if the mother wants to keep the child and they don’t, then the mom shouldn’t be able to have an abortion if the father wants the baby. Something has to change.
Click to expand...
Finally, someone who sees the legal flaw. Thanks Ellen! The whole kidnapping thing was about exposing the legal flaw. I thought I had an idea on how to fix the legal flaw. Just require the father of the unborn child to come into the abortion clinic with the pregnant woman to sign a consent form. But then SugarMagnolia exposed the stupidity of my idea. The pregnant woman might not know who the father is (or she could always claim she doesn’t know).

Perhaps, marriage could be incorporated into my idea to patch the legal flaw as good as we can. If the woman getting an abortion is married, then the new law I’m proposing would require her husband to come into the abortion clinic with her to sign a consent form, regardless of who the biological father of her unborn child is. That way, a married man would always have the right to keep his child (even when his wife claims her husband is not the father).

Please don’t misunderstand my stand on the rights of the unborn. I know that abortion is murder (except when it’s the only way to save the mother’s life). It should be illegal. The legal change I am suggesting in this post is just something to account for a legal flaw that should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it, regardless of whether or not you believe the unborn person has the right to live. It’s just not right for it to be legal for my wife to run off to the abortion clinic to destroy the “thing” that she had just given me permission to create.
 
Allowing a woman with an ectopic pregnancy to die, even though her fetus cannot possibly survive, is a grave, evil sin.
Click to expand...
JR, you are absolutely right. To let both die, when one might survive, would be just as bad as having an abortion.

I wanted to argue that surgery for an ectopic pregnancy was only licit if it was an immediate emergency, but I was wrong. There are three methods to prevent the mother’s death. Two are abortions, as they involve directly killing the baby. There is one method that is moral, according to the National Catholic Bioethics Center. (See here.)

I’m still a little iffy about it, and would like to know if the Magisterium has said anything about it. I think, if I were to have an ectopic pregnancy, I’d wait until the last minute. But for me to be pregnant at all would be a miracle.

Thanks for making me learn.

God bless you,

Ruthie
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top