How to re-educate so that people will understand about abortion?

[Drawmack]

So if she is considering abortion, paternity is determined at 20 weeks when abortion is more difficult to perform but still legal in some places and the father doesn’t give a rat’s *ss, or paternity is never determined, she should just carry to term to satisfy the unknown sperm donor and the pro-life person who has nothing to do with it? I disagree. She qualifies for abortion by default if that is her choice.

If the father is absent, he may be way absent and unable to be found (and that’s just the way he intends it). Again, abortion by default. It’s clear neither of these men is connected to the situation on any level.

I would think most women who have abortions do not do so without some thought of the father. And those thoughts may be laced with much negativity. Some must wish they had an authentic relationship with the father but they do not and they never will. Some are just careless and ready to get back to the party. It is not cut and dried in the details of it.

So, the man’s rights deserve no legal protection?

 

[Drawmack]

The examples you give are not comparable since they say things which are minor deviations from the original meaning they are not diametricaly opposed. As in the case of those who call themselves pro choice who are actually anti choice. They use this term not as a slang interpretation but as an attempt to deliberately deceive.

I’m sorry but they are not anti-choice. That’s a very silly interpretation of the situation and if it’s applicable to either side it is applicable to my side, pro-life. I’ll readily admit that pro-life is anti-choice, but I’ll also state that it is okay to be opposed to a choice which shouldn’t be legal in the first place.

 

[limerick]

So, the man’s rights deserve no legal protection?

**If he sticks around and is willing to abide by a legal contract, to be agreed upon by the mother and the father, where every issue is spelled out, such as visitation, schooling, holidays, medical care, education, then why not? But it needs to be done before the 24th week of gestation or the mother is really put in a bind.

I think every woman should carry a pre-sex contract in her purse, just to protect herself until the legal document is drawn up. Of course some men will wiggle out of it, but it’s a starting place.

Limerick**

 

[royal_archer]

I’m sorry but they are not anti-choice. That’s a very silly interpretation of the situation and if it’s applicable to either side it is applicable to my side, pro-life. I’ll readily admit that pro-life is anti-choice, but I’ll also state that it is okay to be opposed to a choice which shouldn’t be legal in the first place.

Anti murder is anti choice, anti theft is anti choice, anti drugs is anti choice, etc…

Given a group of abortion advocates and a group of those opposed to abortion; which group is more likely to support school choice? which is more likely to support how much income is taxed? Which group is more likely to support a persons choice of praying in public? Which is more likely to support the choice to own a gun? Which group is more likely to support the baby’s or father’s right to choose?

We make billions of choices in our lives. We as a nation have prided ourselves as advocates of individual liberty. Why do so many, in this nation of free choice, allow the “pro-choice” moniker to be associated with a group whose lobby is around one extremely narrow choice?

 

[royal_archer]

**If he sticks around and is willing to abide by a legal contract, to be agreed upon by the mother and the father, where every issue is spelled out, such as visitation, schooling, holidays, medical care, education, then why not? But it needs to be done before the 24th week of gestation or the mother is really put in a bind.

I think every woman should carry a pre-sex contract in her purse, just to protect herself until the legal document is drawn up. Of course some men will wiggle out of it, but it’s a starting place.

Limerick**

I think you have stumbled upon a good idea. It might make both parties think twice before doing something stupid.

 

[Drawmack]

**If he sticks around and is willing to abide by a legal contract, to be agreed upon by the mother and the father, where every issue is spelled out, such as visitation, schooling, holidays, medical care, education, then why not? But it needs to be done before the 24th week of gestation or the mother is really put in a bind.

I think every woman should carry a pre-sex contract in her purse, just to protect herself until the legal document is drawn up. Of course some men will wiggle out of it, but it’s a starting place.

Limerick**

So, you agree that the man’s rights should be protected?

Let’s say that I give you that the man has to be identified and found before the 24th week, but if the man is identified and found before the 24th week, should the man’s rights be protected?

 

[Drawmack]

Anti murder is anti choice, anti theft is anti choice, anti drugs is anti choice, etc…

Given a group of abortion advocates and a group of those opposed to abortion; which group is more likely to support school choice? which is more likely to support how much income is taxed? Which group is more likely to support a persons choice of praying in public? Which is more likely to support the choice to own a gun? Which group is more likely to support the baby’s or father’s right to choose?

We make billions of choices in our lives. We as a nation have prided ourselves as advocates of individual liberty. Why do so many, in this nation of free choice, allow the “pro-choice” moniker to be associated with a group whose lobby is around one extremely narrow choice?

All I’m saying is making the claim that the pro-choice movement is actually anti-choice is a very silly proposition to make. It doesn’t even make sense.

As for the baby’s or father’s rights are you reading the conversation that Limerick and myself are having in this thread?

 

[royal_archer]

All I’m saying is making the claim that the pro-choice movement is actually anti-choice is a very silly proposition to make. It doesn’t even make sense.

Looking at this issue in issolation I can agree with you but I look at the issue in context of larger and related issues knowing that there tends to be a common mindset that advocates pro choice in the realm of abortion but anti choice in many other areas.

As for the baby’s or father’s rights are you reading the conversation that Limerick and myself are having in this thread?

Yes, although my previous discussions with her have been disapointment where she will agree with logic in one area then at the next logical step change her her perspective.

She is ignoring me now but you may try asking her if she feels a woman should be probited by law from having an abortion until 15 days after the father is notified and if the father chooses to keep the child, should she be prohibited from having an abortion under penalty of law. I suspect she would not agree and only offers lip service to the concept of fathers rights but does not support those rights if they interfere with a womans “choice” to murder her baby.

 

[Drawmack]

She is ignoring me now but you may try asking her if she feels a woman should be probited by law from having an abortion until 15 days after the father is notified and if the father chooses to keep the child, should she be prohibited from having an abortion under penalty of law. I suspect she would not agree and only offers lip service to the concept of fathers rights but does not support those rights if they interfere with a womans “choice” to murder her baby.

I think that I will continue my conversation with Limerick and she what she says about the topics I bring up.

I think you should obey the forum rules and talk about the issues and not other posters.

 

[limerick]

So, you agree that the man’s rights should be protected?

Let’s say that I give you that the man has to be identified and found before the 24th week, but if the man is identified and found before the 24th week, should the man’s rights be protected?

**You are entering a legal realm as much as a moral one, so I would have to ask you to describe what rights you believe the father is entitled to.

Limerick**

 

[Drawmack]

**You are entering a legal realm as much as a moral one, so I would have to ask you to describe what rights you believe the father is entitled to.

Limerick**

I believe that a father should have all the same rights as a mother. That being said, do you think the father’s rights should be protected?

 

[limerick]

I believe that a father should have all the same rights as a mother. That being said, do you think the father’s rights should be protected?

**
The rights of both parents should be protected by a legally-binding agreement; if no agreement can be reached they should re-negotiate. If agreement still cannot be reached, I believe the mother’s wishes should supersede those of the father. If no agreement is reached within the first two trimesters of the pregnancy, the mother’s wishes should be honored. This also includes the mother who wishes to give birth against the wishes of the father who prefers the option of abortion.

I understand it is not as simple as this, but I am not an attorney and, although I have been through multiple pregnancies, tooth-and-nail negotiations and divorce, I know there are circumstances and scenarios that this solution does not address.

I very strongly object to any third party interjecting legal representation for the fetus, however. Negotiations are complex enough without the silliness of a mouthpiece for an embryo or a fetus. This decision should be between the adults who caused the situation to develop.

Limerick **

 

[Drawmack]

**
The rights of both parents should be protected by a legally-binding agreement; if no agreement can be reached they should re-negotiate. If agreement still cannot be reached, I believe the mother’s wishes should supersede those of the father. If no agreement is reached within the first two trimesters of the pregnancy, the mother’s wishes should be honored. This also includes the mother who wishes to give birth against the wishes of the father who prefers the option of abortion.

I understand it is not as simple as this, but I am not an attorney and, although I have been through multiple pregnancies, tooth-and-nail negotiations and divorce, I know there are circumstances and scenarios that this solution does not address.

I very strongly object to any third party interjecting legal representation for the fetus, however. Negotiations are complex enough without the silliness of a mouthpiece for an embryo or a fetus. This decision should be between the adults who caused the situation to develop.

Limerick **

Why should the mother’s rights supersede the father’s rights?

 

[limerick]

Why should the mother’s rights supersede the father’s rights?

**I’m a mother: you have to ask me that? :doh2:

Any father is welcome and able to contest until the poor little mother just gives up or goes broke. It has happened. But the men that I have known over the last 40 years have nearly all been free spirits, not wanting to be encumbered with an infant or a toddler or a child, and certainly not a teenager. YES there are exceptions, and I have known a few. But the majority of men that I have known would rather have had the woman handle all the details. Then they could have their Disneyland days with the kids - particularly the sons - and brag about their “little men”, etc.

I’m not saying women are hard-wired to be the caregiver and men are hard-wired to be the breadwinner. Culture has mashed us into those roles and many, many men and women are breaking out of them. The trend that I have seen lately, though, is still boys wanting to be boys and women picking up the slack.

These statements are derived exclusively from my own personal experience and are not meant to be interpreted as statistics.

Limerick**

 

[WillieWonka]

There will never be agreement between the pro-abortion and the anti-abortion forces.because they lack a common set of assumptions upon which to build a logical case.

One side assigns the same right to life to every instance of a human species at any and all states of development.

The other side assigns these rights progressively as the instance of the human species develops, starting with none, and gradually garnering more.

Both sides assert their prmary asumption is correct and their opposition is wrong. Neither can prove their assumption is correct; that’s why they are assumptions. Each builds its case on its own primary assumption. Each attacks the other by basing the develpment of its case on its own primary asusmption.

 

[allhers]

**
…I atoned for my own abortion and if other women choose this route for their pregnancies and it is legal, then they will have their own sit-down with God about their actions. I am neither interested nor responsible.

Limerick**

This part of what you said here reminded me of something. I had to go and look for it and I found it.

…After the crime, God intervenes to avenge the one killed. Before God, who asks him about the
fate of Abel, Cain, instead of showing remorse and apologizing, arrogantly eludes the
question: “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen 4:9). “I do not know”: Cain tries
to cover up his crime with a lie. This was and still is the case, when all kinds of
ideologies try to justify and disguise the most atrocious crimes against human beings. “Am I
my brother’s keeper?”: Cain does not wish to think about his brother and refuses to accept
the responsibility which every person has towards others. We cannot but think of today’s
tendency for people to refuse to accept responsibility for their brothers and sisters.
Symptoms of this trend include the lack of solidarity towards society’s weakest members-such
as the elderly, the infirm, immigrants, children- and the indifference frequently found in
relations between the world’s peoples even when basic values such as survival, freedom and
peace are involved.

From - Evangelium vitae (The Gospel of Life) by John Paul II
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

(I have read the thread through and I will remark on your other ideas about a woman carrying a contract around in her purse in another post. It reminded me of something else.)

 

[limerick]

This part of what you said here reminded me of something. I had to go and look for it and I found it.

…After the crime, God intervenes to avenge the one killed. Before God, who asks him about the
fate of Abel, Cain, instead of showing remorse and apologizing, arrogantly eludes the
question: “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen 4:9). “I do not know”: Cain tries
to cover up his crime with a lie. This was and still is the case, when all kinds of
ideologies try to justify and disguise the most atrocious crimes against human beings. “Am I
my brother’s keeper?”: Cain does not wish to think about his brother and refuses to accept
the responsibility which every person has towards others. We cannot but think of today’s
tendency for people to refuse to accept responsibility for their brothers and sisters.
Symptoms of this trend include the lack of solidarity towards society’s weakest members-such
as the elderly, the infirm, immigrants, children- and the indifference frequently found in
relations between the world’s peoples even when basic values such as survival, freedom and
peace are involved.

From - Evangelium vitae (The Gospel of Life) by John Paul II
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

(I have read the thread through and I will remark on your other ideas about a woman carrying a contract around in her purse in another post. It reminded me of something else.)

**This fable has no meaning to me; in CCD we studied a bastardized version of Baltimore Catechism and nothing else. We never opened a bible. I became a non-practicing (and non-interested) Catholic when I left home at age 18 and was not inspired to read the bible for any reason before or after that time. I own a bible and have used it as a reference from time to time; it is currently in a storage unit 15 miles from the house where I live.

Crime? What crime? Who committed the crime?

Limerick**

 

[vz71]

There will never be agreement between the pro-abortion and the anti-abortion forces.because they lack a common set of assumptions upon which to build a logical case.

One side assigns the same right to life to every instance of a human species at any and all states of development.

The other side assigns these rights progressively as the instance of the human species develops, starting with none, and gradually garnering more.

Both sides assert their prmary asumption is correct and their opposition is wrong. Neither can prove their assumption is correct; that’s why they are assumptions. Each builds its case on its own primary assumption. Each attacks the other by basing the develpment of its case on its own primary asusmption.

I believe this is nearly the only area you have mentioned that I find myself in agreement with.

 

[vz71]

If you have a question you mean to ask me directly, why not get off the professorial tone and just ask it? First it’s “they”, then it’s “she”, then it’s “they” again. Sometimes it’s even “the”! What?

And yet again…the opposition is squirming and grasping for anything.
We can’t be discussing life. Anything but that…

The issue is choice and it’s not yours to make for another person.

And we even have assurtions to it.
The claim is to choice again.
But by this time, everyone knows this is a sham. Were it really about choice then the entirety would have progressed differently. Agreement with all but the one choice would be common ground…but it is not.
As the opposition boldly asserted some time ago, we agree on nothing.
The appeal to choice is a lie.
It has never been about choice. It has always been about life.
The opposition cannot bring themselves to see it for what it is.
Perhaps they are ashamed. Perhaps their heart is simply too hardened.
Perhaps they are simply too blind.

I have already responded in compellingly graphic and honest language on the topic of murder, body parts, vacuum aspiration and the whole nine yards of it. It was deleted by the moderators before it ever appeared. If you have a gripe about that, or about the way this forum will not permit absolute candor with regard to this very sensitive topic, then please address it with the moderators or the administrators.

Now we have an appeal to the opposition claiming to be censored.
And within it they also attempt to be graphic.
This is a good point for everyone to learn from. Emotions have a place, but never in a debate. This appeal our emotions is an attempt to make us lose our control of the argument.
If they can make it about emotions, they no longer have to discuss life.

And note…they have still avoided answering the question on the table.
Why do you suppose that might be?
We have agreement that abortion ends human life.
We have agreement that they are in support of abortion.
Yet they are reluctant to tell us if they support the current legislation against murder.
Maybe they can see that it undercuts their argument of choice.

 

[royal_archer]

I think that I will continue my conversation with Limerick and she what she says about the topics I bring up.

I think you should obey the forum rules and talk about the issues and not other posters.

I was not attempting to talk about her but summarize my understanding of her possition.

FYI:

**… If agreement still cannot be reached, I believe the mother’s wishes should supersede those of the father. If no agreement is reached within the first two trimesters of the pregnancy, the mother’s wishes should be honored. …Limerick **