What Kos said. I agree with (and enjoyed) the bulk of your post but that line about women is totally unacceptable.

Oh boy. I started to formulate a reply but what Truffy said is too true -  to paraphrase, nothing you say to stupid makes the slightest difference.

Try me.

Well, nothing like focusing on one aspect of something and only commenting on that.

Obviously, you didn't get it. The comment was not directed at all women, because all women are decidedly not stupid. But in this day and age, women who become pregnant against their wishes - with all the possible forms of contraception available - nearly everywhere, there is no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy to occur. Further clarification on what was previously posted. Problem is too many use abortion as a birth control method - at least here.

Stupid: Ill-advised, foolish, shortsighted, unthinking. I think they all fit. The Apostle Paul used silly to describe certain women. Perhaps that would have been a better fit.

Silly: irresponsible, imprudent, immature. Yes, that is a better fit.

Terry: Say Karen, how's about a bit of boom-boom?

Karen: Not prudent at this juncture, Terry - you've got no protection.

Terry: Aw, c'mon luv! Just a bit o...

Karen: No!

She has to carry it, I'd say the woman's got a bigger stake in it than the cad who is likely love 'em and leave 'em. The guy has a moral obligation, but how many take it? By the rate of young, single moms - at least here, not many.

Perhaps I am just old-fashioned, or just old.  :-{)

Literally commented on the entire post, you madman.

The problem is singling out the women. In fact you say later:

Ok I can't do proper quotes any more, so here's an old fashioned quote:

"The guy has a moral obligation, but how many take it? By the rate of young, single moms - at least here, not many."

You kinda excuse the men. The tone is: Boys will be boys, so it's up to the women to take responsibility.

Regardless of who bears the brunt of the consequences, if someone gets pregnant then (in usual circumstances) two people are equally responsible.

"Further clarification on what was previously posted. Problem is too many use abortion as a birth control method - at least here."

I really don't believe that many do. I'm sure that some do, a tiny fraction, and you're right in that anyone behaving this way is 'too many'. But really it's entirely up to them, if they want to behave that way then that is their responsibility, that's the point of choice. While I believe that's wrong, I don't believe the state has any right to proscribe that behaviour (though I do think healthcare professionals should intervene).

I DO NOT excuse the men AT ALL. Don't try to put words in my mouth by telling me what my tone was. If you don't know or understand, please ask in the future because you don't know me well enough to know my mind.

The simple fact that some if not many men are in fact quite adept at walking away from responsibility and the women know it means that someone has to be the sensible one. For the sake of the woman who has to carry the child and be responsible for bringing the child up through the years (if the male refuses), she then has to put on the limits. The men won't and you know it. They will press for advantage at any opportunity. Surely you aren't young and naive enough not to know this. I have seen it time and again within my own extended family.

Ever heard this: How do you know it's mine?

My grandmother was given to say, "A stiff prick has no conscience". She knew that as a young girl in the 1930s and it is still true today. Yes, two people are responsible. But if the man walks away, the girl is left holding the bag. It isn't fair or right, but it is how it ends up all too often.

Fathers should teach their sons responsibility and restraint. I taught mine to be a gentleman, what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. But at some point he has to make choices for himself. I can't be there forever.
 

In this case, what you believe is irrelevant. Although the data may be somewhat flawed because people tend not to be truthful in this situation, many women - 40% or more - report to not have been using any form of birth control when being counseled for abortion.

 

So if one is not using birth control and decides tohave an abortion, it would seem to follow that pregnancy is undesired. Who has the abortion: the woman. Why? Because her and the man... Where's the man? Well, he... Yeah, like a shit he just turned his back.

 

A stiff clit has no conscience either. I still think you're excusing the men and the 'stiff prick' thing is an example of that. Men are animals when they're aroused and can't be expected to think straight but women are what? Passive observers during sex and should be expected to think straight?

You keep re-iterating that it's generally the woman who bears the brunt of the consequences and, while of course I agree, that's irrelevant. Suggesting it ought be more the woman's responsibility inherently absolves the man.

  That is not the same as 'using abortion as birth control' which strongly implies habitual, planned behaviour. Things happen in the heat of the moment. Yes, it's stupid, but that's kinda the point. "Using abortion as birth control" implies forethought and in such situations there clearly was none (which is the problem).

 

What is wrong with abortion being used as a form birth control when required?


From a medical/physical POV I can see there being an issue, as well as from a psychological POV.

But otherwise, what is the issue?

I was stating a personal ethical belief there (hence 'I believe') rather than trying to make any sort of objective argument. I, myself, would not want to have an abortion for the same reason I won't kill insects. I don't believe I have a right to do those things. But I don't believe that holding that belief gives me the right to tell anyone else what to do or judge them for whatever they do. I don't see it as an absolute moral issue (as the Catholic Church does, for example), just my personal ethical choice.

And I did say they have every right to use it in such a way if they really want to. Though I'd argue that if it really is used in lieu of other forms of birth control (i.e. the decisions is made upfront to use abortion instead of condoms or whatever) then that's a pretty wasteful use of resources.

(Sorry if that sounds snappy. Reading it back it sounds a bit snappy but I don't mean it that way)


 

That was addressed to Fixrman!

I don't have an issue with your view because you don't believe you have the right to force it upon others.

Hah. I have absolutely no idea why I thought that post was to me -_-

So, apart from physically and mentally, what's the issue? What's left for there to be an issue with?

If you consider it to be an issue, there could be a moral/ethical issue.

You can't have an abortion, you haven't got a womb
</reg>

Racist.

Poof.

I don't know how you can possibly say I excuse men from shirking responsibility. What stronger language can I use to condemn men who impregnate women and do not contribute to their support? Fucksticks? Assholes? Pricks, jerkoffs wankers, pigs, whaleshit-eating scumbags? They are all that and more.

Sorry if it gets your goat so to speak and I do understand the defense of women, but it is not entirely an equal issue, to wit:

The man gets what he wants, a time of pleasure with the woman. She also is an active and eager participant. Three months later a phone call is made after which point the guy has long lost interest, perhaps. So he declines further involvement. The woman is still pregnant.

Regardless of your personal feelings on the plight of the woman and the responsibility of the man - should he not take his equal responsibility with the pregnancy - she is still pregnant and has an issue to deal with and choices to make. If he walks away, then she will make those decisions possibly alone and that may include abortion. She will have to pay for it if he doesn't. Because she is the one to suffer the most consequences of the liason (unfortunately), it is therefore more incumbent for the woman to ensure a wise decision is made. My personal feeling is different however than my general feeling on the matter. I could not and would not walk away from a situation like that because I accept personal responsibility. But I do know men, I know the statistics involved and unfortunately if the man won't take precautions the woman should. If a woman and man have sex and pregnancy results and because either they jointly or singularly(in the case of the female, he cannot force an abortion, well that would be extreme) decide then it is de facto birth control. There is no way on God's Green earth that a woman or man cannot know about the possibility of pregnancy in today's day and age.

It is a subtle and fairly nuanced difference in responsibility only because of the consequence. It should be shared responsibility but too often it is not, unless of course the woman want to foce the issue through legal remedies which would be her right, but how many women will actually do that? It does not inherently excuse the man, you are playing semantics.

See how easy it is to turn into a politically charged issue - and it only took one word.

For the record, I do agree with you that there is responsibility -total - on both parts. In a perfect world we don't even have this discussion because there would be no alcohol or drug-fueled or otherwise thoughtless sexual liasons with untimely consequences. But we do not live in a perfect world and people do not submit to moral issues very well which is why they end up being politically charged, They want somebody to make a decision for them and absolve them of the ramifications of their actions. Nobody wins, neither in the beginning nor in the end.

I think your answer is as good if not better than any I might make.

Required as in? Medically necessary for the health of the female? Please define.

Spelling was shit.

Both morals and ethics fit in with it being a mental issue. That's where the mental aspect stems from. Also feeling of possible persecution from people who may judge the female and probably less so the male. It isn't right but I have seen it too much to know the woman often suffers more indignation than the male - even from fellow women.

The other physical problem might come in the future, There have been women, though I do not know any statistics on this at all, who have also had difficulty or found it impossible to become pregnant after having had an abortion in the past. I cannot even begin to believe how emotionally devastating that may be.

Just to be clear on it I do know two women who were unable to becaome pregnant and each had received abortions in the past. The fact that the abortion may have had little to do with their inability did little to mitigate the psycological impact. That said I would expect the incidence of that happening today is rather low.