Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Halo on February 20, 2007, 03:27:37 PM
-
Mine is abortion. I think a woman's body is hers to do with as she pleases. I don't think men have any right to tell women what they can do with their bodies.
That includes the decision whether or not to give birth. Only the woman really knows who the father is anyway, and if she is promiscuous she might not know without a DNA test.
There are sociological, religious, political and psychological issues galore concerning abortion, but ultimately I dont see whether the decision to continue a pregnancy is anybody's business except the mother's.
McCain is upfront enough to say he wants to repeal Roe vs. Wade and take away a woman's right to abortion.
Sorry, John, but that crosses my vote/no vote line, and I hope you never are elected President of the United States.
This is just one example of a threshold election issue for me. Another is gun control. I won't vote for a candidate who tries to penalize or restrict law abiding citizens for owning firearms.
So without arguing any of the many issues since we're bound to disagree on some of them, what are your flashpoint election issues that would cost a candidate your vote if he/she supported them?
-
I don't have a "dealbreaker" issue. I look at the total package a candidate has to offer.
-
Well I have to agree with Halo a womans body is hers not the govts.
And on gun control, look at the other country's that have total gun control, who still has the guns?
-
Originally posted by dmf
Well I have to agree with Halo a womans body is hers not the govts.
And on gun control, look at the other country's that have total gun control, who still has the guns?
What about the baby's body? When does the baby get to decide whether or not it lives?
-
After it is born.
-
GUN CONTROL!!!!
After that I would love to see someone take us back to follow the way the CONSTITUTION was written. Get rid of all the frigging amendments and other crap and lets get back to the original intent of the document.
-
Illegal immigration.
I can hide my guns, but there isn't much I can do about the 5 illegal families stuffed into the single-family house down the street who think it's "art" to spray-paint gang logos on everything, or the growing number of stores where none of the employees speak English. Or the number of hospital ERs shut down because they're flooded with non-paying illegals demanding special treatment and priority.
-
If I had deal breakers , I wouldn't vote for none of the crooks.
-
Illegal Immigration followed closely by taxes.
Especially since this state (Maine) leads the pack in the highest level of taxation
-
My first and foremost main issue is politicians who's first allegiance is to something other than the good of their constituents and the nation. That leaves me with virtually no one to vote for.
-
Hajo,
Exactly as I see it.
I dont know the answer to abortion but I say this, everyone elses rights stop at my daughters skin.
I have never voted for anyone who wanted to make law that took the right to control our bodies and what is inside them away from us.
-
4th/5th amendment.
shamus
-
2nd; the linchpin by which the other nine are held in place.
-
Illegal Immigration and the Security of Amercian Borders...North and South.
Mac
-
I have no trouble with modern women controlling their own bodies.....if only they would.
Millions of abortions performed mindlessly merely because the birth of a child would be inconvenient is despicable and narcissistic.
That many abortions indicates that far too many women are still having unprotected sex because using a condom or other form of birth control is inconvenient in the heat of the moment.
If they don't want children then they can get up off their backs and get their feet out of the air.....or use a safe form of birth control.
The unborn should not be totally without rights of any kind.
Bye the way....listening to the news on the radio this morning I heard about a 23 week old fetus that was safely delivered and is now surviving on life support. Erm....excuse me....it is now a "premature" child.
-
I'd have to say the 2nd Amendment. Although it's not my only concern.
-
I've been in the shoes of a father who wanted the kid. The mother had the abortion, only to spend her, "Second Chance," running around blowing coke and getting piss drunk every night.
I'm all for parents' right to choose, if that phrase would ever come up. But women's alone? That's not right.
I understand how you father's would say, "the laws stop at my daughter's skin" but if my flesh and blood is growing within it, I'm sorry, I want some rights and say, too.
-
Originally posted by Halo
Mine is abortion. I think a woman's body is hers to do with as she pleases. I don't think men have any right to tell women what they can do with their bodies.
Hmm . . . does the federal or any state government have the right to regulate medical procedures?
If not, can I demand a doctor perform a cranial amputation on either myself or my child?
If I can, does my wife have any legal recourse against the physician who performs said cranial amputation?
Just curious.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
What about the baby's body? When does the baby get to decide whether or not it lives?
When it can carry a gun?
-
i will not vote for anyone that promises, if elected, they will kick me in the balls
-
If hillary (or anyone else) wants my vote, all it needs to do is proclaim the intent for new legislation to "STOP MESSING WITH THE FREAKING CLOCKS"
"IF I am elected your president, I vow that your CHILDREN won't know the meaning of Day Light Savings Time!"
-
Halo, regarding being pro-choice and McCain's desire to repeal Roe v. Wade, read this article by Ron Paul. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html Dr. Paul also thinks Roe v. Wade should be repealed, but not simply because he's pro-life (which he is). He wants it repealed because it's not a constitutional issue, not within the scope of powers granted to the fedgov by the CoTUS, therefor it's a state issue. Social policy is not a federal issue.
This illustrates my "single issue". Even if I don't agree with Ron on the abortion issue (I, too, am pro-choice) I wholeheartedly agree with his rational and his constitutionality test that every issue must pass in order to get his vote.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
When it can carry a gun?
That's actually pretty clever...
-
Iraq
-
If they have a "D" following their name, they do not get my vote
-
I look for Eagler's choices.
-
I'm kinda in the middle on some issues.
I think a woman should be able to have an abortion as long as the father agrees. Or the the father is not legally responsible for the kid.
Personally I think abortion is murder but hey...once again it's not my body.
I think Roe v Wade should be overturned so the states can decide.
Border security is high on my list of musts. I won't vote for anyone who is willing to give full amnesty to the illegals.
I think that if they voted for the Iraq war and are now saying they made a mistake and/or Bush lied then they won't get my vote.
If they think they should raise taxes to give money to worthless people they won't get my vote.
If their name starts with Hillary they won't get my vote.
So as of right now I have no one to vote for.
-
What's Your Single Issue Voting Flash Point?
The Long War
-
2nd Amendment, illegal immigration are my main concerns. Holding Big Business and Unions responsible for the destruction of the American middle class is a close third.
Also I do not feel that it is right that judges get a lifetime position on the Supreme Court . From 1953 to 1969 the High Court all but destroyed this country.
-
lobbyists. hate 'em.
-
I think there are three.. The need to get rid of unconstitutional gun control laws... the need to make the government smaller and the need to lower taxes.
as for abortion... at some point you are killing a baby. got nothing against that but be men or women enough to admit that you are fine with killing an innocent human being...
it is the height of cowardice to say that it is the womans decision (at some point in the fetus development)
You are pretty much saying that as long as the mothers skin hides the baby that it it not a human... This is very dehumanizing.
At least admit it is killing an innocent human but say that you have a good excuse.
If you won't then... don't call it a double murder when a pregnant woman is murdered. can't have it both ways... it is not up to women to decide who is human or not. It is not their right to drown newborns. work backwards from there and decide at what point it is ok to kill. What point the kid can survive or not without the "mother". Thats what works for me..
Find that point the the kid can live without her and say... past this point... you have no right to kill.
MT actually came close... no one has any rights unless someone with a gun makes sure they don't have em removed. The baby can't hold a gun so it is up to us to hold one for him... and then for him to hold one when we no longer can.
lazs
-
Oh... I do believe that a woman should have the right to do with her body as she pleases... she can do drugs or cut off her fingers for all I care... just like anyone else. She has no special right to decide who lives or dies.
lazs
-
I got to wonder about any man who puts the right of a women to be an irresponsible potato above any other issue.
It's not your issue. You were born with a sack, right?
It really is a silly issue.
Women should use birth control if they are going to be floozies.
If not I still support their right to be an a dirt bag potato and flush her responsibility.
But it so low on my list of important issues it almost doesn’t get consideration. No one is going to over turn it.
For me the key issue like others have said is firearms laws. Without them we are just English with good teeth.
With border control a big second and cutting back on the government and its spending a 3rd.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
What about the baby's body? When does the baby get to decide whether or not it lives?
After its born.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
If they have a "D" following their name, they do not get my vote
Fortunatly, a majority of voters, as shown in the last congressional election, think the exact opposite.
-
"What's Your Single Issue Voting Flash Point? "
Hillary Clintoon
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Illegal Immigration and the Security of Amercian Borders...North and South.
Mac
Damn right. Anything to keep the mexicans and Nash out!:aok
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
When it can carry a gun?
If that was the case, it may be possible lazers mommy could still put him down!:D
What would the Nation do!!
-
This discussion reminds me of a third issue that constitutes a voting flash point for me: capital punishment.
For or against? Is a candidate's position on capital punishment a deal breaker for you?
I want a candidate who supports capital punishment after all the usual appropriate safeguards against zapping innocents.
-
I worked on DeathRow for 3 years...I say ZAP em.
-
(quote) Halo, regarding being pro-choice and McCain's desire to repeal Roe v. Wade, read this article by Ron Paul. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html Dr. Paul also thinks Roe v. Wade should be repealed, but not simply because he's pro-life (which he is). He wants it repealed because it's not a constitutional issue, not within the scope of powers granted to the fedgov by the CoTUS, therefor it's a state issue. Social policy is not a federal issue.
This illustrates my "single issue". Even if I don't agree with Ron on the abortion issue (I, too, am pro-choice) I wholeheartedly agree with his rational and his constitutionality test that every issue must pass in order to get his vote. (unquote)
Thanks, bsdaddict, interesting and concise read. States' rights is a fascinating issue itself. Ideally that could allow for regional preferences and unique needs.
But some issues seem to transcend states' rights. Some issues are too important to allow variations from the national norm. Examples are national defense, international trade, and racial equality. Surely abortion, gun control, and capital punishment also qualify as national issues requiring adherence in all 50 states.
Opponents of federal legislation frequently try to weaken it by contending that for one reason or another, usually their preference for more states' rights, there is no federal issue and hence no requirement for federal participation. Trying to undermine the existing authority is an ancient debate technique.
I think it's despicable the way abortion opponents have tried to confiscate the term pro life or pro choice. Can you find one person anywhere who is not for life and for the right to make choices? Abortion proponents are for life and for their right to choose whether to give birth.
They are not against life and not against birth. They contend it is their individual right and not any government's to decide whether they should allow a pregnancy to continue to birth.
People who make the wrenching decision to abort may cherish life just as much as anyone else. In supporting the right to abort, I agree that it's a shame government ever had to get involved in what is a woman's most basic right -- to choose how and if to carry a pregnancy.
Yes, it gets complicated. I spent a lot of time researching the terms terminate, kill, and murder. Thanks to modern medical technology, we gain a clear view of what the fetus looks like from conception to birth. The more human it looks, the more any termination looks like murder.
But murder is "1. the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another;" (Webster's New World Dictionary). Kill is "1. to cause the death; make die."
Does any woman get pregnant to break the law and conceive a life just to murder it? Or even to kill it in a legal sense under existing law? Why would anyone ever do anything like that? No reward at all, just great potential discomfort, pain, anguish, cost, and maybe personal perceived guilt depending on individual religious belief.
Women have to live with an abortion decision all their lives. It seems logical and benevolent to offer women information about possible consequences and alternatives (including adoption). But then leave the abortion decision to each woman.
Do prospective fathers have any say? In my view, they have every right to try to influence an abortion decision one way or the other. But it is the woman's body. And yes, only she really knows who the father is, and then only if she has not had sex with more than one male during the time of conception.
In short, who else to better decide than the female who has the pregnancy within her?
What about girls wanting abortions, children who are not yet officially women? That's a classic gray area depending on variables such as whether they have competent parents or whether they are old and/or mature enough to decide. Rape and incest are other variables that usually qualify for abortion.
In such cases, boards of qualified physicians and other officials may have to participate in the decision, still always trying to do what the female wants or what is in her best interest (often adoption) if she is unable or incompetent to decide.
Lawmakers with the best of intentions try to walk the fine line between human rights and killing. Murder is based on intention as much as result.
Unlawful, malicious, premeditated -- does any woman get pregnant to kill her baby? Doubtful.
The laws place all sorts of conditions on abortions. Many of them are term limits. Who could stand to see a woman give birth and then kill the baby?
Who could stand to see anyone kill anything that looks a lot like a baby, e.g., fetuses more than three months or so.
Women who decide to abort make an awesome decision. As a man I am grateful that, in my view at least, it is not my decision. I think the decision whether or not to give birth is between a woman and her god, whatever that is.
I think modern medicine should help the woman whatever she decides, and I'm content with the present definitions of allowable length of pregnancy when abortion is allowed simply because I can't think of a better way to do it.
I think some doctors are against abortion because the fetuses to them are all too human looking, and most of us never have anything like that intimate a view of humans in the making.
Other doctors see that and still support a woman's decision to choose to abort because they think it is her right to decide.
Then the issue of baby rights comes up. Actually fetus rights. Until birth and survival on their own, all babies of all creatures are parasites, depending on their host for survival.
I vote for host rights (specifically, the pregnant female's rights), including their (her) right to decide whether to have a baby.
I think the present U.S. federal treatment of abortion is a well-reasoned policy representing the usual challenging compromises of competing beliefs dearly held by both sides. It is simply incredible that American citizens can live peaceably under some major decisions implemented by the thin margin of a 5-4 Supreme Court vote.
All you loyal Americans and members of free nations everywhere, give yourself a pat on the back and keep the dialogue going. Better than blood on the streets of Baghdad from tribalism that either disregards or does not understand democracy.
Sorry this is so long-winded. But sometimes have to dot a lot of i's in such important and complicated topics. This is just my view. For or against, feel free to state your case so we can learn from each other.
And keep those vote-breaking issues coming. What other issues make you decide yes or no for a candidate?
-
Originally posted by Halo
Examples are national defense, international trade, and racial equality. Surely abortion, gun control, and capital punishment also qualify as national issues requiring adherence in all 50 states.
I disagree on gun control. That is the epitome of a state's rights issue. The Constitution guarantees an individual right to own and use firearms. However, certain states have chosen to restrict that right and so far none of the restrictions have been overturned by the Supreme Court.
Seems pretty clear to me that the SC regards it as a state's rights issue right now.
Further, why should a lightly populated state with comparatively little crime be held to restrictions designed to limit the crazed, over-crowded beserker killer rats in cities from hurting each other?
-
Originally posted by Halo
Lots o' stuff
The problem with your line of reasoning is that you are making the woman central to the argument of whether abortion should be legal or not. But you obviously either missed or are intentionally ignoring my post.
If a woman wants to stab herself in the belly, throw herself down a flight of stairs, take 10 full packages of birth control pills, whatever, to get rid of a pregnancy, that is her "right to do with her body as she sees fit" per your argument.
When going to the clinic, the woman is not giving herself the abortion. A doctor is doing it. Doctors are licensed and therefore regulated. There are policies and procedures and laws ad nauseum about what doctors and medical facilities can or can not, must and must not do.
To say that no government at any level has the power to regulate or restrict a medical procedure is pure folly. Otherwise, how could a doctor ever be held accountable for anything he does under the guise of "practicing medicine?" "Sorry, sir, but the only way to stop the patient's persistent nosebleeds was a cranial amputation. I have here a signed waiver from the patient giving me authority to perform the procedure. Although the procedure was successful, the patient did not survive the operation. Tsk tsk."
Unfortunately, abortion is an issue where pure facts and legality are easily trumped by emotion and sympathy. An honest and objective assessment of the issue, however, can only lead one to conclude that R v W is poorly thought out, illogical, and was made to fit a certain desired outcome rather than the proper and logical application law.
My $0.02.
-
(quote) The problem with your line of reasoning is that you are making the woman central to the argument of whether abortion should be legal or not. (unquote)
Yes.
(quote) If a woman wants to stab herself in the belly, throw herself down a flight of stairs, take 10 full packages of birth control pills, whatever, to get rid of a pregnancy, that is her "right to do with her body as she sees fit" per your argument. (unquote)
Dramatic overstatement. Most women would rather have a safe procedure by qualified people sanctioned by the government.
(quote) To say that no government at any level has the power to regulate or restrict a medical procedure is pure folly. (unquote)
Never said that.
-
On Abortion.
Its a womans issue and men should stay the hell out of it.
Men simlpy have no say in the issue as I have yet to get a woman to do. or not do something unless they already wanted to do or not do it to begin with.
I myself am pro choice.
I myself would never tell a woman to have an abortion
Nor would I tell her not to.
Much of this issue has to do with beleif sytems.
I do feel that one set of beleifs should never be forced upon someone else.
the bottom line is quite simple.
Keep it legal. If your moral ethics or beleifs tell you its wrong.
Dont have one.
But dont force your morals or beleifs on others.
the one thing I am against however.
Is minors being able to get one without parental notification.
Far as I am concerned. Untill my child is legally an adult. I in the most literal sense of the word, own that child. And as such have every right to know every single detail in that childs life
-
Its a womans issue and men should stay the hell out of it.
====
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Its a womans issue and men should stay the hell out of it.
====
:rolleyes:
Roll your eyes all you want but thats just the way it is.
You have no say. period. And untill you do have a say. One way or the other. And untill you can also opt out of a pregnancy She has all the power and you have none
Its a womans issue
Neither you nor anyone else has nor should have the right ot tell a woman what they can and cant do with their body any more then any woman should have the right to tell you what you can and cant do with yours.
Want to make it fair. Pass a law that also allows women to tell men they HAVE to get a vasectomy
-
Abortion is murder
But murder is "1. the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another;" (Webster's New World Dictionary). Kill is "1. to cause the death; make die."
Woman decides she dont want baby, makes concious decision to have baby killed. IMHO
NOT
-
Originally posted by BMnot
Abortion is murder
Woman decides she dont want baby, makes concious decision to have baby killed. IMHO
NOT
and a classic example of someone trying to force their particular set of beleifs on another.
Cant have it. Sorry
-
Illegal Immigration and repatriation of all illegals and their offspring.
-
Actually abortion is a pretty poor flashpoint.
Its not going anywhere significantly so might as well get used to it one way or the other.
Oh sure they will be some changes here and there going both ways. But neither side is ever going to get exactly everything they want on this issue.
And one side will get it headed one way. Then the other side comes to power and get it headed back the other.
In all fairness. If both sides are howling about it. its probably right about where it should be.
In any event. its not going to change all that much.
Bush and the right had their big chance and its still there so whats that tell you about where its going? Nowhere.
So the entire arguement over it being a "flashpoint" is pointless. Other then to villify one side or the other in campaign stomping.
Might as well move on to the others on the list that effect the country as a whole rather then just one specific subject that effects only a relitivly small portion of the population (Safe to say most people dont get abortions)
-
Roll your eyes all you want but thats just the way it is.
====
:lol
:rolleyes:
-
and a classic example of someone trying to force their particular set of beleifs on another.
exactly what am i trying to "force" on anyone?? I just gave an opinion like everyone else. You dont have to agree with it.
NOT
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Roll your eyes all you want but thats just the way it is.
====
:lol
:rolleyes:
LMAO you can laugh too.
Still wont change a thing
-
Originally posted by BMnot
exactly what am i trying to "force" on anyone?? I just gave an opinion like everyone else. You dont have to agree with it.
NOT
EXACTLY
-
It is obvious you disagree, however, i would still like an explanation on how my post in any way "forced" any thing on anyone.
NOT
-
Originally posted by BMnot
It is obvious you disagree, however, i would still like an explanation on how my post in any way "forced" any thing on anyone.
NOT
Ok forced my have been to strong a term.
but you are phrasing it in a way as to impose what you feel something is as fact.
As you stated. I dont have to agree.
Thats exactly my point and exactly why abortion cant be made illegal.
There are many who dont agree.
And one cannot impose one set of beleifs on the populous as a whole
Just as you cant impose one religeon on the populous as a whole
The way it exists now is the only fair way to all sides on the issue.
If you dont want one. If you dont think its right.If you beleive in your heart and souls its murder. Dont have one.
Abortion isnt going anywhere. Each side will do just enough to make it look to their constituents to make it look as if they are doing something.While giving them something to say to villify the other side But not enough that any drastic changes are made one way or the other
-
but you are phrasing it in a way as to impose what you feel something is as fact
Actually i stated IMHO. But, to me it is fact. When does life begin? When is it not okay to kill another human being?? What gives us the right to decide, for our "convenience", that a child dies?
The laws may never change, but neither will my feelings. As the father of two children, it is beyond me how people can think of kids as an "inconvenience".
NOT
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Thats exactly my point and exactly why abortion cant be made illegal.
Of course it can Drediock, it was before roe v wade.
It came very close to becoming illegal again in the prior congress, and you know damn well the current supreme court would love to debate a new abortion law.
shamus
-
Originally posted by BMnot
Actually i stated IMHO. But, to me it is fact. When does life begin? When is it not okay to kill another human being?? What gives us the right to decide, for our "convenience", that a child dies?
The laws may never change, but neither will my feelings. As the father of two children, it is beyond me how people can think of kids as an "inconvenience".
NOT
Well why not say it begins with the sperm cells then?
Can it be denied they are alive? In fact they actually have a life span. so they must be alive.
And being of human origin, Human life? Or at least potential human life.
In that case many of us are mass murderers LOL
Far as Im concerned a fetus isnt alive untill it can viably live on its own,without the help of a life supporting system Outside of the womb. Untill then it is only a potential life..
I too am a father of two and do not see how people can think of kids as an inconvienience, But. I can think of several reasons to IMO jusifiably abort a pregnancy, such as rape, severe birth defects or mental retardation etc.
To end a pregnancy of what would normally be a healthy normal child in cases other then rape,simply because its inconvienient is wrong I beleive.
Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control I beleive.
But. It is not for me, or you, or anyone else to impose my set of beleifs on another.
Just as it would be wrong for me to force you to have an abortion. Its just as wrong for me to tell you you cant have one.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Of course it can Drediock, it was before roe v wade.
It came very close to becoming illegal again in the prior congress, and you know damn well the current supreme court would love to debate a new abortion law.
shamus
then why didnt it?
Its not going anywhere
Even if it had been. it would only be turned around again once the left seized power again.
Too many people want the choice even if they have no intention on using it.
My mother for example, while now too old to bear children has always said she herself would probably never have had one. But. she wants that choice for herself.
I agree with that and I know a great many other people do as well.
And that is why its not going away.
10 years from now people will still behavbing the same arguement and abortion will still be there.
-
hmm... halo and dmf... how much of the baby has to be out of the mothers vagina before it is a human with rights?
illegal immigration is a large issue but if we stopped leaving saucers of milk out we would have a lot less cats in the yard. Cut the benifiets for not only illegals but for everyone. Cut taxes and services and shrink government and you will get rid of the crazy old lady in the neigborhood that leaves out the saucers of milk.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Halo
Thanks, bsdaddict, interesting and concise read. States' rights is a fascinating issue itself. Ideally that could allow for regional preferences and unique needs.
But some issues seem to transcend states' rights. Some issues are too important to allow variations from the national norm. Examples are national defense, international trade, and racial equality. Surely abortion, gun control, and capital punishment also qualify as national issues requiring adherence in all 50 states.
Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution enumerates the Powers of Congress. (the lawmakers) National Defense and international trade are specifically mentioned. Racial equality is covered by "All men are created equal..." and the equal protection clause of the 14th. The 2nd ammendment restricts the fedgov from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms, the due process clause of the 14th prevents the states from doing so. IMHO, abortion and capital punishment aren't specifically covered enough to warrant being federal issues, therefor according to the 10th they're states issues.
Opponents of federal legislation frequently try to weaken it by contending that for one reason or another, usually their preference for more states' rights, there is no federal issue and hence no requirement for federal participation. Trying to undermine the existing authority is an ancient debate technique.
not sure what you're getting at. If the Constitution does not specifically grant the fedgov a certain power, then that power is reserved for the states and/or the people. What part of that is "trying to undermine the existing authority"? It's the fedgov that's undermining the Constitutional Authority, not the other way around.
-
(quote) hmm... halo and dmf... how much of the baby has to be out of the mothers vagina before it is a human with rights? (unquote)
(my quote) The laws place all sorts of conditions on abortions. Many of them are term limits. Who could stand to see a woman give birth and then kill the baby? Who could stand to see anyone kill anything that looks a lot like a baby, e.g., fetuses more than three months or so. (my unquote)
This gets into one of the central facets of abortion: rights of an unborn child. Some think the unborn have rights from the instant of conception. Some think the unborn rights begin only after they are born. Some think the rights begin somewhere in between.
Like many people, I don't know. But I think the most reasonable compromise is somewhere along the lines of existing abortion legislation that allows abortions early in pregnancy but not late unless there are extreme circumstances jeopardizing the life of the mother.
I'm no expert on abortion, but I believe that's at least a close approximation of the rules. If I had a family member or friend involved, I'd doublecheck everything.
Did that dodge the central question? Didn't mean to. I think the rights of the pregnant female take precedence throughout, and I think the rights of a child begin at birth when it begins to function on its own outside of the mother.
I have no idea whether that is the best judgement, but it's the best opinion I can reach based on what I understand and believe. I try to remain open to new information and reasoning, but that's where I am and have been on this issue for quite awhile.
-
Illegal Immigration, the 2nd and the 4th, campaign finance reform...
Kind of excludes about all of the candidates if taken as a package. Both parties like illegal immigration, the Dems hate the 2nd and the Repubs hate the 4th and politicians hate campaign finance reform.
Charon
-
LMAO you can laugh too.
Still wont change a thing
====
:cool:
:rofl
-
halo.. I am no expert on abortion either but I am hearing people say that a human does not exist till it is crawling around outside the womb...
Also... I am not placing much importance on abortion as an issue one way or the other... I am not the one saying how frigging important it is on how I vote.
I told you that I was content to murder all the children you guys say we should but that we should at least face up to what we are doing and why... We are doing it because we are hedonistic sluts who think that us being inconvienenced is the most important thing... more than a potential life.
Now.. all this would make more sense if it were some unavoidable trajedy and without abortion mothers would be forced to raise these children but...
That is not the case.. they can use birth control... if that doesn't work or.. they are just to lazy and horny... well.. they can simply leave the child at the hospital... give it away... heck... they could even sell it. If they have no attachment to it by the time it is born then there really is no big deal a few minutes later.
You seem to be saying tho that you are against killing ones that you have to see or that look too much like everyone else. I have no problem with killing anyone if they deserve it..
We just have to decide at what point these things are able to grow up to be humans or not without these loving caring moms of theirs and.. if inconvienece is a good enough reason to execute them.
lazs
-
Back to the main issue: Does anyone other than the pregnant female have the right to tell her she must under all circumstances allow her fetus to be born?
I think it is the prospective mother's right to decide, not any male's, and not any government's. But as the current legal status provides, I also think that if she decides to abort, she should have access to competent medical assistance by those who share her philsophy (not forcing any who are against abortion to be involved in providing abortion).
Without repeating previous discussion on this, yes, abortion is killing a life. I still wouldn't call it murder under previous distinctions between those definitions.
-
If they are darker than a brown paper bag then that's a deal breaker. Or is it lighter than a brown paper bag? I can never keep that straight.
Straight... maybe it's whether they want to have sex with a brown paper bag.
-
Back to the main issue: Does anyone other than the pregnant female have the right to tell her she must under all circumstances allow her fetus to be born?
What about the baby's right?
I believe in personal choice and personal freedom more then anyone else here. But you can't tell me that anyone has a right to end another person's life intentionally.
-
Some believe rights begin at conception; some believe rights begin at birth. Some believe rights begin somewhere in between.
Obviously no unaniminity anywhere along the spectrum.
That's why abortion is a single-issue flash point for some people.
For all readers of this thread: as is apparent from many posters, while some have a single-issue flash point, others have several flash points.
So are there any other flash points beyond those previously mentioned that are make or break for your decision whether or not to support a particular candidate?
-
I think abortion is "okay" up until the gestational age at which the fetus/baby would survive if delivered prematurely.
Babies can survive after 24-25 weeks of gestation. Normal gestation is 38-42 weeks. By the best numbers I can find in short time I'm going to put into this, only 1.4% of all abortions in the US occur after 21 weeks.
Late term (post 21 weeks) abortions should be illegal, IMHO, except in cases where the fetus/baby would not survive (severe illness) or it's delivery would endanger the life of the mother. Why? If the only difference between fetus and baby is a centimeter of the mother's tissue, then I'd have to call that a viable human life. But whatever, it's just my opinion and in reality, this category only comprises a small percentage of abortions...
BTW, most of this comes from Wikipedia, so feel free to double check or provide better data...
Description of mid and late-term abortion procedure:
The procedure consists of pulling the fetus out of the womb with forceps, delivering the fetus entirely except for the head. Scissors are used to open the skull, and the brain is suctioned out to ensure death. The fetus is then removed.
----
Why do you need to "ensure death" for something that was not alive?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
On Abortion.
Its a womans issue and men should stay the hell out of it.
Damn straight. I'm pro-choice for men too. Men should be able to opt out on providing for a child they do not want. If a woman chooses to have a child and the man doesn't agree, it's on her.
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
Late term (post 21 weeks) abortions should be illegal, IMHO, except in cases where the fetus/baby would not survive (severe illness) or it's delivery would endanger the life of the mother. [/B]
You've been played by the politicians and the special interest groups. This is already the case without the law getting involved.
-
^
Somehow, I don't think this position on men's choice is going to endear you to the pro-choice crowd.
But...that's just a guess.
Funny though.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
You've been played by the politicians and the special interest groups. This is already the case without the law getting involved.
Fair enough. If that is the case, then I apologize for my post. I was not arguing against "early term" abortion (as I said in the first part of my post). What I was primarily concerned with was that 1.4% after 21 weeks.
I hope that clarifies my stance. :)
-
I agree with kamilyun... I am all for stopping the 1 or 2 % or whatever late term abortions. I am not against a morning after pill or birth control.
I would say that it should be murder for the doctor and the woman to abort once the baby is able to survive outside the womb.
I would also say that the man should have equal rights in deciding about early term abortions. He should have equal responsibility too.
oh... I am too lazy to look.. where does roe v wade spell out the terms in weeks that it is murder to kill the baby?
lazs
-
plus.. again... I am too lazy and insensitive to care about how many babies are killed that haven't taken their first breath yet when so many of the rights of adults are being threatened and when government is getting bigger.
stronger second.. a pres who will appoint strict textualists to the supreme court... A smaller government and lower taxes across the board...
Those are the real issues.
abortion bores me while these other things are out there.
lazs
-
105MM.
Every American should have a 105MM on their property.
I won't have it any other way. I also think we should never allow men over 25 who live at home with mom to own swords.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The baby can't hold a gun so it is up to us to hold one for him... and then for him to hold one when we no longer can.
lazs
save teh walez...their fins cant hold guns either.
Friggin closet PETA tard:D
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
105MM.
Every American should have a 105MM on their property.
thats just stupid, you know how much 105 shells cost?
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
save teh walez...their fins cant hold guns either.
now thats a good idea, you could use that 105mm to sink the whaling ships.
-
All abortion does is allow people to act irresponsibly. If you don't want children you have 2 choices. Either keep your clothes on or use some form of birth control.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
All abortion does is allow people to act irresponsibly. If you don't want children you have 2 choices. Either keep your clothes on or use some form of birth control.
Welcome to the nanny state.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Welcome to the nanny state.
We've been there for awhile now ;)
-
Originally posted by john9001
now thats a good idea, you could use that 105mm to sink the whaling ships.
NOW, you're coming around Johnnyboy :aok
-
Energy- different forms for the future- Port Secuirty at all the terminals- Overhaul the healthcare system
-
Originally posted by Halo
Mine is abortion. I think a woman's body is hers to do with as she pleases. I don't think men have any right to tell women what they can do with their bodies.
Mine is Abortion also, the baby has the Right to Live. And if the mother is all that concerned about her body then she can keep her legs closed.
Don’t give me that "What if..." crap...what if grasshoppers had machine guns...birds wouldn't F*** with'em.
You are advocating infanticide.
in·fan·ti·cide /ɪnˈfćntəˌsaɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-fan-tuh-sahyd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the act of killing an infant.
-
I'll vote against anyone who uses hyperbole like "infanticide" or "murder" when discussing a woman's right to choose.
-
I'm really starting to think that males of the species shouldn't even concern them selves with this issue, considering the fact that men can't get pregnant in the first place, and therefore really don't care. If there are any men out there that do really care I'd like to meet them
-
It is murder....no matter how you defend the "woman's right to choose."
Her right to choose ends when she opts to have unprotected, irresponsible sex.
The fetus she chooses to terminate has dna that is just as unique as any individual on the planet. They have a RIGHT to live...politically correct platitudes be damned. Liberal men spout them because they like to keep promiscuous women in circulation....and the women don't want to bear any responsibility for the consequences of their mindless sexual escapades.
Truly, such individuals have no moral compass. The vast majority of women having abortions do not have them because of threats to their health, but because they can't have something as "inconvenient" as a child cluttering up their free-wheeling lifestyles.
I don't picket abortion clinics or harrass their doctors or confront women going into them but I'm tired of *****-footing around people who wax indignant about my attitudes toward abortion and who use the most vitriolic hyperbole while defending the indefensible.
-
Originally posted by dmf
I'm really starting to think that males of the species shouldn't even concern them selves with this issue, considering the fact that men can't get pregnant in the first place, and therefore really don't care. If there are any men out there that do really care I'd like to meet them
I am with Sandman; it takes two to make a baby. If you want it and the man doesn’t he shouldn't have to pay for it.
Since you seem to think it should all be the women’s choice, it ALL should be her responsibility too.
Why should some poor guy get the shaft the rest of his life because some fun date doesn’t know how to use a condom? (or any other form of birth control.)
So yeah I agree with you too. Women’s issue totally or it should be, finances and all.
-
If an abortion offends you, don't get one.
-
Something for the pro choice crowd from one of the women who started it all.
Here is a qoute from the creater of planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger.
Sanger's 1938 autobiography notes her 1916 opposition to abortion as the taking of life: "To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."[1
Interesting view.
-
Originally posted by dmf
I'm really starting to think that males of the species shouldn't even concern them selves with this issue, considering the fact that men can't get pregnant in the first place, and therefore really don't care. If there are any men out there that do really care I'd like to meet them
When a woman decides she wants to have an abortion, the father of the unborn child has NO say in whether the infant is aborted or not. This is wrong. It takes a male AND a female to make a baby and both parents should have a say in whether or not an abortion takes place.
As easy as it is to get/use birth control these days it boggles my mind why folks who don't want babies don't use birth control. Things would be far less complicated if folks just used some form of birth control.
-
Murder is a state issue therefor abortion should be as well. The people of each state should make the decision, not the Big Bad Bully Feds.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I am with Sandman; it takes two to make a baby. If you want it and the man doesn’t he shouldn't have to pay for it.
Since you seem to think it should all be the women’s choice, it ALL should be her responsibility too.
Why should some poor guy get the shaft the rest of his life because some fun date doesn’t know how to use a condom? (or any other form of birth control.)
So yeah I agree with you too. Women’s issue totally or it should be, finances and all.
I don't think they should get the shaft, if a woman is stupid enough to get pregnant by some guy she sleeps with just because he's cute and doesn't really want a child, then let him off the hook, don't make him pay. BUT, if U guys don't want a child, then when a woman get an abortion, then sthu.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
It is murder....no matter how you defend the "woman's right to choose."
Her right to choose ends when she opts to have unprotected, irresponsible sex.
I said I believe its a womans right to choose.
I never said I'd do it.
I never said it wasn't murder.
But I do believe that women who get pregnant and have an abortion just "because" are total complete morons, with iq's of about 3.
-
I'll vote against anyone who uses hyperbole like "infanticide" or "murder" when discussing a woman's right to choose.
====
you should respect the fact that there are intelligent thoughtful and witty people who would consider your statement here as ignorant. Which it most assuredly is :D
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I'll vote against anyone who uses hyperbole like "infanticide" or "murder" when discussing a woman's right to choose.
====
you should respect the fact that there are intelligent thoughtful and witty people who would consider your statement here as ignorant. Which it most assuredly is :D
Yeager,
You must not have children, and if you do, then the ignorance is fully yours.
What's worse, is that your ignorance is most assuredly self-imposed, to defend a worthless, even Villianous, postion.
Here I'll restate my position with no Hyperbole:
"the baby has the Right to Live" not because I say so, but because the U.S. Constitution says so.
Furthermore as one that is sworn to defend the Constitiution of the United States against enemies both foriegn and domestic, I remind you:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Real sorry the '73 Supreme Court was too dim "hold these truths to be self-evident", but we're working steadily to correct it.
and it will be done.
So, get on board for the big win.
-
LOL...
You missed your target Padre. I think Yeager probably agrees with you, but you're new enough that you haven't figured out how he chooses to quote other posters.
FWIW, I have two children and I support a women's right to choose.
"Get on board for the big win." Too ****ing funny.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
LOL...
You missed your target Padre. I think Yeager probably agrees with you, but you're new enough that you haven't figured out how he chooses to quote other posters.
FWIW, I have two children and I support a women's right to choose.
"Get on board for the big win." Too ****ing funny.
Yeah, sorry Yeager, I did mis-read that one.
as for you, Sandman, & midnight Target...Laugh it up.
"Calamity is imminent."
-
what did I post???
Crap my soft box. Better go back and read me :aok
-
Oh yeah... Abortion rights will doom us all.
:noid
-
Oh....ok. I see what I was getting at.
My definition of abortion is this:
Abortion is the intentional killing of a human fetus. A human fetus is a human being in prenatal development."
In my opinion, by killing this human fetus the woman is solely responsible for denying a human being the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
At this point in time, abortion is legal. Perhaps at some future point, the law will mature and find that the killing of prenatal defenseless and innocent fetuses is not only immoral, but illegal. Lets hope that at some point in time George Bush nominated the right judges. It might be his singular saving grace. The bastard.
Other than that, I could not care any less than I already do.
-
Sandman, & midnight Target, and now Yeager...
Like the Aztecs
Fire up the Human Sacrifice Pires...baby...till you're happy enough.
Burn'em! Burn'em All! yeah...
-
Originally posted by dmf
I'm really starting to think that males of the species shouldn't even concern them selves with this issue, considering the fact that men can't get pregnant in the first place, and therefore really don't care. If there are any men out there that do really care I'd like to meet them
"JANE, YOU IGNORANT SLUT"
Shut up.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I am with Sandman; it takes two to make a baby. If you want it and the man doesn’t he shouldn't have to pay for it.
Since you seem to think it should all be the women’s choice, it ALL should be her responsibility too.
Why should some poor guy get the shaft the rest of his life because some fun date doesn’t know how to use a condom? (or any other form of birth control.)
So yeah I agree with you too. Women’s issue totally or it should be, finances and all.
Sorry, but your a moron.
Get a life...of course you're probably spawning all over the place, SandMan...Kill these People, PLZ!!! SandMan!!!
-
Immigration. There is no question in my mind. If you gain citizenship legaly, welcome to the USA! If you hop a fence or sneak in, you forfeit any human rights, including the right to your own life. Seeing those people marching to give illegal aliens citizen's rights really makes me consider finding a more inteligent country to move to.
-
Have a look at this.....
http://www.usawakeup.org/ (http://www.usawakeup.org/)
Bob/CHECKERS
-
abortion's an emotionally charged, polarizing issue. The politicians love it.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Oh....ok. I see what I was getting at.
My definition of abortion is this:
Abortion is the intentional killing of a human fetus. A human fetus is a human being in prenatal development."
In my opinion, by killing this human fetus the woman is solely responsible for denying a human being the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
At this point in time, abortion is legal. Perhaps at some future point, the law will mature and find that the killing of prenatal defenseless and innocent fetuses is not only immoral, but illegal. Lets hope that at some point in time George Bush nominated the right judges. It might be his singular saving grace. The bastard.
Other than that, I could not care any less than I already do.
Yeager, even though you say you don't care, you've obviously some thought into your position.
What about those fetuses that arise from cases of rape or incest? Or whose continuing development threatens the life of the mother? Many people who are against abortion on the grounds that they consider it murder seem OK with it under these conditions (note the failed South Dakota abortion ban, which didn't make allowances for those three situations, and was defeated).
What about the pregnant mother who continues to smoke, use alcohol or drugs? There is certainly no doubt that she is harming the fetus with these actions, perhaps severely and irreparably (e.g. fetal alcohol syndrome).
Perhaps we need enforceable standards of behavior for all pregnant women, to ensure the rights of the fetus to healthy development are being preserved?
-
From the movie "Rob Roy." When found out his wife had been raped by a British nobleman, and his wife asked what he wished to do about a possible pregnancy, which might or might have been his....Rob said,
"It isn't the babe that needs killing."
-
That was in Braveheart too, wasn't it? Rather common theme in some wars and other violent situations, including mass rape in some of the recent wars in Africa.
So what does a woman do in those situations? Imagine a generation of rape-sired offspring. Even if the rapists lost the conflict, they inflicted themselves into the future of their victors.
-
Dmf.. I don't think that women can make a baby without some help from a man.. at least at this point soooo.. no matter what.. men have a stake in the thing.
I have seen more than a few women who have had abortions.. those with any human traits all have some form of regret over the thing... in short.. they feel bad the rest of their life over it. Why would they if it is just a lump of crap?
Like I said.. I don't care. I feel a little guilty about not caring but I don't. I know men are getting more and more heartless/souless every year... why shouldn't women? it does seem like a natural societal evolution when you look at it that way.
At some point it is murder. Like I said.. I am too lazy to defend against the murder of someone who hasn't taken a breath yet or even.. the first few... not when there are things out there that affect me more.
Shrink the government... get supreme court justices on who will hear on the second and declare once and for all that it is an individual right and protected.. Lower taxes on everyone.
There are things that the republican party used to be for... they are things the democrats never were for and never will be.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Halo
That was in Braveheart too, wasn't it? Rather common theme in some wars and other violent situations, including mass rape in some of the recent wars in Africa.
So what does a woman do in those situations? Imagine a generation of rape-sired offspring. Even if the rapists lost the conflict, they inflicted themselves into the future of their victors.
And if they win they'll have a generation of offspring who will be passionate about avenging their mothers.
-
Illegal immigration and taxes (big government will become smaller with smaller taxes). Lazs was spot on about abortion. Call it what it is, killing babies, nothing less.
-
I have noted that even the politicians are starting to see that they can't avoid the real truth in immigration....
the "inconvienient truth" that you need to arrest the employers. It is what I have said from the beginning.. there is no other way. A push to arrest employers... big and small.. will go a long way in getting my vote.
less taxes... supreme court justices that will uphold the constitution as it was written.
lazs
-
Illegals need to be treated like drugs. If one is found in you house, car, business then those items should be confiscated and sold at auction and used to help the local hospitals, schools, and police for the burden that is placed upon them.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Illegals need to be treated like drugs. If one is found in you house, car, business then those items should be confiscated and sold at auction and used to help the local hospitals, schools, and police for the burden that is placed upon them.
yeah, who needs that pesky 5th ammendment anyways...
-
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
How does the 5th protect someone who is harboring illegals? If they are convicted then "Due Process" has been reached. The 5th never seemed to get in the way of our drug laws. But since Big Business and the bleeding heart leftest media control this country these cheap labor criminals will be protected I guess.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
How does the 5th protect someone who is harboring illegals?
by necessitating "due process" prior to any confiscations.
If they are convicted then "Due Process" has been reached.
"If they are convicted" is the sticking point. the WoD supposedly justifies ignoring that part and confiscations WITHOUT due process happen regularily.
The 5th never seemed to get in the way of our drug laws.
well at least we agree on something! :D
-
Originally posted by Padre
Sorry, but your a moron.
Get a life...of course you're probably spawning all over the place, SandMan...Kill these People, PLZ!!! SandMan!!!
Someone needs to ease up on the meds.
-
Originally posted by Padre
"JANE, YOU IGNORANT SLUT"
Shut up.
You are sooo lucky my name isn't Jane.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Someone needs to ease up on the meds.
yeah
-
I have seen more than a few women who have had abortions.. those with any human traits all have some form of regret over the thing... in short.. they feel bad the rest of their life over it. Why would they if it is just a lump of crap?
My wife had an abortion shortly before we started dating. That was over 15 years ago. To this day she still cries on the due date for that baby. After all these years she still carries the guilt from having an abortion.
I wonder how many women would still agree to have an abortion if they knew the long term consequences. I know my wife wouldn't have.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
I have no trouble with modern women controlling their own bodies.....if only they would.
Millions of abortions performed mindlessly merely because the birth of a child would be inconvenient is despicable and narcissistic.
That many abortions indicates that far too many women are still having unprotected sex because using a condom or other form of birth control is inconvenient in the heat of the moment.
If they don't want children then they can get up off their backs and get their feet out of the air.....or use a safe form of birth control.
The unborn should not be totally without rights of any kind.
Bye the way....listening to the news on the radio this morning I heard about a 23 week old fetus that was safely delivered and is now surviving on life support. Erm....excuse me....it is now a "premature" child.
Well Schuck maybe the right should stop trying to keep women from having birth control:)
-
"That many abortions indicates that far too many women are still having unprotected sex because using a condom or other form of birth control is inconvenient in the heat of the moment."
I'd like to know when the condom became the womans responsibility alone, it takes 2 to have sex (in most cases), therefore if a child is not wanted, then maybe the guy should think about that in advance too, not just the woman.
-
Originally posted by dmf
"That many abortions indicates that far too many women are still having unprotected sex because using a condom or other form of birth control is inconvenient in the heat of the moment."
I'd like to know when the condom became the womans responsibility alone, it takes 2 to have sex (in most cases), therefore if a child is not wanted, then maybe the guy should think about that in advance too, not just the woman.
Yet we hear so much about a woman's right to control her body. If the woman is not solely responsible for creating a life then why does she have sole authority for ending that life?
-
Originally posted by lukster
Yet we hear so much about a woman's right to control her body. If the woman is not solely responsible for creating a life then why does she have sole authority for ending that life?
I feel the way I feel cause I see a lot of women who have great boyfriends, until they start planning a family, then the guy bails, or the guy will say "oh honey I'll be here forever, no matter what" then when the girl is pregnant cause the guy doesn't like the feel of a condom, he bails. so why should he have any authority over the womans body?
explain to me why guys do that, and then b***h about women having abortions
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Someone needs to ease up on the meds.
Prolly another Mrblack shade.
This time as a sniperpriest?:rofl
-
well dmf... they don't make many men like they used to but... to be fair... they don't make many women like they used to either.
Women might have an easier time of making a family if 50% of marriages didn't end in divorce with 90% of those initiated by the woman because she needed a change.
If you won't or can't take the consequences of sex then you really haven't earned the right to have sex.
The world is a crazy place... women listening to rap music and buying it and then complaining because they aren't treated well...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well dmf... they don't make many men like they used to but... to be fair... they don't make many women like they used to either.
Women might have an easier time of making a family if 50% of marriages didn't end in divorce with 90% of those initiated by the woman because she needed a change.
If you won't or can't take the consequences of sex then you really haven't earned the right to have sex.
The world is a crazy place... women listening to rap music and buying it and then complaining because they aren't treated well...
lazs
I agree with U on that, I was, just got the final papers in 06, yes I divorced him, but the only change I needed was a man that slept with me, and not the babysitter.
As for rap music, if U ever find that in my house just shoot me and get it over with.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well dmf... they don't make many men like they used to but... to be fair... they don't make many women like they used to either.
Women might have an easier time of making a family if 50% of marriages didn't end in divorce with 90% of those initiated by the woman because she needed a change.
If you won't or can't take the consequences of sex then you really haven't earned the right to have sex.
The world is a crazy place... women listening to rap music and buying it and then complaining because they aren't treated well...
lazs
And here...............
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/02/26/cant-find-a-husband/