Letters to the Editor
-
if the facts had been explained to you properly there would have been no reason for you to react the way you did
you were subjected to fundie propaganda without proper context. A 12 week old fetus is NOT a baby; someone close to you should have been around to explain this to you. Undoubtedly what happend was some fundie relative, or friend, or family member, or neighbor, or teacher latched onto you and led you down the garden path. They are always on the lookout, like vultures, to prey on the weak and vulnerable.
-
I guess in your case the problem was your mother not thinking straight
a 12 week old fetus is not a baby, whether the mother wants it or not. To be fair though this is confusion is widespread and I guess I can see why. The only answer though is a biological education from a young age that makes the real facts clearer. Admittedly this is going to involve what many people might consider to much information at too young an age but as your experience makes clear the alternative is far worse.
-
No, I am not a fundamentalist...
Nor was my mother, nor did anyone "lead us down the garden path." I remain pro-choice because now I understand the complexities involved in forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
The book my mother used was "A Child is Born," which was originally published in SWEDEN (not exactly a hotbed of "pro-life" activity). There was no fundie propaganda in it. It used many of the photgraphs Lennart Nilson originally published in Life magazine back in the 1950s or 1960s.
A twelve-week fetus has arms, legs, brain activity, a heart beat. IT LOOKS LIKE A BABY, AND GIVEN THAT THE PREGNANCY CONTINUES, IT WILL BE A BABY. The twelve-week fetuses in jars in my college biology class LOOK LIKE BABIES. Show a medically accurate picture of a twelve-week fetus to a kid, and they will tell you it looks like a baby. I know it's not the same thing as a newborn, but it's certainly not a puppy or a kitten. It's certainly not a liver or a kidney.
Like I said before, I remain pro-choice. I'm no fundie. I'm not even a Christian or much of a religious believer in anything. I'm with Clinton on "safe, legal, and rare." But this isn't the same as having an infected tooth pulled. There are huge ethical and emotional considerations involved, and we're fooling ourselves if we try to pretend there aren't.
-
But of course
You have to be a sane, mature person who takes responsibility to have a productive relationship, and there's no way in hell you think you should have to do that.
But of course, as USUAL women get a free pass from having to do this.
Skanks ala Paris can freely engage in as much sex as they can take, at will, but we men have to suffer for the same choice.
Nice, let me remember this next time women whine about rights.
-
The pre/post conception distinction is not minor
Lonewolfy said (days ago, I am late to this debate):
"IF the mother chooses to keep the baby, then the man is required to share the burden of expenses, etc. in raising the child - even though he had no say in the matter."
But of course he had a say in the matter. He could have said, "Hey, I don't want children right now, so I must insist on wearing a condom."
Sure, "condoms break." Not as often as people seem to think, given how often this argument is used, but they break. In that case, I am more sympathetic to men who don't want to be drafted into fatherhood. Not sure how you'd legislate this loophole without it devolving into a debate where both parties could be motivated to lie, though.
-
I don't get it
I really don't get how the "women should have the right to chose abortion" segues into the "men should have the right not to be responsible for born children, and if they don't, then women should not have the right to abortion." That makes zero sense to me. The logical connection for the men's rights activists to make between the right to abortion and the duty of child support is that "men should have the right to force a woman to have an abortion." But of course they're not going to go that far.
-
We All Know Where This is Going
A man will have an opportunity to withdraw all rights as a father including financial support in the first trimester of an unwanted pregnancy. Men were asleep while the feminist victimhood lobby doled out all control to women, this will change in the future. Get used to it.
The argument about men using condoms or not having sex as a means to prevent unwanted pregnancy is a joke. It's an argument that abortion should be outlawed.....Women have the same choice. Could you imagine if abortion was illegal because women should have used birth control or not had sex ? The hypocrisy is breath taking. I also think it is interesting that the woman's decision to abort or have a baby is her decision because it's her body. Why isn't birth control her responsibility if it is her body?
Shirking responsibility seems to be the heart of what's left of the feminist movement.
-
Once more, with feeling .....
I guess it's still time for Biology 101. So here goes...
The best protection against accidental pregnancy for a man to use if he is quite serious about not wanting a child (and terrified as Brightstar and others at the horror of actually paying support for his own offspring) is a CONDOM WITH SPERMICIDE. Why? Because it is within YOUR CONTROL -- you are not dependent on your partner's word that she's on the pill, or it's not her fertile time of the month, or that she swears if she got knocked up she would abort. A condom alone is still good, but not perfect -- thst is the reason for the spermicidal gel. (Though US made condoms are amazingly strong and flexible -- nearly impossible to break no matter what. Comedian Howie Mandel used to pull them on over his HEAD.)
The effectiveness of this method IN ACTUAL USE (not just theoretical) is 99.9%. This is comparable with methods like tubal ligation or vasectomy. (Tough luck, there is no method that is 100% effective.) It is an higher effectiveness rate than the pill or IUD (98% if used correctly).
Brightstar and others: men don't get pregnant. Duh! Guess you missed the last Biology class where they taught this. Men and women cannot be equal in this respect, no matter what the law is. Surely you do not mean to suggest that an unwilling father-to-be should have the right to force a woman to have an abortion against her will and/or religious beliefs?
The idea that men will be "legally permitted" to opt out of child support for any child they don't want -- and this will happen any time soon! -- is laughable. If men don't support their own children (and about 40% do not), who steps in? THE STATE. Do you think the rest of us are jazzed about supporting your kids? NOT.
BTW: Jerks, trolls and brightstars out there....there is already a time honored method of "getting out of paying child support". It's called "being a run-away, cheapskate coward". And it's employed by many, many men. You guys talk like every guy is a celebrity or sports star, with a 7 figure income. Most men make nothing like this amount of money. Child support can only be garnished from WAGES -- what about all the men out there who are laborers, landscapers, freelancers, temp workers, seasonal workers or just plain unemployed?
How do you explain the vast majority of children in poor, inner city neighborhoods growing up with no fathers at all, let alone any MONEY or support from those fathers? how do you explain that less than 60% of all child support awarded is ever actually collected or paid?
Men are already voting with their feet and their wallets about how to avoid paying for their children's needs (and that includes child born into valid marriages). Often it is as easy as moving to another county or state, and simply not complying with the child support order.
Any woman having the child of a reluctant father, when that father is not a prominent celeb or sports star, is (along with all the physical risks, pain, labor, hospital costs etc.) taking on pretty much full financial responsibility for the child, as any money she ever collects in the future is theoretical and might never come to her. Plus, there is no "child support" awarded for a fetus, nor is the biological father obligated for the hospital/medical bills of the pregnancy.
You are a bunch of pathetic, gormless weasels, and Brightstar -- if the women of Austin, Texas, have chosen to avoid you and your selfishness, and decided you are "not father material" -- then they are the wisest women in the whole USA.