Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Sunday, October 15, 2006

(Off Topic) Pro-Choice- but whose choice?

"Abortion" rights/ Pro-Choice has always been a hot-topic for me. Now I believe I understand why. With "pro-choice" who gets to choose? The women. IOW it appears that in our society men do not have a reproductive choice. Men do not have rights to reproduce. We may have the delivery tool and half of the combination, but that is where it ends.

So perhaps this is one strategy to use to overturn Roe v Wade- get someone to stand up for the reproduction rights of men.

Can a man take out a restraining order or some court injunction against the woman he impregnated to stop her from getting an abortion?

posted by Joe G @ 12:14 PM  

10 Comments:

  • At 2:28 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    If all else fails, change the subject to abortion in hopes the opposition will expose themselves as the immoral, godless creatures they are.

    Note: since you chose not to post my last comments, this one is cross-posted to my blog.

     

  • At 2:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The only "failure" is to have you understand what is being debated.

    Also I posted your comments. I do NOT sit by the computer and wait for people to post. I allow your comments when I have time to log on and check the comments box.

    Also I don't care about anyone's stance on abortion. That was NOT the purpose of this thread.

    Try reading the OP again- this time take your head out of your arse before doing so.

    Or doesn't it bother you that you don't have any reproductive rights?

     

  • At 8:07 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Joe wrote...
    "So perhaps this is one strategy to use to overturn Roe v Wade- get someone to stand up for the reproduction rights of men."

    Then he wrote...
    "Also I don't care about anyone's stance on abortion. That was NOT the purpose of this thread...doesn't it bother you that you don't have any reproductive rights? "

    I probably shouldn't have responded, but once again you are trying to frame a debate using very slanted terms. Your opening post is so unbalanced that opinions on either abortion or reproductive rights are all but immatural.

    Does your idea of "reproductive rights" extend to giving a biological father the right to force a mother to have an abortion?

    How would this overturn Roe v. Wade which wasn't decided on the "reproductive rights" of anyone.

    Who do you think you are fooling that the purpose of your OP isn't a rant against abortion? Yourself?

     

  • At 8:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    I probably shouldn't have responded, but once again you are trying to frame a debate using very slanted terms.

    The terms are only slanted because that is how you look at things.

    Thought Provoker:
    Your opening post is so unbalanced that opinions on either abortion or reproductive rights are all but immatural.

    You are unbalanced. So much so that you are making up words.

    Thought Provoker:
    Does your idea of "reproductive rights" extend to giving a biological father the right to force a mother to have an abortion?

    Good question. I would say "no" but would then have to offer the father another way "out".

    Thought Provoker:
    How would this overturn Roe v. Wade which wasn't decided on the "reproductive rights" of anyone.

    It would overturn Roe v Wade by showing men have reproductive rights therefore preventing women from having an abortion without the consent of the man.

    Thought Provoker:
    Who do you think you are fooling that the purpose of your OP isn't a rant against abortion?

    If I wanted to "rant against abortion" I would have. However reality demonstrates I am "ranting" (not sure if that is the right word) FOR men's reproductive rights. There is a difference although I don't expect you to understand.

    BTW a rant against abortion would have started "Are women so stupid they can't choose BEFORE having sex?" and "Are people some stupid they can't see that abortion = murder?"

     

  • At 9:30 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "It would overturn Roe v Wade by showing men have reproductive rights therefore preventing women from having an abortion without the consent of the man."

    Sorry, joe g. You can't force women to have your baby. You'll have to try persuasion.

     

  • At 9:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    Sorry, joe g. You can't force women to have your baby.

    I never would want to.

    Zachriel:
    You'll have to try persuasion.

    I don't need to "persuade" anyone. Except perhaps the women who want to have my baby. And in most cases it is persuading them they really don't want what they think they do.

     

  • At 11:20 AM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Joe,

    As I have indicated previously I doubt your sincerity on this.

    Are you are really concerned about the "reproductive rights" of unmarried men who go around impregnating women?

    Do you honestly promote the idea that a father and a husband should be allowed to abandon his child just because he didn't want said child?

    Here is a link to the actual decision...
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=410&page=113

    Read it and think about what you would have to argue to "overturn Roe v. Wade."

    Consider this my parting thought provoking gift for this thread. I will leave you to your rants based on "data" you got from "unbiased" sources like Rush Limbaugh.

     

  • At 11:47 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "And in most cases it is persuading them they really don't want what they think they do."

    You had previously stated you wanted to "prevent women from having an abortion without the consent of the man". I applaud your recent change of views.

    Though people today normally consider abortion a medical procedure, this is actually a modern notion. Abortion is a traditional practice.

     

  • At 12:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    As I have indicated previously I doubt your sincerity on this.

    This is sincere- I really don't care what you think.

    Thought Provoker:
    Are you are really concerned about the "reproductive rights" of unmarried men who go around impregnating women?

    Married or unmarried is irrelevant. And yes it should concern all men and all people.

    Thought Provoker:
    Do you honestly promote the idea that a father and a husband should be allowed to abandon his child just because he didn't want said child?

    That would be on a case-by-case basis. An example would be a woman trying to "trap" a man- that could be done by "ensuring" him she can't get pregnant before they do it.

    And BTW I never listened to Rush Limbaugh. However the "data" I get is usually from the scientific community.

     

  • At 12:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    You had previously stated you wanted to "prevent women from having an abortion without the consent of the man".

    That would make it a real choice- that is one that excludes the fetus.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home