Men's irresponsibility toward women... encourages abortions

Unfortunately I know women who have had abortions whose boyfriends had stated they would take full responsibility for the baby as well, and the women still chose to abort against his wishes. I still think men should have a voice as well. After all, the baby is 50% his.

I am talking about abortion in general society. I have a different view for Christians. God tells us sex is for marriage - and he said it for our own good. If we obey, there would be no need to discuss abortion.

Larry Mondello said:

Young men also need to learn a "real man" is one who stays after he gets what he wants....

This teaching boys/ young men such responsibility is also critical in helping reduce abortions.

Recently heard a crisis pregnancy center director on the radio state that TWO-THIRDS of women entering abortion mills ARE CHRISTIANS!!!

This is a tragic thing and also points to the irresponsibility of some Christian men, and men in general, who won't rise to their duties and responsibilities...

Click to expand...

I'd like to relate my experiences on the OP, if for no other reason than getting this thread back on track... I'm going to be explicit but try to stay away from anything obscene.

My wife was late one time (3 weeks I think) and was seriously afraid she was pregnant. We had been married a short while (less than a year) and I was doing well in my career. We have no children currently and aren't trying for any anytime soon. Tearfully, she confessed to me that she didn't want a child and yet felt that she "had to go through with it". I had already informed her that I would support her decision either way 100%. At this time, she still considered herself Christian, I was and am atheist, and she knew this about me before we were married. She wanted to know how I felt, what I wanted. I told her that if it were my choice I wouldn't have the baby, I would abort it....but I emphasized that it was ultimately her decision and I would support her decision no matter what (the expected male answer for unexpected pregnancy). She told me that was what she wanted to do but she was afraid she would go to hell (she was literally crying during this whole conversation).

I told her "let's take a look at why you feel this way". I asked her if she was scared of having an abortion because she felt it was wrong....or was it because society told her it was wrong. She stopped crying, thinking it over, and told me that she didn't think it was wrong...but she knew that "everyone" looked down on women who get abortions and according to her faith, she would go to hell for it. I told her that I did indeed consider it taking a life, but there are many times when society deems it "ok" to take a life...this is simply a topic on which society is split. She wanted to know what I thought about abortion in general...and I told her. I touched briefly on how I thought that Christianity, with its goal of spreading and indoctrination, is best served by Christians who think its wrong to abort and have as many children as possible. I told her how the use of fear and guilt, like she was feeling, were Christianity's tools in their own abortion agenda. I told her how I thought it was hypocritical of Christianity to chastise young unwed mothers for having abortions...yet when these pregnant girls do keep the child, the very same people will fight as hard as they can to reduce any government assistance or entitlements claiming that she is poor by choice and such help only encourages it.

I told her that bringing a life into this world is a serious matter, as is taking a life, and that perhaps fear of hell and guilt from the judgements of others were not really great reasons to have a child. We continued the discussion for awhile, and she had stopped crying. By the end, she decided that she would have an abortion if it came to that. Luckily for us, she was just really late and she didn't have to have an abortion at all. We're married, I have a well paying job, we used protection....and yet she still would've chosen an abortion. I can't imagine the pressure that society puts on young single women to have a child....its ridiculous. As I said before, those same people doing the pressuring to have the child almost immediately jump back and say, "Good luck, you're on your own. I shouldn't have to help with your child's healthcare/food/place to live."

Ken-1122 said:

The problem is not every man wants to be a father, and too many times fatherhood is imposed upon a man against his will.

Click to expand...

If a man doesn't want to be a father, than he shouldn't not be engaging in behavior which has a good chance of leading to the conception of a child.

There are other ways to enjoy sexual pleasure (oral lovemaking, manual stimulation, various sex toys) that do not involve intercourse, which IMO is overrated anyway and should only be indulged in if the two people having it want to conceive. The best, most satisfying sexual relationship I was ever in involved absolutely no intercourse... we got creative instead.

This also goes for a woman who doesn't want to become pregnant.

Not an easy task to accomplish, but a male contraceptive pill equivalent would be awesome to have.

FreeSpirit74 said:

If a man doesn't want to be a father, than he shouldn't not be engaging in behavior which has a good chance of leading to the conception of a child.

There are other ways to enjoy sexual pleasure (oral lovemaking, manual stimulation, various sex toys) that do not involve intercourse, which IMO is overrated anyway and should only be indulged in if the two people having it want to conceive. The best, most satisfying sexual relationship I was ever in involved absolutely no intercourse... we got creative instead.

This also goes for a woman who doesn't want to become pregnant.

Click to expand...

So my husband and I should be celibate and remain so for the next several years until we can afford to start a family? Yeah, no.

Also, just because intercourse seems "overrated" for you, doesn't mean it's not super important to other people.

FreeSpirit74 said:

If a man doesn't want to be a father, than he shouldn't not be engaging in behavior which has a good chance of leading to the conception of a child.
[...]
This also goes for a woman who doesn't want to become pregnant.

Click to expand...

Yes, that seems to be the very point behind the various efforts in developing (and using) contraception.

There are other ways to enjoy sexual pleasure (oral lovemaking, manual stimulation, various sex toys) that do not involve intercourse, which IMO is overrated anyway and should only be indulged in if the two people having it want to conceive. The best, most satisfying sexual relationship I was ever in involved absolutely no intercourse... we got creative instead.

Click to expand...

Not that I necessarily disagree - yet, the keyword here is "IMO".
Neither you nor I are the arbiters as to what is or what should be most fulfilling or most satisfying to anybody else than you or me.

Chajara said:

So my husband and I should be celibate and remain so for the next several years until we can afford to start a family? Yeah, no.

Also, just because intercourse seems "overrated" for you, doesn't mean it's not super important to other people.

Click to expand...

No, you shouldn't have to be celibate, however, if you can't afford to start a family, contraception should definitely be in the picture. In almost half of the abortions that take place, contraception is not used. That's just being lazy at that point. If the contraception is used and fails, I'm more sympathetic to their plight. However, if it's just a case where "we were so hot and heavy, that we didn't want to wait 15 minutes so we could get some rubbers from the gas station", that's just flat out irresponsibility.

And while it's irresponsible, I understand that it's still none of my business, if they want to use $1200 abortions in place of $12 condoms...that's their business. But when they start demanding that those $1200 elective abortions be covered by healthcare plans (that everyone pays into) or even worse, funded by tax payers...then it becomes our business.

This seems to be a double-standard amongst liberals (not saying you in particular, I haven't seen enough of your posts to know)...

... on one hand, you have liberals justifying government regulating fast food because "it could lead to expensive health costs that everyone ends up paying for", but they have no problem with a woman having her 3rd or 4th elective abortion and having it covered by health care plans (expensive health care cost that everyone ends up paying for)

miniverchivi said:

... on one hand, you have liberals justifying government regulating fast food because "it could lead to expensive health costs that everyone ends up paying for", but they have no problem with a woman having her 3rd or 4th elective abortion and having it covered by health care plans (expensive health care cost that everyone ends up paying for)

Click to expand...

Yeah, I seem to have forgotten that once a child is born it doesn´t cause any costs anymore.
I was under - the apparently erroneous - assumption that bringing up a child costs ten thousands of bucks, and that we as a community are concerned with their well-being to a point where the desire to hold their parents accountable for their stupid decisions fades in view of helping the children out of their misery (which will cost the community said ten thousands of bucks).
So much for the economic part of the problem. Just because you made it the predominant criterium.

quatona said:

Yeah, I seem to have forgotten that once a child is born it doesn´t cause any costs anymore.
I was under - the apparently erroneous - assumption that bringing up a child costs ten thousands of bucks, and that we as a community are concerned with their well-being to a point where the desire to hold their parents accountable for their stupid decisions fades in view of helping the children out of their misery (which will cost the community said ten thousands of bucks).
So much for the economic part of the problem. Just because you made it the predominant criterium.

Click to expand...

We're talking about people who don't want children...sure forcing them to keep the baby wouldn't do anyone any favors in terms of cost, but that doesn't mean a $1200 abortion is ideal when there are much cheaper ways to accomplish the same thing (birth control pills, condoms, etc.)

Didn't read all the responses but my thing is outside of obvious situations like rape, it takes two to make a baby. How can one person take the blame for an abortion? Use protection. If you REALLY don't want kids then don't have ser period (in case the condom breaks). Or just get the surgery so you can't pregnant. To me theres so many ways to avoid getting pregnant. But most couples seem to lazy to do anything.

Its like they must say "Meh, I just want to have sex now. I don't want to think about the consequences yet. If you get pregnant we can always abort!". >.>

FreeSpirit74 said:

If a man doesn't want to be a father, than he shouldn't not be engaging in behavior which has a good chance of leading to the conception of a child.

Click to expand...

Yeah; but in the real world we both know that isn't gonna happen.

Ken

FreeSpirit74 said:

If a man doesn't want to be a father, than he shouldn't not be engaging in behavior which has a good chance of leading to the conception of a child.

There are other ways to enjoy sexual pleasure (oral lovemaking, manual stimulation, various sex toys) that do not involve intercourse, which IMO is overrated anyway and should only be indulged in if the two people having it want to conceive. The best, most satisfying sexual relationship I was ever in involved absolutely no intercourse... we got creative instead.

This also goes for a woman who doesn't want to become pregnant.

Click to expand...

Uh............. Interesting

miniverchivi said:

We're talking about people who don't want children...sure forcing them to keep the baby wouldn't do anyone any favors in terms of cost, but that doesn't mean a $1200 abortion is ideal when there are much cheaper ways to accomplish the same thing (birth control pills, condoms, etc.)

Click to expand...

Ah, ok. I completely agree that it is not the ideal method of birth control. I don´t see how this is even in dispute (not even among "liberals" whom you seem to habitually blame whatever the topic is).

Chajara said:

So my husband and I should be celibate and remain so for the next several years until we can afford to start a family? Yeah, no.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking more of people who jump into sexual relations without talking things out and coming up with a set game-plan for how they will be pro-active in preventing pregnancy. I would hope that married couples would have worked that out for themselves already.

I Eat Pie said:

Uh............. Interesting

Click to expand...

3 words for ya - Hitachi Magic Wand.

Ken-1122 said:

Yeah; but in the real world we both know that isn't gonna happen.

Click to expand...

Then these men who get "caught" because they helped create an unplanned pregnancy have NO RIGHT to complain about being forced to become fathers when they don't want to be. You play, you pay. Or else keep it in your pants if you don't want to bother being pro-active in preventing a pregnancy, and you're involved with a woman who is being equally as careless.

Or we could make contraception and education on how to use it more widely available.

My husband and I are polyamorous, and I've had a condom break twice with a partner other than him. Know what I did? Went and immediately got the morning after pill, and bam, no unwanted pregnancy. I was able to do that because one, I could afford it, and two, it was available no questions asked at the pharmacy counter. All I had to do was ask for it.

quatona said:

Ah, ok. I completely agree that it is not the ideal method of birth control. I don´t see how this is even in dispute (not even among "liberals" whom you seem to habitually blame whatever the topic is).

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that there's a dispute about what's more ideal between condoms and abortions, I think everyone agrees on that...I was making a point about what I feel is hypocrisy amongst certain sects of the liberal crowd on the topics of abortion and dietary regulation.

Examples:
Birth control: Everyone agrees that condoms are better than abortions, abusing elective abortions (if covered by insurance providers) drives up costs for everyone. Yet, on the topic of putting government limitations on it, you get the usual "my body, my choice", "keep your laws off of my body", "this is about individual rights" arguments from them

Food: Everyone agrees that eating grilled chicken and broccoli is better than eating a big mac, 44oz soda, and large fries. Abusing unhealthy foods causes health problems which (if covered by insurance providers) drives up costs for everyone. Yet, on the topic of putting government limitations on what people should be allowed to eat, some of those same liberals have absolutely no problem with the government regulating food sizes and making the insurance premiums more expensive for people who over-consume these foods...try suggesting that women who use elective abortion should pay more in premiums and they'll put you in the same category as a spousal abuser.

Now that I think about it, comparing these two particular topics and the different responses from certain liberals might be better suited in its own thread...I might just take care of that now

FreeSpirit74 said:

3 words for ya - Hitachi Magic Wand.

Click to expand...

I like where this is going

LOL