Activist: "Abortion Threatens Black America's Future"

Sep 24, 2012 Full story: Booker Rising 5,618

The From Catholic Online : "Adding to the argument that abortion threatens one sector of American society over others, Catherine Davis, president of The Restoration Project, pointed out to the great racial disparity of women currently getting abortions." The article continues: "Davis said that according to the Centers for Disease Control, ... (more)

Read more

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#3330 Feb 5, 2014
Murder isn't right just because its done by a woman.

Abortion is bad for everyone, especially the unborn.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#3331 Feb 5, 2014
Of course viability is defined, both medically and legally. Medically, it is the point that the medically-uncompromised fetus can be delivered and live without connection to the woman. It is expressed in percentages; viability is 0% at 20 weeks because no fetus at that stage has lived when removed (artificially or naturally). At 24 weeks, the chances are 50/50 that the fetus can survive. That is the point that the law decides is when sufficient chance exists to allow states to intervene if they choose and if the pregnancy is not causing the woman health risks.

Our biology hasn't changed at all; very few premies are saved now that couldn't be saved before. One of the hallmarks of viability is development of the lungs; if they aren't ready to exchange gases with the circulatory system, there is absolutely nothing that will allow it to live.

Premies, especially early ones, usually end up with severe neurological problems; we have a 9-month gestation period for a reason.
IR BW wrote:
<quoted text>Empty statement!
viability isn't even defined...it is only established at a certain window because of what is current PROVEN...and with some advancements/experiences..even that window has been shorten by a few weeks within a number of years..

“Reality is better than truth.”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#3332 Feb 5, 2014
Discussions evolve. You're free to not respond, but not to limit the debate.
Lisa wrote:
ded:You attempted to define the parameters of the conversation, with this statement:
"We're talking about pregnancy and it's connection to the female gender..we are not talking about individual women... "
In point of fact, we're talking about all sorts of things - the effects of abortion law, and the number of abortions performed, on individual women, were two of them.
Lisa: Like I told Cpeter (sp)..... If we're having a conversation on a particular subject..it's just common courtesy to stay on topic and not fill your responds with "fluff" and "distractions" that has nothing to do with the actual points being made....
If I'm making it crystal clear...that the point is about the process of pregnancy and not individual pregnant women's experience (especially when my opening included this in my line of debate)...then that should be acknowledge..

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#3333 Feb 5, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Discussions evolve. You're free to not respond, but not to limit the debate.
<quoted text>
Precisely.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Level 1

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#3334 Feb 5, 2014
Lisa wrote:
<quoted text> You tried to make a point that feminism should exist because of the gain..as if gains means everything...and it was a fair question..should slavery exist because of the socioeconomic gains for America?
AH...NO, I pointed out that feminism corrected a wrong, just as slavery was corrected. Read it again! "I equate slavery and the role issued to women as submissive and subservient on somewhat equal footing."

The gains I pointed out gave women and African Americans the same leverage as the white male. AND YES...those gains are everything in a civil society. Don't like those gains then don't practice them. Don't vote, take lesser pay, don't own property etc.

And NO your question is NOT fair, it is in no way comparable as both parties in question were blatantly discriminated against.
Lisa wrote:
<quoted text>
Any of my other rights as an American to disagree with you? If you believe I have as much right as you..then why do I need to move...?
Being you have such a dislike for feminism and believe it should have never existed you SHOULD move to a country where it has not been allowed and women are kept in line (or respected according to you), why stay here and bitch?
Lisa wrote:
<quoted text> You assumed too much as well..no post of mines even hinted towards that... you're just filling in your replies with "fluff" and "distraction"...What I actually was said..that everyone (not just women) have their fair share of social ills and experiences with disrespect.. My examples were ..men, the poor, people of color, etc...
<quoted text> nobody brought up religion..is that the only comfortable line of argument..you like to take? If not..we can keep it moving..
I responded to exactly what you indicated and are indicating AGAIN. Due to disrespect women should have accepted their lot in life along with the rest and remain second class (or in your world respected). Try again.
Lisa wrote:
<quoted text> Y<quoted text> nobody brought up religion..is that the only comfortable line of argument..you like to take? If not..we can keep it moving..
I brought up religion. You reek of it. Nobody needs to live by your religious code/brainwashing. Lets just get that out of the way. Shall we? Afraid to admit what you are basing your moral code on? Please recall the story of Peter.
Lisa wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello..that was my point..you're the one who claimed women are now (more) respected...I said maybe not...you're confusing legally tolerated with respect...you just admitted women were always abused and raped...and still are..so where have women gain respect?
I am not confusing anything. You obviously believe that discriminatory practices and second class citizenry equals respect. Women are now not confined to the home, they have choices and function in all parts of society, and I will be glad to see even more going forward. You are equating disrespect with the "crime" of rape? Thats a stretch. My brother was raped by a priest, how does this fit into your rape/respect analogy? I define respect by acceptance and allowing individuals to live their life to their fullest potential. You obviously don't.
Lisa wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound extremely masculine..as if having a spine for a woman requires her to not embrace what is connected to being a woman..and pregnancy is included in that...since when did that which is naturally unique to the female gender (pregnancy) become a negative thing?
You sound extremely naive and juvenile. Where did I say any of what you claim? Take your time. Women that have fought for their rights and put a stop to second class citizenry have spines. Women that sit back and take advantage of the gains while bad mouthing those who fought for it are yes...spineless. Your problem is you define women by only one thing "pregnant". How sad.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Level 1

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#3335 Feb 5, 2014
IR BW wrote:
<quoted text> Then many of you need to stop promoting the gender as such...I don't think there are many people who still believe
women are sugar and spice & everything nice..
Who is promoting the gender as such? Examples please. Nobody has said nor have they indicated that women are sugar and spice & everything nice. You are projecting or trying to wiggle, take your pick.
IR BW wrote:
<quoted text> Enslaved Africans never market themselves as a helpless group who needed pity for their actions..
And exactly who is advocating pity...but you? What is this pity thing you have going? Pregnancy is a reality. The invention of contraceptives and legalizing abortion was for good reasons, none included pity. You just have no better argument...is all.
IR BW wrote:
<quoted text> I just answered that...A lot of women and those who are arguing the interest of women..
Arguing the interest of women equates in your mind only...to pity. You are simply being obtuse.
IR BW wrote:
<quoted text> Where am I advocating legal backing for men's sexual behavior..I'm bringing up a point on balance for everyone..not just women... You cannot turn around and claim to fight injustices and misogynistic & turn around and be equally unfair and advance laws that are misandristic.
Where are you advocating legal backing for mens sexual behavior? Your quote:
IR BW wrote:
<quoted text>
What about men who just want to have fun and not become a father and have the government take part of his income for child support...Should he also have legal rights to (protect)do as he please with his own resources...why should he be forced to provide for an "unwanted" child?
IR BW wrote:
<quoted text>
What about men who just want to have fun and not become a father and have the government take part of his income for child support...Should he also have legal rights to (protect)do as he please with his own resources...why should he be forced to provide for an "unwanted" child?
I have given that men should be able to opt out with signed papers. BUT...they never get to opt back in not even if they find God or some other silly thing.
IR BW wrote:
<quoted text> Where did I claim anyone said it was horrible for ALL expectant mothers for me to blow anything out of proportion? Keep it honest
Are you typing mindlessly and not paying attention to your own thoughts? AGAIN your quote #3280 addressed to dedbebbies, now you keep it honest :
IR BW wrote:
.<quoted text>. You want us to believe pregnancy is so horrible for all expectant mothers..that they should be rewarded for NOT aborting or sympathized with for aborting...oh yeah..not the damsel there....
:
Lisa

Tulsa, OK

#3336 Feb 5, 2014
carmen wrote:
If I believed as you do, there would no exceptions. If you believe it's murder, there should be no exceptions.
You have to keep things in contents...When I say minus rape..I'm talking about women aren't responsible for that sexual act...
carmen wrote:
Responsibility defined means abortion is a responsible act. It's prudence.
<quoted text> Some women are careless and wreckless with their behaviors--sexual or otherwise. However, the act of abortion, is a responsible act.
Responsibility comes before abortion is even an option..
carmen wrote:
Hopefully, you aren't confining fun to sex. Why wouldn't women, just like anyone else, want to have fun? For many women the thought of having an unwanted child isn't fun.
Where did I confine "fun" sex? We're talking about being sexually responsible..be it fun or boring sex for women... Women need to be held accountable for their sexual behavior and stop trying to make other people (men or the law) responsible when their fun turns into an unwanted baby or STD...
carmen wrote:
Women have stated that some of the reasons they don't want to have an unwanted child had to do with the male in their life at the time. This fact isn't about blame (unless we are having a conversation to figure out who to assign blame to) but this fact is about stating the reasons some women have for having an abortion.

There are plenty of reasons and it only stands to reason some women would list males as part of those reasons. Some women said they don't want a child to interrupt their fun, and for those women giving birth to an unwanted child after going through 9 mos of pregnancy simply isn't fun.
It's gracious of women to give reasons for abortion.
That is indeed blame...When are women going to take full responsibility for THEIR actions? So if the male in their life was different they wouldn't abort? That is very disempowering...something feminist claim to be against...women making decision based on the whims of men...
carmen wrote:
Women shouldn't give any reason for abortion because it's no ones business.
We know that's not true..not even legally...so why keep repeating it?
carmen wrote:
<quoted text> You are working with a definition of responsible which differs from the accepted definition.
Oh..so what's the acceptable (by whom?) definition of women being responsible for their own sexual behavior?
carmen wrote:
<quoted text> Sex should be willing, should it not? So what's the hang up on whether it is willing or not? Willing isn't the issue.
that's not a question for me...I'm not the one who has a problem with women being willing partners in male pleasuring..
Lisa

Tulsa, OK

#3337 Feb 5, 2014
carmen wrote:
. The issue is preparedness for not only pregnancy but also an unwanted child. And some women factor in the feelings for the man involved before she decides to go forward with the process. Good for her..
The issue is "some" and "some" don't..the difference is women want the legal right to decide if they want to factor in the man's feeling on rather he wants to be a father or not..and hold him legally and socially responsible if they decide to go forward.. Men should also have legal protection over their income and should not be at the mercy of women. do you agree?
carmen wrote:
<quoted text> Again, if she chooses to take these things in to account when accessing the situation. So you advocate she have the unwanted instead? Given the reasons you list.
<quoted text> Some women do a lot of things. The fact still remains the average woman does not get child support on a consistent basis. Most women if they are getting child support do not get much to begin with. Majority rules. What's going on the majority of the time is what counts.
I disagree...Women want LEGAL backing to secure or protect their interest...at this puts men at risk..not only do they face social backlash for not physically/financially/emotion ally supporting the children they don't want (although women can just murder the ones they don't want)..Men also face jail time..and lost of income..and Women shouldn't have a problem to LEGALLY get rid of child support if the majority of them aren't getting it anyway? And women should also stop having problems with men who abandon their unwanted kids as well..as men cannot murder them before they are born to get rid of them as women can... Would you say that is fair?
Lisa

Tulsa, OK

#3338 Feb 5, 2014
gidget wrote:
<quoted text>
That won't change lung development or the abysmal outcomes of birthing a fetus too soon. You are certainly allowed your own opinion, just not your own facts..
I never said the process of physically development would change.. We're talking about viability...which means:
(of living things) capable of normal growth and development....
gidget wrote:
Viability isn't defined in your world? Really?
My observation stands.
I'm not speaking about the word viability...but the time frame..
It has "recently" went from 24 weeks to like 20-22 weeks...and it could shrink even more..
20-22 weeks is only want science can currently prove...but viability isn't limited to stay within that time-frame...if future science can PROVE a fetus is capable of normal GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT at 15 weeks..then viability would change..hope you understand now
Lisa

Tulsa, OK

#3339 Feb 5, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Discussions evolve. You're free to not respond, but not to limit the debate.
<quoted text>
I already said discussion evolve naturally ...but social etiquette is to answer within the actual question or current views being expressed..not fill your response with something that has nothing to do with what two (or more people) are actually discussing.. that's like me making a point about a red dress and you answer talking about blue shoes...That's an attempt at distracting from a valid point that was made..that you have no real answer for..so you want to unnaturally evolve the conversation to another subject.
Lisa

Tulsa, OK

#3340 Feb 5, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Of course viability is defined, both medically and legally. Medically, it is the point that the medically-uncompromised fetus can be delivered and live without connection to the woman. It is expressed in percentages; viability is 0% at 20 weeks because no fetus at that stage has lived when removed (artificially or naturally). At 24 weeks, the chances are 50/50 that the fetus can survive. That is the point that the law decides is when sufficient chance exists to allow states to intervene if they choose and if the pregnancy is not causing the woman health risks.

Our biology hasn't changed at all; very few premies are saved now that couldn't be saved before. One of the hallmarks of viability is development of the lungs; if they aren't ready to exchange gases with the circulatory system, there is absolutely nothing that will allow it to live.
Premies, especially early ones, usually end up with severe neurological problems; we have a 9-month gestation period for a reason.
<quoted text>
Viability itself was legally dissociated from permanent markers like 28, 24 weeks because of the medical advancements/technology.....wh ich has allowed science to prove fetus have the ability to survive around 20-22 weeks...so viability isn't set in stone at 24 weeks or any other...
Lisa

Tulsa, OK

#3341 Feb 5, 2014
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is promoting the gender as such? Examples please. Nobody has said nor have they indicated that women are sugar and spice & everything nice. You are projecting or trying to wiggle, take your pick.
I already listed examples...everything pointed to the behavior of everyone else and not the woman...that is women's attempt to not be held accountable for their own sexual behavior.. I have not read any examples of women holding other women responsible..not one...it was all about other people somehow "forcing" women into abortion because the man used them, abused them, tricked them, the birth control method failed them ,etc... You all would like for us to believe women are all innocent...none of them seek abortion because they were having sex with animals (and maybe the creature is half and half), that some were having sex with some underage boy, some where cheating on their husband who went off to war or something, some were having sex with a lot of guys and have no idea who they were pregnant by...none of you gave examples of bad sexual behavior on the woman's part..so yes..you would like everyone to believe women are sugar & spice..and they only seek out abortion because of other people's behavior towards them..
Morgana 9 wrote:
And exactly who is advocating pity...but you? What is this pity thing you have going?
You all are making cases off of pity..you want people to feel sorry for women who seek abortion...that is why all the examples given for the reason why women have abortion is because of some outside force....You want women to be pity...so she doesn't have to carry around any social stigma for her behavior & actions..
Morgana 9 wrote:
Pregnancy is a reality. The invention of contraceptives and legalizing abortion was for good reasons, none included pity. You just have no better argument...is all.

<quoted text>
Morgana 9 wrote:
Arguing the interest of women equates in your mind only...to pity. You are simply being obtuse.

There is nothing wrong with arguing the interest of women..never said it was a problem..I said you're using the damsel in distress card (which is outdated of course)..and you are..nobody really is buying that anymore.. but you keep marketing women as such (while scream how empowered women are..which is funny)...
Lisa

Tulsa, OK

#3342 Feb 5, 2014
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text> Damn women, having sex with people you wouldn't choose to have sex with, and liking it, and having abortions you don't approve of. Those dirty HIV carrying, abortion having sluts....there outta be a law....huh?
Are you assuming again...I never said I didn't like having sex with any of what I mention before...What I did ask you was..is those sexually responsible behavior or not? Are you going to answer the actual question or keep shifting the attention off of women being held accountable for their own behavior?
dedbebbies wrote:
Men don't have to carry a pregnancy, and neither do women. This is a fact.
And men should also have the legal right to financially support or not support children..since they cannot abort or give up for adoption the way women could...They should not be legally held responsible to the wishes of women..Men should have legal rights to decide their path in life as well..This should also be a fact...Do you agree?
dedbebbies wrote:
Not a sin, not a problem, not a horror, not an obscenity, and not a crime.
Women have the ABILITY to get pregnant - not the 'responsibility' to stay that way.
No matter how much you wish we did....our biology does not constrain us from aborting a pregnancy, and in fact rejects more fetuses without our interference, than with it.
So gee...I guess abortion is a uniquely feminine quality too...
Miscarriage isn't abortion...
Lisa

Tulsa, OK

#3343 Feb 5, 2014
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>Far fewer men would be necessary for the repopulation of the earth, than women..
I think that's why some men fear us so...they feel they are statistically irrelevant.

Then your answer is yes...men are needed...
But you would rather live on an earth with more women and less men? You would be willing for women to share a man?* And I'm the one told to move to the Middle East or some where*
And how many men do you think would have a problem with this (having many women to sexually pleasure him and carry his bloodline :)?......
And since "far fewer men are necessary for re-population"... what's the big deal when men "cheat" (and get his other women pregnant)....and if the man was in another environment..it wouldn't be "cheating" anyway..it would be his second-etc.. wife?
Wait..women already outnumber men...
dedbebbies wrote:
Something tells me you're one.
You're wrong.
Lisa

Tulsa, OK

#3344 Feb 5, 2014
carmen wrote:
<quoted text> The current laws are whats getting men blamed for abandonment.
.
When I speak of abandonment..I'm speaking of the social backlash/stigma that is attached to it...
carmen wrote:
It is illegal to not pay child support and legal to abort. We've already discussed a couple of times now, that males should not be forced to pay for kids they don't want, just that it needs to be established early on and no going back later.
And these current laws should be changed with the help of women who claim to be for equality...establish when there are men who support women's rights....women should also support men/father's rights... I think we agree here..
carmen wrote:
WW are the majority of the population of women. Why would anyone think, in terms of race, that ww aren't getting the majority of abortions? As well as ww are the majority population of mothers also. That's more about math than anything else.
<quoted text> It's not really a race issue per se. It's more of a privacy issue. Bw primarily use public facilities, even when they do have insurance, because of accessibility and cost. Public facilities are called public for a reason. If bw primarily used private facilities, it would be much harder to get information.
What benefit do you think any woman, not just bw, should get from an abortion?

.
All of that is clearly understood...but it doesn't answer my question... We know WW are at the forefront of the abortion fight..and possibly getting the bulk of the abortions due to being the majority..we also know they hold the most wealth...however...they allow AAW to be the face of abortion to furthering their agenda...and hide behind their access to PRIVATE facilities...if there is nothing wrong with abortion..Why don't WW put their face on it? Can you not see how AAW are losing socially and economically? No different from the feminist movement..WW started and heavily supported.. And some AAW are running and screaming the loudest of causes that hurt them the most & benefit WW the most..

carmen wrote:
Also just because you support something and someone else supports something, doesn't then mean you have the same reasons for believing in said issue/topic. It's just so happen there is a place where you can agree. Rarely do people have the same motives and/or reasons for backing something. I'm simply in support of women and our right to have autonomy. I'm not a child and any woman who believes as I do, I support. The race of the woman means nothing to me in that case. That's a gender thing. And make no mistake, because ww are the majority race, whatever they go through as women, will hurt/benefit minority women 10 fold.
I'm questioning the influential manipulation the larger group is having on the smaller...and how you're not just a willing participate...you have become their pit-bull.. even when the results benefit you the least ...you're still the group of women in deeper poverty...you're community and relationships have been hit the worse.. and abortion (among other factors) is threaten your future presences in America...
Yet WW allow you to be the face of controversial issues (that they privately push and "enjoy") so you're the one who will suffer the social impact of it (Just like welfare....WW receive the most out of everyone...but allow the single AA mother to be the face)..and many of you still PUBLICLY fighting their fight (I mean all women of course)
Lisa

Tulsa, OK

#3346 Feb 5, 2014
Morgana 9 wrote:
AH...NO, I pointed out that feminism corrected a wrong, just as slavery was corrected. Read it again! "I equate slavery and the role issued to women as submissive and subservient on somewhat equal footing."
The gains I pointed out gave women and African Americans the same leverage as the white male. AND YES...
Slavery didn't give African American the same leverage as the white male..and I asked you about slavery, not the civil rights and such..
Morgana 9 wrote:
those gains are everything in a civil society.
I'll ask you again then..does the
socioeconomic gains for America justify SLAVERY?
Morgana 9 wrote:
Don't like those gains then don't practice them. Don't vote, take lesser pay, don't own property etc.
And NO your question is NOT fair, it is in no way comparable as both parties in question were blatantly discriminated against.
You made a comment to defend feminism existences because of the gains ..so yes..it is fair to compare it to the existences of slavery (because of it's gains)....
And who said I didn't like the gains? You think feminism was/is the only vehicle to get those gains? You think slavery was the only path for America to establish their socioeconomic position?
Morgana 9 wrote:
Being you have such a dislike for feminism and believe it should have never existed you SHOULD move to a country where it has not been allowed and women are kept in line (or respected according to you), why stay here and bitch?
Why should someone move because of feminism? that's un-American of you...
Morgana 9 wrote:
I responded to exactly what you indicated and are indicating AGAIN. Due to disrespect women should have accepted their lot in life along with the rest and remain second class (or in your world respected). Try again.
I am not confusing anything. You obviously believe that discriminatory practices and second class citizenry equals respect. Women are now not confined to the home, they have choices and function in all parts of society, and I will be glad to see even more going forward. You are equating disrespect with the "crime" of rape? Thats a stretch. My brother was raped by a priest, how does this fit into your rape/respect analogy? I define respect by acceptance and allowing individuals to live their life to their fullest potential. You obviously don't.
<quoted text>
You don't seem to follow..you claim women are (more) respected now..yet women continue to still get rape, abused, etc....
maybe you don't know what respect mean..

Respect: a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

That's the dictionary meaning..and women have yet to make others feel "a deep feeling of admiration" by our abilities, qualities, or achievement...if we did..there wouldn't be a lot of rape and abuse....honey
Lisa

Tulsa, OK

#3347 Feb 5, 2014
Morgana 9 wrote:
I brought up religion. You reek of it. Nobody needs to live by your religious code/brainwashing. Lets just get that out of the way. Shall we? Afraid to admit what you are basing your moral code on? Please recall the story of Peter..
I never mention my religion in this debate..and none of my arguments aren't based on them (notice I didn't say motivated by them..I said based on them)..you're simply used to debating people from my position based on religious arguments and have no idea how to debate people who don't fall on their religious convictions to win a debate...So no..you will have to try again..and learn new skills and update your information..as to what you're used too is quickly evolving..
Morgana 9 wrote:
You sound extremely naive and juvenile. Where did I say any of what you claim? Take your time.
Where did I claim you did?
Morgana 9 wrote:
Women that have fought for their rights and put a stop to second class citizenry have spines. Women that sit back and take advantage of the gains while bad mouthing those who fought for it are yes...spineless.
That's your opinion of course...
To another..one can claim women who can resist the "strong" influence of feminism and remain "traditional" are the ones with the spines...as is pretty easy to follow the crowd...on well..to each their own
Morgana 9 wrote:
Your problem is you define women by only one thing "pregnant". How sad.
No..I didn't...I said pregnancy is a quality of femininity..and it is..this isn't the difficult to understand..
Lisa

Tulsa, OK

#3348 Feb 5, 2014
*are based on them

“Women are people, not objects.”

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#3349 Feb 5, 2014
Lisa wrote:
<quoted text> The issue is "some" and "some" don't..the difference is women want the legal right to decide if they want to factor in the man's feeling on rather he wants to be a father or not..and hold him legally and socially responsible if they decide to go forward.. Men should also have legal protection over their income and should not be at the mercy of women. do you agree?
<quoted text> I disagree...Women want LEGAL backing to secure or protect their interest...at this puts men at risk..not only do they face social backlash for not physically/financially/emotion ally supporting the children they don't want (although women can just murder the ones they don't want)..Men also face jail time..and lost of income..and Women shouldn't have a problem to LEGALLY get rid of child support if the majority of them aren't getting it anyway? And women should also stop having problems with men who abandon their unwanted kids as well..as men cannot murder them before they are born to get rid of them as women can... Would you say that is fair?
You must not be aware of the fact that women are just as liable to pay child support as men, if they aren't the custodial parent. There are fewer instances of men requesting primary or sole custody of their offspring than women, but it does happen and when it does, the mothers must pay child support to help support their offspring. The pregnancy, however, belongs solely to the female and she alone takes the risks associated with it, with no guarantee that her sexual partner will step up to the plate and do as he claims if he insists she carry to term so that he can be a father.

The thing is, most men won't ask for primary custody of their kids because they don't want the responsibility of being a single parent. Those that do get shot down fairly quickly if the mother also wants primary custody, because traditional gender roles like those ones you're so in love with place the woman above the man on the chain of caregiver criteria. All it takes for a man to be Dad of the Year is to spend a few Kodak moments and toss a few balls with their kids, while women are expected to surrender their personal lives and identities entirely.

Don't bitch about child support. The fact that you want to complain that a man is expected to put food in the mouths of his offspring (at the very least) shows how little you really give a crap about the "poor helpless babies". I too would support a system that would allow men to opt out of all rights and responsibilities within the same time frame as a woman can legally electively abort, and I don't believe a man should be forced to support children he did not sire himself, but this sordid old argument that men should have NO responsibility and ALL the say in a pregnancy is just another attempt to justify robbing women of their civil right to bodily autonomy.

Your stance promotes the idea that women should always be sexually available for men, but we should never seek it for our own pleasure and whether we do or not, if we get pregnant we should always carry to term regardless of our own wishes and never dare to ask for so much as a penny from the father to help feed, clothe and shelter the resulting offspring. You wish to absolve men completely of ANY responsibility at all, while condemning women for consensual sex. You're all about consequences...for WOMEN...while insisting that it's unfair to garnish a man's paycheck or not allow them to force their partners by law to give birth or abort (Pssst, you do know that would go both ways, right? More men would force abortion than birth, genius).

Lady (if you are in fact even female), you're either very sick in the head or you have a horrid case of Stockholm Syndrome. They've got your leash tight.
Lisa

Tulsa, OK

#3350 Feb 5, 2014
*how to debate people who don't rely on their religious convictions to win a debate...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Biracial IS NOT black 2 min I Mixed Cocoa l 390
Are white women attracted to black men? (Aug '06) 3 min RFD 122,861
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min sonicfilter 1,206,549
why do somalis have wavy hair and straight noses 3 min African AE 36
The IQ statistics are in. Another sad day for b... 3 min Bigsmoke 8
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 9 min Carly HI YAH 112,482
News Hey Jen: Black celebs who deny racism exists ar... 11 min lol 25
School to Prison 20 min Cayla N 48
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 58 min African AE 32,027
More from around the web