Posted on 02/03/2014 10:35:02 AM PST by carlo3b
I FINALLY BELIEVE, IT IS THE WOMAN’S SOLE RIGHT TO CHOOSE..
For me, it came down to a matter of nature, and fairness. I thought it through, and in doing so, I made sure that I really thought it all the way through..
After all of my many years of standing on the sidelines and observing, as was what I have been instructed to do, as a man, I have concluded that it should be the ultimate decision of the woman to decide whether she should be a mother..
In balancing, deliberating, and reasoning, there was but one undeniable truth, if it was the genius of our reproductive system, and the female of our species was chosen by design, biologically, to bear the burden of child creation, she alone should carry the decision of whether she wishes to reproduce. As such, she alone carries the burden of who should be the sperm donor, where and when the reproductive act should transpire. FAIR, and EQUITABLE, RIGHT?
We all know, or at least we should take a great deal more into consideration before and after making that decision, about how important it is in choosing to have a child or children, how that child will be raised. But one step at a time..
Can we agree that the choice of becoming a mother carries more than a simple yes or no. Far be it for me to interfere with the dynamics that should be considered in a woman’s priority process, but the requirements in that decision, by nature and necessity, is how and why to choose the potential male donor, for a milieu of reasons. By carrying the SOLE access to the starting point of reproduction, also carries the sole responsibility for the results of that decision, the wellbeing of the resulting baby..
Assuming we are all on the same page, the donor (THE MALE OF THE SPECIES) has a limited, but vitally important contribution in the process, the seed, or sperm. The donor, has decisions to make as well, first and foremost, does he agree with her choice of him as the contributor, and her choice of where and when, and even in some cases, with all of the new technologies, how..
As a summary, how many choices are involved in the decision to reproduce for the woman; • Do I want to reproduce, or will the act be for some other reason that I should take the risk? • What are the criteria for choosing a potential mate, or participant? • Who will be the contributor, or partner, for whatever reason? • What planning, or precautions, if any, should be required before the act? • When and where the act should take place? • What will I do if the act has produced the intended results, a child? • What if the planning went awry and there are unintended consequences? • What if I become pregnant, who else should suffer the resulting consequences? • Are there any limitations on my decisions? • What if I didn’t plan, what are my responsibilities? • What is my last resort?
As we have outlined, there are a list of choices that a woman has with her reproductive activities, and natural tools to consider, all of which she has the ultimate choice to advance, or reject along the way. With all of these options, who should be responsible for her decisions, other than the one that made them?
So, since I had no choice, no rights to contribute to her decisions, and, unless I was the contributor to the act, leave me or anyone else that were forced out the resulting process, out f the problems, RIGHT?
GOOD LUCK, AND GOD BLESS
A man..
If I’ve misinterpreted your point, carlo3b, please explain.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It obviously is carlo’s point to mislead and be misinterpreted. This thread has been up over 30 minutes and he has not responded or clarified his remarks that have lead to so much confusion as to what he means.
He obviously is playing a clever word game here. Either that or he is very stupid as he is about to be zotted at any moment.
Good post, Carlo, as always, but over the heads of the simpletons.
Of course I am not in anyway condoning abortion (murder), but I am a realist.. We are hamstrung by the laws that are on the books, and until the culture has reversed it’s opinion, the only way to halt the option is to hold them solely responsible for their own actions, and to slowly limit the methods that any other option to birth is lawful, and restricted..
The writer ignores the obvious, the question of whether the child is a person.
For some reason, adoption is advertised as much harder to do, emotionally, than killing the baby.
Wait a minute. You are either pro-God and pro-life and defend it to the hilt or you are part of the enemy. Period. Make up your mind. You can’t be a little bit pro-life.
Good post, Carlo, as always, but over the heads of the simpletons.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Simpletons, huh? Like that simpleton is post 34 who - like most of us - didn’t get it?
When you choose abortion you also choose to reject Gods will. Unless you truly repent and turn from evil, you have “chosen” where you will spend eternity. Life is short, eternity is...
This is not an ambiguous position. It is not a political issue. It’s not subject to debate.
“This thread has been up over 30 minutes and he has not responded or clarified his remarks that have lead to so much confusion as to what he means.”
Maybe he didn’t post it? How could the man possibly be a FReeper for so many years and then post something like that? He would have to know we don’t tolerate pro-aborts. If he posted it, wouldn’t he likely stick around a bit to reply to comments? I know I would if I posted something like that.
Lame.
Lame, lame, lame.
You post a pro-abort thread - get called on it by The Man himself - and then deny that you condone abortion?
Yeah, right.
Women who abort are candidate finalists for Darwinian awards.
Oh, he posted it all right. See post 63 and Jim’s replies.
As I understand it Cb3 is not advocating for or against
abortion, but for individual responsibility.
Wait a minute, here... I GET IT, and got it from the get-go.
And no way are you going to pin “pro-abort” on me.
I get what he’s getting at.
It’s holding the enemy to their own rules and forcing consistency.
If the woman is solely responsible for the “choice” to kill the unborn child or not, she’s also fully responsible for the support of that child if she chooses to bear it.
I’d extend this to welfare as well.
Don’t want to support a child? Don’t have sex with someone you’re not married to.
See, the point with the left is NOT “how many kids can we kill”, but “how many families can we prevent from forming”.
That’s the point of abortion - to prevent families.
Let’s change your argument a little
Of course I am not in anyway condoning slavery, but I am a realist.. We are hamstrung by the laws that are on the books, and until the culture has reversed its opinion, the only way to halt the option is to hold them solely responsible for their own actions, and to slowly limit the methods that any other option to freedom is lawful, and restricted..
Here’s a better idea. Just state that it is wrong to kill children and not accept a compromise because killing children is unacceptable. Draw a line. It’s wrong to round up Jews and kill them, it is wrong to enslave people and it is wrong to kill children simply because one person doesn’t want the child around.
It’s an illogical position because we hold that Welfare is for the child’s benefit, not the mother’s.
We would be better off taking children from parents who can’t afford them,
By the way, abortion was not made legal by “law.” It came about by godless black-robed rulers who took it upon themselves to overrule the will of the people and the states. Abortion is NOT the law and never has been. You either fight the problem or you ARE the problem!! Wake your ass up and retract this godless nonsense or get the HELL OUT!!
Pray you make the right choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.