This topic bears repeating because the alias "h8drama" brought it up.

Why I find their hypocrisy so transparent is because while a pro-life hobbyist would give the woman a right to choose to become a provider to gratify the sexual needs of the hobbyist, with all the other risks associated with profession ( getting arrested, disease, violence )they would not give her the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Not even exceptions for rape, incest & the life of the Mother ? Some clarification is in order.

I believe WW came up with this scenario when this was brought up earlier;if the rubber broke on a pro-life hobbyist & the provider was carrying his baby, would he keep it or want it aborted ? Quite a conumdrum.

This is what I SHOULD have said to "h8 drama", instead of getting angry & blurting out something stupid, for which I apologize for.

I believe since both parties share responibility for creating a baby, and both will share the responibility once said baby comes into this world. I agree both father and mother should have a say as to whether or not the child should be born.

I disagree that a man should be able to force a woman to terminate a pregnacy against her will, but would argue that if a woman insisted on carrying a baby to term, against the express wishes of the father, that his financial obligation to support said child should end. As you said, "Fair is fair"

Somehow I can't bring my self to argue that a man has the right to force a woman to terminate a pregancy, nor can I argue that a man has the right to force a woman to carry a fetus to term simply because his "God" tells him to. OTOH, If his is simply an "unwilling sperm donor" why does she get to call all the shots?

I think your rather "extreme" position was actually a pretty good place to begin negotiating. lol

I see some inequality here, as the man is risking little, if anything at all in terms of his own health vs. a woman who either has to have a medical procedure to terminate a baby, or give birth. Either way she's taking on a shit ton more risk. In that regard, I think a woman should have the sole right to do whatever she likes with a child she is carrying.

However, I agree with GaG, that if a woman has the right to abort a man's child without his knowledge or consent, then a man should be able to divorce himself of all financial responsibility for that child if 1) he was unaware that she was pregnant and she failed to inform him and 2) if she had that child against his will.

Pro-life hobbyists are quite absurd though. Talk about a lack of self-reflection. That or the dude in question is shooting blanks.

and she should be forced to carry the unwanted fetus to term, regardless of the trauma it causes the mother, Got it.

Of course by that same argument, since God is omnipotent, wouldn't any and all abortions also be HIS will?

but you have really stretched the limits of credibility when you try to compare the act of paying for sex to the death of an unborn child.

I am a pro-life hobbyist that is pro-choice. I am for the right of a person to choose whether they want to carry a gun, concealed or not.

Actually many good points made in thread by various parties.

It would behoove you to stop acting like the board censor/cop/critic/prude.

-- Modified on 1/4/2012 4:40:58 PM

Think about it. Both men and women should have equal rights.

A woman has a right to end a pregnancy even AFTER making all of the fateful decisions that led to the pregnancy; but a man does not. Equal protection under the law would dictate that, as a woman has the right to evade the responsibility of her decisions through abortion, so should a man. Or are men second hand citizens who should be forced to pay money to a woman they did not wish to bear their children when women have the right to terminate the children of men they did not wish to be the fathers of their children?

In order for a child to be born, BOTH people who would bear responsibility for that child should CHOOSE its birth.

That means that if either party wants the abortion, it should go through. Just as a woman can abort my child against my wishes, I should be able to abort hers against her wishes. Fair is fair and equal is equal.

So if a provider gets pregnant by a hobbyist, the pregnancy can only be carried to term if BOTH make the affirmative choice to do so. But I would apply this rule even to married couples.

How on earth did you connect my act of pointing out 1) the irony that the liberal acceptance of abortion could have a propensity to reduce their own population and 2) your new point claiming hypocrisy among pro-life hobbyists?

I may have triggered a random synapse somewhere in your head but I did NOT "bring IT up." Had you posted this to me below it would have made the same nonsense as it does here.

The fact that you have ideals and don't live up to them is not hypocrisy.  That is human.  You may know something is wrong, but you are weak and give in.

Hypocrisy is two standard, i.e. saying, "It is okay for me, but not for you."  (Al Gore -we should all reduce our carbon foot print except for me because I like private planes and 14,000 square foot houses.)

To say, "This is the standard, even if I can't meet it," is not hypocrisy. If that were the case, the only way to not be a hypocrite would be to have no standards.  People with no standards never fail to live up to them.

Once again, years ago, when I was a smoker, I knew it was bad and told kids that they should not smoke.  I wasn't a hypocrite.  I was addicted.

Accidents happen, however much of the problem is that one or both parties don't act responsibly. And, it's usually a myth, that once a child is born, both parties share equally in the responsibilities of raising and supporting that child. Bottom line; no matter how it came about, if the woman wants to have the ultimate decision, basing it on it's her body, then she should bear the cost of that decision.

according to the guys at Freakonomics

That's what you need to keep the conversation on track.

Picking something out of the air and debate about it. How does that thinking process work.

You do realize that the longer we talk about this subject, the further apart we are going to end up. lol

I had adopted the more extreme position of a man being able to force an abortion so that the "compromise" of his being released from all parental rights and responsibilities (as though an abortion had occurred) would seem moderate. (*grin*)

He's too excited by burning flesh to care

I'm always 6 one way and 1/2 dozen the other. I think a lot of people are. I would like tyo see a National Referdum on this as well as:

Gay Marriage
Capital Punishment

Of course it's the last thing the political parties (both) want. If you remove the wedge issues you lose funding, special interest votes and deflection points to create political talking points.

Only GOD has the authority to give and take life. Women have children by Gods own decision and by their own actions.

a married woman can abort her husbands child without his consent or knowledge. This one-sided shit has to stop before men increase their 'open-fire' tendencies

God gave women the ability to give birth as a result of certain activity. He never declared the 'activity' need be consensual.

I know many women who have carried a child which was the result of rape and incest. They overcame 'self' within their own circumstances and carried the child to term and them put it up for adoption.

Abortion is an act solely beneficial to woman; not man(gender neutral). God gave man(again, gender neutral)free will. 'Free will' will be judged. Why doesn't God intercede to stop all evil? IDK. I will ask though(maybe lol)

Those who can afford to go elsewhere gets the abortion go there and those who can't either has the child (left in eternal poverty while cutting any social support) or resorts to unsafe methods. Same thing that happened in Ireland when abortion was banned! Hey, we are Americans, we don't learn from others mistakes we have to make the same mistake on grander scale

Another myth adoption. Yep, you are going to adopt drug addicts baby. Even if you would, it is another can of worms to go through, not simple by any means.

Where does it say that a man who chooses to have sex with a paid provider has to also believe that abortions are okay?

There is no basis for points on either side of this ridiculous discussion.

but you could easily replace the second half of your question -- abortion -- with something else such as the legalization of marijuana and get the same outcome.

There is no correlation between the two topics.

But, you have to have something to do when you are not at the buffet . . . .   LOL!

I see correlation between sex and prolife so prolifers should abstain and become celibate.

pro-choicers could learn two words -- birth control.

How is engaging in hobbying hypocritical to the abortion debate?

One debate is about commerce between two equals. The other is (depending upon your viewpoint) when life begins Vs. woman's rights to her body.

I NEVER get involved in the abortion debate. To many zealots, and neither side can agree with the other on what they are debating.

If I pay a provider $x, I am paying for her time and talent for x hours. I am literally paying for convenience and professional service. Nothing more. If I pay a roofer to replace the shingles on my house, I a paying him to do it right. He is licensed and bonded. If something happens to his crew (licensed, bonded), that is his problem, not mine. It is no concern of mine if one of his crew puts a galvanized roofing nail into his thumb. I just paid for service, not healthcare costs/aftercare to a private contractor.