Ohio may give fathers a say in abortion decision - Page 12

garysher · 08-10-2007, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catus Felidae

How do you explain so many abusive men?

Why is it the womans responsibility to be psychic and know that down the line the man who is treating her like a queen right now, will be beating her instead? Why isn't it the mans responsibility to recognize that he has a problem and fix it?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm not excusing men in the slightest, and I've stated thate several times.

But it's the woman who ends up suffering. There are very few examples of men being abused by their wives, at least not physically (excluding being constantly nagged!)

Also, it's usually the woman who pushes the man into marriage and who enjoys the experience of the wedding. I never heard any guys discussing what colour the serviettes
should be at the reception!

Therefore the onus lies on the woman to be more careful when choosing a husband.

Why do you have such a need to blame the woman?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
See above

BTW...as far as 'man hating' goes, I've been quite happily married for almost 30 years, and at least half of my friends are men. That's just a tad difficult to do when you supposedly 'hate men'.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I've been happily married for 25 years and have no reason to hate women!

Just for future reference, I judge no one on their sex, race, creed, religion, etc. I judge them individually on their personality and actions.

Your halo is crooked!

Catus Felidae · 08-11-2007, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

I'm not excusing men in the slightest, and I've stated thate several times.

But it's the woman who ends up suffering. There are very few examples of men being abused by their wives, at least not physically (excluding being constantly nagged!)

Also, it's usually the woman who pushes the man into marriage and who enjoys the experience of the wedding. I never heard any guys discussing what colour the serviettes
should be at the reception!

Therefore the onus lies on the woman to be more careful when choosing a husband.

Odd, you claim that you're not excusing men in the slightest, but then you go right on and make excuses for them. It's the womans fault if she's abused because she didn't 'choose well'? She's at fault for an abusive relationship because he wasn't man enough not to be 'pushed' into marriage and didn't enjoy the wedding?

You make men sound like spineless wimps, totally unable to stand up for themselves or change any negative aspects of their personalities.

I've been happily married for 25 years and have no reason to hate women!

Then why do you display such a simmering resentment toward the female sex?

Your halo is crooked!

Your resentment is showing.

fxashun · 08-13-2007, 08:19 AM

I think women have the lion's share of the responsibility to make sure the man that they are having sex with is of sufficient moral character to father her children. They are going to have to carry the child. It's her life at risk during the birth. And if the man is a flake, she is going to be the one standing there taking care of the baby.

As I have said in other forums, while I'm not a religious person, some of the basic biblican tenets make a lot of sense. If there is no fornication, the transmission of sexually transmitted disease will be nearly irradicated. And if adultry and divorce are minimized, the family will be more stable and kids will be better taken care of.

Women are the "gatekeepers" per se since a man will have sex with anythung that moves. And sometimes it doesn't even have to move. It is up to the woman to make sure that the man she parts her legs for is worthy. Just as men should also make sure the woman that he "spreads his seed" in isn't some kind of nutjob. But the man doesn't have anywhere near as much at stake as a woman in this. Especially a man that already has 3 or 4 kids by other women. What does have have to lose by impregnating women all over the place?

Catus Felidae · 08-13-2007, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

I think women have the lion's share of the responsibility to make sure the man that they are having sex with is of sufficient moral character to father her children. They are going to have to carry the child. It's her life at risk during the birth. And if the man is a flake, she is going to be the one standing there taking care of the baby.

What if she just wants to have sex with him, not children?

As I have said in other forums, while I'm not a religious person, some of the basic biblican tenets make a lot of sense. If there is no fornication, the transmission of sexually transmitted disease will be nearly irradicated. And if adultry and divorce are minimized, the family will be more stable and kids will be better taken care of.

The desire for sex is a biological drive. Not something that can be turned off at will.

Women are the "gatekeepers" per se since a man will have sex with anythung that moves. And sometimes it doesn't even have to move. It is up to the woman to make sure that the man she parts her legs for is worthy. Just as men should also make sure the woman that he "spreads his seed" in isn't some kind of nutjob. But the man doesn't have anywhere near as much at stake as a woman in this. Especially a man that already has 3 or 4 kids by other women. What does have have to lose by impregnating women all over the place?

It's rather insulting to men in general to describe them as willing to 'have sex with anything that moves', don't you think? While I know a couple of men who do fit that description, I know many more who are not so controlled by their genitals.

fxashun · 08-13-2007, 12:48 PM

No, what's should be insultiing is for a woman to risk being an unmarried mother. At least show that she TRIED to create a better life for her offspring. If a man turns out to be a louse after the marriage, that's one thing. But to allow a man to impregnate her before showing any real commitment shows she was meant to be a victim. And that's coming from a person raised by a "single mother" who was never married.

Catus Felidae · 08-13-2007, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

No, what's should be insultiing is for a woman to risk being an unmarried mother.

Risk? Being an unmarried mother is not something you 'risk'. It's something you decide to do.

At least show that she TRIED to create a better life for her offspring. If a man turns out to be a louse after the marriage, that's one thing. But to allow a man to impregnate her before showing any real commitment shows she was meant to be a victim.

How can you be a 'victim' when YOU are the one who decided what your circumstances would be? Impregnation can happen regardless of steps taken to prevent it. Childbirth cannot.

And that's coming from a person raised by a "single mother" who was never married.

How do you know that you would have had a 'better life' if your father had been in the picture? The very fact that he was enough of a louse to run out on his own child pretty much shows that he would have been a bad father to have around. And had your mother waited to have a child with a man who she was sure would be a good father, you wouldn't be here.

forester814 · 08-13-2007, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

No, what's should be insultiing is for a woman to risk being an unmarried mother. .... But to allow a man to impregnate her before showing any real commitment shows she was meant to be a victim. And that's coming from a person raised by a "single mother" who was never married.

Please tell me you do not view your mother as a victim.

I don't know her, but since she was (is) a single mother, I view her as a courageous, hardworking woman, doing what she had to do to raise you (and any siblings you may have) on her own.

It really sounds like you are laying all the blame on the woman here. It sounds as if you are saying that if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she shouldn't have sex... because that risks being an unmarried mother. And if she does, and gets pregnant, and the man doesn't stick around, it's HER fault for choosing poorly or taking the risk.

Where does anyone say that if a man doesn't want to be a father, HE shouldn't have sex? No one says that. Because from what I hear, guys think it's COOL to have lots of sex with different partners, with little or no commitment. It's a mark of masculinity and manliness.

But a woman who does that?
Slut who gets what she deserves.

Incredible double-standard.

This is one of those topics that makes me glad to be a lesbian... but my daughter will have to deal with this issue as she matures into a young lady, and I would hate to think that this is the attitude she is STILL going to find out there.

garysher · 08-13-2007, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catus Felidae

How do you know that you would have had a 'better life' if your father had been in the picture? The very fact that he was enough of a louse to run out on his own child pretty much shows that he would have been a bad father to have around.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Any child will have a better life with a loving mother and father in a stable home.

You seem to be agreeing that it's almost always the woman who is left holding the baby, and therefore the onus is on her to find a good father for her children.

This doesn't excuse the flaky men who get their girlfriends pregnant then disappear.

I'm not saying it's fair. It just underlines the way that Mother Nature works.

And had your mother waited to have a child with a man who she was sure would be a good father, you wouldn't be here.

His soul would still be here but in a different body.