Thoughts of a Regular Guy: How To Coerce Your Girlfriend Into A "Choice"

Sunday, July 05, 2009

How To Coerce Your Girlfriend Into A "Choice"

The pro-aborts have neither any shame, nor any sense of irony. Creative Minority Report brings us another example of how "choice" just means abortion.

20 comments:

Breaking from the Pack said...: Absolutely disgusting! Man's depravity seems to have no boundaries. We truly live in medieval times when men talk about unplanned and unwanted pregnancies and how they aren't ready to be a father while they are engaging in sex. The lack of knowledge concerning basic human biology is astounding. While pleasure is derived from having sex, procreation is clearly the primary purpose of sexual activity. Humans must use artificial, created means for contraception in order to avoid procreation. This is one of the main reasons why my children won't go to a public school. The ignorance of high school graduates concerning human anatomy is enough to scare me away.; 7/06/2009 7:58 AM
Arby said...: The truly sad aspect of this Isabella Snow article is the assumption underlying her argument: unborn babies are not people. It shows in her statement, “You’ll also want to take care with your word choice; pregnant women tend to feel like they’re carrying someone, as opposed to something, even if she is just a month or so pregnant.” Unborn babies are “things.” They are “something” to get rid of. Like the trash. She does not say that pregnant woman are carrying someone, just that they feel like they are carrying someone. Everything else in this argument is simply the strategy for a giant word game intended to manipulate a pregnant woman into obtaining an abortion. Oddly, while Ms. Snow obviously believes that an unborn child is a “thing,” she cautions men not to refer to the child as an “it,” or the mother might “start feeling like she needs to defend “it” from you.” In reality, that is exactly what the pregnant mother needs to do. We cannot allow the pregnant mother to know the truth now, can we?

I’m curious. How healthy will an “otherwise loving long-term relationship” be if the man successfully convinces his girlfriend to abort their child, especially if her instincts are to have the child? Anyone care to predict how long that relationship will last?

When will this world realize that creating life is the primary purpose of intercourse and not a side-effect?; 7/07/2009 9:04 AM
Karie, the Regular Guy's Extraordinary Wife said...: What I find interesting is the comments following that post. Lots of pro-life comments! Woo-hoo!; 7/07/2009 9:31 AM
Ori Pomerantz said...: Many somebody should write the opposite guide, "turning your sperm donor boyfriend into a father".; 7/07/2009 10:21 AM
Jake said...: Again, ultimately it is the woman's choice, which is what the article states. Should men lie and tell the woman that he will be there for the child and emotionally support the woman. Better she knows what she is getting into truthfully than be lied to. She still has the choice to have the baby and raise it on her own with only the financial support from the man.; 7/07/2009 7:30 PM
Ori Pomerantz said...: Jake, men shouldn't lie. However, the question is if they should take the responsibility of being a father.

Most contraceptives don't work 100% of the time. Is a man who chooses to have sex anyway obligated should they fail?; 7/07/2009 7:45 PM
Paul, just this guy, you know? said...: Better she knows what she is getting into truthfully than be lied to. She still has the choice to have the baby and raise it on her own with only the financial support from the man.

"If you don't abort this baby, I won't be here for you."

Jake, do you know any woman at all who wouldn't consider this coercion?; 7/08/2009 11:51 PM
Jake said...: Would you rather the man lie and say "I will be there for you honey and we will raise this child together." The truth of the matter is that in many cases, the man may have no desire to raise a child or stay with a woman who decides to have the child. So I would rather he state the facts, let the woman understand her situation, and make an informed choice. I don't call it coercion, I call it the truth. You would rather hold this ideal vision of the world where men and woman wait till marriage, decide together to have children, and live as the Cleavers in the 1950s. Reality is kids get horny, make mistakes, and pregnancy is occasionally the result. You rail against birth control, masturbation, etc., yet get mad when kids choose abortion. And not just kids, men and women of all ages make this choice. Those are the facts, you just choose to ignore them or "pray" for a solution. The solution exists, it is abortion, and it is here to stay.; 7/09/2009 7:12 PM
Ori Pomerantz said...: Jake: So I would rather he state the facts, let the woman understand her situation, and make an informed choice. I don't call it coercion, I call it the truth.

Ori: You're right - it's the truth. If he's planning on ditching his girlfriend, he might as well be honest about it. Ideally, he should be honest about it even earlier, before they have sex. Of course, this might affect his attractiveness.

Abortion is a solution. So is waiting for the baby to be born and then killing it (the way the Greeks and Romans did it).; 7/09/2009 7:25 PM
Paul, just this guy, you know? said...: The solution exists, it is abortion, and it is here to stay.
- Jake, 2009

"...and I say... segregation today... segregation tomorrow... segregation forever."
Gov. George Wallace, inaugural speech, 1963.

Things change. How many of your kids will be voting in the next generation?; 7/10/2009 9:00 AM
Jake said...: I guess we will see won't we. I like my chances. At least in my time abortion will remain legal (thankfully!!!) It is nice to have options..know what I mean!; 7/10/2009 7:43 PM
Jake said...: Ori..I like your Greek and Roman history lesson. It just goes to show that abortion (or a derivative of it) has been around for a long time. It isn't going anywhere (despite Paul's claims). Isn't it nice to know that we have advanced so far that nowadays a woman can go in the first month and get a few cells removed from her body, rather than wait until the baby is full term and then disposed of. Makes it easier for everyone, fetus included.; 7/10/2009 9:08 PM
Paul, just this guy, you know? said...: Jake, murder, rape and selfishness have been around forever, too. That doesn't make them virtues.; 7/10/2009 9:31 PM
Jake said...: But it does make them reality.; 7/10/2009 9:55 PM
Ori Pomerantz said...: Jake: Ori..I like your Greek and Roman history lesson. It just goes to show that abortion (or a derivative of it) has been around for a long time. It isn't going anywhere (despite Paul's claims).

Jake, it does show that. But it shows a different thing too.

I was there when our kids were born. In two cases, I held them as soon as the professionals were done with cleaning and shots. In the other two, as soon as mama was wheeled back from the C-section (I stayed with the first two cases, who were considerably older by them). While I didn't immediately love them as much as I do now, I couldn't imagine putting them outside to starve, freeze to death, or feed animals.

The GrecoRoman history shows us that birth is an arbitrary point. But if it's OK to kill a newborn, why would it be wrong to kill a six month old baby? A year old baby? My oldest who is now six years old? OTOH, if it's not OK, but why would it be OK to kill prior to birth?

Abortion isn't going anywhere, in much the same way that rape isn't going anywhere. Yet rape is illegal, and by putting rapists in jail we reduce the incident of rape. Would you claim that it would be different with abortion, and if so why?; 7/12/2009 9:48 AM
Jake said...: You are not really comparing killing a six month old baby with killing a six week year old fetus are you? By making abortion illegal, you will be putting many young women at risk since they will have to go to the "back alley" option. So in essence, you would rather make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy of a fetus that is not viable and risk the lives of countless young women. Why is it OK to risk the lives of young women? Do you really think that they will cease having abortions because the religious right makes it unlawful? The rich will go to Canada, and the poor will go to the back alley. The fact is that you need to get a grip on reality and stop trying to create a fantasy world where everyone is happy and all children will be loved.; 7/12/2009 8:05 PM
Jake said...: Sorry, my first sentence meant to say six week old fetus, not six week year old fetus.; 7/12/2009 8:06 PM
Paul, just this guy, you know? said...: You are not really comparing killing a six month old baby with killing a six week year old fetus are you?

Why not? Where do you draw the line? When does a baby get human rights, in your view?

By making abortion illegal, you will be putting many young women at risk since they will have to go to the "back alley" option.

Just as, by making bank robbery illegal, bank robbers are at much greater risk. Better we should legalize it, fire the bank guards, and allow them to do their thing safely.

But the back alley abortion myth has long since been debunked.; 7/12/2009 8:19 PM
Ori Pomerantz said...: Jake: You are not really comparing killing a six month old baby with killing a six week old fetus are you?

Ori: I am. Or to be more accurate, I'm asking for a test to determine where the right to life begins that would not be arbitrary. Viability in an unnatural environment is arbitrary - my 2.5 year old girls are probably not viable in the desert.

Jake: So in essence, you would rather make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy of a fetus that is not viable and risk the lives of countless young women. Why is it OK to risk the lives of young women?

Ori: I'm Jewish. My Mishnah tells me that if it's the mother or the fetus we choose the mother.

However, could you give me evidence that that would be the case? Do you have any statistics about the frequency of back-alley abortions prior to Roe vs. Wade, and of deaths resulting from said abortions?; 7/12/2009 8:19 PM
Rennie said...: "Coerce" doesn't mean what you think it means, Paul. (Hint: the mission of the USAF is to coerce. Hint #2: retreating doesn't coerce.)

To continue to misuse the word "coerce" in this way is to lead others into error, maybe even moral error.

Perhaps the source of these errors regarding the belief that Ms. Sperm-Solicitor is being coerced is losing sight of her sin of chasing down a man for sex outside of marriage. The next step down this road of error was committed by people with good intentions (a.k.a. "paving stones on the road to hell") who ran to the State and demanded that the State use coercion to provide Ms. Sperm-Solicitor, as Jake says, "the choice to have the baby and raise it on her own with only the financial support from the man."

Some of the responses here are amusing - in a disgusting way sort of way. Breaking From The Pack's remark overlooks the reality that womanistas (women's libbers, feminists, loyal readers of women's magazines from Redbook to Ms) insisted that marriage was a patriarchal plot to empower men. All this outrage at men is based on the silly belief that because men aren't more moral than women, men are to blame for the sins women commit. Let's review: woman's depravity seems to have no boundaries. We truly live in pagan times when women talk about unplanned and unwanted pregnancies and how they aren't ready to be a wife and mother while they are engaging in sex. There you go, Breaking From The Past, I fixed that for you.

Ori Pomerantz is confused about what "the opposite guide" is. It doesn't need to be written again, all females already know it: Coercing your boyfriend into unwanted fatherhood plus marriage through sperm solicitation.

Ori Pomerantz also wondered "if they should take the responsibility of being a father." Well, I'll call Ori and raise the stakes: let's have father-only legal and physical custody of all children whose parents aren't married. Ending the practice of coddling females with promises of "make a baby and win a prize" will sharply cut down on the popular female practice of sperm-soliciting in anticipation of playing doll house with a live baby. And if men are the pigs the male chauvinist pigs here presume they are, the chance of being responsible for a baby will be seen as a threat to be avoided. Ta-da! The problem of sex outside of marriage is solved. Plus, marriage remains marriage and the unmarried can't poach from marriage the parts they like (for feminist and post-feminist women, the baby and a man's paycheck) and ditch the parts they don't (the man).

As far as baby-killing goes, I'm glad someone brought that up. Females aren't naturally more pure and moral than men but the belief in such nonsense has led to no-questions-asked baby abandonment laws and yet women are still killing infants in the same shocking numbers.

Not so many years ago, when the well-intentioned stated down the road of sexual license, marriage to a polygynous State (a.k.a. welfare for unwed mothers), and unilateral divorce, most people refused to accept that this would lead to a huge welfare state, child poverty, 40% of children born to unwed mothers, same-sex marriage, and so many other perversions. "Inconceivable," the do-gooders cried. And yet, here we are living in a nation of pagan laws. So folks, check your premises; at least one of them is wrong.; 7/28/2009 4:28 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)