Pro Life or Pro Choice?

[Retro Rob]

Really?

It seem to me that liberal promoting of women to take on male gender roles is what is not working

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larissa...llennial-women-are-burning-out-at-work-by-30/

Gender-specific roles exist for a reason, and have and will work for a significant portion of society.

I see what you mean here. Good point.

I think women tend to get "burned out", as that article stated because of the "anything you can do I can do better" type attitude.

Men are just mentally and physically built for hard work. Not that women are inferior, but this is OUR role as men... to work hard, provide.

This something I will always stand by.

 

[cybrsage]

Interestingly enough, the paragon of all things woman (Oprah) came out and said (paraphrased) "Women can have it all. You can be both mothers and have a career. You just cannot successfully do both at the same time."


Part of the problem is that women expect to be able to do it all, then fail because it just is too hard to do. Men do not try to do it all unless they have to (single dad)...and then they burn out too.

 

[Retro Rob]

Interestingly enough, the paragon of all things woman (Oprah) came out and said (paraphrased) "Women can have it all. You can be both mothers and have a career. You just cannot successfully do both at the same time."


Part of the problem is that women expect to be able to do it all, then fail because it just is too hard to do. Men do not try to do it all unless they have to (single dad)...and then they burn out too.

Good post!

Hence, why the balance is needed in a family with children. Yep, I don't want to do both unless, like you said, I would have to.

Tasking one parent with both jobs is just too much to ask of anyone. I don't like to say it this way, but if women know and accept their role (primarily as care-giver and housekeeper) and men accept theirs (primarily as bread-winner) then it works fine. However, it doesn't always work that way.

The man may not make enough, or may lose his job. The woman may make more, and they may not have children. Whatever the case, sticking closely to the blue-print for your traditional family I think makes everyone happy barring certain circumstances.

 

[alzan]

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I agree with this totally

I was always taught that the man should take the lead in shouldering the heavier work load when it comes to securing work and income (again, unless circumstances dictate otherwise), and if there are children, the Wife takes the lead in caring for them until they are at a certain age. This doesn't mean the husband sits on his couch watching ESPN all night after work either. He needs to help his wife at home. In some families, dual incomes are necessary to meet basic family needs. So I can certainly agree with that.

I am certainly not saying a woman should stay at home "barefoot and pregnant" or whatever that crap means, or "in the kitchen". But, someone's going to do all the secular working, the husband is primarily (not singularly) responsible for that part.

Back on topic, while it may be true a unborn child not fully formed isn't, scientifically, a human.. it is a life form. It is living, breathing, feeding, growing - all characteristics of a fully formed human. Indeed, cutting that life short intentionally is murder. From a secular view, if it doesn't have rights, it isn't a human or considered as having the right to live as you and I?

Like I said back when we were on topic (thanks for the redirection) we simply disagree about when life begins. I think that when the developing human life reaches the stage at which it can be medically cared for outside the womb (about seven months although that will be a changing goalpost as technology changes) that it is at least a human being. But a fetus in the first or second trimester is developmentally not the same.

Plus, as LunarRay and others have pointed out; there are what seem to be a whole lot of males discussing pregnancy and abortion from a fairly biased point of view. Had we been born female we might have completely different ideas or beliefs about abortion, birth control, etc.

 

[nehalem256]

Plus, as LunarRay and others have pointed out; there are what seem to be a whole lot of males discussing pregnancy and abortion from a fairly biased point of view. Had we been born female we might have completely different ideas or beliefs about abortion, birth control, etc.

Because clearly we should consider the opinion of a pregnant 15 year old girl on what constitutes a human life to be superior to that of an adult man...:hmm:

 

[Retro Rob]

Plus, as LunarRay and others have pointed out; there are what seem to be a whole lot of males discussing pregnancy and abortion from a fairly biased point of view. Had we been born female we might have completely different ideas or beliefs about abortion, birth control, etc.

I can't say I disagree with that because I don't.

As men, we should sympathize with our women though we can't relate to them. For instance, I know my wife doesn't want children. I did, at one point in time. I don't have to carry a baby, so I would not force her to have children regardless of how I feel. I offer to use birth control as well to prevent it.

On the flip side, she wouldn't force me to get her pregnant.

It all boils down to potential parents doing what they can to be responsible to keep the idea of abortion out of reach. As you said before, odds show that getting pregnant on the first shot is what... 50/50? (sorry if I misquote you).

Based on that, it seems people who get abortions are just having sex without using any form of birth control with an increased chance of getting pregnant. Then, they abort or abandon the relationship and the child, in some cases.

 

[alzan]

I can't say I disagree with that because I don't.

As men, we should sympathize with our women though we can't relate to them. For instance, I know my wife doesn't want children. I did, at one point in time. I don't have to carry a baby, so I would not force her to have children regardless of how I feel. I offer to use birth control as well to prevent it.

On the flip side, she wouldn't force me to get her pregnant.

It all boils down to potential parents doing what they can to be responsible to keep the idea of abortion out of reach. As you said before, odds show that getting pregnant on the first shot is what... 50/50? (sorry if I misquote you).

Based on that, it seems people who get abortions are just having sex without using any form of birth control with an increased chance of getting pregnant. Then, they abort or abandon the relationship and the child, in some cases.

Exactly. I think that the more information we can get to teens or pre-teens about the hormonal changes that will happen or may be already happening, the sexual drives, and BC information, etc., that we will decrease the unwanted pregnancy rate and the possibility of abortion. I don't really have a problem with abstinence education either; as long as it's taught with the above.

It can be as low as 50/50 or as high as 70/30. Too many different factors in play for fertilization to occur the first time/every time.

They may not be using BC at all or the particular method(s) they used failed. Other posters in the thread have commented that various BC methods have high to low failure rates. Using two different methods as opposed to just one is better then au natural. Adoption could be an option if the female is open to it; but the pregnancy and birth experiences generally have an emotional and physical bonding effect on most women; it's hard to give up a life you just spent nine months creating.