Leaving a relationship for that reason is hardly a "punishment", and it is offensive and fucked up that you would term it thusly.

As if "keep the baby" as an executive that the woman has to obey or else be emotionally spanked for dissenting.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Johnny 13 wrote:I would not want to be in a life long relationship with someone who would be that unstable.

There you go. If your wife aborted without consulting you, you would want out of the relationship. That means you would punish her for doing what she did, thus proving that you felt entitled to the consultation.

You are not feeling me, so I don't see any point in continuing. You are describing a situation I am having trouble believing happens with any regularity. What I described has almost nothing to do with abortion. The abortion would be a symptom of a larger problem.

Johnny C wrote:Except that Obama is a Christian.

But the worst of them of them think he's a Muslim, because O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Savage/Hannity/Beck/Coulter "said it, I believe it, that settles it". And the less crazed ones who think he's a christian don't think his version of christianity is good enough anyway.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Johnny 13 wrote:You are not feeling me, so I don't see any point in continuing..

You're ducking what you said.

You said this:

johnny 13 wrote:It is his responsibility to know what she will do about a pregnancy before she gets pregnant.

There you go. You are saying that a husband should clarify how decisions about abortions will be made, before a pregnancy begins. By stating that ground rules should be established, you are saying that a man is entitled to have input on what will happen to a baby. If you thought that it was entirely up to the wife, then you would say, "I am fine with my wife surprising me with an abortion, because I feel like I should have zero say in what she does with her pregnancy".

I am leaving the house in a moment, and won't be back until tonight.

You are misreading my intent, or I am stating my points badly. Regardless, I understand you, and I am saying that we do not have agreement on these points. A man should make his wishes known before pregnancy is a concern (either way). I am saying that a man is entitled to know what he is getting into. This assumes trust between the man and the woman. If the conditions change capriciously, that trust is broken. It is not about controlling her body, it is about a failed relationship.

If you're a dude and you have "issues" with abortion (and I certainly do), I recommend:

1. rubbers
2. trusting/understanding relationships with women
3. passing on this knowledge to your kids

#'s 1-3 > picketing clinics/voting for nutballs.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Johnny 13 wrote:A man should make his wishes known before pregnancy is a concern (either way).

So we agree. A man his entitled to discuss all eventualities related to pregnancy, and you, like me, reject the idea that a wife should make the call entirely on her own. Either an agreement is reached between husband and wife before pregnancy, or the husband is entitled to have input during pregnancy.

Decisions about pregnancy and abortion are mutual decisions made by husband and wife. Agree or disagree?

Disagree. A man does have a right to accurate information about how a woman will proceed with regard to her body if a pregnancy were to occur. The man can then proceed or disengage based upon this information. If this were not about an embryo, but about her getting tonsils removed, or donating a kidney I would also expect my wife to plan with me, but she has no legal obligation to do so. I don't need the government to enforce understanding between the sexes.

Rick Reuben wrote:I'm assuming that if a guy walked up to Marsupialized's pregnant wife and slugged her belly with a bat, killing the baby, he would not want murder charges filed.

I am quite certain there'd be no charges filed at all, seeing as we would take care of a situation like that on our own. Gruesomely.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Marsupialized wrote:I am quite certain there'd be no charges filed at all, seeing as we would take care of a situation like that on our own. Gruesomely.

So your revenge would be the revenge of someone who had his own flesh and blood taken away, and it would be greater than the revenge against someone who had damaged your wife's property, like her car?

I would be most upset someone assaulted my wife. Then I would be upset if she was upset about the baby being killed.
Me, I do not want a baby in the first place. My thoughts would be on my wife, not the almost baby that never happened because of circumstances beyond our control.

Just because someone would feel one way or another about this particular violent crime being committed against a loved one doesn't mean these feelings need to be legislated any more than they already are. There is a law against attempted murder, that's as far as that should go legally. There was no baby yet, he hit a woman. Anything else and you are getting into opinion and pulling shit out of thin air. What did he do wrong? He hit a woman with a bat. They can say 'also, she was pregnant and had a miscarriage because of him hitting her' and the jury or judge can take that into account, but to charge him with the murder of something that does not exist yet is fucking goofy.

You want more and more laws and regulations over shit that does not need to be, or should not be legislated.
Just pile them on, give the fucked up twisted corrupt government and vampire like police more and more reason to butt into our lives.
You distrust the government and want them out of your business but this is ok for them to meddle in other people's. Makes no sense to me. Do you distrust them and want them the fuck out of your life or do you want them in deeper and deeper? You can't pick and choose.
My wife's family is friends with Norm Olson, the Michigan militia guy. I had several long talks with him, we stayed at their place in Alaska for a week.
Same shit. he wants nothing to do with the government and wants it out of people's lives...yet he demands more legislation outlawing abortion. Wants all kinds of shit banned and made illegal.
Not his machine guns. They should keep their fucking dirty corrupt hands off his machine guns. But women? Yeah, they have the duty to tell women what they can and can't do with their own bodies.

The abortion issue is a personal issue regarding a person's own body. Just because born again assholes do not see it that way, does not mean it's their right to legally impose their beliefs on everyone else.
If Christians don't wanna get abortions, nobody is gonna force them to. Nobody will pass a law demanding everyone get an abortion. Nobody will stand outside their church and terrorize them yelling and screaming at them 'why don't you get an abortion already!?'
Fuck some wrinkled dick old goofy Christian fuck sitting in an office somewhere who hasn't seen a pussy in 45 years deciding what women should be allowed to do with their own bodies. That notion is absolutely absurd. Absolutely fucking absurd.

If they must legislate abortion, a council of women and women only should be formed to do it.

This is not a male issue one bit in any way.

Rick Reuben wrote:I'm assuming that if a guy walked up to Marsupialized's pregnant wife and slugged her belly with a bat, killing the baby, he would not want murder charges filed.

What the fuck Bob? This is well beneath you.

Not fucking right, Bob. This is nothing but wrong.

Fuck man, you should know better.

He doesn't want anything, other than just to argue.