Celivia, thanks for the link to the Flat Earth Society.
I don't think that one is serious but it's a good laugh. They give the game away in the Current Events page. My guess is that the site is a payout on creationists who continue to hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Similar techniques.

The Genesis museum opened today - reportedly the most popular exhibit was the one with the dinosaurs getting onto the ark.

R0bert

Celivia, once again you dance around intentionally being obtuse to what I actually say to maintain your "men just have to pay" stance. I reject it. Thankfully the great majority of women reject it. Your split society of feminist and masculinist sounds just perfectly harmonious.
IF, it is as you suggest; "the womans belly the womans decision". Then you are enslaving the man to your decision because you disallow the man any consideration. That is enslavement and sexual apartheid. I rather think that it is a shame that you willfully support and advocate sexual apartheid. Especially under the guise of feminism. It's a philosophical contradiction. All those years fighting for inclusion into the mans world only to be tossed aside after obtaining equality by a new sexual apartheid under feminism as a womans right.
I first thought it was ironic but, that wasn't the right word. It's tragic.

Aqvarivs and Robert, all the ills of society and injustices, to either men or women, cannot be laid at the feet of feminists. There are women who hate men, but are not necessarily feminists at all. There are also men who hate women.

Injustices, perceived and real, in the Family Court are not because of ‘feminist’ influence. The legal fraternity and the judiciary are the last true male bastions for Goodness sake.

Read up on the history of the Family Court. It was created and enacted in 1976 to correct a longstanding injustice for women and children. I agree the pendulum has swung very much to one side (I’ve been involved in a long painful journey with a father in relation to his child), but there are attempts to correct it.

One reason why this is I think, and this is only my humble opinion, has nothing to do with feminism at all, but the fact that many, perhaps especially men, cannot countenance the idea that all mothers do not fit the ideal ‘sacrificing Madonna’ image. Very few men of a certain generation have any relationship with a father, but have idealized memories of a mother or if they don’t rationalize why and blame another, probably their father. After all, he was cruel, cold, etc. to them as well.

One good thing that has come from all this is that fathers now, unlike previously, are more and more involved and have developed meaningful relationships with their children. This is a relatively new development.

Because of the idealized ‘mother’ image I think is also why it is more often men who get quite emotional about abortion. Read some of the posts and you’ll get the gist how angry men get with women who terminate their pregnancy.

Women, on the other hand, do not tend to be so romantic. Especially in regards to very early pregnancy. Attachment tends to set in once you’ve felt the baby move.

Further to my letter regarding the experiences of women, especially virtual children, in third world countries, I wish to place the situation in the worldwide context.

The UNFPA report that pregnancy, worldwide, in young women aged 15 to 19 is the leading cause of death; girls under 15 being five times more likely to die in childbirth.

The report continues: “For every woman who dies in childbirth, some 15 to 30 survive but suffer chronic disabilities, the most devastating of which is obstetric fistula. Young women under age 20 are especially prone to developing fistulas if they cannot get a Caesarean section.”

Indeed, five percent of women worldwide will experience obstructed labor, meaning that the baby will not fit through the woman’s birth canal because her pelvis is too small, or the baby too big, or badly positioned. The small, undeveloped pelvis of young girls places them in this category.

www.unfpa.org/swp/2003/english/ch5/index.htm

Abolishing legal abortions will not stop abortions. But the injuries sustained by back-yard abortionists will be horrific, and many young women will become a mortality statistic. Surely this is a horrendous punishment to pay.

I suspect most pro-lifers are Catholic, therefore, do not accept the use of contraception. Are contraception methods also to be banned. This is the logical corollary of banning abortion.

Pro-lifers, whilst admirable in many ways, should not force their views on others. Surely, it is sufficient that those who maintain these views, uphold them in their own lives; and not impose them on others.

"Surely, it is sufficient that those who maintain these views, uphold them in their own lives; and not impose them on others."

Danielle, that would be ideal, but sadly things arn't that way.
The Vatican maintains a huge worldwide lobby network and their
view is quite clear. If they can use political influence to force
people to live by their dogma, they have no problem with that.

If you look at countries like Chile, they have only just won
the right to even obtain a divorce! The church fought it all
the way.

Yup, 70'000 third world women die needlessly, due to abortion
being illegal. Clearly these women are desparate, to risk their
lives.

Some more info on the flat earth society. They in fact used
the bible to prove their case:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

Mick, evolution theory is today overwhelmingly accepted by the
scientific community, as we can watch it happen daily, before our
eyes. Even the Catholic Church accepts it. Just a few fundie
nutcases don't, but their numbers are minimal. So they really
don't matter in the context of the bigger picture. But we will
tolerate them :)

Danielle, you say -

"Pro-lifers, whilst admirable in many ways, should not force their views on others. Surely, it is sufficient that those who maintain these views, uphold them in their own lives; and not impose them on others."

I, for one, have not used force. Just airing, critiquing, hoping to influence, trying not to get clobbered for it. Just like the pro-choicers.

Pro-choicers would enforce their views just as readily. The "sufficient ... to ... uphold them in their own lives" point is usually quite innocuous: "Live and let live" is a common way of expressing it. Usually, I am happy to live and let live, agree to disagree etc. However, on the subject of abortion, "live and let live" is not entirely accurate, is it?

I'd like to see the pro-choicers take a live and let live approach to the foetus.

Pax,