Posts by mark taslov
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
and just for you danielle to give you an even clearer idea on where i'm coming from,
when my gf had an abortion due to failure of contraception, i 100% supported her decision to do as she felt best, to the point i went to the clinic with her and stayed with her during the process. To this day I still have no idea what happened in that place, simply that tubes were inserted in her, and the fetus was terminated. None of the staff talked to me, there was noone to discuss it with, and on the way out of the clinic the couple in front of me had a pie thrown at them by a prolifer.
Now I can fully understand where you're coming from with regard to it being your body, but I'm merely wondering if the process could perhaps be made more inclusive?
do i seem anti women? anti abortion? or just confused by the whole thing. I'll stress, it wasn't me who had the hot pie thrown at me, but to this day I always wonder about that, what happened to that couple, what was the effect of that pie, and why the whole thing felt like i accompanied my gf to the dentist.
because while i would never tell a female what to do with her own body in that respect, I always feel that a part of me died that day, and i wonder why there was no recourse or service provided to explain or debrief partners on the process.
that's all my cards on the table.
-
-
And to clarify even a little further, I offer this in that, in disagreement with some I think the overriding sentiment i've gaged from males during my brief stay here on earth is is that there is still a general sentiment, in the 21st century, for men, not to see women as baby incubators, but for them to see women as caves to stick their stick into.
and i think there are many situations when women may want to go through with a pregnancy but have their arms twisted to abort by their partners, who in certain cases then ditch them after the baby is born,
hence another motivation (besides counseling) for suggesting this, is that there is some record kept of how the decision to abort or not, is reached,
because it's all very well, living in a world where the female aborts the child she doesn't want to take to term,
I've no problems with that,but there are other issues besides
-
I'm sorry craig was that not clear?
I meant to type abortion but accidentally typed pregnancy, I assumed that would have been clear to those who attacked my initial statement, sorry for the misunderstanding Craig, by veto i'm not referring to a blanket cancellation as administered in the security council, merely a postponement so that some mediated discussion between both parties can be reached, in the same way i guess as the government currently has the right to veto abortions until they are satisfied that its the best informed decision medical and decision. I understand you're not being bitchy, I'ts my bad for inserting the wrong word, original post is on page 3.
mark, you've already made it clear that you get a kick out of winding people up and that what you're trying to do is get a reaction from them. That's what trolling is. If you don't like the label, then don't do it. If you don't like what people say when you do wind them up, maybe you should consider whether you really get such a kick out of it.
I'm sorry you took it that way stephen judd. I wasn't trolling, I was just trying to contribute to the discussion and you jumped on me made it personal, called me a troll, so I gave you an illustrative definition of trolling. please go back and reread if you're not sure who the troll was or is, or here it is:
The father should have the right to veto abortion. except in cases of rape, proven prophylactic failure or molestation, if an agreement can't be reached then the state should provide mediation and counselling to any of the casualties.
You didn't ask for clarification what i meant by veto, you completely ignored the fact I made specifications on when this counseling may be necessary, and I'm guessing the term agreement didn't even register.
you just read right past it seeing me as some easily classifiable thing you've met before and came out with this pearler:
Perhaps mark taslov can present all his prospective female sex partners with a contract where they agree to carry to term any possible pregnancy under all circumstances unless he releases them from that obligation.
That should help safeguard his rights against the unwanted termination of his progeny.
who's winding people up here stephen?
as i clarified:
I MERELY THINK THAT BOTH PARTIES SHOULD TECHNICALLY HAVE SOME RECOURSE INTO WHAT HAPPENS WITH THEIR DNA
and a whole lot of words put in my mouth,
all women who have unplanned pregnancies are stupid sluts
belligerently overlooking the initial conclusion of wider ranging damage control for all parties involved;
state should provide mediation and counseling to any of the casualties.
treating an unwilling woman as their own personal baby incubator.
compelling women to bear children they don't want.
mark: you want a brood-mare, get a horse.
and that's fine Stephen, but be sure, it was you who made this personal and patronizing, it was you who then leveled the trolling accusation, without even having bothered to get clarification on my initial statement. The tone I employed in any future trolling (as you like stephen) was not indifferent from the tone you proffered on your first statement about me getting all my prospective mates to do something ridiculous on the basis that is culpably ridiculous to suggest that a man involved in sex for procreation, facing the termination of that planned pregnancy be allowed some kind of nonbinding voice or involvement in the issue.
Finally, "veto" and "postpone" don't mean the same thing in New Zealand English, or any other kind that I know of.
well that's strange, or perhaps you just conveniently willingly misread your way through life in order to provoke reactions, cos it's right here on dictionary.com, first definition
ve·to Audio Help /ˈvitoʊ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[vee-toh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -toes, verb, -toed, -to·ing.
–noun
1. the power or right vested in one branch of a government to cancel or postpone the decisions, enactments, etc., of another branch, esp. the right of a president, governor, or other chief executive to reject bills passed by the legislature.so stephen, sir, you can define 'veto' for new zealand and the world over, but it could simply be seen as violating the autonomy of something.
So just one last time,
what do people think about the idea of counseling for for men who are suffering emotional problems related to pregnancies? And more specifically abortion of their offspring
- not meaning men can force a pregnancy
- not meaning they can prevent an abortionmerely that they can postpone it the necessary number of hours so that a mediated discussion between both parties are held, both voices are heard and more importantly, both parties feel they are being listened to
and furthermore,
(but I'm not so set on this because it came after stephen told me to ask my prospective (fingers crossed) sexuality partner,)- that if the male, could in a neutrally mediated situation convince the mother of her own free will to have the baby, that he should be financially responsible for that child.
is this extremism?
am I coming of as misogenist?
I'm not hear to provoke a reaction, just interested in hearing thoughts regarding the paternal role in pregnancy and childrearing in New Zealand lately , and hoping I can get some reasonable responses,please don't let-
I won't be asking for any clarification, or engaging with you again: you've demonstrated that you really aren't interested in conversation, or discussion, or saying what you mean.
-put you off, I am quite sincere in my query, and am still at pains to understand what happened the first time round, but will acknowledge it was rather poorly worded.
-
Since I'm pretty sure I slipped through the robbery net on this one, I'm gonna suggest again (and i'll reword it a little more carefully in case some one wants to have another vent at me,
perhaps men should have the right to veto the pregnancy if it was understood to be sex for the purpose of procreation, and if an agreement can't be reached which would obviously leave things in the hands of the mother, then either the male or female be eligible for some kind of counseling,
and I'm hoping that before resorting to gutteral 'fucking/ fuck off' and telling me i should make females sign a contract, or that i need a brrod mare, or that I'm trolling, and that calling women baby incubators is much different from calling men lifelike dildos and something about feminazi 101, that stephen judd, danielle and lucy do check whether 'veto' can be interpreted as postpone in New Zealand or if it's just an international thing, and furthermore that asking for clarification is a far swifter root towards universal understanding than not.
what's the target market for this site?
-
ha, i take it you believe an acorn is not part of the genus Quercus,
你在那里做什么工作?
-
-
F: homo sapiens
-
E: human being
-
once again Danielle
You don't get my point, which I'm sure is deliberate on your part: I'm talking about a really broad gender-based historical context for reproductive rights, and you're talking about... four dudes you know. Where do you suggest we go from here?
I was talking about four males, four females, four children. Once again, you can make it about 4 'dudes' if you need to, but it ignores everyone else's roles