# Male's right to abortion.



## BobPlumb

It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.

However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.  

I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.

Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

So, women should be 100% responsible for a live birth even though the male is 50% responsible for the pregnancy?

This is what dead beat dads believe and, on a very practical level, they're correct. 

IMO, both men and women have sovereign rights over their own bodies. They also have responsibility for their actions and equal responsibility for their children.

If you don't want to support your children, don't make them. Take responsibility for what you say and do.


----------



## Michelle420

BobPlumb said:


> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?



You can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental rights, which will also relinquish any obligation or responsibility.

Both parties can do that.

2nd but not likely to happen, a pre-talk with potential sex partner about their stand on abortion/pregnancy once you know where they stand if you disagree choose not to sleep together.


----------



## thanatos144

drifter said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental rights, which will also relinquish any obligation or responsibility.
> 
> Both parties can do that.
> 
> 2nd but not likely to happen, a pre-talk with potential sex partner about their stand on abortion/pregnancy once you know where they stand if you disagree choose not to sleep together.
Click to expand...

you cant get out of paying support for the child.


----------



## thanatos144

Luddly Neddite said:


> So, women should be 100% responsible for a live birth even though the male is 50% responsible for the pregnancy?
> 
> This is what dead beat dads believe and, on a very practical level, they're correct.
> 
> IMO, both men and women have sovereign rights over their own bodies. They also have responsibility for their actions and equal responsibility for their children.
> 
> If you don't want to support your children, don't make them. Take responsibility for what you say and do.



and thus you prove the hypocrisy that the OP is talking about.


----------



## Michelle420

thanatos144 said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental rights, which will also relinquish any obligation or responsibility.
> 
> Both parties can do that.
> 
> 2nd but not likely to happen, a pre-talk with potential sex partner about their stand on abortion/pregnancy once you know where they stand if you disagree choose not to sleep together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you cant get out of paying support for the child.
Click to expand...


If the court grants you termination of parental rights you can.


----------



## thanatos144

drifter said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental rights, which will also relinquish any obligation or responsibility.
> 
> Both parties can do that.
> 
> 2nd but not likely to happen, a pre-talk with potential sex partner about their stand on abortion/pregnancy once you know where they stand if you disagree choose not to sleep together.
> 
> 
> 
> you cant get out of paying support for the child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the court grants you termination of parental rights you can.
Click to expand...

They wont. Even if you had the mothers consent which you need they wont. The only waty you get out of paying support is to prove your not the father OR the mother has your replacement adopt the child otherwise your are screwed. This is the reality of our courts the mothers right to your money to them is absolute.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

drifter said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental rights, which will also relinquish any obligation or responsibility.
> 
> Both parties can do that.
> 
> 2nd but not likely to happen, a pre-talk with potential sex partner about their stand on abortion/pregnancy once you know where they stand if you disagree choose not to sleep together.
> 
> 
> 
> you cant get out of paying support for the child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the court grants you termination of parental rights you can.
Click to expand...


Dead beat dads (and, although not as common, women) simply refuse to pay.


----------



## thanatos144

Luddly Neddite said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you cant get out of paying support for the child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the court grants you termination of parental rights you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead beat dads (and, although not as common, women) simply refuse to pay.
Click to expand...


And yet the mothers ability to kill his child is not just as messed up?


----------



## Pennywise

Unless you are going to grant the male equal say the law is a farce. There have been instances of men wanting the child and the woman aborting it anyway. A just society would allow for a man to disavow responsibility within the period at which abortions are legal.

Actually, a just society would outlaw abortion, but since that's not happening, giving men second class status when they are half of the baby is an abomination.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

drifter said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental rights, which will also relinquish any obligation or responsibility.
> 
> Both parties can do that.
> 
> 2nd but not likely to happen, a pre-talk with potential sex partner about their stand on abortion/pregnancy once you know where they stand if you disagree choose not to sleep together.
> 
> 
> 
> you cant get out of paying support for the child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the court grants you termination of parental rights you can.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

BobPlumb said:


> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?



If you don't want to be on the hook for 18 years of child support, don't knock anyone up.

Pretty simple concept.  I have no sympathy for a man in that position.


----------



## Pennywise

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be on the hook for 18 years of child support, don't knock anyone up.
> 
> Pretty simple concept.  I have no sympathy for a man in that position.
Click to expand...


Why do you want the government involved in parental responsibility?


----------



## Michelle420

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you cant get out of paying support for the child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the court grants you termination of parental rights you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily
Click to expand...


I said if the court grants it, it is possible.

I didn't say it was a guarantee that the court would terminate parental rights or responsibility in every case.

But when they grant it , they are not obligated.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Pennywise said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be on the hook for 18 years of child support, don't knock anyone up.
> 
> Pretty simple concept.  I have no sympathy for a man in that position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you want the government involved in parental responsibility?
Click to expand...


Who said I did?


----------



## Michelle420

thanatos144 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the court grants you termination of parental rights you can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dead beat dads (and, although not as common, women) simply refuse to pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet the mothers ability to kill his child is not just as messed up?
Click to expand...


Men should have a right imo but since they don't and they know they don't then all they can do is not sleep with someone whose believes are opposite of theirs.


----------



## Pennywise

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be on the hook for 18 years of child support, don't knock anyone up.
> 
> Pretty simple concept.  I have no sympathy for a man in that position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want the government involved in parental responsibility?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said I did?
Click to expand...


You did. Unless you can tell me who other than the government is going to enforce child support payments.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Pennywise said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want the government involved in parental responsibility?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said I did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did.
Click to expand...


No, I didn't.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

drifter said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dead beat dads (and, although not as common, women) simply refuse to pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the mothers ability to kill his child is not just as messed up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men should have a right
Click to expand...


You have a right to not put the unwanted baby there in the first place.


----------



## Pennywise

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said I did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you did. That's why you deleted the rest of my comment and yours which I quoted.


----------



## Michelle420

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the mothers ability to kill his child is not just as messed up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men should have a right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a right to not put the unwanted baby there in the first place.
Click to expand...


I agree with that personally.


----------



## Katzndogz

drifter said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental rights, which will also relinquish any obligation or responsibility.
> 
> Both parties can do that.
> 
> 2nd but not likely to happen, a pre-talk with potential sex partner about their stand on abortion/pregnancy once you know where they stand if you disagree choose not to sleep together.
Click to expand...


A person can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental RIGHTS.  What they cannot do is terminate parental RESPONSIBILITIES.  Otherwise millions of men would have done it by now.


----------



## BobPlumb

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be on the hook for 18 years of child support, don't knock anyone up.
> 
> Pretty simple concept.  I have no sympathy for a man in that position.
Click to expand...


That is also an antiabortion argument.  Are you now antiabortion?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Pennywise said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you did. That's why you deleted the rest of my comment and yours which I quoted.
Click to expand...


The rest of your comment was irrelevant.

Please quote me where I said I wanted the government involved.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

BobPlumb said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be on the hook for 18 years of child support, don't knock anyone up.
> 
> Pretty simple concept.  I have no sympathy for a man in that position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is also an antiabortion argument.  Are you now antiabortion?
Click to expand...


I was never "pro abortion."


----------



## Pennywise

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you did. That's why you deleted the rest of my comment and yours which I quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rest of your comment was irrelevant.
> 
> Please quote me where I said I wanted the government involved.
Click to expand...


It's implied. You understand implied? Apparently not.

You "have no sympathy" regarding child support payments. Who determines child support? And who will put you in prison for failure to pay? Chuck E Cheese?  

You can keep this going if you want, but you have no ground, so why not just exit the discussion.


----------



## BobPlumb

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be on the hook for 18 years of child support, don't knock anyone up.
> 
> Pretty simple concept.  I have no sympathy for a man in that position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is also an antiabortion argument.  Are you now antiabortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was never "pro abortion."
Click to expand...


So you are not in favor of abortion being legal?


----------



## Michelle420

Katzndogz said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental rights, which will also relinquish any obligation or responsibility.
> 
> Both parties can do that.
> 
> 2nd but not likely to happen, a pre-talk with potential sex partner about their stand on abortion/pregnancy once you know where they stand if you disagree choose not to sleep together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental RIGHTS.  What they cannot do is terminate parental RESPONSIBILITIES.  Otherwise millions of men would have done it by now.
Click to expand...




> Can I have the rights of the other parent terminated?
> Probably not. Courts generally think children should have 2 parents and dont want to
> terminate the rights of one parent unless there is a very good reason. This is true even if both
> parents agree to the termination.
> 
> About the only reason to terminate the rights of the other parent is if your current spouse
> wants to adopt the children. If the other parent agrees to the termination, you can file a
> petition with the local Juvenile Court asking the court to terminate the other parents rights
> and allow your spouse to adopt your children. Your childrens other parent will need to give
> his or her consent in writing.
> 
> But,
> &#61623; If you are not remarried, or
> &#61623; if you are but your spouse doesnt want to adopt, or
> &#61623; if the other parent doesnt agree with the termination,
> it is almost impossible to do.
> 
> It is even harder if you or your children get any sort of public
> benefits. *Taking away a parents rights also takes away their responsibility to support the
> children.* If there is any chance they can afford support, the state will not be willing to end
> their parental rights if it means you or the children need public benefits.



http://www.lawhelpmn.org/files/1765...C9C37/f-10-termination-of-parental-rights.pdf

Termination of parental rights is not an easy thing to do, courts are not quick to grant it. But once they do your financial responsibility is also relinquished.

Typically this happens when a parent puts their baby up for adoption and they adoptive parents are now responsible.

But in cases of abuse there can also be termination of parental rights.

I never said it was an easy thing to get done.

However, in looking at what the original person posting said, if women have the right to abort should men have the right to terminate their parental rights?

That seems to be the question.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

BobPlumb said:


> *It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  *The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?



Its not a position, its a fact of law that abortion is indeed not murder.

Otherwise, yes  you are wrong. 

Youre confusing two completely difference issues, one having nothing to do with the other, and your premise fails accordingly. 

A womans right to privacy has to do with the fact that prior to birth, the woman alone is subject to the dictates of the state. 

As the Supreme Court observed in _Casey_: 

"_t cannot be claimed that the father's interest in the fetus' welfare is equal to the mother's protected liberty, since it is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the fetus will have a far greater impact on the pregnant woman's bodily integrity than it will on the husband."

Moreover, the Casey Court reaffirmed the fact that prior to birth, the embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections:

'[A]s a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."'

Given the fact, therefore, that the right to privacy pertains to the woman only, and where one is not a person entitled to Constitutional protections until after he is born, that a woman proceeds with her pregnancy over the objections of the father has no bearing whatsoever on the fathers potential responsibility as a non-custodial parent when the child is born._


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you did. That's why you deleted the rest of my comment and yours which I quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your comment was irrelevant.
> 
> Please quote me where I said I wanted the government involved.
Click to expand...




> It's implied.



So you can't quote it.  Thank you.  



> You "have no sympathy" regarding child support payments. Who determines child support? And who will put you in prison for failure to pay? Chuck E Cheese?
> 
> You can keep this going if you want, but you have no ground, so why not just exit the discussion.



Of course I have ground.  You are either a liar or you don't read very well because I never implied any such thing.

Child support is the law.  That's a plain and simple fact.  It has nothing to do with my opinion on whether or not it should exist at all nor is that the topic of this discussion.  You're the one who read into something that wasn't there and that's your problem, not mine.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

BobPlumb said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is also an antiabortion argument.  Are you now antiabortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was never "pro abortion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are not in favor of abortion being legal?
Click to expand...


Yes, I'm in favor of abortion being legal.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was never "pro abortion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are not in favor of abortion being legal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm in favor of abortion being legal.
Click to expand...


Which is completely different than being "in favor" of abortion.


----------



## thanatos144

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was never "pro abortion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are not in favor of abortion being legal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm in favor of abortion being legal.
Click to expand...


then your pro baby killing.


----------



## thanatos144

Luddly Neddite said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are not in favor of abortion being legal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm in favor of abortion being legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is completely different than being "in favor" of abortion.
Click to expand...


only to *XXXX*
*
Zone 1 Rules: Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No negative repping. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.*


----------



## Luddly Neddite

thanatos144 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, women should be 100% responsible for a live birth even though the male is 50% responsible for the pregnancy?
> 
> This is what dead beat dads believe and, on a very practical level, they're correct.
> 
> IMO, both men and women have sovereign rights over their own bodies. They also have responsibility for their actions and equal responsibility for their children.
> 
> If you don't want to support your children, don't make them. Take responsibility for what you say and do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and thus you prove the hypocrisy that the OP is talking about.
Click to expand...


Nope. You make the accusation but cannot back it up with facts 

The hypocrisy is that some believe women are 100% responsible for pregnancy. They want government to control women but not men. 

Both are equally responsible and should be held equally responsible for support. But, they are not.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

thanatos144 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are not in favor of abortion being legal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm in favor of abortion being legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then your pro baby killing.
Click to expand...


Whoa, we've got quite the intellectual here.  You a Harvard man?  Maybe Yale?  You're so sophisticated.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

BobPlumb said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is also an antiabortion argument.  Are you now antiabortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was never "pro abortion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are not in favor of abortion being legal?
Click to expand...


No one is pro-abortion. 

Everyone is in agreement that the practice of abortion needs to be ended. 

The disagreement and conflict manifest as to how to reach that goal, where one faction wants to ban abortion, in violation of the Constitutional right to privacy, thus giving more unwarranted power to the state to interfere in our private lives  not to mention the fact that banning abortion will in no way end the practice; and the faction that seeks to restrict the authority of the state, allowing the individual to make decisions concerning private matters absent interference from the state, while working to find ways that will actually bring about an end to the practice of abortion that comport with Constitutional case law.


----------



## thanatos144

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm in favor of abortion being legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then your pro baby killing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa, we've got quite the intellectual here.  You a Harvard man?  Maybe Yale?  You're so sophisticated.
Click to expand...


I just dont lie like you seem to do to yourself.


----------



## thanatos144

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was never "pro abortion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are not in favor of abortion being legal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is pro-abortion.
> 
> Everyone is in agreement that the practice of abortion needs to be ended.
> 
> The disagreement and conflict manifest as to how to reach that goal, where one faction wants to ban abortion, in violation of the Constitutional right to privacy, thus giving more unwarranted power to the state to interfere in our private lives  not to mention the fact that banning abortion will in no way end the practice; and the faction that seeks to restrict the authority of the state, allowing the individual to make decisions concerning private matters absent interference from the state, while working to find ways that will actually bring about an end to the practice of abortion that comport with Constitutional case law.
Click to expand...


if you defend the right of a woman to kill her innocent unborn child you are pro abortion and lying to yourself doesn't change that.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

thanatos144 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> then your pro baby killing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa, we've got quite the intellectual here.  You a Harvard man?  Maybe Yale?  You're so sophisticated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just dont lie like you seem to do to yourself.
Click to expand...


You just did.


----------



## Pennywise

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you did. That's why you deleted the rest of my comment and yours which I quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your comment was irrelevant.
> 
> Please quote me where I said I wanted the government involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't quote it.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You "have no sympathy" regarding child support payments. Who determines child support? And who will put you in prison for failure to pay? Chuck E Cheese?
> 
> You can keep this going if you want, but you have no ground, so why not just exit the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I have ground.  You are either a liar or you don't read very well because I never implied any such thing.
> 
> Child support is the law.  That's a plain and simple fact.  It has nothing to do with my opinion on whether or not it should exist at all nor is that the topic of this discussion.  You're the one who read into something that wasn't there and that's your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...


The LAW is the GOVERNMENT. I really have no interest in debating with dishonest people. Take a stand and defend it, don't play nonsense with words.

You are a poor debater, not because you are inconsistent in your stands, but because you try and play fast and loose when your inconsistency is shown. Adios.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Pennywise said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your comment was irrelevant.
> 
> Please quote me where I said I wanted the government involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't quote it.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You "have no sympathy" regarding child support payments. Who determines child support? And who will put you in prison for failure to pay? Chuck E Cheese?
> 
> You can keep this going if you want, but you have no ground, so why not just exit the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I have ground.  You are either a liar or you don't read very well because I never implied any such thing.
> 
> Child support is the law.  That's a plain and simple fact.  It has nothing to do with my opinion on whether or not it should exist at all nor is that the topic of this discussion.  You're the one who read into something that wasn't there and that's your problem, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The LAW is the GOVERNMENT. I really have no interest in debating with dishonest people. Take a stand and defend it, don't play nonsense with words.
> 
> You are a poor debater, not because you are inconsistent in your stands, but because you try and play fast and loose when your inconsistency is shown. Adios.
Click to expand...


No need for you to get all butt hurt because you're wrong.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

thanatos144 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are not in favor of abortion being legal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is pro-abortion.
> 
> Everyone is in agreement that the practice of abortion needs to be ended.
> 
> The disagreement and conflict manifest as to how to reach that goal, where one faction wants to ban abortion, in violation of the Constitutional right to privacy, thus giving more unwarranted power to the state to interfere in our private lives  not to mention the fact that banning abortion will in no way end the practice; and the faction that seeks to restrict the authority of the state, allowing the individual to make decisions concerning private matters absent interference from the state, while working to find ways that will actually bring about an end to the practice of abortion that comport with Constitutional case law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you defend the right of a woman to kill her innocent unborn child you are pro abortion and lying to yourself doesn't change that.
Click to expand...


This doesnt make any sense. 

If you acknowledge the right exists and might be defended, then abortion is not murder.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

thanatos144 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are not in favor of abortion being legal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is pro-abortion.
> 
> Everyone is in agreement that the practice of abortion needs to be ended.
> 
> The disagreement and conflict manifest as to how to reach that goal, where one faction wants to ban abortion, in violation of the Constitutional right to privacy, thus giving more unwarranted power to the state to interfere in our private lives  not to mention the fact that banning abortion will in no way end the practice; and the faction that seeks to restrict the authority of the state, allowing the individual to make decisions concerning private matters absent interference from the state, while working to find ways that will actually bring about an end to the practice of abortion that comport with Constitutional case law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you defend the right of a woman to kill her innocent unborn child you are pro abortion and lying to yourself doesn't change that.
Click to expand...


I believe the KKK, Westboro, limbaugh and other useless scum have the right to be and talk like useless scum. 

That does not mean I'm in favor of their words or actions. 

Understand?


----------



## Katzndogz

drifter said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental rights, which will also relinquish any obligation or responsibility.
> 
> Both parties can do that.
> 
> 2nd but not likely to happen, a pre-talk with potential sex partner about their stand on abortion/pregnancy once you know where they stand if you disagree choose not to sleep together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental RIGHTS.  What they cannot do is terminate parental RESPONSIBILITIES.  Otherwise millions of men would have done it by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I have the rights of the other parent terminated?
> Probably not. Courts generally think children should have 2 parents and dont want to
> terminate the rights of one parent unless there is a very good reason. This is true even if both
> parents agree to the termination.
> 
> About the only reason to terminate the rights of the other parent is if your current spouse
> wants to adopt the children. If the other parent agrees to the termination, you can file a
> petition with the local Juvenile Court asking the court to terminate the other parents rights
> and allow your spouse to adopt your children. Your childrens other parent will need to give
> his or her consent in writing.
> 
> But,
> &#61623; If you are not remarried, or
> &#61623; if you are but your spouse doesnt want to adopt, or
> &#61623; if the other parent doesnt agree with the termination,
> it is almost impossible to do.
> 
> It is even harder if you or your children get any sort of public
> benefits. *Taking away a parents rights also takes away their responsibility to support the
> children.* If there is any chance they can afford support, the state will not be willing to end
> their parental rights if it means you or the children need public benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.lawhelpmn.org/files/1765...C9C37/f-10-termination-of-parental-rights.pdf
> 
> Termination of parental rights is not an easy thing to do, courts are not quick to grant it. But once they do your financial responsibility is also relinquished.
> 
> Typically this happens when a parent puts their baby up for adoption and they adoptive parents are now responsible.
> 
> But in cases of abuse there can also be termination of parental rights.
> 
> I never said it was an easy thing to get done.
> 
> However, in looking at what the original person posting said, if women have the right to abort should men have the right to terminate their parental rights?
> 
> That seems to be the question.
Click to expand...


In cases of abuse, parental rights might be terminated but not the responsibility to provide support.   In an adoption, the adoptive parents assume responsibility for the child's support.    The court is only going to look at the child's right to be supported by a parent.  Biological or adoptive.    If you want to terminate the parental rights of another parent, there is a provision in the legal system for that, including the right to terminate parental rights AND keep getting child support.

The courts have held that when a man has unprotected sex with a woman, he assumes the risk that a pregnancy may occur, EVEN IF it is proved that the mother was actively lying and misleading him.


----------



## BobPlumb

Katzndogz said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental RIGHTS.  What they cannot do is terminate parental RESPONSIBILITIES.  Otherwise millions of men would have done it by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I have the rights of the other parent terminated?
> Probably not. Courts generally think children should have 2 parents and don&#8217;t want to
> terminate the rights of one parent unless there is a very good reason. This is true even if both
> parents agree to the termination.
> 
> About the only reason to terminate the rights of the other parent is if your current spouse
> wants to adopt the children. If the other parent agrees to the termination, you can file a
> petition with the local Juvenile Court asking the court to terminate the other parent&#8217;s rights
> and allow your spouse to adopt your children. Your children&#8217;s other parent will need to give
> his or her consent in writing.
> 
> But,
> &#61623; If you are not remarried, or
> &#61623; if you are but your spouse doesn&#8217;t want to adopt, or
> &#61623; if the other parent doesn&#8217;t agree with the termination,
> it is almost impossible to do.
> 
> It is even harder if you or your children get any sort of public
> benefits. *Taking away a parent&#8217;s rights also takes away their responsibility to support the
> children.* If there is any chance they can afford support, the state will not be willing to end
> their parental rights if it means you or the children need public benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.lawhelpmn.org/files/1765...C9C37/f-10-termination-of-parental-rights.pdf
> 
> Termination of parental rights is not an easy thing to do, courts are not quick to grant it. But once they do your financial responsibility is also relinquished.
> 
> Typically this happens when a parent puts their baby up for adoption and they adoptive parents are now responsible.
> 
> But in cases of abuse there can also be termination of parental rights.
> 
> I never said it was an easy thing to get done.
> 
> However, in looking at what the original person posting said, if women have the right to abort should men have the right to terminate their parental rights?
> 
> That seems to be the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In cases of abuse, parental rights might be terminated but not the responsibility to provide support.   In an adoption, the adoptive parents assume responsibility for the child's support.    The court is only going to look at the child's right to be supported by a parent.  Biological or adoptive.    If you want to terminate the parental rights of another parent, there is a provision in the legal system for that, including the right to terminate parental rights AND keep getting child support.
> 
> The courts have held that when a man has unprotected sex with a woman, he assumes the risk that a pregnancy may occur, EVEN IF it is proved that the mother was actively lying and misleading him.
Click to expand...


But should the male have the right to op out of the responsibility to be a parent before the fetus becomes a child.  The mother has this right through abortion.  If not, then why without using arguments that would also be against a woman's right to abortion?


For those of you that are against abortion but for abortion being legal, then you can also be against a male opting out of the responsibility of being a parent while the"child" is a fetus, but be for the male being legally able to do this.

P.S.  Don't restate what the law currently is, state what you think it should be and why.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

BobPlumb said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.lawhelpmn.org/files/1765...C9C37/f-10-termination-of-parental-rights.pdf
> 
> Termination of parental rights is not an easy thing to do, courts are not quick to grant it. But once they do your financial responsibility is also relinquished.
> 
> Typically this happens when a parent puts their baby up for adoption and they adoptive parents are now responsible.
> 
> But in cases of abuse there can also be termination of parental rights.
> 
> I never said it was an easy thing to get done.
> 
> However, in looking at what the original person posting said, if women have the right to abort should men have the right to terminate their parental rights?
> 
> That seems to be the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In cases of abuse, parental rights might be terminated but not the responsibility to provide support.   In an adoption, the adoptive parents assume responsibility for the child's support.    The court is only going to look at the child's right to be supported by a parent.  Biological or adoptive.    If you want to terminate the parental rights of another parent, there is a provision in the legal system for that, including the right to terminate parental rights AND keep getting child support.
> 
> The courts have held that when a man has unprotected sex with a woman, he assumes the risk that a pregnancy may occur, EVEN IF it is proved that the mother was actively lying and misleading him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But should the male have the right to op out of the responsibility to be a parent before the fetus becomes a child.  The mother has this right through abortion.  If not, then why without using arguments that would also be against a woman's right to abortion?
> 
> 
> For those of you that are against abortion but for abortion being legal, then you can also be against a male opting out of the responsibility of being a parent while the"child" is a fetus, but be for the male being legally able to do this.
> 
> P.S.  Don't restate what the law currently is, state what you think it should be and why.
Click to expand...


There is no responsibility for the father to opt out of prior to birth in the first place; once the child is born both parents are equally responsible. And if the parents arent living together the law addresses the rights and responsibilities of the custodial parent and the non-custodial parent. 

This is why the issue of the responsibilities of the soon-to-be non-custodial parent are in no way related to the issue of abortion.


----------



## BobPlumb

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> In cases of abuse, parental rights might be terminated but not the responsibility to provide support.   In an adoption, the adoptive parents assume responsibility for the child's support.    The court is only going to look at the child's right to be supported by a parent.  Biological or adoptive.    If you want to terminate the parental rights of another parent, there is a provision in the legal system for that, including the right to terminate parental rights AND keep getting child support.
> 
> The courts have held that when a man has unprotected sex with a woman, he assumes the risk that a pregnancy may occur, EVEN IF it is proved that the mother was actively lying and misleading him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But should the male have the right to op out of the responsibility to be a parent before the fetus becomes a child.  The mother has this right through abortion.  If not, then why without using arguments that would also be against a woman's right to abortion?
> 
> 
> For those of you that are against abortion but for abortion being legal, then you can also be against a male opting out of the responsibility of being a parent while the"child" is a fetus, but be for the male being legally able to do this.
> 
> P.S.  Don't restate what the law currently is, state what you think it should be and why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no &#8216;responsibility&#8217; for the father to &#8216;opt out of&#8217; prior to birth in the first place; once the child is born both parents are equally responsible. And if the parents aren&#8217;t living together the law addresses the rights and responsibilities of the custodial parent and the non-custodial parent.
> 
> This is why the issue of the responsibilities of the soon-to-be non-custodial parent are in no way related to the issue of abortion.
Click to expand...


Yes they are related.  A female can decide to avoid the responsibilities of being a parent by having an abortion.  Of course a male cannot have an abortion for obvious biological reasons, but shouldn't he also be able to op out of the responsibility.  The fetus is not yet a child so there is still a window of time to make a decision......at least there is for the female.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

BobPlumb said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> But should the male have the right to op out of the responsibility to be a parent before the fetus becomes a child.  The mother has this right through abortion.  If not, then why without using arguments that would also be against a woman's right to abortion?
> 
> 
> For those of you that are against abortion but for abortion being legal, then you can also be against a male opting out of the responsibility of being a parent while the"child" is a fetus, but be for the male being legally able to do this.
> 
> P.S.  Don't restate what the law currently is, state what you think it should be and why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no responsibility for the father to opt out of prior to birth in the first place; once the child is born both parents are equally responsible. And if the parents arent living together the law addresses the rights and responsibilities of the custodial parent and the non-custodial parent.
> 
> This is why the issue of the responsibilities of the soon-to-be non-custodial parent are in no way related to the issue of abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they are related.  A female can decide to avoid the responsibilities of being a parent by having an abortion.  Of course a male cannot have an abortion for obvious biological reasons, but shouldn't he also be able to op out of the responsibility.  The fetus is not yet a child so there is still a window of time to make a decision......at least there is for the female.
Click to expand...


Does your imaginary "man" know about birth control?

Seriously, if he's not a Republican, he surely knows, understands and uses birth control.


----------



## BobPlumb

Luddly Neddite said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no responsibility for the father to opt out of prior to birth in the first place; once the child is born both parents are equally responsible. And if the parents arent living together the law addresses the rights and responsibilities of the custodial parent and the non-custodial parent.
> 
> This is why the issue of the responsibilities of the soon-to-be non-custodial parent are in no way related to the issue of abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they are related.  A female can decide to avoid the responsibilities of being a parent by having an abortion.  Of course a male cannot have an abortion for obvious biological reasons, but shouldn't he also be able to op out of the responsibility.  The fetus is not yet a child so there is still a window of time to make a decision......at least there is for the female.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does your imaginary "man" know about birth control?
> 
> Seriously, if he's not a Republican, he surely knows, understands and uses birth control.
Click to expand...

My imaginary man knew just as much about birth control as my imaginary woman.  And the imaginary woman still has access to a form of birth control  called abortion.  And she can have an abortion even if the imaginary man wants to be a parent of this future child.  Yet if the imaginary man doesn't want responsibility for this future child then too bad for him if the female decides to have the child.


----------



## Trajan

Luddly Neddite said:


> So, women should be 100% responsible for a live birth even though the male is 50% responsible for the pregnancy?
> 
> This is what dead beat dads believe and, on a very practical level, they're correct.
> 
> IMO, both men and women have sovereign rights over their own bodies. They also have responsibility for their actions and equal responsibility for their children.
> 
> If you don't want to support your children, don't make them. Take responsibility for what you say and do.



imho theres an equal share of responsibility, if men don't want a baby don't make them , ok, agreed and the same applies for a woman, there is no abrogation of responsibility for her either. NO means NO, right?

so lets say they mess up, both agree that a child was not planned. 

the woman gets the final say, she can either keep it and then expect payment via child sppt. or abort. 

the man has zero choice, though each are equally responsible for the pregnancy, the man  simply becomes a bystander;  she can abort even if he wants it and will take responsibility in full, she can keep it even if he doesn't want responsibility, his part or ability to influence the decision in his favor is- zero.  The woman's ability to influence the decision in her favor, either way, is total. 

I think there is a fundamental inequity in that.


----------



## Trajan

this is the clean debate zone, no personal remarks etc. no flames, no nasty asides, keep it clean please.


----------



## BobPlumb

Trajan said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, women should be 100% responsible for a live birth even though the male is 50% responsible for the pregnancy?
> 
> This is what dead beat dads believe and, on a very practical level, they're correct.
> 
> IMO, both men and women have sovereign rights over their own bodies. They also have responsibility for their actions and equal responsibility for their children.
> 
> If you don't want to support your children, don't make them. Take responsibility for what you say and do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> imho theres an equal share of responsibility, if men don't want a baby don't make them , ok, agreed and the same applies for a woman, there is no abrogation of responsibility for her either. NO means NO, right?
> 
> so lets say they mess up, both agree that a child was not planned.
> 
> the woman gets the final say, she can either keep it and then expect payment via child sppt. or abort.
> 
> the man has zero choice, though each are equally responsible for the pregnancy, the man  simply becomes a bystander;  she can abort even if he wants it and will take responsibility in full, she can keep it even if he doesn't want responsibility, his part or ability to influence the decision in his favor is- zero.  The woman's ability to influence the decision in her favor, either way, is total.
> 
> I think there is a fundamental inequity in that.
Click to expand...


And that fundamental inequality is what the op is based upon.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Trajan said:


> so lets say they mess up, both agree that a child was not planned.
> 
> the woman gets the final say, she can either keep it and then expect payment via child sppt. or abort.
> 
> the man has zero choice, though each are equally responsible for the pregnancy, the man  simply becomes a bystander;  she can abort even if he wants it and will take responsibility in full, she can keep it even if he doesn't want responsibility, his part or ability to influence the decision in his favor is- zero.  The woman's ability to influence the decision in her favor, either way, is total.
> 
> I think there is a fundamental inequity in that.



Take it up with God.  He designed it that way, right?

If people waited until they were married to start popping out kids this wouldn't even be an issue.  It all comes down to a complete lack of responsibility.  As a man, don't put yourself in the situation and you won't have to worry about it.


----------



## BobPlumb

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> so lets say they mess up, both agree that a child was not planned.
> 
> the woman gets the final say, she can either keep it and then expect payment via child sppt. or abort.
> 
> the man has zero choice, though each are equally responsible for the pregnancy, the man  simply becomes a bystander;  she can abort even if he wants it and will take responsibility in full, she can keep it even if he doesn't want responsibility, his part or ability to influence the decision in his favor is- zero.  The woman's ability to influence the decision in her favor, either way, is total.
> 
> I think there is a fundamental inequity in that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take it up with God.  He designed it that way, right?
> 
> If people waited until they were married to start popping out kids this wouldn't even be an issue.  It all comes down to a complete lack of responsibility.  As a man, don't put yourself in the situation and you won't have to worry about it.
Click to expand...


Yet you don't say the same about a woman.  

You want limited government.  Let's let everyone just do what ever they want and then just take it up with God.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

If he has sex and that sex results in a pregnancy, he is just as liable for that as she is. 

If you're trying to say its not fair that she can abort, that's just not germane. If she has a baby, he can walk away from supporting it. Women have always gotten stuck raising kids alone. How is that fair?

Actions have consequences.


----------



## BobPlumb

Luddly Neddite said:


> If he has sex and that sex results in a pregnancy, he is just as liable for that as she is.
> 
> If you're trying to say its not fair that she can abort, that's just not germane. If she has a baby, he can walk away from supporting it. Women have always gotten stuck raising kids alone. How is that fair?
> 
> Actions have consequences.



He can just walk away from supporting it, really?  

I think quite a number of men that are in prison for unpaid child support would disagree with you.


----------



## Michelle420

BobPlumb said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.lawhelpmn.org/files/1765...C9C37/f-10-termination-of-parental-rights.pdf
> 
> Termination of parental rights is not an easy thing to do, courts are not quick to grant it. But once they do your financial responsibility is also relinquished.
> 
> Typically this happens when a parent puts their baby up for adoption and they adoptive parents are now responsible.
> 
> But in cases of abuse there can also be termination of parental rights.
> 
> I never said it was an easy thing to get done.
> 
> However, in looking at what the original person posting said, if women have the right to abort should men have the right to terminate their parental rights?
> 
> That seems to be the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In cases of abuse, parental rights might be terminated but not the responsibility to provide support.   In an adoption, the adoptive parents assume responsibility for the child's support.    The court is only going to look at the child's right to be supported by a parent.  Biological or adoptive.    If you want to terminate the parental rights of another parent, there is a provision in the legal system for that, including the right to terminate parental rights AND keep getting child support.
> 
> The courts have held that when a man has unprotected sex with a woman, he assumes the risk that a pregnancy may occur, EVEN IF it is proved that the mother was actively lying and misleading him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But should the male have the right to op out of the responsibility to be a parent before the fetus becomes a child.  The mother has this right through abortion.  If not, then why without using arguments that would also be against a woman's right to abortion?
> 
> 
> For those of you that are against abortion but for abortion being legal, then you can also be against a male opting out of the responsibility of being a parent while the"child" is a fetus, but be for the male being legally able to do this.
> 
> P.S.  Don't restate what the law currently is, state what you think it should be and why.
Click to expand...


In my personal opinion yes he should have the opt-out right so long as she has the right to abort.

You have mostly focused on if the man doesn't want to pay for the baby, but what is your opinion in the case of if the man wants the responsibility of the baby and she doesn't then what?

Pretty much both men and women should think about it before sex imo.

Afterward is kind of a mess because if he wants the baby and she doesn't or if she wants the baby and he doesn't then what?

If men can opt out and women can abort it doesn't solve the question of men who don't want to opt-out except to say don't sleep around and pick a partner who wants the same thing you want.


----------



## BobPlumb

drifter said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> In cases of abuse, parental rights might be terminated but not the responsibility to provide support.   In an adoption, the adoptive parents assume responsibility for the child's support.    The court is only going to look at the child's right to be supported by a parent.  Biological or adoptive.    If you want to terminate the parental rights of another parent, there is a provision in the legal system for that, including the right to terminate parental rights AND keep getting child support.
> 
> The courts have held that when a man has unprotected sex with a woman, he assumes the risk that a pregnancy may occur, EVEN IF it is proved that the mother was actively lying and misleading him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But should the male have the right to op out of the responsibility to be a parent before the fetus becomes a child.  The mother has this right through abortion.  If not, then why without using arguments that would also be against a woman's right to abortion?
> 
> 
> For those of you that are against abortion but for abortion being legal, then you can also be against a male opting out of the responsibility of being a parent while the"child" is a fetus, but be for the male being legally able to do this.
> 
> P.S.  Don't restate what the law currently is, state what you think it should be and why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my personal opinion yes he should have the opt-out right so long as she has the right to abort.
> 
> You have mostly focused on if the man doesn't want to pay for the baby, but what is your opinion in the case of if the man wants the responsibility of the baby and she doesn't then what?
> 
> Pretty much both men and women should think about it before sex imo.
> 
> Afterward is kind of a mess because if he wants the baby and she doesn't or if she wants the baby and he doesn't then what?
> 
> If men can opt out and women can abort it doesn't solve the question of men who don't want to opt-out except to say don't sleep around and pick a partner who wants the same thing you want.
Click to expand...


Perhaps the mother could "op out" from being responsible for the child after birth if the father agreed to assume full responsibility to prevent the abortion of the fetus/future child.

Note:  Many states have safe heaven laws which parents may turn a baby over to be a ward of the state shortly after birth.  But this note is slightly off subject.


----------



## Trajan

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> so lets say they mess up, both agree that a child was not planned.
> 
> the woman gets the final say, she can either keep it and then expect payment via child sppt. or abort.
> 
> the man has zero choice, though each are equally responsible for the pregnancy, the man  simply becomes a bystander;  she can abort even if he wants it and will take responsibility in full, she can keep it even if he doesn't want responsibility, his part or ability to influence the decision in his favor is- zero.  The woman's ability to influence the decision in her favor, either way, is total.
> 
> I think there is a fundamental inequity in that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take it up with God.  He designed it that way, right?
> 
> If people waited until they were married to start popping out kids this wouldn't even be an issue.  It all comes down to a complete lack of responsibility.  As a man, don't put yourself in the situation and you won't have to worry about it.
Click to expand...


I don't see how that addresses what I said


----------



## BobPlumb

Trajan said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> so lets say they mess up, both agree that a child was not planned.
> 
> the woman gets the final say, she can either keep it and then expect payment via child sppt. or abort.
> 
> the man has zero choice, though each are equally responsible for the pregnancy, the man  simply becomes a bystander;  she can abort even if he wants it and will take responsibility in full, she can keep it even if he doesn't want responsibility, his part or ability to influence the decision in his favor is- zero.  The woman's ability to influence the decision in her favor, either way, is total.
> 
> I think there is a fundamental inequity in that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take it up with God.  He designed it that way, right?
> 
> If people waited until they were married to start popping out kids this wouldn't even be an issue.  It all comes down to a complete lack of responsibility.  As a man, don't put yourself in the situation and you won't have to worry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how that addresses what I said
Click to expand...


Also, God did not make abortion legal.  So he did not designate it that way.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

The opinion of this god or that god is not germane. Nor does it matter that dead beat dad's break "god's" law as well as the law of the land. Yes, some go to jail which means they can't support their kids any better than when they were free. Many more just work under the table, off the books and keep on screwing more women and they keep right on waling away from their responsibility. 

What is it the op is trying to say with this thread?

That men should not be responsible for pregnancies?

If they are not responsible for their offspring, then who is?

The state.


----------



## BobPlumb

Luddly Neddite said:


> The opinion of this god or that god is not germane. Nor does it matter that dead beat dad's break "god's" law as well as the law of the land. Yes, some go to jail which means they can't support their kids any better than when they were free. Many more just work under the table, off the books and keep on screwing more women and they keep right on waling away from their responsibility.
> 
> What is it the op is trying to say with this thread?
> 
> That men should not be responsible for pregnancies?
> 
> If they are not responsible for their offspring, then who is?
> 
> The state.



This op is purposing that men should be equal to women in being responsible for pregnancies.  Not less responsible!  Not more responsible!   Equal!


----------



## mamooth

BobPlumb said:


> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?



Well, it has zilch to do with whether a fetus is a baby.

But, I agree. Men should be able to opt out.

That's just for single men. Marriage would be a legally binding promise by a man to accept paternity.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

BobPlumb said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> The opinion of this god or that god is not germane. Nor does it matter that dead beat dad's break "god's" law as well as the law of the land. Yes, some go to jail which means they can't support their kids any better than when they were free. Many more just work under the table, off the books and keep on screwing more women and they keep right on waling away from their responsibility.
> 
> What is it the op is trying to say with this thread?
> 
> That men should not be responsible for pregnancies?
> 
> If they are not responsible for their offspring, then who is?
> 
> The state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This op is purposing that men should be equal to women in being responsible for pregnancies.  Not less responsible!  Not more responsible!   Equal!
Click to expand...


Okay, but you seem to be saying men should be able screw around and walk away from the consequences of their actions. 

No excuse for that and only real scum would do it.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

mamooth said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it has zilch to do with whether a fetus is a baby.
> 
> But, I agree. Men should be able to opt out.
> 
> That's just for single men. Marriage would be a legally binding promise by a man to accept paternity.
Click to expand...


Actually, its men who have sex, married or not. 

Those are the ones who cause pregnancies.


----------



## BobPlumb

Luddly Neddite said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> The opinion of this god or that god is not germane. Nor does it matter that dead beat dad's break "god's" law as well as the law of the land. Yes, some go to jail which means they can't support their kids any better than when they were free. Many more just work under the table, off the books and keep on screwing more women and they keep right on waling away from their responsibility.
> 
> What is it the op is trying to say with this thread?
> 
> That men should not be responsible for pregnancies?
> 
> If they are not responsible for their offspring, then who is?
> 
> The state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This op is purposing that men should be equal to women in being responsible for pregnancies.  Not less responsible!  Not more responsible!   Equal!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, but you seem to be saying men should be able screw around and walk away from the consequences of their actions.
> 
> No excuse for that and only real scum would do it.
Click to expand...


Hmmmmmm... Abortion...walking away from consequencies of actions.........


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Luddly Neddite said:


> The opinion of this god or that god is not germane. Nor does it matter that dead beat dad's break "god's" law as well as the law of the land. Yes, some go to jail which means they can't support their kids any better than when they were free. Many more just work under the table, off the books and keep on screwing more women and they keep right on waling away from their responsibility.
> 
> *What is it the op is trying to say with this thread?*
> 
> That men should not be responsible for pregnancies?
> 
> If they are not responsible for their offspring, then who is?
> 
> The state.



Hes trying to say he doesnt understand what a false equivalence fallacy is, otherwise he wouldnt have started the thread.


----------



## BobPlumb

Or perhaps you do not recognize true equalivance.  Let's skip the "Is so -- is not" argument and agree to disagree.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

BobPlumb said:


> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?



There is no 'right' to murder anyone.  Be it a female who engages in coitus, conceiving a child as a result, or a male who does the same.

With that said, the responsibility for conception is SOLELY the responsibility of the female.  

If she chooses to murder her child, she's solely responsible for that as well, and she will endure the consequences, which at the very least is a life of depression and regret.  Except in the case of the sociopaths.  They're just worthless across the board.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Luddly Neddite said:


> The opinion of this god or that god is not germane. Nor does it matter that dead beat dad's break "god's" law as well as the law of the land. Yes, some go to jail which means they can't support their kids any better than when they were free. Many more just work under the table, off the books and keep on screwing more women and they keep right on waling away from their responsibility.
> 
> What is it the op is trying to say with this thread?
> 
> That men should not be responsible for pregnancies?
> 
> If they are not responsible for their offspring, then who is?
> 
> The state.



The Female is solely responsible for their CHOICES.  The state has absolutely NO Responsibility to the female or her children.  None, ZERO, Nada.


----------



## BlackSand

Luddly Neddite said:


> Okay, but you seem to be saying men should be able screw around and walk away from the consequences of their actions.
> 
> No excuse for that and only real scum would do it.



At least we know how you feel about women who have abortions as the result of an unwanted pregnancy now ... Thanks for clarifying that.

.


----------



## Noomi

BobPlumb said:


> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?



I am on your side, provided the man walks away as SOON as the woman says she is pregnant. If he stays with her until her due date, and then decides to leave, too bad.
The woman might carry the baby, but its her choice as to whether to give birth. If she can't afford to raise it on her own, she has no business demanding money, IMO.

Fair is fair. The man should have the right to opt out.


----------



## Asclepias

I think missing in all this is the fact that the woman actually carries the child in her body during this period hence the extra legal right to abort the pregnancy.


----------



## Noomi

Asclepias said:


> I think missing in all this is the fact that the woman actually carries the child in her body during this period hence the extra legal right to abort the pregnancy.



Men believe they have the right to control her body, though. Their sperm is more important than the fact that she uses her body for nine months to create that baby.


----------



## thanatos144

Being female does not mean you are born with the right to kill babies 

tapatalk post


----------



## Faun

BobPlumb said:


> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?


Sure, you can avoid your personal responsibility while the woman you impregnated is pregnant ... but once she has the baby, you are both financially responsible.


----------



## Faun

thanatos144 said:


> Being female does not mean you are born with the right to kill babies
> 
> tapatalk post



No babies are being killed.


----------



## Faun

BobPlumb said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> But should the male have the right to op out of the responsibility to be a parent before the fetus becomes a child.  The mother has this right through abortion.  If not, then why without using arguments that would also be against a woman's right to abortion?
> 
> 
> For those of you that are against abortion but for abortion being legal, then you can also be against a male opting out of the responsibility of being a parent while the"child" is a fetus, but be for the male being legally able to do this.
> 
> P.S.  Don't restate what the law currently is, state what you think it should be and why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no responsibility for the father to opt out of prior to birth in the first place; once the child is born both parents are equally responsible. And if the parents arent living together the law addresses the rights and responsibilities of the custodial parent and the non-custodial parent.
> 
> This is why the issue of the responsibilities of the soon-to-be non-custodial parent are in no way related to the issue of abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they are related.  A female can decide to avoid the responsibilities of being a parent by having an abortion.  Of course a male cannot have an abortion for obvious biological reasons, but shouldn't he also be able to op out of the responsibility.  The fetus is not yet a child so there is still a window of time to make a decision......at least there is for the female.
Click to expand...


The time for men to opt out is when they put a condom on.


----------



## Faun

Trajan said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, women should be 100% responsible for a live birth even though the male is 50% responsible for the pregnancy?
> 
> This is what dead beat dads believe and, on a very practical level, they're correct.
> 
> IMO, both men and women have sovereign rights over their own bodies. They also have responsibility for their actions and equal responsibility for their children.
> 
> If you don't want to support your children, don't make them. Take responsibility for what you say and do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> imho theres an equal share of responsibility, if men don't want a baby don't make them , ok, agreed and the same applies for a woman, there is no abrogation of responsibility for her either. NO means NO, right?
> 
> so lets say they mess up, both agree that a child was not planned.
> 
> the woman gets the final say, she can either keep it and then expect payment via child sppt. or abort.
> 
> the man has zero choice, though each are equally responsible for the pregnancy, the man  simply becomes a bystander;  she can abort even if he wants it and will take responsibility in full, she can keep it even if he doesn't want responsibility, his part or ability to influence the decision in his favor is- zero.  The woman's ability to influence the decision in her favor, either way, is total.
> 
> I think there is a fundamental inequity in that.
Click to expand...

That stems from the fundamental inequality of biology. When a man can get pregnant, then he will have the ability to abort the pregnancy or carry to term.


----------



## Spiderman

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be on the hook for 18 years of child support, don't knock anyone up.
> 
> Pretty simple concept.  I have no sympathy for a man in that position.
Click to expand...


IOW never never never trust a woman even your wife when she says she's on the pill.


----------



## Politico

Pennywise said:


> *Unless you are going to grant the male equal say the law is a farce. There have been instances of men wanting the child and the woman aborting it anyway.* A just society would allow for a man to disavow responsibility within the period at which abortions are legal.
> 
> Actually, a just society would outlaw abortion, but since that's not happening, giving men second class status when they are half of the baby is an abomination.



Which is exactly why Roe v Wade is bullshit, 

But as it stands unless you want to pay for a baby momma's nails for the next 18, zip it don't hit it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Noomi said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think missing in all this is the fact that the woman actually carries the child in her body during this period hence the extra legal right to abort the pregnancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men believe they have the right to control her body, though. Their sperm is more important than the fact that she uses her body for nine months to create that baby.
Click to expand...


Men, are programmed genetically, to say and do whatever is necessary to gain free access to your vagina (and other assorted fun parts).

They would, if you played your cards right, PAINT YOUR HOUSE, on the CHANCE that their reward would be some 'down(there) time'.

Yet, despite this natural and what can only be described as SUPREME power over men, (most men anyway) the ladies seem to have inexplicably succumbed to the principle-less notions of the Ideological Left, and surrendered their favors, in pursuit of those who have LITERALLY STARTED and GONE TO WAR, to have a CHANCE at getting what they've got.

Today's females are, in large margin, (not every single one, but the adherents to pop culture surely are) analogous to a BANK which has decided to get more customers, by giving away its MONEY! 

Sure, traffic picks up in the short run, but it doesn't last long and when the rush is over, NO ONE wants to put THEIR MONEY, in YOU!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Faun said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being female does not mean you are born with the right to kill babies
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No babies are being killed.
Click to expand...


HEY! LOOK KIDS!  It's a Deceitful conclusion being FRAUDULENTLY advanced as a means to influence the Ignorant.

Deceit <=> FRAUD <=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<


----------



## freedombecki

BobPlumb said:


> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder. The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother. Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason. She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway. The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does. The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy. He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong? Why or why not?


Her body is not his domain according to the law as I understand it, Bob.

 The moral of this story is if a guy doesn't want to pay for his pecker's product, he shouldn't be pecking around.


----------



## BobPlumb

freedombecki said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder. The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother. Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason. She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway. The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does. The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy. He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong? Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> Her body is not his domain according to the law as I understand it, Bob.
> 
> The moral of this story is if a guy doesn't want to pay for his pecker's product, he shouldn't be pecking around.
Click to expand...


Yes, the law is understood.   This op is not about what the law is.  It's about if whether those who are prochoice will be consistent.


----------



## freedombecki

BobPlumb said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder. The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother. Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason. She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway. The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does. The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy. He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong? Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> Her body is not his domain according to the law as I understand it, Bob.
> 
> The moral of this story is if a guy doesn't want to pay for his pecker's product, he shouldn't be pecking around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the law is understood. This op is not about what the law is. It's about if whether those who are prochoice will be consistent.
Click to expand...


My bad! I failed to see the "No Pro Life Opinion" sign.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Politico said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Unless you are going to grant the male equal say the law is a farce. There have been instances of men wanting the child and the woman aborting it anyway.* A just society would allow for a man to disavow responsibility within the period at which abortions are legal.
> 
> Actually, a just society would outlaw abortion, but since that's not happening, giving men second class status when they are half of the baby is an abomination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly why Roe v Wade is bullshit,
> 
> But as it stands unless you want to pay for a baby momma's nails for the next 18, zip it don't hit it.
Click to expand...


Both of these posts are ignorant nonsense. 

The state doesnt have the authority to grant anyone a say concerning a citizens right to privacy; our civil liberties are not subject to majority rule. 

_Griswold/Eisenstadt/Roe/Casey_ represents settled and accepted case law appropriately restricting the states authority to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not; just as the state is not allowed to interfere with a womans right to privacy, so too is the father restricted from interfering with that right. 

Parental rights and responsibilities manifest *only postnatally*, as prior to birth the womans rights are paramount, where the embryo/fetus lacks Constitutional protections, and the women alone is adversely affected by the dictates of the state.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

BobPlumb said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder. The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother. Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason. She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway. The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does. The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy. He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong? Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> Her body is not his domain according to the law as I understand it, Bob.
> 
> The moral of this story is if a guy doesn't want to pay for his pecker's product, he shouldn't be pecking around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the law is understood.   This op is not about what the law is.  It's about if whether those who are prochoice will be consistent.
Click to expand...


If you understand the law then you understand that the law is being applied in a consistent manner  where prior to birth, no outside entity is allowed to interfere with a womans right to make decisions both personal and private, including the state or the father.


----------



## Faun

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being female does not mean you are born with the right to kill babies
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No babies are being killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HEY! LOOK KIDS!  It's a Deceitful conclusion being FRAUDULENTLY advanced as a means to influence the Ignorant.u
> 
> Deceit <=> FRAUD <=> Ignorance
> >>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<
Click to expand...

There is no fraud being committed here. Just because you're out of your mind doesn't mean the rest of us don't know the definition of the word, _"baby."_


----------



## House

I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all people... both born & unborn.

I also believe in survival of the fittest... both born & unborn.

So, after the fetus is removed from the womb, may the fittest fetus survive.  Those that do are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This view represents both conservative & liberal values.

Who says compromise is impossible?


----------



## BobPlumb

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her body is not his domain according to the law as I understand it, Bob.
> 
> The moral of this story is if a guy doesn't want to pay for his pecker's product, he shouldn't be pecking around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the law is understood.   This op is not about what the law is.  It's about if whether those who are prochoice will be consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you understand the law then you understand that the law is being applied in a consistent manner  where prior to birth, no outside entity is allowed to interfere with a womans right to make decisions both personal and private, including the state or the father.
Click to expand...


The OP purposes a change in the law.  So it is not about what the law is but about what the law should be.

 Currently a woman may avoid the responsibilities of parenthood by having an abortion.  A man does not currently have the authority to decide to avoid the responsibities during the time that the fetus is not a child, even though the birth control method of abortion is available to the woman.  That is inconsistent.  

The woman will retain the final decision as to have an abortion or not so her right to abortion remains the same.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

BobPlumb said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the law is understood.   This op is not about what the law is.  It's about if whether those who are prochoice will be consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you understand the law then you understand that the law is being applied in a consistent manner  where prior to birth, no outside entity is allowed to interfere with a womans right to make decisions both personal and private, including the state or the father.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The OP purposes a change in the law.  So it is not about what the law is but about what the law should be.
> 
> Currently a woman may avoid the responsibilities of parenthood by having an abortion.  A man does not currently have the authority to decide to avoid the responsibities during the time that the fetus is not a child, even though the birth control method of abortion is available to the woman.  That is inconsistent.
> 
> The woman will retain the final decision as to have an abortion or not so her right to abortion remains the same.
Click to expand...


There is no law to change, 

 And to seek to overturn_ Griswold/Eisenstadt/Roe/Casey_ is madness, as it would seriously undermine our right to privacy and afford the state unwarranted authority to interfere in our personal lives, of which abortion is but one aspect of privacy.


----------



## candycorn

BobPlumb said:


> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?



I am staunchly pro choice.

I do not think you are wrong in the least.  

It seems like an unlevel playing field at best.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

BobPlumb said:


> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?



'Murder' is a legal definition, like 'insane.' Murder is an unjustifiable and unlawful slaying of another human being. So long as abortion is legal, it cannot be murder. It's still the premeditated slaying of a human being though both biologically and ethically. Just a legally allowed one.

As to a male's rights as described, it seems sensible. So long as our country is going to allow termination of human life because it's still inside another person like. 

Takes two to make life. Though females carry the babies, it didn't get there by itself. So ending that created life should involve two as well, not just one. Abortion should require both the father and the mother's consent. Otherwise you're enabling the female to potentially terminate a father's child against his wishes. 

Abortion is not a health choice or right, it involves a 3rd party which should be afforded all the legal rights and protections as with exvitro life. I don't support a complete prohibition on abortion, I think in some cases it's the thing to do as with rape or if carrying the child poses a health risk serious enough to the mother that termination is preferable. But as birth control, or some other heinous option those should be outlawed.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

It appears the OP wants to give men the legal right to force women to abort. 

That's no different from having a law that forces women to reproduce.


----------



## Darkwind

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to be on the hook for 18 years of child support, don't knock anyone up.
> 
> Pretty simple concept.  I have no sympathy for a man in that position.
Click to expand...

If you don't want to be on the hook for 18 years of raising a child, don't get knocked up.

It cuts both ways.

I have no sympathy for a woman who cannot prevent herself from becoming pregnant.


----------



## BobPlumb

Luddly Neddite said:


> It appears the OP wants to give men the legal right to force women to abort.
> 
> That's no different from having a law that forces women to reproduce.



Wrong, due to biology the woman would have the final say in having an abortion or not.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

BobPlumb said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears the OP wants to give men the legal right to force women to abort.
> 
> That's no different from having a law that forces women to reproduce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, due to biology the woman would have the final say in having an abortion or not.
Click to expand...


Well then, what has this thread been about?


----------



## editec

BobPlumb said:


> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?



Forcing the women to have or NOT to have the procedure is the problem.

Yes men gets fucked because of that.

Blame mother nature for it.  Life is not fair.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

BobPlumb said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the law is understood.   This op is not about what the law is.  It's about if whether those who are prochoice will be consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you understand the law then you understand that the law is being applied in a consistent manner  where prior to birth, no outside entity is allowed to interfere with a womans right to make decisions both personal and private, including the state or the father.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The OP purposes a change in the law.  So it is not about what the law is but about what the law should be.*
> 
> Currently a woman may avoid the responsibilities of parenthood by having an abortion.  A man does not currently have the authority to decide to avoid the responsibities during the time that the fetus is not a child, even though the birth control method of abortion is available to the woman.  That is inconsistent.
> 
> The woman will retain the final decision as to have an abortion or not so her right to abortion remains the same.
Click to expand...


BobPlumb, did you forget that you already said you wanted the law changed to give men the 'authority to decide to avoid the responsibities [sic] of their actions.

Which is it?


----------



## BobPlumb

editec said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing the women to have or NOT to have the procedure is the problem.
> 
> Yes men gets fucked because of that.
> 
> Blame mother nature for it.  Life is not fair.
Click to expand...


Who is FORCING women to have or not have the procedure?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

> ... the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy. He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.



You're wanting to make it legal to be a dead beat dad.


----------



## BobPlumb

Luddly Neddite said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you understand the law then you understand that the law is being applied in a consistent manner  where prior to birth, no outside entity is allowed to interfere with a womans right to make decisions both personal and private, including the state or the father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The OP purposes a change in the law.  So it is not about what the law is but about what the law should be.*
> 
> Currently a woman may avoid the responsibilities of parenthood by having an abortion.  A man does not currently have the authority to decide to avoid the responsibities during the time that the fetus is not a child, even though the birth control method of abortion is available to the woman.  That is inconsistent.
> 
> The woman will retain the final decision as to have an abortion or not so her right to abortion remains the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BobPlumb, did you forget that you already said you wanted the law changed to give men the 'authority to decide to avoid the responsibities [sic] of their actions.
> 
> Which is it?
Click to expand...


The woman can decide to have an abortion or not.  If the woman does decide to carry the pregnancy to term, then the man would be op out of responsibility for raising the future child before the fetus is viable?  What about that do you not understand?


----------



## Esmeralda

Luddly Neddite said:


> So, women should be 100% responsible for a live birth even though the male is 50% responsible for the pregnancy?
> 
> This is what dead beat dads believe and, on a very practical level, they're correct.
> 
> IMO, both men and women have sovereign rights over their own bodies. They also have responsibility for their actions and equal responsibility for their children.
> 
> If you don't want to support your children, don't make them. Take responsibility for what you say and do.



Exactly.  If you don't want children, or don't want them with a certain woman, then make damn sure she doesn't get pregnant. Men leave pregnancy prevention almost or completely up to the woman.  When it fails, they feel they've been cheated because they didn't want the child.  Using a condom does not ensure a woman will not get pregnant.  If it were only that easy!  If you don't want children, don't have sex or get a vacsectomy.  They are reversible.  No one should be able to force a woman who has a child growing inside her body to get an abortion if she doesn't want one.  That's like shooting bullets at her soul.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

BobPlumb said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The OP purposes a change in the law.  So it is not about what the law is but about what the law should be.*
> 
> Currently a woman may avoid the responsibilities of parenthood by having an abortion.  A man does not currently have the authority to decide to avoid the responsibities during the time that the fetus is not a child, even though the birth control method of abortion is available to the woman.  That is inconsistent.
> 
> The woman will retain the final decision as to have an abortion or not so her right to abortion remains the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb, did you forget that you already said you wanted the law changed to give men the 'authority to decide to avoid the responsibities [sic] of their actions.
> 
> Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The woman can decide to have an abortion or not.  If the woman does decide to carry the pregnancy to term, then the man would be op out of responsibility for raising the future child before the fetus is viable?  What about that do you not understand?
Click to expand...


I understand completely. Like I said, you're wanting to make it legal to be a dead beat dad. 

What you don't seem to understand is that actions have consequences. If you cause pregnancy, you're responsible for that.


----------



## BobPlumb

Esmeralda said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, women should be 100% responsible for a live birth even though the male is 50% responsible for the pregnancy?
> 
> This is what dead beat dads believe and, on a very practical level, they're correct.
> 
> IMO, both men and women have sovereign rights over their own bodies. They also have responsibility for their actions and equal responsibility for their children.
> 
> If you don't want to support your children, don't make them. Take responsibility for what you say and do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  If you don't want children, or don't want them with a certain woman, then make damn sure she doesn't get pregnant. Men leave pregnancy prevention almost or completely up to the woman.  When it fails, they feel they've been cheated because they didn't want the child.  Using a condom does not ensure a woman will not get pregnant.  If it were only that easy!  If you don't want children, don't have sex or get a vacsectomy.  They are reversible.  No one should be able to force a woman who has a child growing inside her body to get an abortion if she doesn't want one.  That's like shooting bullets at her soul.
Click to expand...


If you are taking the prolife position, the I agree the man should not be able to op out.  If you are prochoice, then a fetus is not a child.  The man should be able to op out before there is a child and the woman may decide wether to have an abortion or not.  No one is forcing the woman to do anything.


----------



## freedombecki

BobPlumb said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The OP purposes a change in the law. So it is not about what the law is but about what the law should be.*
> 
> Currently a woman may avoid the responsibilities of parenthood by having an abortion. A man does not currently have the authority to decide to avoid the responsibities during the time that the fetus is not a child, even though the birth control method of abortion is available to the woman. That is inconsistent.
> 
> The woman will retain the final decision as to have an abortion or not so her right to abortion remains the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb, did you forget that you already said you wanted the law changed to give men the 'authority to decide to avoid the responsibities [sic] of their actions.
> 
> Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The woman can decide to have an abortion or not. If the woman does decide to carry the pregnancy to term, then the man would be op out of responsibility for raising the future child before the fetus is viable? What about that do you not understand?
Click to expand...

 What is it about male abstinence do you not understand?


----------



## BobPlumb

Luddly Neddite said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb, did you forget that you already said you wanted the law changed to give men the 'authority to decide to avoid the responsibities [sic] of their actions.
> 
> Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The woman can decide to have an abortion or not.  If the woman does decide to carry the pregnancy to term, then the man would be op out of responsibility for raising the future child before the fetus is viable?  What about that do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand completely. Like I said, you're wanting to make it legal to be a dead beat dad.
> 
> What you don't seem to understand is that actions have consequences. If you cause pregnancy, you're responsible for that.
Click to expand...


So are you prolife now?  If you cause a pregnancy, you're responsible for that!


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Esmeralda said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, women should be 100% responsible for a live birth even though the male is 50% responsible for the pregnancy?
> 
> This is what dead beat dads believe and, on a very practical level, they're correct.
> 
> IMO, both men and women have sovereign rights over their own bodies. They also have responsibility for their actions and equal responsibility for their children.
> 
> If you don't want to support your children, don't make them. Take responsibility for what you say and do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  If you don't want children, or don't want them with a certain woman, then make damn sure she doesn't get pregnant. Men leave pregnancy prevention almost or completely up to the woman.  When it fails, they feel they've been cheated because they didn't want the child.  Using a condom does not ensure a woman will not get pregnant.  If it were only that easy!  If you don't want children, don't have sex or get a vacsectomy.  They are reversible.  No one should be able to force a woman who has a child growing inside her body to get an abortion if she doesn't want one.  That's like shooting bullets at her soul.
Click to expand...


Its a sad fact of life that women bear most of the responsibility for prevention as well as raising children. If men got pregnant, overnight, we would reliable male contraception. BobPlumb is not unusual. Men can and do walk away from their responsibility all the time. 

And, sadly, we have an entire political party who is favor of hungry children over equal responsibility. 

Oh, and I agree - if a man feels so strongly about not taking responsibility for the pregnancy he caused, get a frikken vasectomy.


----------



## BobPlumb

freedombecki said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb, did you forget that you already said you wanted the law changed to give men the 'authority to decide to avoid the responsibities [sic] of their actions.
> 
> Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The woman can decide to have an abortion or not. If the woman does decide to carry the pregnancy to term, then the man would be op out of responsibility for raising the future child before the fetus is viable? What about that do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is it about male abstinence do you not understand?
Click to expand...


The same can be said for female abstinence.  If you are against the man oping out then you should be against abortion to be consistent.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

BobPlumb said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman can decide to have an abortion or not. If the woman does decide to carry the pregnancy to term, then the man would be op out of responsibility for raising the future child before the fetus is viable? What about that do you not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> What is it about male abstinence do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same can be said for female abstinence.  If you are against the man oping out then you should be against abortion to be consistent.
Click to expand...


So if he's irresponsible then she should be too?

That's quite a leap.


----------



## BobPlumb

Luddly Neddite said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it about male abstinence do you not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same can be said for female abstinence.  If you are against the man oping out then you should be against abortion to be consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if he's irresponsible then she should be too?
> 
> That's quite a leap.
Click to expand...


No, if he is expected to be responsible the she should be expected to be responsible.

It's a very small step.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

BobPlumb said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same can be said for female abstinence.  If you are against the man oping out then you should be against abortion to be consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if he's irresponsible then she should be too?
> 
> That's quite a leap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if he is expected to be responsible the she should be expected to be responsible.
> 
> It's a very small step.
Click to expand...


She is.
So is he.
Equally.

Look, you're just chasing your own tail and you're defending the indefensible. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## BobPlumb

Luddly Neddite said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if he's irresponsible then she should be too?
> 
> That's quite a leap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, if he is expected to be responsible the she should be expected to be responsible.
> 
> It's a very small step.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is.
> So is he.
> Equally.
> 
> Look, you're just chasing your own tail and you're defending the indefensible.
> 
> Have a nice day.
Click to expand...


He is expected to be responsible before the sexual act.  She may have an abortion, thus the difference.  If a fetus is not a child then this position is defensible and several prochoice people on this thread have already agreed with it.
I will have a great day.  I hope you do likewise.


----------



## freedombecki

BobPlumb said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The woman can decide to have an abortion or not. If the woman does decide to carry the pregnancy to term, then the man would be op out of responsibility for raising the future child before the fetus is viable? What about that do you not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> What is it about male abstinence do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same can be said for female abstinence. If you are against the man oping out then you should be against abortion to be consistent.
Click to expand...

I'm for abstinence outside of marriage, and always have been. It shows a respect for posterity and faithful inner character to do so. And many in America engaged in abstinence as a religious precept of Pilgrim inheritance, with deep and abiding compassion for those not so able to control primal urges, since only God is perfect.


----------



## Katzndogz

This sounds like an excellent idea for democrats to pursue, vigorously.


----------



## whitehall

A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

whitehall said:


> A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.



Ultimately however, its her body to do with as she wishes and no one has the right to usurp that ownership.


----------



## whitehall

Luddly Neddite said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately however, its her body to do with as she wishes and no one has the right to usurp that ownership.
Click to expand...


A woman has no right to destroy her body with drugs and she would be hospitalized if she tried to amputate a body part. She can't even sell a kidney for profit.  What makes you think she has the right to kill the unborn life she created? Certainly the father should be able to do something to prevent her from killing his child.


----------



## Faun

whitehall said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately however, its her body to do with as she wishes and no one has the right to usurp that ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A woman has no right to destroy her body with drugs and she would be hospitalized if she tried to amputate a body part. She can't even sell a kidney for profit.  What makes you think she has the right to kill the unborn life she created? Certainly the father should be able to do something to prevent her from killing his child.
Click to expand...

No one has the right to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will.


----------



## emilynghiem

Yes and no.
1. Since sexual relations are private and not the jurisdiction of the state,
I would recommend this be addressed through education on healthy and abusive relations.
Local parents, teachers, schools communities would have to agree how to teach this
so they don't impose beliefs but include all views without discrimination or harassment.

2. within THAT context, of agreeing to include all input equally while deciding personally and not imposing through govt, I would recommend that couples be taught to resolve conflicts in advance and AGREE on a policy to follow. if people have different beliefs about abortion, this is generally a danger sign not to risk getting pregnant. Those conflicts should be worked out in advance to prevent coersion or abuse. 

and YES it can go both ways
I heard of cases of men suing to try to stop abortion of their children and failing legally to stop it; this should have been discussed in advance and an agreement made or else only have sex with partners who agree to the same views and decisions, or agree to decide by CONSENSUS. 

I would be more apt to push the idea that if people  would not agree to have the baby if pregnancy occurs then DON'T HAVE SEX

Don't take the risk. even if you both agree not to have the baby, or to give it up for adoption it is traumatic and problematic.

what if you have a sick or disabled child requiring extensive medical care or costs.
what if one partner dies or moves, loses a job, or the family has a medical emergency
and can't help with a new child

ALL these things should be discussed in ADVANCE.
Ideally both partners should agree or NOT HAVE SEX.

so that is where both partners are EQUAL
in the decision BEFORE having sex.
so YES at that point the man has equal right to express consent or dissent
regarding abortion or other choices BEFORE having sex and BEFORE taking the risk of pregnancy.

After pregnancy, if one or both do not stick to the agreement after a pregnancy results,
the woman is affected physically more than the man because she is carrying the child.
so any conflicts need to be worked out BEFORE that, preferably BEFORE having sex and even taking any such risks.



BobPlumb said:


> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?



Too much rape and coercion and relationship abuse occurs
to give this much power to men to make it the woman's responsibility or fault.
it has to be mutual responsibility if either party is going to have equal say in it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

whitehall said:


> A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.



Incorrect. 

The state does not have the authority to empower a man to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not, just as the state does not have the authority to dictate to a women concerning personal, private matters. 

And the embryo/fetus is not a person or child entitled to Constitutional protections. 

The issue of a fathers parental responsibilities postnatally is irrelevant and completely unrelated to the issue of a womans privacy rights prior to birth.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

whitehall said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately however, its her body to do with as she wishes and no one has the right to usurp that ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A woman has no right to destroy her body with drugs and she would be hospitalized if she tried to amputate a body part. She can't even sell a kidney for profit.  What makes you think she has the right to kill the unborn life she created? Certainly the father should be able to do something to prevent her from killing his child.
Click to expand...


Also incorrect. 

Abortion is a safe and appropriate medical procedure undertaken in good faith by the woman; abusing drugs, removing a body part, or selling an organ is not  and your inane analogy fails accordingly. 

Otherwise, a womans right to privacy is a fact of Constitutional law, not subjective opinion someone might think, where the Constitution appropriately prohibits all outside actors  the state, the father, or a criminal  from interfering with a womans right to decide for herself concerning a matter that effects her alone.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

whitehall said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ultimately however, its her body to do with as she wishes and no one has the right to usurp that ownership.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A woman has no right to destroy her body with drugs and she would be hospitalized if she tried to amputate a body part. She can't even sell a kidney for profit.  What makes you think she has the right to kill the unborn life she created? Certainly the father should be able to do something to prevent her from killing his child.
Click to expand...



Actually, both men and women have every right to trash their bodies with drugs, cigarettes and cut off body parts. 

As for abortion, *I stated my opinion above. *


----------



## FA_Q2

Have not read all 10 pages so bear with me if I am repeating others points.





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The state does not have the authority to empower a man to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not, just as the state does not have the authority to dictate to a women concerning personal, private matters.
> 
> And the embryo/fetus is not a person or child entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> The issue of a fathers parental responsibilities postnatally is irrelevant and completely unrelated to the issue of a womans privacy rights prior to birth.
Click to expand...


But it IS related.  Essentially, a woman is allowed to completely and utterly avoid any real responsibility in pregnancy by arbitrarily deciding to kill the unborn child.  The man, OTOH, is completely and utterly at the will of the woman here  essentially having the woman take rights over the mans labor that she should have no say in.  We call that theft or slavery in pretty much any other context.  Essentially, a man MUST take responsibility for his child where a woman is under no such requirement.  That is unfair by any measurement. 


The core problem is, of course, that these are basic facts of biology.  It is the womans body and there is simply no changing that whatsoever and given the fact that she has rights over it there is noting that the government can or should do beyond basic limitations in when such a procedure can be done.  

The idea is rather sticky.  By all rights, I think the OP is 100 percent correct in what _should_ be the process.  HOWEVER, we do not live in a perfect world where we get to do things fair.  The world is NOT fair and such a concept does nothing but create more single parents and more poverty stricken children.  Fair is not and never should be the basis for creating laws.  A look at basic facts will show the bald-faced truth here: children with single parents are more likely to fail, more likely to be criminals and more likely to an overall drain than their parented counterparts.  This does not even take into account that women are going to be MORE likely to abort if the father can opt out.  I dare say it (because I absolutely HATE this statement) but this REALLY is about the kids.  I cannot support such a notion as the OP suggests simply because I think that leaving the mother high and dry is going to have major negative consequences.  Allowing the father to avoid taking responsibility for his actions just because the mother is able to is not sufficient reasoning to me to push such a concept.

Lets face the basic facts, almost all abortions are done out of pure convenience.  Potential mothers overwhelmingly abort because of financial strains  a practice that I find absolutely abhorrent and I would like to force people to take responsibility for their actions but I dont have the right to do such a thing and freedom is FAR more important to me.  


Your point:
just as the state does not have the authority to dictate to a women concerning personal, private matters. 
And the embryo/fetus is not a person or child entitled to Constitutional protections.

I think is a little misplaced as well.  Roe v. Wade DID establish that the state had a right to place restriction on abortion based on gestational periods.  IOW, the government CAN tell a woman that she CANNOT have an abortion under certain situations.  That would essentially mean you are incorrect with that statement.  Abortions are, in fact, illegal after a certain point. In many locations. 

To me it is clear that this is a balancing act between the right of the unborn to life and the right of the mother to her body.  There are two distinct people here.  The woman takes precedent considering that the child she carries is not yet born BUT that does not mean that we should write them off entirely.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

FA_Q2 said:


> Have not read all 10 pages so bear with me if I am repeating others points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The state does not have the authority to empower a man to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not, just as the state does not have the authority to dictate to a women concerning personal, private matters.
> 
> And the embryo/fetus is not a person or child entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> The issue of a fathers parental responsibilities postnatally is irrelevant and completely unrelated to the issue of a womans privacy rights prior to birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it IS related.  Essentially, a woman is allowed to completely and utterly avoid any real responsibility in pregnancy by arbitrarily deciding to kill the unborn child.  The man, OTOH, is completely and utterly at the will of the woman here  essentially having the woman take rights over the mans labor that she should have no say in.  We call that theft or slavery in pretty much any other context.  Essentially, a man MUST take responsibility for his child where a woman is under no such requirement.  That is unfair by any measurement.
> 
> 
> The core problem is, of course, that these are basic facts of biology.  It is the womans body and there is simply no changing that whatsoever and given the fact that she has rights over it there is noting that the government can or should do beyond basic limitations in when such a procedure can be done.
> 
> The idea is rather sticky.  By all rights, I think the OP is 100 percent correct in what _should_ be the process.  HOWEVER, we do not live in a perfect world where we get to do things fair.  The world is NOT fair and such a concept does nothing but create more single parents and more poverty stricken children.  Fair is not and never should be the basis for creating laws.  A look at basic facts will show the bald-faced truth here: children with single parents are more likely to fail, more likely to be criminals and more likely to an overall drain than their parented counterparts.  This does not even take into account that women are going to be MORE likely to abort if the father can opt out.  I dare say it (because I absolutely HATE this statement) but this REALLY is about the kids.  I cannot support such a notion as the OP suggests simply because I think that leaving the mother high and dry is going to have major negative consequences.  Allowing the father to avoid taking responsibility for his actions just because the mother is able to is not sufficient reasoning to me to push such a concept.
> 
> Lets face the basic facts, almost all abortions are done out of pure convenience.  Potential mothers overwhelmingly abort because of financial strains  a practice that I find absolutely abhorrent and I would like to force people to take responsibility for their actions but I dont have the right to do such a thing and freedom is FAR more important to me.
> 
> 
> Your point:
> just as the state does not have the authority to dictate to a women concerning personal, private matters.
> And the embryo/fetus is not a person or child entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> I think is a little misplaced as well.  Roe v. Wade DID establish that the state had a right to place restriction on abortion based on gestational periods.  IOW, the government CAN tell a woman that she CANNOT have an abortion under certain situations.  That would essentially mean you are incorrect with that statement.  Abortions are, in fact, illegal after a certain point. In many locations.
> 
> To me it is clear that this is a balancing act between the right of the unborn to life and the right of the mother to her body.  There are two distinct people here.  The woman takes precedent considering that the child she carries is not yet born BUT that does not mean that we should write them off entirely.
Click to expand...




Much of your post is your opinion. NOT FACT. I started to address those points but we've been over those points so often - why bother? The confusion seems to be the difference between "sin" and law or basic rights. 

But this last is really the crux of it. 



> It is the womans body and there is simply no changing that whatsoever and given the fact that she has rights over it there is noting that the government can or should do beyond basic limitations in when such a procedure can be done.



The first is correct but this is not: "... beyond basic limitations in when such a procedure can be done."

We all need to fight to keep government, state or federal, out of our private lives and it certainly has no place in deciding when or if a woman is to reproduce. 

Especially since there is a large percentage of our population who believes children should starve rather than using that same government to feed them.


----------



## thanatos144

All men who pays child support should demand receipts that it is spent on the child and not her booze 

tapatalk post


----------



## FA_Q2

Luddly Neddite said:


> Much of your post is your opinion. NOT FACT. I started to address those points but we've been over those points so often - why bother?


Because this is a debate board and that is the entire point.  I suspect that the problem was not a why bother but rather the simple fact that you cannot refute most of what I claimed was basic fact.

Go ahead and try.  


Luddly Neddite said:


> The confusion seems to be the difference between "sin" and law or basic rights.


No, there is zero confusion for me there considering I dont believe in sin whatsoever.  This is not a matter of sin but a matter or rights and responsibilities.  


Luddly Neddite said:


> But this last is really the crux of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the womans body and there is simply no changing that whatsoever and given the fact that she has rights over it there is noting that the government can or should do beyond basic limitations in when such a procedure can be done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first is correct but this is not: "... beyond basic limitations in when such a procedure can be done."
Click to expand...

So then, you disagree with Roe v Wade and current standing law where that statement is 100 percent accurate?

You want to outline why you believe that a doctor should be allowed to kill a full term child in the birth canal during delivery when the procedure is not medically sound (IOW there is no dangers to the woman that would warrant it)?  Can you come up with a single reason that makes any coherent sense as to why such would be legal but somehow illegal one second after birth?

Simply put, such a position is not only untenable and against current SCOTUS precedent but it is also insane.  That last part is both true and exactly how it should work (and does work).  


Luddly Neddite said:


> We all need to fight to keep government, state or federal, out of our private lives and it certainly has no place in deciding when or if a woman is to reproduce.
> 
> Especially since there is a large percentage of our population who believes children should starve rather than using that same government to feed them.


But there IS a place for the government to decide when terminating a life IS legal or illegal.  This is done both inside the womb and without.  

The last statement is a deflection and has zero bearing on the conversation beyond partisan bickering.  This is particularly true because that characterization is patently false.  Just because you think the methods of the other side are ineffective and lead to bad outcomes does not mean that they are evil spirited.  

Do you actually support late term abortion?  

I find it ironic that the same people demanding such things are the ones that think the government should be able to tell you what size soda you can buy, what your insurance should have to cover, force you to purchase it and support regulations in every faucet of our lives but as soon as we get to killing unborn people  BAM.  That brooks no regulation at all.  The very concept is completely asinine.


----------



## FA_Q2

thanatos144 said:


> All men who pays child support should demand receipts that it is spent on the child and not her booze
> 
> tapatalk post



Money is fungible.  You do realize that correct?

Basically, such is not only impossible but completely ineffective.


----------



## Avatar4321

A male has no more right to an abortion than a female does. Though, if the male manages to get pregnant, he has bigger problems than worrying about abortion.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Avatar4321 said:


> A male has no more right to an abortion than a female does. Though, if the male manages to get pregnant, he has bigger problems than worrying about abortion.



All persons have a right to privacy, both men and women; and for women that right extends to her decision to have a child or not, free from interference by the state.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

FA_Q2 said:


> Have not read all 10 pages so bear with me if I am repeating others points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The state does not have the authority to empower a man to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not, just as the state does not have the authority to dictate to a women concerning personal, private matters.
> 
> And the embryo/fetus is not a &#8216;person&#8217; or &#8216;child&#8217; entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> The issue of a father&#8217;s parental responsibilities postnatally is irrelevant and completely unrelated to the issue of a woman&#8217;s privacy rights prior to birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it IS related.  Essentially, a woman is allowed to completely and utterly avoid any real responsibility in pregnancy by arbitrarily deciding to kill the unborn child.  The man, OTOH, is completely and utterly at the will of the woman here &#8211; essentially having the woman take rights over the man&#8217;s labor that she should have no say in.  We call that theft or slavery in pretty much any other context.  Essentially, a man MUST take responsibility for his child where a woman is under no such requirement.  That is &#8216;unfair&#8217; by any measurement.
> 
> 
> The core problem is, of course, that these are basic facts of biology.  It is the woman&#8217;s body and there is simply no changing that whatsoever and given the fact that she has rights over it there is noting that the government can or should do beyond basic limitations in when such a procedure can be done.
> 
> The idea is rather sticky.  By all rights, I think the OP is 100 percent correct in what _should_ be the process.  HOWEVER, we do not live in a perfect world where we get to do things &#8216;fair.&#8217;  The world is NOT fair and such a concept does nothing but create more single parents and more poverty stricken children.  Fair is not and never should be the basis for creating laws.  A look at basic facts will show the bald-faced truth here: children with single parents are more likely to fail, more likely to be criminals and more likely to an overall drain than their parented counterparts.  This does not even take into account that women are going to be MORE likely to abort if the father can &#8216;opt out.&#8217;  I dare say it (because I absolutely HATE this statement) but this REALLY is about the kids.  I cannot support such a notion as the OP suggests simply because I think that leaving the mother high and dry is going to have major negative consequences.  Allowing the father to avoid taking responsibility for his actions just because the mother is able to is not sufficient reasoning to me to push such a concept.
> 
> Let&#8217;s face the basic facts, almost all abortions are done out of pure convenience.  Potential mothers overwhelmingly abort because of financial strains &#8211; a practice that I find absolutely abhorrent and I would like to force people to take responsibility for their actions but I don&#8217;t have the right to do such a thing and freedom is FAR more important to me.
> 
> 
> Your point:
> &#8230;just as the state does not have the authority to dictate to a women concerning personal, private matters.
> And the embryo/fetus is not a &#8216;person&#8217; or &#8216;child&#8217; entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> I think is a little misplaced as well.  Roe v. Wade DID establish that the state had a right to place restriction on abortion based on gestational periods.  IOW, the government CAN tell a woman that she CANNOT have an abortion under certain situations.  That would essentially mean you are incorrect with that statement.  Abortions are, in fact, illegal after a certain point. In many locations.
> 
> To me it is clear that this is a balancing act between the right of the unborn to life and the right of the mother to her body.  There are two distinct people here.  The woman takes precedent considering that the child she carries is not yet born BUT that does not mean that we should write them off entirely.
Click to expand...


_Roe v. Wade_ is no longer the guiding case law concerning privacy rights and abortion, _Planned Parenthood v. Casey_ is. 

In _Casey_ the Supreme Court reaffirmed the fundamental right to privacy concerning abortion addressed in _Roe_, replacing the gestational period with that of the doctrine of an undue burden. The _Casey_ Court also reaffirmed the fact that the father has no authority to dictate to the women whether she may have her child or not, and that the embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections. 

Consequently, my statements are correct in response to the OP and those who seek to &#8216;ban&#8217; abortion altogether, were the fact that the state may indeed prohibit abortion after a certain point of development is not at issue nor is it part of this debate. 

Last, the bulk of your post is irrelevant concerning the issue of abortion, where no one is seeking a &#8216;perfect world&#8217; or a resolution to issues such as single parenthood; important topics worthy of consideration, certainly, but not in this venue.


----------



## FA_Q2

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have not read all 10 pages so bear with me if I am repeating others points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The state does not have the authority to empower a man to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not, just as the state does not have the authority to dictate to a women concerning personal, private matters.
> 
> And the embryo/fetus is not a person or child entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> The issue of a fathers parental responsibilities postnatally is irrelevant and completely unrelated to the issue of a womans privacy rights prior to birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it IS related.  Essentially, a woman is allowed to completely and utterly avoid any real responsibility in pregnancy by arbitrarily deciding to kill the unborn child.  The man, OTOH, is completely and utterly at the will of the woman here  essentially having the woman take rights over the mans labor that she should have no say in.  We call that theft or slavery in pretty much any other context.  Essentially, a man MUST take responsibility for his child where a woman is under no such requirement.  That is unfair by any measurement.
> 
> 
> The core problem is, of course, that these are basic facts of biology.  It is the womans body and there is simply no changing that whatsoever and given the fact that she has rights over it there is noting that the government can or should do beyond basic limitations in when such a procedure can be done.
> 
> The idea is rather sticky.  By all rights, I think the OP is 100 percent correct in what _should_ be the process.  HOWEVER, we do not live in a perfect world where we get to do things fair.  The world is NOT fair and such a concept does nothing but create more single parents and more poverty stricken children.  Fair is not and never should be the basis for creating laws.  A look at basic facts will show the bald-faced truth here: children with single parents are more likely to fail, more likely to be criminals and more likely to an overall drain than their parented counterparts.  This does not even take into account that women are going to be MORE likely to abort if the father can opt out.  I dare say it (because I absolutely HATE this statement) but this REALLY is about the kids.  I cannot support such a notion as the OP suggests simply because I think that leaving the mother high and dry is going to have major negative consequences.  Allowing the father to avoid taking responsibility for his actions just because the mother is able to is not sufficient reasoning to me to push such a concept.
> 
> Lets face the basic facts, almost all abortions are done out of pure convenience.  Potential mothers overwhelmingly abort because of financial strains  a practice that I find absolutely abhorrent and I would like to force people to take responsibility for their actions but I dont have the right to do such a thing and freedom is FAR more important to me.
> 
> 
> Your point:
> just as the state does not have the authority to dictate to a women concerning personal, private matters.
> And the embryo/fetus is not a person or child entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> I think is a little misplaced as well.  Roe v. Wade DID establish that the state had a right to place restriction on abortion based on gestational periods.  IOW, the government CAN tell a woman that she CANNOT have an abortion under certain situations.  That would essentially mean you are incorrect with that statement.  Abortions are, in fact, illegal after a certain point. In many locations.
> 
> To me it is clear that this is a balancing act between the right of the unborn to life and the right of the mother to her body.  There are two distinct people here.  The woman takes precedent considering that the child she carries is not yet born BUT that does not mean that we should write them off entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Roe v. Wade_ is no longer the guiding case law concerning privacy rights and abortion, _Planned Parenthood v. Casey_ is.
> 
> In _Casey_ the Supreme Court reaffirmed the fundamental right to privacy concerning abortion addressed in _Roe_, replacing the gestational period with that of the doctrine of an undue burden. The _Casey_ Court also reaffirmed the fact that the father has no authority to dictate to the women whether she may have her child or not, and that the embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> Consequently, my statements are correct in response to the OP and those who seek to ban abortion altogether, were the fact that the state may indeed prohibit abortion after a certain point of development is not at issue nor is it part of this debate.
Click to expand...

Which I never supported here so it is rather irrelevant.  The government STILL has withheld the right to deny abortions under certain conditions.  It IS part of the debate as you dont actually get to dictate the terms here.

It is quite relevant to your blanket statements that the woman has a right to privacy and abortion.  That right, as all rights, has limitations.  Late term bans on abortions have not been overturned as far as I know and those laws are still applicable.  


> Last, the bulk of your post is irrelevant concerning the issue of abortion, where no one is seeking a perfect world or a resolution to issues such as single parenthood; important topics worthy of consideration, certainly, but not in this venue.


Says you?  

Again, you dont dictate the course of this debates.  Dont want to participate in a line of reasoning then dont bother to respond.  Other than that, I will take the conversation where I see fit.


----------



## Avatar4321

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A male has no more right to an abortion than a female does. Though, if the male manages to get pregnant, he has bigger problems than worrying about abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All persons have a right to privacy, both men and women; and for women that right extends to her decision to have a child or not, free from interference by the state.
Click to expand...


That child has a right to privacy too. He has the right to be undisturbed without having a so called doctor kill him.


----------



## Jackson

Faun said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately however, its her body to do with as she wishes and no one has the right to usurp that ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A woman has no right to destroy her body with drugs and she would be hospitalized if she tried to amputate a body part. She can't even sell a kidney for profit.  What makes you think she has the right to kill the unborn life she created? Certainly the father should be able to do something to prevent her from killing his child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has the right to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will.
Click to expand...


The father should be able to force her to have the child if he wants to keep the child and raise it without her help.  The law is wrong.

If the father wants this child, she should be willing to bring the baby to term.  I just can't imagine what kind of woman would deny this baby to come to term if the father would assume his rights.


----------



## Dragonlady

whitehall said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately however, its her body to do with as she wishes and no one has the right to usurp that ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A woman has no right to destroy her body with drugs and she would be hospitalized if she tried to amputate a body part. She can't even sell a kidney for profit.  What makes you think she has the right to kill the unborn life she created? Certainly the father should be able to do something to prevent her from killing his child.
Click to expand...


Actually, you do have the right to destroy yourself with drugs, provided the drugs are legal, and you acquire them legally. You can smoke until you get lung cancer or drink alcohol until you die, but you can't use illegal drugs. 

Self amputation and other forms if self harm are indicative of a disordered mind, and therefore not allowed. 

Since the responsibility for gestating the fetus resides with the woman, and it's her body, the man has no say.


----------



## Katzndogz

Democrats should take up the cause of a male right to abortion and run with it.  It is a concept whose time has come and is perfect for a democrat cause.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

FA_Q2 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much of your post is your opinion. NOT FACT. I started to address those points but we've been over those points so often - why bother?
> 
> 
> 
> Because this is a debate board and that is the entire point.  I suspect that the problem was not a why bother but rather the simple fact that you cannot refute most of what I claimed was basic fact.
> 
> Go ahead and try.
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> The confusion seems to be the difference between "sin" and law or basic rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, there is zero confusion for me there considering I dont believe in sin whatsoever.  This is not a matter of sin but a matter or rights and responsibilities.
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this last is really the crux of it.
> 
> 
> 
> The first is correct but this is not: "... beyond basic limitations in when such a procedure can be done."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, you disagree with Roe v Wade and current standing law where that statement is 100 percent accurate?
> 
> You want to outline why you believe that a doctor should be allowed to kill a full term child in the birth canal during delivery when the procedure is not medically sound (IOW there is no dangers to the woman that would warrant it)?  Can you come up with a single reason that makes any coherent sense as to why such would be legal but somehow illegal one second after birth?
> 
> Simply put, such a position is not only untenable and against current SCOTUS precedent but it is also insane.  That last part is both true and exactly how it should work (and does work).
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all need to fight to keep government, state or federal, out of our private lives and it certainly has no place in deciding when or if a woman is to reproduce.
> 
> Especially since there is a large percentage of our population who believes children should starve rather than using that same government to feed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But there IS a place for the government to decide when terminating a life IS legal or illegal.  This is done both inside the womb and without.
> 
> The last statement is a deflection and has zero bearing on the conversation beyond partisan bickering.  This is particularly true because that characterization is patently false.  Just because you think the methods of the other side are ineffective and lead to bad outcomes does not mean that they are evil spirited.
> 
> Do you actually support late term abortion?
> 
> I find it ironic that the same people demanding such things are the ones that think the government should be able to tell you what size soda you can buy, what your insurance should have to cover, force you to purchase it and support regulations in every faucet of our lives but as soon as we get to killing unborn people  BAM.  That brooks no regulation at all.  The very concept is completely asinine.
Click to expand...


That you compare abortion with soda pop just makes my blood run cold. 

Be that as it may, I have always posted in favor of individual freedom. That means you have the right to decide when you want to reproduce and drink any amount of soda you want.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi CCJ technically you are right that after pregnancy occurs
Correct
neither the state nor the man or anyone else has any right to impose unequally
on the woman's equal choice in the matter, and since the baby is at that point
in her body the choice of the woman is predominantly affected over the man's

HOWEVER
in general
not you me or the government
can dictate the priority placed on the equal choice or welfare of the
man, woman or child

if we keep focusing the argument at the point of pregnancy, this is weighted toward the woman's welfare and chioce.

if we agree not to frame the argument in that limited context
but look at the whole process leading up to it,
then we can respect the freedom and welfare of all individuals equally

who is dictating that the debate keep focusing on the point where it is biased toward women

that is not preventing abortion or abuse, but proliferates conflict becasue
the problem cannot be resolved after the unwanted pregnancy has already occurred



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The state does not have the authority to empower a man to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not, just as the state does not have the authority to dictate to a women concerning personal, private matters.
> 
> And the embryo/fetus is not a person or child entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> The issue of a fathers parental responsibilities postnatally is irrelevant and completely unrelated to the issue of a womans privacy rights prior to birth.
Click to expand...


so duh, start the debate at the point where the father and mother have equal responsibility

why not stay focused there where education and prevention might work on an agreed basis

i can't find a single prolife person who is forced by law to respect life of the child at conception

what does it take to educate all people to know that abortion is not healthy
and should be avoided by not having sex if the couple cannot afford to have
a baby should pregnancy result

why not make a law that any sex resulting in unwanted children abortino or pregnancy
is equally abuse and the fault of both parents who are required to get counseling
to resolve the abuse of either the sex or the relationship.

if people don't agree that it is abusing sex, then separate policies and funding at that point. and don't expect toshare resources for health eduction or public schools or health care, if people don't agree to tolerate each others standards. either resolve and agree, or separate and quit imposing back and forth. decide which way and write policies under that agreement


----------



## Luddly Neddite

> why not make a law that any sex resulting in unwanted children abortino or pregnancy
> is equally abuse and the fault of both parents who are required to get counseling
> to resolve the abuse of either the sex or the relationship.



Alternatively, people who believe this could just move to a third world country.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Jackson said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A woman has no right to destroy her body with drugs and she would be hospitalized if she tried to amputate a body part. She can't even sell a kidney for profit.  What makes you think she has the right to kill the unborn life she created? Certainly the father should be able to do something to prevent her from killing his child.
> 
> 
> 
> No one has the right to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The father should be able to force her to have the child if he wants to keep the child and raise it without her help.  The law is wrong.
> 
> If the father wants this child, she should be willing to bring the baby to term.  I just can't imagine what kind of woman would deny this baby to come to term if the father would assume his rights.
Click to expand...


The law is not wrong. 

Its a wise and appropriate doctrine protecting the privacy rights of each citizen, placing important restrictions on the authority of the state.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> why not make a law that any sex resulting in unwanted children abortino or pregnancy is equally abuse and the fault of both parents who are required to get counseling to resolve the abuse of either the sex or the relationship.



Because we dont want laws empowering the state to dictate to private citizens how theyre to address private matters. 

If the mother and father of an unplanned pregnancy wish to come to an accord privately, absent interference from the state, where the father agrees to care for the child once its born, then thats perfectly appropriate. 

What is not appropriate, however, is for the state to give the father veto power to overrule a womans decision to have an abortion; thats solely her decision, she alone is adversely affected by dictates of the state, not the father, where her right to privacy and her right to decide whether to have a child are not are paramount. 

Again, the courts have exhibited great wisdom concerning this difficult issue, where the correct doctrine is in place forbidding state interference, and allowing private citizens to make their own decisions.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> why not make a law that any sex resulting in unwanted children abortino or pregnancy is equally abuse and the fault of both parents who are required to get counseling to resolve the abuse of either the sex or the relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because we dont want laws empowering the state to dictate to private citizens how theyre to address private matters.
> 
> If the mother and father of an unplanned pregnancy wish to come to an accord privately, absent interference from the state, where the father agrees to care for the child once its born, then thats perfectly appropriate.
> 
> What is not appropriate, however, is for the state to give the father veto power to overrule a womans decision to have an abortion; thats solely her decision, she alone is adversely affected by dictates of the state, not the father, where her right to privacy and her right to decide whether to have a child are not are paramount.
> 
> Again, the courts have exhibited great wisdom concerning this difficult issue, where the correct doctrine is in place forbidding state interference, and allowing private citizens to make their own decisions.
Click to expand...


We need to remain vigilant. Government is already too far into our private lives.


----------



## thanatos144

Luddly Neddite said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> why not make a law that any sex resulting in unwanted children abortino or pregnancy is equally abuse and the fault of both parents who are required to get counseling to resolve the abuse of either the sex or the relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because we dont want laws empowering the state to dictate to private citizens how theyre to address private matters.
> 
> If the mother and father of an unplanned pregnancy wish to come to an accord privately, absent interference from the state, where the father agrees to care for the child once its born, then thats perfectly appropriate.
> 
> What is not appropriate, however, is for the state to give the father veto power to overrule a womans decision to have an abortion; thats solely her decision, she alone is adversely affected by dictates of the state, not the father, where her right to privacy and her right to decide whether to have a child are not are paramount.
> 
> Again, the courts have exhibited great wisdom concerning this difficult issue, where the correct doctrine is in place forbidding state interference, and allowing private citizens to make their own decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need to remain vigilant. Government is already too far into our private lives.
Click to expand...


isnt it funny the only time liberals care about intrusive government is when it might be directed at abortion?


----------



## FA_Q2

Luddly Neddite said:


> That you compare abortion with soda pop just makes my blood run cold.
> 
> Be that as it may, I have always posted in favor of individual freedom. That means you have the right to decide when you want to reproduce and drink any amount of soda you want.


You ignored the entire post and don&#8217;t bother to address a single point or answer a single question.  Why even bother responding?

Your blood running cold is rather silly considering there was not a single hind of equivalency.  It was illustrative of the tendency to demand ever growing control in some areas and then completely reversing course in others.  It is cognitive dissonance.


----------



## syrenn

BobPlumb said:


> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?





a males right to abortion....

when the male is the one gestating....then HE has every right to decided for HIMSELF if HE wants an abortion. HE has ever right to decide what goes on in and happens to HIS body. 


HE can keep his sperm to HIMSELF if he does not want to support HIS child.


----------



## Dragonlady

That's not true either. Liberals are the ones who have consistently lobbied to keep government out of personal decisions. Liberals opposed laws which restricted mixed race marriages, gay marriage and abortion. 

Conservatives are prepared to toss the US Constitution right out the window, along with freedom of religion, in order to control women's reproductive rights and freedoms.


----------



## BobPlumb

syrenn said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a males right to abortion....
> 
> when the male is the one gestating....then HE has every right to decided for HIMSELF if HE wants an abortion. HE has ever right to decide what goes on in and happens to HIS body.
> 
> 
> HE can keep his sperm to HIMSELF if he does not want to support HIS child.
Click to expand...


What child?  There is no child until viability (so say prochoice people).  I'm not saying that the female should not hold all the cards in deciding on having an abortion or not.  But is the fetus a child or not?  If the fetus is not a child then it's blackmail if the female forces the responsibility of this future child on the male.  And if the female does not like this, perhaps she should keep the male's sperm out of her body -- or is the male the only one to be responsible in this regard?


----------



## syrenn

BobPlumb said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a males right to abortion....
> 
> when the male is the one gestating....then HE has every right to decided for HIMSELF if HE wants an abortion. HE has ever right to decide what goes on in and happens to HIS body.
> 
> 
> HE can keep his sperm to HIMSELF if he does not want to support HIS child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What child?  There is no child until viability (so say prochoice people).  I'm not saying that the female should not hold all the cards in deciding on having an abortion or not.  But is the fetus a child or not?  If the fetus is not a child then it's blackmail if the female forces the responsibility of this future child on the father.  And if the female does not like this, perhaps she should keep the male's sperm out of her body -- or is the male the only one to be responsible in this regard?
Click to expand...


if a woman does not want to carry a baby... she as the option of an abortion

_if a male does not want to carry a baby... he can have an abortion too. _


that is the end of the right to a male having an abortions...

as to the rest of your question.... which is child support. 

if a MAN does not want to pay for HIS childs or not a childs support...( i really dont care wich)  then HE should keep HIS sperm to himself.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

thanatos144 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because we dont want laws empowering the state to dictate to private citizens how theyre to address private matters.
> 
> If the mother and father of an unplanned pregnancy wish to come to an accord privately, absent interference from the state, where the father agrees to care for the child once its born, then thats perfectly appropriate.
> 
> What is not appropriate, however, is for the state to give the father veto power to overrule a womans decision to have an abortion; thats solely her decision, she alone is adversely affected by dictates of the state, not the father, where her right to privacy and her right to decide whether to have a child are not are paramount.
> 
> Again, the courts have exhibited great wisdom concerning this difficult issue, where the correct doctrine is in place forbidding state interference, and allowing private citizens to make their own decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to remain vigilant. Government is already too far into our private lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> isnt it funny the only time liberals care about intrusive government is when it might be directed at abortion?
Click to expand...


Actually not. 

In addition to protecting citizens privacy rights from government intrusion, liberals seek to restrict government authority concerning the right of gay Americans to individual liberty, transgender Americans the right to self-expression, and same-sex couples the right to equal protection of the law. 

Liberals seek to restrict government authority concerning the right of citizens to vote, to remain free from unwarranted searches and seizures, and the right of immigrants to due process of the law. 

Liberals seek to restrict government authority concerning the right of Americans to speak out freely on political and social issues, the right of Americans to express themselves artistically, even when such expression is perceived to be offensive or controversial. 

Liberals seek to restrict government authority concerning the right of citizens to religious expression, or to be free from religion altogether, and the right of minority religions to flourish absent government intrusion, including religions perceived to be unpopular by some, such as Islam; in fact, we see examples of conservative posters on this very forum hostile to Islam, advocating the state 'ban' the religion.  

Indeed, liberals have been consistent in their comprehensive application of Constitutional jurisprudence to restrict government authority allowing Americans to realize their civil liberties.


----------



## thanatos144

syrenn said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> a males right to abortion....
> 
> when the male is the one gestating....then HE has every right to decided for HIMSELF if HE wants an abortion. HE has ever right to decide what goes on in and happens to HIS body.
> 
> 
> HE can keep his sperm to HIMSELF if he does not want to support HIS child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What child?  There is no child until viability (so say prochoice people).  I'm not saying that the female should not hold all the cards in deciding on having an abortion or not.  But is the fetus a child or not?  If the fetus is not a child then it's blackmail if the female forces the responsibility of this future child on the father.  And if the female does not like this, perhaps she should keep the male's sperm out of her body -- or is the male the only one to be responsible in this regard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if a woman does not want to carry a baby... she as the option of an abortion
> 
> _if a male does not want to carry a baby... he can have an abortion too. _
> 
> 
> that is the end of the right to a male having an abortions...
> 
> as to the rest of your question.... which is child support.
> 
> if a MAN does not want to pay for HIS childs or not a childs support...( i really dont care wich)  then HE should keep HIS sperm to himself.
Click to expand...


So what your saying is that being born with a vagina magically gives you the power to decide life and death of the unborn?


----------



## thanatos144

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to remain vigilant. Government is already too far into our private lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> isnt it funny the only time liberals care about intrusive government is when it might be directed at abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually not.
> 
> In addition to protecting citizens privacy rights from government intrusion, liberals seek to restrict government authority concerning the right of gay Americans to individual liberty, transgender Americans the right to self-expression, and same-sex couples the right to equal protection of the law.
> 
> Liberals seek to restrict government authority concerning the right of citizens to vote, to remain free from unwarranted searches and seizures, and the right of immigrants to due process of the law.
> 
> Liberals seek to restrict government authority concerning the right of Americans to speak out freely on political and social issues, the right of Americans to express themselves artistically, even when such expression is perceived to be offensive or controversial.
> 
> Liberals seek to restrict government authority concerning the right of citizens to religious expression, or to be free from religion altogether, and the right of minority religions to flourish absent government intrusion, including religions perceived to be unpopular by some, such as Islam; in fact, we see examples of conservative posters on this very forum hostile to Islam, advocating the state 'ban' the religion.
> 
> Indeed, liberals have been consistent in their comprehensive application of Constitutional jurisprudence to restrict government authority allowing Americans to realize their civil liberties.
Click to expand...


oh yea I forgot the pot.... So liberal just want to get high and kill unborn babies....Got it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Luddly Neddite said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> why not make a law that any sex resulting in unwanted children abortino or pregnancy is equally abuse and the fault of both parents who are required to get counseling to resolve the abuse of either the sex or the relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because we dont want laws empowering the state to dictate to private citizens how theyre to address private matters.
> 
> If the mother and father of an unplanned pregnancy wish to come to an accord privately, absent interference from the state, where the father agrees to care for the child once its born, then thats perfectly appropriate.
> 
> What is not appropriate, however, is for the state to give the father veto power to overrule a womans decision to have an abortion; thats solely her decision, she alone is adversely affected by dictates of the state, not the father, where her right to privacy and her right to decide whether to have a child are not are paramount.
> 
> Again, the courts have exhibited great wisdom concerning this difficult issue, where the correct doctrine is in place forbidding state interference, and allowing private citizens to make their own decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need to remain vigilant. Government is already too far into our private lives.
Click to expand...


True. 

And unfortunately many conservatives seek to expand the size and authority of government in response to a changing society they needlessly fear, where classes of persons who are perceived as a threat have their civil liberties jeopardized; the hostility of the right toward transgender Americans being one troubling example.


----------



## syrenn

thanatos144 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> What child?  There is no child until viability (so say prochoice people).  I'm not saying that the female should not hold all the cards in deciding on having an abortion or not.  But is the fetus a child or not?  If the fetus is not a child then it's blackmail if the female forces the responsibility of this future child on the father.  And if the female does not like this, perhaps she should keep the male's sperm out of her body -- or is the male the only one to be responsible in this regard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if a woman does not want to carry a baby... she as the option of an abortion
> 
> _if a male does not want to carry a baby... he can have an abortion too. _
> 
> 
> that is the end of the right to a male having an abortions...
> 
> as to the rest of your question.... which is child support.
> 
> if a MAN does not want to pay for HIS childs or not a childs support...( i really dont care wich)  then HE should keep HIS sperm to himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what your saying is that being born with a vagina magically gives you the power to decide life and death of the unborn?
Click to expand...


as i said before..... when a male is the one gestating...he will have every right to have an abortion if he wants one. 

ie... a males right to an abortion.


----------



## thanatos144

syrenn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if a woman does not want to carry a baby... she as the option of an abortion
> 
> _if a male does not want to carry a baby... he can have an abortion too. _
> 
> 
> that is the end of the right to a male having an abortions...
> 
> as to the rest of your question.... which is child support.
> 
> if a MAN does not want to pay for HIS childs or not a childs support...( i really dont care wich)  then HE should keep HIS sperm to himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what your saying is that being born with a vagina magically gives you the power to decide life and death of the unborn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as i said before..... when a male is the one gestating...he will have every right to have an abortion if he wants one.
> 
> ie... a males right to an abortion.
Click to expand...

So it is true ... You think a vagina gives you the right to kill the unborn..... that is pretty arrogant.


----------



## syrenn

thanatos144 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what your saying is that being born with a vagina magically gives you the power to decide life and death of the unborn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as i said before..... when a male is the one gestating...he will have every right to have an abortion if he wants one.
> 
> ie... a males right to an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is true ... You think a vagina gives you the right to kill the unborn..... that is pretty arrogant.
Click to expand...


what is "alive" as in having a life of its own, is a matter of opinion. 

in my opinion....it is not "alive" until it can stay alive on its own... or kept alive by machine.... 

then again.... i am more then happy to have a fetus implanted into any male that wants to gestate.


----------



## thanatos144

syrenn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> as i said before..... when a male is the one gestating...he will have every right to have an abortion if he wants one.
> 
> ie... a males right to an abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> So it is true ... You think a vagina gives you the right to kill the unborn..... that is pretty arrogant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is "alive" as in having a life of its own, is a matter of opinion.
> 
> in my opinion....it is not "alive" until it can stay alive on its own... or kept alive by machine....
> 
> then again.... i am more then happy to have a fetus implanted into any male that wants to gestate.
Click to expand...

So a child of three isnt alive?


----------



## syrenn

thanatos144 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it is true ... You think a vagina gives you the right to kill the unborn..... that is pretty arrogant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is "alive" as in having a life of its own, is a matter of opinion.
> 
> in my opinion....it is not "alive" until it can stay alive on its own... or kept alive by machine....
> 
> then again.... i am more then happy to have a fetus implanted into any male that wants to gestate.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a child of three isnt alive?
Click to expand...


oh please.


----------



## thanatos144

syrenn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is "alive" as in having a life of its own, is a matter of opinion.
> 
> in my opinion....it is not "alive" until it can stay alive on its own... or kept alive by machine....
> 
> then again.... i am more then happy to have a fetus implanted into any male that wants to gestate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So a child of three isnt alive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh please.
Click to expand...

 Don't like being shown how illogical your arguments are?
Do you equate being able to kill the unborn with having power?


----------



## CaféAuLait

BobPlumb said:


> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?




This seems to be a pretty fair article on the matter. 

*Should Men Have the Right to 'Financial Abortions'? *

Kirsten West Savali: Should Men Have the Right to 'Financial Abortions'?

She ends her article with a question for those who are pro-choice after explaining her stance:  


*"Do we believe in absolute freedom of choice -- or merely our choice?"*

I think its a valid question.


----------



## Dragonlady

It is your arguments that are illogical. 

People who have abortions are not killing the unborn, they are terminating a pregnancy. Your view of pregnancy and abortion is unrealistic and false.   

Whatever your views, you are free to exercise them in your own life. You have no right to interfere in the family lives of other women, or to impose your religious views on others.


----------



## CaféAuLait

Dragonlady said:


> It is your arguments that are illogical.
> 
> People who have abortions are not killing the unborn, they are terminating a pregnancy. Your view of pregnancy and abortion is unrealistic and false.
> 
> Whatever your views, you are free to exercise them in your own life. You have no right to interfere in the family lives of other women, or to impose your religious views on others.



I don't believe all those who are pro-life are religious, or their reasons for opposing abortion are religious. Its caring that a life is suffering and or pained or cut short. It would be like saying that those who are in PETA or those who are against animal abuse, or Vegan ( because of viewpoints on animal wellbeing)  are religiously motivated. Just because someone is pro life does not make them some religious zealot trying to force their view onto another. 

If that is the case then PETA has no right to protest someone who wants to wear leather coat, belt or shoes, or Vegans who show up in my news feed proclaiming that when I eat meat I am harming an animal and post vulgar videos of some abuse of an animal.

People have a right to their opinion, and there are those who believe abortion is hurting another being, without religiosity involved.  You state above: _"You have no right to interfere in the family lives of other women, or to impose your religious views on others"_.

Then the same should hold true for just about everything which involves my free choice, yes? Weather it be eating meat, or wearing leather shoes.


----------



## thanatos144

Dragonlady said:


> It is your arguments that are illogical.
> 
> People who have abortions are not killing the unborn, they are terminating a pregnancy. Your view of pregnancy and abortion is unrealistic and false.
> 
> Whatever your views, you are free to exercise them in your own life. You have no right to interfere in the family lives of other women, or to impose your religious views on others.


 so the unborn is  dead until born ?


----------



## FA_Q2

syrenn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> as i said before..... when a male is the one gestating...he will have every right to have an abortion if he wants one.
> 
> ie... a males right to an abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> So it is true ... You think a vagina gives you the right to kill the unborn..... that is pretty arrogant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is "alive" as in having a life of its own, is a matter of opinion.
> 
> in my opinion....it is not "alive" until it can stay alive on its own... or kept alive by machine....
> 
> then again.... i am more then happy to have a fetus implanted into any male that wants to gestate.
Click to expand...


What is alive is not a matter of opinion.  Life is a well-defined term.  It is scientific fact that the fetus is human and alive.  The need to redefine what life is really shows exactly how abhorrent the act of an abortion is.  The only thing that is open to opinion is where that life begins to get protection.  

I support the right to choose but I damn well do so with both eyes open about what it actually is.  It IS killing.  Period.


----------



## FA_Q2

Dragonlady said:


> It is your arguments that are illogical.
> 
> People who have abortions are not killing the unborn, they are terminating a pregnancy. Your view of pregnancy and abortion is unrealistic and false.
> 
> Whatever your views, you are free to exercise them in your own life. You have no right to interfere in the family lives of other women, or to impose your religious views on others.



What is illogical is refusing to acknowledge that abortion does, indeed, kill an unborn child.  There is simply no way around that fact without redefining basic terms to be utter nonsense.

There is not one single coherent definition of the term life that would not include a fetus.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

thanatos144 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> What child?  There is no child until viability (so say prochoice people).  I'm not saying that the female should not hold all the cards in deciding on having an abortion or not.  But is the fetus a child or not?  If the fetus is not a child then it's blackmail if the female forces the responsibility of this future child on the father.  And if the female does not like this, perhaps she should keep the male's sperm out of her body -- or is the male the only one to be responsible in this regard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if a woman does not want to carry a baby... she as the option of an abortion
> 
> _if a male does not want to carry a baby... he can have an abortion too. _
> 
> 
> that is the end of the right to a male having an abortions...
> 
> as to the rest of your question.... which is child support.
> 
> if a MAN does not want to pay for HIS childs or not a childs support...( i really dont care wich)  then HE should keep HIS sperm to himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what your saying is that being born with a vagina magically gives you the power to decide life and death of the unborn?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## Faun

thanatos144 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what your saying is that being born with a vagina magically gives you the power to decide life and death of the unborn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as i said before..... when a male is the one gestating...he will have every right to have an abortion if he wants one.
> 
> ie... a males right to an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is true ... You think a vagina gives you the right to kill the unborn..... that is pretty arrogant.
Click to expand...

Take it up with God. He's the one who gave women a birth canal, the ability to get pregnant, and their unalienable rights of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.


----------



## KevinWestern

BobPlumb said:


> What child?  There is no child until viability (so say prochoice people).  I'm not saying that the female should not hold all the cards in deciding on having an abortion or not.  But is the fetus a child or not?  If the fetus is not a child then it's blackmail if the female forces the responsibility of this future child on the male.  And if the female does not like this, perhaps she should keep the male's sperm out of her body -- or is the male the only one to be responsible in this regard?



This is just an example of one of those things where we're never going to "level the playing field" in terms of equal choice between men and women.

The child is growing inside the female's body and therefore she has the ultimate decision on whether or not the child will be aborted. Although I'm not a fan of abortion in general, I couldn't imagine ever allowing a male to FORCE a female to abort without her decision to do so. Just doesn't work that way.


----------



## CaféAuLait

KevinWestern said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> What child?  There is no child until viability (so say prochoice people).  I'm not saying that the female should not hold all the cards in deciding on having an abortion or not.  But is the fetus a child or not?  If the fetus is not a child then it's blackmail if the female forces the responsibility of this future child on the male.  And if the female does not like this, perhaps she should keep the male's sperm out of her body -- or is the male the only one to be responsible in this regard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just an example of one of those things where we're never going to "level the playing field" in terms of equal choice between men and women.
> 
> The child is growing inside the female's body and therefore she has the ultimate decision on whether or not the child will be aborted. Although I'm not a fan of abortion in general, I couldn't imagine ever allowing a male to FORCE a female to abort without her decision to do so. Just doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...


The thread is not about forcing a woman to abort, but a male having a choice in whether  he wants to be a father. What are the reasons given for abortion? Financial, not ready, accidental, etc.  The OP is making the argument if a female can choose ,then a male should have the same choice, instead of having a child forced upon him.  

Kirsten West Savali: Should Men Have the Right to 'Financial Abortions'?

If women support 'choice' and given all the deadbeat dads already out there, why should a child suffer or taxpayers when the male did not want the child to begin with and will most likely become just another dead beat dad running from the system? 

The author of the above article asks a great question IMO, "Do we believe in absolute freedom of choice -- or merely our choice?"


----------



## thanatos144

Faun said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> as i said before..... when a male is the one gestating...he will have every right to have an abortion if he wants one.
> 
> ie... a males right to an abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> So it is true ... You think a vagina gives you the right to kill the unborn..... that is pretty arrogant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take it up with God. He's the one who gave women a birth canal, the ability to get pregnant, and their unalienable rights of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...


Pretty sure God doesn't like people killing his unborn children 

tapatalk post


----------



## KevinWestern

CaféAuLait;8564871 said:
			
		

> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> What child?  There is no child until viability (so say prochoice people).  I'm not saying that the female should not hold all the cards in deciding on having an abortion or not.  But is the fetus a child or not?  If the fetus is not a child then it's blackmail if the female forces the responsibility of this future child on the male.  And if the female does not like this, perhaps she should keep the male's sperm out of her body -- or is the male the only one to be responsible in this regard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just an example of one of those things where we're never going to "level the playing field" in terms of equal choice between men and women.
> 
> The child is growing inside the female's body and therefore she has the ultimate decision on whether or not the child will be aborted. Although I'm not a fan of abortion in general, I couldn't imagine ever allowing a male to FORCE a female to abort without her decision to do so. Just doesn't work that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thread is not about forcing a woman to abort, but a male having a choice in whether  he wants to be a father. What are the reasons given for abortion? Financial, not ready, accidental, etc.  The OP is making the argument if a female can choose ,then a male should have the same choice, instead of having a child forced upon him.
> 
> Kirsten West Savali: Should Men Have the Right to 'Financial Abortions'?
> 
> If women support 'choice' and given all the deadbeat dads already out there, why should a child suffer or taxpayers when the male did not want the child to begin with and will most likely become just another dead beat dad running from the system?
> 
> The author of the above article asks a great question IMO, "Do we believe in absolute freedom of choice -- or merely our choice?"
Click to expand...


Oh I gotcha. 

My opinion: if the baby is born, then BOTH parents should be required to support it or figure out a different opinion (like adoption).

I feel like if you give a father the ability to say "I'm not supporting", you're going to make it 100x easier for these deadbeat dads to get out of taking any responsibility whatsoever for creating a child.


----------



## CaféAuLait

KevinWestern said:


> CaféAuLait;8564871 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just an example of one of those things where we're never going to "level the playing field" in terms of equal choice between men and women.
> 
> The child is growing inside the female's body and therefore she has the ultimate decision on whether or not the child will be aborted. Although I'm not a fan of abortion in general, I couldn't imagine ever allowing a male to FORCE a female to abort without her decision to do so. Just doesn't work that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread is not about forcing a woman to abort, but a male having a choice in whether  he wants to be a father. What are the reasons given for abortion? Financial, not ready, accidental, etc.  The OP is making the argument if a female can choose ,then a male should have the same choice, instead of having a child forced upon him.
> 
> Kirsten West Savali: Should Men Have the Right to 'Financial Abortions'?
> 
> If women support 'choice' and given all the deadbeat dads already out there, why should a child suffer or taxpayers when the male did not want the child to begin with and will most likely become just another dead beat dad running from the system?
> 
> The author of the above article asks a great question IMO, "Do we believe in absolute freedom of choice -- or merely our choice?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I gotcha.
> 
> My opinion: if the baby is born, then BOTH parents should be required to support it or figure out a different opinion (like adoption).
> 
> I feel like if you give a father the ability to say "I'm not supporting", you're going to make it 100x easier for these deadbeat dads *to get out of taking any responsibility whatsoever for creating a child*.
Click to expand...


( emphasis added) 

Yet, women have that choice, yes? 


I'm torn on the issue. If the male was responsible, used contraception and an accidental pregnancy was the result and or if a woman becomes pregnant on purpose or against the explicit wishes of the man, he should be given a choice. 

How something like this would take place, I've no clue though.


----------



## Faun

Jackson said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A woman has no right to destroy her body with drugs and she would be hospitalized if she tried to amputate a body part. She can't even sell a kidney for profit.  What makes you think she has the right to kill the unborn life she created? Certainly the father should be able to do something to prevent her from killing his child.
> 
> 
> 
> No one has the right to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The father should be able to force her to have the child if he wants to keep the child and raise it without her help.  The law is wrong.
> 
> If the father wants this child, she should be willing to bring the baby to term.  I just can't imagine what kind of woman would deny this baby to come to term if the father would assume his rights.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. The law is quite legit as it stands. Neither the man she fucked nor the government can make her doing anything with her body against her will. The man cannot make her stop smoking while she's pregnant, if she wants to smoke. He can't make her stop drinking while she's pregnant, if she wants to drink. And he can't make her carry the fetus if she doesn't want to.

The guy does not suddenly take ownership of a woman's body just because he knocks her up.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

FA_Q2 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your arguments that are illogical.
> 
> People who have abortions are not killing the unborn, they are terminating a pregnancy. Your view of pregnancy and abortion is unrealistic and false.
> 
> Whatever your views, you are free to exercise them in your own life. You have no right to interfere in the family lives of other women, or to impose your religious views on others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is illogical is refusing to acknowledge that abortion does, indeed, kill an unborn child.  There is simply no way around that fact without redefining basic terms to be utter nonsense.
> 
> There is not one single coherent definition of the term life that would not include a fetus.
Click to expand...


This is not a fact of law.

It may be a fact of your religious dogma or a fact of your subjective, personal belief, but it is not a fact of law, where the law is the sole authority concerning the issue.

You're at liberty to make this subjective argument to a woman considering an abortion, but this is not justification to seek to violate her right to privacy.


----------



## Faun

thanatos144 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it is true ... You think a vagina gives you the right to kill the unborn..... that is pretty arrogant.
> 
> 
> 
> Take it up with God. He's the one who gave women a birth canal, the ability to get pregnant, and their unalienable rights of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure God doesn't like people killing his unborn children
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...

No doubt there are a lot of choices people make of which God does not approve. That changes neither womens' unalienable rights nor the fact that God made women the ones with a birth canal, giving them complete control of the life inside them.


----------



## KevinWestern

CaféAuLait;8564969 said:
			
		

> ( emphasis added)
> 
> Yet, women have that choice, yes?
> 
> I'm torn on the issue. If the male was responsible, used contraception and an accidental pregnancy was the result and or if a woman becomes pregnant on purpose or against the explicit wishes of the man, he should be given a choice.
> 
> How something like this would take place, I've no clue though.



It's complex, I agree, and I totally see your point. But the two decisions don't hold equal weight:

1.) The man can say "screw this I don't want the baby" and be sipping drinks in Mexico the next day without a worry in the world. 
2.) The woman (if she doesn't want the baby) must make the terrible decision of ALSO having to allow doctors poison her unborn (or surgically kill) that which is growing inside of her, and go through all the abortion procedures, risks, ect. 

I think it's just a fact of life - to me, anyways - that the woman has the ultimate say on what happens to the baby growing inside of her, and if the baby is born both parties are responsible for its well being.

And rationally, think about it Cafe. You think we have a "deadbeat" dad problem now, what do you think is going to happen when men now have the option to absolve all responsibility by simply saying "I don't want it, abort!", lol? Any sort of scenario I can think of in that vein just seems to be a bad idea. I envision a lot of idiots having a lot of kids with a bunch of different women because they know they can simply "duck out" at any point they want during the pregnancy. 

However, I'm open to hearing some of your thoughts.


----------



## FA_Q2

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your arguments that are illogical.
> 
> People who have abortions are not killing the unborn, they are terminating a pregnancy. Your view of pregnancy and abortion is unrealistic and false.
> 
> Whatever your views, you are free to exercise them in your own life. You have no right to interfere in the family lives of other women, or to impose your religious views on others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is illogical is refusing to acknowledge that abortion does, indeed, kill an unborn child.  There is simply no way around that fact without redefining basic terms to be utter nonsense.
> 
> There is not one single coherent definition of the term life that would not include a fetus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not a fact of law.
> 
> It may be a fact of your religious dogma or a fact of your subjective, personal belief, but it is not a fact of law, where the law is the sole authority concerning the issue.
> 
> You're at liberty to make this subjective argument to a woman considering an abortion, but this is not justification to seek to violate her right to privacy.
Click to expand...

Read my statement again Clayton.  Nowhere did I metion the word law.  Law does not define the meaning of basic terms, partiucularly those that are of a scientific nature.  Law defines terms that are of a legal nature.  Notice I used the word KILL because that is NOT a legal term.  MURDER is a legal term.  The act of killing has nothing to do with the law at all and sometimes such an act is perfectly legal.  Other times it is not and the term murder applies.

This has nothing to do with my religious dogma and that is nothing more than bullshit conjecture on your part in order to hold onto that asinine assertion that abortion is somehow not the killing of an unborn human.  I will state again:

* There is not one single coherent definition of the term life that would not include a fetus.*

You cannot come up with one no matter how much the prochoice crowd wants to try and ignore what prochoice actually is. 

Lastly, nothing that I stated ever alludes to me using such as a manner of making abortion illegal.  Considering that I actually am prochoice, that would be rather silly of me top try and state.  It sickens me though when the vaunted prochoice crowd runs away from the morality of the decision they have made by outright lying to themselves about what they are committing to support.  I am willing to look at what abortion actually is rather than what we want it to be and support it because it is the right thing to do.


----------



## Dragonlady

If everyone sat down before having sex and had a discussion about what happens if this sex act results in a pregnancy, we could sort all of the "what if's" out before they happen. A lot of couples might reconsider what they were getting themselves into if they did this, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.


----------



## thanatos144

Faun said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take it up with God. He's the one who gave women a birth canal, the ability to get pregnant, and their unalienable rights of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure God doesn't like people killing his unborn children
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No doubt there are a lot of choices people make of which God does not approve. That changes neither womens' unalienable rights nor the fact that God made women the ones with a birth canal, giving them complete control of the life inside them.
Click to expand...


Still wondering where  in the constitution it forbids government from making laws to against killing the innocent 

tapatalk post


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

thanatos144 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure God doesn't like people killing his unborn children
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt there are a lot of choices people make of which God does not approve. That changes neither womens' unalienable rights nor the fact that God made women the ones with a birth canal, giving them complete control of the life inside them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still wondering where  in the constitution it forbids government from making laws to against killing the innocent
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


It doesnt, and no one ever said it did. 

But abortion is neither killing babies nor killing the innocent. 

You might believe it is in the context of your personal, subjective opinion. 

But as a fact of law it is not.


----------



## thanatos144

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt there are a lot of choices people make of which God does not approve. That changes neither womens' unalienable rights nor the fact that God made women the ones with a birth canal, giving them complete control of the life inside them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still wondering where  in the constitution it forbids government from making laws to against killing the innocent
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesnt, and no one ever said it did.
> 
> But abortion is neither killing babies nor killing the innocent.
> 
> You might believe it is in the context of your personal, subjective opinion.
> 
> But as a fact of law it is not.
Click to expand...


So what crime did the unborn commit that deserves the death penalty? 

tapatalk post


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

thanatos144 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still wondering where  in the constitution it forbids government from making laws to against killing the innocent
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesnt, and no one ever said it did.
> 
> But abortion is neither killing babies nor killing the innocent.
> 
> You might believe it is in the context of your personal, subjective opinion.
> 
> But as a fact of law it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what crime did the unborn commit that deserves the death penalty?
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Youre confusing *civil law* with *criminal law*. 

The death penalty is exacted in the context of *criminal law*, subject to *procedural due process*. 

The right to privacy concerns *civil law*, subject to *substantive due process*, where the state may not dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not.


----------



## thanatos144

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesnt, and no one ever said it did.
> 
> But abortion is neither killing babies nor killing the innocent.
> 
> You might believe it is in the context of your personal, subjective opinion.
> 
> But as a fact of law it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what crime did the unborn commit that deserves the death penalty?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youre confusing *civil law* with *criminal law*.
> 
> The death penalty is exacted in the context of *criminal law*, subject to *procedural due process*.
> 
> The right to privacy concerns *civil law*, subject to *substantive due process*, where the state may not dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not.
Click to expand...


Your confusing lies for the truth 

tapatalk post


----------



## FA_Q2

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt there are a lot of choices people make of which God does not approve. That changes neither womens' unalienable rights nor the fact that God made women the ones with a birth canal, giving them complete control of the life inside them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still wondering where  in the constitution it forbids government from making laws to against killing the innocent
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesnt, and no one ever said it did.
> 
> But abortion is neither killing babies nor killing the innocent.
> 
> You might believe it is in the context of your personal, subjective opinion.
> 
> But as a fact of law it is not.
Click to expand...


No.  It is a fact of law that it is not *murder*.  It is, however, a fact of science that you are killing a human at an early stage of life.  

Just because that is legal does not change what the act itself is.  There are times when killing is legal (moral even) and there are times when it is not.


----------



## Faun

thanatos144 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure God doesn't like people killing his unborn children
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt there are a lot of choices people make of which God does not approve. That changes neither womens' unalienable rights nor the fact that God made women the ones with a birth canal, giving them complete control of the life inside them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still wondering where  in the constitution it forbids government from making laws to against killing the innocent
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


The Constitution protects people who are born -- not people yet to be born.


----------



## CaféAuLait

KevinWestern said:


> CaféAuLait;8564969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ( emphasis added)
> 
> Yet, women have that choice, yes?
> 
> I'm torn on the issue. If the male was responsible, used contraception and an accidental pregnancy was the result and or if a woman becomes pregnant on purpose or against the explicit wishes of the man, he should be given a choice.
> 
> How something like this would take place, I've no clue though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's complex, I agree, and I totally see your point. But the two decisions don't hold equal weight:
> 
> 1.) The man can say "screw this I don't want the baby" and be sipping drinks in Mexico the next day without a worry in the world.
> 2.) The woman (if she doesn't want the baby) must make the terrible decision of ALSO having to allow doctors poison her unborn (or surgically kill) that which is growing inside of her, and go through all the abortion procedures, risks, ect.
> 
> I think it's just a fact of life - to me, anyways - that the woman has the ultimate say on what happens to the baby growing inside of her, and if the baby is born both parties are responsible for its well being.
> 
> And rationally, think about it Cafe. You think we have a "deadbeat" dad problem now, what do you think is going to happen when men now have the option to absolve all responsibility by simply saying "I don't want it, abort!", lol? Any sort of scenario I can think of in that vein just seems to be a bad idea. I envision a lot of idiots having a lot of kids with a bunch of different women because they know they can simply "duck out" at any point they want during the pregnancy.
> 
> However, I'm open to hearing some of your thoughts.
Click to expand...


Yet, the issue stands a woman can do just that. She can take the risk and say "I don't want it abort it". A man, OTOH, can not. It is morally reprehensible to force someone into parental obligations against their will--an argument we hear from those who are pro-choice.

 We recognize this fact when it comes to women - it's wrong to force a woman into parental obligations against her will, which is why women may abort, or even abandon a child and walk away leaving a baby (no questions asked) at a fire station or hospital- up to a certain age in most states. 

Where is the same for a man? Why can't he walk away, no questions asked? 

Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood - when it comes to women, but it is for men.  I see people say, "if men don't want an accidental child then he should have a vasectomy". Its simple to say, but men don't have access to clinics like PP where they can walk in and walk out simply, in fact many doctors won't perform a vasectomy on a man if he does not have children or is not 27years plus. ( this is the way it is at military hospitals). Sure they have access to condoms, accidents happen, and women have access to the same condoms. 

I feel this way as a female. I make the choice, either way. As the author of the article wrote,  "Responsibility and equality should not be mutually exclusive".


----------



## thanatos144

Faun said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt there are a lot of choices people make of which God does not approve. That changes neither womens' unalienable rights nor the fact that God made women the ones with a birth canal, giving them complete control of the life inside them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still wondering where  in the constitution it forbids government from making laws to against killing the innocent
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution protects people who are born -- not people yet to be born.
Click to expand...


Where does is specify that 

tapatalk post


----------



## Faun

CaféAuLait;8566625 said:
			
		

> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8564969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ( emphasis added)
> 
> Yet, women have that choice, yes?
> 
> I'm torn on the issue. If the male was responsible, used contraception and an accidental pregnancy was the result and or if a woman becomes pregnant on purpose or against the explicit wishes of the man, he should be given a choice.
> 
> How something like this would take place, I've no clue though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's complex, I agree, and I totally see your point. But the two decisions don't hold equal weight:
> 
> 1.) The man can say "screw this I don't want the baby" and be sipping drinks in Mexico the next day without a worry in the world.
> 2.) The woman (if she doesn't want the baby) must make the terrible decision of ALSO having to allow doctors poison her unborn (or surgically kill) that which is growing inside of her, and go through all the abortion procedures, risks, ect.
> 
> I think it's just a fact of life - to me, anyways - that the woman has the ultimate say on what happens to the baby growing inside of her, and if the baby is born both parties are responsible for its well being.
> 
> And rationally, think about it Cafe. You think we have a "deadbeat" dad problem now, what do you think is going to happen when men now have the option to absolve all responsibility by simply saying "I don't want it, abort!", lol? Any sort of scenario I can think of in that vein just seems to be a bad idea. I envision a lot of idiots having a lot of kids with a bunch of different women because they know they can simply "duck out" at any point they want during the pregnancy.
> 
> However, I'm open to hearing some of your thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, the issue stands a woman can do just that. She can take the risk and say "I don't want it abort it". A man, OTOH, can not. It is morally reprehensible to force someone into parental obligations against their will--an argument we hear from those who are pro-choice.
> 
> We recognize this fact when it comes to women - it's wrong to force a woman into parental obligations against her will, which is why women may abort, or even abandon a child and walk away leaving a baby (no questions asked) at a fire station or hospital- up to a certain age in most states.
> 
> Where is the same for a man? Why can't he walk away, no questions asked?
Click to expand...

The difference is that a woman having an abortion is not leaving a child devoid of financial support from a parent.

Once a child is born, his/her needs outweigh the needs of the deadbeat Conservative dad who doesn't want to pay for his own child.


----------



## Faun

thanatos144 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still wondering where  in the constitution it forbids government from making laws to against killing the innocent
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution protects people who are born -- not people yet to be born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does is specify that
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


_nor shall any State deprive any *person* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any *person* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._

An unborn fetus is not a "person."


----------



## FA_Q2

Faun said:


> CaféAuLait;8566625 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's complex, I agree, and I totally see your point. But the two decisions don't hold equal weight:
> 
> 1.) The man can say "screw this I don't want the baby" and be sipping drinks in Mexico the next day without a worry in the world.
> 2.) The woman (if she doesn't want the baby) must make the terrible decision of ALSO having to allow doctors poison her unborn (or surgically kill) that which is growing inside of her, and go through all the abortion procedures, risks, ect.
> 
> I think it's just a fact of life - to me, anyways - that the woman has the ultimate say on what happens to the baby growing inside of her, and if the baby is born both parties are responsible for its well being.
> 
> And rationally, think about it Cafe. You think we have a "deadbeat" dad problem now, what do you think is going to happen when men now have the option to absolve all responsibility by simply saying "I don't want it, abort!", lol? Any sort of scenario I can think of in that vein just seems to be a bad idea. I envision a lot of idiots having a lot of kids with a bunch of different women because they know they can simply "duck out" at any point they want during the pregnancy.
> 
> However, I'm open to hearing some of your thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, the issue stands a woman can do just that. She can take the risk and say "I don't want it abort it". A man, OTOH, can not. It is morally reprehensible to force someone into parental obligations against their will--an argument we hear from those who are pro-choice.
> 
> We recognize this fact when it comes to women - it's wrong to force a woman into parental obligations against her will, which is why women may abort,* or even abandon a child and walk away leaving a baby (no questions asked) at a fire station or hospital- up to a certain age in most states.*
> 
> Where is the same for a man? Why can't he walk away, no questions asked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that a woman having an abortion is not leaving a child devoid of financial support from a parent.
> 
> Once a child is born, his/her needs outweigh the needs of the deadbeat Conservative dad who doesn't want to pay for his own child.
Click to expand...


You failed to address that part of his statement.  I think that is another strong point that is related to this thread.  A mother, even after birth, is given the option of completely and utterly abandoning a child without a single obligation at almost any point in the childs early life.  A father has absolutely no equivalent option.

Perhaps leaving a child in a hospital or other place might need a reevaluation?


----------



## CaféAuLait

Faun said:


> CaféAuLait;8566625 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's complex, I agree, and I totally see your point. But the two decisions don't hold equal weight:
> 
> 1.) The man can say "screw this I don't want the baby" and be sipping drinks in Mexico the next day without a worry in the world.
> 2.) The woman (if she doesn't want the baby) must make the terrible decision of ALSO having to allow doctors poison her unborn (or surgically kill) that which is growing inside of her, and go through all the abortion procedures, risks, ect.
> 
> I think it's just a fact of life - to me, anyways - that the woman has the ultimate say on what happens to the baby growing inside of her, and if the baby is born both parties are responsible for its well being.
> 
> And rationally, think about it Cafe. You think we have a "deadbeat" dad problem now, what do you think is going to happen when men now have the option to absolve all responsibility by simply saying "I don't want it, abort!", lol? Any sort of scenario I can think of in that vein just seems to be a bad idea. I envision a lot of idiots having a lot of kids with a bunch of different women because they know they can simply "duck out" at any point they want during the pregnancy.
> 
> However, I'm open to hearing some of your thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, the issue stands a woman can do just that. She can take the risk and say "I don't want it abort it". A man, OTOH, can not. It is morally reprehensible to force someone into parental obligations against their will--an argument we hear from those who are pro-choice.
> 
> We recognize this fact when it comes to women - it's wrong to force a woman into parental obligations against her will, which is why women may abort, or even abandon a child and walk away leaving a baby (no questions asked) at a fire station or hospital- up to a certain age in most states.
> 
> Where is the same for a man? Why can't he walk away, no questions asked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that a woman having an abortion is not leaving a child devoid of financial support from a parent.
> 
> Once a child is born, his/her needs outweigh the needs of the deadbeat Conservative dad who doesn't want to pay for his own child.
Click to expand...


Deadbeat conservative dad? As if deadbeats don't cross political lines. There is no rhetoric here, leave it at the door and try to discuss this in a mature matter if you can. 

Again, if a mother has a choice not to bear such financial responsibility either through abortion and or abandoning a child at a hospital or fire station (as is legal in most or all states), why not the same choice for a father? 

Why is it only freedom of choice for a woman to be free of the financial, emotional, and likewise strains of parenthood?


----------



## Faun

FA_Q2 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8566625 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, the issue stands a woman can do just that. She can take the risk and say "I don't want it abort it". A man, OTOH, can not. It is morally reprehensible to force someone into parental obligations against their will--an argument we hear from those who are pro-choice.
> 
> We recognize this fact when it comes to women - it's wrong to force a woman into parental obligations against her will, which is why women may abort,* or even abandon a child and walk away leaving a baby (no questions asked) at a fire station or hospital- up to a certain age in most states.*
> 
> Where is the same for a man? Why can't he walk away, no questions asked?
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that a woman having an abortion is not leaving a child devoid of financial support from a parent.
> 
> Once a child is born, his/her needs outweigh the needs of the deadbeat Conservative dad who doesn't want to pay for his own child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You failed to address that part of his statement.  I think that is another strong point that is related to this thread.  A mother, even after birth, is given the option of completely and utterly abandoning a child without a single obligation at almost any point in the childs early life.  A father has absolutely no equivalent option.
> 
> Perhaps leaving a child in a hospital or other place might need a reevaluation?
Click to expand...


Safe haven laws allows the *parent(s)* of a newborn to relinquish parental rights. It's allowed because it's considered to be in the best interest of the baby and laws (that I've seen) don't distinguish between the mother and the father.


----------



## Faun

CaféAuLait;8566732 said:
			
		

> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8566625 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, the issue stands a woman can do just that. She can take the risk and say "I don't want it abort it". A man, OTOH, can not. It is morally reprehensible to force someone into parental obligations against their will--an argument we hear from those who are pro-choice.
> 
> We recognize this fact when it comes to women - it's wrong to force a woman into parental obligations against her will, which is why women may abort, or even abandon a child and walk away leaving a baby (no questions asked) at a fire station or hospital- up to a certain age in most states.
> 
> Where is the same for a man? Why can't he walk away, no questions asked?
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that a woman having an abortion is not leaving a child devoid of financial support from a parent.
> 
> Once a child is born, his/her needs outweigh the needs of the deadbeat Conservative dad who doesn't want to pay for his own child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deadbeat conservative dad? As if deadbeats don't cross political lines. There is no rhetoric here, leave it at the door and try to discuss this in a mature matter if you can.
> 
> Again, if a mother has a choice not to bear such financial responsibility either through abortion and or abandoning a child at a hospital or fire station (as is legal in most or all states), why not the same choice for a father?
> 
> Why is it only freedom of choice for a woman to be free of the financial, emotional, and likewise strains of parenthood?
Click to expand...

Yes, deadbeat Conservative dads. I don't see Liberal Dads trying to make the argument that they should be allowed to "opt out" of financially supporting their own children simply because the women they are getting pregnant have the option to abort their pregnancy.


----------



## thanatos144

Faun said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution protects people who are born -- not people yet to be born.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does is specify that
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _nor shall any State deprive any *person* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any *person* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> An unborn fetus is not a "person."
Click to expand...


Says who? you?  People use to say blacks weren't people as well 

tapatalk post


----------



## CaféAuLait

Faun said:


> CaféAuLait;8566732 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that a woman having an abortion is not leaving a child devoid of financial support from a parent.
> 
> Once a child is born, his/her needs outweigh the needs of the deadbeat Conservative dad who doesn't want to pay for his own child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deadbeat conservative dad? As if deadbeats don't cross political lines. There is no rhetoric here, leave it at the door and try to discuss this in a mature matter if you can.
> 
> Again, if a mother has a choice not to bear such financial responsibility either through abortion and or abandoning a child at a hospital or fire station (as is legal in most or all states), why not the same choice for a father?
> 
> Why is it only freedom of choice for a woman to be free of the financial, emotional, and likewise strains of parenthood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, deadbeat Conservative dads. I don't see Liberal Dads trying to make the argument that they should be allowed to "opt out" of financially supporting their own children simply because the women they are getting pregnant have the option to abort their pregnancy.
Click to expand...


Which 'conservative dads' are you speaking of? I am curious. Your argument is just as silly as me saying those women who chose to abort are "deadbeat women" since they ARE "allowed  to "opt out" of financially supporting their own children" by way of choice. Abortion, morning after pill, adoption, safe haven, etc.  


Are you trying to shame a man for wanting the same rights as a female  when it comes to choice about an unborn child? A female can opt out for any reason she wishes. A man on the other hand, must abide by her wish. Equal rights under the law, yes or no?  Or is it equal rights when women have the only choice in the matter. Even when a man wants to go through with the pregnancy they can't. And they can't decide not to after a woman has made her choice. 

Ms. West wrote it very eloquently "The right to feel the weight of decisions without being sheltered by gender is one that has not been fully realized, and some women in the pro-life/pro-choice debate seem to negligently cast aside the opinions of potential fathers as intrusive, irrelevant and patriarchal".


----------



## Faun

thanatos144 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does is specify that
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _nor shall any State deprive any *person* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any *person* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> An unborn fetus is not a "person."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who? you?  People use to say blacks weren't people as well
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


The U.S. Supreme Court ... Roe v Wade ...

_All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, *persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.*_


----------



## jon_berzerk

BobPlumb said:


> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?



*However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.* 

yeah so 

that is the way it is 

as a male if you do not want kids 

you have a couple of options 

first think with the head on your shoulders 

not the one in the pants 

or get fixed 

snip snip


----------



## Faun

CaféAuLait;8566806 said:
			
		

> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8566732 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deadbeat conservative dad? As if deadbeats don't cross political lines. There is no rhetoric here, leave it at the door and try to discuss this in a mature matter if you can.
> 
> Again, if a mother has a choice not to bear such financial responsibility either through abortion and or abandoning a child at a hospital or fire station (as is legal in most or all states), why not the same choice for a father?
> 
> Why is it only freedom of choice for a woman to be free of the financial, emotional, and likewise strains of parenthood?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, deadbeat Conservative dads. I don't see Liberal Dads trying to make the argument that they should be allowed to "opt out" of financially supporting their own children simply because the women they are getting pregnant have the option to abort their pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which 'conservative dads' are you speaking of? I am curious. Your argument is just as silly as me saying those women who chose to abort are "deadbeat women" since they ARE "allowed  to "opt out" of financially supporting their own children" by way of choice. Abortion, morning after pill, adoption, safe haven, etc.
> 
> 
> Are you trying to shame a man for wanting the same rights as a female  when it comes to choice about an unborn child? A female can opt out for any reason she wishes. A man on the other hand, must abide by her wish. Equal rights under the law, yes or no?  Or is it equal rights when women have the only choice in the matter. Even when a man wants to go through with the pregnancy they can't. And they can't decide not to after a woman has made her choice.
> 
> Ms. West wrote it very eloquently "The right to feel the weight of decisions without being sheltered by gender is one that has not been fully realized, and some women in the pro-life/pro-choice debate seem to negligently cast aside the opinions of potential fathers as intrusive, irrelevant and patriarchal".
Click to expand...


The people on this forum, for example ... the ones championing a man's right to be a deadbeat dad and escape his financial responsibilities for his own child -- are Conservatives. And it's borne largely as a punishment to women for having the right to abort a pregnancy. It's the age old _"if you can't beat 'em, join 'em,"_ mentality.

And a man will never have the same rights as a woman for the simple fact that we are biologically engineered differently. There is no law which can balance that natural inequity. Men are not capable of getting pregnant, whereas, women are. So the two genders are built with the inherent inequality which will never allow any man to be on an equal level as a woman.

That's why the absolute answer to this "opt out" solution for deadbeat Conservative dads, which I'm fairly certain I saw towards the beginning of this thread and every one like it, is ....... when men can get pregnant, they will have the same option to abort their pregnancy in the exact same fashion women currently have.


----------



## CaféAuLait

jon_berzerk said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.*
> 
> yeah so
> 
> that is the way it is
> 
> as a male if you do not want kids
> 
> you have a couple of options
> 
> first think with the head on your shoulders
> 
> not the one in the pants
> 
> or get fixed
> 
> snip snip
Click to expand...


This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'? 

If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.

She knows full well that any man she has sex with is a potential father to her child.

IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.


----------



## CaféAuLait

Faun said:


> CaféAuLait;8566806 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, deadbeat Conservative dads. I don't see Liberal Dads trying to make the argument that they should be allowed to "opt out" of financially supporting their own children simply because the women they are getting pregnant have the option to abort their pregnancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which 'conservative dads' are you speaking of? I am curious. Your argument is just as silly as me saying those women who chose to abort are "deadbeat women" since they ARE "allowed  to "opt out" of financially supporting their own children" by way of choice. Abortion, morning after pill, adoption, safe haven, etc.
> 
> 
> Are you trying to shame a man for wanting the same rights as a female  when it comes to choice about an unborn child? A female can opt out for any reason she wishes. A man on the other hand, must abide by her wish. Equal rights under the law, yes or no?  Or is it equal rights when women have the only choice in the matter. Even when a man wants to go through with the pregnancy they can't. And they can't decide not to after a woman has made her choice.
> 
> Ms. West wrote it very eloquently "The right to feel the weight of decisions without being sheltered by gender is one that has not been fully realized, and some women in the pro-life/pro-choice debate seem to negligently cast aside the opinions of potential fathers as intrusive, irrelevant and patriarchal".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people on this forum, for example ... the ones championing a man's right to be a deadbeat dad and escape his financial responsibilities for his own child -- are Conservatives. And it's borne largely as a punishment to women for having the right to abort a pregnancy. It's the age old _"if you can't beat 'em, join 'em,"_ mentality.
> 
> And a man will never have the same rights as a woman for the simple fact that we are biologically engineered differently. There is no law which can balance that natural inequity. Men are not capable of getting pregnant, whereas, women are. So the two genders are built with the inherent inequality which will never allow any man to be on an equal level as a woman.
> 
> That's why the absolute answer to this "opt out" solution for deadbeat Conservative dads, which I'm fairly certain I saw towards the beginning of this thread and every one like it, is ....... when men can get pregnant, they will have the same option to abort their pregnancy in the exact same fashion women currently have.
Click to expand...


You keep wanting to make this a conservative issue. The articles I posted are from LIBERAL websites and journalists, ( TIME And Huffington Post) FEMALES, in fact, questioning this inequality. I know I am different from a male in many ways. I know I can bear children while he cant. This has nothing to do with pro-choice or anti-choice. It is about the issue if a woman can abort a child because they are financially unable to care for a child a man should have the same choice. 

 If we are demanding equality  in todays day and age, then we must be willing to do the same for our male counterparts in my opinion. We make a decision to have sex and we KNOW what the outcome is just as much as a male does. We can make any choice we want, they cant and that hardly seems fair to me.


----------



## jon_berzerk

CaféAuLait;8566902 said:
			
		

> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.*
> 
> yeah so
> 
> that is the way it is
> 
> as a male if you do not want kids
> 
> you have a couple of options
> 
> first think with the head on your shoulders
> 
> not the one in the pants
> 
> or get fixed
> 
> snip snip
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'?
> 
> If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.
> 
> She knows full well that any man she has sex with is a potential father to her child.
> 
> IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.
Click to expand...


*This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'? *

yes but as a male i can only be 100 percent sure of not fathering a child 

by 

1- refraining 
or 
2 getting fixed 

absent a medical record there is not a 100 percent surety 

of not fathering a child because a female claimed to be snipped 


*If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.*

the male should assume that is a possibility as well 

*IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.*

they do 

the choice is either to refrain or take precaution it insure there 

will not be a pregnancy 

or roll the dice


----------



## Faun

CaféAuLait;8566902 said:
			
		

> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.*
> 
> yeah so
> 
> that is the way it is
> 
> as a male if you do not want kids
> 
> you have a couple of options
> 
> first think with the head on your shoulders
> 
> not the one in the pants
> 
> or get fixed
> 
> snip snip
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'?
> 
> If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.
> 
> She knows full well that any man she has sex with is a potential father to her child.
> 
> IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.
Click to expand...

She also knows that if sex results in a pregnancy, abortion is an option for her. Men also know if sex results in a pregnancy, abortion is not an option for them. So both men and women enter that agreement with that information and should take the appropriate measures to avoid a pregnancy, if they don't want to be a parent.


----------



## Faun

CaféAuLait;8566915 said:
			
		

> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8566806 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which 'conservative dads' are you speaking of? I am curious. Your argument is just as silly as me saying those women who chose to abort are "deadbeat women" since they ARE "allowed  to "opt out" of financially supporting their own children" by way of choice. Abortion, morning after pill, adoption, safe haven, etc.
> 
> 
> Are you trying to shame a man for wanting the same rights as a female  when it comes to choice about an unborn child? A female can opt out for any reason she wishes. A man on the other hand, must abide by her wish. Equal rights under the law, yes or no?  Or is it equal rights when women have the only choice in the matter. Even when a man wants to go through with the pregnancy they can't. And they can't decide not to after a woman has made her choice.
> 
> Ms. West wrote it very eloquently "The right to feel the weight of decisions without being sheltered by gender is one that has not been fully realized, and some women in the pro-life/pro-choice debate seem to negligently cast aside the opinions of potential fathers as intrusive, irrelevant and patriarchal".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people on this forum, for example ... the ones championing a man's right to be a deadbeat dad and escape his financial responsibilities for his own child -- are Conservatives. And it's borne largely as a punishment to women for having the right to abort a pregnancy. It's the age old _"if you can't beat 'em, join 'em,"_ mentality.
> 
> And a man will never have the same rights as a woman for the simple fact that we are biologically engineered differently. There is no law which can balance that natural inequity. Men are not capable of getting pregnant, whereas, women are. So the two genders are built with the inherent inequality which will never allow any man to be on an equal level as a woman.
> 
> That's why the absolute answer to this "opt out" solution for deadbeat Conservative dads, which I'm fairly certain I saw towards the beginning of this thread and every one like it, is ....... when men can get pregnant, they will have the same option to abort their pregnancy in the exact same fashion women currently have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep wanting to make this a conservative issue. The articles I posted are from LIBERAL websites and journalists, ( TIME And Huffington Post) FEMALES, in fact, questioning this inequality. I know I am different from a male in many ways. I know I can bear children while he cant. This has nothing to do with pro-choice or anti-choice. It is about the issue if a woman can abort a child because they are financially unable to care for a child a man should have the same choice.
> 
> If we are demanding equality  in todays day and age, then we must be willing to do the same for our male counterparts in my opinion. We make a decision to have sex and we KNOW what the outcome is just as much as a male does. We can make any choice we want, they cant and that hardly seems fair to me.
Click to expand...


I haven't been to those sites and have only seen the argument being made on forums such as this one. And what I've seen are Conservative men looking to create an "opt out" clause for men to avoid their financial responsibilities. When I see Liberal men lining up like that, I  will view it as non-political. 

So far, that has not been my observation.


----------



## CaféAuLait

jon_berzerk said:


> CaféAuLait;8566902 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.*
> 
> yeah so
> 
> that is the way it is
> 
> as a male if you do not want kids
> 
> you have a couple of options
> 
> first think with the head on your shoulders
> 
> not the one in the pants
> 
> or get fixed
> 
> snip snip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'?
> 
> If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.
> 
> She knows full well that any man she has sex with is a potential father to her child.
> 
> IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'? *
> 
> yes but as a male i can only be 100 percent sure of not fathering a child
> 
> by
> 
> 1- refraining
> or
> 2 getting fixed
> 
> absent a medical record there is not a 100 percent surety
> 
> of not fathering a child because a female claimed to be snipped
> 
> 
> *If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.*
> 
> the male should assume that is a possibility as well
> 
> *IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.*
> 
> they do
> 
> the choice is either to refrain or take precaution it insure there
> 
> will not be a pregnancy
> 
> or roll the dice
Click to expand...



If you read back, my argument is about men who have taken responsibility and a pregnancy has happened after using protection and or men who have been "tricked" into pregnancy, which does happen at times. 

Women have an abundance of methods at their fingertips, abortion, condoms, RU486, the morning after pill, surgical sterilants, safe haven, adoption, etc. In fact there is a big problem with Utah as we speak who strip fathers of their rights when women decide to adopt a child out where a man has explicitly said he wants to father this child. Google it, it's pretty crazy, but I digress. It just seems to me, men and their feelings are disregarded, too easily and their choices are not as diverse as females are. 

Men should have a choice, especially if in a relationship where they have taken precautions and or expressed they do not want children.


----------



## thanatos144

CaféAuLait;8566937 said:
			
		

> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8566902 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'?
> 
> If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.
> 
> She knows full well that any man she has sex with is a potential father to her child.
> 
> IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'? *
> 
> yes but as a male i can only be 100 percent sure of not fathering a child
> 
> by
> 
> 1- refraining
> or
> 2 getting fixed
> 
> absent a medical record there is not a 100 percent surety
> 
> of not fathering a child because a female claimed to be snipped
> 
> 
> *If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.*
> 
> the male should assume that is a possibility as well
> 
> *IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.*
> 
> they do
> 
> the choice is either to refrain or take precaution it insure there
> 
> will not be a pregnancy
> 
> or roll the dice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you read back, my argument is about men who have taken responsibility and a pregnancy has happened after using protection and or men who have been "tricked" into pregnancy, which does happen at times.
> 
> Women have an abundance of methods at their fingertips, abortion, condoms, RU486, the morning after pill, surgical sterilants, safe haven, adoption, etc. In fact there is a big problem with Utah as we speak who strip fathers of their rights when women decide to adopt a child out where a man has explicitly said he wants to father this child. Google it, it's pretty crazy, but I digress. It just seems to me, men and their feelings are disregarded, too easily and their choices are not as diverse as females are.
> 
> Men should have a choice, especially if in a relationship where they have taken precautions and or expressed they do not want children.
Click to expand...


What it boils down to is generations of teaching kids men are cheating dogs. Girls are taught from a young age to have no respect for men and to treat them as breathing wallets 

tapatalk post


----------



## CaféAuLait

Faun said:


> CaféAuLait;8566902 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.*
> 
> yeah so
> 
> that is the way it is
> 
> as a male if you do not want kids
> 
> you have a couple of options
> 
> first think with the head on your shoulders
> 
> not the one in the pants
> 
> or get fixed
> 
> snip snip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'?
> 
> If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.
> 
> She knows full well that any man she has sex with is a potential father to her child.
> 
> IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She also knows that if sex results in a pregnancy, abortion is an option for her. Men also know if sex results in a pregnancy, abortion is not an option for them. So both men and women enter that agreement with that information and should take the appropriate measures to avoid a pregnancy, if they don't want to be a parent.
Click to expand...


Exactly I realize it's not an option, and that is why I am discussing this. And as I said above it is about makes who made a choice to use condoms and a pregnancy occurred and or a woman decided to get pregnant by claiming she was on the pill when she was not, etc.


----------



## CaféAuLait

Faun said:


> CaféAuLait;8566915 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people on this forum, for example ... the ones championing a man's right to be a deadbeat dad and escape his financial responsibilities for his own child -- are Conservatives. And it's borne largely as a punishment to women for having the right to abort a pregnancy. It's the age old _"if you can't beat 'em, join 'em,"_ mentality.
> 
> And a man will never have the same rights as a woman for the simple fact that we are biologically engineered differently. There is no law which can balance that natural inequity. Men are not capable of getting pregnant, whereas, women are. So the two genders are built with the inherent inequality which will never allow any man to be on an equal level as a woman.
> 
> That's why the absolute answer to this "opt out" solution for deadbeat Conservative dads, which I'm fairly certain I saw towards the beginning of this thread and every one like it, is ....... when men can get pregnant, they will have the same option to abort their pregnancy in the exact same fashion women currently have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep wanting to make this a conservative issue. The articles I posted are from LIBERAL websites and journalists, ( TIME And Huffington Post) FEMALES, in fact, questioning this inequality. I know I am different from a male in many ways. I know I can bear children while he cant. This has nothing to do with pro-choice or anti-choice. It is about the issue if a woman can abort a child because they are financially unable to care for a child a man should have the same choice.
> 
> If we are demanding equality  in todays day and age, then we must be willing to do the same for our male counterparts in my opinion. We make a decision to have sex and we KNOW what the outcome is just as much as a male does. We can make any choice we want, they cant and that hardly seems fair to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't been to those sites and have only seen the argument being made on forums such as this one. And what I've seen are Conservative men looking to create an "opt out" clause for men to avoid their financial responsibilities. When I see Liberal men lining up like that, I  will view it as non-political.
> 
> So far, that has not been my observation.
Click to expand...



They are not "sites" I linked to the articles, where the women ( liberal women) are making this argument. There are liberal men who agree in oped's as well.


----------



## jon_berzerk

thanatos144 said:


> CaféAuLait;8566937 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'? *
> 
> yes but as a male i can only be 100 percent sure of not fathering a child
> 
> by
> 
> 1- refraining
> or
> 2 getting fixed
> 
> absent a medical record there is not a 100 percent surety
> 
> of not fathering a child because a female claimed to be snipped
> 
> 
> *If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.*
> 
> the male should assume that is a possibility as well
> 
> *IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.*
> 
> they do
> 
> the choice is either to refrain or take precaution it insure there
> 
> will not be a pregnancy
> 
> or roll the dice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read back, my argument is about men who have taken responsibility and a pregnancy has happened after using protection and or men who have been "tricked" into pregnancy, which does happen at times.
> 
> Women have an abundance of methods at their fingertips, abortion, condoms, RU486, the morning after pill, surgical sterilants, safe haven, adoption, etc. In fact there is a big problem with Utah as we speak who strip fathers of their rights when women decide to adopt a child out where a man has explicitly said he wants to father this child. Google it, it's pretty crazy, but I digress. It just seems to me, men and their feelings are disregarded, too easily and their choices are not as diverse as females are.
> 
> Men should have a choice, especially if in a relationship where they have taken precautions and or expressed they do not want children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it boils down to is generations of teaching kids men are cheating dogs. Girls are taught from a young age to have no respect for men and to treat them as breathing wallets
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...




What are little boys made of?
Snips and snails, and puppy dogs tails
That's what little boys are made of !"
What are little girls made of?
"Sugar and spice and all things nice
That's what little girls are made of!


----------



## KevinWestern

CaféAuLait;8566625 said:
			
		

> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8564969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ( emphasis added)
> 
> Yet, women have that choice, yes?
> 
> I'm torn on the issue. If the male was responsible, used contraception and an accidental pregnancy was the result and or if a woman becomes pregnant on purpose or against the explicit wishes of the man, he should be given a choice.
> 
> How something like this would take place, I've no clue though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's complex, I agree, and I totally see your point. But the two decisions don't hold equal weight:
> 
> 1.) The man can say "screw this I don't want the baby" and be sipping drinks in Mexico the next day without a worry in the world.
> 2.) The woman (if she doesn't want the baby) must make the terrible decision of ALSO having to allow doctors poison her unborn (or surgically kill) that which is growing inside of her, and go through all the abortion procedures, risks, ect.
> 
> I think it's just a fact of life - to me, anyways - that the woman has the ultimate say on what happens to the baby growing inside of her, and if the baby is born both parties are responsible for its well being.
> 
> And rationally, think about it Cafe. You think we have a "deadbeat" dad problem now, what do you think is going to happen when men now have the option to absolve all responsibility by simply saying "I don't want it, abort!", lol? Any sort of scenario I can think of in that vein just seems to be a bad idea. I envision a lot of idiots having a lot of kids with a bunch of different women because they know they can simply "duck out" at any point they want during the pregnancy.
> 
> However, I'm open to hearing some of your thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, the issue stands a woman can do just that. She can take the risk and say "I don't want it abort it". A man, OTOH, can not. It is morally reprehensible to force someone into parental obligations against their will--an argument we hear from those who are pro-choice.
> 
> We recognize this fact when it comes to women - it's wrong to force a woman into parental obligations against her will, which is why women may abort, or even abandon a child and walk away leaving a baby (no questions asked) at a fire station or hospital- up to a certain age in most states.
> 
> Where is the same for a man? Why can't he walk away, no questions asked?
> 
> Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood - when it comes to women, but it is for men.  I see people say, "if men don't want an accidental child then he should have a vasectomy". Its simple to say, but men don't have access to clinics like PP where they can walk in and walk out simply, in fact many doctors won't perform a vasectomy on a man if he does not have children or is not 27years plus. ( this is the way it is at military hospitals). Sure they have access to condoms, accidents happen, and women have access to the same condoms.
> 
> I feel this way as a female. I make the choice, either way. As the author of the article wrote,  "Responsibility and equality should not be mutually exclusive".
Click to expand...


Again, due to differences in anatomy the men are simply out of luck. Whether or not they become a future parent rests ultimately on the decision of the female (and if she chooses to abort what is inside her). 

Also, I don't think you addressed my question:
We have a deadbeat dad problem right now (especially in the minority community). How do you think a law stating that men can simply say "I don't want to raise a child" - and that's it, no more responsibility - would assist with those statistics?


----------



## Dragonlady

thanatos144 said:


> What it boils down to is generations of teaching kids men are cheating dogs. Girls are taught from a young age to have no respect for men and to treat them as breathing wallets
> 
> tapatalk post



It always comes down to this kind if misogyny with the so called pro-life crowd, doesn't it?  

Women are baby-killing, gold diggers who use their sexuality to take advantage of men. 

It's only been since the 1970's when DNA testing could definitively establish paternity. Prior to that time, testing could determine definitively if you weren't the father, but on the other side, if you could be the father. 

So your post is a lie. Generation after generation of women have NOT been told that a man is a wallet. We've been told that there is no guarantee that a man will accept responsibility, and even when he does, no way of ensuring that he will continue to pay once he marries and has other children. 

If you choose to have this child, women are told, generation after generation, to expect no financial assistance from the father because that has been the reality.


----------



## thanatos144

Dragonlady said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What it boils down to is generations of teaching kids men are cheating dogs. Girls are taught from a young age to have no respect for men and to treat them as breathing wallets
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always comes down to this kind if misogyny with the so called pro-life crowd, doesn't it?
> 
> Women are baby-killing, gold diggers who use their sexuality to take advantage of men.
> 
> It's only been since the 1970's when DNA testing could definitively establish paternity. Prior to that time, testing could determine definitively if you weren't the father, but on the other side, if you could be the father.
> 
> So your post is a lie. Generation after generation of women have NOT been told that a man is a wallet. We've been told that there is no guarantee that a man will accept responsibility, and even when he does, no way of ensuring that he will continue to pay once he marries and has other children.
> 
> If you choose to have this child, women are told, generation after generation, to expect no financial assistance from the father because that has been the reality.
Click to expand...


You need a dictionary 

tapatalk post


----------



## CaféAuLait

KevinWestern said:


> CaféAuLait;8566625 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's complex, I agree, and I totally see your point. But the two decisions don't hold equal weight:
> 
> 1.) The man can say "screw this I don't want the baby" and be sipping drinks in Mexico the next day without a worry in the world.
> 2.) The woman (if she doesn't want the baby) must make the terrible decision of ALSO having to allow doctors poison her unborn (or surgically kill) that which is growing inside of her, and go through all the abortion procedures, risks, ect.
> 
> I think it's just a fact of life - to me, anyways - that the woman has the ultimate say on what happens to the baby growing inside of her, and if the baby is born both parties are responsible for its well being.
> 
> And rationally, think about it Cafe. You think we have a "deadbeat" dad problem now, what do you think is going to happen when men now have the option to absolve all responsibility by simply saying "I don't want it, abort!", lol? Any sort of scenario I can think of in that vein just seems to be a bad idea. I envision a lot of idiots having a lot of kids with a bunch of different women because they know they can simply "duck out" at any point they want during the pregnancy.
> 
> However, I'm open to hearing some of your thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, the issue stands a woman can do just that. She can take the risk and say "I don't want it abort it". A man, OTOH, can not. It is morally reprehensible to force someone into parental obligations against their will--an argument we hear from those who are pro-choice.
> 
> We recognize this fact when it comes to women - it's wrong to force a woman into parental obligations against her will, which is why women may abort, or even abandon a child and walk away leaving a baby (no questions asked) at a fire station or hospital- up to a certain age in most states.
> 
> Where is the same for a man? Why can't he walk away, no questions asked?
> 
> Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood - when it comes to women, but it is for men.  I see people say, "if men don't want an accidental child then he should have a vasectomy". Its simple to say, but men don't have access to clinics like PP where they can walk in and walk out simply, in fact many doctors won't perform a vasectomy on a man if he does not have children or is not 27years plus. ( this is the way it is at military hospitals). Sure they have access to condoms, accidents happen, and women have access to the same condoms.
> 
> I feel this way as a female. I make the choice, either way. As the author of the article wrote,  "Responsibility and equality should not be mutually exclusive".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, due to differences in anatomy the men are simply out of luck. Whether or not they become a future parent rests ultimately on the decision of the female (and if she chooses to abort what is inside her).
> 
> Also, I don't think you addressed my question:
> We have a deadbeat dad problem right now (especially in the minority community). How do you think a law stating that men can simply say "I don't want to raise a child" - and that's it, no more responsibility - would assist with those statistics?
Click to expand...



You seem to be over simplifying what I said.  As I said before there should be dialog and choice for both parties.   The statistics  are appalling for those children who are raised in poverty and without a father. Those statistics show unplanned children face abuse, poverty, abandonment, and neglect.

 If that potential father has no means, no education, is young, etc the burden will not be on he father or the mother ( assuming she is in the same financial situation)  but the child, it will be the child who suffers the most. It won't be society suffering, who will most likely pick up the tab for some teen pregnancy or some jerk of a guy who just does not care. It will be the child. 

That's child's quality of life is important when faced with the pivotal decision of whether or not to continue a pregnancy, BOTH parents must be included in the dialogue and decision. If not, ultimately, it is the child who suffers.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Dragonlady said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What it boils down to is generations of teaching kids men are cheating dogs. Girls are taught from a young age to have no respect for men and to treat them as breathing wallets
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always comes down to this kind if misogyny with the so called pro-life crowd, doesn't it?
> 
> Women are baby-killing, gold diggers who use their sexuality to take advantage of men.
> 
> It's only been since the 1970's when DNA testing could definitively establish paternity. Prior to that time, testing could determine definitively if you weren't the father, but on the other side, if you could be the father.
> 
> So your post is a lie. Generation after generation of women have NOT been told that a man is a wallet. We've been told that there is no guarantee that a man will accept responsibility, and even when he does, no way of ensuring that he will continue to pay once he marries and has other children.
> 
> If you choose to have this child, women are told, generation after generation, to expect no financial assistance from the father because that has been the reality.
Click to expand...


The reason babies look like their father's is that we already know who the mother is ... 

Our society accepts dead beat dads. The tea potty even elected one. 

The title of this thread is, 





> Male's right to abortion.



The answer is, as soon as men get pregnant, they will have the right to abortion. 

Not until then.


----------



## KevinWestern

CaféAuLait;8568253 said:
			
		

> You seem to be over simplifying what I said.  As I said before there should be dialog and choice for both parties.   The statistics  are appalling for those children who are raised in poverty and without a father. Those statistics show unplanned children face abuse, poverty, abandonment, and neglect.
> 
> If that potential father has no means, no education, is young, etc the burden will not be on he father or the mother ( assuming she is in the same financial situation)  but the child, it will be the child who suffers the most. It won't be society suffering, who will most likely pick up the tab for some teen pregnancy or some jerk of a guy who just does not care. It will be the child.
> 
> That's child's quality of life is important when faced with the pivotal decision of whether or not to continue a pregnancy, BOTH parents must be included in the dialogue and decision. If not, ultimately, it is the child who suffers.




Ideally BOTH parents are involved in the abortion conversation, but if the mom wants to keep the baby and the dad does not obviously we cant force a woman to abort  right? I think that option is totally off the table (Im guessing you agree). 

So whats the other option  give the father the right to back out? How is that going to improve the quality of life of the child? I dont understand where youre coming from (perhaps elaborate)?


----------



## BobPlumb

KevinWestern said:


> CaféAuLait;8568253 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be over simplifying what I said.  As I said before there should be dialog and choice for both parties.   The statistics  are appalling for those children who are raised in poverty and without a father. Those statistics show unplanned children face abuse, poverty, abandonment, and neglect.
> 
> If that potential father has no means, no education, is young, etc the burden will not be on he father or the mother ( assuming she is in the same financial situation)  but the child, it will be the child who suffers the most. It won't be society suffering, who will most likely pick up the tab for some teen pregnancy or some jerk of a guy who just does not care. It will be the child.
> 
> That's child's quality of life is important when faced with the pivotal decision of whether or not to continue a pregnancy, BOTH parents must be included in the dialogue and decision. If not, ultimately, it is the child who suffers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ideally BOTH parents are involved in the abortion conversation, but if the mom wants to keep the baby and the dad does not obviously we cant force a woman to abort  right? I think that option is totally off the table (Im guessing you agree).
> 
> So whats the other option  give the father the right to back out? How is that going to improve the quality of life of the child? I dont understand where youre coming from (perhaps elaborate)?
Click to expand...


When a woman has an abortion, no one is concerned about the life of the child!


----------



## KevinWestern

BobPlumb said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8568253 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be over simplifying what I said.  As I said before there should be dialog and choice for both parties.   The statistics  are appalling for those children who are raised in poverty and without a father. Those statistics show unplanned children face abuse, poverty, abandonment, and neglect.
> 
> If that potential father has no means, no education, is young, etc the burden will not be on he father or the mother ( assuming she is in the same financial situation)  but the child, it will be the child who suffers the most. It won't be society suffering, who will most likely pick up the tab for some teen pregnancy or some jerk of a guy who just does not care. It will be the child.
> 
> That's child's quality of life is important when faced with the pivotal decision of whether or not to continue a pregnancy, BOTH parents must be included in the dialogue and decision. If not, ultimately, it is the child who suffers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ideally BOTH parents are involved in the abortion conversation, but if the mom wants to keep the baby and the dad does not obviously we can&#8217;t force a woman to abort &#8211; right? I think that option is totally off the table (I&#8217;m guessing you agree).
> 
> So what&#8217;s the other option &#8211; give the father the right to &#8220;back out&#8221;? How is that going to improve the quality of life of the child? I don&#8217;t understand where you&#8217;re coming from (perhaps elaborate)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a woman has an abortion, no one is concerned about the life of the child!
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing in favor of abortion, lol. I'm just working with the conversation at hand here. I'm not a big abortion fan personally unless it's a case that the mom's life is seriously threatened or if she was raped. Even then I have my own opinions, but feel like the woman should be able to decide for herself.

But yes, that's a good point I was going to make. If we're worried about "quality of life" of a child, obviously abortion is worse than growing up in poverty, in a broken home, etc, because the child will be dead!


----------



## Borillar

drifter said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental rights, which will also relinquish any obligation or responsibility.
> 
> Both parties can do that.
> 
> 2nd but not likely to happen, a pre-talk with potential sex partner about their stand on abortion/pregnancy once you know where they stand if you disagree choose not to sleep together.
Click to expand...


I don't believe there is any way at present for a man to get out of that financial responsibility for his offspring. Fair or not, that's the way it is.


----------



## Walt

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the mothers ability to kill his child is not just as messed up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men should have a right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a right to not put the unwanted baby there in the first place.
Click to expand...


If the woman did not want a baby she has the same responsibility not to get pregnant. The only correct, equal and just way is to give BOTH the choice. As it is if a man wants the child he has no choice about the woman getting the abortion. So it is only fair that if the woman wants the child and the man does not. He should have the choice to not be responsible for a child. Same as the woman has.


----------



## KevinWestern

Walt said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men should have a right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a right to not put the unwanted baby there in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the woman did not want a baby she has the same responsibility not to get pregnant. The only correct, equal and just way is to give BOTH the choice. As it is if a man wants the child he has no choice about the woman getting the abortion. So it is only fair that if the woman wants the child and the man does not. He should have the choice to not be responsible for a child. Same as the woman has.
Click to expand...


I mean, what the heck is going to deter a guy from getting 50 women pregnant? The deterrents on the female side are obvious (they'd have to face pregnancy/birth, or a horrible abortion), but what about men?

Even today, with laws that make dads pay for their children we still have an epidemic of Deadbeat dads (especially in poor, urban areas). How will your proposal affect this situation?


----------



## thanatos144

These conversations are absurd because pro abortion people always speak of women as if they can't control their libido 

tapatalk post


----------



## Luddly Neddite

thanatos144 said:


> These conversations are absurd because pro abortion people always speak of women as if they can't control their libido
> 
> tapatalk post



Good point.

That's exactly what professional nutcase, Limbaugh said. But then, there's really no reason to think he knows much about women.

Bottom line is still the same. Men don't get pregnant so men don't have a "right" to abortion.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

thanatos144 said:


> CaféAuLait;8566937 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'? *
> 
> yes but as a male i can only be 100 percent sure of not fathering a child
> 
> by
> 
> 1- refraining
> or
> 2 getting fixed
> 
> absent a medical record there is not a 100 percent surety
> 
> of not fathering a child because a female claimed to be snipped
> 
> 
> *If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.*
> 
> the male should assume that is a possibility as well
> 
> *IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.*
> 
> they do
> 
> the choice is either to refrain or take precaution it insure there
> 
> will not be a pregnancy
> 
> or roll the dice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read back, my argument is about men who have taken responsibility and a pregnancy has happened after using protection and or men who have been "tricked" into pregnancy, which does happen at times.
> 
> Women have an abundance of methods at their fingertips, abortion, condoms, RU486, the morning after pill, surgical sterilants, safe haven, adoption, etc. In fact there is a big problem with Utah as we speak who strip fathers of their rights when women decide to adopt a child out where a man has explicitly said he wants to father this child. Google it, it's pretty crazy, but I digress. It just seems to me, men and their feelings are disregarded, too easily and their choices are not as diverse as females are.
> 
> Men should have a choice, especially if in a relationship where they have taken precautions and or expressed they do not want children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it boils down to is generations of teaching kids men are cheating dogs. Girls are taught from a young age to have no respect for men and to treat them as breathing wallets
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Tell it to the dead beat dads. 

Yes, there are dead beat mothers too but no where near as many. Way too many men believe they have no responsibility to support their own children.


----------



## thanatos144

Luddly Neddite said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8566937 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read back, my argument is about men who have taken responsibility and a pregnancy has happened after using protection and or men who have been "tricked" into pregnancy, which does happen at times.
> 
> Women have an abundance of methods at their fingertips, abortion, condoms, RU486, the morning after pill, surgical sterilants, safe haven, adoption, etc. In fact there is a big problem with Utah as we speak who strip fathers of their rights when women decide to adopt a child out where a man has explicitly said he wants to father this child. Google it, it's pretty crazy, but I digress. It just seems to me, men and their feelings are disregarded, too easily and their choices are not as diverse as females are.
> 
> Men should have a choice, especially if in a relationship where they have taken precautions and or expressed they do not want children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it boils down to is generations of teaching kids men are cheating dogs. Girls are taught from a young age to have no respect for men and to treat them as breathing wallets
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell it to the dead beat dads.
> 
> Yes, there are dead beat mothers too but no where near as many. Way too many men believe they have no responsibility to support their own children.
Click to expand...


How little you think of women of disturbing. 

tapatalk post


----------



## Luddly Neddite

thanatos144 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What it boils down to is generations of teaching kids men are cheating dogs. Girls are taught from a young age to have no respect for men and to treat them as breathing wallets
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell it to the dead beat dads.
> 
> Yes, there are dead beat mothers too but no where near as many. Way too many men believe they have no responsibility to support their own children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How little you think of women of disturbing.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


It wasn't me who wrote this -



> What it boils down to is generations of teaching kids men are cheating dogs. Girls are taught from a young age to have no respect for men and to treat them as breathing wallets


----------



## thanatos144

Luddly Neddite said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell it to the dead beat dads.
> 
> Yes, there are dead beat mothers too but no where near as many. Way too many men believe they have no responsibility to support their own children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How little you think of women of disturbing.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't me who wrote this -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it boils down to is generations of teaching kids men are cheating dogs. Girls are taught from a young age to have no respect for men and to treat them as breathing wallets
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Lol thanks for making my point for me 

tapatalk post


----------



## Walt

KevinWestern said:


> Walt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a right to not put the unwanted baby there in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the woman did not want a baby she has the same responsibility not to get pregnant. The only correct, equal and just way is to give BOTH the choice. As it is if a man wants the child he has no choice about the woman getting the abortion. So it is only fair that if the woman wants the child and the man does not. He should have the choice to not be responsible for a child. Same as the woman has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean, what the heck is going to deter a guy from getting 50 women pregnant? The deterrents on the female side are obvious (they'd have to face pregnancy/birth, or a horrible abortion), but what about men?
> 
> Even today, with laws that make dads pay for their children we still have an epidemic of Deadbeat dads (especially in poor, urban areas). How will your proposal affect this situation?
Click to expand...


What deters a woman from doing the same? What deters a woman from having sex and getting pregnant with multiple men to get support? Women have just as much responsibility NOT to get pregnant as the man does. It is only equal that if a woman can choose she is not ready for a child. Without the consent of a man {and I agree}. A man should have the same right. That is equality. It is just as wrong holding the man emotionally, mentally and financially responsible. When they do not want a child. As it would be a woman. Have you heard about these insane stories? This is how idiotic it is getting. 

Women Can Now Use Sperm From Oral Sex To Impregnate Themselves & Collect Child Support ? ThisIsYourConscience.com

Judge rules Kansas sperm donor DOES have to pay child support because lesbian couple performed procedure at home without a doctor | Mail Online


----------



## KevinWestern

Walt said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the woman did not want a baby she has the same responsibility not to get pregnant. The only correct, equal and just way is to give BOTH the choice. As it is if a man wants the child he has no choice about the woman getting the abortion. So it is only fair that if the woman wants the child and the man does not. He should have the choice to not be responsible for a child. Same as the woman has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, what the heck is going to deter a guy from getting 50 women pregnant? The deterrents on the female side are obvious (they'd have to face pregnancy/birth, or a horrible abortion), but what about men?
> 
> Even today, with laws that make dads pay for their children we still have an epidemic of Deadbeat dads (especially in poor, urban areas). How will your proposal affect this situation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What deters a woman from doing the same? What deters a woman from having sex and getting pregnant with multiple men to get support? Women have just as much responsibility NOT to get pregnant as the man does. It is only equal that if a woman can choose she is not ready for a child. Without the consent of a man {and I agree}. A man should have the same right. That is equality. It is just as wrong holding the man emotionally, mentally and financially responsible. When they do not want a child. As it would be a woman. Have you heard about these insane stories? This is how idiotic it is getting.
> 
> Women Can Now Use Sperm From Oral Sex To Impregnate Themselves & Collect Child Support ? ThisIsYourConscience.com
> 
> Judge rules Kansas sperm donor DOES have to pay child support because lesbian couple performed procedure at home without a doctor | Mail Online
Click to expand...


How about we do a quick rundown between the two sexes. The deterrents a female has to getting pregnant are:

1.) Being pregnant for up to 9 months, lol, and having to experience all of the fun mood swings, morning sicknesses, expensive doctor appts, weight gain, discomfort, depression, etc.

And, they will have to experience at least one of these:

2.) Giving birth, which can sometimes be dangerous and will almost always be painful/extremely uncomfortable
3.) Abortion, which is extremely emotionally damaging (you're literally killing a part of you that's growing inside of you), intimately disturbing (bloody fetus is removed, etc), and extremely invasive.
4.) Miscarriage. Basically all of the pains you feel in "3", minus some of the guilt hopefully (because you didn't actively make the decision to kill your baby). 

But the man?

He can just wake up the next day from the one night stand and (aside from a phone call telling her "I want no responsibility") can forget the whole thing. Maybe he can take a trip to Las Vegas and impregnate 10 more women, I don't know. 
*
There's absolutely no comparison between the male/female deterrents, Walt. None. Even if the woman is nuts and wants to have kids to collect money she can only really have 1 kid/year and it's eventually going to take a major toll on her body. The guy - on the other hand - can literally impregnate thousands of women a year if he wanted to...*


----------



## Diana1180

thanatos144 said:


> CaféAuLait;8566937 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'? *
> 
> yes but as a male i can only be 100 percent sure of not fathering a child
> 
> by
> 
> 1- refraining
> or
> 2 getting fixed
> 
> absent a medical record there is not a 100 percent surety
> 
> of not fathering a child because a female claimed to be snipped
> 
> 
> *If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.*
> 
> the male should assume that is a possibility as well
> 
> *IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.*
> 
> they do
> 
> the choice is either to refrain or take precaution it insure there
> 
> will not be a pregnancy
> 
> or roll the dice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read back, my argument is about men who have taken responsibility and a pregnancy has happened after using protection and or men who have been "tricked" into pregnancy, which does happen at times.
> 
> Women have an abundance of methods at their fingertips, abortion, condoms, RU486, the morning after pill, surgical sterilants, safe haven, adoption, etc. In fact there is a big problem with Utah as we speak who strip fathers of their rights when women decide to adopt a child out where a man has explicitly said he wants to father this child. Google it, it's pretty crazy, but I digress. It just seems to me, men and their feelings are disregarded, too easily and their choices are not as diverse as females are.
> 
> Men should have a choice, especially if in a relationship where they have taken precautions and or expressed they do not want children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it boils down to is generations of teaching kids men are cheating dogs. Girls are taught from a young age to have no respect for men and to treat them as breathing wallets
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


yes, because men nowadays show so much respect towards woman?

Look, I think both sexes lack respect for each other.  People sleep around, take no responsibility, no moral compass etc.

I have a daughter who is 14.  I am a single mom.  I have not taught her that men are cheating dogs, scum or that I am any better than them....but, I have taught her that  she should not have to rely on a man for support and to make smart choices.  In other words to be independant.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

A husband and father has the same legal rights over his children outside their mother's womb as his wife. So why wouldn't he have a 50% say/right when they're still inside the womb? 

Abotion should require both mother's and father's consent/permisison.


----------



## thanatos144

Delta4Embassy said:


> A husband and father has the same legal rights over his children outside their mother's womb as his wife. So why wouldn't he have a 50% say/right when they're still inside the womb?
> 
> Abotion should require both mother's and father's consent/permisison.



That is a lie 

tapatalk post


----------



## FA_Q2

Delta4Embassy said:


> A husband and father has the same legal rights over his children outside their mother's womb as his wife. So why wouldn't he have a 50% say/right when they're still inside the womb?
> 
> Abortion should require both mother's and father's consent/permission.



that really only follows if the woman gets to hand off the pregnancy to the man 50 percent of the time.

Biological fact makes women the sole controller of abortion.  There is simply no way around such realities.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Delta4Embassy said:


> A husband and father has the same legal rights over his children outside their mother's womb as his wife. So why wouldn't he have a 50% say/right when they're still inside the womb?
> 
> Abotion should require both mother's and father's consent/permisison.



That would be un-Constitutional: 



> _t would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.
> 
> Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman. The Court has held that "when the wife and the husband disagree on this decision, the view of only one of the two marriage partners can prevail. Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor." This conclusion rests upon the basic nature of marriage and the nature of our Constitution: "[T]he marital couple is not an independent entity with a mind and heart of its own, but an association of two individuals each with a separate intellectual and emotional makeup. If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." The Constitution protects individuals, men and women alike, from unjustified state interference, even when that interference is enacted into law for the benefit of their spouses.
> 
> Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)_


----------



## Mr. H.

19 years ago, I held our daughter's life in my hands. Some of you know the story already, but for those who don't...

The first ultrasound revealed obvious signs of Downs Syndrome, and the doctor told us to go down to the coffee shop to "discuss our options". 

And there we sat. Staring at each other in disbelief. I was fucking speechless. I had no clue what was going through my wife's head. So I waited for her to make the first move. That was the longest moment of my life. 

Three scenarios presented themselves to me....

In my mind, I envisioned our lives immersed in servitude and poverty. 

I also envisioned our lives as they existed before we walked into THE hospital that morning. Parents!
Cool. 

And finally, I pictured us as the carefree lovers we were when we first met, and how with one word from me it could all return to the carefree days. 

And yet, I waited. For the host to speak. 

Her words changed our lives forever.... "you take what life gives you". 

That so fucking blew me away that I didn't care what the future would bring for us. 

Eight months later she gave birth to a perfectly (albeit premature) healthy child. 

She graduates in May and is on her way to college in the fall. 

So, fuck you people of "choice", and your Supreme Court-given right to slaughter at will.


----------



## thanatos144

Mr. H. said:


> 19 years ago, I held our daughter's life in my hands. Some of you know the story already, but for those who don't...
> 
> The first ultrasound revealed obvious signs of Downs Syndrome, and the doctor told us to go down to the coffee shop to "discuss our options".
> 
> And there we sat. Staring at each other in disbelief. I was fucking speechless. I had no clue what was going through my wife's head. So I waited for her to make the first move. That was the longest moment of my life.
> 
> Three scenarios presented themselves to me....
> 
> In my mind, I envisioned our lives immersed in servitude and poverty.
> 
> I also envisioned our lives as they existed before we walked into THE hospital that morning. Parents!
> Cool.
> 
> And finally, I pictured us as the carefree lovers we were when we first met, and how with one word from me it could all return to the carefree days.
> 
> And yet, I waited. For the host to speak.
> 
> Her words changed our lives forever.... "you take what life gives you".
> 
> That so fucking blew me away that I didn't care what the future would bring for us.
> 
> Eight months later she gave birth to a perfectly (albeit premature) healthy child.
> 
> She graduates in May and is on her way to college in the fall.
> 
> So, fuck you people of "choice", and your Supreme Court-given right to slaughter at will.


 damn good post 



tapatalk post


----------



## KevinWestern

Delta4Embassy said:


> A husband and father has the same legal rights over his children outside their mother's womb as his wife. So why wouldn't he have a 50% say/right when they're still inside the womb?
> 
> Abotion should require both mother's and father's consent/permisison.



There are biological differences that you simply cannot change. One could argue that it's not "fair" the woman has to always be the one to carry the child for 9 months, experiencing a rollercoaster of weight gain, mood swings, morning sickness, and ultimately childbirth. But that's a fact we cannot alter. 

In simple terms, the child is growing in her body, and therefore the final decision regarding an abortion rests with her.


----------



## BobPlumb

I take the position of prolife because I believe that human life starts at conception.  The zygote is at the first stage of many stages of human life.  Scientifically, the zygote is human for it has all 46 human chromosomes and was conceived a male and a female.  It is a living organism, starting from a single cell but, if allowed, will live through many stages of human development.

I am not going to make a religious argument for life beginning at conception for science is sufficient.  Also, many do not believe in God, so such an argument would be in vain for them.

It is irrefutable science that a living zygote is human life.  However, it is not irrefutable that a zygote deserves to be considered a person through science alone.  A zygote has no brain.  It is unaware of its own existence.  Many people that take the prochoice position believe that a human life is not a person deserving legal protection of murder laws until it is viable outside the womb.  

I started this thread because I can understand the prochoice position if I view the issue through the prism that human life is not a person until viability outside the womb.  If this is true, then when a woman has an abortion the living human cells being destroyed are not so much different than having a gall bladder removed.  A gall bladder is after all made up of living human cells, but it is not person.  The human tissue being destroyed has no more knowledge of its existence than the gall bladder.   If a fetus that is not viable is truly not a person, then it should be the mothers right to terminate a pregnancy as a method of birth control.

Of course, that which is good for the mother should also be good for the father.  I titled this thread Males right to abortion but I did not intend it to be about a man being physically able to have an abortion.   I argued that the male should be able to draw up legal papers to op out of responsibility, and the woman still has final say in whether to abort or not.  

I find it hypocritical when pro-choice people say that a woman has a right to abortion but a man should keep his pants on if he does not want to be responsible for a child.  Those that are prochoice tend to resort to many of the arguments made by those that are prolife when it comes to the responsibility of the father.  Pro-choice will make arguments about the welfare of the child when it comes to the father; however, if they want to be consistent with their pro-choice argument there is no child at this time.  So the welfare of the child is not any more relevant than it is when the woman decides to have an abortion.  This being said, there were many people who are prochoice that did agree with a man having the ability with opting out of responsibility for a pregnancy.  At least these people are consistent.

As a prolife person, it is much easier for me to be consistent with the issue of male and female responsibilities of a child.  It starts at the beginning of the pregnancy for both parents.

Since viability outside the womb is an arbitrary point of reference to define personhood for human life, who is to say that our society will not change this arbitrary point to something else.  Perhaps 20 years from now there will be a court case in which personhood is defined when a baby speaks its first words.  After all, isnt language one than that makes us different from animals.  This court case will allow parents to euthanize infants up to 3 weeks old since they are not yet capable of language.  If anyone objects because they are of the opinion that killing a two week infant is murder, just remind them that infants are not people until 3 weeks after birth.  You say this could never happen!  Times may be very different when the world has perhaps 50 billion people rather than 6 to 7 billion people.


----------



## RosieS

When the world has 50 billion people no woman now alive will be alive.

So that scenario does not matter.

For now, if a man does not want the responsibility of fatherhood, he can double bag his organ, get a vasectomy or  do himself himself.

If you do the deed you are responsible if a child results.

Anything else is  a refusal to deal with reality.

Which is one way some men impregnate women in the first place. Denial of the reality of  the sex act, whether thru inebriation or blindness.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## Noomi

Delta4Embassy said:


> A husband and father has the same legal rights over his children outside their mother's womb as his wife. So why wouldn't he have a 50% say/right when they're still inside the womb?
> 
> Abotion should require both mother's and father's consent/permisison.



His sperm is inside the woman, it becomes her property, as does the resultant fetus. Too bad for him.


----------



## whitehall

BobPlumb said:


> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?




Should it be legal for a man to coerce and intimidate and threaten a woman with bodily harm or worse unless she hires someone to kill her(and his) unborn child? I expect it happens a lot more than abused women care to say and who in this abortion mad society would listen anyway, certainly not social agencies or state and local Police.


----------



## BobPlumb

RosieS said:


> When the world has 50 billion people no woman now alive will be alive.
> 
> So that scenario does not matter.
> 
> For now, if a man does not want the responsibility of fatherhood, he can double bag his organ, get a vasectomy or  do himself himself.
> 
> If you do the deed you are responsible if a child results.
> 
> Anything else is  a refusal to deal with reality.
> 
> Which is one way some men impregnate women in the first place. Denial of the reality of  the sex act, whether thru inebriation or blindness.
> 
> Regards from Rosie



Are you willing to hold women equally responsible.  Being prolife, I am.  You are using a prolife argument with the man.  Does the woman have any less responsibility to use contraception or "do herself"?


----------



## sameech

RosieS said:


> When the world has 50 billion people no woman now alive will be alive.
> 
> So that scenario does not matter.
> 
> *For now, if a man does not want the responsibility of fatherhood, he can double bag his organ, get a vasectomy or  do himself himself.*
> 
> If you do the deed you are responsible if a child results.
> 
> Anything else is  a refusal to deal with reality.
> 
> Which is one way some men impregnate women in the first place. Denial of the reality of  the sex act, whether thru inebriation or blindness.
> 
> Regards from Rosie



And yet women cannot use birth control, have the surgery, or do herself herself, and still have an abortion?  Why do you not hold women to the same standard as men in that regard?  Seems rather belittling to women as implicitly they somehow are incapable of exercising the same preventative measure as men.  They have even MORE choices than men at avoiding unwanted pregnancies without having to resort to an abortion.


----------



## RosieS

BobPlumb said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the world has 50 billion people no woman now alive will be alive.
> 
> So that scenario does not matter.
> 
> For now, if a man does not want the responsibility of fatherhood, he can double bag his organ, get a vasectomy or  do himself himself.
> 
> If you do the deed you are responsible if a child results.
> 
> Anything else is  a refusal to deal with reality.
> 
> Which is one way some men impregnate women in the first place. Denial of the reality of  the sex act, whether thru inebriation or blindness.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you willing to hold women equally responsible.  Being prolife, I am.  You are using a prolife argument with the man.  Does the woman have any less responsibility to use contraception or "do herself"?
Click to expand...


Again deal with reality. A condom or two has never physically harmed a man.

What a woman does or does not do as to contraception is between her and her doctor.

It behooves a man to be so committed and involved with the woman as to be welcome at the conference between the woman and her doctor.

If not, where can he possibly get off demanding a 'say'?

If he won't be in the woman's life in a positive and loving way, he does not deserve "choice". 

Men who do not treat their woman or the prospective mother of the child well deserve only a couple of weekends a month and two weeks in the summer with a child by her. That is his "choice" by his behavior toward the mother of his child.

The woman and her doctor have practically all the choices and the man has but a few.

Such is the real world. Pro lifers should not shield themselves from such knowledge.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## freedombecki

If an abortion results in a baby being killed artificially, how can it be considered anything but a killing?

 Those organizational cells are already making human decisions, whether people like to think of it as thinking or being or not. The organization is a human being, and it takes considerable intelligence to differentiate cells into systems, organs, and body parts of every kind.

 The Bible forbids abortion, and King David regarded the fetus as a being known by God before the mother knows at a conscious level that a baby is forming inside her.

 And it matters.


----------



## BobPlumb

Noomi said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am on your side, provided the man walks away as SOON as the woman says she is pregnant. If he stays with her until her due date, and then decides to leave, too bad.
> The woman might carry the baby, but its her choice as to whether to give birth. If she can't afford to raise it on her own, she has no business demanding money, IMO.
> 
> Fair is fair. The man should have the right to opt out.
Click to expand...


Have you changed your mind about this?


----------



## Noomi

Nope. I believe that the woman has the right to an abortion if she pleases, but if the man doesn't want to play a role, he should have the right to walk away, provided he walks away immediately. Men should always make their opinions clear before having sex, anyway.


----------



## RosieS

Typical RW BS.

All concerned about the pre-born, but once that baby is out, well....

The kid ain't getting MY money! Don't care what kind of life my kid has, just take all the responsibility for 18 years yourself and leave ME alone.

That is not pro life. That is pro screaming me me's.

Immature, selfish lying bastards. The whole lot of them.

That is the unvarnished truth.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## BobPlumb

RosieS said:


> Typical RW BS.
> 
> All concerned about the pre-born, but once that baby is out, well....
> 
> The kid ain't getting MY money! Don't care what kind of life my kid has, just take all the responsibility for 18 years yourself and leave ME alone.
> 
> That is not pro life. That is pro screaming me me's.
> 
> Immature, selfish lying bastards. The whole lot of them.
> 
> That is the unvarnished truth.
> 
> Regards from Rosie



I beleive that both the man and woman should take responsibility for the child because I'm prolife.  I'm just saying that if it's okay for the woman to have an abortion because a fetus is not a child then it should be okay for the Man to walk away at this time because there is no child.  At this time prochoice people don't give a damn about the welfare of the child because according to them there isn't a child, just a fetus.  Either it is a child or it isn't.  Please make up your mind.


----------



## midcan5

RWingers have this incredible love for the unborn and this incredible I don't give a darn for the born. Can anyone reconcile this hypocrisy. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...way-it-was-pre-roe-v-wade-11.html#post6717483
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...luding-late-term-abortions-2.html#post5858288
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-a-heartbeat-is-detectable-4.html#post3814184
http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/301002-a-new-forum-maybe-post7469334.html

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

*''God Does Not Regard the Fetus as a Soul,' Conservative evangelicals didnt always care much about abortion or contraception. The strange story of how they came to be obsessed with them.' * By Jamelle Bouie

"In his book Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics, Jonathan Dudley notes that most evangelicals held far more liberal views at the time. God does not regard the fetus as a soul no matter how far gestation has progressed, wrote professor Bruce Waltke of Dallas Theological Seminary in a 1968 issue of Christianity Today on contraception and abortion, edited by Harold Lindsell, a then-famous champion of biblical inerrancy. His argument rested on the Hebrew Bible, [A]ccording to Exodus 21:2224, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense.  Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul."

Hobby Lobby and contraception: How conservative evangelicals went from not caring about abortion and birth control to being obsessed with them.


----------



## Faun

BobPlumb said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical RW BS.
> 
> All concerned about the pre-born, but once that baby is out, well....
> 
> The kid ain't getting MY money! Don't care what kind of life my kid has, just take all the responsibility for 18 years yourself and leave ME alone.
> 
> That is not pro life. That is pro screaming me me's.
> 
> Immature, selfish lying bastards. The whole lot of them.
> 
> That is the unvarnished truth.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beleive that both the man and woman should take responsibility for the child because I'm prolife.  I'm just saying that if it's okay for the woman to have an abortion because a fetus is not a child then it should be okay for the Man to walk away at this time because there is no child.  At this time prochoice people don't give a damn about the welfare of the child because according to them there isn't a child, just a fetus.  Either it is a child or it isn't.  Please make up your mind.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty certain that all agree it's a child after birth. Sounds like you support the biological father of a child to not be financially responsible for his own child.


----------



## BobPlumb

Faun said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical RW BS.
> 
> All concerned about the pre-born, but once that baby is out, well....
> 
> The kid ain't getting MY money! Don't care what kind of life my kid has, just take all the responsibility for 18 years yourself and leave ME alone.
> 
> That is not pro life. That is pro screaming me me's.
> 
> Immature, selfish lying bastards. The whole lot of them.
> 
> That is the unvarnished truth.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beleive that both the man and woman should take responsibility for the child because I'm prolife.  I'm just saying that if it's okay for the woman to have an abortion because a fetus is not a child then it should be okay for the Man to walk away at this time because there is no child.  At this time prochoice people don't give a damn about the welfare of the child because according to them there isn't a child, just a fetus.  Either it is a child or it isn't.  Please make up your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty certain that all agree it's a child after birth. Sounds like you support the biological father of a child to not be financially responsible for his own child.
Click to expand...


According to those that are prochoice, there is no child before viability.  This is the "loophole" being used to justify that it's okay have an abortion.  There is no concern for the walfare of the child before viability of the fetus using prochoice logic because there is no child.  I am simply applying the same logic to the man.  If there is no child before viability, then there should be a window of opportunity for the man to absolve himself from the responsibility of being a parent.  If the woman wants to give birth to a child, as Rosie argued, that is between her and her doctor. 

Perhaps this logic seems absurd when applied to the man.  Oh!  That is how absurd pro-life people find the same logic when applied to the woman!


----------



## Faun

BobPlumb said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I beleive that both the man and woman should take responsibility for the child because I'm prolife.  I'm just saying that if it's okay for the woman to have an abortion because a fetus is not a child then it should be okay for the Man to walk away at this time because there is no child.  At this time prochoice people don't give a damn about the welfare of the child because according to them there isn't a child, just a fetus.  Either it is a child or it isn't.  Please make up your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty certain that all agree it's a child after birth. Sounds like you support the biological father of a child to not be financially responsible for his own child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to those that are prochoice, there is no child before viability.  This is the "loophole" being used to justify that it's okay have an abortion.  There is no concern for the walfare of the child before viability of the fetus using prochoice logic because there is no child.  I am simply applying the same logic to the man.  If there is no child before viability, then there should be a window of opportunity for the man to absolve himself from the responsibility of being a parent.  If the woman wants to give birth to a child, as Rosie argued, that is between her and her doctor.
> 
> Perhaps this logic seems absurd when applied to the man.  Oh!  That is how absurd pro-life people find the same logic when applied to the woman!
Click to expand...

The logic is absurd because it's not the same logic for the man as you portray. You're _trying_ to claim that the responsibilities for the unborn are the same as the responsibilities for those who are born, are the same. And that IS absurd.


----------



## BobPlumb

Faun said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty certain that all agree it's a child after birth. Sounds like you support the biological father of a child to not be financially responsible for his own child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to those that are prochoice, there is no child before viability.  This is the "loophole" being used to justify that it's okay have an abortion.  There is no concern for the walfare of the child before viability of the fetus using prochoice logic because there is no child.  I am simply applying the same logic to the man.  If there is no child before viability, then there should be a window of opportunity for the man to absolve himself from the responsibility of being a parent.  If the woman wants to give birth to a child, as Rosie argued, that is between her and her doctor.
> 
> Perhaps this logic seems absurd when applied to the man.  Oh!  That is how absurd pro-life people find the same logic when applied to the woman!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The logic is absurd because it's not the same logic for the man as you portray. You're _trying_ to claim that the responsibilities for the unborn are the same as the responsibilities for those who are born, are the same. And that IS absurd.
Click to expand...


Sorry, there is no child, unless the woman decides so.  Prochoice logic dictates that the man stays out of that decision.  When the man decides to walk away there is no child.

That is what the prochoice keeps saying.  A FETUS IS NOT A CHILD!  Since a fetus is not a child, then just as a woman can decide to have an abortion, the man should be able to simply walk away.  Prochoice logic has no concern for the welfare of the individual fetus because it does not have "personhood".  A baby that has been born is not relevant to this conversation (according to prochoice logic).


----------



## Faun

BobPlumb said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to those that are prochoice, there is no child before viability.  This is the "loophole" being used to justify that it's okay have an abortion.  There is no concern for the walfare of the child before viability of the fetus using prochoice logic because there is no child.  I am simply applying the same logic to the man.  If there is no child before viability, then there should be a window of opportunity for the man to absolve himself from the responsibility of being a parent.  If the woman wants to give birth to a child, as Rosie argued, that is between her and her doctor.
> 
> Perhaps this logic seems absurd when applied to the man.  Oh!  That is how absurd pro-life people find the same logic when applied to the woman!
> 
> 
> 
> The logic is absurd because it's not the same logic for the man as you portray. You're _trying_ to claim that the responsibilities for the unborn are the same as the responsibilities for those who are born, are the same. And that IS absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, there is no child, unless the woman decides so.  Prochoice logic dictates that the man stays out of that decision.  When the man decides to walk away there is no child.
> 
> That is what the prochoice keeps saying.  A FETUS IS NOT A CHILD!  Since a fetus is not a child, then just as a woman can decide to have an abortion, the man should be able to simply walk away.  Prochoice logic has no concern for the welfare of the individual fetus because it does not have "personhood".  A baby that has been born is not relevant to this conversation (according to prochoice logic).
Click to expand...


Repeating your flawed logic does not erase the flaw. You're still saying because a woman has the right to get out of being a parent where there is no child, a father should have the right to get out of being a parent where there is a child.


----------



## BobPlumb

Faun said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The logic is absurd because it's not the same logic for the man as you portray. You're _trying_ to claim that the responsibilities for the unborn are the same as the responsibilities for those who are born, are the same. And that IS absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, there is no child, unless the woman decides so.  Prochoice logic dictates that the man stays out of that decision.  When the man decides to walk away there is no child.
> 
> That is what the prochoice keeps saying.  A FETUS IS NOT A CHILD!  Since a fetus is not a child, then just as a woman can decide to have an abortion, the man should be able to simply walk away.  Prochoice logic has no concern for the welfare of the individual fetus because it does not have "personhood".  A baby that has been born is not relevant to this conversation (according to prochoice logic).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating your flawed logic does not erase the flaw. You're still saying because a woman has the right to get out of being a parent where there is no child, a father should have the right to get out of being a parent where there is a child.
Click to expand...


I'm using the logic used by those that are prochoice.  Now here you go and call it flawed logic!  
 And stop saying there is a child in the case of the father.   There is no child because a fetus is not a child.

At the point in time when the man walks there is no child.  Thus the ball is in the woman's court to have a child or not.  It's the woman's choice!  That's what prochoice people argue for the woman.  The man has absolutely no say in that choice -- for the woman to either give birth or have an abortion.  If the woman decides to go on and have a baby after the man walks, then that decision is hers and the responsibility of that decision is on her.  Is this flawed logic?  If so, then the logic of the prochoice is flawed because that is the logic I'm parroting back to you.  The logic of "I owe no responsibility to the child because a fetus is not a child"!


----------



## FA_Q2

Faun said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The logic is absurd because it's not the same logic for the man as you portray. You're _trying_ to claim that the responsibilities for the unborn are the same as the responsibilities for those who are born, are the same. And that IS absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, there is no child, unless the woman decides so.  Prochoice logic dictates that the man stays out of that decision.  When the man decides to walk away there is no child.
> 
> That is what the prochoice keeps saying.  A FETUS IS NOT A CHILD!  Since a fetus is not a child, then just as a woman can decide to have an abortion, the man should be able to simply walk away.  Prochoice logic has no concern for the welfare of the individual fetus because it does not have "personhood".  A baby that has been born is not relevant to this conversation (according to prochoice logic).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating your flawed logic does not erase the flaw. You're still saying because a woman has the right to get out of being a parent where there is no child, a father should have the right to get out of being a parent where there is a child.
Click to expand...


And the other side of the argument is that a woman has the right to KILL the child.  To end its very existence.  He states that a man simply should not be forced to pay for it.  The other side demands that he pay but that she should be able to erase its very existence.

Interesting that the pro-choice seems to think that a child who is not allowed to even exist is a better more moral outcome than a child that is not supported by the father.  That is pretzel logic if I have ever seen it.


----------



## Faun

FA_Q2 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, there is no child, unless the woman decides so.  Prochoice logic dictates that the man stays out of that decision.  When the man decides to walk away there is no child.
> 
> That is what the prochoice keeps saying.  A FETUS IS NOT A CHILD!  Since a fetus is not a child, then just as a woman can decide to have an abortion, the man should be able to simply walk away.  Prochoice logic has no concern for the welfare of the individual fetus because it does not have "personhood".  A baby that has been born is not relevant to this conversation (according to prochoice logic).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating your flawed logic does not erase the flaw. You're still saying because a woman has the right to get out of being a parent where there is no child, a father should have the right to get out of being a parent where there is a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the other side of the argument is that a woman has the right to KILL the child.  To end its very existence.  He states that a man simply should not be forced to pay for it.  The other side demands that he pay but that she should be able to erase its very existence.
> 
> Interesting that the pro-choice seems to think that a child who is not allowed to even exist is a better more moral outcome than a child that is not supported by the father.  That is pretzel logic if I have ever seen it.
Click to expand...

Since it's the women's body, it's her right not to remain pregnant. When men can get pregnant, then they too will have that right. Until then, men don't get to evade raising their own children.


----------



## Faun

BobPlumb said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, there is no child, unless the woman decides so.  Prochoice logic dictates that the man stays out of that decision.  When the man decides to walk away there is no child.
> 
> That is what the prochoice keeps saying.  A FETUS IS NOT A CHILD!  Since a fetus is not a child, then just as a woman can decide to have an abortion, the man should be able to simply walk away.  Prochoice logic has no concern for the welfare of the individual fetus because it does not have "personhood".  A baby that has been born is not relevant to this conversation (according to prochoice logic).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating your flawed logic does not erase the flaw. You're still saying because a woman has the right to get out of being a parent where there is no child, a father should have the right to get out of being a parent where there is a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm using the logic used by those that are prochoice.  Now here you go and call it flawed logic!
> And stop saying there is a child in the case of the father.   There is no child because a fetus is not a child.
> 
> At the point in time when the man walks there is no child.  Thus the ball is in the woman's court to have a child or not.  It's the woman's choice!  That's what prochoice people argue for the woman.  The man has absolutely no say in that choice -- for the woman to either give birth or have an abortion.  If the woman decides to go on and have a baby after the man walks, then that decision is hers and the responsibility of that decision is on her.  Is this flawed logic?  If so, then the logic of the prochoice is flawed because that is the logic I'm parroting back to you.  The logic of "I owe no responsibility to the child because a fetus is not a child"!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we have hit an impasse.  You think you're applying the same logic and regrettably,  you can't even see you're not. And I never said the fetus was a child in the case of the father. This remains yet another example of how you can't grasp why your logic suffers a gapping head wound, of which there is no return.


----------



## BobPlumb

Faun said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating your flawed logic does not erase the flaw. You're still saying because a woman has the right to get out of being a parent where there is no child, a father should have the right to get out of being a parent where there is a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm using the logic used by those that are prochoice.  Now here you go and call it flawed logic!
> And stop saying there is a child in the case of the father.   There is no child because a fetus is not a child.
> 
> At the point in time when the man walks there is no child.  Thus the ball is in the woman's court to have a child or not.  It's the woman's choice!  That's what prochoice people argue for the woman.  The man has absolutely no say in that choice -- for the woman to either give birth or have an abortion.  If the woman decides to go on and have a baby after the man walks, then that decision is hers and the responsibility of that decision is on her.  Is this flawed logic?  If so, then the logic of the prochoice is flawed because that is the logic I'm parroting back to you.  The logic of "I owe no responsibility to the child because a fetus is not a child"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, we have hit an impasse.  You think you're applying the same logic and regrettably,  you can't even see you're not. And I never said the fetus was a child in the case of the father. This remains yet another example of how you can't grasp why your logic suffers a gapping head wound, of which there is no return.
Click to expand...


Just because you deny that I am applying the same logic does not make if not so.  The logic of prochoice is wrapped up in the timing that a fetus is not a person so that the rights of a woman's privacy trumps any right that the fetus/ future child has to life and responsible parents.  Whenever there is a discussion between those that are prolife and those that are prochoice, the prochoice will scream from the mountain tops that fetuses are not people to justify their position.  It does not matter to the prochoice that the human in process of development will reach the born baby stage in just a few weeks.  At the time of abortion they scream that a fetus is not a person.  Using the same logic, it does not matter if a woman decides to carry a pregnancy to term.  Before the fetus becomes a child, the man should have the same right to avoid the responsibility of becoming parent.   The logic is all about the timing, a timing you are willing you accept for the woman but you deny for the man.


----------



## Faun

BobPlumb said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm using the logic used by those that are prochoice.  Now here you go and call it flawed logic!
> And stop saying there is a child in the case of the father.   There is no child because a fetus is not a child.
> 
> At the point in time when the man walks there is no child.  Thus the ball is in the woman's court to have a child or not.  It's the woman's choice!  That's what prochoice people argue for the woman.  The man has absolutely no say in that choice -- for the woman to either give birth or have an abortion.  If the woman decides to go on and have a baby after the man walks, then that decision is hers and the responsibility of that decision is on her.  Is this flawed logic?  If so, then the logic of the prochoice is flawed because that is the logic I'm parroting back to you.  The logic of "I owe no responsibility to the child because a fetus is not a child"!
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, we have hit an impasse.  You think you're applying the same logic and regrettably,  you can't even see you're not. And I never said the fetus was a child in the case of the father. This remains yet another example of how you can't grasp why your logic suffers a gapping head wound, of which there is no return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you deny that I am applying the same logic does not make if not so.  The logic of prochoice is wrapped up in the timing that a fetus is not a person so that the rights of a woman's privacy trumps any right that the fetus/ future child has to life and responsible parents.  Whenever there is a discussion between those that are prolife and those that are prochoice, the prochoice will scream from the mountain tops that fetuses are not people to justify their position.  It does not matter to the prochoice that the human in process of development will reach the born baby stage in just a few weeks.  At the time of abortion they scream that a fetus is not a person.  Using the same logic, it does not matter if a woman decides to carry a pregnancy to term.  Before the fetus becomes a child, the man should have the same right to avoid the responsibility of becoming parent.   The logic is all about the timing, a timing you are willing you accept for the woman but you deny for the man.
Click to expand...

Right back atcha ...  just because you think you're applying the same logic, doesn't mean you are. No matter how you say it, you're still saying that men should be allowed to opt out of raising a born child because women can opt out of being pregnant with a fetus. The two are not the same.


----------



## thanatos144

Abortion is evil. It kills a innocent life every time.


----------



## BobPlumb

Faun said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, we have hit an impasse.  You think you're applying the same logic and regrettably,  you can't even see you're not. And I never said the fetus was a child in the case of the father. This remains yet another example of how you can't grasp why your logic suffers a gapping head wound, of which there is no return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you deny that I am applying the same logic does not make if not so.  The logic of prochoice is wrapped up in the timing that a fetus is not a person so that the rights of a woman's privacy trumps any right that the fetus/ future child has to life and responsible parents.  Whenever there is a discussion between those that are prolife and those that are prochoice, the prochoice will scream from the mountain tops that fetuses are not people to justify their position.  It does not matter to the prochoice that the human in process of development will reach the born baby stage in just a few weeks.  At the time of abortion they scream that a fetus is not a person.  Using the same logic, it does not matter if a woman decides to carry a pregnancy to term.  Before the fetus becomes a child, the man should have the same right to avoid the responsibility of becoming parent.   The logic is all about the timing, a timing you are willing you accept for the woman but you deny for the man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right back atcha ...  just because you think you're applying the same logic, doesn't mean you are. No matter how you say it, you're still saying that men should be allowed to opt out of raising a born child because women can opt out of being pregnant with a fetus. The two are not the same.
Click to expand...


No, if the man waits until a child Is born it is too late.  The opting out is done when there is no child acording to prochoice logic.  If a child is born after the man opts out, the decision and the consequencies are 100% on the woman.  After all, it is undeniably that the man has zero say in whether the woman has an abortion or not.  If the man opts out, it is the woman who decides whether or not to bring a child into the world without a father.  The child does not have a life unless the woman allows it to be born......according to prochoice logic.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

BobPlumb said:


> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?



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

You are obviously wrong.  No one has a right to force or coerce you to do anything of a sexual nature and you have no right to force or coerce anyone else to do anything of a sexual nature.  I am disturbed that this question would need to be asked.  You cannot force or coerce anyone else into such an action.  

You, as a presumably male individual, have the option to get a vasectomy and end any risk of paternity suits.  You, as a presumably male individual, have the option to insist on wearing a condom to reduce your risk of paternity or refuse sexual intercourse as a consequence of any protestations against your wearing a condom.  The woman cannot force you to not wear a condom but instead she can decline to have intercourse because you insist on wearing a condom.  The woman cannot force you to wear a condom but instead she can decline to have intercourse because you will not wear a condom.  If any of these concepts are difficult for you, then I recommend you avoid sex all together.  Both you and she have that right too.    

It is a violation of the woman's inalienable rights for you to attempt to force or coerce the woman to undergo a medical procedure[1].  You cannot force a woman to take "the pill".  You cannot force a woman to use "a sponge".  You cannot force a woman to use "a diaphragm".  You cannot force a woman into any sort of birth control.  The only thing you can do is make sure that you, as your own individual within your own physical limits, are "protected" and/or ready to be a dad.

As for your proposed immunity to a paternity suit, again the answer is no.  If you have sex with that woman, then you have put yourself at risk.  If you shoot your sperm into a consenting female partner, you must be prepared to cope with the outcome of that action.  You cannot come around later and force or coerce that once consenting partner to now submit to your medical demands on their person.  If the sperm you willing injected into that partner develops into a baby, you will likely face a paternity suit and be legally obliged to support the child.  

What you would have us believe is that if the woman repels your force and/or rejects your coercion, you may then be immune from the consequences of both your poor planning and actions of your own volition.  

Frankly, the paternity suit will be the least of your worries if you try this at home.



[1] Note that the term "woman" pretermits any discussion of children or any other person unable to make decisions for themselves.  If that is the issue here then maybe this thread does not belong in the clean zone.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

FA_Q2 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, there is no child, unless the woman decides so.  Prochoice logic dictates that the man stays out of that decision.  When the man decides to walk away there is no child.
> 
> That is what the prochoice keeps saying.  A FETUS IS NOT A CHILD!  Since a fetus is not a child, then just as a woman can decide to have an abortion, the man should be able to simply walk away.  Prochoice logic has no concern for the welfare of the individual fetus because it does not have "personhood".  A baby that has been born is not relevant to this conversation (according to prochoice logic).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating your flawed logic does not erase the flaw. You're still saying because a woman has the right to get out of being a parent where there is no child, a father should have the right to get out of being a parent where there is a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the other side of the argument is that a woman has the right to KILL the child.  To end its very existence.  He states that a man simply should not be forced to pay for it.  The other side demands that he pay but that she should be able to erase its very existence.
> 
> Interesting that the pro-choice seems to think that a child who is not allowed to even exist is a better more &#8216;moral&#8217; outcome than a child that is not supported by the father.  That is pretzel logic if I have ever seen it.
Click to expand...


You would have us believe that if you hammer a nail into someone else's head, you should be able to claim immunity from any and all liability when the victim refuses to let you pull it out.


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara

Males can take their imaginary "right to abortion" and shove it up their ass.  They aren't the ones delivering a baby.


----------



## BobPlumb

Zombie_Pundit said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forced abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> You are obviously wrong.  No one has a right to force or coerce you to do anything of a sexual nature and you have no right to force or coerce anyone else to do anything of a sexual nature.  I am disturbed that this question would need to be asked.  You cannot force or coerce anyone else into such an action.
> 
> You, as a presumably male individual, have the option to get a vasectomy and end any risk of paternity suits.  You, as a presumably male individual, have the option to insist on wearing a condom to reduce your risk of paternity or refuse sexual intercourse as a consequence of any protestations against your wearing a condom.  The woman cannot force you to not wear a condom but instead she can decline to have intercourse because you insist on wearing a condom.  The woman cannot force you to wear a condom but instead she can decline to have intercourse because you will not wear a condom.  If any of these concepts are difficult for you, then I recommend you avoid sex all together.  Both you and she have that right too.
> 
> It is a violation of the woman's inalienable rights for you to attempt to force or coerce the woman to undergo a medical procedure[1].  You cannot force a woman to take "the pill".  You cannot force a woman to use "a sponge".  You cannot force a woman to use "a diaphragm".  You cannot force a woman into any sort of birth control.  The only thing you can do is make sure that you, as your own individual within your own physical limits, are "protected" and/or ready to be a dad.
> 
> As for your proposed immunity to a paternity suit, again the answer is no.  If you have sex with that woman, then you have put yourself at risk.  If you shoot your sperm into a consenting female partner, you must be prepared to cope with the outcome of that action.  You cannot come around later and force or coerce that once consenting partner to now submit to your medical demands on their person.  If the sperm you willing injected into that partner develops into a baby, you will likely face a paternity suit and be legally obliged to support the child.
> 
> What you would have us believe is that if the woman repels your force and/or rejects your coercion, you may then be immune from the consequences of both your poor planning and actions of your own volition.
> 
> Frankly, the paternity suit will be the least of your worries if you try this at home.
> 
> 
> 
> [1] Note that the term "woman" pretermits any discussion of children or any other person unable to make decisions for themselves.  If that is the issue here then maybe this thread does not belong in the clean zone.
Click to expand...



I am prolife in position and as such I do not agree with the premise of the OP.  That being said, I find it ironic that so many who are prochoice with regard to the female pull out so many of the arguments used by the prolife when dealing with the responsibilities of the man.  The purpose of the OP was to allow the prochoice to show this double standard.

Prochoice position:

  For the pregnant female that does not want a baby -- "Don't worry sweetie, you can have an abortion".

 This is a procedure which ends a human life that has no concern for the welfare of the future child.  

For the male  that impregnanted the female --  "idiot, you should have used a condom". If you don't want to be responsible for a child, then don't have sex.  You have to be responsible for the child.


----------



## Avatar4321

As I am opposed to abortion, this may come as a shock to some but I've decided to compromise on this issue. If we end all non-male abortions, I will gladly support abortions for any man who is pregnant.

If any man is foolish enough to think he can have an abortion when he can't even get pregnant and carry a child to term, our education system is in far worse shape then previously thought.


----------



## NYcarbineer

BobPlumb said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm using the logic used by those that are prochoice.  Now here you go and call it flawed logic!
> And stop saying there is a child in the case of the father.   There is no child because a fetus is not a child.
> 
> At the point in time when the man walks there is no child.  Thus the ball is in the woman's court to have a child or not.  It's the woman's choice!  That's what prochoice people argue for the woman.  The man has absolutely no say in that choice -- for the woman to either give birth or have an abortion.  If the woman decides to go on and have a baby after the man walks, then that decision is hers and the responsibility of that decision is on her.  Is this flawed logic?  If so, then the logic of the prochoice is flawed because that is the logic I'm parroting back to you.  The logic of "I owe no responsibility to the child because a fetus is not a child"!
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, we have hit an impasse.  You think you're applying the same logic and regrettably,  you can't even see you're not. And I never said the fetus was a child in the case of the father. This remains yet another example of how you can't grasp why your logic suffers a gapping head wound, of which there is no return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you deny that I am applying the same logic does not make if not so.  The logic of prochoice is wrapped up in the timing that a fetus is not a person so that the rights of a woman's privacy trumps any right that the fetus/ future child has to life and responsible parents.  Whenever there is a discussion between those that are prolife and those that are prochoice, the prochoice will scream from the mountain tops that fetuses are not people to justify their position.  It does not matter to the prochoice that the human in process of development will reach the born baby stage in just a few weeks.  At the time of abortion they scream that a fetus is not a person.  Using the same logic, it does not matter if a woman decides to carry a pregnancy to term.  Before the fetus becomes a child, the man should have the same right to avoid the responsibility of becoming parent.   The logic is all about the timing, a timing you are willing you accept for the woman but you deny for the man.
Click to expand...


The man does not carry the pregnancy.  You're arguing for equal rights for two people who are not sufficiently equal in circumstances to demand equal rights.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

BobPlumb said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forced abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> You are obviously wrong.  No one has a right to force or coerce you to do anything of a sexual nature and you have no right to force or coerce anyone else to do anything of a sexual nature.  I am disturbed that this question would need to be asked.  You cannot force or coerce anyone else into such an action.
> 
> You, as a presumably male individual, have the option to get a vasectomy and end any risk of paternity suits.  You, as a presumably male individual, have the option to insist on wearing a condom to reduce your risk of paternity or refuse sexual intercourse as a consequence of any protestations against your wearing a condom.  The woman cannot force you to not wear a condom but instead she can decline to have intercourse because you insist on wearing a condom.  The woman cannot force you to wear a condom but instead she can decline to have intercourse because you will not wear a condom.  If any of these concepts are difficult for you, then I recommend you avoid sex all together.  Both you and she have that right too.
> 
> It is a violation of the woman's inalienable rights for you to attempt to force or coerce the woman to undergo a medical procedure[1].  You cannot force a woman to take "the pill".  You cannot force a woman to use "a sponge".  You cannot force a woman to use "a diaphragm".  You cannot force a woman into any sort of birth control.  The only thing you can do is make sure that you, as your own individual within your own physical limits, are "protected" and/or ready to be a dad.
> 
> As for your proposed immunity to a paternity suit, again the answer is no.  If you have sex with that woman, then you have put yourself at risk.  If you shoot your sperm into a consenting female partner, you must be prepared to cope with the outcome of that action.  You cannot come around later and force or coerce that once consenting partner to now submit to your medical demands on their person.  If the sperm you willing injected into that partner develops into a baby, you will likely face a paternity suit and be legally obliged to support the child.
> 
> What you would have us believe is that if the woman repels your force and/or rejects your coercion, you may then be immune from the consequences of both your poor planning and actions of your own volition.
> 
> Frankly, the paternity suit will be the least of your worries if you try this at home.
> 
> 
> 
> [1] Note that the term "woman" pretermits any discussion of children or any other person unable to make decisions for themselves.  If that is the issue here then maybe this thread does not belong in the clean zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am prolife in position and as such I do not agree with the premise of the OP.  That being said, I find it ironic that so many who are prochoice with regard to the female pull out so many of the arguments used by the prolife when dealing with the responsibilities of the man.  The purpose of the OP was to allow the prochoice to show this double standard.
> 
> Prochoice position:
> 
> For the pregnant female that does not want a baby -- "Don't worry sweetie, you can have an abortion".
> 
> This is a procedure which ends a human life that has no concern for the welfare of the future child.
> 
> For the male  that impregnanted the female --  "idiot, you should have used a condom". If you don't want to be responsible for a child, then don't have sex.  You have to be responsible for the child.
Click to expand...


Everyone is pro-life and wishes to see abortion ended. 

The disagreement centers on how to achieve that goal, where the solution advocated by some is both un-Constitutional and no solution at all. 

And this nonsense about a mans right is just another un-Constitutional non-solution.


----------



## Faun

BobPlumb said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder.  The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother.  Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason.  She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.
> 
> However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.  The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does.  The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.
> 
> I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy.  He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.
> 
> Prochoice people, am I wrong?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forced abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> You are obviously wrong.  No one has a right to force or coerce you to do anything of a sexual nature and you have no right to force or coerce anyone else to do anything of a sexual nature.  I am disturbed that this question would need to be asked.  You cannot force or coerce anyone else into such an action.
> 
> You, as a presumably male individual, have the option to get a vasectomy and end any risk of paternity suits.  You, as a presumably male individual, have the option to insist on wearing a condom to reduce your risk of paternity or refuse sexual intercourse as a consequence of any protestations against your wearing a condom.  The woman cannot force you to not wear a condom but instead she can decline to have intercourse because you insist on wearing a condom.  The woman cannot force you to wear a condom but instead she can decline to have intercourse because you will not wear a condom.  If any of these concepts are difficult for you, then I recommend you avoid sex all together.  Both you and she have that right too.
> 
> It is a violation of the woman's inalienable rights for you to attempt to force or coerce the woman to undergo a medical procedure[1].  You cannot force a woman to take "the pill".  You cannot force a woman to use "a sponge".  You cannot force a woman to use "a diaphragm".  You cannot force a woman into any sort of birth control.  The only thing you can do is make sure that you, as your own individual within your own physical limits, are "protected" and/or ready to be a dad.
> 
> As for your proposed immunity to a paternity suit, again the answer is no.  If you have sex with that woman, then you have put yourself at risk.  If you shoot your sperm into a consenting female partner, you must be prepared to cope with the outcome of that action.  You cannot come around later and force or coerce that once consenting partner to now submit to your medical demands on their person.  If the sperm you willing injected into that partner develops into a baby, you will likely face a paternity suit and be legally obliged to support the child.
> 
> What you would have us believe is that if the woman repels your force and/or rejects your coercion, you may then be immune from the consequences of both your poor planning and actions of your own volition.
> 
> Frankly, the paternity suit will be the least of your worries if you try this at home.
> 
> 
> 
> [1] Note that the term "woman" pretermits any discussion of children or any other person unable to make decisions for themselves.  If that is the issue here then maybe this thread does not belong in the clean zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am prolife in position and as such I do not agree with the premise of the OP.  That being said, I find it ironic that so many who are prochoice with regard to the female pull out so many of the arguments used by the prolife when dealing with the responsibilities of the man.  The purpose of the OP was to allow the prochoice to show this double standard.
> 
> Prochoice position:
> 
> For the pregnant female that does not want a baby -- "Don't worry sweetie, you can have an abortion".
> 
> This is a procedure which ends a human life that has no concern for the welfare of the future child.
> 
> For the male  that impregnanted the female --  "idiot, you should have used a condom". If you don't want to be responsible for a child, then don't have sex.  You have to be responsible for the child.
Click to expand...


The problem with your logic is that it's framed around the fallacy that there's a welfare for a future child in cases of abortion.


----------



## Faun

The irony of this thread is that if men were allowed to "opt out" of being financially responsible for their own children, it would only result in even more abortions by women who can't afford to raise a child without support from the father.


----------



## NYcarbineer

thanatos144 said:


> Abortion is evil. It kills a innocent life every time.



Then it should be a capital crime with life imprisonment or the death penalty as the punishment.

Can you imagine, those of you who are sane on this forum, the first time we executed a woman for having an abortion?


----------



## thanatos144

Goddess_Ashtara said:


> Males can take their imaginary "right to abortion" and shove it up their ass.  They aren't the ones delivering a baby.



Nor are they the ones killing it for selfish reasons before it is born.


----------



## Avatar4321

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Everyone is pro-life and wishes to see abortion ended.
> 
> The disagreement centers on how to achieve that goal, where the solution advocated by some is both un-Constitutional and no solution at all.
> 
> And this nonsense about a mans right is just another un-Constitutional non-solution.



That's a complete and utter lie. If everyone was pro-life, there would be no abortion. If everyone wanted abortion to end there wouldn't be so many people fighting to keep it legal and profitable.

And there is no unconstitutional solution because the Constitution is absolutely silent about abortion. If anything, it bans abortion without Due process.


----------



## Zmrzlina

Here are a few examples of how you are wrong.  The reason woman can decide to have an abortion is because their body is the host to the fetus.  The man or any individual for that matter does not have dominion over another person's body.  Child support payments are just that, financial support for the _child_ that the individual helped create.  Our society decided that we would be better off if father's helped support their offspring instead of having the mother or the state take on that role.


----------



## Pop23

Faun said:


> The irony of this thread is that if men were allowed to "opt out" of being financially responsible for their own children, it would only result in even more abortions by women who can't afford to raise a child without support from the father.



Or women being more careful


----------



## Avatar4321

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of this thread is that if men were allowed to "opt out" of being financially responsible for their own children, it would only result in even more abortions by women who can't afford to raise a child without support from the father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or women being more careful
Click to expand...


Please, it would just result in more people being wreckless.


----------



## Pop23

Avatar4321 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of this thread is that if men were allowed to "opt out" of being financially responsible for their own children, it would only result in even more abortions by women who can't afford to raise a child without support from the father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or women being more careful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, it would just result in more people being wreckless.
Click to expand...


I don't see that being the case. 

Now a pregnancy can be used as a trap, if that were no longer the case (and yes, I've seen it used as a trap), there would be less, not more.


----------



## FA_Q2

Zmrzlina said:


> Here are a few examples of how you are wrong.  The reason woman can decide to have an abortion is because their body is the host to the fetus.  The man or any individual for that matter does not have dominion over another person's body.  Child support payments are just that, financial support for the _child_ that the individual helped create.  Our society decided that we would be better off if father's helped support their offspring instead of having the mother or the state take on that role.



That is the core difference.  That really does not take away from the philosophical point that the OP makes though.

The facts are that life is not fair and neither is this scenario.  At least we can admit that we are demanding something from the man that we are completely letting the woman off the hook for.  It sucks for the man but oh well, there really is no 'fair' solution here.

That is one of the reasons that I don't like the term 'fair.'  Life is very rarely fair at all.


----------



## Zmrzlina

FA_Q2 said:


> At least we can admit that we are demanding something from the man that we are completely letting the woman off the hook for.



9 months of pregnancy, child birth and raising said child is hardly "letting women off the hook".  If the man is not part of the child's life for whatever reason, all he is responsible for is sending a check to help support his offspring.  That is absolutely fair.


----------



## RosieS

FA_Q2 said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are a few examples of how you are wrong.  The reason woman can decide to have an abortion is because their body is the host to the fetus.  The man or any individual for that matter does not have dominion over another person's body.  Child support payments are just that, financial support for the _child_ that the individual helped create.  Our society decided that we would be better off if father's helped support their offspring instead of having the mother or the state take on that role.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the core difference.  That really does not take away from the philosophical point that the OP makes though.
> 
> The facts are that life is not fair and neither is this scenario.  At least we can admit that we are demanding something from the man that we are completely letting the woman off the hook for.  It sucks for the man but oh well, there really is no 'fair' solution here.
> 
> That is one of the reasons that I don't like the term 'fair.'  Life is very rarely fair at all.
Click to expand...


The birth mother puts in the same 18 years raising the child as the father does.. If he leaves, she puts in much more toward raising  that child than he ever does.

If the prospective father really is pro life, he needs to care for the birth mother, be there for her, but convince her to go with him to an adoption agency to give the child a better chance.

No...he just wants to dump the pregnancy he caused and run from responsibility.

You make a woman pregnant, you are responsible for HER well being during the pregnancy, too, ya morons.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## FA_Q2

Zmrzlina said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least we can admit that we are demanding something from the man that we are completely letting the woman off the hook for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9 months of pregnancy, child birth and raising said child is hardly "letting women off the hook".  If the man is not part of the child's life for whatever reason, all he is responsible for is sending a check to help support his offspring.  That is absolutely fair.
Click to expand...


Except that you compleatly ignored the fact that the woman can kill the unborn child and absolve herself of 100 percent of the responsibility just like that.  Can the man? No, not at all.  Then the woman, if she so chooses, can absolve herself AFTER the birth as well.  Many states allow you to osimply drop the child off at a fire station or other government building with no questions asked.  Or she can put the child up for adoption.  Again, no responsibility whatsoever is taken by the mother for the child in those instances.

Does the man have any chance whatsoever to absolve himself?  No, none whatsoever unless the woman ALLOWS him to.

So no, it is not fair at all.  Not one iota.  That is a FACT.

The real question is what to do about it.  At this juncture, the answer is nothing - life is not fair so I don't expect all things to be fair, equitable or even right.  Again, though, at least we can acknowledge that simple fact and square it with biological reality.


RosieS said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are a few examples of how you are wrong.  The reason woman can decide to have an abortion is because their body is the host to the fetus.  The man or any individual for that matter does not have dominion over another person's body.  Child support payments are just that, financial support for the _child_ that the individual helped create.  Our society decided that we would be better off if father's helped support their offspring instead of having the mother or the state take on that role.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the core difference.  That really does not take away from the philosophical point that the OP makes though.
> 
> The facts are that life is not fair and neither is this scenario.  At least we can admit that we are demanding something from the man that we are completely letting the woman off the hook for.  It sucks for the man but oh well, there really is no 'fair' solution here.
> 
> That is one of the reasons that I don't like the term 'fair.'  Life is very rarely fair at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The birth mother puts in the same 18 years raising the child as the father does.. If he leaves, she puts in much more toward raising  that child than he ever does.
> 
> If the prospective father really is pro life, he needs to care for the birth mother, be there for her, but convince her to go with him to an adoption agency to give the child a better chance.
> 
> No...he just wants to dump the pregnancy he caused and run from responsibility.
> 
> You make a woman pregnant, you are responsible for HER well being during the pregnancy, too, ya morons.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
Click to expand...


Or she aborts and ends the child's life.  Adopts and puts nothing toward raising the child (even MAKING money in many cases).  Or she simply drops the child off at a fire station and walks away, also giving nothing to the raising of the child.  All things that we allow 'mothers' to do and absolve them of any responsibility whatsoever.

None of which are offered to any man unless the mother deems it so.   Again, a reality of biological facts.  that is not going to change but it is the reality.


----------



## Faun

FA_Q2 said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least we can admit that we are demanding something from the man that we are completely letting the woman off the hook for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9 months of pregnancy, child birth and raising said child is hardly "letting women off the hook".  If the man is not part of the child's life for whatever reason, all he is responsible for is sending a check to help support his offspring.  That is absolutely fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that you compleatly ignored the fact that the woman can kill the unborn child and absolve herself of 100 percent of the responsibility just like that.  Can the man? No, not at all.  Then the woman, if she so chooses, can absolve herself AFTER the birth as well.  Many states allow you to osimply drop the child off at a fire station or other government building with no questions asked.  Or she can put the child up for adoption.  Again, no responsibility whatsoever is taken by the mother for the child in those instances.
> 
> Does the man have any chance whatsoever to absolve himself?  No, none whatsoever unless the woman ALLOWS him to.
> 
> So no, it is not fair at all.  Not one iota.  That is a FACT.
> 
> The real question is what to do about it.  At this juncture, the answer is nothing - life is not fair so I don't expect all things to be fair, equitable or even right.  Again, though, at least we can acknowledge that simple fact and square it with biological reality.
> 
> 
> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the core difference.  That really does not take away from the philosophical point that the OP makes though.
> 
> The facts are that life is not fair and neither is this scenario.  At least we can admit that we are demanding something from the man that we are completely letting the woman off the hook for.  It sucks for the man but oh well, there really is no 'fair' solution here.
> 
> That is one of the reasons that I don't like the term 'fair.'  Life is very rarely fair at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The birth mother puts in the same 18 years raising the child as the father does.. If he leaves, she puts in much more toward raising  that child than he ever does.
> 
> If the prospective father really is pro life, he needs to care for the birth mother, be there for her, but convince her to go with him to an adoption agency to give the child a better chance.
> 
> No...he just wants to dump the pregnancy he caused and run from responsibility.
> 
> You make a woman pregnant, you are responsible for HER well being during the pregnancy, too, ya morons.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or she aborts and ends the child's life.  Adopts and puts nothing toward raising the child (even MAKING money in many cases).  Or she simply drops the child off at a fire station and walks away, also giving nothing to the raising of the child.  All things that we allow 'mothers' to do and absolve them of any responsibility whatsoever.
> 
> None of which are offered to any man unless the mother deems it so.   Again, a reality of biological facts.  that is not going to change but it is the reality.
Click to expand...


Pregnancy is not fair. Take it up with G-d.


----------



## Mathbud1

Faun said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9 months of pregnancy, child birth and raising said child is hardly "letting women off the hook".  If the man is not part of the child's life for whatever reason, all he is responsible for is sending a check to help support his offspring.  That is absolutely fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that you compleatly ignored the fact that the woman can kill the unborn child and absolve herself of 100 percent of the responsibility just like that.  Can the man? No, not at all.  Then the woman, if she so chooses, can absolve herself AFTER the birth as well.  Many states allow you to osimply drop the child off at a fire station or other government building with no questions asked.  Or she can put the child up for adoption.  Again, no responsibility whatsoever is taken by the mother for the child in those instances.
> 
> Does the man have any chance whatsoever to absolve himself?  No, none whatsoever unless the woman ALLOWS him to.
> 
> So no, it is not fair at all.  Not one iota.  That is a FACT.
> 
> The real question is what to do about it.  At this juncture, the answer is nothing - life is not fair so I don't expect all things to be fair, equitable or even right.  Again, though, at least we can acknowledge that simple fact and square it with biological reality.
> 
> 
> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> The birth mother puts in the same 18 years raising the child as the father does.. If he leaves, she puts in much more toward raising  that child than he ever does.
> 
> If the prospective father really is pro life, he needs to care for the birth mother, be there for her, but convince her to go with him to an adoption agency to give the child a better chance.
> 
> No...he just wants to dump the pregnancy he caused and run from responsibility.
> 
> You make a woman pregnant, you are responsible for HER well being during the pregnancy, too, ya morons.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or she aborts and ends the child's life.  Adopts and puts nothing toward raising the child (even MAKING money in many cases).  Or she simply drops the child off at a fire station and walks away, also giving nothing to the raising of the child.  All things that we allow 'mothers' to do and absolve them of any responsibility whatsoever.
> 
> None of which are offered to any man unless the mother deems it so.   Again, a reality of biological facts.  that is not going to change but it is the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pregnancy is not fair. Take it up with G-d.
Click to expand...


It is almost like you just like to argue or something. He litterally just got done saying he *knows* it isn't fair and *doesn't* think we should do anything about it, and yet you still have to try and argue with him.


----------



## Mathbud1

I think abortion is evil. I believe that because I believe that life begins at conception. In my view life is about possibilities. From the exact moment of conception a human life begins that holds the possibility of ending a hundred or more years in the future in a hospital bed surrounded by loved ones. There are an incalculable number of things that could cut that life short. Any one of those things that is an act perpetrated by a person to cut that life short is known as killing. Abortion is an act that cuts a life off in the womb, ending it before it can reach its potential. So, in my view, abortion is morally evil.

Abortion is also legal. I don't really think the government is supposed to control us morally. If you look at it from a religious perspective, God put us here with free will as a test. Take away that free will and the test is meaningless. Religion is concerned with the fate of our souls. Government is not. Government is concerned with the safety, well being, rights, freedom, and responsibilities of people here and now. Government should not, therefore, make laws respecting religion, religious beliefs, or morality.

For my own part I could never condone an abortion in any case where the life of the mother and/or the baby were not endangered. But I could not, I think, in good conscience take the right to choose away from the person most intimately affected by the pregnancy. Giving the father a "way out" may not strip the choice from the mother, but it does in my opinion put undue pressure on her to make the horrible choice to have an abortion. I can't support that either.

The law as it stands is probably the best compromise for the difficult situation. Unfortunately I think we are seeing more and more a breakdown of responsibility both personal and familial. People forget about responsibility and focus on entitlements and rights. We're just going to see more broken families, more deadbeat dads, and more abortions as long as that remains the case. I don't see it changing anytime soon.

So for now, I have to side with the crowd who say, "If you choose to have sex you choose to subject yourself to all the possible consequences that may follow." The fact that women have the freedom to choose abortion does not entitle men to a reciprocal freedom. In my opinion, the fewer avenues to escape responsibility the better.


----------



## thanatos144

it is the right to murder.....Not choose.


----------



## Mathbud1

thanatos144 said:


> it is the right to murder.....Not choose.



It isn't murder. I say that not to disagree with your sentiment, but to make a point. I think you use the word murder to convey a sense of how horrible it is rather than the legality of it. The word murder evokes very visceral feelings. I agree with you that it is horrible.

I can't stop myself from from waffling a little on the subject of abortion. I respect freedom a great deal, and it scares me to see government given too much power to limit it. On the other hand the sheer evilness of abortion scares me a lot too.


----------



## FA_Q2

Mathbud1 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is the right to murder.....Not choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't murder. I say that not to disagree with your sentiment, but to make a point. I think you use the word murder to convey a sense of how horrible it is rather than the legality of it. The word murder evokes very visceral feelings. I agree with you that it is horrible.
> 
> I can't stop myself from from waffling a little on the subject of abortion. I respect freedom a great deal, and it scares me to see government given too much power to limit it. On the other hand the sheer evilness of abortion scares me a lot too.
Click to expand...


The right to *kill*.

That would be a more correct terminology for the statement.


----------



## FA_Q2

Mathbud1 said:


> I think abortion is evil. I believe that because I believe that life begins at conception. In my view life is about possibilities. From the exact moment of conception a human life begins that holds the possibility of ending a hundred or more years in the future in a hospital bed surrounded by loved ones. There are an incalculable number of things that could cut that life short. Any one of those things that is an act perpetrated by a person to cut that life short is known as killing. Abortion is an act that cuts a life off in the womb, ending it before it can reach its potential. So, in my view, abortion is morally evil.
> 
> Abortion is also legal. I don't really think the government is supposed to control us morally. If you look at it from a religious perspective, God put us here with free will as a test. Take away that free will and the test is meaningless. Religion is concerned with the fate of our souls. Government is not. Government is concerned with the safety, well being, rights, freedom, and responsibilities of people here and now. Government should not, therefore, make laws respecting religion, religious beliefs, or morality.
> 
> For my own part I could never condone an abortion in any case where the life of the mother and/or the baby were not endangered. But I could not, I think, in good conscience take the right to choose away from the person most intimately affected by the pregnancy. Giving the father a "way out" may not strip the choice from the mother, but it does in my opinion put undue pressure on her to make the horrible choice to have an abortion. I can't support that either.
> 
> The law as it stands is probably the best compromise for the difficult situation. Unfortunately I think we are seeing more and more a breakdown of responsibility both personal and familial. People forget about responsibility and focus on entitlements and rights. We're just going to see more broken families, more deadbeat dads, and more abortions as long as that remains the case. I don't see it changing anytime soon.
> 
> So for now, I have to side with the crowd who say, "If you choose to have sex you choose to subject yourself to all the possible consequences that may follow." The fact that women have the freedom to choose abortion does not entitle men to a reciprocal freedom. In my opinion, the fewer avenues to escape responsibility the better.




Now THAT is well stated.  Thank you.

I feel almost exactly the same way.  The government is not here to prevent evil or define morality.  That is for us to decide.

I have to state that my opinions on this have really been challenged recently as well.  A friend of ours just had an abortion out of convenience (like the vast majority of abortions) and I thought I would be just fine considering I support the right.  However, there were some pretty powerful feelings that occurred with me afterward and I cannot even look at her in the same manner anymore.  She has done something unspeakable.

I STILL support that right but I certainly do not have to accept or support those that exercise it.


----------



## hadit

There certainly is something very primal about the urge to protect innocent, developing life that is violated when it is callously terminated.


----------



## Noomi

Well, if you anti choicers would put your money where your mouth is, maybe the abortion rate would drop?


----------



## thanatos144

Noomi said:


> Well, if you anti choicers would put your money where your mouth is, maybe the abortion rate would drop?



If you closed your legs every once in awhile the baby killing rate would drop as well.


----------



## Noomi

thanatos144 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you anti choicers would put your money where your mouth is, maybe the abortion rate would drop?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you closed your legs every once in awhile the baby killing rate would drop as well.
Click to expand...


Typical right winger assuming that every woman who has an abortion is a slut.


----------



## dilloduck

Noomi said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you anti choicers would put your money where your mouth is, maybe the abortion rate would drop?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you closed your legs every once in awhile the baby killing rate would drop as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical right winger assuming that every woman who has an abortion is a slut.
Click to expand...


They're not sluts--they just made a very poor choice.


----------



## Luissa

dilloduck said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you closed your legs every once in awhile the baby killing rate would drop as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical right winger assuming that every woman who has an abortion is a slut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not sluts--they just made a very poor choice.
Click to expand...



Something you could never understand.


----------



## thanatos144

Luissa said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical right winger assuming that every woman who has an abortion is a slut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not sluts--they just made a very poor choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Something you could never understand.
Click to expand...


Was Gonna say something about your virtue but there is no bother since we all know anyway. The point is you open your legs. ... that was the choice. You can't always blame us men for your bad choices 

tapatalk post


----------



## Luissa

thanatos144 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're not sluts--they just made a very poor choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something you could never understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was Gonna say something about your virtue but there is no bother since we all know anyway. The point is you open your legs. ... that was the choice. You can't always blame us men for your bad choices
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...



What the fuck are you talking about dirtbag? 
And you know nothing about my virtue or what I have done or not done. 
Please continue though, you look like scum not me.


----------



## thanatos144

Luissa said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something you could never understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was Gonna say something about your virtue but there is no bother since we all know anyway. The point is you open your legs. ... that was the choice. You can't always blame us men for your bad choices
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about dirtbag?
> And you know nothing about my virtue or what I have done or not done.
> Please continue though, you look like scum not me.
Click to expand...


Open nerve? 

tapatalk post


----------



## Luissa

thanatos144 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was Gonna say something about your virtue but there is no bother since we all know anyway. The point is you open your legs. ... that was the choice. You can't always blame us men for your bad choices
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about dirtbag?
> And you know nothing about my virtue or what I have done or not done.
> Please continue though, you look like scum not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Open nerve?
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...



No, not at all. I am a single mom, that would probably mean I didn't have one. Of course you would have to think before speaking.. 
You are just scum, and I enjoy pointing it out. Stupid and a scumbag, great combination.


----------



## thanatos144

Luissa said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about dirtbag?
> And you know nothing about my virtue or what I have done or not done.
> Please continue though, you look like scum not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Open nerve?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, not at all. I am a single mom, that would probably mean I didn't have one. Of course you would have to think before speaking..
> You are just scum, and I enjoy pointing it out. Stupid and a scumbag, great combination.
Click to expand...


Guess I was right then 

tapatalk post


----------



## Luissa

thanatos144 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open nerve?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not at all. I am a single mom, that would probably mean I didn't have one. Of course you would have to think before speaking..
> You are just scum, and I enjoy pointing it out. Stupid and a scumbag, great combination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess I was right then
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...



Right about what?  
You haven't been right once in your life. Lol


----------



## thanatos144

Luissa said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not at all. I am a single mom, that would probably mean I didn't have one. Of course you would have to think before speaking..
> You are just scum, and I enjoy pointing it out. Stupid and a scumbag, great combination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess I was right then
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right about what?
> You haven't been right once in your life. Lol
Click to expand...


You just keep lying to yourself 

tapatalk post


----------



## Luissa

thanatos144 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess I was right then
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right about what?
> You haven't been right once in your life. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep lying to yourself
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...



 yeah, I am not the one who lies about everything or to himself.


----------



## thanatos144

Luissa said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right about what?
> You haven't been right once in your life. Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just keep lying to yourself
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, I am not the one who lies about everything or to himself.
Click to expand...


I know you are not talking about me so you must be talking about a certain lesbian you hate 

tapatalk post


----------



## Luissa

thanatos144 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just keep lying to yourself
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, I am not the one who lies about everything or to himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you are not talking about me so you must be talking about a certain lesbian you hate
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...



What lesbian is that? I don't remember hating any lesbians. 
I most be talking about you then, the proven liar. Do you know much about Ed Gein? You should google him.


----------



## thanatos144

Luissa said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, I am not the one who lies about everything or to himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you are not talking about me so you must be talking about a certain lesbian you hate
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What lesbian is that? I don't remember hating any lesbians.
> I most be talking about you then, the proven liar. Do you know much about Ed Gein? You should google him.
Click to expand...


No thanks. I am working.  You should try it.  

tapatalk post


----------



## Luissa

thanatos144 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you are not talking about me so you must be talking about a certain lesbian you hate
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What lesbian is that? I don't remember hating any lesbians.
> I most be talking about you then, the proven liar. Do you know much about Ed Gein? You should google him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No thanks. I am working.  You should try it.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


----------



## hadit

Noomi said:


> Well, if you anti choicers would put your money where your mouth is, maybe the abortion rate would drop?



Ever hear of Crisis Pregnancy Centers?


----------

