Abortion and how men are getting screwed.

[varelse]

Courts have held, many times, that the act of having unprotected sex is consent to be responsible for a resulting pregnancy.

...



...


...


...


...


...


...



*glances at nearest abortion clinic*

the people who support the *right* of women to kill their children, and the *right* of men to force them to do so....

Who supports forced abortions?

I don't give a shit about your personal opinion. You're scum.

You don;t know me or what I think of it personally.

What you think is scum is the law which are the facts of the matter.

shes not too bright

<-- click this smilie

Ouch, Drifter is owning folks in this thread.

.

shame (s)he disabled rep

Oh. On page one.

So why are you still here? *discussing* without taking a stance? How does that work?

What is your legal expertise, Prof?

Evidently his?hers? is greater than yours, whatever it is...


I would still like several people here to respond to this:

If a person kills another person (or people) in cold blood

Defineerson

What about taking a braindead person off life support?

I have difficulty conceiving of something as a person when it has no mind

So no, it's not "murder"....it's an eye for an eye.

So if I shoot my brother's killer in a courtroom, I'm not a murderer just as he is?

There is a study that says that fully 60 percent of abortions are coerced. I believe it.

You were asked to source this claim back in post 86...

 

[OKTexas]

(My bold)

Well, if the pregnancy is discovered early enough, the blastocyte can be harvested for either implantation in another uterus, or flash frozen for later implantation. The technology isn't absolutely foolproof, but it gets better with time. That is one way that a prospective father could have his rights in the fetus - if the prospective mother & the court agree.

The second point is harder to discuss. What "equality" have men lost? They never could/did carry the fetus to term - so that hasn't changed. Did they previously have a voice in whether the pregnant woman carried to term? I don't think so - & so that hasn't changed either. So what are we talking about - what does "lost equality" actually mean?

It's simple, at this point the woman has all the options, the man has none. Why should the man not have the option of relinquishing all moral and financial responsibility, just as the woman can through abortion, if he has no desire to be a father?

(My bold)

The "options" are two: Carry the fetus to term, or not. The man's options are similar: Possibly impregnate a woman, or not. The mechanics are v. well understood - standard coitus, when the woman is fertile, may result in a pregnancy.

Couples that want sex without pregnancy have recourse to condoms, birth control pills, various spermicides, cervical caps, abstinence, & a couple more options that may be against the T&C of the board. (This is a family board?) Anyway, the options are pretty well understood, assuming that the couple isn't a couple of children.

I'll pass over "moral" responsibility, the case you're talking about is apparently simply a male who wants the pleasure without the responsibility. The "financial" responsibility - the State has an interest in assuring the stability of childrearing - that's where new citizens come from. & the State has a vested interest in its own continuity.

& thus the State WILL intervene to assure that the father (& occasionally the mother) pays child support. That discussion is either earlier in this thread or another related one. The State has always had this interest - but just as technology now allows women to avoid pregnancy, so too the State can now actively pursue "deadbeat dads" & ID them, & pursue them for child support. That's one of the prices we pay for "civilization", I suppose.

You can't just "light out for the Territories" any more, to coin a phrase. Welcome to the blessed 2013, Anno Dominae.

Interest of the State, got it. If child bearing is in the interest of the State, should the State not have an interest in compelling the woman to carry to term? If the answer is no, then why does the State have the authority to place the man into involuntary servitude? He has committed no crime and according to the 14th Amendment a person can only be placed into involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime.

 

[Noomi]

Because men don't get pregnant, that's why. They have no say in whether the woman has an abortion, because he isn't pregnant, and the pregnancy doesn't involve his body. She gets to make the decision.

which organ exactly does a fetus constitute in a woman's body....

What are you blathering about? It is physically attached to the woman, draining her body of nutrients to sustain its life.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's simple, at this point the woman has all the options, the man has none. Why should the man not have the option of relinquishing all moral and financial responsibility, just as the woman can through abortion, if he has no desire to be a father?

How about don't get somebody pregnant if you're not prepared to be a father?

Just a thought...

 

[Noomi]

It's simple, at this point the woman has all the options, the man has none. Why should the man not have the option of relinquishing all moral and financial responsibility, just as the woman can through abortion, if he has no desire to be a father?

How about don't get somebody pregnant if you're not prepared to be a father?

Just a thought...

Bad argument, because it can be turned around and directed at the woman, too.

 

[OKTexas]

It's simple, at this point the woman has all the options, the man has none. Why should the man not have the option of relinquishing all moral and financial responsibility, just as the woman can through abortion, if he has no desire to be a father?

How about don't get somebody pregnant if you're not prepared to be a father?

Just a thought...

That point is moot in the context of the thread. Ya might want to catch up.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's simple, at this point the woman has all the options, the man has none. Why should the man not have the option of relinquishing all moral and financial responsibility, just as the woman can through abortion, if he has no desire to be a father?

How about don't get somebody pregnant if you're not prepared to be a father?

Just a thought...

That point is moot in the context of the thread. Ya might want to catch up.

It's not moot. If you're responsible, it won't happen and you won't have to worry about this.

 

[Noomi]

How about don't get somebody pregnant if you're not prepared to be a father?

Just a thought...

That point is moot in the context of the thread. Ya might want to catch up.

It's not moot. If you're responsible, it won't happen and you won't have to worry about this.

What's your opinion on abortion?

 

[OKTexas]

How about don't get somebody pregnant if you're not prepared to be a father?

Just a thought...

That point is moot in the context of the thread. Ya might want to catch up.

It's not moot. If you're responsible, it won't happen and you won't have to worry about this.

What ever, stay ignorant you've never allowed it to stop you before.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That point is moot in the context of the thread. Ya might want to catch up.

It's not moot. If you're responsible, it won't happen and you won't have to worry about this.

What's your opinion on abortion?

I think it's savage, but that's a personal decision for a woman to make, not the government or society.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That point is moot in the context of the thread. Ya might want to catch up.

It's not moot. If you're responsible, it won't happen and you won't have to worry about this.

What ever, stay ignorant you've never allowed it to stop you before.

Not ignorant, truthful. There are no "accidental" pregnancies.

 

[Noomi]

It's not moot. If you're responsible, it won't happen and you won't have to worry about this.

What's your opinion on abortion?

I think it's savage, but that's a personal decision for a woman to make, not the government or society.

Okay, so you are pro choice. Lifers say that if the woman doesn't want to have a baby, she shouldn't have sex - which is unrealistic. You said that if a man doesn't wish to be a father, he shouldn't have sex.
Either neither man nor woman should have sex unless they want a child, or both man and woman should be able to have sex and opt out of their parental duties, otherwise you have a double standard...

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Okay, so you are pro choice. Lifers say that if the woman doesn't want to have a baby, she shouldn't have sex - which is unrealistic. You said that if a man doesn't wish to be a father, he shouldn't have sex.

No, I didn't. I said he should be responsible.

 

[OKTexas]

It's not moot. If you're responsible, it won't happen and you won't have to worry about this.

What ever, stay ignorant you've never allowed it to stop you before.

Not ignorant, truthful. There are no "accidental" pregnancies.

Like I said that has nothing to do with the current discussion. It's about unequal rights after a pregnancy occurs.

 

[Noomi]

Okay, so you are pro choice. Lifers say that if the woman doesn't want to have a baby, she shouldn't have sex - which is unrealistic. You said that if a man doesn't wish to be a father, he shouldn't have sex.

No, I didn't. I said he should be responsible.

If the woman gets pregnant, do you think she should be responsible and have the baby?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

 

[KGB]

Because men don't get pregnant, that's why. They have no say in whether the woman has an abortion, because he isn't pregnant, and the pregnancy doesn't involve his body. She gets to make the decision.

which organ exactly does a fetus constitute in a woman's body....

What are you blathering about? It is physically attached to the woman, draining her body of nutrients to sustain its life.

oh, so you agree that the unborn child is not a part of the woman's body, excellent. More importantly, you agree that it is also alive. So please explain how you can justify murdering it because of some misguided notion of a "right"....

see this is what the so-called "pro-choice" crowd can never get their minds wrapped around. This unborn child is NOT a part of a woman's body, it is a separate entity that temporarily resides inside it. But it is a alive & it is human.

 

[Noomi]

which organ exactly does a fetus constitute in a woman's body....

What are you blathering about? It is physically attached to the woman, draining her body of nutrients to sustain its life.

oh, so you agree that the unborn child is not a part of the woman's body, excellent. More importantly, you agree that it is also alive. So please explain how you can justify murdering it because of some misguided notion of a "right"....

see this is what the so-called "pro-choice" crowd can never get their minds wrapped around. This unborn child is NOT a part of a woman's body, it is a separate entity that temporarily resides inside it. But it is a alive & it is human.

It is attached to her body, it is a part of her body until it is born. What do you call an umbilical cord?

 

[koshergrl]

Because men don't get pregnant, that's why. They have no say in whether the woman has an abortion, because he isn't pregnant, and the pregnancy doesn't involve his body. She gets to make the decision.

which organ exactly does a fetus constitute in a woman's body....

What are you blathering about? It is physically attached to the woman, draining her body of nutrients to sustain its life.

?

That makes it an organ?

You people need to decide how to misapply terms..one week, you're declaring it a parasite..the next it's dead...the next it's a temporary organ.

Get a grip.

 

[varelse]

Murdering?

So, it's alive, what's your point? People kill ants all the time, and they are alive. Ever use antibacterial soap? Clearly, being alive is not relevant, unless you're an extreme Jainist or something.

So it's human, what's your point? Is that both a necessary and a sufficient criterion? What about pulling the plug on the braindead?