Abortion: Why Men Don't Get A Say

[JBeukema]

Face it, dilloduck. It is anti-human to suggest babies that are unwanted by their fathers should lose any right to support from their Dads. This cry for "father's rights" regarding this issue is just more feel-good, mushy thinking on this one of various aspects of the issue of abortion.

It's anti-human to kill the unborn. I understand your maternal instincts are a bit wanting but most people can see the cruelty in killing babies. You don't want one? Don't have sex.

You are unable or unwilling to reply? Fine by me.

You just quoted his reply...

 

[Gunny]

Yes, I understood you, George. All babies born in the US have survived whatever "risk of being aborted" they were exposed to, and all babies are legally entitled to be supported by both parents (provided they are known, alive, etc.). This "option" you advocate for on behalf of fathers would dramatically alter the rights of children for the worst, and would create quasi-property rights in children for mothers. IMO, it is anti-human and would serve no one's interests (apart from those of irresponsible men who make babies they wish they did not have to support).

It just does not fly with me. But as you say, no one ever changes their mind about abortion -- and I suspect people are just as heavily invested in their POVs on this topic.

So then you are saying that once a man and a woman conceive a child, even though neither of them expected to do it NOR WANTED TO DO IT, the matter is totally out of the hands of the man and whatever the woman wants to do is what happens. And, oh by the way, the man not only has to go along with it but, if she elects to keep the child herself, he gets to pay for the child.

I disagree.

I gather that you are anti-abortion. No problem. I, of course, am PRO abortion, as the cons like to call it - I canvass neighborhoods, trying to induce pregnant women to abort, etc. But I digress . . .

What about adoption? The child lives, grows up in a good home, man doesn't have to pay for a child he did not expect or want, woman gets the same result . . . . Your argument in this post does not take that option into account.

What you seem to be suggesting is that a father could force an adoption of a baby even if the mother opposed it. Assuming both parents are fit (or at least that the mother is) I could not support this. The right of a single mother to raise her child should not be terminated merely because the father wants to escape paying child support. Adoption is a fine option (assuming the child is white and healthy) but the rights of even the poor, single, young and otherwise disadvantaged to raise their own children is paramount. I think we have enough experience with forced adoptions of Native American children to know, this is morally repugnant.

In the Op, I had linked an article describing the charges laid against a man who kidnapped his pregnant girlfriend and drove her to a clinic to get an abortion she did not want. I asked what the USMB-ers thought, and whether it would have mattered if he had committed his crimes in an effort to prevent her from aborting.

I am 100% in favor of a woman's right to choose. Her body, her choice, end of discussion. Some of the posts have indicated that the man and not the woman should get to choose -- although no one has laid out for us the government action that should be employed against women when they disagree with men, nor how we're to know who fathered a zygote.

I disagree with you that a child born against the father's wishes should receive no child support if the father wants off the hook. The circumstances of a child's conception and birth should not limit that child's right to support from both parents.

As you can imagine, there has been much vogueing on this thread, with everyone feeling heavily invested in their POVs. As per usual, anytime a discussion arises about abortion. The most bizarre POVs have been offered by the anti-abortion crew who nonetheless support a father's right to choose.

Men apparently can be entrusted to make the morally correct choice -- just not women.

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. You don't have to keep it. I raised a daughter alone.

Otherwise, if I say I don't want it and you say yes, to be FAIR --- which no one with YOUR argument is -- I should be able to abdicated ALL legal responsibility to that child .

It's feminazi's wanting to have their cake and eat it too. YOUR POV is bizarre. Again, yes, if the female wants it and I don't, I shouldn't be held responsible if I'm offering to pay for the fix.

 

[Madeline]

Gunny wrote:

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. You don't have to keep it. I raised a daughter alone.

Otherwise, if I say I don't want it and you say yes, to be FAIR --- which no one with YOUR argument is -- I should be able to abdicated ALL legal responsibility to that child .

It's feminazi's wanting to have their cake and eat it too. YOUR POV is bizarre. Again, yes, if the female wants it and I don't, I shouldn't be held responsible if I'm offering to pay for the fix.

I admire you for being a great Dad, Gunny. I am sure that kid of yours is fabulous and I would 100% support either parent having physical custody, with a strict "best interests of the child" standard. I'm happy to toss the tender years doctrine. And if Dad has custody, I am 100% as fervent about the mother paying support.

If the mother is able to support the child without financial contribution from Dad, maybe your POV would have some appeal. But if she'll be raising that baby alone and kissing off his contribution means the shitty day care center rather than the good one, etc., no.

And not for nothing, but many a baby daddy has panicked at first and later bonded with his child. If the mother kisses off the child's rights at birth, likely that will never happen. I know a few men who regret being separated from their children....but none who regret sticking around.

 

[syrenn]

Yes. I stated simple biological fact.

And i stated fact as well. If it is not part of the women body she has every right to have it removed as it is not part of her body and place it on the table. If it is part of her body, again she has every right to do with her body as she wishes.

Right... so a woman has 'every right' to kill her child at 6 months gestation by cutting it out and letting it suffocate on a table...

Your words prove what a child-hating monster you really are. You're a sick piece of shit and someone should teach you what it's like to die a painful death desperately trying to get a breath. I hope someone lets you experience yourself what you advocate doing to babies that you find inconvenient.

I wasn't aware we had discussed abortion and the whens, wheres, and how tos in this thread. You assume far to much about my opinions.

 

[JBeukema]

I assumed nothing. Your words are there for all to see.

 

[syrenn]

I assumed nothing. Your words are there for all to see.

Where do i ever say anything about a second trimester abortion? Yes you assume far to much.

 

[JBeukema]

Clearly i do. You were the one who said that a child is not your body.

Yes. I stated simple biological fact.

And i stated fact as well. If it is not part of the women body she has every right to have it removed as it is not part of her body and place it on the table. If it is part of her body, again she has every right to do with her body as she wishes.

Now she doesn't every every right to kill her baby in utero? Now she only has some right to? Only up to a certain point?

Deny, scramble, and run...

 

[Madeline]

I assumed nothing. Your words are there for all to see.

Where do i ever say anything about a second trimester abortion? Yes you assume far to much.

JB and dilloduck have both condemned safe abandonment laws to reduce infanticide, yet claim to care more about babies than we do. Both have argued men should get to evade responsibility for unwanted babies, even if doing so means the child will lack the basic necessities of life.

Yet we are the "anti-life" posters, syrenn?

Not in my opinion.

 

[Madeline]

Yes. I stated simple biological fact.

And i stated fact as well. If it is not part of the women body she has every right to have it removed as it is not part of her body and place it on the table. If it is part of her body, again she has every right to do with her body as she wishes.

Now she doesn't every every right to kill her baby in utero? Now she only has some right to? Only up to a certain point?

Deny, scramble, and run...

The woman's right to choose has never lasted past viability. You are an idiot.

 

[JBeukema]

I assumed nothing. Your words are there for all to see.

Where do i ever say anything about a second trimester abortion? Yes you assume far to much.

JB and dilloduck have both condemned safe abandonment laws to reduce infanticide,

Only in your head. Back in the real world, you can go back and see who it was who posted links to Safe Place for Newborns.

 

[syrenn]

Yes. I stated simple biological fact.

And i stated fact as well. If it is not part of the women body she has every right to have it removed as it is not part of her body and place it on the table. If it is part of her body, again she has every right to do with her body as she wishes.

Now she doesn't every every right to kill her baby in utero? Now she only has some right to? Only up to a certain point?

Deny, scramble, and run...

So we have devolved in to where opinion lays on "where life begins"? Different subject don't you think jb?

So long as the cells cannot live a "stand alone life" they are not life in my opinion. Living yes but not life.

In my opinion abortions should only happen within the first trimester. That is far and away from your 6 months.

 

[JBeukema]

So we have devolved in to where opinion lays on "where life begins"?

You're an idiot. A new life beings at conception, when two germ cells come together to create anew organism. That is biological fact. There is no room for opinion on the subject any more than there's room for opinion on whether Earth is made of matter.

 

[JBeukema]

In my opinion abortions should only happen within the first trimester. That is far and away from your 6 months.

So you repudiate your own words?

 

[syrenn]

So we have devolved in to where opinion lays on "where life begins"?

You're an idiot. A new life beings at conception, when two germ cells come together to create anew organism. That is biological fact. There is no room for opinion on the subject any more than there's room for opinion on whether Earth is made of matter.

Life and viable life are two different things. As i have said before, remove the cells, place them on the table and see it it "lives"

 

[syrenn]

In my opinion abortions should only happen within the first trimester. That is far and away from your 6 months.

So you repudiate your own words?

Repudiate what? I still maintain it is a woman's right to choose to carry or not to carry child to full term.

 

[JBeukema]

So you support killing a baby at 6 months gestation.

 

[JBeukema]

http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/your-baby/week-25/fresh-air.aspx

 

[syrenn]

So you support killing a baby at 6 months gestation.

Again i support a womans right to choose what is right for her. As i have sad before cesarean section it out and let it live.

 

[JBeukema]

I support someone's right to tie an anchor to your leg, throw you in the ocean, and let you live...


Just applying your own standard...

 

[Ravi]

So we have devolved in to where opinion lays on "where life begins"?

You're an idiot. A new life beings at conception, when two germ cells come together to create anew organism. That is biological fact. There is no room for opinion on the subject any more than there's room for opinion on whether Earth is made of matter.

If you believe that you must be a monster because you support abortion.