If a woman aborted my child, I would probably go ape shit. Why are the feelings of the father...

[Faun]

So is the OP implying that if the father insists the woman have an abortion, but she has the child,

he shouldn't have to pay any support for it?

That would be the flip side of the argument. You won't get an answer. These types rarely think beyond the initial premise.

They're brain-dead. Hell, they can barely speak beyond grunting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So is the OP implying that if the father insists the woman have an abortion, but she has the child,

he shouldn't have to pay any support for it?

That would be the flip side of the argument. You won't get an answer. These types rarely think beyond the initial premise.

That's because the OP's argument is just one more bizarre anti-abortion argument.

 

[Dragonlady]

Funny, that's not what the Supreme Court said when they were deciding Roe.

They said:

You don't get it. I DON'T CARE what the SC says. Its MY body. MY choice. Not yours. Not the courts. Not anybodys. PERIOD. And the laws can dictate whatever floats their boat but women who choose to NOT carry a fetus WILL find a way to remove it. So knock yourselves out trying to win control over a body that is not yours. Good luck with that.

You don't get it. I DON'T CARE what the SC says. Its MY body. MY choice. Not yours. Not the courts. Not anybodys. PERIOD. And the laws can dictate whatever floats their boat but women who choose to NOT carry a fetus WILL find a way to remove it. So knock yourselves out trying to win control over a body that is not yours. Good luck with that.

Thank you. That is exactly why it must be legal. It's part of human nature and Roe simply allows for it to be done safely.

Funny how those of you that say what a woman does with her body is her choice yet you want others to pay for things when the one making the choice can't afford to do so. If someone gets to make the sole choice, shouldn't the sole responsibility of paying for it be with the one making it?

Since most people don't entirely control our economic circumstances, it is in the public good to help the most economically vulnerable during difficult times.

I didn't cause the 2008 economic collapse either, but I did lose my job as a result of that collapse. Why should I have to suffer since I did nothing wrong and everything right? My bosses begged the firm not to let me go but it was a purely economic decision.

My neighbour's husband took a powder leaving her with 2 young children, no job and no prospects. She applied for welfare, went back to school, and became a teacher. My tax dollars helped her do that. I have no issue with helping her. She's s nice person and she's doing right by her family and her community.

You want people to do what you perceive to be the "right" thin

Nope. He knew the risks too. Once he lets those swimmers go, he's on the hook. Personal responsibility baby! This is what it really looks like.

Aborting a fetus you can't care for is personal responsibility. Accepting that you cannot, for whatever reason, carry a child to term or raise it is personal responsibility. But for a man to complain that a woman he knowingly had sex with is refusing to have his baby when he knew she didn't want a child, is petulant and foolish. You had a choice and you made it.

Aborting a baby you knew could be produced when you spread your legs isn't personal responsibility. Accepting the results of spreading your legs despite the results not being what you wanted is personal responsibility. Is it personally responsible to burn down your house if you can no longer pay for it?

Now for the rest of us. Since your argument is that the one letting go of the swimmers is the sole reason he is responsible for supporting the child, why are those of us that didn't let go of them with her responsible is she chooses to have a child she can't support? We didn't do the very thing for which you argue is the reason for the donor having to pay. Let me guess, you'll find some other excuse why a choice SHE made is not her responsibility to pay for.

She will be paying for that choice for the rest of her life. She will be raising that child, giving the baby her time, attention, and a goodly chunk of her worldly resources. If she needs some financial assistance to do this and the father isn't stepping up, you should be willing to help her through the rough patches since you think she did the right thing.

Americans think they're being patriotic by waving a flag. Canadians believe they're being patriotic by helping their fellow Canadians through rough patches. Love of country isn't something you wear on your lapel.

People are more important than things.

Progressives don't believe that.

They believe there are too many people, that animals and trees and dirt are every bit as valuable as human beings...and much, much more valuable than weak human beings..particularly inanimate objects and animals are more valuable than vulnerable women, babies, the elderly, and the disabled.

You haven't the vaguest clue what progressives believe. If not for progressives there would be no social assistance of any kind for the poor, the elderly, the disabled, or children. Conservatives have fought against all of these things at every step of the way, saying leave it up to the church's or personal charity.

You personally rail against ever food stamps, Medicare, and every tax dollar spent on social programs. What a hypocrite!

Do you realize that if you progressives that claim to care so much for others would actually do personally what you don't mind forcing the rest of us to do what you say should happen wouldn't involve the government?

Things like this should be left up to personal charity. Why should you get to say something should be in place then demand someone else be forced to fund it because you wo't personally do what you say should be done.

For starters, because private charity doesn't work. There's not enough of it, you have to know the right people to access it and it's not evenly or equally distributed.

What is worse is that in times of economic downturns, when it's needed most, charitable giving declines because fewer people are working and have the resources to give.

Government programs are the most effective and efficient method of assisting those in need. It is also the only resource which can continue to provide that reliable assistance in times of economic downturns.

Sadly, the conservatives have so overburdened the social safety net with means testing, drug testing, and and other wasteful administration costs that programs are not as efficient as they could be.

You have local, state and federal programs. Each program has a separate application and administration process, separate means testing, separate fraud oversight, all adding to the overall costs of providing the assistance.

Millions have been spent drug testing welfare recipients which have in turns has saved thousand of dollars. Spending millions to save thousands is fiscally irresponsible but conservatives are all for it. My boss used to call that "Picking up the peanuts while being trampled by the elephants".

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[bodecea]

The OP says he's upset by abortion....yet we're not hearing him be just as upset about hungry children, or children being killed in war zones.

Could this be because he's MORE upset that he can't control women?

 

[rightwinger]

The OP says he's upset by abortion....yet we're not hearing him be just as upset about hungry children, or children being killed in war zones.

Could this be because he's MORE upset that he can't control women?

He is upset because a woman does not want to carry his spawn

 

[Dragonlady]

I would also like to point out that when Roe v. Wade overturned the legal prohibition against abortion, it was widely believed that the birth rate would drop. It didn't. It stayed the same as it was before abortion was legal. This indicates that illegal abortions were widely and openly available. What stopped, almost overnight, was women turning up at hospitals in distress from botched abortions. Legalizing abortion saved women's lives.

 

[Blackrook]

Calling unborn children such words as "seed", "spawn", "parasite" is not helping your argument. All it convinces me of is that you are sociopaths.

 

[Asclepias]

Should it be illegal for a mother to jump from a ladder on to her pregnant belly, causing a miscarriage?

Do you support our fetal homicide laws?

No one is stupid enough to fall for your deflection. You arent dealing with rightwingers here.

 

[Asclepias]

Calling unborn children such words as "seed", "spawn", "parasite" is not helping your argument. All it convinces me of is that you are sociopaths.

I dont think anyone is concerned with your opinion. I know its none of my business what you think of me.

 

[rightwinger]

Calling unborn children such words as "seed", "spawn", "parasite" is not helping your argument. All it convinces me of is that you are sociopaths.

While I can't really respect any woman that would agree to have sex with you.....

I can understand why she would choose not to bear your spawn

 

[bodecea]

I would also like to point out that when Roe v. Wade overturned the legal prohibition against abortion, it was widely believed that the birth rate would drop. It didn't. It stayed the same as it was before abortion was legal. This indicates that illegal abortions were widely and openly available. What stopped, almost overnight, was women turning up at hospitals in distress from botched abortions. Legalizing abortion saved women's lives.

Something else to upset the OP.

 

[ptbw forever]

Very simple reason. You dont have to carry the load for 9 months and have basically a parasite eating off you.

If we lived in a civilized world populated by civilized people, you would have to hide yourself in shame for the rest of your life for uttering those horrible words.

But among liberals, who are morally corrupt and reprehensible in all ways that matter, your words will barely register at all.

Dont get emotional. Use your brain. Its horrible to witness a abortion however until you have to carry the child you really dont have a say in the matter.

Sorry, but you can't claim witnessing an abortion is "horrible" in one post, and literally call a fetus "a parasite" in another one....

You need to look up the term "cognitive dissonance".

 

[Asclepias]

Very simple reason. You dont have to carry the load for 9 months and have basically a parasite eating off you.

If we lived in a civilized world populated by civilized people, you would have to hide yourself in shame for the rest of your life for uttering those horrible words.

But among liberals, who are morally corrupt and reprehensible in all ways that matter, your words will barely register at all.

Dont get emotional. Use your brain. Its horrible to witness a abortion however until you have to carry the child you really dont have a say in the matter.

Sorry, but you can't claim witnessing an abortion is "horrible" in one post, and literally call a fetus "a parasite" in another one....

You need to look up the term "cognitive dissonance".

Why not? You do know what parasite means right? I already know what cognitive dissonance is. I see it displayed everyday on these forums.

"women should not be allowed to abort those innocent children"

in the next breath.

"send those anchor babies back to Mexico!"

 

[Brain357]

...never discussed, or even considered?

There must be all kinds of stories of fathers who wanted to keep their child, but the mother aborted and they could do nothing to stop it.

I am convinced the pro-abort media is censoring these stories, which must be in the millions by now.

I do have a story of a friend of mine, who was blackmailed into a very bad marriage.

She said, "Marry me, or I will abort your child."

So he married her, even though I told him the marriage would never last, even though his father told him he'd get an all-expenses paid trip through Europe if he didn't marry her.

Of course, none of us knew about the abortion threat, because he kept that a secret.

And, sure enough, the marriage was very unhappy, and as I predicted, ended in divorce.

Why doesn't the media cover a story like that?

I find the story very interesting, don't you?

Don't get a woman pregnant who doesn't want to have your child. It's very simple.

 

[Mr Natural]

...never discussed, or even considered?

There must be all kinds of stories of fathers who wanted to keep their child, but the mother aborted and they could do nothing to stop it.

I am convinced the pro-abort media is censoring these stories, which must be in the millions by now.

I do have a story of a friend of mine, who was blackmailed into a very bad marriage.

She said, "Marry me, or I will abort your child."

So he married her, even though I told him the marriage would never last, even though his father told him he'd get an all-expenses paid trip through Europe if he didn't marry her.

Of course, none of us knew about the abortion threat, because he kept that a secret.

And, sure enough, the marriage was very unhappy, and as I predicted, ended in divorce.

Why doesn't the media cover a story like that?

I find the story very interesting, don't you?

Don't get a woman pregnant who doesn't want to have your child. It's very simple.

You're expecting a simpleton to understand a simple solution?

 

[Aletheia4u]

This is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. The egg will never conceived. And know body parts cannot be sold. And both participants can still have a smile on their faces, except for the Clinton foundation.


How Does it Work?
The emergency contraceptive/morning-after pill has three modes of action (as does the regular birth control pill); that is, it can work in one of three ways:

1. The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
2. Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released from the ovary;
3. It can irritate the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so as to inhibit implantation. How Does it Work? - Morning After Pill

 

[g5000]

I do have a story of a friend of mine, who was blackmailed into a very bad marriage.

She said, "Marry me, or I will abort your child."

See what happens when you have sex outside of marriage, kids?

 

[Conservative65]

It has no rights while it freeloads off the mothers body. And there IS a time frame for those squatters rights.

Funny, that's not what the Supreme Court said when they were deciding Roe.

They said:

You don't get it. I DON'T CARE what the SC says. Its MY body. MY choice. Not yours. Not the courts. Not anybodys. PERIOD. And the laws can dictate whatever floats their boat but women who choose to NOT carry a fetus WILL find a way to remove it. So knock yourselves out trying to win control over a body that is not yours. Good luck with that.

You don't get it. I DON'T CARE what the SC says. Its MY body. MY choice. Not yours. Not the courts. Not anybodys. PERIOD. And the laws can dictate whatever floats their boat but women who choose to NOT carry a fetus WILL find a way to remove it. So knock yourselves out trying to win control over a body that is not yours. Good luck with that.

Thank you. That is exactly why it must be legal. It's part of human nature and Roe simply allows for it to be done safely.

Funny how those of you that say what a woman does with her body is her choice yet you want others to pay for things when the one making the choice can't afford to do so. If someone gets to make the sole choice, shouldn't the sole responsibility of paying for it be with the one making it?

There's a lot of "shoulds" in there. Simply lamenting the loss of an ideal outcome does nothing to address the actual problem. Whether the solution is abortion or birth, the father is on the hook either way.

There's an easy way to address the problem. The woman making the choice to have the child can either support the child herself, get the support from the sperm donor for whom she spread her legs, or do without. That takes into account the one making the choice, the one producing the result with her, and leaves out the rest of us that weren't either one of them.

 

[Conservative65]

If a woman aborted my child, I would probably go ape shit. Why are the feelings of the father...

You probably should have taken measures to prevent knocking her up in the first place.

Where is her responsibility for not getting knocked up? She played half the role in the process by spreading her legs. In fact, he couldn't have done the knocking if she hadn't presented to door.

While I agree that it takes two, the premise was paternal rights. Simply don't put yourself in the position of facing that moral dilemma.

Yet you refuse to answer the question. I didn't think you had the guts.

Yet you refuse to answer the question. I didn't think you had the guts.

I did answer, dope. You just have a problem with reading. My response was within the context of paternal rights.

No guts and now make excuses.

 

[Conservative65]

Very simple reason. You dont have to carry the load for 9 months and have basically a parasite eating off you.

if you want your child you should have sex only with a woman that wants to carry your child.

Then why do so many black "men" produce so many black bastards for white people to have to financially support?

Whoop! There it is!

You don't see a 75% bastard birth rate as a problem?