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

[Linkiloo]

Take this issue back to the beginning's of organized society. Go back to when people left isolated or in small groups on their own.

Ward members of the family or tribe prevent or punish a woman who shopped a stick up her self in a boarded at pregnancy? What are the others people feel when they had the right to demand that the child born? Could they do anything to stop such an action?

Preventing a woman from terminating her own pregnancy is against natural law and natural rights. Pregnancies at the wrong time could be severely detrimental and even deadly to not only the mother, but the entire group.

I do not want some jack ass bureaucrat laden government dictating such a severe burden and health risk to anyone.

If I were a woman, I certainly would not want some gold status jack ass dude with a penis who will never see any baby that I would have, dictating whether not I can or cannot board that baby.

Make no mistake. I hate abortion. I think that it is a savage practice and would never want any of my family members to do such a thing. At the same time, I adhere to a much higher principle of liberty and limited government. Making the decision to choose liberty over something that I hate justifies my resolve.

Those who would use government to tell women that they must carry a child and give birth to that child are no better than the goose-stepping pinko commie bastard's trying to overthrow America. You are all douche bag authoritarian fuck wads and I hope you burn in the Mythical play's known as hell , if such a place did exist (it doesn't).

With all you just said. . .

When should a child's right to the equal protections of our laws begin?

1. At the earliest moment that we can establish with scientific evidence that they are a living human organism and the product of human reproduction?

Or,

2. When we as a society can no longer stomach or justify the denial of their rights anymore?

Anyone?

I'll ignore the iodiotc way that you framed the question, but answer a more reasonable one without your poorly framed (a) and (b).

When should a child's right to equal protection under the law begin? At three months, after which time abortion is an exception and can only be justified by health risks to the mother.

The Constitution says that all persons are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws, fucktard.

It doesn't say "starting at 3 months"

Why don't you highlight the correct word, namely "person" because a zygote isn't one genius!

 

[Linkiloo]

men need to control their sperm......once you let go of it...it belongs to the woman....simple as that...if you are that concerned control your sperm. stoping making excuses that men cant control their sperm

OK. That means if that sperm that is now hers produces a child she chooses to have, that eliminates him from any financial responsibility since everything belongs to her. In addition, since those of us that didn't release the sperm that is now hers didn't do so, we also have no responsibility in that matter. That's good. People that didn't make choice not having to pay for those choices. Agree?

It is silly to say the sperm belongs to anybody once it leaves a man's body. Similarly your boogers fail to belong to you once they hit the ceramic tiling.

But if those sperm happen to have fertilised an egg, then something new arises for which you have to bear your share of the burden. It is simple.

I'm going on what the person to which I responded said.

I don't disagree. Again, look at the entire conversation.

The problem comes in when the rest of us have to bear a burden where our sperm DIDN'T fertilize an egg. Based on your statement that the one fertilizing it has to bear his share, do you agree that those of us that didn't fertilize it are exempt from that burden when the two that did produce it can't afford it? You're arguing the one that fertilized the egg = burden. You do support the one that didn't fertilize it =/= the burden?

No I don't agree. We pay income tax whether or not we use roads, public libraries or public schools. We got to bear our burden.

 

[Chuz Life]

Take this issue back to the beginning's of organized society. Go back to when people left isolated or in small groups on their own.

Ward members of the family or tribe prevent or punish a woman who shopped a stick up her self in a boarded at pregnancy? What are the others people feel when they had the right to demand that the child born? Could they do anything to stop such an action?

Preventing a woman from terminating her own pregnancy is against natural law and natural rights. Pregnancies at the wrong time could be severely detrimental and even deadly to not only the mother, but the entire group.

I do not want some jack ass bureaucrat laden government dictating such a severe burden and health risk to anyone.

If I were a woman, I certainly would not want some gold status jack ass dude with a penis who will never see any baby that I would have, dictating whether not I can or cannot board that baby.

Make no mistake. I hate abortion. I think that it is a savage practice and would never want any of my family members to do such a thing. At the same time, I adhere to a much higher principle of liberty and limited government. Making the decision to choose liberty over something that I hate justifies my resolve.

Those who would use government to tell women that they must carry a child and give birth to that child are no better than the goose-stepping pinko commie bastard's trying to overthrow America. You are all douche bag authoritarian fuck wads and I hope you burn in the Mythical play's known as hell , if such a place did exist (it doesn't).

With all you just said. . .

When should a child's right to the equal protections of our laws begin?

1. At the earliest moment that we can establish with scientific evidence that they are a living human organism and the product of human reproduction?

Or,

2. When we as a society can no longer stomach or justify the denial of their rights anymore?

Anyone?

I'll ignore the iodiotc way that you framed the question, but answer a more reasonable one without your poorly framed (a) and (b).

When should a child's right to equal protection under the law begin? At three months, after which time abortion is an exception and can only be justified by health risks to the mother.

The Constitution says that all persons are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws, fucktard.

It doesn't say "starting at 3 months"

Why don't you highlight the correct word, namely "person" because a zygote isn't one genius!

Oh great, another leftard newb.

Again, I ask. . .

If a child in the womb (in any stage of development) is NOT a "person", what then is the Constitutional and Legal basis for our State and Federal fetal Homicide laws?

 

[Correll]

I've seen it happen. Your trust in the courts to protect the rights of the father, what few he has, is misplaced.

If you were an American, Evgeny, you would know that even if the father were a criminal who beat his wife, the court will still give him supervised access to his child. American courts have even given visitation to rapists who fathered a child with their victims.

I've seen it happen. Your trust in the courts to protect the rights of the father, what few he has, is misplaced.

It's not "trust" that the father's rights will be protected, it's horror at the extent to which the courts will go to protect them.

We have a family friend who's ex was given unsupervised access to a young boy while his father talked about how he was going to kill his mother one day, among other things. As the boy got older, he begged the courts not to see his father. He even used his cell phone to record the things his father said. It took 5 years for the courts to accept that his father was a total piece of shit and cut off these forced visitations.

And yet at other times the courts will stand by while the mother never lets the father see the child.

I've seen that in one set of my in-laws family.

Prove it. Show some statistics, I've already done so.

PS: I double down on my statement that if a "man" has children that he doesn't take care of-he's not really a man...and yes as a father who's actively involved in their kid's life and does my best (I'm far from perfect) that does make me better as a man and a person than somebody who wont take care of their children.

Prove a personal observation? I guess I could reach out to the people in question and ask them to submit signed affidavits, but, why would you believe them any more than me?

And it is telling that a thread about a man being cut out of the decision making process, has degenerated into man bashing.

 

[Correll]

My son-in-law fathered a child when he was 16 years old. The relationship with the boy's mother ended when he was 18. She went to court to try to prevent him from seeing his son. She managed to have him restricted to supervised visits but he could still see the boy.

He paid his child support, through thick and thin. He visited his son as often as allowed, never missing a visit. He now has two other children with my daughter. Last Christmas his oldest son spent the day with his Dad and his family for the first time since he was a baby. My SIL is now pushing for overnight visits.

He's a good Dad, not only because he has honoured his commitment to his oldest boy, but because he loves all of his children and is determined to give them a good life. No matter how difficult his ex tried to make things for him, he never ever let it stop him from doing the right thing, nor did he use her behaviour as an excuse to walk away.

Good for him.


But what if the woman had managed to make it more difficult than he could deal with?


Would it make it a bad person if he had been cut out of his child's life though no fault of his own?

 

[Correll]

If you were an American, Evgeny, you would know that even if the father were a criminal who beat his wife, the court will still give him supervised access to his child. American courts have even given visitation to rapists who fathered a child with their victims.

I've seen it happen. Your trust in the courts to protect the rights of the father, what few he has, is misplaced.

It's not "trust" that the father's rights will be protected, it's horror at the extent to which the courts will go to protect them.

We have a family friend who's ex was given unsupervised access to a young boy while his father talked about how he was going to kill his mother one day, among other things. As the boy got older, he begged the courts not to see his father. He even used his cell phone to record the things his father said. It took 5 years for the courts to accept that his father was a total piece of shit and cut off these forced visitations.

And yet at other times the courts will stand by while the mother never lets the father see the child.

I've seen that in one set of my in-laws family.

Prove it. Show some statistics, I've already done so.

PS: I double down on my statement that if a "man" has children that he doesn't take care of-he's not really a man...and yes as a father who's actively involved in their kid's life and does my best (I'm far from perfect) that does make me better as a man and a person than somebody who wont take care of their children.

You're talking to an abject imbecile.

Women get pregnant...

Women carry a child inside them for 9 months...

Women deal with nausea, back pain, cramps, fatigue, weight gain, assorted medical risks...

Women go through the pain and anxiety of delivering a baby through their vagina...

And that idiot cries like a little girl that it's unequal and unfair to men.

Let's see him push a watermelon through his penis... then he'll have a valid point.

THe OP is about how a man has no say if a woman decides to kill his unborn child.


And that is unfair. And you are the imbecile if you think it is not.

 

[Faun]

With all you just said. . .

When should a child's right to the equal protections of our laws begin?

1. At the earliest moment that we can establish with scientific evidence that they are a living human organism and the product of human reproduction?

Or,

2. When we as a society can no longer stomach or justify the denial of their rights anymore?

Anyone?

I'll ignore the iodiotc way that you framed the question, but answer a more reasonable one without your poorly framed (a) and (b).

When should a child's right to equal protection under the law begin? At three months, after which time abortion is an exception and can only be justified by health risks to the mother.

The Constitution says that all persons are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws, fucktard.

It doesn't say "starting at 3 months"

Why don't you highlight the correct word, namely "person" because a zygote isn't one genius!

Oh great, another leftard newb.

Again, I ask. . .

If a child in the womb (in any stage of development) is NOT a "person", what then is the Constitutional and Legal basis for our State and Federal fetal Homicide laws?

Depends on the state, but in some cases, people were charged with the destruction of a fetus, not a person.

 

[Faun]

I've seen it happen. Your trust in the courts to protect the rights of the father, what few he has, is misplaced.

It's not "trust" that the father's rights will be protected, it's horror at the extent to which the courts will go to protect them.

We have a family friend who's ex was given unsupervised access to a young boy while his father talked about how he was going to kill his mother one day, among other things. As the boy got older, he begged the courts not to see his father. He even used his cell phone to record the things his father said. It took 5 years for the courts to accept that his father was a total piece of shit and cut off these forced visitations.

And yet at other times the courts will stand by while the mother never lets the father see the child.

I've seen that in one set of my in-laws family.

Prove it. Show some statistics, I've already done so.

PS: I double down on my statement that if a "man" has children that he doesn't take care of-he's not really a man...and yes as a father who's actively involved in their kid's life and does my best (I'm far from perfect) that does make me better as a man and a person than somebody who wont take care of their children.

You're talking to an abject imbecile.

Women get pregnant...

Women carry a child inside them for 9 months...

Women deal with nausea, back pain, cramps, fatigue, weight gain, assorted medical risks...

Women go through the pain and anxiety of delivering a baby through their vagina...

And that idiot cries like a little girl that it's unequal and unfair to men.

Let's see him push a watermelon through his penis... then he'll have a valid point.

THe OP is about how a man has no say if a woman decides to kill his unborn child.


And that is unfair. And you are the imbecile if you think it is not.

Poor, baby, I already explained why men don't have equal rights when it comes to pregnancy or the termination thereof.

Not to mention, I asked you how you would remedy the inequality and you had nothing to say.

 

[Tom Horn]

Serious questions here.

1. Do children have a right to their life starting at the first moment their life begins?

2. Do you agree or disagree that children have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws?

I believe it's when the baby's heart starts to beat....6 weeks. That's when they become viable in my opinion.

 

[irosie91]

...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?

no it is a silly story. Your friend was stupid enough to impregnate a woman------SO? she was
stupid enough to black mail him into marriage...so? what else is new?

 

[Tom Horn]

I'm not a Buddhist but I copied this down some time back and I believe it to be true....there is no life or death:

"God is a spirit; we are spirits, life is the movement of spirit, we are immersed in the spirits of gazillions of souls that have lived and died on this planet for ages and ages and ages. The whole question of life centers on this ridiculously fast life that we live in the here and now; not whether the spirits are benevolent, but whether we are alive and die because of a spirit that entered our cells in our mother's womb and left at the moment of death...life itself is the motion of spirits in our midst. As someone once put it...we are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spirit beings having a human experience".

 

[Tom Horn]

no it is a silly story. Your friend was stupid enough to impregnate a woman------SO? she was
stupid enough to black mail him into marriage...so? what else is new?

The old "shotgun marriage"....put a ring on it or else.

 

[bodecea]

Serious questions here.

1. Do children have a right to their life starting at the first moment their life begins?

2. Do you agree or disagree that children have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws?

I believe it's when the baby's heart starts to beat....6 weeks. That's when they become viable in my opinion.

So...we've had fetus' survive at 6 weeks?

 

[Tom Horn]

So...we've had fetus' survive at 6 weeks?

No dumbass...that's when it's built to go the distance or there's a miscarriage.

 

[irosie91]

Serious questions here.

1. Do children have a right to their life starting at the first moment their life begins?

2. Do you agree or disagree that children have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws?

I believe it's when the baby's heart starts to beat....6 weeks. That's when they become viable in my opinion.

your cut off date could not be more idiotic -----"VIABLE"-------you mean viable outside of the womb?
Maybe I can get you a six week human embryo ----to ADOPT

Okay, first let me say that aborting a baby is one of the worst things someone can do. There should be a damn fucking good reason for doing so. If we're going to do it, why not let mother kill child up until the ages of 2 years after birth? All the same reasons still apply. Let mama kill baby.

With that said, balance the burdens of the mother verses the father. Mother has to carry the baby, which fucks up her body. She has to live with the burden of caring for the child for a good portion of her life. All father has had to do in the entire process is FUCK.

The decision should be the mother's alone, given her extreme burden compared with the father's.

I have three children, a 32-year-old daughter, a 26-year old daughter, and a 22-year-old son.

I can assure you that my involvement with my children has extended far beyond the sex acts that created them.

I married their mother, and I supported her and my children, and though they are grown, I still have some responsibility for them.

My son still lives with me, and though he pays me for room and board and auto insurance, I pay for his college tuition.

My daughters still call me every time they need free legal advice.

I love my children very much, and it would be very painful for me if I knew a child of mine had been aborted.

I believe that knowledge would distrurb me so greatly that I would need spiritual and psychological counseling to help me overcome my grief.

And so that makes me certain that there are millions of men and women who are grieving abortions, and this is a story that is being deliberately suppressed by the media and the elites who control this country.

your emotional reaction to your children is YOURS ALONE--------it is not all that prevalent in the world's male population---
including amongst the "ELITES" whoever they are. Females DO generally suffer emotional distress after abortion-----
someone is SUPPRESSING that fact?. I have inteviewed thousands of women for medical history, and thus, scores who
had abortions-----feel free to ask questions

 

[bodecea]

So...we've had fetus' survive at 6 weeks?

No dumbass...that's when it's built to go the distance or there's a miscarriage.

You used the word "viable"....you know that that means, right?

 

[Tom Horn]

You used the word "viable"....you know that that means, right?

Obviously one of us does and it ain't you or rosie.......

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This thread is STILL going.

Balance the burdens verses the benefits of all involved.

Woman - Both burden of carrying the child and benefit of not carrying are unquestionable.

Man - Burden of not keeping a child? So, he knocks up somebody else. No big deal. He has lost relatively nothing compared to the sacrifice the woman has to make. More sex for man, eh???

The Child - this is where you should hate the practice. The child loses everything. I would hope that would create some serious consideration before aborting.

Government - loses a peasant to rule, but also loses the burden of said peasant, but that's not really the government's burden. The people are burdened, so the government can fuck off.

DO NOT GIVE THE POWER TO GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL ABORTION!!! DON'T DO IT!!! IT IS A HUGE MISTAKE!!!

 

[bodecea]

You used the word "viable"....you know that that means, right?

Obviously one of us does and it ain't you or rosie.......

Viable means being able to survive outside the mother.....so I ask you again....you think a fetus is viable at 6 weeks?https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cr-CmUa2ZMM/hqdefault.jpg

 

[Tom Horn]

Viable means being able to survive outside the mother.....so I ask you again....you think a fetus is viable at 6 weeks?https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cr-CmUa2ZMM/hqdefault.jpg

Viable means several things dumbass, and the context I'm using it in is able to survive...if the heart never starts beating, there is no chance for viability. Maybe you should spend more time finding a man than parsing words in a chatroom.