Is there a legit legal argument here?

[Crepitus]

You did the deed, now pay for your fun. Be a man, live up to your responsibility.

Why can't we say to a woman "be a woman and live up to your responsibility"?

That's what she did when she refused the abortion.

and that is her choice. why can't men have a choice as well?

If both are truly equal, why does one have an "out", and the other does not?

And here I thought you were anti-choice.

I'm anti-Roe. To me abortion for medical reasons is a no brainer. In cases of rape its also a no brainer.

However birth control abortions suck, considering the availability of actual birth control.

My issue is Roe is terrible case law, based on nothing but the hopes and dreams of a progressive court. As I live in NY abortions will be protected, and I have no issue with it.

I also have no issue with Alabama banning it.

To me this thread's argument is about the inherent inequality of women having a legal out from parenthood that men do not have.

true equality would require either both having it, or neither having it.

My problem with Roe v Wade is it doesn't go far enough. You know how most if you cons are afraid where the bump-stock ban is gonna go? That's what the rest of us worry about with the nibbling away at abortion rights.

No don't get me wrong, I do not approve of abortion as a birth control any more than you do, but I also don't approve of bringing unwanted, uncared-for, abused and neglected children into the world. If you conservative kids would stop freaking out over birth control, welfare, and other things for taking care of needy children I might go along with stricter controls on it.

 

[martybegan]

Why can't we say to a woman "be a woman and live up to your responsibility"?

That's what she did when she refused the abortion.

and that is her choice. why can't men have a choice as well?

If both are truly equal, why does one have an "out", and the other does not?

And here I thought you were anti-choice.

I'm anti-Roe. To me abortion for medical reasons is a no brainer. In cases of rape its also a no brainer.

However birth control abortions suck, considering the availability of actual birth control.

My issue is Roe is terrible case law, based on nothing but the hopes and dreams of a progressive court. As I live in NY abortions will be protected, and I have no issue with it.

I also have no issue with Alabama banning it.

To me this thread's argument is about the inherent inequality of women having a legal out from parenthood that men do not have.

true equality would require either both having it, or neither having it.

My problem with Roe v Wade is it doesn't go far enough. You know how most if you cons are afraid where the bump-stock ban is gonna go? That's what the rest of us worry about with the nibbling away at abortion rights.

No don't get me wrong, I do not approve of abortion as a birth control any more than you do, but I also don't approve of bringing unwanted, uncared-for, abused and neglected children into the world. If you conservative kids would stop freaking out over birth control, welfare, and other things for taking care of needy children I might go along with stricter controls on it.

Roe is based on nothing but the whims of the justices who made it. It's as bad a decision as Dred Scott or Plessey.

And it has done nothing to end the abortion debate. We are arguing the same thing for 4 decades now, with no end in sight.

Leave it to the States. Most Blue States will protect it, Some Red States will ban it, and the fight will be where it is supposed to be, at the State Legislature level.

The only thing the feds should make sure of is a State can't punish a person for going to another State to get an abortion.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

I have some (a lot) of experience in this area.

in Texas, a court has a broad discretion to determine whether or not child support should be paid. Many different factors are considered in determining whether or not child support should be paid and if so, what amount. Texas has set up some guidelines for child-support amounts would be considered appropriate and in the best interest of the child.

Although I do not think such an argument would be successful, it is a legal argument that has merit. The only reason that argument would fail is because generally, it's not in the best interest of a child.

 

[sakinago]

Why can't we say to a woman "be a woman and live up to your responsibility"?

That's what she did when she refused the abortion.

and that is her choice. why can't men have a choice as well?

If both are truly equal, why does one have an "out", and the other does not?

And here I thought you were anti-choice.

I'm anti-Roe. To me abortion for medical reasons is a no brainer. In cases of rape its also a no brainer.

However birth control abortions suck, considering the availability of actual birth control.

My issue is Roe is terrible case law, based on nothing but the hopes and dreams of a progressive court. As I live in NY abortions will be protected, and I have no issue with it.

I also have no issue with Alabama banning it.

To me this thread's argument is about the inherent inequality of women having a legal out from parenthood that men do not have.

true equality would require either both having it, or neither having it.

My problem with Roe v Wade is it doesn't go far enough. You know how most if you cons are afraid where the bump-stock ban is gonna go? That's what the rest of us worry about with the nibbling away at abortion rights.

No don't get me wrong, I do not approve of abortion as a birth control any more than you do, but I also don't approve of bringing unwanted, uncared-for, abused and neglected children into the world. If you conservative kids would stop freaking out over birth control, welfare, and other things for taking care of needy children I might go along with stricter controls on it.

Who are the people freaking out against birth control? It’s maybe a fractal of 1% who think that extremely cheap and extremely effective BC should be banned. I don’t think there’s a bigger strawman argument made than the one suggesting that the right wants to ban birth control. Sure there are Catholics who make a personal choice not to use, and parents who don’t want their 14 year old kids to be given condoms at school...but again those are personal decisions made since maybe it isn’t the best idea to encourage or condone, irresponsible kids to be participating in the act of reproduction. Religion is often mocked as being anti-sex and encouraging abstinence when there is a very clear biological logic to waiting until marriage to have sex. I didn’t wait, and I was lucky because I was pretty damn irresponsible when it came to wrapping before tapping. Why? Because I was a shithead, like most other shitheads at that age. I had raging hormones and society told me that it was ok to not try to control those urges.

 

[Crepitus]

That's what she did when she refused the abortion.

and that is her choice. why can't men have a choice as well?

If both are truly equal, why does one have an "out", and the other does not?

And here I thought you were anti-choice.

I'm anti-Roe. To me abortion for medical reasons is a no brainer. In cases of rape its also a no brainer.

However birth control abortions suck, considering the availability of actual birth control.

My issue is Roe is terrible case law, based on nothing but the hopes and dreams of a progressive court. As I live in NY abortions will be protected, and I have no issue with it.

I also have no issue with Alabama banning it.

To me this thread's argument is about the inherent inequality of women having a legal out from parenthood that men do not have.

true equality would require either both having it, or neither having it.

My problem with Roe v Wade is it doesn't go far enough. You know how most if you cons are afraid where the bump-stock ban is gonna go? That's what the rest of us worry about with the nibbling away at abortion rights.

No don't get me wrong, I do not approve of abortion as a birth control any more than you do, but I also don't approve of bringing unwanted, uncared-for, abused and neglected children into the world. If you conservative kids would stop freaking out over birth control, welfare, and other things for taking care of needy children I might go along with stricter controls on it.

Who are the people freaking out against birth control? It’s maybe a fractal of 1% who think that extremely cheap and extremely effective BC should be banned. I don’t think there’s a bigger strawman argument made than the one suggesting that the right wants to ban birth control. Sure there are Catholics who make a personal choice not to use, and parents who don’t want their 14 year old kids to be given condoms at school...but again those are personal decisions made since maybe it isn’t the best idea to encourage or condone, irresponsible kids to be participating in the act of reproduction. Religion is often mocked as being anti-sex and encouraging abstinence when there is a very clear biological logic to waiting until marriage to have sex. I didn’t wait, and I was lucky because I was pretty damn irresponsible when it came to wrapping before tapping. Why? Because I was a shithead, like most other shitheads at that age. I had raging hormones and society told me that it was ok to not try to control those urges.

Republicans in general tend to have problems with it, particularly with providing it in employer or government insurance policies.

 

[NightFox]

So the sexes are not equal and men can and should be considered victims for not having the same reproductive rights as women.

Of course they're not equal, Men don't have ovaries and a womb and thus aren't obliged to carry a fetus to term.

Once the child is born then the father is ethically and legally obligated to provide for the child because the child exists and either the parents of said child are on the hook to care for it, they get someone else to voluntarily take the responsibility (e.g. adoption) or the rest of society is and the rest of society had no say whatsoever in the conception and birth of the child.

Your premise is flawed unless of course you want to advocate for the rights of the male in determining whether or not an abortion or adoption takes place, i.e. using the judiciary to obtain a forced abortion or adoption decree...

 

[sakinago]

So the sexes are not equal and men can and should be considered victims for not having the same reproductive rights as women.

Of course they're not equal, Men don't have ovaries and a womb and thus aren't obliged to carry a fetus to term.

Once the child is born then the father is ethically and legally obligated to provide for the child because the child exists and either the parents of said child are on the hook to care for it, they get someone else to voluntarily take the responsibility (e.g. adoption) or the rest of society is and the rest of society had no say whatsoever in the conception and birth of the child.

Your premise is flawed unless of course you want to advocate for the rights of the male in determining whether or not an abortion or adoption takes place, i.e. using the judiciary to obtain a forced abortion or adoption decree...

It’s not flawed unless the women was forced to carry to term, which she isn’t...because abortion so... Women have reproductive rights, but men don’t. Since when was it ok to distribute things like rights selectively? I thought that was a bad thing.

 

[martybegan]

and that is her choice. why can't men have a choice as well?

If both are truly equal, why does one have an "out", and the other does not?

And here I thought you were anti-choice.

I'm anti-Roe. To me abortion for medical reasons is a no brainer. In cases of rape its also a no brainer.

However birth control abortions suck, considering the availability of actual birth control.

My issue is Roe is terrible case law, based on nothing but the hopes and dreams of a progressive court. As I live in NY abortions will be protected, and I have no issue with it.

I also have no issue with Alabama banning it.

To me this thread's argument is about the inherent inequality of women having a legal out from parenthood that men do not have.

true equality would require either both having it, or neither having it.

My problem with Roe v Wade is it doesn't go far enough. You know how most if you cons are afraid where the bump-stock ban is gonna go? That's what the rest of us worry about with the nibbling away at abortion rights.

No don't get me wrong, I do not approve of abortion as a birth control any more than you do, but I also don't approve of bringing unwanted, uncared-for, abused and neglected children into the world. If you conservative kids would stop freaking out over birth control, welfare, and other things for taking care of needy children I might go along with stricter controls on it.

Who are the people freaking out against birth control? It’s maybe a fractal of 1% who think that extremely cheap and extremely effective BC should be banned. I don’t think there’s a bigger strawman argument made than the one suggesting that the right wants to ban birth control. Sure there are Catholics who make a personal choice not to use, and parents who don’t want their 14 year old kids to be given condoms at school...but again those are personal decisions made since maybe it isn’t the best idea to encourage or condone, irresponsible kids to be participating in the act of reproduction. Religion is often mocked as being anti-sex and encouraging abstinence when there is a very clear biological logic to waiting until marriage to have sex. I didn’t wait, and I was lucky because I was pretty damn irresponsible when it came to wrapping before tapping. Why? Because I was a shithead, like most other shitheads at that age. I had raging hormones and society told me that it was ok to not try to control those urges.

Republicans in general tend to have problems with it, particularly with providing it in employer or government insurance policies.

If I have to pay for my condoms, why shouldn't women have to pay for their pills?

 

[Crepitus]

And here I thought you were anti-choice.

I'm anti-Roe. To me abortion for medical reasons is a no brainer. In cases of rape its also a no brainer.

However birth control abortions suck, considering the availability of actual birth control.

My issue is Roe is terrible case law, based on nothing but the hopes and dreams of a progressive court. As I live in NY abortions will be protected, and I have no issue with it.

I also have no issue with Alabama banning it.

To me this thread's argument is about the inherent inequality of women having a legal out from parenthood that men do not have.

true equality would require either both having it, or neither having it.

My problem with Roe v Wade is it doesn't go far enough. You know how most if you cons are afraid where the bump-stock ban is gonna go? That's what the rest of us worry about with the nibbling away at abortion rights.

No don't get me wrong, I do not approve of abortion as a birth control any more than you do, but I also don't approve of bringing unwanted, uncared-for, abused and neglected children into the world. If you conservative kids would stop freaking out over birth control, welfare, and other things for taking care of needy children I might go along with stricter controls on it.

Who are the people freaking out against birth control? It’s maybe a fractal of 1% who think that extremely cheap and extremely effective BC should be banned. I don’t think there’s a bigger strawman argument made than the one suggesting that the right wants to ban birth control. Sure there are Catholics who make a personal choice not to use, and parents who don’t want their 14 year old kids to be given condoms at school...but again those are personal decisions made since maybe it isn’t the best idea to encourage or condone, irresponsible kids to be participating in the act of reproduction. Religion is often mocked as being anti-sex and encouraging abstinence when there is a very clear biological logic to waiting until marriage to have sex. I didn’t wait, and I was lucky because I was pretty damn irresponsible when it came to wrapping before tapping. Why? Because I was a shithead, like most other shitheads at that age. I had raging hormones and society told me that it was ok to not try to control those urges.

Republicans in general tend to have problems with it, particularly with providing it in employer or government insurance policies.

If I have to pay for my condoms, why shouldn't women have to pay for their pills?

And there we go. I appreciate the help proving my point.

 

[sakinago]

and that is her choice. why can't men have a choice as well?

If both are truly equal, why does one have an "out", and the other does not?

And here I thought you were anti-choice.

I'm anti-Roe. To me abortion for medical reasons is a no brainer. In cases of rape its also a no brainer.

However birth control abortions suck, considering the availability of actual birth control.

My issue is Roe is terrible case law, based on nothing but the hopes and dreams of a progressive court. As I live in NY abortions will be protected, and I have no issue with it.

I also have no issue with Alabama banning it.

To me this thread's argument is about the inherent inequality of women having a legal out from parenthood that men do not have.

true equality would require either both having it, or neither having it.

My problem with Roe v Wade is it doesn't go far enough. You know how most if you cons are afraid where the bump-stock ban is gonna go? That's what the rest of us worry about with the nibbling away at abortion rights.

No don't get me wrong, I do not approve of abortion as a birth control any more than you do, but I also don't approve of bringing unwanted, uncared-for, abused and neglected children into the world. If you conservative kids would stop freaking out over birth control, welfare, and other things for taking care of needy children I might go along with stricter controls on it.

Who are the people freaking out against birth control? It’s maybe a fractal of 1% who think that extremely cheap and extremely effective BC should be banned. I don’t think there’s a bigger strawman argument made than the one suggesting that the right wants to ban birth control. Sure there are Catholics who make a personal choice not to use, and parents who don’t want their 14 year old kids to be given condoms at school...but again those are personal decisions made since maybe it isn’t the best idea to encourage or condone, irresponsible kids to be participating in the act of reproduction. Religion is often mocked as being anti-sex and encouraging abstinence when there is a very clear biological logic to waiting until marriage to have sex. I didn’t wait, and I was lucky because I was pretty damn irresponsible when it came to wrapping before tapping. Why? Because I was a shithead, like most other shitheads at that age. I had raging hormones and society told me that it was ok to not try to control those urges.

Republicans in general tend to have problems with it, particularly with providing it in employer or government insurance policies.

No it’s religious institutions like Catholics who have religious objections to being forced to pay for something they are opposed too. You know that whole first amendment thing. If you want your employer to pay for birth control, don’t work for an institution that is opposed to such things. You are not forced to work there, yet they are forced to pay for something they are opposed too. Even though it’s cheap AF, and would bring down their insurance rates if included. Because prenatal care+childbirth+baby+new human to cover > the pill. So it’s not like they don’t want to include it because they’re cheapskates.

 

[Crepitus]

And here I thought you were anti-choice.

I'm anti-Roe. To me abortion for medical reasons is a no brainer. In cases of rape its also a no brainer.

However birth control abortions suck, considering the availability of actual birth control.

My issue is Roe is terrible case law, based on nothing but the hopes and dreams of a progressive court. As I live in NY abortions will be protected, and I have no issue with it.

I also have no issue with Alabama banning it.

To me this thread's argument is about the inherent inequality of women having a legal out from parenthood that men do not have.

true equality would require either both having it, or neither having it.

My problem with Roe v Wade is it doesn't go far enough. You know how most if you cons are afraid where the bump-stock ban is gonna go? That's what the rest of us worry about with the nibbling away at abortion rights.

No don't get me wrong, I do not approve of abortion as a birth control any more than you do, but I also don't approve of bringing unwanted, uncared-for, abused and neglected children into the world. If you conservative kids would stop freaking out over birth control, welfare, and other things for taking care of needy children I might go along with stricter controls on it.

Who are the people freaking out against birth control? It’s maybe a fractal of 1% who think that extremely cheap and extremely effective BC should be banned. I don’t think there’s a bigger strawman argument made than the one suggesting that the right wants to ban birth control. Sure there are Catholics who make a personal choice not to use, and parents who don’t want their 14 year old kids to be given condoms at school...but again those are personal decisions made since maybe it isn’t the best idea to encourage or condone, irresponsible kids to be participating in the act of reproduction. Religion is often mocked as being anti-sex and encouraging abstinence when there is a very clear biological logic to waiting until marriage to have sex. I didn’t wait, and I was lucky because I was pretty damn irresponsible when it came to wrapping before tapping. Why? Because I was a shithead, like most other shitheads at that age. I had raging hormones and society told me that it was ok to not try to control those urges.

Republicans in general tend to have problems with it, particularly with providing it in employer or government insurance policies.

No it’s religious institutions like Catholics who have religious objections to being forced to pay for something they are opposed too. You know that whole first amendment thing. If you want your employer to pay for birth control, don’t work for an institution that is opposed to such things. You are not forced to work there, yet they are forced to pay for something they are opposed too. Even though it’s cheap AF, and would bring down their insurance rates if included. Because prenatal care+childbirth+baby+new human to cover > the pill. So it’s not like they don’t want to include it because they’re cheapskates.

Haven't you ever heard the term "religious right"?

 

[martybegan]

I'm anti-Roe. To me abortion for medical reasons is a no brainer. In cases of rape its also a no brainer.

However birth control abortions suck, considering the availability of actual birth control.

My issue is Roe is terrible case law, based on nothing but the hopes and dreams of a progressive court. As I live in NY abortions will be protected, and I have no issue with it.

I also have no issue with Alabama banning it.

To me this thread's argument is about the inherent inequality of women having a legal out from parenthood that men do not have.

true equality would require either both having it, or neither having it.

My problem with Roe v Wade is it doesn't go far enough. You know how most if you cons are afraid where the bump-stock ban is gonna go? That's what the rest of us worry about with the nibbling away at abortion rights.

No don't get me wrong, I do not approve of abortion as a birth control any more than you do, but I also don't approve of bringing unwanted, uncared-for, abused and neglected children into the world. If you conservative kids would stop freaking out over birth control, welfare, and other things for taking care of needy children I might go along with stricter controls on it.

Who are the people freaking out against birth control? It’s maybe a fractal of 1% who think that extremely cheap and extremely effective BC should be banned. I don’t think there’s a bigger strawman argument made than the one suggesting that the right wants to ban birth control. Sure there are Catholics who make a personal choice not to use, and parents who don’t want their 14 year old kids to be given condoms at school...but again those are personal decisions made since maybe it isn’t the best idea to encourage or condone, irresponsible kids to be participating in the act of reproduction. Religion is often mocked as being anti-sex and encouraging abstinence when there is a very clear biological logic to waiting until marriage to have sex. I didn’t wait, and I was lucky because I was pretty damn irresponsible when it came to wrapping before tapping. Why? Because I was a shithead, like most other shitheads at that age. I had raging hormones and society told me that it was ok to not try to control those urges.

Republicans in general tend to have problems with it, particularly with providing it in employer or government insurance policies.

If I have to pay for my condoms, why shouldn't women have to pay for their pills?

And there we go. I appreciate the help proving my point.

What does party have to do with it? I'm against "free stuff" in general because someone has to pay for it.

Sorry, but if you can't spend $20 a month to not get pregnant, and it is that important to you, then methinks you have to re-shuffle your life priorities,

 

[hadit]

and that is her choice. why can't men have a choice as well?

If both are truly equal, why does one have an "out", and the other does not?

And here I thought you were anti-choice.

I'm anti-Roe. To me abortion for medical reasons is a no brainer. In cases of rape its also a no brainer.

However birth control abortions suck, considering the availability of actual birth control.

My issue is Roe is terrible case law, based on nothing but the hopes and dreams of a progressive court. As I live in NY abortions will be protected, and I have no issue with it.

I also have no issue with Alabama banning it.

To me this thread's argument is about the inherent inequality of women having a legal out from parenthood that men do not have.

true equality would require either both having it, or neither having it.

My problem with Roe v Wade is it doesn't go far enough. You know how most if you cons are afraid where the bump-stock ban is gonna go? That's what the rest of us worry about with the nibbling away at abortion rights.

No don't get me wrong, I do not approve of abortion as a birth control any more than you do, but I also don't approve of bringing unwanted, uncared-for, abused and neglected children into the world. If you conservative kids would stop freaking out over birth control, welfare, and other things for taking care of needy children I might go along with stricter controls on it.

Who are the people freaking out against birth control? It’s maybe a fractal of 1% who think that extremely cheap and extremely effective BC should be banned. I don’t think there’s a bigger strawman argument made than the one suggesting that the right wants to ban birth control. Sure there are Catholics who make a personal choice not to use, and parents who don’t want their 14 year old kids to be given condoms at school...but again those are personal decisions made since maybe it isn’t the best idea to encourage or condone, irresponsible kids to be participating in the act of reproduction. Religion is often mocked as being anti-sex and encouraging abstinence when there is a very clear biological logic to waiting until marriage to have sex. I didn’t wait, and I was lucky because I was pretty damn irresponsible when it came to wrapping before tapping. Why? Because I was a shithead, like most other shitheads at that age. I had raging hormones and society told me that it was ok to not try to control those urges.

Republicans in general tend to have problems with it, particularly with providing it in employer or government insurance policies.

That is an outright false statement. Republicans in general have absolutely no problem with birth control, and in general have absolutely no problem with employers offering insurance that covers it.

The sticking point, and any honest person will acknowledge it, is where an employer is forced by law to provide insurance that covers it, even though he personally abhors it.

 

[martybegan]

And here I thought you were anti-choice.

I'm anti-Roe. To me abortion for medical reasons is a no brainer. In cases of rape its also a no brainer.

However birth control abortions suck, considering the availability of actual birth control.

My issue is Roe is terrible case law, based on nothing but the hopes and dreams of a progressive court. As I live in NY abortions will be protected, and I have no issue with it.

I also have no issue with Alabama banning it.

To me this thread's argument is about the inherent inequality of women having a legal out from parenthood that men do not have.

true equality would require either both having it, or neither having it.

My problem with Roe v Wade is it doesn't go far enough. You know how most if you cons are afraid where the bump-stock ban is gonna go? That's what the rest of us worry about with the nibbling away at abortion rights.

No don't get me wrong, I do not approve of abortion as a birth control any more than you do, but I also don't approve of bringing unwanted, uncared-for, abused and neglected children into the world. If you conservative kids would stop freaking out over birth control, welfare, and other things for taking care of needy children I might go along with stricter controls on it.

Who are the people freaking out against birth control? It’s maybe a fractal of 1% who think that extremely cheap and extremely effective BC should be banned. I don’t think there’s a bigger strawman argument made than the one suggesting that the right wants to ban birth control. Sure there are Catholics who make a personal choice not to use, and parents who don’t want their 14 year old kids to be given condoms at school...but again those are personal decisions made since maybe it isn’t the best idea to encourage or condone, irresponsible kids to be participating in the act of reproduction. Religion is often mocked as being anti-sex and encouraging abstinence when there is a very clear biological logic to waiting until marriage to have sex. I didn’t wait, and I was lucky because I was pretty damn irresponsible when it came to wrapping before tapping. Why? Because I was a shithead, like most other shitheads at that age. I had raging hormones and society told me that it was ok to not try to control those urges.

Republicans in general tend to have problems with it, particularly with providing it in employer or government insurance policies.

That is an outright false statement. Republicans in general have absolutely no problem with birth control, and in general have absolutely no problem with employers offering insurance that covers it.

The sticking point, and any honest person will acknowledge it, is where an employer is forced by law to provide insurance that covers it, even though he personally abhors it.

And I want my condoms covered too, dammit.

 

[sartre play]

If a man gets pregnant its his right to get an abortion.

 

[hadit]

So the sexes are not equal and men can and should be considered victims for not having the same reproductive rights as women.

Of course they're not equal, Men don't have ovaries and a womb and thus aren't obliged to carry a fetus to term.

Once the child is born then the father is ethically and legally obligated to provide for the child because the child exists and either the parents of said child are on the hook to care for it, they get someone else to voluntarily take the responsibility (e.g. adoption) or the rest of society is and the rest of society had no say whatsoever in the conception and birth of the child.

Your premise is flawed unless of course you want to advocate for the rights of the male in determining whether or not an abortion or adoption takes place, i.e. using the judiciary to obtain a forced abortion or adoption decree...

It is accurate to say that current law gives a pregnant woman control over the reproductive freedom of the man who impregnated her. Whether that is as it should be is a separate topic, but it isn't even controversial to say that a man's reproductive freedom is not absolute, and he loses it the moment he gets a woman pregnant. She can prevent him from becoming a father or force him to become one, and there is nothing legal he can do about it.

 

[hadit]

I'm anti-Roe. To me abortion for medical reasons is a no brainer. In cases of rape its also a no brainer.

However birth control abortions suck, considering the availability of actual birth control.

My issue is Roe is terrible case law, based on nothing but the hopes and dreams of a progressive court. As I live in NY abortions will be protected, and I have no issue with it.

I also have no issue with Alabama banning it.

To me this thread's argument is about the inherent inequality of women having a legal out from parenthood that men do not have.

true equality would require either both having it, or neither having it.

My problem with Roe v Wade is it doesn't go far enough. You know how most if you cons are afraid where the bump-stock ban is gonna go? That's what the rest of us worry about with the nibbling away at abortion rights.

No don't get me wrong, I do not approve of abortion as a birth control any more than you do, but I also don't approve of bringing unwanted, uncared-for, abused and neglected children into the world. If you conservative kids would stop freaking out over birth control, welfare, and other things for taking care of needy children I might go along with stricter controls on it.

Who are the people freaking out against birth control? It’s maybe a fractal of 1% who think that extremely cheap and extremely effective BC should be banned. I don’t think there’s a bigger strawman argument made than the one suggesting that the right wants to ban birth control. Sure there are Catholics who make a personal choice not to use, and parents who don’t want their 14 year old kids to be given condoms at school...but again those are personal decisions made since maybe it isn’t the best idea to encourage or condone, irresponsible kids to be participating in the act of reproduction. Religion is often mocked as being anti-sex and encouraging abstinence when there is a very clear biological logic to waiting until marriage to have sex. I didn’t wait, and I was lucky because I was pretty damn irresponsible when it came to wrapping before tapping. Why? Because I was a shithead, like most other shitheads at that age. I had raging hormones and society told me that it was ok to not try to control those urges.

Republicans in general tend to have problems with it, particularly with providing it in employer or government insurance policies.

No it’s religious institutions like Catholics who have religious objections to being forced to pay for something they are opposed too. You know that whole first amendment thing. If you want your employer to pay for birth control, don’t work for an institution that is opposed to such things. You are not forced to work there, yet they are forced to pay for something they are opposed too. Even though it’s cheap AF, and would bring down their insurance rates if included. Because prenatal care+childbirth+baby+new human to cover > the pill. So it’s not like they don’t want to include it because they’re cheapskates.

Haven't you ever heard the term "religious right"?

Bogus. Catholics (the only large group that opposes all birth control) are found in both parties. You're really arguing from ignorance here.

 

[martybegan]

If a man gets pregnant its his right to get an abortion.

Typical attempt at ignoring the actual argument.

 

[evenflow1969]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

Sorry buddy the kid could not even be yours and if you were married at the time of birth you still pay.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why not?

See Planned Parenthood v. Casey.