Male's right to abortion.

[Faun]

A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.

Ultimately however, its her body to do with as she wishes and no one has the right to usurp that ownership.

A woman has no right to destroy her body with drugs and she would be hospitalized if she tried to amputate a body part. She can't even sell a kidney for profit. What makes you think she has the right to kill the unborn life she created? Certainly the father should be able to do something to prevent her from killing his child.

No one has the right to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes and no.
1. Since sexual relations are private and not the jurisdiction of the state,
I would recommend this be addressed through education on healthy and abusive relations.
Local parents, teachers, schools communities would have to agree how to teach this
so they don't impose beliefs but include all views without discrimination or harassment.

2. within THAT context, of agreeing to include all input equally while deciding personally and not imposing through govt, I would recommend that couples be taught to resolve conflicts in advance and AGREE on a policy to follow. if people have different beliefs about abortion, this is generally a danger sign not to risk getting pregnant. Those conflicts should be worked out in advance to prevent coersion or abuse.

and YES it can go both ways
I heard of cases of men suing to try to stop abortion of their children and failing legally to stop it; this should have been discussed in advance and an agreement made or else only have sex with partners who agree to the same views and decisions, or agree to decide by CONSENSUS.

I would be more apt to push the idea that if people would not agree to have the baby if pregnancy occurs then DON'T HAVE SEX

Don't take the risk. even if you both agree not to have the baby, or to give it up for adoption it is traumatic and problematic.

what if you have a sick or disabled child requiring extensive medical care or costs.
what if one partner dies or moves, loses a job, or the family has a medical emergency
and can't help with a new child

ALL these things should be discussed in ADVANCE.
Ideally both partners should agree or NOT HAVE SEX.

so that is where both partners are EQUAL
in the decision BEFORE having sex.
so YES at that point the man has equal right to express consent or dissent
regarding abortion or other choices BEFORE having sex and BEFORE taking the risk of pregnancy.

After pregnancy, if one or both do not stick to the agreement after a pregnancy results,
the woman is affected physically more than the man because she is carrying the child.
so any conflicts need to be worked out BEFORE that, preferably BEFORE having sex and even taking any such risks.

It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder. The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother. Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason. She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.

However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway. The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does. The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.

I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy. He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.

Prochoice people, am I wrong? Why or why not?

Too much rape and coercion and relationship abuse occurs
to give this much power to men to make it the woman's responsibility or fault.
it has to be mutual responsibility if either party is going to have equal say in it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.

Incorrect.

The state does not have the authority to empower a man to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not, just as the state does not have the authority to dictate to a women concerning personal, private matters.

And the embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’ or ‘child’ entitled to Constitutional protections.

The issue of a father’s parental responsibilities postnatally is irrelevant and completely unrelated to the issue of a woman’s privacy rights prior to birth.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.

Ultimately however, its her body to do with as she wishes and no one has the right to usurp that ownership.

A woman has no right to destroy her body with drugs and she would be hospitalized if she tried to amputate a body part. She can't even sell a kidney for profit. What makes you think she has the right to kill the unborn life she created? Certainly the father should be able to do something to prevent her from killing his child.

Also incorrect.

Abortion is a safe and appropriate medical procedure undertaken in good faith by the woman; abusing drugs, removing a body part, or selling an organ is not – and your inane analogy fails accordingly.

Otherwise, a woman’s right to privacy is a fact of Constitutional law, not subjective opinion someone might ‘think,’ where the Constitution appropriately prohibits all outside actors – the state, the father, or a criminal – from interfering with a woman’s right to decide for herself concerning a matter that effects her alone.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.

Ultimately however, its her body to do with as she wishes and no one has the right to usurp that ownership.

A woman has no right to destroy her body with drugs and she would be hospitalized if she tried to amputate a body part. She can't even sell a kidney for profit. What makes you think she has the right to kill the unborn life she created? Certainly the father should be able to do something to prevent her from killing his child.

Actually, both men and women have every right to trash their bodies with drugs, cigarettes and cut off body parts.

As for abortion, I stated my opinion above.

 

[FA_Q2]

Have not read all 10 pages so bear with me if I am repeating others points.

A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.

Incorrect.

The state does not have the authority to empower a man to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not, just as the state does not have the authority to dictate to a women concerning personal, private matters.

And the embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’ or ‘child’ entitled to Constitutional protections.

The issue of a father’s parental responsibilities postnatally is irrelevant and completely unrelated to the issue of a woman’s privacy rights prior to birth.

But it IS related. Essentially, a woman is allowed to completely and utterly avoid any real responsibility in pregnancy by arbitrarily deciding to kill the unborn child. The man, OTOH, is completely and utterly at the will of the woman here – essentially having the woman take rights over the man’s labor that she should have no say in. We call that theft or slavery in pretty much any other context. Essentially, a man MUST take responsibility for his child where a woman is under no such requirement. That is ‘unfair’ by any measurement.


The core problem is, of course, that these are basic facts of biology. It is the woman’s body and there is simply no changing that whatsoever and given the fact that she has rights over it there is noting that the government can or should do beyond basic limitations in when such a procedure can be done.

The idea is rather sticky. By all rights, I think the OP is 100 percent correct in what should be the process. HOWEVER, we do not live in a perfect world where we get to do things ‘fair.’ The world is NOT fair and such a concept does nothing but create more single parents and more poverty stricken children. Fair is not and never should be the basis for creating laws. A look at basic facts will show the bald-faced truth here: children with single parents are more likely to fail, more likely to be criminals and more likely to an overall drain than their parented counterparts. This does not even take into account that women are going to be MORE likely to abort if the father can ‘opt out.’ I dare say it (because I absolutely HATE this statement) but this REALLY is about the kids. I cannot support such a notion as the OP suggests simply because I think that leaving the mother high and dry is going to have major negative consequences. Allowing the father to avoid taking responsibility for his actions just because the mother is able to is not sufficient reasoning to me to push such a concept.

Let’s face the basic facts, almost all abortions are done out of pure convenience. Potential mothers overwhelmingly abort because of financial strains – a practice that I find absolutely abhorrent and I would like to force people to take responsibility for their actions but I don’t have the right to do such a thing and freedom is FAR more important to me.


Your point:
…just as the state does not have the authority to dictate to a women concerning personal, private matters.
And the embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’ or ‘child’ entitled to Constitutional protections.

I think is a little misplaced as well. Roe v. Wade DID establish that the state had a right to place restriction on abortion based on gestational periods. IOW, the government CAN tell a woman that she CANNOT have an abortion under certain situations. That would essentially mean you are incorrect with that statement. Abortions are, in fact, illegal after a certain point. In many locations.

To me it is clear that this is a balancing act between the right of the unborn to life and the right of the mother to her body. There are two distinct people here. The woman takes precedent considering that the child she carries is not yet born BUT that does not mean that we should write them off entirely.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Have not read all 10 pages so bear with me if I am repeating others points.

A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.

Incorrect.

The state does not have the authority to empower a man to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not, just as the state does not have the authority to dictate to a women concerning personal, private matters.

And the embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’ or ‘child’ entitled to Constitutional protections.

The issue of a father’s parental responsibilities postnatally is irrelevant and completely unrelated to the issue of a woman’s privacy rights prior to birth.

But it IS related. Essentially, a woman is allowed to completely and utterly avoid any real responsibility in pregnancy by arbitrarily deciding to kill the unborn child. The man, OTOH, is completely and utterly at the will of the woman here – essentially having the woman take rights over the man’s labor that she should have no say in. We call that theft or slavery in pretty much any other context. Essentially, a man MUST take responsibility for his child where a woman is under no such requirement. That is ‘unfair’ by any measurement.


The core problem is, of course, that these are basic facts of biology. It is the woman’s body and there is simply no changing that whatsoever and given the fact that she has rights over it there is noting that the government can or should do beyond basic limitations in when such a procedure can be done.

The idea is rather sticky. By all rights, I think the OP is 100 percent correct in what should be the process. HOWEVER, we do not live in a perfect world where we get to do things ‘fair.’ The world is NOT fair and such a concept does nothing but create more single parents and more poverty stricken children. Fair is not and never should be the basis for creating laws. A look at basic facts will show the bald-faced truth here: children with single parents are more likely to fail, more likely to be criminals and more likely to an overall drain than their parented counterparts. This does not even take into account that women are going to be MORE likely to abort if the father can ‘opt out.’ I dare say it (because I absolutely HATE this statement) but this REALLY is about the kids. I cannot support such a notion as the OP suggests simply because I think that leaving the mother high and dry is going to have major negative consequences. Allowing the father to avoid taking responsibility for his actions just because the mother is able to is not sufficient reasoning to me to push such a concept.

Let’s face the basic facts, almost all abortions are done out of pure convenience. Potential mothers overwhelmingly abort because of financial strains – a practice that I find absolutely abhorrent and I would like to force people to take responsibility for their actions but I don’t have the right to do such a thing and freedom is FAR more important to me.


Your point:
…just as the state does not have the authority to dictate to a women concerning personal, private matters.
And the embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’ or ‘child’ entitled to Constitutional protections.

I think is a little misplaced as well. Roe v. Wade DID establish that the state had a right to place restriction on abortion based on gestational periods. IOW, the government CAN tell a woman that she CANNOT have an abortion under certain situations. That would essentially mean you are incorrect with that statement. Abortions are, in fact, illegal after a certain point. In many locations.

To me it is clear that this is a balancing act between the right of the unborn to life and the right of the mother to her body. There are two distinct people here. The woman takes precedent considering that the child she carries is not yet born BUT that does not mean that we should write them off entirely.

Much of your post is your opinion. NOT FACT. I started to address those points but we've been over those points so often - why bother? The confusion seems to be the difference between "sin" and law or basic rights.

But this last is really the crux of it.

It is the woman’s body and there is simply no changing that whatsoever and given the fact that she has rights over it there is noting that the government can or should do beyond basic limitations in when such a procedure can be done.

The first is correct but this is not: "... beyond basic limitations in when such a procedure can be done."

We all need to fight to keep government, state or federal, out of our private lives and it certainly has no place in deciding when or if a woman is to reproduce.

Especially since there is a large percentage of our population who believes children should starve rather than using that same government to feed them.

 

[thanatos144]

All men who pays child support should demand receipts that it is spent on the child and not her booze

tapatalk post

 

[FA_Q2]

Much of your post is your opinion. NOT FACT. I started to address those points but we've been over those points so often - why bother?

Because this is a debate board and that is the entire point. I suspect that the problem was not a why bother but rather the simple fact that you cannot refute most of what I claimed was basic fact.

Go ahead and try.

The confusion seems to be the difference between "sin" and law or basic rights.

No, there is zero ‘confusion’ for me there considering I don’t believe in ‘sin’ whatsoever. This is not a matter of sin but a matter or rights and responsibilities.

But this last is really the crux of it.

It is the woman’s body and there is simply no changing that whatsoever and given the fact that she has rights over it there is noting that the government can or should do beyond basic limitations in when such a procedure can be done.

The first is correct but this is not: "... beyond basic limitations in when such a procedure can be done."

So then, you disagree with Roe v Wade and current standing law where that statement is 100 percent accurate?

You want to outline why you believe that a doctor should be allowed to kill a full term child in the birth canal during delivery when the procedure is not medically sound (IOW there is no dangers to the woman that would warrant it)? Can you come up with a single reason that makes any coherent sense as to why such would be legal but somehow illegal one second after birth?

Simply put, such a position is not only untenable and against current SCOTUS precedent but it is also insane. That last part is both true and exactly how it should work (and does work).

We all need to fight to keep government, state or federal, out of our private lives and it certainly has no place in deciding when or if a woman is to reproduce.

Especially since there is a large percentage of our population who believes children should starve rather than using that same government to feed them.

But there IS a place for the government to decide when terminating a life IS legal or illegal. This is done both inside the womb and without.

The last statement is a deflection and has zero bearing on the conversation beyond partisan bickering. This is particularly true because that characterization is patently false. Just because you think the methods of the other side are ineffective and lead to bad outcomes does not mean that they are evil spirited.

Do you actually support late term abortion?

I find it ironic that the same people demanding such things are the ones that think the government should be able to tell you what size soda you can buy, what your insurance should have to cover, force you to purchase it and support regulations in every faucet of our lives but as soon as we get to killing unborn people – BAM. That brooks no regulation at all. The very concept is completely asinine.

 

[FA_Q2]

All men who pays child support should demand receipts that it is spent on the child and not her booze

tapatalk post

Money is fungible. You do realize that correct?

Basically, such is not only impossible but completely ineffective.

 

[Avatar4321]

A male has no more right to an abortion than a female does. Though, if the male manages to get pregnant, he has bigger problems than worrying about abortion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A male has no more right to an abortion than a female does. Though, if the male manages to get pregnant, he has bigger problems than worrying about abortion.

All persons have a right to privacy, both men and women; and for women that right extends to her decision to have a child or not, free from interference by the state.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Have not read all 10 pages so bear with me if I am repeating others points.

A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.

Incorrect.

The state does not have the authority to empower a man to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not, just as the state does not have the authority to dictate to a women concerning personal, private matters.

And the embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’ or ‘child’ entitled to Constitutional protections.

The issue of a father’s parental responsibilities postnatally is irrelevant and completely unrelated to the issue of a woman’s privacy rights prior to birth.

But it IS related. Essentially, a woman is allowed to completely and utterly avoid any real responsibility in pregnancy by arbitrarily deciding to kill the unborn child. The man, OTOH, is completely and utterly at the will of the woman here – essentially having the woman take rights over the man’s labor that she should have no say in. We call that theft or slavery in pretty much any other context. Essentially, a man MUST take responsibility for his child where a woman is under no such requirement. That is ‘unfair’ by any measurement.


The core problem is, of course, that these are basic facts of biology. It is the woman’s body and there is simply no changing that whatsoever and given the fact that she has rights over it there is noting that the government can or should do beyond basic limitations in when such a procedure can be done.

The idea is rather sticky. By all rights, I think the OP is 100 percent correct in what should be the process. HOWEVER, we do not live in a perfect world where we get to do things ‘fair.’ The world is NOT fair and such a concept does nothing but create more single parents and more poverty stricken children. Fair is not and never should be the basis for creating laws. A look at basic facts will show the bald-faced truth here: children with single parents are more likely to fail, more likely to be criminals and more likely to an overall drain than their parented counterparts. This does not even take into account that women are going to be MORE likely to abort if the father can ‘opt out.’ I dare say it (because I absolutely HATE this statement) but this REALLY is about the kids. I cannot support such a notion as the OP suggests simply because I think that leaving the mother high and dry is going to have major negative consequences. Allowing the father to avoid taking responsibility for his actions just because the mother is able to is not sufficient reasoning to me to push such a concept.

Let’s face the basic facts, almost all abortions are done out of pure convenience. Potential mothers overwhelmingly abort because of financial strains – a practice that I find absolutely abhorrent and I would like to force people to take responsibility for their actions but I don’t have the right to do such a thing and freedom is FAR more important to me.


Your point:
…just as the state does not have the authority to dictate to a women concerning personal, private matters.
And the embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’ or ‘child’ entitled to Constitutional protections.

I think is a little misplaced as well. Roe v. Wade DID establish that the state had a right to place restriction on abortion based on gestational periods. IOW, the government CAN tell a woman that she CANNOT have an abortion under certain situations. That would essentially mean you are incorrect with that statement. Abortions are, in fact, illegal after a certain point. In many locations.

To me it is clear that this is a balancing act between the right of the unborn to life and the right of the mother to her body. There are two distinct people here. The woman takes precedent considering that the child she carries is not yet born BUT that does not mean that we should write them off entirely.

Roe v. Wade is no longer the guiding case law concerning privacy rights and abortion, Planned Parenthood v. Casey is.

In Casey the Supreme Court reaffirmed the fundamental right to privacy concerning abortion addressed in Roe, replacing the gestational period with that of the doctrine of an undue burden. The Casey Court also reaffirmed the fact that the father has no authority to dictate to the women whether she may have her child or not, and that the embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections.

Consequently, my statements are correct in response to the OP and those who seek to ‘ban’ abortion altogether, were the fact that the state may indeed prohibit abortion after a certain point of development is not at issue nor is it part of this debate.

Last, the bulk of your post is irrelevant concerning the issue of abortion, where no one is seeking a ‘perfect world’ or a resolution to issues such as single parenthood; important topics worthy of consideration, certainly, but not in this venue.

 

[FA_Q2]

Have not read all 10 pages so bear with me if I am repeating others points.

Incorrect.

The state does not have the authority to empower a man to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not, just as the state does not have the authority to dictate to a women concerning personal, private matters.

And the embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’ or ‘child’ entitled to Constitutional protections.

The issue of a father’s parental responsibilities postnatally is irrelevant and completely unrelated to the issue of a woman’s privacy rights prior to birth.

But it IS related. Essentially, a woman is allowed to completely and utterly avoid any real responsibility in pregnancy by arbitrarily deciding to kill the unborn child. The man, OTOH, is completely and utterly at the will of the woman here – essentially having the woman take rights over the man’s labor that she should have no say in. We call that theft or slavery in pretty much any other context. Essentially, a man MUST take responsibility for his child where a woman is under no such requirement. That is ‘unfair’ by any measurement.


The core problem is, of course, that these are basic facts of biology. It is the woman’s body and there is simply no changing that whatsoever and given the fact that she has rights over it there is noting that the government can or should do beyond basic limitations in when such a procedure can be done.

The idea is rather sticky. By all rights, I think the OP is 100 percent correct in what should be the process. HOWEVER, we do not live in a perfect world where we get to do things ‘fair.’ The world is NOT fair and such a concept does nothing but create more single parents and more poverty stricken children. Fair is not and never should be the basis for creating laws. A look at basic facts will show the bald-faced truth here: children with single parents are more likely to fail, more likely to be criminals and more likely to an overall drain than their parented counterparts. This does not even take into account that women are going to be MORE likely to abort if the father can ‘opt out.’ I dare say it (because I absolutely HATE this statement) but this REALLY is about the kids. I cannot support such a notion as the OP suggests simply because I think that leaving the mother high and dry is going to have major negative consequences. Allowing the father to avoid taking responsibility for his actions just because the mother is able to is not sufficient reasoning to me to push such a concept.

Let’s face the basic facts, almost all abortions are done out of pure convenience. Potential mothers overwhelmingly abort because of financial strains – a practice that I find absolutely abhorrent and I would like to force people to take responsibility for their actions but I don’t have the right to do such a thing and freedom is FAR more important to me.


Your point:
…just as the state does not have the authority to dictate to a women concerning personal, private matters.
And the embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’ or ‘child’ entitled to Constitutional protections.

I think is a little misplaced as well. Roe v. Wade DID establish that the state had a right to place restriction on abortion based on gestational periods. IOW, the government CAN tell a woman that she CANNOT have an abortion under certain situations. That would essentially mean you are incorrect with that statement. Abortions are, in fact, illegal after a certain point. In many locations.

To me it is clear that this is a balancing act between the right of the unborn to life and the right of the mother to her body. There are two distinct people here. The woman takes precedent considering that the child she carries is not yet born BUT that does not mean that we should write them off entirely.

Roe v. Wade is no longer the guiding case law concerning privacy rights and abortion, Planned Parenthood v. Casey is.

In Casey the Supreme Court reaffirmed the fundamental right to privacy concerning abortion addressed in Roe, replacing the gestational period with that of the doctrine of an undue burden. The Casey Court also reaffirmed the fact that the father has no authority to dictate to the women whether she may have her child or not, and that the embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections.

Consequently, my statements are correct in response to the OP and those who seek to ‘ban’ abortion altogether, were the fact that the state may indeed prohibit abortion after a certain point of development is not at issue nor is it part of this debate.

Which I never supported here so it is rather irrelevant. The government STILL has withheld the right to deny abortions under certain conditions. It IS part of the debate as you don’t actually get to dictate the terms here.

It is quite relevant to your blanket statements that the woman has a right to privacy and abortion. That right, as all rights, has limitations. Late term bans on abortions have not been overturned as far as I know and those laws are still applicable.

Last, the bulk of your post is irrelevant concerning the issue of abortion, where no one is seeking a ‘perfect world’ or a resolution to issues such as single parenthood; important topics worthy of consideration, certainly, but not in this venue.

Says you?

Again, you don’t dictate the course of this debates. Don’t want to participate in a line of reasoning then don’t bother to respond. Other than that, I will take the conversation where I see fit.

 

[Avatar4321]

A male has no more right to an abortion than a female does. Though, if the male manages to get pregnant, he has bigger problems than worrying about abortion.

All persons have a right to privacy, both men and women; and for women that right extends to her decision to have a child or not, free from interference by the state.

That child has a right to privacy too. He has the right to be undisturbed without having a so called doctor kill him.

 

[Jackson]

Ultimately however, its her body to do with as she wishes and no one has the right to usurp that ownership.

A woman has no right to destroy her body with drugs and she would be hospitalized if she tried to amputate a body part. She can't even sell a kidney for profit. What makes you think she has the right to kill the unborn life she created? Certainly the father should be able to do something to prevent her from killing his child.

No one has the right to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will.

The father should be able to force her to have the child if he wants to keep the child and raise it without her help. The law is wrong.

If the father wants this child, she should be willing to bring the baby to term. I just can't imagine what kind of woman would deny this baby to come to term if the father would assume his rights.

 

[Dragonlady]

A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.

Ultimately however, its her body to do with as she wishes and no one has the right to usurp that ownership.

A woman has no right to destroy her body with drugs and she would be hospitalized if she tried to amputate a body part. She can't even sell a kidney for profit. What makes you think she has the right to kill the unborn life she created? Certainly the father should be able to do something to prevent her from killing his child.

Actually, you do have the right to destroy yourself with drugs, provided the drugs are legal, and you acquire them legally. You can smoke until you get lung cancer or drink alcohol until you die, but you can't use illegal drugs.

Self amputation and other forms if self harm are indicative of a disordered mind, and therefore not allowed.

Since the responsibility for gestating the fetus resides with the woman, and it's her body, the man has no say.

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats should take up the cause of a male right to abortion and run with it. It is a concept whose time has come and is perfect for a democrat cause.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Much of your post is your opinion. NOT FACT. I started to address those points but we've been over those points so often - why bother?

Because this is a debate board and that is the entire point. I suspect that the problem was not a why bother but rather the simple fact that you cannot refute most of what I claimed was basic fact.

Go ahead and try.

The confusion seems to be the difference between "sin" and law or basic rights.

No, there is zero ‘confusion’ for me there considering I don’t believe in ‘sin’ whatsoever. This is not a matter of sin but a matter or rights and responsibilities.

But this last is really the crux of it.



The first is correct but this is not: "... beyond basic limitations in when such a procedure can be done."

So then, you disagree with Roe v Wade and current standing law where that statement is 100 percent accurate?

You want to outline why you believe that a doctor should be allowed to kill a full term child in the birth canal during delivery when the procedure is not medically sound (IOW there is no dangers to the woman that would warrant it)? Can you come up with a single reason that makes any coherent sense as to why such would be legal but somehow illegal one second after birth?

Simply put, such a position is not only untenable and against current SCOTUS precedent but it is also insane. That last part is both true and exactly how it should work (and does work).

We all need to fight to keep government, state or federal, out of our private lives and it certainly has no place in deciding when or if a woman is to reproduce.

Especially since there is a large percentage of our population who believes children should starve rather than using that same government to feed them.

But there IS a place for the government to decide when terminating a life IS legal or illegal. This is done both inside the womb and without.

The last statement is a deflection and has zero bearing on the conversation beyond partisan bickering. This is particularly true because that characterization is patently false. Just because you think the methods of the other side are ineffective and lead to bad outcomes does not mean that they are evil spirited.

Do you actually support late term abortion?

I find it ironic that the same people demanding such things are the ones that think the government should be able to tell you what size soda you can buy, what your insurance should have to cover, force you to purchase it and support regulations in every faucet of our lives but as soon as we get to killing unborn people – BAM. That brooks no regulation at all. The very concept is completely asinine.

That you compare abortion with soda pop just makes my blood run cold.

Be that as it may, I have always posted in favor of individual freedom. That means you have the right to decide when you want to reproduce and drink any amount of soda you want.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi CCJ technically you are right that after pregnancy occurs
Correct
neither the state nor the man or anyone else has any right to impose unequally
on the woman's equal choice in the matter, and since the baby is at that point
in her body the choice of the woman is predominantly affected over the man's

HOWEVER
in general
not you me or the government
can dictate the priority placed on the equal choice or welfare of the
man, woman or child

if we keep focusing the argument at the point of pregnancy, this is weighted toward the woman's welfare and chioce.

if we agree not to frame the argument in that limited context
but look at the whole process leading up to it,
then we can respect the freedom and welfare of all individuals equally

who is dictating that the debate keep focusing on the point where it is biased toward women

that is not preventing abortion or abuse, but proliferates conflict becasue
the problem cannot be resolved after the unwanted pregnancy has already occurred

A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.

Incorrect.

The state does not have the authority to empower a man to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not, just as the state does not have the authority to dictate to a women concerning personal, private matters.

And the embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’ or ‘child’ entitled to Constitutional protections.

The issue of a father’s parental responsibilities postnatally is irrelevant and completely unrelated to the issue of a woman’s privacy rights prior to birth.

so duh, start the debate at the point where the father and mother have equal responsibility

why not stay focused there where education and prevention might work on an agreed basis

i can't find a single prolife person who is forced by law to respect life of the child at conception

what does it take to educate all people to know that abortion is not healthy
and should be avoided by not having sex if the couple cannot afford to have
a baby should pregnancy result

why not make a law that any sex resulting in unwanted children abortino or pregnancy
is equally abuse and the fault of both parents who are required to get counseling
to resolve the abuse of either the sex or the relationship.

if people don't agree that it is abusing sex, then separate policies and funding at that point. and don't expect toshare resources for health eduction or public schools or health care, if people don't agree to tolerate each others standards. either resolve and agree, or separate and quit imposing back and forth. decide which way and write policies under that agreement