Male's right to abortion.

[CaféAuLait]

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?

This seems to be a pretty fair article on the matter.

Should Men Have the Right to 'Financial Abortions'?

Kirsten West Savali: Should Men Have the Right to 'Financial Abortions'?

She ends her article with a question for those who are pro-choice after explaining her stance:


"Do we believe in absolute freedom of choice -- or merely our choice?"

I think its a valid question.

 

[Dragonlady]

It is your arguments that are illogical.

People who have abortions are not killing the unborn, they are terminating a pregnancy. Your view of pregnancy and abortion is unrealistic and false.

Whatever your views, you are free to exercise them in your own life. You have no right to interfere in the family lives of other women, or to impose your religious views on others.

 

[CaféAuLait]

It is your arguments that are illogical.

People who have abortions are not killing the unborn, they are terminating a pregnancy. Your view of pregnancy and abortion is unrealistic and false.

Whatever your views, you are free to exercise them in your own life. You have no right to interfere in the family lives of other women, or to impose your religious views on others.

I don't believe all those who are pro-life are religious, or their reasons for opposing abortion are religious. Its caring that a life is suffering and or pained or cut short. It would be like saying that those who are in PETA or those who are against animal abuse, or Vegan ( because of viewpoints on animal wellbeing) are religiously motivated. Just because someone is pro life does not make them some religious zealot trying to force their view onto another.

If that is the case then PETA has no right to protest someone who wants to wear leather coat, belt or shoes, or Vegans who show up in my news feed proclaiming that when I eat meat I am harming an animal and post vulgar videos of some abuse of an animal.

People have a right to their opinion, and there are those who believe abortion is hurting another being, without religiosity involved. You state above: "You have no right to interfere in the family lives of other women, or to impose your religious views on others".

Then the same should hold true for just about everything which involves my free choice, yes? Weather it be eating meat, or wearing leather shoes.

 

[thanatos144]

It is your arguments that are illogical.

People who have abortions are not killing the unborn, they are terminating a pregnancy. Your view of pregnancy and abortion is unrealistic and false.

Whatever your views, you are free to exercise them in your own life. You have no right to interfere in the family lives of other women, or to impose your religious views on others.

so the unborn is dead until born ?

 

[FA_Q2]

as i said before..... when a male is the one gestating...he will have every right to have an abortion if he wants one.

ie... a males right to an abortion.

So it is true ... You think a vagina gives you the right to kill the unborn..... that is pretty arrogant.

what is "alive" as in having a life of its own, is a matter of opinion.

in my opinion....it is not "alive" until it can stay alive on its own... or kept alive by machine....

then again.... i am more then happy to have a fetus implanted into any male that wants to gestate.

What is alive is not a matter of ‘opinion.’ Life is a well-defined term. It is scientific fact that the fetus is human and alive. The need to redefine what life is really shows exactly how abhorrent the act of an abortion is. The only thing that is open to opinion is where that life begins to get protection.

I support the right to choose but I damn well do so with both eyes open about what it actually is. It IS killing. Period.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is your arguments that are illogical.

People who have abortions are not killing the unborn, they are terminating a pregnancy. Your view of pregnancy and abortion is unrealistic and false.

Whatever your views, you are free to exercise them in your own life. You have no right to interfere in the family lives of other women, or to impose your religious views on others.

What is illogical is refusing to acknowledge that abortion does, indeed, kill an unborn child. There is simply no way around that fact without redefining basic terms to be utter nonsense.

There is not one single coherent definition of the term life that would not include a fetus.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What child? There is no child until viability (so say prochoice people). I'm not saying that the female should not hold all the cards in deciding on having an abortion or not. But is the fetus a child or not? If the fetus is not a child then it's blackmail if the female forces the responsibility of this future child on the father. And if the female does not like this, perhaps she should keep the male's sperm out of her body -- or is the male the only one to be responsible in this regard?

if a woman does not want to carry a baby... she as the option of an abortion

if a male does not want to carry a baby... he can have an abortion too.


that is the end of the right to a male having an abortions...

as to the rest of your question.... which is child support.

if a MAN does not want to pay for HIS childs or not a childs support...( i really dont care wich) then HE should keep HIS sperm to himself.

So what your saying is that being born with a vagina magically gives you the power to decide life and death of the unborn?

Yes.

 

[Faun]

So what your saying is that being born with a vagina magically gives you the power to decide life and death of the unborn?

as i said before..... when a male is the one gestating...he will have every right to have an abortion if he wants one.

ie... a males right to an abortion.

So it is true ... You think a vagina gives you the right to kill the unborn..... that is pretty arrogant.

Take it up with God. He's the one who gave women a birth canal, the ability to get pregnant, and their unalienable rights of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.

 

[KevinWestern]

What child? There is no child until viability (so say prochoice people). I'm not saying that the female should not hold all the cards in deciding on having an abortion or not. But is the fetus a child or not? If the fetus is not a child then it's blackmail if the female forces the responsibility of this future child on the male. And if the female does not like this, perhaps she should keep the male's sperm out of her body -- or is the male the only one to be responsible in this regard?

This is just an example of one of those things where we're never going to "level the playing field" in terms of equal choice between men and women.

The child is growing inside the female's body and therefore she has the ultimate decision on whether or not the child will be aborted. Although I'm not a fan of abortion in general, I couldn't imagine ever allowing a male to FORCE a female to abort without her decision to do so. Just doesn't work that way.

 

[CaféAuLait]

What child? There is no child until viability (so say prochoice people). I'm not saying that the female should not hold all the cards in deciding on having an abortion or not. But is the fetus a child or not? If the fetus is not a child then it's blackmail if the female forces the responsibility of this future child on the male. And if the female does not like this, perhaps she should keep the male's sperm out of her body -- or is the male the only one to be responsible in this regard?

This is just an example of one of those things where we're never going to "level the playing field" in terms of equal choice between men and women.

The child is growing inside the female's body and therefore she has the ultimate decision on whether or not the child will be aborted. Although I'm not a fan of abortion in general, I couldn't imagine ever allowing a male to FORCE a female to abort without her decision to do so. Just doesn't work that way.

The thread is not about forcing a woman to abort, but a male having a choice in whether he wants to be a father. What are the reasons given for abortion? Financial, not ready, accidental, etc. The OP is making the argument if a female can choose ,then a male should have the same choice, instead of having a child forced upon him.

Kirsten West Savali: Should Men Have the Right to 'Financial Abortions'?

If women support 'choice' and given all the deadbeat dads already out there, why should a child suffer or taxpayers when the male did not want the child to begin with and will most likely become just another dead beat dad running from the system?

The author of the above article asks a great question IMO, "Do we believe in absolute freedom of choice -- or merely our choice?"

 

[thanatos144]

as i said before..... when a male is the one gestating...he will have every right to have an abortion if he wants one.

ie... a males right to an abortion.

So it is true ... You think a vagina gives you the right to kill the unborn..... that is pretty arrogant.

Take it up with God. He's the one who gave women a birth canal, the ability to get pregnant, and their unalienable rights of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.

Pretty sure God doesn't like people killing his unborn children

tapatalk post

 

[KevinWestern]

What child? There is no child until viability (so say prochoice people). I'm not saying that the female should not hold all the cards in deciding on having an abortion or not. But is the fetus a child or not? If the fetus is not a child then it's blackmail if the female forces the responsibility of this future child on the male. And if the female does not like this, perhaps she should keep the male's sperm out of her body -- or is the male the only one to be responsible in this regard?

This is just an example of one of those things where we're never going to "level the playing field" in terms of equal choice between men and women.

The child is growing inside the female's body and therefore she has the ultimate decision on whether or not the child will be aborted. Although I'm not a fan of abortion in general, I couldn't imagine ever allowing a male to FORCE a female to abort without her decision to do so. Just doesn't work that way.

The thread is not about forcing a woman to abort, but a male having a choice in whether he wants to be a father. What are the reasons given for abortion? Financial, not ready, accidental, etc. The OP is making the argument if a female can choose ,then a male should have the same choice, instead of having a child forced upon him.

Kirsten West Savali: Should Men Have the Right to 'Financial Abortions'?

If women support 'choice' and given all the deadbeat dads already out there, why should a child suffer or taxpayers when the male did not want the child to begin with and will most likely become just another dead beat dad running from the system?

The author of the above article asks a great question IMO, "Do we believe in absolute freedom of choice -- or merely our choice?"

Oh I gotcha.

My opinion: if the baby is born, then BOTH parents should be required to support it or figure out a different opinion (like adoption).

I feel like if you give a father the ability to say "I'm not supporting", you're going to make it 100x easier for these deadbeat dads to get out of taking any responsibility whatsoever for creating a child.

 

[CaféAuLait]

This is just an example of one of those things where we're never going to "level the playing field" in terms of equal choice between men and women.

The child is growing inside the female's body and therefore she has the ultimate decision on whether or not the child will be aborted. Although I'm not a fan of abortion in general, I couldn't imagine ever allowing a male to FORCE a female to abort without her decision to do so. Just doesn't work that way.

The thread is not about forcing a woman to abort, but a male having a choice in whether he wants to be a father. What are the reasons given for abortion? Financial, not ready, accidental, etc. The OP is making the argument if a female can choose ,then a male should have the same choice, instead of having a child forced upon him.

Kirsten West Savali: Should Men Have the Right to 'Financial Abortions'?

If women support 'choice' and given all the deadbeat dads already out there, why should a child suffer or taxpayers when the male did not want the child to begin with and will most likely become just another dead beat dad running from the system?

The author of the above article asks a great question IMO, "Do we believe in absolute freedom of choice -- or merely our choice?"

Oh I gotcha.

My opinion: if the baby is born, then BOTH parents should be required to support it or figure out a different opinion (like adoption).

I feel like if you give a father the ability to say "I'm not supporting", you're going to make it 100x easier for these deadbeat dads to get out of taking any responsibility whatsoever for creating a child.

( emphasis added)

Yet, women have that choice, yes?


I'm torn on the issue. If the male was responsible, used contraception and an accidental pregnancy was the result and or if a woman becomes pregnant on purpose or against the explicit wishes of the man, he should be given a choice.

How something like this would take place, I've no clue though.

 

[Faun]

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.

Nonsense. The law is quite legit as it stands. Neither the man she fucked nor the government can make her doing anything with her body against her will. The man cannot make her stop smoking while she's pregnant, if she wants to smoke. He can't make her stop drinking while she's pregnant, if she wants to drink. And he can't make her carry the fetus if she doesn't want to.

The guy does not suddenly take ownership of a woman's body just because he knocks her up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is your arguments that are illogical.

People who have abortions are not killing the unborn, they are terminating a pregnancy. Your view of pregnancy and abortion is unrealistic and false.

Whatever your views, you are free to exercise them in your own life. You have no right to interfere in the family lives of other women, or to impose your religious views on others.

What is illogical is refusing to acknowledge that abortion does, indeed, kill an unborn child. There is simply no way around that fact without redefining basic terms to be utter nonsense.

There is not one single coherent definition of the term life that would not include a fetus.

This is not a fact of law.

It may be a fact of your religious dogma or a fact of your subjective, personal belief, but it is not a fact of law, where the law is the sole authority concerning the issue.

You're at liberty to make this subjective argument to a woman considering an abortion, but this is not justification to seek to violate her right to privacy.

 

[Faun]

So it is true ... You think a vagina gives you the right to kill the unborn..... that is pretty arrogant.

Take it up with God. He's the one who gave women a birth canal, the ability to get pregnant, and their unalienable rights of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.

Pretty sure God doesn't like people killing his unborn children

tapatalk post

No doubt there are a lot of choices people make of which God does not approve. That changes neither womens' unalienable rights nor the fact that God made women the ones with a birth canal, giving them complete control of the life inside them.

 

[KevinWestern]

( emphasis added)

Yet, women have that choice, yes?

I'm torn on the issue. If the male was responsible, used contraception and an accidental pregnancy was the result and or if a woman becomes pregnant on purpose or against the explicit wishes of the man, he should be given a choice.

How something like this would take place, I've no clue though.

It's complex, I agree, and I totally see your point. But the two decisions don't hold equal weight:

1.) The man can say "screw this I don't want the baby" and be sipping drinks in Mexico the next day without a worry in the world.
2.) The woman (if she doesn't want the baby) must make the terrible decision of ALSO having to allow doctors poison her unborn (or surgically kill) that which is growing inside of her, and go through all the abortion procedures, risks, ect.

I think it's just a fact of life - to me, anyways - that the woman has the ultimate say on what happens to the baby growing inside of her, and if the baby is born both parties are responsible for its well being.

And rationally, think about it Cafe. You think we have a "deadbeat" dad problem now, what do you think is going to happen when men now have the option to absolve all responsibility by simply saying "I don't want it, abort!", lol? Any sort of scenario I can think of in that vein just seems to be a bad idea. I envision a lot of idiots having a lot of kids with a bunch of different women because they know they can simply "duck out" at any point they want during the pregnancy.

However, I'm open to hearing some of your thoughts.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is your arguments that are illogical.

People who have abortions are not killing the unborn, they are terminating a pregnancy. Your view of pregnancy and abortion is unrealistic and false.

Whatever your views, you are free to exercise them in your own life. You have no right to interfere in the family lives of other women, or to impose your religious views on others.

What is illogical is refusing to acknowledge that abortion does, indeed, kill an unborn child. There is simply no way around that fact without redefining basic terms to be utter nonsense.

There is not one single coherent definition of the term life that would not include a fetus.

This is not a fact of law.

It may be a fact of your religious dogma or a fact of your subjective, personal belief, but it is not a fact of law, where the law is the sole authority concerning the issue.

You're at liberty to make this subjective argument to a woman considering an abortion, but this is not justification to seek to violate her right to privacy.

Read my statement again Clayton. Nowhere did I metion the word law. Law does not define the meaning of basic terms, partiucularly those that are of a scientific nature. Law defines terms that are of a legal nature. Notice I used the word KILL because that is NOT a legal term. MURDER is a legal term. The act of killing has nothing to do with the law at all and sometimes such an act is perfectly legal. Other times it is not and the term murder applies.

This has nothing to do with ‘my religious dogma’ and that is nothing more than bullshit conjecture on your part in order to hold onto that asinine assertion that abortion is somehow not the killing of an unborn human. I will state again:

There is not one single coherent definition of the term life that would not include a fetus.

You cannot come up with one no matter how much the prochoice crowd wants to try and ignore what prochoice actually is.

Lastly, nothing that I stated ever alludes to me using such as a manner of making abortion illegal. Considering that I actually am prochoice, that would be rather silly of me top try and state. It sickens me though when the vaunted prochoice crowd runs away from the morality of the decision they have made by outright lying to themselves about what they are committing to support. I am willing to look at what abortion actually is rather than what we want it to be and support it because it is the right thing to do.

 

[Dragonlady]

If everyone sat down before having sex and had a discussion about what happens if this sex act results in a pregnancy, we could sort all of the "what if's" out before they happen. A lot of couples might reconsider what they were getting themselves into if they did this, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

 

[thanatos144]

Take it up with God. He's the one who gave women a birth canal, the ability to get pregnant, and their unalienable rights of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.

Pretty sure God doesn't like people killing his unborn children

tapatalk post

No doubt there are a lot of choices people make of which God does not approve. That changes neither womens' unalienable rights nor the fact that God made women the ones with a birth canal, giving them complete control of the life inside them.

Still wondering where in the constitution it forbids government from making laws to against killing the innocent

tapatalk post