CDZ Should Men Have “Abortion Rights”?

[jillian]

Since women have the legal right to dodge the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy; shouldn’t men be given that same legal consideration? Whereby if a woman claims to have been impregnated by a man; that man should have the right to file a claim in court absolving him of responsibility for that mass of tissue, from that moment forward.

If yes; hit agree. If not; but the woman should still have the right to an abortion; explain why...

GO!!!

as soon as you can get pregnant.

why do rightwingnut lowlife men spend so much time trying to figure out how they can screw over women?

 

[Vastator]

Since women have the legal right to dodge the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy; shouldn’t men be given that same legal consideration? Whereby if a woman claims to have been impregnated by a man; that man should have the right to file a claim in court absolving him of responsibility for that mass of tissue, from that moment forward.

If yes; hit agree. If not; but the woman should still have the right to an abortion; explain why...

GO!!!

as soon as you can get pregnant.

why do rightwingnut lowlife men spend so much time trying to figure out how they can screw over women?

It's about equality...

 

[jillian]

Since women have the legal right to dodge the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy; shouldn’t men be given that same legal consideration? Whereby if a woman claims to have been impregnated by a man; that man should have the right to file a claim in court absolving him of responsibility for that mass of tissue, from that moment forward.

If yes; hit agree. If not; but the woman should still have the right to an abortion; explain why...

GO!!!

as soon as you can get pregnant.

why do rightwingnut lowlife men spend so much time trying to figure out how they can screw over women?

It's about equality...

and when you can equally be pregnant, no doubt you should have say in what you do with YOUR body.

other than that, no... men should not be allowed to exercise veto power over a woman.... which is what you want.

again, why do rabid rightwing men think it's ok to control women that way? we know it's clear in every rightwing policy that rightwing males are misogynist... other than that, there's really no justification for the type of spite and disgusting attitude that would lead you to think that you, who cannot get pregnant, should exercise control over women

 

[Skull Pilot]

Since women have the legal right to dodge the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy; shouldn’t men be given that same legal consideration? Whereby if a woman claims to have been impregnated by a man; that man should have the right to file a claim in court absolving him of responsibility for that mass of tissue, from that moment forward.

If yes; hit agree. If not; but the woman should still have the right to an abortion; explain why...

GO!!!

as soon as you can get pregnant.

why do rightwingnut lowlife men spend so much time trying to figure out how they can screw over women?

It's about equality...

and when you can equally be pregnant, no doubt you should have say in what you do with YOUR body.

other than that, no... men should not be allowed to exercise veto power over a woman.... which is what you want.

again, why do rabid rightwing men think it's ok to control women that way? we know it's clear in every rightwing policy that rightwing males are misogynist... other than that, there's really no justification for the type of spite and disgusting attitude that would lead you to think that you, who cannot get pregnant, should exercise control over women

Women attempt to control men by lying about being on birth control not the reverse.
Which is why no man should ever trust a woman when she says she is on the pill

 

[Vastator]

Since women have the legal right to dodge the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy; shouldn’t men be given that same legal consideration? Whereby if a woman claims to have been impregnated by a man; that man should have the right to file a claim in court absolving him of responsibility for that mass of tissue, from that moment forward.

If yes; hit agree. If not; but the woman should still have the right to an abortion; explain why...

GO!!!

as soon as you can get pregnant.

why do rightwingnut lowlife men spend so much time trying to figure out how they can screw over women?

It's about equality...

and when you can equally be pregnant, no doubt you should have say in what you do with YOUR body.

other than that, no... men should not be allowed to exercise veto power over a woman.... which is what you want.

again, why do rabid rightwing men think it's ok to control women that way? we know it's clear in every rightwing policy that rightwing males are misogynist... other than that, there's really no justification for the type of spite and disgusting attitude that would lead you to think that you, who cannot get pregnant, should exercise control over women

Nothing the OP proposes pits a man "against" a woman. It offers the man the same right to future self determination. And the mans body does come into play. It's his body that will have to labor for at least 18 years in order to finance the child.

 

[Vastator]

Since women have the legal right to dodge the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy; shouldn’t men be given that same legal consideration? Whereby if a woman claims to have been impregnated by a man; that man should have the right to file a claim in court absolving him of responsibility for that mass of tissue, from that moment forward.

If yes; hit agree. If not; but the woman should still have the right to an abortion; explain why...

GO!!!

as soon as you can get pregnant.

why do rightwingnut lowlife men spend so much time trying to figure out how they can screw over women?

It's about equality...

and when you can equally be pregnant, no doubt you should have say in what you do with YOUR body.

other than that, no... men should not be allowed to exercise veto power over a woman.... which is what you want.

again, why do rabid rightwing men think it's ok to control women that way? we know it's clear in every rightwing policy that rightwing males are misogynist... other than that, there's really no justification for the type of spite and disgusting attitude that would lead you to think that you, who cannot get pregnant, should exercise control over women

Explain, in detail; how what the OP proposes, is an attempt to control women.

 

[jillian]

Since women have the legal right to dodge the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy; shouldn’t men be given that same legal consideration? Whereby if a woman claims to have been impregnated by a man; that man should have the right to file a claim in court absolving him of responsibility for that mass of tissue, from that moment forward.

If yes; hit agree. If not; but the woman should still have the right to an abortion; explain why...

GO!!!

as soon as you can get pregnant.

why do rightwingnut lowlife men spend so much time trying to figure out how they can screw over women?

It's about equality...

and when you can equally be pregnant, no doubt you should have say in what you do with YOUR body.

other than that, no... men should not be allowed to exercise veto power over a woman.... which is what you want.

again, why do rabid rightwing men think it's ok to control women that way? we know it's clear in every rightwing policy that rightwing males are misogynist... other than that, there's really no justification for the type of spite and disgusting attitude that would lead you to think that you, who cannot get pregnant, should exercise control over women

Nothing the OP proposes pits a man "against" a woman. It offers the man the same right to future self determination. And the mans body does come into play. It's his body that will have to labor for at least 18 years in order to finance the child.

really? you say so.... but giving a man veto power over a woman's body is exactly that.

awwwww.... you have to pay for a child? use protection. *shrug*

 

[Vastator]

Since women have the legal right to dodge the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy; shouldn’t men be given that same legal consideration? Whereby if a woman claims to have been impregnated by a man; that man should have the right to file a claim in court absolving him of responsibility for that mass of tissue, from that moment forward.

If yes; hit agree. If not; but the woman should still have the right to an abortion; explain why...

GO!!!

as soon as you can get pregnant.

why do rightwingnut lowlife men spend so much time trying to figure out how they can screw over women?

It's about equality...

and when you can equally be pregnant, no doubt you should have say in what you do with YOUR body.

other than that, no... men should not be allowed to exercise veto power over a woman.... which is what you want.

again, why do rabid rightwing men think it's ok to control women that way? we know it's clear in every rightwing policy that rightwing males are misogynist... other than that, there's really no justification for the type of spite and disgusting attitude that would lead you to think that you, who cannot get pregnant, should exercise control over women

Nothing the OP proposes pits a man "against" a woman. It offers the man the same right to future self determination. And the mans body does come into play. It's his body that will have to labor for at least 18 years in order to finance the child.

really? you say so.... but giving a man veto power over a woman's body is exactly that.

awwwww.... you have to pay for a child? use protection. *shrug*

It's not a veto over her body. Like you say.

"It's her body". If that's the case... You should have no problem with him butting out. COMPLETELY.

 

[jillian]

as soon as you can get pregnant.

why do rightwingnut lowlife men spend so much time trying to figure out how they can screw over women?

It's about equality...

and when you can equally be pregnant, no doubt you should have say in what you do with YOUR body.

other than that, no... men should not be allowed to exercise veto power over a woman.... which is what you want.

again, why do rabid rightwing men think it's ok to control women that way? we know it's clear in every rightwing policy that rightwing males are misogynist... other than that, there's really no justification for the type of spite and disgusting attitude that would lead you to think that you, who cannot get pregnant, should exercise control over women

Nothing the OP proposes pits a man "against" a woman. It offers the man the same right to future self determination. And the mans body does come into play. It's his body that will have to labor for at least 18 years in order to finance the child.

really? you say so.... but giving a man veto power over a woman's body is exactly that.

awwwww.... you have to pay for a child? use protection. *shrug*

It's not a veto over her body. Like you say.

"It's her body". If that's the case... You should have no problem with him butting out. COMPLETELY.

meh..... under your scenario men like you would opt out of child support always. and for the record, child support is for the benefit of the child, not for the benefit of the women you hate.

again, don't have sex if you're concerned.

 

[Vastator]

It's about equality...

and when you can equally be pregnant, no doubt you should have say in what you do with YOUR body.

other than that, no... men should not be allowed to exercise veto power over a woman.... which is what you want.

again, why do rabid rightwing men think it's ok to control women that way? we know it's clear in every rightwing policy that rightwing males are misogynist... other than that, there's really no justification for the type of spite and disgusting attitude that would lead you to think that you, who cannot get pregnant, should exercise control over women

Nothing the OP proposes pits a man "against" a woman. It offers the man the same right to future self determination. And the mans body does come into play. It's his body that will have to labor for at least 18 years in order to finance the child.

really? you say so.... but giving a man veto power over a woman's body is exactly that.

awwwww.... you have to pay for a child? use protection. *shrug*

It's not a veto over her body. Like you say.

"It's her body". If that's the case... You should have no problem with him butting out. COMPLETELY.

meh..... under your scenario men like you would opt out of child support always. and for the record, child support is for the benefit of the child, not for the benefit of the women you hate.

again, don't have sex if you're concerned.

You have no way of knowing such a thing. The idea is ludicrous. That's like saying women would always opt for abortion. Neither party would excersize their options if they wanted to have a child. Try again...

 

[jillian]

and when you can equally be pregnant, no doubt you should have say in what you do with YOUR body.

other than that, no... men should not be allowed to exercise veto power over a woman.... which is what you want.

again, why do rabid rightwing men think it's ok to control women that way? we know it's clear in every rightwing policy that rightwing males are misogynist... other than that, there's really no justification for the type of spite and disgusting attitude that would lead you to think that you, who cannot get pregnant, should exercise control over women

Nothing the OP proposes pits a man "against" a woman. It offers the man the same right to future self determination. And the mans body does come into play. It's his body that will have to labor for at least 18 years in order to finance the child.

really? you say so.... but giving a man veto power over a woman's body is exactly that.

awwwww.... you have to pay for a child? use protection. *shrug*

It's not a veto over her body. Like you say.

"It's her body". If that's the case... You should have no problem with him butting out. COMPLETELY.

meh..... under your scenario men like you would opt out of child support always. and for the record, child support is for the benefit of the child, not for the benefit of the women you hate.

again, don't have sex if you're concerned.

You have no way of knowing such a thing. The idea is ludicrous. That's like saying women would always opt for abortion. Neither party would excersize their options if they wanted to have a child. Try again...

I have every ability to know those things. every one of you would say "I told her not to have the baby" or otherwise opt out. again, child support is not for the benefit of the women you hate so much. it's for the benefit of the child.

and just another way for misogynists to amuse themselves. next you'll talk about the "men's rights" movement. it's also another way of saying, 'hey, I didn't tell the ho to get knocked up'.

 

[Windparadox]

And still has nothing to do with men ever trusting women to be in charge of birth control

`
My default position is never trust men, so it all evens out.

 

[jon_berzerk]

keep your dick in your pants

if you dont want to have an unwanted child

If both men and women were to play by that rule....keep your privates in your pants.....if you don't want to have an unwanted child, there would be no need for abortions. Oh the irony!

the other option is to get fixed

you fck a chick and she gets knocked up

it is your fault no matter what she told you

I agree. There is no denying that.

Now, are you going to tell the chicks to get fixed so they don't need abortions?

nope

 

[MarkDuffy]

Look at it this way guys, it could be worse

You pay support and college and all that and afterwards, she tells you "Oh by the way, he wasn't yours"

 

[MarkDuffy]

or the very worst thing

"I think he's yours"

 

[Montrovant]

if the child is born , then the question of equality is moot. then it is ALL about the child.

Yes but that’s a topic well beyond the scope of this OP.

FAIL

Do you need your OP repeated?

You want a get outta jail free card for the father.

No. Both parties should be afforded the same protection and opportunity under the law. Either way the pendulum swings. Do you think women should have a get out of pregnancy (instanced motherhood) free card?

You've got this all wrong. There is equal application of the law. A mother is legally responsible for a baby that has been born, just as a father is. A mother is legally allowed to abort her pregnancy, and if a father manages to get pregnant, he would be legally allowed to abort his pregnancy as well.

The mother's ability to "dodge accountability" is a side-effect of abortion.

It's not a side effect. It's the intended effect.

From a legal standpoint, no, it's not the intended effect. As far as I know, the USSC never ruled in Roe that a woman has a right to "dodge accountability."

I also find it funny that you told jillian there is no way she can know men would opt out of child support, yet you seem to think you can know why women are getting abortions.

The law is applied equally. Anyone who gets pregnant should have the same option of abortion, man or woman. You are trying to create a new "right to dodge accountability" that does not actually exist. I understand your point of view; it does take two to make a pregnancy, and there is a level of unfairness that the pregnant woman gets more say in the disposition of that pregnancy. That's just the reality of biology as it currently stands.

 

[JoeMoma]

Look at it this way guys, it could be worse

You pay support and college and all that and afterwards, she tells you "Oh by the way, he wasn't yours"

DNA Tests.... a good investment.

That being said, one the man's name is on the birth certificate as the father, he is on the hook until a court says otherwise.

 

[Vastator]

Yes but that’s a topic well beyond the scope of this OP.

FAIL

Do you need your OP repeated?

You want a get outta jail free card for the father.

No. Both parties should be afforded the same protection and opportunity under the law. Either way the pendulum swings. Do you think women should have a get out of pregnancy (instanced motherhood) free card?

You've got this all wrong. There is equal application of the law. A mother is legally responsible for a baby that has been born, just as a father is. A mother is legally allowed to abort her pregnancy, and if a father manages to get pregnant, he would be legally allowed to abort his pregnancy as well.

The mother's ability to "dodge accountability" is a side-effect of abortion.

It's not a side effect. It's the intended effect.

From a legal standpoint, no, it's not the intended effect. As far as I know, the USSC never ruled in Roe that a woman has a right to "dodge accountability."

I also find it funny that you told jillian there is no way she can know men would opt out of child support, yet you seem to think you can know why women are getting abortions.

The law is applied equally. Anyone who gets pregnant should have the same option of abortion, man or woman. You are trying to create a new "right to dodge accountability" that does not actually exist. I understand your point of view; it does take two to make a pregnancy, and there is a level of unfairness that the pregnant woman gets more say in the disposition of that pregnancy. That's just the reality of biology as it currently stands.

There is no “why” prerequisite. Right to privacy. Your argument fails.

 

[Vastator]

Look at it this way guys, it could be worse

You pay support and college and all that and afterwards, she tells you "Oh by the way, he wasn't yours"

DNA Tests.... a good investment.

That being said, one the man's name is on the birth certificate as the father, he is on the hook until a court says otherwise.

That’s another problem. The man doesn’t have to give consent for a woman to give his name as the father...

 

[Montrovant]

FAIL

Do you need your OP repeated?

You want a get outta jail free card for the father.

No. Both parties should be afforded the same protection and opportunity under the law. Either way the pendulum swings. Do you think women should have a get out of pregnancy (instanced motherhood) free card?

You've got this all wrong. There is equal application of the law. A mother is legally responsible for a baby that has been born, just as a father is. A mother is legally allowed to abort her pregnancy, and if a father manages to get pregnant, he would be legally allowed to abort his pregnancy as well.

The mother's ability to "dodge accountability" is a side-effect of abortion.

It's not a side effect. It's the intended effect.

From a legal standpoint, no, it's not the intended effect. As far as I know, the USSC never ruled in Roe that a woman has a right to "dodge accountability."

I also find it funny that you told jillian there is no way she can know men would opt out of child support, yet you seem to think you can know why women are getting abortions.

The law is applied equally. Anyone who gets pregnant should have the same option of abortion, man or woman. You are trying to create a new "right to dodge accountability" that does not actually exist. I understand your point of view; it does take two to make a pregnancy, and there is a level of unfairness that the pregnant woman gets more say in the disposition of that pregnancy. That's just the reality of biology as it currently stands.

There is no “why” prerequisite. Right to privacy. Your argument fails.

You've got it backwards, it's your argument that abortion is for dodging accountability that fails. If there is no why prerequisite, then there is no legal assumption that abortion is about dodging responsibility, therefore men are not being denied equal treatment by not being given an opportunity to dodge responsibility.

Again, if a man can get pregnant, he would have the same right to an abortion as a woman.

Alternatively, if a child is able to develop entirely outside of the womb, a woman would not have the same abortion rights she has now.

You are not arguing that a father should have the same rights as a pregnant mother, you are arguing that a father should have the right to the same outcome of a pregnant mother exercising her right to an abortion.

The current situation may be unfair, but it is still equal application of the law.