What sort of man supports abortion?

[BluePhantom]

Lets put it this way, Carla. Would you support a law that releases men from the obligation to support a child financially if they give up their legal status as a father? If you say yes then I will say that at least you are being consistent. If you say no, however, you are demonstrating a clear double standard

Yes, if that's what both parents decide.

No, no, no...not if both parents decide. If the father unilaterally makes that decision against the will of the mother. It's all about right and responsibilities. Both parties agreed to engage in an activity that could conceive a child. They took the risk of making a baby. Now if the mother does not want that responsibility, she has the right to choose to avoid the consequences of her actions. But men do not have that right. A woman can force a man to financially support the child against his will whether the father is in the child's life or not. Men are forced to face the consequences for their actions in this regard while women have the option of avoiding those consequences. Well that's not equal. So since a woman can unilaterally make the decision to end a pregnancy and avoid taking responsibility for her choices against the father's will, should not the father have that same freedom?

What is with all this whine? You're just mad because you don't get to control a woman's body.

To put it simply, if a woman gets pregnant out of wedlock, and decides to keep and raise the baby, both parents owe that baby financial support, even if the father doesn't want it.

Now please explain why he shouldn't pay child support. Because some women decide to have an abortion? Please run your story by the judge. Let's hear it.

So in other words you are not in favor of gender equality. You believe that a woman should have the unilateral right to choose to avoid the consequences of her actions, but a man should not have the same freedoms. Fair enough. Now i know where you stand

If a woman decides to abort because she is unable to take care of a baby, then she is taking responsibility for her actions.

If a woman decides to raise a baby, both parents owe it to the child to support the baby, and that has nothing to do with gender equality. Child support is just that....to support that child.

All this is, is you whining about not being about to control a woman's decision because it's her body. Don't like it, then get yourself a boyfriend.

This has nothing to do about a desire to control a woman's body. That's liberal code for "holy shit, I don't have a way out of this. I better start making the standard bullshit accusations" Don't be so androphobic. BTW...liberals tell people what they can do with their bodies all the time. They can't eat trans-fat, they can't drink a super-sized Coke, they can't feed their kids this or that, blah, blah, blah

Regardless, this is about simple fairness and equality. You have taken a position wherein a woman has the choice to avoid taking responsibility for her actions and a man does not, even though both share equal responsibility for creating the child. So you are extending special rights and privileges to one demographic in society and denying the same rights and privileges to another. I thought you liberals were against that kid of stuff. Apparently you are only in favor of equality when it happens to serve your personal agenda.

 

[BluePhantom]

Lets put it this way, Carla. Would you support a law that releases men from the obligation to support a child financially if they give up their legal status as a father? If you say yes then I will say that at least you are being consistent. If you say no, however, you are demonstrating a clear double standard

Yes, if that's what both parents decide.

No, no, no...not if both parents decide. If the father unilaterally makes that decision against the will of the mother. It's all about right and responsibilities. Both parties agreed to engage in an activity that could conceive a child. They took the risk of making a baby. Now if the mother does not want that responsibility, she has the right to choose to avoid the consequences of her actions. But men do not have that right. A woman can force a man to financially support the child against his will whether the father is in the child's life or not. Men are forced to face the consequences for their actions in this regard while women have the option of avoiding those consequences. Well that's not equal. So since a woman can unilaterally make the decision to end a pregnancy and avoid taking responsibility for her choices against the father's will, should not the father have that same freedom?

What is with all this whine? You're just mad because you don't get to control a woman's body.

To put it simply, if a woman gets pregnant out of wedlock, and decides to keep and raise the baby, both parents owe that baby financial support, even if the father doesn't want it.

Now please explain why he shouldn't pay child support. Because some women decide to have an abortion? Please run your story by the judge. Let's hear it.

So in other words you are not in favor of gender equality. You believe that a woman should have the unilateral right to choose to avoid the consequences of her actions, but a man should not have the same freedoms. Fair enough. Now i know where you stand

Well men should have the freedom to have sex whenever they want with whomever they want, and and never have to pay for children...

That's not what I said. I asked why a man does not have the same rights as a woman in regard to this topic? If a woman can force a man into being a parent against his will, why can't a man? If a woman can choose to avoid responsibility for her actions, why should a man not have that same right? All I am saying is that it should be equal. If you are going to deny a man the right to have his child based upon the whim of the woman, is it not fair and equitable to extend the same luxury to the man?

If we are concerned about men indiscriminately impregnating women and ignoring their responsibilities, maybe women should pay a little more attention to who they are screwing.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Yes, if that's what both parents decide.

No, no, no...not if both parents decide. If the father unilaterally makes that decision against the will of the mother. It's all about right and responsibilities. Both parties agreed to engage in an activity that could conceive a child. They took the risk of making a baby. Now if the mother does not want that responsibility, she has the right to choose to avoid the consequences of her actions. But men do not have that right. A woman can force a man to financially support the child against his will whether the father is in the child's life or not. Men are forced to face the consequences for their actions in this regard while women have the option of avoiding those consequences. Well that's not equal. So since a woman can unilaterally make the decision to end a pregnancy and avoid taking responsibility for her choices against the father's will, should not the father have that same freedom?

What is with all this whine? You're just mad because you don't get to control a woman's body.

To put it simply, if a woman gets pregnant out of wedlock, and decides to keep and raise the baby, both parents owe that baby financial support, even if the father doesn't want it.

Now please explain why he shouldn't pay child support. Because some women decide to have an abortion? Please run your story by the judge. Let's hear it.

So in other words you are not in favor of gender equality. You believe that a woman should have the unilateral right to choose to avoid the consequences of her actions, but a man should not have the same freedoms. Fair enough. Now i know where you stand

If a woman decides to abort because she is unable to take care of a baby, then she is taking responsibility for her actions.

If a woman decides to raise a baby, both parents owe it to the child to support the baby, and that has nothing to do with gender equality. Child support is just that....to support that child.

All this is, is you whining about not being about to control a woman's decision because it's her body. Don't like it, then get yourself a boyfriend.

This has nothing to do about a desire to control a woman's body. That's liberal code for "holy shit, I don't have a way out of this. I better start making the standard bullshit accusations" Don't be so androphobic. BTW...liberals tell people what they can do with their bodies all the time. They can't eat trans-fat, they can't drink a super-sized Coke, they can't feed their kids this or that, blah, blah, blah

Regardless, this is about simple fairness and equality. You have taken a position wherein a woman has the choice to avoid taking responsibility for her actions and a man does not, even though both share equal responsibility for creating the child. So you are extending special rights and privileges to one demographic in society and denying the same rights and privileges to another. I thought you liberals were against that kid of stuff. Apparently you are only in favor of equality when it happens to serve your personal agenda.

Now you're changing the subject, and throwing an all-out tantrum.

A woman making a choice about her body has nothing to do with equal rights, it's simply her body, her choice.

If you want that same opportunity, you better figure out a way to get pregnant and carry that baby to term. Then you can can make those important decisions for yourself.

And once again, If a woman decides to abort because she is unable to take care of a baby, then she is taking responsibility for her actions.

If she chooses to keep and raise the baby, this does not get you out of paying child support. You know darn good and well no judge in this country would listen to you whine about you not getting to control a woman's body, or how unfair it is for you to have to pay child support.

Case closed.

 

[BluePhantom]

Now you're changing the subject, and throwing an all-out tantrum.

No....I am not in the least bit annoyed or rattled. Frankly I am amused. I have provided logical arguments based on establishing a fair and equitable system. You are the one who has been accusing me of "whining" and "trying to tell a woman what to do with her body". I have outlined a rational position and your response has been typical liberal rhetoric that people spew out on NPR or when they find themselves at the losing end of an argument and don't have anything left.

A woman making a choice about her body has nothing to do with equal rights, it's simply her body, her choice.

If the man wasn't involved and legally obligated toward certain courses of action I would agree with you. What is more important? The woman's body or the man's financial stability? It depends on who you ask and what the situation is. Every person will have their own answer as to which is more important and one person's evaluation is no more or less valid than another's. You struggle to see that because you have adopted an androphobic, gynocentric world view.

And once again, If a woman decides to abort because she is unable to take care of a baby, then she is taking responsibility for her actions.

We are not talking about that. We are talking about women who simply don't want to deal with the responsibilities and inconveniences of having or raising a child. I completely agree that abortion becomes an option when the child would be introduced to a life environment that would be detrimental to its development or health.

If she chooses to keep and raise the baby, this does not get you out of paying child support. You know darn good and well no judge in this country would listen to you whine about you not getting to control a woman's body, or how unfair it is for you to have to pay child support.

Case closed.

And again your androphobic, gynocentric perspective completely misses the point. We are not discussing what is currently legal. We are discussing what is fair and equitable. See the great thing about laws is that they can be changed. That's why we have a legislative branch of government. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in high school civics. Laws change when society determines that the state of things is not fair and equitable. Despite all your predictable liberal rhetoric (which I am assuming you parroted from NPR or MSNBC) you have still not demonstrated how your position is fair or equitable.

 

[BluePhantom]

BTW, Carla...I notice in this discussion that it is the Republican arguing for equal rights and the liberal arguing against them. That just doesn't seem to fit the liberal propaganda or the stereotypes does it? I wonder which one of us is the hypocrite.

 

[Agit8r]

What sort of man cares whether his daughters have full ownership of their own bodies?

One who is neither a superstitious troglodyte, nor a deranged atavist.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I asked why a man does not have the same rights as a woman in regard to this topic?

No womb at the inn, of course. They are not equals in this case. Sorry, charlie...

Close but not equal in this case. Her bod, her call.

 

[Esmeralda]

No, and your comparison is not valid.

Why isn't it valid?

Because women cannot give birth to wars, firefighters, or policemen. (eye roll)

Nothing to do with how you are seeing it.

The argument is men have no say, the reason is women are the only ones who get pregnant.

Well firefighters are the only ones who usually fight fires, so that means only firefighters get a say on fire funding, and other fire fighting related activities?

I think you should stop talking about lady parts, you are not qualified.

I think I can talk about whatever I want, and you can go to hell.

It's not the parts we are talking about, it's the consequences. Consequences women have power over, and men do not. If equality is your true goal, why is this acceptable?

Keep your dick in your pants and you won't have to worry about consequences. Don't leave birth control up to the woman. Get a vasectomy or abstain. It's simple.

 

[Esmeralda]

Nice try.

If you truly want equality of the sexes, then you would have to support this.

A woman covering 100% of finances for raising a child is not equality, doofus.

If she's the only one that want's it, it is. I thought it was about choice.

If a woman decides to raise a child on her own, even though the father doesn't want to participate, he still owes that child support. He made a choice by not keeping is peter in his pants. It takes two to tango. If you disagree, please give us a sample of your sales pitch to the judge.

So only women get a choice post coitus? Where is the equality in that?

Abstain and you won't have to worry about it. Your choice is to not have sex unless there is no possibility whatsoever of the woman getting pregnant. You do have a choice: you just elect not to recognize it or use it.

 

[Esmeralda]

Because women cannot give birth to wars, firefighters, or policemen. (eye roll)

Nothing to do with how you are seeing it.

The argument is men have no say, the reason is women are the only ones who get pregnant.

Well firefighters are the only ones who usually fight fires, so that means only firefighters get a say on fire funding, and other fire fighting related activities?

I think you should stop talking about lady parts, you are not qualified.

I think I can talk about whatever I want, and you can go to hell.

It's not the parts we are talking about, it's the consequences. Consequences women have power over, and men do not. If equality is your true goal, why is this acceptable?

Oh, but men do have power. They can keep it in their pants.

And before sex women can keep their pants on. See? Before sex both have the same option, after sex, only the woman can choose to have or not have a kid. Again, where is the equality in that?

There is no equality when the women is the one who carries the child and ultimately is the main care giver for the child. The cards are stacked against the woman, not the man. You are acting like a whiny child because you can't have it all and have it all your way. Tough luck. Life isn't fair.

 

[kaz]

Men who support abortion are often involved in human trafficking

That was my favorite. You realize there is a difference between "support(ing) abortion" and believing it's not a legitimate function of government to force a woman to carry a baby to term in her body, no? Or no?

 

[Carla_Danger]

BTW, Carla...I notice in this discussion that it is the Republican arguing for equal rights and the liberal arguing against them. That just doesn't seem to fit the liberal propaganda or the stereotypes does it? I wonder which one of us is the hypocrite.

You're full of shit. A woman making the final decision about HER body has nothing to do with equal rights. Men can have a say in that decision, but ultimately it is up to the woman to decide if she wants to keep and raise a baby. What's so freaking hard about that to understand?

If the situation were reversed, and you were the one carrying the baby to term, the final decision would belong to you. If you decided to keep and raise the baby as a single parent, that woman would owe you child support.

There's your equality.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Now you're changing the subject, and throwing an all-out tantrum.

No....I am not in the least bit annoyed or rattled. Frankly I am amused. I have provided logical arguments based on establishing a fair and equitable system. You are the one who has been accusing me of "whining" and "trying to tell a woman what to do with her body". I have outlined a rational position and your response has been typical liberal rhetoric that people spew out on NPR or when they find themselves at the losing end of an argument and don't have anything left.

A woman making a choice about her body has nothing to do with equal rights, it's simply her body, her choice.

If the man wasn't involved and legally obligated toward certain courses of action I would agree with you. What is more important? The woman's body or the man's financial stability? It depends on who you ask and what the situation is. Every person will have their own answer as to which is more important and one person's evaluation is no more or less valid than another's. You struggle to see that because you have adopted an androphobic, gynocentric world view.

And once again, If a woman decides to abort because she is unable to take care of a baby, then she is taking responsibility for her actions.

We are not talking about that. We are talking about women who simply don't want to deal with the responsibilities and inconveniences of having or raising a child. I completely agree that abortion becomes an option when the child would be introduced to a life environment that would be detrimental to its development or health.

If she chooses to keep and raise the baby, this does not get you out of paying child support. You know darn good and well no judge in this country would listen to you whine about you not getting to control a woman's body, or how unfair it is for you to have to pay child support.

Case closed.

And again your androphobic, gynocentric perspective completely misses the point. We are not discussing what is currently legal. We are discussing what is fair and equitable. See the great thing about laws is that they can be changed. That's why we have a legislative branch of government. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in high school civics. Laws change when society determines that the state of things is not fair and equitable. Despite all your predictable liberal rhetoric (which I am assuming you parroted from NPR or MSNBC) you have still not demonstrated how your position is fair or equitable.

Nobody said you were annoyed, I said you are throwing a tantrum and a whine fest. Now I see you're going to pull out Mr Straw Man to help your argument, because you have none.

You said, " I, personally, would support a law which states that a woman cannot get an abortion if the father makes a legal claim to the child."

You clearly want control over a woman's body, and that is completely wrong.

 

[Carla_Danger]

BLUEPHANTOM SAID:

"I am talking morally though. I, personally, would support a law which states that a woman cannot get an abortion if the father makes a legal claim to the child. It may be her body, but she took the risk when she had sex with the father."

And such a law would be struck down as un-Constitutional, and rightfully so, as to compel a woman to give birth against her will would be morally reprehensible, as well as clearly illegal:

“It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

I see BluePhantom has completely ignored your posting. Imagine that.

 

[koshergrl]

Men who support abortion are often involved in human trafficking

That was my favorite. You realize there is a difference between "support(ing) abortion" and believing it's not a legitimate function of government to force a woman to carry a baby to term in her body, no? Or no?

You realize it's not a legitimate fun too of gov't to facilitate and pay for abortion, right? Of course you don't. You're an idiot who thinks gubmint is responsible for pregnancy.

 

[koshergrl]

Fun too is the way my phone says function.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Fun too is the way my phone says function.

It's a little early to be drinking, isn't it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Now you're changing the subject, and throwing an all-out tantrum.

No....I am not in the least bit annoyed or rattled. Frankly I am amused. I have provided logical arguments based on establishing a fair and equitable system. You are the one who has been accusing me of "whining" and "trying to tell a woman what to do with her body". I have outlined a rational position and your response has been typical liberal rhetoric that people spew out on NPR or when they find themselves at the losing end of an argument and don't have anything left.

A woman making a choice about her body has nothing to do with equal rights, it's simply her body, her choice.

If the man wasn't involved and legally obligated toward certain courses of action I would agree with you. What is more important? The woman's body or the man's financial stability? It depends on who you ask and what the situation is. Every person will have their own answer as to which is more important and one person's evaluation is no more or less valid than another's. You struggle to see that because you have adopted an androphobic, gynocentric world view.

And once again, If a woman decides to abort because she is unable to take care of a baby, then she is taking responsibility for her actions.

We are not talking about that. We are talking about women who simply don't want to deal with the responsibilities and inconveniences of having or raising a child. I completely agree that abortion becomes an option when the child would be introduced to a life environment that would be detrimental to its development or health.

If she chooses to keep and raise the baby, this does not get you out of paying child support. You know darn good and well no judge in this country would listen to you whine about you not getting to control a woman's body, or how unfair it is for you to have to pay child support.

Case closed.

And again your androphobic, gynocentric perspective completely misses the point. We are not discussing what is currently legal. We are discussing what is fair and equitable. See the great thing about laws is that they can be changed. That's why we have a legislative branch of government. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in high school civics. Laws change when society determines that the state of things is not fair and equitable. Despite all your predictable liberal rhetoric (which I am assuming you parroted from NPR or MSNBC) you have still not demonstrated how your position is fair or equitable.

Nobody said you were annoyed, I said you are throwing a tantrum and a whine fest. Now I see you're going to pull out Mr Straw Man to help your argument, because you have none.

You said, " I, personally, would support a law which states that a woman cannot get an abortion if the father makes a legal claim to the child."

You clearly want control over a woman's body, and that is completely wrong.

And completely un-Constitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

BLUEPHANTOM SAID:

"I am talking morally though. I, personally, would support a law which states that a woman cannot get an abortion if the father makes a legal claim to the child. It may be her body, but she took the risk when she had sex with the father."

And such a law would be struck down as un-Constitutional, and rightfully so, as to compel a woman to give birth against her will would be morally reprehensible, as well as clearly illegal:

“It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

I see BluePhantom has completely ignored your posting. Imagine that.

Most on the right are consistent at ignoring the facts and truth.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Men who support abortion are often involved in human trafficking

That was my favorite. You realize there is a difference between "support(ing) abortion" and believing it's not a legitimate function of government to force a woman to carry a baby to term in her body, no? Or no?

You realize it's not a legitimate fun too of gov't to facilitate and pay for abortion, right? Of course you don't. You're an idiot who thinks gubmint is responsible for pregnancy.

Given your posting history, this post included, you're in no position to refer to anyone as an 'idiot.'