What sort of man supports abortion?

[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.

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

From your link. (BluePhantom should read this)

A wife is a partner, not property.

The husband's interest in the life of the child his wife is carrying does not permit the State to empower him with this troubling degree of authority over his wife. The contrary view leads to consequences reminiscent of the common law. A husband has no enforceable right to require a wife to advise him before she exercises her personal choices. If a husband's interest in the potential life of the child outweighs a wife's liberty, the State could require a married woman to notify her husband before she uses a postfertilization contraceptive. Perhaps next in line would be a statute requiring pregnant married women to notify their husbands before engaging in conduct causing risks to the fetus. After all, if the husband's interest in the fetus' safety is a sufficient predicate for state regulation, the State could reasonably conclude that pregnant wives should notify their husbands before drinking alcohol or smoking. Perhaps married women should notify their husbands before using contraceptives or before undergoing any type of surgery that may have complications affecting the husband's interest in his wife's reproductive organs. And if a husband's interest justifies notice in any of these cases, one might reasonably argue that it justifies exactly what the Danforth Court held it did not justify--a requirement of the husband's consent as well. A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children.

The woman's right to terminate her pregnancy before viability is the most central principle of Roe v. Wade. It is a rule of law and a component of liberty we cannot renounce.


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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What sort of man supports abortion?

Or...

Abortion or a woman's right to choose what is done to and with her body?

What sort of person feels they have the right to decide that a woman must carry a baby that she does not want to?

I don't want to wait at red lights. I don't get to blast through anyway. Ppl don't get to kill other ppl because they WANT to.

A zygot is not a person.

A zygote is a stage in human development that lasts four days. Women don't even know they're pregnant at that stage.

It's funny how often the pro murder crowd around here throws the term zygote out there...You'd think they could actually, you know, research what that is instead of just regurgitating that term over and over.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Abortion is not 'murder,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.

And it's telling how often those hostile to privacy rights seek to propagate the lie that abortion is 'murder.'

One would think they'd instead research the law and learn that an embryo/fetus is not a 'baby,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections, rather than just regurgitating the lie that abortion is 'murder' over and over.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Fathers force women to get abortions every day, and the left applauds.

Social conservatives contrive and propagate lies such as this every day, and most on the right applaud.

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

From your link. (BluePhantom should read this)

A wife is a partner, not property.

The husband's interest in the life of the child his wife is carrying does not permit the State to empower him with this troubling degree of authority over his wife. The contrary view leads to consequences reminiscent of the common law. A husband has no enforceable right to require a wife to advise him before she exercises her personal choices. If a husband's interest in the potential life of the child outweighs a wife's liberty, the State could require a married woman to notify her husband before she uses a postfertilization contraceptive. Perhaps next in line would be a statute requiring pregnant married women to notify their husbands before engaging in conduct causing risks to the fetus. After all, if the husband's interest in the fetus' safety is a sufficient predicate for state regulation, the State could reasonably conclude that pregnant wives should notify their husbands before drinking alcohol or smoking. Perhaps married women should notify their husbands before using contraceptives or before undergoing any type of surgery that may have complications affecting the husband's interest in his wife's reproductive organs. And if a husband's interest justifies notice in any of these cases, one might reasonably argue that it justifies exactly what the Danforth Court held it did not justify--a requirement of the husband's consent as well. A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children.

The woman's right to terminate her pregnancy before viability is the most central principle of Roe v. Wade. It is a rule of law and a component of liberty we cannot renounce.


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

These men want to go back to Victorian times when women were 'chattle' and the men had completely control over them. In those days, men regularly gave their wives STDs because the men slept with prostitutes and didn't tell their wives. A husband could send his wife to an insane asylum just by signing a piece of paper. It was a good way for a man to get rid of his wife without killing her. But he couldn't remarry unless she died. Lots of women were committed to asylums by husbands who just didn't like them anymore.

Yep, a lot of these men, the anti-abortion ones, like in this thread, would love to go back to Victorian times.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

From your link. (BluePhantom should read this)

A wife is a partner, not property.

The husband's interest in the life of the child his wife is carrying does not permit the State to empower him with this troubling degree of authority over his wife. The contrary view leads to consequences reminiscent of the common law. A husband has no enforceable right to require a wife to advise him before she exercises her personal choices. If a husband's interest in the potential life of the child outweighs a wife's liberty, the State could require a married woman to notify her husband before she uses a postfertilization contraceptive. Perhaps next in line would be a statute requiring pregnant married women to notify their husbands before engaging in conduct causing risks to the fetus. After all, if the husband's interest in the fetus' safety is a sufficient predicate for state regulation, the State could reasonably conclude that pregnant wives should notify their husbands before drinking alcohol or smoking. Perhaps married women should notify their husbands before using contraceptives or before undergoing any type of surgery that may have complications affecting the husband's interest in his wife's reproductive organs. And if a husband's interest justifies notice in any of these cases, one might reasonably argue that it justifies exactly what the Danforth Court held it did not justify--a requirement of the husband's consent as well. A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children.

The woman's right to terminate her pregnancy before viability is the most central principle of Roe v. Wade. It is a rule of law and a component of liberty we cannot renounce.


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

These men want to go back to Victorian times when women were 'chattle' and the men had completely control over them. In those days, men regularly gave their wives STDs because the men slept with prostitutes and didn't tell their wives. A husband could send his wife to an insane asylum just by signing a piece of paper. It was a good way for a man to get rid of his wife without killing her. But he couldn't remarry unless she died. Lots of women were committed to asylums by husbands who just didn't like them anymore.

Yep, a lot of these men, the anti-abortion ones, like in this thread, would love to go back to Victorian times.

Says the skank who supports coerced abortion so men are relieved of responsibility for their children. Says the whore who thinks women don't deserve high quality care by licensed providers with hospital admitting privileges. Says the pig who thinks women should receive abortions in clinics that lack any oversight, or any method of objective (or any other) record keeping or review. Pimps and human traffickers have made America their playground, thanks to feminists who despise fertile women and women who refuse sex on demand to men who despise them....

 

[Londoner]

"Philippa Taylor is the Head of Public Policy at the Christian Medical Fellowship in the UK. She says, “We have to consider the possibility that perhaps women are not always making choices that they really want to make, as men absolve themselves of their responsibility in decision- making. A choice is no choice if there are not equal (supported) alternatives.”
Men Often Support Abortion More Than Women, And There’s a Reason Why

Men who support abortion typically believe they have the right to coerce women to get abortion.

Men who support abortion don't want to support their offspring.

Men who support abortion believe they have a right to sex with women who aren't in a position to raise a child.

Men who support abortion are generally great supporters of the sex industry in all it's forms.

Men who support abortion are often involved in human trafficking.

And the industry tells them that they should feel free to tell women what they "want" (abortion) even if the woman doesn't, in order to *help* her make the right decision for *her*:

"You may think it’s better to support whatever she wants, or you may not want to influence her too much. But, it’s important to tell her how you feel...."

And if you are a man and feel morally bereft because you've coerced a woman into killing her baby, get over it: "If you still think abortion is morally wrong, the solution lies in forgiveness--from yourself, from her, from God." Men and Abortion

"Many men favor abortion for their own reason...They want to be able to have sexual relations without bearing responsibility if a child results....
this has always been the chief reason why abortions occur at all. Though pro-abortion rhetoric depicts the decision to abort as a woman's declaration of independence from male control -- an assertion of her 'right to control her own body' -- the reality is usually that she has found herself both dependent on a man and under his control and feels that abortion is a last ugly option."
"The unmarried father used to be "expected to take his share of the responsibility. The decent thing to do...was to offer marriage. Now he need only ask, 'What are you going to do?' The question conveys the message: 'It's not my problem.' Or he may be more blunt, pressuring her to abort or threatening not to support the child if she goes ahead and gives birth."

America's Future -- Why Men Support Abortion "Rights" -- Week of November 3, 1996

Ronald Reagan, when governor of California, passed the most liberal abortion policy the state had ever seen - yet he had every right and ability to do other wise.

Donald Trump supported free choice for 95% of his life in the public eye.

In short, the father of the modern Conservative Movement and the current front-runner for the Republican nomination supported abortion . . . until it was convenient to do otherwise.

 

[Contumacious]

What sort of man supports abortion?

A fellow who supports INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

A fellow who knows that women are our equal , so we have no right to dictate to them

 

[HUGGY]

What sort of man supports abortion?

Or...

Abortion or a woman's right to choose what is done to and with her body?

What sort of person feels they have the right to decide that a woman must carry a baby that she does not want to?

I don't want to wait at red lights. I don't get to blast through anyway. Ppl don't get to kill other ppl because they WANT to.

A zygot is not a person.

A zygote is a stage in human development that lasts four days. Women don't even know they're pregnant at that stage.

It's funny how often the pro murder crowd around here throws the term zygote out there...You'd think they could actually, you know, research what that is instead of just regurgitating that term over and over.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Abortion is not 'murder,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.

And it's telling how often those hostile to privacy rights seek to propagate the lie that abortion is 'murder.'

One would think they'd instead research the law and learn that an embryo/fetus is not a 'baby,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections, rather than just regurgitating the lie that abortion is 'murder' over and over.

Regurgitating a lie is the bread and butter of the willfully ignorant RWers. This is especially true if it is a lie that plucks at the heart strings of emotional people that transfer their own pain and suffering onto others including a fetus barely aware of it's surroundings.

Of course a fetus COULD become a fully functional aware human being that would suffer the same injuries eventually that we all have as we go through life. BUT it is not yet of that fully developed status when abortions are legally allowed to occur.

We are not ON PAPER a horrific people. Our laws are for the most part well thought out with every angle considered. We as a nation have decided rightfully that the rights of the woman to choose outweigh the rights of the not yet fully developed fetus.

These silly RWers act like absolutely no thought has been exhausted even by the pregnant mother in what to do with an unwanted pregnancy. i submit that these interlopers put far less thought into the act of another persons decision to end a pregnancy that they do with their supposed grief.

 

[Jackson]

What happens when the father wants the child and the mother doesn't want to carry it to term? ABORTION. A human life killed when there was a willing parent.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't want to wait at red lights. I don't get to blast through anyway. Ppl don't get to kill other ppl because they WANT to.

A zygot is not a person.

A zygote is a stage in human development that lasts four days. Women don't even know they're pregnant at that stage.

It's funny how often the pro murder crowd around here throws the term zygote out there...You'd think they could actually, you know, research what that is instead of just regurgitating that term over and over.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Abortion is not 'murder,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.

And it's telling how often those hostile to privacy rights seek to propagate the lie that abortion is 'murder.'

One would think they'd instead research the law and learn that an embryo/fetus is not a 'baby,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections, rather than just regurgitating the lie that abortion is 'murder' over and over.

Regurgitating a lie is the bread and butter of the willfully ignorant RWers. This is especially true if it is a lie that plucks at the heart strings of emotional people that transfer their own pain and suffering onto others including a fetus barely aware of it's surroundings.

Of course a fetus COULD become a fully functional aware human being that would suffer the same injuries eventually that we all have as we go through life. BUT it is not yet of that fully developed status when abortions are legally allowed to occur.

We are not ON PAPER a horrific people. Our laws are for the most part well thought out with every angle considered. We as a nation have decided rightfully that the rights of the woman to choose outweigh the rights of the not yet fully developed fetus.

These silly RWers act like absolutely no thought has been exhausted even by the pregnant mother in what to do with an unwanted pregnancy. i submit that these interlopers put far less thought into the act of another persons decision to end a pregnancy that they do with their supposed grief.

So only fully functional humans are worthy of life? That means if a relative wants to kill a disabled vet, they should be able.

 

[HUGGY]

A zygot is not a person.

A zygote is a stage in human development that lasts four days. Women don't even know they're pregnant at that stage.

It's funny how often the pro murder crowd around here throws the term zygote out there...You'd think they could actually, you know, research what that is instead of just regurgitating that term over and over.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Abortion is not 'murder,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.

And it's telling how often those hostile to privacy rights seek to propagate the lie that abortion is 'murder.'

One would think they'd instead research the law and learn that an embryo/fetus is not a 'baby,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections, rather than just regurgitating the lie that abortion is 'murder' over and over.

Regurgitating a lie is the bread and butter of the willfully ignorant RWers. This is especially true if it is a lie that plucks at the heart strings of emotional people that transfer their own pain and suffering onto others including a fetus barely aware of it's surroundings.

Of course a fetus COULD become a fully functional aware human being that would suffer the same injuries eventually that we all have as we go through life. BUT it is not yet of that fully developed status when abortions are legally allowed to occur.

We are not ON PAPER a horrific people. Our laws are for the most part well thought out with every angle considered. We as a nation have decided rightfully that the rights of the woman to choose outweigh the rights of the not yet fully developed fetus.

These silly RWers act like absolutely no thought has been exhausted even by the pregnant mother in what to do with an unwanted pregnancy. i submit that these interlopers put far less thought into the act of another persons decision to end a pregnancy that they do with their supposed grief.

So only fully functional humans are worthy of life? That means if a relative wants to kill a disabled vet, they should be able.

That is a good question worthy of a responsible reply. My answer is yes and no. I do believe it is the right of any human being to call it quits and end their own life if the quality of that life is endless grinding pain with no medical solution.

I am a victim of similar pain in my life known as chronic pain. Mine isn't the type that cannot be suppressed with pain medications. If I had no access to pain meds my life would be miserable and hardly worth living. With this experience I live with every day I can certainly see how someone with much worse pain could decide that being tortured every waking moment is hardly a life worth living. Only a sadistic person would want another person to go through horrible pain till they die from natural causes. No one save maybe a doctor with enough experience in human pain management should have the right to decide how much pain is enough to suffer.

So to answer your question as a "yes" I can see it possible where this could be a merciful end to anyone's life including a vet.

If your question was supposed to be "glib" and dismissive and you actually meant could a person just kill another because they were a nuisance my answer is how dare you take such a situation with blatant disregard for the reality of their lives.

 

[HUGGY]

What happens when the father wants the child and the mother doesn't want to carry it to term? ABORTION. A human life killed when there was a willing parent.

The day that the father can have the fetus transferred to his own body for nurturing and birth then that is the day we must consider HIS feelings and honest devotion to the as yet unborn child.

 

[Jackson]

What happens when the father wants the child and the mother doesn't want to carry it to term? ABORTION. A human life killed when there was a willing parent.

The day that the father can have the fetus transferred to his own body for nurturing and birth then that is the day we must consider HIS feelings and honest devotion to the as yet unborn child.

Ew... that doesn't sound good. Someone was there to raise this child and they tore it up instead. Not good at all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What happens when the father wants the child and the mother doesn't want to carry it to term? ABORTION. A human life killed when there was a willing parent.

And the 'solution' is not to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law, and in violation of the woman's right to privacy.

That the Constitution recognizes that the protected liberty of the woman is paramount has been proven to you and others on the right time and again, and time and again you ignore these facts of Constitutional law.

What, then, is your solution to the problem of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law.

 

[HUGGY]

What happens when the father wants the child and the mother doesn't want to carry it to term? ABORTION. A human life killed when there was a willing parent.

The day that the father can have the fetus transferred to his own body for nurturing and birth then that is the day we must consider HIS feelings and honest devotion to the as yet unborn child.

Ew... that doesn't sound good. Someone was there to raise this child and they tore it up instead. Not good at all.

Raising the child is one issue...having the child in one's body to term and giving birth is another.

 

[koshergrl]

A zygote is a stage in human development that lasts four days. Women don't even know they're pregnant at that stage.

It's funny how often the pro murder crowd around here throws the term zygote out there...You'd think they could actually, you know, research what that is instead of just regurgitating that term over and over.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Abortion is not 'murder,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.

And it's telling how often those hostile to privacy rights seek to propagate the lie that abortion is 'murder.'

One would think they'd instead research the law and learn that an embryo/fetus is not a 'baby,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections, rather than just regurgitating the lie that abortion is 'murder' over and over.

Regurgitating a lie is the bread and butter of the willfully ignorant RWers. This is especially true if it is a lie that plucks at the heart strings of emotional people that transfer their own pain and suffering onto others including a fetus barely aware of it's surroundings.

Of course a fetus COULD become a fully functional aware human being that would suffer the same injuries eventually that we all have as we go through life. BUT it is not yet of that fully developed status when abortions are legally allowed to occur.

We are not ON PAPER a horrific people. Our laws are for the most part well thought out with every angle considered. We as a nation have decided rightfully that the rights of the woman to choose outweigh the rights of the not yet fully developed fetus.

These silly RWers act like absolutely no thought has been exhausted even by the pregnant mother in what to do with an unwanted pregnancy. i submit that these interlopers put far less thought into the act of another persons decision to end a pregnancy that they do with their supposed grief.

So only fully functional humans are worthy of life? That means if a relative wants to kill a disabled vet, they should be able.

That is a good question worthy of a responsible reply. My answer is yes and no. I do believe it is the right of any human being to call it quits and end their own life if the quality of that life is endless grinding pain with no medical solution.

I am a victim of similar pain in my life known as chronic pain. Mine isn't the type that cannot be suppressed with pain medications. If I had no access to pain meds my life would be miserable and hardly worth living. With this experience I live with every day I can certainly see how someone with much worse pain could decide that being tortured every waking moment is hardly a life worth living. Only a sadistic person would want another person to go through horrible pain till they die from natural causes. No one save maybe a doctor with enough experience in human pain management should have the right to decide how much pain is enough to suffer.

So to answer your question as a "yes" I can see it possible where this could be a merciful end to anyone's life including a vet.

If your question was supposed to be "glib" and dismissive and you actually meant could a person just kill another because they were a nuisance my answer is how dare you take such a situation with blatant disregard for the reality of their lives.

My scenario had nothing to do with a person deciding to end his own life. My scenario reflected a relative or loved one or doctor making that decision for you....and based on how much of a nuisance do they "want" in their lives.

 

[Lakhota]

What sort of man supports abortion?

One who doesn't believe in supernatural boogeymen.

 

[koshergrl]

And his considerations absolutely has nothing to do with the decision. He doesn't get to vote....based on nothing more than the fact that he can't fun too entirely independently of any type of assistance.

 

[Jackson]

What happens when the father wants the child and the mother doesn't want to carry it to term? ABORTION. A human life killed when there was a willing parent.

The day that the father can have the fetus transferred to his own body for nurturing and birth then that is the day we must consider HIS feelings and honest devotion to the as yet unborn child.

Ew... that doesn't sound good. Someone was there to raise this child and they tore it up instead. Not good at all.

Raising the child is one issue...having the child in one's body to term and giving birth is another.

I'd say it is incredibly selfish to abort so it doesn't interfere with a few months of your life. Those who think that abortion is fine, think if their mothers had abortions instead of going through bringing it to term. One less liberal.

 

[koshergrl]

What happens when the father wants the child and the mother doesn't want to carry it to term? ABORTION. A human life killed when there was a willing parent.

The day that the father can have the fetus transferred to his own body for nurturing and birth then that is the day we must consider HIS feelings and honest devotion to the as yet unborn child.

Ew... that doesn't sound good. Someone was there to raise this child and they tore it up instead. Not good at all.

Raising the child is one issue...having the child in one's body to term and giving birth is another.

No, not really. Pregnancy isn't a violation, though progs pretend it is. It's just a Jo like any other. Some like it, some don't,eh.