Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

[Pop23]

i advocate that men take responsibility for their actions....

CONTROL YOUR SPERM AND PROBLEM IS SOLVED...

once you deposit sperm into any old vagina you can find...you lose control of that sperm and give it to the woman to do as she pleases

Im fine with that

Take full control = Take full responsibility.

Funny how that works

 

[Skylar]

and this is what you do not get....you have no rights as sperm donor if you want do step up and be involved in the child's life that is one thing but that is not an automatic right that is an earned privilege

WOW - what as stupid thing to say. Being involved in the child's life is neither a right nor a privilege. It''s a legal duty. Men are FORCED to pay child support even though they have no say in the abortion question. THINK

A man's choice or 'feelings' about being a father aren't the basis of his obligation. His child being born is. If the child exists, his obligation exists. As his obligation is to the child.

That obligation is always the same as the mother's.

 

[Skylar]

I think a better solution is to say men cannot be forced to pay child support as long as abortion is legal.

You only say that because you are a dumb ass.

Nope. Women who are pro abortion then opt out when a man doesn't want a kid.. Shouldn't be able to use the system to trap him.

A man wanting children has nothing to do with his obligation to support his kids.

His child's right to support from its parents is the basis. Making your entire argument moot.

 

[Skylar]

On “Outnumbered” today, Fox News’ “Medical A-Team” member Keith Ablow weighed in on Nick Loeb’s bizarre claim of ownership over two fertilized embryos he created with ex-fiancé Sofia Vergara.

Fox News Medical A-Team member Keith Ablow Men should be able to veto women s abortions - Salon.com

According to Keith Ablow men should have a right to veto women’s abortions. Pretty controversial yet understandable. Pro-life stance postulates parents have a moral obligation upon American society and their unborn child. Whom do we have to protect - the mother, both parents or the child?

Then a man would have control over his own body and control over a woman's body. While a woman would have control over neither his body, nor her own.

Nope.

 

[whitehall]

Notice how the ignorant left leaves the "F" word out of the spin? Maybe the sissie left has no concept of the word "father" but the responsibility of fatherhood should be important enough when it comes to the point of terminating a human life that he helped create. What would the gigantic left wing (tax exempt) propaganda network "Media Matters" do without the Fox round table discussions? Maybe media parasites like Salon would dry up.

Notice how whitehall ignores the many mentions in this thread and elsewhere of the "father".

There's a huge difference between being a father and being a sperm donor.

The original thread used the word abortion not sperm donation.

 

[SwimExpert]

Men should not be able to veto a woman's abortion. But they should be able to waive all responsibility and rights. If it's your choice, then it's your responsibility.

 

[Skylar]

Men should not be able to veto a woman's abortion. But they should be able to waive all responsibility and rights. If it's your choice, then it's your responsibility.

His obligation isn't to the woman. Its to the child. A mother can't 'waive' a child's right to support. Again, you guys aren't quite clear on the basis of obligation. You keep assuming its choice. You're wrong.

Its the existence of the child.

This is where your arguments always, always break. And why 50 of 50 state legislatures have laughed your reasoning out the door. From the reddest of the red, to the bluest of the blue.

 

[chikenwing]

Men should not be able to veto a woman's abortion. But they should be able to waive all responsibility and rights. If it's your choice, then it's your responsibility.

His obligation isn't to the woman. Its to the child. A mother can't 'waive' a child's right to support. Again, you guys aren't quite clear on the basis of obligation. You keep assuming its choice. You're wrong.

Its the existence of the child.

This is where your arguments always, always break. And why 50 of 50 state legislatures have laughed your reasoning out the door. From the reddest of the red, to the bluest of the blue.

If she aborts the child,she most certainly is wavering the rights of the child,women give up the rights/responsibilities all the time.
Doesn't matter what states have or haven't done in the past,there are still huge inequities when it comes to men and parental rights responsibilities,and abortion.

 

[Camp]

Men should not be able to veto a woman's abortion. But they should be able to waive all responsibility and rights. If it's your choice, then it's your responsibility.

His obligation isn't to the woman. Its to the child. A mother can't 'waive' a child's right to support. Again, you guys aren't quite clear on the basis of obligation. You keep assuming its choice. You're wrong.

Its the existence of the child.

This is where your arguments always, always break. And why 50 of 50 state legislatures have laughed your reasoning out the door. From the reddest of the red, to the bluest of the blue.

If she aborts the child,she most certainly is wavering the rights of the child,women give up the rights/responsibilities all the time.
Doesn't matter what states have or haven't done in the past,there are still huge inequities when it comes to men and parental rights responsibilities,and abortion.

The child is not property and chattel. The law does not recognize an aborted fetus as a child. The child is a citizen with rights that must be protected after it is born. Under various state laws the child has a right to support from it's father. Under the constitution the child has equal protection under the law. A mother or father can not give away the child's constitutional rights. Even if some day your opinion of a fetus being a child is adapted, it will not change the concept that the child would have constitutional rights.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

A man's choice or 'feelings' about being a father aren't the basis of his obligation. His child being born is. If the child exists, his obligation exists. As his obligation is to the child.

That obligation is always the same as the mother's.

That's BS. How can a man have an obligation to raise a child when he had no say so in the birth?. That's entirely the mothers choice. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Men should not be able to veto a woman's abortion. But they should be able to waive all responsibility and rights. If it's your choice, then it's your responsibility.

That's what i say. You can blame the man halfway for the pregnancy but the birth is entirely up to the mother. the kid is thus HER responsibility.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The child is not property and chattel. The law does not recognize an aborted fetus as a child. The child is a citizen with rights that must be protected after it is born. Under various state laws the child has a right to support from it's father. Under the constitution the child has equal protection under the law. A mother or father can not give away the child's constitutional rights. .

WTF are you talking about.? You saying the child has a constitutional right to child support from the man??? Where does it say anything remotely like that.?

 

[dilloduck]

When they can transplant fetuses into a man's artificial womb, then we can revisit this issue.

Why? Because you don't know how to honestly discuss this issue now ?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Men should not be able to veto a woman's abortion. But they should be able to waive all responsibility and rights. If it's your choice, then it's your responsibility.

That's what i say. You can blame the man halfway for the pregnancy but the birth is entirely up to the mother. the kid is thus HER responsibility.

You're insane.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When they can transplant fetuses into a man's artificial womb, then we can revisit this issue.

Why? Because you don't know how to honestly discuss this issue now ?

The topic is so insane that all it deserves is mockery.

 

[Skylar]

[

A man's choice or 'feelings' about being a father aren't the basis of his obligation. His child being born is. If the child exists, his obligation exists. As his obligation is to the child.

That obligation is always the same as the mother's.

That's BS. How can a man have an obligation to raise a child when he had no say so in the birth?. That's entirely the mothers choice. THINK

Simple: the kid is his. And its completely reasonable for a man to be responsible for his own child.

Whether or not a man has a 'say' is irrelevant. His 'feelings' about being a father are irrelevant. His sole basis of obligation is that is his kid was born. That's it. If the kid is born, his obligation exists.

His 'feelings' never play a part in it.

 

[dilloduck]

When they can transplant fetuses into a man's artificial womb, then we can revisit this issue.

Why? Because you don't know how to honestly discuss this issue now ?

The topic is so insane that all it deserves is mockery.

got it--you really don't know to discuss it.

 

[dilloduck]

[

A man's choice or 'feelings' about being a father aren't the basis of his obligation. His child being born is. If the child exists, his obligation exists. As his obligation is to the child.

That obligation is always the same as the mother's.

That's BS. How can a man have an obligation to raise a child when he had no say so in the birth?. That's entirely the mothers choice. THINK

Simple: the kid is his. And its completely reasonable for a man to be responsible for his own child.

Whether or not a man has a 'say' is irrelevant. His 'feelings' about being a father are irrelevant. His sole basis of obligation is that is his kid was born. That's it. If the kid is born, his obligation exists.

His 'feelings' never play a part in it.

Oh I bet he felt it when she let him inseminate her.

 

[Skylar]

[

A man's choice or 'feelings' about being a father aren't the basis of his obligation. His child being born is. If the child exists, his obligation exists. As his obligation is to the child.

That obligation is always the same as the mother's.

That's BS. How can a man have an obligation to raise a child when he had no say so in the birth?. That's entirely the mothers choice. THINK

Simple: the kid is his. And its completely reasonable for a man to be responsible for his own child.

Whether or not a man has a 'say' is irrelevant. His 'feelings' about being a father are irrelevant. His sole basis of obligation is that is his kid was born. That's it. If the kid is born, his obligation exists.

His 'feelings' never play a part in it.

Oh I bet he felt it when she let him inseminate her.

Doesn't matter. If his kid is born, he's obligated to support his own child.

And that's completely reasonable.

 

[dilloduck]

[

A man's choice or 'feelings' about being a father aren't the basis of his obligation. His child being born is. If the child exists, his obligation exists. As his obligation is to the child.

That obligation is always the same as the mother's.

That's BS. How can a man have an obligation to raise a child when he had no say so in the birth?. That's entirely the mothers choice. THINK

Simple: the kid is his. And its completely reasonable for a man to be responsible for his own child.

Whether or not a man has a 'say' is irrelevant. His 'feelings' about being a father are irrelevant. His sole basis of obligation is that is his kid was born. That's it. If the kid is born, his obligation exists.

His 'feelings' never play a part in it.

Oh I bet he felt it when she let him inseminate her.

Doesn't matter. If his kid is born, he's obligated to support his own child.

And that's completely reasonable.

If he has the same choice as woman does------an equal choice it might be reasonable. But since women love the bogus argument that everything in their body is theirs we don't have anything like equality.