Male's right to abortion.

[BobPlumb]

When the world has 50 billion people no woman now alive will be alive.

So that scenario does not matter.

For now, if a man does not want the responsibility of fatherhood, he can double bag his organ, get a vasectomy or do himself himself.

If you do the deed you are responsible if a child results.

Anything else is a refusal to deal with reality.

Which is one way some men impregnate women in the first place. Denial of the reality of the sex act, whether thru inebriation or blindness.

Regards from Rosie

Are you willing to hold women equally responsible. Being prolife, I am. You are using a prolife argument with the man. Does the woman have any less responsibility to use contraception or "do herself"?

 

[sameech]

When the world has 50 billion people no woman now alive will be alive.

So that scenario does not matter.

For now, if a man does not want the responsibility of fatherhood, he can double bag his organ, get a vasectomy or do himself himself.

If you do the deed you are responsible if a child results.

Anything else is a refusal to deal with reality.

Which is one way some men impregnate women in the first place. Denial of the reality of the sex act, whether thru inebriation or blindness.

Regards from Rosie

And yet women cannot use birth control, have the surgery, or do herself herself, and still have an abortion? Why do you not hold women to the same standard as men in that regard? Seems rather belittling to women as implicitly they somehow are incapable of exercising the same preventative measure as men. They have even MORE choices than men at avoiding unwanted pregnancies without having to resort to an abortion.

 

[RosieS]

When the world has 50 billion people no woman now alive will be alive.

So that scenario does not matter.

For now, if a man does not want the responsibility of fatherhood, he can double bag his organ, get a vasectomy or do himself himself.

If you do the deed you are responsible if a child results.

Anything else is a refusal to deal with reality.

Which is one way some men impregnate women in the first place. Denial of the reality of the sex act, whether thru inebriation or blindness.

Regards from Rosie

Are you willing to hold women equally responsible. Being prolife, I am. You are using a prolife argument with the man. Does the woman have any less responsibility to use contraception or "do herself"?

Again deal with reality. A condom or two has never physically harmed a man.

What a woman does or does not do as to contraception is between her and her doctor.

It behooves a man to be so committed and involved with the woman as to be welcome at the conference between the woman and her doctor.

If not, where can he possibly get off demanding a 'say'?

If he won't be in the woman's life in a positive and loving way, he does not deserve "choice".

Men who do not treat their woman or the prospective mother of the child well deserve only a couple of weekends a month and two weeks in the summer with a child by her. That is his "choice" by his behavior toward the mother of his child.

The woman and her doctor have practically all the choices and the man has but a few.

Such is the real world. Pro lifers should not shield themselves from such knowledge.

Regards from Rosie

 

[freedombecki]

If an abortion results in a baby being killed artificially, how can it be considered anything but a killing?

Those organizational cells are already making human decisions, whether people like to think of it as thinking or being or not. The organization is a human being, and it takes considerable intelligence to differentiate cells into systems, organs, and body parts of every kind.

The Bible forbids abortion, and King David regarded the fetus as a being known by God before the mother knows at a conscious level that a baby is forming inside her.

And it matters.

 

[BobPlumb]

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?

I am on your side, provided the man walks away as SOON as the woman says she is pregnant. If he stays with her until her due date, and then decides to leave, too bad.
The woman might carry the baby, but its her choice as to whether to give birth. If she can't afford to raise it on her own, she has no business demanding money, IMO.

Fair is fair. The man should have the right to opt out.

Have you changed your mind about this?

 

[Noomi]

Nope. I believe that the woman has the right to an abortion if she pleases, but if the man doesn't want to play a role, he should have the right to walk away, provided he walks away immediately. Men should always make their opinions clear before having sex, anyway.

 

[RosieS]

Typical RW BS.

All concerned about the pre-born, but once that baby is out, well....

The kid ain't getting MY money! Don't care what kind of life my kid has, just take all the responsibility for 18 years yourself and leave ME alone.

That is not pro life. That is pro screaming me me's.

Immature, selfish lying bastards. The whole lot of them.

That is the unvarnished truth.

Regards from Rosie

 

[BobPlumb]

Typical RW BS.

All concerned about the pre-born, but once that baby is out, well....

The kid ain't getting MY money! Don't care what kind of life my kid has, just take all the responsibility for 18 years yourself and leave ME alone.

That is not pro life. That is pro screaming me me's.

Immature, selfish lying bastards. The whole lot of them.

That is the unvarnished truth.

Regards from Rosie

I beleive that both the man and woman should take responsibility for the child because I'm prolife. I'm just saying that if it's okay for the woman to have an abortion because a fetus is not a child then it should be okay for the Man to walk away at this time because there is no child. At this time prochoice people don't give a damn about the welfare of the child because according to them there isn't a child, just a fetus. Either it is a child or it isn't. Please make up your mind.

 

[midcan5]

RWingers have this incredible love for the unborn and this incredible I don't give a darn for the born. Can anyone reconcile this hypocrisy.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...way-it-was-pre-roe-v-wade-11.html#post6717483
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...luding-late-term-abortions-2.html#post5858288
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-a-heartbeat-is-detectable-4.html#post3814184
http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/301002-a-new-forum-maybe-post7469334.html

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

''God Does Not Regard the Fetus as a Soul,' Conservative evangelicals didn’t always care much about abortion or contraception. The strange story of how they came to be obsessed with them.' By Jamelle Bouie

"In his book Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics, Jonathan Dudley notes that most evangelicals held far more liberal views at the time. “God does not regard the fetus as a soul no matter how far gestation has progressed,” wrote professor Bruce Waltke of Dallas Theological Seminary in a 1968 issue of Christianity Today on contraception and abortion, edited by Harold Lindsell, a then-famous champion of biblical “inerrancy.” His argument rested on the Hebrew Bible, “[A]ccording to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”"

Hobby Lobby and contraception: How conservative evangelicals went from not caring about abortion and birth control to being obsessed with them.

 

[Faun]

Typical RW BS.

All concerned about the pre-born, but once that baby is out, well....

The kid ain't getting MY money! Don't care what kind of life my kid has, just take all the responsibility for 18 years yourself and leave ME alone.

That is not pro life. That is pro screaming me me's.

Immature, selfish lying bastards. The whole lot of them.

That is the unvarnished truth.

Regards from Rosie

I beleive that both the man and woman should take responsibility for the child because I'm prolife. I'm just saying that if it's okay for the woman to have an abortion because a fetus is not a child then it should be okay for the Man to walk away at this time because there is no child. At this time prochoice people don't give a damn about the welfare of the child because according to them there isn't a child, just a fetus. Either it is a child or it isn't. Please make up your mind.

I'm pretty certain that all agree it's a child after birth. Sounds like you support the biological father of a child to not be financially responsible for his own child.

 

[BobPlumb]

Typical RW BS.

All concerned about the pre-born, but once that baby is out, well....

The kid ain't getting MY money! Don't care what kind of life my kid has, just take all the responsibility for 18 years yourself and leave ME alone.

That is not pro life. That is pro screaming me me's.

Immature, selfish lying bastards. The whole lot of them.

That is the unvarnished truth.

Regards from Rosie

I beleive that both the man and woman should take responsibility for the child because I'm prolife. I'm just saying that if it's okay for the woman to have an abortion because a fetus is not a child then it should be okay for the Man to walk away at this time because there is no child. At this time prochoice people don't give a damn about the welfare of the child because according to them there isn't a child, just a fetus. Either it is a child or it isn't. Please make up your mind.

I'm pretty certain that all agree it's a child after birth. Sounds like you support the biological father of a child to not be financially responsible for his own child.

According to those that are prochoice, there is no child before viability. This is the "loophole" being used to justify that it's okay have an abortion. There is no concern for the walfare of the child before viability of the fetus using prochoice logic because there is no child. I am simply applying the same logic to the man. If there is no child before viability, then there should be a window of opportunity for the man to absolve himself from the responsibility of being a parent. If the woman wants to give birth to a child, as Rosie argued, that is between her and her doctor.

Perhaps this logic seems absurd when applied to the man. Oh! That is how absurd pro-life people find the same logic when applied to the woman!

 

[Faun]

I beleive that both the man and woman should take responsibility for the child because I'm prolife. I'm just saying that if it's okay for the woman to have an abortion because a fetus is not a child then it should be okay for the Man to walk away at this time because there is no child. At this time prochoice people don't give a damn about the welfare of the child because according to them there isn't a child, just a fetus. Either it is a child or it isn't. Please make up your mind.

I'm pretty certain that all agree it's a child after birth. Sounds like you support the biological father of a child to not be financially responsible for his own child.

According to those that are prochoice, there is no child before viability. This is the "loophole" being used to justify that it's okay have an abortion. There is no concern for the walfare of the child before viability of the fetus using prochoice logic because there is no child. I am simply applying the same logic to the man. If there is no child before viability, then there should be a window of opportunity for the man to absolve himself from the responsibility of being a parent. If the woman wants to give birth to a child, as Rosie argued, that is between her and her doctor.

Perhaps this logic seems absurd when applied to the man. Oh! That is how absurd pro-life people find the same logic when applied to the woman!

The logic is absurd because it's not the same logic for the man as you portray. You're trying to claim that the responsibilities for the unborn are the same as the responsibilities for those who are born, are the same. And that IS absurd.

 

[BobPlumb]

I'm pretty certain that all agree it's a child after birth. Sounds like you support the biological father of a child to not be financially responsible for his own child.

According to those that are prochoice, there is no child before viability. This is the "loophole" being used to justify that it's okay have an abortion. There is no concern for the walfare of the child before viability of the fetus using prochoice logic because there is no child. I am simply applying the same logic to the man. If there is no child before viability, then there should be a window of opportunity for the man to absolve himself from the responsibility of being a parent. If the woman wants to give birth to a child, as Rosie argued, that is between her and her doctor.

Perhaps this logic seems absurd when applied to the man. Oh! That is how absurd pro-life people find the same logic when applied to the woman!

The logic is absurd because it's not the same logic for the man as you portray. You're trying to claim that the responsibilities for the unborn are the same as the responsibilities for those who are born, are the same. And that IS absurd.

Sorry, there is no child, unless the woman decides so. Prochoice logic dictates that the man stays out of that decision. When the man decides to walk away there is no child.

That is what the prochoice keeps saying. A FETUS IS NOT A CHILD! Since a fetus is not a child, then just as a woman can decide to have an abortion, the man should be able to simply walk away. Prochoice logic has no concern for the welfare of the individual fetus because it does not have "personhood". A baby that has been born is not relevant to this conversation (according to prochoice logic).

 

[Faun]

According to those that are prochoice, there is no child before viability. This is the "loophole" being used to justify that it's okay have an abortion. There is no concern for the walfare of the child before viability of the fetus using prochoice logic because there is no child. I am simply applying the same logic to the man. If there is no child before viability, then there should be a window of opportunity for the man to absolve himself from the responsibility of being a parent. If the woman wants to give birth to a child, as Rosie argued, that is between her and her doctor.

Perhaps this logic seems absurd when applied to the man. Oh! That is how absurd pro-life people find the same logic when applied to the woman!

The logic is absurd because it's not the same logic for the man as you portray. You're trying to claim that the responsibilities for the unborn are the same as the responsibilities for those who are born, are the same. And that IS absurd.

Sorry, there is no child, unless the woman decides so. Prochoice logic dictates that the man stays out of that decision. When the man decides to walk away there is no child.

That is what the prochoice keeps saying. A FETUS IS NOT A CHILD! Since a fetus is not a child, then just as a woman can decide to have an abortion, the man should be able to simply walk away. Prochoice logic has no concern for the welfare of the individual fetus because it does not have "personhood". A baby that has been born is not relevant to this conversation (according to prochoice logic).

Repeating your flawed logic does not erase the flaw. You're still saying because a woman has the right to get out of being a parent where there is no child, a father should have the right to get out of being a parent where there is a child.

 

[BobPlumb]

The logic is absurd because it's not the same logic for the man as you portray. You're trying to claim that the responsibilities for the unborn are the same as the responsibilities for those who are born, are the same. And that IS absurd.

Sorry, there is no child, unless the woman decides so. Prochoice logic dictates that the man stays out of that decision. When the man decides to walk away there is no child.

That is what the prochoice keeps saying. A FETUS IS NOT A CHILD! Since a fetus is not a child, then just as a woman can decide to have an abortion, the man should be able to simply walk away. Prochoice logic has no concern for the welfare of the individual fetus because it does not have "personhood". A baby that has been born is not relevant to this conversation (according to prochoice logic).

Repeating your flawed logic does not erase the flaw. You're still saying because a woman has the right to get out of being a parent where there is no child, a father should have the right to get out of being a parent where there is a child.

I'm using the logic used by those that are prochoice. Now here you go and call it flawed logic!
And stop saying there is a child in the case of the father. There is no child because a fetus is not a child.

At the point in time when the man walks there is no child. Thus the ball is in the woman's court to have a child or not. It's the woman's choice! That's what prochoice people argue for the woman. The man has absolutely no say in that choice -- for the woman to either give birth or have an abortion. If the woman decides to go on and have a baby after the man walks, then that decision is hers and the responsibility of that decision is on her. Is this flawed logic? If so, then the logic of the prochoice is flawed because that is the logic I'm parroting back to you. The logic of "I owe no responsibility to the child because a fetus is not a child"!

 

[FA_Q2]

The logic is absurd because it's not the same logic for the man as you portray. You're trying to claim that the responsibilities for the unborn are the same as the responsibilities for those who are born, are the same. And that IS absurd.

Sorry, there is no child, unless the woman decides so. Prochoice logic dictates that the man stays out of that decision. When the man decides to walk away there is no child.

That is what the prochoice keeps saying. A FETUS IS NOT A CHILD! Since a fetus is not a child, then just as a woman can decide to have an abortion, the man should be able to simply walk away. Prochoice logic has no concern for the welfare of the individual fetus because it does not have "personhood". A baby that has been born is not relevant to this conversation (according to prochoice logic).

Repeating your flawed logic does not erase the flaw. You're still saying because a woman has the right to get out of being a parent where there is no child, a father should have the right to get out of being a parent where there is a child.

And the other side of the argument is that a woman has the right to KILL the child. To end its very existence. He states that a man simply should not be forced to pay for it. The other side demands that he pay but that she should be able to erase its very existence.

Interesting that the pro-choice seems to think that a child who is not allowed to even exist is a better more ‘moral’ outcome than a child that is not supported by the father. That is pretzel logic if I have ever seen it.

 

[Faun]

Sorry, there is no child, unless the woman decides so. Prochoice logic dictates that the man stays out of that decision. When the man decides to walk away there is no child.

That is what the prochoice keeps saying. A FETUS IS NOT A CHILD! Since a fetus is not a child, then just as a woman can decide to have an abortion, the man should be able to simply walk away. Prochoice logic has no concern for the welfare of the individual fetus because it does not have "personhood". A baby that has been born is not relevant to this conversation (according to prochoice logic).

Repeating your flawed logic does not erase the flaw. You're still saying because a woman has the right to get out of being a parent where there is no child, a father should have the right to get out of being a parent where there is a child.

And the other side of the argument is that a woman has the right to KILL the child. To end its very existence. He states that a man simply should not be forced to pay for it. The other side demands that he pay but that she should be able to erase its very existence.

Interesting that the pro-choice seems to think that a child who is not allowed to even exist is a better more ‘moral’ outcome than a child that is not supported by the father. That is pretzel logic if I have ever seen it.

Since it's the women's body, it's her right not to remain pregnant. When men can get pregnant, then they too will have that right. Until then, men don't get to evade raising their own children.

 

[Faun]

Sorry, there is no child, unless the woman decides so. Prochoice logic dictates that the man stays out of that decision. When the man decides to walk away there is no child.

That is what the prochoice keeps saying. A FETUS IS NOT A CHILD! Since a fetus is not a child, then just as a woman can decide to have an abortion, the man should be able to simply walk away. Prochoice logic has no concern for the welfare of the individual fetus because it does not have "personhood". A baby that has been born is not relevant to this conversation (according to prochoice logic).

Repeating your flawed logic does not erase the flaw. You're still saying because a woman has the right to get out of being a parent where there is no child, a father should have the right to get out of being a parent where there is a child.

I'm using the logic used by those that are prochoice. Now here you go and call it flawed logic!
And stop saying there is a child in the case of the father. There is no child because a fetus is not a child.

At the point in time when the man walks there is no child. Thus the ball is in the woman's court to have a child or not. It's the woman's choice! That's what prochoice people argue for the woman. The man has absolutely no say in that choice -- for the woman to either give birth or have an abortion. If the woman decides to go on and have a baby after the man walks, then that decision is hers and the responsibility of that decision is on her. Is this flawed logic? If so, then the logic of the prochoice is flawed because that is the logic I'm parroting back to you. The logic of "I owe no responsibility to the child because a fetus is not a child"!

Unfortunately, we have hit an impasse. You think you're applying the same logic and regrettably, you can't even see you're not. And I never said the fetus was a child in the case of the father. This remains yet another example of how you can't grasp why your logic suffers a gapping head wound, of which there is no return.

 

[BobPlumb]

Repeating your flawed logic does not erase the flaw. You're still saying because a woman has the right to get out of being a parent where there is no child, a father should have the right to get out of being a parent where there is a child.

I'm using the logic used by those that are prochoice. Now here you go and call it flawed logic!
And stop saying there is a child in the case of the father. There is no child because a fetus is not a child.

At the point in time when the man walks there is no child. Thus the ball is in the woman's court to have a child or not. It's the woman's choice! That's what prochoice people argue for the woman. The man has absolutely no say in that choice -- for the woman to either give birth or have an abortion. If the woman decides to go on and have a baby after the man walks, then that decision is hers and the responsibility of that decision is on her. Is this flawed logic? If so, then the logic of the prochoice is flawed because that is the logic I'm parroting back to you. The logic of "I owe no responsibility to the child because a fetus is not a child"!

Unfortunately, we have hit an impasse. You think you're applying the same logic and regrettably, you can't even see you're not. And I never said the fetus was a child in the case of the father. This remains yet another example of how you can't grasp why your logic suffers a gapping head wound, of which there is no return.

Just because you deny that I am applying the same logic does not make if not so. The logic of prochoice is wrapped up in the timing that a fetus is not a person so that the rights of a woman's privacy trumps any right that the fetus/ future child has to life and responsible parents. Whenever there is a discussion between those that are prolife and those that are prochoice, the prochoice will scream from the mountain tops that fetuses are not people to justify their position. It does not matter to the prochoice that the human in process of development will reach the born baby stage in just a few weeks. At the time of abortion they scream that a fetus is not a person. Using the same logic, it does not matter if a woman decides to carry a pregnancy to term. Before the fetus becomes a child, the man should have the same right to avoid the responsibility of becoming parent. The logic is all about the timing, a timing you are willing you accept for the woman but you deny for the man.

 

[Faun]

I'm using the logic used by those that are prochoice. Now here you go and call it flawed logic!
And stop saying there is a child in the case of the father. There is no child because a fetus is not a child.

At the point in time when the man walks there is no child. Thus the ball is in the woman's court to have a child or not. It's the woman's choice! That's what prochoice people argue for the woman. The man has absolutely no say in that choice -- for the woman to either give birth or have an abortion. If the woman decides to go on and have a baby after the man walks, then that decision is hers and the responsibility of that decision is on her. Is this flawed logic? If so, then the logic of the prochoice is flawed because that is the logic I'm parroting back to you. The logic of "I owe no responsibility to the child because a fetus is not a child"!

Unfortunately, we have hit an impasse. You think you're applying the same logic and regrettably, you can't even see you're not. And I never said the fetus was a child in the case of the father. This remains yet another example of how you can't grasp why your logic suffers a gapping head wound, of which there is no return.

Just because you deny that I am applying the same logic does not make if not so. The logic of prochoice is wrapped up in the timing that a fetus is not a person so that the rights of a woman's privacy trumps any right that the fetus/ future child has to life and responsible parents. Whenever there is a discussion between those that are prolife and those that are prochoice, the prochoice will scream from the mountain tops that fetuses are not people to justify their position. It does not matter to the prochoice that the human in process of development will reach the born baby stage in just a few weeks. At the time of abortion they scream that a fetus is not a person. Using the same logic, it does not matter if a woman decides to carry a pregnancy to term. Before the fetus becomes a child, the man should have the same right to avoid the responsibility of becoming parent. The logic is all about the timing, a timing you are willing you accept for the woman but you deny for the man.

Right back atcha ... just because you think you're applying the same logic, doesn't mean you are. No matter how you say it, you're still saying that men should be allowed to opt out of raising a born child because women can opt out of being pregnant with a fetus. The two are not the same.