Male's right to abortion.

[thanatos144]

Abortion is evil. It kills a innocent life every time.

 

[BobPlumb]

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.

No, if the man waits until a child Is born it is too late. The opting out is done when there is no child acording to prochoice logic. If a child is born after the man opts out, the decision and the consequencies are 100% on the woman. After all, it is undeniably that the man has zero say in whether the woman has an abortion or not. If the man opts out, it is the woman who decides whether or not to bring a child into the world without a father. The child does not have a life unless the woman allows it to be born......according to prochoice logic.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_abortion

You are obviously wrong. No one has a right to force or coerce you to do anything of a sexual nature and you have no right to force or coerce anyone else to do anything of a sexual nature. I am disturbed that this question would need to be asked. You cannot force or coerce anyone else into such an action.

You, as a presumably male individual, have the option to get a vasectomy and end any risk of paternity suits. You, as a presumably male individual, have the option to insist on wearing a condom to reduce your risk of paternity or refuse sexual intercourse as a consequence of any protestations against your wearing a condom. The woman cannot force you to not wear a condom but instead she can decline to have intercourse because you insist on wearing a condom. The woman cannot force you to wear a condom but instead she can decline to have intercourse because you will not wear a condom. If any of these concepts are difficult for you, then I recommend you avoid sex all together. Both you and she have that right too.

It is a violation of the woman's inalienable rights for you to attempt to force or coerce the woman to undergo a medical procedure[1]. You cannot force a woman to take "the pill". You cannot force a woman to use "a sponge". You cannot force a woman to use "a diaphragm". You cannot force a woman into any sort of birth control. The only thing you can do is make sure that you, as your own individual within your own physical limits, are "protected" and/or ready to be a dad.

As for your proposed immunity to a paternity suit, again the answer is no. If you have sex with that woman, then you have put yourself at risk. If you shoot your sperm into a consenting female partner, you must be prepared to cope with the outcome of that action. You cannot come around later and force or coerce that once consenting partner to now submit to your medical demands on their person. If the sperm you willing injected into that partner develops into a baby, you will likely face a paternity suit and be legally obliged to support the child.

What you would have us believe is that if the woman repels your force and/or rejects your coercion, you may then be immune from the consequences of both your poor planning and actions of your own volition.

Frankly, the paternity suit will be the least of your worries if you try this at home.



[1] Note that the term "woman" pretermits any discussion of children or any other person unable to make decisions for themselves. If that is the issue here then maybe this thread does not belong in the clean zone.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

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.

You would have us believe that if you hammer a nail into someone else's head, you should be able to claim immunity from any and all liability when the victim refuses to let you pull it out.

 

[September]

Males can take their imaginary "right to abortion" and shove it up their ass. They aren't the ones delivering a baby.

 

[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?

Forced abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are obviously wrong. No one has a right to force or coerce you to do anything of a sexual nature and you have no right to force or coerce anyone else to do anything of a sexual nature. I am disturbed that this question would need to be asked. You cannot force or coerce anyone else into such an action.

You, as a presumably male individual, have the option to get a vasectomy and end any risk of paternity suits. You, as a presumably male individual, have the option to insist on wearing a condom to reduce your risk of paternity or refuse sexual intercourse as a consequence of any protestations against your wearing a condom. The woman cannot force you to not wear a condom but instead she can decline to have intercourse because you insist on wearing a condom. The woman cannot force you to wear a condom but instead she can decline to have intercourse because you will not wear a condom. If any of these concepts are difficult for you, then I recommend you avoid sex all together. Both you and she have that right too.

It is a violation of the woman's inalienable rights for you to attempt to force or coerce the woman to undergo a medical procedure[1]. You cannot force a woman to take "the pill". You cannot force a woman to use "a sponge". You cannot force a woman to use "a diaphragm". You cannot force a woman into any sort of birth control. The only thing you can do is make sure that you, as your own individual within your own physical limits, are "protected" and/or ready to be a dad.

As for your proposed immunity to a paternity suit, again the answer is no. If you have sex with that woman, then you have put yourself at risk. If you shoot your sperm into a consenting female partner, you must be prepared to cope with the outcome of that action. You cannot come around later and force or coerce that once consenting partner to now submit to your medical demands on their person. If the sperm you willing injected into that partner develops into a baby, you will likely face a paternity suit and be legally obliged to support the child.

What you would have us believe is that if the woman repels your force and/or rejects your coercion, you may then be immune from the consequences of both your poor planning and actions of your own volition.

Frankly, the paternity suit will be the least of your worries if you try this at home.



[1] Note that the term "woman" pretermits any discussion of children or any other person unable to make decisions for themselves. If that is the issue here then maybe this thread does not belong in the clean zone.

I am prolife in position and as such I do not agree with the premise of the OP. That being said, I find it ironic that so many who are prochoice with regard to the female pull out so many of the arguments used by the prolife when dealing with the responsibilities of the man. The purpose of the OP was to allow the prochoice to show this double standard.

Prochoice position:

For the pregnant female that does not want a baby -- "Don't worry sweetie, you can have an abortion".

This is a procedure which ends a human life that has no concern for the welfare of the future child.

For the male that impregnanted the female -- "idiot, you should have used a condom". If you don't want to be responsible for a child, then don't have sex. You have to be responsible for the child.

 

[Avatar4321]

As I am opposed to abortion, this may come as a shock to some but I've decided to compromise on this issue. If we end all non-male abortions, I will gladly support abortions for any man who is pregnant.

If any man is foolish enough to think he can have an abortion when he can't even get pregnant and carry a child to term, our education system is in far worse shape then previously thought.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The man does not carry the pregnancy. You're arguing for equal rights for two people who are not sufficiently equal in circumstances to demand equal rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Forced abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are obviously wrong. No one has a right to force or coerce you to do anything of a sexual nature and you have no right to force or coerce anyone else to do anything of a sexual nature. I am disturbed that this question would need to be asked. You cannot force or coerce anyone else into such an action.

You, as a presumably male individual, have the option to get a vasectomy and end any risk of paternity suits. You, as a presumably male individual, have the option to insist on wearing a condom to reduce your risk of paternity or refuse sexual intercourse as a consequence of any protestations against your wearing a condom. The woman cannot force you to not wear a condom but instead she can decline to have intercourse because you insist on wearing a condom. The woman cannot force you to wear a condom but instead she can decline to have intercourse because you will not wear a condom. If any of these concepts are difficult for you, then I recommend you avoid sex all together. Both you and she have that right too.

It is a violation of the woman's inalienable rights for you to attempt to force or coerce the woman to undergo a medical procedure[1]. You cannot force a woman to take "the pill". You cannot force a woman to use "a sponge". You cannot force a woman to use "a diaphragm". You cannot force a woman into any sort of birth control. The only thing you can do is make sure that you, as your own individual within your own physical limits, are "protected" and/or ready to be a dad.

As for your proposed immunity to a paternity suit, again the answer is no. If you have sex with that woman, then you have put yourself at risk. If you shoot your sperm into a consenting female partner, you must be prepared to cope with the outcome of that action. You cannot come around later and force or coerce that once consenting partner to now submit to your medical demands on their person. If the sperm you willing injected into that partner develops into a baby, you will likely face a paternity suit and be legally obliged to support the child.

What you would have us believe is that if the woman repels your force and/or rejects your coercion, you may then be immune from the consequences of both your poor planning and actions of your own volition.

Frankly, the paternity suit will be the least of your worries if you try this at home.



[1] Note that the term "woman" pretermits any discussion of children or any other person unable to make decisions for themselves. If that is the issue here then maybe this thread does not belong in the clean zone.

I am prolife in position and as such I do not agree with the premise of the OP. That being said, I find it ironic that so many who are prochoice with regard to the female pull out so many of the arguments used by the prolife when dealing with the responsibilities of the man. The purpose of the OP was to allow the prochoice to show this double standard.

Prochoice position:

For the pregnant female that does not want a baby -- "Don't worry sweetie, you can have an abortion".

This is a procedure which ends a human life that has no concern for the welfare of the future child.

For the male that impregnanted the female -- "idiot, you should have used a condom". If you don't want to be responsible for a child, then don't have sex. You have to be responsible for the child.

Everyone is pro-life and wishes to see abortion ended.

The disagreement centers on how to achieve that goal, where the ‘solution’ advocated by some is both un-Constitutional and no solution at all.

And this nonsense about a ‘man’s right’ is just another un-Constitutional non-solution.

 

[Faun]

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?

Forced abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are obviously wrong. No one has a right to force or coerce you to do anything of a sexual nature and you have no right to force or coerce anyone else to do anything of a sexual nature. I am disturbed that this question would need to be asked. You cannot force or coerce anyone else into such an action.

You, as a presumably male individual, have the option to get a vasectomy and end any risk of paternity suits. You, as a presumably male individual, have the option to insist on wearing a condom to reduce your risk of paternity or refuse sexual intercourse as a consequence of any protestations against your wearing a condom. The woman cannot force you to not wear a condom but instead she can decline to have intercourse because you insist on wearing a condom. The woman cannot force you to wear a condom but instead she can decline to have intercourse because you will not wear a condom. If any of these concepts are difficult for you, then I recommend you avoid sex all together. Both you and she have that right too.

It is a violation of the woman's inalienable rights for you to attempt to force or coerce the woman to undergo a medical procedure[1]. You cannot force a woman to take "the pill". You cannot force a woman to use "a sponge". You cannot force a woman to use "a diaphragm". You cannot force a woman into any sort of birth control. The only thing you can do is make sure that you, as your own individual within your own physical limits, are "protected" and/or ready to be a dad.

As for your proposed immunity to a paternity suit, again the answer is no. If you have sex with that woman, then you have put yourself at risk. If you shoot your sperm into a consenting female partner, you must be prepared to cope with the outcome of that action. You cannot come around later and force or coerce that once consenting partner to now submit to your medical demands on their person. If the sperm you willing injected into that partner develops into a baby, you will likely face a paternity suit and be legally obliged to support the child.

What you would have us believe is that if the woman repels your force and/or rejects your coercion, you may then be immune from the consequences of both your poor planning and actions of your own volition.

Frankly, the paternity suit will be the least of your worries if you try this at home.



[1] Note that the term "woman" pretermits any discussion of children or any other person unable to make decisions for themselves. If that is the issue here then maybe this thread does not belong in the clean zone.

I am prolife in position and as such I do not agree with the premise of the OP. That being said, I find it ironic that so many who are prochoice with regard to the female pull out so many of the arguments used by the prolife when dealing with the responsibilities of the man. The purpose of the OP was to allow the prochoice to show this double standard.

Prochoice position:

For the pregnant female that does not want a baby -- "Don't worry sweetie, you can have an abortion".

This is a procedure which ends a human life that has no concern for the welfare of the future child.

For the male that impregnanted the female -- "idiot, you should have used a condom". If you don't want to be responsible for a child, then don't have sex. You have to be responsible for the child.

The problem with your logic is that it's framed around the fallacy that there's a welfare for a future child in cases of abortion.

 

[Faun]

The irony of this thread is that if men were allowed to "opt out" of being financially responsible for their own children, it would only result in even more abortions by women who can't afford to raise a child without support from the father.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Abortion is evil. It kills a innocent life every time.

Then it should be a capital crime with life imprisonment or the death penalty as the punishment.

Can you imagine, those of you who are sane on this forum, the first time we executed a woman for having an abortion?

 

[thanatos144]

Males can take their imaginary "right to abortion" and shove it up their ass. They aren't the ones delivering a baby.

Nor are they the ones killing it for selfish reasons before it is born.

 

[Avatar4321]

Everyone is pro-life and wishes to see abortion ended.

The disagreement centers on how to achieve that goal, where the ‘solution’ advocated by some is both un-Constitutional and no solution at all.

And this nonsense about a ‘man’s right’ is just another un-Constitutional non-solution.

That's a complete and utter lie. If everyone was pro-life, there would be no abortion. If everyone wanted abortion to end there wouldn't be so many people fighting to keep it legal and profitable.

And there is no unconstitutional solution because the Constitution is absolutely silent about abortion. If anything, it bans abortion without Due process.

 

[Zmrzlina]

Here are a few examples of how you are wrong. The reason woman can decide to have an abortion is because their body is the host to the fetus. The man or any individual for that matter does not have dominion over another person's body. Child support payments are just that, financial support for the child that the individual helped create. Our society decided that we would be better off if father's helped support their offspring instead of having the mother or the state take on that role.

 

[Pop23]

The irony of this thread is that if men were allowed to "opt out" of being financially responsible for their own children, it would only result in even more abortions by women who can't afford to raise a child without support from the father.

Or women being more careful

 

[Avatar4321]

The irony of this thread is that if men were allowed to "opt out" of being financially responsible for their own children, it would only result in even more abortions by women who can't afford to raise a child without support from the father.

Or women being more careful

Please, it would just result in more people being wreckless.

 

[Pop23]

The irony of this thread is that if men were allowed to "opt out" of being financially responsible for their own children, it would only result in even more abortions by women who can't afford to raise a child without support from the father.

Or women being more careful

Please, it would just result in more people being wreckless.

I don't see that being the case.

Now a pregnancy can be used as a trap, if that were no longer the case (and yes, I've seen it used as a trap), there would be less, not more.

 

[FA_Q2]

Here are a few examples of how you are wrong. The reason woman can decide to have an abortion is because their body is the host to the fetus. The man or any individual for that matter does not have dominion over another person's body. Child support payments are just that, financial support for the child that the individual helped create. Our society decided that we would be better off if father's helped support their offspring instead of having the mother or the state take on that role.

That is the core difference. That really does not take away from the philosophical point that the OP makes though.

The facts are that life is not fair and neither is this scenario. At least we can admit that we are demanding something from the man that we are completely letting the woman off the hook for. It sucks for the man but oh well, there really is no 'fair' solution here.

That is one of the reasons that I don't like the term 'fair.' Life is very rarely fair at all.

 

[Zmrzlina]

At least we can admit that we are demanding something from the man that we are completely letting the woman off the hook for.

9 months of pregnancy, child birth and raising said child is hardly "letting women off the hook". If the man is not part of the child's life for whatever reason, all he is responsible for is sending a check to help support his offspring. That is absolutely fair.