Male's right to abortion.

[Michelle420]

And yet the mothers ability to kill his child is not just as messed up?

Men should have a right

You have a right to not put the unwanted baby there in the first place.

I agree with that personally.

 

[Katzndogz]

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?

You can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental rights, which will also relinquish any obligation or responsibility.

Both parties can do that.

2nd but not likely to happen, a pre-talk with potential sex partner about their stand on abortion/pregnancy once you know where they stand if you disagree choose not to sleep together.

A person can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental RIGHTS. What they cannot do is terminate parental RESPONSIBILITIES. Otherwise millions of men would have done it by now.

 

[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?

If you don't want to be on the hook for 18 years of child support, don't knock anyone up.

Pretty simple concept. I have no sympathy for a man in that position.

That is also an antiabortion argument. Are you now antiabortion?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You did.

No, I didn't.

Yeah, you did. That's why you deleted the rest of my comment and yours which I quoted.

The rest of your comment was irrelevant.

Please quote me where I said I wanted the government involved.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If you don't want to be on the hook for 18 years of child support, don't knock anyone up.

Pretty simple concept. I have no sympathy for a man in that position.

That is also an antiabortion argument. Are you now antiabortion?

I was never "pro abortion."

 

[Pennywise]

No, I didn't.

Yeah, you did. That's why you deleted the rest of my comment and yours which I quoted.

The rest of your comment was irrelevant.

Please quote me where I said I wanted the government involved.

It's implied. You understand implied? Apparently not.

You "have no sympathy" regarding child support payments. Who determines child support? And who will put you in prison for failure to pay? Chuck E Cheese?

You can keep this going if you want, but you have no ground, so why not just exit the discussion.

 

[BobPlumb]

If you don't want to be on the hook for 18 years of child support, don't knock anyone up.

Pretty simple concept. I have no sympathy for a man in that position.

That is also an antiabortion argument. Are you now antiabortion?

I was never "pro abortion."

So you are not in favor of abortion being legal?

 

[Michelle420]

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?

You can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental rights, which will also relinquish any obligation or responsibility.

Both parties can do that.

2nd but not likely to happen, a pre-talk with potential sex partner about their stand on abortion/pregnancy once you know where they stand if you disagree choose not to sleep together.

A person can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental RIGHTS. What they cannot do is terminate parental RESPONSIBILITIES. Otherwise millions of men would have done it by now.

Can I have the rights of the other parent terminated?
Probably not. Courts generally think children should have 2 parents and don’t want to
terminate the rights of one parent unless there is a very good reason. This is true even if both
parents agree to the termination.

About the only reason to terminate the rights of the other parent is if your current spouse
wants to adopt the children. If the other parent agrees to the termination, you can file a
petition with the local Juvenile Court asking the court to terminate the other parent’s rights
and allow your spouse to adopt your children. Your children’s other parent will need to give
his or her consent in writing.

But,
 If you are not remarried, or
 if you are but your spouse doesn’t want to adopt, or
 if the other parent doesn’t agree with the termination,
it is almost impossible to do.

It is even harder if you or your children get any sort of public
benefits. Taking away a parent’s rights also takes away their responsibility to support the
children. If there is any chance they can afford support, the state will not be willing to end
their parental rights if it means you or the children need public benefits.

http://www.lawhelpmn.org/files/1765...C9C37/f-10-termination-of-parental-rights.pdf

Termination of parental rights is not an easy thing to do, courts are not quick to grant it. But once they do your financial responsibility is also relinquished.

Typically this happens when a parent puts their baby up for adoption and they adoptive parents are now responsible.

But in cases of abuse there can also be termination of parental rights.

I never said it was an easy thing to get done.

However, in looking at what the original person posting said, if women have the right to abort should men have the right to terminate their parental rights?

That seems to be the question.

 

[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?

It’s not a ‘position,’ it’s a fact of law that abortion is indeed not ‘murder.’

Otherwise, yes – you are wrong.

You’re confusing two completely difference issues, one having nothing to do with the other, and your premise fails accordingly.

A woman’s right to privacy has to do with the fact that prior to birth, the woman alone is subject to the dictates of the state.

As the Supreme Court observed in Casey:

"t cannot be claimed that the father's interest in the fetus' welfare is equal to the mother's protected liberty, since it is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the fetus will have a far greater impact on the pregnant woman's bodily integrity than it will on the husband."

Moreover, the Casey Court reaffirmed the fact that prior to birth, the embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections:

'[A]s a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."'

Given the fact, therefore, that the right to privacy pertains to the woman only, and where one is not a person entitled to Constitutional protections until after he is born, that a woman proceeds with her pregnancy over the objections of the father has no bearing whatsoever on the father’s potential responsibility as a non-custodial parent when the child is born.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Yeah, you did. That's why you deleted the rest of my comment and yours which I quoted.

The rest of your comment was irrelevant.

Please quote me where I said I wanted the government involved.

It's implied.

So you can't quote it. Thank you.

You "have no sympathy" regarding child support payments. Who determines child support? And who will put you in prison for failure to pay? Chuck E Cheese?

You can keep this going if you want, but you have no ground, so why not just exit the discussion.

Of course I have ground. You are either a liar or you don't read very well because I never implied any such thing.

Child support is the law. That's a plain and simple fact. It has nothing to do with my opinion on whether or not it should exist at all nor is that the topic of this discussion. You're the one who read into something that wasn't there and that's your problem, not mine.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That is also an antiabortion argument. Are you now antiabortion?

I was never "pro abortion."

So you are not in favor of abortion being legal?

Yes, I'm in favor of abortion being legal.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I was never "pro abortion."

So you are not in favor of abortion being legal?

Yes, I'm in favor of abortion being legal.

Which is completely different than being "in favor" of abortion.

 

[thanatos144]

I was never "pro abortion."

So you are not in favor of abortion being legal?

Yes, I'm in favor of abortion being legal.

then your pro baby killing.

 

[thanatos144]

So you are not in favor of abortion being legal?

Yes, I'm in favor of abortion being legal.

Which is completely different than being "in favor" of abortion.

only to XXXX

Zone 1 Rules: Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No negative repping. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So, women should be 100% responsible for a live birth even though the male is 50% responsible for the pregnancy?

This is what dead beat dads believe and, on a very practical level, they're correct.

IMO, both men and women have sovereign rights over their own bodies. They also have responsibility for their actions and equal responsibility for their children.

If you don't want to support your children, don't make them. Take responsibility for what you say and do.

and thus you prove the hypocrisy that the OP is talking about.

Nope. You make the accusation but cannot back it up with facts

The hypocrisy is that some believe women are 100% responsible for pregnancy. They want government to control women but not men.

Both are equally responsible and should be held equally responsible for support. But, they are not.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So you are not in favor of abortion being legal?

Yes, I'm in favor of abortion being legal.

then your pro baby killing.

Whoa, we've got quite the intellectual here. You a Harvard man? Maybe Yale? You're so sophisticated.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That is also an antiabortion argument. Are you now antiabortion?

I was never "pro abortion."

So you are not in favor of abortion being legal?

No one is ‘pro-abortion.’

Everyone is in agreement that the practice of abortion needs to be ended.

The disagreement and conflict manifest as to how to reach that goal, where one faction wants to ‘ban’ abortion, in violation of the Constitutional right to privacy, thus giving more unwarranted power to the state to interfere in our private lives – not to mention the fact that ‘banning’ abortion will in no way end the practice; and the faction that seeks to restrict the authority of the state, allowing the individual to make decisions concerning private matters absent interference from the state, while working to find ways that will actually bring about an end to the practice of abortion that comport with Constitutional case law.

 

[thanatos144]

Yes, I'm in favor of abortion being legal.

then your pro baby killing.

Whoa, we've got quite the intellectual here. You a Harvard man? Maybe Yale? You're so sophisticated.

I just dont lie like you seem to do to yourself.

 

[thanatos144]

I was never "pro abortion."

So you are not in favor of abortion being legal?

No one is ‘pro-abortion.’

Everyone is in agreement that the practice of abortion needs to be ended.

The disagreement and conflict manifest as to how to reach that goal, where one faction wants to ‘ban’ abortion, in violation of the Constitutional right to privacy, thus giving more unwarranted power to the state to interfere in our private lives – not to mention the fact that ‘banning’ abortion will in no way end the practice; and the faction that seeks to restrict the authority of the state, allowing the individual to make decisions concerning private matters absent interference from the state, while working to find ways that will actually bring about an end to the practice of abortion that comport with Constitutional case law.

if you defend the right of a woman to kill her innocent unborn child you are pro abortion and lying to yourself doesn't change that.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

then your pro baby killing.

Whoa, we've got quite the intellectual here. You a Harvard man? Maybe Yale? You're so sophisticated.

I just dont lie like you seem to do to yourself.

You just did.