Male's right to abortion.

[Spiderman]

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.

IOW never never never trust a woman even your wife when she says she's on the pill.

 

[Politico]

Unless you are going to grant the male equal say the law is a farce. There have been instances of men wanting the child and the woman aborting it anyway. A just society would allow for a man to disavow responsibility within the period at which abortions are legal.

Actually, a just society would outlaw abortion, but since that's not happening, giving men second class status when they are half of the baby is an abomination.

Which is exactly why Roe v Wade is bullshit,

But as it stands unless you want to pay for a baby momma's nails for the next 18, zip it don't hit it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I think missing in all this is the fact that the woman actually carries the child in her body during this period hence the extra legal right to abort the pregnancy.

Men believe they have the right to control her body, though. Their sperm is more important than the fact that she uses her body for nine months to create that baby.

Men, are programmed genetically, to say and do whatever is necessary to gain free access to your vagina (and other assorted fun parts).

They would, if you played your cards right, PAINT YOUR HOUSE, on the CHANCE that their reward would be some 'down(there) time'.

Yet, despite this natural and what can only be described as SUPREME power over men, (most men anyway) the ladies seem to have inexplicably succumbed to the principle-less notions of the Ideological Left, and surrendered their favors, in pursuit of those who have LITERALLY STARTED and GONE TO WAR, to have a CHANCE at getting what they've got.

Today's females are, in large margin, (not every single one, but the adherents to pop culture surely are) analogous to a BANK which has decided to get more customers, by giving away its MONEY!

Sure, traffic picks up in the short run, but it doesn't last long and when the rush is over, NO ONE wants to put THEIR MONEY, in YOU!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Being female does not mean you are born with the right to kill babies

tapatalk post

No babies are being killed.

HEY! LOOK KIDS! It's a Deceitful conclusion being FRAUDULENTLY advanced as a means to influence the Ignorant.

Deceit <=> FRAUD <=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<

 

[freedombecki]

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?

Her body is not his domain according to the law as I understand it, Bob.

The moral of this story is if a guy doesn't want to pay for his pecker's product, he shouldn't be pecking around.

 

[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?

Her body is not his domain according to the law as I understand it, Bob.

The moral of this story is if a guy doesn't want to pay for his pecker's product, he shouldn't be pecking around.

Yes, the law is understood. This op is not about what the law is. It's about if whether those who are prochoice will be consistent.

 

[freedombecki]

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?

Her body is not his domain according to the law as I understand it, Bob.

The moral of this story is if a guy doesn't want to pay for his pecker's product, he shouldn't be pecking around.

Yes, the law is understood. This op is not about what the law is. It's about if whether those who are prochoice will be consistent.

My bad! I failed to see the "No Pro Life Opinion" sign.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Unless you are going to grant the male equal say the law is a farce. There have been instances of men wanting the child and the woman aborting it anyway. A just society would allow for a man to disavow responsibility within the period at which abortions are legal.

Actually, a just society would outlaw abortion, but since that's not happening, giving men second class status when they are half of the baby is an abomination.

Which is exactly why Roe v Wade is bullshit,

But as it stands unless you want to pay for a baby momma's nails for the next 18, zip it don't hit it.

Both of these posts are ignorant nonsense.

The state doesn’t have the authority to ‘grant’ anyone a ‘say’ concerning a citizen’s right to privacy; our civil liberties are not subject to majority rule.

Griswold/Eisenstadt/Roe/Casey represents settled and accepted case law appropriately restricting the state’s authority to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not; just as the state is not allowed to interfere with a woman’s right to privacy, so too is the father restricted from interfering with that right.

Parental rights and responsibilities manifest only postnatally, as prior to birth the woman’s rights are paramount, where the embryo/fetus lacks Constitutional protections, and the women alone is adversely affected by the dictates of the state.

 

[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?

Her body is not his domain according to the law as I understand it, Bob.

The moral of this story is if a guy doesn't want to pay for his pecker's product, he shouldn't be pecking around.

Yes, the law is understood. This op is not about what the law is. It's about if whether those who are prochoice will be consistent.

If you understand the law then you understand that the law is being applied in a consistent manner – where prior to birth, no outside entity is allowed to interfere with a woman’s right to make decisions both personal and private, including the state or the father.

 

[Faun]

Being female does not mean you are born with the right to kill babies

tapatalk post

No babies are being killed.

HEY! LOOK KIDS! It's a Deceitful conclusion being FRAUDULENTLY advanced as a means to influence the Ignorant.u

Deceit <=> FRAUD <=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<

There is no fraud being committed here. Just because you're out of your mind doesn't mean the rest of us don't know the definition of the word, "baby."

 

[House]

I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all people... both born & unborn.

I also believe in survival of the fittest... both born & unborn.

So, after the fetus is removed from the womb, may the fittest fetus survive. Those that do are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This view represents both conservative & liberal values.

Who says compromise is impossible?

 

[BobPlumb]

Her body is not his domain according to the law as I understand it, Bob.

The moral of this story is if a guy doesn't want to pay for his pecker's product, he shouldn't be pecking around.

Yes, the law is understood. This op is not about what the law is. It's about if whether those who are prochoice will be consistent.

If you understand the law then you understand that the law is being applied in a consistent manner – where prior to birth, no outside entity is allowed to interfere with a woman’s right to make decisions both personal and private, including the state or the father.

The OP purposes a change in the law. So it is not about what the law is but about what the law should be.

Currently a woman may avoid the responsibilities of parenthood by having an abortion. A man does not currently have the authority to decide to avoid the responsibities during the time that the fetus is not a child, even though the birth control method of abortion is available to the woman. That is inconsistent.

The woman will retain the final decision as to have an abortion or not so her right to abortion remains the same.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, the law is understood. This op is not about what the law is. It's about if whether those who are prochoice will be consistent.

If you understand the law then you understand that the law is being applied in a consistent manner – where prior to birth, no outside entity is allowed to interfere with a woman’s right to make decisions both personal and private, including the state or the father.

The OP purposes a change in the law. So it is not about what the law is but about what the law should be.

Currently a woman may avoid the responsibilities of parenthood by having an abortion. A man does not currently have the authority to decide to avoid the responsibities during the time that the fetus is not a child, even though the birth control method of abortion is available to the woman. That is inconsistent.

The woman will retain the final decision as to have an abortion or not so her right to abortion remains the same.

There is no ‘law’ to change,

And to seek to ‘overturn’ Griswold/Eisenstadt/Roe/Casey is madness, as it would seriously undermine our right to privacy and afford the state unwarranted authority to interfere in our personal lives, of which abortion is but one aspect of privacy.

 

[candycorn]

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 staunchly pro choice.

I do not think you are wrong in the least.

It seems like an unlevel playing field at best.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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?

'Murder' is a legal definition, like 'insane.' Murder is an unjustifiable and unlawful slaying of another human being. So long as abortion is legal, it cannot be murder. It's still the premeditated slaying of a human being though both biologically and ethically. Just a legally allowed one.

As to a male's rights as described, it seems sensible. So long as our country is going to allow termination of human life because it's still inside another person like.

Takes two to make life. Though females carry the babies, it didn't get there by itself. So ending that created life should involve two as well, not just one. Abortion should require both the father and the mother's consent. Otherwise you're enabling the female to potentially terminate a father's child against his wishes.

Abortion is not a health choice or right, it involves a 3rd party which should be afforded all the legal rights and protections as with exvitro life. I don't support a complete prohibition on abortion, I think in some cases it's the thing to do as with rape or if carrying the child poses a health risk serious enough to the mother that termination is preferable. But as birth control, or some other heinous option those should be outlawed.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It appears the OP wants to give men the legal right to force women to abort.

That's no different from having a law that forces women to reproduce.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

If you don't want to be on the hook for 18 years of raising a child, don't get knocked up.

It cuts both ways.

I have no sympathy for a woman who cannot prevent herself from becoming pregnant.

 

[BobPlumb]

It appears the OP wants to give men the legal right to force women to abort.

That's no different from having a law that forces women to reproduce.

Wrong, due to biology the woman would have the final say in having an abortion or not.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It appears the OP wants to give men the legal right to force women to abort.

That's no different from having a law that forces women to reproduce.

Wrong, due to biology the woman would have the final say in having an abortion or not.

Well then, what has this thread been about?

 

[editec]

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?

Forcing the women to have or NOT to have the procedure is the problem.

Yes men gets fucked because of that.

Blame mother nature for it. Life is not fair.