Abortion: Why Men Don't Get A Say

[Valerie]

The man's "say so" occurs in peak of the moment and after the fact only goes so far as his ability to communicate with his sexual partner. Her body, her choice at that point.

Then the man should be able to say "my paycheck my choice"

Again I ask, why do yall feel that men have no feelings or that if they do, they don't matter?

Don't put words in my mouth...I know men have feelings.

 

[dilloduck]

The man's "say so" occurs in peak of the moment and after the fact only goes so far as his ability to communicate with his sexual partner. Her body, her choice at that point.

Then the man should be able to say "my paycheck my choice"

Again I ask, why do yall feel that men have no feelings or that if they do, they don't matter?

Don't put words in my mouth...I know men have feelings.

When you can accidently impregnate yourself I'll be all for your right to "fix" it.

 

[ConHog]

because they don't bear the repercussions of carrying the pregnancy to term.

you have every right to make whatever determination for yourself that you think is appropriate.

you have no right to make such determinations for anyone else. and i always find it really funny when the people who claim to want 'small government' want to legislate relationships between people. if a woman's relationship with the person who got her pregnant is a good one, she will take his opinion into consideration. if it isn't, she won't.

and someone has to have final say. it should be the person whose body it is.

or do you think a man should have veto power?

Absolutely a man should have veto powers to abortion, he should NOT be able to force a woman to get one, but neither should HE be forced to endure the pain of losing a child he wants.

Is it that you don't think men have feelings, or is that you don't care about their feelings? Let me tell you, I was in the room when both of my children were born, the emotions I felt were incredible, I can even think about how crushing it would have been for a woman to have robbed me of that experience.

Why is being a man hater acceptable on this board and in this country?

i love men. and if that decision were something i had to make, the man in my life would be included in the decision-making process.

but no man has the right to force me to be an incubator.

it's really that simple.

or do you think government should legislate a woman not hurting your feelings?

did someone force you to have sex?

and why can't the same government that can force a man to be a walking wallet for a woman to be an incubator? The ONLY explanation for your position is that you just flat don't care what men think PERIOD. Because LOGIC would dictate that if the government can compel one party to do something they should be able to COMPEL the other party to do something. or are you also against mandatory child support?

 

[ConHog]

The man's "say so" occurs in peak of the moment and after the fact only goes so far as his ability to communicate with his sexual partner. Her body, her choice at that point.

Then the man should be able to say "my paycheck my choice"

Again I ask, why do yall feel that men have no feelings or that if they do, they don't matter?

Don't put words in my mouth...I know men have feelings.

so, you just don't care. Compared to a woman's they are nothing, that's what you're saying

 

[jillian]

Absolutely a man should have veto powers to abortion, he should NOT be able to force a woman to get one, but neither should HE be forced to endure the pain of losing a child he wants.

Is it that you don't think men have feelings, or is that you don't care about their feelings? Let me tell you, I was in the room when both of my children were born, the emotions I felt were incredible, I can even think about how crushing it would have been for a woman to have robbed me of that experience.

Why is being a man hater acceptable on this board and in this country?

i love men. and if that decision were something i had to make, the man in my life would be included in the decision-making process.

but no man has the right to force me to be an incubator.

it's really that simple.

or do you think government should legislate a woman not hurting your feelings?

did someone force you to have sex?

and why can't the same government that can force a man to be a walking wallet for a woman to be an incubator? The ONLY explanation for your position is that you just flat don't care what men think PERIOD. Because LOGIC would dictate that if the government can compel one party to do something they should be able to COMPEL the other party to do something. or are you also against mandatory child support?

interestingly, i've always made more money than my husband. i have no issues with that. but you can keep your 'walking wallet for a woman' BS to yourself. Or should I say "MY" wallet, my choice?

talk about red-herrings.

and don't put words in my mouth.

and if you notice, my post was edited before you posted. men have no right to force women

and no one told the guy to have sex either. *shrug*

the ONLY question is what level of government intrusion should there be over a woman.

any other inquiry is self-serving.

next thing you know, you'll want the 'protect con's feelings' party to lobby for legislation to keep people from being mean to you.

wahhhhhhhhhhh

 

[dilloduck]

i love men. and if that decision were something i had to make, the man in my life would be included in the decision-making process.

but no man has the right to force me to be an incubator.

it's really that simple.

or do you think government should legislate a woman not hurting your feelings?

did someone force you to have sex?

and why can't the same government that can force a man to be a walking wallet for a woman to be an incubator? The ONLY explanation for your position is that you just flat don't care what men think PERIOD. Because LOGIC would dictate that if the government can compel one party to do something they should be able to COMPEL the other party to do something. or are you also against mandatory child support?

interestingly, i've always made more money than my husband.

and don't put words in my mouth.

the ONLY question is what level of government intrusion should there be over a woman.

any other inquiry is self-serving.

babies are an "intrusion" now

 

[ConHog]

i love men. and if that decision were something i had to make, the man in my life would be included in the decision-making process.

but no man has the right to force me to be an incubator.

it's really that simple.

or do you think government should legislate a woman not hurting your feelings?

did someone force you to have sex?

and why can't the same government that can force a man to be a walking wallet for a woman to be an incubator? The ONLY explanation for your position is that you just flat don't care what men think PERIOD. Because LOGIC would dictate that if the government can compel one party to do something they should be able to COMPEL the other party to do something. or are you also against mandatory child support?

interestingly, i've always made more money than my husband. i have no issues with that. but you can keep your 'walking wallet for a woman' BS to yourself. Or should I say "MY" wallet, my choice?

talk about red-herrings.

and don't put words in my mouth.

the ONLY question is what level of government intrusion should there be over a woman.

any other inquiry is self-serving.

fair enough, with you we'll argue JUST this point. Do you feel it appropriate for the government to intrude in a man's life for 18 years (minimum) by making him pay for a child that he didn't want? If so, then why can't that same government dictate that a woman have a child that she doesn't want? Why do you care about intrusion into a woman's life , but not a man's?

And in general terms it is a FACT that many single mothers out there treat the father's of their children as nothing but wallets, your situation and or the fact that you don't want to admit that just doesn't change facts.

 

[ConHog]

did someone force you to have sex?

and why can't the same government that can force a man to be a walking wallet for a woman to be an incubator? The ONLY explanation for your position is that you just flat don't care what men think PERIOD. Because LOGIC would dictate that if the government can compel one party to do something they should be able to COMPEL the other party to do something. or are you also against mandatory child support?

interestingly, i've always made more money than my husband.

and don't put words in my mouth.

the ONLY question is what level of government intrusion should there be over a woman.

any other inquiry is self-serving.

babies are an "intrusion" now

either an intrusion, or a source of income it would seem

 

[dilloduck]

did someone force you to have sex?

and why can't the same government that can force a man to be a walking wallet for a woman to be an incubator? The ONLY explanation for your position is that you just flat don't care what men think PERIOD. Because LOGIC would dictate that if the government can compel one party to do something they should be able to COMPEL the other party to do something. or are you also against mandatory child support?

interestingly, i've always made more money than my husband. i have no issues with that. but you can keep your 'walking wallet for a woman' BS to yourself. Or should I say "MY" wallet, my choice?

talk about red-herrings.

and don't put words in my mouth.

the ONLY question is what level of government intrusion should there be over a woman.

any other inquiry is self-serving.

fair enough, with you we'll argue JUST this point. Do you feel it appropriate for the government to intrude in a man's life for 18 years (minimum) by making him pay for a child that he didn't want? If so, then why can't that same government dictate that a woman have a child that she doesn't want? Why do you care about intrusion into a woman's life , but not a man's?

And in general terms it is a FACT that many single mothers out there treat the father's of their children as nothing but wallets, your situation and or the fact that you don't want to admit that just doesn't change facts.

two wallets here---the father's and the taxpayer's

 

[FA_Q2]

The OP is carp to be honest. No one should EVER have the right to force an abortion on anyone and I do not think anyone would ever suppose that. I do belive that it is HALLARIOUS that you can call it murder when a man does it and a legal abortion when the women does it. The law can not agree with itself in this respect.

As to giving the man a choice to walk away, that is another deal altogether. It is completely unfair and quite oppressive to men when giving a women a ton of options and taking them completely away from the man. It is not simply abortion ether. She can also give the child up for adoption. On the other hand, what are the ramifications. If you are against abortions then it is rather disingenuous to allow the man to walk away as you would be encouraging abortions as well as giving the man an out where the women did not have one. I cannot get behind something that would actually encourage fatherless families as that in of itself is a bad thing. As the law stands today, there is a real consequence for not being there for your child as there should be. At that same token, child support needs to be MASSIVELY rewritten and amounts paid need to be tied far close to actual expense and time. If there is 50/50 custody then there should be no child support owed. There are many other factors that should be considered as well, to many to even begin a list.

As to not allowing a woman to have an abortion, that is bullshit as well. A man should never have sway over a woman's body. If you want it that way then we need to simply make abortion illegal, not only allow them if the father agrees. In that manner, what would prevent the woman simply stating that she does not know who the father is? No, there should never be a case when abortion is legal and not allowed because the man does not want it.

And lastly, the SCOTUS will NOT overturn abortion rights. I rather think this a funny issue because there are so many that actually think this is somewhat feasible in politics. Abortion is not going anywhere in the near term and the majority of people in this country want it that way. Most people are for limited abortion even if they are pro life because they understand that the ramifications of illegalizing abortion are far worse than allowing abortion to be in the open where it can be dealt with. By no means is abortion a good thing but neither is war. Both are necessary evils for the greater good in today's society. When there comes a time that there is no more need and fetuses can be extracted and perhaps adopted the need for abortion may end and illegalizing possible but in the world today I simply cannot see a feasible way of accomplishing this and still maintaining a free society.

 

[dilloduck]

The OP is carp to be honest. No one should EVER have the right to force an abortion on anyone and I do not think anyone would ever suppose that. I do belive that it is HALLARIOUS that you can call it murder when a man does it and a legal abortion when the women does it. The law can not agree with itself in this respect.

As to giving the man a choice to walk away, that is another deal altogether. It is completely unfair and quite oppressive to men when giving a women a ton of options and taking them completely away from the man. It is not simply abortion ether. She can also give the child up for adoption. On the other hand, what are the ramifications. If you are against abortions then it is rather disingenuous to allow the man to walk away as you would be encouraging abortions as well as giving the man an out where the women did not have one. I cannot get behind something that would actually encourage fatherless families as that in of itself is a bad thing. As the law stands today, there is a real consequence for not being there for your child as there should be. At that same token, child support needs to be MASSIVELY rewritten and amounts paid need to be tied far close to actual expense and time. If there is 50/50 custody then there should be no child support owed. There are many other factors that should be considered as well, to many to even begin a list.

As to not allowing a woman to have an abortion, that is bullshit as well. A man should never have sway over a woman's body. If you want it that way then we need to simply make abortion illegal, not only allow them if the father agrees. In that manner, what would prevent the woman simply stating that she does not know who the father is? No, there should never be a case when abortion is legal and not allowed because the man does not want it.

And lastly, the SCOTUS will NOT overturn abortion rights. I rather think this a funny issue because there are so many that actually think this is somewhat feasible in politics. Abortion is not going anywhere in the near term and the majority of people in this country want it that way. Most people are for limited abortion even if they are pro life because they understand that the ramifications of illegalizing abortion are far worse than allowing abortion to be in the open where it can be dealt with. By no means is abortion a good thing but neither is war. Both are necessary evils for the greater good in today's society. When there comes a time that there is no more need and fetuses can be extracted and perhaps adopted the need for abortion may end and illegalizing possible but in the world today I simply cannot see a feasible way of accomplishing this and still maintaining a free society.

A woman demanding to be free of pregnancy as the result of sex ? Ludicrous. May as well demand to not have periods too.

 

[Valerie]

did someone force you to have sex?

and why can't the same government that can force a man to be a walking wallet for a woman to be an incubator? The ONLY explanation for your position is that you just flat don't care what men think PERIOD. Because LOGIC would dictate that if the government can compel one party to do something they should be able to COMPEL the other party to do something. or are you also against mandatory child support?

interestingly, i've always made more money than my husband. i have no issues with that. but you can keep your 'walking wallet for a woman' BS to yourself. Or should I say "MY" wallet, my choice?

talk about red-herrings.

and don't put words in my mouth.

the ONLY question is what level of government intrusion should there be over a woman.

any other inquiry is self-serving.

fair enough, with you we'll argue JUST this point. Do you feel it appropriate for the government to intrude in a man's life for 18 years (minimum) by making him pay for a child that he didn't want? If so, then why can't that same government dictate that a woman have a child that she doesn't want? Why do you care about intrusion into a woman's life , but not a man's?

You're the one who is calling the CHILD an intrusion..on the man.


This is a question of government intrusion upon a woman's choice to bear a child..Doesn't get any more "big government intrusion" than THAT.

As I said the man who impregnated her has his say in the peak of the moment and thereafter insofar as his ability to communicate with his sexual partner about her impending choice upon possible pregnancy, which hopefully they are both responsible for, but ultimately the decision is hers in the end.

 

[jillian]

interestingly, i've always made more money than my husband. i have no issues with that. but you can keep your 'walking wallet for a woman' BS to yourself. Or should I say "MY" wallet, my choice?

talk about red-herrings.

and don't put words in my mouth.

the ONLY question is what level of government intrusion should there be over a woman.

any other inquiry is self-serving.

fair enough, with you we'll argue JUST this point. Do you feel it appropriate for the government to intrude in a man's life for 18 years (minimum) by making him pay for a child that he didn't want? If so, then why can't that same government dictate that a woman have a child that she doesn't want? Why do you care about intrusion into a woman's life , but not a man's?

And in general terms it is a FACT that many single mothers out there treat the father's of their children as nothing but wallets, your situation and or the fact that you don't want to admit that just doesn't change facts.

two wallets here---the father's and the taxpayer's

thats a fair question, but not really on point. there is a societal interest in making sure people are not public charges. to that end, the legislature felt it appropriate to set minimum standards of child support and enforcement mechanisms

far more likely than a woman seeing the chlld's father as a 'check', is the probability that the dad won't pay a dime.

the largest group of people on welfare are single mothers (the majority of whom are while, btw).

if people really were 'pro life', they would pass legislation to make sure the single mom could get day care and school paid for or job training so she could afford to care for the child. they'd make sure that there were adoptive homes.

but they don't do those things.

anti-choice activists are punitive.

roe v wade decided that it was only after the first tri-mester that the governmental interest in protecting the prospective child outweighed the woman's interest in choice.

i think that was and is a fair balancing of interests.

and as a final note... women still die in childbirth. no one has the right to force us to endanger our lives in favor of prospective life. and again, someone has to have final say... it should not be the person who isn't pregnant.

or do you think that having the 'wallet' gives you veto power.

 

[dilloduck]

fair enough, with you we'll argue JUST this point. Do you feel it appropriate for the government to intrude in a man's life for 18 years (minimum) by making him pay for a child that he didn't want? If so, then why can't that same government dictate that a woman have a child that she doesn't want? Why do you care about intrusion into a woman's life , but not a man's?

And in general terms it is a FACT that many single mothers out there treat the father's of their children as nothing but wallets, your situation and or the fact that you don't want to admit that just doesn't change facts.

two wallets here---the father's and the taxpayer's

thats a fair question, but not really on point. there is a societal interest in making sure people are not public charges. to that end, the legislature felt it appropriate to set minimum standards of child support and enforcement mechanisms

far more likely than a woman seeing the chlld's father as a 'check', is the probability that the dad won't pay a dime.

the largest group of people on welfare are single mothers (the majority of whom are while, btw).

if people really were 'pro life', they would pass legislation to make sure the single mom could get day care and school paid for or job training so she could afford to care for the child. they'd make sure that there were adoptive homes.

but they don't do those things.

anti-choice activists are punitive.

roe v wade decided that it was only after the first tri-mester that the governmental interest in protecting the prospective child outweighed the woman's interest in choice.

i think that was and is a fair balancing of interests.

and as a final note... women still die in childbirth. no one has the right to force us to endanger our lives in favor of prospective life. and again, someone has to have final say... it should not be the person who isn't pregnant.

or do you think that having the 'wallet' gives you veto power.

Keep your legs together---no worries.

 

[ConHog]

fair enough, with you we'll argue JUST this point. Do you feel it appropriate for the government to intrude in a man's life for 18 years (minimum) by making him pay for a child that he didn't want? If so, then why can't that same government dictate that a woman have a child that she doesn't want? Why do you care about intrusion into a woman's life , but not a man's?

And in general terms it is a FACT that many single mothers out there treat the father's of their children as nothing but wallets, your situation and or the fact that you don't want to admit that just doesn't change facts.

two wallets here---the father's and the taxpayer's

thats a fair question, but not really on point. there is a societal interest in making sure people are not public charges. to that end, the legislature felt it appropriate to set minimum standards of child support and enforcement mechanisms

far more likely than a woman seeing the chlld's father as a 'check', is the probability that the dad won't pay a dime.

the largest group of people on welfare are single mothers (the majority of whom are while, btw).

if people really were 'pro life', they would pass legislation to make sure the single mom could get day care and school paid for or job training so she could afford to care for the child. they'd make sure that there were adoptive homes.

but they don't do those things.

anti-choice activists are punitive.

roe v wade decided that it was only after the first tri-mester that the governmental interest in protecting the prospective child outweighed the woman's interest in choice.

i think that was and is a fair balancing of interests.

and as a final note... women still die in childbirth. no one has the right to force us to endanger our lives in favor of prospective life.

You are incorrect in a few of your assumptions.

A) The child support laws are so stupid, and the bureaucracy so bloated that the states lose money in their attempts to collect. It would be cheaper for the states to say fuck it, no more CSE if a parent (and please stop saying dad because both moms and dads skip out on child support) won't voluntarily meet their obligation then we will just sent the custodial parent X amount of dollars a month and be done with it.

B) That is not a valid excuse to say okay we will intrude here, but not HERE. The original child support laws were of course set up to punitively punish MEN because when originally written it was unheard of for a man to get custody, and in fact is still VERY hard. They are not all about making sure children are provided for, not even close. If that were the case a father who wishes to have his child half the time would not have to pay ANY child support, but he does in almost every case I've ever heard of, and I am VERY involved in a father's rights advocacy group. I've talked to literally hundreds of men and listened to their stories.

C) The government is supposed to protect those who can't protect themselves. In THIS case that is neither the mother nor the father, but is the child. You posting that a baby is part of the mother's body does not make it so.

 

[ConHog]

interestingly, i've always made more money than my husband. i have no issues with that. but you can keep your 'walking wallet for a woman' BS to yourself. Or should I say "MY" wallet, my choice?

talk about red-herrings.

and don't put words in my mouth.

the ONLY question is what level of government intrusion should there be over a woman.

any other inquiry is self-serving.

fair enough, with you we'll argue JUST this point. Do you feel it appropriate for the government to intrude in a man's life for 18 years (minimum) by making him pay for a child that he didn't want? If so, then why can't that same government dictate that a woman have a child that she doesn't want? Why do you care about intrusion into a woman's life , but not a man's?

You're the one who is calling the CHILD an intrusion..on the man.


This is a question of government intrusion upon a woman's choice to bear a child..Doesn't get any more "big government intrusion" than THAT.

As I said the man who impregnated her has his say in the peak of the moment and thereafter insofar as his ability to communicate with his sexual partner about her impending choice upon possible pregnancy, which hopefully they are both responsible for, but ultimately the decision is hers in the end.

I was using Jillian's own terms you dolt.

 

[Valerie]

fair enough, with you we'll argue JUST this point. Do you feel it appropriate for the government to intrude in a man's life for 18 years (minimum) by making him pay for a child that he didn't want? If so, then why can't that same government dictate that a woman have a child that she doesn't want? Why do you care about intrusion into a woman's life , but not a man's?

You're the one who is calling the CHILD an intrusion..on the man.


This is a question of government intrusion upon a woman's choice to bear a child..Doesn't get any more "big government intrusion" than THAT.

As I said the man who impregnated her has his say in the peak of the moment and thereafter insofar as his ability to communicate with his sexual partner about her impending choice upon possible pregnancy, which hopefully they are both responsible for, but ultimately the decision is hers in the end.

I was using Jillian's own terms you dolt.

Who brought up the intrusion on a man's PAYCHECK?

 

[NYcarbineer]

women who believe that men should have no say in whether a woman get's an abortion but should be required to pay child support if she decided to keep the child against his wishes are clearly in favor of men being nothing more than sperm donors with wallets when convenient.

Why they hate men is anyone's guess.

When the men willfully engages in intercourse he has obligated himself, at that point, to child support, should a child result.

Then any woman who has willfully engaged in intercourse has obligated herself to having a child should one result. See how THAT works?

No, that's retarded. Abortion is a legal, constitutionally protected option.

 

[NYcarbineer]

women who believe that men should have no say in whether a woman get's an abortion but should be required to pay child support if she decided to keep the child against his wishes are clearly in favor of men being nothing more than sperm donors with wallets when convenient.

Why they hate men is anyone's guess.

When the men willfully engages in intercourse he has obligated himself, at that point, to child support, should a child result.

Then any woman who has willfully engaged in intercourse has obligated herself to having a child should one result. See how THAT works?

So...

you want any man who gets a woman pregnant to be able to free himself from any financial obligation to the child by merely saying he'd prefer she get an abortion?

 

[eagleseven]

So...

you want any man who gets a woman pregnant to be able to free himself from any financial obligation to the child by merely saying he'd prefer she get an abortion?

It flows logically from optional abortions.

Perhaps we should require all single-mothers to abort, by law? So that the only children that are born, are those wanted by two parents?