Male's right to abortion.

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Pretty sure God doesn't like people killing his unborn children

tapatalk post

No doubt there are a lot of choices people make of which God does not approve. That changes neither womens' unalienable rights nor the fact that God made women the ones with a birth canal, giving them complete control of the life inside them.

Still wondering where in the constitution it forbids government from making laws to against killing the innocent

tapatalk post

It doesn’t, and no one ever said it did.

But abortion is neither ‘killing babies’ nor ‘killing the innocent.’

You might believe it is in the context of your personal, subjective opinion.

But as a fact of law it is not.

 

[thanatos144]

No doubt there are a lot of choices people make of which God does not approve. That changes neither womens' unalienable rights nor the fact that God made women the ones with a birth canal, giving them complete control of the life inside them.

Still wondering where in the constitution it forbids government from making laws to against killing the innocent

tapatalk post

It doesn’t, and no one ever said it did.

But abortion is neither ‘killing babies’ nor ‘killing the innocent.’

You might believe it is in the context of your personal, subjective opinion.

But as a fact of law it is not.

So what crime did the unborn commit that deserves the death penalty?

tapatalk post

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Still wondering where in the constitution it forbids government from making laws to against killing the innocent

tapatalk post

It doesn’t, and no one ever said it did.

But abortion is neither ‘killing babies’ nor ‘killing the innocent.’

You might believe it is in the context of your personal, subjective opinion.

But as a fact of law it is not.

So what crime did the unborn commit that deserves the death penalty?

tapatalk post

You’re confusing civil law with criminal law.

The death penalty is exacted in the context of criminal law, subject to procedural due process.

The right to privacy concerns civil law, subject to substantive due process, where the state may not dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not.

 

[thanatos144]

It doesn’t, and no one ever said it did.

But abortion is neither ‘killing babies’ nor ‘killing the innocent.’

You might believe it is in the context of your personal, subjective opinion.

But as a fact of law it is not.

So what crime did the unborn commit that deserves the death penalty?

tapatalk post

You’re confusing civil law with criminal law.

The death penalty is exacted in the context of criminal law, subject to procedural due process.

The right to privacy concerns civil law, subject to substantive due process, where the state may not dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not.

Your confusing lies for the truth

tapatalk post

 

[FA_Q2]

No doubt there are a lot of choices people make of which God does not approve. That changes neither womens' unalienable rights nor the fact that God made women the ones with a birth canal, giving them complete control of the life inside them.

Still wondering where in the constitution it forbids government from making laws to against killing the innocent

tapatalk post

It doesn’t, and no one ever said it did.

But abortion is neither ‘killing babies’ nor ‘killing the innocent.’

You might believe it is in the context of your personal, subjective opinion.

But as a fact of law it is not.

No. It is a fact of law that it is not murder. It is, however, a fact of science that you are killing a human at an early stage of life.

Just because that is legal does not change what the act itself is. There are times when killing is legal (moral even) and there are times when it is not.

 

[Faun]

Pretty sure God doesn't like people killing his unborn children

tapatalk post

No doubt there are a lot of choices people make of which God does not approve. That changes neither womens' unalienable rights nor the fact that God made women the ones with a birth canal, giving them complete control of the life inside them.

Still wondering where in the constitution it forbids government from making laws to against killing the innocent

tapatalk post

The Constitution protects people who are born -- not people yet to be born.

 

[CaféAuLait]

( emphasis added)

Yet, women have that choice, yes?

I'm torn on the issue. If the male was responsible, used contraception and an accidental pregnancy was the result and or if a woman becomes pregnant on purpose or against the explicit wishes of the man, he should be given a choice.

How something like this would take place, I've no clue though.

It's complex, I agree, and I totally see your point. But the two decisions don't hold equal weight:

1.) The man can say "screw this I don't want the baby" and be sipping drinks in Mexico the next day without a worry in the world.
2.) The woman (if she doesn't want the baby) must make the terrible decision of ALSO having to allow doctors poison her unborn (or surgically kill) that which is growing inside of her, and go through all the abortion procedures, risks, ect.

I think it's just a fact of life - to me, anyways - that the woman has the ultimate say on what happens to the baby growing inside of her, and if the baby is born both parties are responsible for its well being.

And rationally, think about it Cafe. You think we have a "deadbeat" dad problem now, what do you think is going to happen when men now have the option to absolve all responsibility by simply saying "I don't want it, abort!", lol? Any sort of scenario I can think of in that vein just seems to be a bad idea. I envision a lot of idiots having a lot of kids with a bunch of different women because they know they can simply "duck out" at any point they want during the pregnancy.

However, I'm open to hearing some of your thoughts.

Yet, the issue stands a woman can do just that. She can take the risk and say "I don't want it abort it". A man, OTOH, can not. It is morally reprehensible to force someone into parental obligations against their will--an argument we hear from those who are pro-choice.

We recognize this fact when it comes to women - it's wrong to force a woman into parental obligations against her will, which is why women may abort, or even abandon a child and walk away leaving a baby (no questions asked) at a fire station or hospital- up to a certain age in most states.

Where is the same for a man? Why can't he walk away, no questions asked?

Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood - when it comes to women, but it is for men. I see people say, "if men don't want an accidental child then he should have a vasectomy". Its simple to say, but men don't have access to clinics like PP where they can walk in and walk out simply, in fact many doctors won't perform a vasectomy on a man if he does not have children or is not 27years plus. ( this is the way it is at military hospitals). Sure they have access to condoms, accidents happen, and women have access to the same condoms.

I feel this way as a female. I make the choice, either way. As the author of the article wrote, "Responsibility and equality should not be mutually exclusive".

 

[thanatos144]

No doubt there are a lot of choices people make of which God does not approve. That changes neither womens' unalienable rights nor the fact that God made women the ones with a birth canal, giving them complete control of the life inside them.

Still wondering where in the constitution it forbids government from making laws to against killing the innocent

tapatalk post

The Constitution protects people who are born -- not people yet to be born.

Where does is specify that

tapatalk post

 

[Faun]

( emphasis added)

Yet, women have that choice, yes?

I'm torn on the issue. If the male was responsible, used contraception and an accidental pregnancy was the result and or if a woman becomes pregnant on purpose or against the explicit wishes of the man, he should be given a choice.

How something like this would take place, I've no clue though.

It's complex, I agree, and I totally see your point. But the two decisions don't hold equal weight:

1.) The man can say "screw this I don't want the baby" and be sipping drinks in Mexico the next day without a worry in the world.
2.) The woman (if she doesn't want the baby) must make the terrible decision of ALSO having to allow doctors poison her unborn (or surgically kill) that which is growing inside of her, and go through all the abortion procedures, risks, ect.

I think it's just a fact of life - to me, anyways - that the woman has the ultimate say on what happens to the baby growing inside of her, and if the baby is born both parties are responsible for its well being.

And rationally, think about it Cafe. You think we have a "deadbeat" dad problem now, what do you think is going to happen when men now have the option to absolve all responsibility by simply saying "I don't want it, abort!", lol? Any sort of scenario I can think of in that vein just seems to be a bad idea. I envision a lot of idiots having a lot of kids with a bunch of different women because they know they can simply "duck out" at any point they want during the pregnancy.

However, I'm open to hearing some of your thoughts.

Yet, the issue stands a woman can do just that. She can take the risk and say "I don't want it abort it". A man, OTOH, can not. It is morally reprehensible to force someone into parental obligations against their will--an argument we hear from those who are pro-choice.

We recognize this fact when it comes to women - it's wrong to force a woman into parental obligations against her will, which is why women may abort, or even abandon a child and walk away leaving a baby (no questions asked) at a fire station or hospital- up to a certain age in most states.

Where is the same for a man? Why can't he walk away, no questions asked?

The difference is that a woman having an abortion is not leaving a child devoid of financial support from a parent.

Once a child is born, his/her needs outweigh the needs of the deadbeat Conservative dad who doesn't want to pay for his own child.

 

[Faun]

Still wondering where in the constitution it forbids government from making laws to against killing the innocent

tapatalk post

The Constitution protects people who are born -- not people yet to be born.

Where does is specify that

tapatalk post

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

An unborn fetus is not a "person."

 

[FA_Q2]

It's complex, I agree, and I totally see your point. But the two decisions don't hold equal weight:

1.) The man can say "screw this I don't want the baby" and be sipping drinks in Mexico the next day without a worry in the world.
2.) The woman (if she doesn't want the baby) must make the terrible decision of ALSO having to allow doctors poison her unborn (or surgically kill) that which is growing inside of her, and go through all the abortion procedures, risks, ect.

I think it's just a fact of life - to me, anyways - that the woman has the ultimate say on what happens to the baby growing inside of her, and if the baby is born both parties are responsible for its well being.

And rationally, think about it Cafe. You think we have a "deadbeat" dad problem now, what do you think is going to happen when men now have the option to absolve all responsibility by simply saying "I don't want it, abort!", lol? Any sort of scenario I can think of in that vein just seems to be a bad idea. I envision a lot of idiots having a lot of kids with a bunch of different women because they know they can simply "duck out" at any point they want during the pregnancy.

However, I'm open to hearing some of your thoughts.

Yet, the issue stands a woman can do just that. She can take the risk and say "I don't want it abort it". A man, OTOH, can not. It is morally reprehensible to force someone into parental obligations against their will--an argument we hear from those who are pro-choice.

We recognize this fact when it comes to women - it's wrong to force a woman into parental obligations against her will, which is why women may abort, or even abandon a child and walk away leaving a baby (no questions asked) at a fire station or hospital- up to a certain age in most states.

Where is the same for a man? Why can't he walk away, no questions asked?

The difference is that a woman having an abortion is not leaving a child devoid of financial support from a parent.

Once a child is born, his/her needs outweigh the needs of the deadbeat Conservative dad who doesn't want to pay for his own child.

You failed to address that part of his statement. I think that is another strong point that is related to this thread. A mother, even after birth, is given the option of completely and utterly abandoning a child without a single obligation at almost any point in the child’s early life. A father has absolutely no equivalent option.

Perhaps leaving a child in a hospital or other place might need a reevaluation?

 

[CaféAuLait]

It's complex, I agree, and I totally see your point. But the two decisions don't hold equal weight:

1.) The man can say "screw this I don't want the baby" and be sipping drinks in Mexico the next day without a worry in the world.
2.) The woman (if she doesn't want the baby) must make the terrible decision of ALSO having to allow doctors poison her unborn (or surgically kill) that which is growing inside of her, and go through all the abortion procedures, risks, ect.

I think it's just a fact of life - to me, anyways - that the woman has the ultimate say on what happens to the baby growing inside of her, and if the baby is born both parties are responsible for its well being.

And rationally, think about it Cafe. You think we have a "deadbeat" dad problem now, what do you think is going to happen when men now have the option to absolve all responsibility by simply saying "I don't want it, abort!", lol? Any sort of scenario I can think of in that vein just seems to be a bad idea. I envision a lot of idiots having a lot of kids with a bunch of different women because they know they can simply "duck out" at any point they want during the pregnancy.

However, I'm open to hearing some of your thoughts.

Yet, the issue stands a woman can do just that. She can take the risk and say "I don't want it abort it". A man, OTOH, can not. It is morally reprehensible to force someone into parental obligations against their will--an argument we hear from those who are pro-choice.

We recognize this fact when it comes to women - it's wrong to force a woman into parental obligations against her will, which is why women may abort, or even abandon a child and walk away leaving a baby (no questions asked) at a fire station or hospital- up to a certain age in most states.

Where is the same for a man? Why can't he walk away, no questions asked?

The difference is that a woman having an abortion is not leaving a child devoid of financial support from a parent.

Once a child is born, his/her needs outweigh the needs of the deadbeat Conservative dad who doesn't want to pay for his own child.

Deadbeat conservative dad? As if deadbeats don't cross political lines. There is no rhetoric here, leave it at the door and try to discuss this in a mature matter if you can.

Again, if a mother has a choice not to bear such financial responsibility either through abortion and or abandoning a child at a hospital or fire station (as is legal in most or all states), why not the same choice for a father?

Why is it only freedom of choice for a woman to be free of the financial, emotional, and likewise strains of parenthood?

 

[Faun]

Yet, the issue stands a woman can do just that. She can take the risk and say "I don't want it abort it". A man, OTOH, can not. It is morally reprehensible to force someone into parental obligations against their will--an argument we hear from those who are pro-choice.

We recognize this fact when it comes to women - it's wrong to force a woman into parental obligations against her will, which is why women may abort, or even abandon a child and walk away leaving a baby (no questions asked) at a fire station or hospital- up to a certain age in most states.

Where is the same for a man? Why can't he walk away, no questions asked?

The difference is that a woman having an abortion is not leaving a child devoid of financial support from a parent.

Once a child is born, his/her needs outweigh the needs of the deadbeat Conservative dad who doesn't want to pay for his own child.

You failed to address that part of his statement. I think that is another strong point that is related to this thread. A mother, even after birth, is given the option of completely and utterly abandoning a child without a single obligation at almost any point in the child’s early life. A father has absolutely no equivalent option.

Perhaps leaving a child in a hospital or other place might need a reevaluation?

Safe haven laws allows the parent(s) of a newborn to relinquish parental rights. It's allowed because it's considered to be in the best interest of the baby and laws (that I've seen) don't distinguish between the mother and the father.

 

[Faun]

Yet, the issue stands a woman can do just that. She can take the risk and say "I don't want it abort it". A man, OTOH, can not. It is morally reprehensible to force someone into parental obligations against their will--an argument we hear from those who are pro-choice.

We recognize this fact when it comes to women - it's wrong to force a woman into parental obligations against her will, which is why women may abort, or even abandon a child and walk away leaving a baby (no questions asked) at a fire station or hospital- up to a certain age in most states.

Where is the same for a man? Why can't he walk away, no questions asked?

The difference is that a woman having an abortion is not leaving a child devoid of financial support from a parent.

Once a child is born, his/her needs outweigh the needs of the deadbeat Conservative dad who doesn't want to pay for his own child.

Deadbeat conservative dad? As if deadbeats don't cross political lines. There is no rhetoric here, leave it at the door and try to discuss this in a mature matter if you can.

Again, if a mother has a choice not to bear such financial responsibility either through abortion and or abandoning a child at a hospital or fire station (as is legal in most or all states), why not the same choice for a father?

Why is it only freedom of choice for a woman to be free of the financial, emotional, and likewise strains of parenthood?

Yes, deadbeat Conservative dads. I don't see Liberal Dads trying to make the argument that they should be allowed to "opt out" of financially supporting their own children simply because the women they are getting pregnant have the option to abort their pregnancy.

 

[thanatos144]

The Constitution protects people who are born -- not people yet to be born.

Where does is specify that

tapatalk post

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

An unborn fetus is not a "person."

Says who? you? People use to say blacks weren't people as well

tapatalk post

 

[CaféAuLait]

The difference is that a woman having an abortion is not leaving a child devoid of financial support from a parent.

Once a child is born, his/her needs outweigh the needs of the deadbeat Conservative dad who doesn't want to pay for his own child.

Deadbeat conservative dad? As if deadbeats don't cross political lines. There is no rhetoric here, leave it at the door and try to discuss this in a mature matter if you can.

Again, if a mother has a choice not to bear such financial responsibility either through abortion and or abandoning a child at a hospital or fire station (as is legal in most or all states), why not the same choice for a father?

Why is it only freedom of choice for a woman to be free of the financial, emotional, and likewise strains of parenthood?

Yes, deadbeat Conservative dads. I don't see Liberal Dads trying to make the argument that they should be allowed to "opt out" of financially supporting their own children simply because the women they are getting pregnant have the option to abort their pregnancy.

Which 'conservative dads' are you speaking of? I am curious. Your argument is just as silly as me saying those women who chose to abort are "deadbeat women" since they ARE "allowed to "opt out" of financially supporting their own children" by way of choice. Abortion, morning after pill, adoption, safe haven, etc.


Are you trying to shame a man for wanting the same rights as a female when it comes to choice about an unborn child? A female can opt out for any reason she wishes. A man on the other hand, must abide by her wish. Equal rights under the law, yes or no? Or is it equal rights when women have the only choice in the matter. Even when a man wants to go through with the pregnancy they can't. And they can't decide not to after a woman has made her choice.

Ms. West wrote it very eloquently "The right to feel the weight of decisions without being sheltered by gender is one that has not been fully realized, and some women in the pro-life/pro-choice debate seem to negligently cast aside the opinions of potential fathers as intrusive, irrelevant and patriarchal".

 

[Faun]

Where does is specify that

tapatalk post

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

An unborn fetus is not a "person."

Says who? you? People use to say blacks weren't people as well

tapatalk post

The U.S. Supreme Court ... Roe v Wade ...

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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?

However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.

yeah so

that is the way it is

as a male if you do not want kids

you have a couple of options

first think with the head on your shoulders

not the one in the pants

or get fixed

snip snip

 

[Faun]

Deadbeat conservative dad? As if deadbeats don't cross political lines. There is no rhetoric here, leave it at the door and try to discuss this in a mature matter if you can.

Again, if a mother has a choice not to bear such financial responsibility either through abortion and or abandoning a child at a hospital or fire station (as is legal in most or all states), why not the same choice for a father?

Why is it only freedom of choice for a woman to be free of the financial, emotional, and likewise strains of parenthood?

Yes, deadbeat Conservative dads. I don't see Liberal Dads trying to make the argument that they should be allowed to "opt out" of financially supporting their own children simply because the women they are getting pregnant have the option to abort their pregnancy.

Which 'conservative dads' are you speaking of? I am curious. Your argument is just as silly as me saying those women who chose to abort are "deadbeat women" since they ARE "allowed to "opt out" of financially supporting their own children" by way of choice. Abortion, morning after pill, adoption, safe haven, etc.


Are you trying to shame a man for wanting the same rights as a female when it comes to choice about an unborn child? A female can opt out for any reason she wishes. A man on the other hand, must abide by her wish. Equal rights under the law, yes or no? Or is it equal rights when women have the only choice in the matter. Even when a man wants to go through with the pregnancy they can't. And they can't decide not to after a woman has made her choice.

Ms. West wrote it very eloquently "The right to feel the weight of decisions without being sheltered by gender is one that has not been fully realized, and some women in the pro-life/pro-choice debate seem to negligently cast aside the opinions of potential fathers as intrusive, irrelevant and patriarchal".

The people on this forum, for example ... the ones championing a man's right to be a deadbeat dad and escape his financial responsibilities for his own child -- are Conservatives. And it's borne largely as a punishment to women for having the right to abort a pregnancy. It's the age old "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em," mentality.

And a man will never have the same rights as a woman for the simple fact that we are biologically engineered differently. There is no law which can balance that natural inequity. Men are not capable of getting pregnant, whereas, women are. So the two genders are built with the inherent inequality which will never allow any man to be on an equal level as a woman.

That's why the absolute answer to this "opt out" solution for deadbeat Conservative dads, which I'm fairly certain I saw towards the beginning of this thread and every one like it, is ....... when men can get pregnant, they will have the same option to abort their pregnancy in the exact same fashion women currently have.

 

[CaféAuLait]

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?

However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.

yeah so

that is the way it is

as a male if you do not want kids

you have a couple of options

first think with the head on your shoulders

not the one in the pants

or get fixed

snip snip

This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'?

If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.

She knows full well that any man she has sex with is a potential father to her child.

IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.