Male's right to abortion.

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

BobPlumb, did you forget that you already said you wanted the law changed to give men the 'authority to decide to avoid the responsibities [sic] of their actions.

Which is it?

 

[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?

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.

Who is FORCING women to have or not have the procedure?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

... 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.

You're wanting to make it legal to be a dead beat dad.

 

[BobPlumb]

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.

BobPlumb, did you forget that you already said you wanted the law changed to give men the 'authority to decide to avoid the responsibities [sic] of their actions.

Which is it?

The woman can decide to have an abortion or not. If the woman does decide to carry the pregnancy to term, then the man would be op out of responsibility for raising the future child before the fetus is viable? What about that do you not understand?

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

Exactly. If you don't want children, or don't want them with a certain woman, then make damn sure she doesn't get pregnant. Men leave pregnancy prevention almost or completely up to the woman. When it fails, they feel they've been cheated because they didn't want the child. Using a condom does not ensure a woman will not get pregnant. If it were only that easy! If you don't want children, don't have sex or get a vacsectomy. They are reversible. No one should be able to force a woman who has a child growing inside her body to get an abortion if she doesn't want one. That's like shooting bullets at her soul.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

BobPlumb, did you forget that you already said you wanted the law changed to give men the 'authority to decide to avoid the responsibities [sic] of their actions.

Which is it?

The woman can decide to have an abortion or not. If the woman does decide to carry the pregnancy to term, then the man would be op out of responsibility for raising the future child before the fetus is viable? What about that do you not understand?

I understand completely. Like I said, you're wanting to make it legal to be a dead beat dad.

What you don't seem to understand is that actions have consequences. If you cause pregnancy, you're responsible for that.

 

[BobPlumb]

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.

Exactly. If you don't want children, or don't want them with a certain woman, then make damn sure she doesn't get pregnant. Men leave pregnancy prevention almost or completely up to the woman. When it fails, they feel they've been cheated because they didn't want the child. Using a condom does not ensure a woman will not get pregnant. If it were only that easy! If you don't want children, don't have sex or get a vacsectomy. They are reversible. No one should be able to force a woman who has a child growing inside her body to get an abortion if she doesn't want one. That's like shooting bullets at her soul.

If you are taking the prolife position, the I agree the man should not be able to op out. If you are prochoice, then a fetus is not a child. The man should be able to op out before there is a child and the woman may decide wether to have an abortion or not. No one is forcing the woman to do anything.

 

[freedombecki]

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.

BobPlumb, did you forget that you already said you wanted the law changed to give men the 'authority to decide to avoid the responsibities [sic] of their actions.

Which is it?

The woman can decide to have an abortion or not. If the woman does decide to carry the pregnancy to term, then the man would be op out of responsibility for raising the future child before the fetus is viable? What about that do you not understand?

What is it about male abstinence do you not understand?

 

[BobPlumb]

BobPlumb, did you forget that you already said you wanted the law changed to give men the 'authority to decide to avoid the responsibities [sic] of their actions.

Which is it?

The woman can decide to have an abortion or not. If the woman does decide to carry the pregnancy to term, then the man would be op out of responsibility for raising the future child before the fetus is viable? What about that do you not understand?

I understand completely. Like I said, you're wanting to make it legal to be a dead beat dad.

What you don't seem to understand is that actions have consequences. If you cause pregnancy, you're responsible for that.

So are you prolife now? If you cause a pregnancy, you're responsible for that!

 

[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.

Exactly. If you don't want children, or don't want them with a certain woman, then make damn sure she doesn't get pregnant. Men leave pregnancy prevention almost or completely up to the woman. When it fails, they feel they've been cheated because they didn't want the child. Using a condom does not ensure a woman will not get pregnant. If it were only that easy! If you don't want children, don't have sex or get a vacsectomy. They are reversible. No one should be able to force a woman who has a child growing inside her body to get an abortion if she doesn't want one. That's like shooting bullets at her soul.

Its a sad fact of life that women bear most of the responsibility for prevention as well as raising children. If men got pregnant, overnight, we would reliable male contraception. BobPlumb is not unusual. Men can and do walk away from their responsibility all the time.

And, sadly, we have an entire political party who is favor of hungry children over equal responsibility.

Oh, and I agree - if a man feels so strongly about not taking responsibility for the pregnancy he caused, get a frikken vasectomy.

 

[BobPlumb]

BobPlumb, did you forget that you already said you wanted the law changed to give men the 'authority to decide to avoid the responsibities [sic] of their actions.

Which is it?

The woman can decide to have an abortion or not. If the woman does decide to carry the pregnancy to term, then the man would be op out of responsibility for raising the future child before the fetus is viable? What about that do you not understand?

What is it about male abstinence do you not understand?

The same can be said for female abstinence. If you are against the man oping out then you should be against abortion to be consistent.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The woman can decide to have an abortion or not. If the woman does decide to carry the pregnancy to term, then the man would be op out of responsibility for raising the future child before the fetus is viable? What about that do you not understand?

What is it about male abstinence do you not understand?

The same can be said for female abstinence. If you are against the man oping out then you should be against abortion to be consistent.

So if he's irresponsible then she should be too?

That's quite a leap.

 

[BobPlumb]

What is it about male abstinence do you not understand?

The same can be said for female abstinence. If you are against the man oping out then you should be against abortion to be consistent.

So if he's irresponsible then she should be too?

That's quite a leap.

No, if he is expected to be responsible the she should be expected to be responsible.

It's a very small step.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The same can be said for female abstinence. If you are against the man oping out then you should be against abortion to be consistent.

So if he's irresponsible then she should be too?

That's quite a leap.

No, if he is expected to be responsible the she should be expected to be responsible.

It's a very small step.

She is.
So is he.
Equally.

Look, you're just chasing your own tail and you're defending the indefensible.

Have a nice day.

 

[BobPlumb]

So if he's irresponsible then she should be too?

That's quite a leap.

No, if he is expected to be responsible the she should be expected to be responsible.

It's a very small step.

She is.
So is he.
Equally.

Look, you're just chasing your own tail and you're defending the indefensible.

Have a nice day.

He is expected to be responsible before the sexual act. She may have an abortion, thus the difference. If a fetus is not a child then this position is defensible and several prochoice people on this thread have already agreed with it.
I will have a great day. I hope you do likewise.

 

[freedombecki]

The woman can decide to have an abortion or not. If the woman does decide to carry the pregnancy to term, then the man would be op out of responsibility for raising the future child before the fetus is viable? What about that do you not understand?

What is it about male abstinence do you not understand?

The same can be said for female abstinence. If you are against the man oping out then you should be against abortion to be consistent.

I'm for abstinence outside of marriage, and always have been. It shows a respect for posterity and faithful inner character to do so. And many in America engaged in abstinence as a religious precept of Pilgrim inheritance, with deep and abiding compassion for those not so able to control primal urges, since only God is perfect.

 

[Katzndogz]

This sounds like an excellent idea for democrats to pursue, vigorously.

 

[whitehall]

A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.

Ultimately however, its her body to do with as she wishes and no one has the right to usurp that ownership.

 

[whitehall]

A man should have a say in whether his mate decides to kill his unborn child but he has no right to opt out of his responsibility to support that child.

Ultimately however, its her body to do with as she wishes and no one has the right to usurp that ownership.

A woman has no right to destroy her body with drugs and she would be hospitalized if she tried to amputate a body part. She can't even sell a kidney for profit. What makes you think she has the right to kill the unborn life she created? Certainly the father should be able to do something to prevent her from killing his child.