Male's right to abortion.

[Luddly Neddite]

why not make a law that any sex resulting in unwanted children abortino or pregnancy
is equally abuse and the fault of both parents who are required to get counseling
to resolve the abuse of either the sex or the relationship.

Alternatively, people who believe this could just move to a third world country.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

No one has the right to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will.

The father should be able to force her to have the child if he wants to keep the child and raise it without her help. The law is wrong.

If the father wants this child, she should be willing to bring the baby to term. I just can't imagine what kind of woman would deny this baby to come to term if the father would assume his rights.

The law is not ‘wrong.’

It’s a wise and appropriate doctrine protecting the privacy rights of each citizen, placing important restrictions on the authority of the state.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

why not make a law that any sex resulting in unwanted children abortino or pregnancy is equally abuse and the fault of both parents who are required to get counseling to resolve the abuse of either the sex or the relationship.

Because we don’t want laws empowering the state to dictate to private citizens how they’re to address private matters.

If the mother and father of an unplanned pregnancy wish to come to an accord privately, absent interference from the state, where the father agrees to care for the child once its born, then that’s perfectly appropriate.

What is not appropriate, however, is for the state to give the father ‘veto power’ to overrule a woman’s decision to have an abortion; that’s solely her decision, she alone is adversely affected by dictates of the state, not the father, where her right to privacy and her right to decide whether to have a child are not are paramount.

Again, the courts have exhibited great wisdom concerning this difficult issue, where the correct doctrine is in place forbidding state interference, and allowing private citizens to make their own decisions.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

why not make a law that any sex resulting in unwanted children abortino or pregnancy is equally abuse and the fault of both parents who are required to get counseling to resolve the abuse of either the sex or the relationship.

Because we don’t want laws empowering the state to dictate to private citizens how they’re to address private matters.

If the mother and father of an unplanned pregnancy wish to come to an accord privately, absent interference from the state, where the father agrees to care for the child once its born, then that’s perfectly appropriate.

What is not appropriate, however, is for the state to give the father ‘veto power’ to overrule a woman’s decision to have an abortion; that’s solely her decision, she alone is adversely affected by dictates of the state, not the father, where her right to privacy and her right to decide whether to have a child are not are paramount.

Again, the courts have exhibited great wisdom concerning this difficult issue, where the correct doctrine is in place forbidding state interference, and allowing private citizens to make their own decisions.

We need to remain vigilant. Government is already too far into our private lives.

 

[thanatos144]

why not make a law that any sex resulting in unwanted children abortino or pregnancy is equally abuse and the fault of both parents who are required to get counseling to resolve the abuse of either the sex or the relationship.

Because we don’t want laws empowering the state to dictate to private citizens how they’re to address private matters.

If the mother and father of an unplanned pregnancy wish to come to an accord privately, absent interference from the state, where the father agrees to care for the child once its born, then that’s perfectly appropriate.

What is not appropriate, however, is for the state to give the father ‘veto power’ to overrule a woman’s decision to have an abortion; that’s solely her decision, she alone is adversely affected by dictates of the state, not the father, where her right to privacy and her right to decide whether to have a child are not are paramount.

Again, the courts have exhibited great wisdom concerning this difficult issue, where the correct doctrine is in place forbidding state interference, and allowing private citizens to make their own decisions.

We need to remain vigilant. Government is already too far into our private lives.

isnt it funny the only time liberals care about intrusive government is when it might be directed at abortion?

 

[FA_Q2]

That you compare abortion with soda pop just makes my blood run cold.

Be that as it may, I have always posted in favor of individual freedom. That means you have the right to decide when you want to reproduce and drink any amount of soda you want.

You ignored the entire post and don’t bother to address a single point or answer a single question. Why even bother responding?

Your blood running cold is rather silly considering there was not a single hind of equivalency. It was illustrative of the tendency to demand ever growing control in some areas and then completely reversing course in others. It is cognitive dissonance.

 

[syrenn]

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?

a males right to abortion....

when the male is the one gestating....then HE has every right to decided for HIMSELF if HE wants an abortion. HE has ever right to decide what goes on in and happens to HIS body.


HE can keep his sperm to HIMSELF if he does not want to support HIS child.

 

[Dragonlady]

That's not true either. Liberals are the ones who have consistently lobbied to keep government out of personal decisions. Liberals opposed laws which restricted mixed race marriages, gay marriage and abortion.

Conservatives are prepared to toss the US Constitution right out the window, along with freedom of religion, in order to control women's reproductive rights and freedoms.

 

[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?

a males right to abortion....

when the male is the one gestating....then HE has every right to decided for HIMSELF if HE wants an abortion. HE has ever right to decide what goes on in and happens to HIS body.


HE can keep his sperm to HIMSELF if he does not want to support HIS child.

What child? There is no child until viability (so say prochoice people). I'm not saying that the female should not hold all the cards in deciding on having an abortion or not. But is the fetus a child or not? If the fetus is not a child then it's blackmail if the female forces the responsibility of this future child on the male. And if the female does not like this, perhaps she should keep the male's sperm out of her body -- or is the male the only one to be responsible in this regard?

 

[syrenn]

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?

a males right to abortion....

when the male is the one gestating....then HE has every right to decided for HIMSELF if HE wants an abortion. HE has ever right to decide what goes on in and happens to HIS body.


HE can keep his sperm to HIMSELF if he does not want to support HIS child.

What child? There is no child until viability (so say prochoice people). I'm not saying that the female should not hold all the cards in deciding on having an abortion or not. But is the fetus a child or not? If the fetus is not a child then it's blackmail if the female forces the responsibility of this future child on the father. And if the female does not like this, perhaps she should keep the male's sperm out of her body -- or is the male the only one to be responsible in this regard?

if a woman does not want to carry a baby... she as the option of an abortion

if a male does not want to carry a baby... he can have an abortion too.


that is the end of the right to a male having an abortions...

as to the rest of your question.... which is child support.

if a MAN does not want to pay for HIS childs or not a childs support...( i really dont care wich) then HE should keep HIS sperm to himself.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because we don’t want laws empowering the state to dictate to private citizens how they’re to address private matters.

If the mother and father of an unplanned pregnancy wish to come to an accord privately, absent interference from the state, where the father agrees to care for the child once its born, then that’s perfectly appropriate.

What is not appropriate, however, is for the state to give the father ‘veto power’ to overrule a woman’s decision to have an abortion; that’s solely her decision, she alone is adversely affected by dictates of the state, not the father, where her right to privacy and her right to decide whether to have a child are not are paramount.

Again, the courts have exhibited great wisdom concerning this difficult issue, where the correct doctrine is in place forbidding state interference, and allowing private citizens to make their own decisions.

We need to remain vigilant. Government is already too far into our private lives.

isnt it funny the only time liberals care about intrusive government is when it might be directed at abortion?

Actually not.

In addition to protecting citizens’ privacy rights from government intrusion, liberals seek to restrict government authority concerning the right of gay Americans to individual liberty, transgender Americans the right to self-expression, and same-sex couples the right to equal protection of the law.

Liberals seek to restrict government authority concerning the right of citizens to vote, to remain free from unwarranted searches and seizures, and the right of immigrants to due process of the law.

Liberals seek to restrict government authority concerning the right of Americans to speak out freely on political and social issues, the right of Americans to express themselves artistically, even when such expression is perceived to be offensive or controversial.

Liberals seek to restrict government authority concerning the right of citizens to religious expression, or to be free from religion altogether, and the right of minority religions to flourish absent government intrusion, including religions perceived to be unpopular by some, such as Islam; in fact, we see examples of conservative posters on this very forum hostile to Islam, advocating the state 'ban' the religion.

Indeed, liberals have been consistent in their comprehensive application of Constitutional jurisprudence to restrict government authority allowing Americans to realize their civil liberties.

 

[thanatos144]

a males right to abortion....

when the male is the one gestating....then HE has every right to decided for HIMSELF if HE wants an abortion. HE has ever right to decide what goes on in and happens to HIS body.


HE can keep his sperm to HIMSELF if he does not want to support HIS child.

What child? There is no child until viability (so say prochoice people). I'm not saying that the female should not hold all the cards in deciding on having an abortion or not. But is the fetus a child or not? If the fetus is not a child then it's blackmail if the female forces the responsibility of this future child on the father. And if the female does not like this, perhaps she should keep the male's sperm out of her body -- or is the male the only one to be responsible in this regard?

if a woman does not want to carry a baby... she as the option of an abortion

if a male does not want to carry a baby... he can have an abortion too.


that is the end of the right to a male having an abortions...

as to the rest of your question.... which is child support.

if a MAN does not want to pay for HIS childs or not a childs support...( i really dont care wich) then HE should keep HIS sperm to himself.

So what your saying is that being born with a vagina magically gives you the power to decide life and death of the unborn?

 

[thanatos144]

We need to remain vigilant. Government is already too far into our private lives.

isnt it funny the only time liberals care about intrusive government is when it might be directed at abortion?

Actually not.

In addition to protecting citizens’ privacy rights from government intrusion, liberals seek to restrict government authority concerning the right of gay Americans to individual liberty, transgender Americans the right to self-expression, and same-sex couples the right to equal protection of the law.

Liberals seek to restrict government authority concerning the right of citizens to vote, to remain free from unwarranted searches and seizures, and the right of immigrants to due process of the law.

Liberals seek to restrict government authority concerning the right of Americans to speak out freely on political and social issues, the right of Americans to express themselves artistically, even when such expression is perceived to be offensive or controversial.

Liberals seek to restrict government authority concerning the right of citizens to religious expression, or to be free from religion altogether, and the right of minority religions to flourish absent government intrusion, including religions perceived to be unpopular by some, such as Islam; in fact, we see examples of conservative posters on this very forum hostile to Islam, advocating the state 'ban' the religion.

Indeed, liberals have been consistent in their comprehensive application of Constitutional jurisprudence to restrict government authority allowing Americans to realize their civil liberties.

oh yea I forgot the pot.... So liberal just want to get high and kill unborn babies....Got it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

why not make a law that any sex resulting in unwanted children abortino or pregnancy is equally abuse and the fault of both parents who are required to get counseling to resolve the abuse of either the sex or the relationship.

Because we don’t want laws empowering the state to dictate to private citizens how they’re to address private matters.

If the mother and father of an unplanned pregnancy wish to come to an accord privately, absent interference from the state, where the father agrees to care for the child once its born, then that’s perfectly appropriate.

What is not appropriate, however, is for the state to give the father ‘veto power’ to overrule a woman’s decision to have an abortion; that’s solely her decision, she alone is adversely affected by dictates of the state, not the father, where her right to privacy and her right to decide whether to have a child are not are paramount.

Again, the courts have exhibited great wisdom concerning this difficult issue, where the correct doctrine is in place forbidding state interference, and allowing private citizens to make their own decisions.

We need to remain vigilant. Government is already too far into our private lives.

True.

And unfortunately many conservatives seek to expand the size and authority of government in response to a changing society they needlessly fear, where classes of persons who are perceived as a ‘threat’ have their civil liberties jeopardized; the hostility of the right toward transgender Americans being one troubling example.

 

[syrenn]

What child? There is no child until viability (so say prochoice people). I'm not saying that the female should not hold all the cards in deciding on having an abortion or not. But is the fetus a child or not? If the fetus is not a child then it's blackmail if the female forces the responsibility of this future child on the father. And if the female does not like this, perhaps she should keep the male's sperm out of her body -- or is the male the only one to be responsible in this regard?

if a woman does not want to carry a baby... she as the option of an abortion

if a male does not want to carry a baby... he can have an abortion too.


that is the end of the right to a male having an abortions...

as to the rest of your question.... which is child support.

if a MAN does not want to pay for HIS childs or not a childs support...( i really dont care wich) then HE should keep HIS sperm to himself.

So what your saying is that being born with a vagina magically gives you the power to decide life and death of the unborn?

as i said before..... when a male is the one gestating...he will have every right to have an abortion if he wants one.

ie... a males right to an abortion.

 

[thanatos144]

if a woman does not want to carry a baby... she as the option of an abortion

if a male does not want to carry a baby... he can have an abortion too.


that is the end of the right to a male having an abortions...

as to the rest of your question.... which is child support.

if a MAN does not want to pay for HIS childs or not a childs support...( i really dont care wich) then HE should keep HIS sperm to himself.

So what your saying is that being born with a vagina magically gives you the power to decide life and death of the unborn?

as i said before..... when a male is the one gestating...he will have every right to have an abortion if he wants one.

ie... a males right to an abortion.

So it is true ... You think a vagina gives you the right to kill the unborn..... that is pretty arrogant.

 

[syrenn]

So what your saying is that being born with a vagina magically gives you the power to decide life and death of the unborn?

as i said before..... when a male is the one gestating...he will have every right to have an abortion if he wants one.

ie... a males right to an abortion.

So it is true ... You think a vagina gives you the right to kill the unborn..... that is pretty arrogant.

what is "alive" as in having a life of its own, is a matter of opinion.

in my opinion....it is not "alive" until it can stay alive on its own... or kept alive by machine....

then again.... i am more then happy to have a fetus implanted into any male that wants to gestate.

 

[thanatos144]

as i said before..... when a male is the one gestating...he will have every right to have an abortion if he wants one.

ie... a males right to an abortion.

So it is true ... You think a vagina gives you the right to kill the unborn..... that is pretty arrogant.

what is "alive" as in having a life of its own, is a matter of opinion.

in my opinion....it is not "alive" until it can stay alive on its own... or kept alive by machine....

then again.... i am more then happy to have a fetus implanted into any male that wants to gestate.

So a child of three isnt alive?

 

[syrenn]

So it is true ... You think a vagina gives you the right to kill the unborn..... that is pretty arrogant.

what is "alive" as in having a life of its own, is a matter of opinion.

in my opinion....it is not "alive" until it can stay alive on its own... or kept alive by machine....

then again.... i am more then happy to have a fetus implanted into any male that wants to gestate.

So a child of three isnt alive?

oh please.

 

[thanatos144]

what is "alive" as in having a life of its own, is a matter of opinion.

in my opinion....it is not "alive" until it can stay alive on its own... or kept alive by machine....

then again.... i am more then happy to have a fetus implanted into any male that wants to gestate.

So a child of three isnt alive?

oh please.

Don't like being shown how illogical your arguments are?
Do you equate being able to kill the unborn with having power?