What sort of man supports abortion?

[Carla_Danger]

Men should have no say in the matter.

Wrong, airhead. Women should be able to do whatever they want to their body so as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. Abortion doesn't fall into that category and when there are babies being murdered it is my buisness.

Wrong on all counts.

 

[David_42]

Men should have no say in the matter.

Wrong, airhead. Women should be able to do whatever they want to their body so as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. Abortion doesn't fall into that category and when there are babies being murdered it is my buisness.

Wrong on all counts.

Shh, zygotes are babies now. LOL.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Men should have no say in the matter.

Wrong, airhead. Women should be able to do whatever they want to their body so as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. Abortion doesn't fall into that category and when there are babies being murdered it is my buisness.

Wrong on all counts.

Shh, zygotes are babies now. LOL.

What do you expect when the Bible is their science book?

 

[David_42]

Men should have no say in the matter.

Wrong, airhead. Women should be able to do whatever they want to their body so as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. Abortion doesn't fall into that category and when there are babies being murdered it is my buisness.

Wrong on all counts.

Shh, zygotes are babies now. LOL.

What do you expect when the Bible is their science book?

Hey, if people are convinced that humans can't have an impact on the climate, it doesn't surprise me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"What sort of man supports abortion?"

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

No one 'supports' abortion, man or woman.

Everyone opposes abortion, and seeks the end of the practice.

The conflict indeed concerns how to end the practice, where those who wish to 'ban' abortion advocate for a 'solution' that is un-Constitutional, violates the privacy rights of women, and serves solely to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[Hancock]

if your truly believe that, they should be release of all financial liability if the mother chooses to give birth

Nice try.

If you truly want equality of the sexes, then you would have to support this.

A woman covering 100% of finances for raising a child is not equality, doofus.

I respectfully disagree.

I believe there are instances in which a woman should take responsibility for her actions.

I think women want all the choice but don't want to take on the responsibility of financially supporting a child. If a man makes his position clear beforehand and a woman manages to trick him into getting her pregnant, it should be on her shoulders.

I know a woman, personally know her that is, who intentionally poked holes in condoms and lied about using birth control pills. That's wrong and he should not be financially supporting a baby he tried to prevent.

Poking holes in a condom is a pretty sleazy thing to do, yes. And as much as it sucks for the man who is victim to such an underhanded move, he is still party responsible for the financial support of the child.

Be careful who you screw, is all I can say.

So the man's partially responsible for financial support but not the for the choice of life or death!?
A man and woman decide to have sex, together...
They decide to not use protection, together...
Yet only the woman can choose murder!?

How does that make sense to any sane adult? Sorry Carla, your parents failed you.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nice try.

If you truly want equality of the sexes, then you would have to support this.

A woman covering 100% of finances for raising a child is not equality, doofus.

I respectfully disagree.

I believe there are instances in which a woman should take responsibility for her actions.

I think women want all the choice but don't want to take on the responsibility of financially supporting a child. If a man makes his position clear beforehand and a woman manages to trick him into getting her pregnant, it should be on her shoulders.

I know a woman, personally know her that is, who intentionally poked holes in condoms and lied about using birth control pills. That's wrong and he should not be financially supporting a baby he tried to prevent.

Poking holes in a condom is a pretty sleazy thing to do, yes. And as much as it sucks for the man who is victim to such an underhanded move, he is still party responsible for the financial support of the child.

Be careful who you screw, is all I can say.

So the man's partially responsible for financial support but not the for the choice of life or death!?
A man and woman decide to have sex, together...
They decide to not use protection, together...
Yet only the woman can choose murder!?

How does that make sense to any sane adult? Sorry Carla, your parents failed you.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Her body, her choice, and it's not murder, that is for persons, neither pre-, post-, or never were. It's logic, brutal logic.

 

[Care4all]

If a man could get pregnant, there would be a Planned Parenthood on every corner.

Not much of a sexist are you?!

realist...

 

[Hancock]

If you truly want equality of the sexes, then you would have to support this.

A woman covering 100% of finances for raising a child is not equality, doofus.

I respectfully disagree.

I believe there are instances in which a woman should take responsibility for her actions.

I think women want all the choice but don't want to take on the responsibility of financially supporting a child. If a man makes his position clear beforehand and a woman manages to trick him into getting her pregnant, it should be on her shoulders.

I know a woman, personally know her that is, who intentionally poked holes in condoms and lied about using birth control pills. That's wrong and he should not be financially supporting a baby he tried to prevent.

Poking holes in a condom is a pretty sleazy thing to do, yes. And as much as it sucks for the man who is victim to such an underhanded move, he is still party responsible for the financial support of the child.

Be careful who you screw, is all I can say.

So the man's partially responsible for financial support but not the for the choice of life or death!?
A man and woman decide to have sex, together...
They decide to not use protection, together...
Yet only the woman can choose murder!?

How does that make sense to any sane adult? Sorry Carla, your parents failed you.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Her body, her choice, and it's not murder, that is for persons, neither pre-, post-, or never were. It's logic, brutal logic.

Her body, her choice...
Imo, that's the most idiotic reasoning possible.

Her choice is not about her body, it's about the embryo. Mom's not choosing to abort herself, she's choosing to terminate a future son/daughter...

If the only reason it's "her choice" is because the embryo is in " her body", technically the father was also in "her body" during intercourse for whatever amount of time it took to fertilize the egg. So, using your logic, the mother would have the right to choose to terminate or abort the father as well, during the time of intercourse. Which, for most liberal men, is probably around two minutes.


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A woman covering 100% of finances for raising a child is not equality, doofus.

I respectfully disagree.

I believe there are instances in which a woman should take responsibility for her actions.

I think women want all the choice but don't want to take on the responsibility of financially supporting a child. If a man makes his position clear beforehand and a woman manages to trick him into getting her pregnant, it should be on her shoulders.

I know a woman, personally know her that is, who intentionally poked holes in condoms and lied about using birth control pills. That's wrong and he should not be financially supporting a baby he tried to prevent.

Poking holes in a condom is a pretty sleazy thing to do, yes. And as much as it sucks for the man who is victim to such an underhanded move, he is still party responsible for the financial support of the child.

Be careful who you screw, is all I can say.

So the man's partially responsible for financial support but not the for the choice of life or death!?
A man and woman decide to have sex, together...
They decide to not use protection, together...
Yet only the woman can choose murder!?

How does that make sense to any sane adult? Sorry Carla, your parents failed you.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Her body, her choice, and it's not murder, that is for persons, neither pre-, post-, or never were. It's logic, brutal logic.

Her body, her choice...
Imo, that's the most idiotic reasoning possible.

Her choice is not about her body, it's about the embryo. Mom's not choosing to abort herself, she's choosing to terminate a future son/daughter...

If the only reason it's "her choice" is because the embryo is in " her body", technically the father was also in "her body" during intercourse for whatever amount of time it took to fertilize the egg. So, using your logic, the mother would have the right to choose to terminate or abort the father as well, during the time of intercourse. Which, for most liberal men, is probably around two minutes.

Yeah, either up your game, or don't bother.

And nature doesn't value a fetus. Follow her advice.

 

[Care4all]

Nice try.

If you truly want equality of the sexes, then you would have to support this.

A woman covering 100% of finances for raising a child is not equality, doofus.

I respectfully disagree.

I believe there are instances in which a woman should take responsibility for her actions.

I think women want all the choice but don't want to take on the responsibility of financially supporting a child. If a man makes his position clear beforehand and a woman manages to trick him into getting her pregnant, it should be on her shoulders.

I know a woman, personally know her that is, who intentionally poked holes in condoms and lied about using birth control pills. That's wrong and he should not be financially supporting a baby he tried to prevent.

Poking holes in a condom is a pretty sleazy thing to do, yes. And as much as it sucks for the man who is victim to such an underhanded move, he is still party responsible for the financial support of the child.

Be careful who you screw, is all I can say.

So the man's partially responsible for financial support but not the for the choice of life or death!?
A man and woman decide to have sex, together...
They decide to not use protection, together...
Yet only the woman can choose murder!?

How does that make sense to any sane adult? Sorry Carla, your parents failed you.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

To her, she is choosing to not 'carry' the pregnancy to term, to end the pregnancy, to terminate the pregnancy....not as you state or as you believe: choosing to murder (a fully formed, breathing human being as you implied),(though if allowed to come in to fruition, it would be a breathing human being...) and the reason the father does not have a choice in that specific decision is because 'he can never carry the pregnancy to term', his body is not involved at all in that part....it is only her body that can do this function at the present time, (though I can imagine incubators being available at a very early stage of pregnancy somewhere in the future generations).

And truthfully, 999,000 to 1, the guy involved is saying or doing some of those things that koshergrl's quotes in the op, have said.

I think the article header is labeled wrong, it's not what men who support a woman's choice in the matter that this opinion is about, but the men who support 'their girl' getting an abortion....they are NOT always one and the same.

It does seem to me, that there are many men, who would rather the woman choose to abort and not burden themselves with the financial burden of being the father of the child....and plain ole 'fathering'....and these men, not all, but some of these men could fit the descriptions above in the op.... I don't think it is wayyyyyy out there in to oblivion as I usually think of KG's threads or posts on this topic.

I believe there are many men on this board that support a woman's choice, but have never been faced with the situation themselves and never would be faced with the situation themselves, but through empathy, they support that the final decision should be up to the woman because the woman is the person who would have to carry the pregnancy, her body...and be responsible for her child for at least the next 18 years... or really her entire life ... her choice....

yes, I know...don't have sex before marriage

or

use birth control

 

[Hancock]

I respectfully disagree.

I believe there are instances in which a woman should take responsibility for her actions.

I think women want all the choice but don't want to take on the responsibility of financially supporting a child. If a man makes his position clear beforehand and a woman manages to trick him into getting her pregnant, it should be on her shoulders.

I know a woman, personally know her that is, who intentionally poked holes in condoms and lied about using birth control pills. That's wrong and he should not be financially supporting a baby he tried to prevent.

Poking holes in a condom is a pretty sleazy thing to do, yes. And as much as it sucks for the man who is victim to such an underhanded move, he is still party responsible for the financial support of the child.

Be careful who you screw, is all I can say.

So the man's partially responsible for financial support but not the for the choice of life or death!?
A man and woman decide to have sex, together...
They decide to not use protection, together...
Yet only the woman can choose murder!?

How does that make sense to any sane adult? Sorry Carla, your parents failed you.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Her body, her choice, and it's not murder, that is for persons, neither pre-, post-, or never were. It's logic, brutal logic.

Her body, her choice...
Imo, that's the most idiotic reasoning possible.

Her choice is not about her body, it's about the embryo. Mom's not choosing to abort herself, she's choosing to terminate a future son/daughter...

If the only reason it's "her choice" is because the embryo is in " her body", technically the father was also in "her body" during intercourse for whatever amount of time it took to fertilize the egg. So, using your logic, the mother would have the right to choose to terminate or abort the father as well, during the time of intercourse. Which, for most liberal men, is probably around two minutes.

Yeah, either up your game, or don't bother.

And nature doesn't value a fetus. Follow her advice.

Nature also has mothers who eat their young?(Granted, that involves having the balls to carry to term...) Should we follow her advice there also? Would you be onboard?

Are you a wild animal or a human being? And is there a difference in your opinion?


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[jasonnfree]

I respectfully disagree.

I believe there are instances in which a woman should take responsibility for her actions.

I think women want all the choice but don't want to take on the responsibility of financially supporting a child. If a man makes his position clear beforehand and a woman manages to trick him into getting her pregnant, it should be on her shoulders.

I know a woman, personally know her that is, who intentionally poked holes in condoms and lied about using birth control pills. That's wrong and he should not be financially supporting a baby he tried to prevent.

Poking holes in a condom is a pretty sleazy thing to do, yes. And as much as it sucks for the man who is victim to such an underhanded move, he is still party responsible for the financial support of the child.

Be careful who you screw, is all I can say.

So the man's partially responsible for financial support but not the for the choice of life or death!?
A man and woman decide to have sex, together...
They decide to not use protection, together...
Yet only the woman can choose murder!?

How does that make sense to any sane adult? Sorry Carla, your parents failed you.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Her body, her choice, and it's not murder, that is for persons, neither pre-, post-, or never were. It's logic, brutal logic.

Her body, her choice...
Imo, that's the most idiotic reasoning possible.

Her choice is not about her body, it's about the embryo. Mom's not choosing to abort herself, she's choosing to terminate a future son/daughter...

If the only reason it's "her choice" is because the embryo is in " her body", technically the father was also in "her body" during intercourse for whatever amount of time it took to fertilize the egg. So, using your logic, the mother would have the right to choose to terminate or abort the father as well, during the time of intercourse. Which, for most liberal men, is probably around two minutes.

Yeah, either up your game, or don't bother.

And nature doesn't value a fetus. Follow her advice.

These republicans don't give a damn about human lives. Republicans fighting us from having decent, national health care like other civilized countries has cost hundreds of thousand of lives in the last few decades. This phony concern for the fetus costs them nothing in actual dollars and taxes being raised, which is why they grandstand about it.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Nice try.

If you truly want equality of the sexes, then you would have to support this.

A woman covering 100% of finances for raising a child is not equality, doofus.

I respectfully disagree.

I believe there are instances in which a woman should take responsibility for her actions.

I think women want all the choice but don't want to take on the responsibility of financially supporting a child. If a man makes his position clear beforehand and a woman manages to trick him into getting her pregnant, it should be on her shoulders.

I know a woman, personally know her that is, who intentionally poked holes in condoms and lied about using birth control pills. That's wrong and he should not be financially supporting a baby he tried to prevent.

Poking holes in a condom is a pretty sleazy thing to do, yes. And as much as it sucks for the man who is victim to such an underhanded move, he is still party responsible for the financial support of the child.

Be careful who you screw, is all I can say.

So the man's partially responsible for financial support but not the for the choice of life or death!?
A man and woman decide to have sex, together...
They decide to not use protection, together...
Yet only the woman can choose murder!?

How does that make sense to any sane adult? Sorry Carla, your parents failed you.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Abortion is not murder, and you need to go read the rules on bring up family, newbie.

 

[Carla_Danger]

A woman covering 100% of finances for raising a child is not equality, doofus.

I respectfully disagree.

I believe there are instances in which a woman should take responsibility for her actions.

I think women want all the choice but don't want to take on the responsibility of financially supporting a child. If a man makes his position clear beforehand and a woman manages to trick him into getting her pregnant, it should be on her shoulders.

I know a woman, personally know her that is, who intentionally poked holes in condoms and lied about using birth control pills. That's wrong and he should not be financially supporting a baby he tried to prevent.

Poking holes in a condom is a pretty sleazy thing to do, yes. And as much as it sucks for the man who is victim to such an underhanded move, he is still party responsible for the financial support of the child.

Be careful who you screw, is all I can say.

So the man's partially responsible for financial support but not the for the choice of life or death!?
A man and woman decide to have sex, together...
They decide to not use protection, together...
Yet only the woman can choose murder!?

How does that make sense to any sane adult? Sorry Carla, your parents failed you.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Her body, her choice, and it's not murder, that is for persons, neither pre-, post-, or never were. It's logic, brutal logic.

Her body, her choice...
Imo, that's the most idiotic reasoning possible.

Her choice is not about her body, it's about the embryo. Mom's not choosing to abort herself, she's choosing to terminate a future son/daughter...

If the only reason it's "her choice" is because the embryo is in " her body", technically the father was also in "her body" during intercourse for whatever amount of time it took to fertilize the egg. So, using your logic, the mother would have the right to choose to terminate or abort the father as well, during the time of intercourse. Which, for most liberal men, is probably around two minutes.


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Wow, that's not even close to a rational debate.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Are you a wild animal or a human being?

I'm rational, therefore I don't call abortion murder or fetuses babies.

 

[Hancock]

If you truly want equality of the sexes, then you would have to support this.

A woman covering 100% of finances for raising a child is not equality, doofus.

I respectfully disagree.

I believe there are instances in which a woman should take responsibility for her actions.

I think women want all the choice but don't want to take on the responsibility of financially supporting a child. If a man makes his position clear beforehand and a woman manages to trick him into getting her pregnant, it should be on her shoulders.

I know a woman, personally know her that is, who intentionally poked holes in condoms and lied about using birth control pills. That's wrong and he should not be financially supporting a baby he tried to prevent.

Poking holes in a condom is a pretty sleazy thing to do, yes. And as much as it sucks for the man who is victim to such an underhanded move, he is still party responsible for the financial support of the child.

Be careful who you screw, is all I can say.

So the man's partially responsible for financial support but not the for the choice of life or death!?
A man and woman decide to have sex, together...
They decide to not use protection, together...
Yet only the woman can choose murder!?

How does that make sense to any sane adult? Sorry Carla, your parents failed you.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Abortion is not murder, and you need to go read the rules on bring up family, newbie.

If a pregnant woman is killed in a homicide, the killer is charged with two counts of what?

Murder.

Now the first count is, of course, for the murder of the mother. What's the second murder charge about?

The fetus. And a fetus can not be murdered if it is not first alive.

Now, how can the state say that an embryo is in fact a life worth defending, then on the other hand, when the issue of abortion is raised, claim it's up to the mother and that the fetus has no rights?

Roe vs Wade will not hold up...It will have to be revisited at some point. I hope sooner than later.




Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Hancock]

Are you a wild animal or a human being?

I'm rational, therefore I don't call abortion murder or fetuses babies.

No, you made a stupid comment about nature and following her advice, to which, I asked if you'd be willing to support mothers who would like to eat their children? Which happens in nature quite a bit.
You progressives could open your own eatery chain, Plan Parenthood Cafe!

And the questions I asked weren't that hard, but you didn't answer any of them...not surprisingly.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Are you a wild animal or a human being?

I'm rational, therefore I don't call abortion murder or fetuses babies.

No, you made a stupid comment about nature and following her advice, to which, I asked if you'd be willing to support mothers who would like to eat their children? Which happens in nature quite a bit.
You progressives could open your own eatery chain, Plan Parenthood Cafe!

And the questions I asked weren't that hard, but you didn't answer any of them...not surprisingly.

When you questions are worthy, I will respond. Not until then.

 

[Hancock]

Are you a wild animal or a human being?

I'm rational, therefore I don't call abortion murder or fetuses babies.

No, you made a stupid comment about nature and following her advice, to which, I asked if you'd be willing to support mothers who would like to eat their children? Which happens in nature quite a bit.
You progressives could open your own eatery chain, Plan Parenthood Cafe!

And the questions I asked weren't that hard, but you didn't answer any of them...not surprisingly.

When you questions are worthy, I will respond. Not until then.

Ten? It's 1:00am.
Then would make more sense.
Seems more like you need time to form a worthy answer. Good luck with that.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk