Lawmaker Wants Women To Get A Man's Permission To Have An Abortion

All for it, men should be held accountable for the children they help produce and also have a say so in what happens to them as in being killed, don't you think?

- - - Updated - - -

It's called adoption, the child doesn't have to be killed because of the failures of the creators of that child.

 

Children
a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=child&submit.x=35&submit.y=27

 

No , in this context, women do NOT want control of other people's lives OR bodies...men want both.

You don't see women as people who have a right to their own body.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, common usage doesn't cut it.

Use a legal or medical textbook for the legal scientific ACCURATE definitions.


You could call a fetus a kumquat and it still wouldn't be a kumquat.

 

Irrational since you fight for a woman to have the right to destroy the body of her child in utero at will.

 

There is no "child", there is a fetus which is part of the woman's body, HER body, giving her the right to remove it.

 

Only True wo-men of Faith should have to get permission from their husband.

 

There is a child in utero. REad the UVVA, Unborn Victims of Violence Act. A FEDERAL LAW that repeatedly refers to the child in utero and further explains that this recognition applies regardless of the stage of development.
http://nchla.org/issues.asp?ID=25

This definitively answers the question of whether the fetus is a human being or person, and the fetus is actually both.
This further proves that an abortion is a homicide, since the killing of one person by another is a homicide. The law, irrationally, contains an exception that allows the mother to commit the homicide of abortion with impunity, while anyone else who kills the child is charged with a crime.

 

And we are discussing abortion....not murder. The UVVA law does not address abortion. Abortion is legal, a law protects it.


...the person who murders a woman and her fetus is taking away her CHOICE just like Anti-Abortion proponents want to do...so there is a similarity.

 

heavy sigh, "homicide" and "murder" are not synonymous. "Homicide" is merely the killing of one human being by another, and abortion meets that definition as backed up by the UVVA. The UVVA law DOES address abortion, it contains an explicit exclusion for it. Why would that be necessary unless abortion was a homicide? The UVVA does NOT however mention anything about the woman's choice, it is about the life of the child in utero, which it does mention repeatedly.

 

yes, republicans want the rapist to have a say in the victim getting an abortion or not

 

Oh, dear! The Heavy Sigh........you said , " it contains an explicit exclusion for it"...so abortion is excluded. YOU can call it anything you choose but it's not homicide or murder since the fetus is not a "person".

 

That is exactly what women want. They want all say in the life of the unborn child and the father. If you were interested in true equality you would see that also. I guess that 70's attitude comes with blinders.

 

Don't you mean sperm doners? If the guys abusive then that's all he is,,,,

 

It is OBVIOUSLY a homicide or there would be no need for an exclusion in a violent crime and homicide law. LOGIC, get some. Unless you hold that a child is not a person, you are completely wrong. There is a FEDERAL LAW on the books that shows that rather clearly! A "child in utero" is a child, and consequently a person. It is fun educating the uneducated.

 

Well, the Supreme Court disagrees and women are free to have abortions no matter what it's called.

A fetus is not a child nor a person, the UVVA law can call it anything it wants and mentions it because if the fetus is killed it is seen as further damage to the attacked woman.


IF a child is deemed a "person" then the pregnant woman has every right to self-defense just like you do....and can use self-defense right to and including lethal force against an attacker.


That has nothing to do with the topic which is a man having a hissy fit and wanting men to own women ....

 

The Supreme Court does not disagree at all. They have NOT said it isn't a homicide and they have not said the UVVA is unconstitutional.

So the notions in YOUR head trump law and widely accepted word definitions?
No Skippy, you are wrong and quite obviously so.

And a child created through a woman's own willing actions is essentially invited by those actions, and the child's mere existence is not an attack in any way.

Yeah I know, many abortion advocates hate the truth I am posting, but I'm not going anywhere punkin!

 

Lawmaker Wants Women To Get A Man's Permission To Have An Abortion.

Why does Soros agent286 put these threads up over and over? It is a total lie that this is about a woman asking "A" Man to have an abortion but to ask the father who is a man.

 

Just to add insult to injury - more whiny, pouty men Fox - why don't you write them and tell them they have no choice - THEY DON'T and the state agrees with you.

http://www.independentsentinel.com/...gical-fathers-be-forced-to-pay-child-support/

Men deserve a choice. Look at those numbers. 30%. Staggering.

And yet, the wheels turn and the money burns. In one case, the woman married the bio father and the faux father STILL was ordered to pay child support.

IMHO: I'd flatly refuse, and expatriate myself to another country. These feminists, slavering dogs one and all, can burn in the depths of hell.

 

when science can take the fertilized egg out of a female and put it in a man, men will then have a choice

men can not force a women to have a baby

 

Then we need laws that stop women from committing paternity fraud, stop collecting ridiculous sums for child support from non-biological fathers, we need to remove the unconstitutional Family Court entirely.

why do you think "family court" exists?

Not only is it unconstitutional, it is a laughing stock, a hotbed for anti-male feminist vitriol. These cases - child support, custody, etc. They aren't decided by a jury of our peers - for a reason.

We need to oust this rabble and go by the clear word of constitutional law - not some scrabble in Roosters blood penned on recycled paper.

The whole system is a farce and is strictly biased toward women, and I don't give a damn if you or anyone else calls me a misogynist for saying the above. If being for equality -in all facets of life, for all peoples- makes me a misogynist, then I am proud to call myself one. It's more then I can say for any feminist or white knight who supports this sickening, biased eugenicist agenda.

 

So if a woman tells the physician (not that a bat crap crazy law such as tis would ever make it past the toilet) that she does not know for certain who the father is, she will be denied an abortion? Will they demand she contact the men she might have been intimate with so that they can perform a paternity DNA test in utero? That's how dumbass this idea is. What if the woman used a sperm donor and changed her mind about the pregnancy? What If she Is a rape victim? Will they force her to consult with her rapist? Only a bat crap crazy and infinitely stupid right wing politician come up with this garbage to pander to an equally crazy and stupid electorate.