Is it really so bad if a man slips a woman an abortion pill?

Suggest you pick up a law book.

While consent to sexual intercourse merely causes the risk that pregnancy will occur, consent to expose oneself to risk that one will be injured by a private party is not a legal proxy for consent to the actual injuries should they occur. On the contrary, the law recognizes the exact opposite. consent to jog alone at night in central park does not stand as a proxy for consent to be mugged and/or raped, should others attack you. The law instead recognizes in many ways how people can consent to factual, necessary causes of accidents and injuries imposed by other people without consenting to the legal causes of accidents. The "mere fact that one is willing to incur a risk that conduct in a deliberate violent act will be committed", for example, "does not mean one is willing for such conduct to be committed" - Source : W. Page Keeton, Dan B. Dobbs, Robert E. Keeton, and David G. Owen; Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5th Ed, Page 113 - What this means is that just because normal consensual sexual intercourse usually precedes pregnancy does not mean that a woman has consented to pregnancy.

Doesn't matter, no person can be held to a contract that results in them receiving injuries in order to maintain the contract. The assumption of risk can, and is, often tied into contributory negligence where the actions of a person can bring harm to themselves but even so those people who consent to risk do not lose the right to be free of non consensual injuries from others. Women who assume the risk of pregnancy must there for be seen as acting in their own interest, one way is for them to have given their express consent to that condition, in this case the woman is not being harmed by the fetus imposing pregnancy on to her against her will, she may be harmed by the pregnancy, but she does not endure harm by virtue of imposition of pregnancy upon her against her will ... however, that consent can be revoked at any point thus breaking the consensual relationship to be harmed, should the opponent continue to inflict harm after the relationship is broken, the victim would be entitled at that point to state assistance to stop the attack.

In general even if a woman can be said to have assumed the risk that a fertilized ovum will harm her, since people are not bound to continue their assumption of risk, neither would she be bound ergo even if we were to apply an assumption of risk analysis to pregnancy it would not entitle a fertilized ovum to harm a woman unless she has consented to that harm.

 

Do you want some cheese with that Whine ? Don't blame me that you have nothing but name calling and ad hom.

This is not an argument for much.

 

You whine about how unequal life is for men and then call someone else a whiner??? You call women lazy slobs and then WHINE when you perceive that poor little men are called names ??? LOL!

That is the core of your argument, the egocentricity of men ........


changed the law yet ?!!!

 

You really need to get an argument and lose the straw man fallacy and name calling. I never called all women lazy slobs.

Giving logical support and making valid arguments for a claim is not "whining"

Your repetitive name calling is not support for much.

 

You haven't made any valid arguments and I don't need to because I doubt the law will change to let men off free from supporting their own kids despite their WHINING


Oh, I got your name calling wrong, it was really, QUOTE from YOUR POST: """The lazy worthless woman""

"Worthless " is rather like "slob" ....I guess you're fussy about how you insult women .

 

Fox didn't call all men whiny and misogynistic.

 

Yup ... there are lazy worthless people out there and women are people too. Your disingenuous attempt to extend my specific comment to all women is nothing but a diversion tactic to hide from the fact that your claims were shown to be hypocrisy.

The specific case referred to is a person that would break an agreement and then force another person to be responsible for the consequences of their deceit. This fits in to the definition "worthless human" in my books. Perhaps to you this is how you define integrity.

Of course I made valid arguments. You are correct in your claim that "you do not need to make valid argument" and nor have you made any. You can do what you like

Your inability to come up with a refutation to my argument does not make my argument "invalid".

You think that it is OK for one person to be forced to be responsible for the consequences of the reproductive choice/decisions and actions of another.

You then claim to not care that this is a violation of the Rule of Law. OK .. so you do not care.

They you turn around and cry foul when situation is reversed and the same logic is used to justify something that you do not like.

This is hypocrisy.

Do what you like but, if you only care about individual rights and freedoms for things you agree with, then you really do not care about individual rights and freedoms at all.

 

Hard to take seriously all that pompous crap about " Harumph, individual rights and freedoms and flag waving and Oh you don't care about America and individual rights ..blah blah blah " when you propose such a ridiculous argument....hey, any lawmakers helpin' ya out yet ???:roflol:

 

Just because you have no refutation to my argument's, does not make them ridiculous

Just because I showed you what follows from your logic is no reason to get mad at me.

Your living in a world of hypocrisy is not my fault.

 

""""Just because you have no refutation to my argument's, does not make them ridiculous""""


No, they do that on their own

 

More naked claims ... Blah Blah Blah

 

Not any old person. Only the person who is the prospective father.

He made his decision when he decided to have sex knowing there was a chance it would result in him becoming a father.

There aren't any more choices to give him.

 

What decision did this man make "His decision" ? The decision to be financial responsible for a child ? Of course given the current law, the decision to have sex carries the weight of financial responsibility.

This has nothing to do with whether or not the current law is valid - for the tenth time.

Why do you keep going in circles? Of course there are no choices given to a man after sex. The law is what the law is.

The question "what is the law" has nothing to do with whether or not that law is valid or just.

Why do you keep on repeating "its the law ... its the law" thinking that this somehow constitutes justification for that law ?

 

You might want to ask HER.

Pretty sure she won't like it...

 

If the decision to have sex results in the birth of his child, yes.

It's everything to do with it. If a man has children that have not been adopted, he is a father.

He must therefore help to support his children.

Nothing to do with the law. Men don't have any birth control choices after they've had sex.

You keep repeating it's the law. I keep repeating it's nature.

The law is only concerned with ensuring both parents are financially responsible for providing for their children, unless both agree to give up them up for adoption

That does not seem unjust to me.

You want the law to enable men to have a birth control choice after they've had sex, which is physically impossible.

 

No it doesn't.

A man is genetically the father, regardless of whether or not the children have been adopted.

Genetic parenthood does not necessarily obligate financial responsibility ... Obviously.

Are you reading impaired ? I never said anything about a law in relation to men having reproductive choices after sex ?

What are you blubbering about ? I was talking about the law that allows a woman to make a man financially responsible for the consequences of her actions/decisions.

What does nature have to do with this ? The reason men are made financially responsible for the consequences for the decisions of another is due to the law and not nature.

The law is not only concerned with the both parents being financially responsible. If that was the case it would force abortion and/or adoption.

Regardless. The question of whether the law is just is something you have yet to address with anything other than naked claims and fallacy.

This is completely false. Where do I say or infer this?. Get some reading comprehension.

1) It is you that agrees with law that gives the state the ability to force people to be responsible for the reproductive choices of others.

2) Yes it is possible for women to have reproductive choice forced upon them. It is possible for a woman to be forced to have an abortion and it is possible for a woman to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term.

You are in fact arguing for law that allows the state to force the consequences of reproductive choice of others on an individual. A choice that this individual did not make.

Careful for what you wish for.

It is in fact possible for a man

 

Explain how having sired a living child does not make a man a father?

You've just contradicted yourself there. In the case of adoption, a man is not legally the child's father.

Adoptions can only be arranged if both natural parents freely agree.

Genetic parenthood does not necessarily obligate financial responsibility ... Obviously.

But that is what you want. What you want is colloquially known as male abortion, or Choice for Men ( C4M)

It is, as you acknowledge, impossible - and that should be the end of it.

However, in the USA especially, some people are still arguing for it by trying to compare contractually opting out of fatherhood before men actually become fathers with a woman's ability to end a pregnancy.
You are one of them.

It doesn't work and cannot be made to work

There is no such law. I've told you before.

If you know of one, then give me a link and we will discuss it properly. Also define naked claim.

Its due to them being natural fathers with living children for whom they are responsible. There is no such law as you describe

Nonsense. It isn't possible to abort a born child and it is cruel and in inhuman to force a parent to give up their child because they are unable to afford to support it.

I don't know what you mean by naked claims, but I haven't made any false statements.

Your argument is obvious to anyone reading this thread.
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/c4m/c4m_details.htm

Rather, I support the state not interfering with the reproductive choices of individuals.

None of those things are acceptable and would be a gross infringement of human rights.

The individual didn't have the choice to make and can't be given it, so I am arguing for no such thing.

From my link:
There is massive ambiguity. For example, it could mean that men should have the power & choice to do one or more of:

1. Cause the woman to have an abortion.
2. Have an abortion themselves.
3. Ensure that there is no abortion.
4. Give the child away for adoption soon after birth.
5. Avoid any emotional consequences from having a blood-child.
6. Avoid any financial consequences from having a blood-child.
Etc.
In fact what C4M proponents appear mainly to seek is 6: "avoid any financial consequences from having a blood-child". (Some here may actually be more interested in some form of equality than avoiding financial consequences, but probably C4M would lose some supporters if, for example, it focused on banning abortion rather than avoiding financial consequences for men. It certainly wouldn't achieve the FAQ's objectives).

That seems quite clear yes, but it;s the next bit that gets to the nub of the matter:

Proponents use a concept that sounds like something right-minded people should aspire to. C4M proponents casually use words & terms like "same powers and choices" & "equality of choice" & "justice and morality" that in different circumstances might cause us to say "yes, we want that, of course!" These can seductively blind people here to the real implications of what they are saying. Challenging those statements isn't "literalmindedness"; it shows how unrealistic they are once there is the massive asymmetry of a pregnant woman and non-pregnant man. "Same" & "equality" have no useful meaning any more, just a collection of meanings (like 1 - 6 above) to be selected from.

In the real world, it is obvious that these terms are inaccurate because they are inapplicable, and in fact are not even close to the truth. But some people here appear to use such words to hide reality. A problem is that instead of seeking objectives (such as "to be able to have consensual sex without the risk of financial consequences") people seek mechanisms (such as "powers & choices"). In an asymmetrical situation, similar objectives may be achieved, but by different mechanisms.

You need to think about that.

You should indeed be careful what you wish for. See above.

Your children could be taken away from you because have fallen on hard times, for example.

Not legally.

 

Naked claims are claims without support. An argument consists of 1) a claim or premise and 2) explanation of some kind for why that claim is true.

Your claim "fathers are responsible for their children" is naked because you have not stated why this claim is true.

The claim is clearly false in some circumstances as not all fathers are responsible for their children (Adoption, Sperm Donors, and so on)

Regardless, I hope this clears up what a naked claim is.

One day you should really to stop putting words in my mouth. I never argued that it didn't ?

What is your problem. This is two straw men, back to back in the same post - pretending, claiming or inferring I said something I did not.

This is what I said:

How on God's Green earth do you get "legal" parentage out of "Genetic parentage"

OK ... my apologies but it is pointless to continue. I stopped reading here as there is no point.

It is one thing that you ignore my arguments against your claims and then just repeat your claim over and over again. This goes back to the naked claim thing.

Repetition is not proof of claim "A father is responsible for his children because - A father is responsible for his children" is just repetition of premise.

It is another thing for you to continually build straw-men; Misrepresenting my position/accusing me of saying things I didn't say so that you have something to attack.

At some point one must throw in towel. You win

 

I di. I provided a link to information on child maintenance and you told me you didn't need it, because you new all about it.

And so on? Don't stop there.

Yes. Please stop making them.

I've pointed out many times that adoption is a matter to be decided by both parents and not just by one parent.

Sperm donation is a diffeent kettle of fish altogether - as long as it's done through the proper, legal channels and isn't a casual agreement.

You're arguing it shouldn't have to if the man doesn't want it.

Hopefully it was the link I provided that has led you to do that.

Your argument from the beginning has been that men don't have a birth control choice after sex, so should have one manufactured legally so they can opt out of becoming a father - in the name of equality.

You have consistently denied it, but that is what you have been doing.

That is a classic argument for what is colloquially known as " male abortion".

Here s my link again for anyone who may have missed it broadly outlining the sheer stupidity and wrong-headedness of the argument:

http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/c4m/c4m_details.htm

And again here:

http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/c4m/c4m_faq.htm

The commentary is UK oriented, but it broadly applies to most western countries and is very fair.

 

I have never argued that men should have birth control choice. Quit spewing falsehoods.

You are the one that wants the state to be able to force people to be responsible for the consequences of the reproductive choices of others.

Don't blame me for your nonsense

 

You have but you don't call it that. You want men to be able to opt out of supporting their children.

You are the one that wants men to be able to have a birth control choice after they've had sex.

Choice for Men is a proposal to improve the law so it protects men's right to plan their families.

That's what you want, but you won't actually say that.

Isn't Choice for Men simply a way for men to get out of paying child support?

I say (very firmly) yes.

That's what it's all about, surely, otherwise why bother?

If you disagree your opinion is men having the legal ability to opt out of becoming a father after sex, then explain why.

Explain how that choice would right a legal wrong?

What right does the woman currently have that men don't have that doesn't involve choosing (or not choosing) to undergo a medical procedure ensuring is no child is born?



How would you ensure that giving men that right would not have a detrimental impact on society and on their future children?

 

Sounds about like asking if a woman drugs a man unconscious and performed a vasectomy on him is it really so bad?

 

What are you talking about ? Child support or lack of child support is not birth control or birth control choice ?

No I do not ?

Never said anything of the sort and nor do I agree with any such thing.

Never said any such thing and nor do I agree with any such nonsense.

You may say yes but you are not making any sense. Men do not have birth control choice and I have never argued that they should.

 

Well, yes you do, but, as I've pointed out, you won't call it that.

Because women have a birth control choice after sex, you want one to be dreamed up for men.

This what you want, is it not?

So, you are not advocating in any way for a male abortion, or financial abortion, or a choice for men? Whatever name you want to stick on it?

What is it you've been saying, then?

What choice do you want for men that is equal to a choice that women have?

So, what is you want for men? Knowing they don't have a birth control choice after sex?

That, unlike women, there is no medical procedure a man can choose to undergo that will prevent his child being born? ( or not, if he chooses otherwise)

What is this unfair law you are talking about?

 

You are talking nonsense.

Men not wanting to pay child support is not forcing their birth control choice on a woman or making a law that wants to force birth control choice on women.

Get a grip.