1-That's a circular argument. You are quoting the current laws to justify how the laws should be. 2-I don't have to spell everything out for you.
Says the guy who is constantly asking what we mean, (myopic for example). If that's not the literal definition of 'spell it out for me', I don't know what is.
No I am quoting the cases that are related to what constitutes consent and what doesn't .. AS YOU BLOODY WELL ASKED ME TO and further more I am not saying it is how the laws SHOULD be, it is how the laws ARE. Question : Do you feel that the laws governing consent are 'good' & 'fair' laws, or do you want them only to apply to what YOU feel is relevant? no you don't, though you poisoning the well has been noted .. oh and in future don't bother asking me what something means.
It's about responsibility. A woman who is pregnant should take actions to protect the child inside her. If she does not, she should be punished. The responsibility doesn't begin at birth. And consent to sex does imply consent to pregnancy, our entire child support system is based on it. If you say consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy, then I demand equal rights for men. If a man impregnates a woman, she can ask him to help care for the child, but it is entirely his decision as to whether he does or not. No more holding men accountable for an act of sex! Legally or psychologically. We need to stop shaming men who don't take care of their children, when they didn't even consent to said children! See how your logic leads to the failure of society? If not, we are already lost I'm afraid.
Still whining about equal rights for men? I promise, you will never be forced to gestate and birth a child because you consented to sex.
No, it shouldn't be left to the states ...that's just so women have to hopscotch around the country to get an abortion, making it harder and sometimes impossible for poor women to get an abortion. NO state should be allowed to restrict human rights. . Safe legal abortions should be available for ALL American citizens...
That's the whole idea-to prevent women from getting abortions. Making it harder or even impossible for women to get abortions (with TRAP laws), means that less women have abortions.
And , as you have been told dozens of times(I'll type real slowly for you since you seem to have such a hard time with the English language ) making abortions illegal does not, has not, never will stop women from seeking abortions. It does NOT mean less abortions......it ONLY means hardship and possibly even death for tax paying citizens who have Equal Rights as human beings to have medical care.
Neither can you force the mother of a born infant to not be abusive or negligent, so surely infanticide is in the best interestes of the child. Right?
Actually you can, that is what child services do when they remove a child from a situation where they are being abused or neglected. so in the real world that most people live in there is no need for infanticide, though it does display the lack of thinking from pro-forced birthers that they can even put forward such an inane comparison.
Abortion is a responsible choice to make. How should she be punished? At what point do we start punishing women for taking control of their autonomy? For aborting in the first trimester? The second trimester? The third? Do we punish them for having a life saving abortion? Do we punish them for aborting due to rape/incest? Do we punish them for taking the morning after pill to prevent a fertilized ovum from attaching to the uterine lining? Do we punish only some of these women or all of them? Agreed, responsibility is often taken once she realizes she is pregnant. She either responsibly chooses an abortion or she responsibly chooses to acquire prenatal care and makes preparations for a child. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy and even if it were consent must be ongoing and can always be withdrawn, that is unless you have the actual physical paperwork in hand that she legally signed away her rights to her autonomy before sex? You're barking up the wrong tree because I totally 100% agree with you. We no longer live in the stone ages where women should be treated as if they are incapable of working or raising the children they so very much wanted. I think men should have just as much right to sign away their parental rights to a child as a woman does in a closed adoption setting. She doesn't even have to inform the father she had his kid either, she can just pretend she doesn't know who the father is in these situations. If a woman can give up her child and parental rights so easily why can fathers not do so? No I don't. I see how my logic leads to more freedoms however. If society truly is lost then so be it. Society has been lost before and rebuilt itself many times over. I'm not too worried about it.
No, then adoption would be the best choice for the child...come on, are you really going to try to pursue this argument?
I'm not arguing for equal rights for men. I'm predicting that others will. The logic behind abortion will lead to it.
Yea, this is just a really poorly structured argument. First off, woman understand pregnancy, and while HE won't be the one who is pregnant, that doesn't mean he should have no rights at all to the child. He has rights to the child when it comes out of the woman, why not when it is inside the woman? He won't suffer the pain of childbirth, but again, this is just a poor argument. It is at least 50% the womans responsibility to ensure she doesn't get pregnant, if she does get pregnant, she should take some responsibility for her actions. Again, citing the pain of child birth, he won't go through the pain, but he will go through the expense. If she does decide to go through with the pregnancy, the baby is at least partially his responsibility to provide for (through child support or whatever it may be), and yet he has absolutely no right to the child before it comes out of the woman? IT'S HIS CHILD TOO! Again, your last comment is just repeating yourself, he may not have the bills "staring him in the face" but he has the burden of providing support for years to come. No, but are you really saying that the man has NO right to the baby, but should be forced to take responsibility for it if a woman decides to have it? Are you really saying that SHE should take absolutely no responsibility in the creation of a child? Yes, I know the law and support the precedent set in Roe v. Wade. I was simply challenging people a bit. You, unfortunately, did not meet the challenge. You gave a very poor argument with little to no real talking points. As I said in my OP, I don't disagree with you that abortion should be legal, and again, I support the precedent set in Roe v Wade. That being said, you did not adequately address the issues of a man's right to a child, which is what the bulk of my OP was about. There are many good arguments that I have heard against me, but simply capitalizing HE at the beginning of a bunch of redundant sentences does not constitute a good argument.
All the things you have stated here are reasons why men should be able to sign away their parental rights as though in a closed adoption setting to any child she chooses to birth. Just as everything FoxHastings listed are reasons why women should remain in full control of her own autonomy and have the right to abortion if she wants one.
I admit, it can be. But I also say there are many more instances in which it is an irresponsible choice. I thought I explained life saving and rape/incest situations. We don't hold parents responsible when their children die in a house fire. We recognize the instinct to save one's own life. So no, one shouldn't punish abortion for certain medical/life saving reasons. And of course, I'm not talking about legal or physical punishment. I'm just saying society needs to start saying that it is indeed irresponsible to abort just because you like sex, but not kids. But not for men. Not in today's society. So you think it's ok for a man to have sex, and if the woman gets pregnant, he can just never call her again? No child support, nothing? Because if not, then you agree that you are holding him accountable for that act of sex, and assuming his consent to it meant consent to pregnancy. I believe that we have a responsibility to continue and improve society. What we have is a lot of accumulated wisdom from our ancestors. It would be shameful to throw all that work away. I guess I am just grateful for others' work, and I am of the mindset of "leave it better than what you found it".
I'll put this in a simple "structure" you can handle. IF the father of the "not-yet-a child" had rights he would be able to force a the woman to either give birth or force her to have an abortion. Either is just plain wrong.
Nope, he can always sign away his rights to the child. I do believe that if a man does that he should be jailed if he EVER makes any contact with that child whether he initiates it or the child does. Now, if YOU want men to have no responsibility to support their children, call your Congressperson and have them change the laws . But don't whine when more women then have to go on welfare and get food stamps to feed these kids...
does a man have his body autonomy infringed when a woman is pregnant, does the man suffer any physical injuries when a woman is pregnant, does a man have his right to who, what, where and when his body is used restricted when a woman is pregnant. The answer to all of the above is no a man does not.
lol that is better structure...so tell me, did he force her to get pregnant, or did she choose to have sexual relations, fully knowing that there was a chance that she could get pregnant (I'm assuming we are talking about consensual sex)? Why shouldn't she take any responsibility? Yes, the woman should have MORE power, and I am adamantly against a man forcing a woman to have an abortion, but I would argue that "forcing" her to give birth is not morally wrong. At the same time, if she does go through with the pregnancy, she can force him to take responsibility (through child support) no matter what. She chose to have sex with him, she should take responsibility for her actions. I would like to add that men SHOULD be required to take more responsibility for illegitimate children. He should be forced to pay child support if he is an absent father (and that should come with visitation rights), and he should be required to help pay for the mother's medical expenses. I will say that there is a great argument against this (which I practically gave in my OP), but simply giving me your opinion that it is wrong is, once again, very poor debate style.
Wow, you have some very interesting beliefs. Even if he signs over the rights to the child doesn't mean he won't have to pay child support. Do you also really think it is in the best interests of the child for him/her to never see their father? Do you think that it is morally right for a man to be forced to pay for a child that they are never allowed to see?
A man is not the one undergoing the physical intrusion upon his body, he is not the one sustaining unconsented injuries and regardless of the mans involvement in the creating the pregnancy it is not his body to make decisions about.. it is hers, unfair as that is it is the reality .. should the day come when men can become pregnant abortion will become a moot issue. While the fetus is infringing on another persons rights then no he doesn't have any rights to it, just as you don't have any right to stop someone defending themselves against attack, and she IS taking responsibility. Murder is purely a legal construct and is often over ruled where justification is seen such as executions, war and self-defence .. abortion is just another of those justifications. A person does not have a right to something that resides within another person, that right solely rests with the person effected. No person can be forced by another to give their body to sustain the life of another even if it leads to the death of the other person ergo a man cannot force a woman to give her body to sustain the fetus regardless of his interest, nor can a fetus force the woman to do the same.
