Why Should Men Have ANY Say In Abortion?

Try sticking to the facts of the issue and not bring in your own personal feelings on it.

Whether you or the majority of the people think abortion same-sex marriage is immoral or not has no bearing on the issue, that is not what any future legal decision on abortion / same sex marriage will be made on

Whether you think abortion / same sex marriage is done for "convenience" or not has no relevance to the issue, what you think is convenient is not a reason to make it illegal.

Whether you think abortion / same sex marriage is evil or not has no bearing on the issue, whether you think it is evil or not is not a reason to make it illegal.

Whether your religious doctrine tells you abortion or same sex marriage is wrong is irrelevant, your religious views will have no bearing on whether abortion / same sex marriage should be legal or not.

You are perfectly entitled to any of these views .. but none of them are a reason to make something illegal or legal as the case may be.

 

The fetus's innocence is not irrelevant. It's irrelevant with regards to injury, but i was NOT arguing about injury.

 

HOW is the fetus "innocence" pertinent?

 

The innocence of the fetus is completely irrelevant. Laws against killing are not made on the basis of innocence unless the entity we are referring to is a living human.

Can you prove that a living human exists in the early stages of pregnancy ? Do you even have an argument that makes it past the giggle test never-mind passing the validity test (not based in fallacy) ?

 

So if his contribution to pregnancy ends at the point where sperm enters the vagina, so must his responsibilities end at the same point. You can`t have it both ways.

 

nope, his contribution to the pregnancy ends, not his contribution to any person after the birth.

- - - Updated - - -

then what are you arguing.

Innocence has no relevance at all.

 

I don't get you, you seem to be pro-choice but then you indicate you want the man to have the power to force a woman to have an abortion or force her to give birth. Isn't that what "having a say" means? And why would his "say" override her "say" ??????

 

Easily, pregnancy has no physical effect on man, it does not take place within his body and he has absolutely no responsibility to the woman or the fetus at that time, a man can, and often does, walk away from a pregnant woman and there is not recourse. A man has no financial responsibility forced upon him during pregnancy what so ever .. once the birth takes place then this now involves a complete and separate individual, if the man was equally responsible for all financial commitments during the pregnancy then fair enough to him being able to revoke his consent.

As to both having the option to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, that could result in a form of slavery upon the woman where she is forced to allow invasion into her body in order to succumb to another persons wants.

Now if the fetus is ever deemed a person from conception then a man would be equally responsible for any costs and should, IMO, be able to revoke his consent from that point.

But, lets be honest here, it isn't really anything to do with what the woman wants, we have child support because the state does not want to have to pay for all children born where fathers want nothing to do with them . .so in reality it isn't so much what the woman wants but what the state wants in order to reduce the financial burden on them and the tax payer. I can just imagine the gnashing of teeth should the state ever decide that a man can revoke his consent to any child born .. personally I agree with you, if a woman can decide whether to continue a pregnancy or not then a man should be able to decide whether he wants to support any child resulting from a birth.

 

I am pro choice and I do not advocate giving a man power to force a woman to have an abortion.

What you advocate is giving a woman power to force a man to pay her money on the basis of her decision to bring a child into the world.

 

Agreed, though trying to convince the state to do this will be a battle that can never be won .. it is not so much what the woman wants more of what the state demands, can you imagine the gnashing of teeth (especially from the right-wing) if the state ever revoked child support laws .. it is purely a state financial decision.

 

I understand where Giftedone is coming from .. if, as pro-choice, we say that pregnancy is a choice of consent for the woman then it would be a little hypocritical to say that a man has no choice of consent over child support.

Personally I can not seeing it change as the state would never allow the massive increase in tax in order to fund those fathers who decide not to pay, so in this instance it is a discrimination based on the state, not on the man or the woman.

 

YES you do want a man to have a say in whether the woman has an abortion or not which indicates you believe the man may force the woman to give birth or have an abortion.....what ELSE would "say" mean?????

And most men would agree with you since most men couldn't care less about a woman having their baby if they can get out of all responsibility.

I understand your point, I just cannot, will not care about how life is so "unfair" to men when women are still the ones with the entire responsibility and burden of menstrual periods, a multitude of gynecological problems, birth control , abortion, child birth, and most child rearing, plus all the discrimination and problems exclusive to women.

There is NO normal man who would voluntarily change sexes....EVER.

 

Errr..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_woman

I mean, they can't have babies or experience periods, but I am pretty sure many trans women want to experience those things or have expressed how much they wish they could.

 

""""""""""""""""""""There is NO normal man who would voluntarily change sexes....EVER"""""""""""""""""""

And HOW many trans women are there? Not enough for me to care..

 

You don't think trans people are normal people?

 

NO and how many are there....not enough for me to care or influence this discussion....

 

It really doesn't matter if you care about them or not. They exist, there are men who want to be women and that proves you wrong whenever you say, "There is NO normal man who would voluntarily change sexes....EVER."

Anyways, I realize that you don't care about men or see them as human beings with rights too but jeeze...

 

Oh for pete's sake, I never said I don't care about men or don't see them as human beings with rights...
Just because I think they have it a LOT better than women when it comes to reproduction doesn't mean I think they are less than a woman or don't have rights.

And ,no, trans genders are not normal and that does NOT means they are "less than" anyone else or that I don't like them or that I discriminate against them or hate their parents or the car they drive..

They are such a miniscule number in this discussion that their NUMBER doesn't matter to me and does not prove me wrong when I say there are no normal men who would volunteer to be women.....some might but it would be the ones who never experienced a really bad period or even know what it entails, or 9 months of labor( some men think it's a mere inconvenience) or giving birth.

 

Why wouldn't you put it on an individual case by case basis though?

Sure on a whole most men have it better than most women, but also on an individual level many men are living in poverty just as many women are. You can't think that every single guy who chooses to have sex is a wealthy man, or that he even has a job, or that he's not struggling to get by on his paycheck.

When a woman chooses to give birth to a baby, that choice is all hers and hers alone. I don't think that her choice to have a child should affect him (unless they are committed/married/ or he shows an interest in being a father to the child). If he has made it clear that he can barely afford to care for himself let alone a dependent then why should it affect him when she chooses to birth instead of doing what is probably the more responsible thing and have an abortion?

Why must she force him into fatherhood against his will and then extort money from him through the courts? Is she not capable of being responsible for the choice she made? To be a mother and care for and raise a baby?

When people have children they should have them with a willing partner, not force or trap people into parenthood through the law or just because they chose to have sex.

 

Uh, I heard all that before.....and I stated why I don't care.

 

Right, you don't care because you assume all men have it great.

 

I did NOT say that. As far as REPRODUCTION all men have it much better than women. RE PRO DUC TION.

A man may be just as poor as a woman but not have to figure the cost of Tampax, mammograms, PAP tests or other doctor's visits for gynecological reasons, lost wages due to periods or pregnancy into his budget. NOR does he EVER have to worry or stress about becoming pregnant

I don't care because men have it better....REPRODUCTION-WISE.


They STILL are free to walk away.....but laws have been passed to prevent taxpayers from bearing THEIR fatherly burden...and that's GOOD!

 

got to take a bit of umbrage at the highlighted comment, it is the state that forces this and extorts money not the woman (in most cases)

I still say it is more of a state issue than anything else, the state does not want to fund every child born that fathers would revoke the choice of consent for, the cost involved would require a huge increase in taxation and no state, whether it is discrimination or not, would suggest such a thing.

A woman can not force a man to fund a child only the state can do that.