Why Should Men Have ANY Say In Abortion?

You are missing something. You are missing the big "IF". If the law is going to make the man responsible for some child brought into the world by some woman .. then he should have a say as to whether or not the child is brought forth to begin with.

Right now the law is completely unfair as it forces a man to be responsible for the decision of someone else. That is the point.

If a woman wants a child ... great. If she wants a man to help pay for that child then she should get him to sign a form saying that he consents. If he does not consent she still can have the child but then she is responsible for it.

Why would anyone .. man or woman want to be responsible for something they did not choose ?

Blaming one person for the problems of another is unfair (menstrual issues and so on). Birth control is something she has a choice about. Discrimination and child rearing have zero to do with this issue. If a woman does not want the responsibilities of a child then don't have one. If the man does not the responsibilities of a child then why should someone be able to force such things on him.

There are many advantages to being a woman but at the end of the day it is not some mans fault that some woman is not a man.

 

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?????


You state that in the bolded red above....that means a man , according to you, should be able to force a woman to either give birth or have an abortion.

You refuse to answer the question, "isn't that what having a say means??????""""" YES, that's what it means.

 

You are missing the point of what I was saying. I am saying that the law is wrong. It follows from the law ... not what I think.. that if a man is to be made responsible if some child comes into this world then he should have control whether or not that child comes into this world. This is what follows logically from the law and not from what I think.

I don't want to force a woman to have an abortion. I just do not want to be responsible for her decision to have a child.

Are women such victims that they need others to be responsible for their choices ? That is a terrible perspective IMO.

Why should a woman be able to force a man to be responsible for the consequences of her decision.

 

But the states only pursue if the woman files a claim in most cases for child support. I can't imagine the state would see any reason to pursue the biological father for child support if the biological mother does not file a claim in court; i.e. she is taking responsibility for a child she wanted to have and is raising it and caring for it on her own by her own choosing.

 

Why should a man be able to dictate(have a SAY) in whether or not a woman has a child or an abortion ?????
How is THAT making a woman responsible for her decision if you keep insisting that the man has a say??? Either it's the woman's decision or the man's...which is it????

You answer my questions first:

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?????

You state that in the bolded red above....that means a man , according to you, should be able to force a woman to either give birth or have an abortion.

You refuse to answer the question, "isn't that what having a say means??????""""" YES, that's what it means.

 

A man should not have a say in whether or not a woman has an abortion IMO. In the situation where a man does not have a say then he should be made responsible for something he had no say in.

 

He does have control. It takes two to make a baby.

Then don't have sex with her - or use a condom.

It's a man's children that need supporting. Not the woman.

Because it was his choice to have sex, too.

- - - Updated - - -

The woman didn't become pregnant on her own. The man had his say when he had sex with her.

 

So you changed your mind and now a man shouldn't have a "say" in whether a woman gives birth or not. Good.

OK, now petition your political representatives (hopefully they're Republican and like lots of taxes going towards social programs ) and try to get a bill passed excusing men from supporting their children. If the bill is passed the taxpayers will eagerly take up the slack, and men will vote Republican forever more.

Republicans will gladly raise minimum wage and fight for pay equity ( ) so mothers, who now have the sole responsibility to raise ALL children will be able to help support them.

Men , however, should never expect to EVER see their children (AND grandchildren) or have anything to do with them, IF they do, if they make any contact, they should be fined and imprisoned.

Isn't that completely fair???

Their children should also be forbidden to make any contact or THEY should be fined and imprisoned. (afterall , making contact with complete STRANGERS is dangerous) .


Oh, and Republicans will have to rescind ALL anti-abortion laws, fair is fair...no restrictions for men, no restrictions for women.

 

Why should they imprisoned for seeing their children or even talking to them briefly (any contact)? That sounds immoral cruel harsh and illogical.

 

Gee, I thought you left?


Why should they be imprisoned for contacting their children?

Because if they sign away their rights and responsibilities for supporting their own children they have given up the right to those children.

Why should they have any right to see them or contact them?

Do you think it's moral to abandon your children? Harsh? Cruel?

 

Just because they gave up parental rights and responsibilities, it doesnt mean they should be fined or imprisoned for saying "hi" to their kids.

 

Yes, it does. They gave up their rights, they can't have it both ways.

And WHY would they want to contact kids they don't want? That would be weird.

No child should have to have contact with a parent who rejected them....and children should not be allowed to even know who that man is or have any contact with him, he is NOT their parent and gave up all claim to them.

And I see you still can't answer those INCONVENIENT questions:

Why should they have any right to see them or contact them?

Do you think it's moral to abandon your children? Harsh? Cruel?

Quit asking questions until you answer some...it's immoral not to.

 

What does it mean to have something "both ways"?

When I say "contact", I mean what if a parent gave up their rights to a kid and doesnt want them, but for some reason, they ran into new in the store or something? Should they be jailed for saying hello?

 

I don't think you rested enough.

I will not explain "both ways", two simple four letter words, to an "adult" (?) Especially an alleged adult who can't answer questions.


If you don't know what "both ways" means you will never understand anything, it will all be too complicated for you..

 

I dont feel like arguing about child support. I'm not an expert of legal issues.

 

Exactly how is male abortion supposed to work?

A woman has an abortion by attending a hospital or clinic and having the embryo or foetus removed from her body. Simple. Nobody else needs to be there.

So, a man does what exactly?

 

Then why did you post?


I think you made my point in my post above.

 

she applies to the state for welfare funding, the state would investigate whether the father is capable of contributing .. so the woman is not pursuing the man for money the state is. She is not the one mounting a civil court action in order to get payment from the absent father.

The woman may not want the father to have anything to do with the child .. including providing monetary support, but the state will not allow a man who is capable of paying "off the hook", therefore it is the state that is forcing the man to pay not the woman.

 

He does not have control over the decision of whether or not the continue a pregnancy = to make a Baby.

A baby has not yet been made at the zygote stage.

Condoms do not always work, (saw a woman on the show "baggage" the other day and her baggage was "I prick holes in condoms).

This is just puritanism run amuck. Back in the 1800's when there birth control either hit and miss or non existent this argument made sense.

You are trying to equate having sex with having a baby and the two are not the same.

So what if the woman becomes pregnant. Pregnancy does not have to result in a child ? The solution to pregnancy is an abortion.

If the woman rejects that solution then she is responsible for the consequences of that action.

 

I did not change my mind. You just were not understanding what I was saying. I am against individuals or the state exercising undue control over individual rights and freedoms.

You on the other hand think that women should be able to force men to take care of children that they wish to have.

No one should be excused from taking care of children that they consented to.

No one should be forced to take care of a child that they did not consent to.

 

Come back when you're honest enough not to cherry pick my post.

And quit lying, I never NEVER said women should be able to force men to take care of their own children .

 

Yes you did. You said that if a woman has sex with a man and has a child the man should be forced to pay support for that child.

 

Here's the Un-cherry-picked post.....can you address it.

Are you just going to whine and not contact your representative politician?

And if I said that men should be forced to pay for their own children , that's right, but it isn't the woman who forces them, it's the sane sensible LAW that does it

 

There is no right to ownership of the unborn fetus...not court has ever made that judicial ruling.














The father has to pay child support if the woman chooses not to have an abortion. Should the father not have as much right not to pay child support as the woman has to get an abortion after sexual intercourse has already taken place?[/QUOTE]

 

It didn't get to the zygote stage on its own.

You don't get a baby without a man's sperm.

And condoms are very reliable, especially when used with spermicidal jelly.

The man is responsible for helping create the pregnancy.

Men don't have birth control choices after sex.

- - - Updated - - -

It didn't get to the zygote stage on its own.

You don't get a baby without a man's sperm.

And condoms are very reliable, especially when used with spermicidal jelly.

The man is responsible for helping create the pregnancy.

Men don't have birth control choices after sex.