Why Should Men Have ANY Say In Abortion?

We seem to be in agreement regarding your statement of " 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". Concurrently, I would say that, if we are mature enough to recognise that recreational sex is natural. It simply follows that we should facilitate the termination of unwanted pregnancies, including an equal right of choice for both parties. Obviously, in the case where a pregnancy is aborted, by choice of either the woman, or the man, the woman is still the one suffering the physical and mental trauma of the ordeal, and should be able to expect the best of medical treatment, and a fair share of financial support from the man.

These types of issues too often, are drawn down to the gutter level of the "battle between the sexes", rather than given to compassionate, level headed debate. Going on the tone of your post, I would expect you to agree that too often, a fetus, or a child is used as a weapon for revenge or hate.

 

[/QUOTE]

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.

 

Sometimes the urge is secondary when a man and woman wishes for a child of their own.
If mutually agreed then that man always have the say.

 

Just as soon as he's the one who has to go through pregnancy.

 

Agreed. Depending on the actions of the participants it also required a contraceptive malfunction.

Sure but contraception sometimes fails. If a mistake happens you fix it.

Sure but so what ? There is a difference between creating a pregnancy and creating a baby.

Agreed but, the woman does and she should take responsibility for the choice that she makes.












.

 

Or using no contraception at all. The important thing to remember is that a man has to supply sperm.

Men can't do that. They have to make absolutely sure that the contraception they use is trustworthy, as they have no options after sex.

Not for a man. Men don't get pregnant, so can't have any options They can't be allowed to end something they don't have.

She does. No one else can do it for her.












.[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

The woman sometimes does not take responsibility for her actions. She forces a man to pay for the consequences of her actions.

 

The woman sometimes does not take responsibility for her actions. She forces a man to pay for the consequences of her actions.[/QUOTE]

HOW does a woman FORCE a man to pay...at gunpoint? NO, the LAW forces men to pay for their CHILDREN, live, living actually here children.....and thankfully, since most men want to avoid responsibility , the LAW can force them and then taxpayers don't have to do men's job....


AND, if a woman goes after a man for child support(using the law) then she IS taking responsibility for those children by getting them what they deserve !

 

Both their actions.

 

Here you say the "woman goes after the man for child support using the law". The law then is the tool that the woman uses to force a man to pay for a child.

It was the woman who made the decision to have the child. She is the one responsible for the decision to carry the pregnancy to term.

The child is the consequence of the woman's decision.

The law then is the tool that a woman uses to force a man to pay for the consequences of her decision/actions.

- - - Updated - - -

You have said yourself that the man has no say in the decision whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. It is her sole decision and so it should be her sole responsibility should she decide to carry a pregnancy to term.

 

Yes, it is a good tool ...it keeps more children from getting public assistance and sometimes I don't think the woman has a choice in the matter. If she applies for public assistance they want to know why daddy-deadbeat isn't contributing.

Remember, I don't think it 's wrong or bad to force a man to pay for his live living actual child.....I think it's wonderful !

 

Anyone can have an opinion. The question is whether or not one can support that opinion.

You say "the woman does not have a choice in the matter" She had a choice whether or not to continue a pregnancy resulting in a child.

You feel that one person should be able to push responsibility for their actions onto another. OK Got it.

I see this as an anathema to the rule of law.

Suppose someone's son or daughter goes out and kills someone. Should the parents be made responsible for the actions of the child based on genetics ? Should a child be made responsible for the crimes of their parents on the basis of a genetic relation ?

Using your logic we should.

 

That's a baloney argument, crime is crime and no one is responsible for someone else's crime. SUPPORTING MONETARILY is not the same as being , or not being, responsible for a child's actions.


You posted: "You say "the woman does not have a choice in the matter" She had a choice whether or not to continue a pregnancy resulting in a child."""


I MEANT that IF she applies for public assistance the people in the public assistance office may want to know why she isn't getting child support. They may require that parental support be tried as a first attempt at supporting the child before giving her money.

 

This is about Law and Responsibility. You want the law to make one person to be responsible for the actions of another. The consequences of this dictum are far reaching.

 

No, I want the daddy to be responsible for his children....are children "actions" ???

I don't care about the consequences.


And I don't know why you can't accept the fact that I DO NOT CARE if it is unfair to men, it IS fair to the children.

 

Since the man did not consent to the child coming into existence it is false to claim that he has some ownership of the issue (his children)

I get that you don't care about unfairness in law. I accept the fact that you do not care.

If you are accepting of people offloading the consequences of their actions onto others that is your choice. Just do not complain then when unfair things happen to you.

Don't complain when anti-aborts make laws on the basis of flawed logic an in violation of the constitution and rule of law. You are just as much a part of the problem as they are.

They want to make laws on the basis of "personal religious beliefs" in violation of the constitution and established legal principles. You want to make laws based on your own personal bias in violation of the constitution and established legal principles.

Same S hite ... different pile.

 

"""Don't complain when anti-aborts make laws on the basis of flawed logic an in violation of the constitution and rule of law. You are just as much a part of the problem as they are.

They want to make laws on the basis of "personal religious beliefs" in violation of the constitution and established legal principles. You want to make laws based on your own personal bias in violation of the constitution and established legal principles.

Same S hite ... different pile.[/QUOTE]






WHERE the F did I say I wanted to make laws based on my own personal bias and violation of the constitution and established legal principles???

Answer: NOWHERE

My GAWD! With your ability to lie I am surprised you're Pro-Choice !!!

 

You said you agree with laws that force one person to be responsible for the consequences of the actions of another.

Specifically: That a man be forced to pay for a child that was the result of a woman's decision to carry a pregnancy to term.

I have not lied. You just can not handle the reality that your beliefs are in contradiction thus making you a bit of a hypocrite.

I am pro choice because I respect individual rights and freedoms of all people. Life liberty and pursuit of happiness free from interference of the State based on a whim.

I try to be consistent in my beliefs and not reject these principles when it they suit my personal agenda.

 

I said I think "men" should pay for their children so taxpayers don't have to....YOU prefer higher taxes and support "men" abandoning live actual living children....some "principles".

"""WHERE the F did I say I wanted to make laws based on my own personal bias and violation of the constitution and established legal principles???"""


I did NOT say I wanted to make laws. The laws are in place to make "men" act like responsible adults.

 

You have already admitted that the law forces a man to be responsible for the for the actions of another person.

You have also stated you agree with this law.

You agree with a law made on the basis of a bias that you share personally. A law which violates the constitution and established legal principles.

 

So ? I never said I wanted to MAKE laws.....

You'll never change my mind, I prefer what passes for men to pay for their kids so I don't have to. He isn't responsible for the actions of another person , he is responsible for his own living actual children......although I agree with you that it's a terrible burden to put on something as weak and stupid as a man who rejects his children....even you make "men" sound totally weak and spineless...so I guess they do need laws to give them responsibility.

 

Pease stop the disingenuous ignorance. I know that you are more capable than you are acting right now.

Saying "want to make laws" is exactly the same as "agreeing with an already made law" for the purposes of this discussion.

I already clarified that in the last post and rephrased my accusation.

Of course he is being made to be responsible for consequences of the actions/decisions of another person. There is no getting around this fact and you have admitted to it so quit back tracking.

The man has no part in the woman's decision to continue a pregnancy. You agree with laws that force a man to be responsible for the consequences of this woman's decision.

And that is that.

This is not about you "changing your mind". This is about you admitting that you are a hypocrite.

 

If you want to believe I'm a hypocrite, if it's that important to you (while being meaningless to me) go ahead. I think much worse of you for believing an embryo is an actual child and that actual children should be abused by their fathers ...

You still make men sound so weak and spineless but that's your choice....and they are...

 

I do not believe an embryo is a child ??

You blurting out "men are weak and spineless" or "any person is weak and spineless" for not wanting to be responsible for the actions of others does not make it true.

Claiming to be against laws that trample on the rights and freedoms of one group (women in this case) while agreeing with laws that trample on the trample on the rights of freedoms of another group (men in this case) is hypocrisy.

My beliefs have nothing to do with it.

In the words of Salmon Rushdie. If you are only for freedom for things that you agree with, then you really are not for freedom at all.

 

As I already posted :If you want to believe I'm a hypocrite, if it's that important to you (while being meaningless to me) go ahead.


You will be getting all het up by yourself....

Oh, and as to Rushdie, how stupid to believe that people should be free to murder and rape and commit other crimes.... I guess you believe in those freedoms, too.... but I just believe in the freedoms I approve of....