Why Should Men Have ANY Say In Abortion?

LOL! So now there's a "subset" of Pro-Choice?.....(No, there isn't) Sorry, you can only make your own rules, not anyone else's....


Now, write your Congressman and ask that men be legally excused from supporting their children...even politicians need a good laugh.

 

I agree it's unlikely to be enacted legislatively. That's why the courts need to step in and recognize that, like women, men also have a right to self determination and a post conceptive right to choose. The status quo where one person has an unequal legal right to unilaterally decide the legal and financial future of another is clearly unconstitutional.

I don't have a problem with abortion funding, but equal protection under the law should not be contingent upon that.

 

I agree with you. That's why I qualified it with "people who call themselves" Pro-Choice. Out of those people, some actually are pro-choice, and the others have views like yours and don't care if they're being as hypocritical and inconsistent as the extremists on the other side.

 

Giving men a "post conceptive right to choose" would not result in equal protection under the law. Men would be
free to skip out of all responsibility, leaving the woman with the responsibility of birth control (because men would have no incentive to use protection) and the responsibility of either terminating the pregnancy or suffering
through the pregnancy and birth, which pro-life women would be required to do. The entire burden of preventing and dealing with unwanted pregnancy would fall on the woman. How is that equal?

 

How then would you address the inequality issue I brought up? We can't just pretend it doesn't exist, or that a woman having the power to decide to force a man into legal parenthood against his will is any more justifiable than giving a man that power over a woman.

 

A woman has the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy because it is her body at risk. Or do you think the man should decide what happens to her body? Who should decide? In most cases, it is a mutual decision. So any man who doesn't want to be a father should be thankful for Roe v. Wade; it allows most men to have input in the decision. If it weren't for Roe v. Wade, there would be a lot MORE unwilling fathers.

 

There isn't any way of doing it - just as there isn't any way of allowing men to suffer the pain and discomforts of pregnancy, or enduring menstruation.

 

Yup ! For damn sure men don't want to be THAT equal .....LOL!


...just equal enough to get out of supporting their own children...

 

If you look at in a purely straight line view it isn't the woman who forces the man to do anything, it is the courts / state that do that.

A woman may apply for welfare without wanting the man's involvement at all, it is then the state that pursue the man for child support .. in these circumstances the woman who doesn't want any involvement from the man but cannot support the child on her own is in a no win situation, in order to get support she has to allow the state to go after the man.

That is not to say that there are women who do pursue a man through the courts for payment.

TBH I really don't know the answer, on an equality level a man should be able to revoke all involvement with the child.

 

That's a nonsense comparison. The effects of pregnancy and menstruation that women experience are not caused by any law or interpretation of law. The effects of legal parenthood are, and need to be applied equally.

Roe v. Wade was decided on the basis of privacy/liberty, and I believe it was the right decision in regards to that. However, by not considering the issue of legal parenthood, it gave women not just control over their own bodies but also delegated a window of complete control to them whether or not both they and another person will become a legal parent without the other person having any say with regard to that. This difference isn't caused by biology; it's purely a legal construct.

 

Ya know, I'm almost starting to agree with those who don't think men should be responsible for their own children.


If a law was passed giving men the long sought after freedom from child care responsibilities (which they never accepted fully anyway) there might be some benefits.

First I 'd like to add that any man who wants to get married must sign a legal statement as to whether he wants children or not BEFORE he can get married.

If he agrees to have children he also must sign a legal document stating that he will assume 50% of parenting responsibilities including taking time off work to take his kids to the doctor, go to PTA meetings, soccer games, etc. Also bake cookies for treats for school, organize birthday parties on his own, and clean the toilets.

This will help show women just what kind of "man" they'll be marrying, no surprises down the line, might cut down on divorces....


It will strengthen women's right to have an abortion....if men can opt out there is NOTHING to stop women from doing the same , not even sicko, misogynistic control freaks.


And the FUN part is it will raise taxes to support all these actual living CHILDREN that can't be supported on one income.....something the Repub/Conservatives hate , the same Repub/Conservatives who are against abortion !

 

A woman can terminate a pregnancy, but she can't create a pregnancy without the participation of the man. She doesn't "get herself pregnant" in order to have control of him.

 

The woman can terminate a pregnancy, but she can't create a pregnancy without the participation of the man. She doesn't "get herself pregnant" in order to control him.

 

Regardless of whether the pregnancy was intended or unintended, as long as it was consensual sex, once it occurs the state gives her undue influence and control over the destiny of a person outside her body.

 

Nope , his child does....and the laws of the state do.

 

The man impregnates the woman. Do you think he should be free to just dump the whole mess on her to deal with and walk away?

 

Whose god yours or some other mythical one, and you need to brush up on your history as far as the church and abortion is concerned.

Why should I or any other person be dictated to by a supposed entity that cannot be proven.

nice bit of emotional hyperbole

life certainly doesn't start at conception or are you saying that sperm and ovum are not alive, and of course the BS of "unchanging and unrepeatable genetic code" twins have exactly the same genetic code.

The only law that exists in nature is the law of survival, nature couldn't give two figs if you live or die and as to humans, a life has only as much value as another places upon it.

completely and utterly debunked numerous times.

Which god are we talking about again, there are so many.

yet more religious claptrap wrapped up in a pseudo-science overcoat.

please do post these "lies".

Never killed anyone .. perhaps you should ask yourself the same question as you seem to like the guilt by association fallacy, ask yourself how you can support a god that basically killed all human life except for a select few - life that included pregnant woman, fetuses and children of an age where they would have no comprehension of what evil is or in a pro-lifers words innocent.

Abortion is already universally accepted, just as it was before the religious got involved with it, and a slippery slope ideology is still a fallacy.