NationStates Jolt Archive

You're really advocating the right to infanticide?
What is the specific difference between an abortion the day before a woman is due to give birth compared to killing the baby the moment it comes out of the womb?

In the first instance the child/foetus.baby has the exact same capacities as it does in the second.

Personally I find that everyone, male, female, or other, so long as they are mentally capable of making informed decisions, should be able to vote on issues that will affect the culture in which they live. This, of course, providing they live in a democratic society.

What is the specific difference between an abortion the day before a woman is due to give birth compared to killing the baby the moment it comes out of the womb?

In the first instance the child/foetus.baby has the exact same capacities as it does in the second.

the one aborted "the day before" (given that you dont know exactly when a baby will be born if left to nature) was in grave danger of killing its mother, the one who lived to be born wasnt.

Yes but in the same way that Bush can suggest to Cheney how the country should be run. So, that the typical response is the same whether from a woman or from Cheney, "Yes, that's nice, dear. Now, run along."

the one aborted "the day before" (given that you dont know exactly when a baby will be born if left to nature) was in grave danger of killing its mother, the one who lived to be born wasnt.

In most cases - but the arguement "her body her choice" logically means a woman should have the right to an abortion on demand for whatever reason she wants up to the moment it is born. What is the difference between that and killing the baby on entry into the world?

Note - I am pro-choice.

In most cases - but the arguement "her body her choice" logically means a woman should have the right to an abortion on demand for whatever reason she wants up to the moment it is born. What is the difference between that and killing the baby on entry into the world?

Note - I am pro-choice.

Don't use logic. Use reason.

In most cases - but the arguement "her body her choice" logically means a woman should have the right to an abortion on demand for whatever reason she wants up to the moment it is born. What is the difference between that and killing the baby on entry into the world?

Note - I am pro-choice.

youll first have to prove to me that anyone advocates the legality of aborting a healthy 9th month fetus.

Don't use logic. Use reason.

Can you explain how reason and logic are different?

What would be the diifference between an 'on demand' abortion in the 9th month (where the mothers health is not an issue) and killing the baby in the first few seconds after birth?

Can you explain how reason and logic are different?

What would be the diifference between an 'on demand' abortion in the 9th month (where the mothers health is not an issue) and killing the baby in the first few seconds after birth?

Sure. There are logical extremes, such as the one you brought up. There are not reasonable extremes.

youll first have to prove to me that anyone advocates the legality of aborting a healthy 9th month fetus.
I've seen a few posts about (on other threads and in other discussions) that suggest there are people out there who would advocate such an action.

But - why is it not OK to abort a 9 month foetus but it is OK to abort a 6month one?

youll first have to prove to me that anyone advocates the legality of aborting a healthy 9th month fetus.
I've seen a few posts about (on other threads and in other discussions) that suggest there are people out there who would advocate such an action.

But - why is it not OK to abort a 9 month foetus but it is OK to abort a 6month one?

Why is the condition of the foetus an issue if the arguement for abortion is the womans right to decide on what happens to her body?

Sure. There are logical extremes, such as the one you brought up. There are not reasonable extremes.

But - what is the difference?

But - what is the difference?

If something is reasonable, it is not extreme. It is, however, possible for something to be both logical and extreme.

I've seen a few posts about (on other threads and in other discussions) that suggest there are people out there who would advocate such an action.

But - why is it not OK to abort a 9 month foetus but it is OK to abort a 6month one?

Why is the condition of the foetus an issue if the arguement for abortion is the womans right to decide on what happens to her body?

there comes a point where a woman's pregnancy does become the state's business. when a fetus could easily survive outside of the mother, her right to control her own body doesnt not mean she has a right to kill a viable fetus. she could conceivable have an induced labor or c-section to remove it from her body without killing the fetus. then if she doesnt want the baby, she can hand it over to the oh-so-willing-to-take-it father to raise

that option is not available in the early stages of pregnancy.

i would put it more harshly that she had a reasonable chance to end the pregnancy early. its just too freaking late to decide at 6 months that you arent ready to be a mother. all such abortions should be out of medical reasons only.

but then, you would also have to convince me that there are a more-than-vanishingly-rare number of women who would choose a late term abortion for non-medical reasons.

Ah, I am glad this line of thought has come up. From what I've seen, the pro-choice camp is not anti-life, nor is the pro-life camp anti-choice. The real difference lies in the perception of where life begins. If a person or group perceives that life has not yet begun, they are almost always pro-choice (how many advocate state protection for unfertilized eggs or sperm?). On the other hand if they perceive life to have begun, they are pro-life (how many out there for the mother's option to expose unweaned infants?).

And now begins the difficult part. We are talking about the viability of a nine-month old fetus. Since when was any kind of fetus viable? In ancient times infant exposure was common and acceptable. If you want someone to point the finger at for advancing the viable (and thereby potentially protection-worthy) age of the very young, I suggest medicine, not religion. Furthermore, where will medicine end? Will it stop with the ability to nurture third trimester babies? And that's just part of it. What effect will future scientific advances in the form of pre-natal imaging and fetal surgery have on popular perception of where personhood begins?

A pro-choice movement that has all its guns trained on religion is going to be blindsided by science.

Because something that isn't sentient can't suffer and can't have desires. Thus, sentience is a meaningful difference in moral status - what is it exactly that we would respect about a non-sentient entity?Suffering isn't dependent upon sentience, and neither is having desires. Animals do both all the time.

Birth, on the other hand, is merely a transfer of location. What does it have to do with the moral status of the being that is transferred?The location of something can have something to do with something's moral status if we wish it. We view this to be true in many areas, anyway.

Suffering isn't dependent upon sentience, and neither is having desires. Animals do both all the time.

And animals are sentient.

We view this to be true in many areas, anyway.

Which ones?

It's a false dilemma. Nobody has the right to vote away the autonomy of a competent individual. You might as well be asking if people not called Mike also should have the right to vote on whether or not a random individual by the name of Mike is executed in public each Sunday. It doesn't matter if it's your name or not. You have no right to usurp the autonomy of random strangers by popular vote.

But hey, let's have a public vote on whether people who wants to vote on abortion should have their right eye dug out with a wooden spoon.

:eek:

Ah, Vet. How much of a say? If the split is 50-50, who decides? Isn't a 49% say the same as no say at all?

Good question, actually. Honestly, I don't know, because anything less than 50-50 would be completely unfair, but if it's 50-50 there would have to be some kind of "tiebreaker" to override the other parent's decision. (you could put it before a court or something, but that would be pretty difficult and time consuming to do and it doesn't seem like a wise idea to have a jury decide whether the child is born or killed. The same is true of the DP but that's another debate entirely).

So, they should have a say but I can't really think of a way to have a "tiebreaker"; the only thing I could think of is the father having the tiebreaker if he agrees to pay the cost of adoption until the child is either placed with a family or reaches legal maturity. The mother could have the tiebreaker if the father refuses, but even that seems somewhat unfair to her since she has no way of overriding that tiebreaking vote.

My arguements:

1) How can anyone with a conscience vote for killing an innocent child.

2) Men and women are equal. The Child is equally the man's child as it carries half his genes and is therefore his responsibility.

3) If one party is against the abortion this should be upheld. The protection of Life is of utmost importance.

1) How can anyone with a conscience vote for killing an innocent child?

Good question. We've just decided (societally) that either a) it's not a child until a certain period of time, or b) that the right for a woman to decide what to do with her body is more important then enforcing conscience.

2) Men and women are equal. The Child is equally the man's child as it carries half his genes and is therefore his responsibility.

Again, I agree that men have an equal responsibility for the care and nurture of the child, even before birth. (Well, as equally responsible as is genetically possible.) However, society has decided that a woman's right to do with her body what she wishes trumps that. (At least, up to a point where society has decided that a fetus is more than just a part of a woman's anatomy).

3) If one party is against the abortion this should be upheld. The protection of Life is of utmost importance.

Again, it comes down to whether or not society considers a fetus to be a form of 'life', or just a part of a woman's anatomy.

I'm personally not against the idea of terminating a pregnancy in the early stages. It's just a better scenario for society, than not allowing women the option. However I think there's a large amount of delusion if people propogate the idea that an unborn child isn't a person, or doesn't deserve a right to life until born, etc. To me, the concept that a woman has no responsibility to an unborn child because their right to personal autonomy is more important, is as ludicrous as the idea that a father has no responsiblity to a child because the child isn't a part of his anatomy. Society decides that certain things are better for society to run better. Society is better with abortion as an option (in the early stages) and better forcing men to help raise a child in the form of child support.

Of course women have a responsibility to their unborn children. It's a biological certainty. It's also a moral one. We've just decided that up to a certain stage, a fetus is not a 'child'. (At least, that's my understanding of the issue.)

Good question. We've just decided (societally) that either a) it's not a child until a certain period of time, or b) that the right for a woman to decide what to do with her body is more important then enforcing conscience.



Again, I agree that men have an equal responsibility for the care and nurture of the child, even before birth. (Well, as equally responsible as is genetically possible.) However, society has decided that a woman's right to do with her body what she wishes trumps that. (At least, up to a point where society has decided that a fetus is more than just a part of a woman's anatomy).



Again, it comes down to whether or not society considers a fetus to be a form of 'life', or just a part of a woman's anatomy.

I'm personally not against the idea of terminating a pregnancy in the early stages. It's just a better scenario for society, than not allowing women the option. However I think there's a large amount of delusion if people propogate the idea that an unborn child isn't a person, or doesn't deserve a right to life until born, etc. To me, the concept that a woman has no responsibility to an unborn child because their right to personal autonomy is more important, is as ludicrous as the idea that a father has no responsiblity to a child because the child isn't a part of his anatomy. Society decides that certain things are better for society to run better. Society is better with abortion as an option (in the early stages) and better forcing men to help raise a child in the form of child support.

Of course women have a responsibility to their unborn children. It's a biological certainty. It's also a moral one. We've just decided that up to a certain stage, a fetus is not a 'child'. (At least, that's my understanding of the issue.)

So, what you're saying is that women should have more rights than men? That it's ok for a women to kill a possible child than, but it's not okay for men to not pay for a baby they didn't want? No. Men and women are EQUAL. If women don't have to care for the child, then neither do men.

Excepting if the mother is in danger, getting an abortion is just an escape from responsibility. So, men should have an escape from responsibility.

You can't deny a man's right to decide on an abortion then twist his arm to get child support. Seems a little wrong in my opinion.

1) How can anyone with a conscience vote for killing an innocent child?

We've been doing it since the dawn of civilization, it's not the worst crime one can commit. One, it ain't a child. Two, it ain't innocent as man is born with inherant sin.

It's not like I'm voting for a law that allows the bludgeoning of any child under 8.

So, what you're saying is that women should have more rights than men? That it's ok for a women to kill a possible child than, but it's not okay for men to not pay for a baby they didn't want? No. Men and women are EQUAL. If women don't have to care for the child, then neither do men.

Excepting if the mother is in danger, getting an abortion is just an escape from responsibility. So, men should have an escape from responsibility.

the 2 things are only indirectly related

a woman can decide that she does not want to be pregnant. a man cannot decide that for her. when a man gets pregnant (or becomes a seahorse) he can decide if he wants to be pregnant. (it happens all the time in fanfiction)

if a woman aborts, there is no child.

if a woman has a baby, both parents have rights and responsibilities TO THE CHILD. no parents escape responsibility for their children.

if a woman has a baby, both parents have rights and responsibilities TO THE CHILD. no parents escape responsibility for their children.

Hmm...But he didn't have a choice in the matter.

I have a question for people who believe a fetus/child does not gain fundamental rights until birth: should a mother/father be held responsible if one or both parents engaged in activities that resulted in birth defects?

For example, let's consider that the mother smoked or whatever and the child had birth defects because of it. Would she not be held accountable because the "crimes" were committed against a fetus (which doesn't have rights at this point), even though the child was affected?

Hmm...But he didn't have a choice in the matter.

the only thing he didnt have a choice in is whether or not to continue the pregnancy. since that right lies in the right to bodily integrity and privacy, he cant participate in that.

what if he desperatly wanted the child but she decided to abort? he has no say then either. should he have some right to sue her for lack of childbirth?

So, what you're saying is that women should have more rights than men? That it's ok for a women to kill a possible child than, but it's not okay for men to not pay for a baby they didn't want? No. Men and women are EQUAL. If women don't have to care for the child, then neither do men.

Excepting if the mother is in danger, getting an abortion is just an escape from responsibility. So, men should have an escape from responsibility.

Equal /= different. Men and women are very different. Some of these differences aren't fair.

Physically men are stronger, women can bear children.

Emotionally men and women are very different.

Men and women have a different set of strengths and weaknesses.

This is no recent evolutionary development either. Men know going into it that they don't have a say. Why don't they take some of the responsibility and at least ask a woman before they sleep with them whether or not they'd have an abortion?

This is no recent evolutionary development either. Men know going into it that they don't have a say. Why don't they take some of the responsibility and at least ask a woman before they sleep with them whether or not they'd have an abortion?

So long as the woman asks if he'd leave her if she was pregnant. Probably a mood-killer, but nevertheless.

the only thing he didnt have a choice in is whether or not to continue the pregnancy. since that right lies in the right to bodily integrity and privacy, he cant participate in that.

Well, yeah. After all, we always hear 'consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy [and/or childbirth]'. So the having sex part doesn't matter, that's okay; he can't do anything about the pregnancy, it is her body, after all; and once that's over, he's now responsible for this child, somehow. He didn't consent to it being born, did he?

what if he desperatly wanted the child but she decided to abort? he has no say then either. should he have some right to sue her for lack of childbirth?

She doesn't have responsibility to give him a child, near as I can tell.

So long as the woman asks if he'd leave her if she was pregnant. Probably a mood-killer, but nevertheless.

The woman has every right (and should) ask that question. It's no more a mood killer than "hey, got a condom." Just something quick like:"would you have an abortion if the condom broke?" "would you split if I didn't?"

Just better to be informed before going in.

Of course; anything else would be anti-democratic. Can you imagine the furor that would (rightly) surround a suggestion that women be denied the right to vote on a "male issue"? [for example, mandatory military service]

The woman has every right (and should) ask that question. It's no more a mood killer than "hey, got a condom." Just something quick like:"would you have an abortion if the condom broke?" "would you split if I didn't?"

Just better to be informed before going in.

Well, what man is going to say yes to latter question? He'll get his ass dumped then.

Well, yeah. After all, we always hear 'consent to sex does not equally consent to pregnancy [and/or childbirth]'. So the having sex part doesn't matter, that's okay; he can't do anything about the pregnancy, it is her body, after all; and once that's over, he's now responsible for this child, somehow. He didn't consent to it being born, did he?

It's a known risk though. If I jump out of a plane I'm not consenting to death, yet I know it's a possibility. It's a small but important distinction.

It's a known risk though. If I jump out of a plane I'm not consenting to death, yet I know it's a possibility. It's a small but important distinction.

Funny, that's the pro-life reply to that statement as well. And then someone (Bottle, usually) comes out with "If I drive, I'm not consenting to an accident...aware of the possibility of a crash...I still deserve healthcare..." etc.

Well, what man is going to say yes to latter question? He'll get his ass dumped then.
And the woman could also say "of course I'll have an abortion." Either way they could lie. I'm on the "no kids ever" side of the fence so it's hard for me to put myself in those shoes. I wouldn't ask because I wouldn't presume he'd want to stick around.

At least the question was asked. At least you weed out the definite "no's."

Well, yeah. After all, we always hear 'consent to sex does not equally consent to pregnancy [and/or childbirth]'. So the having sex part doesn't matter, that's okay; he can't do anything about the pregnancy, it is her body, after all; and once that's over, he's now responsible for this child, somehow. He didn't consent to it being born, did he?



She doesn't have responsibility to give him a child, near as I can tell.

if he doesnt have any say over her getting an abortion why should he have a say over her NOT getting an abortion?

actually, when you consent to sex you do consent to the possibility of pregnancy. it is a forseeable outcome of heterosexual sex when both partners are fertile.

a man consents to the possibility of a pregnancy that is completely out of his control. he cant tell her how to eat, exercise, how often to go to the doctor, what doctor to consult, if any, whether or not she will have an induced labor or C-section delivery. its all out of his control. as is her decision on whether or not to bring the pregnancy to term.

a woman consents to the possibility of a pregnancy that she cant just walk away from like he can. she HAS to make a decision. maybe its abortion, maybe its birth. she faces the risks, she has irrevocable changes to her body. is it FAIR that she have to go through the pains of pregnancy and/or abortion when he doesnt?

and in the end, if a baby results, neither get to walk away from their child.

Funny, that's the pro-life reply to that statment as well. And then someone (Bottle, usually) comes out with "If I drive, I'm not consenting to an accident...aware of the possibility of a crash...I still deserve healthcare..." etc.

It's an apt analogy. Pro-lifers like it because it's true. I just don't like where their argument goes from there. My sex life would change drastically [read: end until my tubes were tied] if abortions were made illegal. It's just not worth it to me. Someone who'd never consent to an abortion should think along those same lines.

Edit: I should probably mention my stance on abortion. If the fetus cannot survive outside the mom, it's not alive. Once it can, it's a baby. I don't want to debate this point. It's how I feel, my mind is closed until further scientific evidence is presented.

Funny, that's the pro-life reply to that statment as well. And then someone (Bottle, usually) comes out with "If I drive, I'm not consenting to an accident...aware of the possibility of a crash...I still deserve healthcare..." etc.

i dont think thats how that argument goes....

its in response to a particular argument that is not coming to my mind but the point always is that your decision to drive or have sex doesnt determine your options after the unexpected happens

if he doesnt have any say over her getting an abortion why should he have a say over her NOT getting an abortion?

Did I say he should?

actually, when you consent to sex you do consent to the possibility of pregnancy. it is a forseeable outcome of heterosexual sex when both partners are fertile.
*snip*
and in the end, if a baby results, neither get to walk away from their child.

So as to make this...talk more concise, the man does, in fact, consent to a child by having sex?

It's an apt analogy. Pro-lifers like it because it's true. I just don't like where their argument goes from there. My sex life would change drastically [read: end until my tubes were tied] if abortions were made illegal. It's just not worth it to me. Someone who'd never consent to an abortion should think along those same lines.

Edit: I should probably mention my stance on abortion. If the fetus cannot survive outside the mom, it's not alive. Once it can, it's a baby. I don't want to debate this point. It's how I feel, my mind is closed until further scientific evidence is presented.

the right to decide when and if to have children is so basic to our autonomy that its hard to understand why anyone would want to limit it.

i dont think thats how that argument goes....

its in response to a particular argument that is not coming to my mind but the point always is that your decision to drive or have sex doesnt determine your options after the unexpected happens

Lemme run through it.

PL: When a woman has sex, there is always the possibility of pregnancy, and she knows this, therefore she consents to carrying the child.
Bottle: What? That's ludicrous. If I drive, I'm aware of the possibility of an accident, but I don't consent to one.
PL: It occurred as a direct result of her actions, so she must handle it herself.
Bottle: Should an accident occur, I still have the right to go to a hospital and be treated, even if the accident is entirely my fault.

Or something like that.

P.S. Here in this topic though, that logic seems to have become valid....weirdness.

Funny, that's the pro-life reply to that statment as well. And then someone (Bottle, usually) comes out with "If I drive, I'm not consenting to an accident...aware of the possibility of a crash...I still deserve healthcare..." etc.
Yes, I've also noticed that she just doesn't quit with the cheesy analogies.

Did I say he should?



So as to make this...talk more concise, the man does, in fact, consent to a child by having sex?

so it seems. as he has always done.

hmmm puts men in a much different position than we think of them as being in, doesnt it?

So as to make this...talk more concise, the man does, in fact, consent to a child by having sex?

I'd say he most certainly consents to the possibility and of course if the woman chooses to have an abortion or not the man is shit out of luck if the decision is not what he would like. It is hardly fair but than it is also unfair to force a woman to deal with pregnancy when she doesn't want to. To me you could argue either way and no matter which way you go someone is going to be unsatisfied.

the right to decide when and if to have children is so basic to our autonomy that its hard to understand why anyone would want to limit it.

Exactly. The funny thing is, if the tables were turned (men had babies), abortion would never be a legal issue. It will always be a moral one. There also wouldn't be a big debate on the woman's input. There just wouldn't. It would be "that's how it is, if you don't like it then don't have sex." Strange how women can't say that to men and have them listen.

Lemme run through it.

PL: When a woman has sex, there is always the possibility of pregnancy, and she knows this, therefore she consents to carrying the child.
Bottle: What? That's ludicrious. If I drive, I'm aware of the possibility of an accident, but I don't consent to one.
PL: It occured as a direct result of her actions, so she must handle it herself.
Bottle: Should an accident occur, I still have the right to go to a hospital and be treated, even if the accident is entirely my fault.

Or something like that.

P.S. Here in this topic though, that logic seems to have become valid....weirdness.


nooo there is one other factor in there that we're missing. i think its that the pregnant woman is dutybound to carry the pregnancy to term because she consented to sex.

Lemme run through it.

PL: When a woman has sex, there is always the possibility of pregnancy, and she knows this, therefore she consents to carrying the child.
Bottle: What? That's ludicrious. If I drive, I'm aware of the possibility of an accident, but I don't consent to one.
PL: It occured as a direct result of her actions, so she must handle it herself.
Bottle: Should an accident occur, I still have the right to go to a hospital and be treated, even if the accident is entirely my fault.

Or something like that.

P.S. Here in this topic though, that logic seems to have become valid....weirdness.

PL: Sure she'll be medical attention, a doctor will monitor her pregnancy for her to make sure she has a safe delivery and a healthy baby.

Lemme run through it.

PL: When a woman has sex, there is always the possibility of pregnancy, and she knows this, therefore she consents to carrying the child.
Bottle: What? That's ludicrious. If I drive, I'm aware of the possibility of an accident, but I don't consent to one.
PL: It occured as a direct result of her actions, so she must handle it herself.
Bottle: Should an accident occur, I still have the right to go to a hospital and be treated, even if the accident is entirely my fault.

Or something like that.

P.S. Here in this topic though, that logic seems to have become valid....weirdness.

Thanks for making my head hurt.

Edit: I really hope my analogy made more sense. I kind of like it and I'd like to use it in the future.

Moreover I don't want to sound like a dumbass. Probably too late for that. >.<

I'd say he most certainly consents to the possibility and of course if the woman chooses to have an abortion or not the man is shit out of luck if the decision is not what he would like. It is hardly fair but than it is also unfair to force a woman to deal with pregnancy when she doesn't want to. To me you could argue either way and no matter which way you go someone is going to be unsatisfied.

Hmm, I've been mistaken for a different enemy. Men can not force women to abort/keep a pregnancy.

PL: Sure she'll be medical attention, a doctor will monitor her pregnancy for her to make sure she has a safe delivery and a healthy baby.

*shrug* Possibly, I usually stop paying attention about then.

nooo there is one other factor in there that we're missing. i think its that the pregnant woman is dutybound to carry the pregnancy to term because she consented to sex.

Even more parallel! The man is duty-bound to support the child because he consented to sex.

so it seems. as he has always done.

hmmm puts men in a much different position than we think of them as being in, doesnt it?

Depends, where do you usually think of them as being?

no.

Hmm, I've been mistaken for a different enemy. Men can not force women to abort/keep a pregnancy.

So we all agree then?

no.

Elaborate please.:)

So we all agree then?

*shrug* Dunno. I came here wondering why men consent at sex when women don't until birth. I had imagined neither would til birth.

*shrug* Possibly, I ususally stop paying attention about then.


ohgod me too! i cant believe ive stay in an abortion thread this long.



Even more parallel! The man is duty bound to support the child because he consented to sex.

so it seems. but he does get the benefit of having a child should one come to be.



Depends, where do you usually think of them as being?

free.

men these days seem to have the opinion that sex is (or should be) just fun and games with no aftermath to consider. its really not the case, eh?

*shrug* Dunno. I came here wondering why men consent at sex when women don't until birth. I had imagined neither would til birth.

it would all be different if that fetus wasnt inside her body.

with frozen embryos, a woman cant unilaterally decide to have their baby by getting one implanted. (embryos that were made with her egg and his sperm) if the father says no, it doesnt happen.

Hmm, I've been mistaken for a different enemy. Men can not force women to abort/keep a pregnancy.

Well, I was simply saying that whatever decision the woman makes it will affect the man as well. It takes two to produce a baby but since the woman has to carry it for 9 months it leans in her direction to be the one to decide on the future. Sucks for the guy but hopefully the woman will listen to his opinion at least.

men these days seem to have the opinion that sex is (or should be) just fun and games with no aftermath to consider. its really not the case, eh?

Exactly! I just get sick and tired of hearing that it's all the woman's responsibility. Men shouldn't get to just pump and dump. They know how things work too.

free.

men these days seem to have the opinion that sex is (or should be) just fun and games with no aftermath to consider. its really not the case, eh?

What makes you say that? I've really stepped into abortion bizarro world. Now it's not the women who supposedly feel like they needn't worry about having promiscuous sex [because they're getting abortions willy-nilly], but the men.

...I would've supposed neither'd be the case, but up's down here.

We just finished a unit on abortion in health class, and one kid brought up a good point; As a man will never give birth, get pregnant, have to deal with all the issues of pregnancy (other than a temperamental wife), ect., should males be able to vote on or decide on the legality of abortion?

I leave the floor open to debate.
Women are fical beasts prone to changing their minds.
*Flees*

Exactly! I just get sick and tired of hearing that it's all the woman's responsibility. Men shouldn't get to just pump and dump. They know how things work too.

Someone has argued for this little perk for men in this thread?

it would all be different if that fetus wasnt inside her body.

Eh? So, with the embryo inside the woman's body, the father has already consented to supporting the child, but outside her body, he could opt out anytime he wants?

Someone has argued for this little perk for men in this thread?

I wouldn't say so. Only as much as Bottle argues this perk for women in every other thread.

P.S. Which, to clarify, I don't think she does.

What makes you say that? I've really stepped into abortion bizarro world. Now it's not the women who supposedly feel like they needn't worry about having promiscuous sex [because they're getting abortions willy-nilly], but the men.

...I would've supposed neither'd be the case, but up's down here.

They both have a responsibility. Child birth is not some mystery. We all know how it works. We know the primary function of sex is producing babies. It's great to do it for recreation. But men and women both need to not lose sight of it's primary function.

They both have a responsibility. But men and women both need to not lose sight of it's primary function.

M'kay. Now, how do these statements translate to men consenting at sex, and women otherwise?

I wouldn't say so. Only as much as Bottle argues this perk for women in every other thread.

P.S. Which, to clarify, I don't think she does.

I always wondered if it wasn't a bit of a contradiction to be pro-life but still be willing to have sex with a man you have to worry about running out on you anyway. I would think these two don't really mix well.

Someone has argued for this little perk for men in this thread?

Not outright no. It's just how it feels when it's all "well she should know" "she should have used protection" ect. He knows too.

I tell a guy straight up before we hit the sack that I'm having an abortion if things go poorly. I tell him it's not up for discussion, it's non-negotiable, I won't change my mind. I tell him I wouldn't tell him if I ever did get pregnant. If he's avidly anti-abortion and wants kids (admittedly not usually the case), then he shouldn't take that risk.

M'kay. Now, how do these statements translate to men consenting at sex, and women otherwise?

I didn't say women otherwise. I said it goes both ways.

BTW: What's up with your spelling today?



Just flipping you shit since you've flipped me shit for my shitty spelling.:-)

Not outright no. It's just how it feels when it's all "well she should know" "she should have used protection" ect. He knows too.

Don't see why this should occur, it takes both to produce that baby so if a pregnancy happens than it is the "fault" of both the man and woman. If there wasn't protection during sex than they are both idiots.

I didn't say women otherwise. I said it goes both ways.

BTW: What's up with your spelling today?



Just flipping you shit since you've flipped me shit for my shitty spelling.:-)

So women consent at sex as well. Then your issue's not entirely with me, I guess.

Hmm? You mean all the words I'm tacking 'is' into? (a la "up's down")

Have I? Sorry about that. :P

Don't see why this should occur, it takes both to produce that baby so if a pregnancy happens than it is the "fault" of both the man and woman. If there wasn't protection during sex than they are both idiots.

I always hate this conversation:
P: I'm pregnant/ my gf's pregnant.
s: What kind of protection were you using? I thought you didn't want to get [someone] pregnant?
P:none
S: what did you think would happen?
P: Dunno.

I just want to set fire to those folks.

So women consent at sex as well. Then your issue's not entirely with me, I guess.
I always have an issue with you.:p Not really.

Hmm? You mean all the words I'm tacking 'is' into? (a la "up's down")
You've actually misspelled some big words. So unlike you.
Have I? Sorry about that. :P
You're not sorry. You enjoy it.;-) Just remember turn about's fair play.

I always have an issue with you.:p Not really.
;)

[quote]You've actually misspelled some big words. So unlike you.

Seriously? *proofreads*

You're not sorry. You enjoy it.;-) Just remember turn about's fair play.
Guilty as charged. ;-) ;-)

Damn, I've not been focusing again. If I don't pay attention, my fingers won't do what my mind tells them.

Damn, I've not been focusing again. If I don't pay attention, my fingers won't do what my mind tells them.

Funny how that works.:p

Damn, I've not been focusing again. If I don't pay attention, my fingers won't do what my mind tells them.

I must be real tired, I'm seeing innuendo in about every post tonight...

Funny how that works.:p

I blame dysgraphia, personally. >_> Why else would I add random 'ly's, and skip 'n't's?

I must be real tired, I'm seeing innuendo in about every post tonight...

Success!

I blame dysgraphia, personally. >_> Why else would I add random 'ly's, and skip 'n't's?

I thought you might've been trying to subtly signal sarcasm at first. Then I thought you were just trying to confuse me. Then I realised the world doesn't revolve around me so you must just be drunk.:D

Success!

I must be tired since I missed all of that. That's usually the first place my brain goes.

Eh? S, with the embryo inside the woman's body, the father has already consented to supporting the child, but outside her body, he could opt out anytime he wants?

yup.

the right to abortion is not based on ownership of the embryo/fetus but on the right to bodily integrity, privacy and choice of medical procedures.

if the embryo isnt in her, she has no more say than he does over what happens to it. its 50/50.

(well not anytime he wants. if he agress to the implantation, he's on the hook if it results in a child)

Of course! Without the "male part" there wouldn't be the baby in the first place. Also, what is the baby's opinion on abortion? If the child has a choice when it is grown up, why doesn't it get a vote as a developing life? :rolleyes:

Success!

Why am I not surprised to hear this? :p

I must be tired since I missed all of that. That's usually the first place my brain goes.

I was expecting a response from him like "perhaps tired isn't the word you are looking for" or something in that area. ;)

yup.

the right to abortion is not based on ownership of the embryo/fetus but on the right to bodily integrity, privacy and choice of medical procedures.

if the embryo isnt in her, she has no more say than he does over what happens to it. its 50/50.

(well not anytime he wants. if he agress to the implantation, he's on the hook if it results in a child)

Wait a minute, wait, wait. The right to abortion? Wasn't I on about the right of a man to opt out in the same manner as a woman? If the woman no longer wants to support the embryo, then *poof*, it's gone. If the man no longer wants to support it, why can't he sever the legal ties much as the woman severs the physical ones? How does the embryo being in her body tie the man to it? I don't get it.

Of course! Without the "male part" there wouldn't be the baby in the first place. Also, what is the baby's opinion on abortion? If the child has a choice when it is grown up, why doesn't it get a vote as a developing life? :rolleyes:

Oh you shut up!:p You are just giving those emo kids something new to whine about.

"I wish my mom would have listened to me when I told her I didn't want to be born."

I was expecting a response from him like "perhaps tired isn't the word you are looking for" or something in that area. ;)
I kind of thought that was coming too.

So, what you're saying is that women should have more rights than men? That it's ok for a women to kill a possible child than, but it's not okay for men to not pay for a baby they didn't want? No. Men and women are EQUAL. If women don't have to care for the child, then neither do men.

Excepting if the mother is in danger, getting an abortion is just an escape from responsibility. So, men should have an escape from responsibility.

Did you actually read my post?

Where did I say that women have more rights than men? I said that society has determined that the right to a woman's personal autonomy is upheld over the right to life of a fetus in the early stages. A man can't give birth to a baby, so his personal autonomy isn't really an issue is it? Are you going to complain about a man's right to give birth to a baby has been taken away?

(I'm suddenly reminded of Life of Brian...)

I then said that society is better served if we allow women to have abortion as an option in the early stages of pregnancy, and society is also better off having children who are taken care of, i.e. the male should also contribute to the well-being of the child.

What is better for children who are born into the world? A society where they are brought up by single mothers who didn't want them and get no support from the fathers? Young women finding back-alley surgeons? We've been down that road before you know. We have options as to the kind of society we want to build. Society has chosen the option you don't like. Sorry about your luck.

I was expecting a response from him like "perhaps tired isn't the word you are looking for" or something in that area. ;)

I was honestly expecting Gravlen to show up and say it.

Of course! Without the "male part" there wouldn't be the baby in the first place. Also, what is the baby's opinion on abortion? If the child has a choice when it is grown up, why doesn't it get a vote as a developing life? :rolleyes:

Some would argue that a baby that is unwanted by the mother shouldn't be born anyway, the kid would be better off than the possibility of a difficult life.

I was honestly expecting Gravlen to show up and say it.

You could always fill in for him. :)

Wait a minute, wait, wait. The right to abortion? Wasn't I on about the right of a man to opt out in the same manner as a woman? If the woman no longer wants to support the embryo, then *poof*, it's gone. If the man no longer wants to support it, why can't he sever the legal ties much as the woman severs the physical ones? How does the embryo being in her body tie the man to it? I don't get it.

well let me see how many reasons i can get down here before i forget them

first of all, IF there is a child, the child has rights. no one has the right to decide before birth that they wont be legal parents of that child. the child comes with rights of its own.

even if you give up legal fatherhood. you are still a father. you cant stop that child from showing up at your door someday and claiming a relationship. severing legal ties wont change that.

you are bumping up against some very undesirable social policies.

as i said before, you dont want the standard of legal fatherhood to be how much you wanted the child 8 months before its born. sets a bad precedent for what makes a father legally a father.

you dont want to encourage more abortions but putting more women into a financial bind if she chooses to have the baby.

you dont want to burden the state with the support of more fatherless children than it already supports. (unmarrried couple has a baby, he signs off on it, state supports baby, he works also adding that much more money to the pot. what couple of modest means wouldnt want a little extra state money tossed in?) should we really pick up the tab for men who cant be bothered to support their own children?

you dont want to encourage bad behavior in young men who are of an irresponsible mind set. consider those young men who sleep around, impregnates a girl, then insist that its not theirs because she is a whore. in your system, he signs a paper, walks away and goes after another girl.

I was honestly expecting Gravlen to show up and say it.

That was kind of the bat signal for Gravlen. He must be tied up at the moment.

first of all, IF there is a child, the child has rights. no one has the right to decide before birth that they wont be legal parents of that child. the child comes with rights of its own.

'Cept if the woman aborts. Or, if that doesn't float your boat, adoption.

even if you give up legal fatherhood. you are still a father. you cant stop that child from showing up at your door someday and claiming a relationship. severing legal ties wont change that.

What does that have to do with paying child support? Sure, you'll get great drama for Dr. Phil.

as i said before, you dont want the standard of legal fatherhood to be how much you wanted the child 8 months before its born. sets a bad precedent for what makes a father legally a father.

And what is it that makes a father a father? And then, what does abortion mean for what makes a mother a mother?

should we really pick up the tab for men who cant be bothered to support their own children?

I don't know, should you? That's a different debate. This is about why men should be forced to support them. I'm not quite feeling ''because the government would, otherwise''.

you dont want to encourage bad behavior in young men who are of an irresponsible mind set. consider those young men who sleep around, impregnant a girl, then insist that its not theirs because she is a whore. in your system, he signs a paper, walks away and goes after another girl.

Wow, the exact same thing, innit? Pro-lifers always say abortions encourage promiscuity in women. you believe that too, huh?

Wow, the exact same thing, innit? Pro-lifers always say abortions encourage promiscuity in women. you believe that too, huh?

Heh, I always figured a woman who is pro-life and also promiscuous would be a contradiction but it seems it isn't.

No, men should not have the chance to vote upon the passing of abortion. They will not experience child birth, therefore they will not know the impact of such a change. It is true, that if a child is born they will also be responsible for childcare, but that gives them all the more reason to vote yes to abortion. I'm not implying that all men are like this, but you have to consider the possibly that there are.:sniper:

I can't believe you're all joking in an abortion thread. Murderers.

Heh, I always figured a woman who is pro-life and also promiscuous would be a contradiction but it seems it isn't.

I'm telling you, something very strange hapened when I stepped into this thread.

I can't believe you're all joking in an abortion thread. Murderers.

Murder is hilarious.

Or in the words of Denis Leary: "meat tastes like murder and murder tastes good."
I know that's a non- sequiter, just so rare I have the chance to use that quote.

'Cept if the woman aborts. Or, if that doesn't float your boat, adoption.


in abortion there is no baby. in adoption both parents must agree or its not going to happen.


What does that have to do with paying child support? Sure, you'll get great drama for Dr. Phil.

because you get a child for free. no pregnancy, no weight gain, no childbirth, no breastfeeding, no late nights, no money, no nothing. but you are still a father.

when my sister in laws children were babies their deadbeat father lost parental rights and the kids were adopted by the man she eventually married. when those kids were teenagers, they became obsessed with "their real dad" and went looking for him. they both ended up living with him for a year or so until they figured out he was the same piece of shit he was when he left them. no legal ties but he was still their father.



And what is it that makes a father a father? And then, what does abortion mean for what makes a mother a mother?


do you really want the state to decide whether or not you are the father of your children? i dont think so.

what makes a mother a mother is a living child that has her genetics. in abortion there is no child.


I don't know, should you? That's a different debate. This is about why men should be forced to support them. I'm not quite feeling ''because the government would, otherwise''.



Wow, the exact same thing, innit? Pro-lifers always say abortions encourage promiscuity in women. you believe that too, huh?

these last ones are undesirable social policies. you dont want to have the state burdened with more welfare, you dont want to have more women forced into abortions for financial reasons and you dont want to encourage bad behavior in men.

Heh, I always figured a woman who is pro-life and also promiscuous would be a contradiction but it seems it isn't.

how do you think women end up with 7 kids from 7 different fathers?

because you get a child for free.

Not if you don't want one.

...wait, we have to pay for having a child?

when my sister in laws children were babies their deadbeat father lost parental rights and the kids were adopted by the man she eventually married. when those kids were teenagers, they became obsessed with "their real dad" and went looking for him. they both ended up living with him for a year or so until they figured out he was the same piece of shit he was when he left them. no legal ties but he was still their father.

So what? This is irrelevant.

do you really want the state to decide whether or not you are the father of your children? i dont think so.

Bwa? Okay, first you say that signing off parenthood changes the meaning of fatherhood, I ask how, and you ask me if I want the state to decide? What? Can anyone follow this?

these last ones are undesirable social policies. you dont want to have the state burdened with more welfare, you dont want to have more women forced into abortions for financial reasons and you dont want to encourage bad behavior in men.

*shrug* If we don't want the stae burdened, the most effective way would be to remove welfare. Women, if they don't want to abort, have other options. And how can you say that it 'encourages bad behavior' in men, when (as I suspect you'd think) abortion doesn't do so to women?

how do you think women end up with 7 kids from 7 different fathers?

Bad relationships, usually.

Just a guess.

how do you think women end up with 7 kids from 7 different fathers?

Still it seems that the two don't really go together, it seems if your moral code includes not tolerating abortion than you wouldn't be promiscuous either. But people are walking mysteries, not to mention are often stupid so I really shouldn't be surprised.

Oy, calling all units, I need back up, preferably someone who can follow Ashmoria's 'looping upon itself' pretzel train of thought?

Bad relationships, usually.

Just a guess.

actually i think its mostly due to a woman's delusional belief that if she "gives a man a baby" he will stay with her. and that she owes any man who commits to her a baby.

women can be so stupid.

actually i think its mostly due to a woman's delusional belief that if she "gives a man a baby" he will stay with her. and that she owes any man who commits to her a baby.

women can be so stupid.

Not that simple really. Sometimes the women with multiple children are leaving the man. It's just that divorce and separation are commonplace now, so it is more common to see women with children from multiple partners.

actually i think its mostly due to a woman's delusional belief that if she "gives a man a baby" he will stay with her. and that she owes any man who commits to her a baby.

women can be so stupid.

*blink blink*

O...kay.

actually i think its mostly due to a woman's delusional belief that if she "gives a man a baby" he will stay with her. and that she owes any man who commits to her a baby.

women can be so stupid.

Or she wants a paycheck.

Not if you don't want one.

...wait, we have to pay for having a child?

you sure do. children are expensive both in time and money



So what? This is irrelevant.


you have a problem with me illustrating my point?


Bwa? Okay, first you say that signing off parenthood changes the meaning of fatherhood, I ask how, and you ask me if I want the state to decide? What? Can anyone follow this?

what makes a father a father? do you really want it to be how much he wanted the child 8 months before it was born? think of the legal implications of, in effect, having to prove you wanted your children. its not that hard. ill wait for a few minutes.



*shrug* If we don't want the stae burdened, the most effective way would be to remove welfare. Women, if they don't want to abort, have other options. And how can you say that it 'encourages bad behavior' in men, when (as I suspect you'd think) abortion doesn't do so to women?

removing welfare opens up too many other bad social problems.

your system encourages a single man who isnt particularly involved with the woman he inpregnated to sign a paper and walk away.

a woman cant ever walk away from a pregnancy. abortion is its own punishment. now, birth control is a different story. of course it encourages promiscuous behavior. good thing its a protected right affirmed by the supreme court.

Can I just make mention of one bit of common sense. This is of course generally speaking.

Single mothers will not have an abortion.

7 babies by 7 daddies means she either wants to get pregnant or really doesn't understand birth control.

Generally speaking single mothers are a poor choice for a one night stand.

Not that simple really. Sometimes the women with multiple children are leaving the man. It's just that divorce and separation are commonplace now, so it is more common to see women with children from multiple partners.

true, its just that when you get so many children from so many different men, you probably need to start thinking it through a bit more.

not that its all that common, its just a stupid thing that some women do.

Can I just make mention of one bit of common sense. This is of course generally speaking.

Single mothers will not have an abortion.

7 babies by 7 daddies means she either wants to get pregnant or really doesn't understand birth control.

Generally speaking single mothers are a poor choice for a one night stand.

words of wisdom.


hmmm i think it detect the sound of daylight savings time kicking in in the UK.

words of wisdom.


hmmm i think it detect the sound of daylight savings time kicking in in the UK.

Is that what's going on?

Is that what's going on?

yeah they do maintenence of some sort every day at this time. well this time half an hour ago

words of wisdom.


hmmm i think it detect the sound of daylight savings time kicking in in the UK.

Apparently some guys don't care. Of course I wonder what a woman with multiple kids is doing out trying to get laid. One would think she would have higher priorities. But maybe she can keep passing them off on their grandmother while mommy goes out working on their new brother or sister.

But than that's just me, it is her choice after all and maybe the kids will be happy for another sibling.

Apparently some guys don't care. Of course I wonder what a woman with multiple kids is doing out trying to get laid. One would think she would have higher priorities. But maybe she can keep passing them off on their grandmother while mommy goes out working on their new brother or sister.

But than that's just me, it is her choice after all and maybe the kids will be happy for another sibling.

Probably doesn't have the best judgment if she's got multiple babies by multiple daddies.

Probably doesn't have the best judgment if she's got multiple babies by multiple daddies.

Men who are stupid enough to have unprotected sex with her. I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for them (although I have a certain degree of symapthy with the kids). If you're going to handle your weapon with the safety off, expect that a few bullets are going to make impact.

Rather him speak up about abortion than ruin the child's life if he can't support him/her.

true, its just that when you get so many children from so many different men, you probably need to start thinking it through a bit more.

not that its all that common, its just a stupid thing that some women do.

Well, there's another line of thinking too. There may be many mothers who like the idea of children, but don't like the idea of permanent husbands. However, raising children is a full-time occupation for most. So, find a suitable candidate, have kids. If things don't work out, no problem, because the father still has an obligation to support the child. The mother has her children, the money to support those children, and the freedom to change sexual partners every few years. Detestable perhaps? Not necessarily stupid from the point of view of a woman who wants this specific scenario.

The real issue is not one of choice etc.

The real issue is whether or not the unborn is a human being.

It seems obvious to me that that is a question which all human beings should have a say in.

A. The woman has a right to control her own body. Period.
wow. I didn't know women could control their own body period.
I wish my g/f could. It always seems to happen at inappropriate times.

wow. I didn't know women could control their own body period.
I wish my g/f could. It always seems to happen at inappropriate times.

:p

No, no. They have a right to control their body period, irrespective of their ability to control their body period.

"Her body, her choice." Fine then. (well not fine really but...) It goes both ways though.

Her body, her choice.
Her body, her problem.


But, much like the "if you don't want to worry about a child, then don't have sex" argument against men. "Her body, her choice." When made to work both ways, stops sounding like such a good idea or PC thing to say. But who really couldn't see that coming..:rolleyes:

Her body, her choice.
Her body, her problem.


So any woman who gets raped and becomes pregnant should get no support?

So? She still does not desire to carry the fetus to term. It follows that to force her to do so is to force her to let her body be used AGAINST HER WILL.

That is an obvious violation of bodily autonomy.
Yeah, and you'll find a pot of gold at the end of EVERY RAINBOW too. Right?

"Her body, her choice." Fine then. (well not fine really but...) It goes both ways though.

Her body, her choice.
Her body, her problem.

Of course it is. If a woman is pregnant, then that pregnancy is her problem. If she chooses to remain pregnant, that pregnancy is her problem. She is the one who is going through it, after all. She is the one who needs to seek prenatal care, go through all the pains of pregnancy and childbirth, and suffer from any health problems it causes.

It would be nice if the man were around to help her get through the pregnancy, but I've not seen many people trying to argue that he should be legally forced to do so.

*doesn't bother to read the thread, just quotes the first agreeable post*

a man should have no control over whether or not a particular woman gets an abortion but he certainly should have input as to abortion policy

most women will never have an abortion but still have a say in what abortion policy should be. why shouldnt men?

Yes, the legality of it at least. Most of our (U.S.) leaders are male. Its just that simple.

Whether his girlfriend/wife/friend gets an abortion.. no its up the the woman who's pregnant. That, of course, if abortion is legal, if it is illegal, then the men made the decision.

Yeah, but those are justified. I know it sounds like some lame hypocrisy, but they are.
No, it doesn't sound like some lame hypocrisy. It is a really really lame and quite sad hypocrisy!

So, what you're saying is that women should have more rights than men? That it's ok for a women to kill a possible child than, but it's not okay for men to not pay for a baby they didn't want? No. Men and women are EQUAL. If women don't have to care for the child, then neither do men.In an abortion, there is no child.

Well, yeah. After all, we always hear 'consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy [and/or childbirth]'. So the having sex part doesn't matter, that's okay; he can't do anything about the pregnancy, it is her body, after all; and once that's over, he's now responsible for this child, somehow. He didn't consent to it being born, did he?To use the aforementioned 'accident' analogy, the unwanted pregnancy is itself the accident.
If I drive, I know an accident is possible. Same with heterosexual sex.

Of course! Without the "male part" there wouldn't be the baby in the first place. Also, what is the baby's opinion on abortion? If the child has a choice when it is grown up, why doesn't it get a vote as a developing life? :rolleyes:Because there is no child in an abortion.

Wait a minute, wait, wait. The right to abortion? Wasn't I on about the right of a man to opt out in the same manner as a woman? If the woman no longer wants to support the embryo, then *poof*, it's gone. If the man no longer wants to support it, why can't he sever the legal ties much as the woman severs the physical ones? How does the embryo being in her body tie the man to it? I don't get it.The embryo being in her body doesn't tie the man to it. This is why he can't sever legal ties to it - because he has nothing to do with it.
If a child is born as a result of a pregnancy, then he does have something to do with it, but that's a whole separate and irrelevant issue.

"Her body, her choice." Fine then. (well not fine really but...) It goes both ways though.

Her body, her choice.
Her body, her problem.Certainly.
And if there is a child born and it's outside of her body, it's both of their problems. But again, the issue of children is irrelevant.

If the man can choose to not be involved in the childs life in any way then there is no need for him to decide whether or not it should be born.
However, if this choice is not presented then the man should have a vote. If not, the woman has control over the entire future of this man because of something they both did.

wimmin iz wieurd sumtimz..

It would be nice if the man were around to help her get through the pregnancy, but I've not seen many people trying to argue that he should be legally forced to do so.

What? She has the power to abort if she wants whatever the guy thinks or to keep the pregnancy and force the man to pay child support. I don't see what the complaint is.

What? She has the power to abort if she wants whatever the guy thinks or to keep the pregnancy and force the man to pay child support. I don't see what the complaint is.

That's because this thread is full of the shrill cries of "it's her body!!!1eleven"

Of course, no mind is paid to the fact that the man and the woman both consented to the sexual act that resulted in the pregnancy, both knowing what the consequences could be. It was her body then, too, y'know. Apparently, according to those being so shrill, though, despite it being a consentual act by two people, only one gets to make the decision. Again, nine months of pregnancy versus 18 years of support...hmmmm...and if the man is willing to raise the child on his own, with no help from the mother?

Yeah, the man should clearly have no say in the abortion decision. :rolleyes:

No. Her body, her choice. I may be able to advise, if she asks, but it's ultimately her decision.

It's not her "body". It's a child. Something happening to her arm or her leg or her head -- that's something happening to her body. Something (the abortion) is happening to her <i>child</i>. And her child is going to die. That's awfully disturbing in my opinion.

If the man can choose to not be involved in the childs life in any way then there is no need for him to decide whether or not it should be born.
However, if this choice is not presented then the man should have a vote. If not, the woman has control over the entire future of this man because of something they both did.

wimmin iz wieurd sumtimz..

Ok, the man gets a vote. And the woman gets a vote. And since the woman is the person who is actually pregnant, her vote wins if they disagree.

So, really, in the end, the woman gets to decide.

Or are you trying to suggest that a man's wishes should override a woman's right to bodily autonomy? That he should be able to force her to undergo a medical procedure she does not want or to undergo a pregnancy she does not want?


What? She has the power to abort if she wants whatever the guy thinks or to keep the pregnancy and force the man to pay child support. I don't see what the complaint is.

I don't see what any of this has to do with the small quote you were - I think - responding to.

Context can be your friend. I promise. =)

I don't see what any of this has to do with the small quote you were - I think - responding to.

Context can be your friend. I promise. =)

I suppose I could have misread, anything is possible. But I assume it had something to do with evil men and the poor woman. I hope I at least got the context right from your post in this case.

I suppose I could have misread, anything is possible. But I assume it had something to do with evil men and the poor woman. I hope I at least got the context right from your post in this case.

No, nothing to do with evil men or poor women. It was pretty much just an aside to say something I think we can all agree on - that the best situation when an unplanned pregnancy occurs is for the man to be there with the woman throughout her pregnancy, whether it ends in abortion, birth, or miscarriage.

Obviously, this will not always be the case, but it is, in my mind, the ideal.

Ok, the man gets a vote. And the woman gets a vote. And since the woman is the person who is actually pregnant, her vote wins if they disagree.

So, really, in the end, the woman gets to decide.

Or are you trying to suggest that a man's wishes should override a woman's right to bodily autonomy? That he should be able to force her to undergo a medical procedure she does not want or to undergo a pregnancy she does not want?

A man shouldn't be able to force a woman to undergo an abortion, I agree with you there. He SHOULD, however, have the choice of opting out of the child's life, because, as I've said before, the child support system is broken.

that the best situation when an unplanned pregnancy occurs is for the man to be there with the woman throughout her pregnancy, whether it ends in abortion, birth, or miscarriage.

Best solution for the woman, maybe, but if the man doesn't want the child this best solution is shackling him to her side no matter what.

No, nothing to do with evil men or poor women. It was pretty much just an aside to say something I think we can all agree on - that the best situation when an unplanned pregnancy occurs is for the man to be there with the woman throughout her pregnancy, whether it ends in abortion, birth, or miscarriage.

Obviously, this will not always be the case, but it is, in my mind, the ideal.

Well if the woman at least listens to his opinion on the matter than it would make this more likely of course. But I would certainly hope for his presence as well.