Texas man files legal action to probe ex-partner’s out-of-state abortion

There are two parents it if there is a conflict in natural falls on the inherent right to life.

The baby in the womb is NEVER a part of the woman's body the mother and child are entirely separate human beings as nature designed so that the baby could survive.

 

Sure, but the having of a baby was not. Having the baby is forced on woman in States which disallow abortion.

The strong views I referred to was apposition to adoption.

Reminder: I am not talking about this particular case. I am chewing cud about the responsibility of a State which forces a woman to deliver a child.

 

No-one did, but the State is forcing her to deliver the child (in my hypothetical.)

 

If she was not raped then she was not forced. She made the choice to engage in an activity that she knew could result in a child. As such it is not "force" it is voluntary responsibility. Just as the man is held accountable for his voluntary actions, the woman should be also. Everyone takes on voluntary responsibility...EVEN if they don't want that responsibility anyways. It is literally a part of life. EVERYONE has responsibilities that they must undertake whether they want to or not. It is the nature of life, and of society.

Yes, "force" is used to make sure she doesn't kill the child in utero. But it is no different than using force to prevent someone from killing a born child.

And in response to some other posts that have been posted in this thread:

Being anti-abortion/pro-life...whatever one wants to call it.... has NOTHING to do with the woman. Its not about "controlling women". Its not about "enslaving women". Its not about the woman. Period. Full Stop. That garbage is just propaganda used to manipulate. If we had the technology to transfer the ZEF to a tube to where that ZEF can grow and live then we'd have no problem with that. (except maybe the far extremist fundies that don't believe in technology: ex: Jehovah's Witnesses) We simply want to protect the life of what we consider an innocent human.

And no, that is not always for religious reasons. I for example am against any and all organized religions. And my arguments that I put forth have nothing to do with religion. So not all anti-abortion/pro-life folks are "religious nutbags" or whatever. So please stop assuming that is always the reason.

And also, conservatives do not "not care about the child after its born". That too is propaganda. That is simply a difference of opinion on whether government has the power to provide welfare to people or not. Most conservatives actually love charities that handle the same thing as government welfare and as such they believe that is where such help should come from, not from government. (I defer from conservatives on this btw)

 

The state forces women to deliver their child to safety in lots of other situations.

A woman who's out on a boat, you don't think it's okay for her to throw her child over the edge, do you? Nor can she dispose of her child in a dumpster.
If a pregnant woman goes out into the middle of nowhere and gives birth, she has to bring that child to a hospital first, if she wants to abandon it.
Even if that involves carrying the child many miles, because she hiked out there without a car.
Or if there's a natural disaster and the roads are all flooded, she'll simply have to wait until the disaster is over, and the water levels recede.

 

Anyway, I'm glad the male partner finally has some say.

If a woman wants to be sure the man will not forbid abortion, she better get him to sign a contract waving away his rights before the copulation.

It can be a horrible feeling to know that your offspring is being aborted and there's nothing you can do about it.
Just like it's a crime for the man to make the woman abort when she didn't consent to the death of the child.

 

And what if the genders were reversed?

Do you think men should not be on the hook for child support?

That would cause a major problem in society.

 

It is even worse than that. They scream 'free speech' and insist that people who stormed Congress to stop the certification of an election are 'political prisoners'; yet they have no issue with unidentified govenment agents snatching people off the streets of Portland & detaining them without charge, and they cheer police breaking up protests they dislike.

In Texas Greg Abbott, who passed a 'freedom of speech on campus' bill a few years ago is now insisting that colleges in Texas limit speech he disagrees with. And then we have the Republican book banners, who have been attacking schools & libraries for years over books as harmless as 'Harry Potter'.

......and there is SO much more.

The only really consistent 'conservative' principle is that they want what they want when they want it and if that outcome requires minimal government involvement they will demand that, and if it requires the heavy hand of the state overriding the freeedom of others then that is perfectly fine. They will use whatever excuses they can find - pretending to care about women, kids, 'life', even gay people when it suits - but it all comes down to 'what I want when I want it'. You can find examples of it here practically daily and among Republican politicians with monotonous regularity.

 

Pregnancy is hit or miss. More often than not, it is a miss....by a long shot. Sex occurs for reasons other than a pregnancy. Should a pregnancy occur in an anti rights State, then it is undeniable reality the woman is forced by the State to deliver that child. That State should accept its responsibility in that reality.

Exactly. So she is forced to deliver, something she did NOT choose to do.

I have deleted the rest of your post as I am not going to get into a pointless abortion debate.

Interesting notion just popped into my head. Many here at PF make comments about how Australians have had their rights taken away from them and I believe they are pretty much the same people who endorse a 'right' a woman has to have control over her own body being removed from her by, if we are to believe him****, Humpty****.

 

A lot of disinformation in that post. But this is not the thread to address it all. You should go make a thread about it.

 

Ex partner - why does this smell of an act of overt control I.e. “coercive control ie domestic violence??

 

And you should identify what you mean by “misinformation”

 

I'm not sure this will go anywhere. Texas has no jurisdiction in Colorado. So the last thing the woman did in Texas's jurisdiction was leave the state which is a right guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

It strikes me more as theatrics.

 

Because generally people want to pretend women are victims and incapable of any responsibility for their actions. The man has every right to be pissed off at her but that's between them it doesn't involve you or me or the courts.

 

Not always - depends on circumstances. Most commonly those that are sidelined are because they do not treat their partners well. This is why it is important to treat women like a partner and not a baby factory

 

Except when it's time to collect.

 

Just because its a "hit or miss" does not remove the fact that everyone involved knew it was a possibility.

The fact that sex occurs for reasons other than procreating is irrelevant. Everyone involved in the act knows that it is a possibility.

As such everyone involved needs to accept responsibility for the life they created. The State did not choose to create that life. The two involved in the sexual act did choose to engage in an act they knew could result in a life. So why should it accept responsibility for their choice beyond what is already done?

When you deleted the rest of my post, which I have no problem with, why did you also delete the second line to what you quoted there? It was a part of that argument, not a part of the rest of the post that you didn't want to get into. And she did choose to have sex knowing the possibilities and the consequences of those possibilities while living in a state where abortion is banned.

 

We don't really know any of this do we?

 

If this board is a representation of the level of ignorance around contraception in the American populace then I know what your main issue is and it is not the women.

The sheer sodding ignorance on here in relation to effectiveness of contraception is staggering

 

People try to avoid pregnancy in perfectly legal ways, and if there is a boo boo, an unintended pregnancy, and the State forces the delivery on the woman, then the State has responsibility. Unavoidable in logic.

 

‘Nuff said

 

Wow! Someone who has never heard of the placental barrier or the innumerable ways it is breached with each pregnancy

 

Everyone knows that contraception is not 100% effective. That is exactly my point. Everyone knows that pregnancy is a possibility. Even with contraception.

And like it or not...yes, consent to sex, is consent to pregnancy because they know its a possibility. Saying otherwise is just avoiding responsibility.

 

It being an "unintended pregnancy" does not get rid of the fact that it was a known possibility. The State forcing someone to not kill is actually one of its primary duties. Logic.

 

Known as in a mere outside remote possibility, not an intended outcome. People should have responsibilities for intended outcomes. The State should also have responsibility for an outcome it FORCES on women by way of deliberate intervention on the decision making process. The State has removed free will, it should accept responsibility for that.

The rest of your post is again diving into the abortion rabbit hole. I am not going there.