Why Should Men Have ANY Say In Abortion?

then women shouldn't be able to control what men do with their own money
if you don't want men to be able to have any say so with what a women does with his and hers own off spring then men should be allowed to also abort the reasonability of that off spring and be able to opt out of any support

if women are allowed to abort a pregnancy because the are not ready or doesn't want to have a child why cant men be allowed to have that same choice

 

They can't.

Of course a man has a say in what happens to his own offspring.

Well, think about it. Why can't a man terminate a pregnancy?

Why isn't it possible for a man to have an actual abortion?

- - - Updated - - -

On this very forum by any pro lifer who claims abortion is murder.

 

Your argument is full of inconsistencies, contrary to and offensive to common sense. Full of mumbo-gumbo, double-talk of micro over-analytic logic intended to complicate what would otherwise be a very simple issue.

Bottom line...life would not be initiated unless a man and woman initiate it. Unless you believe in immaculate conception, you can not argue that fact. It is a deliberate act (in some cases irresponsibly and recklessly but deliberate nonetheless since any intelligent being would take preventive measures against that risk), engaged upon both. And since women maintain the responsibility of the physical effects of pregnancy, it is the responsibility of that woman to ensure that she or her sex partner take measures to prevent any pregnancy. When she fails to do this, she is responsible for the physical risks that are coupled with pregnancy. This is not to say that a man is also not responsible, in every sense of the word to include financial and paternal responsibilities, for the child. But the man does not face the physical risks...only the woman. So unwanted pregnancies are not due to mistakes, attacks, break-down in responsibilities of men, government and certainly the baby...it is her failure, period. Abortion, is a woman's way to reverse that act, which demands that the child be killed in order to terminate the life created....in other words...kill the child she is carrying. There is no attack by the baby upon the mother. This is a bunch of out-right lies. You are saying no less, that you have the right to invite another human into your home...then after giving the invitation also have the right to expect that person to first obtain your consent in order to breathe air in your home, even if the person would die, otherwise the person is maliciously vandalizing your home without your consent. To expect a human not yet capable of communication, that you helped create, to ask your permission to stay alive in order to do so...is an outrageous expectation from another human being as a condition to live. Who are you kidding with these wacko arguments? No one but yourself and others that look for excuses for murder.

All the other crap being used by women as excuses to evade her natural maternal responsibility, is just that, pure and simple.

 

Who made YOU the Ruler of Women's Responsibility ? You aren't.....

And why do you hate kids so much that you want them to have parents who don't want them and/or can't afford them...and are , according to you, irresponsible?


And what is that "wound" you kept referring to in another post?

 

You are so funny. I am not pretending to be a Ruler of Women's Responsibility...but most of the country is still waiting on them to step up to the plate and be their own Ruler of their responsibilities, and stop demanding that babies, men, employers, neighbors, taxpayers and the government forfeit their lives, money and time to bail them out of situations where they clearly fail at managing their own bodies and lives. If they handled their own bodies with any respect and integrity, we wouldn't be having this discussion. No Ruler needed here, just simply take care of their own business without involving any of these other participants.

Ironic, that a person who advocates for baby killing, states that I hate children. So you love children so much, that your preferred way of handling parental problems...is to kill the child? WOW!

 

OK, so if a woman takes the risk of having risky sex, why shouldn't she "accept the consequences of falling off....not depend on someone to save them...is that what you're saying?[/QUOTE] ."? Do you not see that your argument is full of inconsistent logic? And if you are so concerned about "injury" posed to a woman by having a child (which is a flat out lie), do you not understand the risks of having an abortion to a woman? Again, you make no sense. The more you talk, the more you expose the flaws to your argument for condoning baby killing.

 

Why the quote marks around "injury" as though they are not real? EVERY pregnancy carries the risk of serious complications or death. EVERY pregnancy permanently damages a woman's body. This list has been posted here many times, but here it is again for your perusal. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-i...#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm

Abortion is up to 14 times safer than childbirth.

Blatant outrageous lie. No one has condoned "baby killing." FYI, "baby" is the stage of development between birth and one year.

 

Evasion and insults...""""...but most of the country """".... in your arrogance you presume to speak for "most of the country"....'spose it never occurred to you that THEY can do their own speaking???


"""be their own Ruler of their responsibilities"""... they are! So if they decide to have an abortion that's very responsible if they don't want a kid and /or can't afford one.

BUT YOU mean they should "be responsible" and be punished for having all that fun sex that you aren't having

Now , tell me exactly how many women expect a handout??? ALL women who have babies or all women who have abortions and don't cost the taxpayers a cent???

Rich women who don't ask you for a dime??? WHO?

Now how many men?
NOBODY but women who have babies cost the government money??? What a stupid outlook.



Hey, ya forgot to tell me what "wound" meant...LOL!!!!!!
We ALL get hand outs from the government like having an army to fight our wars...

 

."? Do you not see that your argument is full of inconsistent logic? And if you are so concerned about "injury" posed to a woman by having a child (which is a flat out lie), do you not understand the risks of having an abortion to a woman? Again, you make no sense. The more you talk, the more you expose the flaws to your argument for condoning baby killing.[/QUOTE]

W H Y should she be subject to the consequences?....because YOU say so ...


YOU make no sense and obviously have no knowledge of science and biology....just because YOU believe a woman doesn't suffer any effects from pregnancy doesn't mean they don't....


They might even injure their """WOUND" their "wound" ????

 

Because pregnancy is not an injury, unless you consider riding a motorcycle into a wall without a helmet and expecting no consequences to be an "injury"...that's why. You are full of "it". And if you truly believe that pregnancy is an "injury", then why do so many women get "injured" and need to abort the child? Are they stupid? Because that is exactly what you are suggesting, that my mother, sister, wife and daughter (as well as all other females capable of giving birth) are all stupid if they get pregnant and prefer to kill the child rather than give birth to the child when, they should have known the risks, since only they know "their bodies" and therefore they "chose" to engage in the obvious risk to conceive. Because in that case I would agree with your assumption, they are stupid...absolute moronic imbeciles that lack the intelligence of a common house fly.

So since you think women are stupid, and that they are incapable of knowing when they are at risk that when having unprotected sex that very well may lead to pregnancy, would you also agree that all women demanding access to killing their unborn children need to be governed and watched? That since they are so darn stupid, that women should be required, by law, to report to their sexual partners, their employers and the government when they are ovulating so-that smarter and more disciplined people can monitor them and take what-ever steps deemed necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancies, since the woman is too stupid to determine this risk on her own without detailed direction from her sexual partner, employer or government? I can't speak for you, nor do I want to...but my mother, my sister, my wife and my daughter (as well as most women I know) were not as stupid as women you exclaim to be.

You can't have it both ways. Either women are smart and responsible, and should be expected to understand simple human behavior, the activity occurring within their own bodies and behave as such. Or are they really too stupid to understand their own biological signs occurring within themselves and need their husbands/boy-friends, their employers and the government's help to keep them from being "injured". Which is it?

 

So what was the "wound" you mentioned women had? Isn't a "wound" an injury? Or are you Ruler of what is really an injury...???

 

W H Y should she be subject to the consequences?....because YOU say so ...


YOU make no sense and obviously have no knowledge of science and biology....just because YOU believe a woman doesn't suffer any effects from pregnancy doesn't mean they don't....


They might even injure their """WOUND" their "wound" ????[/QUOTE]

Ok, now I get it, so that's what you meant...I misspelled "womb", using "wound" instead. For all the Far-Left wacko's out there, take a snap shot and frame this admission, put it in the dictionary under "how to admit to a mistake and take responsibility for it", since none of you understand that concept. Either way...you got
my point, that's why you failed to address it and preferred to focus on cosmetic nonsense of the message...you lose.

- - - Updated - - -

Again...I made my point...you lose again. Just hang it up...you are getting killed like an "aborted child".

 

[/QUOTE]










You "misspelled " it two or three times........but I have noted that science and biology are not familiar to you.

I suggest you practice with the quote function, too.

 

Got ya Foxhastings...stick a fork in ya. Your gibberish has been exposed...you are full of it. Game over....

 

Now it sounds like you're saying pregnancy doesn't injure a woman because...she had sex. The link I provided lists dozens of complications from pregnancy. It can take up to a year for a woman's body to return to "normal" after a pregnancy, but even then, it is not the same and never will be.

Unwanted pregnancy is an accident, and can happen to any sexually active woman. Why are people involved in traffic accidents? Are they stupid?

Do you believe insults, hyperbole and bloviation make your argument more convincing?

Unwanted pregnancies can happen to anyone, regardless of intelligence. And FYI, they can happen any time, not just during ovulation. Let's clear up something else. Women don't ask for help from their employers for basic health coverage. That is a part of their compensation package that they have EARNED. Anyone who is pro-life should be more than willing to make contraceptives easily available, because bullying women to be "responsible" doesn't reduce abortions.

 

What gibberish has been exposed? The only exposure was your lack of knowledge of biology ..and of women...and of who decides what responsibility is...(it's not you)

 

I will respond to your last point first, it is not my intent to insult, simply break-down excuses from intelligentsia offered. If someone presents an agreement in a condescending tone, as FoxHastings does consistently to all posters, I will respond accordingly. FoxHastings does not intimate me, nor will I tolerate his/her sarcastic tone, I have and will continue to respond as I see appropriate to the post.

I understand that unwanted pregnancy may not be intentional, I disagree that killing the child is anyone's "right" to use as a remedy to escape that accident when more lives are at stake, not just the one of the affected lives of whom had partial responsibility for that "accident".

Your link is informative, but not inclusive of all opinions surrounding the matter. As far as asking for help from their employers, yes they are asking for help from employers, especially when they claim that the employer is responsible for covering the expenses incurred to address risky sexual behavior. Why is an employer, involved in any decision or financial liability, regarding any stage of sexual behavior or results from, other than an expectation for financial benefit from the employee?

 

So an employer's health insurance plan doesn't have to cover risky behavior....like driving to work, biking, flying in a plane, crossing the street, mountain climbing, traveling to war zones, flying over a war zone.... ???


And, I'd love to see your proof that pregnancy doesn't do any harm to the pregnant woman......please show your proof????

 

As I said FoxHastings...you are done. Let others debate this....just step away from the the keyboard...your input has been nullified, now leave it to the Big Dogs to handle this issue. Just step away from the key-board.

 

It is never intentional, nor is it the result of stupidity.

So you believe that because the woman had sex, she must suffer the consequences. You believe she must be punished, so therefore you are required to regard the zygote as a person. That's how you justify forcing a woman to use her body against her will. Please explain the basis for your belief that a zygote is a person.

My link was factual, not opinion.

No, they are not "asking for help from employers." Employees have earned their insurance coverage, just as they have earned their salaries. It is not a gift from the employer, it is payment for their services. It is none of the employer's business how the employees use their insurance, just as it is none of their business how employees' salaries are spent.

 

ah my mistake, I thought this was being aimed at pro-choice people here. Apologies

 

LOL! You STILL believe you are Supreme Ruler !!! The arrogance of thinking you can tell others what to do!

All because your total lack of knowledge of biology has been exposed and you cannot supply proof of anything you state......still no proof from you that pregnancy doesn't cause women any harm....... so how can you say it's true????? Oh, ya, because YOU said so...LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!

 

Well considering the fact that every single one of my arguments is backed by legal precedences and biological facts I would go so far as to say that your only way of understanding the issue is on an extremely simplistic points of view, and as such the arguments offered are far beyond your comprehension.

Obviously never heard of in vitro or self-insemination then.

The deliberate act is one of sexual intercourse, not creating a pregnancy, to do something deliberately means to "consciously and intentionally" commit an act, this would be true for a woman who is intending to become pregnant, not so for one who is not.

Really, so when you engage in a high risk sport you are expected to endure any injuries that occur should you have an accident while pursuing that sport .. or in other words you should expect no medical help in ceasing those injuries due to the risk you took knowing that you could be injured .. let me know when you find a case of someone being refused medical help because they took a risk.

Exactly why she is the only one who should and can make the decision as to whether she should remain pregnant, neither you or the law should force her to become an incubation chamber.

Well factually you are wrong, especially as approx 40% of all abortions in the USA are due to contraception failure, admittedly most of those are due to incorrect usage .. but all that says is that there is obviously a failing in the USA's sex education program, one not helped by the abstinence only brigade.

I suggest you get a decent medical book on pregnancy and actually learn what ALL pregnancies do to a woman .. and you also seem to forget that ANY injury incurred without consent is an illegal attack.

Pure BS, firstly you would have to show how a woman is inviting the fetus into her womb .. if you leave the door open to your house are you inviting any person in or are they there without your consent, and if they are there without your consent and they start to injure you can you or can you not defend themselves (BTW A fetus does not breath air) or is it assumed that because you left the door open you are consenting to them being in your house and attacking you.

So a person who is deemed mentally incompetent who has no comprehension or ability to seek consent can harm you and al lyou can do is accept that harm .. get real will you.

You, like all pro-lifers, scream and wail about how a zef should be treated as a person from conception because you want all the protections that go with it yet you all willfully ignore the restrictions .. in fact all you pro-lifers want to do is to create a super-person with rights that are above every other person, and then when they are born strip them of those rights .. How can you be so free and easy with other people rights.

considering that every single one of the arguments offered are based in court decisions, precedence and biology .. I would say that it is your ill informed ranting that is wacko . .do yourself a favor and actually research the issues you obviously have such little knowledge of.

nothing natural about pregnancy, natural means "existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind" care to try to support your assertion that pregnancy is natural when is HAS to be caused by humankind.

You earlier accused me of believing in immaculate conception, and yet from your comment above it would seem that you are then one who believes in it, unless you can show me a single human pregnancy that did involve humankind.

 

Whatever...I advocate for children's lives...you advocate for women against children's lives..we'll leave it at that. I'm done arguing with you.

 

They aren't opinions, they are absolute differences of belief in this argument which shall decide how either of us argue and on what grounds we are arguing. Ignoring this is to ignore of the much important pieces in the debate you and I are having now.

The reasoning behind this should be as plain as day, keep rolling your eyes, it just shows you are incapable of understanding something so simple. If I want a law changed, or I do not believe it is right, you quoting the law to support your argument is pointless. That is because in my mind those laws are irrelevant, as it is those I am trying to change.

Cilia lining the fallopian tubes move the fertilized egg zygote toward the uterus. So by your wonderful definitions of what pregnancy is, the mother's body is essentially propelling the person it just put within itself to their death. They just grab hold to stay alive once in the uterus. I would think she has no right to do this.

I don't care what the legal perspective is, it is not logical.

"already at the initiation of the preceding menstrual period the female body goes through changes to prepare for an upcoming conception, including a rise in follicle stimulating hormone that stimulates folliculogenesis and subsequently oogenesis in order to give rise to a mature egg cell, which is the female gamete. Fertilization is the event where the egg cell fuses with the male gamete, spermatozoon. After the point of fertilization, the fused product of the female and male gamete is referred to as a zygote or fertilized egg. The fusion of male and female gametes usually occurs following the act of sexual intercourse, resulting in spontaneous pregnancy. It can also occur by assisted reproductive technology such as artificial insemination and in vitro fertilisation, which may be undertaken as a voluntary choice or due to infertility."- Wikipedia, Pregnancy.

Sex, artificial insemination, vitro fertilisation, any action that results in a the zygote do in fact cause the presence of the zygote. Going back to my analogy with the train. It is not that the train driver is incompetent when the train runs you over after you step on the tracks, it is you stepped on the tracks to begin with. You would allow the train to do what it logically would do (and cannot stop from doing) when you stepped onto the tracks.

This all goes back to my arguments about purposes, consequences, and much more. The direct result of the fertilizing of an ovum is pregnancy. In any situation a woman has the choice whether or not to fertilize an ovum (except in rape), and to do so is to accept pregnancy.

P.S. I never insulted you, I called you out for what I believe you are. From what I have gathered you have stated the which would make you a statist and a sadist, specifically a belief in the law as an ultimate and an enjoyment or apathy towards killing in situations killing is not required. Feel free to report, to be kept from or warned of speaking with you after committing no violation would be of no consequence or worry to me. This is just a small bit of data in a vast sea, a meaningless place that draws no enjoyment to me.