Is it really so bad if a man slips a woman an abortion pill?

Slipping her the pill unbeknownst to her at the very least is of course deceptive and that is no way for a relationship to continue.
If one is prone to doing backhanded, behind the scenes actions in life, they are not a very good human being and should not be in a relationship anyway.

If there are those that think doing things to others without them knowing it is good, then they are just as much a bad person to be in a relationship with. Lying is never a good way to live one's life.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL. Your very own OP said the woman's choice.
Do you know what choice means?

 

Why just the woman?

The law that says men must help support their children isn't stupid....it's for the benefit of the children those things you forget about in the pouting about the poor picked on "men".

 

I don't know enough. Were you duped into getting her pregnant? If you were duped, I think you might have some say in the matter, but you better not go slippin' no pills. That's what judges are for but it's my guess you'd lose. Men usually do in these he/she things.

 

You can apologize for stupid nasty people making stupid nasty laws all you like.

This will not change the fact that this law violates the fundamental legal principle that one person is not to be punished for the crime of another. This a principle that us upheld in almost every other area of law ... it is not like the law does not recognize this principle and claim to adhere to it.

Violating this basic principle of law has consequences whether you want to admit it or not. Belief in the integrity of law is not belief in only laws that you agree with.

The fact that you have to rely on demonization and mischaracterization of the issue shows how weak your argument is. You can not tackle the central question of responsibility for ones actions head on.

The law comes from a puritan mindset (sex was bad and the offender deserved what was coming to him) at time when women were considered victims. A woman simply did not have much opportunity to earn income back in the day.

If you want to continue to live in some puritan mindset where women are victims ... go ahead. Just don't expect me to agree with you.

Your opinion does not reflect a belief in equality. Your opinion reflects a belief that women are victims and so you want to victimize men for the consequences of the actions of a woman.

You think that it is ok for a woman to force a child on a man and at the same time argue that it is not ok for society to force a child on a woman.

This is hypocrisy at its finest.

 

I stopped reading where you claim having a child is a crime.

I can't believe you can hate children so much......

 

Who else should have a choice over what goes on with her body?

The reason the choice is hers and hers only,is because only her body is involved.

The man took action, as well. His body is no longer involved in reproduction after sexual intercourse, though, so he has no options open to him.

 

You know the issue is that the State doesn't want to pay for raising your bastard children.

 

I never said any such thing. You have no argument and so you have to make things up and make false accusations.

You think that it is ok for a woman to force a child on a man and at the same time argue that it is not ok for society to force a child on a woman.

This is hypocrisy at its finest.

 

You think that it is ok for a woman to force a child on a man and at the same time argue that it is not ok for society to force a child on a woman.

This is hypocrisy at its finest.

Your all happy and love my arguments when I fight like hell for the rights of women. When I mention that men should have rights too you cry like a baby.

 

Sounds personal.

 

How so ? Calling a spade a spade is nothing more than what it is.

Did you have anything to contribute other than ad hom ?

 

There should be a provision. If there is a discrepancy between the mother and father, 1 wants to keep and the other doesn't, a legal way to say 1 isn't financially responsible.
Of course, should the position be reversed later in life, then another court case needs to be opened.

 

While I agree in principal with what you are saying here ie in the pursuit of true equality I cannot support the females decision to consent to pregnancy or not if I do not support the males decision to consent or not to supporting a child they may never have wanted, the problem will always be that the more conservative people will NEVER support the state caring for the child of a man who is well enough off to do so.

The true equality argument goes out the windows when people are asked to dig a little deeper into their pockets.

 

Why should the taxpayer support the child?

 

Nature hasn't made one and one cannot be artificially created.

Fathers are responsible for their born children. Signing a piece of paper will not prevent them being born and needing upkeep

 

Notice the difference? You're talking of two separate issues. The issue of a woman choosing whether or not to continue with a pregnancy and a parent's decision of whether or not to financially help support their born children.

True equality would be that men need to risk their health and even life to become a parent.


,

Human reproduction isn't anything to do with equality, so there's no point pretending there ever could be.

 

There's both, a natural end to some pregnancies and an artificial end to all pregnancies.
If there is a dispute between mother and father, the father shouldn't be on the hook for 18 yrs because the mother wants to stick it to the father.
R's want most all pregnancies carried out, let the R's pay for it.

 

The end result is the same. No child is born, so neither potential parents get to be actual parents.

The father isn't on the hook because the mother wants to stick it to him. The father is on the hook because he has a child or children that need supporting.

The only person who needs pay for an abortion is the person undergoing one. The only person who can undergo an abortion is a pregnant woman.

 

Where did I say they should?

The quandary for me is that I 100% support the females decision to consent to pregnancy or not but I cannot with all honesty then declare that a man does not have the same right when it comes to supporting a child that he did not want.

rights are supposed to be equal for all, to claim that a man has no choice but to support a child he did not want is not equality.

 

I tend to steer away from the argument as it places me in a position of not having an answer that satisfy my requirement for the facts.

From a purely legal standpoint the equal protection clause does not allow for men or women to be treated differently due to their gender.

 

Theya re the facts. What you mean is you don't have an answer that fits the facts.

Not when it comes to reproductive healthcare (among other things) as it isn't possible.

It isn't possible to offer men routine mammograms, either.

 

Then he should have worn a condom.