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

It is all the difference between a wanted pregnancy and an unwanted pregnancy.

 

It's a really bad thing for a man to try to control a woman's body. This is why rape is wrong.

 

Yes, which is why Anti-Choicers have so much in common with rapists......

 

Whoa...just caught this : """reversed later in life, then another court case needs to be opened. """


NOPE!

IF there ever comes a time when men can legally sign away their responsibility and RIGHTS of/for their children it , TO BE FAIR AND EQUAL, has to be FOREVER , just like a woman who chooses abortion, there is NO kid, it is gone and the same should be true for the man when he gets his "abortion".[/B]


You want everything as fair as possible so THAT is the only alternative.


He should be jailed and fined heavily if he EVER has contact with the kid he signed away(ABORTED).

Even if the kid wants contact the "father" should be fined and jailed if he allows contact...


Anything else is just giving men MORE rights than women...

 

Naked claims do not amount to much. Why should a man be responsible for the consequences of a unilateral decision of some woman to carry a pregnancy to term ?

 

I do not want pay school taxes when I have no children in school. The taxman really does not care what you want or don't want.

The man in question did not have a part in the decision to create a child either.

 

Only until she signs the adoption papers.

If you really want it equal then women have no responsibility for the kid either.....

 

This is illogical. What is under discussion is equality under the law.

The law should apply equally to all and not be gender specific. One general principle of law that I have been going on and on about is the principle that one person should not be made responsible for the consequences due to the actions of another.

On the other hand... each person is responsible for the consequences of their own actions.

In this case, the consequences of one persons unilateral decision to carry a pregnancy to term is a child that needs to be cared for and supported. It is then person who made that decision's responsibility to care for and support the child.

What is "NOT" equality is the idea one group of people in society (Group A) can force the responsibilities and obligations of caring for a child on Group B but, Group B can not do the same to Group A.

 

Nope, she may choose to give up the child.

 

""""In this case, the consequences of one persons unilateral decision to carry a pregnancy to term is a child that needs to be cared for and supported"""

Only until she signs the adoption papers ...if she keeps the kid then, yes, she is obligated to support it IF she can, if not the state pays.




Once again, the question you have been studiously avoiding:


Have YOU written or contacted your Senators or Representatives to have the law changed to make it more equal so men can get out of paying for their kids and the state (taxpayers) will have to?

 

Ok, so let me pose another hypothetical.

Imagine I have a magic lamp and I can get the genie to grant me any wish I want. (Remember, this is magic)
There is a woman who is pregnant. She has already made arrangements to put the baby up for adoption.
I find another woman who is willing to be a surrogate, this second woman agrees to carry a baby in return for financial compensation.
So I rub my magic lamp and make my wish. All of a sudden, the baby inside the first woman vanishes, and rematerializes inside the second woman. This was done without the first woman's permission.

Now, question: Would this really be anywhere near as bad as making the fetus die?
Can we admit that it's really not so much about the woman's body as it is the life of the fetus?

For example, maybe I just wished for the fetus to vanish and be gone forever, vaporized without a trace. or maybe I wished for the fetus to dematerialize outside the woman's body, resulting in certain death, as the fetus cannot survive outside the womb. Wouldn't this be much worse??

 

and what if the moon were made of green cheese ..... You seem to have no idea about consent.

 

You're trying to make this all about the woman's body and what she wants, but the reality is, whether the woman wants it or not does not change the reality of what is growing inside there.

 

Growing where?



​

 

Aren't you the one that was telling folks they hated kids who are in opposition to you?
Sounds like in this post, you hate the kids. Oh well.

 

I know, why don't you use the magic to turn yourself into a woman and give birth to the kid yourself. It shouldn't be that bad, you only have about 9 months of discomfort as your body slowly swells up and changes, followed by a few hours of agonizing pain during which your most private parts are put on show. Yeah, you didn't mention that one.

 

Agreed.

This is the first time you have asked me this question in this thread and this question has nothing to do with arguments for "what should be" but, the answer is Yes ! I have expressed my concerns in relation to this hypocrisy and violation of the Rule of Law to various political powers at be.

 

That's why I framed this thread in terms of taking away a pregnancy from a woman...

Pro-choicers have become so accustomed to arguing against pregnancy, so I thought I'd turn it around and see how well their same arguments applied when the woman wants to keep it.

 

NO, I never said posters in opposition to me hated kids.....I did say that those who don't want children supported in anyway must hate children...which could be true if they prefer children starve to death on the street rather than have their father imposed upon....

- - - Updated - - -

...and what were their responses .....

 

You certainly didn't take my advice and get a dictionary and look up the word "choice"....(most people KNOW what it means....)

Pro-Choicers do NOT and HAVE NOT argued against pregnancy.

They argue FOR freedom of C H O I C E ....that word you seem to not be able to comprehend....


It means women should always have the right to CHOOSE (another word way too big???) whether to continue a pregnancy or not...

 

As usually, you anti-choicer's totally miss the point. It is totally about giving woman the right to choose for themselves. If she wants to keep it, she keeps it, if not, she doesn't. If there was some magical way for the baby to leave her body with out killing the baby, that would be the best case scenario, but there is no magic to make that happen. So as a man who cannot give birth, it is not my place to tell a woman whether or not to continue her pregnancy.

 

I has been varied .. I have been at this awhile There were times when I got a very positive response. In more than one case I really pissed off the person as they disagreed with my position but could not refute the logic.

For me it is not just about this particular issue. Law is based on precedent. One bad law leads to others. Violate a legal principle in one area and soon that same violation will be applied in other areas.

IMO - this plague is way out of control.

I can talk about other areas but, sticking to Abortion.

The country was founded (Declaration of Independence) on the idea that individual rights and freedoms are "ABOVE" the legitimate purview of Gov't.

In the "Bad ol Days" the authority of Gov't came from God/Divine Right and this allowed the King to make almost any law he wanted. The authority/power of the Gov't of the USA is supposed come from "We the People".

The founders created a system where the power of Gov't was limited. For 200 years the Gov't has been fighting to get that power back

So the legitimate power of Gov't extends only to acts which are injurious to others. The Gov't can appeal to the people to make a law "outside of its purview" but to do so it has to appeal to the people for a change to the "Social Contract" (This is the theoretical contract that limits the power of Gov't)

In general this means that the Gov't must get approval from the people to make a law that impinges on individual rights and freedoms.

The Bar is NOT (50 +1). The bar is an overwhelming majority. This is to prevent what was termed "Tyranny of the majority". So that some group of people could not get power and force their will on others.

Unfortunately the founders did not directly say what this majority was. In some cases Congress requires 2/3 rds. For something as serious as messing with individual rights and freedoms I would put it at something like (80 %)

The people can then be said to have decided whether something is harmful or not , legit or not.

A good example would be Pot vs Heroin. The Gov't argues "harm". OK ... that's nice but it is not the Gov'ts call to make.

Try getting 80% approval in a referendum to make Pot illegal. Good luck. Heroin, Meth and so on ... it would be no problem.

Bottom line if something is thought to be "So Bad - so harmful/injurious to others" that the "heavy hand" of the State must be invoked .. then the Gov't should have no problem getting a Majority to agree.

Now to the question of abortion. Good luck getting 80% to agree for laws restricting banning a woman's rights and freedoms in relation control her own body/reproductive capacity.

Now to the question of whether or not a man can be forced to pay support for a Child that was created against his will. Good luck getting an "overwhelming Majority" to agree to this.

Ya Ya ... I know. The Constitution is an old rag. Who cares about what that stupid DOI document.

 

"""""""""Now to the question of whether or not a man can be forced to pay support for a Child that was created against his will. Good luck getting an "overwhelming Majority" to agree to this. """""""""""


They have.

 

So you think the NHS should cut off all funding to elective abortions?

NHS spends £1m a week on repeat abortions