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

Not true. There was not even a referendum on the issue ... never mind getting an overwhelming majority.

 

Tell ya what, I'll make a deal with you.





IF and when EVERYTHING concerning gender in the US becomes equal (there is no discrimination against women, if they are not charged more for car repair then men for instance), IF Republicans quit passing laws infringing on women's rights to reproductive freedom, if the Anti-Choice/Anti/Women voice is silenced I will agree with you.....until then I do not care, will not care, about men's "big" problems.

 

And you are attempting to make claims about other people that are what you desire to be true instead of what is true.

The reality of what is growing inside of her does not change the reality of consent or are you under some sort of misconception that one person can use another person's body without their consent, if you are then prove it ... show me ANYWHERE in the U.S. where a person can be forced to use their body to sustain another person's life?

 

The answer does not change, you can no more take away a woman's decision to consent or not than I can take away your decision to consent to being smacked in the mouth, or not. What makes you think you can do something to a person without their consent. I can safely bet if it was you whose consent was being violated you would be screaming from the rooftops about how your rights had been violated.

 

Can I assume you are not from the UK because if you were you would know the Daily Mail is far better known as the Daily Fail, it is a piece of toilet paper after it has been used.

The article you linked provides no source for it's conclusions, such as it being single or unmarried women who make up the majority of women having more than one abortion and uses the top end figure of abortion costs to calculate the 1 million figure, when the reality is that by far abortions take place before 10 weeks, with approx 1 in 10 after 13 weeks.

 

Most posters here live in the USA. Most don't care what England does with their money.
But, if gov't is paying for birth control, this fits into that category.
Abortions are cheaper in the long run vs having the state support children for 18 or so years. And I know, it's not all about the money. But a goodly portion.

 

Neither do I.

It's his sperm that helped create the child, so if it comes to either him or taxpayers, he pays.

If you truly feel as you do, why are you not fighting for change?

- - - Updated - - -

Not without the father's consent.

 

Yeah, that's a good question. If the woman gives birth and decides she doesn't want to keep the child, will she have to pay child support if the father wants to keep the baby?

Maybe the father could surprise her at the last moment. He'll let her think the baby will go up for adoption, but only so she doesn't abort during the pregnancy.

 

Trashy men have all sorts of excuses to not provide for their children.

 

No. Everyone pays for the NHS, not individuals.

 

Yes. You're interfering with another person's body.

No,. It's totally about the woman's body

If it's outside the woman's body, then it's a person.

You'd be murdering a person.

 

He's responsible for the upkeep of his children.

When he decided to have sex with his child's mother, then he accepted the risk she would not terminate a resulting pregnancy.

Men don't have the same birth control choices as women. They can't be given them.

 

Why do you make such nonsensical comments

1) How do you know I am not fighting for change
2) What relation to the question of "What should be", other than ZERO, does your comment have.

It was the farmer who produced food that fed the woman that also helped create the child.

The question is not whether the couple had sex. The question is, who made the decision to create a child which requires that a pregnancy be continued.

And... it is not either "The State or The Man" The woman (the responsible party) can pay for the child that she unilaterally decided to create.

The question of the responsibility of the state to care for children is separate. And you certainly have not linked the two in any meaningful way.

 

I'm sure they do. This convo is not about such men as the children being attributed to them are not actually theirs.

 

1) no he is not and 2) the children are not his.

This is a nonsense argument that does not relate to the question at hand which is whether or not the Law is bad.

The risk is a function of this bad law. If this bad law was not there there would be no risk.

Obviously if there is a law against driving over 55 mph, a person risks a ticket if they drive 60. Folks argued that the law should be changed and the speed limit increased.

I am arguing that the law should be changed. Then risk is removed.

The idea that one should incur risk of punishment for having sex is a throwback to Puritanism. Sex is bad and so punishment is deserved.

I have not argued that they should be.

Your logic though supports giving men the ability to control women's reproduction.

You support one person being able to force a child on another. Be careful what you wish for .. whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

If it is "OK" for women to force a child on a man .. then why should a man not be able to force a child on a woman.

 

Actually not strictly correct, the "father" not only has to establish paternity, usually through a DNA test, but also demonstrate a commitment to parenting the child. Failure to establish paternity can prevent an unmarried father from gaining any parental rights at all. Waiting too long can demonstrate a lack of commitment to parent the child.
Fathers who do not know of their children until after the fact can find themselves out of luck in regards to adoption decisions. In some states, the clock on when a father should acknowledge paternity and start providing for the child begins running when the child is born (or even during pregnancy), not when the father learns about the child. Courts have held that fathers unaware of their children may not later object to the childrens adoption, particularly when the fathers lack of knowledge was his own fault.
Beyond acknowledging paternity, unmarried fathers must meet a larger requirement demonstrated commitment to parenting in order to gain constitutionally protected paternal rights. This means providing for the childs material and emotional needs, and attempting to form the fullest possible parental relationship with the child.

Establishing a committed parental role typically includes helping pay pregnancy expenses, birth expenses and child support expenses after delivery. Some courts consider the fitness of the father to parent when determining his commitment to parenting. Fathers who do not provide support during pregnancy and beyond, who cannot show the ability to provide support, or who have demonstrated drug or alcohol problems can be denied the right to object to adoption.

The degree to which an unmarried father has the opportunity to play a parental role in the childs life often varies. However, doing everything he can to form a parental relationship, making himself as available as possible, and seeking legal recognition parental rights as soon as possible helps a father best position himself to maintain a say in adoption and other parental decisions.

Source - http://family.findlaw.com/paternity...athers-and-adoption.html#sthash.uZEAODK1.dpuf

- - - Updated - - -

Yes she does child support is not gender specific.

 

Yes, she will.

I would still abort, since I do not believe in adoption and refuse to put my body through the trauma of gestation and childbirth.

 

I made perfectly valid comments

If you were, you'd have said so instead of deflecting.

Speaking of nonsensical comments....

Yeah, it is if the woman applies for and qualifies for public assistance. And our society says the man must pay. If you don't like that, then feel free to campaign for change.

 

Not accepting my deal?

 

Asking why I am not fighting for change is a nonsense comment as it has nothing to do with whether or not the law is valid.

I already stated in this thread that I am fighting for change. What does that have to do with whether or not the law is valid.

You claim "He provided the Sperm". So what .. where is your argument that this makes him responsible for the woman's decision to carry a pregnancy to term.

Why is it the man's fault that a woman is not able to support her child.

Society has already determined that it is in the best interests of society for "Society" to take care of children. It is you who disagree's with the choice of society. You campaign for change.

 

What on earth are you talking about and why are you making this false dichotomy. It is you that is supporting the "Anti Choice's" absurd positions by supporting their absurd arguments.

I have heard feminists make this kind of argument " Women were discriminated in the past so this justifies all forms of discrimination against men"

I support this argument in certain cases where such discrimination still exists ( affirmative action "where justified" for example) but, reverse discrimination is not the solution to discrimination and you have not come up with any justification to support your claim that persecution of men is justified by the religious rights persecution of women.

Your position is simply ... women are being persecuted by the "GOP" so lets persecute all men. It is not just men in the GOP that are going after women's rights. It is women too ! This is not about the ideology of "Men" in general. It is about the messed up ideology and those for and against consist of both men and Women.

Surly you can see this.

Shoot your arrow's straight. Justifying persecution of the innocent only serves to increase that persecution in society as a whole.

Belief in equality is not belief in equality only in areas that you agree with, for one particular race or gender or (Equality in areas where it benefits you). It is belief in equality for everyone.

If you only believe in equality for things that benefit you then, you really do not believe in equality at all.

If you want to believe in persecution of people that is fine. Just do not complain when you get persecuted.

Either you believe in individual rights and freedoms, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, or you don't.

When you see group such as the "Anti Aborts" trying to violate these rights and freedoms (and it is not only Abortion ... the religious right is against many individual rights and freedoms) ...

The solution is not to try to justify violating other individual rights and freedoms .. such as the freedom not to be punished for the actions of another.

And this is what you are doing ?!

This only serves to perpetuate the vicious cycle of violation of individual rights and freedoms. Its like a blood feud.

My statement is this:

Since you agree with violating individual rights and freedoms of others, what right do you have to complain when others try and violate your rights and freedoms ?

There is a reason why the Golden Rule has been revered by every major religion that I know of, most every Philosopher for at least 4000 years, and most every just legal system since dating back to at least Hammurabi's law code (1800 BC) and likely much further. We happen to have a copy of Hammurabi's code in stone but presumably the ideas went back much further.

Jesus thought so much of this rule that his brother James called it "The Royal Law". Jesus said that this rule "Sums up the both the Law and the Prophets" Matt 7. Essentially stating that this rule was the foundation of his ministry ... the main message that God wanted us to get.

Buddha gave this rule ... Confucius had this rule. The "Social Contract", under which the Founding Fathers based the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is based on this rule.

Do not do to others what you would not want them doing to you. Restated ( Love neighbor as thyself, Judge not lest you be Judged) or more clearly stated in relation to the language of the "Social Contract".

If you do not want others killing or stealing from you, then you have a moral obligation not to kill or steal from others.

In context of your argument:

If you do not want others violating your individual rights and freedoms, then you have a moral obligation not to violate the individual rights and freedoms of others.

If we reject this moral obligation, the whole fabric of just society breaks down.

So no ... I do not accept your deal. I categorically reject your deal/proposition that we should reject this moral obligation.

 

I quit reading the rant after : """I have heard feminists make this kind of argument " Women were discriminated in the past so this justifies all forms of discrimination against men"

I support this argument in certain cases where such discrimination still exists ( affirmative action "where justified" for example) but, reverse discrimination is not the solution to discrimination and you have not come up with any justification to support your claim that persecution of men is justified by the religious rights persecution of women.

Your position is simply ... women are being persecuted by the "GOP" so lets persecute all men."""



Because I never said any of that. Your hysteria is making you unable to comprehend what I wrote.
You and I have gone around and around about this before and it's simply a matter of you not being able to understand these simple words:

" I DO NOT care about men's petty problems in the greater scheme of the world."

NO one is trying to implement more laws to take away their rights.

The End.

 

1. Yes, he is certainly responsible and 2. What on earth do you mean, they're not his?

Of course they are.

It's not an argument. It's pointing out the simple fact.

Which law? You aren't making any sense.

Men not having a birth control choice after having sex is nothing to do wit the law.

It can't be changed. You're talking nonsense.

What are you on about now?

You seem to think the fact men don't have a birth control choice after sex is something to do with the law.
I can only suggest you learn about human reproduction.

No it doesn't.

I support parents having to pay to help support their children..

because to do that, a man would have to interfere with the bodily autonomy of a woman.

Your argument is a mess.

 

This is your position and your argument.

Don't blame me that you can not deal with the implications of your own statements.

You said that when the GOP stops persecuting women ( violating a woman's reproductive rights) you will stop persecuting men (by forcing them to pay for the consequences of the actions of another person)

Then you go even further stating:

As per the rest of my post that you did not read ... In the greater scheme of the world ... Laws that violate the rights of others are a huge issue.

That you do not care about violation of rights and freedoms of others, "unless that violation affects you" means that you really do not give a hoot about individual rights and freedoms or "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness" - fundamental tenets on which this nation was founded in general.

We are not talking about "more laws" This conversation relates to Laws that are already on the books that infringe upon liberty/ rights and freedoms and further, violate the basic principles on which this nation was founded as discussed in my previous post.

Further ... if you want to talk about "future law" ... there are more laws being introduced all the time which violate individual rights and freedoms.

The reason the Gov't is able to get away with this is because of people who try and justify such violations.

You have been trying to justify violating rights and freedoms ... The End

 

If the woman is brain dead, does the father—should the father—have any rights over the reproduction of his unborn child??