View Poll Results: Should a Man have an Absolute Right to abort his baby?

Voters
101. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, but only during the first 20 weeks, same as a woman.

    3 2.97%
  • Yes, but only during the initial period when a non-invasive technique works.

    0 0%
  • No, but he should have the right to be legally relieved of all responsibility.

    50 49.50%
  • NO! Only the woman has this right and he remains responsible.

    21 20.79%
  • I oppose all abortion, so neither have the right.

    22 21.78%
  • I Don't Know.

    5 4.95%
Page 120 of 150 FirstFirst ... 2070110118119120121122130 ... LastLast
Results 1,191 to 1,200 of 1494

Thread: Should a Man have an Absolute Right to Choose to Abort His Baby?

  1. #1191
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Should a Man have an Absolute Right to Choose to Abort His Baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    The mother supports the child that she chose to have. The father supports the child that someone else chose for him to have.
    No, both mothers and fathers support the children they have. Choice has nothing to do with it

    If some crashes their car into another car, they have to pay damages even if they didn't choose to have an accident
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  2. #1192
    Sage



    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,327

    Re: Should a Man have an Absolute Right to Choose to Abort His Baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    Where have I heard this before?
    Didn't you hear? Men have nothing to do with pregnancy. It is the slut who can't keep her legs together.

  3. #1193
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,567

    Re: Should a Man have an Absolute Right to Choose to Abort His Baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    No. The reason that I argue about politics in the first place is because I believe in right and wrong, and I believe in moving human society closer to what is right and further away from what is wrong. Sexism is wrong. Violating the natural prerogatives of adult men and women to choose when and how to raise their families is wrong. Creating a moral hazard that leads to a skyrocketing rate of out-of-wedlock births is wrong. I am going to continue arguing about this issue because it is the right thing to do.
    Groovy enough...but the argument won't fly. Like everybody else...we're all entitled to opinion. What I'm telling you is not just from my opinion. There is a legal rhyme and reason for women having conditional unilateral choice. If you read the post...then you would clearly understand "why" these reason exist...like it or not.

    I can probably name quite a few laws I'm not crazy about, but no matter how I disagree or much I dislike them they won't go away.

    I will say that while a lot of men grip like hell about this issue. Nobody has offered or has shown any type of language that could be used to implement some legislation to deal with the inequity you believe isn't right...and that you've pointed out...and are so unhappy with. Let me repeat it:

    The mother supports the child that she chose to have. The father supports the child that someone else chose for him to have.
    The father supports the child that someone else chose for him to have
    Really...how did that happen? While that makes sense to you...two people co-create a conception and it doesn't make a billy-damn as to why an unintended conception occurred. The laws will never exempt one of those co-creators just because they aren't happy about the creation.

  4. #1194
    Sayonara!
    Maenad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    By the water.
    Last Seen
    07-09-14 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,259

    Re: Should a Man have an Absolute Right to Choose to Abort His Baby?

    This is an intriguing thread. When children are involved in a divorce situation, many states are requiring mediation before anything is awarded by the courts. The courts are wanting a workable parenting plan agreed upon between the parties involved. At some point, I think we will arrive at that same place for an unborn life. That life was not created by only one party, so only one party should not have complete irrevocable say so about it, nor should one party have complete and irrevocable termination of responsibility. I doubt there is anyone in the world today who does not know that having sex can result in pregnancy, even in the face of the couple having taken precautions. No one was complaining when the life was conceived. No one should be allowed to crap out of his/her responsibility.
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

  5. #1195
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Should a Man have an Absolute Right to Choose to Abort His Baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by year2late View Post
    About as funny as the pro-life men making arguments for not caring for the children they have fathered.
    Who are you talking about?

  6. #1196
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Should a Man have an Absolute Right to Choose to Abort His Baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    No, both mothers and fathers support the children they have. Choice has nothing to do with it
    I love how you guys are focusing on a stage of life to avoid the greater point that women get to decide if they are willing to be a parent, while fathers have no choice in the matter. If you guys can't deal with the argument being presented then just stop posting.

  7. #1197
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Should a Man have an Absolute Right to Choose to Abort His Baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    Really...how did that happen? While that makes sense to you...two people co-create a conception and it doesn't make a billy-damn as to why an unintended conception occurred. The laws will never exempt one of those co-creators just because they aren't happy about the creation.
    Except the woman that can abortion after conception that is.

  8. #1198
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should a Man have an Absolute Right to Choose to Abort His Baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Except the woman that can abortion after conception that is.
    Or lie about knowing who the father is, so she can unilaterally give the child up for adoption.

  9. #1199
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Should a Man have an Absolute Right to Choose to Abort His Baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    So now you take my comments out of another argument with Captain Adverse about "coercion"... and create it as though it was my part of my response as "being on board with you". Nice, but no dice.
    Wrong!
    Two separate comments. Two separate replies.


    But that is exactly what you did in the following.

    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    Obviously you have decided to make this into a different argument than the one you expressed to Jerry...which prompted me to reply to your post to Jerry.

    "No...sex is not consent to have a child." This was "your" reply to Jerry. I agreed with you on that point. Now you say...apparently I'm not onboard? Really?
    Wrong! Obviously you think you made something clear you did not.
    Yes you are not on board with me.
    You quoted not just my reply to Jerry, but my reply to another, and basically encompasses this whole topic.

    You stated; "EX...we've had some difference in other topics.....but I am definitely on board with you in this matter."
    And then went on to say the following, clearly encompassing the topic as a whole, not just what I said to Jerry. Clearly establishing that you are not on board with me or on the same page I am, let alone in the same book.

    "Biology alone" dictates that a woman should have the unilateral decision regarding the fate of a conception...within the parameter of the law. Then when we review the potential personal and social ramifications.. there could be many...if a woman isn't able to control her reproductive role.

    Men who think that an OPT-OUT law is the solution..is in complete denial....because a civilized society will NOT PERMIT the co-creator of a born child to be forced to be LESS CARED FOR...because of a DICK bio-dad...being an unhappy camper. Children cannot fend for themselves. It would be a equal crime for women to be forced to seek government help...when a bio-dad thinks he got an unfair deal...in the scheme of life. Also...what if a woman is against having an abortion or passing off a child to an adoption agency or people when she has no guarantee out the care the child will receive. There are numerous reasons NOT to consider this option as viable. It's nothing short of a not well thought out option...which is more of in line with magical thinking. Not logical thinking.

    There was a suggestion by Year2Late...sounds like a much cheaper alternative to deal with unintended conceptions. She posted the following:

    "Fornication Insurance": A man can opt out of child support if he is insured and the insurance pays out what should be child support .
    So...here's the deal. It's simple. No insurance...no nookie.

    Somethings in life are intrinsically unfair...and no solution based current knowledge and or technology. Women having unilateral control over conception is just one of these unfair life situations...for now.


    So my comment of "Doesn't appear that way", was accurate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    Firstly -your comment -it's not coercion to remove a choice she shouldn't have...is the very same as saying ,"Lady, if you have sex and it results in an unintended conception...you made an uninformed choice. All conceptions are the automatic responsibility of a woman. Why? Because a man is coerced to pay for your uninformed choice...and that's not fair." BOO HOO...and even nonsense.


    You obviously find nonsense when there is none.

    She should not be able to coerce a man into supporting something that comes about by her choice.
    Removing her ability to do so, is not coercing her to do anything. As all options are still available to her.



    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    The issue at hand isn't a binary one. There are many more players involved in reproductive issues that just two people. Variable circumstances and outcomes will dictate on how many players will be drawn into a conception between two people.
    No there isn't.
    Let's put it this way, who are these "many more players involved" as acknowledged by the law?



    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    Since the "current laws, which are created by "government" makes it possible for a woman to have "conditional" unilateral control over the fate of a conception...therefore "a woman" isn't coercing a man...if her choice is to carry a conception to full term.
    Her choice in making such, subjects the man to a legal burden that only he should be able to choose for himself.
    Just as only she should be able to choose it for herself.
    Her being able to do so, is coercion.
    Legal coercion, is still coercion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    Lawmakers create laws which force him TO MAKE CHOICES (plural). Therein lies the coercion, which a man might be confronted with.

    Even a woman's unilateral control over the fate of a conception has conditions created by laws, which can force, or if you prefer, coerce her into making choices if a woman brings a conception to full term.

    Laws designed to create restrictions of behaviors of choice are coercive. Laws designed to prohibit specific behaviors are indeed coercive. They are coercive because laws attach legal consequences.

    An Opt-Out law would remove a man's need to make an informed choice. It would exempt a man from the legal consequences - which affects the welfare of a child...which is powerless to provide for itself and has no legal voice to provoke actions to protect its very existence.

    If a conception brought to full term - a child will automatically create coercive conditions for both a woman and a man. Laws that are designed to ensure the welfare of a child is based on: A child cannot provide for its own hierarchy of needs, which include, but it not limited to food, shelter, clothing, health care, etc.

    Even if both the man and woman who co-create a child... are resistant to coercive laws which will require them to furnish a child's hierarchy of needs, their resistance to comply will not remove them from financial obligations to the state. The state will become the legal conservator of a child. The state will legally pursue reimbursement (in part or whole) from both or either parent...the costs incurred by the state to maintain a child.

    There is no way to create an "Opt-out law" that would be "equitable". Legislative bodies will never create any laws that opt-out a man from legal and financial responsibilities.

    There are, however, laws, which say that a court can determine if a parent's rights can be terminated. If that event happens, then the person whose rights are terminate will no longer have legal or financial obligations. That's as close to "opt-out" we'll ever see.
    Laws change with attitudes. It may take time but it will happen as we can already seer the attitudes changing.
    Whether you recognize that or not doesn't matter.
    The change is coming.
    It may not be in the U.S. at first, but some other forward looking country. And if the benefits are demonstrated by such laws, as I suspect there will be, it is only a matter of time.
    So you can balk all you want. Attitudes change as do laws.
    Just because you can't see forward enough to see it coming doesn't mean it wont. Especially as the world population continues to grow.
    It is truly only a matter of time.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  10. #1200
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,567

    Re: Should a Man have an Absolute Right to Choose to Abort His Baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Wrong!
    Two separate comments. Two separate replies.


    But that is exactly what you did in the following.

    Wrong! Obviously you think you made something clear you did not.
    Yes you are not on board with me.
    You quoted not just my reply to Jerry, but my reply to another, and basically encompasses this whole topic.

    You stated; "EX...we've had some difference in other topics.....but I am definitely on board with you in this matter."
    And then went on to say the following, clearly encompassing the topic as a whole, not just what I said to Jerry. Clearly establishing that you are not on board with me or on the same page I am, let alone in the same book.


    So my comment of "Doesn't appear that way", was accurate.





    You obviously find nonsense when there is none.

    She should not be able to coerce a man into supporting something that comes about by her choice.
    Removing her ability to do so, is not coercing her to do anything. As all options are still available to her.



    No there isn't.
    Let's put it this way, who are these "many more players involved" as acknowledged by the law?



    Her choice in making such, subjects the man to a legal burden that only he should be able to choose for himself.
    Just as only she should be able to choose it for herself.
    Her being able to do so, is coercion.
    Legal coercion, is still coercion.



    Laws change with attitudes. It may take time but it will happen as we can already seer the attitudes changing.
    Whether you recognize that or not doesn't matter.
    The change is coming.
    It may not be in the U.S. at first, but some other forward looking country. And if the benefits are demonstrated by such laws, as I suspect there will be, it is only a matter of time.
    So you can balk all you want. Attitudes change as do laws.
    Just because you can't see forward enough to see it coming doesn't mean it wont. Especially as the world population continues to grow.
    It is truly only a matter of time.
    Purely magical thinking and very inaccurate...carry on. It's entertaining. Nothing but conjecture...and a wish list.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •