- Joined
- Oct 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,618
- Reaction score
- 276
- Location
- UK, Cymru mostly.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Clearly, any man who is actually bearing the child should do as he pleases. Otherwise he should mind his own business.
You are going in circles now. This was already addressed.The only reason she chooses is because it's her body.
That is silly to even bring up, as we have already established that she has the right over her own body and that this is an effective right to choose to terminate as she has.What if he wants her to keep the child and she wants to abort it and they can't come to a consensus.
Then what? Are you going to force the woman to carry this child that she doesn't want?
Clearly, any man who is actually bearing the child should do as he pleases. Otherwise he should mind his own business.
Taking a life must be justified. Not rationalized, justified. Any law which removes the inherant requierment for the taking of a life to first be justified undermines its own authority and is void.If it was legal to do, than it is just killing.
You are going in circles now. This was already addressed.
It is understood why it came about. The ruling then allows her to arbitrarily decide if he should be burdened. That is neither fair or right. Especially when she is allowed not to burden herself if she so chooses.
She should not be able to make a decision that burdens him. That is wrong.
Which is why he should have the same effective right.
That is silly to even bring up, as we have already established that she has the right over her own body and that this is an effective right to choose to terminate as she has.
Because she should not have the right to burden him with her choice.
A man's child is his buisness.Clearly, any man who is actually bearing the child should do as he pleases. Otherwise he should mind his own business.
:dohYes you did. You said it was a clump of cells. "Clump" has a definition. An organism is not a compacted mass, it has structure.
A fingernail is a clump of cells, not an organism. A ZEF is an organism, not a clump of cells.
When you call it a clump of cells you are necesseraly divorcing yourself from medical fact.
Taking a life must be justified. Not rationalized, justified. Any law which removes the inherant requierment for the taking of a life to first be justified undermines its own authority and is void.
Elective abortion does not require justification, therefor elective abortion is murder.
Should a man have an absolute right to have his baby aborted?
In the alternative, should he be granted relief from all legal responsibility if it is his clearly stated wish to abort but the woman decides not to?
Let me preface my remarks with this disclaimer; I am Pro-Choice and I support a woman’s absolute right to choose to have an abortion for several reasons, including the fact it is the woman who must endure the pregnancy to carry the child to term, and then follows the lifelong responsibility to raise and care for any child born.
The dilemma occurs when the woman unilaterally decides to have the baby, even when the male does not wish to accept that long-term responsibility.
In a recent news report, a young man was so desperate not to have a child that he tricked his girlfriend into taking a morning after pill. Now I do not support or condone this action, but it does bring up the thesis issue for me…why does the male partner have no say in a decision to keep the baby?
When a woman makes the unilateral decision to keep the baby this then compels lifelong legal and emotional obligations on the part of the unwilling father. This creates resentment and recriminations in both parties. By attempting to force the man to marry and/or support both her and the child this only serves to create a negative environment for all concerned, especially for any child to grow up in.
Since we now have a simple method of aborting in the early stages of the first trimester, without needing an invasive surgery, why should the absolute choice to keep the baby reside with the mother? If it does, why can’t the man be legally relieved of further responsibility to both parties?
I have offered several voting options, please pick and then explain what do you think? I am especially interested in arguments for why the woman has the sole right to keep the child while making the man permanently responsible.
You are going in circles now. This was already addressed.It is understood why it came about. The ruling then allows her to arbitrarily decide if he should be burdened. That is neither fair or right. Especially when she is allowed not to burden herself if she so chooses.
She should not be able to make a decision that burdens him. That is wrong.
Which is why he should have the same effective right.
That is silly to even bring up, as we have already established that she has the right over her own body and that this is an effective right to choose to terminate as she has.
Because she should not have the right to burden him with her choice.
Circles again. She controlled that.He willingly made a choice himself when he slept with the woman. I don't feel any more sorry for him than I do for her. Don't play if you can't pay. :2razz:
At no point in the pregnancy is it a compacted mass.:doh
Stop twisting.
It is still a clump of cells.
It became his burden when he got her pregnant. He didn't have to do that. That is when he got to choose.
Did I say compacted mass, or just a mass of cells, which it is.At no point in the pregnancy is it a compacted mass.
By definition it is an organism from conception forward.
I can go along with this if a visectomy is part of the deal.I believe that the men who "father" children but want nothing to do with raising them should not be responsible for paying for them if they give up paternal rights and state they rather the child were aborted. THat would strike a fair balance with women wanting to have unfettered access to abortions against the father's wishes.
Circles again. She controlled that.
Which is irrelevant as we are past that point to where she gets to then make a choice which may burden him. She should not be able to burden him by her choice.
So he should have an effective right to choose also. Just as she has.
Bs. Abortion and birth is a private issue and should remain that way, unless and until the government decides we need more or less people.
I can go along with this if a visectomy is part of the deal.
It was you compared the non viable fetus to an arm.
I just used your analogy. that niether would survive without the life forces of the woman.
That would be you who is lying.
First of all you are requoting what you already responded to, and not the reply given to that response.
I did not say the things you attributed to me in the other reply.
And when I asked "did I?", which is a challenge to you to prove these things you say I said. You deflect with this nonsense.
So prove it. Show us all these lies you speak of. Or get on Jerry's truck.
No it is not.
It is about giving the man the same right a woman has. An effective right to choose.
No I do not when it is equally accepted by both.
So stop spouting nonsense.
More emotive irrelevant and ridiculous blather from you.
None of that has anything with equality of choice, and you know damn well it doesn't.
So stop with the nonsense.
Ah hello! We are past that point.You're a hoot. He has just as much control over his sexuality as she does. When he agrees to the act of sex, he certainly knows that pregnancy is ALWAYS a possibility. If not, then he should not have sex because he is too irresponsible to accept the potential outcomes. It's as simple as that since there is no way to 100% avoid pregnancy other than abstinence.
You said "a clump of cells". A 'clump' is a compacted mass. That's what clump means.Did I say compacted mass, or just a mass of cells, which it is.
....
just like i think RvW should be 21 weeks i think the guy should have a choice to be involved up until say 18 weeks to give the woman an extra 3....
.