• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Legally Abortion Laws are flawed because they are one sided in terms of Reproductive Rights.

Renae said:
And she had the opportunity to not spread her legs, we've discussed that, and stop talking down to me okay? That's rude as hell.

No, you know what, I'm done talking to you. You've been crass, rude, and now you're mansplaining at me. It's quite clear the discussion is about the legal option of abortion and how one party has the ability to, if there is an unwanted pregnancy, to avoid that and the other doesn't.

Your comment, was asinine to the extreme and done with you. Seriously, done.
Click to expand...

Are. You. Serious. Mansplaining? lol...

Alright, well, this has officially spiraled into la la land, so it's probably a good thing, as I'm no longer equipped to deal with the layers of WTF-ery that we've just entered. But for the record, all that stuff you're accusing me is because, once again, you're getting pissy about having your ass handed to you in a debate.

You know I love ya, Renae, but you need a mood ring, or something, to tell you when to put the keyboard down. My initial response was perhaps flippant, but not meant to be mean. If you're gonna be a dick, though, then you're going to get it right back, you don't get a pass, lady. ;)
 
Bodhisattva said:
You just can't own it, can you?

You said that it is the choices that are unfair... not the law. The law forces a man... he has no choices. It is the law that is unfair. Without the law the man could walk away. The the woman chooses after that is either unfair or not to society. Anyway... I am right and proved my point. You are wrong and are trying to wiggle around. Have fun with that.
Click to expand...

The law was written for the welfare of the child, not the parents.
 
Renae said:
1.)It does
2.) but you are incapable addressing the issue, so waste of time here.
Click to expand...

LMAO thats what I thoughj

1.) then simply post with honest and integrity and explain it
2.) this hilarious failed dodge and deflection wont work or fool anybody. Your failed claims have been exposed. so no you have to defend them or simply post with honesty and integrity and admit that RvW has nothign to do with your topic and was NOT supposed to address it LMAO

Thanks for proving me right once again. WHen you can defend your failed claim and answer the question of why right to privacy involving medical procedures has to do with your issue please let us know, thanks!
 
Moot said:
The law was written for the welfare of the child, not the parents.
Click to expand...

Which law, the law that makes dad pay or the one that let's mom kill the baby? Real welfare there.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Yes because of a medical procedure. Tom can not become pregnant and as such can not have an abortion.

Tom can not force Jane to have one. Once the baby is born it’s rights override both Janes and Toms when it comes to financial support unless it is given up
Click to expand...

Based on what? That in itself is unjust.
 
Renae said:
To be honest, I think men should pay, but that's not the point, I think the law is fubar in that one party has an "out" as it were, and the other doesn't. It's unjust.
Click to expand...

This legal dilemma is the closest argument to people who like to equate the intrinsic value of the yet to be born to that of the born. It’s simply not possible.

Men’s rights groups have failed miserably for decades to advance the reproductive rights for men because they cling to the red herring argument that because women have the right to have an abortion then men deserve the right to opt out of any financial responsibilities.

The right to abort is a “legal option” for women, and rightfully so because there’s a host of reasons that they may choose to abort, and that includes abortion on demand without question, of course within the parameters of the law.

But we know:

Most Pro-choice women won’t have an abortion themselves, but understand the various reasons why abortions should be legal. The reason why they won’t abort is 99% related to a “moral choice”.

“There are few outs for men”. One out would be if women could be “legally ordered” to abort against their will. (That would be like state ordered executions of embryos or early stage fetuses.) So what happens if a woman refuses?

Would the alternative be incarceration for women who refuse? And while being incarcerated the woman have the child. Such circumstance would force the state to incur all of the prenatal care, birthing, postnatal care costs and most likely the costs associated with raising the child for as long as a woman is incarcerated.

There’s other issues to ponder.

In such an instance, would women who refused to abort be forced to remain incarcerated while raising a child until legal adult age? Or would she be released and the child become a ward of the state and be placed for adoption? If adoption doesn’t happen then the child will be placed in foster care until they reach legal adult age?

Can you see how attacks by government on “women’s individual moral choice” for feeling morally compelled to reproduce will play out with society and our judicial system? Remember, most pregnancies are brought to full-term.

When the smoke clears - then come back and figure out the cost of incarceration in addition to costs incurred related to the birth of a child, along with the state’s role in raising a child. Mucho buckitos will be involved and the ultimate cost will land in the taxpayer’s laps.

Would the above scenario work for you? I’m thinking that would cause the State to violate its constitutional obligation to the taxpayers, which is to protect their interests. Although we see so many ways governments exploit taxpayers.

Another important question is:

Do you honestly believe that by overturning Roe v Wade that there would suddenly be a different set of arguments in support of men having more reproductive rights? I believe there would be fewer arguments. And certainly more births, which a number of them will set in motion legal action by the state to impose child support on men.
 
OlNate said:
I think you're starting to play dumb now, because you're losing at logic.

If it makes you feel better, I'd stand up for your full right NOT to be forced to impregnate a woman against your will...no one should take your sperm unless you give it to them freely.
Click to expand...

No one has refuted the OP's central premise. On the contrary, Renae has clearly demonstrated the fundamental imbalance in the law. It is you and those on your side of this debate torturing logic to get around conflicting moral imperatives.
 
Removable Mind said:
This legal dilemma is the closest argument to people who like to equate the intrinsic value of the yet to be born to that of the born. It’s simply not possible.

Men’s rights groups have failed miserably for decades to advance the reproductive rights for men because they cling to the red herring argument that because women have the right to have an abortion then men deserve the right to opt out of any financial responsibilities.

The right to abort is a “legal option” for women, and rightfully so because there’s a host of reasons that they may choose to abort, and that includes abortion on demand without question, of course within the parameters of the law.

But we know:

Most Pro-choice women won’t have an abortion themselves, but understand the various reasons why abortions should be legal. The reason why they won’t abort is 99% related to a “moral choice”.

“There are few outs for men”. One out would be if women could be “legally ordered” to abort against their will. (That would be like state ordered executions of embryos or early stage fetuses.) So what happens if a woman refuses?

Would the alternative be incarceration for women who refuse? And while being incarcerated the woman have the child. Such circumstance would force the state to incur all of the prenatal care, birthing, postnatal care costs and most likely the costs associated with raising the child for as long as a woman is incarcerated.

There’s other issues to ponder.

In such an instance, would women who refused to abort be forced to remain incarcerated while raising a child until legal adult age? Or would she be released and the child become a ward of the state and be placed for adoption? If adoption doesn’t happen then the child will be placed in foster care until they reach legal adult age?

Can you see how attacks by government on “women’s individual moral choice” for feeling morally compelled to reproduce will play out with society and our judicial system? Remember, most pregnancies are brought to full-term.

When the smoke clears - then come back and figure out the cost of incarceration in addition to costs incurred related to the birth of a child, along with the state’s role in raising a child. Mucho buckitos will be involved and the ultimate cost will land in the taxpayer’s laps.

Would the above scenario work for you? I’m thinking that would cause the State to violate its constitutional obligation to the taxpayers, which is to protect their interests. Although we see so many ways governments exploit taxpayers.

Another important question is:

Do you honestly believe that by overturning Roe v Wade that there would suddenly be a different set of arguments in support of men having more reproductive rights? I believe there would be fewer arguments. And certainly more births, which a number of them will set in motion legal action by the state to impose child support on men.
Click to expand...

A good post, thank you.
A man should never be able to force an abortion. I hope I didn't imply otherwise.

The point is that with Roe Vs Wade one of the long term realities is that a woman can remove the long term consequences, while the man has no relief.

After all, once conception happens, he's got no say in his future really. She can carry to term or not, even if he wanted the child and was willing to take the child and raise the child with no obligation to her. If she says no, that's that and that's how it should be. But reverse the situation... she want's the baby even if he says no, he's not ready... and he's on the hook.

It's that point, that I'm really addressing. Legally, it's truly unjust. Now, is it the best option as things stand, that's quite a discussion, but not the purview of the thread.
 
Can ANYBODY make sense of the failed claim that RvW has to do with the topic of unjust parental rights laws? Anybody? lol
 
Renae said:
Which law, the law that makes dad pay or the one that let's mom kill the baby? Real welfare there.
Click to expand...

The law that makes "dead beat dads" pay for their offspring.
 
MrWonka said:
Not sure where you're getting those silly numbers, but they are wildly inaccurate.

https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/alpha-consumer/2012/03/05/the-real-cost-of-birth-control

You'll find that the cheaper forms of birth control(which are all way more expensive than you seem to think they are) are also much less effective.
Click to expand...

Again, where in is it the responsibility of others to subsidize the sexual activities of strangers. The pill yearly, by your source, at most, is 600 a year. If you can't afford that to go have sex... Don't have sex. Seriously.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
No one has refuted the OP's central premise. On the contrary, Renae has clearly demonstrated the fundamental imbalance in the law. It is you and those on your side of this debate torturing logic to get around conflicting moral imperatives.
Click to expand...

There is no imbalance when the right of bodily autonomy is taken into consideration. Men and women have equal opportunity to opt out of a pregnancy, at different points along the timeline. As a man I find no issue with the way the laws are, and because I've made my decisions with the laws and my own personal belief system in mind, and being a fan of personal accountability, I've never had a problem. I don't see that you've introduced anything new here that would change my position on this, despite unfounded and ridiculous accusations. The only way the law is unfair is if you think that a man is unable to control what he does with his sperm...I argue he has full control over what he does with his sperm, thus has the first opportunity to avoid a pregnancy he is unwilling to commit to or abort, prove me wrong, or move along... ;)
 
Renae said:
Which law, the law that makes dad pay or the one that let's mom kill the baby? Real welfare there.
Click to expand...

Legally inaccurate description of the yet to be born (baby) if you are referring to abortion. Consequently, your assertion is false about mom killing the “baby”.

And that’s clearly a passive aggressive response.
 
AGENT J said:
Can ANYBODY make sense of the failed claim that RvW has to do with the topic of unjust parental rights laws? Anybody? lol
Click to expand...

I did. You aren't capable addressing the issue.

Roe Vs Wade gives a woman the ability to avoid, post conception, the long term financial and personal burden of pregnancy. True or false?

Where is the man's option, post conception, legally?
 
Removable Mind said:
Legally inaccurate description of the yet to be born (baby) if you are referring to abortion. Consequently, your assertion is false about mom killing the “baby”.

And that’s clearly a passive aggressive response.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Just because you don't like the term child or baby ot describe a child in the womb, is on you.
 
AGENT J said:
Can ANYBODY make sense of the failed claim that RvW has to do with the topic of unjust parental rights laws? Anybody? lol
Click to expand...

One could argue forced child support violates a man's rights to privacy and liberty -- the same rights governing a woman's right to choose as established in Roe vs. Wade.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
One could argue forced child support violates a man's rights to privacy and liberty -- the same rights governing a woman's right to choose as established in Roe vs. Wade.
Click to expand...

They could argue it, but they'd be creating a false equivalency.
 
Renae said:
What do you call a mother who kills her child through abortion?
Click to expand...

A woman doesn't become a parent until the baby is born....the same holds true for a man.

When a single woman uses a fertility clinic to get pregnant, the man donating the semen is usually anonymous and not held responsible for the baby. Not sure how that fits your argument...but it seems like it might.
 
Renae said:
1.)I did. You aren't capable addressing the issue.
2.)Roe Vs Wade gives a woman the ability to avoid, post conception, the long term financial and personal burden of pregnancy. True or false?
3.) Where is the man's option, post conception, legally?
Click to expand...

1.) no, you factually didnt and posting lies and deflections wont change that fact LMAO
if you disagree qoute it. qoute and prove how the right to privacy involving medical procedures has to do with unjust parental rights laws. we are all waiting and i would LOVE to read it.
2.) 100% false. it protected a womans right to privacy for medical procedures. Thank you for further proving you have no idea what RvW is
3.) one doesn't exist in current PARENTAL RIGHTS LAW (which i agree are unjust). Which once again factually has nothign to do with Rvw a COURT CASE about privacy, the 14th and medical procedures :lamo

Thank you from proving me right yet again.
SO now you can either post with integrity and honesty and admit that RvW has nothign to do with unjust parental rights laws, keep denying that fact and having it pointed out or defend your proven wrong claim. Please let us know when you can do any of the 3 options. thanks!
 
Renae said:
A good post, thank you.
A man should never be able to force an abortion. I hope I didn't imply otherwise.

The point is that with Roe Vs Wade one of the long term realities is that a woman can remove the long term consequences, while the man has no relief.

After all, once conception happens, he's got no say in his future really. She can carry to term or not, even if he wanted the child and was willing to take the child and raise the child with no obligation to her. If she says no, that's that and that's how it should be. But reverse the situation... she want's the baby even if he says no, he's not ready... and he's on the hook.

It's that point, that I'm really addressing. Legally, it's truly unjust. Now, is it the best option as things stand, that's quite a discussion, but not the purview of the thread.
Click to expand...

Can you recognize how the right for a woman to abort and a man has no right to opt out is a red herring argument?

The inequalities in reproductive laws are real, but the approach to resolving them are lacking a legal theory to achieve a more equitable method to alleviate a variety of burdens associated with the inequalities.

The “Just because a woman can abort argument” isn’t working.
 
OlNate said:
There is no imbalance when the right of bodily autonomy is taken into consideration. Men and women have equal opportunity to opt out of a pregnancy, at different points along the timeline. As a man I find no issue with the way the laws are, and because I've made my decisions with the laws and my own personal belief system in mind, and being a fan of personal accountability, I've never had a problem. I don't see that you've introduced anything new here that would change my position on this, despite unfounded and ridiculous accusations. The only way the law is unfair is if you think that a man is unable to control what he does with his sperm...I argue he has full control over what he does with his sperm, thus has the first opportunity to avoid a pregnancy he is unwilling to commit to or abort, prove me wrong, or move along... ;)
Click to expand...

Your refusal to assert your own rights and your contentment with the status quo are irrelevant here. What happens to a man's sperm once it leaves his body is also irrelevant. What is relevant are the continued violation of his rights to privacy and body autonomy after the child is conceived. His DNA forcibly extracted under pain of legal injury to establish paternity, the requirement that he register with the state all income and his place of residence until absolved by the court and the extraction of labor for an indeterminate period.

What is relevant is the clear injustice of forcing any citizen to labor on another's behalf and your insistance that men accept that their rights are somehow below those of women, children, and taxpayers at large.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Your refusal to assert your own rights and your contentment with the status quo are irrelevant here. What happens to a man's sperm once it leaves his body is also irrelevant. What is relevant are the continued violation of his rights to privacy and body autonomy after the child is conceived. His DNA forcibly extracted under pain of legal injury to establish paternity, the requirement that he register with the state all income and his place of residence until absolved by the court and the extraction of labor for an indeterminate period.

What is relevant is the clear injustice of forcing any citizen to labor on another's behalf and your insistance that men accept that their rights are somehow below those of women, children, and taxpayers at large.
Click to expand...

So...you're for dead beat dads?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom