In re a Women's Rights

[Gaius46]

If he's not pregnant, he has no say, plain and simple. One one gets to dictate the health or personal decisions of another.

I never said he should. But he shouldn’t be held financially responsible either.

 

[Gordy327]

I never said he should. But he shouldn’t be held financially responsible either.

Again, that is an entirely separate issue. But if a woman aborts, then he is automatically off the hook.

 

[Terryj]

As I've said before, when he gets pregnant, then he'll have a say.

Yes, and when she can get pregnant without sperm then I'll fully support your stance on this.

 

[Terryj]

What would such laws look like? Where is the line of "common sense?"

That's a good question, this is the thing that puzzles me: If a pregnant woman is murdered then the murderer is held on 2 counts of murder, the woman and the fetus, but if the woman surivies then it's only 1 count of murder, the fetus. So, why is it murder if you kill a fetus under those conditions but not murder if planned parenthood does the act.

 

[Gaius46]

Again, that is an entirely separate issue. But if a woman aborts, then he is automatically off the hook.

You asked what rights of the man are in play with abortion. He has no right to tell her to keep the baby I agree. But by extension that means we shouldn’t be able to compel him to care for the child. He should unless he’s an asshole but that is a different discussion.

To me the issue of care after birth is not separate because it is intimately tied to her decision to have the child and his exclusion from that decision making.

 

[j brown's body]

You asked what rights of the man are in play with abortion. He has no right to tell her to keep the baby I agree. But by extension that means we shouldn’t be able to compel him to care for the child. He should unless he’s an asshole but that is a different discussion.

To me the issue of care after birth is not separate because itbis intimately tied to her decision to have the child.

Maybe, maybe not. That's why its best to leave it up to the woman.

 

[Gordy327]

Yes, and when she can get pregnant without sperm then I'll fully support your stance on this.

He donated.

That's a good question, this is the thing that puzzles me: If a pregnant woman is murdered then the murderer is held on 2 counts of murder, the woman and the fetus, but if the woman surivies then it's only 1 count of murder, the fetus.

Fetal homicide laws are based on harm inflicted against the woman, resulting in her loss of choice or autonomy. Such charges also depend on individual states laws, the circumstances behind the crime, the stage of gestation, and whether a prosecutor pushes for such a charge.

So, why is it murder if you kill a fetus under those conditions but not murder if planned parenthood does the act.

It shouldn't be. Such laws are irrational and based on knee jerk emotional reactions.

You asked what rights of the man are in play with abortion. He has no right to tell her to keep the baby I agree. But by extension that means we shouldn’t be able to compel him to care for the child. He should unless he’s an asshole but that is a different discussion.

Child care comes after pregnancy. At that point, the actual child's welfare takes precedent and both parents are required to provide support.

To me the issue of care after birth is not separate because it is intimately tied to her decision to have the child and his exclusion from that decision making.

But it is separate. The laws are separate too. Since it's the woman who has to exclusively endure pregnancy and childbirth and all related risks and complications, the decision making to proceed with that or not is hers.

 

[Integrityrespec]

A well regulated health care, being necessary to the security of a women's right to choose, the right to contraception and abortion shall not be infringed.

Does this include Pre-Natal health care for both mother and baby?

 

[Integrityrespec]

Maybe, maybe not. That's why its best to leave it up to the woman.

When a woman gets pregnant without the involvement of a man, and when women who have children stop asking that a man help to pay the cost of raising those children, then maybe women would have complete say absent the voice of men.
Bad decision and I don't see it happening.

 

[Gaius46]

Child care comes after pregnancy. At that point, the actual child's welfare takes precedent and both parents are required to provide support.

But it is separate. The laws are separate too. Since it's the woman who has to exclusively endure pregnancy and childbirth and all related risks and complications, the decision making to proceed with that or not is hers.

I agree with you that that is how we handle in our society and given that we put a premium on the child’s care it makes some sense. I also agree that it is the woman’s decision though any normal woman should give consuderation to man’s desires in her decision making.

However that doesn’t make it right or even the best way to address the issue.

 

[Gordy327]

I agree with you that that is how we handle in our society and given that we put a premium on the child’s care it makes some sense. I also agree that it is the woman’s decision though any normal woman should give consuderation to man’s desires in her decision making.

She is certainly free to solicit the man's opinion on the matter. But the decision is ultimately hers.

However that doesn’t make it right or even the best way to address the issue.

At the end of the day, the woman has to choose what is best for her. No one else can make that determination for her.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The sperm donor is on the hook for supporting the child even if he didn’t want one. Even if she said atbthe time she didn’t want one either. His financial future is subject to her decision making and her’s alone.

If the sperm donor does not speak to the recipient on contraception he is a fool.

 

[Gaius46]

If the sperm donor does not speak to the recipient on contraception he is a fool.

Which may well be but doesn’t change a thing.

 

[Rich2018]

If the sperm donor does not speak to the recipient on contraception he is a fool.

Why ?

What would any negative consequences be ?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why ?

What would any negative consequences be ?

Two very dumb questions.

Why, if someone is not have intercourse for a pregnancy; and having a duty to provide for the care of a child until at least 18 years.

 

[Rich2018]

Two very dumb questions.

Nope, a response to your very dub statement.

Why, if someone is not have intercourse for a pregnancy; and having a duty to provide for the care of a child until at least 18 years.

Better if you reply in English but you seem to be asking why a sperm donor should have any financial responsibility towards children who're the product of his sperm
The answer is he doesn't.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nope, a response to your very dub statement.



Better if you reply in English but you seem to be asking why a sperm donor should have any financial responsibility towards children who're the product of his sperm
The answer is he doesn't.

I suppose that is correct if there is a contract. If it is a one night stand, or a live-in relationship, he is responsible.

 

[Rich2018]

I suppose that is correct if there is a contract. If it is a one night stand, or a live-in relationship, he is responsible.

Then that would be another form of "sperm donation" LOL.