Is this hypocritical?

[Cardinal]

Your position is what is twisted.

This shoe fits you pro-aborts perfectly and you even put it on and strolled about for us in case there was any doubt,

You should write poetry.

 

[betuadollar]

I think the political media had distorted your perception. Both the woman who opts to give up her child AND the dead-beat dad are equally abhorred, by women.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I think the political media had distorted your perception. Both the woman who opts to give up her child AND the dead-beat dad are equally abhorred, by women.

That's the social ramifications, not the legal ones.
Being a "dead beat" dad, whether on purpose or as a matter of circumstance comes with the potential for jail time.

 

[Cardinal]

I believe you're wrong. I'm pro-choice. I'm just pro-choice for both parties involved, I have no double-standards.

It's trollish because it deliberately misrepresents the pro choice position in the very first sentence by assuming that pro-choice is equal to pro-abortion. Pro-life really hates the idea that one could be against abortion personally but support the right for someone else to make, and so they turn it into "pro-abortion" at every opportunity.

It also deliberately conflates the issue of a woman's choice make decisions for her own body (which is what this is all about) with a separate issue, parenthood/child support, as if the latter should have any bearing on the former (and yes, that is absolutely what the OP is suggesting).

 

[roughdraft274]

Which brings us right back to the beginning of our talk when you say she did not consent to her body(her property) being pregnant by having sex,

She consented to possibly becoming pregnant by having sex. She didn't consent to remaining pregnant.

If you agree to a round of medical treatments and after the first one you change your mind, you can't be forced to go through the rest of them against your will. IT'S YOUR ****ING BODY.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

:lamo I'm pretty sure they know enough about biology to not make that argument.

So the fetus - or the baby - is not actually physically connected to the woman?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Nevertheless, the fetus that is attached to her body is 50% his.

Again, he knew the possible consequences and did not even wear a condom to protect his own rights. He had the opportunity to protect his rights, and CHOSE not to do so. How can any true conservative or libertarian argue that he still has any "right" whatsoever to that fetus?

 

[Brischera]

no op, it makes you a liberal.

Common Sense Law:

When "Liberal" is both the primary term and rebuttle in any conversation you know it is a euphemism for:

"Have no idea what I am talking about!"

 

[Henrin]

So the fetus - or the baby - is not actually physically connected to the woman?

Yes, its connected to its mother, but fetus is its own being. I don't understand why you don't know this basic biology.

 

[Brischera]

Scenario A: A woman gets pregnant and decides she doesn't want to be a mother - she's considered a champion of a woman's right to choose.

Scenario B: A man gets a woman pregnant and decides he doesn't want to be a father - he's considered to be a "dead-beat dad".

Scenario A: A fish eats a fish.

Scenario B: A person eats a fish but is accused of murder by PETA.

Unless you are running a secret contest for dumbest possible polls on non existent double standards this is completely useless.

 

[Cardinal]

Yes, its connected to its mother, but fetus is its own being. I don't understand why you don't know this basic biology.

If the man is insistent he spread his seed to every woman he sleeps with then he should do his research better and make certain he only sleeps with pro-life women. Likewise, men who don't want to be fathers take a gigantic risk by sleeping with pro-life women (or women who've made it super clear they want a baby).

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Yes, its connected to its mother, but fetus is its own being. I don't understand why you don't know this basic biology.

If the fetus cannot live without that connection to its mother, then it is not its own being.

Besides, your argument goes down the road of "as soon as the egg is fertilized, its a human being"...which would make miscarriage into manslaughter, and would force murder charges against fertilization clinics who fertilize several eggs, choose the most viable, and dispose of the rest.

Henrin, when will you learn that strict adherence to ideology - leftist OR rightist - is almost always destructive to a society and to the nation?

 

[betuadollar]

That's the social ramifications, not the legal ones.
Being a "dead beat" dad, whether on purpose or as a matter of circumstance comes with the potential for jail time.

That's because we have the little issue of providing care for the child; the dead-beat dad doesn't belong in jail; it's expensive and rarely an effective means of coercion; rather he should simply be deported to any nation that will have him.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

That's because we have the little issue of providing care for the child; the dead-beat dad doesn't belong in jail, it's expensive and rarely an effective means of coercion, rather he should simply be deported to any nation that will have him.

That doesn't solve the problem either.
Considering there are few countries that would go along with that.

 

[Henrin]

If the man is insistent he spread his seed to every woman he sleeps with then he should do his research better and make certain he only sleeps with pro-life women. Likewise, men who don't want to be fathers take a gigantic risk by sleeping with pro-life women (or women who've made it super clear they want a baby).

I see nothing there to disagree with.

 

[Cardinal]

I see nothing there to disagree with.

Great, now I'm doubting my own position.

 

[GunFora]

Again, he knew the possible consequences and did not even wear a condom to protect his own rights. He had the opportunity to protect his rights, and CHOSE not to do so. How can any true conservative or libertarian argue that he still has any "right" whatsoever to that fetus?

She also had the opportunity to protect her rights (as you put it). She did not. Regardless of who should have been in charge of the BC, that fetus is just as much his as it is hers. That's the point.

 

[radcen]

That's the social ramifications, not the legal ones.
Being a "dead beat" dad, whether on purpose or as a matter of circumstance comes with the potential for jail time.

Yet we don't have "debtor prisons"... officially... of which we proudly proclaim, and if the person is married to the other parent there is no law or other legal way to force them to contribute to pay for the upbringing of the child.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Yet we don't have "debtor prisons"... officially... of which we proudly proclaim, and if the person is married to the other parent there is no law or other legal way to force them to contribute to pay for the upbringing of the child.

Kinda sorta.
We do have a debtors prison, but you're right it's unofficial, although child negligence or something similar could be charged.

 

[GunFora]

Scenario A: A fish eats a fish.

Scenario B: A person eats a fish but is accused of murder by PETA.

Unless you are running a secret contest for dumbest possible polls on non existent double standards this is completely useless.

Uh oh...you just outed yourself. No longer "undisclosed".:2wave:

 

[celticwar17]

This is a pretty terrible example of a hypothetical scenario. Hypocrisy requires one person or entity to hold both views simultaneously. As such, you would need to show someone who is willing to declare a woman to be a champion of a woman's right to choose simply because she chose to abort for purely personal reasons. Finding someone like that is unlikely on its own, not to mention that you would need that same person to also believe that a man is a dead beat father simply because he does not want to be a father.

You are taking it too literally... OP is purposely giving two extreme positions to find the underlying truth of the gray.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

She also had the opportunity to protect her rights (as you put it). She did not. Regardless of who should have been in charge of the BC, that fetus is just as much his as it is hers. That's the point.

Do you believe that men and women should have equality in all things, even up to those liberal standards of required equal pay for equal jobs and inclusion in front-line Marine Infantry units? If you do not support total equality for women in all things, then you do not support equality between the sexes...

...and so you lose your standing to make the argument that the man somehow has just as much right to that fetus as she does.

 

[Rentoc]

No, that's not hypocritical. That's simply an example of how women should get to choose what the heck goes on in their own bodies. Women are women and men are men...and just as we have to make allowances that there are things that men can do that women can't (or shouldn't), there are things that women do that men simply can't (as most happily-married men will attest).

If the man isn't man enough to take proper precautions (i.e. lets the wrong head make his decisions) and won't take responsibility for his lack of what should be common sense, I've no sympathy for him.

Why is it the man's responsibility to take precautions? You see I look at it like this. Women almost always have a "choice", most times multiple "choices". They can "choose" whether to have sex or not. They can then "choose" whether to have unprotected sex or not. I believe we are all old enough to understand that the only 100% sure protection is abstinence, so once she "chooses" to have sex she is "responsible" for the possible outcomes.

As for the man's responsibilities, my father's "speech" to me when I was getting to "that" age was short, simple and to the point. He looked me dead in the eye and said, "if you are gonna take it out of your pants, be ready to support it!"

 

[Brischera]

Uh oh...you just outed yourself. No longer "undisclosed".:2wave:

In any given week of posting comments online I get called a conservative, librul, right wing nut, leftie, dumocrat, etc.

It has taught me people who live their lives through such narrow labels have the lowest ability for dialogue.

Thank you for proving me correct. Again.

 

[celticwar17]

When? What is irresponsible on the part of the woman? Are you assuming she didnt use birth control?

Are you saying that only complete abstinence is "acting responsibly" for either the man or the woman?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EVERY TIME.... EVERY TIME you have sex there is a chance you will get pregnant...Protected or Unprotected... If you do not want to have the responsibility of having a child, then don't have sex.

If you want to take the chance, take the chance, but in the end OWN UP to the choices you have made.... take responsibility, we have to for all our choices we make, no matter the odds.

That is in FACT what men have to do... and currently woman do not have to do.


This same logic is represented everywhere... You go skydiving, EVERY time you go sky-diving you have the risk of your equipment malfunctioning or spontaneous weather complications, You may do it anyway, if you do fall to your death... IT IS ON YOU, YOU made that choice no matter how likely or unlikely it is. Does that mean we should all not skydive? Are you irresponsible if you do skydive? Maybe yes or no... it's your choice.