Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”[W:589]

[Henrin]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

No, now you are using biology as contract. I used it metaphorically. The man's sperm, which fuses with an egg is biological proof that he engaged a sexual act, which he knew prior to engaging in ...had potential legal consequences that is not in his favor.

Someones knowledge of legal consequences has no effect on law.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

I hate implied consent arguments. They're valid in certain cases, but in the vast majority of cases they're absolute bull****. You also know that argument is bull**** or you would apply it to women and not allow them to abort, but no, it only applies to men. Figures.

I am sure you do. However, just because you don't like 'implied consent' arguments doesn't mean that you should be let of scott free for your actions. This whole anarachy thing seems to be just one excuse about why you shouldn't have to worry about the consequences of your own actions.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

If you don't want to pay the penalties for an improper deposit, don't make the deposit.

Achem. "If you don't want to give birth, keep your legs closed."

 

[Henrin]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

I am sure you do. However, just because you don't like 'implied consent' arguments doesn't mean that you should be let of scott free for your actions. This whole anarachy thing seems to be just one excuse about why you shouldn't have to worry about the consequences of your own actions.

Even in implied consent cases you have to show proof that they agreed to do what you are trying to bind them to. The argument that having sex implies consent to birth or consent to a child has to much evidence against it to be seen as a valid argument.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Review your argument and notice how I showed that men actually have the biological advantage..

Whoever said that biology is conferring an 'advantage?' :doh

Most women would be MORE than happy to share the responsibility of pregnancy if possible....:lamo

Once a child is BORN, the biological element is pretty much nullified and men and women are treated equally by the law regarding parenthood and custody. It's not completely fair yet for some custody situations, but that is moving forward in men's favor all that time, and equality is the goal.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Achem. "If you don't want to give birth, keep your legs closed."

A better counter is to say that by the woman allowing the deposit she has consented to pregnancy and child birth. Of course, he would never agree with that, which should tell you how much he really believes in his argument.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Whoever said that biology is conferring an 'advantage?' :doh

Most women would be MORE than happy to share the responsibility of pregnancy if possible....:lamo

Once a child is BORN, the biological element is pretty much nullified and men and women are treated equally by the law regarding parenthood and custody. It's not completely fair yet for some custody situations, but that is moving forward in men's favor all that time, and equality is the goal.

It will never be equal until both parties are not seen as consenting to a child by having sex.

The fact is his only choice is after birth and eliminating that is ignoring his consent entirely. If women are actually going to use the "I didn't consent to pregnancy" argument then you damn well know I'm going to use it towards men.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

You agree with you go make a deposit. If you don't want to pay the penalties for an improper deposit, don't make the deposit.

Well they could make it fair 'legally.' They could make abortion illegal so then when the unwanted pregnancy happens, both *pay.*

Ha ha ha ha, seriously, for the majority of men in the US, that would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

It's the main reason, IMO, that elective abortion will never be illegal again in the US.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

It will never be equal until both parties are not seen as consenting to a child by having sex.

The fact is his only choice is after birth and eliminating that is ignoring his consent entirely. If women are actually going to use the "I didn't consent to pregnancy" argument then you damn well know I'm going to use it towards men.

Nope...he has a choice before sex. You find that to be 'unthinkable,' as if men are entitled to sex without consequences. As I pointed out...women arent. They have consequences no matter what if they get pregnant. Again...not fair. Boo hoo hoo, women deal with it. Men ought to grow up and do so as well.

Biology makes the time and choices unfair...whine about it all you want but that can never be 'fair.'

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Someones knowledge of legal consequences has no effect on law.

Actually it does have. Thus the judicial system has devised "degrees" upon which an act can be judged so that there's less chance of a draconian outcome.

And really...when it gets down to the nut-cut...in this case, it's called a "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

But you know both of the things I've stated above.

As far as the law is concerned. Here is how you'll be judged.

Prior to the act is known as: "A Priori knowledge" in a court of law. Knowledge of something based on reason independent of experience. This means that prior to ever having sex in one's life...they know that sex can be the cause of a conception.

Also: "A Posteriori knowledge" in a court of law. That is knowledge dependent on experience or empirical evidence. This means you are cognitively aware that depositing sperm in a woman will leave a biological marker which will identify you personally as being the depositor.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Nope...he has a choice before sex. You find that to be 'unthinkable,' as if men are entitled to sex without consequences. As I pointed out...women arent. They have consequences no matter what if they get pregnant. Again...not fair. Boo hoo hoo, women deal with it. Men ought to grow up and do so as well.

Biology makes the time and choices unfair...whine about it all you want but that can never be 'fair.'

That's bull****. Both have a choice before sex, so that doesn't change my argument at all. Women could just not have sex if they don't want to get pregnant and have a child, and men could just not have sex if they don't want a child. It's a bull**** argument that I can easily turn on you. I would advise against using it again.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

That's bull****. Both have a choice before sex, so that doesn't change my argument at all. Women could just not have sex if they don't want to get pregnant and have a child, and men could just not have sex if they don't want a child. It's a bull**** argument that I can easily turn on you. I would advise against using it again.

ha ha ha. No you cant.


Their choices are different. Not the same. That's obvious and driven by biology. A woman has *biologically different* consequences when she gets pregnant so of course her choices are different and come at different times.

She knows she can have an abortion if she chooses. So sex for her is "not" consent to parenthood.

A man has no control over the body of a woman, he knows that. So if he has sex and then she exercises her options, he has consented to that. Boo hoo hoo, it's not fair. Biology makes it unfair.

Men can have all the control over being parents they want: they decide before sex.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

ha ha ha. No you cant.


Their choices are different. Not the same. That's obvious and driven by biology. A woman has *biologically different* consequences when she gets pregnant so of course her choices are different and come at different times.

She knows she can have an abortion if she chooses. So sex for her is "not" consent to parenthood.

A man has no control over the body of a woman, he knows that. So if he has sex and then she exercises her options, he has consented to that. Boo hoo hoo, it's not fair. Biology makes it unfair.

Men can have all the control over being parents they want: they decide before sex.

I never said the man has control over the woman, but if the man consents to a child by having sex it follows that a woman must consent to pregnancy, the risks that it involves, and child birth. The only people that can make your argument are pro-life individuals that support government imposed child support or otherwise it's a bull**** one sided argument that excuses women from its logic flow.

If he consents by making the deposit then she consents by taking it. That's what is called consistent logic.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

That's bull****. Both have a choice before sex, so that doesn't change my argument at all. Women could just not have sex if they don't want to get pregnant and have a child, and men could just not have sex if they don't want a child. It's a bull**** argument that I can easily turn on you. I would advise against using it again.

Most of the time, both have the choice on weather to have sex or not. Maybe, it would be a good idea about finding out your partners attitude about abortion and keeping the kid before have sex, so you don't have to worry about the imposition?? It also seems to me that you made a statement about how the woman should have the kid if she got pregnant. So, if you walk away, and she walks away from the kid, what happens to the kid?? Exposure?? Death?? Why should I pay for your mistakes?

 

[Henrin]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Most of the time, both have the choice on weather to have sex or not. Maybe, it would be a good idea about finding out your partners attitude about abortion and keeping the kid before have sex, so you don't have to worry about the imposition?? It also seems to me that you made a statement about how the woman should have the kid if she got pregnant. So, if you walk away, and she walks away from the kid, what happens to the kid?? Exposure?? Death?? Why should I pay for your mistakes?

Women can give the child up to the state right after it's born. I don't see why that argument keeps getting brought up when the law has already come up with a solution to it.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Women can give the child up to the state right after it's born. I don't see why that argument keeps getting brought up when the law has already come up with a solution to it.

And, that's violence to me, since the state has to get funded somehow, and that's through taxes. That is violence to me to cover your mistakes.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

And, that's violence to me, since the state has to get funded somehow, and that's through taxes. That is violence to me to cover your mistakes.

Well, women do it from time to time.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Well, women do it from time to time.

It's a lot harder for a woman to do it.

There are alternatives you know

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Edit: btw, it's not necessarily up to the woman. Even if she doesnt want to involve the father, if she applies for any public assistance, the state/county will go after the father...on behalf of the child and the taxpayers...whether she want them to or not. That is pretty much national now.

It's pretty much the same here, too .....though there isn't much they can do if she says "I don't know where he is. I picked up some guy named Joe in a bar and that's all I know about him".

 

[Henrin]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

It's a lot harder for a woman to do it.

There are alternatives you know

View attachment 67184225

:roll: Considering that many women don't want to do that and many others don't like it that is not a solution. That is of course not mentioning that many men are not willing to do it either and others thinks it sucks.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

:roll: Considering that many women don't want to do that and many others don't like it that is not a solution. That is of course not mentioning that many men are not willing to do it either and others thinks it sucks.

There are other alternatives too. If you have to have your missionary /vagina sex, boy , you must be boring.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

There are other alternatives too. If you have to have your missionary /vagina sex, boy , you must be boring.

I was not talking about me, but of the general views of the population regarding your suggestion.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Actually, I'm opposed to government imposed child support entirely and find the 1st trimester rule unrealistic since it would still lead to some men being bound to children against their will.

Are you also against govt banning abortion at *any* stage?

Barring prior legal arrangement, i.e. marriage, men have no moral obligation for their bastard children. It is solely woman's choice to turn the pregnancy into a baby, and thus it is solely her responsibility.

Bastard children??

 

[Henrin]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Are you also against govt banning abortion at *any* stage?

Yes.

Bastard children??

Children born to parents that are not married.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Well men know this before they have sex right? Women know their consequences, men know theirs.

Consequences are the natural results of some course of action. It's not "consequences" when they're imposed from the outside-- we make a choice to impose this system on men, and it is no less a violation of their rights than it is if we forced women to give birth, or forced them to keep children after they birthed them. We are following one legal and moral principle when it comes to women and another when it comes to men; this double standard is sexist, hypocritical, and wrong.

Yup, his choices come at a different time than hers. That is biologically determined.

Bull****. Child support is not biologically determined. Biologically, there's nothing stopping a man from walking away at any time-- even after he has claimed responsibility for a child.

Child support is socially and legally determined, and it is determined according to an unjust double standard.