Male abortion rights

[year2late]

This is about the choice involved in stopping. This has less to do with a man's body, than it does with peacefully exercising rights.

Well, the choice belongs to the person who is pregnant. We have the right to make our own health care decisions.

 

[Celebrity]

Well, the choice belongs to the person who is pregnant. We have the right to make our own health care decisions.

Correct, and the choice per reproductive organ belongs to each person, respectively, whether or not that organ or any part of it leads to a pregnancy. Two different choices.

Recall that sperm is responsible for the physical action of impregnating the egg. Sperm do not have reproductive rights insofar as men and their reproductive organs are protected under the constitution.

Again, this is not as much about men's health as it is about men's ability to create outcomes in their life that stem from conscious decision making. Do not attempt to ask what the thought process is before or during sex for either gender. That is another question entirely. While preventative measures are great at stopping things from happening, that does not limit the right to exercise a stop on a process after it has already begun. In other words, it would be neglectful of men's rights to not allow men to stop procreating, given that some prior form of access was granted to sperm.

Masturbation does not imply that in vitro fertilization will occur, however, sperm donors routinely exchange sperm for compensation.

Sex does not imply that pregnancy will occur, however people routinely and freely engage in sexual acts.

 

[year2late]

And by acknowledging that ejaculating into a woman's vagina there is a potential for pregnancy.....and acknowledging that sperm are gonna do what they do and have no free will......you must acknowledge that a man understands the potential for pregnancy.

If he does not want to accept responsibility for supporting a child...might I suggest ejaculating anywhere but into a woman's vagina? There are many options.

 

[Celebrity]

And by acknowledging that ejaculating into a woman's vagina there is a potential for pregnancy.....and acknowledging that sperm are gonna do what they do and have no free will......you must acknowledge that a man understands the potential for pregnancy.

If he does not want to accept responsibility for supporting a child...might I suggest ejaculating anywhere but into a woman's vagina? There are many options.

You are not holding any one person "accountable" by creating a false dilemma. Even if man who ejaculates into a woman's vagina does or does not create a viable pregnancy, conception is the consequence of someone else's action. Neither a man or a woman alone can asexually reproduce. There are two conclusions which may be drawn from this. The first is that both sperm (from men's reproduction) and egg (from female reproduction) are required to create a viable pregnancy. Requiring both does not imply that through celibacy, pregnancy will never be achieved through artificial insemination. The biology is a different discussion, hence, a man's right does not biologically infringe on a woman's right. Although the two rights may be related under biological circumstances, choice of celibacy only requires moral/ethical grounds and in no way should legally infringe on the right to copulate freely not for the purpose of impregnation. Secondly, while pregnancy may exist within the sphere of women's health and not men's health, men cannot be held responsible for actions women take and vice versa. Men and women may work together to bring a pregnancy, or they may not at their own individual discretion.

I acknowledge only that men understand the potential for pregnancy under the circumstances which guarantee men free will. Pregnancy is not a directive which cancels constitutionally protected rights enjoyed by men and women, and not the fetus. Pregnancies do not have rights, pregnant women and men do.

 

[year2late]

What constitutional right is lost by men?

 

[Celebrity]

What constitutional right is lost by men?

For starters, let's go to the part about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Does DNA testing allow men to enjoy these rights, or force them on penalty of contempt of court to comply? DNA testing does, which is coercive. In light of the fact that no criminal charges are required to order it, there is not even a shadow of doubt that biological fathers are innocent. It's my opinion that this is invasive and unnecessary, since biology has nothing to do with a nurturing family. Don't let my opinion overshadow the coercive manner in which DNA is obtained.

If you are asking me to hit you over the head with the constitution, please recall that I am not a constitutional scholar. It would help this discussion if your question was more specifically in response to how I have previously addressed the issue in my posts. Are you questioning my reasoning at any point, or holding the constitution over my head?

 

[Bodi]

I absolutely abhor forced parenthood, but I don't think men should get protections. They live with all the privileges and benefits of society and they don't need to be able to opt out of parenthood just because they don't feel like they can do it.

Why not? Women can...

 

[Bodi]

I agree with male abortion rights.

When a man is pregnant, he can chose to have an abortion.

After all, it is his body, his choice.

That logic is the same dumb logic that anti-SSM bigots use.

 

[Bodi]

Well, the choice belongs to the person who is pregnant. We have the right to make our own health care decisions.

If the male opts out how is he interferring with her health care decision again? Thanks...

 

[Bodi]

And by acknowledging that ejaculating into a woman's vagina there is a potential for pregnancy.....and acknowledging that sperm are gonna do what they do and have no free will......you must acknowledge that a man understands the potential for pregnancy.

If he does not want to accept responsibility for supporting a child...might I suggest ejaculating anywhere but into a woman's vagina? There are many options.

If she does not want to accept resposibility for supporting her child on her own may I suggest she keep her legs closed...

See how easy that counter argument was?

:lol:

 

[Celebrity]

If she does not want to accept resposibility for supporting her child on her own may I suggest she keep her legs closed...

See how easy that counter argument was?

:lol:

What about the metaphor of driving, which was brought up by another user in /Abortion/.

Women can get off at any exit, but men better get off at the first because the second one's closed and aliens will abduct you an arbitrary amount of time after nine months have passed, at their convenience.

I mean, CSEA isn't exactly Area 51, but you catch my drift. CS is more or less a conspiracy.

 

[year2late]

That logic is the same dumb logic that anti-SSM bigots use.

How do you figure that?

 

[Celebrity]

All jokes aside, Balance of Probabilities is used in civil cases here in the US. What is unclear to me is how showing genetic evidence translates to evidence of any kind of involvement in a child's life. The punishment is disproportionate for those who are in abstention from birth onward. Having an opportunity to prevent the act of impregnation from occurring does not incriminate or show any desire to harm an unborn child. Why is it that men who are biological fathers are forced into servitude by the state? Childbirth should only involve caring family members.

I don't see how it could make sense for there to be some kind of "sex contract" absolving only those who were certified to have used contraception. Involuntary servitude and human trafficking are prohibited under the 13th amendment. At the very least, it should be very easy to see that due process falls short where there is no parent child contact. If a parent wants to see their biological child, then they have the right to start a battle for custody, which is not beneficial to the child. Yet in most cases it makes no sense to "split the custody in half."

By extension of protecting men's rights, the law protects the best interest of the child.

There is a standard of life which men should be allowed to enjoy in two respects: dignified parentage and unforced patronage. The two are not mutually exclusive. At this time I cannot point to a part of the constitution which guarantees that no man shall be taxed against his interest. I think the costs are outweighed by the benefits of recognizing the interests of biological fathers. Yet there are still cases in which non-custodial parents enjoy no representation in the communities where the children who benefit from their patronage grow up. Hence, taxation without representation.

 

[year2late]

If the male opts out how is he interferring with her health care decision again? Thanks...

At the point a baby is born, it is about the support of the child, not the mother,

 

[Celebrity]

At the point a baby is born, it is about the support of the child, not the mother,

This discussion concerns matters predating birth.

 

[year2late]

If she does not want to accept resposibility for supporting her child on her own may I suggest she keep her legs closed...

See how easy that counter argument was?

:lol:

Chosing abortion or caring for a child you have given birth to is taking responsibility for her actions. See how easy that was?

 

[Removable Mind]

If the male opts out how is he interferring with her health care decision again? Thanks...

The National Center for Men appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 14, 2007. Oral arguments began September 10, 2007, and in November the appeals court affirmed the District court decision, noting precedent stating that "the Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to [the] State the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways."

In its dismissal of the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit) stated that:

"Dubay’s claim that a man’s right to disclaim fatherhood would be analogous to a woman’s right to abortion rests upon a false analogy.

In the case of a father seeking to opt out of fatherhood and thereby avoid child support obligations, the child is already in existence and the state therefore has an important interest in providing for his or her support."

The National Center for Men asked Dubay to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but Dubay declined.

Thanks...

 

[Celebrity]

Chosing abortion or caring for a child you have given birth to is taking responsibility for her actions. See how easy that was?

The hypothetical woman is not taking responsibility for her actions solely due to the quality of pregnancy as a female biological and/or health issue, but also because at that time she engenders that quality. The purpose of this thread is to talk about the period of time during pregnancy when a man and woman make choices about the future of the man and woman respectively.

 

[Celebrity]

Thanks...

Removable Mind, welcome. How do you propose we treat biological fathers who do not falsely deny paternity, while at the same time find the idea of forced patronage repugnant?

 

[Removable Mind]

The hypothetical woman is not taking responsibility for her actions solely due to the quality of pregnancy as a female biological and/or health issue, but also because at that time she engenders that quality. The purpose of this thread is to talk about the period of time during pregnancy when a man and woman make choices about the future of the man and woman respectively.

See post #492.

 

[Removable Mind]

Removable Mind, welcome. How do you propose we treat biological fathers who do not falsely deny paternity, while at the same time find the idea of forced patronage repugnant?

I'm not the United States Appeals Court...nor the Supreme Court. I'm just reporting what I know or have researched. Would you rather I didn't?

 

[Celebrity]

See post #492.

I read the post after sharing my quoted post. Still doesn't refute my argument on a moral basis. If this were a court of law I would be required to show a balance of probabilities. It's not. Feel free to dispute my reasoning without all that constitution thumping.

I'm not the United States Appeals Court...nor the Supreme Court. I'm just reporting what I know or have researched. Would you rather I didn't?

You still haven't answered my question on forced patronage. See this post (quoted in its simple entirety):

This discussion concerns matters predating birth.

 

[Bodi]

How do you figure that?

homosexual men have the same rights to marriage that heterosexuals have... a homosexual man can marry a woman.

It is ridiculous.

The man has the same rights regarding abortion... he can abort when he is pregnant.

It is retarded....

 

[Removable Mind]

I read the post after sharing my quoted post. Still doesn't refute my argument on a moral basis. If this were a court of law I would be required to show a balance of probabilities. It's not. Feel free to dispute my reasoning without all that constitution thumping.



You still haven't answered my question on forced patronage. See this post (quoted in its simple entirety):

According to Bodh...morals don't count. Oh, sorry, there is no legal remedy to forced patronage with regard to this topic, in my opinion.

 

[year2late]

The hypothetical woman is not taking responsibility for her actions solely due to the quality of pregnancy as a female biological and/or health issue, but also because at that time she engenders that quality. The purpose of this thread is to talk about the period of time during pregnancy when a man and woman make choices about the future of the man and woman respectively.

And I am talking about the reality of the situation. He goes into the sexual act knowing that either abortion or childbirth are possibilities. He also goes in knowing the pregnancy itself is in her hands. And the reality is that if she does have a baby there are situations in which the father will be asked to support this child.