- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 20,282
- Reaction score
- 28,091
- Location
- Mid-West USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Your thread title says: "Should a Man have an Absolute Right to Choose to Abort His Baby?"
The first sentence of your OP says: "Should a man have an absolute right to have his baby aborted?"
Opting out of responsibility is offered as an alternative to abortion.
So, no, that was NOT made clear in your OP. In fact the exact opposite was made crystal clear in your OP. This thread is about a man having the right to have his child aborted.
Like I said. A woman does now choose to be the one with the uterus.
"The same right", not an equivalent right, but the same right, and that right is to have the child aborted.
Why, then, are you dealing with it?Simply because you fail to read for full content is not a problem I need to deal with.
I was being accused of wanting to ban abortion, an option which isn't even in your poll. I highlight 'forced abortion' as a correction to that accusation. Your thread is not about banning abortion, but some thought it was. I think you should concern yourself with them more than me because clearly they read neither your OP or your poll whereas I read both.Yet in response to members who support a choice to opt-out you remain focused on the "forced abortion" option.
Hypocrisy requires present action, that I need to be currently doing what I'm speaking against. I'm not doing what I'm speaking against, I've been abstinent for 8 years. Please report yourself to the mod team for infraction points and a thread bad for ad-homanim attacks as a demonstration of integrity.This because you seem to think that merely by engaging in sex a man has automatically bound himself to caring for any possible offspring should the woman choose to have it....something I find particularly hypocritical given your self-admissions of past history regarding this result.
Please quote where I said "life ain't fair". I believe you're thinking of someone else.Over and over people like yourself emphasize it takes two to conceive, and then irrationally argue that only one gets to decide the ultimate outcome of life-long responsibility for both. You keep ignoring the fact that one has an opt-out regardless of how the other might feel, and your only counter is "life ain't fair." Equitability would argue that BOTH should have at least the "opt-out" option in some form or another.
No they're supporting child abuse by condoning child abandonment, a crime.The male and female members on the side of allowing a male to "opt-out" of further responsibility seek to empower the woman by not only supporting her right to absolute choice but right to make an informed decision to accept full responsibility for it.
You're correct, but this thread is about "have his baby aborted" not "have an abortion". Two different things.Men have just as much right to have an abortion as a woman does
Why, then, are you dealing with it?
I was being accused of wanting to ban abortion, an option which isn't even in your poll. I highlight 'forced abortion' as a correction to that accusation. Your thread is not about banning abortion, but some thought it was. I think you should concern yourself with them more than me because clearly they read neither your OP or your poll whereas I read both.
Hypocrisy requires present action, that I need to be currently doing what I'm speaking against. I'm not doing what I'm speaking against, I've been abstinent for 8 years. Please report yourself to the mod team for infraction points and a thread bad for ad-homanim attacks as a demonstration of integrity.
Women *choose* to have a uterus? :screwy
at least he was a stand-up guy and did the right thing by the child.
Are you just realizing this?I WROTE the OP!
That's not a "life ain't fair" position, that's a "you made your bed" position.First, adressing your last point, I don't have to quote "life aint fair," your repeated positions about compelling a man to accept full responsibility for whatever the woman decides simply because he slept with her are clear enough.
There is no "ban abortion" option. There's an "oppose abortion" option which does not mean you want it banned, only that you object ideally.Second, there is a voting option to "ban abortion" although I only added it to prevent Pro-Life advocates from stating they didn't get an option to show their position. I ignore them and don't worry about their votes because this is really all about a factual reality; women have the legal right to choose, to abort or not to abort, so where does that leave the male half of the "conception pair?"
But you are dealing with itI'm dealing with it as a hypothetical....
Calling me a hypocrite is a personal attack, yes.Finally, there have been no "ad hominem attacks." If you are referring to the "hypocrisy" comment please recall that you opened up the issue by stating your prior history in the thread. It is not "ad hominem" to point this out.
You're correct, but this thread is about "have his baby aborted" not "have an abortion". Two different things.
That's not a "life ain't fair" position, that's a "you made your bed" position.
Calling me a hypocrite is a personal attack, yes.
The very first word of the thread title is "should", which in this context is an auxiliary function to express what is probable, not what is.Woman do not have the right to have their baby aborted if it's in someone else's body
Neither do men
The very first word of the thread title is "should", which in this context is an auxiliary function to express what is probable, not what is.
What you're doing here is stating what is. That men do not currently have the right to have their child aborted from someone else's body is the very premise of the question OP asks. It isn't clear why you're restating the premise of this thread as though it's a point.
I swear to God people on this forum don't know how to read.
The difference is that one is fair and one is not because one was chosen and one was not. If you were born with a handicap that's a "life ain't fair" situation because you had no choice in the matter. With pregnancy you consented to the risk when you consented to sex, you had a choice, some degree of control, and having made your choice it manifests a consequence you knew about before hand; "you made your bed".A distinction without a difference.
In the abortion forum, we move only in circles.I've made myself perfectly clear and it requires no further explanation. I've also intentionally ignored those parts of your response geared toward luring me into a personal attack. Nor do I intend to argue semantics with you. However, if you feel personally insulted by any opinion I've expressed I offer my apologies.
I would like to point out that when the source of a thesis explains what his purpose was and why he chose the methodology he used to do so, one might try to accept it and move on. That, of course, remains entirely up to you.
Just as I don't have the ability to abort your child, neither do I have the ability to edit your posts. Maybe I should have that ability?SO change "do" to "should"
Just as I don't have the ability to abort your child, neither do I have the ability to edit your posts. Maybe I should have that ability?
If I shouldn't have that ability, then maybe you shouldn't be asking me to edit your posts, because asking me to do it means you want me to be able to do it.nope.
If I shouldn't have that ability, then maybe you shouldn't be asking me to edit your posts, because asking me to do it means you want me to be able to do it.
The difference is that one is fair and one is not because one was chosen and one was not. If you were born with a handicap that's a "life ain't fair" situation because you had no choice in the matter. With pregnancy you consented to the risk when you consented to sex, you had a choice, some degree of control, and having made your choice it manifests a consequence you knew about before hand; "you made your bed."
The difference is that one is fair and one is not because one was chosen and one was not. If you were born with a handicap that's a "life ain't fair" situation because you had no choice in the matter. With pregnancy you consented to the risk when you consented to sex, you had a choice, some degree of control, and having made your choice it manifests a consequence you knew about before hand; "you made your bed".
In the abortion forum, we move only in circles.
The current dilemma is related to "legal recourse" for men when an unintended conception occurs. In other word there is the contention that there should be a way to give men "equal" rights with a woman...which would allow the man to also determine the fate of an unintended conception.
This is just a terrible idea. It will create more broken homes, fatherless unwanted children and more people collecting public assistance or MORE abortions. What an AWFUL idea. :roll:
It's simple. A woman is not a mother just because she has given birth; she is a mother because she has given birth and kept the child. It should work the same for a man.
Let me offer the following situations that make this legal paradox so complex.
So now, we're quickly coming back to a huge part of this argument which involves...
Now we're to the point where we are going to engage in a circular argument.
There are "biological reasons" that there will NEVER BE EQUITABLE LEGAL SOLUTIONS...."YET" Smoke and Mirrors has pointed this out several times.
But I do want to say that I believe that in the near future that there will be a technological remedies to these legal problems.
There will always be things in life that will never be fair.
_________________________________________________________________________________
The current dilemma is related to "legal recourse" for men when an unintended conception occurs. In other word there is the contention that there should be a way to give men "equal" rights with a woman...which would allow the man to also determine the fate of an unintended conception.
1) a man can't prevent the woman from having an abortion...even it he wants the conception brought to full term and be willing to take full financial responsibility ...and custody without child support.
2) a man can't prevent the woman from having a child...even if before having sex they agreed that the sexual event was strictly for pleasure and not conception... again he can be forced by court order to be at least jointly financially responsible from prenatal care all the way to 18 years of age child.
__________________________________________________________________________________
My opinion regarding “surprise conceptions” is:
A) If a woman who has a "surprise conception"...and knows that she will abort. Her best option is not to disclose the conception. That automatically removes any adversities between her and the person she co-conceived with. There will be no legal arguments. And there will be no moral arguments.
B) If a woman has a "surprise conception" and decides she will carry it to full-term and she decides she will holds the co-conceiver equally responsible for all that follows...then the co-conceiver has no legal ground to opt out, therefore the co-conceiver must prepare to pay the piper.
C) If the woman discloses the "surprise conception" and is determined to have an abortion...then MUST BE AWARE AND BE WILLING to opening herself up to potential legal issues, moral issues, and other adversities that can be raised by the man she co-conceived with.
By circumstance of birth...women are already burden with a very unfair role in reproduction. Consequently, I'll ALWAYS support the following for women: If a woman conceives (regardless of circumstance around the cause of the conception)...and she chooses to abort for any reason whatsoever...prior to viability stage...regardless of the co-conceivers opinions or objections.
The current child support regime has created a moral hazard that produces broken homes and fatherless children. A paycheck and two weekends a month is not a parent.
It's simple. A woman is not a mother just because she has given birth; she is a mother because she has given birth and kept the child. It should work the same for a man.
How many people are in the world does not change the nature of the decision when an individual makes it. There could be 2 or 2 billion and pregnancy is still a known result of sex. It's a risk you accept when you have sex.Jerry...when only Adam and Eve existed....maybe, just maybe consent to risk when there was a consent to sex...was the rule...not the exception.
That was then....this is now. "THE RULE" has become "THE EXCEPTION".
You've got it backward. For eons now sex was, is, and probably always will be performed many, many, many, many more times for pleasure than for reproduction.
Today...when people have sex...it is automatically regarded that each sexual event IS FOR PLEASURE ONLY...NOT for reproduction UNLESS DECLARED to be for reproduction.
The "intended consequence" for having sex is "orgasms"...well, some women might add "expressing love"....UNLESS DECLARED to reproduce.
So now the NORM would also be: The "unintended" consequence of sex is conception unless declared otherwise!
And...nooooo, it's not a "You made your bed so now lay in it" world anymore. We're way, way past that concept.
That's as nonsensical as "keep peckers in pants" or "Keep legs closed". That's not going to happen.
There is 7 billion folks here now. How many folks existed before that? Humanity isn't at risk of extinction or even negative growth population problems.
All is good with populations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?