Being pro-life wasn't the only criteria. It is the dastardly combination of being both pro-life AND believing that men should have the right to evade supporting their own child.
Which actually seems quite fair, since society puts an obligation on women to actually give up those aforementioned 18 years to raise a child...
Which actually seems quite fair, since society puts an obligation on women to actually give up those aforementioned 18 years to raise a child, while the most it demands from men is part of their paychecks. Meanwhile, women get pregnant and men don't. It sounds like women get all the responsibility already. Why shouldn't they get all the choice?
Either way, since she is the one who gets pregnant and the fetus lives in her body, there's really no possible way to say any person besides her has the right to decide on whether or not she obtains an abortion. There is just no way to make the argument that she doesn't have that absolute right and that other situations don't involve a person losing control of their body as well.
That's exactly what I said. I was talking about those here are suggesting men should have the right to opt out of supporting their child. I pointed out those who are pro-life and gave two examples of how they are looking for a way to evade being responsible for their own kid.That's not what you said, now is it? It doesn't matter though. I think I've gotten all I can out of this thread, chief among what I've learned is what a powerless victim I am to women (I always suspected as much) and that I can choose to opt out of the consequences of my actions (that'll come in handy with my next speeding ticket).
My mistake. I thought you were making the argument that abortion being birth control rather than emergency life saving medical procedure (which it still sometimes is) somehow sullies it and is some kind of sneaky agenda conspiracy thing. Some people argue that. I thought you were. Carry on.
I don't buy that myth... I know women like it... calm down.
Bottom line. Women can have an abortion as a means of birth control. If they don't want a kid they can have an abortion. Deflect it all you like, as most do. I'll just stick to that point and wait for somebody to refute it with logic.
Incorrect. Doe v Bolton declared that "the medical judgment [that an abortion is required] may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age." No "irreparable damage to a major bodily function" is required whatsoever.
In otherwords, the only "burden of proof" is that a baby would be inconvenient and difficult (and since when are babies ever easy?), or that emotionally you dont' want a child. It is a barrier that is effectively non-existant due to the broad and vague language attached to it. ...
.
She is specifically paying to support the child so "Yes, she's paying child support"
What she isn't paying is "court-ordered child support".
...
....
...and if the man could opt out the woman would be more careful, selective and safe... .
Should a man have an absolute right to have his baby aborted?
In the alternative, should he be granted relief from all legal responsibility if it is his clearly stated wish to abort but the woman decides not to?
Let me preface my remarks with this disclaimer; I am Pro-Choice and I support a woman’s absolute right to choose to have an abortion for several reasons, including the fact it is the woman who must endure the pregnancy to carry the child to term, and then follows the lifelong responsibility to raise and care for any child born.
The dilemma occurs when the woman unilaterally decides to have the baby, even when the male does not wish to accept that long-term responsibility.
In a recent news report, a young man was so desperate not to have a child that he tricked his girlfriend into taking a morning after pill. Now I do not support or condone this action, but it does bring up the thesis issue for me…why does the male partner have no say in a decision to keep the baby?
When a woman makes the unilateral decision to keep the baby this then compels lifelong legal and emotional obligations on the part of the unwilling father. This creates resentment and recriminations in both parties. By attempting to force the man to marry and/or support both her and the child this only serves to create a negative environment for all concerned, especially for any child to grow up in.
Since we now have a simple method of aborting in the early stages of the first trimester, without needing an invasive surgery, why should the absolute choice to keep the baby reside with the mother? If it does, why can’t the man be legally relieved of further responsibility to both parties?
I have offered several voting options, please pick and then explain what do you think? I am especially interested in arguments for why the woman has the sole right to keep the child while making the man permanently responsible.
There are no inconvenient reasons allowed after viability unless you think major psychological damage which falls under irrepable damage to a major bodilily function in Kansas law is an inconvenience reason I myself don't ...to me the brain ( mind ) is a major bodiliy function.
Woman's age .. A 10 year old body is at risk during a pregnancy , same with a 50 some year old in some cases also falls under irreparable damage in Kansas law.
And there were only 132 cases major irreparable damage to a major bodily function which also included things like kidney, liver, and other organ failure in 2008 in Kansas.
....
<SNIP><SNIP>
At the time, Kansas law required a second opinion from a licensed physician before a woman could obtain a late-term abortion in order to prove that she would suffer "substantial and irreversible" harm to a major bodily function if she continued with her pregnancy. Mental health was considered to be "a major bodily function."
<SNIP>
Neuhaus freely admits that her documentation was indeed sparse on detail. She notes that the Kansas district attorney began investigating abortion clinics, including Tiller's, in 2003. (Until his murder in 2009, Tiller was one of the few doctors who would perform abortions on fetuses older than 25 weeks.)
The records -- which contained personal details about the young women Neuhaus evaluated -- were obtained by Kansas District Attorney Phil Kline in 2007.
Neuhaus knows how Kline got them: His lead investigator, she says, tricked her into handing them over by falsely promising her that he'd give them right back.
The records contain few identifying details about the females, but in one case, Neuhaus describes a 10-year-old girl who was raped by her uncle as “tiny” and physically incapable of being able to have a baby.
The male however, could take responsibility and not create the pregnancy in the first place (avoiding the entire question).
I think Shiek is just making things up to iritate you.I'm pro life. Where did you get any of that from anything I posted?
Consenting to sex is consenting to have a child, and SCOTUS doesn't need to say it for it to be true, so asking for SCOTUS quotes is just stupid.
Doesn't appear that way....but I am definitely onboard with you in this matter.
It is only coercion to the man.It's coercion...if women are forced to engage in other choice than they might not have...
No it is not.That is invasive, an infringement of rights.
Dictate?How is giving men the right to dictate this,
What is being proposed is easily enforceable.You couldn't realistically enforce a law like that without huge difficulty.
Of course women pay child support. Where on Earth do you come up with this stuff???
I don't see anybody here trying to get out of financial support for just the period the woman is pregnant and not the 18 years which follow. You are completely lost. But since you believe the majority on your side feel that way, it should be very easy for you to quote some, as I did, who clearly say that.....
There are no inconvenient reasons allowed after viability unless you think major psychological damage which falls under irrepable damage to a major bodilily function in Kansas law is an inconvenience reason I myself don't ...to me the brain ( mind ) is a major bodiliy function.
Woman's age .. A 10 year old body is at risk during a pregnancy , same with a 50 some year old in some cases also falls under irreparable damage in Kansas law.
And there were only 132 cases major irreparable damage to a major bodily function which also included things like kidney, liver, and other organ failure in 2008 in Kansas.
Risk to life/ major bodilily function and not being viable are the reasons allowed after limit of viability in Kansas.
The reason non viability - still birth and the fetus being so malformed it will only live a few hours or minutes are extreme cases are because if the fetus dies in the womb and is not removed quickly it can turn septic and cause a life threatening infection in the woman.
Therefore the viability reason is really a risk of the woman's life reason but it is recorded as non viable in the Kansas records.
She is specifically paying to support the child so "Yes, she's paying child support"
If the father wasn't such a dead beat, neither would he
"All Factors" to include "emotional". If the woman emotionally doesn't want a kid, that justifies its' killing. Sure you can push the "age" bit to its extremes and ask what about 10 year olds;...
Doe v Bolton effectively gets rid of any restrictions by making the "harm" hurdle so broadly defined as to include anything including regular childbirth. I realize that's a problem for you because you've latched on to this artificial barrier of "viability under current technology" as some kind of magical border, but there it is nonetheless...
.
No it does not because get rid restrictions as seen in the Kansas cases. It does not allow abortions except in extreme emotional/pscological cases. It does allow doctors with some state restriction such as an independent 2ed doctor to make allowances in extreme cases where bodily harm including psychological harm will occur if the pregnancy continued.
Less than .1 percent of all legal abortions in the USA after the limit of viability which is currently at 24 weeks gestation and has remained unchanged for 12 years.
They don't realize what you are saying. The underlined.On the contrary, I have yet to see anyone argue in favor of a post-birth abrogation of responsibility assuming he knew of the child.
"All Factors" to include "emotional". If the woman emotionally doesn't want a kid, that justifies its' killing. Sure you can push the "age" bit to its extremes and ask what about 10 year olds; which obviates the fact that it equally applies to 28 year olds who think that their family would be negatively effected ("familial", you will recall) by the addition of another child not at all.
...
Familial Dysautonomia (FD) is an autosomal recessive sensory neuropathy that affects about 1 in 3,700 individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. The underlying biochemical and genetic defects are unknown, thereby precluding prenatal diagnosis in at-risk families. Recently, the FD gene (DYS) was mapped with strong linkage disequilibrium to polymorphic markers in the chromosome 9 region q31-q33.
Incorrect - she is raising a child, which was her choice. If she chooses to put the child up for adoption (end her responsibilities to it) she won't owe a dime in Child Support.
:shrug: if the father was afforded equal treatment under the law, your argument would have more merit.
...
Oh goody :roll: Even if I took your numbers at face value, the murder of millions of children doesn't exactly excuse itself.
So your beef is that women have more options then men? How about premenstrual medications? Do you have a beef because women have more options with those too?
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?