Why Should Men Have ANY Say In Abortion?

Which countries?

ahem...Mothers do have to help support their children in the USA.

You really ought t do a bit of research before you go sounding off.

Wow....children are not assets, you know .

Custody is always shared whenever possible.

Resident custody is always given to the main caregiver, unless there's a reason not to. Drug dependency or illness, perhaps.

You make yourself look stupid when you come out with all this tosh.

 

YUP. I agree...But it's the LAW that forces him NOT the woman.....and even the LAW can't REALLY force him since he's free to run and hide....

 

Custody should be given to the man??? Most don't want it...how would that work?

Why are YOU so concerned about out of wedlock children?? What difference does custody and child support have to do with in wedlock or out of wedlock...NOTHING

LOL! You sound like you got burned and now , for you, all women are evil conniving B s who are taking advantage of those poor little helpless men....LOLOLOL!!!!

 

Really? I was under the impression that each state had its own laws and guidelines for determining child support payments, and that most of these are based on income... None of which has anything to do with the sex of the non-custodial parent.

I believe that the main reason men tend to pay more for child support is a combination of factors:
1) most marriages that break down do so while the kids are still fairly young.
2) mothers are more frequently the primary caregivers, while fathers are more frequently the income earners.
3) even where both parents are employed, the father most often earns a higher salary.

As a result, the most frequent scenario is that young kids are awarded to their primary caregiver, who has less capacity to support them financially.

This could be changed if women were paid the same as men and men didn't find it emasculating to be the primary caregiver and secondary breadwinner. In other words, we can't "have our cake and eat it too".

 

Are you suggesting that men don't know that sex can result in pregnancy?
If a man chooses to have sex with a woman, he is willingly choosing to accept the possibility that she will become pregnant. If he doesn't have a relationship with the prospective mother that's suitable for making a mutual decision if/when she gets pregnant, perhaps he shouldn't have been getting her pregnant in the first place...

Isn't this the same level of morality we try to reinforce on women? Why should men (such as myself) be exempt from taking the moral high ground, then whine about the consequences of actions we willingly undertook? Doesn't that just make us all hypocrites?

 

You need both actus rea and mens rea for a conviction of murder in such a case. Manslaughter (also a crime) is a different story.

There is a difference between stepping into a car resulting in the death of someone, and sex resulting in a child. You need to understand the concept of false equivalence. The express purpose of a car is not to kill, it is to travel. On the other hand, the logical end and purpose of sex is pregnancy. It is quite literally the means of reproduction for a our species, and there is no argument against this fact. Whether or not they had the intent in mind of pregnancy or enjoyment is not of importance here.

You can fire a weapon at a target and not intend to kill anyone, but if you do so in the middle of a town towards a crowd of people, you are still guilty of manslaughter when someone dies as a result. This is criminally negligent manslaughter. In my opinion, anyone who engages in sex with any chance of pregnancy is being extremely negligent, and any pregnancy that results is the fault of both their actions and negligence. Unless they were incapable of resisting that sex, they are both responsible in the resulting pregnancy.

As to the last sentence I quoted you on, I think you need to seriously look at your logic there. To me, it seems like you are saying, -"Creating a human being does not = a human being. Creating a human being doesn't logically end in a human being, it only has the possibility in ending with a human being."

This is nonsense. A building being built has the necessary funds, resources, and everything to continue on to completion. It is scheduled to. If someone bombs the foundation during construction or afterwards they both stop the building from existing. Just as someone destroying a plane on the runway and destroying it in the air both stop it from flying. An abortion stops a person from living.

 

So you believe there is a "person" from the moment of conception?

 

The man is not free to not pay child support. At least not if you are living in the US. The woman sure as hell can force him.

Child support laws arbitrarily assign responsibility to the man for something (in this case) he is not responsible for. Then to make matters worse the Judge most often will arbitrarily award sole custody to the woman and force the man to pay her (in many cases) ridiculous amounts of money. This money often does not even go to the child.

Even if we were to say - lets make both parties equally responsible ( and this is retarded given the woman is "solely" responsible for what happens to the pregnancy") this is still a farce as the woman is not held equally responsible by the courts.

There have been numerous studies that have found reverse discrimination to be the rule.

You seem have trouble not making off the cuff slanderous side remarks against men. This is fine but even if these things were true (men are children .. and so on) this does not justify rampant inequality and discrimination.

These laws are from the dark ages when women were "victims". They were second class citizens in every sense of the word and in fact even less than that because even a second class citizen often had more rights.

You seem to want to revert to those times where women were nor responsible for their actions in relation to children because they were at the mercy of men. At least this is the world you seem to want to live in.

 

Abortion stops the reproductive process which has already begun, destroying a unique group of cells which have a specific and unique set of DNA ,and would, without interference, be as any other human walking, talking, and breathing around us in society. Abortion stops a unique and separate person from living out their life in this world. Now, as to there being a soul or spirit or if the cells in the body could be called a "person", I can't really say. I suppose I believe there is life at conception, but whether I do or do not really doesn't matter so much in wake of the fact that there will be, and as such abortion does stop them from living.

If B will follow A, stopping A is also stopping B. That is of course ignoring pregnancy complications, but I do not think these can be included as they are not what is naturally suppose to occur or what we can expect to occur. Therefore, as far as we can understand normally, B will inevitably follow A, thus stopping A is also stopping B.

 

That's the whole point of abortion, isn't it? The woman concerned doesn't want B following A inside her body.

As A doesn't become B, then no person is harmed.

 

No you are right the intent is not of importance, what is of importance is that the fetus, as a protected person by the state, has to adhere to the same laws that restrict all other persons, one such law is that it cannot impose itself onto another person without consent.
For the purpose of law the zefs mens rea would be declared as mentally incompetent ie it cannot be held responsible for its actions as it does not have the ability to understand its actions or have any malicious intent in it's actions . .however, this does not mean the zef has free reign to impose itself onto another person, on the contrary the state has a duty to help protect people from being imposed upon even from a mentally incompetent person.

If you would care to re-locate to this topic - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/363145-abortion-choice-consent.html
you will find I have laid out the arguments .. it would be interesting to see your responses.

BTW ; Sex does not create a human being, it only creates the risk not the actual.

 

Give me some examples of that.

Besides, a woman can pay for an abortion herself. she doesn't need the states help to "protect" her.

 

A bunch of male politicians (and a few female ones) are getting together in back rooms as we speak trying to figure out how they can force a woman to give birth so clearly it is not the end.

Would you like a few names ? (Ryan, Bachman, .... and so on)

 

It is strange that you agree that the continuance of the pregnancy is the sole responsibility of the woman but then claim that it is somehow the man who is responsible for consequences of the woman's action.

You claim (the man has to support his child) but you have not backed up this claim.

If the woman can not support the child on her own then she should not be having the child.

If this child going to be a burden on society then perhaps the state (and or the Father) has a legitimate right to force the woman to abort ?

- - - Updated - - -

You just keep repeating your premise over and over again but give no justification for that premise.

 

Serbia ... heck, in some countries such as Saudi Arabia woman do not have any rights to the child.

LOL in the vast majority of cases the women are awarded a form of custody where the man has to pay (even if they are sharing time on a relatively equal basis).

Like you have given any research.

Right - with the woman getting child support and the man getting the shaft.

And the woman gets "resident custody, primary custody" almost by default. The system is completely discriminatory.

You are the one who can not seem to come up with an argument that justifies your claims so it is a bit of a joke you calling me stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

I realize that the law forces him. The point is that the law is not just.

 

You are starting to babble incoherently and throwing out ad hom is not exactly an argument for much.

You keep repeating your premise "he is the father" over and over again but you have yet to connect how being a sperm donor makes him responsible.

If the man is going to be made responsible for a child once it has been created then he should have a choice in whether or not that child gets created.

 

1. The argument provided to prove that sex does not consent to pregnancy or has nothing of importance to do with pregnancy fall into false equivalence and fail. Such as the analogy of jogging at night inviting rape. It fails because jogging at night is not the necessary action for someone to rape you, though it may be similarly negligent as casual sex. On the other hand, sex is the necessary and only mechanism for someone to become pregnant. Thus to engage in sex is to purposefully put oneself in a position to become pregnant. Such as jumping on railroad tracks when a moving train is coming. Ultimately, the train will be what kills you, just as it is argued the fetus will "make" a woman pregnant, but the true and ultimate cause of your demise is that you were on the tracks in the first place is yourself.

2. Pregnancy cannot and should not be blamed upon the fetus actions alone. While it may be understandable to some that sex and pregnancy should be separated as they are, to label the fetus as the cause is wrong. The fact is that it is not the fetus alone, but the woman's body itself which changes itself from a normal state to a pregnant one. It supplies both the nutrition, environment, and many other things for the fetus to exist. By the logic of the arguments you have given, the woman is just as much a cause, if anything she is injuring herself. This, beyond her original consent to sex, being the cause of the resulting fetus.

3. The arguments fail in assuming the fetus controls its actions in any way, or rather simply being the source of them, such as they are an incompetent insane person. This is untrue, because the fetus is not truly the source of its actions, rather it is forced into them in every way conceivable. Its very presence is due to actions of the woman body. Therefore, one could say the duty of the state is to protect a person incapable of defending themselves, from being killed by someone who is incapable of acting differently (the someone doesn't "choose" for their body to become pregnant, thus women in this case are incompetent and insane as well!).

I will attempt to make an analogy of this. You force a limbless person into your house, you make the argument that they are imposing their will on you because they will not leave (or rather cannot leave because of your actions) and are benefiting from your roof, thus you believe yourself entitled to use lethal force to remove them.

Lastly, most of your arguments are based around law, which I really couldn't care so much about (ironic isn't it?). Primarily because law is not morality, and in today's age often wrong in its attempts to solve everything.

 

It would be the end of their campaigns. No matter how Americans feel about abortion most want it legal.
LOL! But you keep falling for Republican's promise that they'll DO something about it (to get votes)

 

Sorry but this is mostly a bunch of twaddle.

Once a child is above the age of 2 or 3 there role of "primary caregiver" is completely irrelevant. Either parent is fully capable of taking care of the child.

All the current system does is make one parent slave to the other. The normal situation is that both parents will have the child on a roughly equal basis but for some reason one parent gets all the financial benefits and the other parent is treated like a wallet by the courts.

Not only does the parent who is deemed "non resident/non custodial" have to pay (regardless of whether he makes more than the other parent or not, or regardless of whether the other parent has remarried and so on) the state does not even recognize the contribution of the non resident parent (no tax break) and no benefits from the state.

You cant generalize the average in come of all women to individual cases.

You have plenty of cases where the woman makes similar wages to the man and where they share time but she still gets all the support and all the benefits.

Regardless.... this is more for cases where the child was agreed upon.

The case at hand is where continuance of pregnancy was not agreed upon.

 

I never attacked you or insulted you in any way...try not to be so sensitive.

In the post of mine you quoted (above) NO where did I say "he is the father".

You say, ""If the man is going to be made responsible for a child once it has been created then he should have a choice in whether or not that child gets created. """

That means you believe that a man can force a woman to either give birth or force her to abort....and you scream about "fair" ?????

Oh, and how about when you quote me you try really hard to address that post?

 

Not at all.

If a woman becomes pregnant by accident then there is a decision that can be made. Whether to end or whether to continue the pregnancy.

A pregnancy need not result in a child. The decision of whether or not to continue the pregnancy is that of the woman.

Since it is her decision, she is the one responsible for the consequences of her actions unless she an prove otherwise.

I agree that folks should be responsible for the consequences of their actions. The consequences of sex is not a child. At least not in this day in age.

Should the condom break there is the morning after pill, Should the pill not work there is abortion.

Either way it is up to the woman to decide whether or not to continue pregnancy.

Unless of course you think we should make a law that allows the state to force a woman to have an abortion should she be felt to not have the means to be able to support a child.

 

Doesn't stop them from trying. Texas has managed to close most of its clinics by making it near impossible for doctors to perform abortions.

 

Good for Texas screwing all those "dads" who will be paying enormous, devastating support payments when women can no longer get abortions....or the taxpayers who will be supporting them when "dad" turns tail and hides