The government, since the child is a natural resource like a deposit of high quality ore to dispose of it should be out of the parents hands but if the state wants the child it should help raise the child.
I ha I hardly see the comparison of a child to a deposit of ore. By the way the state helps raise our children
As the forming human lives within a separate human until it leaves, it is under the control of it's host. Those who believe they are entitled to her decision process are confused egomaniacs with elevated ideas of self importance. Basically, You Ain't All That Dude!
I meant take over as raise the child from birth if the child is unwanted, but sterilize the parents for doing so to many times, if they must step in. Permits to have children would be preferable to me.
Wow.. let government control women's reproductive rights. Forced sterilization, forced breeding....Orwell would love you
What are you talking about ? "Law must be written as if abortion isn't an option". This is unsupported and makes no sense. Abortion is an option... An option that both parties are aware of prior to the act of sex. Consent to sex is not consent to having a child with someone. Your argument does not address the "Rules of Law" in question. If someone does not agree with abortion but consents to sex with someone who does not know about this who is the irresponsible one ? Obviously if the couple has not discussed having a child there is no intention to procreate. Procreation is a serious matter that carries considerable consequences in one' life. Not revealing ones intention to procreate - should an accidental pregnancy result from sex - is devious, nasty, disingenuous, and misleading. Regardless - even if the woman lies - and claims no desire to procreate but then later changes her mind ... she is not held responsible for the consequences of her action....and you say that I have not considered the full picture ? This is you projecting your lack of consideration onto me. You are trying to apologize for your lack of consideration of the ramifications for violation of the rule of law. Your argument "some states are opposed to abortion" ? A State is not opposed to abortion if it is legal. People are opposed to abortion and they have the right to this opinion. The fact of the matter is that if abortion is Legal under State Law ... it is Legal under state law. Your suggestion that the court pretend that abortion is not legal, when it is legal, is preposterous. This is false. 1) Your assumption that the consequences of sex are necessarily a child is false. The consequences of sex may be an unintended pregnancy. An unintended pregnancy is not a child. The woman has the ability to terminate that pregnancy. If she unilaterally chooses not to terminate the pregnancy then the consequence of that choice should be her responsibility because the man was given no input into that choice. Of course a person making the unilateral decision/action carries the burden of responsibility for the consequences of that action. It is absurd to suggest otherwise. Do you seriously want to go down this path ? Can you not see where this leads were we to use such a precedent on a regular basis? (People are not responsible for the consequences of their unilateral actions/decisions ?) Would you like a few examples ... Seriously ? You are trying to make one person responsible for the consequences of the unilateral action/choice of another. This is an anathema to the rule of law. 2) This also violates the principle of equality under the law. You want the law to dictate that a person who has been party to an unintended pregnancy is allowed to make the other party responsible for the consequences of a unilateral decision to continue that pregnancy. Great ... fine .. then let this be law. Just do not complain when you do not get to engage in discrimination in relation to which party gets to make that choice. The problem here is that you want to violated the rule of law when it suits you. It is you that has not given much consideration to this issue. Not me. It is you that is not considering the ramifications to this anathema to justice. That such precedent starts us down a rather nasty slippery slope. You also are being very disingenuous in relation to lack of recognition the potential misuse of legal anathema/ unjust law (women intentionally misleading men in relation to their desire to procreate) You are treating women like helpless victim .. that they are not responsible for their actions. Either you are for equality or you are not. Belief in equality is not belief in equality only for things you agree with. Everyone believe in that. Belief in equality is belief in equality for things you disagree with. You are just as bad as the religious right who would prefer that women be barefoot and pregnant... like in the "good ol days". Just like this is about power and control ... your motive is the same - power and control - not equality. This is like the puritan perspective "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free" .. that a woman should "get something" in exchange for sex. Have you considered what this is saying ? What do we call it when money, or something of intrinsic value, is exchanged for sex ? You want to have freedom for women but, at the same time want to live in a paradigm where women are the lesser gender... the weak gender, the powerless gender, the helpless gender. I stand for equality and justice. Of course a man should be responsible for the consequences of sex should it result in an unintended pregnancy. That responsibility is to restore the situation back to what was intended. He is responsible for paying the cost of abortion. Should he reject that responsibility, then he is responsible for the consequences of not having an abortion.
I keep repeating the same argument because you have yet to address this argument. I have stated numerous times that I think it should be the woman's decision. It is her body. It is you that is arguing that the woman is not responsible for the consequences of this decision. If a person is not responsible for the consequences of their decision then the person should not be making that decision. 1) "they equally created a third person" - this is patent fallacy. They equally created an unintended pregnancy. Your assumption that this unintended pregnancy (the single human cell we call a zygote) is a person is unsupported. 2) The decision to create a living human out of that unintended pregnancy is the "unilateral" decision of the woman. Do you agree with this or not ? You can't have it both ways. Quit dodging around and support your direct and/or inferred claims.
How on earth would you draw the conclusion that I think a woman is not responsible for the consequences of her decisions? Doesn't common sense tell you that she is responsible for either an abortion or for allowing a baby to develop and be responsible for it for 18 years? You're correct, they BOTH created an unintended pregnancy. And from what I understand this zygote becomes an embryo, a fetus and then a baby. Who should be responsible for the baby? yes I totally agree that The woman has the final decision whether to carry his baby to term or to terminate the pregnancy. And I keep asking you who should have the final word? I will then ask you was the decision unilateral to have sex or was it mutual? When they had sex where they both not aware of the consequences? As you say "Quit dodging around and support your direct or inferred claims" his choice was to have sex and risk having to support a child. He knows that
So this all boils down to....a man is the one to make the final choice. You seem to disrespect women..and I don't know why
No, they are equally responsible for the pregnancy. You agreed we aren't talking about rape or incest. I agree with this. If I said otherwise, I slipped up. It is not a person until born. It is her body. She is not under any obligation to have an abortion. The law says abortion is legal, but it does not impose any type of consequences for not choosing to go that route. It is fully understood that there are religious and/or moral implications that make this option not acceptable for many. The law is not going to be changed such that the man gets to skate if the woman sees abortion as an unaccceptable path for any reason - health, religious, or whatever. Our laws aren't really that focused on sex between partners who haven't thought through the ramifications together. A far more important issue is that children have adequate support. Plus, freeing men from their part in creating unwed mothers is also not really a state objective.
Again you fail to address the argument and the fact that your previous argument was destroyed. A baby will not be created if the pregnancy is terminated. Common sense does tell us that he is solely responsible for the decision to create a baby by carrying a pregnancy to term. Why then do you want to make someone else responsible for the consequences of the woman's unilateral decision? Consent to sex is not consent to a baby. I have never dodged your claims. You are the one dodging as you have not responded to my arguments addressing your "he knew the risks" claim. The risk if sex is an unintended pregnancy. There is a risk that an irresponsible woman will want to unilaterally continue that pregnancy. In such a case the responsibility for the consequences of her decision should be born solely by her. You want to force one person to be responsible for the consequences of a unilateral desire/decision to continue a pregnancy. If we violate the rule of law (equality) and accept your logic law (which I do not) the man should then be able to force the woman to be responsible for the consequences of his unilateral decision that a pregnancy should be continued. You position is hypocrisy.
Lacking material you now build a big strawman by falsely accusing me of something I neither said nor inferred. What this boils down to is that you are the one who disrespects women by treating them like helpless victims who can not take care of themselves or take responsibility for their actions. Further, your position is hypocritical, you have no respect for gender equality or equality under the law .. or the rule of law in general. Your position is self serving and you hate individual liberty .. except of course for liberty that you agree with.
Agreed. Where we disagree is on who is responsible for the consequences of the unilateral decision to continue an unintended pregnancy. Yes ... it is her body and her decision. The consequences of not having an abortion is that a baby might be created. Consequences that the person making that unilateral decision should be responsible for... and not someone who had no say in that decision. This is not about what the law is. It is about violating the rule of law - twice. Our Laws should be focused on abiding to the rules that which they claim to uphold. This is a digression but, if society really cared about children being adequately cared for we would not want Law that encourages children to be brought into disfunctional environments.
The normal course of events is that a woman gets pregnant and then has a baby. Having an abortion is NOT a normal course of events. It's legal. The woman won't be prosecuted if she has an abortion. The doctor won't lose his medical license. But, it is not even an option for many Americans. And, essentially all Americans want there to be fewer abortions. Many states work to make abortion hard to obtain and send congressional delegations that fight to make abortion illegal. At best, abortion is a grisly fact of life, not some choice a man gets to impose on a woman. You aren't going to get the law changed to suggest that if the normal course of events is followed, the man has no responsibility.
Are you listening to yourself ? You are completely ignoring the Rule of Law and suggesting law be made willy nilly to suit your personal opinion. What does "normal course of events" have to do with anything ? You keep running around in circles spouting this and that without addressing the arguments made. Get an argument ! As it sits you support violating equality under the law. As it sits you want one person to be punished for the unilateral decisions/actions of another. Fox tried and tried (and failed) and continued to stand by her position but, at least admitted that her position was hypocrisy. You can have your opinion ... keep it ... be glad you live in a country that allows you to have such a freedom ... even though you yourself do not believe in freedom ... but, just because you hate individual liberty (except or things you agree with of course) does not mean I have to agree with you. Just do not come crying to me when some law gets made that you don't like, a law that violates individual rights and freedoms that you wanted to keep, because it is people like you that are responsible for violating the basic principles on which this nation was founded. Belief in freedom is not belief in freedom only for things you agree with. Everyone believes in that. Belief in freedom is belief in freedom for people to do things you detest. Salmon Rushdie.
Where did you get the idea that I can use a selfish choice to obligate you to a lifelong financial commitment? If all we're talking about, according to pro choice folk, are a few cells, asking a woman who you didn't intend to impregnate to have a procedure, (like scraping off a wart as one poster on PF so boldly described the procedure) to redress the situation seems perfectly legitimate. And, if you then choose to ignore the man's wishes, you shouldn't, legally, be able to obligate them for your selfish choice. You just can't have this both ways. You can't tell us that the use of abortion to address non procreative sex is acceptable, and then run away from it when you find it convenient to create a life long servitude based on your selfish choice. It would seem to me that the very second that you decided on your own to go forward with a pregnancy absent the consent of the father that you adopt all of the responsibilities yourself.
No, it isn't having it both ways. This scenario is inherently assymetric. Abortion is legal, but that does not mean what you seem to think it means. It is not a choice everyone can make. And, it is the woman's body.
Then if it's a choice the woman makes because it's her body, then it is her legal obligation based on that choice. You cannot force a non approving entity to be financially responsible. So great, abortion is legal, and no one can "force" a woman to have an abortion, so a woman who chooses to not abort against the consent of the father is herself liable financially for her selfish decision. There is zero tolerance for an asymmetric scenario here.
Law by definition is punishment. Get an argument WRmore and avoidance is not one of them. You are against equal justice under the law and you hate individual rights and freedoms (except of course the one's you agree with - by wanting to make one person responsible for the consequences of the unilateral decision of another. Hopefully you will reap your just rewards some day. Karma can really suck.
I think the fact we are talking about Men's Rights proves it deserves a space of its own since Women's Rights has one of its own to have their issues talked about, unless the site wants to discriminate on my and others gender as men or just remove the Women's Rights section to be fair and screw both genders over. Fair is fair.
