So the woman has the right to choose, she decides to keep the child even though you don't. You are forced by a judge to take a paternity test which shows you are the father. You are forced too pay child support for at least the next 18 years. The same goes for same sex partners, you have a child or adopt a child then one walks out, that one is forced to pay child support. Suppose some new law comes out that the father could sue too force the woman to have an abortion... Which option would you choose, to pay child support or force the woman to have an abortion?
""""Suppose some new law comes out that the father could sue too force the woman to have an abortion...""" That's not too far off base....if abortion were ever banned, that would mean no woman had a right to her own body therefore it could possibly be a case of forcing women to have abortions for whatever reason...
So now who is dancing around the question. Abortion is a states right issue. Louisiana just signed a 15 week law, no abortions past 15 weeks. Iowa the heartbeat law, which is usually about six weeks when the fetal heartbeat can be detected via ultrasound.
Your statements are too far out with to. I take the child and raise it myself if need be. I already have two out of four..
It's a simple question, would you force the woman to have the abortion? Or accept her choice and pay child support?
FoxHastings said: ↑ """"Suppose some new law comes out that the father could sue too force the woman to have an abortion...""" That's not too far off base....if abortion were ever banned, that would mean no woman had a right to her own body therefore it could possibly be a case of forcing women to have abortions for whatever reason... What question am I dancing around? And why are you dancing around this post of mine you quoted....??? It looks like you agree with me that having more and more anti-abortion laws will lead to women being FORCED to have abortions... Why not? If women lose the tight to their bodies then they can be forced to have abortions...loss of rights is loss of rights...can you prove otherwise?
Moonglow said: ↑ Your statements are too far out with to. I take the child and raise it myself if need be. I already have two out of four.. Uhh, don't you READ the posts you quote? He gave his answer in the post you quoted….see, the bolded above? What does it say? It answers your questions...
I am pro-choice so "Forcing" is not an option either way. The mother gets to decide what to do with her body, just like I do.
No one should ever be forced to do anything. If you are paying child support it is because you chose to have a child.
Just like a woman trapped in a pregnancy because the laws in the country she lives does not allow her to have an abortion? You don't see the dichotomy between the female parent and the male parent? If the male parent says he doesn't want to be a parent after the pregnancy has already begun, you say "too bad, he chose to have a child". But you don't say the woman chose to have a child when she gets pregnant. Care to explain the seeming inconsistency in your belief set?
That's because the woman can decide not to have a child. He chose to engage in an action that may result in 25 years of child support payments. Once his ingredients mix with hers, the choice becomes hers and hers alone. She should not be forced to carry or abort. If you want to move the bar to other countries we can discuss primitive laws that force mans will onto women. Because she was murdered and robbed of her choice at the same time.
That has to do with the UVVA , Unborn Victims of Violence Act. It's murder because she was robbed of her choice, she wanted the fetus , therefore it had value to her. The UVVA has a clause that in effect says it has nothing to do with abortion rights and it doesn't, abortion is a separate issue. The UVVA does not make a fetus a legal person with rights. Robbing people of their choice is quite bad, no matter who does it.
That doesn't matter. The choice was stolen from her. Besides , a fetus has to be at a certain stage before it would be murder according to the UVVA...and most fetuses are aborted before that.
In a civilized society everyone should have a right to their own bodies. Yes, there are laws to protect everyone , not just those unable to defend themselves.
Then it wasn't murder. It was destruction of property. It is a human or it isn't - it was murder or it wasn't. You can't have it both ways.
Where the F did I say I wanted it both ways? I was explaining the UVVA ….I didn't write the act nor did I indicate support for it....find out who wrote it, who passed it and discuss it with them. It shouldn't be murder unless the fetus was at 23 weeks....
I was responding generically. As a matter of logic, it cannot be murder and not be murder simply depending on the circumstances.
