And... if you make the decision to have sex, then be prepared to have discussions with the father about options should you become pregnant. The entire premise of your position is a prime example of how self centered our culture has become lacking all amounts of accountability. Sure you do. You have to create a victim, as if the mother did absolutely nothing and has no responsibility to the fetus growing inside her. In fact, you claim that the fetus is there without consent. The mother woke up one day, and BAM! immaculate conception. If a women desires to have sex, then her and the man are responsible for possible pregnancy. They both have a responsibility to share in the decision as well as raising the child should the decide to keep it. You mean "Anti-murderers" Ok, great. At what point of gestation is the baby a person. Can you answer that. Please do try.
"""They both have a responsibility to share in the decision as well as raising the child should the decide to keep it."""" So if the man wants the woman to have an abortion she has to, right?
fine, no problem with discussion . .however, it is still the woman who has the final decision. and nothing is more self-centred than someone having a child. BTW there is nothing wrong in being self-centred .. it isn't illegal. Nope not in the slightest, that is just pro-life hyperbole, and please do show me where I say that a woman (not a mother until after the birth unless she has other born children) has done "absolutely" nothing, and no she doesn't have to have any responsibility. nope, sorry they are not. All sex does is create the risk of pregnancy, and not even a very high risk at that, less than 9% for a single act of unprotected sexual intercourse. Not at all, the man's responsibility as far as pregnancy is concerned ends the moment he deposits his sperm unless you can show me where a man is legally expected to provide ANYTHING during a pregnancy or is it more a fact that a man can walk away at anytime during the pregnancy, it is only after the birth - should the woman decide to allow the pregnancy yo go to birth - that a man becomes legally responsible and for reference I don't agree he should be if he has made it clear that he does not want to be. Well as murder is purely a legal term and abortion is not an illegal action you would be fighting against something that simply doesn't happen, though I understand without the wholly emotional rhetoric "pro-lifers" have nothing. Though personally "pro-lifers" is a very wrong label, it should be pro-forced birthers. Doesn't matter .. it can be a person at conception or at anytime during gestation, that still does not change the legal arguments .. In fact by being deemed a person at conception is strengthens the argument FOR abortion and even adds in the fact that the state should be paying for them.
Unless it was a one night stand and she never saw the guy again, right? As I have said before, the man can have as many 'says' and give his opinion all he likes. It would be great if she listened to his opinion, but ultimately the final choice is hers to make. If he wants the baby and she wants an abortion she's probably going to have an abortion. If she wants the baby and he wants her to abort she'll probably have the baby anyways. Sorry but it is our body, it is our womb, we get the final say in what happens with it.
Being forced to gestate/birth a child and being forced to become a legal parent are two different issues, which were both affected by Roe v. Wade. The courts were right to address the former as a privacy/liberty issue, given the best knowledge and medical technology at the time. The fact that women's liberty rights were being violated before doesn't negate the fact that both men and women effectively and equally became legally bound as future legal parents from the time a child was conceived, barring legitimate accidents and acts of nature. (bolded emphasis mine) Can you provide some context for this quote? Exactly which issue was the court addressing there, since abortion was already legalized many years before that case? They still seemed to be framing it as a liberty issue rather than an equal protection issue. No I don't, and no there wouldn't The male in that story probably never told his partners that he never wanted kids. How many of his babies' mommas chose not to have an abortion because they thought he'd be in the picture, at least financially? If biological fathers were able to opt out of legal parenthood early in the mother's pregnancy, more women would be able to make informed decisions and there would be fewer children born into poverty.
The question I posed earlier was in response to your claim "it's better for the child." This spurious analogy of yours, which negates the idea the child has any rights or interests, still doesn't answer the question. How is it better for the child? Explain why it's fair people should ever be allowed to legally give up the right to be legal parents under any circumstance. The logic behind chasing men (and some women) for child maintenance even though they no longer have anything to do with them is because the needs of the child currently overrides those biological parents' rights to walk away completely, even if the other parent agrees to take full responsibility. If the needs of the child trumps all, why shouldn't biological parents always be at the very least "backup" parents in case the adoptive parents fail to provide for the child?
So his or her life remains stable and secure, with no threat of disruption. Because it's a stupid idea. Why should the loan company chase you for payments once you've sold your car? A child is entitled to be financially supported by both parents if possible, whether they be the biological or adoptive parents. If you don't like the adoption process, then lobby your MP.
The knowledge and medical technology are exactly the same now as then. Men still do not share a pregnancy.
I don't think so. I think that it should be a joint decision by both parties to have an abortion, and if they both can't agree... then the party who wants to keep the child should get sole custody without expectation of financial or other support from the other.
You are not pro-choice. Pro-choice means precisely that the woman makes her own medical decisions about her own body. That doesn't mean her partner can't have input in the decision, and most of them do, but a woman should make the final decision about pregnancy because it is a risk to her health and life and permanently damages her body.
right so as you have no relevant answer you resort to the standard pro-life manual of name calling and why would I want to see eye to eye with someone who wants to force their ideology onto woman through legal means? Because you have nothing to discuss. you are no more a pro-choice advocate than I am a devout Jehovah Witness. As a man I wouldn't be "spreading my legs" at all. I agree, let me know when you have.
You have an unusual definition of "pro-choice" if you think the choice belongs to anyone other than the woman.
So do tell, what is your definition of pro-choice? Just to help you along a bit Pro-choice : Advocating the legal right of a woman to choose whether or not she will have an abortion: - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/pro-choice
Choice. Choice about what to do with the baby. Yes... I believe that the father, you know, the other half of the required people necessary to make the baby.
I didn't say that. If the baby is to be terminated though, I think that the father should have to be at least consulted and consent.
Not in the slightest, though there are no 'babies' until birth. Men are pretty fundamental in procreation . .however, that does not mean that they have domain over a woman's body purely by virtue of supplying sperm to the process. Men do not cause a woman to go from a non-pregnant state to a pregnant one, that can only be accomplished by the fertilized ovum implanting into the uterine wall. Under the premise of person at conception neither the man or the woman can claim ownership of the fertilized ovum/zygote/embryo/fetus . .you cannot own a person, and as such the zef (zygote/embryo/fetus) would be treated in the same way any other person is treated and as such it cannot physically impose itself onto another person without that persons consent. Though all of the above does not address the question asked which was - "what is your definition of pro-choice?" - - - Updated - - - and if the woman wants an abortion, consults the man and he says no to the abortion . .what then?
for one thing there is no 'baby' until birth, baby in every single medical definition means the period of time from birth to (typically) one year old. The use of 'baby' to mean a fetus is purely disingenuous, it is an informal usage being used in a formal manner, and is usually incorporated by pro-lifers for the sole purpose of projecting emotional overtones, in exactly the same way that 'murder' is used. The problem with this is if the man's choice is directly opposite to the woman's then it can lead to the coercion of the woman. The man's choice can only be relevant when both parties are in agreement, should they disagree then ultimately the woman is the one with the final say-so as it should be, she is the one that is most effected by a pregnancy, not the man.
So here we go around in a circle again........WHY should the father be consulted if he cannot force a woman to either have an abortion OR give birth????????? NO woman should EVER need a man's consent or permission to do exactly as she pleases regarding HER reproduction.
He believes that in the same way you believe a woman can force a man to become a legal parent. You both try to dodge this characterization of your respective beliefs by claiming that it is (or would be) the law that forces them to do this, ignoring that the law is (or would be) giving one sex unequal power to affect the liberty of the other with their choices.
No, it's not. I've pointed out to you before it's not the law but nature that gives women a birth control choice after having sex. Women have different birth control choices than men, because their bodies are different. Women cannot use condoms because they don't have a penis. Men cannot use an IUD because they don't have a uterus. Men cannot abort a pregnancy, because they don't have one. Men have two choices. Use a condom with spermicidal jelly, or don't have sex with anyone they don't trust. No law can change that. Maybe in the fullness of time, the male contraceptive pill will be reliable, but until then those two choices are all that is available .
No, I do not believe a woman can force a man to become a legal parent. The law can force "men" to support their children. NO, I never dodged anything. Abortion and child support are two separate issues. One deals with an embryo in a woman's body and one deals with actual living breathing-air live CHILDREN. And ABORTION is the TOPIC. If a man can "say" if the woman should give birth or have an abortion THAT is "giving one sex unequal power to affect the liberty of the other with their choices". The whining about how unfair it is that only women can get pregnant won't change a thing. If it wasn't for support laws women and children would never be able to collect support from slob fathers.
