Men and Abortion

[Revoltingest]

The source you gave did not include a quote from Kav or Gorsuch that indicated they said it was settled law.

Perhaps you're hinging that claim on exact wording.
But I'll go with intended meaning.
Excerpted from the article....
"The Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe versus Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the 14th Amendment,” Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch stated during his confirmation hearing. When Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) pressed Gorsuch about whether he accepted that, Gorsuch replied, “I accept the law of the land, senator, yes."

While this isn't quoting Kavanaugh, do you dispute this
account of his testimony?
"During his hearing, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court."

Sure, how will they do that especially with this ruling? Do you think California, New York etc. are going to ban abortions anytime soon?
I agree. So what makes these things rights?

Some states will. Other states won't.
But some talk of federal legislation to ban abortions.

Rights are created by consensus.
This is something sorely lacking now.

Jeeze. Really? Are you saying Clarence Thomas is from the jungle?

"Jungle fever" is an old term for white women
who boink black men. If Thomas wants to turn
the clock back on un-enumerated rights, then
he & Ginny might find themselves single again.

Trump publicly said he was only going to pick justices that are willing to overturn Roe v Wade. Show me where they said they would not overturn Roe v Wade?

I'm accusing the justices of dishonesty.
So it follows that they'd not make public statements
that would disclose that which they want to hide.
Duh.

 

[ChristineM]

I rrad [sic] it carefully.
Hence my questions, observations, & opinions.

Dismiss all of the many facets of the issue with
one simplistic quaint wave of the hand, eh.
Oh, dear.
Sounds misandrist to me.
And back with the "hypocritical" barb again?
Get over my having dissed your Limey fops.
That's old news.
Or did you mean "hypothetical", in which case
the "hypocritical" accusation is ironic, given your
many hypothetical assumptions to justify fewer
rights for fathers.

<Yawn/>

 

[Revoltingest]

<Yawn/>

A common feminist reaction to
discussing men having rights too.

 

[ChristineM]

A common feminist reaction to
discussing men having rights too.

Dont forget the responsibility too

Despit the spelling error it seems you have not read my posts and therefore i simply cannot be bothered

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Yes, a possible outcome. Dying in a car crash is a possible outcome of driving. Lots of things are possible. So what?

Since we know that dying is a possible outcome we do things like wear seatbelts and obey traffic rules to minimize that risk. We also know that if we hit someone else we are responsible for that accident and should be prepared with insurance to take care of it.

Once it's born, or at least viable outside the womb, yep I agree. Before that, calling it a "child" is absurd.

I prefer potential child. Who knows when personhood is? The fatc is at least 37% of fertilization events will be carried to term if left in the womb.

So you agree with @Fool's original question to you that men should be required to care for unwanted children of theirs?

Yes.

It isnt a different discussion at all. It's entirely relevant. Should women who don't consent to sex have the right to an abortion if they get pregant from that sex? Laws are literally being implemented right now that do not permit this exception. As a result of the SCOTUS decision you're praising.

Maybe. However we are talking about less than 0.25% of all abortions if I remember right. It is a different discussion because it is no where near the norm.

I wait with baited breath for you to start advocating those policies on this forum then, with the same energy with which you're opposing women's bodily autonomy.

I will if people want to talk about them. Start a thread.

If you call me dishonest again, we're going to have a problem.

I never called you dishonest. I said you used dishonest debate tactics. When you strawman others arguments that is a dishonest tactic.

If someone is going to say they're so passionate about the right to life, it isn't dishonest to point out their double standard when it comes to related issues. If you care so much about babies, show me, don't tell me. That isn't dishonest. It's rightly calling out hypocrisy and double standards.

I say I am pro life because I am against abortion, that's it. When you say I cannot be prolife because you have a different definition of the term, that is a dishonest tactic. It is fallacious.

Oh give me a break. Again, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

Do women and men not know a pregnancy could occur if they have sex?

Because I believe abortion ought to be a basic right as a function of bodily autonomy. As I've now explained.

You have not explained how the decision they made was against our laws somehow.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

you're a service to self type.

What does this mean?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

once the spirit has taken possession, the human has taken the breath of life, then no. it's murder. that moment in the delivery room, waiting for that definitive moment is the beginning of humanity. everyone waits with bated breath. Breathe, breathe, waaaaahhhhhhhh

So you are ok with aborting a child in the 8th month of pregnancy?

 

[Revoltingest]

Dont forget the responsibility too

Despit the spelling error it seems you have not read my posts and therefore i simply cannot be bothered

And I'm a big fan of responsibility & egalitarianism,
which you should know if you read my posts.

 

[ChristineM]

And I'm a big fan of responsibility & egalitarianism,
which you should know if you read my posts.

Why when you don't read mine?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why when you don't read mine?

Ambiguity & error raise questions.
So I asked.
You passed...or did I misread "<Yawn/>"
Perhaps you're not as clear as you believe.
It pays to review & edit one's posts for clarity.

 

[Fool]

What does this mean?

it was a response to your questions.

 

[ChristineM]

Ambiguity & error raise questions.
So I asked.
You passed...or did I misread "<Yawn/>"
Perhaps you're not as clear as you believe.
It pays to review & edit one's posts for clarity.

Nope you didn't ask, you argued and i am mot playing

My views are clear, they are not controversial, you dont like them or don't understand them then tough

 

[Fool]

So you are ok with aborting a child in the 8th month of pregnancy?

let me be very clear. i don't like abortion. i don't like being saddled with someone telling me what i can and can't do with my body. i do unto others as i would have done unto me. love works like that. it doesn't work on possible love. it works from actual/realized loved

i'm saying that the parent has to make the decision and the parent has to live with the decision. i do not want to make that decision for someone else. but that won't change the fact, that spiritually or physically that fetus isn't a human.


you can project your beliefs all you want. won't change a thing but you empathizing with potential life shows depraved indifference for actual life.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope you didn't ask...

Hint...
Watch for question marks.

 

[Left Coast]

Since we know that dying is a possible outcome we do things like wear seatbelts and obey traffic rules to minimize that risk. We also know that if we hit someone else we are responsible for that accident and should be prepared with insurance to take care of it.

Yes, and people take contraception and use other safe sex practices to keep from getting pregnant. But **** happens. And yes, if men get a woman pregnant and especially if she's not able to abort it, the man should certainly be financially responsible for the fetus. From the moment of conception.

I prefer potential child. Who knows when personhood is? The fatc is at least 37% of fertilization events will be carried to term if left in the womb.

So you want to confer personhood rights onto something that you don't even acknowledge is a person? Sperm and eggs are also potential life.

Yes.

Then why didn't you just say that? Instead of making up all these distractions of "well if abortion is a right then blah blah blah..."?

Maybe. However we are talking about less than 0.25% of all abortions if I remember right. It is a different discussion because it is no where near the norm.

Maybe? When should women not be permitted to have an abortion after having been raped? Since your whole premise here is that women should accept pregnancy if they had consensual sex.

I will if people want to talk about them. Start a thread.

You are also free to start threads about issues you care about.

I never called you dishonest. I said you used dishonest debate tactics. When you strawman others arguments that is a dishonest tactic.

I didnt strawman you, at least not in any way you actually demonstrated.

I say I am pro life because I am against abortion, that's it. When you say I cannot be prolife because you have a different definition of the term, that is a dishonest tactic. It is fallacious.

Life has a pre-existing definition that we use in English. Again, no matter how many times you say it is, it isn't fallacious to point out that your support for the right to life ends after birth, if you dont support other policies that promote life. You're pro-birth. That isn't dishonest. It's accurate.

Do women and men not know a pregnancy could occur if they have sex?

I'm not going to keep repeating myself for you.

You have not explained how the decision they made was against our laws somehow.

I never said the decision was "against our laws somehow." Lots of legal things in history have been ****ty and immoral.
Moreover, SCOTUS is the body that determines whether actions or policies are "against our laws somehow." And furthermore, you haven't explained why you object to the dissent's rebuttal of the decision. So we're having a discussion about nothing on this point. If you have an argument to make....make it. Or move on.

 

[ChristineM]

Hint...
Watch for question marks.

Hint, misrepresentation is not asking.
And that's when i turned off

 

[Revoltingest]

...misrepresentation...

I advise not doing that.

 

[ChristineM]

I advise not doing that.

Good, then don't do it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Good, then don't do it.

FWIW I don't intend to misrepresent
anyone (except in joke threads).

 

[ChristineM]

FWIW I don't intend to misrepresent
anyone (except in joke threads).

I apologise then, perhaps it was misinterpretation