Men and Abortion

[Fool]

Dying to save someone's life isn't what most people mean by suicide and it's just a diversion from the real suicides happening.

so you don't see that service is to all and not just some?

so if a person is suffering, or potentially going to suffer, it's okay to save someone else from that suffering but not self?


god, unconditional service to love, isn't to someone otherwise and not to self too


like i told another person about psychological maturity. mature people don't live in black and white absolutes.


your religiosity, the need to look "good" is blinding you to the fact that someone is suffering. if the person can't help, they need to quit being a stumbling block, get the hell out of the WAY of LOVE

 

[Wildswanderer]

so you don't see that service is to all and not just some?

so if a person is suffering, or potentially going to suffer, it's okay to save someone else from that suffering but not self?


god, unconditional service to love, isn't to someone otherwise and not to self too


like i told another person about psychological maturity. mature people don't live in black and white absolutes.


your religiosity, the need to look "good" is blinding you to the fact that someone is suffering. if the person can't help, they need to quit being a stumbling block, get the hell out of the WAY of LOVE

If you had experienced someone you know commiting suicide you would never support legalizing it.
If you had experienced someone being so blind as to not get someone help and letting them die you would not support that genocide either. I've seen both. And it's not love to let someone die.

 

[Fool]

If you had experienced someone you know commiting suicide you would never support legalizing it.
If you had experienced someone being so blind as to not get someone help and letting them die you would not support that genocide either. I've seen both. And it's not love to let someone die.

i've had three members in my family to commit suicide. one was in psychological pain and the other two in physical. all three were older adults.

again, psychologically mature people don't make absolute statements.


life isn't about quantity. it's about quality.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Slippery slope. " I'm depressed this week so let me die." Do you know how many times some older person starts to go downhill and then recovers? And who gets to decide who is of sound mind?

No. The criteria should be someone with a terminal or chronic illness and is under a doctor's care for a certain amount of time. There are tests for competency.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

When the father carries the child and gives birth then you have a point.


The Christian right took away the ownership of the womans womb but are unwilling to pay for that theft. Yup sounds very christian right to me

No. The ownership is still the woman's. She needs to be responsible what she does with it. Why are there dead beat dads but not dead beat moms? Fathers can only sign away their rights if the mother agrees to it. Mothers can have an abortion and the father has no say in it. In the end I think that if a man and woman make a decision to have sex they have a moral obligation to take care of the child if a woman gets pregnant.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

SCOTUS overturned Roe, indicating that they do not recognize abortion as a right. And several states have abortion bans that have gone into effect immediately due to the SCOTUS decision or will go into effect shortly.

Yes, states may ban abortion, SCOTUS never did.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

That would depend on why they are "prochoice" and how they motivate that.

I'm "prochoice", but that doesn't mean that I think "anything goes in all circumstances".

As I said in my reply to the OP...
This topic deals with very contextually dependent situations.
You'ld have to look at it on a case by case basis.

Take, for example, a scenario where a 30-year old woman really wants a child, but doesn't want a boyfriend.
She tricks a guy into a one-night stand, making him believe she is on the pill and that getting a child is not an option no matter what, in an effort to actually become pregnant - and succeeds.

It would be very wrong to force this guy to financially support them now.


The other way round... A guy in a long term relationship, buys a house with her, plans on growing old together and plans on children. Then when the girl is pregnant he says "see ya" and refuses to help out with the child.
Now that situation is very very different.... Here, the guy has a responsibility. He made prior commitments.
You can change your mind all you want. Yes, you can leave her - and the kid even. But you still have prior commitments with financial impact. You can't just "choose" to run away from those.

See?

It's easy to imagine scenario's where it can go both ways.

I would say in both cases there is a moral obligation by the father to take care of the child. He was not tricked into having sex which can result in pregnancy no matter what birth control method you use. There is responsibility that comes with having sex.

 

[ChristineM]

No. The ownership is still the woman's. She needs to be responsible what she does with it. Why are there dead beat dads but not dead beat moms? Fathers can only sign away their rights if the mother agrees to it. Mothers can have an abortion and the father has no say in it. In the end I think that if a man and woman make a decision to have sex they have a moral obligation to take care of the child if a woman gets pregnant.

If you don't want the responsibility then keep your penis in your pants. The man is just as responsible as the woman. Just because some men run away like cowards from their responsibility does not make and difference to the mortality of being responsible,it just makes them a coward.

There are dead beat moms too but it is the womans task to carry the fetus, makes it kind of difficult to run away. I guess this gives cowardly men a good excuse.

 

[Left Coast]

Yes, states may ban abortion, SCOTUS never did.

I really don't know why you guys keep falling back on this paper thin excuse. You know perfectly well that multiple states had trigger laws that go into effect as soon as Roe is overturned. You know full well that the whole reason SCOTUS was able to overturn Roe is because a state abortion ban case was brought before them. So in overturning Roe, everyone who has any clue what's going on understands that the de facto effect of the SCOTUS ruling is that abortion is now banned or about to be banned in multiple states.

So please don't play dumb. Your whole original premise of "if abortion is a woman's right..." is now irrelevant.

 

[The Hammer]

jesus commited suicide. military assisted suicide. even tells you he laid down his life. he could have kept silent and allowed everything to run its course. let god take care of it. but instead he decided to assist and got killed for it.

there have been people who have thrown themselves on a bomb/grenade to reduce the blast. there have been women who have stepped in front of their children to shield them

in the real world there are no absolute black and white. psychologically mature people don't make absolutes statements and if they do, they realize later they were mistaken.


the only absolute is that there are no absolutes

"And about the ninth hour (three o’clock) Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?—that is, My God, My God, why have You abandoned Me [leaving Me helpless, forsaking and failing Me in My need]?" Matt 27:46

Matthew 27:46 - Bible Gateway

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, states may ban abortion, SCOTUS never did.

That is indeed a factual claim. But it belies the machinations
behind circumstances.
Those particular new justices appear to have been appointed
with prior intention of over-turning Roe v Wade. The reasons
are either explicit (Trump) or shown by dishonest confirmation
testimony (saying RvW was very settled law). And now Steele
announces wanting to use the ruling to ban abortion nationwide
in Congress after the mid-term elections.
The GOP would overturn the filibuster to impose a national abortion ban if it wins the midterms, ex-RNC chief suggests

To what extent they colluded in creating this situation I don't
know. Shared goals of the fundie wing of Republicans is a
good explanation.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I think people who are suffering that want to die peacefully should be allowed to do so. They have to decide when they can make those choices independently, before they get so bad they can't think well.

Slippery slope. " I'm depressed this week so let me die." Do you know how many times some older person starts to go downhill and then recovers? And who gets to decide who is of sound mind?

Doctor and patient.

I'm all for assisted suicide and death with dignity.

I don't think Dr. Kevorkian should have been punished, I'm pro Kevorkian. If I'm not mistaken, the individuals he gave ease of passage through assisted suicide were afflicted by a disease or otherwise inescapable death sentence, and some were even suffering from agonizing pain.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Should men who have casual sex and father a child be required, made law, to financially and physically raise their unwanted and or unplanned babies? forced to coparent?

Actions have consequences. Should you be held accountable for the consequences of your actions?

If you answer "yes" to the above, what does it matter whether you are the male or female?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

If you don't want the responsibility then keep your penis in your pants. The man is just as responsible as the woman. Just because some men run away like cowards from their responsibility does not make and difference to the mortality of being responsible,it just makes them a coward.

I think you need to read my post more carefully. I 100% agree with you and this is what I said in my post.

There are dead beat moms too but it is the womans task to carry the fetus, makes it kind of difficult to run away. I guess this gives cowardly men a good excuse.

But there is a double standard on the prochoice side. A lot of prochoice people expect the father to take care of their child but find is somehow heroic when women decides not to. Why are reasons a woman may want an abortion such as financial reasons not apply to the father as well?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I really don't know why you guys keep falling back on this paper thin excuse. You know perfectly well that multiple states had trigger laws that go into effect as soon as Roe is overturned. You know full well that the whole reason SCOTUS was able to overturn Roe is because a state abortion ban case was brought before them. So in overturning Roe, everyone who has any clue what's going on understands that the de facto effect of the SCOTUS ruling is that abortion is now banned or about to be banned in multiple states.

Do you care about what is true? I agree many states will ban abortions. But the truth is that SCOTUS did not ban it. Have you read the reasoning behind the decision?

So please don't play dumb. Your whole original premise of "if abortion is a woman's right..." is now irrelevant.

No it is not. The people of each state get to decide if it is a right. That is more freedom and democracy in action. Many states will keep abortion legal, many won't. Why cannot the people of each state choose?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

That is indeed a factual claim. But it belies the machinations
behind circumstances.
Those particular new justices appear to have been appointed
with prior intention of over-turning Roe v Wade. The reasons
are either explicit (Trump) or shown by dishonest confirmation
testimony (saying RvW was very settled law). And now Steele
announces wanting to use the ruling to ban abortion nationwide
in Congress after the mid-term elections.
The GOP would overturn the filibuster to impose a national abortion ban if it wins the midterms, ex-RNC chief suggests

To what extent they colluded in creating this situation I don't
know. Shared goals of the fundie wing of Republicans is a
good explanation.

Have you read the majority decision in the Dobbs case? What do you disagree with in that decision?

 

[rational experiences]

Maybe a man said to himself be celibate was the answer. To inequality of the human body.

As a woman's vagina was created sealed.

When the word holy father means a humans sexual place loving innocent babies and family no matter who they became bodily. By sex.

Maybe he knew his sexual choice forced a pregnancy he didn't want nor thought right to give a woman.

As he didn't get bodily converted as a woman did by sex. Where pregnancy could kill her. Child birth excruciating agony.

So he stared having sex with his brother instead.

As conscious living human awareness is exact to where thoughts exist and choices are then made.

As life isn't what you claim it is legally.

 

[Left Coast]

Do you care about what is true? I agree many states will ban abortions.

No not will. Are already. Present tense. Not some day maybe. Today.

But the truth is that SCOTUS did not ban it. Have you read the reasoning behind the decision?

They gave the green light for abortion bans across the country by declaring that there is no constitutional right to abortion. Surely you know this. That is why the antiabortion movement is so happy about it. And no member of SCOTUS misunderstands the effect of the ruling.

No it is not. The people of each state get to decide if it is a right. That is more freedom and democracy in action. Many states will keep abortion legal, many won't. Why cannot the people of each state choose?

Because we have a long history of states deciding whether certain people should get certain basic human rights and falling back on the excuse of "states rights." It didn't work out great for the people who were unlucky enough to be in the wrong state at the wrong time, if you might recall.

So again, enough with the technicality excuses. You want abortion to be broadly banned. SCOTUS gave you the green light. So it's happening right now in multiple states.

 

[Revoltingest]

Have you read the majority decision in the Dobbs case? What do you disagree with in that decision?

Have you read the majority decision in the Dobbs case? What do you disagree with in that decision?

That would be involved.
It's too late for that now.
But I'll be reading trusted summaries rather
than the ruling itself. (Dense stuff that.)
Some issues....
- 9th Amendment & the "deeply rooted right" question.
- Settled law.
- Defining personhood's beginning.
- Justice motives.

 

[rational experiences]

Karmic. Men should wear penis chastity belts. Your turn to be stopped from having sex.

As men don't get pregnant.

If men say I've the same rights to the baby it's because so many of you today fakely role play being a woman.

And with your brother want to be pregnant.

Is part of why you quote particular man conscious reasonings.

Women who can't get pregnant are angered at abortions claiming life is unfair. As it is.

Some women pay surrogacy so a woman losing work pay rights is compensated...but you have to be good looking.

Others adopt for the same reasons.

Babies not wanted nor cared for.

The reason human women claim rights is because men never gave us any.

Our body was physically sealed.

It's always about what men claim is right.

The status said you should have remained celibate first. Then no further evil in life would have existed.

As your story said I came from a holy place into human life.

For that first man it would have meant no further presence of your life continuance as you owned death.

Is the real history.

Being a legal medical position owned a lot of human reasoned status.

I'm pro life but I don't pretend I should control someone else's experience in life.

Most problems will exerted over choice. As women were self aborting.

No where in that review was the man involved in sex owned life threatened.