Men and Abortion

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I am talking about the case of abortio

If father spilled the seed then he has mo choice other than running away. I don't see why you have a problem with this. Or perhaps i am simply not understanding what you are saying.

As i said the mother is forced to take care of the baby. It do you think they are just dropped in the gutter?

The mother can choose to have an abortion if she does not want to take care of the child. A father cannot choose whether he wants to take care of the baby. If it is born he is obligated to take care of it. Why cannot the father decide to not take care of the baby if you support the mother to make a decision to not take care of a baby?

 

[Fool]

How so? This compiled research shows about 37% of fertilizations make it to birth.

Spontaneous abortion in humans

Sure, what makes it ethical to abort the unborn? Do financial concerns trump the right to life of the unborn?


Empower who for what?

how does requiring someone to give birth in the face of spiritual, financial, or physical disability given anyone empowerment?

why do you feel, believe you need a law to control someone else in such an intimate situation?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Yes and the father can force an abortion.

Really? How so?

Or the mother and father can agree on an abortion

Yes

Or the father can run away and not want any input in the decision.

Yet in most states he can be forced to provide for the child (as he should be)

And in the end the mother carries the fetus, it is her body

If she chooses to.

However an abortion os becoming more difficult in the US which is going to see the results of its narrow sightedness with more unwanted children, more absentee fathers

And less lives ended.

 

[Revoltingest]

How did this decision violate this principle?

Going by the opinions of most justices, including
testimony under oath by both Kavanaugh & Gorsuch,
Roe v Wade was indeed settled law. (Barret stated it
wasn't an important precedent. At least she was honest.)
Ref...
How Trump's three appointed SCOTUS justices discussed abortion precedent during their Senate confirmation hearings.

For 2 justices to rule against their own learned legal &
constitutional opinions in favor of religious leanings is
indeed a violation of their duty (IMO).

True, this is why each state should decide for themselves what abortion laws they want since it is not defined in the constitution.

Republicans are already stating that making abortion
illegal in every state is on their agenda.
Many things considered rights aren't defined in the Constitution,
eg, gay marriage, interracial marriage, contraception, recording
interactions with cops, the right to be apprised of one's rights
when arrested, the right to blaspheme, the right to inclusive
education (not separate but equal), etc, etc.

And finally, the Incorporation Doctrine, which extends federal
recognition of rights to the states, could be extinguished.
It's not in the Constitution either.
This would mean that only federal legislation is limited by
the Bill Of Rights. States can do as they please, including
establishing religion. Utah could become officially Mormon.

Be very cautious about demanding that only enumerated
rights are our civil rights, & that only the federal government
need honor them. And Clarence Thomas should watch his
back, lest his wife's "jungle fever" become illegal, & they're
prosecuted for miscegenation.

What did the republicans/Trump do that was not lawful in picking justices? How did they orchestrate the openings to the court?

I'm not privy to private discussions between Trump
& his nominees. Did they collude to pretend to support
RvW? Or was this just a personal agenda of the justices?
On the latter, it could be that Trump expected this.

 

[Shaul]

Whoa, there. You assume the woman got pregnant and not the man. Maybe the woman identified as a man and the man identified as a woman and the man who thought he was a woman was the one who got pregnant. You should check your cisgender binary sexism before someone labels you a bigot.

 

[Fool]

Sure, what makes it ethical to abort the unborn? Do financial concerns trump the right to life of the unborn

yes they do. a potential again is not an actual. you're not even considering the conscience of the person being forced into this.

you're dancing all over the place with this as if the actual circumstances are irrelevant in making life decisions.j real people, living in the real world, make decisions that don't necessarily lead to fairy tale outcomes of Its A Wonderful Life.



you pretending that a fetus best option is to be born under any circumstant; which is a belief. a person may not be psychologically mature enough to manage that. yet you're all for mothers giving birth at any cost.

that is not healthy psychologically.

i know someone who did. she gave birth in a culvert once. psychologically she can't even take care of herself. she may even be deceased now.

i know of someone who had 9 children. she's currently trying to get rid of the only one she has. he's at risk because of anti-social behavior. she's never raised one to adulthood. many of them have psychological issues because of her circumstance. she was molested as a child and is an addict.

why would you want children to be born into suffering and misery?

 

[Fool]

Going by the opinions of most justices, including
testimony under oath by both Kavanaugh & Gorsuch,
Roe v Wade was indeed settled law. (Barret stated it
wasn't an important precedent. At least she was honest.)
Ref...
How Trump's three appointed SCOTUS justices discussed abortion precedent during their Senate confirmation hearings.

For 2 justices to rule against their own learned legal &
constitutional opinions in favor of religious leanings is
indeed a violation of their duty (IMO).

Republicans are already stating that making abortion
illegal in every state is on their agenda.

I'm not privy to private discussions between Trump
& his nominees. Did they collude to pretend to support
RvW? Or was this just a personal agenda of the justices?
On the latter, it could be that Trump expected this.

I've read that a few of the former retired judges that sat on SCOTUS aren't happy with the decision.

 

[Fool]

Whoa, there. You assume the woman got pregnant and not the man. Maybe the woman identified as a man and the man identified as a woman and the man who thought he was a woman was the one who got pregnant. You should check your cisgender binary sexism before someone labels you a bigot.

FYI intersexed people can still have children.

 

[Revoltingest]

He made the choice when he spilled his seed

Are you arguing that the choice to have sex means that
any & all burdens imposed by law upon the father are
justified...& that the superior range of choices available
to the mother are good public policy?
Nah.
Taking your quaintly phrased rationale, & reversing it, the
mother should have lesser rights because she chose to
make the "blanket hornpipe" when she was ready to
conceive....something only she would know.

.The mother has to carry the fetus. It is often the case that the father has done a runner or denies any responsibility which is the driver for so many abortions.

Are you generalizing from the actions of some, that
public policy should treat all fathers as such?

However if the father is sticking around then the choice should be a joint decision.

But it is not.
The father has the right to speak, but it ends there.

There is also the case where the father insists on abortion and uses psychological pressure or even violence to force the issue.

Again, generalizing about all fathers to their detriment?

Oh no, surely not, let the absconding seed producer get away with it

I favor equal responsibility under the law,
ie, that both parents are responsible.

And don't call me Shirley.

In a joint relationship the decision is (or should be) equal.

"Should be" & "actually are"...those have different meanings.

In the case of the absconding father, what's the problem?

What if the mother flees?
All your argument appears to presume fathers being
a lower class of citizen than mothers, & apparently
justifying giving mothers superior rights.
I've known cases to the contrary, where the father is
the responsible one. (Yes, it really happens.) But the
law is loath to treat the matter as such.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've read that a few of the former retired judges that sat on SCOTUS aren't happy with the decision.

Ya know...I can understand that.

 

[Shaul]

FYI intersexed people can still have children.

For your information that doesn’t contradict anything I wrote. And did you just label them children before they were born or even conceived?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

how does requiring someone to give birth in the face of spiritual, financial, or physical disability given anyone empowerment?

Is empowerment the goal? or is guaranteeing the rights of the unborn the goal?

why do you feel, believe you need a law to control someone else in such an intimate situation?

How is it controlling them? Is it controlling them to force a mother and father to take care of their children?

 

[Left Coast]

In reality that is a possible outcome of having sex.

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

I agree sex is not just for procreation. However, one of the actual possibilities of sex is a child. If you decide to have sex and a child is created you are morally obligated to take care of that baby.

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

I agree they need to help with healthcare etc.

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

That is a special case and a different discussion.

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.

You are wrong.

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.

It is a dishonest tactic. It like telling me I am prochoice because I am an atheist. One has nothing to do with the other. They are different issues with different ethical considerations.

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

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.

If she chose to have sex then it was not against her will. How many men and women do not understand that sex can lead to pregnancy? Are women not capable of understanding this in your view?

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

I have asked you why you think they made the wrong decision.

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

Again, if you want to present an argument, do it.

 

[Fool]

Is empowerment the goal? or is guaranteeing the rights of the unborn the goal?

How is it controlling them? Is it controlling them to force a mother and father to take care of their children?

you're a service to self type.

 

[ChristineM]

Are you arguing that the choice to have sex means that
any & all burdens imposed by law upon the father are
justified...& that the superior range of choices available
to the mother are good public policy?
Nah.
Taking your quaintly phrased rationale, & reversing it, the
mother should have lesser rights because she chose to
make the "blanket hornpipe" when she was ready to
conceive....something only she would know.

Are you generalizing from the actions of some, that
public policy should treat all fathers as such?

But it is not.
The father has the right to speak, but it ends there.

Again, generalizing about all fathers to their detriment?

I favor equal responsibility under the law,
ie, that both parents are responsible.

And don't call me Shirley.

"Should be" & "actually are"...those have different meanings.

What if the mother flees?
All your argument appears to presume fathers being
a lower class of citizen than mothers, & apparently
justifying giving mothers superior rights.
I've known cases to the contrary, where the father is
the responsible one. (Yes, it really happens.) But the
law is loath to treat the matter as such.

I am pretty sure you could rrad what i wrote.

I am not bothering with what ifs and hypocriticals. The guy spilled the seed he is half responsible, end of story.


Oh anf thanks for the "quaintly phrased" compliment, trust me on this, that means a lot from an edumacated Scottish groundskeeper

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Going by the opinions of most justices, including
testimony under oath by both Kavanaugh & Gorsuch,
Roe v Wade was indeed settled law. (Barret stated it
wasn't an important precedent. At least she was honest.)
Ref...
How Trump's three appointed SCOTUS justices discussed abortion precedent during their Senate confirmation hearings.

For 2 justices to rule against their own learned legal &
constitutional opinions in favor of religious leanings is
indeed a violation of their duty (IMO).

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

Republicans are already stating that making abortion
illegal in every state is on their agenda.

Sure, how will they do that especially with this ruling? Do you think California, New York etc. are going to ban abortions anytime soon?

Many things considered rights aren't defined in the Constitution,
eg, gay marriage, interracial marriage, contraception, recording
interactions with cops, the right to be apprised of one's rights
when arrested, the right to blaspheme, the right to inclusive
education (not separate but equal), etc, etc.

I agree. So what makes these things rights?

And finally, the Incorporation Doctrine, which extends federal
recognition of rights to the states, could be extinguished.
It's not in the Constitution either.
This would mean that only federal legislation is limited by
the Bill Of Rights. States can do as they please, including
establishing religion. Utah could become officially Mormon.

Ok, do you think this is likely?

Be very cautious about demanding that only enumerated
rights are our civil rights, & that only the federal government
need honor them.

I never demanded this.

And Clarence Thomas should watch his
back, lest his wife's "jungle fever" become illegal, & they're
prosecuted for miscegenation.

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

I'm not privy to private discussions between Trump
& his nominees. Did they collude to pretend to support
RvW? Or was this just a personal agenda of the justices?
On the latter, it could be that Trump expected this.

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?

 

[Revoltingest]

I am pretty sure you could rrad what i wrote.

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

I am not bothering with what ifs and hypocriticals. The guy spilled the seed he is half responsible, end of story.

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.

 

[Truth in love]

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?

Finical support for sure yes. Its a bit harder to mandate co-parenting, but they should not just write a check and take off. As it takes 2 to make a baby those 2 should be responsible for raising the child. That said not every man who is physically capable of getting a women pregnant is going to be a willing father. That is more of a cultural issue than a legal one.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

yes they do. a potential again is not an actual. you're not even considering the conscience of the person being forced into this.

Yes I have.

you're dancing all over the place with this as if the actual circumstances are irrelevant in making life decisions.j real people, living in the real world, make decisions that don't necessarily lead to fairy tale outcomes of Its A Wonderful Life.



you pretending that a fetus best option is to be born under any circumstant; which is a belief. a person may not be psychologically mature enough to manage that. yet you're all for mothers giving birth at any cost.

that is not healthy psychologically.

i know someone who did. she gave birth in a culvert once. psychologically she can't even take care of herself. she may even be deceased now.

i know of someone who had 9 children. she's currently trying to get rid of the only one she has. he's at risk because of anti-social behavior. she's never raised one to adulthood. many of them have psychological issues because of her circumstance. she was molested as a child and is an addict.

why would you want children to be born into suffering and misery?

If this is your argument for abortion then are you against abortion if the child will be born into a good situation? What if a 6 month old's parents come on hard times, should that child be killed?

 

[Fool]

Yes I have.

If this is your argument for abortion then are you against abortion if the child will be born into a good situation? What if a 6 month old's parents come on hard times, should that child be killed?

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