Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fact that biology puts the responsibility of child birth on a woman, does not negate the rights of the father in protecting his unborn progeny.
The fact that biology doesn't just place responsibility on the woman, but that the woman's health and life and well-being are all placed at risk means that her rights supercede a man's.
"There is a difference in a fetus and a born child."
Great!
Can you explain some of those differences without rehashing rationalizations for the T-4 program?
Yes. A fetus is parasitic on the female host located within the female body. It needs no money, food, nurturing, care other than what is being given by the female body. It is the obligation of its host.
A baby is a free living organism outside of the mothers body. A baby needs food, shelter, nurturing, and care, things no longer provided by the host body. It is now the obligation of its creators. Plural.
Quote:
"And if the father can legally block an abortion can he also force his wife to have one?"
I believe we all need to be held accountable for the choices we make, and since I've never encountered an abortion supporter who didn't believe that men had their "choice" when they decided to copulate, I believe women are not children who must be shielded from their own silly nature and lack of adult faculties, so the same standard should apply to women as men.
If you don't want a baby, don't **** as though you did.
I agree. And abortion is a tool to carry out that accountability if BC fails.
Quote:
The child never asked to made dependent on the mother's body for the first several months of its development.
The parents made that decision and the parents need to held accountable.
Its irrelevant that a zygote did or did not make a decision.
Exactly! Hey, what if we have a compromise for all the women saying "But...But...Women who are pregnant are practically guaranteed to have all sorts of hosts of issues!!!" if a woman does indeed end up having lots of problems the man pays for her recovery and medical expenses, but if it ends up being smooth sailing with very little to no issues he can decide to opt out?
Why do you say "the man" pays for a pregnant woman's recovery and medical expenses? The point about the possibility of complications isn't necessarily about the cost, but simply having to go through it if one doesn't want to.
Did we all forget along the way that topic is when a man forces a women to have sex against her will in the first place? Forces her to get pregnant and then stay pregnant? You are all talking about a woman choosing things/ concenual sex when the matter of the fact is in the case this law is referencing the woman had no choice about the sex... she was raped.
Aside from rape and abortion, the law sets a precedent for spouses making and forcing medical care on adults who are capable of making their own medical choices. For example, if you don't want a medical procedure done because it will reduce pain, but there is risk, your spouse could sue your doctor not to do it using this law as a precedent. You want a knee replacement but the wife doesn't want it done because of how it will impact her life, she could sue to stop it. You want a pacemaker for you failing heart, your husband or wife could stop it. That's what this law is about and it will be overturned in court because of it. No court is going to uphold any sound-minded adult being forced or prevented from having a legal medical procedure done by another person.
Did we all forget along the way that topic is when a man forces a women to have sex against her will in the first place? Forces her to get pregnant and then stay pregnant? You are all talking about a woman choosing things/ concenual sex when the matter of the fact is in the case this law is referencing the woman had no choice about the sex... she was raped.
Aside from rape and abortion, the law sets a precedent for spouses making and forcing medical care on adults who are capable of making their own medical choices. For example, if you don't want a medical procedure done because it will reduce pain, but there is risk, your spouse could sue your doctor not to do it using this law as a precedent. You want a knee replacement but the wife doesn't want it done because of how it will impact her life, she could sue to stop it. You want a pacemaker for you failing heart, your husband or wife could stop it. That's what this law is about and it will be overturned in court because of it.
And how is any of the above different from a woman forcing fatherhood and 18+ years of child support payments on a man who doesn't want the child? Choice cuts both ways.
Exactly! Hey, what if we have a compromise for all the women saying "But...But...Women who are pregnant are practically guaranteed to have all sorts of hosts of issues!!!" if a woman does indeed end up having lots of problems the man pays for her recovery and medical expenses, but if it ends up being smooth sailing with very little to no issues he can decide to opt out?
And who is going to give her back the fully functioning body she had before the pregnancy? Yeah, see, there are many, many things that money cannot buy, and a pre-pregnancy/labor/delivery body is one of those things.
That is something that, as a man who will never experience those particular "joys", you will never, ever, ever understand.
And how is any of the above different from a woman forcing fatherhood and 18+ years of child support payments on a man who doesn't want the child? Choice cuts both ways.
It's different because his body is not being controlled by another person. Medical procedures to his body aren't being controlled by another person. He is not being forced to NOT get a medical procedure done that he wants to do. Raising a child that both created is not the same as telling a woman she should be forced into a pregnancy that was forced upon her (because again, this law would apply to spousal rape).
You keep saying "choice cuts both ways" but it's simply irrelevant. Your comparisons don't make sense. This IS exactly like a wife trying to stop her husband from getting heart surgery. This is one person, one legal consenting adult, trying to interfere with the medical choices of another legal consenting adult and her body.
And the woman doesn't force child support, the court does. If a man really doesn't want a baby that badly, he should abstain from sex. You act as if a pregnancy a man doesn't want is not at all his fault or responsibility, like he is some victim of some nasty, plotting woman. No one's buying it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
