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.
You have it backwards. Abortion as merely a medical procedure is pushed to replace what it really is --- an ethical [not religious], scientific, legal, and political/social issue.
A Woman's body and what she does w/ it has no place in a Priest, Rabbi, Attorney (as long as procedure is legal) or Religious Right's conversation or business. If they choose to put their nose in a woman's business, then this is what havoc follows. They need to stay out of it.
Lots of things we all find morally unacceptable, but it's based on our own moral compass, which is based on hundreds of factors (childhood, religious upbringing or not, personality and lifestyle factors). It's way too individual to have some group or person intervening or getting involved for the "good of the person or society." They have no business in someone else's choices. It's legal, stay out of it.
Can a man choose to not be a father in the event of an unwanted pregnancy? No? I rest my case.
Well, during pregnancy he is not a father so there is that.
In the case of a child born with his genetic material, yes. You cant force fatherhood, you can only force financial contribution. Not the same thing.
Nope. Takes 2, a female and a male, to make a baby. Either both have the choice to opt out, or neither does.
THIS^^.
What if males who WANTED the child were allowed (legally) to force the female to go to term, when she wanted to terminate?
There'd be a massive hue and cry, feminists would go insane if this were so.
Neither sex should have the right to force parenthood upon the other. Neither.
Or conversely, and more fairly, BOTH sexes given the right to force parenthood on the other if one allows forcing to happen at all.
If a female chooses to bear the child the male should be exempted if he did not consent to the possibility of pregnancy prior to the sexual act.
Males are beholden to USE birth control/get vasectomies if they want to avoid fatherhood, and they SHOULD; trusting the female who "says" she is on b/c is foolhardy and irresponsible of the male.
But once a pregnancy is in place, the male's rights are then 100% in the female's hands. How is that remotely OK?
Last edited by VexedAndSolitary; 07-26-2017 at 10:48 AM..
Because one is a fetus, existing and dependent on the body of the host and the other is an actual born child independent of a host. No one can force fatherhood or motherhood for that matter. The courts can force financial contribution for the support of a child, that is all.
Why? If the woman can choose to abort or not, why can't a man choose to financially support, or not? Good for the Goose? Good for the Gander!
Not really. Biology dictates male and female gamates are both required to create a new potential life. Biology dictates the female body, the uterus, hormones and birth canal, is required to bring that potential life to fruition.
One can not force parenthood.
Absolutely, one can. Women do it to men all the time.
Women can choose to abort, and cannot be forced to be a parent. Men can't choose to abort, and are forced to be parents all the time.
Why don't those men who don't choose to abort just carry and deliver the baby themselves?
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.
