Abortion

John Creasy wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

It is the known existence of violence and the threat of violence against women that the Supreme Court contemplated when it ruled that men (especially men like Greasy) have no right to be notified when a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy.

Maybe there is just some things in life that you should never do, like mess with a man's kids.

There you go again. Exhibiting your possessory, controlling, sexist view of your alleged male property interests and making threats again.

Admit it, acknowledge it, and live with it: You have no legally recognizable rights to tell a woman anything when it comes to HER decision whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy. So there. Whatcha gonna do about it besides punch a hole in the wall?

Maybe you shouldn't go around threatening people not to mess with you. I think you ought to go to anger management classes and learn to manage your sexist control issues before you hurt someone if you haven't already done so.

and if a man were to try to force my daughter (or my nieces), married, unmarried, in love or not, to bear him a child against her will....

John Creasy wrote:

Maybe there is just some things in life that you should never do, like mess with a man's kids.

correctomundo, johnny boy....

and if a man were to try to force my daughter (or my nieces), married, unmarried, in love or not, to bear him a child against her will....

well, let's just say that my principles as a man would come into play.

There you go again. Exhibiting your possessory, controlling, sexist view of your alleged male property interests and making threats again.

One question,
Since its entirely up to a woman to decide if she wants to carry that child to term,since the man has no say in the matter,does this mean that it is 100% the fault of the woman if she gets pregnant?

If a man has no say in whether or not that fetus is allowed to live,because women say "its my body",then it is no longer a mans responsibility to use a condom,is it?

Remember,"its your body",so you take full responsibility to prevent pregnancy.
Is that fair?

If he doesn't mind contracting diseases or paying child support.

Freeduck,
You said...

Quote:

If he doesn't mind contracting diseases or paying child support.

Now,if a woman chose not to use any form of birth control,remember "its her body",then why should the man be responsible for child support?

Its her body,she knew the risks,and she made the decision,because "its her body" to not use any birth control.

So,since she made the choice,and "its her body",then there is no way that the man should have to pay support.

Remember,"its her body",so its her responsibility.

Its her body,she knew the risks,and she made the decision,because "its her body" to not use any birth control.

So,since she made the choice,and "its her body",then there is no way that the man should have to pay support.

Remember,"its her body",so its her responsibility.

mysteryman wrote:

Freeduck,
You said...

Quote:

If he doesn't mind contracting diseases or paying child support.

Now,if a woman chose not to use any form of birth control,remember "its her body",then why should the man be responsible for child support?

Its her body,she knew the risks,and she made the decision,because "its her body" to not use any birth control.

So,since she made the choice,and "its her body",then there is no way that the man should have to pay support.

Remember,"its her body",so its her responsibility.

A man is responsible for fathering children. The woman has veto power. So long as the child remains in her body and is not yet viable, it is her decision whether to bring it into the world. Once it's here, though, it belongs to both parents unless a court order says otherwise.

You are also making a huge assumption that all pregnancies are a result of a behavioral "choice" to not use birth control.

mysteryman wrote:

Its her body,she knew the risks,and she made the decision,because "its her body" to not use any birth control.

So,since she made the choice,and "its her body",then there is no way that the man should have to pay support.

Remember,"its her body",so its her responsibility.

I have some difficulties with your logic - but never mind.

However, here in Europe it not only takes two to tango but for sex as well.

Obviously, MM, the law would disagree with you. What you are advocating is zero responsibility for men for their actions. Whether you want to accept it or not, having an abortion is one way to accept responsibility for a pregnancy. Birth is the other. In a case where a man and a woman disagree as to what the outcome should be, whose point of view should weigh more in your mind? Someone's has to prevail.

In a case where a man and a woman disagree as to what the outcome should be, whose point of view should weigh more in your mind? Someone's has to prevail.

Simple,the one that should prevail is the one advocating LIFE.

mysteryman wrote:

Simple,the one that should prevail is the one advocating LIFE.

Why?

According to your argument, men should have no legal responsibility for children, so why would a woman who wanted an abortion choose to carry to term because the potential father wants it? If things went your way, she'd have no legal expectation of support from him.