GG america -.-
You have the bodily autonomy to use birth control. This is a longstanding legality in regards to child support. FOR BOTH GENDERS.
If you define unsafe sex as a contract between 2 parties which may lead to a child, both parties bear the responsibilities and choice for that child.
If you don't agree to the contract.... USE BIRTH CONTROL.
My only gripe here is that the same lobbies may fight access to birth control as well, but thats a different fight.
It has nothing to do with fun or autonomy, it has everything to do with taking responsibility for your own !@#$ing body.
To wit, I think that use of birth control should void the consent requirement here... and "morning after" should be exempt from needing consent as well. Only actual "abortions".
I don't think this would come up all that often, but its nice to actually practice Equal Rights and get it into law.
i dont know how many times it must be said, but child support is just that. support for the child. if a child exists it doesnt matter how anyone felt about the matter, it must be taken care of. either by the taxpayer or by those responsible for it. abortion has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Not exempt, no. Please do not impose words upon me. Bodily autonomy is irrelevant as an argument when discussing abortion. With consensual sex, a woman is exercising her bodily autonomy. She makes the conscious, personal, informed decision to get pregnant. Myself and others disagree that a woman be legally allowed to murder another human that she consented to have.
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
First of all, continuous consent must be maintained in order for a person's body to be used by anyone. Consent ends the moment a pregnant female wishes to abort.
Secondly, murder is the unlawful killing of another human and abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not a fetus. She is removing the fetus from her body because she no longer consents to use her body to sustain it's life. The fact that it can't survive without the use of her body doesn't mean she killed it.
And finally, if you wish to gain the right to force pregnant females to use their bodies to continue to sustain life without their consent, everyone else will then gain the right to force you to use your body to continue to sustain life without your consent.
Last edited by Total Crica; 2017-02-16 at 05:47 AM.
So it's a bullshit system which gives the man no power and the woman all the power, screws him over royally that he has no choice in the matter.
If the guy doesn't want the child yet the woman decides to keep it he shouldn't be forced to pay for it for 18 years if he has no say in whether she keeps it.
Wow, I didn't think this thread could actually go downhill further. >.<
You can't be so adamant about this stance without accepting the majority of the responsibility. People are idiots and cunts. If you're too incompetent or self-righteous to double-wrap and pull out, you've no business fucking. The sooner men realize that they have control of the swimmers, the sooner "ebil wiminz" lose their power.
You should probably understand the words you use.
The law technically is the highest court. Though I suppose you may be referring to religion, in which case that's sufficient enough reason for any rational person to disregard anything you have to say.
Mostly a social construct used to fortify monogamy, etc.
If you are in possession of counter-arguments, I would appreciate the opportunity to see them. Merely saying that I am wrong does nothing for either side of the debate. As you claim my argument comes only from emotion, you most assuredly are of the opinion that I am coming from a position lacking in facts. Again, I would very much enjoy being exposed to your reasonings.
Might I inquire as to where you read about "continuous consent"? I have done some searching myself, but came across no reputable sources. One copypasta of that statement kept coming up. It was by someone named Hanna Goff, whom I could only identify as a random person on Tumblr.
Come now, I know that you wish to hold intellectual superiority over me, but stating that "abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not a fetus" is not the way to go about it. Pregnancy is the act of playing host to a living human as it develops to a state of foetal viability. Termination of a pregnancy is unequivocally the termination of a human life; death is the intended outcome of the act.
I am afraid that the coherence of your position only degrades further with this final statement. In what way am I currently using my body to sustain life without my consent? Further, as stated in my previous post, nobody is forcing these women to do anything without their consent. They have already given their consent to sustain the life of the human that they helped create. I am proposing that we remove their ability to end that life outside of non-consensual circumstances.
It would seem that the main contention with the two sides of this divide is whether or not you consider ending the life of an in-utero human to be murder. Obviously, you do not.
Oddly, the law does on some occasions.
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
I could totally see a woman employing pregnancy to blackmail a man, as well as employing termination of that pregnancy to blackmail that man.
I don't think the consent should be needed in cases of criminal or amoral nature of course.
But I guess if we're going to determine as a society that a pregnancy of any kind can only be aborted in the earlier trimesters, then consent of the father shouldn't be necessary.
If, however, we're going to let women legally abort children six months into pregnancy, that probably takes father's consent. A refusal should free the woman from all legal responsibility from the born child, but now we're talking about women voluntarily destroying their own fetuses late term to escape that clause.
Which is interesting because while many would call that legal because the woman should be allowed to choose what to do with their body, the fact we're admitting women feel desperate to do such an action to free themselves from the shackles of societal abuse trying to force them to birth the child, is also relevant proof that a woman would be ready to use such a condition to blackmail a father waiting for an invested child, especially if its a fetus in the later term and close to birth.
If you think no one needs continuous consent to use your body, then I can continue to use your body regardless if you tell me to stop using it simply because you already consented.
If you think the definition of abortion is NOT the termination of a pregnancy, then you are saying a woman who has had an abortion is STILL pregnant.
I am not saying you ARE using your body to sustain life, I said that everyone would gain the right to force you to continue to do so if you ever decide to use your body to sustain life. (if you want to be technical about it, you are using your body to sustain YOUR life, doctors use their bodies to sustain lives, etc)
Death is an inevitable result of abortion since the fetus can not survive without the use of the body it resides in, but not the intended result. The intended result is to remove the fetus from the uterus in order to terminate the pregnancy, which you would know if you actually researched the definition of the word "abortion", one link I already provided for you to help you to do so.
"Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo before it can survive outside the uterus. An abortion which occurs spontaneously is also known as a miscarriage."
Of course abortion is not murder, since you did not kill it, either legally or illegally, you stopped it from using your body by removing it from your body.
But no one has a right to live if they require someone else's body to survive because no one can be forced to use their body to ensure they survive. If people did have this right, everyone would have free health care by forcing people to be doctors to ensure everyone survives.
Last edited by Total Crica; 2017-02-16 at 07:41 AM.
its not a "system for power". its a system to take care of a child. abortion is completely irrelevant to child support. either the parents pay for it or it becomes a ward of the state. both parents are equally obligated to pay child support regardless of how they feel about it.
- - - Updated - - -
you want to discuss legality while completely misusing the terms. apparently posting definitions is not allowed on this forum, so suffice it to say that they have been discussed ad nauseum by people far more qualified than you or i, and been found to not apply.
if unformed cells were given the full legal rights of a human being, then there is no compromise to be had on the issue. a miscarriage or period or (on mens part), masturbation would be considered manslaughter.
if bodily autonomy does not apply to pregnancy, it doesnt apply to any other bodily function as well. the reverse is also true.
so when you throw around things like "abortion is the murder of a human being" you are not arguing from any sort of definition other than your own personal view. and thats fine to have a personal view, as long as you dont try to force it on others who abide by the one society and science support.
As much as believe in equal rights i do also believe in bodily autonomy, if she wants the baby aborted she gets the final say as it is her body that is affected by the pregnancy.
Takes 2 to make a child. It's only logical that both parties get to vote.
The part i don't get is, if it ties, who decides?
- Mother keeps child she doesnt want to (rape, "condom accident")
- Father has to keep child he doesn't want to ("condom accident", etc)
Either way someone loses.
Last edited by Guyv3r; 2017-02-16 at 12:41 PM.
Money talks, bullshit walks..
The man squirts and is done. Something he does many times a week just for his own pleasure. That cannot be compared to a pregnancy. The woman make all the sacrifices, and should therefore make the call whether to keep it or abort it. Doctors and midwives do more work than the father in making sure a child is born healthy, should they have a say as well?
I agree that the child support laws are outdated. If a father wants to ditch the whole thing, he should be able to, losing all parental rights to the child, and probably also a restraining order to make sure he doesn't try get around it for free. But he should never be able to force a woman to go through pregnancy.
Mother pus bucket!