Should father have any say about abortion?

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Says the person insisting on having a legal opportunity to legally force his will upon a woman's body.


Yeah the options of closing every other option for the woman.



You still says nothing of lost earnings and emotional trauma. But I guess someone who thinks he should have the right to legally subjugate women wouldn't think much of the latter.

Then maybe that should be considered as well? Responsibility comes in many forms naturally.

You're a very angry, prejudice creature assuming I don't sympathize with what she'd have to go through. Regardless of whether or not she allowed the situation to occur to begin with. I find it ironic you expect women to be able to control their body, yet fail to expect them to act with reason and care in sexual endeavors that could result in the very scenario we speak of.

[Ethes]

He's also zero percent responsible for the pregnancy coming to term.

And yet not impregnating a woman would've been the best way to prevent the pregnancy. Once the pregnancy is there, you have to take responsibility and the only thing you can do is support the woman in her decision. If you think it is reasonable to either force an abortion on the woman or not support her whatsoever thats fine. I however, disagree. Unless the woman and the man agree on the woman raising the child and without any help or interference of the father, the father has to take responsibility of the conception.

[Kasierith]

So I bet you actually wouldn't believe this fact: women are more often the solo violent offenders in a domestic assault.

And women also account for 90% of the deaths from domestic violence. Both sides also suffer from pretty dramatic under-reporting. I'm not saying the point you're making is wrong, I'm merely pointing out that it's a very convoluted matter.

[semaphore]

Roe vs Wade expressly states that the decision to allow abortion is not unqualified. The states are allowed a degree of flexibility in terms of regulations regarding abortion.

Roe v Wade ruled that when abortion is safer (first trimester), the state cannot prevent access to abortion. Regulating abortion is not the same as outlawing it.

Furthermore, the states also have the right to define person-hood as whatever they deem appropriate, but so far, afaik, there has been no successful campaign to define person-hood in such a way that challenges Roe vs Wade.

Where does the hell does that supposed right came from?

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Your quasi-religious views cannot be forced upon the rest of us.


Some great parent you are.

I'd expect more. Getting pregnant, senselessly, is pathetic and there is no excuse for it. To run from your responsibilities and abort the "problem" only furthers my lowered view of you.

[Daieon]

There really isn't a solid answer here. If the woman doesn't want to have a baby, but the father does the argument can always be made "she has to carry the child for 9 months and then go through the whole process of giving birth as well." It sucks, but it's how it is.

[semaphore]

You're a very angry, prejudice creature assuming I don't sympathize with what she'd have to go through.

It's not an assumption. You've displayed a callous disregard for the sovereignty of a person over their own body. If you sympathsied at all you'd know why it's wrong. Instead you justified it to yourself by dressing it up in some quasi-religious praise for "life", as if most pregnancies don't die in the womb naturally in the first place.

[Ethes]

Roe v Wade ruled that when abortion is safer (first trimester), the state cannot prevent access to abortion. Regulating abortion is not the same as outlawing it.

I think thats a good thing. Or we'll end up with the things that happened in Northern Ireland a while back (this is what happened)

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Then maybe that should be considered as well? Responsibility comes in many forms naturally.

You're a very angry, prejudice creature assuming I don't sympathize with what she'd have to go through. Regardless of whether or not she allowed the situation to occur to begin with. I find it ironic you expect women to be able to control their body, yet fail to expect them to act with reason and care in sexual endeavors that could result in the very scenario we speak of.

I'd expect more. Getting pregnant, senselessly, is pathetic and there is no excuse for it. To run from your responsibilities and abort the "problem" only furthers my lowered view of you.

Who is the one who is angry here?

[Deleted]

@Kelliak you have some serious issues man
get help , though from what i see you are beyond that

[Forfax]

no and here is why, the law is set up the way it is for a reason

abusive husbands/boyfriends

every husband and boyfriend clearly abuse their wife or girlfriend.
and of course woman are little angels and never abuse their boyfriends and husband either.

I strongly believe that a man should have the right to DENIED 18-21years of financial burden if he doesn't wish to have a child.

[Underverse]

Hah, tell me how you "construct" things out of nothing. That is a miracle. It is a random occurrence that resulted in something amazing.

Do you really believe birth, evolution, and existence itself is simply a construct despite the fact that our universe is essentially nothing more than chaos? You seem to take for granted the very fact you're breathing. What it took and how many random elements had to fall into place to bring you to life.

Well, since you want to have this conversation, I'll give it a go.

I'll start by saying I was using the word construct in a social sense, as opposed to evolutionary/innate. That aside, let's get to constructing things out of nothing.

I've though about this a lot and come to the conclusion that only chance, which cannot be defined by the human mind/our natural laws in any meaningful way, can be responsible for the creation of the universe. Let's start at the beginning, as an example. If you have an infinitely small chance to randomly pop a bunch of matter into existence, you will never see it happen. However, you will only never see it happen if you apply the rules of our universe. Now take those away. No time, nothing but chance, which itself cannot be defined. In a place that isn't a place, without time, with nothing but a chance for something to happen, you get an infinite number of permutations of that infinitely small chance. Without time (and other laws to a lesser extent of importance), you see that chance become reality. Infinitely small chance, infinite permutations, all happening in the same instant (but not really because there is no time). Boom, universe. Was it an intelligent creation? No.

tl;dr for that paragraph: infinite permutations of an infinitely small chance for matter appear, to occur, lead to the creation of matter.

Now, you seemed to agree with this in your assertion of a random occurrence. Miracle, however, does not apply to the above chain of events. Moving on, it took an incredible amount of time for us to appear here. A lot of things had to happen. But the chances were far from infinitely small; in fact, they are quite large (though for this particular outcome, the chances are infinitely small (one in an infinite number of permutations, or at least nearly infinite), however at this point you are thinking in another dimension than cannot be applied to our reality). Yes, many random elements had to fall into place to bring us what we see today. RANDOM = chance for this to occur by chance, as you have stated. So why do you rule out chance? Because the chance is "small"?

I do take the fact that I am breathing for granted. And why is that wrong? Should I instead worship my creator? If chance is my creator, what do I have to worship? Something I cannot comprehend? So should I substitute something like the Christian God for this incomprehensible creator? And then give him all sorts of qualities based on our own pathetic human constructions, and say that what we see around us is sacred because my God says so, because I said my God says so, because I want to believe something more of a purpose than social bonds, survival, and reproduction exist? No. We've devalued what really matters to us. We've devalued what we evolved to value, all in the name of silly constructs that in the end are born of selfish need, for control, for mental peace because we don't feel like facing the truth today. And I don't mean to insult your religion. I mean to insult all religions, and all cultures, all these hierarchies and exclusive clades born of fear of the unknown.

That being said, I like going to church on Christmas.

[Xothic]

every husband and boyfriend clearly abuse their wife or girlfriend.
and of course woman are little angels and never abuse their boyfriends and husband either.

I strongly believe that a man should have the right to DENIED 18-21years of financial burden if he doesn't wish to have a child.

I dont disagree with you, but thats not whats being discussed in this thread.

[Ethes]

I strongly believe that a man should have the right to DENIED 18-21years of financial burden if he doesn't wish to have a child.

Why? Do you feel that the man is not responsible for the conception?

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

As usual I get involved in a political and philosophical thread that leaves me utterly disappointed with my fellow man.

Why I bother anymore is beyond me. Maybe I'm just hoping I can see a couple of other people that reignite my spirit in the fight. I got into gaming for a reason, I should just bury myself back into fictional worlds and forget this one ever existed.

[Rukentuts]

And yet not impregnating a woman would've been the best way to prevent the pregnancy. Once the pregnancy is there, you have to take responsibility and the only thing you can do is support the woman in her decision. If you think it is reasonable to either force an abortion on the woman or not support her whatsoever thats fine. I however, disagree. Unless the woman and the man agree on the woman raising the child and without any help or interference of the father, the father has to take responsibility of the conception.

No, I think it's responsible to give both parties a choice. Not one party whose choice holds grave consequences for the other.

[Forfax]

And yet not impregnating a woman would've been the best way to prevent the pregnancy. Once the pregnancy is there, you have to take responsibility and the only thing you can do is support the woman in her decision. If you think it is reasonable to either force an abortion on the woman or not support her whatsoever thats fine. I however, disagree. Unless the woman and the man agree on the woman raising the child and without any help or interference of the father, the father has to take responsibility of the conception.

Why should the men ''support her dicesion''? , he did not want the child in the first place , why should it be the WOMAN choice and the men cannot have a say in the matter?
If a men doesn't want the child you should never be able to FORCE him to ''support her decision''

you said it yourself , it HER decision not the men one.

[Felya]

How do you enforce it? If the man gets his demand if an abortion, do you restrain the woman to do it?

[Xothic]

As usual I get involved in a political and philosophical thread that leaves me utterly disappointed with my fellow man.

Why I bother anymore is beyond me. Maybe I'm just hoping I can see a couple of other people that reignite my spirit in the fight.

The reason no one agrees with you is because you're views are insane and archaic. Go back in time a couple of hundred years, maybe you'll find a mass who's views approach the unnecessary extreme yours do.

I mean come on, don't you ever sit back and wonder WHY you've had no one back you up in these arguments? Take a good long look at yourself mate, you need to get a new worldview.

[Slybak]

Oh lord, really!? Women in masses eh? Boy you can hyperbole with the best.

Estimates on the number of legal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s, or the two decades prior to Roe v. Wade, range from 200,000 to 1.2 million, with relaible estimates around 1 million. When New York state legalized abortion prior to the Supreme Court case, an estimated 100,000 women traveled to the state from across the country in a single year to procure an abortion, and these were the women who could afford both the procedure and the travel costs. Source.

The only juridically-imposed remedy the state has in denying a woman an abortion in cases where the state has deemed the procedure illegal is confinement during pregnancy. One instance of a person being held against their will should be enough to dissuade any reasonable and civilized person from arguing for such a legal regimen. If one isn't enough, let us know how many would dissuade you. A hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand? A million?

Give us a number of acceptable martyrs so we know when we can meet your high moral standards.