Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
Thank you for seeing my point.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Frontline: Last Abortion Clinic
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Thank you for seeing my point.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
This argument certainly isn't going to apply to the majority of cases but it does happen and as I've come to find out it happens with frightening regularity. When the man has been completely deceived what recourse should they have?
Did anyone here actually watch the program to SEE what the real abortion issues are about?!?!?!? :disgust:
I didn't think so....
It's not about the 1 in a million gold diggers or the mans right to abortion. It was about the poverty stricken south and the irrisposible legislature on womens HEALTH. Basically Missisippi lobyists are trying to ban abortion but in return give no help to the women who get screwed (literally) for health care when the baby is born.
Try informing yourselves before posting sometimes people!
I didn't think so....
It's not about the 1 in a million gold diggers or the mans right to abortion. It was about the poverty stricken south and the irrisposible legislature on womens HEALTH. Basically Missisippi lobyists are trying to ban abortion but in return give no help to the women who get screwed (literally) for health care when the baby is born.
Try informing yourselves before posting sometimes people!
It is by default the man's responsibility to prevent pregnancy if he in fact does not want to have a child, regardless of the woman's choice. If YOU do not want to have a child, YOU need to do something about it (including keeping your pants on if you want certainty of not becoming a father).
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
And there's a perfectly useful way to correct it.
The only defensible argument against abortion is from the perspective of fetal rights, and it doesn't depend on consent, in which case the woman may never have 'chosen' to spread her legs at all.
Actually, no it isn't - a woman is able to choose an abortion. A man isn't. This is perfectly obvious from the fact that only the woman can have a medical procedure to end her pregnancy; a man can have all the surgery he wants (and I support his right to do it 'in private') and it won't change whether the woman he knocked up gives birth.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
It sounds like you're almost advocating http://www.ChoiceForMen.com
It's an idea that's far, far ahead of it's time. Let's just secure women's right to have access to abortion first. Once we've taken care of that then we can focus on paper abortions for men, which I actually support. It's a good idea but since men are second class citizens in this country and in much of the Western world, it's not going to happen in our lifetimes. Heck, we still have the all-male military draft and legalized involuntary male genital mutilation (circumcision).
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
But under the law involuntary fathers are still required to pay child support. Heck, even men who have been proven by DNA evidence to not be the biological fathers might still have to pay child support if they were declared to be the fathers and paternity fraud is still rampant.
It would be nice if men could go to court and put up a bond to pay for a woman's abortion and for her inconvenience in order to waive all rights and responsibilities to the unwanted child. If the woman decides to continue her pregnancy she may do so knowing that she'll bare all of the rights and responsibilities; at that point it's her choice. Since women really decide whether or not there will be a child, it seems like they should pay for the consequences of their decision.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
The default law is "strict liability". If you are the biological father, unless it was through a sperm bank (and even that is iffy), you're financially responsible. So even if the sperm was taken from a discarded condom without a man's consent he's still responsible.
Can you imagine a situation where it were possible to clone people from their DNA or at least to create sperm from it? Can you imagine women stalking rich men hoping to obtain hair folicles and whatnot so that they can become pregant and get huge child support checks? Under the current laws that sort of scenario isn't far fetched. I can just imagine well-to-do men going around wearing body condoms and trying to scrape away all lose hairs and skin cells (ala the movie GATTACA) to prevent anyone from obtaining their DNA.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
It is murky. Basically, since the populace can't resolve this issue with a Constitutional amendment the Court had to make a decision and it sided on including abortion as being one of those things that the government should not be able to dictate to people.
The idea of their being a right to privacy does make some sense. Would the authors of the Federalists Papers have really envisioned a government that controlled private aspects of people's lives, telling them when and how often they could have sexual relations (ala North Korea.) (Did anyone see that Sixty Minutes interview about the American GI who defected during the Korean War? The North Korean government assigned him a wife and dictated that they were to have sex twice a month.) Might we infer from our having freedom of religion and speech that we also have a right to make personal, private decisions? The notion that the government might dictate that sort of thing to people was probably so absurd and foreign in the 18th Century that the drafters of the Constitution didn't think to include it, unfortunately. They could conceive of the government jailing people for political purposes, forcing a religion onto people, and of the government controlling the press, but not of an all-encompassing communist-like government that would dicate private aspects of people's lives.
Furthermore, the Constitution grants citizenship to people who are born on the nation's soil or to citizens of the nation--not conceived, but born. What exactly does that imply about the issue of abortion? Also, since abortion is primarily a religious issue and since we do have separation of church and state, it seems that it would be wrong for the government to force a religious view on people one way or the other.
men get to choose where they deposit their sperm (e.g., in a bunch of tissues, or in the vaginia of a fertile female human being). they also get to make decisions about their own bodies. For example, if a man is diagnosed with prostate cancer, he is entitled to choose whether or not to have the tumor removed. Men don't get to choose whether or not a fetus is carried to term in the body of another (female) human being. 😉
So true. I have read that when a new-born baby "smiles" it is merely a reflex contraction of the mouth muscles, and doesn't indicate much at all about the emotional state of the baby. Human adults get mushy over a baby's smile, and apparently often experience an overwhelming desire to take care of the little baby. Thus the reflex smile of a new born can be conceptualized as a sneaky evolutionary adaptation, which has the effect of tricking adult humans into taking care of it. This would have been important in our evolutionary history, in situations where a new born was orphaned or the birth parents weren't interested in caring for it. 🙂
"privacy" in the USA extends in part from a citizen's due process rights, or rights to simply carry on her or his own private and public business without undue interference from the state.
I cannot even begin to comprehend the mentality of a citizen unwilling to defend privacy rights.
no, a man doesn't have the right to have a fetus removed from a woman's body against her will. the man simply has no jurisdiction over the body of another mentally competent citizen.
the man gave up control over the situation when he ejaculated into a female citizen's vaginal canal. maybe he should have taken responsibility and used a condom. 😉
Who is the third person? Surely you are not referring to the fetus, which is not a person at all.
You seem to be placing responsibility for pregnancy prevention on someone other than yourself. Why aren't you taking responsibility? Did your "psycho" girl friend manipulate you into not using condoms? Or was that decison down to your own selfish desire to fvck without condoms (which let's face it does feel better, but allows unwanted pregnancies to occur)?
You are pathetic. Use a condom, or get a vasectomy. Quit whining. Take responsibility for your own pathetic pleasure-seeking actions. Keep 'it' in your pants, or stfu.
The mother can't waive away parenthood after the infant is born. (The child can be put up for adoption, I suppose, but that requires agreement from botht the father & mother I would have thought). What the mother can do is decide to abort a fetus inside her womb.
The man gets to decide where he deposits his semen.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
