Jump to content


Photo

Abortion question - not about legal standing/constitution/right/wrong

politics

  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#41 zymot

zymot

    Comptroller of Small Amounts of Money

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23308 posts
  • LocationMortville

Posted 17 April 2012 - 08:46 AM

Ask Antonio Cromartie. I bet he is an expert on this subject these days.10 children from 8 different women in 6 different states. The oldest is 7 years old. Four of his kids are 3 years old. This guy can afford to be a douche and treat children like breading stock.If a man could produce child and not be responsible for them, this kind of crap would happen more.https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/16/antonio-cromartie-wont-do-reality-show-about-his-10-kids-by-8-women/
  • 0

#42 bierboy

bierboy

    Comptroller of Temporary Pancakes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14678 posts
  • LocationThe Firey Pits of Liberal Hell

Posted 17 April 2012 - 08:48 AM

i definitely think dad's should have the ability to prevent an abortion.i think my thing about them being able to force an abortion is that would entitle them to force a medical procedure on another person...and im not for that.

But then you are also forcing a woman to go through pregnancy and a medical procedure at the end (birth.)
  • 0

#43 Mynameisluka

Mynameisluka

    Comptroller of Brownies

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24770 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 08:48 AM

But then you are also forcing a woman to go through pregnancy and a medical procedure at the end (birth.)

see my next comment after that one.
  • 0

#44 TonyBrown

TonyBrown

    Comptroller of C-Blocking and Wet Streak Marks

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 74376 posts
  • LocationRedneckistan

Posted 17 April 2012 - 08:49 AM

The power is in her hands because the baby is in her uterus. The choice of whether or not to have an abortion involves medical procedures on two people (or potential people). Nobody is going to go scraping around inside the guy if they opt for the abortion, and nothing is going to grow inside him if they opt not. I think that the father should have some say in the matter. Absolutely. But he shouldn't go having sex with someone he doesn't have a good enough relationship with that she would consult him when making that decision. Have I ever had sex with someone who I would not want to raise a child with? Yep. But I took precautions and I was prepared for the possibility of a baby.See what I said above. Except for financial, all of the risks and inconveniences are on the mom. I think she should get the ultimate say. In a perfect world, she would always get input from the father, but I think she gets to decide in the end. Pregnancy or abortion won't happen to him. They will happen to her.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but that doesn't mean I'm not conflicted about it either. under current law the man is basically neutered the moment of ejaculation. no say, at all, but bears the financial consequence of the womans decision after the fact. I would be more in favor of a 'day after pill' as a form of birth control to prevent these things. both man and woman should be aware of consequences before and after the fact and should have the ability to 'fix it'. I agree that a woman should have 'more say', however, I also think that the man should have some legal say in the matter. I don't see a clear cut solution in either direction which is why I'm tryin to reconcile this.
  • 0

#45 davelew

davelew

    Comptroller of ACMSO That Are Not Beans

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16183 posts
  • LocationReading, Massachusetts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 08:51 AM

My view:1. Accidental fathers need to support their children because, if they didn't, then every taxpayer would end up supporting the child. The accidental father has more responsibility than unrelated taxpayers, IMO.2. It's not morally right to force a woman to carry an unwanted baby to term. What if she needs to go on bed rest for 2 months because of pre-eclampsia or other complications? Isn't that like throwing someone in jail for a couple months, while also making them throw up every morning and get back problems?
  • 0

#46 Tim the Enchanter

Tim the Enchanter

    He Who Loves Pubic Flounces

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1648 posts
  • LocationClimbin' in your windows, snatchin your people up.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 08:52 AM

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but that doesn't mean I'm not conflicted about it either. under current law the man is basically neutered the moment of ejaculation. no say, at all, but bears the financial consequence of the womans decision after the fact.I would be more in favor of a 'day after pill' as a form of birth control to prevent these things. both man and woman should be aware of consequences before and after the fact and should have the ability to 'fix it'. I agree that a woman should have 'more say', however, I also think that the man should have some legal say in the matter. I don't see a clear cut solution in either direction which is why I'm tryin to reconcile this.

While I agree in theory, I think you are entering murky legal/moral waters. Though something like Plan B, used within a specific time period or his rights are waived, actually sounds like something I'd consider supporting. When one person can require another to take medication, though, that is different and more personal than garnishing a paycheck.
  • 0

#47 TonyBrown

TonyBrown

    Comptroller of C-Blocking and Wet Streak Marks

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 74376 posts
  • LocationRedneckistan

Posted 17 April 2012 - 08:54 AM

While I agree in theory, I think you are entering murky legal/moral waters. Though something like Plan B, used within a specific time period or his rights are waived, actually sounds like something I'd consider supporting. When one person can require another to take medication, though, that is different and more personal than garnishing a paycheck.

i agree on all counts. very murky here for sure, a lot of lines get crossed for either party, no question, and I'm not sure I like any of them. hence the conflict here.
  • 0

#48 Mynameisluka

Mynameisluka

    Comptroller of Brownies

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24770 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 08:56 AM

i agree on all counts. very murky here for sure, a lot of lines get crossed for either party, no question, and I'm not sure I like any of them. hence the conflict here.

i think that's what happens when we try to mesh morality and legality with nature.
  • 0

#49 TonyBrown

TonyBrown

    Comptroller of C-Blocking and Wet Streak Marks

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 74376 posts
  • LocationRedneckistan

Posted 17 April 2012 - 08:58 AM

i think that's what happens when we try to mesh morality and legality with nature.

certainly, but at some point you need to be able to reconcile things at least in your head even if you don't agree with it.
  • 0

#50 thedisappearer

thedisappearer

    Comptroller of BigAssMan

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 43602 posts
  • Locationen route

Posted 17 April 2012 - 09:00 AM

OK, if we're not looking at "legal standing/constitution/right/wrong", what aspect of abortion as we debating?
  • 0

#51 TonyBrown

TonyBrown

    Comptroller of C-Blocking and Wet Streak Marks

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 74376 posts
  • LocationRedneckistan

Posted 17 April 2012 - 09:02 AM

OK, if we're not looking at "legal standing/constitution/right/wrong", what aspect of abortion as we debating?

more of a father's rights thing I guess, maybe the title is misleading, all I could think of at that moment since it does involve abortion.
  • 0

#52 Mynameisluka

Mynameisluka

    Comptroller of Brownies

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24770 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 09:02 AM

OK, if we're not looking at "legal standing/constitution/right/wrong", what aspect of abortion as we debating?

why your mom didn't?:Pjk
  • 0

#53 Augie1991

Augie1991

    Rocket

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20965 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 09:02 AM

certainly, but at some point you need to be able to reconcile things at least in your head even if you don't agree with it.

There are a lot of things in my head I cannot reconcile :DHere's how it makes my head feel......fast forward to 30 seconds......https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w12AmqQuKY
  • 0

#54 Brownbeard

Brownbeard

    Comptroller of Ilks

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 37543 posts
  • LocationCedar Rapids, Ia

Posted 17 April 2012 - 09:07 AM

If only we spent as much time talking about not getting pregnant, as we do about abortion, we would have far fewer abortions. Teens should be educated on not getting knocked up. If I could sterilize my sons until they were 21, I would do it in a heartbeat.
  • 1

#55 TonyBrown

TonyBrown

    Comptroller of C-Blocking and Wet Streak Marks

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 74376 posts
  • LocationRedneckistan

Posted 17 April 2012 - 09:10 AM

If only we spent as much time talking about not getting pregnant, as we do about abortion, we would have far fewer abortions. Teens should be educated on not getting knocked up. If I could sterilize my sons until they were 21, I would do it in a heartbeat.

I agree, an ounce of prevention, right??
  • 0

#56 toonces

toonces

    Methuselah

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 28859 posts
  • Locationthe atomic city

Posted 17 April 2012 - 09:12 AM

If only we spent as much time talking about not getting pregnant, as we do about abortion, we would have far fewer abortions. Teens should be educated on not getting knocked up. If I could sterilize my sons until they were 21, I would do it in a heartbeat.

you probably could. the problems would occur when trying to unsterilize them.
  • 0

#57 Brownbeard

Brownbeard

    Comptroller of Ilks

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 37543 posts
  • LocationCedar Rapids, Ia

Posted 17 April 2012 - 09:15 AM

you probably could. the problems would occur when trying to unsterilize them.

Right. If there were some pill for men, that would not #### them up hormonally, and stop sperm production, and could be reversed easily, I would have my boys on it at age 13.
  • 0

#58 bierboy

bierboy

    Comptroller of Temporary Pancakes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14678 posts
  • LocationThe Firey Pits of Liberal Hell

Posted 17 April 2012 - 09:22 AM

see my next comment after that one.

You have a couple of them and they seem conflicted such as,

i hear where you're coming from, and i don't even know that's how i justify the difference. what i would like to see is this...an abortion requiring consent from both parents. i don't think a guy should be able to force a woman to abort a fetus growing in her body, but i also don't think a girl should be allowed to abort a fetus that the father wants to raise and support.

The reality is that the woman is the one that has to carry the fetus to term, give birth, and go through the aftermath of pregnancy. If the "father" has to give consent for an abortion then he is forcing that upon the woman. He does not have to put his body through the trauma of pregnancy and child birth, she does. He is then forcing her to undergo what can be a dangerous/life threatening situation to the woman and forcing her to go through medical procedures against her will. That hardly seems right or fair. While I am certainly sensitive to the desires of the "father" he simply if not forced by biology to go all in therefore his say in the matter is lessened.
  • 0

#59 bierboy

bierboy

    Comptroller of Temporary Pancakes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14678 posts
  • LocationThe Firey Pits of Liberal Hell

Posted 17 April 2012 - 09:26 AM

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but that doesn't mean I'm not conflicted about it either. under current law the man is basically neutered the moment of ejaculation. no say, at all, but bears the financial consequence of the womans decision after the fact.I would be more in favor of a 'day after pill' as a form of birth control to prevent these things. both man and woman should be aware of consequences before and after the fact and should have the ability to 'fix it'. I agree that a woman should have 'more say', however, I also think that the man should have some legal say in the matter. I don't see a clear cut solution in either direction which is why I'm tryin to reconcile this.

What if the woman does not want to take the "day after pill?" A man should not be able to force a woman to ingest chemicals against her will.Again, the problem with giving the man some legal say is that you are forcing the woman to do something with her body that she may not want to do. As Tim said, she is the one carrying all of the risk and inconvenience.
  • 0

#60 Mynameisluka

Mynameisluka

    Comptroller of Brownies

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24770 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 09:28 AM

You have a couple of them and they seem conflicted such as,

lol, i have a couple of comments that are my next comment after that one? :scratch:but, i do believe a father should have a say in whether or not the girl gets an abortion. i agree she has to carry it to term and the impacts on her body and all of that...that's a risk she took when she let him inside of her...just like it's a risk he took. i think a decision to abort should be a dual consent thing. just my opinion.eta: of course, i believe exceptions should be made if pregnancy is high risk.

Edited by ErnestFrye, 17 April 2012 - 09:29 AM.

  • 0



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: politics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users