It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DEMONcrats
and women need to 'man up' as well. most abortion are used as birth control...less then 5% of all abortions are for rape/medical/incest.
to put that in perspective..thats around 37 million babies aborted in the united states because 'its not the right time, 'i dont want to be a mom', 'im not ready'.
pathetic excuses.
Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Originally posted by DEMONcrats
and women need to 'man up' as well. most abortion are used as birth control...less then 5% of all abortions are for rape/medical/incest.
to put that in perspective..thats around 37 million babies aborted in the united states because 'its not the right time, 'i dont want to be a mom', 'im not ready'.
pathetic excuses.
Originally posted by hotbakedtater
The time for a man's CHOICE is when he CHOOSES to place his seed inside a woman.
I am not debating if men love their children. This is a debate on abortion. Not emotions, not fatherly love, not evil women, but abortion. I dont feel men have a say in the issue, you do. We disagree.
Originally posted by Frontkjemper
Originally posted by hotbakedtater
The time for a man's CHOICE is when he CHOOSES to place his seed inside a woman.
Lol what? Are you serious? It takes two to tango. The woman also chooses (unless it's rape) to "receive the mans seed". So as long as both agrees, both should have a say in the issue.
Originally posted by Monts
reply to post by jeanvaljean
Not necessarily, I am merely pointing out the fact that as soon as the embryo is implanted, the father has absolutely no say in abortion or birth, even though he is just as responsible for the pregnancy as the mother.
Being a guy myself, this really bugs me :/
The full Court of Appeals began its ruling with the tenet common to all medical treatment cases: that any person has the right to make an informed choice and, if competent to accept or forego medical treatment. It then cited a Pennsylvania court ruling in Shrimp v. McFall maintaining that a severely burned patient could not get a court order to compel a cousin to donate the bone marrow necessary to save the patient's life
In the Pennsylvania court's words, "The common law has consistently held to a rule which provides that one human being is under no legal compulsion to give aid or take action to save another human being." In that court's view, to rule otherwise would "change every concept and principle upon which our society is founder."