Why is abortion illegal for men but not women?

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaDreamer
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


maybe, perhaps. would like to hear what a few women, informed women, have to say about that. seems equitable. that would dramatically increase abortions and adoptions though and i am not for that.

Not an Obamaite but he put it rather well he said we need to reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make.

until men realize that every sperm is a potential financial liability and treat them like they do their credit score, this issue will not be solved.


I disagree. I think that if women knew they weren't promised a free ride, they would be much more inclined to take responsibility for their sexual activity. In fact, I see abortion clinics shutting down as a result. Most abortions are done due to failed entrapment of the man, intentional or otherwise.

As far as welfare goes, I think there should be a benefit cap for people on welfare. Anything more than two kids, you get no additional funds. The only exception there should be if say a woman had five kids and THEN fell on hard times. But even as it stands now, if a woman is going to try to get a free ride from the state, that really has very little to do with whether or not men pay support.




posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by arriana

The Rhythm Method? HA! Thats a joke. Do they not teach you this stuff in school anymore? Shall I give you a full run down of why calender based contraception methods are almost completely ineffective? Just how much would you like to know about the menstrual cycle, and what can affect it?


First of all, rhythm method has worked fine for me and my woman for five years now.

Second of all, I am not endorsing any one method over another. What I am saying is that a woman knows when she is most fertile and should not be engaging in risky sexual activity with a man she is not married to.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


Because it's the woman's body that's carrying the fetus, she has the rights over her body and if she says the fetus goes than I suppose the fetus goes. Don't get me wrong I'm not fond of abortion but I'm also not fond of telling women what they can and can't do with their wombs.

Shouldn't this be obvious really?


And what they CHOSE to do with their wombs is let a man impregnate it. New ballgame now ladies. You're not just thinking for one, but three people.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by arriana

Originally posted by CobraCommanderAside from that, it is not "HER" body we are talking about here. It is the body of an unborn child that is just as much the man's as it is the woman's. Abortion is not about gender, it is about life and death.


You carry the baby to term then. Equal rights yea?


If she didn't want to carry it to term, she should not have been having unsafe sex.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaDreamer
i only want one thing from the government. i pay my child support happily, and often go without food or other necessities myself so my children can eat, even sold my car because i could no longer afford it.

The thing i want from my government is to either force my ex to pay taxes on the income i provide her to care for my children or allow it as a tax deduction to assist low income fathers who are doing the right thing.

exes don't have to claim any of the money received in child support, the payer of the support is still taxed though. exes don't have to claim or pay federal income tax on alimony either. its optional.

if child support was deductible it would make it much easier to live for those who it impacts the hardest. i am a professional i earn over 50k a year i take home approx 24k of that. the rest goes to child support and a Cadillac insurance plan for my kids.

that would make it equitable, that would make it fair, that would make it a regular normal thing that men didn't mind doing at all.

Add taxes to the amount taken from me in that 26k a years that i never see, I forgot to include that in my formula
edit on 31-5-2011 by CaDreamer because: (to add)
edit on 31-5-2011 by CaDreamer because: to add


Wait, what? You are saying broken families need to be taxed MORE?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


If abortion is taking responsibility, then why do men not have that same option? Particularly if a man knows that he cannot afford a child as much as he might want to be a father.
I am sure if a male falls preganat he can get an abortion. Why would a man have the abortion option when it is biologically impossible for him to become in the condition required to obtain abortion?

The question that should be asked is why are men having sex who do not want children?


Why should a woman be able to sue a man for money he does not have simply because she chose to have sex?
Why should a man whine about paying for a child he is the father to?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


Because it's the woman's body that's carrying the fetus, she has the rights over her body and if she says the fetus goes than I suppose the fetus goes. Don't get me wrong I'm not fond of abortion but I'm also not fond of telling women what they can and can't do with their wombs.

Shouldn't this be obvious really?


And what they CHOSE to do with their wombs is let a man impregnate it. New ballgame now ladies. You're not just thinking for one, but three people.
So you admit that a man needs a female to do his thinking for him?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Okay, solution time.

If the woman is to be the exclusive arbiter over life and death when it comes to the unborn, her choice, then it is her responsibility. End of story. She gets no state-mandated support from the man, unless he claims the child as his own. Once he does, there is no reversing his obligation. The only other time women should be entitled to support is when they are married to the man. Marriage is a legal contract as it is, which provides a reasonable expectation of mutual responsibility to any offspring brought about within that legal union.

OR

We can leave it the way it is now and say that men always have to pay no matter what, that it is ALWAYS half their responsibility, and that the child is ALWAYS half theirs. But in that case, this also means that a woman cannot abort without the consent of the man, except in cases of rape. After all, she already consented to getting pregnant by having unprotected sex.

You can't have it both ways unless you are a hypocrite.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


A fetus isn't a person, especially not legally. Perhaps later in the pregnancy its arguable

While the decision to have unprotected sex should indeed be a joint one once impregnated the fetus remains in the woman's body. As such the general consensus is that she has all rights over her own bodily functions. While I do think that women would be wise to engage in a discussion with their husbands/significant other as to whether or not to have an abortion the woman certainly has "jurisdiction" over her own body. You know the old adage about how your rights extend until they infringe upon another persons? Tell me a husband forcing his wife to get an abortion or coercing her into it isn't infringing upon her rights.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater


Why should a man whine about paying for a child he is the father to?

Why should women whine about not getting support payments from a man who never made any legal commitment to them or a child in the first place?

Don't want the kid? Kill it. Her choice, not his.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


You are man enough to have a sexual relationship with any woman, then you can own up to your responsibilities to raise that child. A pretty simple concept. I do not want to here the entrapment BS.
That hs been explained for generations. Granted, it does take two parties, I'm not responsible for your actions and your not for mine.....except the government has taken that away......



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

So you admit that a man needs a female to do his thinking for him?

A man needs no such thing. That's just the way the law stands. Woman is expected to make the decision, man is expected to pay for it.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


no no no no no... i want to be able to deduct child support from my annual taxes i pay on my income. started a thread bout it ....really my ex in her household including my contribution makes about 3X my income.... i don't know if that is the norm... i do not support taxing poor unwed mothers that rely on the income to just get by. so perhaps i dont support that part at all. i agree that is a bad idea.

however the payer should be able to claim something but this is off topic ...lol like the rest of the thread
edit on 31-5-2011 by CaDreamer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


A fetus isn't a person, especially not legally. Perhaps later in the pregnancy its arguable

While the decision to have unprotected sex should indeed be a joint one once impregnated the fetus remains in the woman's body. As such the general consensus is that she has all rights over her own bodily functions. While I do think that women would be wise to engage in a discussion with their husbands/significant other as to whether or not to have an abortion the woman certainly has "jurisdiction" over her own body. You know the old adage about how your rights extend until they infringe upon another persons? Tell me a husband forcing his wife to get an abortion or coercing her into it isn't infringing upon her rights.


If she knew the man did not want to be, or could not afford to be a father, she should not have gotten pregnant in the first place.

Short of that, if the woman is to claim sole "ownership" of what is in her body, she can't then hold the man responsible for how she chooses to care for and maintain "her body."

If I put gas in your car, that does not make me responsible for your speeding tickets, and gives me no right to a share of your pizza delivery tips, Even though I know that by putting gas in your car you might very will make some money by driving that car around, might commit a crime, might even kill someone with that gas in your tank.

The fetus vs. baby debate is not really what I am driving at here. It is hte hypocrisy that concerns me, not the morality of abortion.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mugger
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


You are man enough to have a sexual relationship with any woman, then you can own up to your responsibilities to raise that child. A pretty simple concept. I do not want to here the entrapment BS.
That hs been explained for generations. Granted, it does take two parties, I'm not responsible for your actions and your not for mine.....except the government has taken that away......


What if the woman lies about being on the pill? What if the woman dumps your used condom into her when you are sleeping?

Besides, if the act of sex equals consent to be a parent, then woman should have NO right to abort without the consent of the father.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
As a man, I'd feel it is my duty and responsibilty to do exactly as the now pregnant woman wants to do.

She is ultimately responsible for the next nine months, and the vessel in which time a tiny person lives. An ever growing person, who moves, and sleeps and grows will take residence, and finally make a very painful change of address.

It's a little part of you, that now, one way or the other, you are responsible for.

Not to be too trite, fellas, but you must be this tall to ride this ride.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaDreamer
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


no no no no no... i want to be able to deduct child support from my annual taxes i pay on my income. started a thread bout it ....really my ex in her household including my contribution makes about 3X my income.... i don't know if that is the norm... i do not support taxing poor unwed mothers that rely on the income to just get by. so perhaps i dont support that part at all. i agree that is a bad idea.

however the payer should be able to claim something but this is off topic ...lol like the rest of the thread
edit on 31-5-2011 by CaDreamer because: (no reason given)


No, actually this is a good aspect to talk about I think. The threat of financial hardship is no doubt what led that loser to do what he did to that woman. Hardships that are exacerbated by poor taxation policy as well as child support.

I know that one buddy if mine is angry over the fact that he pays support all year, but isn't able to claim the child as a deduction because the mother does.

On the other hand, if your child was living with you, you will still be paying tax on the income that you use to support the child. So the way the government sees it, why not pay tax on that income regardless where the child lives? Taxing the mother on child support as income would really be like double taxation. And of course, technically, it's not "her" income, it's the child's. She is just the executor of the account so to speak.

EDIT to add:

I think that BOTH parents should be able to claim a mutual child as a tax deduction. This could help offset the fact that you can't save money by living under the same roof and buying family-size packs of chicken and so forth.
edit on 31-5-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


i have nothing to add to that post it expressed my thoughts exactly.

2nd line



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I gotta run off now guys and gals. It's been a pleasure debating with you. I may check back later or tomorrow. Cheers folks.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Sorry, I double posted. had to fix it. What this guy did wasn't abortion, it was battery. I get the point, but not the same. However it's done or attempted, abortion is murder.
edit on 31-5-2011 by deesul69 because: Double post





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join