Men Abortion and Choice

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

/sarcasm on
How about this....I propose that men who impregnate women and then refuse to support their own offspring should have their gonads removed to prevent them from procreating anymore. I mean, it is half THEIR child, they should not be allowed to force women to be the sole support of children that are half theirs, right? Do ya think men might object to this invasion of their physical being?
/sarcasm off

This illustrates what I have touched on a couple of times during the course of this thread.

rkz assumes all men would be honourable an honest in this situation. He forgets all the dead beat dads out there. The men who think it's ok to spread their seed then move on to the next. The ones who think it's ok to hang around for a few years and then leave. The ones who are so fucked up they'd use their 'unborn child' as a weapon against a woman who doesn't want him anymore.

In an ideal world, men would have a say in the fate of the foetus. The world is not ideal and every situation is different. There is no way you could legislate this without taking away a womans rights. It's like moving back to the dark ages.

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

rkz assumes all men would be honourable an honest in this situation.

rk, is this what you really think?

Originally Posted by bluecuracao

rk, is this what you really think?

Of course not I have stated that more than once, but if they are not honorable they would simply ignore the pregnancy and she would get an abortion. He would not want a child... people are tail-posting their asses off in here.

Originally Posted by jinx

Yeah, breastfeeding misinformation really bugs the shit out me, but I won't derail the thread... Although it seems fairly played since rk won't answer HM's question.

I have not been here moron.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

How would it do that?

By allowing the father to have his child if he wishes. Simple.

As for those of you talking about "viability" does that mean every time science allows us to keep a child alive earlier and earlier outside the mother the definition of fetus moves? Idiotic argument.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Of course not I have stated that more than once, but if they are not honorable they would simply ignore the pregnancy

Unless they didn't. You have no reason to make that assumption.

I have not been here moron.

Yes you have. I've been trying to get an answer for a while, and you have posted in the meantime.

By allowing the father to have his child if he wishes. Simple.

No, not simple. Here are some complications:

How would the father know about the pregnancy? Would he have to be notified by law? How would his identity be determined? A mandatory DNA test before abortion?

How, if he wanted the child, would the woman be stopped from having an abortion? Would the woman need to bring a permission slip to the doctor? Would the doctor have to check a national registry of woman who are prohibited abortions for nine months?

What deterrant would there be? Prison? A fine?

In short, how would your law work? You're saying that the father ought to have a say in the decision. Most would agree, as a matter of personal interaction. But how could that preference be encoded into law?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

As for those of you talking about "viability" does that mean every time science allows us to keep a child alive earlier and earlier outside the mother the definition of fetus moves?

This is not really an unexpected outcome. Science and progress often lead to legal redefinition, and this would be particularly true for the beginning and end of life: points in time where the stakes are very high, and the science so likely to change things.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by jinx

.. Although it seems fairly played since rk won't answer HM's question.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I have not been here moron.

Nope, that's wrong, do you want to try another answer? Maybe you didn't read posts 241, 213, 173, 170 etc...?
Do you have enough honor to admit that you're wrong, or is that beneath you?