Roe v. Wade for Men

[frostlion]

Very interesting argument here...

Should a man have the right to opt out of financial responsibility for a child resulting from an unplanned pregnancy?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11731580

[LionPride]

No. Everyone knows the risks when they crawl in the sack. You play, you pay.

But lets also look at this from another angle. What if the mother doesn't want the child, but the father does. Today, the father has no rights in that decision. That one is unfortunate.

[Captain Coveman]

I'm surprised this topic took so long to appear here. Men need to have the same rights as women, but I'm not sure the opting out financially is the correct decision. This case definitely brings attention to the situation.

[fleaflicker]

As far as the opting out financially, the father should have to help pay to support the child. With the birth control methods out there like condoms, birth control pills, and spermicide, both people have a large amount of control in decreasing the chances of conception by a ton (though there is still a one a thousand chance, that while statistically minute, is still bound to happen somewhere). Keeping that in mind, both people should have a role in paying to support baby, and ideally, both people should have a role in actually caring for and loving the child.


As far as the man's right to prevent abortions or have a decision in it, let's simply reverse gender roles for a moment. Men are still the dominant sex, but now they are the ones that endure 9 months of pregnancy, and are responsible for keeping their bodies pure for the fetus, as well as trying to sleep while it is kicking, and enduring the medical risks and pain of pregnancy, besides all the inconveniences that a child (after birth) may bring. Here is the question: If the above were the case, would anybody be questioning a man's right to make a decision as far as getting an abortion?

[LionPride]

[quote="fleaflicker";p="121804"]besides all the inconveniences that a child (after birth) may bring. [/quote]

Hmmm, maybe this is the problem nowadays. Thinking of a child as an "inconvenience" instead of a human being. That statement says a lot.

Seriously, wait until you have your first child. After 5 minutes with that child, I want you to think about what would've happened if the mother chose abortion.

[quote="fleaflicker";p="121804"] If the above were the case, would anybody be questioning a man's right to make a decision as far as getting an abortion?
[/quote]

Ummm, YES.

Maybe your missing the pro-life point of view. It's not about men controlling women. If that's what you think, you're simply trying to find a way to explain it away. It's about protecting the most innocent of the human race. PERIOD. Believe me, I know plenty of women who are dead set against abortion. In fact, I don't know many women at all that are for it.

[fleaflicker]

Hate to tell you this, but abortion is nothing new under the sun. The rich people who wanted an abortion would pay people off to do it and keep quiet, and the poor people will use clothing hangers to try and kill the fetus, and possibly kill themselves in the process. Don't you think the poor desperate woman would turn to the black market (such a thing would inevitably exist in the absence of legal abortions) with shady doctors who may or may not sterilize their equipment, or even know what they are doing? This is very dangerous stuff.

Besides that, this legislation is just a way for rich white men who are in our legislatures to feel good about their own morality. If their daughter gets pregnant at thirteen after getting raped, she would get an abortion. It would be done very quietly, probably with a local doctor being paid a large amount of money to do it and keep quiet, but it would be done. People without that kind of money don't have that choice. So all this law does is disenfranchise the poor people.

And it is, at least partially, about sexism. Would legislatures make laws that put poor desperate men at risk, by outlawing a procedure that they really want done? Keep in mind that even though women are 50% of our country's population, they are far underrepresented in local, state, and national legislatures. They are also paid a quarter less than men are paid for the exact same price. So this is about far more than fetuses. It's about women's rights, it's about facing the facts of the matter, and it's about old white guys feeling good about themselves.

[LionPride]

[quote="fleaflicker";p="121845"]Hate to tell you this, but abortion is nothing new under the sun. The rich people who wanted an abortion would pay people off to do it and keep quiet, and the poor people will use clothing hangers to try and kill the fetus, and possibly kill themselves in the process. Don't you think the poor desperate woman would turn to the black market (such a thing would inevitably exist in the absence of legal abortions) with shady doctors who may or may not sterilize their equipment, or even know what they are doing? This is very dangerous stuff.

Besides that, this legislation is just a way for rich white men who are in our legislatures to feel good about their own morality. If their daughter gets pregnant at thirteen after getting raped, she would get an abortion. It would be done very quietly, probably with a local doctor being paid a large amount of money to do it and keep quiet, but it would be done. People without that kind of money don't have that choice. So all this law does is disenfranchise the poor people.

And it is, at least partially, about sexism. Would legislatures make laws that put poor desperate men at risk, by outlawing a procedure that they really want done? Keep in mind that even though women are 50% of our country's population, they are far underrepresented in local, state, and national legislatures. They are also paid a quarter less than men are paid for the exact same price. So this is about far more than fetuses. It's about women's rights, it's about facing the facts of the matter, and it's about old white guys feeling good about themselves.[/quote]

Only a liberal would try to turn this into something it's not, attempting to get their point across.

Where to start?

Taking hits of crack is illegal, it's dangerous, and people still make the choice to do it. Just because someone is going to do something whether legal or not does not make it right. That's a very weak arguement. Maybe we should call drug users pro-choice. But the point is that they are not just hurting themselves with abortions, they are harming another human life.

Now your pro-choice arguement is that laws against abortion disenfranchises poor people? Give me a freakin break. What else can you throw against a wall to see if it will stick. Isn't that the standard liberal line when you can't make an arguement?

I'm not rich, but I am a white man. Because I'm against abortions, do you really think I'm pro-life to feel good about myself? I don't care if I had all the money in the world. If my daughter was pregnant, regardless of the situation, I could not sleep at night if I paid to have that child murdered.

This isn't about sexism, no matter how you try to spin it. If it was, don't you think EVERY woman would be for abortion? I haven't met a woman yet that thinks they should be paid less for doing the same job as a man. But I sure have met plenty that are against murdering innocent children.

Nice try with the "old white guy" generalization. I thought you libs were against doing such a thing?

Instead of calling it a fetus, why don't you call it what it really is - a developing child.

Wait until you've seen the ultrasounds of your first child, and then held your first child. Come back then and tell me about it being a choice.

[Pale Rider]

Maybe flea should ponder this- what if, way back in the day, his sperm donor (bio-father) had "shot" him into a Kleenex. Be grateful for GOD's miracles.

[frostlion]

As crazy as the SCOTUS has been lately with some of these rulings, especially the one on taking private property for private use, it would not suprise me to see them rule on something like this.

It certainly would be quite the extension of the equal protection clause.

[fleaflicker]

[quote="frostlion";p="121900"]As crazy as the SCOTUS has been lately with some of these rulings, especially the one on taking private property for private use, it would not suprise me to see them rule on something like this.

It certainly would be quite the extension of the equal protection clause.[/quote]

That's a whole nother topic, and personally, I'm starting to get fed up with it. Why don't you start a thread? Wait, I could, and I could use examples that are only a few miles up the road. Thing is, it wouldn't be much fun if we're all in agreement.....