No Sign of a Red Wave; Plenty of Signs of a Dobbs Wave

If your concern is that money can be used to coerce people, I'm not sure you should be taking a position on this (because the threat of withholding support emotional or financial can be used to coerce a woman's choice too, you are advocating to give it even more teeth legally speaking). As I added to my previous post:

And for the people who dont like abortion, it seems like giving a man the ability to strongarm someone into an abortion by saying they will not financially support the child will create incentives for coercion, ones that will lead to more choices to abort a child, not less. Seems problematic if your concern is for life, limiting abortions of 'convenience' or the welfare of a child rather than you know, a man's wallet.

 

Certainly not a majority but a fairly significant percentage. Although there probably isn't any data on the subject my guess is that most elective abortions as birth control as a last resort are attributable to the failure of contraceptives rather than their intentional non-use.

 

So to sum it up, you think the only "fair" options are:

1. Men have the right to abandon children that they don't want without consequence.
2. Women have to sign over their body for months if the man demands it because they consented to sex.

Anything short of one of those two options is unfair to you?

 

I agree with this. If all men covered it up before they stuck it in this debate would be moot.

 

Where I have I said women have to sign over their body for months? Women have the right to CHOOSE to have the baby. Men have the right to CHOOSE not to support it. women have the right to abort the child without consequence. No say is given to the father. If a women wants to have a baby… by all means have it. But the man has the right to not want to have that baby as well and has the right to not support the baby.
There is no coercion
Some you seem to want the women to be able to hold a man hostage for 18 years even if he doesn’t want the baby. But if the women chooses not to have the baby.. the man has no say.
My solution gives the women complete control over body. Men have no say. It seems your sticking point is not about my body my choice.. it’s really about 18 years of financial support whether the man wants the kid or not. Women can choose not to have the kid… men do t get that choice right now. It took two to conceive that child … both should get a say in whether they want the child… if your really going to be pro choice.

 

When you penetrate the woman you are granting her that “control” over you. If you don’t want to be a dad don’t have vaginal sex with someone whose position here you don’t know.

 

No, they actually do not have that right, as that right was explicitly struck down by the court. Welcome to post Roe world.

They no longer have such a right.

The man has not been found to have an affirmative right to deny the child the support they need from birth to 18 years old.

Men can't be held hostage. They are required to provide support to a child they conceived (as the woman would be if she chooses to give the child to the father and makes more money than the father). You are against hyperbole, but then engage in a massive amount of it here.

The man doesn't get say over her body in the future because she allowed him to do something at one point in time. That is true. Granting access in one context doesn't mean that you now have access to control what she does with her body in the future. Or it shouldn't.

 

This has been pretty effectively dismantled by other posters, but if we take your argument at face value about it not being equal, and since only women (or people with a uterus) can give birth, would you rather have a setup of "choice" that incentivizes birth or abortion? Because making financial support optional in a country that makes giving birth and raising children expensive is definitely going to incentive abortion.

 

Which is what proliferssay. Don’t want to be a mom.. don’t have vaginal sex with someone without protection.
But that doesn’t work for women. Nope. Only applies to men I guess.

 

I’d rather people take responsibility for their actions altogether.. both men and women. If you are having unprotected sex you run this risk. Everyone knows that .
If the woman… who chose to have unprotected sex with the man, who chose to let him inside her, if she chooses to have the child despite whatever the man, who also chose to have unprotected sex, wants, despite him not wanting to bring life into this world.. if she CHOOSES to have the baby then that’s ok. She gets to make those choices. And the she gets to raise that baby. And she gets to love that baby. She gets the next 18-26 years of that baby. And the man gets to CHOOSE not to have a baby. He gets to choose not to be paying for the baby for the next two decades. Everyone gets to choose. From the start to finish. We are not discussing rape or no consenting adults. We are talking about two people who get to CHOOSE how they have sex, when they have sex and what the outcome of that sex will be for themselves. The other party gets no say in the matter. The woman gets to choose and the man gets to choose. The man gets few rights.. and can’t force her to have a baby even if he really wants it… it’s her body her choice. But if he doesn’t want it he can walk away just like the woman can if she doesn’t want it.
Everyone gets to choose what is best for herself/himself..
Well everyone except the baby who would be far better off with two parents raising it as a loving family. But that’s not what anyone is discussing here.

 

Women can give birth without a man being involved? Outside of artificial insemination … which removes all these arguments… I don’t see how a women can give birth with a man’s involvement?

 

Yes, a man doesnt have to be within 1000 miles of the hospital for a woman to give birth. And that is also irrelevant to the question I posed.

 

The man was involved in order for the women to be pregnant. She can’t give birth to anything without a man’s involvement. This isn’t a one sided decision. It takes two to get pregnant and yet only one has any day at all in what happens to the baby and who will pay for it.

 

No, only one has a say in what happens to her body. Once there is a baby born, then both parents have responsibility to the child unless both agree to get rid of that responsibility. Most states require either father's consent to adoption or some sort of special action. If the father chooses to raise the child, then the child is eligible for child support from the mother.

 

You're talking about having to make payments like it's a car - that is opting out. Have you raised any children - could you be replaced by an extra couple hundred dollars a month?

As far as men getting a say - you're blowing it out of proportion. How big is the subset of men between the group that are out there looking to have unprotected sex with some random chick and the group that is of such high moral character that they would anguish and lament over that random chick getting pregnant and not letting them have any say-so in what to do next?

Same easy choice for men, right? If the man is in that kind of stable relationship that's ready for kids, he gets a say. If not, then wrap that rascal or keep it in your pants.

Yep, back to it being the woman's fault.

 

And Libs are arrogant? My brain and my resume is bigger and better than yours!! Did you really just claim that on an internet message board? LMFAO!!!! Wow. Insecure much? And for the record, no sir, you wouldn't want to go there. Trust me. I do find it fascinating though, given you know absolutely zero about me, my career, or my accomplishments & accolades. So confident, yet so in the dark. Sounds all too familiar.

As to the rest of your post, another tired 'dems are evil and always have been and cons are always the victims missive'? Must be rough viewing the world through such an angry, resentful lens. And for the record, W was the dunce, not Reagan. Re: the rest of your list, believe what you will, I couldn't care less. But I don't subscribe to any of it. As I've said on here before, I'm socially liberal, but lean conservative on a lot of other issues including immigration, taxes and gov't spending. Recently switched from Dem to NPA, because I'm not happy with the direction of either party as of now.

Again, you don't know me, so stop pretending to. Feel free to take your arrogance elsewhere.

 

Yep. Laughable, really.

 

My arrogance is staying right here where it seems to be having the intended effect. And yes, sir, I did go there and will again. You questioned my intellect, but have a fit when I throw it back at you, and then have the stones to call me I secure?????

You’ve got issues dude!

 

Yes thats called conception, not birth. Unless you are arguing that birth begins at conception now. For most of us birth means when you actually give birth.