People, all people used to be more civilized. The politicians, as always, just figure out a way to manipulate the incivility for their own gain.
I agree. I would like to see states, put better thought into paternal rights in these issues as well.
When you think about it, there really can’t be “paternal rights” with abortion. Either way is an invasion of another persons body. If the woman wants the abortion, and the man can “veto” it, then you have forced pregnancy. Almost akin to a hostage situation if the man exerts control to prevent the woman from obtaining an abortion. Even more ludicrously - if HE wants an abortion and she doesn’t… what can be done? You going to strap the woman down and force her to have an abortion (another right wing poster crazily dropped the idea of “slipping” abortion pills to women!). I’m not sure what “paternal rights” could be on offer. That the man can just walk away? Well that’s basically just saying they should have the right to be a deadbeat. It just seems like even the most basic level consideration of this issue can only lead to it being women’s choice, unless you can expand on what you mean by paternal rights.
Wrong term, more like oppression. They have a website to keep track of the orange cheeto's wrong doings, we need one for Duhsantis and his cronies.
In many ways your response proved the point. As things are, there are no paternal rights. You use the term “strap down the woman and force her to have an abortion”. What is different, in the case of a baby that is not mutually wanted by both parents, about strapping down a woman to force an abortion or strapping down the man to forced child support payments for 18 years? One way or the other, one of their “rights” becomes secondary to the desires of the other. I realize that this is an extremely complicated issue, and your conclusion is somewhat logical. I think that either one’s choice should come with a “price tag” so to speak when the desires are not in mutual agreement. Laws are really not the way this should be worked, but humans being humans we are where we are. There are no pre-sex contracts available for one night stands or long term relationships. But the current laws and practice give all of the power to one party with no consideration for the other. I just don’t see how that is equal protection, and that is where I struggle with stopping at your conclusion.
It is one sided towards the woman. The “bodily autonomy” reasoning is obvious. The woman is the one physically carrying a child. Now if we want to get into the financial commitments, I suppose we can call that one sided as well. Men are generally expected if not required to pay child support when a baby is born. Possibly in instances they never wanted or expected a child. Is that “fair”? Maybe not. Of course most pro-choice folks don’t go on about “welfare queens” or single parent homes, pro-choice does seem to correlate a lot of financial support for women who do have babies. Sometimes the guy is just a bumb and those programs are needed for single women. In either case, if you view it all as “unfair” to the man you are either asking for the man to be able to order an abortion or to withdraw financial support for children. Kind of the opposite of a pro-life movement, more like just an overall cynical pov. But it is also sadly reflective of GOP politics.
Abortion is of no issue to me politically. Whether it is a federal or a state’s rights issue. Everyone has to answer for their life’s action to our maker so that takes care of it for me. If one can stand before their maker and justify taking a child’s life then their maker will decide whether it was justified or not. I am not naive to think that politicians are on one side or the other to protect either victim. Show me a divisive issue and I will show you the long lines of politicians and lawyers looking to capitalize on it. People will always do what they think they need to (or just want to) when they need it. Laws only punish the few that get caught at anything. It is only one issue of many that arises from trying to legislate morality. I have been around long enough to see much of the worst of human behavior. Neither sex has either a monopoly or even a plurality immoral behavior. People will always manipulate to get what they want or even just to spite those they don’t. I just don’t like laws picking a side.
Serious question; regarding the serial adulterer, pornstar-banging, thrice married, adjudicated and admitted sexual assaulter who you are very excited to vote to be our next President...... .....how many abortions do you think that he's paid for?
Pro-choice and Drug legalization don’t try to regulate morality. They do the opposite. At their core, these are both fiscally conservative libertarian positions which allow people the choices and don’t allow the govt discretion to “pick a side” or to impose morality (especially odious considering these are 50-50 propositions at best, if not a minority trying to legislate their morals against the will of the rest). People can be selectively prosecuted (vs those who manipulate the system) only if the laws exist allowing that to happen in the 1st place! I don’t do any drugs nor would I personally try to convince of an abortion, yet I’ve always been pro choice and pro-legalization precisely because the govts job isn’t to legislate morality. I’m against “book bans” for the same reason.
Oh Jo, Jo, Jo. We all know there is no such thing as a serious question from you. But I will answer anyway. Don’t know and don’t care. My guess would be many. I consider my vote like a hiring decision. What you do outside of company time is your business up to the point of it harming the company. I have said many times that I would not want my sister dating Trump, but when the choice to do THIS job is only him or Kamala, there really isn’t a choice for me. His policies and results are in line with my desires. Kamala and Joe have screwed all of us in the you know where and, in the words of Sergeant Hartman “didn’t even have the goddamn common courtesy to give us a reach around”.
Again a fetus is not a baby. If a mother calls her four year old boy 'my little man' do you think that means the boy is actually a man?
I don't think it's cynical at all, but I'm glad it's come up. All the abortion activists yell "shut up" to men when it comes to abortion and want men to have no say. And I agree that when it comes to the abortion itself, if it does go that direction the woman has final say. I do not want to force women to be mother's before they are ready. But I also don't want to force men to be father's before they are ready either. And in our current society women are not forced to be mothers before they are ready, but men are forced to be fathers before they are ready. Abortion activists, by denying paternal rights, are essentially saying men have no skin in the game. Considering we are talking about a man by and large giving up his freedom, or in the very least his financial freedom, for the next 18 years of his life, I would very much say that men are significant skin in the game. Think about it from a younger perspective. A woman, when they are 25 and under for example, okay she has a wild night and gets pregnant. She doesn't want the pregnancy as she wants to focus on her career and travel. She gets an abortion and the issue is resolved. A man though, who is also 25 and under for example, he also decides to have a wild night and gets a woman pregnant. He used a condom and the condom failed. His life is now over for 18 years. He doesn't get to focus on his career and travel. His life is at the mercy of the woman and what she decides. We talk about men controlling women, what about this where the woman literally has complete control over the man? Sure the woman can let the man off the hook, but she doesn't have to. She can make sure that man pays child support every month for 18 years. With the current abortion activists, a woman gets to make a mistake. The man is not allowed to make a mistake. It's so funny that women are the ones who talk about things like "sex strikes" when in reality it's men who are the ones who should be on a "sex strike" right now. This answer won't happen in our society currently, but financial abortion is truly the answer. Allow a 15 week abortion for women and allow an 11 week financial abortion for men. That way if the woman overrules the man and wants to have the kid, the man is not on the hook financially before they are ready. And if the woman doesn't want to have the kid, the man has no say. And the reason I say 11 weeks for men is to allow women an extra 4 weeks to decide on if she wants the kid or not. That way the woman knows if she has the kid she is financially supporting that kid herself. While abortion impacts women more than men, we need to get away from this idea that men aren't impacted and therefore should have no rights. When the next 18 years of someone's life is at stake, both women and men should have rights.
Dangole. You can debate with mothers if you like. All I am saying is that the assertions made here by multiple people are incorrect. We do in fact call it a baby in many cases and even major medical institutions do so.. ...Including UF Health: pregnancy ultrasound may be done during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy to: Confirm a normal pregnancy Determine the baby's age ... Determine the baby's heart rate A pregnancy ultrasound may also be done in the second and third trimesters to: Determine the baby's age, growth, position, and sometimes sex. https://ufhealth.org/conditions-and-treatments/ultrasound-pregnancy .
If two people have a "wild night" and make a mistake, it sounds like it isn't even a relationship. Men walk away ALL the time, even if they are in a relationship. They can sign away all rights to the child. Women can be responsible for one pregnancy a year, how many pregnancies can men create? Leave your DNA in someone else's body and it becomes theirs. We are really digging down into the weeds now. That sex strike idea is promising though. Go for it.
Is a fetus resulting from rape or incest a baby too? If so, why are you ok with abortion in this circumstance. A baby is a viable person with full legal rights of personhood. A 12 week fetus is not.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the definition of overturning roe? In the instance the woman wants to keep the pregnancy, and the man doesn't, they can talk about it and she can release him of any responsibility. If she won't, take it as a warning to stop treating women like sex objects to get off on. Stay a virgin until you get married. How about that?!
