Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Male Reproductive Rights & Abortion

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 6:18:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Note, this thread presupposes the premise that abortion is permissible in society. So please take your pro-life stuff to another thread if that is what you want to post as it is off topic.

I wanted to ask people on what their position was regarding male reproductive rights &a abortion - and a male partner's (or even estranged partner) say in whether or not said foetus should be aborted if the father is against it.

The knee-jerk response from me is that the mother has priority here since she is the one who is bodily burdened with the child, and she is the one who must deliver it. However - we have in many constitutions rights given to the women regarding the the fathers - for example the right to claim income support for the child from the father even if the father is estranged.

Thus - IF women have the right over men without male consent (for example, a woman could have sex with a man, and the man later doesn't want a child, well tough sh*t for the man, he has to pay income support for the next 20 years) - then it follows that men ought to have comparably rights - including without female consent (such as mandating the baby being carried to full term - taking custody of the child - and then claiming income support from the mother).

This topic I guess ain't specific to abortion - but general men's vs women's rights regarding children. In any case it would be interesting to hear some perspectives on this - especially since I haven't come to a conclusion myself yet.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 6:33:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Women would be forced to have abortions against their will, or alternately forced to carry babies and give birth against their will. Hard to see a policy like that getting much political support.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 6:45:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
*If* abortion was permissible/legal, then child-birth should require consent of both parties because both the man and woman have a vested interest in it. As you said, men have to pay child support, and women have to carry the child and give birth to it (they very rarely have to pay child support).

So, child-bearing should require consent from both parties. The effect that this will have is less absent fathers (i.e. fathers who were forced into fatherhood and fled). Single mothers are notorious for raising degenerate children (e.g. children raised by single mothers are far more likely to commit crime). There is no better family structure than the nuclear family and it should be prioritised at all times. Also, when men aren't offered equal rights to children, they're just going to slowly walk away (i.e. MGTOW), like we're seeing in Japan predominately and all around the world (Japan has a negative birth-rate).

But as Gabanza wrote, you're going to struggle to get women to give up their "rights".
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 6:50:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 6:33:46 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Women would be forced to have abortions against their will, or alternately forced to carry babies and give birth against their will.

The former doesn't follow. And the latter just mirrors the disparity in male reproductive rights. As it stands right now in many countries - the mother can carry a baby to term against the fsther's cknsent even in countries that permit abortion - and then claim income support from him. Thus you are engaging in special pleading here - why should a woman have all these rights and the man have none?

Hard to see a policy like that getting much political support.

True. Which is a problem.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 7:13:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 6:50:35 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/23/2015 6:33:46 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Women would be forced to have abortions against their will, or alternately forced to carry babies and give birth against their will.

The former doesn't follow. And the latter just mirrors the disparity in male reproductive rights. As it stands right now in many countries - the mother can carry a baby to term against the fsther's cknsent even in countries that permit abortion - and then claim income support from him. Thus you are engaging in special pleading here - why should a woman have all these rights and the man have none?

Because of the physical aspect of it. This is an argument about abortion and you said in the OP that we are assuming that abortion is legal. Women have the right to abortion in your scenario, but now you're saying that they need the man's permission first?

An obvious way around it would be not to let the man know that you're pregnant, and just secretly get an abortion as many women do now anyway. So to avoid that, you'd have to impose a law where women need the signature of the father to abort? Presumably, there'd have to be a DNA match between the foetus and the father for the permission to apply, because otherwise women would just get any random man to sign the form. And what would be gained by this procedure? A proportion of unwilling mothers forced to carry their baby to term, or obliged to find illegal means of terminating it. It's a terrible idea.

Hard to see a policy like that getting much political support.

True. Which is a problem.

About child support. Children are very expensive, and there are a lot of children born whose parents are not in permanent relationships. Further, many (most?) women who have children outside relationships cannot support the child and care for the child on their own. Children who grow up in poverty have terrible outcomes. So someone has to help out. I'd be okay with the government coughing up a single parent pension. That would spare individual men responsibility for their children, but it would mean taxes would go up.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 7:17:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Men should not have say in the decisions of women regarding keeping or terminating pregnancies. If the issue is gender inequality in terms of parental obligations, a simpler solution would be to allow men to sever all legal and financial obligations to their children.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 7:21:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Tl;dr solution:

Before having sex, question if you and the person you're sleeping with are ready to be parents. If not, inspect your condom like a sargeant during roll call. And if something is out of place, run.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 7:40:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am pro life.
I believe that the man should have just as much say, as the women does, in the case of abortion. Even though the man will not be affected physically, he will be affected emotionally. If a man feels that his child was murderered he will live the rest of his life in grief. He will have a deep sadness that will follow him everywhere. He should be able to live his life with out grief and depression and if that means forcing a women to have a child than so be it.
No one can force a women to get an abortion, as it is very physically traumatic. I know people who had abortions and later had trouble conceiving children. Not only is abortion physically traumatic, it is also emotionally traumatic. Even if the women was not forced Into the abortion she will still have a hard time dealing with it.
A mans opinion on wether his child should be aborted or not is just as important as the women's.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 7:55:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 7:17:42 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Men should not have say in the decisions of women regarding keeping or terminating pregnancies. If the issue is gender inequality in terms of parental obligations, a simpler solution would be to allow men to sever all legal and financial obligations to their children.

Feminists unequivocly reject that idea, just like they rejected ending permanent alimony in Florida.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 8:57:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 7:55:51 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/23/2015 7:17:42 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Men should not have say in the decisions of women regarding keeping or terminating pregnancies. If the issue is gender inequality in terms of parental obligations, a simpler solution would be to allow men to sever all legal and financial obligations to their children.

Feminists unequivocly reject that idea, just like they rejected ending permanent alimony in Florida.

It makes sense for feminists to reject that idea and it is by no means a good solution, only a simpler one.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 9:02:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 8:57:21 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 6/23/2015 7:55:51 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/23/2015 7:17:42 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Men should not have say in the decisions of women regarding keeping or terminating pregnancies. If the issue is gender inequality in terms of parental obligations, a simpler solution would be to allow men to sever all legal and financial obligations to their children.

Feminists unequivocly reject that idea, just like they rejected ending permanent alimony in Florida.

It makes sense for feminists to reject that idea and it is by no means a good solution, only a simpler one.

So you think it is fine that men get no choice in whether or not they are involuntary servants for the next two decades of their life?
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 9:17:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 9:02:14 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/23/2015 8:57:21 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 6/23/2015 7:55:51 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/23/2015 7:17:42 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Men should not have say in the decisions of women regarding keeping or terminating pregnancies. If the issue is gender inequality in terms of parental obligations, a simpler solution would be to allow men to sever all legal and financial obligations to their children.

Feminists unequivocly reject that idea, just like they rejected ending permanent alimony in Florida.

It makes sense for feminists to reject that idea and it is by no means a good solution, only a simpler one.

So you think it is fine that men get no choice in whether or not they are involuntary servants for the next two decades of their life?

Men do have a choice in terms of their role in their children's lives, though each carries certain consequences and I grant it is a complex issue. My suggestion of allowing fathers to terminate legal ties to children would certainly aid the men, but not the children. On balance, the children need the support to a greater degree.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 10:25:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 7:17:42 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Men should not have say in the decisions of women regarding keeping or terminating pregnancies. If the issue is gender inequality in terms of parental obligations, a simpler solution would be to allow men to sever all legal and financial obligations to their children.

But then you have the child being raised by single mothers, of which are notoriously bad at raising children. Also, this places a massive welfare burden on the state, because women won't be able to raise their child and work full-time -- something will give.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 10:26:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 9:17:20 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 6/23/2015 9:02:14 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/23/2015 8:57:21 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 6/23/2015 7:55:51 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/23/2015 7:17:42 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Men should not have say in the decisions of women regarding keeping or terminating pregnancies. If the issue is gender inequality in terms of parental obligations, a simpler solution would be to allow men to sever all legal and financial obligations to their children.

Feminists unequivocly reject that idea, just like they rejected ending permanent alimony in Florida.

It makes sense for feminists to reject that idea and it is by no means a good solution, only a simpler one.

So you think it is fine that men get no choice in whether or not they are involuntary servants for the next two decades of their life?

Men do have a choice in terms of their role in their children's lives, though each carries certain consequences and I grant it is a complex issue. My suggestion of allowing fathers to terminate legal ties to children would certainly aid the men, but not the children. On balance, the children need the support to a greater degree.

But child support is by no means required to go to the child. In almost all jurisdictions, the mother can do whatever she wants with it. It's like if instead of giving people EBT cards for food welfare, we gave them credit cards, which they are under no obligation to use on food and there is no accountability if they don't.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 10:26:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 7:21:11 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
Tl;dr solution:

Before having sex, question if you and the person you're sleeping with are ready to be parents. If not, inspect your condom like a sargeant during roll call. And if something is out of place, run.

This in a way is good because it will cut-down on casual sex rates, due to fear of entrapment.
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 12:03:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 10:26:30 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 6/23/2015 7:21:11 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
Tl;dr solution:

Before having sex, question if you and the person you're sleeping with are ready to be parents. If not, inspect your condom like a sargeant during roll call. And if something is out of place, run.

This in a way is good because it will cut-down on casual sex rates, due to fear of entrapment.

What is wrong with casual sex?
I'm going to be spending months at a time deployed so a commited relationship would be cruel... that and some arranged marriage meetings have soured that idea for me. Ever been in a sub? With nukes and low oxygen? That sh*t will drive you loony without women and alcohol at port.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 12:49:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 12:03:39 AM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 6/23/2015 10:26:30 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 6/23/2015 7:21:11 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
Tl;dr solution:

Before having sex, question if you and the person you're sleeping with are ready to be parents. If not, inspect your condom like a sargeant during roll call. And if something is out of place, run.

This in a way is good because it will cut-down on casual sex rates, due to fear of entrapment.

What is wrong with casual sex?

Incompatible with a civilised society.

I'm going to be spending months at a time deployed so a commited relationship would be cruel... that and some arranged marriage meetings have soured that idea for me. Ever been in a sub? With nukes and low oxygen? That sh*t will drive you loony without women and alcohol at port.

Eh, I'm not going to stop you, lol.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 1:56:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 7:13:23 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/23/2015 6:50:35 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/23/2015 6:33:46 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Women would be forced to have abortions against their will, or alternately forced to carry babies and give birth against their will.

The former doesn't follow. And the latter just mirrors the disparity in male reproductive rights. As it stands right now in many countries - the mother can carry a baby to term against the fsther's cknsent even in countries that permit abortion - and then claim income support from him. Thus you are engaging in special pleading here - why should a woman have all these rights and the man have none?

Because of the physical aspect of it. This is an argument about abortion and you said in the OP that we are assuming that abortion is legal. Women have the right to abortion in your scenario, but now you're saying that they need the man's permission first?

No. But I am saying that it may well be fairly the case if society grants rights to the woman after birth from the father (especially regarding income support - but there are other rights too).

If there were no women rights over men after birth, then no - I do not see an argument that men ought to have a say in abortion.

An obvious way around it would be not to let the man know that you're pregnant, and just secretly get an abortion as many women do now anyway. So to avoid that, you'd have to impose a law where women need the signature of the father to abort?

It may be well be pragmatically difficult. This exact scenario you are positing though is not fiction - it happens all the time in several countries - including the U.S.

Presumably, there'd have to be a DNA match between the foetus and the father for the permission to apply, because otherwise women would just get any random man to sign the form. And what would be gained by this procedure? A proportion of unwilling mothers forced to carry their baby to term, or obliged to find illegal means of terminating it. It's a terrible idea.

I don't like it either.

Hard to see a policy like that getting much political support.

True. Which is a problem.

About child support. Children are very expensive, and there are a lot of children born whose parents are not in permanent relationships. Further, many (most?) women who have children outside relationships cannot support the child and care for the child on their own. Children who grow up in poverty have terrible outcomes. So someone has to help out. I'd be okay with the government coughing up a single parent pension. That would spare individual men responsibility for their children, but it would mean taxes would go up.

Yet the man has no say in whether or not he is going to make that commitment mid-pregnancy - or even before. A woman on the other hand *does* have that say. You think this is fair??

There are stories - where a woman has lied to her partner about birth control - gotten pregnant - then separated and claimed support. Just what day did the male partner have in this huge financial commitment? None.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 12:50:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is impractical to give men any controlling say in whether or not a fetus is to be aborted. If he wants to keep the child, then the woman is forced to follow through with an unwanted pregnancy which is a violation of her rights in my mind. If he wants the child aborted and the woman wants it kept, then an abortion is forced on a woman who doesn't want it which is also a violation of her rights. When it comes down to it, its the woman's body and ultimately the child is the woman's responsibility (in nearly all situations). Her contribution and sacrifice far outweighs that of the man, and so she must have the controlling say.

In most relationships the man does have a say in this type of situation. But its symbolic more than anything, and is dependent on how much respect the woman has for his opinion. If my wife were to become pregnant and if we were considering abortion, I would certainly have a great deal of power over the outcome because of the nature of our relationship. Neither one of us makes big decisions without the other's input. But the decision is still ultimately hers. She will need to carry it, she will need to birth it and she will likely carry the majority of the responsibility in raising it.

As far as the man being responsible financially for a child be it wanted or unwanted, that's just the risk you take when engaging with women sexually. You are responsible for your own birth control. The man's involvement in making a child ends with sex, and that is also where his control of the situation ends. We're all adults here. Sex is an adult activity with adult consequences. If you aren't willing to accept those consequences, you don't have to play.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 1:09:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm siding with Maikuru here. Men don't get a say over womens' bodies, but they should be able to opt out of paying long-term financial support/alimony for a child they didn't want.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 1:37:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is just a rights-balancing issue at a couple of different stages. Up until the fetus can no longer legally be aborted, the issue is one of bodily autonomy of the mother. The mother is the only person who gets any say in this matter. Maybe the father's opinion would count in some future scenario where a fetus can be removed and finish developing in an artificial womb. But that really involves the next stage.

After a fetus can no longer be aborted, it's a parental rights issue. Let's look at the possible scenarios: A) both parents want to keep the child, B) only one parent wants to keep the child, or C) neither parent wants to keep the child. The solution to C seems obvious: give it up for adoption. A also seems obvious: parents split custody based on fitness as parents. I know there's contention over how father's are treated in that regard, but it seems like that's tangential to this thread. So B is the only relevant situation for this thread. Regardless of which parent wants to keep the child, I think the disinterested party should pay child support. The time to decide whether you wanted to be saddled with a kid was when you had sex. There's nothing wrong with making a mistake, but you have to be responsible for the result.
Shield
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 1:32:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have always been a firm believer in equal reproductive rights across both sexes. A man has a right to abort his gamete and a woman has a right to abort her zygote. However, there is the issue of force. It would be highly unethical to force a woman to undergo a medical procedure, or take a pill, that is not medically required for her health. If a woman doesnt want to be a mother, she can abort the growth inside of her. If a man doesnt want to be a father, what is he to do? It is claimed illogically that because the woman has the burdens of carrying and giving birth to the child, that it is her decision. It is illogical because if the baby were to be aborted, the burdens of carrying and giving birth would not be there. It is unethical for a man to force a woman to be a mother just as it is unethical for a woman to force a man to be a father. But it is also unethical to force a woman to not be a mother and to force a man to not be a father. The only way forward is to leave the final choice up to the woman, with the hope that she'd view the man's rights as equal to her own. If two people initiate the process of creation of something from one half of each of themselves, then if one or both of those people decide that they no longer want to continue through with that creation, then they ought to undo it before it is created (given a limited amount of time into the process of creation, that specific time limit being contraversial).
The proudest moment of my life was when i traveled a thousand miles for love and brought that love back with me those same thousand miles. Nothing that has ever happened, nor ever will, will ever take that pride away from my heart.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 1:57:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yet the man has no say in whether or not he is going to make that commitment mid-pregnancy - or even before. A woman on the other hand *does* have that say.

The way I interpret Roe vs Wade is that the state (or others) may not intervene in private/personal matters, and that abortion is a private matter at least in the first trimester because it pertains to a woman's management of her own body. That's not the same as endorsing the abortion option, although it's often interpreted that way. Many women do not feel that abortion is an option, for moral reasons, or from maternal instinct. So it's not really having a say to the extent that you're saying it is. Both men and women have the option of birth control and avoiding conception that way.

A man could trick a woman too and say he's wearing a condom or has a vasectomy when he doesn't, and also birth control doesn't always work, so sex is risky and that's not a secret. You might say, okay, she can have an abortion, but maybe she can't. I couldn't do it, because it would be killing my own child. I don't really understand how women can do it, to be honest. They must think about it all differently from me, or their circumstances are different. The point of the law is not that they can, or that it's a universal option but rather than nobody else should make that decision about a woman's own body.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 2:13:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's like the right to assembly. You might not be able to join a group in kansas because you don't live there, but people in Kansas can easily join. That's just life.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 9:37:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 1:37:35 PM, Burzmali wrote:
The time to decide whether you wanted to be saddled with a kid was when you had sex. There's nothing wrong with making a mistake, but you have to be responsible for the result.

Agreed, which is why neither women, men, or doctors should be allowed to kill innocent human life simply because two people made a mistake. They both have to be responsible for the result.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 9:40:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 1:09:16 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I'm siding with Maikuru here. Men don't get a say over womens' bodies, but they should be able to opt out of paying long-term financial support/alimony for a child they didn't want.

Assuming abortion is legal, this is indeed the only fair solution. However, the issue is not "men don't get a say over women's bodies." The issue is, women don't get a say over the bodies of unborn children.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 9:59:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 9:37:22 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 6/24/2015 1:37:35 PM, Burzmali wrote:
The time to decide whether you wanted to be saddled with a kid was when you had sex. There's nothing wrong with making a mistake, but you have to be responsible for the result.

Agreed, which is why neither women, men, or doctors should be allowed to kill innocent human life simply because two people made a mistake. They both have to be responsible for the result.

http://www.scribd.com...
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 10:08:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 9:59:31 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/26/2015 9:37:22 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 6/24/2015 1:37:35 PM, Burzmali wrote:
The time to decide whether you wanted to be saddled with a kid was when you had sex. There's nothing wrong with making a mistake, but you have to be responsible for the result.

Agreed, which is why neither women, men, or doctors should be allowed to kill innocent human life simply because two people made a mistake. They both have to be responsible for the result.

http://www.scribd.com...

Yes, it's a book on how to kill people by using plants. Similar to books written on the subject of poisoning, I believe. What is your point?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 10:19:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 10:08:45 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 6/26/2015 9:59:31 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/26/2015 9:37:22 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 6/24/2015 1:37:35 PM, Burzmali wrote:
The time to decide whether you wanted to be saddled with a kid was when you had sex. There's nothing wrong with making a mistake, but you have to be responsible for the result.

Agreed, which is why neither women, men, or doctors should be allowed to kill innocent human life simply because two people made a mistake. They both have to be responsible for the result.

http://www.scribd.com...

Yes, it's a book on how to kill people by using plants. Similar to books written on the subject of poisoning, I believe. What is your point?

My point is that it's not something that can reasonably ever be enforced, so there's no point in making it a law. It's a private decision, and so it's silly to say "should be allowed" about it. It's not like killing someone who has a birth certificate. Nobody except the mother knows the foetus exists and nobody except the mother will miss it when it's gone.
Shield
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:16:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 10:25:03 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 6/23/2015 7:17:42 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Men should not have say in the decisions of women regarding keeping or terminating pregnancies. If the issue is gender inequality in terms of parental obligations, a simpler solution would be to allow men to sever all legal and financial obligations to their children.

But then you have the child being raised by single mothers, of which are notoriously bad at raising children. Also, this places a massive welfare burden on the state, because women won't be able to raise their child and work full-time -- something will give.

my mom raised me just fine
The proudest moment of my life was when i traveled a thousand miles for love and brought that love back with me those same thousand miles. Nothing that has ever happened, nor ever will, will ever take that pride away from my heart.