Men Abortion and Choice

[Stormieweather]

Thus the term...viability.

This whole arguement makes me feel queasy. The practicalities of trying to enforce such a law are impossible. I would think a whole lot of women would suddenly develop anmesia as to who their sex partners had been. The only real way to enforce it would be to outlaw abortion entirely. Then women would have to have the baby and any male who thought he might be the father could lay claim and subsequently submit to paternity tests to prove or disprove it. Back alley abortions would once again be in business.

/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

[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?

Then the father has no responsibility.
You don't get it both ways.

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Then the father has no responsibility.
You don't get it both ways.

I agree, on principle.

[DanaC]

Honestly, I don't care if every man was willing to care for the child once it was born. Whilst it takes its oxygen direct from the woman's bloodstream, it is a part of her body.

If there are methods in place other than the law to ensure the rights of both parents, that would be ideal.
Unfortunately, the current legal climate favors the female alone, my suggestion sought only to level that field for both equal parents.

Okay, so after hundreds, indeed thousands of years of the balance being all in favour of men, we get about twenty five years of the balance shifting towards women a little and men like you can't stop whining. It's all skewed in the woman's favour is it now? Because she can decide not to endure 9 months of pregnancy after her contraception failed?

Y'know my mother's generation were the first ones to be considered the natural parent in cases of custody. My grandmother's generation were still being locked up in mental asylums for 'moral and mental instability' for the crime of getting pregnant outside wedlock.

D'you think my generation doesn't know this? Hasn't heard the stories? Do you really think your "Waaah waaaaah, it's not fair, waaaah, women get it easy" bullshit resonates at all?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by bluecuracao

A fetus must be given birth to, to have his/her own rights. But as long as he/she must depend on a woman's body to live, said woman has overriding rights.
...

Exactly. If a Mexican woman is in the US, and is pregnant, the fetus is not an American citizen. It only becomes an American citizen when it is born.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No, ownership... just like a mini-slave. That's why the courts have ruled to limit the 4th amendment for kids.

Doesn't that infringe on its inalienable rights? How can you defend an ammendment that limits these rights?

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Unfortunately, the current legal climate favors the female alone, my suggestion sought only to level that field for both equal parents.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

How would it do that?

Cut the baby in half while still in utero.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Cut the baby in half while still in utero.

You are so wise King Sol...Spexxvet.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Doesn't that infringe on its inalienable rights? How can you defend an amendment that limits these rights?

You've got it backwards. The 4th amendment does help protect inalienable rights. The supreme court has decided that children do not have that 4th amendment protection.

[Cicero]

The latest studies show that babies need to be breast fed for at least 6 months.
Hmmmm.....................

[Cicero]

No really....who is going to breast feed it for 6 months to make sure it's healthy?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Ask the billions of people that were not breast fed for six months. It's best for the kid but far from necessary.

[skysidhe]

The ONLY thing breast feeding does is add natural immunity for the baby during the first 6 months and relieves painful milk pressure off mom.

[jinx]

Uh, no, that's wrong.

[DanaC]

The truth is we're still finding things out about the effects of breastfeeding, or not.