Should men have a say in abortion ?

is the state legally bound to provide the necessities of life to a child ?
what about to an adult ?

... ?
oh dear ! what happened to all those morals ?

are womens sanitary products classed as necessities of life ?

oh dear ! what happened to all those morals ?

... "oh but i only want to talk about my own feelings of things i want to say about other peoples lives because im a big selfish baby"

..."oh but IM not selfish because im a fascist telling women what they can and cant do with their own bodys" ...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe Bob stated in another thread that he sometimes plays different gender roles online, so I guess he's qualified to speak for women.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

legal question...
is "reproductive rights" a legal human right in the usa ?
i would suggest no.
probably has no base in law.

how can this be if human rights are a pretend law ?
human being the highly fluid subjective self serving term.

reproductive human rights vs the state ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow, that was brutal. So, when does the fetus become a human being?

 

The "objections" of the man are not relevant - he's not pregnant. He can't shuck his responsibilities by objecting to decisions that are not his to make.

He does - he has all the same rights to "abandon" his pregnancy a woman has to "abandon" hers.

Risk is a cost. Economics 101.

 

So, I have a question:

Okay, look, as word games go, this one is apparent, simplistic, stubborn, and counterproductive. Everybody sees you playing. Everybody sees you failing to accomplish anything. Everybody knows you're not actually trying to accomplish anything. Everybody knows you're aware of all this. Everybody knows you know they know. What nobody knows is why you bother.

Seriously, it's just not that difficult. Musika, add a modifier, an adjective before the word life; really, it's not tough. Bob, even more so; you're not actually this stupid, and everybody knows it.

Thus: What is actually the point? Don't get me wrong, I can follow this back at least to the bit about paying taxes, which, taken at face value is what it is, but the number of posts people burn up this way eventually becomes disruptive. Any number of things could have been cleared up by now, if either of you were actually interested in it.

There is a particular irony afoot, but it is obscure and particular and only has anything to do with either of you for extraordinarily stupid reasons. As it is, the only real question we have left is why you bother.

 

If everyone knows, spit it out. For something that is apparently easy for anyone and everyone to put their finger on, you are being quite obtuse.

 

Regarding the original question of the thread - if said men wouldn't be willing to take responsibility financially, emotionally, etc for an unwanted pregnancy that they are partially responsible for, then it would be pretty audacious of those same men to stand in the way of a woman wanting an abortion.

I've never had an abortion, but I have friends who have, and the men were nowhere to be found, so these women made their decisions, alone. Many women do. There seems to be this odd notion that scads of men are begging their women not to have abortions and their women are ignoring their requests, and going through with it. I'm sure that situation exists, but many women are abandoned by the men who got them pregnant, and they are left to have to figure things out on their own.

 

Quite so.
The men having "a say" are not the ones actually involved in any specific individual decision.
These are men in power "having a say in" - i.e. making rules, often very harsh ones, for - the conduct of women they don't know, in situations they themselves have no stake in and which they'd done nothing to prevent, for the outcome of which they take no responsibility. A simple case of victim-bashing. Texas deserves to have all its single women leave the state as soon as they reach puberty. I know I'd take my daughter the hell out of that toxic place!

 

Yep, agree. What I've randomly noticed is it just seems anyway, that the majority of pro-life men are sexists. Look at Trump. He treats women as though they are disposable sex objects, and then in the next breath, supports laws that restrict a woman's right to an abortion. I believe he said early on in his Presidency ''I love women!'' lol He likes using women, but he has no respect for them. Putting it another way, he, like many men, feel that they can bang as many women as they choose, having their way with them - but, if any women get pregnant in the process, that's their problem. Many of those types of men, are the voices behind the pro-life sector.

Certainly not saying that all pro-life men are like that - some have religious reasons for why they are anti-abortion. But, it's just been an observation that many pro-life men are sexist, and so they can't separate how they view women, in terms of equality, and basic civil rights.

 

Of course!
They're scared shitless of women, as they are of their other victims. As long as they have control over these scary "other" people, they feel relatively safe. As soon the slaves show the first sign of emancipation, these men freak out - I mean, full-out smoke-from-their-nose ballistic.
As long as they had 'their' women safely stowed away, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, no money of her own, no place to run, they were content to leave all the parenting to the mothers - except whupping the boys once in while, and diddling the girls oncet in a while. They didn't do a remarkably good job of taking care of babies, especially poor people's babies.
But now, suddenly, when women can make some of their own decisions, women can't be trusted with the precious seed.

That's the same thing. Christianity is mainly work of one closeted tax-collector -turned-evangelist who built that very same fear of women into his doctrine.

 

im throwing this out as a guess.
big ass but-hurt about paying taxes that the republicans waste on their own golden toilet seats.
just a bit of transference mixed in to some jolly ol good ol fashioned xenophobia towards new income earners and the gap between the old boys and the new girls ...
"back in the good ol days" by any measure is still good ol days ?

although the slant i am guessing is musika is a right leaning panhandler for liberal conservatism in a new smock and flashy lipstick
might be wrong, if i am please point out where.

 

not forgetting the social shame and torment they are put through if they tell people about it and then pushed in to the spot light to become cannon fodder for the screaming lunatic abortion bomber cultists.

assuming they have a spare $10,000.00 US$ to pay for an abortion in such a customer focused health system as the usa has.

its not like the church is attempting to re-make the states bed and then get into it and have saintly sex with everyone without consent.

 

imagine how many free hospitals the evangelist churches in the usa could build and run.
but they dont.
gee whizz my rogers... why dont they ?
that just sounds darn unchristian like of them rich people.
... but Mr rogers, why do they say abortion is not about christian values of being a good christian ?
i dont get it.
why do they keep changing what a good christian is supposed to believe in ?

Mr Rogers, why are we Christians ?
... well jimmy... im not sure we are.
gee willickers Mr Rogers, my teacher says only Christians go to heaven.
Mr Rogers, my teacher says church is not supposed to mix with the state.
why do the church keep trying to get involved in what people do in their bedrooms and make it law ?
jimmy are you planning to have an abortion ?
well gee MR Rogers your being silly, im a boy, and boys dont have abortions, they run the world, they are far too busy to have babies.

 

My favourite right-wing hustings trick is the moral somersault :
First:
These bad girls in the halter-tops and shorts parading around so's red-blooded boys can't help theirself, well if they gets knocked up, they durn well better not be allowed to go murderin their poor liddle bay-bees!
Then:
These welfare mothers can't hang onto a man, but they keep having little bastards, they expect us taxpayers to support their brats??!

 

That doesn't follow at all. There are many jurisdictions where abortion is illegal. Do they imprison women or execute them for having abortions ?

 

Not yet. But "pro life" advocates in at least three states want to follow the example of El Salvador; Georgia's already there.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...rison?utm_source=viceadwordsca&utm_medium=cpc

 

Scientifically, it never wasn't. Legally, morally, socially, biblically, and politically, when it takes its first breath.

 

Don't forget the part where they want to prevent access to contraception. That's their trifecta.

 

No, I have never gotten an abortion, and the people I know who have made decisions on abortion did not make them because "the fetus 'exists in a state of dependence.' "

I thought you might just be making shit up, but if you have decided to get an abortion (or not) based primarily "on the state of dependence of the fetus" then that would be a reasonable argument. So I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.