If women can kill unborn children without legal consequences?

[msc545]

why is it that I am forced to pay for them if the woman decides to allow it to be born, and with severe legal consequences if I don't?

[Anonymous]

That is a great question! It's almost like women have the cultural and legal power to some extent to decide what groups of people deserve human rights.

[msc545]

exactly.

[RealMarek]

Because the regime retains the aspects of patriarchy women enjoyed (alimony, child support, and the military draft) and discards the rest of it.

[Ozanne]

There are two different types of sex. One, for pleasure, and the other where the two partners willing want to have a child (with pleasure in mind too).

I can't believe I'm explaining this, but here goes. Now that we have the sex established, the sex that results in pregnancies are either 1) wanted pregnancies or 2) unwanted pregnancies. Wanted pregnancies can still result in choices such as adoption.

An unwanted pregnancy does not require child support, or any sort of expectation from the man whatsoever. It's a done deal. For her own private reasons, she can abort. Often times, there's a man in the waiting room waiting for his partner, also supportive of the decision. To say "women can kill" is so one-sided and unfair. You have no idea what is going on with couples who make the decision together. It just so happens that the embryo happens to be in her body, not his.

A wanted pregnancy is eventually going to be a child that is born, and will have two parents, regardless of the fact that one might be wayward and questions child support. A man can waive his rights to the child and have nothing to do with the baby if he so chooses. If wherever you (or he) lives doesn't recognize this, then we go back to the beginning. Sex for pleasure, or sex for reproduction. If both took part in sex for pleasure knowing the risks and it resulted in a wanted pregnancy, then that risk is joint responsibility to handle together.

The way a man can absolutely remove any sort of risk is to abstain from sex, get a vasectomy (whether permanent or reversal), and use condoms. I've read your comments where you lay all the responsibility on women to take the Pill or use an IUD, but we are talking about the MAN protecting himself, and that is how a man can do it with absolution.

[Anonymous]

Child support and reproductive freedom are two separate issues. Whether a woman is ready to be a mother or not doesn’t change your responsibilities as a man and father. Babies brought into the world need emotional and financial support from both parents. There shouldn’t need to be consequences to make someone do what is right. It’s true that women have a legal out that men do not but we didn’t exactly choose ourselves to be the ones to carry and bear the children of the species. It’s a burden nature forced upon us. If I could switch places with you and let you deal with it, I gladly would.

[msc545]

This sort of logic is why men won't date you.

[CuriousInquirer]

Because if a child is born they have a RIGHT of a good life without fear of starving, homelessness, etc. And no woman is capable of having a child without having sex with a man who is ALSO responsible for ensuring the child's RIGHT to have a good life.

If you don't want to be a responsible adult and ensure your bastards have a decent life then make a simple decision & get a castration / neutered.

.

Contrary to the popular belief on this site - a belief spurred by little education - the average woman gets an abortion because she is unable to provide a good life for the child - financial issues, mental health issues, child is disabled, product of rape, etc.

Abortions as "birth control" in relation to unprotected sex is very rare.

[msc545]

And you know all this of course because you take massive surveys and ask every woman who gets an abortion Why she's doing it, right?

[WhiteBoyChill]

You know, that’s the entire point of putting up a child for an adoption.

The fact that they’re willing to abort a child speaks volumes to their own morality

[CuriousInquirer]

@WhiteBoyChill Yes put a child into adoption where they are treated like garbage, less than human, abused emotionally & sexually speaks HIGHLY of morality. If that was NOT the case social service workers would NOT be overwhelmned throughout ALL of the United States.

[msc545]

@CuriousInquirer I was adopted as a baby and I was not "treated like garbage" as were NONE of the adopted people I know, and I know many.

Adoption is not perfect but it's better than being dead via abortion.

[WhiteBoyChill]

@CuriousInquirer And I also happen to know plenty of people I grew up with that were adopted and are living perfectly fine lives

[Justneedtokno]

I think nowadays, my opinion has change on this subject if you were honest in the beginning, and stated that you did not want to have a child and the woman proceeds to have sex with you and you end up having the child it’s kinda on her legally, it’s still a part of you biologically it’s a part of you the man so support for the child that both of you create it shouldn’t really be an issue but I guess it is no if you never told her that you wanted to have a child or express your feelings on those things and you say you don’t want a child when she becomes pregnant then it’s deathly on you to pay child support because nine times out of 10. If you tell me you don’t want something then I will proceed what you say instead of after your actions

[slatyb]

There's no such thing as an "unborn child". There is a blastocyst, then an embryo, then a fetus. After a live delivery, then there is a child. After 24 weeks of gestation there has been essentially no fetal brain development. It is absurd to claim that a 24-week fetus is conscious.

[msc545]

Here we go again. Just because you know alternate names for unborn children means nothing. How do you know there is no brain development? Since you want to talk about consciousness, why don't try defining it and tell me which part of the brain it lives in?

[msc545]

The term "unborn children" offends you because you are appalled at the idea of killing children (as you should be) but killing a fetus or whatever term you use is somehow okay with you. It should not be, because names aside these are the same thing. Murder is murder.

[slatyb]

How do I know? We've been observing this for decades and we understand very well the stages of fetal development.

[slatyb]

There is one being we know to be a conscious complete person -- the mother. Her rights far outweigh the imagined rights of a brainless blob of protoplasm. If you disagree, then would you favor forced testing and kidney donations of people who match people dying of kidney failure?

[msc545]

What does conscious mean in this context?

[msc545]

I'm going to ignore your comment about who has more rights because rights is a slippery turn to begin with and your opinions regarding someone's rights are simply your opinions and do not have any legal weight at all.

[slatyb]

It's a philosophical question, and a legal decision. It seems that you are arguing that a fetus life is more important than the mother's because the fetus has human genetics and might possible develop into a baby if the pregnancy continues. Most people don't agree with you.

[msc545]

No, I am arguing that murder is a very bad idea and a crime. You seem to be arguing a false dichotomy, e. g., either the mother will die or the unborn child will die. Obviously, if the mother dies the child dies.

"Importance" has nothing to do with this - women murder babies via abortion because we allow it, and we should not.

[slatyb]

I'm arguing that aborting a pregnancy is not murder in any way, because a fetus is not a person.

[msc545]

Define "person".

[msc545]

If you cannot define your terms other than being self-referential, then you have no argument at all.

[provokeesmokee]

You know if you don't want kids, you can wear a condom, right?

Just wear condoms if you don't want to be on the hook for child support.

You realise children are optional for you both, right?

If you fuck a woman raw and she gets pregnant, it's too late. Wear a condom, or take your consequences.

[msc545]

Take birth control pills, get an IUD, or face the consequences. Neither of those ruin sex for you as condoms do for men.

[exitseven]

This system was set up by democrats in the 60s. It was called the "War on Poverty". Like most of Democrat policies it ends up doing just rhe opposite. It financed the birth of many children who will live in poverty and dependent on the government

[goaded]

What's your view on end of life care?

A loved one is on life support without hope of recovery and facing a lingering painful death. What do you do? Keep them on life support for months or years, or turn it off and stop the suffering?

[msc545]

you do not do this without consent.

[goaded]

And when there's no possibilty of communication?

[msc545]

it doesn't happen without a directive from the person before they got sick in that case.

[goaded]

Yes, it does. Someone has to make the decision to turn it off.

[msc545]

We have a thing called an advanced directive which is quite literally a document person fills out before they get ill saying something like if XY or z happens then I want you to do a, b and c where a, b and c usually involves removing life support. I don't know what you want me to do to make this any clearer.

[goaded]

OK, and what happens when a 22 year old who never expected to die gets in a motorbike accident and couldn't live without a life support system but will never recover? Are they left on it for 50 years?

[msc545]

people don't last that long on life support. They either recover or die usually. Are you going to continue making up unlikely hypotheticals here?

[msc545]

I mean - I can ask you - What if a pregnant alien landed on Earth and wanted an abortion but couldn't get one because her planet had outlawed them, but also couldn't get one on Earth because nobody here was familiar with her anatomy, but she insisted anyway. As the doctor would you try to do it even if your malpractice insurance wouldn't cover it?

[goaded]

I'm not making up hypotheticals. People do have accidents and only survive on life support without having made a living will. At that point, their next of kin get to make the decisions, no?

[msc545]

Whoever they named in the EOL directive, or perhaps nobody if there isn't one.

[msc545]

Your hypothetical is at best a very low-probability event that you picked in an effort to bolster your argument that killing babies is okay if women want to do that.

[goaded]

Seriously? There's no-one to make the decision without an end of life directive? I find that very hard to believe.

[msc545]

Relatives can decide in some cases.

[goaded]

So, who's the closest relative to a fetus? I'm pretty sure they're not allowed to sign anything (not having been born).

[msc545]

You are implicitly propounding a false equivalence.

This question does not arise in cases where the human being you are proposing to kill is not ill. The unborn child is not ill.

Stop pandering to women.

[goaded]

I'm referring to late abortions. Those "unborn children" are desired, but also not going to survive. The obvious fact you're trying to avoid is that the mother is the only person who should have a say in the matter. I'll get on to the subject of early abortions later.

[msc545]

Ok, if the child is ill, and the mother wants to kill it because of that, then I suppose she is the closest relative at that point.

If the child is NOT ill, and she is just pissed off about her bad choices, then she should have no rights in this at all any more than I have a right to kill my neighbor because he inconvenienced me in some way.

You are straining and stretching to find a way to make sure mothers have a right to kill unborn children.

They don't. Abortion is murder and there is no logical way around that.

[msc545]

Also, a child that is as ill as you say it is usually doesn't make it to the late abortion stage. They usually miscarry before that.

[msc545]

I think that's about enough of me answering your questions. How about you answer mine?

[goaded]

There are two questions when it comes to abortion, not just one simplistic "it's bad". The one I've been pointing out here is late term abortions of wanted pregnancies. As the "life support system", the mother obviously should have the the right to make end of life decisions for a seriously damaged fetus. No woman should be forced to bear a terminally ill or even dead fetus to term, it's inhumane.

At the other end of the spectrum there are early abortions, making up the vast majority. Those are done before there is any brain that is required for conciousness.

In answer to your question: it's because you both took the risk that she might become pregnant, so you should both bear the costs. If there's an abortion there are almost no costs, otherwise you're both on the hook except she risks her life and you don't.

[msc545]

Not as the "life-support system" - as the closest relative. I see where you are going here, and I am not agreeing with your specific language in this.

In your early abortion assertion, you say "Those are done before there is any brain that is required for conciousness."

That is a contention that you cannot just throw in there given that you cannot support in by science, and you cannot even define "consciousness". This is just your wishful thinking.

I should in all fairness beable to get a financial abortion (declining to pay any and all costs including child support) while she is pregnant, since she can simply pay someone to murder our unborn child and not ask my permission or even tell me she did that.

Women have a monopoly on reproductive decisions and men have NO say in them and are expected to pay for decisions the mother makes for up to 20+ years.

[goaded]

Of course the mother is the next of kin, and should have the right to make end of life decisions in case of serious problems with the pregnancy. That's why abortions should be legal throughout a pregnancy.

It's ridiculous to claim consciousness doesn't require a brain; you don't go unconscious from having your toe stepped on.

Women have a monopoly on reproductive decisions because it's their body. The man made a decision to have sex with the possibility of pregnancy and the possibility that the woman will make the life-threatening choice to keep it (if she's given a choice at all), *that's* what they're paying for. Anti-choice just makes it more likely that men will have to pay.

[HelpfulWoman]

When abortions are done, it's on cells.
I also believe that you should be able to sign off (by the end of pregnancy at most) to cut off yourself from parental responsibility.

[msc545]

Guess what - we are all made of "cells".

[HelpfulWoman]

yes.

[msc545]

So by your logic, killing an adult human being would be ok if a woman did it?

[whirled_up_girl]

I would say it’s a good question for the legislators who write state and federal laws.

[lightbulb27]

because life isn't fair... the woman has domain control over the life.

men are seed deliverers, not seed bearers.

[pethouse]

Though I do agree with abortion to a current extent but I mean low key I kinda agree that society should not have to pay for someone’s abortion.

[msc545]

Abortion is a $ 300 problem. Eighteen years of child support is a multi-thousand dollar problem that only is inflicted on men.

[Sasahara]

Because the law is biased in favor of women on this subject.

[WhiteBoyChill]

I agree. After a certain number of abortions I believe there should be forced sterilization

[Anonymous]

NO to abortion but yes to the death penalty WTF?

[msc545]

no to the death penalty as well.

[catarecute]

most abortions are actually the guys idea.