In some sense, it will. Your life will change drastically. As such, your life, as it was before the child, is ruined. You can look at this in a positive way, but that doesn't change the fact of the matter.

Precisely. There's absolutely no positive outlook when it gets out that you had an abortion in Moonshine, Mississippi.

So once again, you advocate forcing a woman against her will into having an abortion in the name of 'fairness'?

Double Post:
It's incredibly unfortunate that some men have fatherhood thrust apon them. You are right, it isn't fair that she has "all" the say on whether a child is born or not.

However, the alternative - allowing men to force abortions or pregnancies on unwilling mothers - is absolutely reprehensible.* And once the child is born, neither parent is allowed to abandon it without support. I mean, the very suggestion is vile and disgusting, but there's no theoretical reason for it either.

Look, this is one of those laws where vindication has no place. For all the bleating the sixteen year olds keep up about what's fair, and all the abortion talk the pro-lifers keep putting in, I havne't heard one goddamned reason why we should legalize men abandoning their children. And that's what these guys are basically arguing for.

Additionally, it's really silly how some of you keep saying WELL THEY SHOULD JUST NOT HAVE SEX THEN. That argument is always funny. Who exactly are you trying to convince here?

* Outlawing abortion seems like a very quick and easy solution for those among us who have a child's view of morality. Limiting rights doesn't mean the same as equal rights, you obnoxious dicks.

It's not arguing abstinence, lurker. It's arguing not fucking someone who may want kids and you may not or vise versa ;_;

First everyone does know where babies come from and if you engage in sex there is the possibility that a child will be created. Its not anything difficult to understand. If you pull out, there is still a chance. If you use a condom there is still a chance.

Second I never said that a man should have the right to FORCE a woman to have an abortion, he should have a say in the matter. It is his child too!!

It is his child if she decides to carry the kid to term, sir.

Otherwise no, it's not really his or his to say it should be born or not.

The world i live in is reality if you believe that "pulling out before he cums?" crap then you are living in a fantasy world and soon reality will come wake you up.

Thank God the courts will soon decide just what rights a man has in this issue. Praise God for Alito and Roberts.

I also suppose he's trolling. Nobody could be this retarded. I haven't seen anybody in the Palace pass off this kind of drivel and seriously expect us to treat it like a rational point. This has to be trolling.

I also refuse to believe that it took me 10 minutes to catch up to speed just to have lurker beat me to the punch. =/

Edit: 7 minutes. =/

I guess I will just make my response simple.
anyone, man or woman, who does not want a child, should not be fucking. Either that or reliable methods of preventing pregnancy.

I guess it may not 'seem' fair to the men, but the fact is that the reproductive right is the woman's alone. 9 months of bodily changes and childbirth pain and risks are things that men do not have to worry about.

Besides, if a man really wants a child to raise and love, why not adopt? Adopted children require the same things.

Hang on, I never said that there arn't valid reasons for abortion. There are, however "I don't feel like raising a child" is NOT one of them. If you aren't willing to risk a pregnacy, then don't have sex. It's very simple really.

Let me tell you "pro-choice" folks a little story. I was an accident, my parents were not married at the time that I was concieved, and they were most certainly NOT planning on having children at that point. They were just college students after all. Now, this is a perfect example of a situation where you guys would say "abort, abort!!!".

However, my parents did the right thing. They got married, and my dad went out and found a job, and supported my mom and I. It wasn't easy for them (or me for that matter), but they did it anyway. In fact I have a great deal of resepect for my parents, because they made some big and difficult changes in their own lives for my sake, when they could have just as easily aborted me.

I was an accident in a similar fashion, yet I still believe that the ultimate choice about going through a pregnancy or not should remain with the women in question. Then again, this didn't keep me from recently encouraging a close friend of mine to keep her child and the path they're in for will likely be a tough one to go (because of money or rather the lack therof).

No pun intended, but I guess post-1950's sex education hasn't penetrated where you live.

Pre-ejaculation semen is not fertile enough to impregnant a woman. The problem is that most guys can't "get out" in time. But I don't live in reality. Then again I've never had to have anybody terminate a pregnancy either. Plus, you can always believe the conservative movement on health education right? They're never wrong! Well, except on AIDs..... but that's it.

Whether or not your parents wanted to abort you was their own choice. Nobody is encouraging potential parents to abort their children in any situation save perhaps the husband and her parents.

What you still fail to realize is that it's impossible to determine individual motives for abortion. Let's say your parents decided to abort you. They're both in college, both have very small if any income, everything screams of economic infeasability. But what if, say, your mom had a weak heart, and giving birth to you could kill her? What if your dad beat her, and she didn't want to bring his child into the world? What if she faced the threat of disownment if she had a child?

What your parents did was admirable on many levels, and while you may be here today, I can guarantee you that you wouldn't care if you had been aborted.

I don't really understand what you mean by that... you just listed a whole bunch of "motives", so how is it impossible?

I don't think it's right to end a life just to save a few bucks. And just because something seems difficult doesn't mean you should just give up.

If giving birth will likely kill the mother, I think it's reasonable to want an abortion.

Thats a tricky one... but I think it would be better to just leave the father and raise the child alone (or put the child up for adoption) than to have the abortion. It's hard to say though, this particular case is a no-win-situation no matter what you do...

That would be a pretty lame excuse IMHO. I believe that your responsibility to protect your child outweighs your responsibility to your parents...

Weather or not I "care" is irrelavent. Say I kill you in your sleep. I guarantee you wouldn't care (because you wouldn't see it coming). Does that make it okay?

Because human beings are capable of something called Deceit. If some bitch gets an abortion because she lost a bet with her friends, she sure as Hell isn't going to disclose that reason. It's impossible to truly know what someone is thinking during any point in their lives, because it is entirely possible that the reasonings they provide for their actions are false. How then, do we differentiate legitimate needs for abortion from trivial ones? We can't. Therefore, the safest course of action is to provide abortions to whoever that needs them, because if we get rid of abortions, then not only do we increase the burden on society to support the children, but we endanger the physical, mental, and economic well-being of women or couples that have damn good reasons for aborting their potential child.

Aside from that, it isn't anybody's place to judge the motives for an abortion. While you may not believe that a certain reason for an abortion is justifiable, that's none of your concern, because you aren't the one having the abortion. It's nobody's business but the woman's or the couple's, and inquiring into their reasonings is an egregious invasion of privacy.

Where do we stop at this reasoning? Is it not OK to slaughter a cow because maintaining her puts an extra burden on the farm? Is it not ok to euthenize your dog because its colostomy bag is too much hassle? How do we legislate these things? Do we simply stop at the human level, which is still a debateable status?

Besideswhich, it is again not your place to determine whether or not somebody should have an abortion. It is not your seed, it is not your body.

I've provided you with several cases for why your mom could have elected to abort you, and while you personally determine one to be ok, the second is indeterminable, and the third you consider a definite no-no. However, why is it that you should force your own reasoning on a person by power of law? How is it even possible to differentiate these motives without mind reading? You would argue that it's simply better to allow the child to be born, but not only does that put an undue burden on the parents, but it also impacts society as a whole, because children don't give back for 16 years. You are actively seeking to force a problem on society that doesn't have to exist.

Not according to the State, but as far as I'm concerned, drawing personal opinion on the matter would have no relevance, since I would no longer exist. Assuming that you were aborted, you wouldn't have even had a consciousness that existed in the first place. The only proof of your existance would have been a lump of cells in the garbage, and your defining aspect as a person, your ego, never would have come to be.

Then the mother would have to determine whether she can raise the child without the support of the father. If she can, then she could continue with the planned pregnancy and raise the child by herself, a phenomenon that has become increasingly common today. If not, then she could decide to have the child aborted and not be burdened with the responsibility of providing for a child by herself. In the case of the father, theoretically, he would need to release himself of those parental responsibilities during the period in which the mother could legally proceed with an abortion, allowing her the freedom to decide whether she wants to have the baby by herself or not.

The problem with the status quo, according to proponents of this law, is that men are often forced to pay for children they didn't want in the first place, or are required to pay for children when they're unable to do so because the mother insists on following through with the pregnancy. Granting men the right to opt out of such planned pregnancies would theoretically put them on an equal legal plain with women insofar as they wouldn't be dependant on women to dissolve their parental obligations, and, consequently, they could make that decision for themselves.

This is how a theoretical male abortion might take place. The logic is interesting, but I haven't made up my mind yet on whether I would support something like this or not.

A few things I want to attack:

This mode of thinking is outdated and doesn't correspond to the realities of the world today. Therefore, it doesn't hold as a modem for determining the legal validity of a postmodern legal conundrum.

This is not an issue of reproductive rights (although at certain points they intersect insofar as the mother chooses to abort the child) but parental obligations.

For the same reasons that millions of familes in the U.S. don't adopt: they want their own biological children.

The only problem I have with your statements was this one. Just because it is the reality today, doesn't make it right.

Drugs are everywhere today, simple reality. Should we then have government controlled institutions to allow people to go and get high? Smoke a joint, sniff some coke, etc.? How about underage drinking? Teens do it all the time, should we thus allow teens to do it in regulated environments?

That mode of thinking is not really that outdated. It's simply that people today do not have any sense of responsibility to this world. If something goes wrong, it's someone else's fault, and they look for the easy way out.

The simple fact of the matter is, if you're going to go around fucking like an adult, then should something happen and you become pregnant, then that's too bad. It's time to grow up and act like a fucking adult. Take some responsibility for your own actions for a change.

As I said before, there are always exceptions to the rule, via rape victims, true health risks, etc, but abortion should not become the accepted normality of the situation.

Excuse me? I'm a mysogynist for not agreeing with abortion? I know that it's not as "simple as filling out a prescription", but it is a hell of a lot easier than having to change your lifestyle and raise another human being for the next 18 years of your life. Abortion is clearly "the easy way out".

Really? Would you care to enlighten me as to my "child's view of morality" then? Now don't get me wrong...I'm not saying that men should be able to say "I don't want this kid, go get an abortion". I'm for abolishing abortion as an alternative form of birth control, as to which it is used now.

If you don't want a kid, don't fuck. It's a very simple equation. If you want to fuck, then use proper protection, but realize that if something happens, only yourself is to blame and accept responsibility for the outcome.

An alternative form of birth control would imply that one has reasonable options regarding the avoidance of a birth. Paying hundreds of dollars for an invasive surgery is hardly an "alternative." Especially when an abortion becomes the only course of action to avoid birth at the stage of pregnancy. It's not as if we can beam a fetus out of the womb and into an artificial one.

The idea that an abortion has come to be seen as a method of birth control in society is ludicrous. I don't know what kind of retarded white trash you live around, but society has hardly come to the point where an abortion is considered to be anything but a last resort.

I was still in the mindset of discussing Male Reproductive Rights.

How is electing to have an abortion not a responsible decision? If you have A. no economic ability to effectively raise a child, B. well aware that in giving up the child for adoption it becomes a burden of the state, which is clearly not in the best interests for the child, and C. that because of these conditions, electing to have this child could result in a much lower standard of living for any of your successive children, then how is electing to have an abortion in order to preserve the status quo not a responsible decision? It would be irresponsible to bring the child into a world where it could not be properly cared for, or shoved around like livestock.

Not to mention the concern of health risks, which apparently nobody has picked up on. I provided an example where David's mom had a weak heart, and possibly couldn't survive child birth. However, there is no guarantee that she will die from child birth, it is simply a matter of increased risk. How then, do we determine the acceptable level of risk for an abortion when all women are in danger of losing their life in the process of child birth? It would have to be performed on a case by case basis, and doing so would likely cost the state more money in the process, as well as bring the mother to a term in the pregnancy that is at the current time considered beyond the legal allowance.

What happens in this situation? Do you terminate a being that by legal account is now considered to be a child, or do you force the mother to risk her life in order to birth the child?

Not to mention that this still comes back to your argument of responsibility avoidance, and that by aborting a child that threatens her life, the mother is essentially shirking the responsibilities placed on her by her weak heart. Clearly, by your reasoning, if she didn't want to risk her life she should have never had sex, and that she should suck it up and take it like a woman (or take it out, as the case may be).

To you, somebody with a "Child's view of morality" this previously black and white view of moral action has become muddied. Perhaps you will figure out a way to rhetoricize your way out of these scenarios, but ultimately, in your view of the world, everybody loses.

One has many reasonable options to avoid a birth. First, there's abstinence, there's the pills and plastic, as well, there are surgical procedures to tie off tubes, and a little snip and tuck there. Voila, avoiding birth. If you don't want kids, don't tempt fate.

Whereas I don't even think it should be an option, or last resort, as you put it. The facts are thousands of teens use abortion to get rid of unwanted pregnancies, and still go on withtheir lifestyle, namely fucking around, without protection. They always have the choice of abortion if it happens. If they didn't have that choice, maybe they would take more precautions...

No harm, no foul.

Because the responsible decision is to not have sex if you don't want to deal with the consequences. The responsible decision is to make sure that your life is ready when and if you want to have kids. You make these decisions ahead of time. You prepare yourself for your future, you do not live in the now, and deal with things when they come.

How did our parents do it? And our grandparents? And on and on. During the Depression there was no economic stability anywhere, and yet people still had kids. When they did, they worked harder to make ends meet, and provide for the family.

I'm at risk of dying every single morning that I wake up. I could slip in the tub. I could get in a car accident. Something could fall on me or blow up while I'm at work. Doesn't stop me from waking up in the morning and continuing on with my life. If there is a health risk to do something, you do something to lessen that risk as much as possible. Get her tubes tied. There, no pregnancy, no risk of death during child birth.

If someone were to have a kid, and there was a clear health risk, then certainly, I would certainly see that having an abortion would be necessary. But as well, tubes would be tied, so that anything in the future like that would be prevented.

What did we do before abortion?

If there was no possibility to know about a weak heart in advance, then abortion should be allowed. If, however, she knew she had a weak heart, and did it anyway, without any preventative measures, then suck it up.

Everybody is already losing in "my world". Our society is degrading at an amazing rate, because we live in a generation that wants everything given to them with the minimal amount of work possible. People have no respect for other people, there is no responsibility taken for one's own actions. Because of this, we look to others to provide our easy way outs, so that we can live life in ease.

Life is risk. Without them, it would be dull and boring, and ultimately worthless. But you take those risks and go with them, and see where it leads you. I look at abortion the same as I look at suicide. There is no reason to. Suicide is a cop out, and I have no respect for anyone who would choose it as a viable alternative to living. Abortion is the easy way out for too many people out there, so that they can go ahead and live their life the same way, without repercutions. It's not a "choice" that should be allowed, unless in the most extreme of circumstances.

They wouldn't. Teens love to fuck. They're developing and horny, and no amount of risk involved with sex is going to stop them. It was just as bad with our parent's generation as it is with ours.

Teen pregnancy is mostly an issue of ignorance, because our sexual education is highly inadequate, and access to contraceptives is limited, at best. It's easy to preach responsibility an acting grown up to a group of people that aren't considered to be legal adults.

Because abstinence or the proper use of birthcontrol is responsible, that does not invalidate the election to have an abortion as a responsible decision. That's the same reasoning as saying it's responsible to maintain a strong military, but that we should never use it.

They did it because they wanted their kids. They fucked like rabbits because they wanted kids. If a woman considers having an abortion, the first thing on her mind is always "Do I want this baby?" We are asssuming that she has elected, no, she does not want it. The reasonings behind that decision are myriad, and indeterminable, but if they are for certain reasons, such as the one considered above, I'd call it fairly responsible.

If you want to avoid the risk in driving, you don't drive. If you want to avoid the risk in waking up in every morning, then you'd probably elect not to wake up, which is comedy. You have the freedoms to choose how you lead your life, and you elect to risk your life every day when you drive. In having an abortion, a woman's risk is averted, much like how you'd avert the risk of driving by taking public transit.

Infanticide. Then abortion.

If the child was wanted, the birth would be forced. If the child wasn't wanted, then people would find a back alley quack to perform a coat hanger abortion, or fly their children to some European country to have the operation performed.

Before we developed the tools and sterility necessary for abortions, ancient man practiced infanticide when the tribe could not afford to raise a new child. This may have eventually been justified in sacrifice to gods as man developed more advanced moral reasoning, but where the practice of infanticide ends, and abortion begins is probably impossible to determine, since they've always been considered necessary taboos, much like sex itself.

But what if she used a contraceptive and still got pregnant? There's no way to determine if it was used correctly, and yet she still took the precautions necessary to avoid pregnancy. Therefore, your recourse is to not have the abortion to begin with, since the only supposedly responsible decision is not to have sex.

Consider this, however. If there was no way to know about a person's particular health risks going into a pregnancy, then why even allow health-related abortions in the first place? The woman will give birth and die, or not, and nobody would be any the wiser that her heart was too big, or whatever.

So you can either have abortions for everybody, or abortions for none. Pick and choose, you can't rationalize around your base reasoning.

And how many people do you know that live like this? If the current generation was honestly as bad as you claim it to be, then why hasn't the economy bottomed out of itself?

I see you've elected for no abortions. You are done in this thread, further discussion is pointless.

Teen pregnancy rates haven't been this low since the 1940's. At least in America. We all have abstinence to thank for that.... and oral sex. The teen pregnancy issue is completely overblown. The only generation that has a right to judge today's teenagers is their grandparents.