Board 8 > Judge is CONFLICTED on a GUY Suing his EX GF for ABORTING THEIR CHILD!!!.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Keep in mind even safe sex methods still have failure rates so you can do everything right and still get a woman pregnant.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Keep in mind even safe sex methods still have failure rates so you can do everything right and still get a woman pregnant.

Of course. Just like you can drive perfectly and still get into an accident. Pregnancy is actually more avoidable because in general it's easier to just be abstinent than to not use any kind of transportation (no I'm not preaching abstinence)

It's like if you get in your friends car and get hit by a tree or something. You can't fault your friend for that or like sue him to pay the medical bills or something. You just got unlucky

In a perfect world there would be no unplanned pregnancies (and I never would have been born lol)
---

TheRock1525 posted...

These topics are always terrible.

Can the fetus be removed and put inside the father and incubated for nine months until he births it? No? Then there's no argument. There is unequal stress put on the parents during a pregnancy and therefore there are unequal rights. Sorry.

This doesn't give the woman the right to terminate the right to life of a child against the other parents wishes. This is something that should be understood can happen if you choose to do acts that can result in pregnancy.
---

This doesn't give the woman the right to terminate the right to life of a child against the other parents wishes.

it totally does. The woman bears all the responsibility of the pregnancy process so she gets all the choice to end it.

when a baby is actually born then the man is a position to share the responsibility, so at that point he gets a say in what happens with the child

This is something that should be understood can happen if you choose to do acts that can result in pregnancy.

it should be understood by men that a potential consequence of having sex is getting a woman pregnant, wanting her to give birth, and the woman getting an abortion against his wishes

if the guy didnt want to get a woman pregnant and then have that pregnancy aborted, maybe he should have been abstinent
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

This doesn't give the woman the right to terminate the right to life of a child against the other parents wishes.

it totally does. The woman bears all the responsibility of the pregnancy process so she gets all the choice to end it.

when a baby is actually born then the man is a position to share the responsibility, so at that point he gets a say in what happens with the child

This is something that should be understood can happen if you choose to do acts that can result in pregnancy.

it should be understood by men that a potential consequence of having sex is getting a woman pregnant, wanting her to give birth, and the woman getting an abortion against his wishes

if the guy didnt want to get a woman pregnant and then have that pregnancy aborted, maybe he should have been abstinent

That is a two party thing. The man didn't get the woman pregnant in consensual sex without her being party to the act. They share that responsibility just as they share having created it.
---

There are extreme health risks for a woman during pregnancy as well.

There are no health risks for a man.

Again. This is the woman's body, her life, her choices.

No one can force someone to do something they do not want to do. Man or woman.

A man has absolutely no rights to a fertilized egg inside a woman's body.

A man loses the prospect of having a child if the pregnancy comes full term. That is all.
---

Obellisk posted...

There are extreme health risks for a woman during pregnancy as well.

I agree in the event there are medical complications the woman should be able to make the choice of abortion if her life is at risk or the child reasonably cannot live a healthy life.

Obellisk posted...

A man has absolutely no rights to a fertilized egg inside a woman's body.

Then the woman absolutely has no rights to the sperm that fertilized the egg. That's a ridiculous argument.

The problem with your arguments is that you keep going back to the woman in the equation just automatically supersedes the father. That is just an uneven argument. The woman has every right to decide the fate of the right to live of a child while the man has absolutely none. That makes zero sense.

If a woman isn't ready, she can get an abortion. If a man isn't ready, a woman can choose to have a baby and also collect 18 years of child support on top of it.

It is clearly an unfair system.

It also bewilders me how many support the "right to choose" while also arguing they themselves would never do it. Just like it bewilders me about Republicans who argue against abortion yet secretly are trying to get them when their mistresses get pregnant and such.

There is a lot of hypocrisy in these arguments.

What is clear is that you are MORE LIKELY to not support abortion as much once you have children of your own and more likely to support it when you are younger. There are some obvious reasons for that, but it also questions if it takes experiencing the miracle of life before you truly get it also in being against abortion.

Though I am sure some of you will argue that it is just people being petty and thinking if they had their children others should also.
---

Life is not a miracle.
---

Where I significantly differ with Republicans is that I believe we should be giving out protection and possibly even requiring its usage. Many Republicans wanna argue no one should have sex thus they should not have protection given to them while also arguing they shouldn't be allowed abortion. It's an argument that leads to what they are supposedly so against.
---

I'm in full support of abortion. There are enough irresponsible fuckheads on this planet and people who don't want kids probably shouldn't be having them.

We have an over flowing amount of orphans that will never get a real family because their parents were against abortion AND parenting.

I do not believe that the child support argument is a sufficient rebuttal to the woman being allowed to choose what she has to go through.
---

Obellisk posted...

I'm in full support of abortion. There are enough irresponsible fuckheads on this planet and people who don't want kids probably shouldn't be having them.

We have an over flowing amount of orphans that will never get a real family because their parents were against abortion AND parenting.

I do not believe that the child support argument is a sufficient rebuttal to the woman being allowed to choose what she has to go through.

You are supporting irresponsibility in regards to human life. It is a disappointing take for you to have, in my opinion.

I see no reason you aren't flocking to my compromised position if that is truly your take. You are basically supporting after the fact prevention instead of actual prevention. And, you are basically saying because people make mistakes that an innocent child who could become so much shouldn't be given that opportunity because of how you view the conceivers.
---

I believe if you don't want a child you should use protection. I don't think people should be irresponsible. I also don't believe punishing a future baby is fair either.

Also, I firmly don't believe life starts at conception and I think that is the basis of our disagreeing here.
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

it should be understood by men that a potential consequence of having sex is getting a woman pregnant, wanting her to give birth, and the woman getting an abortion against his wishes

if the guy didnt want to get a woman pregnant and then have that pregnancy aborted, maybe he should have been abstinent

Abortions are not a natural thing. The equivalent thing would be a miscarriage or stillbirth
---

Obellisk posted...

No one can force someone to do something they do not want to do. Man or woman.

Wow I guess I'll stop paying taxes then
---

MZero11 posted...

Obellisk posted...

No one can force someone to do something they do not want to do. Man or woman.

Wow I guess I'll stop paying taxes then

Yeah because that is equivalent...
---

Mzero, as a man can you say there is anything that could happen to you in which you would lose 50% of the rights to your own self.
---

I think both sides have fair points and should stop being so aggressive on the matter.

On one hand I strongly believe in the sanctity of life and therefore wouldn't even risk impregnating a woman who has no interest in having a child. Same goes for if I was woman who wasn't ready for a child, I simply wouldn't take the risks. Or at least help prevent them to the best of my ability, make the guy wear a condom, take birth control, etc. Granted I personally place a much lower value on casual sex than most people, but that's besides the point.

On the other hand in this case especially. The abortion was legal under the eyes of the law, therefore the murder charge I believe the huy was going for already isn't valid. Secondly what's stopping the guy from impregnating someone who actually wants to have a child? I get it's very hard to move on from something like that, but not only would he still have a child, but it would make the parenting process a hundred times easier.

Also on the matter of child support, that's something I strongly believe is very corrupt as there have been plenty of people I know, that have been unjustly screwed over by that. However I think that's an unrelated matter, so I don't really know why it's being brought up here
---

Obellisk posted...

Mzero, as a man can you say there is anything that could happen to you in which you would lose 50% of the rights to your own self.

Technically I could have been drafted!

Anyway a fetus isn't part of a woman's body. They can't just produce them on their own, so the man should have equal rights to the fetus

Now if there is reason to believe the fetus will cause significant risk to the woman's health, as determined by a health professional, then it becomes an issue of her health/body so she shoukd be able to decide on her own in that scenario

Otherwise... well it's pregnancy. The woman will be fine the majority of the time
---

BetrayedTangy posted...

On the other hand in this case especially. The abortion was legal under the eyes of the law, therefore the murder charge I believe the huy was going for already isn't valid.

100% agree

I'm just talking about future cases
---

MZero11 posted...

Otherwise... well it's pregnancy. The woman will be fine the majority of the time

You know, except for loss of wages, lost time, morning sickness, among other issues. Not to mention recuperating time after the pregnancy.
---

MZero11 posted...

BetrayedTangy posted...

On the other hand in this case especially. The abortion was legal under the eyes of the law, therefore the murder charge I believe the huy was going for already isn't valid.

100% agree

I'm just talking about future cases

In that case I remain neutral, as I mentioned earlier, I'm very much of the mindset that people do need ro hold themselves to their own responsibilities more, but if people want to let the law be in charge of their own responsibilities then the law can be the one to decide imho
---

Ashethan posted...

MZero11 posted...

Otherwise... well it's pregnancy. The woman will be fine the majority of the time

You know, except for loss of wages, lost time, morning sickness, among other issues. Not to mention recuperating time after the pregnancy.

yeah it sucks but it's an unfortunate part of life and something billions of people have been through. You all act like the woman is being skinned alive or something >_> and again, the woman knew this when she decided to have sex and risk being impregnated

Now if the fetus could be safely transported into a separate incubator and no one had to be pregnant that would be awesome, but unfortunately that doesn't exist (yet)
---

MZero11 posted...

yeah it sucks but it's an unfortunate part of life and something billions of people have been through. You all act like the woman is being skinned alive or something >_> and again, the woman knew this when she decided to have sex and risk being impregnated

Well it sucks, and it's part of life that the woman gets to choose and the man doesn't.
---

Women have been getting abortions since the beginning of time. There are literally instructions on how to do it in the old testament of the bible.

It can feel unfair or raw that you as a man don't have any control over the situation, but you're also not the one that would have to undergo all the physiological changes that go along with growing an 8lb tumor that will eventually turn into a human. You can just turn around and impregnate someone else. That's the inherent unfairness of reality.

Asking women to pretend birth control and abortion donot exist and then demanding they "suffer the consequences" of having sex is weird.
---

banananor posted...

Women have been getting abortions since the beginning of time. There are literally instructions on how to do it in the old testament of the bible.

Wait, really? Where?
---

Drakeryn posted...

banananor posted...

Women have been getting abortions since the beginning of time. There are literally instructions on how to do it in the old testament of the bible.

Wait, really? Where?

Place child in sticks and leaves. Place sticks and leaves in river. Push.

Congrats your child was aborted.
---

Drakeryn posted...

Wait, really? Where?

Numbers 5:11-35.
---

Haste_2 posted...

If they had agreed beforehand to not abort the child, then maybe it would be fair for him to sue. But it looks like they didn't do that, so....

I dont think this is even a thing anyways in America right... right ??
It's her body she has the right at any point in time to decide what's best for her. No one gets to decide what's best for someone elses body ever imo

Ashethan posted...

Drakeryn posted...

Wait, really? Where?

Numbers 5:11-35.

Huh, I didn't know that. Neat!

Though it only works for married women who have affairs, so it wouldn't work for the woman in the article.

The Test for an Unfaithful Wife

11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 Speak to the Israelites and say to them: If a mans wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impureor if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this cursemay the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.

Then the woman is to say, Amen. So be it.

23 The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[e] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29 This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.

---

banananor posted...

It can feel unfair or raw that you as a man don't have any control over the situation, but you're also not the one that would have to undergo all the physiological changes that go along with growing an 8lb tumor that will eventually turn into a human. You can just turn around and impregnate someone else. That's the inherent unfairness of reality.

He is literally using the baby is a parasite debate. Holy hell. I thought I would never see this argument actually in real life debate!!!

And 8 pound tumor? He is saying a fully formed baby is a tumor. Wild.
---

You might be reading too much into that. I personally interpreted the tumor remark as a reference to its shape.
---

MZero11 posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

it should be understood by men that a potential consequence of having sex is getting a woman pregnant, wanting her to give birth, and the woman getting an abortion against his wishes

if the guy didnt want to get a woman pregnant and then have that pregnancy aborted, maybe he should have been abstinent

Abortions are not a natural thing. The equivalent thing would be a miscarriage or stillbirth

why does it matter whether or not abortions are natural? theyre a thing that happens and a thing a man can reasonably expect is a risk of having sex.
---

Why is the anti-abortion debate always framed around "consequences" and "responsibility?" Why is having an abortion irresponsible and not an explicit consequence? Why is it considered responsible to have a child no one is adequately prepared to raise? How come there is a point in the chain of events where you should no longer exercise agency to prevent an outcome and should just accept the conclusion?
---

KCF0107 posted...

You might be reading too much into that. I personally interpreted the tumor remark as a reference to its shape.

That is a hell of an interpretation.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Why is the anti-abortion debate always framed around "consequences" and "responsibility?" Why is having an abortion irresponsible and not an explicit consequence? Why is it considered responsible to have a child no one is adequately prepared to raise? How come there is a point in the chain of events where you should no longer exercise agency to prevent an outcome and should just accept the conclusion?

It is a responsibility and consequence argument because it is a consequence of your actions and a responsibility that comes with your actions. You are robbing the child a right to life because you were irresponsible.
---

That argument only works if you think the "right to life" of unborn persons is more important than rights of living persons. You have to establish that fetuses are more important than their mothers and fathers first.
---

Aren't you robbing the "child" the right to life every time you don't fuck by that same logic?

A six week fetus cannot survive outside of the mother. Nor can a 12 week. Why do you insist it's a "child"?
---

Also 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriages anyways.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

That argument only works if you think the "right to life" of unborn persons is more important than rights of living persons. You have to establish that fetuses are more important than their mothers and fathers first.

I have already stated I think abortion is.an acceptable choice of a mother if her life is at danger to have the pregnancy. So, the right of the child to life is not greater than the mother. But, it is greater than the "inconvenience" of life. Just because a child is inconvenient for your life doesn't make it right to be aborted when you consensually had sex and it could have resulted in a child yet you still did so, especially so when you didn't use proper prevention.
---

I like how a child is just "an inconvenience" and not a massive biological, monetary, and psychological change.

You literally just argue "people who have kids oppose abortion more".
---

Corrik7 posted...

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Why is the anti-abortion debate always framed around "consequences" and "responsibility?" Why is having an abortion irresponsible and not an explicit consequence? Why is it considered responsible to have a child no one is adequately prepared to raise? How come there is a point in the chain of events where you should no longer exercise agency to prevent an outcome and should just accept the conclusion?

It is a responsibility and consequence argument because it is a consequence of your actions and a responsibility that comes with your actions. You are robbing the child a right to life because you were irresponsible.

if a fetus has a right to life how is there any situation where abortion is acceptable to you? Theres never any other case where you get to kill someone without legal consequence unless theyre like actively trying to murder you.
---

Corrik7 posted...

I have already stated I think abortion is.an acceptable choice of a mother if her life is at danger to have the pregnancy. So, the right of the child to life is not greater than the mother. But, it is greater than the "inconvenience" of life. Just because a child is inconvenient for your life doesn't make it right to be aborted when you consensually had sex and it could have resulted in a child yet you still did so, especially so when you didn't use proper prevention.

Right, so what you should be arguing is that life begins at conception or that the potential of additonal human life is more important than actual human lives. All this crap about responsibility doesn't matter because it's not the core of the diagreement. You're very concerned about the practical applications when the debate isnt actually about practicality. Example, you talk about "proper preventions" here. People could debate you on that, how people do take precautions and still get pregnant, how do you even enforce that, do you have to provide documentation of an attempt of prevention to get an abortion or do you have to just deal with it? It's all pointless though because that's not what your real issue is.
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Corrik7 posted...

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Why is the anti-abortion debate always framed around "consequences" and "responsibility?" Why is having an abortion irresponsible and not an explicit consequence? Why is it considered responsible to have a child no one is adequately prepared to raise? How come there is a point in the chain of events where you should no longer exercise agency to prevent an outcome and should just accept the conclusion?

It is a responsibility and consequence argument because it is a consequence of your actions and a responsibility that comes with your actions. You are robbing the child a right to life because you were irresponsible.

if a fetus has a right to life how is there any situation where abortion is acceptable to you? Theres never any other case where you get to kill someone without legal consequence unless theyre like actively trying to murder you.

I alrdy stated I believe in limited abortion and offered what I considered a compromised approach regarding it.

That is why I find it so funny when this vehemently argue against me so much in regards to abortion when I am far from an abortion hardliner and more towards the center on the issue, and I don't really find the issue a major one in which I consider when it comes to elections.
---

Corrik7 posted...

That is why I find it so funny when this vehemently argue against me so much in regards to abortion when I am far from an abortion hardliner and more towards the center on the issue, and I don't really find the issue a major one in which I consider when it comes to elections.

There isn't really a center on this issue. Your view is very clearly a "pro-life with some exceptions" stance which is the very same as many of the incredibly restrictive laws being passed. It is just slightly more accommodating than the very worst.
---

alrdy stated I believe in limited abortion and offered what I considered a compromised approach regarding it.

right but how do you find that limited abortion morally justifiable if the fetus has a right to life
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

alrdy stated I believe in limited abortion and offered what I considered a compromised approach regarding it.

right but how do you find that limited abortion morally justifiable if the fetus has a right to life

I think there are scenarios in which the woman should be able to reasonably choose if she wants to rob life from a child.

Rape
Life of mother at risk to carry out
Child cannot live a healthy life
---

Ok but you realize that is a typical pro-life stance, right?
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Ok but you realize that is a typical pro-life stance, right?

Limited abortion is not a typical pro-life stance.

The typical pro-lifer believes abortions are murder and you are a child murderer if you do it.

I am very towards the middle of the spectrum.
---

You're wrong, but even if you weren't, you have so much more in common with the pro-life side than the pro-choice side that the pro-choice side has no other option but to be completely opposed to you. Therefore it's disingenuous to complain you're treated like you're on the extreme. You can't enlightened centrist out of this issue other than having literally no opinion (which favors whatever the establishment wants).
---

Stop treating fetuses like living humans with rights. They have no rights. They are merely an organism sapping the life of its host until its ready to emerge from its cocoon.

Now then. Who gets to say what happens to it?
---