Keep Your Laws Off My Body

[Prior22]

Yesterday I saw a bunch of Conservative Christians protesting near an abortion clinic. They went so far as to get in the faces of people entering the clinic with pictures of dead fetus'. If my girlfriend or any other women wants an abortion why cant she get one?

Thats the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both feel strongly about an issue. But while Democrats accept Conservative Christians being pro life and let them have their values, those same Christians want to overturn Roe v Wade and not let those with a differing viewpoint make the decision they want with regards to their child.

Basically I think its fine if someone is pro life. But why do you feel the need to control what other people do with their children? Its none of your business. I also find it ironic that Conservatives are supposed to be in favor of Washington not being involved in peoples lives (anti big government). Yet they support the Supreme Court getting involved in whether or not someone is allowed to have a legal abortion. Isn't this the ultimate Washington intrusion?

[cubfan23]

We had protestors come to my neighborhood to protest a clinic and used pictures like that to.....I think thats taking it way to far. I am a catholic and I feel though that unless the person is sexually assaulted then they should have the kid. If they are that mature to have sex then they should be that major to have a kid. If they don't want a kid use the glove dont take an innocent human beings life. Thats my take on the situation.

[gcoll]

If my girlfriend or any other women wants an abortion why cant she get one?

She can.

Thats the difference between Democrats and Republicans

No. It's not.

those same Christians want to overturn Roe v Wade and not let those with a differing viewpoint make the decision they want with regards to their child.

Well. They view that fetus as a human life. When you view it in that context, you can see why they're outraged over it being legal.

But why do you feel the need to control what other people do with their children?

Just because they're your kids, doesn't mean you can kill them.

I also find it ironic that Conservatives are supposed to be in favor of Washington not being involved in peoples lives

For the most part, they are....but you are allowed liberty....as long as you aren't denying someone else's liberty, or harming someone else.

Those conservative Christians consider that baby "someone else"

Isn't this the ultimate Washington intrusion?

No. Because 1) it doesn't exist. Abortions are legal. And 2)If it were...it wouldn't be the biggest intrusion.


*Note: I'm one of those "Pro choice, anti abortion" types of people. I think it shouldn't be illegal, but I also feel it is irresponsible, and morally ****ed up. But....I also want to pass the "Male Abortion Act" which allows men to choose whether or not they want to be fathers when they get a girl pregnant. If it is a choice, then turn about is fair play, yes? Bring that point up to a feminist though.

[NotVeryOriginal]

*Note: I'm one of those "Pro choice, anti abortion" types of people. I think it shouldn't be illegal, but I also feel it is irresponsible, and morally ****ed up. But....I also want to pass the "Male Abortion Act" which allows men to choose whether or not they want to be fathers when they get a girl pregnant. If it is a choice, then turn about is fair play, yes? Bring that point up to a feminist though.

This is my biggest issue with the whole thing. What if the guy wants to be a father or at the very least is religious and against abortion, but you get some feminazi ****-wannabe that he has a one night stand with and shes like, "This is my body"?

Im on the fence, I think its better to die in a free society than live in an opressed one, so I can see why people are outraged about being told what to do with their own bodies, but at the same time this affect more than their bodies. Life is precious, and I find it funny that these same hippies that are pro abortion are also against polluting the earth, but arent we just doing what we have the right to do with our planet? (For the record, im pro-earth and believe in global warming)

[Apophis]

I also want to pass the "Male Abortion Act" which allows men to choose whether or not they want to be fathers when they get a girl pregnant. If it is a choice, then turn about is fair play, yes? Bring that point up to a feminist though.

I agree with what you are saying here, because it will prevent those women who get pregnant just to hold on to the man or if they are after money. but it can go the other way as well..

There are laws that protect criminals regardless of the crime they commit.. Lets say a woman is a rape victim and she doesn't want the child.. but the rapist does.. It opens up a whole can of worms..

[sboyajian]

I'd be more open to the Male Anti-Abortion act, preventing women from getting abortions without consent of the father .. however it would never work because some men just take off.

The key thing here is.. protests are to be held peacefully. People who protest abortion clinics do not do so peacefully. It's the same with the PETA folks throwing blood on people with furs. They take it to far.

[ari1013]

Yesterday I saw a bunch of Conservative Christians protesting near an abortion clinic. They went so far as to get in the faces of people entering the clinic with pictures of dead fetus'. If my girlfriend or any other women wants an abortion why cant she get one?

Thats the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both feel strongly about an issue. But while Democrats accept Conservative Christians being pro life and let them have their values, those same Christians want to overturn Roe v Wade and not let those with a differing viewpoint make the decision they want with regards to their child.

Basically I think its fine if someone is pro life. But why do you feel the need to control what other people do with their children? Its none of your business. I also find it ironic that Conservatives are supposed to be in favor of Washington not being involved in peoples lives (anti big government). Yet they support the Supreme Court getting involved in whether or not someone is allowed to have a legal abortion. Isn't this the ultimate Washington intrusion?

Well you're a classic pro-choice person. You feel that everyone has the right to make their own personal decision.

You have to understand that the opposite mindset is one of anti-choice because they believe that it's a criminal act. I'm sure there are things that occur in the world that you feel are wrong. Now imagine that you believed those things were akin to murder. That's where those people are coming from.

I don't think it's right for them to act violently as they sometimes do. That's quite hypocritical. But I do understand why they protest. As for me, I'm right there with you. If someone wants an abortion and has properly considered all the consequences and potential alternatives, then that's her choice.

[blenderboy5]

Oh please.

If we're gonna play the stereotype game, it goes both ways. The far left sits up in their ivory tower and views anyone not okay with abortion as "backwards."

A true statement: every time a conservative supreme court justice is nominated, the "we can't read the constitution" crowd throws a fit. If that justice has not actually performed an abortion, he's unacceptable, pushing for segregated lunch counters, etc.

And if liberals are okay with people opposing abortion, and if no one is actually for abortion, just for or against the choice, how come it was such a terrible thing when Justice Alito's mother said "Of course my son's against abortion."

[moonman]

If any person or persons or organization demonstrating for any side of any cause, impede in any way by any means such as shoving a poster of an aborted fetus in front of the face another who is seeking a lawful service from a licensed business establishment or licensed organization; then, that person, persons and/or organization sponsoring said demonstration can and should be sued for tortuous interference with a business relationship.

Outlawing abortion will not end abortion, rather outlawing abortion will serve to return abortion to the back alley butchers. Until men are able to carry a fetus to term, women and ultimately only the woman will have the final determination as to the outcome of a pregnancy. With respect to personal and/or religious views, outlawing abortion is bad public policy.

Having said all that, Roe v. Wade was decided on the issue of privacy. Legal scholars, many otherwise pro-choice advocates, find the decision to be bad law. They argue is there is no privacy provision in the constitution. The other side of that argument is that there is no 4th Amendment "secure in your person" protection without some measure of privacy.

Privacy rights in general, and particularly as right of privacy extend to abortion, is an issue I expect the SCOTUS will revisit in our lifetime and beyond.

[ari1013]

Oh please.

If we're gonna play the stereotype game, it goes both ways. The far left sits up in their ivory tower and views anyone not okay with abortion as "backwards."

A true statement: every time a conservative supreme court justice is nominated, the "we can't read the constitution" crowd throws a fit. If that justice has not actually performed an abortion, he's unacceptable, pushing for segregated lunch counters, etc.

And if liberals are okay with people opposing abortion, and if no one is actually for abortion, just for or against the choice, how come it was such a terrible thing when Justice Alito's mother said "Of course my son's against abortion."

The difference would be forcefully keeping someone from having an abortion if she wanted to have one.

[NotVeryOriginal]

If any person or persons or organization demonstrating for any side of any cause, impede in any way by any means such as shoving a poster of an aborted fetus in front of the face another who is seeking a lawful service from a licensed business establishment or licensed organization; then, that person, persons and/or organization sponsoring said demonstration can and should be sued for tortuous interference with a business relationship.

Outlawing abortion will not end abortion, rather outlawing abortion will serve to return abortion to the back alley butchers. Until men are able to carry a fetus to term, women and ultimately only the woman will have the final determination as to the outcome of a pregnancy. With respect to personal and/or religious views, outlawing abortion is bad public policy.

Having said all that, Roe v. Wade was decided on the issue of privacy. Legal scholars, many otherwise pro-choice advocates, find the decision to be bad law. They argue is there is no privacy provision in the constitution. The other side of that argument is that there is no 4th Amendment "secure in your person" protection without some measure of privacy.

Privacy rights in general, and particularly as right of privacy extend to abortion, is an issue I expect the SCOTUS will revisit in our lifetime and beyond.

So when a man impreganates a women its a women, and women only, that has final say and resposibility for the baby? OK, just dont bother me with child maintanace payments. You cant have it both ways, it (the child) either the resposibility of both or one. IMO its both, women have to carry the child until they deliver, at least for the forseable future, thats just how evolution turned out, but the child is still a child of two parents.

[moonman]

^^^^ Once carried to term and a live human being enters the world, it is the legal responsibility of both biological parents. Prior to birth, the fetus is primarily the responsibility of the woman. That's simply a fact of biology and natural law.

So yeah, the decision to abort or carry to term belongs to the woman.

I do a lot of family law and yer not the first guy to try the "I never wanted the kid in the first place" excuse to get out child support. It doesn't pass the laugh test in any Court in the United States or in Canada, where it is called child maintenance.

[gcoll]

Until men are able to carry a fetus to term, women and ultimately only the woman will have the final determination as to the outcome of a pregnancy.

Sure. But if having a baby is a choice....then I don't think it's fair to expect someone who got you pregnant, to be responsible for your choice, without their consent.

I don't think it's fair to give women the choice of whether or not to be a mother, and not give the same choice to a father.

That's what the "Male Abortion Act" is for.

It doesn't pass the laugh test in any Court in the United States or in Canada, where it is called child maintenance.

Of course it doesn't. Family law favors the woman.

[NotVeryOriginal]

^^^^ Once carried to term and a live human being enters the world, it is the legal responsibility of both biological parents. Prior to birth, the fetus is primarily the responsibility of the woman. That's simply a fact of biology and natural law.

So yeah, the decision to abort or carry to term belongs to the woman.

I do a lot of family law and yer not the first guy to try the "I never wanted the kid in the first place" excuse to get out child support. It doesn't pass the laugh test in any Court in the United States or in Canada, where it is called child maintenance.

^^^^ Means you didnt even read what I wrote and just made your own assumption. You know what the first 3 letters in assumption is?

No the child is alive once inception happens, from that moment on it is a human life growing until the day it dies. From that moment on it has two parents who are equal gaurdians, and from that moment on both parents have the right to choice or veto any decision made. Are you a guy or a women?

You honestly telling me that if a man wants to have a baby but his GF is a skanky hoe and wants to kill the unborn baby then he has no say? ****ing liberal BS at its purists. This is why Im a republican, being a white male in the western world is the evilest thing in existance

[moonman]

That you're striving for fairness, equality and responsibility is understood and appreciated gcoll.

What happens, under your "Male Abortion Act" when the male opts for abortion and female opts for carrying to term and vice versa?

Before we got married, my bride asked this question, "What would you do if the doctors told you to make a choice between saving my life or our baby who I was carrying? Without any hesitation I told her, I save you. Stunned she asked, "Why?" I answered, "My first commitment is to you, not to our child. I honor you first."

She is still stunned and shared that story with some women recently. Men and women see it differently. Once a decision to carry to term is made, all married guys know this, the woman's first priority becomes her child and her mate is second.

Still, we are only talking about heterosexual couples here and evidence shows that responsible people who happen to be gay are equally capable of raising children.

So now let's raise a second, more complicated question under your "Male Abortion Act." A male gay couple decide and contract with a female to artificially inseminate with the intention to adopt. Let's say the female changes her mind and wants to abort. Do both males, legally contracted to the female, have a say under the contract or does the Male Abortion Act only allow for the biological parties to have rights? In other words, how would you, under the Male Abortion Act and our right to contract, resolve such conflicts in the law?