U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

[Lumstar]

The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, and it uses the word "slavery."


I don't care if a man provided 100% of the genetic material. It isn't his body, so he has no say regarding what happens with the pregnancy. Whether or not his "life will be changed" by the outcome of the pregnancy is also irrelevant. We don't have a legal freedom from "life-changing events."


If a child is going to be brought into this world, it needs to be supported. I suggest you reread those paragraphs for more information.


If a man can prove that his sperm was stolen, I don't think he should have to pay child support.

The issue of whether or not a man should have to pay child support is different from the issue of whether or not a woman should have a right to bodily autonomy. A woman should always have a right to bodily autonomy, regardless of the circumstances. If a child is brought into this world, then that child needs financial support. The man who contributed half the genetic material to that child should be on the hook for some of that support. That isn't a violation of his right to bodily autonomy. He is not free from the consequences of his actions.

Following up on that, bodily autonomy only extends to the womb. Aborting against the father's wishes gives him potential grounds for divorce. If the woman's actions during pregnancy impair the rest of the kid's life, that can have consequences for her.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

Following up on that, bodily autonomy only extends to the womb. Aborting against the father's wishes gives him potential grounds for divorce. If the woman's actions during pregnancy impair the rest of the kid's life, that can have consequences for her.

Of course the father has a say in what happens to the child. Lacius is just an idiot.

 

[Stone_Wings]

For the second time using the pill is 99% effective, having an operation is 100% effective, using a condom is 86% effective, not having vaginal sex is 100% effective. If there is a will there is a way. You're simply making excuses for bad behavior because you don't give a shit and just want to sleep around and not take responsibility for your actions. You're a typical liberal shill.



People need to take responsibility for the life that they create regardless if they wanted to create that life or not. Killing an unborn child due to the fact the parents don't want to provide for it is murder.



It was really tasty. However, didn't you notice this thread is about human abortions?



Then masturbate or have non-vaginal sex, wear protection, take a pill, have an operation or simply don't have sex. It doesn't matter how horney you get you need to practice self control and if you do have sex you need to take responsibility for your actions. All you are doing is making excuses for irresponsible behavior and making excuses for bad behavior is supporting that bad behavior. If people like you on the left would stop making excuses then there would be less need for abortions, but you don't care about the mother or the baby. You just want to sleep around like sluts and take no responsibility for the life that you create.



Let me explain something to you. It's not just the women's life we're discussing. There's an innocent baby that did no wrong that's going to be sucked out and shredded into pieces because the parents simply don't want the child. It's also funny that all of these people wanting to force you to get a vaccine when it's your body suddenly claim the opposite and claim its the women's body and her choice.

LMFAO!!!! What a complte failure of a post. Let me explain something to you. Wreckless pregnancy and then deciding they simply don't want it is not the reason for every abortion. Also, you want me to masturbate and kill 300+ million potential fetuses or babies? Hypocritical serial killer. Sperm cells are living organisms. Do you care about all life? Or only some? The ones that meet your religious needs?

 

[The Catboy]

This is a dumb and disingenuous circle-jerk. The second amendment is about weaponry, and despite what it does say, there are still regulations. The fourteenth amendment is not about abortion. Understanding that doesn't make people dumb conservatives. If you ask me, your constitution and its representatives are unreliable.

Of course, you walked right into my example without a sense of irony or awareness. Thanks for proving the very point I was making.

 

[Lacius]

Of course the father has a say in what happens to the child. Lacius is just an idiot.

Currently in the US, the father has no say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion, and that's how it should be.

I can't speak for what a dystopian right-wing version of this country might do in the future.

 

[mammastuffing]

Let me explain something to you. It's not just the women's life we're discussing. There's an innocent baby that did no wrong that's going to be sucked out and shredded into pieces because the parents simply don't want the child. It's also funny that all of these people wanting to force you to get a vaccine when it's your body suddenly claim the opposite and claim its the women's body and her choice.

Thanks for the explanation. And for the record I do not support forcefully injecting someone with a vaccine, so not sure what you are referring to there. Now let me explain something to you. This issue is about equals rights - for everyone. It sounds like your argument is "Because something is innocent and a baby, therefore they get special rights to be inside someone without their consent and violate that persons right to their bodily autonomy.".

 

[Stone_Wings]

Of course the father has a say in what happens to the child. Lacius is just an idiot.

Except. LMFAO! Please point out to me the section of the Uniform Parentage Act that states any pre-birth rights the father has. Please point me to ANY laws that state fathers rights to a fetus. Also doesn't seem you're aware whatsoever that there are other Supreme Court decisions regarding things of this nature. Not just Roe vs Wade. You're just wrong. But thanks for the lols.

 

[Lumstar]

Currently in the US, the father has no say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion, and that's how it should be.

Fair enough I suppose. The father doesn't need to be able to stop the abortion. If the woman egregiously betrayed his trust, there's other ways to hold her accountable.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

After all, there's countless ways for women to trap men into being forced to pay child support

And men do it too you know. Go to r/childfree and look at the stories about baby trapping.

 

[Stone_Wings]

These people are litereally saying the father has rights to the unborn fetus, but the woman does not. That's some right wing misogynistic bullshit right there if I've ever seen it.

 

[Lacius]

Fair enough I suppose. The father doesn't need to be able to stop the abortion. If the woman egregiously betrayed his trust, there's other ways to hold her accountable.

I have no problem with a guy divorcing his wife for having an abortion (or for any other reason). I never said abortion has to be free of consequences. it just needs to be accessible and free of legal consequences.

 

[The Catboy]

These people are litereally saying the father has rights to the unborn fetus, but the woman does not.

The same group of people also pissed and moaned over imaginary vaccine mandates, trans people existing, gay marriage, pronouns, and everything else. The only thing I am learning from this thread is that they live in a world where they both don't want government interference in the lives of the people, but also want a lot of government interference in the lives of the people.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

Thanks for the explanation. And for the record I do not support forcefully injecting someone with a vaccine, so not sure what you are referring to there. Now let me explain something to you. This issue is about equals rights - for everyone. It sounds like your argument is "Because something is innocent and a baby, therefore they get special rights to be inside someone without their consent and violate that persons right to their bodily autonomy.".

Most of the time the baby isn't in the mother without the mothers consent. She willingly had sex knowing there's a chance she could become pregnant. The mother should lose her right to bodily autonomy after becoming pregnant because its not just her body any longer. Also in the rare case that the mother was impregnated against her will there is still the baby to consider. Why kill a human being just because it was created out of wedlock? Why punish an innocent being?

There's 3 parts to this equation ... the mother, the father and the child. The baby isn't a parasite or just a clump of cells that can should be discarded if unwanted .. it's a living being that was created by two parties. I know liberals could care less about morals or the right thing to do, but I'm not a liberal.

 

[Stone_Wings]

Most of the time the baby isn't in the mother without the mothers consent. She willingly had sex knowing there's a chance she could become pregnant. The mother should lose her right to bodily autonomy after becoming pregnant because its not just her body any longer. Also in the rare case that the mother was impregnated against her will there is still the baby to consider. Why kill a human being just because it was created out of wedlock? Why punish an innocent being?

There's 3 parts to this equation ... the mother, the father and the child. The baby isn't a parasite or just a clump of cells that can should be discarded if unwanted .. it's a living being that was created by two parties. I know liberals could care less about morals or the right thing to do, but I'm not a liberal.

You're the person LITERALLY saying the father should have rights on what happens, but not the mother. How does this scenerio work out for you then? The mother wants to keep the baby, the father does not. Are you still for the fathers rights to decide? Or do you then magically swich your stance to fit your own views? THEN the mother has the right to decide. Right? And not the father? Which one is it? Guess you didn't think outside your bubble when you made the stupid fucking comment.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

Currently in the US, the father has no say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion, and that's how it should be.

I can't speak for what a dystopian right-wing version of this country might do in the future.

I never claimed the father had a say in whether or not the mother can kill the baby or not. I'm actually not sure what rights, if any the father has in that circumstance. What I said is the father has a say in what happens to his kid.

 

[Lacius]

I never claimed the father had a say in whether or not the mother can kill the baby or not. I'm actually not sure what rights, if any the father has in that circumstance. What I said is the father has a say in what happens to his kid.

Your statements seem contradictory. Are you admitting a fetus isn't a kid?

 

[The Catboy]

Most of the time the baby isn't in the mother without the mothers consent. She willingly had sex knowing there's a chance she could become pregnant. The mother should lose her right to bodily autonomy after becoming pregnant because its not just her body any longer. Also in the rare case that the mother was impregnated against her will there is still the baby to consider. Why kill a human being just because it was created out of wedlock? Why punish an innocent being?

There's 3 parts to this equation ... the mother, the father and the child. The baby isn't a parasite or just a clump of cells that can should be discarded if unwanted .. it's a living being that was created by two parties. I know liberals could care less about morals or the right thing to do, but I'm not a liberal.

And what if there were complications where the parent's life was at risk and an abortion was the only means of saving them? What if the fetus was showing signs of a medical complication that would result in a stillborn and an extremely painful birth with an increased risk of death for the parent? These are not uncommon complications involved in pregnancy and at one point used to be a regular cause of death. These are now complications that have been resolved through abortions. Should we force someone to carry through, fully knowing that they will die and that the fetus is going with them?
It's also not that rare for sexual assault to result in pregnancy and it's horrible that you believe someone should carry out that pregnancy. Sexual assault results in a lot of trauma and bringing a life into this world, as a result, is just asking for more child abuse and neglect. It's also a crime against humanity to force a pregnancy. I am honestly concerned with how little you value the lives and mental health of an already existing person because you value a fetus more. It's also very clear how little you value the life of a child if you are so willing to force them into this world and then disregard any complications they might face. It's only clear that you just want to have forced birth and nothing else.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

You're the person LITERALLY saying the father should have rights on what happens, but not the mother. How does this scenerio work out for you then? The mother wants to keep the baby, the father does not. Are you still for the fathers rights to decide? Or do you then magically swich your stance to fit your own views? THEN the mother has the right to decide. Right? And not the father? Which one is it? Guess you didn't think outside your bubble when you made the stupid fucking comment.

No abortion should happen.

Mother wants kid, father doesn't = No abortion
Father wants kid, mother doesn't = No abortion
Mother doesn't want kid, Father doesn't want kid = No abortion

 

[mammastuffing]

Most of the time the baby isn't in the mother without the mothers consent. She willingly had sex knowing there's a chance she could become pregnant.

You do not consent to being pregnant when having sex. Do you consent to being hit by a car when crossing the street?

The mother should lose her right to bodily autonomy after becoming pregnant because its not just her body any longer.

So are you advocating that women should have less rights than men? I reject that it would not just be her body any longer unless she has consented to sharing her body.

Why kill a human being just because it was created out of wedlock? Why punish an innocent being?

You aren't killing a human being and you are not punishing anyone. You are exercising your right to remove something from your body that you did not consent to having in there.

I know liberals could care less about morals or the right thing to do, but I'm not a liberal.

I'm sorry, but if you are advocating that women should have less rights than men I think you should take another look at your moral compass.

 

[Stone_Wings]

No abortion should happen.

Mother wants kid, father doesn't = No abortion
Father wants kid, mother doesn't = No abortion
Mother doesn't want kid, Father doesn't want kid = No abortion

You said the father absolutely has rights knowing full well the context of the conversation was unborn fetuses. Move the goal posts much? Walking back your statements becasue you got called out on contradictions. Lame.