Just now, placeholder said:

Why is that a "feelinggs based deal". You're saying no principles are involved? That's convenient and utterly evasive.

It's feelings based because you cannot really say that the man suffers any impingement of his bodily autonomy.  With being forced to have a baby, or being forced to work for 18 years to support a baby, you can make the argument that bodily autonomy is being impinged.

Just now, BangkokReady said:

It does nothing of the sort.  Saying that a man makes physical effort to earn money is in no way cancelled out by the fact that "women earn money too".  It has nothing to do with what I am saying.

 

I'm not discussing deadbeat dads, so, of course, their existence is irrelevant here.

 

I haven't said anything about women staying at home, working, being a housewife, etc..  It literally has no relevance in this at all.

 

I could say the same about you completely disregarding the effects working for 18 years might have on a man.

Really? You're the one who raised the issue of work as counterbalancing pregnancy & childbirth. As far as work goes, women make an equal contribution to a man's. Which means that women contribute more. Work + childbirth & pregnancy. Their contribution outweighs a man's.

2 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Not my stance is it, it’s a woman’s right. That’s the bottom line and always will be.

It's the stance that you are putting forward through your comments. ????‍♂️

 

Rights don't actually exist, there are only really laws or "things that people are allowed to do".  "Rights" can change over time.

13 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

So your stance is that, no matter what, the man's effort involved in working to pay for a child until they turn 18 can never be as great as the woman's effort in carrying and birthing a child?

Many (men & women) describe it as one of the best things, or worst things in their life.  Along with somewhere in between for many others.

 

I thought child raising was one of, if not the best thing in my life.  22 yrs of bliss, with a bit of worrying, and goes hand in hand.  Best of all, the joy of, continues today, well after I'm not needed.  Life would be completely different without my daughter, and quite a few less laughs & smiles.

 

Child raising comes in a tie with actually saving a child's life, from drowning.  3 actually, hard to pick which is better, one short lived, probably more important, than the other, raising, but no long term rewards.

 

The thoughts of ending a life, is inconceivable to me.  Others apparently disagree.  That's their right & their body.

1 minute ago, KhunLA said:

I thought child raising was one of, if not the best thing in my life.  22 yrs of bliss, with a bit of worrying, and goes hand in hand.  Best of all, the joy of, continues today, well after I'm not needed.  Life would be completely different without my daughter, and quite a few less laughs & smiles.

Agree,

I always like to have 2 in my household.

Just moved in a new 13yo girl to add to my 10yo son.

2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

It's the stance that you are putting forward through your comments. ????‍♂️

 

Rights don't actually exist, there are only really laws or "things that people are allowed to do".  "Rights" can change over time.

In that case, why are you arguing about the nonexistent right of man to have a say in a woman's choice to abort?

5 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

It's the stance that you are putting forward through your comments. ????‍♂️

 

Rights don't actually exist, there are only really laws or "things that people are allowed to do".  "Rights" can change over time.

Call it laws or call it rights, it’s the same, currently the law is that if a man’s pregnant partner wants an abortion, the fathers consent is not legally required. Talking about possible law changes in the future is pure speculation on your part.

 

So back to your question. Bottom line is the women has the rights no matter how much you try and argue the case.

 

 

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

In that case, why are you arguing about the nonexistent right of man to have a say in a woman's choice to abort?

We're talking more about "legal rights".  What people are either allowed or compelled to do by law.  We use "rights" as a kind of place holder for that.  Once you move to saying "women have an inalienable right to do whatever they want with their body and always will" it doesn't really allow for much debate when it comes to the law, especially when it is joined by "...but men have no choice but to pay."

3 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

..but men have no choice but to pay."

They had a choice before the fact, and still have a choice after the fact.  Though after the fact, they may not like the consequences of that choice.

 

But everyone has a choice.

15 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Call it laws or call it rights, it’s the same, currently the law is that if a man’s pregnant partner wants an abortion, the fathers consent is not legally required. Talking about possible law changes in the future is pure speculation on your part.

 

So back to your question. Bottom line is the women has the rights no matter how much you try and argue the case.

 

 

Not only are red states curtailing womens rights to abortion we now have posters wanting it stepped up and curtailed even more............jeez

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Not only are red states curtailing womens rights to abortion we now have posters wanting it stepped up and curtailed even more............jeez

Vote, accept, adapt or move to a place you'll be happier at ... that's everyone's right also.

 

Done more than a few (moves) myself.   Within a state, out of, and lastly, out of the country.

 

Happier every time I did.  

1 minute ago, KhunLA said:

Vote, accept, adapt or move to a place you'll be happier at ... that's everyone's right also.

 

Done more than a few (moves) myself.   Within a state, out of, and lastly, out of the country.

 

Happier every time I did.  

It is anticipated that up to 50% of states will adopt this law. For the affluent who find it easier to move then its not so much of a problem, for those in poverty, those with ties, especially, family and cultural will find it is very hard.

 

The end of Roe will mean more children living in poverty and some states could ban people traveling to other states for an abortion

36 minutes ago, placeholder said:

In that case, why are you arguing about the nonexistent right of man to have a say in a woman's choice to abort?

Lol.  I'm trying to have an objective discussion.  Something you seem incapable of.

33 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Bottom line is the women has the rights no matter how much you try and argue the case.

So in the question of abortion, women have bodily autonomy, but men do not?

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

It is anticipated that up to 50% of states will adopt this law. For the affluent who find it easier to move then its not so much of a problem, for those in poverty, those with ties, especially, family and cultural will find it is very hard.

 

The end of Roe will mean more children living in poverty and some states could ban people traveling to other states for an abortion

disagree with all of that, especially 'ban of movement'.

 

All comes down to choices.  Live with, or change.  There are NO reasons not to, just excuses.

 

Live with your choices, don't complain about them.

2 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

disagree with all of that, especially 'ban of movement'.

 

All comes down to choices.  Live with, or change.  There are NO reasons not to, just excuses.

 

Live with your choices, don't complain about them.

I disagree with ban of movement too but choices are not so easy, you cannot predict accidental pregnancies, young women/teens still at school/college who have accidental pregnancies do not have the option to move as just one example.

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I disagree with ban of movement too but choices are not so easy, you cannot predict accidental pregnancies, young women/teens still at school/college who have accidental pregnancies do not have the option to move as just one example.

Have a nice day .... PEACE OUT

Seems to me that abortion is a controversial issue and 50 years ago a group of unelected (as in they cannot be democratically removed) judges made a decision that pro-choice group were happy with.  The pro-life group were not happy and there was no democratic option they could turn to that would get this overturned as no matter who they voted for the politicians hands were tied by a group of unelected judges they could not remove.  

 

Today, we have a group of unelected judges that have made a decision that the pro-life people are happy with and the pro-choice are not, but this time there is a democratic option as people can actually vote for politicians that support abortions in the state they live.

 

Struggling to understand the uproar on this to be honest.  When election time comes around pro-choice people simply need to campaign to elect politicians who support their cause.  Seems to me they have it better then the pro-life folks had it 50 years ago.   

3 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

It has nothing to do with pity.  If a woman has the right to choose whether a baby is born due to the effect the baby has on her body, why is the man not allowed any say based on the effect it has on his body?

Because God made the woman carry the fetus. Freak of nature I know but that's how it is.

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Because God made the woman carry the fetus.

Only until it is born.

Forced birth in a country with:

 

—No universal healthcare

—No universal childcare

—No paid family & medical leave

—One of the highest rates of maternal mortality among rich nations

 

This isn't about "life." It's about control.

 

Justice Clarence Thomas suggests Supreme Court could rethink decisions on contraceptives, same-sex marriage

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

Only until it is born.

Yes, and after it's born it's a person.

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Yes, and after it's born it's a person.

Indeed.

Just now, BangkokReady said:

Indeed.

That's when the right cease to care about it.

42 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

So in the question of abortion, women have bodily autonomy, but men do not?

@coolcarer if the above confuses you, why have you even been engaging with me?  This is the core part of what I have been discussing.

 

Why waste both of our time?

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

That's when the right cease to care about it.

But not the courts.

3 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

@coolcarer if the above confuses you, why have you even been engaging with me?  This is the core part of what I have been discussing.

 

Why waste both of our time?

Because your post was not worthy of a reply, the question you posed is self explanatory, you already know the answer why bait people?

15 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Forced birth in a country with:

 

—No universal healthcare

—No universal childcare

—No paid family & medical leave

—One of the highest rates of maternal mortality among rich nations

 

This isn't about "life." It's about control.

 

Justice Clarence Thomas suggests Supreme Court could rethink decisions on contraceptives, same-sex marriage

Exactly. For poorer women that this disgusting very unpopular ruling mostly effects, it is not pro life but pro death. Right wingers don't care at all about the health, well being or freedoms of poor people. Indeed they have poured gasoline on a potential civil war.

2 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Because your post was not worthy of a reply, the question you posed is self explanatory, you already know the answer why bait people?

So you don't think men should have bodily autonomy when it comes to pregnancy and child rearing?

Just now, BangkokReady said:

So you don't think men should have bodily autonomy when it comes to pregnancy and child rearing?

Yes. And they do. And that's the precise argument for allowing women a choice. Autonomy over their own bodies. Their body, their decision.