Trump's SCOTUS

[The Conservative]

Until a man can do a "legal abortion" the law needs to be abolished on the face of sexism

A man can do a legal abortion, it's called masturbation.

I mean if I woman gets pregnant the man has zero say in whether he wants the child or not. The woman can kill it if she wants, even if the father wants to keep it. To be fair and equal, the man should be able to recuse himself from the situation rather than be beholden to paying money to a child's mother for 18 years even if he is not allowed to be in the child's life

Wrong.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/428/52.html

A man does have a say, as for the rest... google is your friend... there is plenty cases out there where men don't have to pay...

[Speaker to Animals]

A man can do a legal abortion, it's called masturbation.

I mean if I woman gets pregnant the man has zero say in whether he wants the child or not. The woman can kill it if she wants, even if the father wants to keep it. To be fair and equal, the man should be able to recuse himself from the situation rather than be beholden to paying money to a child's mother for 18 years even if he is not allowed to be in the child's life

Wrong.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/428/52.html

A man does have a say, as for the rest... google is your friend... there is plenty cases out there where men don't have to pay...

For Google to be your friend, you actually have to read the documents it retrieves for you..

We agree with appellants and with the courts whose decisions have just been cited that the State may not impose a blanket provision, such as 3 (4), requiring the consent of a parent or person in loco parentis as a condition for abortion of an unmarried minor during the first 12 weeks of her pregnancy. Just as with the requirement of consent from the spouse, so here, the State does not have the constitutional authority to give a third party an absolute, and possibly arbitrary, veto over the decision of the physician and his patient to terminate the patient's pregnancy, regardless of the reason for withholding the consent.

[The Conservative]

I mean if I woman gets pregnant the man has zero say in whether he wants the child or not. The woman can kill it if she wants, even if the father wants to keep it. To be fair and equal, the man should be able to recuse himself from the situation rather than be beholden to paying money to a child's mother for 18 years even if he is not allowed to be in the child's life

Wrong.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/428/52.html

A man does have a say, as for the rest... google is your friend... there is plenty cases out there where men don't have to pay...

For Google to be your friend, you actually have to read the documents it retrieves for you..

We agree with appellants and with the courts whose decisions have just been cited that the State may not impose a blanket provision, such as 3 (4), requiring the consent of a parent or person in loco parentis as a condition for abortion of an unmarried minor during the first 12 weeks of her pregnancy. Just as with the requirement of consent from the spouse, so here, the State does not have the constitutional authority to give a third party an absolute, and possibly arbitrary, veto over the decision of the physician and his patient to terminate the patient's pregnancy, regardless of the reason for withholding the consent.

Does not give absolute right, but it does give a right. There is a difference. What they are saying is that in the case that the medical health of the mother/child is at risk, the doctor can override the descent of the father or "third party".

Even you have to see that, if you don't, then you are reading absolutes where there is none.

[Speaker to Animals]

It explicitly denies the right.

[Fife]

[Zlaxer]

Someone has way too much time to stockpile memes.....maybe you should make the world a better place by upping your pro-bono

[JohnDonne]

Talk about a mess. Here's a few tips for making the discussion more...sensible.

If something is the law, it is not necessarily right. But one must articulate why murder is wrong from a philosophical perspective in order to claim that an abortion is murder. One must show that the fetus meets some kind of criteria for what might be called "person-hood." (And please don't use the old "It's murder because it's human" chestnut, because that's human tissue fetishism and has no ethical coherence.

We are talking about the majority of abortions that take place in under 20 weeks or so? I am certain we are not going to bring up the late term abortions since the anti-abortionists are "anti-abortion" in general.

Another thing: A fetus surviving an abortion and growing up to have "person-hood" doesn't necessarily mean that the fetus had "person-hood" at the time the abortion was attempted. Likewise, if a condom breaks and "person-hood" eventually results from that incident, it doesn't follow that condom users are murderers.

[Fife]

Pssst... prior restraint sucks. Pass it on.

[Ex-California]

It explicitly denies the right.

"the State does not have the constitutional authority to give a third party an absolute, and possibly arbitrary, veto over the decision of the physician and his patient to terminate the patient's pregnancy, regardless of the reason for withholding the consent."

I read an explicit denial as well

[Martin Hash]

It explicitly denies the right.

"the State does not have the constitutional authority to give a third party an absolute, and possibly arbitrary, veto over the decision of the physician and his patient to terminate the patient's pregnancy, regardless of the reason for withholding the consent."

I read an explicit denial as well

It's an asymmetry that if a woman wants a baby without a man, no problem, in fact, intentional single-motherhood is going to become the norm soon, but if a man wants a baby without a woman, there's no option, surrogacy is denied to single men.

p.s. Symmetry is NOT the same as "equality."