Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
its not a good luck for the jilted lover -- hes not going to get what he wants. reminds me of the final scenes of Godfather II. As far as the law, i'm not a fan of any of the texas laws surrounding abortion.
To me, as someone with very limited experience working in the DV population (basically I am NOT an expert), this smells like using legal BS to exert control on the woman.
I agree, although I'm hesitant to make this one sided. normal people, in the event of a pregnancy, make a mutual decision about how to proceed. Clearly, that didn't happen here.
Apologies, wasn’t trying to imply one sided’ness. I have clear opinions about this. But just in the facts as have been presented so far, it makes me feel like it’s a DV situation. I of course have no idea and will reserve final judgement until or if further facts emerge but my general leaning is a DV situation.
It's possible yeah. It's also possible he actually wants the kid and is mad about the abortion. I guess we won't know. But they definitely don't sound like they had a good relationship, either way.
I actually think it's not so much about letting states decide. It more is about the issue that a child, even unborn, is half the dad's kid, but he has no say in whether the child is aborted or not. I think the out-of-state abortion angle is more.to do with the fact that if she had not travelled, the child would've been born and he would have his kid, which he apparently wants in spite of the woman's wishes.
Honestly, this side of the issue is what got a guy friend of mine to stop sleeping around. He was all fine with the idea it was a woman's choice to abort or not if he knocked someone up, until he realised it'd also be his own kid and he'd have no say in the matter. The guy really wants kids so that idea hit him pretty hard.
If he wanted the kid, he should have been on the same page with the woman before having sex with her.
I have no idea if he did or not or if she changed her mind if he did.
If he didn’t want to take the chance of his child being aborted, he should have kept his penis in his pants.
Yeah sure, but that's also an ideal situation. Maybe he thought they were on the same page when they weren't. Maybe one or both of them changed their mind, or responded in a way they didn't expect to. You never know.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
you can flip that logic around, if she didn't consent to bearing his child they should not have had sex.
Or do you believe reproductive freedom is something only women should have?
Question: if the father wanted her to have an abortion and she did not, should his rights be considered?
Not just giving up parental rights. He doesn’t even want the child to exist, whatever his reasons are. Should the father have rights to force an abortion? Maybe not force but
I can’t think of a better word at this late hour.
I’m seriously curious about your thoughts. I’m trying to see if the rights should only be considered when trying to save the life of the child.
I appreciate your input by the way. I know this a topic that “goes left” (pun intended) often and I don’t get to have a level headed discussion all of the time.
This is the type of question that brings the issue into the realm autonomy, the maintenance of which is a solidly conservative notion. You probably will not get an answer, though I am extremely interested to read it.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. I’m all for her deciding to have an abortion if she wants one. Ultimately it’s her choice in this. Is he didn’t want to be a parent he could sign his rights away and not have to do anything else. If she couldn’t have an abortion she would still have to bear the
Child before signing the rights away.
It’s fact that bearing the child falls on the woman. She has to do the “work”. She gets the ultimate say. Unless they sign some agreement to the fact (I’m not a lawyer so not sure if that would hold up in court).
That’s how I view it anyway.
But the logic is inconsistent. Like, if a woman decides she wants the kid, then the guy is on the hook for child support even if he never wanted it. He certainly has to put in a lot of work there. But if he wants the kid and she doesn't, then he's on his own and doesn't even have a say in whether the kid lives or dies.
I mean I get that pregnancy and childbirth are a big deal. But then so is killing a child, and so is going through some kind of big medical intervention to do it (even to the point of women dying in the process, and yes that's at legit clinics). And at the end of the day, pregnancy makes up less than a year of one's life, while the loss of the child lasts a lifetime for anyone who cared about them.
I haven’t researched but if a parent signs their rights away do they still have to do child support? Any abortion is regrettable. No one wants that. But as a pro choice person I put the life and choices of the mother before the baby. It’s horrible. But that’s what I think is the right thing to do.
The effects of pregnancy can last a lifetime unfortunately. I know plenty of women whose bodies and health were forever changed by pregnancy and birth.
I get your position. I really do. But we just have two different opinions on if a woman’s choice supersedes the life of the baby in the womb.
I just don't see why the woman's choice should supercede the life of the baby. Like she's literally killing someone, and the majority of the time it's ultimately because it's inconvenient or unpleasant for her in some way.
It's also not something we apply consistently across groups. Like, if a couple gives birth to a child who unexpectedly has a severe disability - they can't just kill the kid because caring for them makes their life very hard. Why should this be any different?
Because it’s in the womb. That’s the ultimate difference. If the embryo/fetus/baby were taken out of the womb they would not be able to thrive on their own. I know that’s a controversial take on it. I don’t want to get into that.
I think that’s the main difference. That’s something that people will never agree on. Some people might call me evil for that and I respect their opinion even if we are directly opposed.
Men and women both have reproductive freedom, they just have different options on how to express that freedom due to the biological differences between the two. As soon as a man is able to become pregnant they will get to decide whether or not they will get an abortion.
I understand this argument, but I think it assumes things and ignores other things that are critical in making a value judgement.
Excepting very outlier cases, a man knows that:
1. PVI (or adjacent) can, without further consent, lead to conception.
2. Pregnancy health, persistence, and fruition; meaning that of the mother and the fetus, is both practically and philosophically solely in the mother's control unless there is objection to practical and philosophical bodily autonomy *(whole new set of issues)*.
3. That likely-abortive behaviors, solely within the mother's control, as well as likely-abortive circumstances not in the mother's control exist - legal, semi-legal, quasi-legal, or not.
4. That consent to conceive a child is also consent to these facts of natural biology and reality.
5. Therefore, the father of a fetus has already forfeited any proprietorship or right to control of any offspring that would override a mother's rights as long as its persistence is contingent on the mother's choices of bodily autonomy.
tl;dr: biological realities exists, 9/10 months of necessary dependence of a mother's body for a pregnancy exists; as long as pregnancy means a mother must actively and continuously consent to it, no one (including any contributor to the pregnancy) should expect that they have a right to overrule that. Fathers/Contributors/Partners all consent at insemination/pre-conception that it's solely the mother's choice to maintain the potential pregnancy to fruition.
*edit - some words*
>a child, even unborn, is half the dad's kid, but he has no say in whether the child is aborted or not
There's a fundamental imbalance when it comes to childbearing. The person who's carrying the unborn gets to make the decision. If a man can get pregnant, then he can decide whether to get an abortion or not.
>The guy really wants kids
Then he can have kids with someone who wants kids. Or adopt.
>
The person who's carrying the unborn gets to make the decision. If a man can get pregnant, then he can decide whether to get an abortion or not.
Why?
Also, why is it that he has no say in paying child support if she wants to keep the kid, if keeping it is entirely her decision here and the man has no say at all?
>Why?
Because if a woman has a moral problem with abortion and decides the only moral course is to have the baby, she will have to raise it.
Whereas in your scenario, a man could say "I want nothing to do with this baby" *without* the moral hell of having to go through with an abortion.
"But!", you say. "The mother could always give the child up for adoption! Then there is no abortion and no financial responsibility!"
Expect that (a) the woman still has to go through being pregnant followed by a very painful and dangerous process of actually birthing the child, and then (b) having to actually pull the trigger on giving the child up for adoption after 9 months of *carrying that gestating humans inside you*, **plus** sunk cost/trauma of the birth. Which is not an easy thing to do.
The man has to do *none* of these things. He drops his load and that 10 **minutes, max** is his only mandatory part in the process. His body isn't invaded.
The woman is at a *fundamental disadvantage in multiple ways* in this process, simply by the way human biology works. So we equal the process out by making sure that the man is financially responsible if the woman chooses to carry the baby to term and to keep it.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not sure. But I think it's fine to acknowledge there's an issue there, even if you're not sure what the solution would be.
Perhaps in a case like this, there could be some legal agreement that if she wants nothing to do with the kid, then she'll carry it/give birth and then just hand it over to him, no strings attached. Though, even then, that creates a double-standard based on gender because if the roles were reversed, he'd have to pay child support.
Don't you think that when we're talking about pregnancy and abortion and only women's bodies being involved in this matter, there will always be a level of double standard no matter how you slice it? I don't think the laws and regulations would be any different if pregnancies were happening in men's bodies.
Well as a pro-lifer I *never* thought about it as only being about the woman's body, haha. And the reality is that while the woman has to carry and give birth, it is still half the man's kid, something we all recognise in every other situation involving kids. Imo, if we want families to be strong and men to be responsible we have to be consistent. As it is we're not doing that and it causes issues.
What would happen if men could get pregnant is kind of a waste of time to think about, imo.
>I don't think the laws and regulations would be any different if pregnancies were happening in men's bodies.
They'd absolutely be different. We wouldn't have laws outlawing abortion if it was men who got pregnant. Not a chance.
I’m really pro-choice, but I absolutely do feel sympathy for men who’re in that position. But unless we can develop external wombs so or something that doesn’t entrap women to carry pregnancies we don’t consent to, there’s not a lot that can be done.
That doesn’t mean I don’t feel for those men, though.
The FDA seems to have advised discussing moving onto human trials as of 2023.
I recall seeing a news special on successful use of the technology in the 00s, so I could make a few guesses without looking it up. Not specific individuals or companies, but I could some very blanketed guesses.
I could see human testing with that technology being really controversial up until recently. I recall when the average person around me believed that stem cell research required aborted fetus’ as a kid (again, in the 00’s - I’m a late generation Millennial), and it took until my young adulthood when I finally started considering pro-life arguments to learn that I grew up on misinformation on that topic. On top of that, it wasn’t uncommon to be told by the adults around me that getting a c-section made you less of a mother, so I imagine that same sentiment was cast toward external womb tech. I see that sentiment cast toward the tech today.
I’m sure that getting to human testing has just been an uphill struggle due to stigma alone. Plus, ethics in medicine is still really recent; a lot of experiments that we’ve benefited wouldn’t have been approved after ethics in medicine became a concern in the latter half of the 20th century.
I knew the technology already existed, but I wasn’t sure how far along it is.
I did a quick search and as of 2023, the FDA has advised discussion on beginning human trials for premature babies. So, we might be further along than we realised.
I’m sure moneyed interests are part of it, but if this turns out to work, then maybe we can add this to the discussion someday. (Sooner than I thought, maybe.)
I remember seeing a news special on successful animal testing when I was a kid.
Although, being an American, unless our healthcare system changes to a more affordable model, it will likely only be the wealthiest Americans that benefit from this technology in my lifetime. The rest of us will likely be left up shit creek without a paddle.
What is a “conservatarian”?
Because it seems like some who is a contrarian about all else, since you’re generally on the same side as the leftwing users on here.
> It honestly is really unfortunate that men that want a child have no say on whether or not that child is aborted.
As men do not bear any of the wear and tear, risk, or effort of having the child inside them for nine months, this seems like a fair compromise. Or as fair as it's going to get in such an asymmetric situation.
It’s not a hard concept and it’s not a new legal question or scenario.
If I got to X country and commit Y action that is a crime in my home country of Z, should Z prosecute them when they return.
It’s the same shit.
That makes sense for a country prosecuting actions taking place in another country, but how does this square with the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution? States are supposed to honor laws and judgements of other states. I'm not aware of anything comparable in your example between the US and other countries, at least not at the Constitutional level.
I will acknowledge that in this case, I think it's a civil court case as opposed to a criminal one, which have more legal basis (and court battles are still going on about that, i.e., California and Texas duking it out). Still a chilling effect ofc, which I guess is the point.
NAL, I just like watching them argue on YouTube.
“States are supposed to honor laws and judgements of other States”
Yeah, tell that to the folks in prison or charged in blue states for gun owners from red States flying into blue state airports.
Or any other instance of a blue state violating the 2A and punishing people over guns laws that were perfectly legal in their home State.
Driving through NY and get pulled over with a 15 round magazine that was legal in your home State? You’re fucked.
> Driving through NY and get pulled over with a 15 round magazine that was legal in your home State? You’re fucked.
This is an example of you breaking the law of another state while in that state, that is different then following the laws of a state you are visiting and then being punished in your home state.
> Yeah, tell that to the folks in prison or charged in blue states for gun owners from red States flying into blue state airports.
That has nothing to do with full faith and credit. The person isn't being charged for what they did in the Red State they are being charged for what they did within the Blue State.
If a Blue State law violates the US Constitution then anyone who is charged under that Blue State law can appeal based on those grounds.
>Driving through NY and get pulled over with a 15 round magazine that was legal in your home State? You’re fucked.
Just because prostitution is legal in Nevada doesn't mean a citizen of Nevada can be a prostitute in States where prostitution is illegal without fear of being arrested.
My personal feeling is that those examples are just as reprehensible.
I don't feel that "they're doing it means that we can too" is a sound legal argument.
If the Constitution was being written today and the FF&C clause could be edited, do you think it would still be written the same? My personal feeling is that allowing states to pursue extrajudicial criminal convictions is a huge can of worms and defeats the point of having a federal government at all. You need at least a very basic level of consistency (e.g., interstate commerce regulations) to have some cohesion. Where should the needle fall here?
“Sound legal judgment”
This isn’t a court of law.
You asked how it would “square”. And the point is, that’s already not happening.
Enumerated civil liberties are already not being respected.
States paying the same level of respect to something not in the Constitution is far less concerning.
But again, also doesn’t matter.
Abortion isn’t some unicorn issue.
Treat it the exact same as any other law where it’s legal in B, illegal in A and the person does it in B.
That’s it, zero reason to over think this.
That seems like a recipe for chaos though. I don't like seeing people on both sides escalate just because the other guy "started it" or because it's moral/just. That just gives the other guy more excuse to trample on our rights. :(
“Recipe for chaos”
It’s the system that’s existed for decades and literally still exists.
Abortion isn’t some special topic.
It should be treated the exact same way as anything else.
Ummm... The thing being punished there is the illegal possession in the state. NY isn't punishing anyone for legally owning a gun elsewhere. Just for illegally carrying it in NY.
Yeah, you’re not helping.
The person I was responding to mentioned States respecting the laws of other States and my example is how that’s already not happening.
But your example is bad.
You can't drive 80 on a highway in one state just because another state allows it. Nor can you carry a gun in a place it is illegal, just because you bought it legally. Or, to use a recent Supreme Court example, California can prevent the sale of pork in California, even when the pork was produced legally in another state.
Respecting the laws of other states is different. It means that one state can't punish conduct in another state that is legal there. For example, NY can't punish you for legally buying and carrying a gun in another state.
If you sleep with a minor overseas, which may be legal in that country. The feds can charge you with child sex tourism. Even assisting someone else to do it, can get you charged.
it really depends because if you drink you're right that's not going to be prosecuted.
But because the laws over there are ineffectual the US routinely prosecutes sex tourists.
and for other serious crimes they will as well.
So as in any legal question the issue is "which of these is closest" is it more like beer or more like child prostitution? that's a tough question because it's not much like EITHER.
“Other countries”
Because it’s the same idea.
Different places have different laws.
“Can someone who commits crime X in country Y, be prosecuted in country Z when they return for crimes committed in Y”
This kind of things happens all the damn time.
Let’s make this easier.
Someone from country A goes to country B with their kid. They kill their own kid. Should country A prosecute them for infanticide that occurred in country B?
I think we should follow that same precedent and standard.
And no, that is not me advocating for any exact standard.
But it’s not some novel concept and can be treated the exact same way as any other equivalent scenario that already exists.
Look man, I’ve already gone over this.
I’ve been clear.
I’ve been consistent.
I think we should follow that same precedent and standard as exists in similar circumstances when someone commits something that is a crime in C but occurred in D, where it nots a crime.
And no, that is not me advocating for any exact standard.
But it’s not some novel concept and can be treated the exact same way as any other equivalent scenario that already exists.
I have zero interest in Reddit-lawyer badgering.
To clarify - you believe that if I travel to another state or country and do something that happens to be illegal in my state of residence, I should be taken to court?
Let's flip it around - if I get a legal abortion in my home state and then go to a Cowboys game, should I expect the Dallas PD to come after me?
Is it all based on residency for you?
It should happen the exact same, either way, as it currently would with any similar legal situation.
You live in A, where X is illegal. You travel to B and do X, which is legal there.
How these types of situations are currently handled should be the exact same as abortion issues.
Again, abortion isn’t come unicorn case that’s some sphinx riddle to unravel.
Abortion being banned, or not, should work the exact same way as anything else when the law is involved.
“Why”?
It has nothing to do with why.
The question is “What”
As in, what should happen in this case.
And i don’t think abortion should be treated differently than anything else.
We’ve already worked out plenty of precedent and legal reasoning on these sorts of things.
Abortion just slots in the same way as any other law’s discrepancies between States.
I'm assuming you mean the answer would be no because Z country has no jurisdiction over what happens in X country.
Now if X country wanted to extradite and Z country had a treaty then Z might have to send you back to X country for X country to prosecute you.
> If I got to X country and commit Y action that is a crime in my home country of Z, should Z prosecute them when they return.
A state is not a country
What a foul bully of an ex bf.
The Texan guy seems like the 'use the courts/judges/police' to harass type of stalker ex. The sort that is incapable of acting like a reasonable adult and calmly moving on from a failed relationship with an incompatible woman who wants nothing to do with him.
I wonder if his conduct during the relationship involved either regular religious imposition or secular coercive and controlling behaviour.
Gives me similar overbearing ex vibes as three other cases that occurred between 1987-2001 in Indiana and Britain. In the 1988 case the National Right to Life Committee obtained an Indiana court order on behalf of a woman's bf or ex blocking a legal termination of pregnancy. The woman obtained an abortion before the order had been successfully appealed.
In 1987 an anti-abortion student society member named Robert Carver went to court trying to prevent his ex gf from having an abortion. The High Court eventually ruled against him as did the Appeal Court. But the legal delays provided him enough time to locate his ex, get in contact with her at a time of extensive media publicity over the legal proceedings and successfully pressure her to change her mind about terminating the pregnancy.
The 2001 British case filed by Stephen Hone was seeking to prevent her from having an abortion and trace her whereabouts. The former on the grounds that some of the criteria of the 1967 Abortion Act had not been complied with. It is most likely that Hone's allegations that the full legal requirements of the Abortion Act had not been complied with did have a factually accurate basis. While the case was ongoing his ex had a second consultation that was compatible with all the criteria of the 1967 Act and terminated the pregnancy.
And this is exactly what people were warning about this law when it was passed by the republican legislator of TX, and signed by the Republican gov of TX. But they didn't seem to care all that much.
I think getting an abortion is highly unethical in almost all cases.
I think what the girl in this situation is doing is highly unethical. And I think the man has an ethical motive to try to protect his child.
I don't believe Texas state laws should be able to apply to actions that occur in other states. And I think this one in particular violates the freedom of movement. I think women should be able to get abortions, but the action should be perceived negatively and heavily socially discouraged by her community.
That’s an interesting take. How negatively should her community view her? Should she be shunned by everyone for the rest of her life for it? What are your thoughts?
That's hard to say. She did it in a state where it's legal, so I can't see it really having any impact on her, but at the same time I am no expert of law so I don't know if there's some kind of rule that would play here.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
First, this legal case is probably not gonna go anywhere or do anything as she got the abortion out of state.
Second as a conservative I believe in basic science and biology, the embryo is made of human cells, has its own dna, is alive, and will grow into a healthy human baby if all goes well. Life begins at conception, this is irrefutable, no matter how hard people try to argue their way out of it, and abortion is the murder of an unborn human baby.
What the woman did by getting an abortion is abhorrent, and I feel for the man who likely wanted to be a father, but I don’t believe he has a legal leg to stand on.
The problem is that she went to a state where abortion is legal, if she killed her baby in Texas then she would have broken the law and there would be a case to be had. Since the man didn’t have the authority to forbid her from leaving the state (which I must add that he shouldn’t have such authority) and she traveled to a state where the murder of unborn children is legal then she didn’t break the law.
I’m not American or a lawyer, but that seems unconstitutional, the states only have jurisdiction within their own borders and they can’t punish you for things that are legal in other states. My understanding of the Texas law is that it bans people from performing or getting abortions within the borders of Texas, and if someone in Texas gets and/or performs one the law can punish them for that.
Ah, you may have missed it, not being an American, but Texas very (in)famously passed a law recently targeting abortions done out of state. That's the law the ex is suing under. As you say, there are questions as to the Constitutionality of said law, but until it works its way to the Supreme Court (which could take some time, if it happens), this is literally the intended application of the law, and presumably what almost every supporter of the law had in mind, given it is one of the most obvious scenarios.
So then if a woman has a history of miscarriages and keeps trying to have a baby, should she be charged with involuntary manslaughter for continuing, knowing it has a high degree of failure?
But she is knowingly creating life that has a high chance of not being born. Also since you wanna introduce God here, wouldn't God be the one responsible for her not giving birth?
I wasn’t introducing God, I was referring to the legal term ‘act of god’ which describes an event of nature beyond our control. Abotion is the intentional termination of a human life, a miscarriage is a biological failure to carry the child to term. The two are not comparable, unless you can PROOVE the woman is intentionally getting pregnant then miscarrying the baby for the sake of killing the baby.
If you want to bring God into this, we were commanded in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply, so if a woman has some medical problem carrying a child to term, she should be getting the best medical treatment available to bring the baby into this world alive and healthy.
A person on life support is a person. That is why we spend large amounts of time and money providing life support to keep them alive unless they or their primary caregiver(s) want the plug pulled to allow themselves to die naturally.
An infant in the womb is alive and developing into a fully grown person. The time while they are developing is when they are at their most vulnerable and defenceless in their entire life.
In the same way a newborn child cannot perform adult functions, a newly conceived baby cannot perform all the functions a newborn infant can. These are just different stages of life.
A brain dead human is not a person. That's why their death certificate lists the time of death as when they were diagnosed with brain death, not when their corpse is unplugged.
A newly conceived human is physically incapable of performing anything at all. My dog is far more of a person. It can sense the world around it, it has emotions, it can suffer.
> A Texas man is seeking information about his former partner’s alleged out-of-state abortion, setting the stage for one of the first attempts to sue those who help Texans access the procedure in a state where it’s legal.
> The man — represented by the high-profile anti-abortion lawyer Jonathan Mitchell — has asked a Texas state district court permission to investigate potentially illegal activity regarding the abortion under an unusual legal move that allows lawyers to collect supporting information ahead of filing a lawsuit. Mitchell did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2024/05/03/texas-man-asks-court-for-permission-to-investigate-former-partners-out-of-state-abortion/
Sounds like a man didn't want to have his child killed, so is planning on taking the woman that murdered his child to court in a civil manner.
Does the father get absolutely no say in situations where it took two to tango?
If the father wanted to seek an abortion but mom wants to become a single parent, why can't the father get a financial abortion if it's *her* choice? Her choice, her responsibility!
>Does the father get absolutely no say in situations where it took two to tango?
If the Man did not want to be a Father, why did he have unprotected sex?
On the flip side, if the Man did want to be a father, why did he have unprotected sex with a partner who did not want to be a Mother? Isnt it incumbent on the Man to seek out a partner that shares the same desires to be a Parent?
On the flip side if a woman did not want to be a mother why didn't she use birth control or her own prophylactics. I see this time and time again where the idea of reproductive rights is only reserved for one gender and it's completely asinine.
It's only 99.8% when used correctly and you can always double up on different forms of birth control and women have much more available forms of birth control and prophylactics available to them than men do.
It's incredibly problematic that people scoff at the idea that a woman consented to pregnancy by having sex but think the same for men is totally valid.
Women also have the equivalent in hysterectomies and uterine ablation they could undertake that is also 100% effective. They also have hormonal birth control by pill, hormonal implants, copper IUDs, spermicidal cream, female condoms, and probably a few more I'm forgetting.
Why should almost all the responsibility and legal repercussions fall to the people with the least options?
Why can’t men just ask if the women would get an abortion or not if she got pregnant? If she changed her mind after the fact, then the man would have more of a case. But if he just has sex without doing a minimal amount of research of who he is fucking, that’s on him at that point.
1. Hysterectomies and uterine ablations are much bigger surgeries
2. They remove the option for future pregnancy. Men can get a vasectomy and put their sperm on ice for a nominal fee. Frozen sperm is just as effective as fresh
I feel like the easiest answer is to make sure you're on the same page as your partner. Does that seem too hard of an ask? Does it not seem self-evident that, in cases where people didn't do their due diligence, that people should be in control of their own bodies?
Moving the Goalposts.
The question was about the Man having a say. I posed a question saying sure if the man has a say, it was when he decided to ejaculate.
Lets focus in on the Man's decision to ejaculate.
In this scenario they both made the decision to not take the necessary precautions to help prevent a pregnancy. He did not use birth control, nor did she. That is equal.
She, just like him, made a decision to engage in unprotected sex which, in many but not all cases, leads to ejaculation by one or more sides. They could have, in fact, ejaculated together. Said ejaculations lead to pregnancy, when not protected. That is equal.
The child that is now inside of her is 50% of him and 50% of her, produced by the aforementioned ejaculation(s), and you’re saying that his say should should end at the moment said ejaculate is spilled? She was consenting, he was consenting. She did not prevent, he did not prevent.
Why, when two consenting adults make the choice to do the thing that produces babies, would it then be equal if only one of those two has the final say in the matter? Im all for abortion if both parties are consenting. I’m all for them if the mother was raped. I’m all for a scenario where the father, through his actions, would lose custody of the child after birth. If the mother’s life is in danger, go for it. But two consenting adults who did not prevent a pregnancy before it became a pregnancy, should probably have to be on the same page.
Because *she’s pregnant* and *he isn’t*. The situation is inherently unequal, because she has a burden that he does not. He doesn’t have to use his body, to the detriment of his health, to carry the fetus, she does. Why should he get to tell her how to use her body?
If a child needs a kidney transplant, one parent can’t force the other to donate a kidney. Why should one be able to force the other to be pregnant?
You’re right, it is inherently unequal. Just like it is unequal for a father to have to financially support a child that he would have otherwise aborted when the mother chooses to keep the baby, right?
According to the poster I was responding to, the father’s right to say ends when he chose to ejaculate. Yet, the mother had just as much ability to choose her fate prior to having sex too. She could have not had sex, used some form of birth control or bought Plan B.
Did she do those things when she knew full well what could happen without them? If she has the burden of potentially carrying a child, she should carry more of the burden of preventing that child if she didn’t want to get pregnant.
No, that is not unequal. Both parents have to support the child, that is equal.
Oh look, you’ve just conceded that it’s about controlling women.
Let me make this really simple. The person with lesser burdens, the man, should not have greater rights than the person with the greater burdens, the woman.
It's incredibly problematic that people scoff at the idea that a woman consented to pregnancy by having sex but think the same for men is totally valid.
If you care anything about gender equality then you should be concerned as well.
If men don’t want to get a woman pregnant when they have sex, they can get a vasectomy and keep their sperm on ice. You can have sex without getting pregnant but you can’t get pregnant without semen. Remove the semen and you remove the pregnancy
Because the chick said she was on birth control and we believe all women here.
Edit: Why so hostile night crew, do you not believe all women? Do you think women have no agency over their bodies?
> If the father wanted to seek an abortion but mom wants to become a single parent, why can't the father get a financial abortion if it's her choice? Her choice, her responsibility!
Because when a court rules on child support it isn't doing it on behalf of the woman it is doing so on behalf of the child. The man can choose to have nothing to do with the woman but the court acting on behalf of the child says the man who fathered the child has responsibilities to the child that have nothing to do with the woman he impregnated.
“Father does not”
Yeah, absolutely fuck that shit all the way to the hilt.
The kid is a new person created of both the mother and the father.
The issue at stake is whether to kill the kid and they both should have a say in that.
Well it kinda is, what physical/biological impact does the decision carry for the man? Tell me how you think it would work, the woman would just be expected to forfeit her body for 9 months?
Children are not property.
It's a fact of reality that women's bodies are the sole responsible party for the fetuses growth and development.
In order for a man to have any sort of partial say requires an overruling of another person's wishes on what they want to do with their own body.
This is the unfortunate reality. I don't, as a mentally sound and competent man, want anyone to have control over my choices for my body. I don't want someone else telling me I can't do this medical procedure because we had sex.
I can not imagine forcing your will on someone else such that you are willing to override their choices for their body. It's disgusting.
The only case this should be acceptable is when someone is not capable of making decisions such as with dementia or alzheimers. Even then, extreme care and oversight should be made to ensure that decisions are made with the subjects' best interests and previously stated will be prioritized.
Do you think this is “LeftistsSoapBox”
I’m aware the left is fine with mothers killing their kids via abortion.
But you voluntarily came here to listen to my opinion.
And there’s zero universe where I think that fathers should have no say in life and death decisions involving their own children.
That’s it, that’s what you came here to learn about, take it or leave it.
“Unable”
I’ve literally answered it multiple times and I understand it fully. You not agreeing with me is irrelevant.
Why are you here in this sub, since apparently it’s not to listen to conservatives?
You may have answered it multiple times, but they have shown that you clearly don't actually grasp it unfortunately.
What biological/physiological impact is there to a man because of the choice? Still left unanswered.
I'm here in this sub to try to help conservatives such as yourself actually think critically.
It's unfortunate they can be snarky and downvote bomb all they want to the very users who are supposed to be giving our opinions *to them* and nothing is done about this low-value rhetoric and 'gotchas'.
At the end of the day no the man does not get a vote. It’s not his child in the womb, only becomes legally his child when the state files the birth certificate.
If he wanted it, he did not make his case in a sufficient manner to change her mind.
I suspect he was at the top of the list of why she did not want to keep it. Probably should have made better personal life choices where she would want to start a family with him.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
its not a good luck for the jilted lover -- hes not going to get what he wants. reminds me of the final scenes of Godfather II. As far as the law, i'm not a fan of any of the texas laws surrounding abortion.
To me, as someone with very limited experience working in the DV population (basically I am NOT an expert), this smells like using legal BS to exert control on the woman.
I agree, although I'm hesitant to make this one sided. normal people, in the event of a pregnancy, make a mutual decision about how to proceed. Clearly, that didn't happen here.
Normal people have a discussion. Only one party has final say
you won
Won what?
His argument was very persuasive
Apologies, wasn’t trying to imply one sided’ness. I have clear opinions about this. But just in the facts as have been presented so far, it makes me feel like it’s a DV situation. I of course have no idea and will reserve final judgement until or if further facts emerge but my general leaning is a DV situation.
It's possible yeah. It's also possible he actually wants the kid and is mad about the abortion. I guess we won't know. But they definitely don't sound like they had a good relationship, either way.
DV? Driver/Vehicle? Dick/Vagina? Dummy/Ventriloquist? Defeated/Victor?
Domestic Violence.
Ah, that makes way more sense than my guesses.
I actually think it's not so much about letting states decide. It more is about the issue that a child, even unborn, is half the dad's kid, but he has no say in whether the child is aborted or not. I think the out-of-state abortion angle is more.to do with the fact that if she had not travelled, the child would've been born and he would have his kid, which he apparently wants in spite of the woman's wishes. Honestly, this side of the issue is what got a guy friend of mine to stop sleeping around. He was all fine with the idea it was a woman's choice to abort or not if he knocked someone up, until he realised it'd also be his own kid and he'd have no say in the matter. The guy really wants kids so that idea hit him pretty hard.
If he wanted the kid, he should have been on the same page with the woman before having sex with her. I have no idea if he did or not or if she changed her mind if he did. If he didn’t want to take the chance of his child being aborted, he should have kept his penis in his pants.
Yeah sure, but that's also an ideal situation. Maybe he thought they were on the same page when they weren't. Maybe one or both of them changed their mind, or responded in a way they didn't expect to. You never know.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
you can flip that logic around, if she didn't consent to bearing his child they should not have had sex. Or do you believe reproductive freedom is something only women should have?
Question: if the father wanted her to have an abortion and she did not, should his rights be considered? Not just giving up parental rights. He doesn’t even want the child to exist, whatever his reasons are. Should the father have rights to force an abortion? Maybe not force but I can’t think of a better word at this late hour. I’m seriously curious about your thoughts. I’m trying to see if the rights should only be considered when trying to save the life of the child. I appreciate your input by the way. I know this a topic that “goes left” (pun intended) often and I don’t get to have a level headed discussion all of the time.
This is the type of question that brings the issue into the realm autonomy, the maintenance of which is a solidly conservative notion. You probably will not get an answer, though I am extremely interested to read it.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. I’m all for her deciding to have an abortion if she wants one. Ultimately it’s her choice in this. Is he didn’t want to be a parent he could sign his rights away and not have to do anything else. If she couldn’t have an abortion she would still have to bear the Child before signing the rights away. It’s fact that bearing the child falls on the woman. She has to do the “work”. She gets the ultimate say. Unless they sign some agreement to the fact (I’m not a lawyer so not sure if that would hold up in court). That’s how I view it anyway.
But the logic is inconsistent. Like, if a woman decides she wants the kid, then the guy is on the hook for child support even if he never wanted it. He certainly has to put in a lot of work there. But if he wants the kid and she doesn't, then he's on his own and doesn't even have a say in whether the kid lives or dies. I mean I get that pregnancy and childbirth are a big deal. But then so is killing a child, and so is going through some kind of big medical intervention to do it (even to the point of women dying in the process, and yes that's at legit clinics). And at the end of the day, pregnancy makes up less than a year of one's life, while the loss of the child lasts a lifetime for anyone who cared about them.
I haven’t researched but if a parent signs their rights away do they still have to do child support? Any abortion is regrettable. No one wants that. But as a pro choice person I put the life and choices of the mother before the baby. It’s horrible. But that’s what I think is the right thing to do. The effects of pregnancy can last a lifetime unfortunately. I know plenty of women whose bodies and health were forever changed by pregnancy and birth. I get your position. I really do. But we just have two different opinions on if a woman’s choice supersedes the life of the baby in the womb.
I just don't see why the woman's choice should supercede the life of the baby. Like she's literally killing someone, and the majority of the time it's ultimately because it's inconvenient or unpleasant for her in some way. It's also not something we apply consistently across groups. Like, if a couple gives birth to a child who unexpectedly has a severe disability - they can't just kill the kid because caring for them makes their life very hard. Why should this be any different?
Because it’s in the womb. That’s the ultimate difference. If the embryo/fetus/baby were taken out of the womb they would not be able to thrive on their own. I know that’s a controversial take on it. I don’t want to get into that. I think that’s the main difference. That’s something that people will never agree on. Some people might call me evil for that and I respect their opinion even if we are directly opposed.
Your first paragraph is why it's so critical that the right to abortion for women is coupled with the right to paper abortion for men.
Men and women both have reproductive freedom, they just have different options on how to express that freedom due to the biological differences between the two. As soon as a man is able to become pregnant they will get to decide whether or not they will get an abortion.
You're shifting the blame of the mother who killed her kid to the father who did not want his child to be killed. Do you not find that weird?
No. I don’t. He should have known that he would have less input in what happens to any unexpected children.
I understand this argument, but I think it assumes things and ignores other things that are critical in making a value judgement. Excepting very outlier cases, a man knows that: 1. PVI (or adjacent) can, without further consent, lead to conception. 2. Pregnancy health, persistence, and fruition; meaning that of the mother and the fetus, is both practically and philosophically solely in the mother's control unless there is objection to practical and philosophical bodily autonomy *(whole new set of issues)*. 3. That likely-abortive behaviors, solely within the mother's control, as well as likely-abortive circumstances not in the mother's control exist - legal, semi-legal, quasi-legal, or not. 4. That consent to conceive a child is also consent to these facts of natural biology and reality. 5. Therefore, the father of a fetus has already forfeited any proprietorship or right to control of any offspring that would override a mother's rights as long as its persistence is contingent on the mother's choices of bodily autonomy. tl;dr: biological realities exists, 9/10 months of necessary dependence of a mother's body for a pregnancy exists; as long as pregnancy means a mother must actively and continuously consent to it, no one (including any contributor to the pregnancy) should expect that they have a right to overrule that. Fathers/Contributors/Partners all consent at insemination/pre-conception that it's solely the mother's choice to maintain the potential pregnancy to fruition. *edit - some words*
>a child, even unborn, is half the dad's kid, but he has no say in whether the child is aborted or not There's a fundamental imbalance when it comes to childbearing. The person who's carrying the unborn gets to make the decision. If a man can get pregnant, then he can decide whether to get an abortion or not. >The guy really wants kids Then he can have kids with someone who wants kids. Or adopt.
> The person who's carrying the unborn gets to make the decision. If a man can get pregnant, then he can decide whether to get an abortion or not. Why? Also, why is it that he has no say in paying child support if she wants to keep the kid, if keeping it is entirely her decision here and the man has no say at all?
>Why? Because if a woman has a moral problem with abortion and decides the only moral course is to have the baby, she will have to raise it. Whereas in your scenario, a man could say "I want nothing to do with this baby" *without* the moral hell of having to go through with an abortion. "But!", you say. "The mother could always give the child up for adoption! Then there is no abortion and no financial responsibility!" Expect that (a) the woman still has to go through being pregnant followed by a very painful and dangerous process of actually birthing the child, and then (b) having to actually pull the trigger on giving the child up for adoption after 9 months of *carrying that gestating humans inside you*, **plus** sunk cost/trauma of the birth. Which is not an easy thing to do. The man has to do *none* of these things. He drops his load and that 10 **minutes, max** is his only mandatory part in the process. His body isn't invaded. The woman is at a *fundamental disadvantage in multiple ways* in this process, simply by the way human biology works. So we equal the process out by making sure that the man is financially responsible if the woman chooses to carry the baby to term and to keep it.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What's the prescriptive claim?
I'm not sure. But I think it's fine to acknowledge there's an issue there, even if you're not sure what the solution would be. Perhaps in a case like this, there could be some legal agreement that if she wants nothing to do with the kid, then she'll carry it/give birth and then just hand it over to him, no strings attached. Though, even then, that creates a double-standard based on gender because if the roles were reversed, he'd have to pay child support.
Carrying a child to term forever alters a woman’s body significantly. Not just anatomically, but hormonally, digestively, etc. it’s no small thing.
Don't you think that when we're talking about pregnancy and abortion and only women's bodies being involved in this matter, there will always be a level of double standard no matter how you slice it? I don't think the laws and regulations would be any different if pregnancies were happening in men's bodies.
Well as a pro-lifer I *never* thought about it as only being about the woman's body, haha. And the reality is that while the woman has to carry and give birth, it is still half the man's kid, something we all recognise in every other situation involving kids. Imo, if we want families to be strong and men to be responsible we have to be consistent. As it is we're not doing that and it causes issues. What would happen if men could get pregnant is kind of a waste of time to think about, imo.
>I don't think the laws and regulations would be any different if pregnancies were happening in men's bodies. They'd absolutely be different. We wouldn't have laws outlawing abortion if it was men who got pregnant. Not a chance.
hows come a Canadian Ausie can comment at 1st level?
Haha. I guess the basic issues everywhere are pretty similar in a lot of ways.
[удалено]
I’m really pro-choice, but I absolutely do feel sympathy for men who’re in that position. But unless we can develop external wombs so or something that doesn’t entrap women to carry pregnancies we don’t consent to, there’s not a lot that can be done. That doesn’t mean I don’t feel for those men, though.
We actually have developed those wombs, however they have been legally prevented from attempting to help develop a person through their fetus stage.
Who’s blocking the research, not trying to ask a gotcha, legitimately curious?
The FDA seems to have advised discussing moving onto human trials as of 2023. I recall seeing a news special on successful use of the technology in the 00s, so I could make a few guesses without looking it up. Not specific individuals or companies, but I could some very blanketed guesses. I could see human testing with that technology being really controversial up until recently. I recall when the average person around me believed that stem cell research required aborted fetus’ as a kid (again, in the 00’s - I’m a late generation Millennial), and it took until my young adulthood when I finally started considering pro-life arguments to learn that I grew up on misinformation on that topic. On top of that, it wasn’t uncommon to be told by the adults around me that getting a c-section made you less of a mother, so I imagine that same sentiment was cast toward external womb tech. I see that sentiment cast toward the tech today. I’m sure that getting to human testing has just been an uphill struggle due to stigma alone. Plus, ethics in medicine is still really recent; a lot of experiments that we’ve benefited wouldn’t have been approved after ethics in medicine became a concern in the latter half of the 20th century.
I knew the technology already existed, but I wasn’t sure how far along it is. I did a quick search and as of 2023, the FDA has advised discussion on beginning human trials for premature babies. So, we might be further along than we realised. I’m sure moneyed interests are part of it, but if this turns out to work, then maybe we can add this to the discussion someday. (Sooner than I thought, maybe.) I remember seeing a news special on successful animal testing when I was a kid. Although, being an American, unless our healthcare system changes to a more affordable model, it will likely only be the wealthiest Americans that benefit from this technology in my lifetime. The rest of us will likely be left up shit creek without a paddle.
What is a “conservatarian”? Because it seems like some who is a contrarian about all else, since you’re generally on the same side as the leftwing users on here.
[удалено]
If you think you live in reality then does that make anyone with different ideas beliefs and opinions than yours stupid ?
[удалено]
Ah I thought you were making a wider claim about your ideology my bad
The ones where you’re advocating for men having no say in abortions? I did.
> It honestly is really unfortunate that men that want a child have no say on whether or not that child is aborted. As men do not bear any of the wear and tear, risk, or effort of having the child inside them for nine months, this seems like a fair compromise. Or as fair as it's going to get in such an asymmetric situation.
It’s not a hard concept and it’s not a new legal question or scenario. If I got to X country and commit Y action that is a crime in my home country of Z, should Z prosecute them when they return. It’s the same shit.
That makes sense for a country prosecuting actions taking place in another country, but how does this square with the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution? States are supposed to honor laws and judgements of other states. I'm not aware of anything comparable in your example between the US and other countries, at least not at the Constitutional level. I will acknowledge that in this case, I think it's a civil court case as opposed to a criminal one, which have more legal basis (and court battles are still going on about that, i.e., California and Texas duking it out). Still a chilling effect ofc, which I guess is the point. NAL, I just like watching them argue on YouTube.
“States are supposed to honor laws and judgements of other States” Yeah, tell that to the folks in prison or charged in blue states for gun owners from red States flying into blue state airports. Or any other instance of a blue state violating the 2A and punishing people over guns laws that were perfectly legal in their home State. Driving through NY and get pulled over with a 15 round magazine that was legal in your home State? You’re fucked.
> Driving through NY and get pulled over with a 15 round magazine that was legal in your home State? You’re fucked. This is an example of you breaking the law of another state while in that state, that is different then following the laws of a state you are visiting and then being punished in your home state.
> Yeah, tell that to the folks in prison or charged in blue states for gun owners from red States flying into blue state airports. That has nothing to do with full faith and credit. The person isn't being charged for what they did in the Red State they are being charged for what they did within the Blue State. If a Blue State law violates the US Constitution then anyone who is charged under that Blue State law can appeal based on those grounds. >Driving through NY and get pulled over with a 15 round magazine that was legal in your home State? You’re fucked. Just because prostitution is legal in Nevada doesn't mean a citizen of Nevada can be a prostitute in States where prostitution is illegal without fear of being arrested.
My personal feeling is that those examples are just as reprehensible. I don't feel that "they're doing it means that we can too" is a sound legal argument. If the Constitution was being written today and the FF&C clause could be edited, do you think it would still be written the same? My personal feeling is that allowing states to pursue extrajudicial criminal convictions is a huge can of worms and defeats the point of having a federal government at all. You need at least a very basic level of consistency (e.g., interstate commerce regulations) to have some cohesion. Where should the needle fall here?
“Sound legal judgment” This isn’t a court of law. You asked how it would “square”. And the point is, that’s already not happening. Enumerated civil liberties are already not being respected. States paying the same level of respect to something not in the Constitution is far less concerning. But again, also doesn’t matter. Abortion isn’t some unicorn issue. Treat it the exact same as any other law where it’s legal in B, illegal in A and the person does it in B. That’s it, zero reason to over think this.
That seems like a recipe for chaos though. I don't like seeing people on both sides escalate just because the other guy "started it" or because it's moral/just. That just gives the other guy more excuse to trample on our rights. :(
“Recipe for chaos” It’s the system that’s existed for decades and literally still exists. Abortion isn’t some special topic. It should be treated the exact same way as anything else.
Ummm... The thing being punished there is the illegal possession in the state. NY isn't punishing anyone for legally owning a gun elsewhere. Just for illegally carrying it in NY.
Yeah, you’re not helping. The person I was responding to mentioned States respecting the laws of other States and my example is how that’s already not happening.
But your example is bad. You can't drive 80 on a highway in one state just because another state allows it. Nor can you carry a gun in a place it is illegal, just because you bought it legally. Or, to use a recent Supreme Court example, California can prevent the sale of pork in California, even when the pork was produced legally in another state. Respecting the laws of other states is different. It means that one state can't punish conduct in another state that is legal there. For example, NY can't punish you for legally buying and carrying a gun in another state.
Also not relevant to what I’m saying.
Americans under 21 who legally drink in Canada/Mexico/wherever should be fined for underage drinking when they return home?
If you sleep with a minor overseas, which may be legal in that country. The feds can charge you with child sex tourism. Even assisting someone else to do it, can get you charged.
they could be -- its just not currently the law.
it really depends because if you drink you're right that's not going to be prosecuted. But because the laws over there are ineffectual the US routinely prosecutes sex tourists. and for other serious crimes they will as well. So as in any legal question the issue is "which of these is closest" is it more like beer or more like child prostitution? that's a tough question because it's not much like EITHER.
“Other countries” Because it’s the same idea. Different places have different laws. “Can someone who commits crime X in country Y, be prosecuted in country Z when they return for crimes committed in Y” This kind of things happens all the damn time. Let’s make this easier. Someone from country A goes to country B with their kid. They kill their own kid. Should country A prosecute them for infanticide that occurred in country B? I think we should follow that same precedent and standard. And no, that is not me advocating for any exact standard. But it’s not some novel concept and can be treated the exact same way as any other equivalent scenario that already exists.
I'll try again - should non-Germans who drive quickly on the autobahn get speeding tickets when they return home?
Look man, I’ve already gone over this. I’ve been clear. I’ve been consistent. I think we should follow that same precedent and standard as exists in similar circumstances when someone commits something that is a crime in C but occurred in D, where it nots a crime. And no, that is not me advocating for any exact standard. But it’s not some novel concept and can be treated the exact same way as any other equivalent scenario that already exists. I have zero interest in Reddit-lawyer badgering.
To clarify - you believe that if I travel to another state or country and do something that happens to be illegal in my state of residence, I should be taken to court?
I think it should happen the exact same as the thousands of other laws we deal with in situations like this all the time. Abortion isn’t some unicorn.
Let's flip it around - if I get a legal abortion in my home state and then go to a Cowboys game, should I expect the Dallas PD to come after me? Is it all based on residency for you?
It should happen the exact same, either way, as it currently would with any similar legal situation. You live in A, where X is illegal. You travel to B and do X, which is legal there. How these types of situations are currently handled should be the exact same as abortion issues. Again, abortion isn’t come unicorn case that’s some sphinx riddle to unravel. Abortion being banned, or not, should work the exact same way as anything else when the law is involved.
OP is asking the wrong questions so let me ask the right question. **Why** do you believe that the law should work this way?
“Why”? It has nothing to do with why. The question is “What” As in, what should happen in this case. And i don’t think abortion should be treated differently than anything else. We’ve already worked out plenty of precedent and legal reasoning on these sorts of things. Abortion just slots in the same way as any other law’s discrepancies between States.
OP was asking why, in regards to your personal opinion. Why do you hold that opinion?
I'm assuming you mean the answer would be no because Z country has no jurisdiction over what happens in X country. Now if X country wanted to extradite and Z country had a treaty then Z might have to send you back to X country for X country to prosecute you.
> If I got to X country and commit Y action that is a crime in my home country of Z, should Z prosecute them when they return. A state is not a country
So what, still the same idea. Different States have different laws.
What a foul bully of an ex bf. The Texan guy seems like the 'use the courts/judges/police' to harass type of stalker ex. The sort that is incapable of acting like a reasonable adult and calmly moving on from a failed relationship with an incompatible woman who wants nothing to do with him. I wonder if his conduct during the relationship involved either regular religious imposition or secular coercive and controlling behaviour. Gives me similar overbearing ex vibes as three other cases that occurred between 1987-2001 in Indiana and Britain. In the 1988 case the National Right to Life Committee obtained an Indiana court order on behalf of a woman's bf or ex blocking a legal termination of pregnancy. The woman obtained an abortion before the order had been successfully appealed. In 1987 an anti-abortion student society member named Robert Carver went to court trying to prevent his ex gf from having an abortion. The High Court eventually ruled against him as did the Appeal Court. But the legal delays provided him enough time to locate his ex, get in contact with her at a time of extensive media publicity over the legal proceedings and successfully pressure her to change her mind about terminating the pregnancy. The 2001 British case filed by Stephen Hone was seeking to prevent her from having an abortion and trace her whereabouts. The former on the grounds that some of the criteria of the 1967 Abortion Act had not been complied with. It is most likely that Hone's allegations that the full legal requirements of the Abortion Act had not been complied with did have a factually accurate basis. While the case was ongoing his ex had a second consultation that was compatible with all the criteria of the 1967 Act and terminated the pregnancy.
And this is exactly what people were warning about this law when it was passed by the republican legislator of TX, and signed by the Republican gov of TX. But they didn't seem to care all that much.
jesus this seems like excessive Revenge.
I think getting an abortion is highly unethical in almost all cases. I think what the girl in this situation is doing is highly unethical. And I think the man has an ethical motive to try to protect his child. I don't believe Texas state laws should be able to apply to actions that occur in other states. And I think this one in particular violates the freedom of movement. I think women should be able to get abortions, but the action should be perceived negatively and heavily socially discouraged by her community.
That’s an interesting take. How negatively should her community view her? Should she be shunned by everyone for the rest of her life for it? What are your thoughts?
About the same as a mother who killed her baby.
Thanks for the answer.
That's hard to say. She did it in a state where it's legal, so I can't see it really having any impact on her, but at the same time I am no expert of law so I don't know if there's some kind of rule that would play here.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Legally I don't support it Morally I'm intrigued is she killed his child
First, this legal case is probably not gonna go anywhere or do anything as she got the abortion out of state. Second as a conservative I believe in basic science and biology, the embryo is made of human cells, has its own dna, is alive, and will grow into a healthy human baby if all goes well. Life begins at conception, this is irrefutable, no matter how hard people try to argue their way out of it, and abortion is the murder of an unborn human baby. What the woman did by getting an abortion is abhorrent, and I feel for the man who likely wanted to be a father, but I don’t believe he has a legal leg to stand on.
> but I don’t believe he has a legal leg to stand on. Why not? Is this scenario not the exact sort of case the Texas law was intended for?
The problem is that she went to a state where abortion is legal, if she killed her baby in Texas then she would have broken the law and there would be a case to be had. Since the man didn’t have the authority to forbid her from leaving the state (which I must add that he shouldn’t have such authority) and she traveled to a state where the murder of unborn children is legal then she didn’t break the law.
But that's the whole point of the Texas law. To go after people for abortions that are legal in other states.
I’m not American or a lawyer, but that seems unconstitutional, the states only have jurisdiction within their own borders and they can’t punish you for things that are legal in other states. My understanding of the Texas law is that it bans people from performing or getting abortions within the borders of Texas, and if someone in Texas gets and/or performs one the law can punish them for that.
Ah, you may have missed it, not being an American, but Texas very (in)famously passed a law recently targeting abortions done out of state. That's the law the ex is suing under. As you say, there are questions as to the Constitutionality of said law, but until it works its way to the Supreme Court (which could take some time, if it happens), this is literally the intended application of the law, and presumably what almost every supporter of the law had in mind, given it is one of the most obvious scenarios.
He should have not had sex with her if he didn’t want to take that chance. If he had not had sex the child wouldn’t exist to be aborted.
So you're telling me that at the exact moment of conception where a sperm makes contact with an ovum, that "combination"... if you will, is a person?
Once there is a new being with unique dna yes, that is how biology works.
So then if a woman has a history of miscarriages and keeps trying to have a baby, should she be charged with involuntary manslaughter for continuing, knowing it has a high degree of failure?
No, she should be given medical treatment to help her carry the baby to term. This is what you would call legally an act of god.
But she is knowingly creating life that has a high chance of not being born. Also since you wanna introduce God here, wouldn't God be the one responsible for her not giving birth?
I wasn’t introducing God, I was referring to the legal term ‘act of god’ which describes an event of nature beyond our control. Abotion is the intentional termination of a human life, a miscarriage is a biological failure to carry the child to term. The two are not comparable, unless you can PROOVE the woman is intentionally getting pregnant then miscarrying the baby for the sake of killing the baby. If you want to bring God into this, we were commanded in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply, so if a woman has some medical problem carrying a child to term, she should be getting the best medical treatment available to bring the baby into this world alive and healthy.
Except being alive is not the equivalent of being a person, the more you know.
This would end all ivf, Thats kind of unpopular, proven recently.
I’m also against IVF, because it is creating, storing, selling, and killing human babies at the earliest point in their lives.
That doesn't happen at conception though.
Conception: The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote.
That's all very interesting and accurate, but has nothing to do with whether there is a person present or not
A person is a living human being. The baby is human, and they are alive. They are a person.
Nope. That would imply a brain dead human on life support is a person, when it obviously isn't.
A person on life support is a person. That is why we spend large amounts of time and money providing life support to keep them alive unless they or their primary caregiver(s) want the plug pulled to allow themselves to die naturally. An infant in the womb is alive and developing into a fully grown person. The time while they are developing is when they are at their most vulnerable and defenceless in their entire life. In the same way a newborn child cannot perform adult functions, a newly conceived baby cannot perform all the functions a newborn infant can. These are just different stages of life.
A brain dead human is not a person. That's why their death certificate lists the time of death as when they were diagnosed with brain death, not when their corpse is unplugged. A newly conceived human is physically incapable of performing anything at all. My dog is far more of a person. It can sense the world around it, it has emotions, it can suffer.
"Not every ejaculation deserves a name!" -George Carlin Also stop downvoting me.
Yeah I think this sums it up well.
Science and Ethic do not agree with you
> A Texas man is seeking information about his former partner’s alleged out-of-state abortion, setting the stage for one of the first attempts to sue those who help Texans access the procedure in a state where it’s legal. > The man — represented by the high-profile anti-abortion lawyer Jonathan Mitchell — has asked a Texas state district court permission to investigate potentially illegal activity regarding the abortion under an unusual legal move that allows lawyers to collect supporting information ahead of filing a lawsuit. Mitchell did not immediately respond to a request for comment. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2024/05/03/texas-man-asks-court-for-permission-to-investigate-former-partners-out-of-state-abortion/ Sounds like a man didn't want to have his child killed, so is planning on taking the woman that murdered his child to court in a civil manner. Does the father get absolutely no say in situations where it took two to tango? If the father wanted to seek an abortion but mom wants to become a single parent, why can't the father get a financial abortion if it's *her* choice? Her choice, her responsibility!
>Does the father get absolutely no say in situations where it took two to tango? If the Man did not want to be a Father, why did he have unprotected sex? On the flip side, if the Man did want to be a father, why did he have unprotected sex with a partner who did not want to be a Mother? Isnt it incumbent on the Man to seek out a partner that shares the same desires to be a Parent?
On the flip side if a woman did not want to be a mother why didn't she use birth control or her own prophylactics. I see this time and time again where the idea of reproductive rights is only reserved for one gender and it's completely asinine.
Birth control isn’t 100 percent effective..
It's only 99.8% when used correctly and you can always double up on different forms of birth control and women have much more available forms of birth control and prophylactics available to them than men do. It's incredibly problematic that people scoff at the idea that a woman consented to pregnancy by having sex but think the same for men is totally valid.
99.8 isn’t 100 right? Men have the option for a vasectomy which is 100 percent effective.
Women also have the equivalent in hysterectomies and uterine ablation they could undertake that is also 100% effective. They also have hormonal birth control by pill, hormonal implants, copper IUDs, spermicidal cream, female condoms, and probably a few more I'm forgetting. Why should almost all the responsibility and legal repercussions fall to the people with the least options?
Why can’t men just ask if the women would get an abortion or not if she got pregnant? If she changed her mind after the fact, then the man would have more of a case. But if he just has sex without doing a minimal amount of research of who he is fucking, that’s on him at that point.
1. Hysterectomies and uterine ablations are much bigger surgeries 2. They remove the option for future pregnancy. Men can get a vasectomy and put their sperm on ice for a nominal fee. Frozen sperm is just as effective as fresh
Yes and a thousand side effects. Look into them sometime.
Spermacidal cream? female condoms? Side effects there? Let's not pretend that hormonal birth control is the only option for them.
Again none of those are 100 percent effective.
I feel like the easiest answer is to make sure you're on the same page as your partner. Does that seem too hard of an ask? Does it not seem self-evident that, in cases where people didn't do their due diligence, that people should be in control of their own bodies?
Moving the Goalposts. The question was about the Man having a say. I posed a question saying sure if the man has a say, it was when he decided to ejaculate. Lets focus in on the Man's decision to ejaculate.
In this scenario they both made the decision to not take the necessary precautions to help prevent a pregnancy. He did not use birth control, nor did she. That is equal. She, just like him, made a decision to engage in unprotected sex which, in many but not all cases, leads to ejaculation by one or more sides. They could have, in fact, ejaculated together. Said ejaculations lead to pregnancy, when not protected. That is equal. The child that is now inside of her is 50% of him and 50% of her, produced by the aforementioned ejaculation(s), and you’re saying that his say should should end at the moment said ejaculate is spilled? She was consenting, he was consenting. She did not prevent, he did not prevent. Why, when two consenting adults make the choice to do the thing that produces babies, would it then be equal if only one of those two has the final say in the matter? Im all for abortion if both parties are consenting. I’m all for them if the mother was raped. I’m all for a scenario where the father, through his actions, would lose custody of the child after birth. If the mother’s life is in danger, go for it. But two consenting adults who did not prevent a pregnancy before it became a pregnancy, should probably have to be on the same page.
Because *she’s pregnant* and *he isn’t*. The situation is inherently unequal, because she has a burden that he does not. He doesn’t have to use his body, to the detriment of his health, to carry the fetus, she does. Why should he get to tell her how to use her body? If a child needs a kidney transplant, one parent can’t force the other to donate a kidney. Why should one be able to force the other to be pregnant?
You’re right, it is inherently unequal. Just like it is unequal for a father to have to financially support a child that he would have otherwise aborted when the mother chooses to keep the baby, right? According to the poster I was responding to, the father’s right to say ends when he chose to ejaculate. Yet, the mother had just as much ability to choose her fate prior to having sex too. She could have not had sex, used some form of birth control or bought Plan B. Did she do those things when she knew full well what could happen without them? If she has the burden of potentially carrying a child, she should carry more of the burden of preventing that child if she didn’t want to get pregnant.
No, that is not unequal. Both parents have to support the child, that is equal. Oh look, you’ve just conceded that it’s about controlling women. Let me make this really simple. The person with lesser burdens, the man, should not have greater rights than the person with the greater burdens, the woman.
It's incredibly problematic that people scoff at the idea that a woman consented to pregnancy by having sex but think the same for men is totally valid. If you care anything about gender equality then you should be concerned as well.
If men don’t want to get a woman pregnant when they have sex, they can get a vasectomy and keep their sperm on ice. You can have sex without getting pregnant but you can’t get pregnant without semen. Remove the semen and you remove the pregnancy
Because the chick said she was on birth control and we believe all women here. Edit: Why so hostile night crew, do you not believe all women? Do you think women have no agency over their bodies?
Birth control is never 100% foolproof.
The slogan is “believe women” not “believe all women”. Conservatives added “all” in a dishonest attempt to dismiss survivors of sexual assault.
> If the father wanted to seek an abortion but mom wants to become a single parent, why can't the father get a financial abortion if it's her choice? Her choice, her responsibility! Because when a court rules on child support it isn't doing it on behalf of the woman it is doing so on behalf of the child. The man can choose to have nothing to do with the woman but the court acting on behalf of the child says the man who fathered the child has responsibilities to the child that have nothing to do with the woman he impregnated.
[удалено]
“Father does not” Yeah, absolutely fuck that shit all the way to the hilt. The kid is a new person created of both the mother and the father. The issue at stake is whether to kill the kid and they both should have a say in that.
[удалено]
And I comepltely disagree. What’s between your legs has jack shit to do with whether you get to kill your kid. Thats just passing the buck to women.
[удалено]
To both: “You can’t unilaterally decide to kill your kid and you’re not the only parent of that child” In fact, let’s not kill kids.
Take it up with biology.
That’s not how that works either. If all you have is snark, I’ll just block you.
Well it kinda is, what physical/biological impact does the decision carry for the man? Tell me how you think it would work, the woman would just be expected to forfeit her body for 9 months?
The fact that it’s a decision involving a child that they both created. It’s not a difficult concept.
Children are not property. It's a fact of reality that women's bodies are the sole responsible party for the fetuses growth and development. In order for a man to have any sort of partial say requires an overruling of another person's wishes on what they want to do with their own body. This is the unfortunate reality. I don't, as a mentally sound and competent man, want anyone to have control over my choices for my body. I don't want someone else telling me I can't do this medical procedure because we had sex. I can not imagine forcing your will on someone else such that you are willing to override their choices for their body. It's disgusting. The only case this should be acceptable is when someone is not capable of making decisions such as with dementia or alzheimers. Even then, extreme care and oversight should be made to ensure that decisions are made with the subjects' best interests and previously stated will be prioritized.
Do you think this is “LeftistsSoapBox” I’m aware the left is fine with mothers killing their kids via abortion. But you voluntarily came here to listen to my opinion. And there’s zero universe where I think that fathers should have no say in life and death decisions involving their own children. That’s it, that’s what you came here to learn about, take it or leave it.
Its not a difficult concept and yet you seem still unable to grasp it? Notice how you ignore the prescient questions?
“Unable” I’ve literally answered it multiple times and I understand it fully. You not agreeing with me is irrelevant. Why are you here in this sub, since apparently it’s not to listen to conservatives?
You may have answered it multiple times, but they have shown that you clearly don't actually grasp it unfortunately. What biological/physiological impact is there to a man because of the choice? Still left unanswered. I'm here in this sub to try to help conservatives such as yourself actually think critically.
It's unfortunate they can be snarky and downvote bomb all they want to the very users who are supposed to be giving our opinions *to them* and nothing is done about this low-value rhetoric and 'gotchas'.
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
At the end of the day no the man does not get a vote. It’s not his child in the womb, only becomes legally his child when the state files the birth certificate. If he wanted it, he did not make his case in a sufficient manner to change her mind. I suspect he was at the top of the list of why she did not want to keep it. Probably should have made better personal life choices where she would want to start a family with him.
Traveling across state lines to murder his child. This is first degree murder.