While your reasoning is sound, so is mine.
Its the precedent in legality that holds the threat.
The issue is not whether one drives, has sex or enters into a legal binding agreement.
The issue is a matter of life and death.

We know the state commits murder without accountability.
The state determines when murder is allowed based on national security.
The state determines when someone can be killed for convience.
Marie Schiavo confirmed that in 2005.
We have a death penalty, lethal execution, state sanctioned but all these examples concern people that are already born and not in the care and sustinence of an adult human being. They are in an adult human being that has rights too.
Once the child is born, the state can santion its death for any reason because there has already been a precedent in law allowing them.
The issue is, Can we Kill it?.
This means that anyone representing the state has the authority to kill your unborn child.
Are we really ready to give them that?
As soon as the state says, "Yes, kill it" or "No, you can't kill it" you give the state authority to determine something that is meant to be personal.

If someone wants my permission to kill the child inside them, I'm not going to give it because its not mine to give. Its a question I should never have had to answer it the first place.

COMING SOON from your federal government...... FREE MANDATORY VASECTOMIES !!!!

That’s right ladies and gentlemen, it’s time for us women to get into office and see that men are finally forced to own the responsibility they have in causing pregnancy. We women can’t control when our eggs release or make our uterus ready for pregnancy. We need medical intervention for that.

But men don’t have that problem. They can control the one thing needed for pregnancy all on their own. Our sexual pleasure doesn’t cause pregnancy, it doesn’t release an egg or prep the uterus. It’s ONLY the males pleasure that causes pregnancy.

And they have the ability to keep it to themselves until they want children.

The way the narrative is now, everything falls onto the woman’s shoulders. ALL of it.

THEY have the one missing ingredient but it is us women who supposedly has “something special to be only shared during marriage”. That is classic projection. It’s not us with something special, it’s them.

Women are told their sex drive is a maternal instinct to mother but men are told their drive is an animalistic desire for pleasure. We aren’t supposed to have sex unless we want children but men are supposed to get all they can before they supposedly are forced to be with one woman the rest of their life.

It’s NATURAL for him to want to dump his stuff anywhere and everywhere he can and how do they justify this? By making you responsible for his actions. It’s up to you to regulate him and if you fail at any point you are the problem.

Want to take the pregnancy to term? Then you are a leach, you are trapping a man, you are getting taxpayers money you are after the mans money. All because you couldn’t control yourself.

Know that you can’t afford to feed yourself half the time and can’t feed another mouth, let alone child care and missed work and doctor appointments and feeling sick and health issues and bottles and furniture and on and on, and decide to abort the pregnancy because you don’t want handouts and your an evil murder who didn’t give the father a chance.

It doesn’t matter what we do because we will always be wrong.

It’s time that we quit being a scapegoat for men and their bodies. They have the ability to release or NOT release their own fluids.

It’s time they dealt with that and the responsibility that comes with it. No more using women to justify your lack of ownership in what you possess.

It’s time males took their bodies seriously and it’s time we taught them to only give out that special ingredient to the woman who he wants to mother his children. That’s what that special sauce is for after all, the missing ingredient to make that unique and special little life at conception.

Within hours of it leaving your body you could have created a life by your standards at conception.

You need to control that stuff!! And you can!!! It’s your body! Own it!

~ twitter

I'm all for that!
No woman EVER got pregnant by herself.
They want to regulate us?
Let them do the same for the guys...because without his "donation", no pregnancy would ever occur.

It's easy to say that a baby is the responsibility of both mother and father but the reality is many men and some women just walk away. And if they don't want to pay child support, they find a way. My ex only worked under the table.

The woman who is pregnant should be the one making the decision. Most women don't take pregnancy lightly so let her make the choice. Women don't need you to decide!

You didn't understand the post.

I understood and it is not the subject of the topic.
The subject of the topic is whether or not we can kill an unborn child.
If the state (public) is allowed to decide, it sets precedent to allow the state (public) to determine personal fate which is only meant to be a private decision.

The subject is not about how the baby came to be or about who is responsible after it is born.

Personally, I am against the murder of an unborn child and I think any woman that would consider it is a monster.
But...Its not my decision.
Its none of my business at all because I don't have a life growing inside my body.
If I did, it would be my personal decision which should be a private matter.

Funny you should say that.. It could soon become a reality in Texas. ;)

It's kind of a shoe meet other foot thing.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/health/abortion-texas-lawmaker-trnd/index.html

Texas bill would fine men $100 each time they masturbate

Female legislator proposes bill to make a point and give male lawmakers a taste of their own medicine
The bill, which is largely symbolic, also imposes a 24-hour waiting period for Viagra

(CNN)A Texas lawmaker has proposed a bill that would fine a man $100 each time he masturbates.

The bill also imposes a 24-hour waiting period if a guy wants a colonoscopy or a vasectomy, or if he's in the market for some Viagra.

Rep. Jessica Farrar, a Democrat, knows her bill isn't going to get very far. But she proposed it last week to make a point and give male lawmakers a taste of their own medicine.

Farrar has long been an advocate of women's health in a state that has made it extremely difficult for women to get abortions. And the bill, by pointing out a sexist double standard, is meant to shine a light on the obstacles women deal with when it comes to their health care.
"Let's look at what Texas has done to women," Farrar told CNN. "What if men had to undergo the same intrusive procedures?"

Even the name is a jab

Farrar's bill would penalize men for masturbation because such behavior is a failure to preserve the sanctity of life and "an act against an unborn child." Even the bill's name -- "A Man's Right to Know Act" -- is a jab at a pamphlet Texas doctors are required to give women seeking abortions.

That pamphlet, "A Woman's Right to Know," has long been criticized for being inaccurate, ideologically influenced by religion and designed to discourage women from getting abortions. One section of the pamphlet says breast cancer and abortions are linked. Scientific studies have found no cause-and-effect relationship between the two.

"We have real lives to deal with," said Farrar, who pointed out that Texas has the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world. And she's right — the rate of women who died from pregnancy-related complications doubled from 2010 to 2014, according to a recent study.

Backlash from political opponents

Republicans have lashed out at Farrar's bill. "I'm embarrassed for Representative Farrar. Her attempt to compare to the abortion issue shows a lack of a basic understanding of human biology," said Rep. Tony Tinderholt in a statement. "I would recommend that she consider taking a high school biology class from a local public or charter school before filing another bill on the matter."

Tinderholt recently proposed a bill that would charge abortion providers and women receiving abortions with murder.

Access to abortions in Texas

Texas has quite a one-two punch to keep women from getting abortions. One: strict laws. Two: Lack of clinics. Texas doesn't allow abortions for women past the 20-week mark unless their life is endangered. Under this law, women who are pregnant with an unviable fetus are forced to carry to term. Additionally, women must receive state-directed counseling, must have an ultrasound and a provider must describe the image of the unborn child to the woman. As of 2014, some 96% of Texas counties had no clinics that provided abortions, and roughly 43% of women lived in those counties, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

And since 2014 the number of facilities providing abortions in Texas has plummeted from 44 to 18 after the state passed restrictions on abortion doctors and clinics. The restrictions were eventually struck down by the Supreme Court, but the damage was done. Today, Texas women can only get abortions in seven cities and an entire swath of the state -- the panhandle and much of west Texas -- is an abortion clinic desert.
***

What I find the most shocking about the entire debate, as how many people find their lives so meaningless, that the only way they can give themselves any kind of validation, is by interfering in the lives of people that they've never met.

At some point, half of this country turned into Gladys Kravitz from Bewitched. People have totally lost the ability to mind their own business. If it affects someone personally, if it's their child, or their spouse, they might have some kind of validity in their input.

But to harass, and attempt to intimidate complete strangers, is a mystery that I will never understand.

Speaking as a man, I hope the law gets passed in Texas. People need to learn what it feels like to have their lives unnecessarily intruded into.

I have an overall observation about all this, from another angle.

Human beings seem to have a strong desire to come to hard and fast (meaning fixed, not rapid) conclusions about pretty much everything about life, and they appear to want to do that more than any other fundamental reason, because they want to feel that they are "doing it right."

That drive to come to final decisions about everything, often backfires, because very little in the world actually IS possible to come to hard and fast and ALWAYS CORRECT conclusions about.

I've read everyone's entries here, and many more discussions and arguments from others for decades now. I am well versed in dispassionate logical reasoning, and have been working at that for my entire life. And what I have seen in this subject area, throughout my life, is people who are unable to come to agreements, in part because they aren't all talking about the same thing, and often don't even realize that they aren't talking about what they think they are talking about.

Many people, because of that urgent rush to want to decide things once and for all, actually consciously REFUSE to have a rational discussion about this, because the only way to BE that certain about such a tremendously complex...phenomenon, is to close one's mind to the complexities.

One particular note: the people on each "side" of this are nowhere NEAR as united and in agreement as many want to pretend they are. Even the people who make up their minds that it's all about killing, have many different ideas about what is and isn't killing, and even more divided as to what is and isn't justified killing.

The refusal to recognize all the dozens (at least) of subgroups with separate concerns about this, does more than anything else to keep the problem unsolvable, and to keep the debates from being useful.

I personally have come to the, you might call it, UNconclusion, that some things cannot be decided conclusively. Some "problems" are not subject to logic at all (such as the existence or non existence of supernatural beings); and some problems are not actually single problems at all, and only appear to be such, because humans link things artificially together in their misperceptions.

The issue of abortions certainly falls into the latter category, and touches on the former.

If you decide that it's all about who has the right to decide, you are bridging together religious and moral concerns, with theory of government, and with ideals about freedom and personal responsibility. And those areas of concern have NEVER been possible to coordinate in any firm logical way. Which is why governments have been changed over and over again, throughout our history, and before.

I myself have seen my sense about abortion change many times. When I first learned about it, all I heard, was that because it was illegal, that lots of desperate and often entirely innocent people were suffering horribly, including everything from botched attempted self-abortions, to child abandonment, to angry people attacking young mothers physically, for being frightened. So I at first, completely sided with legalization for anyone and everyone.

But I also learned later, how much I am moved by babies, and how loathe I am to see harm come to any of them. So I could no longer think of abortion as something that didn't involve real lives being decided.

And yet, I am still averse to allowing one group of people to demand control of the lives of everyone else, especially not in the self-blinding way that ALL government actions require. So at the moment, I am opposed to abortions, but I am also intensely opposed to making them illegal.

By now, I have known people who have been through all manner of travails in their lives, including abortions, and including decisions to end the life support of relatives who were dying. I know that EVERYONE I have known, suffered tremendously because they DID have to make the decisions themselves, and because there was no way to know or feel ever, that what they decided was conclusively right.

And that curse, if you will, followed everyone I knew. Whether there was a law involved or not. So if someone thinks that the existence of a law against something, will make the decision to comply with it easy on those who it affects, they are just plain ignorant and wrong.

Our lives as human beings is vastly complex, sometimes, and in many cases, there can be no final right or wrong answer. There can only be what we each suffer and learn from, or fail to learn from.

And this is one of those kinds of things for sure.

I'm a firm believer that in this day and age abortion should not even be an option as medical technology should be advanced enough to avoid such situations. I certainly don't believe in getting an abortion simply because of an unwanted pregnancy, that is murder no matter how you try to justify it or word it.

First and foremost, there are more people being born than dying.
From a REALISTIC view, abortion would be a plus.
Less people being born, less people needing life support.

From a MORAL point of view, all life is sacred and should be preserved.
Thus, abortion should be outlawed and everything needs to be done to assure survival of every life.

What many seem to fail to realize is its a personal decision and should never be a public one.
The moment we allow the public to decide a personal fate, we all lose our independence and we enter Orwellian fantasy.
If you think red light cameras are wrong, the abortion debate should send you into a frenzy.
If it doesn't, you have no idea what you are debating.

I would agree if it were men wanting abortions. But since the choice is about what the WOMAN wants, than the responsibility, on this issue, is the womans, if she doesnt want to be pregnant, that is her responsiblity. IF the man doesnt want to get her pregnant, then that is HIS responsibility.

but no one is really addressing the abortion issue from the perspective of what the man wants, because presumably all that should matter is the woman, coming back to why its the womans responsibility to take the precautions if SHE doesnt want a child.

I see it as the man's responsibility to be sure his lady does not conceive a child except for those times when they both want a child. I think this thread is about the woman's responsibility for being careful when she says 'Yes' to her man. Does she want a child? Does she want to avoid a child?

The reason for all this discussion is, I think, because it is the woman who will have to go through all the pain associated with childbirth and more than likely it is the woman who will have responsibility for the child for the next 20 years or so following the birth. At any time, the father might walk out on the mother for a variety of reasons.

The man needs to take responsibility at the start. The woman also needs to take responsibility, but if a child results it is the woman for sure whose life will be utterly changed for many years to follow.

I likewise believe that adults should be responsible and take precautions about having children. But because most people dont discuss kids before they have sex with another person, it is up to each individual to be responsible for THEMSELF. if a woman doesnt want to deal with a pregnancy, she has to take that responsibility for herself. Likewise, a man that doesnt want children has to take that responsiblity on themself.

The solution to women having abortions is not to hold MEN Responsible for whether THEY get pregnant, as a previous post suggests, but to hold WOMEN Responsible for whether we get pregnant. Just like the answer to men not being made to pay child support is not to hold the woman responsible for not getting pregnant, but for men to be held responsible for not GETTING anyone present.

WE can only be sure of what we are doing with our own bodies, so we must take the precautions for what WE Want to happen with them.

But, msharmony...
What if a woman DOES take responsibilty..*is* on birth control pills (and has been for some 18 years)...and an unexpectedly preganacy occurs?

Don't think that is possible?
It is..I know for certain.

In general terms I agree totally with msharmony, I think we are both saying the same thing.

However, there are always exceptions to the rule. Women DO get pregnant while on The Pill, it isn't that rare to happen. One couple I used to know planned on having two children. The third, they admitted, was the result of a split condom. Forrtunately they are happy with that and like to joke about it.

In those cases, I think each situation is different and there can be no hard and fast rule that would apply to everyone.

This really is a topic of splitting hairs. On one hand, someone should not be allowed to be actively sexually free with multiple partners and each time run to the abortion clinic and dump the result. They could try and use protection instead of using abortion as a problem solver. Technically, it is their right to do as they want, but logically speaking, the abortion clinic should not be the day after condom.

In examples of rape and incest, you are now trying to place fault upon the woman for not being able to protect herself. You are basically saying, she was in the wrong place at the wrong time and kind of deserves what happened to her. It really is a no win situation here at all.

Now we are having issues where a woman falls, or is in a vehicle accident, or an argument and gets punched (one recent example shot) and loses her baby. The woman is being held accountable for the death of her baby when it was clearly no fault of her own. The courts are charging her with neglect and some degree of murder. I really am at a loss at how this scene is being justified by the courts. Somehow, the courts have been given the right of God, and that is not going to be beneficial to any human being in the long run.

There was once a standard to where "it's my body, therefore, it's my choice." I can agree to this standard with one exception. When does life itself constitute? Does life begin once the semen enters the egg? Does life begin at the stage of zygote? Does life begin the moment a heartbeat appears? Science wants to play God, but is really inconclusive on a solid answer. And the Bible is really unclear when life begins, even though, preachers claim at the time of conception. But there needs to be a solid standard here. Because abortions at stage 1st trimester, stage 2nd trimester, stage 3rd trimester all have beating heartbeats. A beating heartbeat constitutes a human life. And to remove a beating heartbeat, is no different than taking a gun and shooting someone till they die. One scenario happens to be in the womb, the other outside of the womb.

And the exception to that rule ^ is having your developing fetus diagnosed as going to be mentally handicapped, or disabled, or will never be considered normal. Does this now give an exception to allow this life to end? Should the parents be forced to deal with this tragedy that will require their lifetime providing care and assistance?

Personally, normal, mentally disabled, handicapped, not normal, life is precious to God. And we can go back through genetics and find why fetuses are how they are. God said we will suffer the sins of our fathers before us. If a person is a narcissist, the chances are very good any offspring will also become narcissistic. The list of Psychological Disorders developing from generation to generation is almost a guarantee. But is this where we say abortion is the answer, or we say, fix that person so they cannot reproduce?

In my opinion, unless she is a child or juvenile, she knows there is still the possibility and should be prepared for it.

"Republicans want live babies so they can grow up to be dead soldiers." - George Carlin