How do you feel about men’s versus woman’s rights to their babies?

Look...this is getting ridiculous. We have too many abortion-related threads. I have written something like the equivalent of 5 pages on this subject. Can the Mods like merge these threads somehow or something? Because this is getting kinda ridiculous.

Red Flag said:

Should we recognize this 'right'? If so, why? And how do we determine what entities shall be granted this 'right'?

Click to expand...

We should recognize that the unborn have a 50% chance of being persons, we already know they’re human, so we shouldn’t kill them anymore than we should kill anyone else. The only entities that should be granted this right are human beings. If you can’t prove they’re not human beings, though, you shouldn’t kill them.

So we should ban contraceptives and HPV vaccines, lest people enjoy life and eachother without consequence? What about bicycle helmets, seatbelts in cars, and vaccinations against rabies?

Click to expand...

I didn’t say that. My argument is against taking a life that was created out of the consequences of your actions because you don’t like the consequences. You’re creating analogies that don’t correspond to anything I’m saying. I don’t mind people having sex in whatever manner whenever they please. I don’t mind people wearing helmets, seatbelts, or getting vaccinations. I have a very specific complain. Don’t kill people because of you don’t like the consequences of your actions.

So... should we not set broken bones or allow smokers to receive treatment for asthma or cancer? If you take a shower and slip and break a hip, we shouldn't let you seek medical attention?

Click to expand...

I didn’t say any of that. None of that is killing someone. Are the smokers killing anyone by receiving treatment? Are you killing someone by replacing their hip? I didn’t think so. None of these actions have the possibility of killing a human being.

Why? Aside from your desire to punish her for her sexuality, I mean.

Click to expand...

Get your facts straight. There is no punishment involved. Those are the consequences of her actions. When she had sex, she opened up the possibility of bearing a child. She is free to have sex whenever and however she wants, using whatever contraceptives and whatnot she wants, but the only guaranteed way to not have a child is not to have sex. Becoming pregnant was a consequence of her choices. Killing a possible human being is not an appropriate response to any consequence.

Define: muder

Click to expand...

mur•der/ˈmərdər/
Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Is it murder to break a vase or step on an ant? Is it murder to kill you or bask ET's brains in with a bat for fun? We're back to the first question.

Click to expand...

I responded to what murder is above. The unborn has the possibility of being human. Therefore, you are possibly killing a human being, possibly committing murder- I certainly do not approve.

Belgarath said:

We should recognize that the unborn have a 50% chance of being persons

Click to expand...

Huh? How do you figure that?

we already know they’re human

Click to expand...

And?

so we shouldn’t kill them anymore than we should kill anyone else

Click to expand...

So... what about the braindead?

Don’t kill people

Click to expand...

What's a people? You keep avoiding that question.

killing a human being

Click to expand...

What about it? So, it's human. What of it? ET's not a human. Does that make it okay to torture him and perform a vivsection without anesthesia because it sounds like fun?

Can I cook your cat alive in my oven? It's not human, which is all you keep babbling about.

Becoming pregnant was a consequence

Click to expand...

-which she deserves to suffer... You can dress it up however you like, but we all see your line for what it is.

mur•der/ˈmərdər/
Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Click to expand...

So it's not murder, because it's legal. Therefore your entire argument falls apart. Care to try again?

The unborn has the possibility of being human

Click to expand...

As opposed to what? Do you think your wife got knocked up by the dog? Might fido be the real babydaddy?

It is human, it might be human, it could become human some day- will you please pick one line of crap and stick with it? You keep going around in circles trying to catch your own tail.

1. The unborn is human. We've accepted that. People=human being. The question is: is it a human being or not. We know it will become one. The question is when and there's no scientific evidence for when that occurs, but everyone accepts it is a human being at birth. Therefore, the question is: when does it become a human being. At any time from conception to birth, there is a 50% chance it is human.

2. The reason I said "we already know that they're human" is to support the above point.

3. Those who are in a coma sometimes have signed a paper indicating whether or not they wish the plug pulled. For the rest- I'm not 100% sure. On the one hand, there's no absolute reason to believe they'll come out of it. On the other, they still might. I would say when feasible, keep them alive. Better to be safe than sorry.

4. A person is a human being.

5. We have animal cruelty laws. Since we have yet to encounter aliens, as far as I am aware of there is no law regarding them. However, I would say that if they come in peace, we should treat them with all the same respect we give each other. If they come with threats of violence and destruction, and there is no other possible course of action, we can fight back in self defense.

6. I do not believe that any woman deserves to suffer. I believe that a woman who has sex opens herself up to the possibility of pregnancy.

7. Just because something is currently legal doesn't mean it should be. If murder is no longer murder because it's legal, than Hitler didn't murder the Jews and the Romans didn't murder Christians. I believe that murder answers to a higher court of law than the human government system. When a human being is killed, murder occurs. The only valid excuse that I am currently aware of is in a self defense situation where killing your opponent is the only available method to save your own life.

8. I apologize- I should have said the possibility of being a human being. Does that make that more clear?

A man should have the choice of wanting the child, when he finds out that it is actually his.
Once he is informed, he should be given a time period to make or not make a committed choice.

The options for parenthood should be equal for both parties involved.

Harry Guerrilla said:

The options for parenthood should be equal for both parties involved.

Click to expand...

and there you have it :thumbs:

Harry Guerrilla said:

A man should have the choice of wanting the child, when he finds out that it is actually his.
Once he is informed, he should be given a time period to make or not make a committed choice.

The options for parenthood should be equal for both parties involved.

Click to expand...

Well - it's not equal, because nature didn't make it equal.

The only way to try ot make things somewhat balanced is to give men an outlet - like ending parental and therefor potential custody and child support issues.

But at present there's nothing in place to slow or temporarily prevent a woman from having an abortion - going to court in a month from now isn't going to stop her. So I think there needs to be some sort of regulation or intervention - almost like a reference network.

Belgarath said:

mur•der/ˈmərdər/
Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.


I responded to what murder is above. The unborn has the possibility of being human. Therefore, you are possibly killing a human being, possibly committing murder- I certainly do not approve.

Click to expand...

Then abortion is not by your own definition "murder", because abortion is legal, not "unlawful". Furthermore, we've already established that a non-viable foetus is not a human being, rather is a potential human being, the termination of a pregnancy is not "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by another."

The use of the word "murder" and "babies" in abortion debates are disingenuous expressions meant only to inflame and insult, nothing more.

DiAnna said:

Furthermore, we've already established that a non-viable foetus is not a human being

Click to expand...

Wait, when was this? I don't recall anyone ever disproving biology, genetics, and embryology in this thread. Sounds to me like you're full of ****.

The use of the word "murder" and "babies" in abortion debates are disingenuous expressions

Click to expand...

Says the woman who says the changed species... Tel me, at what age did you DNA suddenly become and human and what were you before?

DiAnna said:

Then abortion is not by your own definition "murder", because abortion is legal, not "unlawful". Furthermore, we've already established that a non-viable foetus is not a human being, rather is a potential human being.

Click to expand...

I already explained my response to the first point- the correct laws are not necessary always in place. Just because abortion is legal by our current system doesn't mean it should be. If the laws appropriately addressed the case, abortion would be illegal. But more importantly- you say that a non-viable foetus is not a human being. Might I ask whose already established that, and can I see proof of that? If someone has proved that, it might change my views completely, but I have never seen absolute and conclusive evidence. Personally, I actually think that potential to be a human being is sufficient, but I already know that that's a subjective opinion which many people don't agree with.

I disagree with your last statement. Murder, IMO, is exactly the appropriate term. Babies, which I do not think I have said, is not. If I have said babies, it was probably not in reference to the unborn, since they are not babies but unborn. They are also not classified as children. The unborn is simply a being with a 50% chance of having attained human being status. That opinion will only change when someone can provide absolute evidence that the unborn, at some stage or any stage, is not a human being.

Red Flag said:

Yes, because the woman has no role to play and no options available to her if she wished to avoid pregnancy...

I remember a time when women wanted to be equal and independent, making their own decisions and being responsible for their own lives and decisions...

What ever happened to that? Why? She has decided to risk pregnancy and already decided on a course of action if that occurs. If she does not secure any commitment from the man before proceeding, why should she not be responsible for her decision?

You seem to think women are mentally deficient creatures incapable of forethought and personal responsibility. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps they neither need nor want for your paternalistic 'looking after' them?

Click to expand...

Red, I can tell you are a guru on abortion and the psychology of women. But that's where it ends. If you had been in the forum long enough to have read my many, many posts concerning every similar topic as this...then you'd know that I've made probably every point and argument that you have concerning abortion issues and women's rights or lack there of.

Thanks for sharing your profound wisdom and knowledge anyway. I feel enlightened, as I'm sure all others do as well.

Red Flag said:

Wait, when was this? I don't recall anyone ever disproving biology, genetics, and embryology in this thread. Sounds to me like you're full of ****.


Says the woman who says the changed species... Tel me, at what age did you DNA suddenly become and human and what were you before?

Click to expand...

A foetus is a "potential human being." Belgrath has already conceded that. In fact, he's also stated, amazingly, that there's only a 50% chance it is human at all!

Belgarath said:

1 ...At any time from conception to birth, there is a 50% chance it is human.

8. I apologize- I should have said the possibility of being a human being. Does that make that more clear?

Click to expand...

From now on I suggest speaking civilly if you wish a civil reply... or any reply at all, for that matter. Thanks.

Red Flag said:

Why should a man be forced to pay for a child conceived by some slut at a massive gangbang any more than a woman should be forced to carry a child she conceived at that same gangbang? If she didn't want to be responsible for a child, she had plenty of options. Women today, with very few exceptions, have every opportunity to avoid pregnancy and/or childbirth. If you choose to have a child outside a committed relationship, that's your decision- and your responsibility.

Click to expand...

Because no one forced the man to participate in the promiscous sex. Any man who use the body of another person for their own selfish purposes deserves what he gets. (You see? I can play the morality game just as well as you can)

I can see the argument for child support following divorce, but if the man has never made a commitment to be involved with this woman, then he has no obligation to hang around or provide for her baby should she choose to have a child outside a committed relationship without his say. She's a big girl who needs no man, remember? She can make her own decisions in life- and be responsible for them.

Click to expand...

And the father is just as responsible for his lack of commitment and his irresponsibility for fathering a child outside of a committed relationship. It takes two schmucks to make a baby outside of a committed relationship. He's a big boy too. He can make decisions and be responsible for them too.

If it is her body alone and her decision alone, then it is also her responsibility alone.

Click to expand...

The abortion is her responsibility and she is the one who will pay the price, both literally and figuratively. But both parents are responsibility for the children they spawn

She doesn't get to turn around and play the helpless little female card and demand the man come to her rescue after she has made a unilateral decision to have a child outside a committed relationship. If this is a problem, maybe it's time to reconsider whether she should be making such decisions on her own in the first place.

Click to expand...

She didn't make the baby on her own. Masturbation doesn't lead to pregnancy. Sex leads to pregnancy, and that take two. If that is problem, maybe it's time to reconsider if he should be making such decisions on his own in the first place. Maybe he should be locked up or otherwise prevented from having sex.

You can have the patriarchal paradigm of men providing for, making decisions for, and being responsible for the helpless woman or you can do away with that paradigm and embrace the independence and liberty of the woman alone. You can't have both. Either we are partners in this decision or we are not. With the unilateral power of determination and decision-making comes unilateral responsibility for that decision. If my hand is kept from the decision of my child's fate and my status as a parent, then your hand is stayed when you seek to take my wallet from my pocket, and my earned income from it, to fund your decision.

Click to expand...

There is nothing patriarchical about holding BOTH parents responsible for the support of any children they produce. And if they are truly partners, then they both need to be held responsible.

MistressNomad said:

More importantly - why does this matter?

I mean, abortion isn't cheap, it isn't easy for some women, and repeated abortions OR miscarriages can cause scarring so it's obviously ideal is accidental pregnancies never happen, or at least don't happen multiple times.

But what exactly are you shooting at?

To me, based on the "typical use" failure rates of all non-inserted/surgical contraceptives being so much higher than it needs to be, this is probably the result of so many years of "abstinence only sex-ed." Neither sex seems to have a consistently firm grasp on how to use contraception. It's true this can be remedied by doing some simple homework, but once you've taught kids sex is evil and contraception doesn't work they're unlikely to do it.

Click to expand...

Red states tend to have higher rates of teenage pregnancy than blue states. Abstinence only sex ed has been a proven failure.

Belgarath said:

I already explained my response to the first point- the correct laws are not necessary always in place. Just because abortion is legal by our current system doesn't mean it should be. If the laws appropriately addressed the case, abortion would be illegal. But more importantly- you say that a non-viable foetus is not a human being. Might I ask whose already established that, and can I see proof of that? If someone has proved that, it might change my views completely, but I have never seen absolute and conclusive evidence. Personally, I actually think that potential to be a human being is sufficient, but I already know that that's a subjective opinion which many people don't agree with.

I disagree with your last statement. Murder, IMO, is exactly the appropriate term. Babies, which I do not think I have said, is not. If I have said babies, it was probably not in reference to the unborn, since they are not babies but unborn. They are also not classified as children. The unborn is simply a being with a 50% chance of having attained human being status. That opinion will only change when someone can provide absolute evidence that the unborn, at some stage or any stage, is not a human being.

Click to expand...

Sorry, buddy. I used your definitions, your words, all documented in this very thread. You don't get to move the goal posts just because I spiked the ball for a six-pointer and the game's over. Just dust yourself off and move to the next thread.

Red Flag said:

Except that abortions rates remain high in states like California (5th in the nation), where you'd have a hard time arguing anything like 'abstinence only' has been seen. Now, the high rates of out-of-wedlock teen births in certain conservative states seem to indicate that AOE is a factor in teen pregnancy rates, but AOE is unable to explain the increase in abortions and teen pregnancies since RvW passed.

Perhaps we should be looking at social-cultural factors that influence sexual promiscuity among our youth. Indeed it seems the more 'liberal' a woman is, the more likely she and her daughters to be sexually promiscuous. One must wonder why these girls know how to find the abortion store, but not a drug store. One would think condoms or the pill would be easier to find than an abortionist if one were actually thinking ahead and practicing personal responsibility.



They're also unlikely to bother when you teach them that they can simply make the baby go away...

Click to expand...

The more liberal a state is, the lower the rate of teen pregnancy

And the increase in the abortion rate since RvW has a pretty obvious reason for it; It was legal after RvW!!

evanescence said:

No one has special rights here. Both men and women should be able to choose for themselves whether or not to be parents without government involvement.

Click to expand...

Both men and women have the same right to choose their actions. When it comes to unplanned pregnancies, neither parent made the choice to conceive. That's why we call it unplanned. But both parents had the same choice and the same right to choose. Both parents have equal responsibility too.

Belgarath said:

There’s something that upsets me about the killing of beings that science has yet to prove aren’t human. Until someone can provide evidence that the unborn is not a human being, I will feel unhappy about killing them.
Closing down abortion clinics is the first thing that comes to mind.

Click to expand...

A fetus is not a human being and we kill "beings" all the time. How do you think that hamburger got there? Do you think the cow chopped itself up?

I do- and I accept, that when I do that, if a child results I will do everything in my power to make sure the child isn’t aborted, and I will pay for however much of the child’s upbringing the woman deems I should pay. I would not be a good father figure- I only have sex with those who know me well enough to know that. I would stand out of the way, but would send however much money the woman needed to raise the child as best she could. If I can possibly prevent it, no child of mine will ever be aborted. I would consider that murder, and would at all costs avoid having any further contact with the woman who aborted. While I don’t know for sure whether or not that unborn was a human being or not, the 50% chance it was is plenty to deter me. I don’t understand why it isn’t enough to deter anyone else.

Click to expand...

I see. You're responsible enough to pay for it, but you won't actually father the child. How nice of you :roll:

Red Flag said:

Nor does she have any right to make that decision for a man.

Aint equality grand?

Click to expand...

I agree. No woman has, or should have, the right to force a man to have an abortion

Polotick said:

Perhaps a woman wouldn't care if a man had an abortion or not. Your argument is flawed.

Click to expand...

I wonder how the people who think a man should have a say in the decision to abort feel about giving the woman a say in the decision to have a vasectomy or chemical castration?

Red Flag said:

Should we recognize this 'right'? If so, why? And how do we determine what entities shall be granted this 'right'?

Click to expand...

The constitution is clear on this point. All persons, and only persons have rights. Under the law, a person is a human being who has born alive.

A ZEF is not a person and has no rights.

sangha said:

Because no one forced the man to participate in the promiscous sex. Any man who use the body of another person for their own selfish purposes deserves what he gets. (You see? I can play the morality game just as well as you can)

Click to expand...

And if she participates in the promiscous sex she deserves what she gets as well... the possibility of pregnancy and the sole choice in using abortion as a means of contraception or the sole financial role in caring for and paying for the child should she decide to keep it.

And the father is just as responsible for his lack of commitment and his irresponsibility for fathering a child outside of a committed relationship. It takes two schmucks to make a baby outside of a committed relationship. He's a big boy too. He can make decisions and be responsible for them too.

Click to expand...

And as long as she can keep the baby without his consent, she can assume all financial responsiblity for her well earned and legal "choice".

The abortion is her responsibility and she is the one who will pay the price, both literally and figuratively. But both parents are responsibility for the children they spawn

Click to expand...

Not as long as one has all the choice and power and the other is relegated to nothing more than the "wallet"...

She didn't make the baby on her own. Masturbation doesn't lead to pregnancy. Sex leads to pregnancy, and that take two. If that is problem, maybe it's time to reconsider if he should be making such decisions on his own in the first place. Maybe he should be locked up or otherwise prevented from having sex.

Click to expand...

She is the dangerous weapon that can deliver a child much like a missile silo delivers a nuke. The destructive person is the woman and she should be locked up... or be forced to wear lockable panties.

There is nothing patriarchical about holding BOTH parents responsible for the support of any children they produce.

Click to expand...

Correct, not patriachical... just sexist.

Aunt Spiker said:

Well - it's not equal, because nature didn't make it equal.

The only way to try ot make things somewhat balanced is to give men an outlet - like ending parental and therefor potential custody and child support issues.

But at present there's nothing in place to slow or temporarily prevent a woman from having an abortion - going to court in a month from now isn't going to stop her. So I think there needs to be some sort of regulation or intervention - almost like a reference network.

Click to expand...

Equality does not mean equality of outcomes. It refers to equality of rights. Everyone has the right to make medical decisions for themselves. No one has the right to make a medical decision for someone else without their consent.

sangha said:

The more liberal a state is, the lower the rate of teen pregnancy

And the increase in the abortion rate since RvW has a pretty obvious reason for it; It was legal after RvW!!

Click to expand...

Blue States support the irresponsible action of aborting a child... that is the reason for lower teen pregnacy rates.

Bodhisattva said:

And if she participates in the promiscous sex she deserves what she gets as well... the possibility of pregnancy and the sole choice in using abortion as a means of contraception or the sole financial role in caring for and paying for the child should she decide to keep it.

Click to expand...

Both "deserve" what they get, and both are responsible for the children they produce. The possibility of pregnancy is a possibility that both are aware of and the pregnancy was the result of both making a decision about contraception. If the man didn't want to be held responsible, he should have used a more effective means of contraception. Both parents failed to prevent the pregnancy, so both are equally responsible for supporting the child

And as long as she can keep the baby without his consent, she can assume all financial responsiblity for her well earned and legal "choice".

Click to expand...

It has nothng to do with consent. Both parents are held responsible for the consequences of their actions.

Not as long as one has all the choice and power and the other is relegated to nothing more than the "wallet"...

Click to expand...

Both parents have a choice. Both are held responsible for the children they produce

She is the dangerous weapon that can deliver a child much like a missile silo delivers a nuke. The destructive person is the woman and she should be locked up... or be forced to wear lockable panties.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Your need to resort to overblown hyperbole undermines the credibility of your argument.

Correct, not patriachical... just sexist.

Click to expand...

Equal rights and responsibility; There's nothing sexist about it

Bodhisattva said:

Blue States support the irresponsible action of aborting a child... that is the reason for lower teen pregnacy rates.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Teenage abortion does not lower the teenage pregnancy rate because pregnancy comes before abortion. Teen abortions lower the teen childbirth rate.