Men Abortion and Choice

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

You did not specify the nature of your question.

Well, the overarching subject of the thread has been the creation of a law to prevent women from getting abortions if the man decides to prevent it. On a personal level, most people agree that in most cases the man and woman should make the decision together. Most, if not all, of the disagreement arises when you try to make that ideal situation into a law- ie a political situation.

How would such a law work?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

My point is that no one has a right to tell anyone what to do with their own body. How's that for reality.

Reality? Why aren't I allowed to do drugs?

[BigV]

[winging it]Hey, xoB, is the "doing" against the law? Or is it something more tangible, more definite, like possession?[/flying it into the ground]

[DanaC]

Reality? Why aren't I allowed to do drugs?

Because it is against the law. Personally i think it shouldn't be.

It's not an equivalent though, because this isn't about whether the state has a right to tell women what to do with their bodies (again, I think they should not), but rather empowering individual men with the right to make decisions about individual women's bodies.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Reality? Why aren't I allowed to do drugs?

Because some laws infringe on rights. In fact, according to you, all of them do.

[lumberjim]

bruce,

this analogy would work better if you were comparing it with someone compelling another person to do drugs.

When it comes down to personal liberty....we should be allowed to do whatever drugs we choose to.

Unfortunately, the reality of life means that those who do drugs also have to share reality with the rest of us. When those folks repeatedly fuck things up and cost innocent people things like THEIR lives, safety and money, then the lawmakers are compelled to take steps like regulating and outlawing the drugs that effect the drug users.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

[winging it]Hey, xoB, is the "doing" against the law? Or is it something more tangible, more definite, like possession?[/flying it into the ground]

That's an end run, you can do them without possessing them.

Originally Posted by DanaC

Because it is against the law. Personally i think it shouldn't be.

It's not an equivalent though, because this isn't about whether the state has a right to tell women what to do with their bodies (again, I think they should not), but rather empowering individual men with the right to make decisions about individual women's bodies.

No equivilent, Dana. I'm not getting into that silly proposal, just responding to Ali's reality.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Because some laws infringe on rights. In fact, according to you, all of them do.

God damn right they do.... every one.

Originally Posted by lumberjim

bruce,

this analogy would work better if you were comparing it with someone compelling another person to do drugs.

Not an analogy, see above.

When it comes down to personal liberty....we should be allowed to do whatever drugs we choose to.

Unfortunately, the reality of life means that those who do drugs also have to share reality with the rest of us. When those folks repeatedly fuck things up and cost innocent people things like THEIR lives, safety and money, then the lawmakers are compelled to take steps like regulating and outlawing the drugs that effect the drug users.

That's complete bullshit, considering how many people alcohol and tobacco kill.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

If the male states that he wishes to choose full custody of the child that should be his right.
It is his child as much as hers.
The woman made a choice, one she made with someone else, knowing FULLY what her role would be before-hand... she need only fulfill her role as far as the birth is concerned, as far as she chose when she took the initial risk.

Sorry dude, I don't buy it. If the men carried the babies for 9 months and took the same physiological risks it would be different. The woman carries the baby, she get to say if she wants to do that for 9 months or if she wants to terminate it. Her choice, not yours. Men are but the sperm donors.

Originally Posted by DanaC

My mistake, I thought you had professed libertarian leanings.

I wouldn't have thought I'd need to specify the nature of my question, given that you have spent much of this thread advocating a change in law. If you are simply expressing how you would feel if you were the father in question, then that's personal. You are advocating a change in law, that is a political opinion.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Why not politically?

You can't, and should not try to legislate morality.

If there are methods in place other than the law to ensure the rights of both parents, that would be ideal.
Unfortunately, the current legal climate favors the female alone, my suggestion sought only to level that field for both equal parents.

Libertarians are about as conservative as one can get (neo-cons, the fools who call themselves conservative today are NOT conservative by any stretch of imagination or the definition of the word).

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Sorry dude, I don't buy it. If the men carried the babies for 9 months and took the same physiological risks it would be different. The woman carries the baby, she get to say if she wants to do that for 9 months or if she wants to terminate it. Her choice, not yours. Men are but the sperm donors.

So the man gets the kid the woman runs out on him, he shoots it in the head, no sweat, right?

I guess all of you feel it is ok for women to smoke, do heroin, meth, drink, whatever while pregnant, right... it's not a kid yet and it's "just her body"?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Sorry dude, I don't buy it. If the men carried the babies for 9 months and took the same physiological risks it would be different. The woman carries the baby, she get to say if she wants to do that for 9 months or if she wants to terminate it. Her choice, not yours. Men are but the sperm donors.

I agree with you until the cord is cut. Then it becomes theirs, not hers.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I agree with you until the cord is cut. Then it becomes theirs, not hers.

I would support that notion.

Sluts!! Sluts all sluts. Buncha whores. Don't you know sex for women is only for procreation?

Never stated nor implied that.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I agree with you until the cord is cut. Then it becomes theirs, not hers.

How fortunate for her, funny how that happens.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by yesman065

All of what everyone is saying seems to hinge on WHEN the "fetus" is determined to be a "child." At what point does the child earn those rights? Upon conception, 3 months, 6 months....not until birth?
If it is considered a child upon conception - what right does the mother have to KILL it? However, if it is not considered "human" until birth, then one could argue that everything between conception and birth is entirely up to the woman. The difficulty comes into play during the undefined period between conception and birth where we recognize the fetus as a child. I'm thinking as I'm typing, and thats always dangerous for me, but what if at, say 6 & 1/2 months the "mother" decided to (and I love this nonpersonal terminology) terminate the pregnancy? Is/would that be ok and should the father have no say under those circumstances?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I agree with you until the cord is cut. Then it becomes theirs, not hers.

Possession of another human? I think not - unless you were referring to responsibility and not ownership. Either way, when does a fetus becomes a human with its own rights.

If it isn't a human until birth then why is someone who kills a pregnant woman charged with two counts of homicide?

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That's complete bullshit, considering how many people alcohol and tobacco kill.

are there or are there not laws prohibiting and or regulating the use of drugs ....including alcohol and terbaccy? complete bullshit?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Libertarians are about as conservative as one can get (neo-cons, the fools who call themselves conservative today are NOT conservative by any stretch of imagination or the definition of the word).

Libertarians can technically be called liberal since they it has roots with classical liberalism. There are distinct differences between the two but they both stress freedom.