Men Abortion and Choice - Page 18

Clodfobble · 08-15-2007, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesman065

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

A lot of people feel this was a deliberate step towards more comprehensive anti-abortion legislation. Many disagree with the law or view it as hypocritical at the very least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

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"?

I do not feel it is "okay"--however, it is legal (well, insomuch as only drinking and smoking are legal in the first place), and I feel it should stay that way, because you have to draw the line somewhere, and our society has drawn the line at viability. There are only three ways to look at this scenario:

1.) It is not a person before viability (roughly the third trimester). Thus abortion is legal, and the father has no rights to a clump of cells that is not his, or anyone's, child yet.

2.) It is a person before viability, and abortion should be illegal. Thus the whole question of the father's opinion on the matter is moot.

3.) It is a person before viability, but you cannot legislate morality. Thus abortion should be legal, but shunned on a personal level--i.e., the mother should consider the wishes of the father, because it is the right and moral thing to do, but it is both impractical and inappropriate to code that into law.

yesman065 · 08-15-2007, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesman065

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

A lot of people feel this was a deliberate step towards more comprehensive anti-abortion legislation. Many disagree with the law or view it as hypocritical at the very least.

I gotta say that after seeing premature babies who were born well before the ninth month that it IS a child long before then.

08-15-2007, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

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.

I disagree with that, at their root I think most liberals want a nanny-state.

lumberjim · 08-15-2007, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesman065

I gotta say that after seeing premature babies who were born well before the ninth month that it IS a child long before then.

in YOUR opinion.

Some folks believe that the child is not a child for a year or more.

bluecuracao · 08-15-2007, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesman065

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?

A fetus must be given birth to, to have his/her own rights. But as long as he/she must depend on a woman's body to live, said woman has overriding rights.

And those overriding rights include deciding to carry her fetus to term, and give birth to a baby with rights to live. If someone else steps in and kills her, especially with the intent to stop the birth of the baby that she wanted, then he/she may get charged accordingly.

08-15-2007, 10:05 PM

Then the father has no responsibility.
You don't get it both ways.

Stormieweather · 08-15-2007, 10:12 PM

Thus the term...viability.

This whole arguement makes me feel queasy. The practicalities of trying to enforce such a law are impossible. I would think a whole lot of women would suddenly develop anmesia as to who their sex partners had been. The only real way to enforce it would be to outlaw abortion entirely. Then women would have to have the baby and any male who thought he might be the father could lay claim and subsequently submit to paternity tests to prove or disprove it. Back alley abortions would once again be in business.

/sarcasm on
How about this....I propose that men who impregnate women and then refuse to support their own offspring should have their gonads removed to prevent them from procreating anymore. I mean, it is half THEIR child, they should not be allowed to force women to be the sole support of children that are half theirs, right? Do ya think men might object to this invasion of their physical being?
/sarcasm off

xoxoxoBruce · 08-15-2007, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesman065

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.

No, ownership... just like a mini-slave. That's why the courts have ruled to limit the 4th amendment for kids.

xoxoxoBruce · 08-15-2007, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumberjim

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

Got me... missed regulating.
But their drug laws are still complete bullshit... it's all about money.

Happy Monkey · 08-15-2007, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Unfortunately, the current legal climate favors the female alone, my suggestion sought only to level that field for both equal parents.

How would it do that?

bluecuracao · 08-15-2007, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Then the father has no responsibility.
You don't get it both ways.

I agree, on principle.

Aliantha · 08-16-2007, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumberjim

in YOUR opinion.

Some folks believe that the child is not a child for a year or more.

Some days I wonder if mine have made it there yet actually...

Aliantha · 08-16-2007, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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

Bruce, please go ahead and take all the drugs you like.

Aliantha · 08-16-2007, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

/sarcasm on
How about this....I propose that men who impregnate women and then refuse to support their own offspring should have their gonads removed to prevent them from procreating anymore. I mean, it is half THEIR child, they should not be allowed to force women to be the sole support of children that are half theirs, right? Do ya think men might object to this invasion of their physical being?
/sarcasm off

This illustrates what I have touched on a couple of times during the course of this thread.

rkz assumes all men would be honourable an honest in this situation. He forgets all the dead beat dads out there. The men who think it's ok to spread their seed then move on to the next. The ones who think it's ok to hang around for a few years and then leave. The ones who are so fucked up they'd use their 'unborn child' as a weapon against a woman who doesn't want him anymore.

In an ideal world, men would have a say in the fate of the foetus. The world is not ideal and every situation is different. There is no way you could legislate this without taking away a womans rights. It's like moving back to the dark ages.

bluecuracao · 08-16-2007, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha

rkz assumes all men would be honourable an honest in this situation.

rk, is this what you really think?

08-15-2007, 10:12 PM	#262
Stormieweather Wearing her bitch boots Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Floriduh Posts: 1,181	Thus the term...viability. This whole arguement makes me feel queasy. The practicalities of trying to enforce such a law are impossible. I would think a whole lot of women would suddenly develop anmesia as to who their sex partners had been. The only real way to enforce it would be to outlaw abortion entirely. Then women would have to have the baby and any male who thought he might be the father could lay claim and subsequently submit to paternity tests to prove or disprove it. Back alley abortions would once again be in business. /sarcasm on How about this....I propose that men who impregnate women and then refuse to support their own offspring should have their gonads removed to prevent them from procreating anymore. I mean, it is half THEIR child, they should not be allowed to force women to be the sole support of children that are half theirs, right? Do ya think men might object to this invasion of their physical being? /sarcasm off __________________ "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi

08-15-2007, 10:05 PM	#261
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	Then the father has no responsibility. You don't get it both ways.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)