Abortion debate

[DeadPoolX 9]

Its not about power of one over the other. Its about the rights of both are parents. The father is either thrusted into or removed from fatherhood..with no decision in the matter.

The sperm donor makes his decision when he decides to "thrust".

That's not a good reason. The woman was -- unless raped -- an equal partner in the decision to have sex.

I'm not a religious person, so my views have nothing to do with God or anything else. However, I can see Boorai's point in that the father has no rights at all.

While the father may not have any right over the woman's body, he should have a decision after the birth. Why should the man get forced into the position of fatherhood or pay child support? That doesn't make sense.

What's being said here is if a couple decides to have sex, then the ultimate decision is up to the potential mother and the potential father has no say at all -- even when both partners willingly had sex together. If she chooses to keep the kid, then the man is forced into one of two positions (active father or child support) without any say once again.

In effect, this suggests that the man forced the woman to have sex and should therefore be punished. This says he should bear the responsibility of both partner's actions and pay for a child he did not want. If both partners willingly have sex with each other, then logically the decision should rest on both of their shoulders.

If she decides to terminate the pregnancy, then any parental or financial obligations no longer apply. If the man wanted to keep the child himself, then I could see him paying for the woman's hospital bills and anything else up until the point of pregnancy. However, if she keeps it (and it's out of the father's hands), his parental and financial obligations should no longer apply (unless he's willing to be the kid's father).

Its just an exercise in equal logic here, DPX.

Since males can't biologically carry a pregnancy to term, then the matter of fairness or rights is irrelevant. Once males can carry a baby to term, like I joked before- then we can talk about equality in choosing an abortion if one of the two parties wants one and the other doesn't. Since there isn't parity in the situation, then its absurd to flow otherwise since the imposition becomes feelings over biology.

That's fine. My argument isn't so much "biological situations", but who pays. The American legal system is screwed up beyond belief (in many areas, I might add) and automatically considers the woman over the man in numerous areas. One such area is child support.

All I care about is where the money goes and to whom. If the man has no rights -- as detailed in your post and many before it -- than he can't be held legally responsible for the child's welfare. If the mother decides to keep the child and in doing such, goes against the father's wishes, his responsibilities towards supporting that child should be exactly nothing.

Think of it this way: You can't expect to give someone no rights at all and then demand they pay for someone else's choice. Doing such is beyond the issue of "unfairness" and quickly becomes a horrific nightmare -- one that will likely last for at least 18 years.

As I've said before, if both the man and the woman willingly chose to have sex then the responsibility is on both of them. If one partner's rights are considered null and void, the responsibility then falls on the individual who has all the apparent rights to make the choice herself/himself. Anything less is reprehensible.

Edited February 8, 2009 by DeadPoolX

[SaadBell 0]

[Boorai 0]

Perhaps the words Rights needs defined:

the right to chooses whether your child lives or dies, the right to love that child, the right to rear that child, the right to want to pass onto your child good qualities, the right to share the life that you HELPED create, the right to take ownership of your actions, the right to share the joy of your child.

These are the rights that I speak of....not legal rights. Though those should be considered as well.

Many assume that because the mother is the environment that the child is in..that the growth and development of that child is interlink to that of the mother's, thus giving her ultimate authority over the well being of the child. There Is much truth to that, but the child, at conception, is a life unto itself and seperate from the mother. Pro-choicers would conclude that since the child is "part" of the woman's body that the decision of the fetus are her's exclusively.

Let's not forget that the fetus share half of its genes from the mother and half from the father....So, that growth, the tisse IS part of the father's. No, he does not have the ability to provied the bilogical environment nor be the vessel for teh fetus...but he DOES have his own personal tissue growing inside the womb.

Does this not give him(to all the scientist) some right to govern how HIS DNA, his genes, his tissue is to be maintained? The mother carries nor more, no less genetic tissue offerings to the fetus than the father does. The only difference is the vessel it is carried in. Yes, i know this is significant..I am well aware of this.

[Danno 1,228]

I was looking to be "challenged" in this vid but was quite disappointed, in fact the only point that held any water was the one where:

Prolifer claims a baby killed in the womb "could have been the next Einstein"

and it's true, but it just as true, that baby might have become the next hitler. ... which I why I never use that line of debate.

But the whole Kidney thing was weak as hell.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Perhaps the words Rights needs defined:

the right to chooses whether your child lives or dies, the right to love that child, the right to rear that child, the right to want to pass onto your child good qualities, the right to share the life that you HELPED create, the right to take ownership of your actions, the right to share the joy of your child.

These are the rights that I speak of....not legal rights. Though those should be considered as well.

Many assume that because the mother is the environment that the child is in..that the growth and development of that child is interlink to that of the mother's, thus giving her ultimate authority over the well being of the child. There Is much truth to that, but the child, at conception, is a life unto itself and seperate from the mother. Pro-choicers would conclude that since the child is "part" of the woman's body that the decision of the fetus are her's exclusively.

Let's not forget that the fetus share half of its genes from the mother and half from the father....So, that growth, the tisse IS part of the father's. No, he does not have the ability to provied the bilogical environment nor be the vessel for teh fetus...but he DOES have his own personal tissue growing inside the womb.

Does this not give him(to all the scientist) some right to govern how HIS DNA, his genes, his tissue is to be maintained? The mother carries nor more, no less genetic tissue offerings to the fetus than the father does. The only difference is the vessel it is carried in. Yes, i know this is significant..I am well aware of this.

You asked this before and the answer this time is no different. No, the father does not have any "right" over the pregnancy since that would imply that he has some sort of ownership over the woman and her biological processes.

And legal rights are the only "rights" that matter in this context.

[Danno 1,228]

No, the father does not have any "right" over the pregnancy since that would imply that he has some sort of ownership over the woman and her biological processes.

And legal rights are the only "rights" that matter in this context.

While that point is true,

There is also plenty of legal precedent for "one" party to have standing to defend the interests of another party (the unborn) who might not be able to defend his/her "interests".

It's a logical strategy .... yet unsuccessful in the past.

But have faith, Not so long ago, the Supreme Court also found the African slaves to lack human rights.

In time this error passed and so too will the culture of death we now see.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You love your melodrama don't you Danno

[Boorai 0]

Well, in the end a wonderful discussion. Am hoping that one day we can all offer humanity to each other. That we can respect each other's roles and values. Of course, this is impossible....but one can dream cant' he?

[HAL 9000 96]

Its not about power of one over the other. Its about the rights of both are parents. The father is either thrusted into or removed from fatherhood..with no decision in the matter.

The sperm donor makes his decision when he decides to "thrust".

That's not a good reason. The woman was -- unless raped -- an equal partner in the decision to have sex.

I'm not a religious person, so my views have nothing to do with God or anything else. However, I can see Boorai's point in that the father has no rights at all.

While the father may not have any right over the woman's body, he should have a decision after the birth. Why should the man get forced into the position of fatherhood or pay child support? That doesn't make sense.

What's being said here is if a couple decides to have sex, then the ultimate decision is up to the potential mother and the potential father has no say at all -- even when both partners willingly had sex together. If she chooses to keep the kid, then the man is forced into one of two positions (active father or child support) without any say once again.

In effect, this suggests that the man forced the woman to have sex and should therefore be punished. This says he should bear the responsibility of both partner's actions and pay for a child he did not want. If both partners willingly have sex with each other, then logically the decision should rest on both of their shoulders.

If she decides to terminate the pregnancy, then any parental or financial obligations no longer apply. If the man wanted to keep the child himself, then I could see him paying for the woman's hospital bills and anything else up until the point of pregnancy. However, if she keeps it (and it's out of the father's hands), his parental and financial obligations should no longer apply (unless he's willing to be the kid's father).

Its just an exercise in equal logic here, DPX.

Since males can't biologically carry a pregnancy to term, then the matter of fairness or rights is irrelevant. Once males can carry a baby to term, like I joked before- then we can talk about equality in choosing an abortion if one of the two parties wants one and the other doesn't. Since there isn't parity in the situation, then its absurd to flow otherwise since the imposition becomes feelings over biology.

That's fine. My argument isn't so much "biological situations", but who pays. The American legal system is screwed up beyond belief (in many areas, I might add) and automatically considers the woman over the man in numerous areas. One such area is child support.

All I care about is where the money goes and to whom. If the man has no rights -- as detailed in your post and many before it -- than he can't be held legally responsible for the child's welfare. If the mother decides to keep the child and in doing such, goes against the father's wishes, his responsibilities towards supporting that child should be exactly nothing.

Think of it this way: You can't expect to give someone no rights at all and then demand they pay for someone else's choice. Doing such is beyond the issue of "unfairness" and quickly becomes a horrific nightmare -- one that will likely last for at least 18 years.

As I've said before, if both the man and the woman willingly chose to have sex then the responsibility is on both of them. If one partner's rights are considered null and void, the responsibility then falls on the individual who has all the apparent rights to make the choice herself/himself. Anything less is reprehensible.

Gotcha. Nevertheless, you're still screwing up the logic. A growing child is a whole other set of responsibilities than the ones that come into play when a man's sperm is involved in fertilizing a woman's egg.

A condom, although not exactly 100% effective, is typically a male's responsibility to use during sex. If a man is too horny to think beyond getting ridden bareback, then that man deserves to also front paternal expenses. Birth control is not uniquely a female responsibility.

[HAL 9000 96]

Perhaps the words Rights needs defined:

the right to chooses whether your child lives or dies, the right to love that child, the right to rear that child, the right to want to pass onto your child good qualities, the right to share the life that you HELPED create, the right to take ownership of your actions, the right to share the joy of your child.

These are the rights that I speak of....not legal rights. Though those should be considered as well.

Many assume that because the mother is the environment that the child is in..that the growth and development of that child is interlink to that of the mother's, thus giving her ultimate authority over the well being of the child. There Is much truth to that, but the child, at conception, is a life unto itself and seperate from the mother. Pro-choicers would conclude that since the child is "part" of the woman's body that the decision of the fetus are her's exclusively.

Let's not forget that the fetus share half of its genes from the mother and half from the father....So, that growth, the tisse IS part of the father's. No, he does not have the ability to provied the bilogical environment nor be the vessel for teh fetus...but he DOES have his own personal tissue growing inside the womb.

Does this not give him(to all the scientist) some right to govern how HIS DNA, his genes, his tissue is to be maintained? The mother carries nor more, no less genetic tissue offerings to the fetus than the father does. The only difference is the vessel it is carried in. Yes, i know this is significant..I am well aware of this.

Google: maternal effect mRNA then get back to us about how a zygote gets maintained.

A female is not just a vessel, its THE ONLY place a developing fetus can exist. Once you figure out how to get us males to carry a baby to term, for like the 4th time... then we can talk about rights, equality of decisions, bla bla bla, and paternal rights within the womb. Which is itself quite a freakin ridiculous venture at 99% anyway. The other 1% just being comedic entertainment for those that live in the modern era.

[Danno 1,228]

You love your melodrama don't you Danno

From time 2 time.

B)

[HAL 9000 96]

No, the father does not have any "right" over the pregnancy since that would imply that he has some sort of ownership over the woman and her biological processes.

And legal rights are the only "rights" that matter in this context.

While that point is true,

There is also plenty of legal precedent for "one" party to have standing to defend the interests of another party (the unborn) who might not be able to defend his/her "interests".

It's a logical strategy .... yet unsuccessful in the past.

But have faith, Not so long ago, the Supreme Court also found the African slaves to lack human rights.

In time this error passed and so too will the culture of death we now see.

Culture of Death... oh boy.

Which goes back to that often correlative yet still silly assumption that pro-lifers are pro-war nutjobs.

[HAL 9000 96]

Well, in the end a wonderful discussion. Am hoping that one day we can all offer humanity to each other. That we can respect each other's roles and values. Of course, this is impossible....but one can dream cant' he?

Touché.

I suppose when humanity (with thoughtfulness) takes a front seat to all the selfish and thoughtless action being carried out on this planet, perhaps there won't be a need for abortions then.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Gotcha. Nevertheless, you're still screwing up the logic. A growing child is a whole other set of responsibilities than the ones that come into play when a man's sperm is involved in fertilizing a woman's egg.

A condom, although not exactly 100% effective, is typically a male's responsibility to use during sex. If a man is too horny to think beyond getting ridden bareback, then that man deserves to also front paternal expenses. Birth control is not uniquely a female responsibility.

I'd like to think I'm providing some insight into the massively screwed up American legal system. However, I do agree with something you said: A growing child does involve taking responsibility -- that of both parties involved.

No matter whose responsibility it is to provide protection from pregnancy (both men and women need to do this), I fail to see how a man "riding bareback" is entirely his fault. Did he fail to think ahead? Of course. Did the woman fail to think ahead as well? Absolutely.

You seem to be under the impression that if a man wants to forgo a condom, the woman is then rendered helpless. Barring rape, such is not the case. Both the man and woman have the responsibility to ensure that proper protection is used. If the man doesn't want a wear a condom, then the woman should insist upon one. If the man still resists, then sex should not proceed.

If sex does go ahead, the woman has access to both barrier and chemical types of birth control. If she chooses neither form of birth control and still has sex, she's just as much as fault as the man.

[HAL 9000 96]

I am not disagreeing with the assertion that its only a man's responsibility. Given available birth control methods, a male condom is the cheapest, and most direct way at preventing a pregnancy and yet nevertheless if we are discussing personal responsibility, the man might push it in, but the woman opens her legs. This, of course, assuming a 50:50 equal relationship or event leading to a 1:1 sperm to egg fertilization event. From there on through whatever time point we want to associate with an abortion that doesn't hurt the Culture of Imposition's feelings (), its entirely a woman's decision process when it comes to keeping or terminating.

Perhaps, yes... there should be a levels-based legal approach to appease the rather incongruous responsible-parent argument (after the birth). If the woman wants the child and the man doesn't, and there is no legally binding arrangement that recognizes the relationship as a potential family unit (such as... umm... marriage does), then males should be given the 'right' to opt out, including child support. Irreversible. Then 10 years down the line when they get the slightest bit of paternal urges... tough luck jack. I am sure the jackass crowd out there that only thinks with the lower head would love that further complication of the legal system.