Do you agree with the PBA ban approved by the SCOTUS today?

[DeeJayH]

If there has to be a federal stance I am glad Roe is the law and not the alternative. I would rather the federal court declare that an individuals right to choice is lawful then declaring their right to choice illegal.

If abortion is left up to the states though then the problem comes for those poor helpless women in red states who are forced to back alley abortions, suicide, or state hoping for an abortion.

Anyway, in a perfect world there would be no such laws for or against abortions and they would be legal, safe, and completely unnecessary.

only if you believe it is a resonable choice
which it is not

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

It isn't the guy's responsibility, its the woman's. She is the one who should use protection.

__________
It isn't the guys responsibility too? :rofl
That kind of talk is why all the MR Machos are getting woman pregnant, driving away leaving the woman and the child to go on welfare.
Happy Motoring! See the U.S.A. in your Chevorlet!!!

 

[DeeJayH]

__________
It isn't the guys responsibility too? :rofl
That kind of talk is why all the MR Machos are getting woman pregnant, driving away leaving the woman and the child to go on welfare.
Happy Motoring! See the U.S.A. in your Chevorlet!!!

so why, besides 'feel good answers' should a man contribute anything to achild he did not want
if the man wants an abortion it odes not matter
But are you saying the man is screwed with responsiblity depending on the decision of the woman
either the man is just as responsible, which means he has a say, or the man has no responsiblity becuase it is nothign but a womans right

 

[Jerry]

Maybe Cephus is confused there, but I understand that babies are protected under law before coming out, however I don't think that they should be protected, because a baby isn't necesarily going to a baby if it is still in the womb. Anyway babies in the womb don't have fully developed brains until the near end of the pregancy and most abortions take place when the baby is in the beginning stages of forming organs that look like a brain and a spinal cord, so you are not really killing a thinking human so what is the difference between them and a vegetable in a hospital.

Hmm, we have room to be friendly here......the above quoted SCOTUS decision only applies to fetuses which are far enough along to have functioning neural cortexes....so in so far as that SCOTUS ruling is concerned you and I don't really have a problem.

 

[debate_junkie]

so why, besides 'feel good answers' should a man contribute anything to achild he did not want
if the man wants an abortion it odes not matter
But are you saying the man is screwed with responsiblity depending on the decision of the woman
either the man is just as responsible, which means he has a say, or the man has no responsiblity becuase it is nothign but a womans right

That's a tricky question. But then.. I believe using abortions for birth control is abhorrent, so my stance would be they're both screwed. They did the deed, and didn't protect themselves.. shame on em. Made the bed.. now lie in it.

 

[Jerry]

so why, besides 'feel good answers' should a man contribute anything to achild he did not want

It's not about the man. It's about the child. His presence is required in order to fulfill the child's needs for a father.

Of course, Lesbian Feminists will argue that men are irrelevant to the family (enter GM arguments), so perhaps you should look some of them up for information on how you don’t matter.

 

[Gibberish]

only if you believe it is a resonable choice
which it is not

Your first line says I have a choice to believe.
Your second line says that your first statement is an empty gesture and that no choice is available because of your belief is fact.

In the end it is all based on belief's and choices. Pro-choice want the individual to have the choice that the individual and their doctor see fit. Pro-life wants the individual and their doctor to have the choice that other people, that don't know the individual and will never meet the individual, see fit.

 

[FallingPianos]

Erm, Judges and politicians are not making medical judgments on this now, so...what are you talking about?

you are correct, my mistake.

Gonzales vs Carhart
"The Act is not invalid on its face where there is uncertainty over whether the barred proce-dure is ever necessary to preserve a woman’s health, given the availability of other abortion procedures that are considered to be safe alternatives." - majority opinion, pg 37, (pg 44 of PDF)

 

[OKgrannie]

Hmm, we have room to be friendly here......the above quoted SCOTUS decision only applies to fetuses which are far enough along to have functioning neural cortexes....so in so far as that SCOTUS ruling is concerned you and I don't really have a problem.

The arrogance of the partial-birth abortion ban. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine

The ban has become so politically central to the abortion debate that it's easy to forget how medically marginal it is. At most, it would affect fewer than one in 250 U.S. abortions. Of these 2,000 to 5,000 unborn babies—if that's what you believe they are—it would save none. It doesn't ban abortions beyond a stage of pregnancy; it just regulates the methods by which they're done.

 

[rivrrat]

so why, besides 'feel good answers' should a man contribute anything to achild he did not want

There is no reason for him to. A sperm donor father who does not wish to be a part of his child's life is only going to cause harm to that child by being forced to be a part of its life. Both are much better off with the undesirable 'parent' out of the picture entirely.

And since women have the choice to have a child or not, the man should also have the choice to be a part of the child's life or not. Until such time that abortion becomes illegal, children should not be forced upon unwilling fathers.

 

[DeeJayH]

Your first line says I have a choice to believe.
Your second line says that your first statement is an empty gesture and that no choice is available because of your belief is fact.

In the end it is all based on belief's and choices. Pro-choice want the individual to have the choice that the individual and their doctor see fit. Pro-life wants the individual and their doctor to have the choice that other people, that don't know the individual and will never meet the individual, see fit.

for the life of me right now I can not remember what I was specifically speaking to.
So I will have to try and remember and get back to this
sorry, brain fart, happens when you get older :3oops:

 

[DeeJayH]

There is no reason for him to. A sperm donor father who does not wish to be a part of his child's life is only going to cause harm to that child by being forced to be a part of its life. Both are much better off with the undesirable 'parent' out of the picture entirely.

And since women have the choice to have a child or not, the man should also have the choice to be a part of the child's life or not. Until such time that abortion becomes illegal, children should not be forced upon unwilling fathers.

good luck keeping that womans hand out of that mans wallet though

 

[DeeJayH]

The arrogance of the partial-birth abortion ban. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine

very good point
hopefully tho this is just a baby step in what is yet to come

I even thanked you for though i thought that would never happen

 

[Stinger]

If you believe a "baby" is created at conception, then yes they most certainly do.

Nope, those hormones don't kill the baby.


Quote:
Do you believe a woman has a right to control her fertility cycle, whether her womb will become receptive to pregnancy?

Of course I do.

OK we agree, what is your argument there?

And I believe every woman has a right to terminate any pregnancy that might occur regardless.

Regardless of what? Anything and everything? For whatever reason at any time during the pregnancy?

But I am not the one running around saying "all life is precious" and "a person is created at conception".

That is perfectly clear.

 

[Felicity]

Nope, those hormones don't kill the baby..

Those hormones can alter the environment of the woman's uterus to make it so that a conceived human being cannot implant. So --no, the hormones don't kill the baby--they make its further development and birth INTENTIONALLY impossible.

(Just want to keep the facts clear:2wave: )

 

[Stinger]

Those hormones can alter the environment of the woman's uterus to make it so that a conceived human being cannot implant. So --no, the hormones don't kill the baby--they make its further development and birth INTENTIONALLY impossible.

(Just want to keep the facts clear:2wave: )

They interfere with the womens reproductive cycle primarily prevent ovulation, they also interfere with sperm transport and secondarily prevent the womb from going through a cycle of being receptive.

"Mode of action
Primarily by inhibiting ovulation; secondary mechanisms include thickening of the cervical mucus, changing endometrium, and reducing sperm transport."
Contraceptive Methods: Oral Contraceptives

 

[Felicity]

They interfere with the womens reproductive cycle and preclude the mothers womb from going through the stage where it is receptive to a fertilize egg, it stays pretty much as it is the other 3 weeks of the month, not capable of implanting an egg.

I don't disagree with that. However, a woman's cycle naturally fluctuates, and occasionally, even when taking BC, she ovulates. And occasionally, when she ovulates while taking BC, the ovum is fertilized. That is why people on BC sometimes get pregnant. However...sometimes that newly conceived human is expelled because it can't implant due to the hormone the woman is taking. In my book--life begins at conception, NOT implantation. Hence, some BCs can be called abortifacient in that they sometimes cause abortions of newly conceived human beings as a secondary function although the primary function is to stop ovulation and by that stop conception.

You do understand that the function of "changing the endometrium" is what I'm talking about? If the endometrium is inhospitable to implantation--what would be implanting other than a conceived human being?

 

[Felicity]

this might help....

http://www.aaplog.org/collition.htm

 

[Stinger]

I don't disagree with that. However, a woman's cycle naturally fluctuates, and occasionally, even when taking BC, she ovulates.

Rarely, under 10% or her cycles.

And occasionally, when she ovulates while taking BC, the ovum is fertilized.

Even more rarely less than 10% of 10%. And that's if you're trying.

That is why people on BC sometimes get pregnant.

An extreme rarity.

However...sometimes that newly conceived human is expelled because it can't implant due to the hormone the woman is taking.

Or simply because the woman is not on any hormones but her womb is not receptive at the time.

In my book--life begins at conception, NOT implantation. Hence, some BCs can be called abortifacient i

Not really, if a womans womb is not naturally ready for implantation at the time a fertilize egg, a life, passes through that is exactly what will happen, it will pass through. That is part of the miracle of life, lots of things have to be just right and the new life has to pass the first hurdle and get itself implanted nice and cuddly. Only the strong survive type thing.

You do understand that the function of "changing the endometrium" is what I'm talking about?

100%, it's a woman regulating her womb, she has a right to that in my boat.

 

[Felicity]

Not really, if a womans womb is not naturally ready for implantation at the time a fertilize egg, a life, passes through that is exactly what will happen, it will pass through.

The fact that the human does not implant does not make it not a human. It's a miscarried human. Yes, spontaneous abortions happen frequently. The difference in the case of the miscarried human in the case of BC is that the hormone that was introduced to the woman was not her body naturally not ready for pregnancy--it was an intentional act AGAINST the natural functioning of her body.

That is part of the miracle of life, lots of things have to be just right and the new life has to pass the first hurdle and get itself implanted nice and cuddly. Only the strong survive type thing.

Only the stong can survive the vacuum aspirator too--only it's a lot easier to kill them when they're really little rather than waiting until they have a little growth on them. (being facetious )

100%, it's a woman regulating her womb, she has a right to that in my boat.

That is exactly what the pro-choice abortion proponants say. You just have an earlier cut off for when it's okay to kill humans.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

so why, besides 'feel good answers' should a man contribute anything to achild he did not want
if the man wants an abortion it odes not matter
But are you saying the man is screwed with responsiblity depending on the decision of the woman
either the man is just as responsible, which means he has a say, or the man has no responsiblity becuase it is nothign but a womans right

__________
See, that is the problem.
The man wants to $crew and drive away. The ones that stay around and stand up for what they have done will have a say about an abortion. The guys that Zoommmm off should not have a say about any abortion.
__________
" So why, 'besides feel good answers' should a man contribute anything to a child he did not want."
So, the guy gets the woman preganant and leaves all the responsibility to the Woman? Did you ever stop and think that like the man the woman would not want the kid?
People like you that believe its ok for the guy to get a woman pregant and Zoommmm off leaving the TAX PAYERS to support HIS kid are the problem.
BTW: If a man did not want the child he should have made sure he used protection.

 

[Jerry]

The arrogance of the partial-birth abortion ban. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine

If this is true then why does PC have such a huge problem with it?

 

[OKgrannie]

If this is true then why does PC have such a huge problem with it?

Many pro-choicers DON'T have a problem with it, others of us don't want legislators making medical decisions for us. Some of us believe that doctors are better prepared to advise us on what medical procedures are appropriate. Even if it is a procedure that is rarely needed, why shouldn't it be available when the best medical advice recommends it?

 

[Gibberish]

Many pro-choicers DON'T have a problem with it, others of us don't want legislators making medical decisions for us. Some of us believe that doctors are better prepared to advise us on what medical procedures are appropriate. Even if it is a procedure that is rarely needed, why shouldn't it be available when the best medical advice recommends it?

I am Pro-Choice and also prefer there to be no legislator against it and to allow the medical professionals make the decisions on medical procedures, not politicians and non-medical government officials.

 

[DeeJayH]

__________
See, that is the problem.
The man wants to $crew and drive away. The ones that stay around and stand up for what they have done will have a say about an abortion. The guys that Zoommmm off should not have a say about any abortion.
__________
" So why, 'besides feel good answers' should a man contribute anything to a child he did not want."
So, the guy gets the woman preganant and leaves all the responsibility to the Woman? Did you ever stop and think that like the man the woman would not want the kid?
People like you that believe its ok for the guy to get a woman pregant and Zoommmm off leaving the TAX PAYERS to support HIS kid are the problem.
BTW: If a man did not want the child he should have made sure he used protection.

so sad
if the man has no choice in teh matter, he should have no responsibility
that is the crux
Man should not be held hostage

if man has a say, he has a responsibility
if man has NO say, he has no responsibility