• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"It's my body"[W:191, 709]

if a man has no say on the issue of abortion, then he should have the right to bail and not pay child support. If the woman gets to make all the decisions, then she should have to take all the responsibility.

Correct.

If a kid is not a kid but merely part of his or her mother's body, to be removed (violently killed) on his or her mother's whim, then logically a father would have no obligation whatsoever, having not consented to a damn thing.
 
My "answer" is right there and plain, that both parents knew the risks and both should be held accountable, that both parents are obliged to provide for the offspring they create, for many reasons including the fact they both consented to create offspring...

Ideally abortion is banned and neither parent can unilaterally abdicate their responsibility to the offspring they create.

But as is, it is absurd that only men are held accountable, while they also have no input into the life or death of a kid that is a joint creation, half them and half their partner. The status quo is bonkers.

Sex is engaged in way more for bonding and pleasure. Consequently, consent to risk is a given when having sex.

For people who aren't medically (or by circumstance of birth) sterilized, it's impossible to eliminate with 100% certainty that a sexual experience won't result in a pregnancy. People are not going to stop having sex because it can result in pregnancy. You and the Pope are going to have to accept that sooner or later.


However, such a consent to risk isn't simultaneous consent to not have an abortion if an unwanted conception occurs.
 
Sex is engaged in way more for bonding and pleasure. Consequently, consent to risk is a given when having sex.

For people who aren't medically (or by circumstance of birth) sterilized, it's impossible to eliminate with 100% certainty that a sexual experience won't result in a pregnancy. People are not going to stop having sex because it can result in pregnancy. You and the Pope are going to have to accept that sooner or later.


However, such a consent to risk isn't simultaneous consent to not have an abortion if an unwanted conception occurs.

Being a free human being in a republic is predicated on not being a barbaric savage killing innocents for your own selfish gain...

If you can't refrain from doing so, you ought find yourself caged like the brutish animal you are.
 
Being a free human being in a republic is predicated on not being a barbaric savage killing innocents for your own selfish gain...

Hang on a sec...need to get a pen and write that down...
 
Oops! I didn't notice that until after I posted the comment, and I didn't have time to go back and change it.



No problem. :)



Now, considering Harper and Hudak here, and Frank Luntz's consultations with Harper, I noticed a major shift away from the old style PC conservative policies to Republican-north after they created this new Conservative Party. Sure, Harper doesn't want backbenchers talking about abortion (he can read the polls), but the heavy reliance he and Hudak make on bringing out the fundagelicals for grassroots support, indicates to me that they are going to have to start bending towards the demands of the crazy religious constituency, just as they have south of the border. The Christian Right has way more clout in most areas of the U.S. than simple polling data can explain. How much longer before we start getting Conservative candidates running on banning abortion and "defending" marriage?


I would never have voted for Harper had I thought he would even think of banning abortion and I was pleased that he kept his word to vote no on the looking into redefining human being thing. I really don't think too many MPs would seriously try to a they know it would be political suicide here. Public opinion still runs high on leaving abortion be. At any rate, it will probably all be moot after the next federal election as I doubt the conservatives will win or if they do, it won't be a majority.


Like I said before, I can't make individual choice supreme on any issue, where there may be negative fallout for the rest of society. There may be other situations where I might rule against choice, but this one seems the best example for having an override switch, because of the social harms that result when there are too many boys and not enough girls in later years.

If a culture becomes misogynistic to the point that some parents will only accept a male child, then the cultural underpinnings that lead to this kind of warped thinking have to be challenged. But, changing an entire set of cultural standards and attitudes overnight is impossible. It takes time, and in the meantime, the authorities have to let it be known that having girls and re-balancing bad demographic trends, is a patriotic duty for prospective parents.


I don't see making it illegal to abort for gender working as women would just lie about their reasons. And, if they truly do not want a boy or a girl and are forced to have one, how are they going to treat him or her?
 
You're quite comfortable wearing that blatant sexism, aren't you? Right there on your sleeves.

It's breakfast, lunch, and dinner with these white knights.

The irony of their wannabe heroic apologist covering for these women is that they will almost never reciprocate the gesture....at least....beneficially.
 
Re: "It's my body"

A living being that is living inside a woman's body is not part of a woman's body...it is just a human that happens to be living inside a human's body.

The idea that a living, sentient baby that is still in the womb is not a human being but 'part of a woman's body' is pathetic and nonsensical in the extremis.

I have proven that the zef is not considered a human being in my country.
 
not that simple. at least not in my state. You can't just simply sign away parental rights because you don't want to support a kid.

I don't think you can here, either.



why don't women get that same advice from the pro-choice crowd?

I would give women the same advice and I, in fact, do make my views and intentions known before intimacy and make sure he is okay with the fact I would most likely abort any pregnancy resulting from our intimate acts.

ETA: I did not mean for this to look like I agree with forcing men to pay support. I am on the fence on the issue, my big concerns being 1. the child being adequately provided for and 2. the taxpayer not being the one to pay for it. If it comes down to the taxpayer or the 'father', then the latter should pay.
 
Last edited:
Re: "It's my body"

Do you understand the meaning of sentient and do you know when that happens?

Yup and no, no one knows exactly when it happens...they can only believe.
 
1. not that simple. at least not in my state. You can't just simply sign away parental rights because you don't want to support a kid.

2. hmmmmmm. why don't women get that same advice from the pro-choice crowd?

1. Okay, if it's "not that simple" for a man to sign away his parental rights to avoid paying child support, then he needs to be more careful about whom he hooks up with or dates, doesn't he.

2. Riiiiiiiiiiiight, it's always easier for anti-choice guys to blame the WOMAN when a pregnancy results, isn't it. :roll: You're the one whining about the possibility of having to pay child support, correct? Then it's up to YOU to be extra careful where you place the sperm deposit.
 
1. Okay, if it's "not that simple" for a man to sign away his parental rights to avoid paying child support, then he needs to be more careful about whom he hooks up with or dates, doesn't he.

Okay, if a woman doesn't want a kid, then she needs to be more careful before having sex.... it cuts both ways.

2. Riiiiiiiiiiiight, it's always easier for anti-choice guys to blame the WOMAN when a pregnancy results, isn't it. :roll: You're the one whining about the possibility of having to pay child support, correct? Then it's up to YOU to be extra careful where you place the sperm deposit.

wrongo, boyo. you are the one trying to put all the responsibility on the man. you can't have it both ways. If the woman gets to make all the decisions, then she should have to take all the responsibility.

It's a pretty basic concept. in fact, we fought a ****ing war of independence over it. "taxation without representation" ....
 
Re: "It's my body"

So calling it a sentient baby was out of ignorance then.

Maybe, no one can be sure...just as you cannot be sure it is not sentient.

My belief is that there is sentience once there is brain activity.


Btw - I don't really much care whether you agree or not.


Good day.
 
Re: "It's my body"

Maybe, no one can be sure...just as you cannot be sure it is not sentient.
But there are parameters that exclude the very early fetuses. Which leaves the question why make a blanket assertion.

My belief is that there is sentience once there is brain activity.
And again that excludes early term fetuses.

Btw - I don't really much care whether you agree or not.
Iti snot a matter of me agreeing or not it is a matter that is established by fact and you decided to set that aside.

Good day.
To you too.
 
No problem. :)

I would never have voted for Harper had I thought he would even think of banning abortion and I was pleased that he kept his word to vote no on the looking into redefining human being thing. I really don't think too many MPs would seriously try to a they know it would be political suicide here. Public opinion still runs high on leaving abortion be. At any rate, it will probably all be moot after the next federal election as I doubt the conservatives will win or if they do, it won't be a majority.
The new conservatives are busy cultivating a religious right base of support, in the same model as the U.S. variety. If they reach a level of size and activism, and media influence that they have in the U.S., they will start kicking out all of the so called pro choice conservatives, just like they did to pro choice Republicans.

Case in point: The Harper Government withdrew funding from foreign aid projects, unless they exclude abortion: http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2010/05/01/why_stephen_harper_took_a_hard_right_on_abortion.html
Harper reads the polls! He knows full well that he has to keep the Canadian fundagelicals in his party subdued on this issue, so he rewards them by applying their "pro life" policy to outsiders, where it goes mostly unnoticed. What's most galling to me, is that a big part of his appeasement policy with the religious right is to put some of these idiots in charge of cabinet posts like Science and Technology, because creationists also tend to deny climate change....a very important qualification for a government that exists to serve the oil industry and extract as much oil and other resources as possible!

I don't see making it illegal to abort for gender working as women would just lie about their reasons. And, if they truly do not want a boy or a girl and are forced to have one, how are they going to treat him or her?
I wasn't claiming it was feasible or practical. I asked whether clear harms to social stability (gender-selected abortion) outweighed personal desires. Seems to me like you are locked in to a narrow, individualistic vision of society just being a collection of autonomous individuals with no obligations for the welfare of society...the typical libertarian ethic! And the kind of thinking that is leading this world to destruction today. You are on the choice side of the abortion issue for very different reasons than I am; and likely we have no common ground on anything else!
 
I wasn't claiming it was feasible or practical. I asked whether clear harms to social stability (gender-selected abortion) outweighed personal desires. Seems to me like you are locked in to a narrow, individualistic vision of society just being a collection of autonomous individuals with no obligations for the welfare of society...the typical libertarian ethic! And the kind of thinking that is leading this world to destruction today. You are on the choice side of the abortion issue for very different reasons than I am; and likely we have no common ground on anything else!

That is just fine by me, given that you are a socialist.

I feel no obligation to give birth to a specific gender because some think I should for society's sake. If I don't want a male child or if I don't want a female child, I'm not going to have one.
 
As mentioned earlier, communal life of our ancestors is not the same thing as communal life of hippies that moved out into the countryside to commune with nature.

Do you realize your question is a double negative? Since there are primitive societies described as having concepts of shared fatherhood of children, I would argue the burden of proof is on the side of paternity-certainty...and it is less likely to have been a concept formulated in societies that were not patriarchal...as it is hard to explain patriarchy without a sense of owning or possessing children. Since western culture begins with patriarchy, it's a safe assumption that some sort of concept of paternity existed prior to the development of our cultures. But, they are not universal, and it's a dubious assumption that the theories of parental investment advanced as a standard model by evolutionary psychologists like Pinker, explain human development.

You're not citing a question, and the statement cited isn't a double negative. It's a complex sentence made of two sentences conjoined by "and," and each of the conjoined sentences has only one negative. Not a double negative.

Be that as it may, I agree with you on the fact that complexity is presented by multiple and different cultural views. But that's the very reason I don't hold to Morgan's evolutionary stages OR the claim that people 15,000 years ago were probably a lot like ourselves in our kinship or sexuality patterns. We need to investigate the multiplicity, see if anything from archeology and physical anthro can help, and then see if we can use what we have to make big theories. Starting with grand theories is a mistake.

Cultural evolutionary stage theories are problematic because they do not admit the possibility of different orders, but what we know about most stage theories related to culture is that different cultures can go through different orders, skip some stages, backtrack from one stage, etc. Honestly, it would be fun if Bachofen could be right, and no one would be more pleased than I would, but culture is too complex to peg with grand theory that easily.


Very interesting.
 
Last edited:
Regardless! You didn't answer my question, and I placed yours in a more likely context where choice might have to give way to other social concerns. So, on the reverse side: what conditions would you allow a woman to have an abortion? Can you answer the question, or are these abortion threads a waste of time anyway, because hardly any antiabortion zealots want to bother having to think through the moral consequences of their beliefs?

You're assuming they're capable . . . .But the trouble with zealotry is that it has a negative effect on thinking through.
 
If one abortion is okay, why aren't 8?

As for 'convenience', what exactly constitutes it?

Even though a woman's choices are not my business, the fact is that multiple abortions beyond four place a woman at significant risk of some diseases, just as multiple childbirths beyond four do. People should be advised that moderation is more healthy than immoderation, in these things as so many others.
 
Re: "It's my body"

A living being that is living inside a woman's body is not part of a woman's body...it is just a human that happens to be living inside a human's body.

The idea that a living, sentient baby that is still in the womb is not a human being but 'part of a woman's body' is pathetic and nonsensical in the extremis.

I don't call it a baby and it's far from capable of sentience at the time most abortions are done in the US. The main reason for saying an embryo is part of the woman's body isn't to support abortion. If it were a separate human being or person, it would have no right to be inside or biologically attached to her body without her consent, because no persons have such a right, including one's born children. That is, personhood would not give the embryo more rights than anyone else, so if you don't have a right to keep one of your body parts inside a woman without her consent, why would an embryo have one?
 
so is FORCING a man to pay child support for 18 years AGAINST his will the equivalent of hating men?

It's an inequality, and it should be corrected, but correcting it should not mean banning abortion. Address child support issues separately but with reference to the existing right of a woman to choose to end a pregnancy. After all, the pro-choice movement addressed that right separately.
 
if a man has no say on the issue of abortion, then he should have the right to bail and not pay child support. If the woman gets to make all the decisions, then she should have to take all the responsibility.

Whoa, there! If the two people had consensual sex, then they should both have to take some responsibility. Abortion is a woman's cheapest option, continuing the pregnancy to term and giving birth is more expensive, and deciding to keep the child instead of offering it up for adoption is still more expensive. If a woman chooses to give birth and not opt for adoption, but she is found to be an unfit mother, she has to pay child support for 18 years. The current law basically seems to be saying the man has to pay child support if she keeps the child because he's in the unfit parent situation. Just because it isn't fair, given that the woman could have chosen abortion, doesn't mean that his taking no responsibility is fair, because getting an abortion is one way of taking responsibility, and we know that because it costs money.

If the woman is pregnant, since it's her body at risk, she alone can decide to continue or end the pregnancy, but she will have to pay either way. So I say that a man should have to pay at least half of the amount her cheapest option costs her. If she wants to continue the pregnancy and the man doesn't want her to, then the cost of that pregnancy and childbirth should be on her, as it is now.

If she wants to keep the child she gives birth to and he doesn't want anything to do with it, then he should have the right to opt out of responsibility. But he should also lose the right to be listed as the child's biofather on the birth certificate or have anything to do with the child in the future - his identity should only be available in a medical file as a sperm donor, because of possible future need to know if the child has genetically inherited a disease, etc. And if he does want anything to do with it, he should have to pay half of the extra costs related to pregnancy and childbirth and pay child support.

And no rapist should be allowed to have parental rights, male or female, except in cases of statutory rape where the minor's parents prosecuted her/his lover against her/his will without proper cause, e.g., when they were in love and wanted to marry and raise their child together.
 
Last edited:
Re: "It's my body"

I don't call it a baby and it's far from capable of sentience at the time most abortions are done in the US. The main reason for saying an embryo is part of the woman's body isn't to support abortion. If it were a separate human being or person, it would have no right to be inside or biologically attached to her body without her consent, because no persons have such a right, including one's born children. That is, personhood would not give the embryo more rights than anyone else, so if you don't have a right to keep one of your body parts inside a woman without her consent, why would an embryo have one?

You cannot prove an embryo with brain activity is not sentient...and we know that roughly 99% of embryo's become sentient.

So that is good enough for me that an embryo with brain activity is sentient (or should be treated as such)...until I see unbiased, factual proof (not evidence...complete proof) to the contrary.

Whether others agree or not with this is irrelevant to my position.
 
Re: "It's my body"

You cannot prove an embryo with brain activity is not sentient...and we know that roughly 99% of embryo's become sentient.

So that is good enough for me that an embryo with brain activity is sentient (or should be treated as such)...until I see unbiased, factual proof (not evidence...complete proof) to the contrary.

Whether others agree or not with this is irrelevant to my position.

Embryos, meaning the unborn in the pre-fetal stage, do not have the capacity for sentience. Only fetuses can have sentience. Not a single thing has changed in the understanding of the earliest possible point at which a fetus could develop sentience since this article was published in 1992! -- http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14767059209161911

The question of when the human fetus develops the capacity for sentience is central to many contentious issues. The answer could and should influence attitudes toward IVF and embryo experimentation, abortion, and fetal and neonatal surgery. For the fetus to be described as sentient, the somatosensory pathways from the periphery to the primary somatosensory region of the cerebral cortex must be established and functional. Fetal behaviour is described and the development of the underlying anatomical substrate and the chemical and electrical pathways involved in the detection, transmission, and perception of somatosensory stimuli are reviewed.

It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed.

Thus, the answer is somewhere between 18 and 30 weeks. But according to a reliable site (one which refers to reliable stats), about half of US abortions occur in the first 8 weeks, 88% occur in the first 13 weeks, and less than 2% occur at 21 weeks or later. See: National Abortion Federation: Women Who Have Abortions

So after the earliest time that would answer your question, very few abortions occur and they are usually related to serious health problems for the woman or the fetus (e.g., serious fetal anomaly). The unbiased proof involved has to do with the point in development that the fetal neuronal substrate allows somatosensory information transfer. So for you, I guess the cut-off point for abortion that is not related to serious health issues is 18 weeks.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom