Should men have a right to damage fetus with substances and other ways?

[JayDubya]

The thread is a joke. If you want to make comparisons, they have to be factually similar.

Indeed. For the record if a dad assaults or kills his kid, he should get the book thrown at them too. That would be a direct comparison to be making... of course, why make a thread that has no purpose beyond misrepresenting the argument in another thread? Can't you misrepresent other people's argument in the original thread?

On the other hand, if you do things that might maybe damage your sperm cells or egg cells before you have ever conceived a kid, however, um... no, that's not the same thing, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Which means it's a pretty typical offering around this subforum as threads go, sadly.

 

[Removable Mind]

Knowingly, lucidly behaving in ways that risk damage to a child - ought to be on par with publicly expressing respect for Justin Bieber. Until then, society is ****ed.

That make more sense that the pro-life posters have made in here so far...

 

[joko104]

You're not asking about the causes of birth defects, you're asking if men should have the right to harm fetuses that haven't even been conceived yet and may or may not be. If only you were as equally concerned for preborn babies that actually do exist. If I were to use many of your arguments, I'd say of course we have that right since fetuses has no value, deserves no consideration, actually should be evicted from the womb as soon as possible, and after all, aborting it is actually a great gift.

You have no clue what "my argument" is. Instead, you are doing the typical raging prolife male hypocrisy dance - for which values you rage at and about women you now set up strawmen to rage to the diametric opposite set of values about men.

ProLife men such as your messages - but moreso some others - ultimate are not about any so-called values about the "pre-born." They are about women, exclusively about women. Those same moral values and condemnations you make suddenly become outrageously repulsive and totally a violation of your right if even remotely might be applicable to men. Or even questioned if they should.

You have NO clue was my stance is on this OP poll or the poll of the same question about men. Instead, you just rage away, even furiously encompassing prochoice slogans for yourself to do so. How radically you become - apparently - "prochoice" when you become the woman of the issue. It is transparent to others, is already a predictable response and is, at some level, rather humorous.

So... what do you say is my "argument" on this poll and the similar poll about women? As a hint, I will remind of how many times I've posted I put no stock in slogans and platitudes. Can you actually read messages for context? Or just have a collection or pre-made anti-female and contradiction pro-male slogans and strawmen?

 

[X Factor]

I'm not telling you have to oppose anything. YOU HAVE CHOICES...which is more than you afford women.

I'm saying...that if you are an addict that mutates your DNA in your sperm...which results in a defective fetus...you need to be held accountable. Women who are addicts in which their addiction damages a fetus...go to jail.

I see my point whistled right over your head.

The OP is not talking about only drug addicts. You're advocating that men also be "held accountable" and go to jail for drinking coffee, getting x-rays, spraying for bugs or getting cancer treatments. To be consistent, I trust you advocate the same for women whether she's actually pregnant or not.

 

[X Factor]

That make more sense that the pro-life posters have made in here so far...

The irony......

 

[X Factor]

You have no clue what "my argument" is. Instead, you are doing the typical raging prolife male hypocrisy dance - for which values you rage at and about women you now set up strawmen to rage to the diametric opposite set of values about men.

ProLife men such as your messages - but moreso some others - ultimate are not about any so-called values about the "pre-born." They are about women, exclusively about women. Those same moral values and condemnations you make suddenly become outrageously repulsive and totally a violation of your right if even remotely might be applicable to men. Or even questioned if they should.

You have NO clue was my stance is on this OP poll or the poll of the same question about men. Instead, you just rage away, even furiously encompassing prochoice slogans for yourself to do so. How radically you become - apparently - "prochoice" when you become the woman of the issue. It is transparent to others, is already a predictable response and is, at some level, rather humorous.

So... what do you say is my "argument" on this poll and the similar poll about women? As a hint, I will remind of how many times I've posted I put no stock in slogans and platitudes. Can you actually read messages for context? Or just have a collection or pre-made anti-female and contradiction pro-male slogans and strawmen?

It. is. a. false. comparison. I don't oppose women drinking coffee or getting x rays and neither do I oppose men doing those things. Where am I being inconsistent?

 

[nota bene]

Yeah...being a lesbian would be a better deal for your daughter. Then she can be on TV for wanting to get married and heteros telling her she can't because she's a pervert ...and having 2/3rd of the population wanting to lynch her publicly. Yep...you got a winner of an idea.

Oh, just stop with the public-lynching melodrama. This is so far from reality, and it makes me just as sick as the other disgusting, stereotyped comments made earlier in this thread about lesbians.

 

[joko104]

Indeed. For the record if a dad assaults or kills his kid, he should get the book thrown at them too. That would be a direct comparison to be making... of course, why make a thread that has no purpose beyond misrepresenting the argument in another thread? Can't you misrepresent other people's argument in the original thread?

On the other hand, if you do things that might maybe damage your sperm cells or egg cells before you have ever conceived a kid, however, um... no, that's not the same thing, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Which means it's a pretty typical offering around this subforum as threads go, sadly.

So am I correct that you answer is yes? That a man may knowing use substances that will cause birth defects via damaging his sperm's dna? You are who claim sex always has the potential of a child and a woman should therefore consider all sex may have that result. Obviously, that applies to a man too.

So should I mark you down as your answer is yes, a man may use substances that's will cause birth defects in his children? OR should I mark you down as having become prochoice because its your body?

 

[joko104]

It. is. a. false. comparison. I don't oppose women drinking coffee or getting x rays and neither do I oppose men doing those things. Where am I being inconsistent?

Then take X rays and coffee off the list. What about any substances at all? I do believe it is your view that any sex (unless he or she is sterile) can produce a child.

You may want to note I did not state I think a woman can used any substances if known to likely cause birth defects. So it COULD be that I am VASTLY MORE concerned of the "pre-born" that you, JayDubya or any of you men lamented "OMG! What about the babies?!!"

But I don't accept the concept of "pre-born." There are ZEFs. And when born there is a baby. I greatly care about "the baby." For the baby's sake. Societies sake too. What about you? Do YOU CARE about the baby upon birth? Or do you think it just fine for the baby to be born a crippled freak because the man or the woman knowing was using substances known to likely cause such birth defects? IS THAT YOUR POSITION?

 

[Removable Mind]

I see my point whistled right over your head.

The OP is not talking about only drug addicts. You're advocating that men also be "held accountable" and go to jail for drinking coffee, getting x-rays, spraying for bugs or getting cancer treatments. To be consistent, I trust you advocate the same for women whether she's actually pregnant or not.

Yes X...it was talking a lot of things, but in my post following the OP...you missed it...when right over your X.

 

[Removable Mind]

It. is. a. false. comparison. I don't oppose women drinking coffee or getting x rays and neither do I oppose men doing those things. Where am I being inconsistent?

Do you oppose women doing crack...which damages the fetus?

 

[Fisher]

I'm not telling you have to oppose anything. YOU HAVE CHOICES...which is more than you afford women.

I'm saying...that if you are an addict that mutates your DNA in your sperm...which results in a defective fetus...you need to be held accountable. Women who are addicts in which their addiction damages a fetus...go to jail.

It is a crap argument. Women are not being jailed or imprisoned because their baby has a genetic defect. The one who have have been jailed for actively abusing drugs and alcohol while pregnant and it is hardly prosecuted in relation to the number of messed up babies that are being born because of it. The OP is not comparable to the cases that have resulted in charges being filed.

In the end, it still does not matter to the pro-choice side except that this is just another step toward giving the unborn legal rights and that scares the hell out of people who think that using protection is too big a burden to expect from someone not wanting to get pregnant, let alone putting down the crack pipe.

 

[nota bene]

While we're at it, let's make all crimes or harm that could potentially happen in the future punishable now, because that's what we're talking about.

Exactly. Silly, isn't it?

 

[X Factor]

Then take X rays and coffee off the list.

Oh no, you put them there. I'm not interested in making you look less foolish.

What about any substances at all?

Well, unlike you, I don't support legalizing harmful drugs.

I do believe it is your view that any sex (unless he or she is sterile) can produce a child.

You may want to note I did not state I think a woman can used any substances if known to likely cause birth defects. So it COULD be that I am VASTLY MORE concerned of the "pre-born" that you, JayDubya or any of you men lamented "OMG! What about the babies?!!"

But I don't accept the concept of "pre-born." There are ZEFs. And when born there is a baby. I greatly care about "the baby." For the baby's sake. Societies sake too. What about you? Do YOU CARE about the baby upon birth? Or do you think it just fine for the baby to be born a crippled freak because the man or the woman knowing was using substances known to likely cause such birth defects? IS THAT YOUR POSITION?

Sure you have great concern for pre-born babies. That's why you usually talk about "ZEF's" with great contempt and advocate the right to destroy them no matter how far along the pregnancy is. It is hard for me to accept that someone who has such contempt for a developing baby suddenly has all this concern and caring when it's born.

 

[X Factor]

Do you oppose women doing crack...which damages the fetus?

I oppose anyone using crack.

 

[Removable Mind]

I oppose anyone using crack.

So you are in favor of men being prosecuted if they are found to have mutated or damaged the DNA in their sperm...which also resulted in a defective fetus?

 

[X Factor]

Exactly. Silly, isn't it?

The most exasperating thing is they can't see how silly it is.

 

[X Factor]

So you are in favor of men being prosecuted if they are found to have mutated or damaged the DNA in their sperm...which also resulted in a defective fetus?

By having radiation therapy for cancer, for example?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I'm saying...that if you are an addict that mutates your DNA in your sperm...which results in a defective fetus...you need to be held accountable.

Since the only cited material advocated acupuncture and cited "electric fields" as a real health concern, I decided to do some digging around and the science seems rather inconclusive at this point, at best ...

Women who are addicts in which their addiction damages a fetus...go to jail.

Probably because the underlying relation between abuse and effect can be more readily established?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

You have no clue what "my argument" is. Instead, you are doing the typical raging prolife male hypocrisy dance - for which values you rage at and about women you now set up strawmen to rage to the diametric opposite set of values about men.

ProLife men such as your messages - but moreso some others - ultimate are not about any so-called values about the "pre-born." They are about women, exclusively about women. Those same moral values and condemnations you make suddenly become outrageously repulsive and totally a violation of your right if even remotely might be applicable to men. Or even questioned if they should.

You have NO clue was my stance is on this OP poll or the poll of the same question about men. Instead, you just rage away, even furiously encompassing prochoice slogans for yourself to do so. How radically you become - apparently - "prochoice" when you become the woman of the issue. It is transparent to others, is already a predictable response and is, at some level, rather humorous.

So... what do you say is my "argument" on this poll and the similar poll about women? As a hint, I will remind of how many times I've posted I put no stock in slogans and platitudes. Can you actually read messages for context? Or just have a collection or pre-made anti-female and contradiction pro-male slogans and strawmen?

Yeah, all i am getting out of that is someone needs to make me a sandwich

 

[Removable Mind]

By having radiation therapy for cancer, for example?

X...I've never made any claims that coffee, X-Rays...Chemo...are to be considered criminal offenses. You broke off on that tangent. My argument has always been that men who are involved in self-abuses such as drug addiction...or any knowing reason that their sperm is likely to be damaged or mutated...and then impregnate a woman...which results in a defective fetus...should be held legally responsible.

There are 23 chromosomes contributed by the male...and the same for the female. It's not rocket science to determine which set of chromosomes were damages...

 

[Removable Mind]

Since the only cited material advocated acupuncture and cited "electric fields" as a real health concern, I decided to do some digging around and the science seems rather inconclusive at this point, at best ...




Probably because the underlying relation between abuse and effect can be more readily established?

DC...as I just made comment to X...it's common knowledge that a man contributes 23 chromosomes...and so do a woman...during conception. It wouldn't be hard to determine if there was mutated or damaged DNA that was contributed by the man...which resulted in the defect of a fetus.

If they are both tested....and the woman is clean...and the guy isn't...??? Shouldn't the guy be further tested to confirm it was his damaged DNA...likely caused by addition?

 

[X Factor]

X...I've never made any claims that coffee, X-Rays...Chemo...are to be considered criminal offenses. You broke off on that tangent. My argument has always been that men who are involved in self-abuses such as drug addiction...or any knowing reason that their sperm is likely to be damaged or mutated...and then impregnate a woman...which results in a defective fetus...should be held legally responsible.

There are 23 chromosomes contributed by the male...and the same for the female. It's not rocket science to determine which set of chromosomes were damages...

Yeah, I broke off on that tangent all on my own, it's not like any of that was actually mentioned in the OP which you enthusiastically thanked. Besides, you're saying in this very post "any knowing reason" meaning a guy dying of cancer and getting cancer treatments should be held accountable if he has any knowledge at all that it could affect his sperm. So no, I don't advocate putting men or women in jail for getting cancer treatments.

 

[X Factor]

DC...as I just made comment to X...it's common knowledge that a man contributes 23 chromosomes...and so do a woman...during conception. It wouldn't be hard to determine if there was mutated or damaged DNA that was contributed by the man...which resulted in the defect of a fetus.

If they are both tested....and the woman is clean...and the guy isn't...??? Shouldn't the guy be further tested to confirm it was his damaged DNA...likely caused by addition?

I don't advocate that either men or women be required to tested if they have a disabled child for the purpose of jailing the one whose DNA isn't "clean".

How am I supposed to take you guys seriously with **** like this?

 

[Removable Mind]

Yeah, I broke off on that tangent all on my own, it's not like any of that was actually mentioned in the OP which you enthusiastically thanked. Besides, you're saying in this very post "any knowing reason" meaning a guy dying of cancer and getting cancer treatments should be held accountable if he has any knowledge at all that it could affect his sperm. So no, I don't advocate putting men or women in jail for getting cancer treatments.

You can twist what I'm saying all you want X...feel free to. I've not advocated for that.

Maybe all men need to be required to be regularly tested to make sure that they haven't engage in any behaviors that would damage or mutate their sperm. You know...like various states want to force women to have ultrasounds...