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

[maquiscat]

I don't think you are disagreeing me if you're saying men have responsibility over their sperm.

I'm not exactly in agreement with your final conclusion either, but even if I was your reasoning isn't standing up to scrutiny, unless I am mixing up someone else reasoning along with yours. I find it highly unreasonable for anyone, male or female, to control their lives to such a degree as to attempt to monitor the state of their sperm or eggs when engaging in sexual activity. Once conception has occurred and is known then it makes sense to monitor what could happen to the ZEF. There we have a known factor in the ZEF, even if we can only show a chance with the actions of the mother affecting it. With the sperm and the egg, there are so many factors that are only chances, including the straight up pregnancy odds, that it would be near impossible to maintain any kind of scrunity on the status of the sperm or eggs.

Now with all that being said, if there were some kind of enforcement of the care/consideration/whatever a woman had to give to the eggs, then yes a man has to give equal care/consideration/whatever to the sperm. The ZEF is a whole other ball of wax.

 

[Moot]

I'm not exactly in agreement with your final conclusion either, but even if I was your reasoning isn't standing up to scrutiny, unless I am mixing up someone else reasoning along with yours. I find it highly unreasonable for anyone, male or female, to control their lives to such a degree as to attempt to monitor the state of their sperm or eggs when engaging in sexual activity. Once conception has occurred and is known then it makes sense to monitor what could happen to the ZEF. There we have a known factor in the ZEF, even if we can only show a chance with the actions of the mother affecting it. With the sperm and the egg, there are so many factors that are only chances, including the straight up pregnancy odds, that it would be near impossible to maintain any kind of scrunity on the status of the sperm or eggs.

Now with all that being said, if there were some kind of enforcement of the care/consideration/whatever a woman had to give to the eggs, then yes a man has to give equal care/consideration/whatever to the sperm. The ZEF is a whole other ball of wax.

There is a growing body of evidence that a man who engages in drug and alcohol abuse in the month prior to conception can damage his sperm which in turn could damage the embryo. So perhaps the comparison could made to the notion that the life begins at the end of a womans period just prior to conception because that is when she is creating new eggs. Not sure, but I think read somewhere that men's sperm also have a one month cycle. Both the quality of the egg and sperm play a large part on the quality of the fetus. Really, how could it not?

Arizona passed a bill redefining when gestational life begins to start the first day of a woman's last period prior to impregnation. Talk about an immaculate conception, eh? So if women are going to be held responsible before conception for the embryo, then why not the men as well?


"....The 18th week bill includes a new definition for when pregnancy begins. A sentence in the bill defines gestational age as "calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman," which would move the beginning of a pregnancy up two weeks prior to conception. The bill's passage would give Arizona the earliest cutoff for late-term abortions in the country; most states use 20 weeks as a definition....."
Arizona Abortion Bill: Legislators Pass Three Bills, Including One That Redefines When Life Begins

 

[Scrabaholic]

It says little is known about it. Therefore, they don't really know.

That is not what you were taking issue with. You were taking issue with the phrase 'it is not well known that ....' That does not mean that they don't know. It means that it exists or is true but most people don't know about it.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Then they can use the physical barriers--you should know that by now. As for women being mentally incompetent, that is an on-going theme of these type threads that attempt to blame men for everything as a justification for women being able to abort babies as they are all victims of the men in their lives--every single one.

Please show where anyone is doing that.

Of course we can use barriers - however, they are not as effective.

 

[ChrisL]

That is not what you were taking issue with. You were taking issue with the phrase 'it is not well known that ....' That does not mean that they don't know. It means that it exists or is true but most people don't know about it.

You're absolutely incorrect. The statement was "little is known about the effects." Moot is claiming that workplace hazards effect sperm to the extent that it causes birth defects. In the link she posted to support her statement, it says:

Reproductive hazards can affect the chromosomes found in sperm. The sperm and egg each contribute 23 chromosomes at fertilization. The DNA stored in these chromosomes determines what we will look like and how our bodies will function. Radiation or chemicals may cause changes or breaks in the DNA. If the sperm's DNA is damaged, it may not be able to fertilize an egg; or if it does fertilize an egg, it may affect the development of the fetus. Some cancer treatment drugs are known to cause such damage. However, little is known about the effects of workplace hazards on sperm chromosomes.

 

[Removable Mind]

I'm not exactly in agreement with your final conclusion either, but even if I was your reasoning isn't standing up to scrutiny, unless I am mixing up someone else reasoning along with yours. I find it highly unreasonable for anyone, male or female, to control their lives to such a degree as to attempt to monitor the state of their sperm or eggs when engaging in sexual activity. Once conception has occurred and is known then it makes sense to monitor what could happen to the ZEF. There we have a known factor in the ZEF, even if we can only show a chance with the actions of the mother affecting it. With the sperm and the egg, there are so many factors that are only chances, including the straight up pregnancy odds, that it would be near impossible to maintain any kind of scrunity on the status of the sperm or eggs.

Now with all that being said, if there were some kind of enforcement of the care/consideration/whatever a woman had to give to the eggs, then yes a man has to give equal care/consideration/whatever to the sperm. The ZEF is a whole other ball of wax.

You do realize that a sperm contains 23 chromosomes and an ovum 23 chromosomes that provide the DNA or genetic codes which are the blue prints for creating a ZEF.

DNA can become damaged in both sperm and ovums for different reasons.

And as Moot has stated, there is growing research and evidence that is revealing the types of DNA damage in sperm and ovums, which causes birth defects and still births.

Common sense tells us since we know creating a ZEF from the chromosomes of both male and female...either, or, or both may contribute to birth defects and still births. It would be negligence on all our parts to ignore such possibilities and and forego engaging in serious research on how these mutations and damages are indeed effecting both fetuses and born children...and what can be done to prevent them from taking toll.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Arizona passed a bill redefining when gestational life begins to start the first day of a woman's last period prior to impregnation.

how is that even relevant to the discussion?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Common sense tells us since we know creating a ZEF from the chromosomes of both male and female...either, or, or both may contribute to birth defects and still births. It would be negligence on all our parts to ignore such possibilities and and forego engaging in serious research on how these mutations and damages are indeed effecting both fetuses and born children...and what can be done to prevent them from taking toll.

1) you guys have not been arguing *may*, you have been arguing "is".

2) No one suggested people ignore such possibilities. What was challenged was the comparison to a fetus/embryo, and the assertion that the scientific evidence was well established and clear

 

[maquiscat]

There is a growing body of evidence that a man who engages in drug and alcohol abuse in the month prior to conception can damage his sperm which in turn could damage the embryo. So perhaps the comparison could made to the notion that the life begins at the end of a womans period just prior to conception because that is when she is creating new eggs. Not sure, but I think read somewhere that men's sperm also have a one month cycle. Both the quality of the egg and sperm play a large part on the quality of the fetus. Really, how could it not?

First off women do not create new eggs, they are born with all they will have in life, unless there is some new medical data which has changed that from when I learned it oh so long ago. So when you think about it with men's sperm doing a 100% change out every 30 some odd days, the woman has to be more careful of damaging her "building materials" than the male does. At no point have I disagreed with the premise that the quality of the sperm and/or egg will affect the resultant child, and even affect whether or not it comes to term. The premise that I oppose is the thought that there is extra action that we need to take outside of what we currently do. We are exposed to all kinds of things that can affect sperm or egg and yet dispite that those in these field continue to birth healthy babies. Correlation is not causation and I do not think that enough study has been done on the issue to show causation. While pleasurable, it's not proven.

Arizona passed a bill redefining when gestational life begins to start the first day of a woman's last period prior to impregnation. Talk about an immaculate conception, eh? So if women are going to be held responsible before conception for the embryo, then why not the men as well?


"....The 18th week bill includes a new definition for when pregnancy begins. A sentence in the bill defines gestational age as "calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman," which would move the beginning of a pregnancy up two weeks prior to conception. The bill's passage would give Arizona the earliest cutoff for late-term abortions in the country; most states use 20 weeks as a definition....."
Arizona Abortion Bill: Legislators Pass Three Bills, Including One That Redefines When Life Begins

I foresee this getting challenged on so many levels. My feelings on abortion, legal or personal, aside this definition does not make any real sense. Is a woman now legally pregnant until she menstruates again? Depending on how they wrote the law, she may well be. See FL's recent cyber cafe law snafu as a reference for f'ed up laws.

 

[maquiscat]

1) you guys have not been arguing *may*, you have been arguing "is".

2) No one suggested people ignore such possibilities. What was challenged was the comparison to a fetus/embryo, and the assertion that the scientific evidence was well established and clear

What he said. Particularly #2

 

[Fisher]

Please show where anyone is doing that.

Of course we can use barriers - however, they are not as effective.

Perhaps you have not noted the thread title, the thread location, or the prior "it is all the man's fault" threads along these same lines.

 

[joko104]

Who posted that?!? ***shakes head***

Is the "MY" supposed to be "MIGHT"? And I am also guessing that "before and after pregnant" is supposed to be "before and after getting pregnant"?

It makes a big difference. If the female's actions are only viewed as those with take a direct effect upon the ZEF in the womb and not those that affect the egg, then there is no male equivalent to compare it to. If the legal action is being taken based on damage to the egg then the male equivalent of damage to the sperm is indeed possible. There is nothing in my argument that has anything to do with the mechanics of conception. It's a simple matter of whether the damage is before or after the conception. Now if the evidence can be produced that shows that a male can be exposed to a substance and then somehow transfer said substance to the ZEF via some interaction with the female then you have a comparable action

It has nothing to do with equivalency to females. The question is should a man have a legal right to use substances that will damage sperm in a way that causes birth defects if he is sexually active and not sterile?

What possible differenced does it make to the fetus/child whether the genetic damage is done before or after she is impregnated by a man's sperm fertilizing an egg?

NO HUMAN HAS EVER BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ACT OF "CONCEPTION."

 

[Removable Mind]

1) you guys have not been arguing *may*, you have been arguing "is".

2) No one suggested people ignore such possibilities. What was challenged was the comparison to a fetus/embryo, and the assertion that the scientific evidence was well established and clear

Goodnight, sleep tight...and I'm not playing anymore...remember?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

It has nothing to do with equivalency to females. The question is should a man have a legal right to use substances that will damage sperm in a way that causes birth defects if he is sexually active and not sterile?

What possible differenced does it make to the fetus/child whether the genetic damage is done before or after she is impregnated by a man's sperm fertilizing an egg?

NO HUMAN HAS EVER BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ACT OF "CONCEPTION."

it's like watching someone punch themselves in the face while going "you want some of this, playboy!"

 

[ChrisL]

It has nothing to do with equivalency to females. The question is should a man have a legal right to use substances that will damage sperm in a way that causes birth defects if he is sexually active and not sterile?

What possible differenced does it make to the fetus/child whether the genetic damage is done before or after she is impregnated by a man's sperm fertilizing an egg?

NO HUMAN HAS EVER BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ACT OF "CONCEPTION."

WTH?? :lol: I think you need to go to a sex ed class or something.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Goodnight, sleep tight...and I'm not playing anymore...remember?

ok?

12345

 

[maquiscat]

It has nothing to do with equivalency to females. The question is should a man have a legal right to use substances that will damage sperm in a way that causes birth defects if he is sexually active and not sterile?

What possible differenced does it make to the fetus/child whether the genetic damage is done before or after she is impregnated by a man's sperm fertilizing an egg?

NO HUMAN HAS EVER BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ACT OF "CONCEPTION." But, since you want exemption for all moral codes - as a male, you claim that is how all people come into existence.

I'm not sure what you are reading to come up with what you think I believe is the creation of a new individual, but it sure isn't anything I'm writing.

The difference is trying to compare the sperm to the ZEF. As I have noted, to compare the actions of the male to the female you have to look at each equally and the only way to do that is to note their actions prior to the ZEF being formed. If you want any kind of limit on what the male does that can affect the sperm then the same limits are to be applied to the female in regards to the egg. The ZEF is not an equivalent comparison. I am not denying that damage resulting in birth defects can occur either before or after conception. I am only noting the improper comparison of sperm to the ZEF.

 

[joko104]

If a man buys a pregnant woman he knows to be pregnant - whether or not he is the bio-father - an alcoholic drink and she drinks it - or gives her illegal drugs - or offers her a cigarette, isn't he now AT LEAST equally guilty of "harming the fetus" not just as a co-conspirator, but he being who proposed and created the crime, started the crime and financed the crime? In a sense, he is the drug dealer and she secondarily the user. Isn't the drug dealer worse?

 

[ChrisL]

If a man buys a pregnant woman he knows to be pregnant - whether or not he is the bio-father - an alcoholic drink and she drinks it - or gives her illegal drugs - or offers her a cigarette, isn't he now AT LEAST equally guilty of "harming the fetus" not just as a co-conspirator, but he being who proposed and created the crime, started the crime and financed the crime? In a sense, he is the drug dealer and she secondarily the user. Isn't the drug dealer worse?

Only if he forced her to drink or smoke at gunpoint.

 

[Henrin]

If a man buys a pregnant woman he knows to be pregnant - whether or not he is the bio-father - an alcoholic drink and she drinks it - or gives her illegal drugs - or offers her a cigarette, isn't he now AT LEAST equally guilty of "harming the fetus" not just as a co-conspirator, but he being who proposed and created the crime, started the crime and financed the crime? In a sense, he is the drug dealer and she secondarily the user. Isn't the drug dealer worse?

She has the ability and more importantly the responsibility to make her own decisions. While he should not be buying her anything that will harm the fetus, she can easily say no at any point or simply not ingest whatever it is. Do you not believe women can make their own decisions and be responsible individuals?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

If a man buys a pregnant woman he knows to be pregnant - whether or not he is the bio-father - an alcoholic drink and she drinks it - or gives her illegal drugs - or offers her a cigarette, isn't he now AT LEAST equally guilty of "harming the fetus" not just as a co-conspirator, but he being who proposed and created the crime, started the crime and financed the crime? In a sense, he is the drug dealer and she secondarily the user. Isn't the drug dealer worse?

It's hilarious constantly watching you reduce women to unthinking victims that can't even make a competent decision about what they injest

 

[maquiscat]

If a man buys a pregnant woman he knows to be pregnant - whether or not he is the bio-father - an alcoholic drink and she drinks it - or gives her illegal drugs - or offers her a cigarette, isn't he now AT LEAST equally guilty of "harming the fetus" not just as a co-conspirator, but he being who proposed and created the crime, started the crime and financed the crime? In a sense, he is the drug dealer and she secondarily the user. Isn't the drug dealer worse?

You have gone so far off topic with this example that it is beyond straw man. It's more like a lint man argument.

 

[joko104]

Only if he forced her to drink or smoke at gunpoint.

So you have the perfect defense for someone who sells or distributes drugs: "I didn't force the person to buy, accept or use the drug!":doh

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

So you have the perfect defense for someone who sells or distributes drugs: "I didn't force the person to buy, accept or use the drug!":doh

actually short of someone being a minor, or lacking legal agency in some other way. The crime for drug dealing concerns distribution, not the act of other people deciding to partake in drugs.

 

[joko104]

You have gone so far off topic with this example that it is beyond straw man. It's more like a lint man argument.

No, for how law works in EVERY drug case, conspiracy case and joint criminal responsibility, I am 100% on point. But, once again, prolifers are furious at even hinting they are not 100% from all their platitudes, all the moral demands on women, and from all civil and criminal laws.

THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANCE where a man can participate in harm to a child (which is what this topic is) and declare that his gender makes him exempt. The reason this is NOT obvious to prolifers is because even on the topic of "harm to the fetus," they really don't give a **** about the fetus. It's all about the woman only.

The crime would be HARM TO THE FETUS. But prolifers - always -singularly focus on controlling and punishing the woman. Thus, prolifers are furious at the suggestion that men can't be held responsible for harm or participate in harming or destroying a fetus that he wants to or thru recklessness.