Should the man have any say in whether a woman aborts or not?

[DashingAmerican]

If it pops out? His.

Strangely enough, most men put a dollar in the coke machine. Then the machine tells him "uh-oh", and he runs screaming for the ****ing hills.

lol this is true.

 

[DashingAmerican]

And I don't think a machine was ever rendered inoperable with no possibility of repair because it had a can of soda inside

Major analogy fail for DA

I didn't know we were dealing in absolutes...if you care to look, I'm not exactly hard nosed, no abortions ever kinda person. I just think abortions for the sake of aboritons is immoral.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I'm sure different people have all sorts of different (and weird) reasons not to contribute a child to the world and I certainly hope that they take all necessary precautions not to get pregnant if they feel that strongly about it. However, if the unthinkable happens and they do get pregnant and the technology allows it, I don't see why they should force their ideology on the other party responsible for creating that new life. If the father wants to child and the procedure is as simple as getting an abortion, only a self-involved, extremist would stick to her guns. Even genetic disorders are not a good enough reason if the father, or another person who is willing to adopt the ZEF, is willing to undertake the difficult task of raising a special needs child.

Because forcing a medical procedure, and involuntary reproduction, on a non-consenting woman is wrong. Why are her reasons less valid to you than the man's? Even if she can be prevented from having to carry the pregnancy, it is still happening in HER body, and HER body must be invaded in order to remove it.

So a man's reasons for wanting to force a medical procedure on a woman are not totally rational, but her desire to, say, not give her child a 50% chance of having Huntington's, or make room in her life for an existing homeless child, or simply stay true to her morality, is extremist? Nice.

...And from here we start getting into why the living are so obsessed with making others live miserable lives.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Who said anything about not knowing their STD status?

Maybe one partner has herpes and always wears a condom to avoid transmitting it to their partner. WHen they want a baby, they plan to use artificial insemination

If you are willing to go the mile to get IVF, you obviously want a child. However, if you are not, and you are also consistently using any contraceptive, then you don't. Fairly clear.

 

[sangha]

I didn't know we were dealing in absolutes...if you care to look, I'm not exactly hard nosed, no abortions ever kinda person. I just think abortions for the sake of aboritons is immoral.

Didn't say you were, and if you're going to analogize something, it doesn't have to be the same thing in every way. However, the parts that have to with the issue should work the same. Comparing how a vending machine operates to pregnancies is a huge stretch.

Vending machines dont die. If a vending machine breaks, the loss is minimal.

 

[sangha]

If you are willing to go the mile to get IVF, you obviously want a child. However, if you are not, and you are also consistently using any contraceptive, then you don't. Fairly clear.

No, not fairly clear. How is a court going to determine if condoms were worn? How will a court determine why the condom was used? They serve multiple purposes (and I'm not referring to party balloons)

And just because someone is willing to have a baby at some time in their lives, that does not mean they want a baby NOW

 

[Arcana XV]

Because forcing a medical procedure, and involuntary reproduction, on a non-consenting woman is wrong. Why are her reasons less valid to you than the man's? Even if she can be prevented from having to carry the pregnancy, it is still happening in HER body, and HER body must be invaded in order to remove it.

You're not making any sense. If she's willing to have her body invaded to have an abortion, what difference does it make to her what happens to the ZEF once it's out of her body? If this technology ever becomes possible, it will mark the end of women being the sole owners of the ZEF. That ZEF is the result of TWO people creating it and if it becomes possible for it to grow outside her body, the father has just as much say in what happens to his offspring as she does.

So a man's reasons for wanting to force a medical procedure on a woman are not totally rational, but her desire to, say, not give her child a 50% chance of having Huntington's, or make room in her life for an existing homeless child, or simply stay true to her morality, is extremist? Nice.

Forcing your beliefs on others who disagree IS extremist.

...And from here we start getting into why the living are so obsessed with making others live miserable lives.

I have no idea what you mean here.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I didn't know we were dealing in absolutes...if you care to look, I'm not exactly hard nosed, no abortions ever kinda person. I just think abortions for the sake of aboritons is immoral.

I don't think anyone has ever had an abortion for the sake of having an abortion. It's a conscious action a woman takes and pays lots of money for. Makes no sense for her to do that for no reason.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

You're not making any sense. If she's willing to have her body invaded to have an abortion, what difference does it make to her what happens to the ZEF once it's out of her body? If this technology ever becomes possible, it will mark the end of women being the sole owners of the ZEF. That ZEF is the result of TWO people creating it and if it becomes possible for it to grow outside her body, the father has just as much say in what happens to his offspring than she does.

Because the invasion would be involuntary if it is for a purpose she did not consent to. A penis is a penis and sticking it in a vagina is sticking it in a vagina, but consent is the difference between sex and rape. It does not mark anything, because it still starts out IN HER BODY. She still owns it more than anyone.

Forcing your beliefs on others who disagree IS extremist.

Unless it's forcing it on a woman, of course. Then it's totally cool.

 

[sangha]

You're not making any sense. If she's willing to have her body invaded to have an abortion, what difference does it make to her what happens to the ZEF once it's out of her body? If this technology ever becomes possible, it will mark the end of women being the sole owners of the ZEF. That ZEF is the result of TWO people creating it and if it becomes possible for it to grow outside her body, the father has just as much say in what happens to his offspring as she does.



Forcing your beliefs on others who disagree IS extremist.



I have no idea what you mean here.

The difference is, no one (male or female) should have a medical procedure performed on them without their consent. It is a basic human right.

 

[DashingAmerican]

I don't think anyone has ever had an abortion for the sake of having an abortion. It's a conscious action a woman takes and pays lots of money for. Makes no sense for her to do that for no reason.

When I say for the sake of having one I mean they decided they didn't want the kid for lacking reasons. Just because I don't want the kid or I'm not ready for the kid is not really a reason. I don't have the money or I'm still living in my parents basement is acceptable.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

When I say for the sake of having one I mean they decided they didn't want the kid for lacking reasons. Just because I don't want the kid or I'm not ready for the kid is not really a reason. I don't have the money or I'm still living in my parents basement is acceptable.

Not wanting a kid isn't a reason? Tell that to all the children who suffer at the hands of parents who didn't want them.

Tell that to all the women who wind up on bedrest or with gestation diabetes or endure months of pain and sickness from pregnancy.

 

[Arcana XV]

Because the invasion would be involuntary if it is for a purpose she did not consent to. It does not mark anything, because it still starts out IN HER BODY. She still owns it more than anyone.

Again, once it's out of her body all bets are off. I understand your objections, but if this technology becomes possible it will give fathers the right to take ownership of the ZEF if the mother does not want it. It will completely alter our reproductive habits. The technology will not only be used to give fathers a right they do not currently enjoy, it will also enable women to have children without going through the hell that pregnancy and birth can often be. In my mind, everybody wins.

Abortion will still be possible in the rare cases where there is no one at all willing to take ownership of the ZEF.

Unless it's forcing it on a woman, of course. Then it's totally cool.

We currently force it on men, which is equally uncool.

 

[sangha]

When I say for the sake of having one I mean they decided they didn't want the kid for lacking reasons.

People don't need anyones' approval of their motive to consent to a medical procedure. People can get cosmetic surgery for reasons you don't approve of

 

[Arcana XV]

The difference is, no one (male or female) should have a medical procedure performed on them without their consent. It is a basic human right.

The medical procedure is the removal of the ZEF. It accomplishes what the woman wants. She is no longer pregnant. I don't see what kind of person would absolutely insist on completely terminating the development of the ZEF if there are other people willing to take responsibility for it.

 

[DashingAmerican]

Not wanting a kid isn't a reason? Tell that to all the children who suffer at the hands of parents who didn't want them.

Tell that to all the women who wind up on bedrest or with gestation diabetes or endure months of pain and sickness from pregnancy.

It's nice of you to bring ailements that have nothing to do with wanting a kid. People that beat their children get sent to jail. Or most do. It's not the childs fault that this is an immoral world.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Again, once it's out of her body all bets are off. I understand your objections, but if this technology becomes possible it will give fathers the right to take ownership of the ZEF if the mother does not want it. It will completely alter our reproductive habits. The technology will not only be used to give fathers a right they do not currently enjoy, it will also enable women to have children without going through the hell that pregnancy and birth can often be. In my mind, everybody wins.

Abortion will still be possible in the rare cases where there is no one at all willing to take ownership of the ZEF.

And the conditions for removing it from her body must be hers. What, are you proposing we simply knock her out, steal the embryo, and lie? Or just tell her up-front that her wishes don't matter?

Until men can either carry pregnancies, or create their own embryo technologically, men will never have that right. Because it will always start out in the woman's body. It is no different than it is now.

No, not everyone wins in your situation. The woman always loses if the man opposes her. You are saying her reasons do not matter, but the man's do.

We currently force it on men, which is equally uncool.

Nature ain't fair. But I think mandatory child support laws should be. That's as fair as it gets.

The fact is, that as long as it starts out in the woman's body, it is her property. Performing a non-consensual procedure to remove it from her body is wrong. You have no right to decide the man's reasons are more valid than hers.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

It's nice of you to bring ailements that have nothing to do with wanting a kid. People that beat their children get sent to jail. Or most do. It's not the childs fault that this is an immoral world.

Yes, it often does. Not wanting a kid is a completely valid reason. It's one of the best reasons.

 

[sangha]

The medical procedure is the removal of the ZEF. It accomplishes what the woman wants.

So what? Everyone has the right to refuse medical procedures.

She is no longer pregnant. I don't see what kind of person would absolutely insist on completely terminating the development of the ZEF if there are other people willing to take responsibility for it.

Your lack of understanding another persons motives is your problem, not hers.

 

[sangha]

Nature ain't fair. But I think mandatory child support laws should be. That's as fair as it gets.

Mandatory child support laws aren't about fairness. They are about *gasp* the best interests of the child and the country. It's a shame that so many men are willing to put their own interests above the interests of their country and even thier own children

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Mandatory child support laws aren't about fairness. They are about *gasp* the best interests of the child and the country. It's a shame that so many men are willing to put their own interests above the interests of their country and even thier own children

The choice starts with the woman. Perhaps she should take her choice more seriously rather than expecting someone else to bail her out. There are lots of options besides abort or keep it.

I'm sorry, but I don't think women are so stupid that they're incapable of making well-reasoned decisions and requiring the financial servitude of a man is needed to make up for her incompetence.

 

[DashingAmerican]

Yes, it often does. Not wanting a kid is a completely valid reason. It's one of the best reasons.

I'm sorry you feel that way. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what either of us think anyway.

 

[sangha]

I'm sorry, but I don't think women are so stupid that they're incapable of making well-reasoned decisions

unless they make a decision you don't like

 

[Arcana XV]

And the conditions for removing it from her body must be hers. What, are you proposing we simply knock her out, steal the embryo, and lie? Or just tell her up-front that her wishes don't matter?

Drama queen, much? No one is going to lie and steal the embryo. In a world where this technology is possible, she has several choices.

1. Keep it inside her body and proceed to having the baby.

2. Have it removed from her body, keep ownership of it and have it grow in an incubator.

3. Have it removed from her body and give up ownership to either the father, adoptive parents or the state.

4. Agree with the father to completely terminate the embryo. This will only be possible if the state does not automatically take ownership of unwanted embryos.

Until men can either carry pregnancies, or create their own embryo technologically, men will never have that right. Because it will always start out in the woman's body. It is no different than it is now.

You're wrong. There is no doubt in my mind that this hypothetical technology would give men a right they do no currently enjoy: the right to ownership of the embryo they had an equal hand in creating.

No, not everyone wins in your situation. The woman always loses if the man opposes her. You are saying her reasons do not matter, but the man's do.

You're going to have to explain to me exactly in what way she loses. She's no longer pregnant and no longer responsible in any way for the embryo. Which is pretty much what happens today with the abortion option. So how does she lose?

Nature ain't fair. But I think mandatory child support laws should be. That's as fair as it gets.

Agreed.

The fact is, that as long as it starts out in the woman's body, it is her property. Performing a non-consensual procedure to remove it from her body is wrong. You have no right to decide the man's reasons are more valid than hers.

Well, that's the thing, once this technology becomes easily accessible, abortion as we know it will go the way of the dodo. Surely you can see that? So, in that hypothetical future, the procedure will not be non-consensual since she would have to agree to one of the choices I listed above. :shrug:

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

unless they make a decision you don't like

What are you talking about?