• 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!

The father's rights.

maquiscat said:
What of her body autonomy is she losing under the conditions given? She chooses whether or not to end the pregnancy. If she chooses not to end it then the father has no rights beyond what he already has in the current world. If she chooses to end the pregnancy, then regardless of the ZEF's final condition, there is no difference for the woman. How has she lost any body autonomy?
.
Click to expand...
The right to decide an outcome. She now has a new option to allow the father to keep the ZEF, but the father still has no right to force that decision on her.


There seems to be a lot of assumption in the abdicating of his rights. Maybe he took all the due diligence and the birth control failed. Or they initially wanted the child and she changed her mind.
Click to expand...
It is a fair assumption to make. But even given the use of protection was used there is still a known risk being taken on both sides. But in the end no matter the circumstances a decision needs to be made and it is the womans right to make that decision.

Yeah it is. The man's sperm is something that is solely his and in no part hers and thus she has no right to demand it. The woman's egg is the same, solely hers, and he has no right to demand it. The ZEF is both of theirs, and while yes, she does get to initially decide whether it stay in her or is removed, once removed, under the conditions given, how does she have to right to destroy it if the father wants it. There is no body autonomy involved here. Under the conditions given the procedure is exactly the same regardless of the fate of the ZEF
Click to expand...

No, once the man gives up his sperm then it no longer is his to claim. His ownership in this is only that he shares genetic material with the ZEF, not that he has part ownership of the ZEF. Again it gets back to the fact that it is the womans right to decide.

The difficulty here is that many men have difficulty in accepting that they are not the ones in control that women are capable and do have the right to decide, not them. They plead for a fair decision despite the fact that fair or unfair is merely a subjective opinion based on whether a person wins the battle or looses.
 
joG said:
It is true that we have defined it that way for our society but it is not necessarily so. If a society wants differently and is willing to enforce it? Why not?
Click to expand...

Sure, how would they do that? Please tell us. I've asked you before:

Lursa said:
And how would you make her remain pregnant without force? No more pseudo-intellectual bobbing and weaving, tell us how it's not force to make her do something against her will.

And how, such force could possibly be ethical?
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
True, traditionally once out of her body, men had complete dominance and decision over both's lives in most western societies. Men could generally take the children and kick the women out. Happened alot to mistresses but also when there were questions of protecting family assets.
Click to expand...

Bhod will use any excuse with no concern for reality. To argue that women should have body autonomy is hardly traditional.
 
soylentgreen said:
Bhod will use any excuse with no concern for reality. To argue that women should have body autonomy is hardly traditional.
Click to expand...

I was just commenting...reading about women in China through the ages is pretty mind-boggling and I went thru an Amy Tan/Pearl S. Buck reading phase last yr.
 
Last edited:
year2late said:
Well your original statement made no sense,
Click to expand...

If you are not capable of dealing with the keyboard errors, I guess you are right.
 
joG said:
That is not the eay it would be argued nor has it been in most societies that have forbidden couples having abortions. It's just that lots of out compatriots are stuck in mental ruts and fail badly, when it comes to understanding logic that has different axioms.
Click to expand...

Why does it freak men out so much that women have control over their own bodies?
 
Lursa said:
True, traditionally once out of her body, men had complete dominance and decision over both's lives in most western societies. Men could generally take the children and kick the women out. Happened alot to mistresses but also when there were questions of protecting family assets.
Click to expand...

Unless they were black children. Then Mass'r wanted nothing to do with them. Funny how that worked.
 
Lursa said:
Sure, how would they do that? Please tell us. I've asked you before:
Click to expand...

It depends on your idea of what "force" should mean. But as force is a integral feature of any society, it's a rather fanticiful idea of society without force in any event.
But one approach that has been used was communal living without privacy. This has been used in temples and villages in many societies, as I am sure you know. Often antisocial behavior has given rise to breakung all interaction with the person so behaving. As that person either leaves as an outcast or is cut off from economic networks there is no force in the real meaning of the word, though, in a society of safe spaces at universities, I am not sure how such a population uses the word. ;)
 
calamity said:
Why does it freak men out so much that women have control over their own bodies?
Click to expand...

The thing is that it doesn't freak anyone out as far as I know. It's the killing anither human body they think is problematic.
 
soylentgreen said:
Actually no, tradition usually gives the male superior rights over the women. After all it has traditionally been men in politics who decided the vote on what a woman can do with their body.
And ther arguement by maquiscat
is an appeal to giving men rights over women again.
Click to expand...

bold... the problem with your argument.

What usually happens or was traditional is not now the case.
 
joG said:
The thing is that it doesn't freak anyone out as far as I know. It's the killing anither human body they think is problematic.
Click to expand...

Oh please. Men don't give two ****s about killing human beings. Give it a rest. It's about controlling women.
 
maquiscat said:
Under the premises given the procedure for an abortion and the procedure for a transfer is exactly the same. No differences. To consent to one is no different than consenting to the other. The only difference is what happens to the ZEF after removal. Think of it this way. You have a tumor removed. Whether you choose to have it placed in a jar to preserve it or have it incinerated, the procedure to remove it is the same.
Click to expand...

I understand, thank you... but there is still an implied denial of medical choice here. You're saying that if the man wants the ZEF but the woman doesn't, then she should be denied an abortion in favor of this ZEF transfer. Does she not have a right to choose which medical procedure she does and does not receive?

What you're arguing is that, in the presence of available technology, a pregnancy cannot be terminated so long as either adult participant values the ZEF and wants to keep it alive. In light of the fact that such technology does not exist, there are too many unknown variables to really play out this scenario. I don't think an artificial womb would be better than the real deal. I don't think vacuumi-suctioning the uterine lining to excise a ZEF and killing it in the process would be the same as the finesse required to transfer a ZEF.
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
No evidence at all then?
Click to expand...

lol...yeah, men suddenly care about unborn ****ing babies because they found their inner tree-hugger. :roll:
 
calamity said:
Oh please. Men don't give two ****s about killing human beings. Give it a rest. It's about controlling women.
Click to expand...

You think? Interesting that you would think that. I think it is rather a mushy way of interpreting the way legal systems work,though. I mean, not much differentiation and all that.

;)
 
joG said:
You think? Interesting that you would think that. I think it is rather a mushy way of interpreting the way legal systems work,though. I mean, not much differentiation and all that.

;)
Click to expand...

Men murder over 90% of all homicide victims. But, whoa...find something women kill and suddenly they want to put an end to the slaughter. Give me a break.
 
calamity said:
lol...yeah, men suddenly care about unborn ****ing babies because they found their inner tree-hugger. :roll:
Click to expand...

"Unborn ****ing babies" huh? That is a convincing argument.
 
calamity said:
lol...yeah, men suddenly care about unborn ****ing babies because they found their inner tree-hugger. :roll:
Click to expand...

So your argument is just silliness?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom