US men fight child support laws.

[Carl]

Not even for rape or mothers safety. I believe after it attaches itself to the inside of the mother it has become its own entity.

There can be no disputation of the accuracy of the second part of your argument. DNA testing would in fact reveal a distinct and unique human being at that point in development.

As regards rape and death, however, we begin to tread into perilous waters. Is it moral for us to, in effect, legislate personal sainthood? In an earnest attempt to reverse the inhumanity of abortion for personal convenience, we should in my opinion take care not to exempt humanity from the equation.

 

[FallingPianos]

Seeing how it takes two to make, why is it so hard to fathom requiring two to abort?

because abortion doesnt just affect the fetus. it directly affects the mother.

supposing that the fetus has the right to live inside the mother, neither the mother nor the father can take away that right.

supposing the fetus does not have that right, only the mother could make that decision, because its a procedure that is performed on her.

 

[Schweddy]

As regards rape and death, however, we begin to tread into perilous waters. Is it moral for us to, in effect, legislate personal sainthood?

Many ladies that *know* they would be in thin health waters if they got pregnate.

Would that change the argument?

 

[Synch]

Logically if the woman is going to be allowed to murder her child at will before the child is born and the male has no say,logically he should not be obligated to take care of the child.

Morally a woman should not be a allowed to murder her child because she does not want a baby and morally the man should take care of that child that he helped create.If he did not want to take care of a child he should not be engaging in unportected sex or he should not be engaging in sex period just to be 100% sure he does not get a woman pregnate.

But currently the precedent set by Roe V Wade guarantees a woman's right to kil her unborn child until a certain point during her pregnancy.

So I'm gonna go with logic.

KEEP ABORTION LEGAL, UPHOLD ROE V WADE, ABORT WILL BE LIBERAL BABIES

 

[Carl]

supposing the fetus does not have that right, only the mother could make that decision, because its a procedure that is performed on her.

A supposition that defines the illogic of the equation, as illustrated by this particular legal action. This remains the question at hand. Invoking it as a defense is to ask us to accept that the premise equates to the conclusion. The very definition of tautology.

 

[Carl]

Would that change the argument?

No, it would just shift the jeopardy of the soul to a different person.

 

[Schweddy]

because abortion doesnt just affect the fetus. it directly affects the mother.

And it is capable of effecting the potential fathers' emotional well being as well.

supposing that the fetus has the right to live inside the mother, neither the mother nor the father can take away that right.

I can only hope the supreme court has this conclusion.

supposing the fetus does not have that right, only the mother could make that decision, because its a procedure that is performed on her.

Disagree again. The procesure is performed *against* an entity or fetus that is only partially of the mother (23 chromosones of her). Unfortunatly, in order to do that procedure, the mother must be invaded and the cord cut from her tissue because it has attached itself.

 

[FallingPianos]

Unfortunatly, in order to do that procedure, the mother must be invaded and the cord cut from her tissue because it has attached itself.

exactly my point. if the right to have an abortion exists, it can only be the right of the mother.

 

[Carl]

The procesure is performed *against* an entity or fetus that is only partially of the mother (23 chromosones of her).

Indeed. It is performed against an entity that through DNA testing would be identified as a totally unique human being. A form of testing that is routinely admissable in all courts of law in this nation, as the final word in the determination of personhood.

exactly my point. if the right to have an abortion exists, it can only be the right of the mother.

And all cats are feline. Having defined both the term "cat" and "feline" to be the same thing, such a statement communicates precisely nothing. Just as your statement communicates precisely nothing.

The argument at hand is whether the right to abortion is sensible, in the first instance. Manifest evasion of that point is not a proof, nor does it constitute reasoned analysis.

 

[FallingPianos]

because abortion doesnt just affect the fetus. it directly affects the mother.

supposing that the fetus has the right to live inside the mother, neither the mother nor the father can take away that right.

supposing the fetus does not have that right, only the mother could make that decision, because its a procedure that is performed on her.

supposing the fetus does not have that right, only the mother could make that decision, because its a procedure that is performed on her.

A supposition that defines the illogic of the equation, as illustrated by this particular legal action. This remains the question at hand. Invoking it as a defense is to ask us to accept that the premise equates to the conclusion. The very definition of tautology.

funny how you didnt quote my entire statement.

 

[Schweddy]

exactly my point. if the right to have an abortion exists, it can only be the right of the mother.

No harm comes from the mother other than over active hormones and potential depression.

Besides, I would seriously doubt a judge would require an abortion from a trial. At worst, the father would give up his rights as a parent.

 

[Carl]

funny how you didnt quote my entire statement.

You contend that I've intentionally ommited relevant context? If so, kindly elaborate. If not, kindly refrain from gratuitous insinuation.

 

[FallingPianos]

The argument at hand is whether the right to abortion is sensible, in the first instance. .

is it?

Lets say that a woman wants to keep a child and the male wants an abortion. He should be able to take her to court to abort the child support burden.

you mean he should be able to go to court and make her have the child.

Absolutely. That child living inside her is half his.

I have absolutly no opposition to the state making a law that says no woman can have abortions, but I am absolutly opposed to making the decision be up to the father upon his whim. while I dont believe that pro-life is misogyny in general, giving the father the authority to decide whether the child is kept or not, is misogyny.

I disagree, this has nothing to do with hating women or their ability to incubate a child to birth. This has to do with the fathers rights.

Earlier I said that it should go to the courts to decide this. This would elleviate or at least minimize the "whim" aspect of decisions. How many children are aborted each year on "whims"?

If anything, not allowing the same due process in the decision is embracing animosity toward the rights of men.

women are under no obligation to produce children for men. men have no such rights.


when I oppose abortion, it is for the protection of the fetus, not for the fathers bogus right to have the child born.

Interesting twist, but I see your point and I agree. My idea is *not* to force anything. The idea here is truely in line with protecting the fetus. We all know that there is no way that abortions would become completely illegal in our society. The old "back alley" argument truely has some merrit - not much though. Forcing a woman to have a baby is barbarian. Killing an unborn child is barbarian. Making a decision about the fate of an unborn child is equally barbarian.

You are more that correct. Hopefully this will change. Feminism and recent movements within the US has proven that women and men are indeed equal. It's time to put this on the table and prove it once and for all. Allow the man to claim half ownership of the fetus and allow the man to make half the decision in the process.

This is where we completely disagree. Forcing a descision from the courts will indeed protect more of the fetus. More often than not, a child would be born - which is a good thing.

the process is important too. making the decision up to the father is not the correct process for reducing abortions. the right of the fetus to be born belongs to the fetus, not the mother or the father.

Absolutely! We are spot on in this.

If I had my way, abortions would not exist - period. Then again, I am a little extream in this. Not even for rape or mothers safety. I believe after it attaches itself to the inside of the mother it has become its own entity.

Seeing how it takes two to make, why is it so hard to fathom requiring two to abort?

Since it is too late to take away abortions, we can damn sure make it harder to do.

because abortion doesnt just affect the fetus. it directly affects the mother.

supposing that the fetus has the right to live inside the mother, neither the mother nor the father can take away that right.

supposing the fetus does not have that right, only the mother could make that decision, because its a procedure that is performed on her.

And it is capable of effecting the potential fathers' emotional well being as well.

I can only hope the supreme court has this conclusion.

Disagree again. The procesure is performed *against* an entity or fetus that is only partially of the mother (23 chromosones of her). Unfortunatly, in order to do that procedure, the mother must be invaded and the cord cut from her tissue because it has attached itself.

how much of our debate did you read?

 

[Carl]

how much of our debate did you read?

You contend that I've intentionally ommited relevant context? If so, kindly elaborate. If not, kindly refrain from gratuitous insinuation.

 

[Schweddy]

You contend that I've intentionally ommited relevant context? If so, kindly elaborate. If not, kindly refrain from gratuitous insinuation.

The funny thing is that I think we all would like the same conclusion - less abortions.
We are just going about it differently.

Star, I like the way you think. But, I think I missed the part where I do not think a judge should *force* an abortion on a woman. I was refering to the male aborting *child support*, not the fetus.

Carl, you came up with a good thought; which soul is higher on the chain? The fetus or the mother. I do not know, but I do believe that I nor anyone should make that decision.

 

[FallingPianos]

You contend that I've intentionally ommited relevant context? If so, kindly elaborate. If not, kindly refrain from gratuitous insinuation.

you accused me of making a tautological statement. what I did, was present two possible propositions:

1. abortion doesnt just affect the fetus. it directly affects the mother.The fetus has the right to live inside its mother

2. abortion doesnt just affect the fetus. it directly affects the mother. the the fetus does not have the right to live inside its mother.

and then deduced rights of each parent in either case.

1a. neither parent has the right to abort the fetus.

2a. the mother has the right to abort the fetus.

implicit, was the further deduction that the father does not ever have the right to abort the fetus, given that either proposition 1 or 2 is true.

 

[FallingPianos]

You contend that I've intentionally ommited relevant context? If so, kindly elaborate. If not, kindly refrain from gratuitous insinuation.

I believe I did in the post you replied to. I clearly demonstrated that we were not debating abortion in general, but the fathers rights regarding abortion.

 

[Schweddy]

Star, I like the way you think. But, I think I missed the part where I do not think a judge should *force* an abortion on a woman. I was refering to the male aborting *child support*, not the fetus.

I also wanted to add that the father should be in the descision process.

i.e. Abortion ain't happenin unless both the mother and the father concent. Extenuating circumstances permitted of course. A judge should be present and sign as a mediator/arbitrator of an agreement before an abortion can occur.

 

[Carl]

you accused me of making a tautological statement. what I did, was present two possible propositions:

I accused you of making a gratuitous insinuation that I intentionally took you out of context. It's far too late for you to make amends at this point, particularly after posting twelve vertical inches of irelevant nonsense.

The original citation was a tautology.

In the future, it would behoove you to address the point at hand, rather than engage in vain rhetorical techniques designed to obtain the appearance of domination, rather than advance the discussion.

 

[FallingPianos]

I also wanted to add that the father should be in the descision process.

i.e. Abortion ain't happenin unless both the mother and the father concent. Extenuating circumstances permitted of course. A judge should be present and sign as a mediator/arbitrator of an agreement before an abortion can occur.

the way I see it, abortion can only be the right of the mother, and the right for the fetus to live can only be the right of the fetus. the father has no place.

the child is the parents responsibility, but not their property. whether the child is "his" or "hers" is irrelevant in my view.

 

[Carl]

the father has no place.
...
the child is the parents responsibility, but not their property. whether the child is "his" or "hers" is irrelevant in my view.

The father has no place, yet remains responsible, yet is as irrelevant as the mother.

 

[FallingPianos]

The father has no place, yet remains responsible, yet is as irrelevant as the mother.

the father has no place in making the decision to abort, yes. that doesnt mean he has no place during the pregnancy, such as helping to pay for prenatal and obstetric care.

 

[Carl]

such as helping to pay for prenatal and obstetric care.

In your world, is there any other significant role for the father other than being the life-support system for a wallet?

 

[FallingPianos]

In your world, is there any other significant role for the father other than being the life-support system for a wallet?

yes, consenting to give the child up for adoption.

 

[Schweddy]

the father has no place in making the decision to abort, yes. that doesnt mean he has no place during the pregnancy, such as helping to pay for prenatal and obstetric care.

To me, that idea is pure feminism at its worst. It's ideas like the bolded above that limits our ability to be equal. Not so unkin to racism.