Aborted fetus = Lucky bastard?

[The_Hammer]

um, so does she in that very same regard.. If you don't want a society that puts a different status on the female libido then it's going to have to hit every similar speedbump that gets blamed on men in regards to making choices. You want equality? Welcome to what your bra burning ancestors were fighting for.

While I had wanted to avoid the feminism argument, the point is far more solid if you use it. Simply an expression of equal rights.

However barring feminism my arguement mainly stemmed from the idea that while a child is a fetus it's not considered a person and during that time wouldn't a father be able to say "What ever that 'thing' inside you is I want nothing to do with it.'"? Of course when the child is born this complicates things a bit but wouldn't the fact that the woman chose to not have an abortion also equate it to the fact that she chose to take on the responsibility of parent whereas the father didn't have a choice in the matter?

 

[The_Hammer]

When men can get pregnant, get back to me.

I had nothing to do with the overall design of humans and life isn't fair. Denying care to a living child is something neither parent should be allowed to do.

And yet in the same token it is more acceptable to deny a child their life vs a life without a parent .

"Right we can kill you but we can't let you live unless you have both parents because that's wrong."

 

[Ravi]

While I had wanted to avoid the feminism argument, the point is far more solid if you use it. Simply an expression of equal rights.

However barring feminism my arguement mainly stemmed from the idea that while a child is a fetus it's not considered a person and during that time wouldn't a father be able to say "What ever that 'thing' inside you is I want nothing to do with it.'"? Of course when the child is born this complicates things a bit but wouldn't the fact that the woman chose to not have an abortion also equate it to the fact that she chose to take on the responsibility of parent whereas the father didn't have a choice in the matter?

No.

The absolute best way to avoid all of these complications is to make everyone sign a contract before having sex.

 

[Ravi]

And yet in the same token it is more acceptable to deny a child their life vs a life without a parent .

"Right we can kill you but we can't let you live unless you have both parents because that's wrong."

Again, life isn't fair. If you can figure out how to justify taking away someone's rights for something that isn't born, please do so. I can't quite grasp it myself.

 

[The_Hammer]

However there is a contract signed before sex. It's part of the social contract and it's called implied consent. When you have sex you are agreeing to A) Have sex and B) take any and all responsibility for what happens afterward. The fact that one party of the contract has a massive loophole that the other does not is retarded.The biological fact that women carry the child does not mean that "O well because I carry something for 9 months I now have a massive ammount of leverage over the next 20+ years of your life."

 

[manifold]

Yes but both of those parents don't get to decide whether the child is to be born or not.

Why? Because that's not really practical now is it?

What happens when the two parents disagree? Who arbitrates and renders a final decision? I'll tell you who, the one with the little critter growing inside her, that's who.

 

[Taomon]

And you make assumptions that are not born out by the statistics. One is that aborted children would have been abused if allowed to live which is not supported by any data.

You make the assumption that they would not be abused.

And the notion that legalized abortion reduces child abuse at all. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, child abuse rates started significantly rising within 7 years after legalizing abortion before levelling off again at that new higher rate. It has never returned to that lower rate or anywhere close to it. Even allowing for more stringent reporting requirements, it is believed that accounts for about 1/4 of that rise in child abuse rates, because that rate had already started rising before more stringent reporting requirements were in place. And it is believed that the reported rates of child abuse represent about 1/3 of the true rate of child abuse.

Actually, I never said that legalized abotion reduces child abuse. You are the one putting words in my mouth.

Oddly enough, proponents of legalized killing of our weakest and most vulnerable, insist that changing society from one that protects its weakest and most vulnerable to one that just kills them off instead -represents humanity at it finest.

If you are truly against abortion, then lobby for better education (yes, sex-ed) and stronger social programs.

 

[Ravi]

However there is a contract signed before sex. It's part of the social contract and it's called implied consent. When you have sex you are agreeing to A) Have sex and B) take any and all responsibility for what happens afterward. The fact that one party of the contract has a massive loophole that the other does not is retarded.The biological fact that women carry the child does not mean that "O well because I carry something for 9 months I now have a massive ammount of leverage over the next 20+ years of your life."

It's the living kid that has the leverage. Jesus Christ.

 

[The_Hammer]

Again, life isn't fair. If you can figure out how to justify taking away someone's rights for something that isn't born, please do so. I can't quite grasp it myself.

The point I'm trying to make is not to take away someones rights but that those rights be shared with all responsible parties. And if you are referring to the right of a mother to be taken care of by a father after giving birth that is not her right. It is the right of the child to be cared for by his/her parents. However since it's not even considered a person then why should responsibility for it fall upon only one person. If it's an "it" than a man should be able to decide he doesn't want to take care of "it". If it's a person then abortions should happen because you're killing a person. I do not advocate making abortion illegal. I'm saying that the sharing of the right to choose to not care for a child should be as equal as the responsibility.

 

[manifold]

I'm saying that the sharing of the right to choose to not care for a child should be as equal as the responsibility.

How?

I just don't see any possiblity of achieving this idealistic goal.

No offense, but you arguing a point from inside a theoretical vacuum. A point that gets blown away when exposed to the light and air of reality.

 

[Shogun]

When men can get pregnant, get back to me.

I had nothing to do with the overall design of humans and life isn't fair. Denying care to a living child is something neither parent should be allowed to do.

when women create their own sperm you can get back to me. Like I said, it's a mutual decision at point of zipper. Equality is a bitch sometimes.

 

[Ravi]

It isn't about the mother being taken care of by the father. It is about a child being taken care of by the mother and the father. The mother is no more welcome to abandon a living child than a father is...oh, wait, actually the penalty for child abandonment is much harsher on the mother.

 

[Shogun]

It isn't about the mother being taken care of by the father. It is about a child being taken care of by the mother and the father. The mother is no more welcome to abandon a living child than a father is...oh, wait, actually the penalty for child abandonment is much harsher on the mother.

can you prove this?

 

[AllieBaba]

You make the assumption that they would not be abused.

Actually, I never said that legalized abotion reduces child abuse. You are the one putting words in my mouth.

If you are truly against abortion, then lobby for better education (yes, sex-ed) and stronger social programs.

If better education and stronger social programs were the answer, then child abuse and abortion should have decreased at their advent.

They didn't. Look up the garbage you spout before you spout it. None of it has any basis in fact. It's just rhetoric.

 

[manifold]

According to Hammer (and aparently Shogun too), if a man knocks up a woman, he should be allowed to absolve himself of responsibility for the child by merely saying that he votes to terminate the pregnancy. If she decides to keep the child, he's off the hook because it wasn't his decision.

From one dude to another, that's pretty fucked up dude!

 

[AllieBaba]

Fortunately, the law doesn't see it that way. If the woman decides to keep the baby, dad gets to pay child support.

If the state takes the baby, they both get to pay.

 

[manifold]

Fortunately, the law doesn't see it that way. If the woman decides to keep the baby, dad gets to pay child support.

If the state takes the baby, they both get to pay.

As it should be.

 

[Ravi]

when women create their own sperm you can get back to me. Like I said, it's a mutual decision at point of zipper. Equality is a bitch sometimes.

Please explain to me how equality allows one person to force another to give birth.

 

[Ravi]

can you prove this?

Yep. Mother abandons child at airport. Mother probably gets arrested. Father??? No one ever thinks to track him down and arrest him.

Plus there's always stories about single mothers leaving young children alone to work or go to the laundry mat. If something goes wrong, who abandoned the child? Both of them. Who gets punished? The mother.

 

[The_Hammer]

How?

I just don't see any possiblity of achieving this ideological goal.

No offense, but you arguing a point from inside a theoretical vacuum. A point that gets blown away when exposed to the light and air of reality.

I'm not trying to make the point that it actually is going to or should happen or is even feasable that fathers should be allowed to abandon their children. I would never advocate that, being a victim of such treatment myself. What I'm trying to glean is the why it is the way it is and point out the inconsistency with the current frame of looking at a fetus. FRAME: People are supposed to have equal rights. If a fetus is not considered a person (it is most certainly alive and seperate from it's mother) it is acceptable for the mother to choose to terminate or not terminate her pregnacy with or without the consideration of the potential father. The mother carries the fetus for 9 months, the choice of birthing it results in a live long commitment.

It's hard to carry without bringing feminism into the mix (which I have only done when debating a feminist on it). When you aren't dealing with feminism you still have the address the fact that the frame is not fair, and that a fetus magically become a child when it comes out of the womb, carrying with it the responsibility of parenthood. You can't say "O tought life isn't fair" and still advocate abortion because abortions also disenfranchise the child by taking it's life violating as much it's right to life as a womans right to control what she does with her body. If the fetus isn't a child and can be aborted, then the right should exsist to relinquish parental right and responsibility during the time that it isn't a person and that relinquishing should carry over to when it is a person. You can't have abortions and say the fetus isn't a person without allowing men to not care for their children. You can consider it a child and force responsibility without realizing abortions are killing a child and infringing on it's rights.