Abortion and how men are getting screwed.

[KGB]

What are you blathering about? It is physically attached to the woman, draining her body of nutrients to sustain its life.

oh, so you agree that the unborn child is not a part of the woman's body, excellent. More importantly, you agree that it is also alive. So please explain how you can justify murdering it because of some misguided notion of a "right"....

see this is what the so-called "pro-choice" crowd can never get their minds wrapped around. This unborn child is NOT a part of a woman's body, it is a separate entity that temporarily resides inside it. But it is a alive & it is human.

It is attached to her body, it is a part of her body until it is born. What do you call an umbilical cord?

an unborn child's feeding tube. The child isn't a part of her body since it does not share the exact same genetics as the mother. It is a separate human being that is being nourished by the mother.

 

[KGB]

Murdering?

So, it's alive, what's your point? People kill ants all the time, and they are alive. Ever use antibacterial soap? Clearly, being alive is not relevant, unless you're an extreme Jainist or something.

So it's human, what's your point? Is that both a necessary and a sufficient criterion? What about pulling the plug on the braindead?

Do you even read what you write? According to the law, taking a human life is a capital offense....it's a little more than squishing an ant....

 

[varelse]

The child isn't a part of her body since it does not share the exact same genetics as the mother.

Chimera (genetics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to mention newly transplanted limbs....

 

[varelse]

Murdering?

So, it's alive, what's your point? People kill ants all the time, and they are alive. Ever use antibacterial soap? Clearly, being alive is not relevant, unless you're an extreme Jainist or something.

So it's human, what's your point? Is that both a necessary and a sufficient criterion? What about pulling the plug on the braindead?

Do you even read what you write? According to the law, taking a human life is a capital offense

That's not accurate.

Firstly, not all homicide is criminal- see self-defense laws, manslaughter, or abortion; secondly, not all places have capital punishment

 

[KGB]

The child isn't a part of her body since it does not share the exact same genetics as the mother.

Chimera (genetics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to mention newly transplanted limbs....

we aren't talking about transplanted limbs which are clearly organs. Last time I checked, a transplanted hand doesn't come with an independent brain, stomach, nervous system, etc....

we are talking about an unborn child that share genetic traits with both the mother & father. It is an independent human being that merely resides inside the mother's body until it is properly developed to live outside the womb....

 

[KGB]

Murdering?

So, it's alive, what's your point? People kill ants all the time, and they are alive. Ever use antibacterial soap? Clearly, being alive is not relevant, unless you're an extreme Jainist or something.

So it's human, what's your point? Is that both a necessary and a sufficient criterion? What about pulling the plug on the braindead?

Do you even read what you write? According to the law, taking a human life is a capital offense

That's not accurate.

Firstly, not all homicide is criminal- see self-defense laws, manslaughter, or abortion; secondly, not all places have capital punishment

self defense isn't homicide. Abortion is infanticide which is barbaric. Manslaughter is a crime.

In the case of abortion, it is premeditated & done with malicious intent in most cases. I can understand life of the mother in jeopardy as a reason for abortion, but for birth control is a sign of pure barbarism...

 

[OKTexas]

Murdering?

So, it's alive, what's your point? People kill ants all the time, and they are alive. Ever use antibacterial soap? Clearly, being alive is not relevant, unless you're an extreme Jainist or something.

So it's human, what's your point? Is that both a necessary and a sufficient criterion? What about pulling the plug on the braindead?

Do you even read what you write? According to the law, taking a human life is a capital offense....it's a little more than squishing an ant....

What is it that you folks don't understand that this a theoretical discussion of unequal rights under current law? It has nothing to do with the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate.

 

[varelse]

The child isn't a part of her body since it does not share the exact same genetics as the mother.

Chimera (genetics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to mention newly transplanted limbs....

we aren't talking about transplanted limbs which are clearly organs. Last time I checked, a transplanted hand doesn't come with an independent brain, stomach, nervous system, etc....

Neither does a blastocyst

a braindead person does, as does a dead person


clearly the mere existence of such systems is not sufficient for the body to be considered a moral agent

we are talking about an unborn child that share genetic traits with both the mother & father.

not necessarily

or would clones not have any rights for some reason?

It is an independent human being that merely resides inside the mother's body until it is properly developed to live outside the womb....

and? It's alive and human. Is that sufficient? Can we pull the plug on a braindead body or must we keep it alive forever?

 

[KGB]

Murdering?

So, it's alive, what's your point? People kill ants all the time, and they are alive. Ever use antibacterial soap? Clearly, being alive is not relevant, unless you're an extreme Jainist or something.

So it's human, what's your point? Is that both a necessary and a sufficient criterion? What about pulling the plug on the braindead?

Do you even read what you write? According to the law, taking a human life is a capital offense....it's a little more than squishing an ant....

What is it that you folks don't understand that this a theoretical discussion of unequal rights under current law? It has nothing to do with the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate.

the association is implied with the thread title. You can't separate the debate. Especially given the fact that the law as currently written is grossly negligent in recognizing the father's rights in the matter. However, to even have the theoretical discussion, the underlying philosophy has to be recognized....

 

[koshergrl]

Your posting style is really annoying (val). I tend to disregard coy skipping about....you should stick with framing a thought and presenting it, instead.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Lets start with a guy that admits, "I stuck my pencil in this woman and she got pregnant."
So now he says, I want there to be an abortion. She says no way.
My question is: why doesn't his obligation end right there? If "as women declare" that both men and women are equally responcible for a pregnancy then why don't men have equal say in the disposition of the event?

If you're against abortions don't have one. Men have no say in whether a woman gets one or not. It is her body, respect that, and move on.

I never thought I would see such a large group of people telling a woman what she can and can't do with her her body. It is pathetic, and it really reflects poorly on us as a society.

 

[KGB]

Neither does a blastocyst

a braindead person does, as does a dead person

clearly the mere existence of such systems is not sufficient for the body to be considered a moral agent

can't really be a functional human being without them can you....

not necessarily

or would clones not have any rights for some reason?

speaking that human clones do not currently exist, this line of thinking is frivolous

and? It's alive and human. Is that sufficient? Can we pull the plug on a braindead body or must we keep it alive forever?

YES it is sufficient. Since most unborn children are not brain dead in the womb, the implied comparison is ridiculous.

 

[OKTexas]

Do you even read what you write? According to the law, taking a human life is a capital offense....it's a little more than squishing an ant....

What is it that you folks don't understand that this a theoretical discussion of unequal rights under current law? It has nothing to do with the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate.

the association is implied with the thread title. You can't separate the debate. Especially given the fact that the law as currently written is grossly negligent in recognizing the father's rights in the matter. However, to even have the theoretical discussion, the underlying philosophy has to be recognized....

The law has made the underlying philosophy moot, the discussion in on the unequal rights given the individuals involved.

 

[koshergrl]

Sorry, she can't kill babies with her body. She can have all the stupid sex she wants. But no killing, that's where we'll step in to direct her.

 

[varelse]

Do you even read what you write? According to the law, taking a human life is a capital offense

That's not accurate.

Firstly, not all homicide is criminal- see self-defense laws, manslaughter, or abortion; secondly, not all places have capital punishment

self defense isn't homicide.

It is if you kill your attacker.

ho·mi·cide

noun \ˈhä-mə-ˌsīd, ˈhō-\
Definition of HOMICIDE

1
: a person who kills another

2
: a killing of one human being by another

Homicide - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


Homicide (Latin: homicidium, Latin: homo human being + Latin: caedere to cut, kill) is an act of a human killing another human.[1] While homicide is commonly thought of as criminal, it refers to the act in general, which is sometimes legal.[citation needed] Murder is one type of homicide, and so are capital punishment and the use of deadly force by police
Homicide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abortion is infanticide which is barbaric.

wrong again

in·fan·ti·cide

noun \in-ˈfan-tə-ˌsīd\
1
: the killing of an infant

2
[Late Latin infanticida, from Latin infant-, infans + -i- + -cida -cide] : one who kills an infant
Infanticide - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

an infant is a child in the stage of life known as infancy, which the embryology book I have in my lap defines as '...the first period of extrauterine life, roughly the first year after birth' [emphasis in original]
source:The Developing Human:Clinically Oriented Embryology, 5th Edition, Moore and Persaud page 6

 

[KGB]

Your posting style is really annoying (val). I tend to disregard coy skipping about....you should stick with framing a thought and presenting it, instead.

then exercise your right to ignore it....

 

[KGB]

What is it that you folks don't understand that this a theoretical discussion of unequal rights under current law? It has nothing to do with the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate.

the association is implied with the thread title. You can't separate the debate. Especially given the fact that the law as currently written is grossly negligent in recognizing the father's rights in the matter. However, to even have the theoretical discussion, the underlying philosophy has to be recognized....

The law has made the underlying philosophy moot, the discussion in on the unequal rights given the individuals involved.

then what is the point of having this theoretical discussion? The two do not exist in a vacuum....

 

[editec]

It's simple, at this point the woman has all the options, the man has none. Why should the man not have the option of relinquishing all moral and financial responsibility, just as the woman can through abortion, if he has no desire to be a father?

(My bold)

The "options" are two: Carry the fetus to term, or not. The man's options are similar: Possibly impregnate a woman, or not. The mechanics are v. well understood - standard coitus, when the woman is fertile, may result in a pregnancy.

Couples that want sex without pregnancy have recourse to condoms, birth control pills, various spermicides, cervical caps, abstinence, & a couple more options that may be against the T&C of the board. (This is a family board?) Anyway, the options are pretty well understood, assuming that the couple isn't a couple of children.

I'll pass over "moral" responsibility, the case you're talking about is apparently simply a male who wants the pleasure without the responsibility. The "financial" responsibility - the State has an interest in assuring the stability of childrearing - that's where new citizens come from. & the State has a vested interest in its own continuity.

& thus the State WILL intervene to assure that the father (& occasionally the mother) pays child support. That discussion is either earlier in this thread or another related one. The State has always had this interest - but just as technology now allows women to avoid pregnancy, so too the State can now actively pursue "deadbeat dads" & ID them, & pursue them for child support. That's one of the prices we pay for "civilization", I suppose.

You can't just "light out for the Territories" any more, to coin a phrase. Welcome to the blessed 2013, Anno Dominae.

Interest of the State, got it. If child bearing is in the interest of the State, should the State not have an interest in compelling the woman to carry to term? If the answer is no, then why does the State have the authority to place the man into involuntary servitude? He has committed no crime and according to the 14th Amendment a person can only be placed into involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime.

I believe that the legal theory behind that is that men are responsible for the mess they make.

And while I agree that men are not given the right to demand that the woman abort and that is sort of unfair, I also think that the alternative (forcing that women to have an abortion) would be an even more unfair.

If you are seeking complete GENDER FAIRNESS when it comes to the issue of pregnancy and the responsibily of children?



Mother nature made such gender neutrality impossible

 

[varelse]

can't really be a functional human being without them can you....

So you admit that a blastocyst, a zygote, or a first-trimester foetus isn't a 'functional human being'?

speaking that human clones do not currently exist, this line of thinking is frivolous

Actually, it's a legitimate extrapolation of the logical implications of your argument. That's how educated, intelligent discussion of things goes.

YES it is sufficient. Since most unborn children are not brain dead in the womb, the implied comparison is ridiculous.

Actually, they are, in the early stages of development, as they possess no mind, no awareness, no consciousness- at least not in the early stages, when the brain structures associated with the mind, awareness, and consciousness have not yet formed.

You might want to familiarize yourself with human development if you want to take part in these discussions. It's been a while since I studied myself, which is why I had to refer to my embryology textbook for some of the technical details on timing and such, but you should at least learn the basics.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

That's not accurate.

Firstly, not all homicide is criminal- see self-defense laws, manslaughter, or abortion; secondly, not all places have capital punishment

self defense isn't homicide.

It is if you kill your attacker.

ho·mi·cide

noun \ˈhä-mə-ˌsīd, ˈhō-\
Definition of HOMICIDE

1
: a person who kills another

2
: a killing of one human being by another

Homicide - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


Homicide (Latin: homicidium, Latin: homo human being + Latin: caedere to cut, kill) is an act of a human killing another human.[1] While homicide is commonly thought of as criminal, it refers to the act in general, which is sometimes legal.[citation needed] Murder is one type of homicide, and so are capital punishment and the use of deadly force by police
Homicide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abortion is infanticide which is barbaric.

wrong again

in·fan·ti·cide

noun \in-ˈfan-tə-ˌsīd\
1
: the killing of an infant

2
[Late Latin infanticida, from Latin infant-, infans + -i- + -cida -cide] : one who kills an infant
Infanticide - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

an infant is a child in the stage of life known as infancy, which the embryology book I have in my lap defines as '...the first period of extrauterine life, roughly the first year after birth' [emphasis in original]
source:The Developing Human:Clinically Oriented Embryology, 5th Edition, Moore and Persaud page 6

A baby has to take a breath outside of its mothers womb for the "infant" to be considered alive. Therefore it is not homicide, manslaughter, murder, infanticide, or any other name you want to label it when it is aborted within the first trimester. Furthermore, if the infant is too far along the doctor will not abort it.