Abortion and how men are getting screwed.

[KGB]

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[/QUOTE]

currently, the law also states that abortion is okay right up until the point of birth. Are you really trying to tell me that a unborn child two weeks away from delivery is not an infant....the fact is, abortion is infanticide & barbaric. Any wonder why our society has degenerated to this point...

 

[KGB]

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

it is a separate genetic human being at the moment of conception. Does that clarify it for you....

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

following down paths of non-existent circumstances is not a sign of intelligent discussion, but if you wish to believe that, I won't further disabuse you from your irrational thinking...

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.

I learned everything I needed to know about the subject the second I held my newborn daughter for the first time. Perhaps you should undertake some practical experience if you wish to be versed in the basics & be able to engage in these discussions....

But back to your point, most newborns aren't mentally aware of their surroundings & usually have no recollection of the experience.

 

[varelse]

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....

Source? No biology textbook or definition of 'alive' in any scientific or educated source ever referred to respiration as a criterion. Religious doctrines are not acceptable in intelligent discussions of biology, if you're thinking of citing one.

Are you really trying to tell me that a unborn child two weeks away from delivery is not an infant....

It is not, until it is outside of the mother's body. Until then it's a foetus.

It's kinda like the difference between magma and lava.

Source is same as above.


Why can't you be honest when making your argument, if you have a rational argument to make?

 

[OKTexas]

(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

Society has made the determination that the woman can make all the decisions regarding the pregnancy, yet they give the man no options at all. The woman can terminate the pregnancy and thus all parental responsibility without his consent, why shouldn't he be able to terminate his responsibilities without her consent?

 

[varelse]

it is a separate genetic human being at the moment of conception. Does that clarify it for you....

It is a separate human being from the moment of fertilization that is, with the formation of the zygote. Pregnancy[Implantation/impregnation] comes later.

Many- arguably most, depending on which studies/estimates you accept- humans never implant, meaning most conceptions never result in pregnancy. A small minority of conceptions result in a live birth to begin with, even before induced miscarriages [abortion] enter the picture

I learned everything I needed to know about the subject the second I held my newborn daughter for the first time

So you argue from emotion, like a typical partisan hack, instead of learning the most basic facts about the subject. That explains everything- and makes it clear that treating you as an intelligent person capable of rational and honest discourse is a waste of time.

But back to your point, most newborns aren't mentally aware of their surroundings & usually have no recollection of the experience.

They are aware of and respond to their surroundings. Whether they form long-term memories they recall 20 years later is irrelevant- most people form no such memories of their daily surroundings and events. Those who do are said to have 'photographic memory' and suffer as a result.

I doubt, of course, you've ever taken time to familiarize yourselves with the basics of human memory...

 

[editec]

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

Society has made the determination that the woman can make all the decisions regarding the pregnancy, yet they give the man no options at all.

Yes, that is true.

The woman can terminate the pregnancy and thus all parental responsibility without his consent, why shouldn't he be able to terminate his responsibilities without her consent?

I believe that the current POV is that men ONLY have the right to make the responsible decision by NOT having sex with the women in the first place.

IF after making the decision to play the BABY MAYBE mystery dance with the woman, IF a pregnancy occurs, THEN the man is OUT OF THE DECISION MAKING LOOP.

Unfair, you say?

I quite agree.

Mother nature made a FAIR GENDER NEUTRAL decision impossible.

If a man does NOT want to take the risk?

His only choice is to NOT TAKE the risk in the first place.

 

[nitroz]

Because men don't get pregnant, that's why. They have no say in whether the woman has an abortion, because he isn't pregnant, and the pregnancy doesn't involve his body. She gets to make the decision.

If he has made it clear from the start that he doesn't want a baby, and the woman agrees, if she gets pregnant and then demands child support, I don't like that. Because I do think that men should have the option of backing out of fatherhood, much like women can opt out of mother hood by having an abortion.

Yeah, the man should have the option to back out of child support if he and her mutually agree to not having a kid before hand.

Some women just child support as an excuse for some kind of undeserved income.

 

[editec]

Yeah, the man should have the option to back out of child support if he and her mutually agree to not having a kid before hand.

I suppose that might happen occasionally.

When was the last time you, in the heat of the moment, stopped long enough to forge such a verbal contact?

I confess that when my blood is hot, I am not doing much long range planning.

You?

 

[velvtacheeze]

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?

It's not his body that's pregnant. He doesn't get a say over abortion. But he does have to get the checkbook out for at least the next 18 years if there is no abortion. I see as totally fair and reasonable. If the loser guy didn't want a baby, then he could've avoided one by not having sex. He would have no one to blame but himself.

 

[koshergrl]

The same reasoning goes for the woman. If she didn't want a baby, then she could've avoided it by not having sex.

Once the baby is made, whoops, too late to do anything.

 

[koshergrl]

we don't get to kill for the sake of convenience. Even if you're inconvenienced for a full 9 months.

I have neighbors I absolutely loathe. Their yard overlooks my yard, and so they see everything that goes on here and apparently they don't watch tv, but spend all their waking hours obsessing over what I'm doing....whether I'm maintaining the yard to their specifications, picking up after the dogs, maintaining adequate silence so the sick old man can sleep all hours of the day. Do I think my life would be better if they just died and went away? HELL YEAH. Do I get to kill them? Nope.

 

[koshergrl]

However I am looking for a loophole, if you think of any.

 

[koshergrl]

Right now I'm leaning towards, "he was sick and she was miserable, so really we're doing them a favor."

 

[hoosier88]

...
(My bold)

...

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.

(My bold)

Women could be compelled to carry to term in the old USSR. But we don't live there - nobody does, anymore. The US State has an interest in the well-being of the fetus/child - but forcible childbirth isn't included. Instead, we have public schools, health clinics, TANF, WIC, food stamps, & a host of related - more in the way of support & encouragement than force.

In the case of accidental impregnation, the State isn't forcing the couple to have sex. & so your argument doesn't apply. The State reasons that one of the parents (or possibly both) is obliged to provide support for the child. You can argue that's a "taking", but the courts have yet to accept that argument.

Meantime, if you don't want to become a father but want to have sex, take precautions against impregnation. Or abstain, or take some other measure. The State will clean up the mess, if pregnancy occurs & the fetus is carried to term. But you probably won't like the outcome; the State can be harsh when our interests are thwarted.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

For all those who are soooooo hell-bent on telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body when she voluntarily lays down and has sex. Well that is not the case every time. I have one word for you: RAPE! You anti-abortionists really are going to sit there and tell a woman who was savagely raped, "Ohhh well, sorry you got raped, but guess what, you are going to have a constant reminder for the rest of your life." What if that was your MOTHER that got raped? Or your SISTER? Or your WIFE? Every single one of you never thought about that huh? Shame on you for telling a woman she HAS to carry a baby against her will. Absolutely PATHETIC!!

 

[OKTexas]

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

Yes, that is true.

The woman can terminate the pregnancy and thus all parental responsibility without his consent, why shouldn't he be able to terminate his responsibilities without her consent?

I believe that the current POV is that men ONLY have the right to make the responsible decision by NOT having sex with the women in the first place.

IF after making the decision to play the BABY MAYBE mystery dance with the woman, IF a pregnancy occurs, THEN the man is OUT OF THE DECISION MAKING LOOP.

Unfair, you say?

I quite agree.

Mother nature made a FAIR GENDER NEUTRAL decision impossible.

If a man does NOT want to take the risk?

His only choice is to NOT TAKE the risk in the first place.

Your logic about not taking the risk in the first place could apply to both genders and using it should give the State a say in what either party would do. Why do you dodge the question on involuntary servitude? The way the system is set up she has the ability to abort her responsibility or force him into as many as 26 years of involuntary servitude. Where is the equal treatment under the law, of as Maobama says, where's the fairness?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

(My bold)

Women could be compelled to carry to term in the old USSR. But we don't live there - nobody does, anymore. The US State has an interest in the well-being of the fetus/child - but forcible childbirth isn't included. Instead, we have public schools, health clinics, TANF, WIC, food stamps, & a host of related - more in the way of support & encouragement than force.

In the case of accidental impregnation, the State isn't forcing the couple to have sex. & so your argument doesn't apply. The State reasons that one of the parents (or possibly both) is obliged to provide support for the child. You can argue that's a "taking", but the courts have yet to accept that argument.

Meantime, if you don't want to become a father but want to have sex, take precautions against impregnation. Or abstain, or take some other measure. The State will clean up the mess, if pregnancy occurs & the fetus is carried to term. But you probably won't like the outcome; the State can be harsh when our interests are thwarted.

That last sentence sounds like one that would fit in nicely in the old USSR. Good job comrade.

 

[hoosier88]

(My bold)

Women could be compelled to carry to term in the old USSR. But we don't live there - nobody does, anymore. The US State has an interest in the well-being of the fetus/child - but forcible childbirth isn't included. Instead, we have public schools, health clinics, TANF, WIC, food stamps, & a host of related - more in the way of support & encouragement than force.

In the case of accidental impregnation, the State isn't forcing the couple to have sex. & so your argument doesn't apply. The State reasons that one of the parents (or possibly both) is obliged to provide support for the child. You can argue that's a "taking", but the courts have yet to accept that argument.

Meantime, if you don't want to become a father but want to have sex, take precautions against impregnation. Or abstain, or take some other measure. The State will clean up the mess, if pregnancy occurs & the fetus is carried to term. But you probably won't like the outcome; the State can be harsh when our interests are thwarted.

That last sentence sounds like one that would fit in nicely in the old USSR. Good job comrade.

(My bold)

(laughing) No, the bad ol' USSR needed more live births (the FRS too). There was a lot of state support for parents & newborns. Abortions were against state policy, although health care was available.

No, I was emphasizing that we collectively are the State - & that if you really want to change the laws allocating child support, for instance, you'll have to convince your fellow citizens that your alternative makes sense & protects our interest in the continuity of the polity.

Nice job of misdirection, though, tovarich. Everything for the great Rodina, nyet?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

we don't get to kill for the sake of convenience. Even if you're inconvenienced for a full 9 months.

I have neighbors I absolutely loathe. Their yard overlooks my yard, and so they see everything that goes on here and apparently they don't watch tv, but spend all their waking hours obsessing over what I'm doing....whether I'm maintaining the yard to their specifications, picking up after the dogs, maintaining adequate silence so the sick old man can sleep all hours of the day. Do I think my life would be better if they just died and went away? HELL YEAH. Do I get to kill them? Nope.

This is a false analogy, and your argument fails accordingly.

Abortion is not ‘murder,’ where killing your elderly neighbors clearly is. There is also no evidence that abortion is motivated solely by a desire for ‘convenience.’

 

[novasteve]

So why do some women use the term "found myself pregnant"?That seems to be absolving you of responsibility for your voluntary actions.