Aborted fetus = Lucky bastard?

[The_Hammer]

Yep. She has the choice to abort and he has the choice to not have sex. Sucks, I know, but you cannot force another person to bear a child.

Once the child is alive, both parents are responsible for it. Before it is born, one body is responsible for it.

So you're saying that a woman isn't responsibly for spreading her legs because she can hit the "cancel" button but a man is responsible right from the start, doesn't have any responsibility, and then is suddenly liable again if a woman decides to have a kid?

I wouldn't advocate forcing anyone to bear a child, but in like manner you can't force someone to care for one either. The difference in span is REDICULOUS. You bear a kid for 9 months. Then you take care of it for 20 years (much more work). Because you have to do .0375% of the job part of the time, you suddenly have say over who does the other 99.9% of the work (because as we've established the woman chooses whether or not she wants to do her share by aborting or not) and whether or not someone else should do their share. That's bullshit. There's not leverage in that. It doesn't work. If a woman has the option to not be a parent, the man has the option too. If neither of them have it, then neither of them have it. Simple as that. Simply because the child is extant (by the mothers choice) does not mean the option is eliminated. A woman can not take away a mans option to refuse to care for his child because she wants to be a parent and decided not to abort.

 

[Care4all]

NOT Final answer, according to the genetic makeup of the child that shares his DNA.


Again, you ignore that the same can be said when a woman unzips her own pants and makes the exact same decision to fuck. If you wanna be callous about the options of men then expect the same regarding the options of women. I realize this EQUALITY thing is hard to grasp for those used to crying "my body" since the 60s but it really is a fact that a fetus is not merely "your body" to kill as you please or keep as long as the court can force a man to pay child support. sorry. Hate to burst your vagina monologue bubble but if a drunk driver can be put away for manslaughter for killing a fetus then you have no logical claim to that fetus as your own body. Hence, the valid appeal to the paternal rights of men regarding THEIR shared child.

That simply IS NOT THE LAW....so, no one in this country sees it that way legally, and they never have....even before Roe v wade, the woman who chose to abort was never (and will never be), held responsible for manslaughter of her unborn child if she aborted it, in its early stages....(most abortions occur in the embryo stage, not even the fetus stage in pregnancy)....in this country. If the child to be, is viable...then that is another story perhaps...?

Only the Doctor has been held responsible if he performed one while it was against the Law to do such, like in some states before Roe v Wade....so what is your "manslaughter" point that you were trying to make Shogun?

Maybe it is YOUR kind of attitude, that makes abortions an option to women?

Maybe if men, really took the responsibility of fatherhood upon their own shoulders as they ONCE DID for the MOST PART in the past... and offer up marriage to the woman that was going to bear HIS child (or at least offer up the full financial and emotional support needed in the rearing of his child)?

then the consequences of sticking his peepee in a woman, would give second thought to him.... Why should men give up this responsibility, this duty to their own blood and why should their be a stop to a society that brands the other dead beat dads with the scarlet letter? This seems to be what you want, an exoneration from supporting your child if BORN to the mother...?

This DOES NOT help reduce abortions...this little "attitude" of yours and you may think you are helping with your movement or cause to eliminate legal abortions but I can assure you, you are doing the OPPOSITE.

I am not even CLOSE to being a feminist , so you can pipe down on that little "angle" of yours in your debate with me....it serves no purpose, I can assure you!

And btw, there is no EQUALITY in this situation for the man, mainly because the terms can never be equal....not because of feminism, but because the man can NEVER, EVER be pregnant for 9 months....he can never be the host for child bearing... simple as that...take it up with God on why this is the case..... not me????



Care

 

[Shogun]

i never said "if the mother" kills the fetus did I?

A drunken driver was sentenced on Monday to 16 years in prison for manslaughter in the death of a baby who was delivered prematurely after an auto accident.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E0D91530F930A15753C1A960958260


silly womenz




and spare me the "it can never be equal" bullshit. You want equality well here you go.

 

[Ravi]

i never said "if the mother" kills the fetus did I?

A drunken driver was sentenced on Monday to 16 years in prison for manslaughter in the death of a baby who was delivered prematurely after an auto accident.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E0D91530F930A15753C1A960958260


silly womenz




and spare me the "it can never be equal" bullshit. You want equality well here you go.

Sweetie, you're the one that's crying that it will never be equal.

Suck it up. Or get pregnant and we'll discuss the issue again.

 

[Ravi]

Hammer, my advice to you: celibacy might be a good option for you.

 

[The_Hammer]

Hammer, my advice to you: celibacy might be a good option for you.

Sorry I need to reproduce so my kids can combat the stupid and help other people from catching it.

I just hope you realize why I'm arguing this point. I've stated it twice. If you choose not to look at something, it doesn't mean that it's actually not there.

 

[Ravi]

Sorry I need to reproduce so my kids can combat the stupid and help other people from catching it.

I just hope you realize why I'm arguing this point. I've stated it twice. If you choose not to look at something, it doesn't mean that it's actually not there.

Your point isn't valid. It has nothing to do with equality. It has nothing to do with feminism. The fact of the matter is, each and every one of us is master of our domain. Shogun can drink the 1984 koolaid all he wants and pretend that equality = forcing someone else to give birth. He's wrong. You're wrong. Guess what? I can't scratch my balls! You can't give birth! I can't force you to stop scratching your balls any more than you can force me to give birth. Deal with it. Just because we are different doesn't mean that you get to tell me what to do.

Oh, and if you are a woman. Guess what? You can't tell me what to do with my body either.

 

[The_Hammer]

Your point isn't valid. It has nothing to do with equality. It has nothing to do with feminism. The fact of the matter is, each and every one of us is master of our domain. Shogun can drink the 1984 koolaid all he wants and pretend that equality = forcing someone else to give birth. He's wrong. You're wrong. Guess what? I can't scratch my balls! You can't give birth! I can't force you to stop scratching your balls any more than you can force me to give birth. Deal with it. Just because we are different doesn't mean that you get to tell me what to do.

Oh, and if you are a woman. Guess what? You can't tell me what to do with my body either.

You seem to be going around in circles repeating the same point over and over and over again. My argument is that if someone shouldn't be forced to carry a child and birth it, they shouldn't have to be forced to care for it period. If they choose or have a right to terminate a pregnancy (effectively ending their potential as a parent) then one should have the same option to not parent. Your argument is internally inconsistent. "Everyone has domain over their own body" except when its a man who has to care for a child he might not have wanted, which effectively negates your argument to personal domain. If one. by your argument doesn't have personal domain, then why wouldn't couldn't someone told, "You can't have an abortion"? (note: I'm not supportive of that idea nor would I include it in my argument, I'm simply stating it to show the inconsistency of your argument).

 

[Ravi]

Okay, in a way you are correct. You cannot be forced to take care of a living child. You can leave it in a dumpster. You can choose not to work so the government can't deduct child support from your wages. You can leave the country. You can go to jail. No one can force you to support a living child.

IMO, the bigger POS is the parent of either sex that abuses a living child by ignoring it as you are suggesting as your due. Much worse than aborting something that isn't even a living, breathing human being.

 

[Shogun]

Sweetie, you're the one that's crying that it will never be equal.

Suck it up. Or get pregnant and we'll discuss the issue again.

Thats a load of crap. I'm the one who has been reminding you vagina-mongers that both parties make a decision at point of zipper AND that the DNA of the fetus validates paternal perogative. Go learn how to create your own sperm and then come back to make another fragile post.


ps.. what the hell does 1984 have to do with paternal rights anyway? oh, I gotcha.. anything that keeps you from having to acknowledge the genetic reality of the fetus MUST be like a whole string of boogeyman antagonists.. I know I know.. I might as well be suggesting hogtying gals up into babymills just because I can fathom equality beyond your eve enlser, lilith fair jeep and softball fantasy.

 

[The_Hammer]

Okay, in a way you are correct. You cannot be forced to take care of a living child. You can leave it in a dumpster. You can choose not to work so the government can't deduct child support from your wages. You can leave the country. You can go to jail. No one can force you to support a living child.

IMO, the bigger POS is the parent of either sex that abuses a living child by ignoring it as you are suggesting as your due. Much worse than aborting something that isn't even a living, breathing human being.

Abandonment isn't the issue. A fetus is a living human being. It's just not a person (according to your argument). I emplore you to please look up the definition of alive and human being. A fetus fits those categories. Personage is the only thing brought into question.

The threat of jail and of government wage garnering is a method of forcing. If you someone think that it isn't well I can't say anything else on it. I'm not saying that you can not or shouldn't be forced to take care of a living child. My argument is (for the third time) that if a child is a child after birth, and being one immediately confers responsibility of the parties involved, then that means that the contract of responsibility was signed at the sexual at and fulfilled at conception. Meaning that the child was a child the whole time and thus abortion is wrong. If the child is a non-person while a fetus and subject to termination by one party, this right to termination (or the lack of responsibility resulting thereof) is an open option to both parties.

 

[bennylava]

So the woman has the right to abort against the father's wishes until it has a heartbeat? But after that, the man should be able to veto her decision, Shogun?

 

[mattskramer]

You have a really really really bad habit of equating evidence with definitive proof.

A crazy story about some old lady's near death experience can be submitted as a piece of evidence.


But that wasn't even my point. My point is that just because you are not aware of any such "evidence," doesn't mean none exists.

Same logic on the phantom WMD's. Just because none were found, doesn't prove, AS A MATTER OF FACT, that they never existed. It might be highly highly probable that they never existed, but it's still a thing that can never be proven as a fact.

I side with Shogun.

In my opinion “Near Death Experiences” are simply neurobiological reactions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...th11.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/11/ixworld.html

Taking your reasoning a step further, it is possible that unicorns and leprechauns exist. Just because they have not been captured does not mean that they are not around. Hey. Leprechauns might have invented “inviso power” and be standing right beside us invisible at this minute laughing silently at us.

 

[Shogun]

So the woman has the right to abort against the father's wishes until it has a heartbeat? But after that, the man should be able to veto her decision, Shogun?

such is the nature of the great Shogun Abortion compromise. You gals can't have your cake and eat it too just because you are the gender that carries a baby to term. A fetus is NOT your body and if you expect the pro life crowd to give a little then guess what that means for the vagina monologue crowd.

 

[Shogun]

I side with Shogun.

In my opinion “Near Death Experiences” are simply neurobiological reactions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...th11.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/11/ixworld.html

Taking your reasoning a step further, it is possible that unicorns and leprechauns exist. Just because they have not been captured does not mean that they are not around. Hey. Leprechauns might have invented “inviso power” and be standing right beside us invisible at this minute laughing silently at us.

hehehe.. THEY LAUGH AT US!

I agree on the neurobiological reactions bit. Very jacobs latterish. or, of you are into more obscure referances, An Occurance at Owl Creek Bridge. You konw what looks like a white light at the end of a tunnel?

An operating lamp combined with heavy anesthesia and copious physical shock.

 

[bennylava]

You gals can't have your cake and eat it too just because you are the gender that carries a baby to term. A fetus is NOT your body and if you expect the pro life crowd to give a little then guess what that means for the vagina monologue crowd.

And yet, the fetus depends on the mother's body. Not only that, but you can't force someone to take care of the baby inside of them.

The vagina monologues? What is that?

 

[Shogun]

I guess the same can be said about making a parent care for their child. It's a good thing we don't have any laws about that.


I mean.. a kid depends on a parent and all.

 

[bennylava]

Good luck with all that. What are you going to imprison pregnant women who don't take their vitamins and drink and smoke?

 

[Shogun]

court ordered prenatal care (hey, paid for by the father even!) and status health reports is probs easier than the clink after, eh?


I mean, we have no problem letting a man know that there are possible serious repercussions for unzipping the pants, right? After having had EVERY method of birth control, from education to zygote grace period, and given the very real fact that a fetus has combined DIFFERENT dna with a nervous system function detectable by heartbeat, can you impress upon me why a mother should not face at the very least the same penalty as a drunk driver?

 

[Ravi]

Hammer, I was just pointing out that you can make all the laws you want but you can't actually force someone to support a child. You can punish them for not doing it but you can't make them do it. And you can't force a woman to give birth or force her to have an abortion. I suppose you could strap her to a gurney and force feed her for nine months or shoot her with a tranquilizer dart and perform the abortion...

Your argument that sex is a contract of responsibility is just silly. I don't know about you, but I've never actually met someone that only has sex for the sole purpose of reproduction. Though I suppose we could legislate that. Or perhaps have everyone sign a contract before hopping into bed. hmmm....I'm kind of partial to the idea of sterile prostitutes for anyone wishing to engage in recreational sex...what do you think?

I thought you were the one that pointed out that men shouldn't be held responsible for the upkeep of unwanted children. If it wasn't you, my bad. The more I think of it though, the more I like the idea. It's probably better for a child in the long run to have a sperm donor that just didn't want to have kids than to have a "father" that resents him/her for eighteen years.

Perhaps it's time to change society. Marriage has worked out well for a long time but it really isn't necessary any more now that women, at least in the US, are free to hold jobs and raise children. The breadwinner aspect of fatherhood has become rather moot.

Shogun's argument that sharing his DNA somehow gives him final say in the subject is interesting but stupid. Maybe his girlfriend can give him the aborted fetus?