Aborted fetus = Lucky bastard?

[The_Hammer]

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?

Read up on John Lockes the social contract. It describes how pretty much every social interaction (ie anything we do with anyone other than ourselves) is basically an agreement (contract) with accepted ends and recognized terms. For example, if some were to stick our their hand, most people would expect me to shake it. If I were to punch someone in the face and then procede to beat them I'd be ignoring or choosing not to participate in their terms of gesture (I know it seems asinine but really everything we do with one another that requires higher brain function works this way). Sex is the same thing. When consent is given (or implied) two people agree to pleasure one another with each others bodies and accept responsibility for any actions that occur there after. If they use protection or even if they have unprotected sex an nothing (no pregnancy or STD) happens then the terms of the contract are fulfilled, he and or she has an orgasm, and there is no harm no foul. But if a child is concieved the point I'm trying to make is that the responsibility for child care begins immediately on both parties. Abortions throw the balance off by giving one party greater terms than the other to leave without providing the same out for the other party. In terms of practicality, we all understand that women carry the baby and have the "right" to abort while men have no say in the matter. However when arguing against abortions one takes the contract of sex into thought and it doesn't allow for them because all terms must be equal, always. Therefore the right to abort which effectively elliminates parental responsibility on one party vs the other must be given to both parties (the right to remove ones responsibility NOT abort) or else abortions shouldn't be carried out at all to maintain fairness in the terms. And since parental responsibility refers only to children, if the terms are going to be equal the fetus must be considered a child from the get to.

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?

I'm not advocating it. I'm just using it as an argument. Of course it's preposterous to think that fathers should be able to abandon their children. But as I said, abortions shouldn't be happening either in the same token.

And for proper developement we need a man and a woman. Not only does it teach us societal gender roles, it teaches us how to interact with the sexes.

 

[manifold]

...but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Shogun once again refuses to acknowledge a basic truth. Equality is simply not attainable. Every single "solution" he's offered merely shifts the necessary inequality from one party to the other. I'm actually amazed and even slightly disappointed to learn that he could actually be that stupid.

 

[Ravi]

Hammer, you're just talking in circles. Your job was to prove that one adult has a right to decide what another adult does with her body. You've failed.

 

[Care4all]

Read up on John Lockes the social contract. It describes how pretty much every social interaction (ie anything we do with anyone other than ourselves) is basically an agreement (contract) with accepted ends and recognized terms. For example, if some were to stick our their hand, most people would expect me to shake it. If I were to punch someone in the face and then procede to beat them I'd be ignoring or choosing not to participate in their terms of gesture (I know it seems asinine but really everything we do with one another that requires higher brain function works this way). Sex is the same thing. When consent is given (or implied) two people agree to pleasure one another with each others bodies and accept responsibility for any actions that occur there after. If they use protection or even if they have unprotected sex an nothing (no pregnancy or STD) happens then the terms of the contract are fulfilled, he and or she has an orgasm, and there is no harm no foul. But if a child is concieved the point I'm trying to make is that the responsibility for child care begins immediately on both parties. Abortions throw the balance off by giving one party greater terms than the other to leave without providing the same out for the other party. In terms of practicality, we all understand that women carry the baby and have the "right" to abort while men have no say in the matter. However when arguing against abortions one takes the contract of sex into thought and it doesn't allow for them because all terms must be equal, always. Therefore the right to abort which effectively elliminates parental responsibility on one party vs the other must be given to both parties (the right to remove ones responsibility NOT abort) or else abortions shouldn't be carried out at all to maintain fairness in the terms. And since parental responsibility refers only to children, if the terms are going to be equal the fetus must be considered a child from the get to.



I'm not advocating it. I'm just using it as an argument. Of course it's preposterous to think that fathers should be able to abandon their children. But as I said, abortions shouldn't be happening either in the same token.

And for proper developement we need a man and a woman. Not only does it teach us societal gender roles, it teaches us how to interact with the sexes.

but i am not certain you get it....? even if both parties had the right to make the woman give birth or to MAKE her unwillingly abort...(which is utterly ridiculous)
to make things ''fair'' in your head:

IT can NEVER be ''fair'', if it is ALWAYS the woman that has to go through 9 months of pregnancy, with health risks involved in some cases and NEVER the male....or with 95% of all single parents being the ''mother'' of the child the next 18 years minimum and NOT the father getting his career or money making ability to give a good life to their kid cut short as it is with the mother in most cases!

the argument doesn't hold water hammer....thus this long, dragged out debate, imo.

care

 

[Care4all]

since statistics show a child with 2 married parents has a much, much, much better life all around in most cases, should we FORCE or MANDATE that all fathers and mothers expecting a child get married too?

what next in your ''nanny state'' fantasy?

In my opinion, the argument that the embryo and fetus are just living stages of a separate human being ...as with after birth ''growing stages of the body'' such as newborn, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, teen, adult, senior....is a better argument against having an abortion than things not being "fair" for the father!

We already have more than half the black community fathers abandoning their fatherhood responsibilities with their women....I wouldn't continue to encourage it, black women are pissed already that "their men" are not marrying them and treat them and their own children no better than "ho-s"...and you guys are trying to argue that these guys are "right", if they had no say in making their gal ABORT....WHAT AN IDIOTIC stand to take imho!



care

 

[Ravi]

Care,

How about we just use men the way God intended us to use them...as sexual slaves. Now that we don't need them to support us monetarily, what other use do we have for them?

 

[The_Hammer]

Hammer, you're just talking in circles. Your job was to prove that one adult has a right to decide what another adult does with her body. You've failed.

No. That's not what I was trying to prove. I was trying to prove that abortions are wrong, not that one adult has the right to decide what another does with their own body. I'm tired of explaining it over and over. The only reaons I'm going in circles is because I have to keep repeating myself.

 

[The_Hammer]

but i am not certain you get it....? even if both parties had the right to make the woman give birth or to MAKE her unwillingly abort...(which is utterly ridiculous)
to make things ''fair'' in your head:

IT can NEVER be ''fair'', if it is ALWAYS the woman that has to go through 9 months of pregnancy, with health risks involved in some cases and NEVER the male....or with 95% of all single parents being the ''mother'' of the child the next 18 years minimum and NOT the father getting his career or money making ability to give a good life to their kid cut short as it is with the mother in most cases!

the argument doesn't hold water hammer....thus this long, dragged out debate, imo.

care

Please for the love of all that is holy read what I've written. I don't like repeating myself four times over.

 

[The_Hammer]

In my opinion, the argument that the embryo and fetus are just living stages of a separate human being ...as with after birth ''growing stages of the body'' such as newborn, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, teen, adult, senior....is a better argument against having an abortion than things not being "fair" for the father!

That argument fails because for many people an fetus isn't a human being. It's just a mass of human tissue. Obviously if I'd wanted to argue that because a fetus is a human being it would be a no contest. Why? Because killing a human being is murder. That's why fetus' aren't considered people when it comes to abortions. If you try and define what a person it, that argument still fails. Trust me I've tried it.

 

[Shogun]

Care,

How about we just use men the way God intended us to use them...as sexual slaves. Now that we don't need them to support us monetarily, what other use do we have for them?

alimony and child support seems to be the current trend...

 

[Ravi]

alimony and child support seems to be the current trend...

Nope. You can keep whatever cash you can earn.

 

[Shogun]

Nope. You can keep whatever cash you can earn.

care to put that in a contract and apply it to the population of men being raked over the coals so their baby-mama can have cable television and name brand cereal?

 

[Shogun]

...but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Shogun once again refuses to acknowledge a basic truth. Equality is simply not attainable. Every single "solution" he's offered merely shifts the necessary inequality from one party to the other. I'm actually amazed and even slightly disappointed to learn that he could actually be that stupid.

BASIC TRUTH?



what a fucking idiot. EQUALITY IS NOT ATTAINABLE, eh?\




WOW. You really do convey why men should be in any way interested in equality then! Indeed, why wOULDNT someone want to give and give in a supposedly give and take relationship? Clearly, any man that wants paternal rights to his CHILD is a stark raving, woman hating lunatic!





Listen, dude. you are like that guy at the local hippy shop who only wears beads and patchoili oil to try and score with hippy chicks. If you are comfy losing your paternal rights for the sake of the off hand chance that a lilith fair queen will throw you a bone then so be it. Thankfully, the rest of us won't roll over as quietly when some silly fucker brays on about an impossibility of equality.


You wear spandex and own a mountain bike, dont you.

 

[manifold]

No amount of chest thumping will change the fact that it's a basic truth that equality is unattainable within the context of the issue being discussed.

 

[Ravi]

care to put that in a contract and apply it to the population of men being raked over the coals so their baby-mama can have cable television and name brand cereal?

Yes, I really have no problem with it. I think no father is better than a reluctant father.

 

[Shogun]

Yes, I really have no problem with it. I think no father is better than a reluctant father.

it's too bad such were not a more universal opinion. As it is, however....

 

[Shogun]

No amount of chest thumping will change the fact that it's a basic truth that equality is unattainable within the context of the issue being discussed.

Thats not true at all. YOU may not want to accept the premise of such equality because there is some hairy armpitted flower girl holding a vagina sign next to you but you are no spokesman for the rest of the world and CLEARLY no champion of cognitive functions.

 

[Ravi]

Thats not true at all. YOU may not want to accept the premise of such equality because there is some hairy armpitted flower girl holding a vagina sign next to you but you are no spokesman for the rest of the world and CLEARLY no champion of cognitive functions.

Basically it boils down to this: He's right. You're wrong. Why you feel the need to insult women because you're wrong is mystifying.

 

[Shogun]

Basically it boils down to this: He's right. You're wrong. Why you feel the need to insult women because you're wrong is mystifying.

it's probably less mystifying when you figure out that your assumptions about mine and taomons sexual frequency, female interaction, etc are the exact same type of input to this thread. Clearly though, you expect a different standard than anyone with a penis so why stop at reproductive rights.


Hey, he's no more "right" than you are 30 years after RvW didn't solve anything. Keep throwing the dice though. In case you havne't noticed your side didn't win and get to put two new SCOTUS judges in office.


And, to be honest, your lack of integrity regarding equality and paternal fairness will continue to be why the pro-life crowd assimilates those who see beyond your silly greaseball hippy talking points.

 

[manifold]

Thats not true at all.

It is true. You cannot abort half a child you fucking retard!

If it isn't true, offer one solution that allegedly achieves equality?

I'll help you out by informing you that you've yet come even remotely close.