Jump to content

Abortion Debate


Nuclear

Recommended Posts

It's not my strong point, I'll admit, but your saying a father isn't an equal requirement in the situation?
Only if it is possible to detach the embryo from the mother and insert it into the father so he can assume the responsibility for bringing it to life. It unacceptable for anyone, including the father, to force a woman to carry a child that she does not want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 377
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's not my strong point, I'll admit, but your saying a father isn't an equal requirement in the situation?
Only if it is possible to detach the embryo from the mother and insert it into the father so he can assume the responsibility for bringing it to life. It unacceptable for anyone, including the father, to force a woman to carry a child that she does not want.

Is it unacceptable for a father to be financially responsible for a child he doesn't want, but the mother wants to bring to term?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it unacceptable for a father to be financially responsible for a child he doesn't want, but the mother wants to bring to term?
Yes, definitely. But that is a separate issue. A mother should be required to inform the father as soon as she is pregnant and give the father an opportunity to request that she have a abortion. If she refuses for whatever reason then the father should be freed of all support obligations. The father is also freed of support obligations if a woman waits until it is too late to get an abortion before informing the father.

If a woman wants to have a child without the consent of the father then she should be prepared to raise that child on her own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it unacceptable for a father to be financially responsible for a child he doesn't want, but the mother wants to bring to term?

Haven't we been through this before?

Anyway, I still think you're trying to make paying child support the equivilant of actually having a kid, and I don't think it is. Women face the risks and physical burdens of pregnancy, and face not only the financial expense but the enormous workload of raising a child. Men have but to send a check. So, from a logical standpoint, I don't entirely disagree that men shouldn't have to pay for kid sthey don't want, but from a pragmatic standpoint, I think they should just suck it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not my strong point, I'll admit, but your saying a father isn't an equal requirement in the situation?
Only if it is possible to detach the embryo from the mother and insert it into the father so he can assume the responsibility for bringing it to life. It unacceptable for anyone, including the father, to force a woman to carry a child that she does not want.
Is that rhetorical?
As long as the fetus depends on the woman's body, she should get the final say. So no, I wouldn't give the father equal standing in that dynamic.
It is possible for a male to carry a baby to term. The physiology behind it is the same as an ectopic pregnancy where the placenta attaches to the inside of the abdominal cavity. The Science of Male Pregnancy

If it becomes possible to trans-plant an embryo and the father offers to do so, does the mother have the right to abortion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it becomes possible to trans-plant an embryo and the father offers to do so, does the mother have the right to abortion?

The mother has the right to have the embryo removed from her body. As long as the mother consents, she can assign the embryo to the father or anyone else for gestation. If she doesn't consent then I would say the father is out of luck despite his wishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it becomes possible to trans-plant an embryo and the father offers to do so, does the mother have the right to abortion?

Sure. And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass hopping. Even if such a procedure were ever to become viable, it would probably apply in about 0.00000000001% of such cases, so why even consider it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it becomes possible to trans-plant an embryo and the father offers to do so, does the mother have the right to abortion?

Sure. And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass hopping. Even if such a procedure were ever to become viable, it would probably apply in about 0.00000000001% of such cases, so why even consider it?

The question isn't as invalid as you would suggest. Substitute "surrogate mother" in lieu of father and such a procedure becomes viable.

So if we can remove an embryo from a mother and implant it in someone else, does that elimintate the justification for abortion? In my view no, for the reasons I've stated previously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it unacceptable for a father to be financially responsible for a child he doesn't want, but the mother wants to bring to term?
Yes, definitely. But that is a separate issue. A mother should be required to inform the father as soon as she is pregnant and give the father an opportunity to request that she have a abortion. If she refuses for whatever reason then the father should be freed of all support obligations. The father is also freed of support obligations if a woman waits until it is too late to get an abortion before informing the father.

If a woman wants to have a child without the consent of the father then she should be prepared to raise that child on her own.

Sheesh I am not evena feminist and I want to cut yer bawls off for being so silly! Get real dude. The moment you or me or any guy sticks his magic wand where it can make babies we assume a responsibility that we could get a woman pregnant. Man you got it figured out huh. Hit and run. Impregnante them and then demand they abort or you don't pay. Man what rock did you crawl out of. Following your arguement women are simply servants for our magic wands and have no rights unless predicated by what we men need or do not want to be responsible for?

GET REAL. Either wear a safe or if you shoot off your wazoo be prepared for the consequences and responsibilities that come with being a man. Sounds like you need to grow up emotionally before you ejaculate further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it unacceptable for a father to be financially responsible for a child he doesn't want, but the mother wants to bring to term?
Yes, definitely. But that is a separate issue. A mother should be required to inform the father as soon as she is pregnant and give the father an opportunity to request that she have a abortion. If she refuses for whatever reason then the father should be freed of all support obligations. The father is also freed of support obligations if a woman waits until it is too late to get an abortion before informing the father.

If a woman wants to have a child without the consent of the father then she should be prepared to raise that child on her own.

Sheesh I am not evena feminist and I want to cut yer bawls off for being so silly! Get real dude. The moment you or me or any guy sticks his magic wand where it can make babies we assume a responsibility that we could get a woman pregnant. Man you got it figured out huh. Hit and run. Impregnante them and then demand they abort or you don't pay. Man what rock did you crawl out of. Following your arguement women are simply servants for our magic wands and have no rights unless predicated by what we men need or do not want to be responsible for?

GET REAL. Either wear a safe or if you shoot off your wazoo be prepared for the consequences and responsibilities that come with being a man. Sounds like you need to grow up emotionally before you ejaculate further.

RW is entirely consistent in his position. Assuming that fornication was mutually consentual, do you think the woman should be "prepared for the consequences and responsibilities that come" with it, or can she opt out via an abortion? If she can opt out, why would you deny a man the same option?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue of one parent wanting a child against the will of another is a throny one. If the man wants the woman to have a kid, I say tough shit. Her body, her responsibility, her call. I think the child suport thing is a peskier issue, in which we have to take into acount not just the individuals, but the social implications. All in all I think it's reasonable that the best interests of a child should prevail over a father's reservations. Wich is why one should always have a discussion with one's s/o about what one would do in such a situation, and always take percautions if you don't want kids (personally safe sex was never a hard sell for me and I've never understood why so many guys have problems with condoms, for example.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All in all I think it's reasonable that the best interests of a child should prevail over a father's reservations.

It would seem that in society we are very selective in who's rights we trample in the name of serving the child's best interest. For example, if the child was better off in an adpotive home, would we remove the child from the care of the mother and force an adoption? Apparently not. It is apparently fine however to disregard the father's rights if it is for the cause of "the child's best interest".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parental consent only makes sense. Notification at least. Maybe it'll send a wake up call for these parents to smarten up and get involved... maybe teach their kid a lesson in moral values or at least how flippin' easy it is to get protection.

It's all about responsibility, if they can't be responsible enough to walk down to 7-11 to buy some condoms, or if poor, to the health centre... they why are they having sex?

I really stuggle for sympathy with these folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parental consent only makes sense. Notification at least. Maybe it'll send a wake up call for these parents to smarten up and get involved... maybe teach their kid a lesson in moral values or at least how flippin' easy it is to get protection.

It's all about responsibility, if they can't be responsible enough to walk down to 7-11 to buy some condoms, or if poor, to the health centre... they why are they having sex?

I really stuggle for sympathy with these folks.

Except if the girl could get a beating from her parents... or be disowned from the family, etc.

Not all parents have bothered to educate their growing teens about sex. For some it is a completely closed topic yet we expect all teens to be educated enough to be carrying condoms at all times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parental consent only makes sense. Notification at least. Maybe it'll send a wake up call for these parents to smarten up and get involved... maybe teach their kid a lesson in moral values or at least how flippin' easy it is to get protection.

It's all about responsibility, if they can't be responsible enough to walk down to 7-11 to buy some condoms, or if poor, to the health centre... they why are they having sex?

I really stuggle for sympathy with these folks.

Except if the girl could get a beating from her parents... or be disowned from the family, etc.

Not all parents have bothered to educate their growing teens about sex. For some it is a completely closed topic yet we expect all teens to be educated enough to be carrying condoms at all times.

Or just responsible enough to walk/drive/pogostick down to the next damned 7/11 to a buy a condom. It's not about sex education, it's about responsibility and common sense. Any teen knows the reality of sex, they choose to ignore it. It's a responsibility thing, nothing more, nothing less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parental consent only makes sense. Notification at least. Maybe it'll send a wake up call for these parents to smarten up and get involved... maybe teach their kid a lesson in moral values or at least how flippin' easy it is to get protection.

Bollocks. If the woman has a good enough relationship with her parents she'll tell them. If for some reason she feels like she can't (out of fear, for example) then no law should compell her to do so when it serves no useful purpose. It just goe sto show how even "rational" arguments against abortion are infected with the poison of patriarchal and misogynistic religious arguments where the emphasis is more on shaming and punishing women for having improper sex.

It's all about responsibility, if they can't be responsible enough to walk down to 7-11 to buy some condoms, or if poor, to the health centre... they why are they having sex?

Biology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I should not have re-opened this thread. I couldn't resist.

From Rue... above...

The decision what that woman does with her body is between her, her conscience and if she allows it, her doctorn and mate.

While a woman may choose what to do to her body, that in no way obligates anyone else to help her do so.

A woman couldn't go to a doctor and request that her heart be removed - the doctor wouldn't do it - yet it is a part of her body, so with your logic she should be able to have it removed.

If she wants it removed so badly, she can do it herself. It's her body and her choice. If she dies from doing it herself - that is her choice too.

Saying that, I am not completely against abortions - depending on the circumstances and the stage of growth of the embryo. I don't agree that they should be done for free (unless medically necessary) - at least then it wouldn't be a viable method of birth control (and yes, I have known women that basically used abortions as birth control - some multiple times!). Free abortions can lead to promoting irresponsibility.

If a couple of morons shag, get knocked up, and have to pay $500 to abort the fetus, they might just learn enough from that experience to actually use a condom during round 2 - if the abortion was free, then the incentive to be responsible is less.

And just to get personal for a second... I was one of these morons - something like 10 years ago... a true young, dumb, and full of cum scenario. I made a woman pregnant once, and we both decided that an abortion was the only way (this was in another country, I had no intention of staying there, and I had no intention or means of marrying this woman and bringing her to Canada). In this particular country I had to pay for the abortion, and I had to be at the clinic when the procedure was done. This certainly woke me up, and I would not consider being so irresponsible again - that whole situation was a nightmare (especially considering that abortions were completely illegal there - thankfully doctors didn't always follow the rules).

At the end of the day, making life easy on people doesn't always help them. Making abortions free, easy, and painless doesn't help to make people realize the seriousness of the procedure. I knew a girl once who admitted to having 8 abortions in the previous 6 years - they were all after-the-fact-birth-control. If she had to go through the experience the woman I got into this mess did in a 3rd world country the first time, it would have been highly unlikely that the next 7 would have happened. Also, if she was unable to get an abortion the first time and had a baby, she also would likely have not had the next 7 incidents either.

Side note... someone was talking about the death penalty....

If the punishment for killing someone is death, then shouldn't the one who kills the murderer then also be killed, and on and on and on? Afterall, they are intentionally taking a life...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheesh I am not evena feminist and I want to cut yer bawls off for being so silly! Get real dude. The moment you or me or any guy sticks his magic wand where it can make babies we assume a responsibility that we could get a woman pregnant. Man you got it figured out huh. Hit and run. Impregnante them and then demand they abort or you don't pay. Man what rock did you crawl out of. Following your arguement women are simply servants for our magic wands and have no rights unless predicated by what we men need or do not want to be responsible for?

GET REAL. Either wear a safe or if you shoot off your wazoo be prepared for the consequences and responsibilities that come with being a man. Sounds like you need to grow up emotionally before you ejaculate further.

So a woman has all the rights yet the man carries all the responsibility? Please. With all of today's birth control methods, a woman is at least equally responsibile in preventing pregnancy.

If they have the right to decide whether or not to carry a child to term irregardless of the father, then they definitely carry the full responsibility of making that choice before having sex.

It's all about responsibility, if they can't be responsible enough to walk down to 7-11 to buy some condoms, or if poor, to the health centre... they why are they having sex?

Biology.

A chimpansee could probably be taught to put on a condom or take a pill.

It doesn't even cost money for condoms in our society, like I said, it's not an education issue, it's just irresponsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent t presentation of the pro-choice perspective:

Why do I support women's right to reproductive choice, aka women's autonomy, apart from the fact that I have really strong feelings about my own, y'know, existence?

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ...

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

b ) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

d) freedom of association.

...

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

I am a democrat -- that's lower-case d, as in a profound believer in the shortlist of necessary principles and structures that we must defend and have still to realize just about everywhere.

In my reading of democracy, there is one thing above all that we never ever do to one another, and that is to muck about in one another's minds. There is a reason that freedom of conscience is always the first substantial article of every great democratic Bill or Declaration or Charter, and that is that our consciences often conflict. When they do, unless they have negotiated a public peace among themselves (aka democracy), one or another form of moralizing conscience will inevitably strive to destroy all the others.

The public peace of democracy requires nothing short of the unqualified legal guarantee of women's autonomy, which entails every woman's unqualified right to reproductive choice. Women are not citizens without the right to self-determination; as Rox Populi says, "If I had no right to self-determination, I'd be a slave."

http://www.pogge.ca/archives/001450.shtml#more

Bolded points mine.

Also, interesting perspective:

Abortion doctor: More crusaders needed in fight for women's rights

The Associated PressPublished: January 12, 2007

BELLEVUE, Nebraska: Dr. LeRoy Carhart is entrenched in what he calls a "never-ending battle" — one that abortion foes would like him to surrender.

For now, his battleground is the U.S. Supreme Court. A victory there would overturn a 2003 congressional ban on what abortion opponents call partial-birth abortion and add to the Nebraska doctor's success in his campaign for women's reproductive rights.

"The only way women come close to achieving equality is if they can control their fertility," said the 65-year-old Carhart. "Abortion rights for men have been available since the beginning of time. When they're unhappy with a pregnancy, they walk away; it doesn't matter whether it's the day after conception or when the child is 10 years old."

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/12/...cate.php?page=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I have the right to randomly wander about, slaughtering animals (not protected under the Charter, along with fetuses) without consequence as I have the right to self-determination.

If I have one piece of advice for you Catchme, it's not to defend a moral argument with a peice of paper. You present some excellent points in defense of your pro-choice viewpoint, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms isn't one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...