Men Abortion and Choice

[lumberjim]

bruce,

this analogy would work better if you were comparing it with someone compelling another person to do drugs.

When it comes down to personal liberty....we should be allowed to do whatever drugs we choose to.

Unfortunately, the reality of life means that those who do drugs also have to share reality with the rest of us. When those folks repeatedly fuck things up and cost innocent people things like THEIR lives, safety and money, then the lawmakers are compelled to take steps like regulating and outlawing the drugs that effect the drug users.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

[winging it]Hey, xoB, is the "doing" against the law? Or is it something more tangible, more definite, like possession?[/flying it into the ground]

That's an end run, you can do them without possessing them.

Originally Posted by DanaC

Because it is against the law. Personally i think it shouldn't be.

It's not an equivalent though, because this isn't about whether the state has a right to tell women what to do with their bodies (again, I think they should not), but rather empowering individual men with the right to make decisions about individual women's bodies.

No equivilent, Dana. I'm not getting into that silly proposal, just responding to Ali's reality.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Because some laws infringe on rights. In fact, according to you, all of them do.

God damn right they do.... every one.

Originally Posted by lumberjim

bruce,

this analogy would work better if you were comparing it with someone compelling another person to do drugs.

Not an analogy, see above.

When it comes down to personal liberty....we should be allowed to do whatever drugs we choose to.

Unfortunately, the reality of life means that those who do drugs also have to share reality with the rest of us. When those folks repeatedly fuck things up and cost innocent people things like THEIR lives, safety and money, then the lawmakers are compelled to take steps like regulating and outlawing the drugs that effect the drug users.

That's complete bullshit, considering how many people alcohol and tobacco kill.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That's complete bullshit, considering how many people alcohol and tobacco kill.

are there or are there not laws prohibiting and or regulating the use of drugs ....including alcohol and terbaccy? complete bullshit?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

are there or are there not laws prohibiting and or regulating the use of drugs ....including alcohol and terbaccy? complete bullshit?

Got me... missed regulating.
But their drug laws are still complete bullshit... it's all about money.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

If the male states that he wishes to choose full custody of the child that should be his right.
It is his child as much as hers.
The woman made a choice, one she made with someone else, knowing FULLY what her role would be before-hand... she need only fulfill her role as far as the birth is concerned, as far as she chose when she took the initial risk.

Sorry dude, I don't buy it. If the men carried the babies for 9 months and took the same physiological risks it would be different. The woman carries the baby, she get to say if she wants to do that for 9 months or if she wants to terminate it. Her choice, not yours. Men are but the sperm donors.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Sorry dude, I don't buy it. If the men carried the babies for 9 months and took the same physiological risks it would be different. The woman carries the baby, she get to say if she wants to do that for 9 months or if she wants to terminate it. Her choice, not yours. Men are but the sperm donors.

I agree with you until the cord is cut. Then it becomes theirs, not hers.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I agree with you until the cord is cut. Then it becomes theirs, not hers.

I would support that notion.

Sluts!! Sluts all sluts. Buncha whores. Don't you know sex for women is only for procreation?

Never stated nor implied that.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I agree with you until the cord is cut. Then it becomes theirs, not hers.

How fortunate for her, funny how that happens.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by yesman065

All of what everyone is saying seems to hinge on WHEN the "fetus" is determined to be a "child." At what point does the child earn those rights? Upon conception, 3 months, 6 months....not until birth?
If it is considered a child upon conception - what right does the mother have to KILL it? However, if it is not considered "human" until birth, then one could argue that everything between conception and birth is entirely up to the woman. The difficulty comes into play during the undefined period between conception and birth where we recognize the fetus as a child. I'm thinking as I'm typing, and thats always dangerous for me, but what if at, say 6 & 1/2 months the "mother" decided to (and I love this nonpersonal terminology) terminate the pregnancy? Is/would that be ok and should the father have no say under those circumstances?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I agree with you until the cord is cut. Then it becomes theirs, not hers.

Possession of another human? I think not - unless you were referring to responsibility and not ownership. Either way, when does a fetus becomes a human with its own rights.

If it isn't a human until birth then why is someone who kills a pregnant woman charged with two counts of homicide?

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Possession of another human? I think not - unless you were referring to responsibility and not ownership. Either way, when does a fetus becomes a human with its own rights.

If it isn't a human until birth then why is someone who kills a pregnant woman charged with two counts of homicide?

A fetus must be given birth to, to have his/her own rights. But as long as he/she must depend on a woman's body to live, said woman has overriding rights.

And those overriding rights include deciding to carry her fetus to term, and give birth to a baby with rights to live. If someone else steps in and kills her, especially with the intent to stop the birth of the baby that she wanted, then he/she may get charged accordingly.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Possession of another human? I think not - unless you were referring to responsibility and not ownership. Either way, when does a fetus becomes a human with its own rights.

No, ownership... just like a mini-slave. That's why the courts have ruled to limit the 4th amendment for kids.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by yesman065

If it isn't a human until birth then why is someone who kills a pregnant woman charged with two counts of homicide?

A lot of people feel this was a deliberate step towards more comprehensive anti-abortion legislation. Many disagree with the law or view it as hypocritical at the very least.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I guess all of you feel it is ok for women to smoke, do heroin, meth, drink, whatever while pregnant, right... it's not a kid yet and it's "just her body"?

I do not feel it is "okay"--however, it is legal (well, insomuch as only drinking and smoking are legal in the first place), and I feel it should stay that way, because you have to draw the line somewhere, and our society has drawn the line at viability. There are only three ways to look at this scenario:

1.) It is not a person before viability (roughly the third trimester). Thus abortion is legal, and the father has no rights to a clump of cells that is not his, or anyone's, child yet.

2.) It is a person before viability, and abortion should be illegal. Thus the whole question of the father's opinion on the matter is moot.

3.) It is a person before viability, but you cannot legislate morality. Thus abortion should be legal, but shunned on a personal level--i.e., the mother should consider the wishes of the father, because it is the right and moral thing to do, but it is both impractical and inappropriate to code that into law.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

A lot of people feel this was a deliberate step towards more comprehensive anti-abortion legislation. Many disagree with the law or view it as hypocritical at the very least.

I gotta say that after seeing premature babies who were born well before the ninth month that it IS a child long before then.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by yesman065

I gotta say that after seeing premature babies who were born well before the ninth month that it IS a child long before then.

in YOUR opinion.

Some folks believe that the child is not a child for a year or more.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

in YOUR opinion.

Some folks believe that the child is not a child for a year or more.

Some days I wonder if mine have made it there yet actually...