What about men's rights?

[untitled]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so if "It's [abortion] about violation of the human rights of the baby", where do you establish where the rights of the baby trump the rights of the mother?

I think the answer was posted earlier. The baby's right to its own life is greater than the mother's (and father's) right (privilege?) to convenience. It ALWAYS trumps the right of the mother (once conception has occurred and unless there are extenuating circumstances, i.e. danger to mother's life.)

Now as to contraceptives being right or wrong as a result of this, I see a line here. A gallon of sperm is useless without an egg, just like a gallon of deisel fuel is harmless without a crazy guy to mix it with fertilizer and make a bomb out of it. However, once you mix the two I think it needs to be treated as something greater.

Besides, the embryo/fetus/baby/whatever didn't ask to be conceived due to my hormonal urges, and that fetus WILL grow up and, if all goes well, become a human being. Hell, the person who would become your best friend could have been aborted decades ago and you'd never know it. The fact of the matter is, each of us would probably have someone else in our lives if it weren't for abortion. Be it a friend, family member, or even spouse, there are people who would've existed if not for their parents unwillingness to suck it up and take responsibility for their mistake a long time ago. When I look back at why these people are not with us I can't help but feel that the parents' pain and suffering from a nine month pregnancy would've washed away years ago while the child is just happy that he/she gets to go on living life.

I'm not really a religious person anymore, I consider myself to be more utilitarian than anything else at this point, so when I look at this issue my first inclination is to compare interests. At my core, I just cannot accept that a parent's right to their lifestyle of choice is greater than another person's right to life, whether or not that person is a fully developed human being.

I look for the person whose interest is truly greater than the other's, and that makes it a pretty easy choice for me.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by untitled

I think the answer was posted earlier. The baby's right to its own life is greater than the mother's (and father's) right (privilege?) to convenience. It ALWAYS trumps the right of the mother (once conception has occurred and unless there are extenuating circumstances, i.e. danger to mother's life.)

hmmm...so if a pregnant women is smoking, or consuming alcohol, or doing drugs, then society has the right, or taking your position to the extreme, the obligation to restrain her and prevent the detrimental conduct from occuring? after all, you state the rights of the baby "trumps" the right of the women, right?

Now as to contraceptives being right or wrong as a result of this, I see a line here. A gallon of sperm is useless without an egg, just like a gallon of deisel fuel is harmless without a crazy guy to mix it with fertilizer and make a bomb out of it. However, once you mix the two I think it needs to be treated as something greater.

clearly you are stating that once an egg is fertilized it is provided rights? then the above question begs an answer.

if a women is carrying this fertilized egg, is she now subservient to its rights, and her conduct must be regulated? she then cannot drink nor smoke. as tests have shown that caffiene can be detrimental she must not drink cokes, tea or coffee. she cannot engage in potentially dangerous activities such as riding a horse, a bicycle or motorbike, or get on amusement rides like roller coasters. heck, she can possibly endanger the baby by riding in a car as an accident could happen!

under the scenario that her rights are not to be recognized, maybe all pregnant women should be forced to be placed in maternity centers where they will be guarded at all times so the "rights of the baby" will be protected....

nah. the women retains her rights. those rights are not "trumped" by the fertilized egg.

Besides, the embryo/fetus/baby/whatever didn't ask to be conceived due to my hormonal urges, and that fetus WILL grow up and, if all goes well, become a human being. Hell, the person who would become your best friend could have been aborted decades ago and you'd never know it. The fact of the matter is, each of us would probably have someone else in our lives if it weren't for abortion. Be it a friend, family member, or even spouse, there are people who would've existed if not for their parents unwillingness to suck it up and take responsibility for their mistake a long time ago. When I look back at why these people are not with us I can't help but feel that the parents' pain and suffering from a nine month pregnancy would've washed away years ago while the child is just happy that he/she gets to go on living life.

you know, there are many "people" who don't exist because the man and women didn't want kids and never attempted to conceive. that's their right, as is the right of the mother to decide if she wants to carry the fetus to term or not.

imho she is the only one who has that right to decide, not you or I or the state, nor the father who merely contributed his sperm.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

hmmm...so if a pregnant women is smoking, or consuming alcohol, or
imho she is the only one who has that right to decide, not you or I or the state, nor the father who merely contributed his sperm.

If all the father does is contribute sperm, why does he have to pay for it for 2 decades?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

If all the father does is contribute sperm, why does he have to pay for it for 2 decades?

first, he only pays if the mother elects to pursue the issue. I wonder how many go it alone and not go for the support?

second, while I will agree it is not a position of equality, the father does bear part of the responsibility, after all, he did make the contribution...

[Five-ofan]

Mavdog, no i dont think a responsible person should do most of the activities you listed but there is damn sure a difference between drinking/smoking/exercising and having an abortion. Drinking/smoking/exercising CAN harm the baby but the risk of harm to the baby in that particular instance doesnt outweigh the mothers right to their own body. Abortion on the other hand is the willfull act of killing the child. That is a HUGE difference. You can read any one of my posts in this thread, I am not at all for allowing men to get out of responsibilities for their kids BUT if you allow abortion(which i am also clearly against) then the man should equally have the right to just ignore all responsibility for the kid as the mother has the right to do. I personally hate that solution but anything short of that is flat out sex discrimination. Right now the laws inarguably favor women in this area.

Bobatundi, you say that its easy to blame the woman, read any of my other posts. I have said repeatedly that men should take responsibility for their kids because they can prevent them. That said you cant obsolve women of responsibility for their kids either. They are every bit as responsible as men. As far as my grounding, scientifically once pregnancy is far enough along to detect and abort, the fetus is alive. I am a Christian so you can say that i am just arguing by my religion but i am not. You simply cannot kill living people. That is a law and its common sense. It has nothing to do with my being christian. It has to do with the fact that i dont feel that anyone has the right to kill anyone else unless the other person is threatening their life.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

first, he only pays if the mother elects to pursue the issue. I wonder how many go it alone and not go for the support?

second, while I will agree it is not a position of equality, the father does bear part of the responsibility, after all, he did make the contribution...

Exactly, and as such he should have part of the say in whether the kid gets aborted or not. That was how this thread started. The extent to which they give men the right to control abortion has to be the same as the extent to which they expect men to pay for the child once it is born in order for the system to be fair.

Yet again, i think it is a very dangerous step to take to give men less responsibility for their kids. I dont feel abortion should be legal. I feel women should be made more responsible instead of men being made less but they do need to be equally responsible. My mom was born to an 18 year old unwed mother who probably didnt want a kid in a time frame where that was seriously looked down upon. If my grandmother had decided to have an abortion i wouldnt be here so i do probably have a slightly different perspective than most of you.

[Rhylan]

Mavdog, you're smarter than to equate a hypothetical person that could've existed to a living thing that got conceived.

Like I said before, what this is really about is what makes a person a person, and nobody wants to have that argument because it exposes abortion-as-birth-control as the heinous act that it is.

[untitled]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

hmmm...so if a pregnant women is smoking, or consuming alcohol, or doing drugs, then society has the right, or taking your position to the extreme, the obligation to restrain her and prevent the detrimental conduct from occuring? after all, you state the rights of the baby "trumps" the right of the women, right?

if a women is carrying this fertilized egg, is she now subservient to its rights, and her conduct must be regulated? she then cannot drink nor smoke. as tests have shown that caffiene can be detrimental she must not drink cokes, tea or coffee. she cannot engage in potentially dangerous activities such as riding a horse, a bicycle or motorbike, or get on amusement rides like roller coasters. heck, she can possibly endanger the baby by riding in a car as an accident could happen!

under the scenario that her rights are not to be recognized, maybe all pregnant women should be forced to be placed in maternity centers where they will be guarded at all times so the "rights of the baby" will be protected....

Like Five-O said, you are dealing with a bunch of "what ifs" even if she does ALL the things listed above. However, if you KILL the fertilized egg (I've noticed other pro-choice folks refer to it as fertilized egg, as if it were an inanimate object which wouldn't carry any sort of emotional attachment- so I'll go along with it), you KNOW what will happen. And it's not good for the fertilized egg's development.

Facts:
-Abortion kills a living thing (fertilized egg, fetus, whatever)
-That living thing would otherwise grow up to be a human being like you or me

If these facts do not suggest murder/homocide to you then I'll just say that in my mind, abortion is a little too close to murder/homocide for me to be able to practice it.

I understand many of your points Mavdog, and actually agree with you on most issues in this forum. However, as I stated earlier I get hung up on the issue of interests. After much thought, I simply cannot find a scenario in which a fertilized egg should not be given the right to life over a person's right to convenience (what I'd call a privilege in this case).

[Mavdog]

rhylan, we can discuss "what makes a person a person" all you wish.

I am not going to portray abortion as anything other than birth control, for that is what it is to most who do it.

I would NEVER want my mate to undergo an abortion. It is not an act that I endorse.

however, I also will defend the right of the woman to have total control over their body. I will also defend her right to make the decision without the male having any right to force the woman to continue full term.

just like the right of the woman to seek child support or not to seek child support from the father, it is her choice.

five-0, your position is contradictory. you want the state to exert control over the fetus to prevent the mother from terminating their existence, yet you deny the state the right to protect the fetus from acts by the mother that have a high probability of harming the fetus, harm that could very well result in either mental or physical incapacitation. one cannot have it both ways.

untitled, we can agree to disagree. I hold the right of the woman, a living thing, to control her own body as paramount. how their rights are subservient to the fetus/baby or whatever you wish to call it is not something I can agree with. like I outlined above, just where do you draw the line on the "rights of the baby' over the mother's rights?

[Five-ofan]

The difference is that one is fully intended to murder another person, one isnt. My position is based on degrees. Smoking,drinking, and even exercising may be bad decisions but they arent intended to kill the child(and more than likely wont) if they are then i would prosecute you for that too. You might argue that intent isnt important but legally it is pretty much the most important thing there is. Essentially my point would be that the woman's right to her body outweighs the childs right to make her live a perfect life for him/her. However the childs rights get more and more weight and the womens right to her body less and less as the act becomes more dangerous to the child. Abortion is without question the most dangerous thing a mother can do to the child so in that respect as i stated before, the womans right to convenience is FAR outweighed by the childs right to live. I dont see that as contradictory at all. As for the right to pursue or not pursue child support being the same because it is a womans choice, you are making murph and several other's arguments for them. You are giving ALL the rights to the woman and NONE to the man. That is flat out BS.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I would NEVER want my mate to undergo an abortion. It is not an act that I endorse.

If I understand your opinion, it is that your opinion in the matter should mean jack, legally. Correct?

however, I also will defend the right of the woman to have total control over their body.

She already does not have total control over her body. She ceded that control to the baby when she got pregnant. The baby exerts a huge amount of control, which is why she kills it.

I will also defend her right to make the decision without the male having any right to force the woman to continue full term.

just like the right of the woman to seek child support or not to seek child support from the father, it is her choice.

again, to be clear - it's your opintion that the father should have no rights. If the mother wants to carry the baby, he's got to pay for it. Even if he wanted it aborted? If the mother wants to kill the baby, but he doesn't , too bad for him. He will be economically chained to the baby for decades or not, depending on the mother's choice. When it's twenty years of constraint on the father's life, how can you not also give him the opportunity to "opt out"?

Assuming the mother allows the baby to live, should the father get a say in how the baby is raised? Or should the mother be allowed to shut him out and just take his money?

like I outlined above, just where do you draw the line on the "rights of the baby' over the mother's rights?

uh, the right to life should be paramount.


Mavdog, we are quickly approaching a level of technology in which it will be feasible to raise a fetus into a child outside of the natural mother's womb. What are your thoughts on "viability" and do you think that has anything to do with the mother's right to kill her own children?

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

again, to be clear - it's your opintion that the father should have no rights. If the mother wants to carry the baby, he's got to pay for it. Even if he wanted it aborted? If the mother wants to kill the baby, but he doesn't , too bad for him. He will be economically chained to the baby for decades or not, depending on the mother's choice. When it's twenty years of constraint on the father's life, how can you not also give him the opportunity to "opt out"?

Perfect example of why allowing "opting out" at all creates endless debate and why I think it's just flat out wrong. You can't make any sense of it without stretching until you've got a hole-filled argument. People support it because they support it, not because it's defensible by any intellectually consistent method.

Don't kill people, except in self-defense. On death row or in the womb. (That'll start a whole new thread, but that's my view.)

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

rhylan, we can discuss "what makes a person a person" all you wish.

I am not going to portray abortion as anything other than birth control, for that is what it is to most who do it.

You and I probably are pretty much in agreement from a moral standpoint. I just believe in protecting the life of a baby in cases where the mother made choices beforehand that invited the pregnancy. She had rights and she surrendered them.

I support total control over her body until she makes choices that invite the pregnancy, at which time, she can still be an irresponsible adult, but she shouldn't be able to intentionally end the life of the baby. These are all consquences of choice.

That's a human life, whether we want to get all technical about whether or not it's viable outside the womb, or just what it is, or what its brain is doing on day 10, or whatever. It's human, it's alive, and it's growing.

I'm not really sure what sacred right we're preserving by allowing a woman to kill a kid in utero.

[mavsman55]

Originally Posted by bobatundi

It takes two people for someone to get pregnant.

Exactly. So they both should have a choice.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Mavdog, we are quickly approaching a level of technology in which it will be feasible to raise a fetus into a child outside of the natural mother's womb. What are your thoughts on "viability" and do you think that has anything to do with the mother's right to kill her own children?

hopefully the technology will provide a solution to the issue on abortion. when the time comes where the fetus could be removed from the womb soon after conception and nutured until they are "full term".

no more abortions needed....everybody's "rights" are preserved.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

hopefully the technology will provide a solution to the issue on abortion. when the time comes where the fetus could be removed from the womb soon after conception and nutured until they are "full term".

no more abortions needed....everybody's "rights" are preserved.

not needed, but what about not allowed?

[raefformvp]

wow. I usually don't venture into the political forum, but I decided to see what's going on in these parts. the subjects of abortion and child support are ones that I am pretty passionate about.

A father must pay child support, if not he is hunted down and either sued or arrested for not paying for the child and the ruining of his credit. Yes the mother takes care of the child, but all responsibility financially falls on the father.

don't agree here. my experience is different than most when it comes to mothers and fathers splitting up. my mom chose to leave. my dad raised my brother and myself from the ages of 7 and 8 through college. he took my mother to court. she was ordered to pay child support each month, and I think my dad got a total of $200 from her. he could have taken her to court, but he didn't. my dad willingly took the obligation of supporting us financially and emotionally. he raised us and did the best job he could. he had to deal with all of my "girly stuff" and he did most of it with a smile on his face. mothers can be idiots as well.

and on the abortion issue, I'm very passionate about it. I believe life begins at conception. I HATE abortion. My husband and I have been trying for over 6 years now to conceive, yet a girl who has a one-night-stand, can just go into a clinic and kill a baby, something I want more than anything! A high school girl who claims she got pregnant her first time having sex can go to a free clinic, take a pill, and be done with it. that's so backwards. what are we teaching people? we give them the easy way out instead of educating them about how to prevent pregnancy. I'm all about abstinence, but that's a battle that can't be won. I could go on and on, but I hate thinking about the fact that I'm babyless and there are probably hundreds of babies being aborted right now.

[mcsluggo]

Don't fool yourself into thinking there will be an easy "tech" fix to this problem in the near future. We are a LONG way from providing a artificial-womb that would serve anywhere near as well as the real thing. As it is premie kids suffer develpmental problems even if they are only born a few weeks early
(I say this as the dad of three preemie toddlers that I HOPE will buck the trends--born 4 weks, 5 weeks and 12 weeks early)

furthermore, do think the fetus will just be teleported out of the woman's body? As it stands now, to "remove" a fetus (ie cesaerian) is a serious operation, and one that leaves the mother basically unable to have natural childbirth for future children. This certainly won't eliminate the "right to their own bodies" argument.

[dalmations202]

As it stands now, to "remove" a fetus (ie cesaerian) is a serious operation, and one that leaves the mother basically unable to have natural childbirth for future children.

This is BS. I presently work in a hospital, and we have clients who do natural childbirth after C-sections all the time.

C-section does not mean unable to have natural childbirth -- although I must admit that this thinking was pushed alot in the 80's.

Follow the $$$$.

[mcsluggo]

Pushed in the 80s?

Right now you can PUSH to go natural, but it is not the default (whether for true tech reasons or liability reasons, I don't know)

i DO know that doctors did not want MY wife to natural for baby #2 or Baby #3.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Don't fool yourself into thinking there will be an easy "tech" fix to this problem in the near future. We are a LONG way from providing a artificial-womb that would serve anywhere near as well as the real thing. As it is premie kids suffer develpmental problems even if they are only born a few weeks early
(I say this as the dad of three preemie toddlers that I HOPE will buck the trends--born 4 weks, 5 weeks and 12 weeks early)

furthermore, do think the fetus will just be teleported out of the woman's body? As it stands now, to "remove" a fetus (ie cesaerian) is a serious operation, and one that leaves the mother basically unable to have natural childbirth for future children. This certainly won't eliminate the "right to their own bodies" argument.

Hey, I watch the sci-fi. We'll have something soon enough. (Whether it's progressing slowly or quickly is a different discussion, I guess. Look at how far organ transplant has come in the last few decades. Soon there will be giant underground caverns where millions of fetuses will be farmed in bio-mechanical devices and we won't have to worry about the ethics of abortion or the inconvenience of pregnancy ).

very cool for you and your family. 12 weeks early.
babies born at 23 weeks stand a pretty good chance. (What is that, 15 (17?) weeks early?) I'm just wondering what some of our pro-abortion posters think about viability and late-term abortions. We're already talking about thousands of babies a year. Right now, for these pregnancies, there is a big difference between "not necessary" and "not allowed" as far as abortion is concerned.

From Wikipedia
Nearly all pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, and almost no pregnancies are viable before the 20th week. Everything in between is a "grey area".[2]
. . .
In the United States, 1.4% of abortions occur at 21 weeks or later[3](approximately 18,000 per year[4]). In 1997, the Alan Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions past 24 weeks to be 0.08% (approximately 1,032 per year).[5]

. . .
As of April 2006, 36 states had bans on late-term abortions that were not facially unconstitutional (i.e. banning all abortions) or enjoined by court order. Many of these bans are believed to be unconstitutional by pro-choice organizations.

[Murphy3]

edit - double post

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Pushed in the 80s?

Right now you can PUSH to go natural, but it is not the default (whether for true tech reasons or liability reasons, I don't know)

i DO know that doctors did not want MY wife to natural for baby #2 or Baby #3.

Yes, there is a slightly higher risk of rupturing the placenta when having natural childbirth after a c-section. Howver, there are all kinds of risks with having a c-section in any circumstance.

Many doctors suggest having a c-section with future pregnancies simply because there was an issue that's likely to complicate the childbirth in the future. Perhaps the vaginal passage and/or cervix area just aren't going to dilate enough to be conducive to natural childbirth at any point in the mother's life. What's usually the cause of this is the husband having too small of a penis to properly gradually stretch the above mentioned passages. The vaginal orifice is just too small for natural child birth. Honestly, there is one thing that could probably help you out. Have you considered a penile implant?

[Murphy3]

I was completely robbed with not getting more praise from the above comment. Some of you need to seriously ask for my forgiveness.

[Usually Lurkin]

Murphy,

a proper thread-killing comment should be just that.

[Murphy3]

I breathed life into this thread to start...I killed the thread.... I'll breathe life into it once again when the time is right.