What about men's rights?

[mcsluggo]

So it of course boils down to two questions:

1) when is it an "it", and when is "it" a child
2) and who has the right to make decisions about a woman's body, when that body is needed to support not just her own life, but that of another as well.

This is a damn emotional issue. But even if you define the fetus as a child from the moment of conception, then the rights of the woman in this "relationship" are different from the rights of the child. they both have the rights to the dominion over their own body. However, unfortunately for much of the pregnancy the fetus is unable to support its own life without the use of the mother's body. I'm not aware of any other circumstance where one individual is compelled by the law to support the life of another, no matter how little the cost to him/her. Parents in this society and legal system are allowed to abdicate the rights and responsibilities of caring for their children. They are not allowed to just lock them up in a room to starve, but they are allowed to drop em off at the courthouse and wash their hands of them. No?

In the case of a 23rd week or less fetus, it is unable to survive outside of the womb, under any circumstances. So abdicating the responsibility to "care" for it means death.

Imagine a paralel situation: Biological Father (or mother) has the same rare blood type as their 6 year old child. Clearly that child has a right to life, and to kill him/her would be murder, but I can't imagine that it would be legal to force the father to donate blood even if it if it was needed to save the child's life.

the above is a a way to try to adress the "rights of the woman" versus the "rights of the fetus", but it imposible to talk about such an emotional issue wthout coming off aloof, crass, or un-caring. Personally, I hate abortion. My first child had severe complications and they DID threaten the life of my wife, and I DID face the very real possibility of losing both of them in the 20th week of the pregnancy. My wife had to spend the rest o her pregnancy in a hospital bed, and she made me swear to her that I would not sacrifice the child to save her, if she went into a coma and lost the ability to express her desires for herself. These are very real issues to me, not abstractions.

BUT, I don't know how you can legally force a women to use her body to support the life of another against her will. You can WANT her to, and do everthing to make it easier for her to make that choice. But can we MAKE her make the choice we want? With a breathing child, if we as a society despise the choices a mother makes in the care of her child, we can resort to taking the child away from her. We don't have that option here.

There are no good solutions to this particular issue. they ALL suck

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

They should have taken that into consideration before having sex. Usually women know that they are women before having sex. The probably understand that if anyone is to get pregnant, it won't be the guy. And I'm sure the man understands that if anyone is to pay child support, it's more likely to be him as well.

Here's the point, if two consenting individuals have sex and the woman gets pregnant because of this, why does the male have less rights? Both the man and the woman are aware of what their long term responsibilities would be if the woman does get pregnant.

You just answered your own question. The man having sex with a woman knows his rights and responsibilites concerning any conception before he has sex. He also knows that his rights and responsibilities are not perfect mirror images of the woman's. He knows this before-hand.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Socially new way? It's a socially new idea that a father should have input into decisions affecting the LIFE of his child? Really? The truth is, it's a socially new (still only about 30 years old) idea that a father shouldn't have input into whether his baby is allowed to live or not. And again, the problem with your argument (and perhaps mine with regard to the father) is that it's framed totally without reference to the child. Even if I agreed with you that the mother's rights were superior to the father's rights (which I don't), I can't possibly agree with you that the mother's rights are superior to the child's rights. And I haven't heard you make that argument either.

As for my "reductio ad absurdum" argument, you keep suggesting it was fallacious, but you have yet to demonstrate why.

KG, I don't recall characterizing your gay-marriage argument as fallacious, in those words. In my way of thinking, you did that yourself when you seemed to espouse the idea that it would be okay for a father to have say in an abortion decision but not a grandparent. Here's how I'm seeing it:

In the gay-marriage debate, you argued that if we extended the right to marry (for whatever reason) to others besides unrelated heterosexuals (those who solely enjoy the right now), then logically we would have to extend it to everyone. Your argument refused to allow a difference between two unrelated gay men or women on the one hand and, say, a mother and son on the other. This, despite the fact that any reasonable person can see the difference.

Then in today's debate, the question is whether we should extend to right to make decisions about an unborn child (for whatever reason) to someone besides the mother (who solely enjoys the right now). You seemed to agree that the father should have a say, but you bristled when the same logic you used in the gay-marriage debate was applied--in other words, if we give the father a say then we will also have to listen to others, such as grandparents, who may also have an interest.

Every reasonable person knows that there is a difference between a father and a grandparent. Every reasonable person knows that a father is far closer to deserving the "right" than is a grandparent. Just like every reasonable person knows that a gay couple is far closer to deserving the "right" than are a brother and sister or mother and son.

So while I didn't want to call your gay-marriage argument fallacious, per se, I am quite comfortable placing it in the same category as this other argument that deals with human rights.

For all the rest, I have no opinion--at least that I am prepared to share.

[kg_veteran]

You're misstating my argument regarding gay marriage.

I didn't argue that if we let gays marry that we'd have to let relatives marry. What I argued was, if the premise is that two consenting adults who want to commit to each other should be allowed to get married, then there is no logical distinction between a guy marrying a guy and a guy marrying his mom. Both situations involve consenting adults, neither of whom is "hurting anybody else" according to the rationale put forth by the gay marriage supporters. Of course, most people in favor of gay marriage aren't in favor of guys marrying their moms. That's because they simply draw the line at a different place on what is morally acceptable than the person who is against gay marriage does. They have no qualms about laws prohibiting such incestuous marriages, but they do have qualms about laws prohibiting gays from marrying. And that's hypocritical.

On the other hand, as you've readily admitted, there is a rather obvious distinction between a child's parent and their grandparent.

Nice try, but no cigar.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

You're misstating my argument regarding gay marriage.

I didn't argue that if we let gays marry that we'd have to let relatives marry. What I argued was, if the premise is that two consenting adults who want to commit to each other should be allowed to get married, then there is no logical distinction between a guy marrying a guy and a guy marrying his mom. Both situations involve consenting adults, neither of whom is "hurting anybody else" according to the rationale put forth by the gay marriage supporters. Of course, most people in favor of gay marriage aren't in favor of guys marrying their moms. That's because they simply draw the line at a different place on what is morally acceptable than the person who is against gay marriage does. They have no qualms about laws prohibiting such incestuous marriages, but they do have qualms about laws prohibiting gays from marrying. And that's hypocritical.

On the other hand, as you've readily admitted, there is a rather obvious distinction between a child's parent and their grandparent.

Nice try, but no cigar.

Which is exactly why the line will continue to be drawn at what's historically and socially defined as a "marriage." AND, if you give spousal privileges to "civil unions" or whatevers, then that'll duly expand to "domestic partnerships" where people who co-habitate for various reasons excluding love and/or sex will have those same privileges.

I personally think that we should just take the government and law out of marriage altogether. Why is there any legal status to begin with?

Live and let live - most people are going to get married by a church anyway, and it's "official" to them in that sense. Those that don't, get married for the symbolic gesture. Those that can't, due to whatever law, also get "married" in a symbolic sense quite often.

They only have two reasons to really want to get "married" in a legal sense:
1 - To attain legal status that gives them privileges that the government should've never given in the first place.
2 - To get some sort of false sense of wider acceptance because they overrate #1.

Otherwise, just live together and have a wedding, have someone perform a ceremony, and change your name if you are so inclined. Plenty of straight couples do this.

I'll even go so far as to say that most people (gay or otherwise) who support gay marriage in the legislative sense agree with #2 in doing so, because they are usually more liberal and idealogically support a government that overreaches.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

You're misstating my argument regarding gay marriage.

I didn't argue that if we let gays marry that we'd have to let relatives marry. What I argued was, if the premise is that two consenting adults who want to commit to each other should be allowed to get married, then there is no logical distinction between a guy marrying a guy and a guy marrying his mom. Both situations involve consenting adults, neither of whom is "hurting anybody else" according to the rationale put forth by the gay marriage supporters. Of course, most people in favor of gay marriage aren't in favor of guys marrying their moms. That's because they simply draw the line at a different place on what is morally acceptable than the person who is against gay marriage does. They have no qualms about laws prohibiting such incestuous marriages, but they do have qualms about laws prohibiting gays from marrying. And that's hypocritical.

On the other hand, as you've readily admitted, there is a rather obvious distinction between a child's parent and their grandparent.

Nice try, but no cigar.

Have to, schmave to. You offered that scenario up yourself. You injected it into the gay marriage debate, when no one else was talking about it. Everyone else was talking about whether gay couples should have the same social rights straight couples have, and rather than being genuine about it and coming right out and saying that gays shouldn't have those rights for the reason that they are gay, you tried to put gays in a class that includes parent and child, sister and brother.

I'm all for answering Murph's question about what rights potential fathers should have, without resorting to logical red herrings about other parties who might also lay claim to a stake in the decision. Just like I'm all for answering the question of gay marriage without logical red herrings like people marrying their moms. When that particular debate gets a bit more sincere, we might make some intellectual progress.

Back on topic here, I don't believe a man should have any right to force his child's mother to have an abortion. So in that same regard, I don't believe he should be able to force her to have the child, either, if she has a legal right not to. (This, without respect to the relative merits of the decision, either way.)

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Have to, schmave to. You offered that scenario up yourself. You injected it into the gay marriage debate, when no one else was talking about it. Everyone else was talking about whether gay couples should have the same social rights straight couples have, and rather than being genuine about it and coming right out and saying that gays shouldn't have those rights for the reason that they are gay, you tried to put gays in a class that includes parent and child, sister and brother.

I offered up that scenario to demonstrate the flaw and hypocrisy in the argument espoused by the majority of those in favor of gay marriage. I offered it up in specific response to someone who told me something to the effect of, "Why shouldn't two consenting adults who want to commit to each other be allowed to marry?" As I recall, my response was, "Sure, why shouldn't they?" You don't like the argument because it's not fallacious at all -- it's right on target.

As for your assertion that I wasn't genuine in my arguments against gay marriage, frankly, that's nonsense.

I'm all for answering Murph's question about what rights potential fathers should have, without resorting to logical red herrings about other parties who might also lay claim to a stake in the decision. Just like I'm all for answering the question of gay marriage without logical red herrings like people marrying their moms. When that particular debate gets a bit more sincere, we might make some intellectual progress.

No, the problem is, you tried to make a square peg fit in a round hole. You were so eager to catch me in some sort of inconsistency that you didn't realize it wasn't really an inconsistency at all.

Back on topic here, I don't believe a man should have any right to force his child's mother to have an abortion. So in that same regard, I don't believe he should be able to force her to have the child, either, if she has a legal right not to. (This, without respect to the relative merits of the decision, either way.)

Right. So you believe he should have no say. I doubt you'd feel the same if you were the father.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

You just answered your own question. The man having sex with a woman knows his rights and responsibilites concerning any conception before he has sex. He also knows that his rights and responsibilities are not perfect mirror images of the woman's. He knows this before-hand.

The question is "why doesn't the man have the same rights?" No sh!t the rights are different. We all know that.

[Jeremiah]

...

[chumdawg]

You aren't inconsistent at all, KG. You consistently use your own morality to guide the particular "logic" you choose to use in a given situation. You are like a lot of other people in that regard, so don't take it personally.

You use one sort "logic" to try to establish an hypocrisy that isn't there (and that you know isn't there). Yet when the same "logic" runs counter to what your morality believes should be the case, you discard it and find another one.

Again, it's not peculiar to you, so I mean no personal offense.

[Five-ofan]

Mavdog, there is a difference between literally killing the baby and smoking drinking or working out. The latter 3 are your rights and they dont pose enough of a threat to the baby to outlaw them though in my personal opinion you shouldnt be allowed to smoke or drink when pregnant either. That said my personal opinion has nothing to do with this or my argument. Killing the baby is wrong and should be illegal whether the mother wants to or not. Now in cases of the mothers life being in danger i can understand it. Then it becomes triage or however you spell that. Otherwise it is murder. I do realize that their are grey areas such as rape or incest and those make the question difficult idealogically. I would still prefer no abortion but i can see a reasonable argument for abortion in those cases.

[TXSportsFan4]

Originally Posted by sixeightmkw

Becasue legally, grandparents have no say over a child while a child is living. A father does have legal rights to a child while he is living. So, before birth, a father has no rights, no "obligations", no anything or say to do with the child, but once it is born, it is all his responsibility to take care of the child. I don't find that fair.

I agree with that.

[mary]

This only makes for a good philosophical discussion.

As a matter of practicality, its a no-brainer.

Its impossible for two people share equal rights over the same womb. Or non-equal rights for that matter. You just can't split the thing up.

If a woman is pregnant and wants to have an abortion, and the father wants to stop her, then only one party is going to ultimately have the "right" to decide...it has to be the man or the woman. Those decisions are mutually exclusive of each other.

Do men have rights in these types of circumstances?

Well, since women currently have rights over their own bodies (including the right to a legal abortion) - the answer, by default, has to be no.

There's no middle ground, there's no way to compromise. In order to provide rights to one, they have to be taken away from the other.

On another note, its very sad to me that there are so many unwanted pregnancies in this world, especially when we live in a day and age where conception can be so easily avoided.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally Posted by mary

This only makes for a good philosophical discussion.

As a matter of practicality, its a no-brainer.

Its impossible for two people share equal rights over the same womb. Or non-equal rights for that matter. You just can't split the thing up.

If a woman is pregnant and wants to have an abortion, and the father wants to stop her, then only one party is going to ultimately have the "right" to decide...it has to be the man or the woman. Those decisions are mutually exclusive of each other.

Do men have rights in these types of circumstances?

Well, since women currently have rights over their own bodies (including the right to a legal abortion) - the answer, by default, has to be no.

There's no middle ground, there's no way to compromise. In order to provide rights to one, they have to be taken away from the other.

On another note, its very sad to me that there are so many unwanted pregnancies in this world, especially when we live in a day and age where conception can be so easily avoided.

Good post mary. The truth of the matter is, however, that there are people willing to be parents to all of the "unwanted" pregnancies. That is an option that I wish would be spoken of more.

And that way, everyone gets to live.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Jeremiah

When a child can live on its own outside of the womb, then I'd call it a child with rights just the same as any other human being. I don't consider using the assistance of an incubator, or a life support machine the same as on it's own.

My daughter was born at 28 weeks, had to stay in intensive care for 5 weeks, but was perfectly healthy otherwise (no complications after she came home).

You don't think society has an obligation to do at least what it can to preserve a life that is completely viable with assistance completely unrelated to the mother?

(one complicating issue, of course, was that they had to slice open the mother to let the baby out)


I feel that the very minimum we as a society can do is make the utmost effort as soon as a fetus becomes potentially viable. I don't completely understand why, but the neo-natal ICU doctors and nurses all informed me that survival outside the womb is absolutely impossible no matter what extroidanairy measures are taken if a baby is born before the 24th week. After that point, it is much less easy to argue that the fetus has no rights to a chance to survive.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Good post mary. The truth of the matter is, however, that there are people willing to be parents to all of the "unwanted" pregnancies. That is an option that I wish would be spoken of more.

And that way, everyone gets to live.

I wish that this were true. Right now there are enough adoptive parents to gobble up all available healthy white infants. Children who are either older, non-white, or have some sort of identifyable problem are much less lucky.

This is without the "supply" drastically curtailed by abortion (there is no "gentle" way to state that fact)

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

My daughter was born at 28 weeks, had to stay in intensive care for 5 weeks, but was perfectly healthy otherwise (no complications after she came home).

You don't think society has an obligation to do at least what it can to preserve a life that is completely viable with assistance completely unrelated to the mother?

(one complicating issue, of course, was that they had to slice open the mother to let the baby out)


I feel that the very minimum we as a society can do is make the utmost effort as soon as a fetus becomes potentially viable. I don't completely understand why, but the neo-natal ICU doctors and nurses all informed me that survival outside the womb is absolutely impossible no matter what extroidanairy measures are taken if a baby is born before the 24th week. After that point, it is much less easy to argue that the fetus has no rights to a chance to survive.

I had a friend who's daughter was born at 22 weeks. That's typically non-viable at that age. But, she's now 6-7 years old without a problem in the world. Typically there's obviously poor to no development of the lungs at 22 weeks, but in her case...that wasn't the case. I don't know that there has been more than just a few in the world survive at 22 weeks, but it's damn cool knowing a perfectly healthy child that did.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by mary

This only makes for a good philosophical discussion.

As a matter of practicality, its a no-brainer.

Its impossible for two people share equal rights over the same womb. Or non-equal rights for that matter. You just can't split the thing up.

If a woman is pregnant and wants to have an abortion, and the father wants to stop her, then only one party is going to ultimately have the "right" to decide...it has to be the man or the woman. Those decisions are mutually exclusive of each other.

Do men have rights in these types of circumstances?

Well, since women currently have rights over their own bodies (including the right to a legal abortion) - the answer, by default, has to be no.

There's no middle ground, there's no way to compromise. In order to provide rights to one, they have to be taken away from the other.

On another note, its very sad to me that there are so many unwanted pregnancies in this world, especially when we live in a day and age where conception can be so easily avoided.

If the father wants the child born but the mother does not, not aborting the baby should obviously take precedent over the mother wanting an abortion. The rights should always fall towards life in a situation such as that. If one wants the child and one does not, then it's obvious what should happen...regardless of which is which. I'm sorry, but the mother should lose the right to that decision if the father disagrees. Once again, she was just as responsible for getting pregnant.

I know what the current law is, but quite frankly, women should lose the rights to their womb in this situation. It's truly the only logical explanation to this situation that does not involve getting rid of abortion completely.

[mary]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

If the father wants the child born but the mother does not, not aborting the baby should obviously take precedent over the mother wanting an abortion. The rights should always fall towards life in a situation such as that. If one wants the child and one does not, then it's obvious what should happen...regardless of which is which. I'm sorry, but the mother should lose the right to that decision if the father disagrees. Once again, she was just as responsible for getting pregnant.

I know what the current law is, but quite frankly, women should lose the rights to their womb in this situation.

Why is it obvious?

Are we talking about the right to an abortion, or are we talking about the allocation of existing rights to an abortion?

Unless abortion laws change, or women are relegated to status of being "property", I can't say that I agree with you.

The "she knew what she was getting in to" argument is completely circular. It applies to both parties and can be used to argue either side of this issue.

[Murphy3]

Of course it applies to both parties. However, the female should not have complete legal say over what happens to something that is partially the males regardless of where it is growing.

Why is it ok to strip the male of his rights in the situation but not the female?

[mary]

Can you strip him of something he doesn't have to begin with?

And here's my easy answer: Because its not his body. That is not a minor point.

[Murphy3]

The male should have rights to his sperm....to his potential child. The laws on the books are simply unacceptable. I may just have to become a beacon of light for the new Men's Rights movement.

Back in the early 1900's, I suppose men could have said "can you strip her of something that she doesn't have to begin with?" I suppose the archaic laws that did not allow women the right to vote shouldn't have changed simply because you can't strip rights from someone that didn't have them to begin with.

Women can vote now..can't they?

[mary]

I'm not convinced men think all that highly of their sperm.

They're awefully generous with them.

[mary]

Back in the early 1900's, I suppose men could have said "can you strip her of something that she doesn't have to begin with?" I suppose the archaic laws that did not allow women the right to vote shouldn't have changed simply because you can't strip rights from someone that didn't have them to begin with.

But you weren't taking voting rights away from men and giving them to women. That most certainly never would've happened.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You aren't inconsistent at all, KG. You consistently use your own morality to guide the particular "logic" you choose to use in a given situation. You are like a lot of other people in that regard, so don't take it personally.

Nice play on words -- and nice dodge.

There's no question that each person, including you, uses their own morality to determine how they feel about a given situation. What isn't true, however, is your assertion that I made logically inconsistent arguments.

And neither repetition nor condescension will change that.

You use one sort "logic" to try to establish an hypocrisy that isn't there (and that you know isn't there). Yet when the same "logic" runs counter to what your morality believes should be the case, you discard it and find another one.

Again, it's not peculiar to you, so I mean no personal offense.

You haven't offended me. But that doesn't mean you aren't wrong, because you are.

If a person says that they believe consenting adults should be able to marry, then it is perfectly logical to question whether they really believe that or not. And most of the time, they really don't. You don't like my argument because it uses an absurdity to point out the inconsistency in that line of thinking, but that doesn't make my argument invalid.

I never advanced the argument that any family member that wants to have input in whether a child is aborted should. I simply asked why one parent gets the right to make the decision while the other parent has no say.

It's not analogous to compare grandparents to parents, and you know that. It IS, however, analogous to compare consenting adults to consenting adults.

I don't have to "discard my logic" at all.

[kg_veteran]

mcsluggo - Here's an interesting article...

Roe v. Wade v. technology

By Tony Blankley
Jul 27, 2005
link


As the John Roberts' Supreme Court nomination fight opens, the predicted battle to save or kill Roe v Wade already has taken to the streets, the Internet and the media. But the 32-year-old constitutional right to an abortion may face its gravest challenge not from red state values triumphing on the Supreme Court, but from medical research being carried out in elite blue state universities and in Europe and Asia.

It is the very language of Roe that carries the seed of its own possible irrelevance within the next several years. Roe enunciated the more or less unencumbered right of a woman to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability. After viability, the right of states to regulate or prohibit abortions arise. The court defined legal viability as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." But medical science is remorselessly advancing on two fronts along paths that may fairly soon seize and destroy in a scientific pincer movement the viability of Roe's reasoning.


When Roe was handed down in 1973, the survivability of prematurely born babies was not medically possible before 28 weeks of gestation. Today, babies born after only 20 weeks of gestation routinely survive -- and thus are viable under the Roe definition (and thus potentially legally safe from the abortionist's medical weapons).


But radical research may soon reduce that 20 weeks to just a few -- or perhaps no weeks. At Juntendo University of Tokyo, Dr. Yoshinori Kuwabara and his team of scientists have successfully removed goat fetuses from mother goats and placed them in tanks of amniotic fluid stabilized at goat body temperature, while connecting the baby goat's umbilical cord to machines that pump in nutrients and dispose of waste.


The purpose of Dr. Kuwabara's research is to provide a safe home for human fetuses prematurely expelled from the mother's womb. According to the British Guardian newspaper, it is expected that such methods capable of sustaining a child for the full nine months "will become reality in a few years."


Meanwhile, at Cornell University's Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility, Dr. Hung-Ching Liu and her team of scientists have been approaching the problem of fetal out-of-womb survival from the other side. She is developing a full artificial womb that can receive a just-conceived embryo -- with the hope that it will successfully gestate for the full nine months.


Her team's method is to remove cells from the mother's endometrium (the lining the womb), and grow those cells in a hormones-and-growth-enzymes "bath." Then they let the cells rapidly grow on a scaffold made of biodegradable material molded in the shape of a uterus, into which she plants the embryo. By this method Dr. Liu has already successfully kept alive a brand-new human embryo/fetus for six days -- after which she voluntarily ended the fetus's existence to comply with current medical ethics regulations.

While Dr. Kuwabara's technology is being designed for normal pregnancies cut short by miscarriages, Dr. Liu's technologies will have special appeal to homosexual couples who want to have a child, as well as women with defective wombs and women who just can't be bothered to be pregnant (although the first few minutes of such pregnancies might still be valued for extraneous reasons).


But both, or either technology, once routinely available, could have a profound, if unintended, effect on the constitutional right of abortion. Once such technologies make it medically possible for a fetus to be "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid" the language of Roe v Wade will not have to be overturned. It could stay on the books as legally valid, but factually meaningless.

Of course the irony of all this cut so many ways, it is hard to count. A technology designed to help homosexual couples and radical feminists have wombless babies may come into the service of conservatives (who oppose homosexual marriage and feminist values) as a means of ending abortion.


Cutting the other way, it is the technology of stem cell research and cloning (which many right-to-life conservatives want to outlaw) that may be needed to develop a technology that could be used to effectively legally end abortion -- thus creating for such conservatives the moral dilemma of supporting the use of what they judge to be unethical or immoral technologies to end the greatest slaughter of the innocent (millions of abortions a year).


These emerging technologies give academic ethicists (as well as the rest of us amateur ethicists) plenty to think about. Remember, in Aldous Huxley's disturbingly prescient "Brave New World," the normal people were genetically cloned and gestated in artificial wombs, while the savages living in remote locations were the only ones who still naturally conceived, carried their own babies and then breast-fed them.


The "normal" cloned people thought the natural people were animals to procreate naturally. As it always has in history, the definition of normal is subject to unexpected and seemingly abnormal change.


And, it would seem, that advancing medical and genetic technologies will benefit conservatives and liberals in a promiscuous manner.

[chumdawg]

Okay, KG, I'll spell it out for you, then.

John wants to marry Jack. He rationalizes it this way:

Take the set of all people who wish to be married. Remove from that set already married people and people who wish to marry more than one other person, since polygamy is illegal. Remove from that set people who wish to marry a relative, because marrying relatives is illegal. You are left with the set of single people who wish to marry other non-related single people. John is in this set. He wonders why he could marry Jill but not marry Jack.

You respond to that by usurping John's premise, claiming instead that there are only two sets--the set of single, non-related people who wish to marry someone of the opposite sex, and the set of everyone else. You call John a hypocrite if he fails to accept your premise rather than his.

Then, there is the John who impregnates Jill. Jill wants to abort the baby, John wants her to have it. He rationalizes it this way:

Take the set of all people who have an interest in whether Jill gives birth to the child. This set may include Jill's parents, or her siblings or other relatives. The set may include Jill's daughter, who would be the child's sister. The set may include Jill's husband, if she and John are having a fling. The set may include Jill's pastor or priest or employer. Whatever. John says remove all those sets from the set of people who have an interest in the birth or abortion, and leave only the set of those who would be a parent to the child. Why does Jill get a say, when he doesn't?

Then you come along and usurp his premise by saying that he has his sets wrong. In this case, there are only two sets--the set that includes the mother of the unborn child, and the set that includes everyone else. John would be a hypocrite if he claimed a say in the matter while disallowing a say to everyone else.

Now, I happen to think the second scenario is ridiculous, and I think you do too. The difference, though, is that I also happen to think the first scenario is equally ridiculous, on the same logical grounds.

You like the first scenario but don't like the other, which is why I say that you let your morality dictate what logic you use. Not how you feel about either scenario, but what logic you use.

[kg_veteran]

Take the set of all people who wish to be married. Remove from that set already married people and people who wish to marry more than one other person, since polygamy is illegal. Remove from that set people who wish to marry a relative, because marrying relatives is illegal. You are left with the set of single people who wish to marry other non-related single people. John is in this set. He wonders why he could marry Jill but not marry Jack.

You respond to that by usurping John's premise, claiming instead that there are only two sets--the set of single, non-related people who wish to marry someone of the opposite sex, and the set of everyone else. You call John a hypocrite if he fails to accept your premise rather than his.

I see your thought process, but there's still a problem with it.

I never usurped John's premise. John is the one who offered the premise -- I simply applied it.

If you argue in favor of gay marriage on some other basis than "consenting adults who want to marry should be allowed to," then I would agree with you. My argument doesn't work.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Drbio
I love how they always gloss over the part when someone brings up that the child is literally ripped apart piece by piece with the womb vacuum. I guess that really doesn't fit their agenda so they choose to ignore it.

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

You have to ignore it if you're an abortion advocate. It's an untenable position to try and say what they have done to millions of innocent children is anything short of barbaric and inhumane. So they just don't talk about it. Instead, let's talk about how horrible it would be if the mother had to bear and raise that child.

I guess we are still being ignored on this point. You guys sure got into it while I was gone.

[Five-ofan]

Your not being ignored but the majority of people who dont ignore logic are already against abortion.

[Drbio]

Good point.


THis is interesting....if nothing else it is timely. From CNN.com's front page from today.....



NEW YORK (AP) -- Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit -- nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men -- to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.

The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.

"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have -- it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."

Feit's organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Michigan.

Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that -- because of a physical condition -- she could not get pregnant.

Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail.

"What I expect to hear [from the court] is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started."

State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case.

"The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said.

Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn't necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn't afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said.

'This is so politically incorrect'
Jennifer Brown of the women's rights advocacy group Legal Momentum objected to the men's center comparing Dubay's lawsuit to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman's right to have an abortion.

"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government -- literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized."

Feit counters that the suit's reference to abortion rights is apt.

"Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences," he said. "No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say."

"The problem is this is so politically incorrect," Feit added. "The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility."

Feit doesn't advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.

"If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible," Feit said. "If she can't take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative."

The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.

"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."

[Murphy3]

"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government -- literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized."

If you make this argument, then the male should have the same say in whether or not the pregnancy is terminated... They should have that say regardless, but her argument plays right into my argument.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by Drbio

The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.

"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."

I concur with that completely. An unintended part of that statement is that imo it is probably the biggest anti abortion argument there is. "It's about the rights of the child" Yep and the childs first right is to live. How can courts be so hypocritical.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Drbio

Good point.


THis is interesting....if nothing else it is timely. From CNN.com's front page from today.....



NEW YORK (AP) -- Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit -- nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men -- to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.

The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.

"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have -- it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."

Feit's organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Michigan.

Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that -- because of a physical condition -- she could not get pregnant.

Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail.

"What I expect to hear [from the court] is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started."

State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case.

"The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said.

Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn't necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn't afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said.

'This is so politically incorrect'
Jennifer Brown of the women's rights advocacy group Legal Momentum objected to the men's center comparing Dubay's lawsuit to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman's right to have an abortion.

"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government -- literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized."

Feit counters that the suit's reference to abortion rights is apt.

"Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences," he said. "No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say."

"The problem is this is so politically incorrect," Feit added. "The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility."

Feit doesn't advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.

"If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible," Feit said. "If she can't take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative."

The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.

"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."

What an absolute load of BS.

So the argument is --- since Abortion is a legal option for a woman, by opting not to abort they should lose right to financial support.


The woman also didn't chose to have a hysterecomy. How about if someone finds out that an unborn (and thus still an "option for obortion") will have developmental difficulties, is the state exempt from extra-support because the mother foolishly chooses not to abort.


Stupid stuff, and everyone involved in the case knows it. They are just trying to make big <wink> <wink> statements.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

I concur with that completely. An unintended part of that statement is that imo it is probably the biggest anti abortion argument there is. "It's about the rights of the child" Yep and the childs first right is to live. How can courts be so hypocritical.

it is about the right of the born child. There is no legal (or moral) concensus on when a fetus becomes "worthy" of the term "child".

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government -- literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized."

If you make this argument, then the male should have the same say in whether or not the pregnancy is terminated... They should have that say regardless, but her argument plays right into my argument.

I completely disagree.

there is no equivalent for men. Arguing otherwise is like fighting for the right for women to get to pee standing up. The situation for men and women is simply different (both in pregnancy and in urinals).

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

it is about the right of the born child. There is no legal (or moral) concensus on when a fetus becomes "worthy" of the term "child".

Did you read the article I posted above?

Science may soon render Roe v. Wade into a meaningless decision. If science can keep a child alive from the moment of conception (and it appears that things are headed that way), then that child is "viable", and the states have the right to regulate whether an abortion of that child would be permissible.

[sixeightmkw]

It is weird how Roe vs Wade says that fetus' are not human for the purpose of aborting them, but legislation passed says other words. Per Wikipedia:
Quote"Since the 1970s in the United States, there has been continuing debate over the "personhood" of the fetus before birth, generally in the context of the argument over abortion, which is currently legal in the United States following the case of Roe v. Wade.

According to legislation which passed the US Senate in March 2004, an unborn child is defined as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb and who is injured or killed during the commission of a federal crime of violence..". (Unborn Victims of Violence Act, April 2004)Quote"

[sixeightmkw]

so if my understanding is correct, a fetus is not a child if he is aborted, but he is a child if some thug beats up a woman who is pregnant and injures or kills the child. Makes no sense.

[Jeremiah]

...