It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Utter Insanity of Pro-Choice

page: 6
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Monts
Wasn't quite sure where to put this... mods move this if needed.

Alright folks, here is a kind of paradox I find so disturbing about the pro-choice side of the abortion debate.

So according to pro-choice, it is a woman's body that becomes pregnant; she is the one who carries the baby, therefore it is up to her whether or not she wants to keep the baby or have an abortion.

So here is my question... one that has been bugging me ever since I learned about the idea of "pro-choice".

What about the Father? Where is his choice?!?!?!?!

If the woman wants to keep the baby, and the father does not, the baby arrives, and if the father is no longer with the mother, he has to pay childcare fees and care for the baby as if he is just as responsible for that baby being brought into to life as the mother.

But what if the father wants to keep the baby and the mother does not?

Then the mother can "choose" to have an abortion, with the father having absolutely no control over this decision. Can you imagine if you found out, if your a guy, that your partner was pregnant, and you wanted to have this baby, and where totally against abortion, but in the end your partner had an abortion because you had absolutely no legal say in it?

I don't know about anyone else, but this really disturbs me :/

Thoughts?



The Jewish traditions insist that if your mom is Jewish, then you're Jewish. If it's your dad who is the Jewish parent, then maybe not. Kind of like the old saying "In the making of a bacon and eggs breakfast, the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed."

The father is potentially the father until the gestation is completed. At that point, the organism is no longer parasitic, and has become a viable entity in its own right. After the birth, there can be a biological father.

Before that birth, there was the corporeal whole that was the woman, and within that corporeal whole, there was a parasitic mass that was not a viable corporeal whole. Until it is either ejected from the womb naturally, or extracted from the womb through surgery, the nonviable mass is a sub-assembly structure that exists naturally within the larger super-structure of the woman. This means that until the super-structure rejects it, the fetal sub-structure is not its own structural whole, and it certainly is not the sub-assembly structure of a completely foreign structural whole.

The biology is iron-clad in this matter. A potential person is not a person, just as a dead person is not a person. Legal status notwithstanding, the fetus is a parasitic corporeal unit that physically belongs to the corporeal whole of the woman, and the fact that the woman's body does not reject it while it is in gestational development, proves this ownership conclusively.

The father's contribution is important, but like the chicken in the breakfast analogy above, that contribution can't really compete with the full and total involvement of the woman and this is what gives her unique ownership of the gestational process itself.




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Monts
 


Oh Lordy. You've come face to face with the truth. It is a trick to keep killing babies.

Why take away the right to kill babies? You can kill yourself if you want. You can. You can kill your baby if you want. You can kill anybody you want if you have the power to do so. Why stop it? How CAN you stop it?!!!!



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
I don't understand why religion or philosphy are even being brought up. Common sense is all that is required. There are 2 basic categories that things fall in to, living or non-living. A fetus is living (it has life, its cells are alive and tranferring fluids amongst themselves, respiration is happening etc.) Like it or not YOU ARE KILLING A LIVING THING. You can choose to call it non-human, (but what is it if it is not a human, it has human DNA, human chromosomes), so how does religion or philosphy have anything to do with identifying it as living, or ending its life as killing? These are basic definitions, no seminary/phd degree required.

200 years ago, 1/2 the society that existed felt race based slavery was acceptable. It's quite easy to think that they were somehow ignorant primatives that actually thought skin color scientifically somehow made a person 'less' of a human. The people against slavery, Im sure, were just dumbfounded as to how their opponents could be so foolish. Fast forward to today. Apparently, your level of physical development, location, mental capacity, or ability to sustain yourself make you 'less' of a human. Funny how history repeats itself, maybe a 100 years from now humans will look back and say, how could so many people believe something so foolish?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by kingofmd
 


But you are trying to argue that humans should not be killed, and that is false. Some folks just need killin'.

Animals kill each other.
Mother Nature displays the truth for us.

Earthquakes kill the Mountains. Volcanos kill the Plains and Forests. Water kills the Shore. Day kills the Night, only to be killed by Night in its turn.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by kingofmd
I don't understand why religion or philosphy are even being brought up. Common sense is all that is required. There are 2 basic categories that things fall in to, living or non-living. A fetus is living (it has life, its cells are alive and tranferring fluids amongst themselves, respiration is happening etc.)


The way the law stands is common sense imo. It's called competing rights.

Are you of the position that I can take your bone marrow against your will since you accidentally (or deliberately) created a fire I was injured in?

Similarly can an unborn gestate in a woman's body who'll have to endure labor against her will merely because it is "alive"? No - also since the consequences of intercourse only benefited the fertilized egg by bringing it into existence, and fertilization is neither illegal nor negligent, no obligations of the actors can be derived from it.

You do know we deliberately create embryos in IVF clinics knowing the majority of them will be killed. What's the justification for that? "oh they're not in the womans body so it's alright. . . oh, the aim is to "create life" (they're not already alive?) so it's alright."



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Monts
 



If the woman decides to abort but the male does not, then the male should be able to receive legal justice; it is also his child, and I don't know about other males, but if I wanted to keep my child and my partner aborted anyways, it would feel like murder to me.


This is a valid issue in this topic that has little light. Most of the disussion has been toward, the female wishing to carry, the male not.

Yet it happens all the time, were the male would like to have the child, because he's adopted maybe and understands that life shouldbe given a chance.

But seeing how he has no say, she aborts, and the male is left with this for the rest of his life, unwanted damage, and unknowns.

How is this fair?




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by DEMONcrats
 



This has been one of my main arguing points against pro-choice people. did the baby just magically get in her womb? are women able to impregnate themselves?


The answer would be YES!

Its called articfical insemination right?

No male needed.....




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by angrymomma
 



She didn't tell my friend any of this until a couple weeks later. He was devastated to say the least. They separated in the end.

My point is, you can think you know someone but they can surprise you.


excellent post



Under burden of circumstance people can change and very quickly at that, to the point were their actions, are unexpected.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by godless
 



Didn't Daddy make his choice when he decided to sex her without adequate birth control? Didn't that say that Daddy didn't care if she became pregnant or not?


What if she misleads and tells you that she is on birth control? What if your in a relationship and she lies, and stops using birth control on purpose to trap an individual?

Or what if, certian medication she is on makes birth control INEFFECTIVE and she has no understanding about this? Yet still decides to claim to her partner she's on BC.

Now what then?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
IMO




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   
There was a class on the Constitution (actually several) that I took while in college. In this particular class (Constitutional Law) we discussed abortion and the different court cases. I'm gonna have to find this paper that I did on this exact subject. The day we discussed it in class was awesome. This other gentlemen in my class and myself were prepared for it and we totally (put the women in their place; not to be sexist but in this case it was warranted).

Basically, women want equal rights but are unwilling to be treated as such. When there is a baby conceived it is because of both the man and the women. The fetus is in the women's body and she does have a right to do to her body what she wants. So, until that fetus is able to come out and be grown outside the body then the sexes are not equal.

I can't remember the exact case (I'm gonna have to find it at home) but there was one where a women was not allowed to do a high-risk job while pregnant. She sued saying equal rights, the argument was that the men were protecting her. When there is a baby in a women then the man has the right to "protect his interest" and do whatever necessary (even if it does seem sexist) to protect the fetus.

Bottom line is that men have an invested interest in the women's body and so technically it is the man's job to protect that. I'm surprised that there are not other court cases that deal with this issue. There is precedence so if this was brought up in a court of law it would have background. I'd love to see it happen.

P.S. - Off subject but why isn't ATS posting on Twitter anymore?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a men's case parallel to Roe v. Wade. It has to do with if a father should pay child support if the women misled the man about her ability to get pregnant. Sorry but I haven't had the time to read it all. This subject just gets me so P.O.ed
Apparently there are several cases where women are allowed to do whatever they want while pregnant and there is no-one to stop them.
Again, the man has an "invested interest" which needs to be protected.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by DocDoyle]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by scwizard
It has to do with the right to bodily autonomy.

The concept is that human being gets to decide what to do with his or her body.

The constitution implies a right to decide what to do with your own body as long as you're not a danger to others. The same constitutional right to abortion, also gives makes a law forcing the population to take a certain drug unconstitutional. It's also the reason they can't make being high a crime, only "possession of a controlled substance."


You're completely over looking the fact that people make the decision to have sex, the consequences of sex w/out contraception is possible pregnancy. The "Bodily Autonomy" argument is invalid and a logical falacy. The right to control your own body also applies to the decison to have sex (unless it's a case of rape) and those involved should be held responsible for the consequences.

"Bodily Autonomy", as you call it, is a rediculous argument....



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability

What if she misleads and tells you that she is on birth control? What if your in a relationship and she lies, and stops using birth control on purpose to trap an individual?

Or what if, certian medication she is on makes birth control INEFFECTIVE and she has no understanding about this? Yet still decides to claim to her partner she's on BC.

Now what then?



Oh surprise - blame the woman - again.

I guarantee you - if man was held fully responsible. If DNA Paternity testing became mandatory by law - - - - someone would develop birth control for men.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Ahem: Wrap it up if you don't want a kid.

Second line.

edit to add:

It's the woman's choice, ultimately. It isn't my body.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by purplemonkeydishwasher]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anamnesis
You're completely over looking the fact that people make the decision to have sex, the consequences of sex w/out contraception is possible pregnancy. The "Bodily Autonomy" argument is invalid and a logical falacy. The right to control your own body also applies to the decison to have sex (unless it's a case of rape) and those involved should be held responsible for the consequences.

"Bodily Autonomy", as you call it, is a rediculous argument....



That doesnt change the fact that a woman still has the right to control what happens to her, and ultimately, the unborn fetus growing inside her. Claiming the argument to be a logical fallacy because her and her partnet already choose to have sex is ancilary. Regardless of the concequences, it remains her choice. The state, and the other party, have no say in what she can and cannot do with her body.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anamnesis
You're completely over looking the fact that people make the decision to have sex, the consequences of sex w/out contraception is possible pregnancy. The "Bodily Autonomy" argument is invalid and a logical falacy.


1 - How does IVF fit into your argument where we create and destroy "life" as needed?

2 - the consequences of intercourse only benefited the fertilized egg by bringing it into existence, and fertilization is neither illegal nor negligent, no obligations of the actors can be derived from it.

3 - Zygotes/Embryos and Fetuses do not have the right to life at the expense of someone else. No one born has that right either.


Originally posted by Anamnesis
The right to control your own body also applies to the decison to have sex (unless it's a case of rape) and those involved should be held responsible for the consequences.


What legal ruling are you citing?

And if you really cared about the "right to life" and don't apply loopholes to patch up inconsistencies in the "right to life" logic than the circumstances of conception (rape) shouldn't be an issue to you.


Originally posted by Anamnesis
"Bodily Autonomy", as you call it, is a rediculous argument....


Not at all, "No parent is legally obligated to donate organs or other replenishable resources such as bone marrow or blood to ensure the continuation of a child's life and under this premise, no pregnant woman should be forced to do the same." This argument is usually deemed The Right to Bodily Autonomy.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Monts
 


I am pro-choice (although i think this is a stupid label for agreeing with abortion) but i agree with a small part of your post.

If a woman chooses to keep a baby that the guy doesn't want, then why should he be forced to pay for it? That is if he has taken precautions to prevent a pregnancy (condoms or it's his own fault). It's a deeply unfair system that a woman can choose to get rid of a baby but expects a guy to pay if she chooses to keep it, without him having a say.

A woman should of course have the final say on whether to keep it or not, it is her body and she will have to deal with the possible complications of a pregnancy. It's just sad how a man is then held to randsom, financially speaking.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I seriously think that if you are perfectly healthy, then you are pure evil to have an abortion.

There is no difference in murdering a newborn, than when it's developing in the womb. what about the baby's choice?

what if the father wanted it dead. she has the baby, she has it then tells it when its older.
the kid will f wording hate its dad. and damm right.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by MR BOB]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cabaret Voltaire
reply to post by kingofmd
 


But you are trying to argue that humans should not be killed, and that is false. Some folks just need killin'.

Animals kill each other.
Mother Nature displays the truth for us.

Earthquakes kill the Mountains. Volcanos kill the Plains and Forests. Water kills the Shore. Day kills the Night, only to be killed by Night in its turn.


No. My argument was NOT that people shouldn't be killed.

My point is that some of us need to stop sugar coating what is actually taking place during an abortion. Some have brainwashed themselves in to thinking that it is just a lifeless lump of tissue. I was addressing the fact that it is living, and is in fact being killed/murdered.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join