Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

reply to post by Hefficide

I really don't see what is so difficult here. THREE parties are involved in this situation - Your questions don't reflect that.

You see it, you are choosing to ignore it for some odd reason to be able to maintain this irrational position of not taking a position.

You asked if women can get out of it. Yes.
Can men? Sure. They can avoid entanglement in the first place - otherwise they implicitly forgo a say in the next stage of the process because the woman is effected, in this stage, more adversely and directly than the male.

You can't even answer it straight up. I didn't ask if men can AVOID an unwanted pregnancy...both parties are very simply able to do that. I asked if they can absolve themsef of an unwanted pregnancy.

You know the answer...you don't like the conclusion.

This baits the screaming reaction ( in a larger font because when one lacks articulation then one resorts to showmanship ) HA THEN IT IS INEQUALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And high fives and stars for all who played on the guys team.

Calling something an irrational conclusion because it isn't the conclusion you want it to be is not logical.

I'm sorry...there is nothing irrational about the questions...the only thing irrational is your desire to want to ignore the current inequality because it makes you uncomfortable.

For the record...I don't want to correct the inequality by giving the man the ability to absolve himself of an unwanted pregnancy, which is what you are trying to pose the emotional "what about the baby???" counter argument as. I want to absolve the inequality by removing the option to absolve the unwanted pregnancy from teh woman. And then look at that....no inequality...and now you can't play the "what about the poor baby" emotional (and illogical) counter argumnet.

What do I say it's an illogical counter argument...because you don't give a damn about killing the baby...but you are kicking and screaming about paying money to the mother, because of the "poor baby".

That is why it is an irrational argument. It only addressed part of the issue. And in my opinion, the least important part and the most selfish.

And abortion treats that third party with such loving care...is that it??? Why is it that you can't come out and state that abortion is brutal murder of that innocent third party???

It is clear to see that you have an inner conflict about this topic. I don't think you like abortion...but in your head for some reason you feel like you HAVE to support it, or at the very least, refrain from stating your position, because you think you will offend women. So you create these paradoxes for yourself in trying to defend. You are such the champion of the baby when it comes to men paying child support...but you also seem cool with women killing it. It's very plain to see Heff...you have formed your opinion not based on logic or your own beliefs...it is soley based on you wanting to please women and not offend them...you even go as far as calling others misoginist for wanting to protect human life.

And yet I am the irrational one.

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by Hefficide
Only the third party in this is never addressed, considered, or given voice.

yes the third party(the baby) is not addressed
is the third party addressed in abortion? no its not
so you must be pro-life
with the current law only the woman is taken in consideration
the second party (the man) and the third party (the baby) are ignored
so then we agree the current system in wrong

You would think that would be easy to see.

The only reason I pursue the angle of "men's rights to absolve responsibility" is to bring out this hypocrisy in pro-choice people.

Isn't odd that they would call me all sorts of names for pointing out an inequality when it has to do with money...and yet they are fine with killing babies???

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Let me ask the pro lifers this:


Are you so adamant about your cause, that would you be willing to pay for prenatal care for every pregnant woman, and for the medical,food, and education for every child that is brought into this country?

1. We kind of do that already.
2. I've never seen fiscal issues seen as a justification for killing someone. If the fetus is a human life, it should not matter if it is a financial hardship because we do not accept finances as a reason to kill a person.
3. The underlying issue is not how hard it is or difficult it is. THe underlying issue is, do we or do we not have a human being? If not, then there is no more moral problem than getting any other elective surgery. If it does, then all of the excuses of convenience are not consistent with how and when human life should be taken.

reply to post by beezzer


So you are ok with a child being brought into the world who is running the streets at night becuase their single mother is working 2 full time jobs, that joins a gang to replace their missing family, illiterate, selling drugs, the girls are selling themselves, and who basically live in a war zone. And they basically wish they were dead.

So you are ok with forcing children into that existence?

reply to post by NavyDoc


Oh yes, I'm fully aware of the justification of dehumanization.

That is exactly why you have people in this thread calling it a clump of cells, or a parasite, or a tumor...anything to keep from calling it a human life.

It's amazing to see people claiming to love science dropping it in an instant so they can justify the killing of babies.

The power to lie to ones self is strong...how would they be able to sleep at night if they didn't lie to themselves???

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Let me ask the pro lifers this:


Are you so adamant about your cause, that would you be willing to pay for prenatal care for every pregnant woman, and for the medical,food, and education for every child that is brought into this country?

Yes...but I am for a single payer system...so I'm willing to do that regardless.

Money, or lack of, is not an excuse to kill children.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by beezzer

 

So you are ok with a child being brought into the world who is running the streets at night becuase their single mother is working 2 full time jobs, that joins a gang to replace their missing family, illiterate, selling drugs, the girls are selling themselves, and who basically live in a war zone. And they basically wish they were dead.

So you are ok with forcing children into that existence?

And you are ok judging all that as a psychic and killing that kid before they even have a chance???

Hell...let's just kill poor people...their lives suck...they'd be better off dead.

Honestly, this isn't an argument...this is a lie you tell yourself as justification.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I've stated at least twice in this thread that if somebody were to offer a win/win/win alternative that I would support it. Who exactly is talking in circles, avoiding making women upset, and coming from a place of emotion.

As others are pointing out - eliminating abortion is not a viable option because forcing babies upon women who don't want them or who cannot care for them harms the child and robs them of their fair shot.

I personally have no interest at all in absolutist thinking - especially when, again, your ultimatum excludes the complicating reality that there are three people in the equation - not just the two. The third person cannot speak for themselves. And you will never get me to equate abortion and opting out of child support. They are not equal things. They are wildly differing things.

My bank can charge me 28% interest if they so choose - but I can't walk into the bank and demand 28% interest on my Christmas club.

The argument is flawed. It makes for great rhetoric - but in real world application it falls short.

~Heff

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
So an unborn rights overrides a mother's rights.

Which means of course that if complications happens in pregnancy that threatens the mother's life, she should die rather than to threaten the unborn life. She has no rights, after all, she is just a vessel to carry the unborn.

Because the unborn rights overrides the mother rights'.

Which of course means that the unborn is more important than the mother and the mother should be reduced to a second class citizen.

At least until the unborn is born. Then they can both have equal rights.

Yeah, this is all great, might as well just chop it into billions of pieces and vacuum it up...i guess you are one of those MANY people who just do not have a clue...about life.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by beezzer

 

So you are ok with a child being brought into the world who is running the streets at night becuase their single mother is working 2 full time jobs, that joins a gang to replace their missing family, illiterate, selling drugs, the girls are selling themselves, and who basically live in a war zone. And they basically wish they were dead.

So you are ok with forcing children into that existence?

Would it also be okay to pick that same kid up off the street and euthenize him because he has a miserble existence?

oh stop this bull#, its a womans choice thats it.

reply to post by beezzer


I think that the majority of people, including yourself, have a misguided belief about civil rights.

Civil rights are simply defined as rights issued by law.

They are not in any way unalienable.
In fact, they are are the opposite, inalienable.

Most people never take the time to learn these things and we are most definitely NOT taught the meaning of rights and from where they arise in school.
Civics classes were halted long ago.
For a reason, in my humble opinion.
Unalienable is defined as unable to be removed, and inalienable is defined as able to be removed.
Look it up if you don't believe me.
Most people use these terms interchangably, and this usage couldn't be further from correct.

It really matters not what you might believe concerning a parasite's civil rights.
Because the truth is that the law decides these matters, and that is pretty much the bottom line.

We have been mislead by notions in the Declaration of Independence for so long that we misapply the idea of unalienable rights endowed by our creator.
When the DOI was written, we were not considered citizens of the country USA.
We were considered State Citizens, and our rights were derived from State Constitutions.
The country USA didn't really exist.
Our central goverment was federal, not national.
Read this if you don't believe me.

The constitution was originally a compact between the states that allowed for a loose central government and this compact was specifically designed to limit the power of the central government.
The Amendments in the Bill of Rights were limitations placed upon the Feds.
Article 1 section 8 listed very specific powers that were granted to the Feds, and they were not to act over and above those powers, unless through amendment.

The war between the states changed all of this.

If we still lived under the maxims of the Declaration of Independence and the original Constitution that limited the power of the central government, then your argument might hold sway, but we do not.

The truth of the matter is that the law gives the woman a right to choose and that is all that matters.

I would suggest educating yourself on the topic of civil rights.

Here is a great place to start.

reply to post by Hefficide

As others are pointing out - eliminating abortion is not a viable option because forcing babies upon women who don't want them or who cannot care for them harms the child and robs them of their fair shot.

So you won't consider anything except a win/win/win...but you are fine with killing babies because they may or may not (you have no way of knowing) have a "fair shot".

Question...what is a 'fair shot' at life??? Please define that for me. Again, this is just another justification of yours so you avoid "offending" women. In short, you are White Knighting.

You sir, are the one presenting the illogical argument. You claim the only solution is a win/win/win...yet you also claim that eliminating abortion (which KILLS one of the involved parties) is not a 'viable option'. You have created an unatainable position in which you feel safe. You are hiding behind this and using it as a shield...until we can find a win/win/win...what other choice do you have to support a win/kill/lose situation. Yeah...you are employing great logic there.

So, just to recap...you will only consider a win/win/win solution...but until then, you will suppor the win/kill/lose situation.

I personally have no interest at all in absolutist thinking - especially when, again, your ultimatum excludes the complicating reality that there are three people in the equation - not just the two. The third person cannot speak for themselves.

And since they can't speak for themselves...you support the killing of that person...because the other opinion would offend women.

The argument is flawed. It makes for great rhetoric - but in real world application it falls short.

And there you go again...declaring something flawed without showing a shred of logical proof. The argument makes you uncomfortable...so you declare it flawed. Good grief.

This particular argument, for my purposes, does one thing. It exposes hypocrisy...as it has with you.

You are so concerned about the baby...well unless the women wants to kill it, then you are cool with it.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


You're putting a lot of words into my mouth there OKS. Please source them. I don't support killing babies. I do recognize that it is the law of the land. I do recognize that, as a male, I would never impress my opinions upon a female. I do recognize that the current situation is, at best, a "lesser of two evils" thing.

So, again... instead of just blindly arguing that child support = abortion and dissecting the words of those who won't pat you on the back and agree with you... Table ideas that will get us to a win/win/win and I'll gladly support those ideas.

Until you can beat the current status quo, what is the point of trying to destroy it?

~Heff

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Because zygotes and embryos are virtually the same until the gene pattern is laid down. A human embryo share the charcteristics of a fish embryo. They both have a fold where it turns into a neck on the human, but gills for a fish. The human embryo has a tail that then dissappears but turns into a tail for a fish.

Embryos are practically the same among vertebrates, non vertebrates, until the DNA sequences changes one from a kangaroo and the other into a human.

So much so that scientists can take embryos of two different species and put them together to make a chimera.

So by your definition, if all embryos have a right to life. Are you going to go out and make sure that no more elephants have abortions? And that all fish get to survive?

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
So force a woman to have a baby to punish her for having unmarried(irresponsible) sex.

Got it.

On of the most selfish things I've read. It's not about "her", "her", "her" all the time, it's about the baby. I can't believe someone would play victim just to justify ABORTION.

reply to post by Hefficide

I don't support killing babies. I do recognize that it is the law of the land. I do recognize that, as a male, I would never impress my opinions upon a female.

You are trying really hard to have it both ways here.

Why is it so hard for you to come out and say it? You say you don't support killing babies...yet you won't "impress" your opinon upon a female. It really makes no sense at all. You have an opinion, allegedly, you are free to speak your mind. Females aren't going to change their opinion because the almighty Heff states his opinion.

It comes down to this it seems, you are more concerend about what women think about you than you are about standing up for a babies life. Which is very sad.

Table ideas that will get us to a win/win/win and I'll gladly support those ideas.

Until you can beat the current status quo, what is the point of trying to destroy it?

I'll ask another very simple question right now, I'm sure you will try not to answer...but just give it a shot.

You want a win/win/win situation. Let's say that is in the order of women/child/man.

Would you agree that the current situation is a win/death/lose situation??? Hey, I'm sure in some cases it is a win/death/win situation when the man wants the woman to have the abortion as well. But there is always death for the child with abortion.

Would you say that lose/life/win or even lose/life/lose is better or worse than any solution that involves death???

Wow, first time i'm going to disagree with a lot of poster i usually agree with...

People assume that if you are Pro-Life = you are religious... Sorry, An atheist here as well as a soon to be Research(hopefully) Microbiologist.

I'm not fully against abortion BUT i do have a limit, in my opinion, contraceptive, morning after pills, condom, are OK, but once the baby goes from Blastocyst(2 weeks) > take shape with assigned cells(brain cells, heart cells, organs cells etc.)(3week-4week), that's when my Anti-Abortion kicks in. Im OK with abortion if its from Incest, rape, danger for mother, abnormalities in the child.

I agree men should have rights or a say on a pregnancy resulting in consensual sex. However, i'm okay with giving women the option to do final say BUT if the women's decision is different from Man's then the Man should have NO responsibility and should just leave the women who does not want to bear you children, she is clearly not your interest.

I'm going to give the same answer as always for people recommending adoption if you are against abortion... the thing is i have an ego problem, just like all the rest of the animals on this planet.. I WANT TO PASS MY GENES.

If some women is so against child birth why don't use have the tubes tied, than you can have all the one night stand you like... also this goes for men, if you are someone who don;t want child, have a vasectomy.

Child birth in inconvenient? i'm sorry, walking on land is inconvenient for me as well, sadly the nature did not give me wings...

reply to post by nixie_nox


Humans have human DNA...fish have fish DNA. A human will never form into a fish, a fish will never form into a human.

It's not magic, it's science. It doesn't matter what they 'look' like, it matters what they are. Honestly, I expect more...this sounds like a Religous argument that is ignorant of science.

I fully admit, I'm a speciesist...I really only care about protecting humans...I don't care about fish.


Feigning ignorance to science is not a great starting point for an argument. Saying it's ok to kill them because at some point in the life cycle, when you look at them, they look the same as a fish is very very illogical and ignorant (as in, ignoring actual science).

The father's by law have no rights to the children they produce while they are in the womb, is this morally correct?
Let's say two 20 year olds have a relationship that produces a pregnancy, let's say it was a social mismatch, the father is wealthy by inheritance, but he girl is poor. The relationship was very short lets say a week. the girl doesn't want the baby, and want's to abort it. The father disagrees and says give it up to me, but because it will cramp her lifestyle for 9 months she still wants to abort it, and the law supports her. The baby is aborted against the wishes of the father which would have taken it and supported no problem. Do you see the issue ?