Abortion

Do you think its possible that in the lead up for legislating certain acts as criminal that there is a requirement for society to be rightly adjusted? For instance suppose that meat eating became criminalized (which it has been in some civilizations), do you think that it would require that people have at least a few clues about subsisting off a vegetarian diet?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

“ Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Do thank it woud be mor moral to force a woman to cary the baby to term.??? ”

Yes... we as a society have determind that people who dont pay taxes or speed or are burglers may wind up in jale... an yes... a consequence of sex can be pregnancy... so which do you thank is the mos moral... that women who get abortons to go to jale... or that women shoud have the rite of choise.???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Do thank it woud be mor moral to force a woman to cary the baby to term.??? ”

oK... so women who get abortons shud go to jale... woud you also want the mornin after pill to be illeagle... an the use of it to lead to jale time.???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What about the reproduced rights?
What about mens "reproductive rights?"

This topic does get very one sided. It really is a shame.

"As long as others accept my ideas as valid, I don't have to think about the validity of theirs."
That doesn't seem right, to me.

Why is it changed into "against her will?"
Can her will be Flexible? Can she be talked to in order to see other perspectives of her situation?
If it's about how she wears her make up, we can all readily agree that she can do what she wants. It's her body.
But in reproduction- another Life Is At Stake.

Why is it so easy to dismiss that?
Or to forget that and only focus on the one life while pretending the other life involved is nothing at all?
Seriously-- does that REALLY seem right? It's pretty clear why it becomes a hot issue.

Because some people want to think about self interest and others want to think about that life. Even the timing of when it is life and when it is not considered a life... It's like... Wow...

I'm not a woman. I'll never experience pregnancy first hand or its effects... I admit this. But you know... If I had another life already begun riding on a decision... I'd like to make that decision without it being based solely on "Self is all that matters." Even if I must suffer a bit for it.

I do not think that is extreme, at all. I do not think that's ridiculous. I do not think it is forcing anyone or infringing on a persons Self Rights. I do not think it's telling someone what to do about something that is ONLY about themselves.

 

there are many clues about how we do things against our will ... usually it takes the course of avoiding it or readjusting the environment that lands one in a state of being unwillful about it in the first place

judgments apply to people as a consequence of what they do with their bodies ... you ar eyet to explain how a uterus stands outside of this principle

I understand that you have a need to relegate life in the womb as being less than human so you can let the needs, interests and concerns of the woman completely occupy the slate of the issue, but there is a similar absence in your posting.
:shrug:

actually I was asking you a completely different question (if you want an answer to this , you might be better off asking it in the other thread since it primarily deals with the pro-life POV) ... It was more about your constant calling upon about how if pro-lifer's get their way, it will be legislated and then all these problems will arise. My question was whether you think in the course of something getting legislated that there is an element of social adjustment. IOW do you think that legislative politics only functions on the platform of sending in the tanks overnight or that it gradually solidifies as social adjustment comes to bear?

 

Bells:

You have assigned things to me you shouldn't, put a lot of words in my mouth and continue to disregard valid arguments.
It's tiresome and annoying.

Please READ everything I say in this long post. Yes, it's long. But at least READ my stance instead of throwing so many assumptions at me. I shouldn't have to keep refuting your misconceptions over and over.

Some of my responses are frankly, curt and even angry at points. Sarcastic too. I'm tired of having to repeatedly clarify myself to someone who argues with ears (eyes)closed.
If you're going to supply a rebuttal-- At least ensure you have an accurate idea of what I'm saying as clearly as I can.

Ok, this is where a line has been draw on a shade of gray. A compromise, if you will. That's all it is.

Should anyone have more rights than anyone?

Should you, a stranger to me, have a say over my taxes? My health plan? Whether or not I wear my seatbelt?

Gee, thanks. It's nice to see how you think fathers are nothing to a childs life.
Yeah, that was a good one, alright.

I absolutely think so if she is due to bear mine. And if you even TRY claiming men have no rights as a father, you best start googling up what courts think about that.

If you're narrow minded enough, you can exclude ALL ideas except your own. But then, a person wouldn't really grow and develop that way, would they?

I am not telling you what to do with your Uterus. Stay on topic.

And you have no say if he cuts off his man dangler?
I think you'de want to express your opinions to him and try to convince him not to.

The Uterus is not another human life.
Stay on topic.

That's him.
I am a different person and if I had a wife that was due to have a baby and wanted to abort, I WOULD try to convince her otherwise. Her idea would disturb me greatly and frankly- cause me pain.

MOST women I know would be happy to discuss their side, their reasons why they are thinking of abortion and would be open to hearing what I had to say on it, I'm sure.

I would NOT force her to carry the child to term. But I cannot help but think that if she heard my arguments and considered it carefully, she would have to have a very good and strong reason not to carry the child to term.
If she still chose not to at that point, I would have to let that go.

Respect? Don't make it something it may not be. He may respect YOU, but that doesn't mean his choice to be Uninvolved with his child means he respects you.

Shit. I'da told you straight up.

Oh whatever. I'm not buying that in the least.
He can respect and trust you fine- DOESN'T MEAN that he can never have his own opinion, wants or exspressions.
You're distorting his apathy on that topic into something else.

Dismissing all other bodies as if they do not exist to pander to her selfish wants...

Allowing means LAW or that she's somehow FORCED.
I'm not advocating those.

I'm advocating discussion and encouragment and influence.

Whatever.
People CAN listen to other ideas and consider them. I do it all the time and I change my mind on occassion, too. You're continuing to paint inaccurate images just to validate your claim. It's annoying.

And she, as the mother, should respect mine enough to consider my points heavily, too. That is NOT infringment of rights, me telling her what to do, forcing her or lacking respect for her. So get over all the basic CRAP you're spewing.

She could. But natural ocurrances do not validate intentional ones.

I could get hit and killed by a drunk driver two days from now. Doesn't mean I can get drunk and go hit and kill someone.

On this, you're right. I have a different stance--- But I can see and ACCEPT yours. I would not have any grounds, even through disagreement- to force or tell someone what to do with something that is not defined well.
However, to me, that lack of definition is a big part of why people can take such very different and opposing sides. That in itself is telling that it is not simple or cut and dry as you and others are trying to make it out to be.

I have never disagreed with this.

Murder? Rape?
Seatbelts?
Whether your car is insured? Obamas Health Care Plan?
Like it or not- ideas ARE imposed on other people and when they are something you agree with being imposed- you are supportive of them.

I have never advocated this. Stop claiming that I have.

That is not the case with abortion. You are dismissing the other Body. Pretending it lacks existence TOTALLY in order to support your claim.

 

and then what?
Let fly with Prohibition?
Send tanks into central park?
Get real .....

I think we all share a pretty similar sense on these things. I mean most people in most societies don't view killing another as normal or an act on par with experiencing a stomach ache or something. Of course what greatly contributes to a society normalizing such acts is relegating the victim to something less than human (so its not killing, its "termination" ,,, its not a living entity, its "tissue", etc etc).

try smuggling cocaine in there and get back to us with the results when you announce it to a customs official

so whats the general principle you are applying here?

That if another exists in a completely contingent relationship with another on biological grounds, they have no rights and that whom they are dependent on has no duty of care?
Interesting .....

so if the law did agree with me, you would concede my point?

(\gets on the radio to send in the tanks and pass prohibition)

sure
but if one is factoring in the mother's probability to experience difficulty (as in the difficulty that living in this world accommodates) as sufficient for getting rid of the child, the moral scales are out of whack .... which may warrant a further investigation of the social structure that normalizes such an act (as opposed to sending in the tanks)

so you think that all that is required for any legislation to be upheld is to pass it through the relevant channels?
How do you explain the failure of Prohibition?

 

I think YOU are confused as to my stance.
You interpret what you will, assume and then throw it out there.

 

As follows, you Obviously Have Not.

Not according to the Law.

I abused No one. Your claim is ridiculous.

I have made No such Demand and AGAIN you CONTINUE to put words in my mouth I never said.
I NEVER ONCE said Equal Rights and have repeatedly been clear as to that.

You are Ignoring most of what I say- Assuming what I say-- Saying I said things I never did. I was SEMI polite and asked you to review and to actually see what I am actually saying.
Now I'm NOT polite. CUt That Shit Out. OR do not reply to me. One or the other. I do not need to have to refute your CLAIMS about what I say- I only need to defend what I ACTUALLY Say.

Do not tell me I am confused.

You are.

I have made no demands.

I have EVERY RIGHT to give my opinion. Deal with it.

I do not believe you. Yeah, I said it. I think you just lied to support you claim.
OF COURSE you would have an opinion on it.

You missed where you kept saying Uterus Alone?

Obviously- You did Not Read My Post.

You continue to put words in my mouth I never said.

Stop Claiming that I am forcing, demanding or making people do ANYTHING.
You FAIL to read what I say-- then you emotionally INVENT whatever you want to THINK I said. Re-Read My Last Post.

READ where I COVERED THAT.

For you to ask that after I made that post demonstrates your failure to Read and Understand What I said.

You are confused, not me.

I apologize for the commentary I made. I was emotionally influenced.

You have no idea who I am

A fact that you left out til now. That makes a difference.

Stop claiming I'm a ranting raving Lunatic. This is an Unusual Post by me in which I'm expressing a lot of my anger toward your bad behavior. Your claims, accusations and assumptions are totally frustrating. It's like you're projecting what OTHER people have said to you onto me.

You do not know me at all- Keep your assumptions to yourself.

Assumption.
I have repeatedly stated that I WOULD NOT DO THAT.

You fail to read my posts, you assume whatever and then apply it to me.

And you claim I'm emotionally ranting? Pot, meet kettle.

I suggest you actually read them.

I do have every right to an opinion. Deal with it.

You failed to read my post.

Do not accuse me of Hounding and Forcing. You do not know me in spite of all your accusations and assumptions and complete failure to read my CLEAR stance.

Irrelevant. By claiming it's ONLY YOUR BODY you ARE dismissing that growing within. That is just the Way It Is.

That alone does NOT determine my total stance nor can you invent off the top of your head whatever the hell you THINK I said.

Bells, You have Repeatedly failed to READ my stance, and instead, choose to invent entirely opposing views that I never advocated. I am finished discussing this with YOU since you're unable to do so rationally.

 

I just checked and found this:

"A male who suspects he has fathered a child can only assert parental rights after paternity has been established. Most states now require a paternity test to be made by using DNA testing rather than a blood test. The U.S. Supreme court ruled it was unconstitutional and a violation of a woman's civil rights for an abortion to be refused on the grounds that the "possible" father objected. In other words a man who believes he is the father has no legal grounds or procedure to oppose the woman's decision to obtain an abortion."

What are you referring to exactly in terms of 'father's rights'?

 

Clearly, the Father.
Your quote states that he DOES have rights, they simply require a paternity test to show that he is the father.

It must be that way to prevent people who are not the father (Kinda the stereotype that Bells was attempting to shove me into) from attempting to prevent an abortion.

 

You and Bells are putting words into my mouth. I am merely saying they knew it could happen so they should take responsibility for the child. They Should Not go to jail. Unfortunately abortion is legal, and I believe strongly in justice. I don't have much of an opinion on the morning after pill, I could go either way with it. Please don't jump to conclusions from just one post.

 

Bells:
I did not read that long post you just addressed to me. I got as far as "Actually I have" and said 'screw this.'
HAD You read it and understood it without inventing what you THINK I said-- You would never have given me the responses you had. You have clearly projected your personal thoughts of what you think I said onto me in spite of several times where I made it clear what I think and where you were completely off the track.

I am TIRED of repeatedly telling you over and over and over again what my stance is. I have fullfilled that obligation too much.
It's now on YOU to go back up and RE-READ what's been provided. Without all your bias.
I will NOT address those points any longer until you can tell ME what my stance is.

Yeah, ok. The father has parental rights to contest an abortion only after the child is born. Got it.

In other words- You assumed.
That is Not the only method of DNA testing and YES--children within the womb can be DNA tested.
THAT is what the court would require for a contest of abortion.
You assumed incorrectly and your claim was wrong.

Note the quotation "POSSIBLE." That is because without the paternity test, he cannot make a claim to rights as parent.

 

Yes but the paternity test can only be done after the child is born. What I was asking is whether you were referring to paternal rights after birth or before. The father even if he is the husband cannot legally stop an abortion if its what the mother wants, if this is incorrect please show evidence.

By the way (a little off topic) an in utero paternity tests are not often recommended for the following reasons:

Unfortunately both methods of harvesting cells from the baby carry risks so it is ill advised to proceed without being fully informed.

Injury to mother or fetus from the needle. There is the potential for placental puncture but this usually heals without further concern.
Since the procedure allows bacteria into the amniotic sac, it's possible to develop an infection however this is rare.
There is a slight risk of the mother's blood being exposed to the fetus's blood. This is only problematic if the mother's is rhesus-negative and the baby's is rhesus-positive.
Amniocentesis carries a risk of producing clubfoot in the baby, however the potential for this to occur is higher if the procedure takes place before the fifteenth week of pregnancy.

http://www.paternitytesthelp.org/prenatalpaternitytesting.html

In order to perform this the mother would have to be between her 14 and 24 weeks. Most women have abortions within the first trimester when these procedures are not possible