Should men have a say in abortion ?

[Musika]

Clearly not, since we're comparing the value of the fetus, the host and the sperm donor.

All of whom are representative of life, so what is the difficulty?

The fetus is unable to express itself, so some people take it upon themselves to speak for it and they often give it a value equal to that of the host. The question of this thread is whether or not the sperm donor is valuable enough to be the tie-breaker.

I think that is a skewed equation from the onset. Granted there could be health complications between the mother and/or child, but I think that's a problem of triage and not inherent value .... and certainly not one of being a tax contributor.
There are a whole range of individuals (and even living entities other than human) who cannot express themselves, but that in no way paves a green light for social Darwinism and what not that you are rapidly sliding down the slope of.

 

[Musika]

It's up to you. Want to be credible or not?

Depends whether your criteria actually establishes credibility or is just a foolish small minded political tactic to disempower your opposition by insisting they rise to a standard that you and everyone else knows is impossible

We don't have the same standard.

So you admit you have no regard for the value life.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

On the planet? UNICEF; Doctors Without Borders, Operation Smile, Plan International, World Vision, International Development Agency, Save the Children - and another couple of lines, if i cared to keep listing.

All of which fail by the ridiculous standard you were chiming earlier and completely fail as agencies set up to govern any sort of policy at the helm of a nation (of course it would be silly to expect them to function in that capacity, but since you feel these are the cornerstones of credibility and accountability, I guess it has to be said)

In the US, anyone who votes Socialist, or even moderate Democrat.

/chortle
So after admitting you don't own the moral obligation and hence the concomitant criteria, suddenly you do abide by the criteria because you mark a ballot paper in a particular fashion.
George Orwell would be proud, no doubt ....

Yes, they are. I'm not entirely surprised you don't know about them.

Red herrings.
They fail by your own (silly) standard.

That's correct. Utopian is your absurdity; mine is to work toward establishing a base line of common decency for everyone.

Oh okay. So now it's important to merely work towards establishing a base line of common decency as opposed to rolling out goods and services on a scale on par with reversing the orbit of the planet.
Kind of funny how you have the capacity to revert back to sanity when this razor sharp analysis is turned back to focus on your own affairs.
Small minded political tactics is, as small minded political tactics does.

 

[Jeeves]

Depends whether your criteria actually establishes credibility

You claim to value life.
Prove it.

 

[Musika]

You claim to value life.
Prove it.

If you insist the only way to prove it is to implement the undoable, its obvious you have a vested interest in the value remaining "unprovable".

 

[Jeeves]

If you insist the only way to prove it is to implement the undoable, its obvious you have a vested interest in the value remaining "unprovable".

So you admit that it's impossible for you to act as if you value life.
Then what are you really trying to accomplish by curtailing women's reproductive freedom?

 

[Musika]

So you admit that it's impossible to act as if you value life.
Then what are you really trying to accomplish by restricting women's reproductive freedom?

First you have to establish that your signatory criteria for valuing life isn't the cheaply packaged political horse crap that it appears to be.

 

[Bowser]

The question was about the value of life. How do we value life? How do we compare the value of a person who spends millions of dollars on himself to a person who devotes her whole life to helping others? What is the metric? How is it applied? And when?

What is the Metric. What is your metric.? In my opinion, a four letter word (Life) is way to small to contain its meaning.

 

[Bowser]

Starting with your failure to address the question it contained.

It was a loaded question. Why not simply ask that we kill the mother to birth the child?

You must be talking about a woman whose life is threatened by an unwanted pregnancy, and wants a doctor to step in on her behalf.

It is an interesting scale on which to weigh one's value, isn't it?

 

[Bowser]

Bowser doesn't empathise with women.

I love women. Without them human life wouldn't be possible. Have you hugged your mother recently?

 

[Michael 345]

Let's try to make sense of that:

You must be talking about a woman whose life is threatened by an unwanted pregnancy, and wants a doctor to step in on her behalf.

Amirite?

A pregnant woman has the absolute authority to want what she wants

The doctor is only present to explain anything the woman would like explained

In a perfect world he would not put forward anything else

 

[RainbowSingularity]

I think our responsibility to those serving in the military is to avoid deploying them whenever possible, and only when absolutely necessary. I'm game for a national vote as a prelude to diving ourselves to war.

while your purported ethos is admirable. how does that leave civilian casulties ?
those lifes should be saved so they are not aborted ?
thus anti-abortinsta's/pro-lifers should also be anti war protesters.

but 99% of them are not
99% of anti-abortionists are also pro death penalty which is anti-life

how does that balance the bible of the sanctity of life ?
its complete horse shit they use for their own pathological bull shit.
merely used as a foot-in-the-door to try and gain access to young children to indoctrinate them with their sexual ideas.
its sexual fascism wearing an ass-clown hat and singing "we shall over come".

faker than fake news.

 

[Bowser]

A pregnant woman has the absolute authority to want what she wants.

Let's take it one step further. A parent has the absolute authority to want what she wants.

 

[Bowser]

while your purported ethos is admirable. how does that leave civilian casulties ?
those lifes should be saved so they are not aborted ?
thus anti-abortinsta's/pro-lifers should also be anti war protesters.

but 99% of them are not
99% of anti-abortionists are also pro death penalty which is anti-life

how does that balance the bible of the sanctity of life ?
its complete horse shit they use for their own pathological bull shit.
merely used as a foot-in-the-door to try and gain access to young children to indoctrinate them with their sexual ideas.
its sexual fascism wearing an ass-clown hat and singing "we shall over come".

faker than fake news.

Interesting statistics. Did you pull those from a government website or out of your ass?

 

[Capracus]

When does it become "Life"?

When organic molecules organize into living entities, like bacteria, sperm, ova, fat cells, embryos, fetuses and people. The question is at what point are any of the above worthy of the same rights we grant people?

Here's when a man makes his decisions: First, when he engages sexual intercourse; second, when his seminal fluid touches her body. From there, every last drop of risk he contributes is his risk to bear.

From the standpoint of risk, an early abortion carries 1/10 the risk to the health of mother than a continued pregnancy, so the risk argument doesn’t fly. From the standpoint of having an equal opportunity in regards to a commitment to parenthood, the mother has an unequal advantage in having the right to make that decision for both parents by continuing or stopping the pregnancy. While the father has no legal right to force a mother to continue or stop a pregnancy, at least some measure of fairness could be granted the father by allowing him to opt out of parental responsibility when a mother wishes to continue a pregnancy over his objection.

Nonsense. The father has no such say over the woman's body. He has the same responsibilities toward a born child of his that the mother has, for the same reason.

Except we’re not talking about born children, we’re taking about developing fetuses at a stage where they’re still considered fair game in terms of abortion. During this period the mother currently has the legal right to decide for both parties as to whether or not each will become a parent. Allowing the father the right to opt out at this point would offer some degree of fairness should he not desire to become a parent.

If you insist on discussing bizarre and inhuman tradeoffs like that, the obvious one would be to assign the father full parental responsibilities once the mother has fulfilled her contribution of pregnancy and childbirth and nursing - she should be able to hand him the weaned child, and go about her life. That would be at least legalistically fair.

Once both parties have gone past the point of a legal safe stage of termination, they are both locked in as parents until they can arrange for an adoption.

Always. From before conception, even.
So?

Well that’s an addition to the right to life spectrum that defies logic, defend a life before it begins. Trying to out fundie the fundies?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

pick and choose

to win the collective vote whom are told to vote by their church to vote conservative/republican.

democrats vote for social services
church goers vote for sexual fascism and use pays social classicism.
those church goers vote for social classicism because they want to hold their own religion over others and install it into the political power system.

that's the usa politics

 

[RainbowSingularity]

I love women. Without them human life wouldn't be possible. Have you hugged your mother recently?

to stay on point, im speaking of something far deeper in the psyche, not solely your personality, but as a personality aspect.
i would not suggest i know you to say you dont love
equally women as men for that matter.
though i dont know your views on LGBTQ+ rights and the equality to marry and co-exist.

being unable to empathise with women as a process of lack of emotional understanding from a point of shared psyche of empathic attainment.
im quite tired and its quite involved.

lets say for example, a sense of ambivalent isolationism of the self to place one outside the experiencing process of empathic a-tunement.
be for what ever reason which im far to tired to get into.

it is a process of child bonding to both genders.
the stereo type of the baby-boomers and those who process a sense of ideological domination over females as an agenda to position the importance of self authority.
you place the self authority of the fetus into your own hands by default and then proxy it for sanitation into the states care to form a law.
that way you dispose of your need to realize you have not come to a point of understanding on an empathic level.

if you did, you would never wish to take away control of a womens body from her.

i will leave it there, i probably have lost most readers.
im too tired to explain in further detail right now

 

[Bowser]

When organic molecules organize into living entities, like bacteria, sperm, ova, fat cells, embryos, fetuses and people. The question is at what point are any of the above worthy of the same rights we grant people?

The question should be what potential those living molecules promise. Perhaps bacteria, sperm, ova, fat cells will never know a sunny day, a walk on a beach, or the touch of another's hand; but certainly an embryo holds that much promise and more, like a lifetime. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Bowser]

though i dont know your views on LGBTQ+ rights and the equality to marry and co-exist.

I've been wrong on this issue in the past. It's not something I would do, but go for it, have at it, enjoy.

I believe the Pro-Life movement needs a new approach, reaching out to a broader audience than what can be found in front of abortion clinics. I believe it would be better to convince a woman that what she holds inside is beyond value, rather than telling her so. As for anti-abortion laws, I don't see those actually winning in the higher courts.

 

[Capracus]

The question should be what potential those living molecules promise. Perhaps bacteria, sperm, ova, fat cells will never know a sunny day, a walk on a beach, or the touch of another's hand; but certainly an embryo holds that much promise and more, like a lifetime. Wouldn't you agree?

A presumed goal of the sperm and ova are to at some point get together and grow into something bigger than themselves, but you wouldn’t suggest that denying them that potential is a violation of some ideal destiny, since like an underdeveloped fetus, they have no capacity for sentience. In the early stages of development a fetus has the sentient capacity of any other organ of the body excluding the brain. If having an extra penis between your legs was going to potentially complicate your life, might you elect to have it removed? Would there be a consideration of its loss of potential in your decision? Might it possibly die a virgin?

 

[Bowser]

since like an underdeveloped fetus, they have no capacity for sentience.

They have no potential by there own as does the later.

In the early stages of development a fetus has the sentient capacity of any other organ of the body excluding the brain.

Does any organ in a woman's body have the potential to grow into an independent human? I mean, will her heart some day drop to the ground and learn to walk and talk?

If having an extra penis between your legs was going to potentially complicate your life, might you elect to have it removed? Would there be a consideration of its loss of potential in your decision? Might it possibly die a virgin?

Sorry, you've lost me on this analogy.