|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 10/19/2004 : 11:14:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
It sound like you support full term abortions.
I do. Sort of, anyway. If it would be safe to induce premature births, or when medical science allow the transfer to final-stage in-vitro (is that the correct term, even for the final stage of a pregnancy?) tank until the foetus is completely developed, then that should be the option instead of late term abortion. But basically, in absence of any other way to determine an appropriate last date for a termination, the point of birth is a rather well defined limit.
Until then it wouldn't be able to survive anyway, so in my opinion it can not be considered a separate living entity.
Edited to add: Over at Skeptic Times forum I'm considered a neo-Nazi for holding this opinion, but since I got upset and used the f-word, I'm no longer able to defend myself over there. Tkster didn't just remove the f-word, but deleted the entire post including the defence of my position. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/19/2004 11:21:29 |
 |
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2004 : 11:25:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
But basically, in absence of any other way to determine an appropriate last date for a termination, the point of birth is a rather well defined limit. Until then it wouldn't be able to survive anyway, so in my opintion it can not be considered a separate living entity.
My three month old cannot survive outside the womb without help as well. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2004 : 11:26:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I do not advocate a father having the right to force a woman to have an abortion, only the legal right to not be apart of the childs life.
and
quote:
The mother chose the possibility of pregnancy when she had consensual sex. I don't think it is enforcing anything on a woman.
Are rather contradictory. The man had also chose the possibility of a woman's pregnancy by having sex, thus enforcing him to have responsibility over the child he helped to create. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2004 : 14:30:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
But basically, in absence of any other way to determine an appropriate last date for a termination, the point of birth is a rather well defined limit. Until then it wouldn't be able to survive anyway, so in my opintion it can not be considered a separate living entity.
My three month old cannot survive outside the womb without help as well.
I knew you were going to say that... (I withheld this part to see if you would take the bait)
Not without help, no, it would not survive. But someone else can take over the care, right? Once the baby is born it is not depending on it's biological mother for survival. That was the point I was making. After it's born it could be put up for adoption.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2004 : 14:55:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I knew you were going to say that... (I withheld this part to see if you would take the bait)
Not without help, no, it would not survive. But someone else can take over the care, right? Once the baby is born it is not depending on it's biological mother for survival. That was the point I was making. After it's born it could be put up for adoption.
Correct, it could be put up for adoption and someone else take care of it. 1 hour before birth most children can live outside the womb with help. So why do you think that a woman can deny that child the right to live with defining that life is only after birth? |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2004 : 15:55:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
Correct, it could be put up for adoption and someone else take care of it. 1 hour before birth most children can live outside the womb with help. So why do you think that a woman can deny that child the right to live with defining that life is only after birth?
Please scroll up and re-read my first post on page 2...
"then that should be the option instead of late term abortion."
The later you go in a pregnancy, the more hazardous the abortion become, and the greater the chance of survival if born prematurely. These are but a few factors that should be taken into account when deciding if an abortion is a viable option or not.
There are examples of premature births in the 29th week where the infant survives. I know such a family. There were several crisis in his first two years when his life hanged on a thin thread indeed. But he pulled through.
At this stage even I think we have a moral dilemma on our hands. That's why I think the decision shouldn't be mine to begin with. Up to the point where a premature birth can successfully be induced, it should be the woman's choice. However, normally she should have made a decision long before that.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/19/2004 15:56:56 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2004 : 17:40:07 [Permalink]
|
I do think thee may be something to the argument that if a woman wants a baby and the man doesn't that maybe the woman should(perhaps) pay for it. It is her body and her choice but if the father does not want it should he have to support it, too? The law sees it that way but is it right? I think you'd see a hell of a lot more abortions if the woman had to support the kid on her own if she alone wanted the child. Does a man have no choice and must support the child?
And I am fully in support of abortions through the 18th year.
@ |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 13:49:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And I am fully in support of abortions through the 18th year.
lmao :) Mom agrees. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2004 : 03:10:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Until that baby is born, DNA or not, the decision to carry or abort is the person's whose body the baby is still part of. Daddy's rights might sound nice on paper, but the field just isn't level and no amount of PC BS is going to make it level.
The baby isn't a separate entity until it is living outside of the womb. Before that, the woman and baby are still one. Hey, a pregnant woman doesn't count as 2 in the carpool lane yet. So that settles it.
It sound like you support full term abortions. It also sounds like you are equating an abortion with the decision to have a kidney stone removed.
Well that's because you have a different idea than I do of what living outside the womb means. And I think you are confusing decision making with all options being on the table. In other words, the decision is up to the mother, but that doesn't mean any and every decision is allowed. We were talking about whether or not the dad should be able to interfere with the mother's decision.
There may be a tiny bit of leeway to argue about but babies are viable at about 1# and 22 or so weeks gestation if my memory is up on current technology. I wouldn't like to see the cutoff much later than that. On the other hand, I've seen a 19 week old aborted fetus (spontaneous). There is no question you'd try to save a baby of that age if you could. For me personally, it's hard to accept any abortion past the first trimester. But, I don't believe I can make that same judgment for another person.
The reason the father has financial responsibility for the baby without decision making power is the result of the reality of the situation. There is always an argument for what is right or what seems fair and all that. But you have some physical factors that just can't be made PC.
If dad could dictate to mom what had to be done, no abortion or required abortion, you just can't do that given the fact the pregnancy is vastly different between them. The woman is the one with the fetus. It is unequal. So, decisions are unequal as well.
It may seem like fairness should be the guide. Clearly if a dad doesn't want to be a dad, and the mom has an additional decision beyond the decision to have sex which they both agreed to, then the mom has control over what will be the dad's future responsibility. On the surface it doesn't seem fair.
Well, it isn't fair, it's a fact of nature that is innately unfair. The pregnancy isn't exactly fair either. The physical requirements are distinctly different between the two parents. The dad can continue as before, the mom cannot.
The baby is born, now it is the child who has the needs. The father can leave the mother, but the baby has a right to the father's support. The baby is there. Again, the situation is unequal by nature. The child was not involved in the decision between the mother and the father as to whether or not to be born. The decision now is based on the baby's needs, not the fairness of the mom's decision over the dad's.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 10/23/2004 03:12:02 |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 08:46:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I do not advocate a father having the right to force a woman to have an abortion, only the legal right to not be apart of the childs life.
The father does have the right not to be a part of the child's life. I am not aware of any state where visitation is mandatory. Child support is set for the benefit of the child - not the parent. The child's standard of living is protected as, unlike the parents, it did not have the opportunity or capacity to consent to its own conception.
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 18:26:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The father does have the right not to be a part of the child's life. I am not aware of any state where visitation is mandatory. Child support is set for the benefit of the child - not the parent.
That's fine, but if the woman absolutely must have that baby but the man does not why should he pay child support? If she wants it fine, but it's her responsibility.
quote:
Again, the situation is unequal by nature.
Not true when the baby can be aborted. If this was not possible then you'd be right. Women make decisions about which baby to keep all the time. If the father was not responsible for child support no matter what you'd see a hell of a lot more abortions as more and more women found this economic decision easier and easier.
@ |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 19:58:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
@tomic:
That's fine, but if the woman absolutely must have that baby but the man does not why should he pay child support? If she wants it fine, but it's her responsibility.
Well, ya know, the man was there…
So what is the mans responsibility? Was he raped? Was he tricked? Did he ever think to ask what she would do if she became pregnant? Did he use protection? Or was he just thinking with the little head and not considering the consequences of his actions? If that was the case, he should, in my opinion, pay child support.
quote:
@tomic:
Not true when the baby can be aborted. If this was not possible then you'd be right. Women make decisions about which baby to keep all the time. If the father was not responsible for child support no matter what you'd see a hell of a lot more abortions as more and more women found this economic decision easier and easier.
I have never had any woman tell me that her abortion was anything but a bummer. Also, there is no surgery that does not come with its share of possible complications. So exactly how is this decision an equal one?
You talk like it's the same as popping a zit.
Men must act responsibly too. Otherwise you set up a situation where the man gets to use, whenever he wants to, abortion as contraception, or ells. Without the pain of course… Seems to me that saying a man should be able to just walk away if he wants to, is again, a limit on choice. It just pushes it in the other direction.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 20:32:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You talk like it's the same as popping a zit.
No, you took as if I was talking like that. Don't go injecting emotiona where it doesn't have to be. Part of why women feel so badly is the stigma society attaches to abortion. I'm more than sure there's more to it than the stigma but that is certainly a factor. I have known women that have told me flat out that they deliberately became pregnant by tricking a man. You can take your "little head thinking" wherever you want and stick it somewhere that it fits but it's not what I am talking about. The issue is more complex than the simple world you describe.
@ |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 21:12:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
@tomic:
I have known women that have told me flat out that they deliberately became pregnant by tricking a man.
I mentioned that. Most of the time it's the little head though, is my guess… In fact, it's both of their little heads…
quote:
@tomic:
You can take your "little head thinking" wherever you want and stick it somewhere that it fits but it's not what I am talking about. The issue is more complex than the simple world you describe.
I know that. And I don't think I was describing a simple world. All I am saying is that it can't be that no responsibility should fall on the man…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2004 : 06:44:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
originally posted by @tomic:
That's fine, but if the woman absolutely must have that baby but the man does not why should he pay child support? If she wants it fine, but it's her responsibility.
People often refer to an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy as an "accident", so let's look at it as an accident for a moment.
A man is out driving one day and he causes an accident. Maybe the sun got in his eyes, maybe the road was wet, maybe he blew a tire, or maybe he just forgot to look where he was going. It doesn't matter. The point is, there was an accident and someone's person or property was damaged. That someone was not at fault in any way. It is easy to see that the man should be responsible in that instance.
I know some of you will say that is not a valid comparison because there is no mother character in the example. I disagree. My point is, that like the accident victim, the child has no control over the situation. Therefore both parties should be responsible for their decision to have consensual sex that they both knew might result in pregnancy.
(I'm realizing now as I have to leave for work that I'll get grief about making the man entirely responsible for the accident, too. Shit. Okay, say the man let the woman drive his car. Then they both pay.  )
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
