Male Reproductive Rights

The phrase "Your rights end where my nose begins" has as much truth here as in any other topic. The fact of the matter is, that men don't have to carry the pregnancy, and men aren't in danger for their very lives by reproducing. Whether or not a child should be aborted should always be the sole discretion of the mother, and whatever reason she has for aborting it is impossible to determine, and of no business to the state.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

No, men don't have all the responsibilities that women have when it comes to a pregnancy, and that is ultimately what an abortion is, the termination of a pregnancy.

Men can drink, eat, and smoke whatever they please, while women have to refrain from ingesting such toxins to ensure the physical and mental health of the child. Women have to eat enough to nourish both themselves, and the child, and women have to make sure that they're avoiding sharp corners and whatnot.

Men don't have the same responsibilities as women when it comes to a pregnancy. If you think otherwise, you have no clue about human anatomy.

Though, apparently wearing proper attire isn't a woman's responsibility during pregnancy. 8 months pregnant bitch thinks she can wear a button-up shirt to church? Who the fuck does she think she is? Put on a moo moo for God's sake, you know he's watching.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I'm having a hard time interpreting that as anything but sarcasm, but I don't think I've seen you post much before, so I have to assume you're a cretin.

Whether or not a man pays more, or equal money to raise a child than a woman is ultimately up to the couple. If they think that the man can pay the rent on his lonesome, that's great. However, the advent of dual-income households suggest otherwise, especially with so many companies that offer maternity leave as a bonus package to their employees. A benefit only collectible, by the way, by women.

If men paying all of the money for the child was a universal constant, then why do we even have Daycares?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Yet you continuously ignore the purpose of an abortion, which isn't to block the ability to reproduce, but is the termination of a pregnancy. Since it is the woman, who is in fact pregnant, it should always be the woman's sole discretion whether or not a child, her child, needs to be brought into the world as it is her physical well-being at stake. Whether or not the child is a man's baby, he is not the one who has to deal with the physical ramifications of it, and therefore, all physical aspects of a pregnancy should be determined by a woman, including the termination of said pregnancy.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Is that even a question? They'd be the same as they had before.

I was speaking idiomatically.

That's great then, find yourself a new bitch to soil with your seed. Whatever social problems you have with your woman where she can't trust you enough to talk to you about an abortion is your problem.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you feel, because laws don't exist to coddle you, and make the world your personal oyster.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

That's not, however, what is in the best interests for the child. Clearly, being distant and unwanted by your father is already not in the best interest for a child, but then, children need all of the support that they can get. In that sense, the least that a man could do is support his own offspring at least monetarily.

This is because laws lean to forcing individual responsibility. Parenthood is not something you can simply default out of, nor should it ever be that way. It may not be fair that a man is forced to support a child he didn't want, but then that's the price for not taking the personal responsibility to avoid reproduction.

You chose to date the bitch, you chose to sleep with her, and it was your fault that you didn't wear a condom or keep your condoms in a hidden place where they couldn't be tampered with. Even assuming that one did perform the latter, we still default to the former, in that one chose to sleep with a psycho.

Lots of things in life aren't fair, including the standards that society places on individuals. Yet, society feels that it is the biological father's responsibility to help support his own offspring, so they should just have to deal with it. No political maneuvering or temper tantrums will be able to change the spirit of the law that is against them.

FELIPE NO

Well, that assumes that the fetus is actually a kid, which has already been covered.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

That's not what's being said at all. Terminating a pregnancy because a child is unwanted is only a part of a myriad of reasons why a woman would elect to have an abortion, and it is because those reasons are impossible to determine that abortions must be legal.

If a father does not want a child, then sucks for the kid, but his mother did want him, thus making the child wanted by at least somebody. If you then turn the argument back around to the father wanting the child, and the mother not, then your philosophical point falls flat on its face due to the technical terms of an abortion, i.e., the woman carries the child.

If you try to argue for Men's Reproductive Rights, you won't get anywhere, because no matter how you look at it, men don't get pregnant, and the term of an abortion is that it is the termination of a pregnancy.

Call it Baby Killing if you want, but under no circumstances should a male have any legal say over whether or not a pregnancy is brought to term, nor should he have to default out of supporting said child. Life sucks, accept your responsibilities as a man and suck it up.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

So, it's selfish for people to elect an abortion out of convenience, but a man forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term for his own sense of satisfaction isn't?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

No it is not selfish. He is living up to his responsibilities and taking care of the thing that he helped to create. I see nothing selfish in his request.

So, forcing a woman to go through the pains of a pregnancy to satisfy one's own ego, is not selfish? There is no action one could take that wouldn't be considered selfish. Even assuming that one does elect to have a child that they didn't want, that just means that they're accepting responsibilities in order to satisfy their sense of duty, and thus their ego.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Invasion of the Canuck Mysogynist.

I love how all the pro-lifers in this thread react to an abortion as if it were like filling out a prescription. Since when does an invasive surgery that could potentially make you a social outcast become the easy way out?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Having a child is never "guaranteed" to ruin somebody's life. If it was, then we've reached a pretty pessimistic view of parenthood and child rearing.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Precisely. There's absolutely no positive outlook when it gets out that you had an abortion in Moonshine, Mississippi.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I also suppose he's trolling. Nobody could be this retarded. I haven't seen anybody in the Palace pass off this kind of drivel and seriously expect us to treat it like a rational point. This has to be trolling.

I also refuse to believe that it took me 10 minutes to catch up to speed just to have lurker beat me to the punch. =/

Edit: 7 minutes. =/

FELIPE NO

Quote:

They were just college students after all. Now, this is a perfect example of a situation where you guys would say "abort, abort!!!".

Whether or not your parents wanted to abort you was their own choice. Nobody is encouraging potential parents to abort their children in any situation save perhaps the husband and her parents.

What you still fail to realize is that it's impossible to determine individual motives for abortion. Let's say your parents decided to abort you. They're both in college, both have very small if any income, everything screams of economic infeasability. But what if, say, your mom had a weak heart, and giving birth to you could kill her? What if your dad beat her, and she didn't want to bring his child into the world? What if she faced the threat of disownment if she had a child?

What your parents did was admirable on many levels, and while you may be here today, I can guarantee you that you wouldn't care if you had been aborted.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

I don't really understand what you mean by that... you just listed a whole bunch of "motives", so how is it impossible?

Because human beings are capable of something called Deceit. If some bitch gets an abortion because she lost a bet with her friends, she sure as Hell isn't going to disclose that reason. It's impossible to truly know what someone is thinking during any point in their lives, because it is entirely possible that the reasonings they provide for their actions are false. How then, do we differentiate legitimate needs for abortion from trivial ones? We can't. Therefore, the safest course of action is to provide abortions to whoever that needs them, because if we get rid of abortions, then not only do we increase the burden on society to support the children, but we endanger the physical, mental, and economic well-being of women or couples that have damn good reasons for aborting their potential child.

Aside from that, it isn't anybody's place to judge the motives for an abortion. While you may not believe that a certain reason for an abortion is justifiable, that's none of your concern, because you aren't the one having the abortion. It's nobody's business but the woman's or the couple's, and inquiring into their reasonings is an egregious invasion of privacy.

Quote:

I don't think it's right to end a life just to save a few bucks. And just because something seems difficult doesn't mean you should just give up.

Where do we stop at this reasoning? Is it not OK to slaughter a cow because maintaining her puts an extra burden on the farm? Is it not ok to euthenize your dog because its colostomy bag is too much hassle? How do we legislate these things? Do we simply stop at the human level, which is still a debateable status?

Besideswhich, it is again not your place to determine whether or not somebody should have an abortion. It is not your seed, it is not your body.

I've provided you with several cases for why your mom could have elected to abort you, and while you personally determine one to be ok, the second is indeterminable, and the third you consider a definite no-no. However, why is it that you should force your own reasoning on a person by power of law? How is it even possible to differentiate these motives without mind reading? You would argue that it's simply better to allow the child to be born, but not only does that put an undue burden on the parents, but it also impacts society as a whole, because children don't give back for 16 years. You are actively seeking to force a problem on society that doesn't have to exist.

Quote:

Weather or not I "care" is irrelavent. Say I kill you in your sleep. I guarantee you wouldn't care (because you wouldn't see it coming). Does that make it okay?

Not according to the State, but as far as I'm concerned, drawing personal opinion on the matter would have no relevance, since I would no longer exist. Assuming that you were aborted, you wouldn't have even had a consciousness that existed in the first place. The only proof of your existance would have been a lump of cells in the garbage, and your defining aspect as a person, your ego, never would have come to be.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

I'm for abolishing abortion as an alternative form of birth control, as to which it is used now.

An alternative form of birth control would imply that one has reasonable options regarding the avoidance of a birth. Paying hundreds of dollars for an invasive surgery is hardly an "alternative." Especially when an abortion becomes the only course of action to avoid birth at the stage of pregnancy. It's not as if we can beam a fetus out of the womb and into an artificial one.

The idea that an abortion has come to be seen as a method of birth control in society is ludicrous. I don't know what kind of retarded white trash you live around, but society has hardly come to the point where an abortion is considered to be anything but a last resort.

Quote:

Excuse me? I'm a mysogynist for not agreeing with abortion?

I was still in the mindset of discussing Male Reproductive Rights.

Quote:

The simple fact of the matter is, if you're going to go around fucking like an adult, then should something happen and you become pregnant, then that's too bad. It's time to grow up and act like a fucking adult. Take some responsibility for your own actions for a change.

How is electing to have an abortion not a responsible decision? If you have A. no economic ability to effectively raise a child, B. well aware that in giving up the child for adoption it becomes a burden of the state, which is clearly not in the best interests for the child, and C. that because of these conditions, electing to have this child could result in a much lower standard of living for any of your successive children, then how is electing to have an abortion in order to preserve the status quo not a responsible decision? It would be irresponsible to bring the child into a world where it could not be properly cared for, or shoved around like livestock.

Not to mention the concern of health risks, which apparently nobody has picked up on. I provided an example where David's mom had a weak heart, and possibly couldn't survive child birth. However, there is no guarantee that she will die from child birth, it is simply a matter of increased risk. How then, do we determine the acceptable level of risk for an abortion when all women are in danger of losing their life in the process of child birth? It would have to be performed on a case by case basis, and doing so would likely cost the state more money in the process, as well as bring the mother to a term in the pregnancy that is at the current time considered beyond the legal allowance.

What happens in this situation? Do you terminate a being that by legal account is now considered to be a child, or do you force the mother to risk her life in order to birth the child?

Not to mention that this still comes back to your argument of responsibility avoidance, and that by aborting a child that threatens her life, the mother is essentially shirking the responsibilities placed on her by her weak heart. Clearly, by your reasoning, if she didn't want to risk her life she should have never had sex, and that she should suck it up and take it like a woman (or take it out, as the case may be).

To you, somebody with a "Child's view of morality" this previously black and white view of moral action has become muddied. Perhaps you will figure out a way to rhetoricize your way out of these scenarios, but ultimately, in your view of the world, everybody loses.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

Whereas I don't even think it should be an option, or last resort, as you put it. The facts are thousands of teens use abortion to get rid of unwanted pregnancies, and still go on withtheir lifestyle, namely fucking around, without protection. They always have the choice of abortion if it happens. If they didn't have that choice, maybe they would take more precautions...

They wouldn't. Teens love to fuck. They're developing and horny, and no amount of risk involved with sex is going to stop them. It was just as bad with our parent's generation as it is with ours.

Teen pregnancy is mostly an issue of ignorance, because our sexual education is highly inadequate, and access to contraceptives is limited, at best. It's easy to preach responsibility an acting grown up to a group of people that aren't considered to be legal adults.

Quote:

Because the responsible decision is to not have sex if you don't want to deal with the consequences. The responsible decision is to make sure that your life is ready when and if you want to have kids. You make these decisions ahead of time. You prepare yourself for your future, you do not live in the now, and deal with things when they come.

Because abstinence or the proper use of birthcontrol is responsible, that does not invalidate the election to have an abortion as a responsible decision. That's the same reasoning as saying it's responsible to maintain a strong military, but that we should never use it.

Quote:

How did our parents do it? And our grandparents? And on and on. During the Depression there was no economic stability anywhere, and yet people still had kids. When they did, they worked harder to make ends meet, and provide for the family.

They did it because they wanted their kids. They fucked like rabbits because they wanted kids. If a woman considers having an abortion, the first thing on her mind is always "Do I want this baby?" We are asssuming that she has elected, no, she does not want it. The reasonings behind that decision are myriad, and indeterminable, but if they are for certain reasons, such as the one considered above, I'd call it fairly responsible.

Quote:

I'm at risk of dying every single morning that I wake up. I could slip in the tub. I could get in a car accident. Something could fall on me or blow up while I'm at work. Doesn't stop me from waking up in the morning and continuing on with my life. If there is a health risk to do something, you do something to lessen that risk as much as possible. Get her tubes tied. There, no pregnancy, no risk of death during child birth.

If you want to avoid the risk in driving, you don't drive. If you want to avoid the risk in waking up in every morning, then you'd probably elect not to wake up, which is comedy. You have the freedoms to choose how you lead your life, and you elect to risk your life every day when you drive. In having an abortion, a woman's risk is averted, much like how you'd avert the risk of driving by taking public transit.

Quote:

What did we do before abortion?

Infanticide. Then abortion.

If the child was wanted, the birth would be forced. If the child wasn't wanted, then people would find a back alley quack to perform a coat hanger abortion, or fly their children to some European country to have the operation performed.

Before we developed the tools and sterility necessary for abortions, ancient man practiced infanticide when the tribe could not afford to raise a new child. This may have eventually been justified in sacrifice to gods as man developed more advanced moral reasoning, but where the practice of infanticide ends, and abortion begins is probably impossible to determine, since they've always been considered necessary taboos, much like sex itself.

Quote:

If there was no possibility to know about a weak heart in advance, then abortion should be allowed. If, however, she knew she had a weak heart, and did it anyway, without any preventative measures, then suck it up.

But what if she used a contraceptive and still got pregnant? There's no way to determine if it was used correctly, and yet she still took the precautions necessary to avoid pregnancy. Therefore, your recourse is to not have the abortion to begin with, since the only supposedly responsible decision is not to have sex.

Consider this, however. If there was no way to know about a person's particular health risks going into a pregnancy, then why even allow health-related abortions in the first place? The woman will give birth and die, or not, and nobody would be any the wiser that her heart was too big, or whatever.

So you can either have abortions for everybody, or abortions for none. Pick and choose, you can't rationalize around your base reasoning.

Quote:

Everybody is already losing in "my world". Our society is degrading at an amazing rate, because we live in a generation that wants everything given to them with the minimal amount of work possible. People have no respect for other people, there is no responsibility taken for one's own actions. Because of this, we look to others to provide our easy way outs, so that we can live life in ease.

And how many people do you know that live like this? If the current generation was honestly as bad as you claim it to be, then why hasn't the economy bottomed out of itself?

Quote:

Life is risk. Without them, it would be dull and boring, and ultimately worthless. But you take those risks and go with them, and see where it leads you. I look at abortion the same as I look at suicide. There is no reason to.

I see you've elected for no abortions. You are done in this thread, further discussion is pointless.

How ya doing, buddy?

Sarcasm, Dev.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

But is the passage talking about the damage made to the fetus, or to the mother?

I was speaking idiomatically.

No, it's not clear at all. The passage only gives mention of the premature birthing, but no indication that a child has been damaged at all. Then it makes a general reference to the rule of an eye for an eye. Since it is the husband that has to sue for the damages, the assumtion is being made that the wife is incapable of such duties, which to me, implies damage to his pregnant wife.

What would be more important at this point, the baby or the baby factory?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Because assuming that the premature birth had caused gynecological issues, or impaired her from ever being able to bear children, the same would be done to her assailant, or her assailant's wife.

Think about this. If damage to a fetus or baby is to be visited upon in equal measure, would the assailant's wife also be forced to a premature birth?

FELIPE NO

So, what exactly is the problem here? Is it the ambigious nature of the language used in the passage, or is it something wrong with me?

Most amazing jew boots

So why haven't you provided the proper context instead of just quoting the singular passage from the Bible?

Right, so he wasn't quoting verbatim. Or a different translation?

In any case, that still doesn't solve the moral conundrum presented in the Eye for an Eye rule, if the passage truly applies to the fetus. Does that mean that the assailant's wife would be forced to premature birth? Presumably something of equal value would have to be given up, but there isn't an alternative solution given, as there are with the other violations of the law.

Jam it back in, in the dark.