|
did u read this thread?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moongoose |
| Once in a while even in the core a gem is found :D Its just sad that i usualy sleep trough it, becouse the core is most active when its my time to go to sleep :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Renegade |
That thread had me at "Well, it came out of his Ballsack...". :-/
Seriously though, while I don't want to have to wade through a COR thread for opinions on the issue, these laws do raise an interesting point: if a woman wants to keep the baby and the man doesn't, is it still his responsibility to care for it? In the case of abortion, I would argue (and have argued) that the decision rests entirely with the woman. As it is the woman who has to carry the fetus for nine months, the decision is entirely hers as to whether or not to carry it to nascency and the man should rightfully have no say in the matter. On the other hand, presuming that the man wants to abort the fetus and the woman doesn't, can the man still rightfully be forced into paying child-support? If a woman decides she can't afford the cost of the baby, then she has the choice of aborting it. If the man decides he can't afford the cost of the baby, what options does he have? Is it fair that he should have to pay child-support regardless?
I understand that making child-support non-mandatory would result in a lot of "hit and run" dads, but it's still the woman's choice to give birth to the baby, is it not? |
|
|
| -])ark-Maverick |
| Look, the reason for the current situation with Abortion is the governments inability to establish a definate law. The woman has the choice to abort only because it is her body that is in question, not the males. People seem to forget that the developing fetus has no status until it has "proceeded alive from the mother womb". I understand the frustration of alot of guys out there, but guess what, you don't have any say over the womans body. And guess what, you are also responsible for your actions. And for all those situations like, hey, I wrapped it 5 times, and she was on BC, there are 1000 more where people were simply irresponsible. And oh yeah, if you don't want a kid, dont' have sex. Plain and simple, no method of BC claims to be 100%. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| On the flip side, what if I got a woman pregnant and she wanted an abortion but I wanted to keep the baby? What rights do I have? Am I s.o.l. because it's "her body" or do I have claim to a child that is developing with half of it's DNA belonging to me? |
|
|
| -])ark-Maverick |
| Once again, the developing fetus has no rights. It is not a person. It is developing, but if you say that it has the potential of being a human (therefor rights), then logically, you have to eliminate all forms of contraceptives(think about it). In fact, everytime a woman has her period, this would be considered an abortion or a 'potential' person. So we as a society have deemed that the fetus is not a person until it's actually out of the mother (or in some states, 20-22 weeks). Your piss contains DNA too, you don't have a right to that once it's left you. This law will never pass, it's fun to debate, but logically, it's out in left field. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by -])ark-Maverick
Once again, the developing fetus has no rights. It is not a person. It is developing, but if you say that it has the potential of being a human (therefor rights), then logically, you have to eliminate all forms of contraceptives(think about it). In fact, everytime a woman has her period, this would be considered an abortion or a 'potential' person. |
Sperm only carries half of your chromosomes and can not develop into a grown person on its own.
| quote: | | So we as a society have deemed that the fetus is not a person until it's actually out of the mother (or in some states, 20-22 weeks). |
A fetus in its 7th or 8th month of pregnancy possesses most of the functions that a newborn baby does. The only difference is the location, whether it's inside or outside the womb.
| quote: | | Your piss contains DNA too, you don't have a right to that once it's left you. This law will never pass, it's fun to debate, but logically, it's out in left field. |
Yes, but your piss contains your DNA, not that of another person, and is an integral part of you which a fetus is not. |
|
|
| -])ark-Maverick |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Sperm only carries half of your chromosomes and can not develop into a grown person on its own. |
Uh, sperm carries all of your genes. Lets not get into a debate on the genetic make-up of DNA. Sperm cells are germ cells, which means they contain one half of the double helix that is DNA. So all of your cromosomes are in sperm. And sperm can't develop into a fetus, that's why we have sex. That's simple enough
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
A fetus in its 7th or 8th month of pregnancy possesses most of the functions that a newborn baby does. The only difference is the location, whether it's inside or outside the womb. |
Agreed, but then where shall we draw the line?
Look, two people decide to have sex, they make a baby. Now lies a problem in the rights of the child. The only reason females are allowed to have an abortion these days is because a court ruling stated that not allowing them was an infringment on the rights of autonomy. If having babies was 100% safe, abortions would be illegal. And guess what?!?!?! Having a baby presents no danger whatsoever to the health of the father (all jokes aside). Therefor, we have no choice in the matter |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | | And guess what?!?!?! Having a baby presents no danger whatsoever to the health of the father (all jokes aside). Therefor, we have no choice in the matter |
Guess you newer saw the pregnant girls father beat the out of the guy who got her pregnant then :D |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by -])ark-Maverick
Uh, sperm carries all of your genes. Lets not get into a debate on the genetic make-up of DNA. Sperm cells are germ cells, which means they contain one half of the double helix that is DNA. So all of your cromosomes are in sperm. And sperm can't develop into a fetus, that's why we have sex. That's simple enough |
Um no, mr. biology professor, sperm carries half of your genes. That's why people only have a 50% chance of inhereting genetic diseases. If sperm would carry RNA instead of DNA like you suggest, the chains couldn't recombine because the mother's chain is different than that of a father. Especially considering that X and Y chromosomes are totally different.
| quote: | | Look, two people decide to have sex, they make a baby. Now lies a problem in the rights of the child. The only reason females are allowed to have an abortion these days is because a court ruling stated that not allowing them was an infringment on the rights of autonomy. If having babies was 100% safe, abortions would be illegal. And guess what?!?!?! Having a baby presents no danger whatsoever to the health of the father (all jokes aside). Therefor, we have no choice in the matter |
No it isn't. Whenever there is a risk for the health of the mother, an abortion is legal. And abortions themselves are not really the safest of procedures either. I'd even go so far to say that a well carried out pregnancy poses less of a health risk than an abortion. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
I just thought of a thoughtful analogy that unfortunately argues against what a lot of people have been saying.
Say a guy has clamydia and knowlingly passes it on to his female dating partner. Most people would argue that because he knew sex would transfer his STD to her, then he should be held responsible and take part in getting her treated. Likewise, say this guy also has sperm and knowingly transfers it up into her vagina during sex. Knowing the consequences of the sperm+egg combination and understanding that a condom isn't always effective, if she becomes pregnant, shouldn't he also be held responsible in part for the child if she decides to have it?
There's some flaws in the argument, but just for the sake of discussion I thought it'd be a bit provocative. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
And abortions themselves are not really the safest of procedures either. I'd even go so far to say that a well carried out pregnancy poses less of a health risk than an abortion. |
While its true that abortions are not the safest procedures (to be true any surgical procedure carries with it a certain risk factor), according to wikipedia (yes i know not the most reliable thing out there, but i supose at least the medical section can be copied from a book or something so it should be ok) early abortion (up to the 16th week of pregnancy) is actualy safer than carrying the pregnancy full term, since suction-aspiration abortion its not a surgical procedure. |
|
|
|
|
