|
Aborting our way to pefect kids? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yes, i know what he's saying. ergo my comment. to argue a man has equal rights with respect to the child is ridiculous. |
No it isn't. Sunflower pretty much responded for me.
EDIT:
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
its her body. |
Yes, and what she's carrying inside it isn't only her's. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | | Yes, and what she's carrying inside it isn't only her's. |
Well if you believe it's a person then it doesn't really belong to anyone. And if you don't, then it's just a bunch of cells growing inside of her, at which point it doesn't belong to the man merely because he helped to create it any more than a tumor in someone's body belongs to Philip Morris because they helped create it. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Well if you believe it's a person then it doesn't really belong to anyone. And if you don't, then it's just a bunch of cells growing inside of her, at which point it doesn't belong to the man merely because he helped to create it any more than a tumor in someone's body belongs to Philip Morris because they helped create it. |
True. I basically agree with you there. And I'm undecided about what I consider it to be in what phase/trimester (also because my knowledge of the different phases is a little rusty right now, but even so).
EDIT: There no way, atlest right now, to fully determine the answer to that question (i.e. What exactly is it? And when is it "human?") |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Yes, and what she's carrying inside it isn't only her's. |
to extend that statement to its logical conclusion then: if its half the man's child, then the man has 50% rights. which either means
they have a right to attempt to force termination or birth;
or, since they possess 50% rights each, a third party can decide for them.
luckily the law agrees with me and the decision is up to the woman. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
to extend that statement to its logical conclusion then: if its half the man's child, then the man has 50% rights. which either means
they have a right to attempt to force termination or birth;
|
Who's "they?"
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
or, since they possess 50% rights each, a third party can decide for them.
|
Uh... no. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Who's \"they?\"
Uh... no. |
sorry, 'they' being the man.
could you then explain to me what you mean by saying its not 100% a woman's right to decide? because as ive already stated, if it is also a man's right, how exactly does that work, if not being able to force an abortion or birth??? if a man has rights over the foetus, what rights are they? |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
sorry, 'they' being the man.
could you then explain to me what you mean by saying its not 100% a woman's right to decide? because as ive already stated, if it is also a man's right, how exactly does that work, if not being able to force an abortion or birth??? if a man has rights over the foetus, what rights are they? |
So why does a man have rights over his child once it is born? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
So why does a man have rights over his child once it is born? |
because it is no longer a woman's foetus, its a child. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
sorry, 'they' being the man.
could you then explain to me what you mean by saying its not 100% a woman's right to decide? because as ive already stated, if it is also a man's right, how exactly does that work, if not being able to force an abortion or birth??? if a man has rights over the foetus, what rights are they? |
Well, that doesn't really have a simple or conclusive answer.
I supposed the man should have atleast some say as far as married couples go. I can't really expand on what exactly that would be at this moment (it's late, I'm tired, and this isn't exactly a simple sibject eigther).
But as far as unmarried couples are concerned, that where it get alot more complicated. I obviously don't think it's fair for some dude to knock up some girl and then her having the burden of being a single mother or something (which is one reason why I think it's highly irresponsible to have a kid outside of wedlock). |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MehGoat
What about things like muscular dystrophy, which causes death around age 20. By the time you reach your teens, you're in a wheelchair-but you would have a nice, fulfilling childhood! I don't think there's a pre-natal test for it, so it's hypothetical, but one may be someday developed. |
I'd say it's better to abort that than to have a person grow up only to realize he's gonna die in a couple of years. It does kinda go hand in hand with what I said earlier, because a little kid is usually not a fully self-sustainable person. And by the age the person would be self sustained, the disease already kicks in and makes that person disabled.
| quote: | | In any case, I'm not looking for an answer necessarily to the muscular dystrophy thing, I'm just pointing out that there are many, many flavors of birth defects, ranging from some of which may never be noticed (one guy had a dead siamese twin corpse in his body for 30-odd years) to those that will cause death in the childbirth process. |
Well, that isn't really a serious defect that disables an individual from functioning normally.
| quote: | | I'm just saying that your line is none too distinct, and lines like that are too arbitrary for my tastes anyway. |
Well, if all the lines were distinct and clear, we wouldn't need laws and courts. Unfortunately, everything in this world is more or less composed of shades of gray.
| quote: | | As for myself, I beleive in a woman's right to abortion, regardless of whatever reason. I beleive that she can CHOOSE to have an abortion for whatever reason she wants, whether it be because the child will have a birth defect, or the "wrong" color eyes, or because a stranger gave her 5 bucks to do it. It's none of my buisness, and certainly none of the government's. |
A woman can consciously choose not to get pregnant. If pregnancy was something that just happened to people without their consent, I'd totally go with your viewpoint. But the thing is, a pregnancy is usually under woman's control. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Well, that doesn't really have a simple or conclusive answer.
I supposed the man should have atleast some say as far as married couples go. I can't really expand on what exactly that would be at this moment (it's late, I'm tired, and this isn't exactly a simple subject either). |
well, im sorry to pick on you when youre tired :p but i think its a pretty simple subject. defining 'some say' in law (ie where rights come from) would have to condone forced abortion or birth, otherwise 'some say' means nothing. you cant legislate to curb/control the inner dynamics of a relationship.
ultimately, in a married situation it would be natural for the man to have a say, given the nature of the relationship. however, you cant possibly move beyond that and into a legislative approach that guarantees the man any rights at all. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
because it is no longer a woman's foetus, its a child. |
Obviously, yes. But on which bases does a male parent get rights over a child and not over a fetus? How does a child suddenly become his at birth, while it was only mother's when it was concieved?
Or take this case for example. A guy kills a woman in 8th month of pregnancy who really wanted a child. Should his punishment be equal to killing a non-pregnant woman? |
|
|
|
|
