Rapists aren't good for trust within society. I don't care to see them proliferate. Nature. In what world does this concept "wrong" exist? Certainly not ours. Again, your shaming tactics are useless against a man with self-esteem.
No, it's not. Consent may be withdrawn at anytime anyway .... Having sex does not require a woman to have a child.
Uhhh......what I posted that you are so replying as stated above.....it an fact of reality. Basically your reply to what I posted if using an analogy is the same as if I posted.... 1 + 1 = 2 2 + 2 = 4 (a x b)/(a + b) And then you said...."Do you see how ridiculous a position you've pushed yourself into? Do I really need to say why this is ridiculous?" It's the same thing. The only thing ridiculous as far as this post is concerned is the fact you don't realize it's the same. AA
OK....I feel you man but this is the reality. If we take the two positions.... Position #1. The pregnant woman has complete and total legally affirmed rights to determine whether or not she will terminate a pregnancy. Position #2 A Man should have some say if he impregnated a woman as in whether she can or will not carry a fetus to term. OK.....let's not argue the positions and say they both are right. Next....let's look at which position holds the most logic, holds more moral fiber and which party would suffer more of the other position was placed into law. Position #1.....A guy may have Oiled the Cat but even though one half of the genome will be his after putting aside Viral DNA Encoding.....but it is still her body. Position #2....1/2 of the developing fetus or zygote genome is the guys. Position #1. It's her body. Position #2. After all the developing zygote or fetus will hopefully and eventually become the guy's son or daughter. Position #1. It's her body. Position #2. She should not be allowed to kill what might become my baby!! Position #1. It's her body. So...no matter how many righteously moral arguments that are completely justified presented in Position 2 by the guy.......fact is.....it's her body. And there will NEVER be any law passed in the U.S. that would not be struck down by any version of the U.S. Supreme Court that would place the rights of others above the right of the person who is pregnant. It's her body....period....and although I feel for guy's in position #2......you an't make laws that take away control of a sane persons own body. AA
Some say that the artificial womb will put an end to abortions. Because once a fetus leaves the body of the mother and can be kept alive by machines it becomes a person.
I don't know Wga. The only artificial uterine wall and womb has to begin with just a Zygote and this thing does not exist in the U.S. even if it is American's who made it offshore in a nice Non-Extradition country. AA
Debating the methods by which values can be supported or opposed seems pointless until there is agreement on the values to be supported (or opposed). Abortion is definitely one of those decisions that should not be based on absolutes. It depends on the situation (and pro-choice advocates would say the pregnant woman is the most impacted by the pregnancy and the most appropriate person to make the decision). Is the punishment for murder is an imposition of values? Yes. However, our society adopted a punishment for murder based on the general consensus that it is wrong for one person to kill another person (with some exceptions for self-defense, war, etc). Legislators, at the beginning of nation, did not establish a law protecting all life because most people would not have willingly become vegans. There was insufficient consensus to establish a law against killing any living thing. My point is that you cannot impose ANY value on society. You have to justify it. If you value life (i.e. you are a vegan and take every possible measure to avoid killing any living creature in your environment) then I stand corrected. I got the impression that you value only living bodies with human DNA (regardless of whether they are persons or not). I would expect a person who values life to want laws that release all livestock and make it illegal to kill any living thing. Nietzsche was not a fan of Socrates, I see. Unlike Nietzsche, I believe logic is important (but as a programmer I am probably biased). It would appear that Nietzsche thought of Socrates as a low-born individual who used logic and rhetoric to dazzle and confuse the high-born leaders of his era. I only read that one essay. Did Nietzsche actually believe Athens was stronger when they all thought gods and goddesses ruled the universe? Nietzsche's perspective is foreign to me, so it may take me a while to digest it.
Well we can reduce the total number of abortions by over 96% if we begin to educate kids before they can either get pregnant or make someone pregnant in abstinence, STD's, Birth Control....and most importantly how to get and use Morning After and Plan B Drugs which taken immediately after unprotected sex will not allow a fertilized egg to implant itself in the uterine wall thus no pregnancy no possibility of abortion. AA
Not wanting to make laws that take away control of a woman's body. I do feel that if a woman can opt to have an abortion because at that the time in her life she feels it is not a good time due to whatever reasons, a man should have the same choice.
So the point is that the woman consented to sex, but didn't consent to the pregnancy, therefore justifying an abortion. Interesting. Completely illogical since the point of sex is pregnancy, but I'll play. In that case the same is true for the man, since he didn't consent to the pregnancy either, therefore absolving him of any responsibilities as such. Your line of logic is starting to make sense now. Sex for all and no one is responsible for the resulting pregnancy nor the child if carried to term. I'm on board with this.
I understand but again....It is her body. If men could get Pregnant we would have drive thru Abortion Clinics and you know it!! LOL!! AA
But with the number of strictly religious parents such drugs and methods are off the table anyway. Remember these things don't grow on trees they have to be gotten though someone.
Well...I believe they can now be gotten in any Pharmacy over the counter but I am not sure if there is an age restriction in some states?? Any other member know?? AA
Consent for sex creates a risk of causing pregnancy, but does not equate to consent to becoming pregnant. Consent to take your gun out, load it, and let your friend use it for target practice creates a risk of landing a bullet in your leg, but does not equate to consent to having your leg shot. I'm not seeing the difference. In one case you might use the calendar method (or some more reliable method) to reduce the risk. In the other case you might thoroughly educate your friend on gun safety to reduce the risk. In either case there is a risk but you have not consented to the injury.
And who's going to drive them to the pharmacy? Mom and dad? The ones who are going to disown them for having sex out of wedlock? You know one of the things I've noticed is that some people get a perverse thrill in making the kid suffer for their indiscretion.
I believe in 2013 the FDA approved the morning after pill for any age and supposedly it is available without the need to show ID. I do recall that some pharmacists have refused to sell it based on their personal beliefs, but I do not recall how those cases were resolved.
Yeah.....many times a young girl is knocked up by her father or brother or uncle and they basically lock her up in the home and force her to give birth right in that home as they are ultra-religious. Hypocrites is what they are!! AA - - - Updated - - - Yeah....that was it...some Pharmacies in some states were refusing to carry it and sell it. Idiots!! AA
Your stuck on the abortion part of the equation. I understand that battle is fought and I lost, my point is since it became legal for a woman to get out of the responsibility I believe the man should be able to as well.
We can.....it's called wearing a rubber!! LOL!! Or in my case as they will not fit....I am not joking....I use the Jackson Pollock method. AA
Who pays for the millions of fetuses kept alive in machines? Who pays for the upbringing of all these millions of kids??
I literally never claimed that. You like to argue with made up people don't you. Medically? Obviously there's no difference. That's why I brought up the context: the prolonged trauma of the woman having to bear her rapist's child, and the proliferation of genetics demonstrably hostile to civilization. Nope. But a society in which that were literally true wouldn't last very long. So? They are of this world, and to the extent they can enforce their will, their opinions matter. But there is no such thing as "wrong" in the meta-physical. It was intended, even if you're not aware of it. You're simply carrying out your beta strategy of persuasion.
The problem is that there are those who want to use their personal opinions to deny women their reproductive rights. That is a problem and no amount chest pounding is going to change it from being a problem. The problem will only go away when those who want to deny women their reproductive rights stop trying to impose their personal opinions on women.
