My new Abortion Position

I really wanted to highlight this sentence out of your entire post because I find the idea so intriguing. Do men have a right to experience fatherhood, even at the expense of another person's right to make medical decisions concerning their autonomy?

And if it is a right I have to ask...wouldn't you much rather experience fatherhood with a partner or spouse who wants and desires to experience motherhood with you?

Why would you want to make a woman, who absolutely does not want a child with you, give birth to your baby and ultimately have that connection with that person (who may or may not hate you for it) forever?

 

So you think that because it isn't been done now it won't be in the future .. similar claims were made for IVF, and still are in some countries;

The Roman Catholic Church opposes all kinds of assisted reproductive technology and artificial contraception, claiming they separate the procreative goal of marital sex from the goal of uniting married couples. The Roman Catholic Church permits the use of a small number of reproductive technologies and contraceptive methods like Natural family planning, which involves charting ovulation times. The church allows other forms of reproductive technologies that allow conception to take place from normative sexual intercourse, such as a fertility lubricant. Pope Benedict XVI has publicly re-emphasized the Catholic Church's opposition to in vitro fertilization (IVF), claiming it replaces love between a husband and wife. The Catechism of the Catholic Church claims that Natural law teaches that reproduction has an "inseparable connection" to sexual union of married couples. In addition, the church opposes IVF because it might cause disposal of embryos; in Catholicism, an embryo is viewed as an individual with a soul that must be treated as a person. The Catholic Church maintains that it is not objectively evil to be infertile, and advocates adoption as an option for such couples who still wish to have children.

Government agencies in China passed bans on the use of IVF in 2003 by unmarried women or by couples with certain infectious diseases. Sunni Muslim nations generally allow IVF between married couples when conducted with their own respective sperm and eggs, but not with donor eggs from other couples. But Iran, which is Shi'a Muslim, has a more complex scheme. Iran bars sperm donation but allows donation of both fertilised and unfertilised eggs. Fertilised eggs are donated from married couples to other married couples, while unfertilised eggs are donated in the context of mut'ah or temporary marriage to the father. The nation of Costa Rica has a complete ban on all IVF technology, it having been ruled unconstitutional by the nation's Supreme Court because it "violated life." Costa Rica is the only country in the western hemisphere that forbids this technique. A law project sent reluctantly by the government of Pres. Laura Chinchilla was rejected at the Costa Rican parliament. President Chinchilla, whose strong Catholic views have won her to be named officially as Preferred Daughter of the Virgin Mary has not publicly stated her position on the question of in vitro fertilisation. However, given the massive influence of the Catholic Church in her government any change in the status quo seems very unlikely. In spite of Costa Rican government and strong religious opposition, the Costa Rican ban on in-vitro fertilization has been struck down by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in a decision held on 20 December 2012. The court said in the ruling that a long-standing Costa Rican guarantee of protection for every human embryo violated the reproductive freedom of infertile couples because it prohibited them from using in-vitro fertilization, which often involves the disposal of embryos not implanted in a patient’s uterus.[100] Federal regulations in the United States include screening requirements and restrictions on donations, but generally do not affect sexually intimate partners. However, doctors may be required to provide treatments due to nondiscrimination laws, as for example in California.

All major restrictions on single but infertile women using IVF were lifted in Australia in 2002 after a final appeal to the Australian High Court was rejected on procedural grounds in the Leesa Meldrum case. A Victorian federal court had ruled in 2000 that the existing ban on all single women and lesbians using IVF constituted sex discrimination. Victoria's government announced changes to its IVF law in 2007 eliminating remaining restrictions on fertile single women and lesbians, leaving South Australia as the only state maintaining them. The US state of Tennessee proposed a bill in 2009 that would have defined donor IVF as adoption. During the same session another bill proposed barring adoption from any unmarried and cohabitating couple, and activist groups stated that passing the first bill would effectively stop unmarried people from using IVF. Neither of these bills passed

It was you who made the claim "the man has equal right because without the seed there most certainly wouldn't be any pregnancy.", the article linked to shows that you are incorrect, that a male sperm is not overall necessary ... You made no distinction that the pregnancy had to be "normal" or even indicated a time ... I am merely showing you what the future could hold.

 

All of the above is a fallacy as it is based on the presumption that a foetus is a person, this is based purely on your own opinion as there is no consensus as to when personhood starts. ie you are begging the question.

You cannot kill a 1 month baby for those reasons, but you can remove the baby from the situation that is causing the issue, hence why you cannot kill it. A woman does not have any other option but to use deadly force in order to remove the foetus that is causing her injury ... self defence laws are very clear on when deadly force can be used, guess what pregnancy more than meets the required criteria and is already recognised as an injury in law.

 

Is it possible? Yes. Likely? Not in our lifetime. And even if it is, the article you quoted has said that pretty much their experimentation with other mammals has shown such life to be deficient, if not fatally flawed.

Artificial life creation of that sort is even worse than abortion, you know since one of the pro-choice arguments that I concur with is that we want children to be in a healthy economic/parental setting.

Wouldn't we want they themselves to be healthy?

 

Sorry, but I just don't see how a man should have a legal say in an abortion. I think a pregnant woman should have a discussion with the man so she has all the information she needs but in the end man should not get a vote. It is the woman's body and sovereignty over one's body is paramount.

The whole, "the man contributed DNA argument is ridiculous. If I donate a kidney or part of my live, 100% of the DNA in that organ is mine, and yet once it is inside another person I have no legal say in how that person behaves. Nor should I. John Smith may have part of my liver and it may infuriate me that he is destroying it by binge drinking, but I have zero legal say in what he does to it once it is in his body.

Biology isn't fair. If men could get pregnant I would hold the exact same view on abortion. But they can't. So they don't get a say. Is it fair that a man can sell sperm for a profit but women can't? It's not fair. It's biology.

 

and none of the above relates to your original premise of "the man has equal right because without the seed there most certainly wouldn't be any pregnancy.", whether the life is deficient or flawed is irrelevant to your premise that pregnancy "most certainly" wouldn't happen without sperm.

what 'we' want is also irrelevant to your original premise.

 

Go back and read the previous posts. To hit the high points which you seem to have missed:

The earliest a baby has been successfully born is 21 weeks, therefore it is a human at 21 weeks and beyond.

Viability is considered 24 weeks, possibly earlier in some cases. At that point of viability, the baby can be removed from the "situation" without killing it.

It is a baby at 21 weeks, how much earlier it is a baby is open to debate. In all other areas, society err's on the side of caution, assumes innocence until proven guilty. Since its clearly a human at 21 weeks, it must be assumed its a human at earlier stages until proven otherwise. Is it a human at conception? 10 weeks? The burden is on you to prove at what point it is not a human.

 

Pasithea, who is pro-choice, says that women who have abortions are not being good parents, because good parents care more about their child than about convenience. Even if abortion should be legal, it still doesn't change the fact that women who have abortions for those convenience reasons (ie, money, career, etc), are trashy and sleazy. That is NOT a misogynistic statement. Anybody, man or woman, who puts convenience over their own children, is trashy, in my opinion.

Do you believe that my comment was misogynistic, yes or no?

Also, despite the fact that the woman can't remove the fetus without killing it, it still doesn't change the fact that abortion shouldn't be legal? Why? The mother should just accept responsibility and take care of her child. Women who have abortions because they don't feel like spending money on their child, are no better than Casey Anthony.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Please quote me on this and link to it. I don't recall ever saying this. =/

Perhaps you misinterpreted something I said or maybe you're confusing me with someone else? Sam you really, really need to quote what people are saying EXACTLY and also link to the original post. Please.

 

On page 3 of your new thread you said this.

 

How in the world did you interpret that statement into something about bad parenting?

When I said that what I meant was, I hope you never experience a pregnancy scare with a girl, or face birth control failing you or a condom breaking. =/

But if you DO, I certainly hope you are dating a girl who also shares the same beliefs as you because if she is pro-choice and chooses to abort you're not going to have a say in the matter and it may be upsetting to you (unless she never tells you she's pregnant)...

 

Okay. I apologize for misquoting you.

 

Thanks. But please actually use direct quotes when you are quoting people.

It's not that hard to do.

Code:

[quote=username]Copy/Paste comment here.[quote]

but in the last

 

I can assure you I haven't missed anything of any relevance.

How many are 'born' at this time without suffering serious mental disabilities, how many are 'born' at this time and live without extensive medical intervention.
The above is a questionable cause fallacy, the assumption being that because a few survive at 21 weeks then all must be a person at 21 weeks .. BTW I have never said at anytime that the unborn are not human.

Being born establishes the rights regardless of the gestation period, being born makes the now baby an independent body that does not require the sole usage of another persons body in order to survive, once born any person can care for it, not so while it is unborn, and as has been stated numerous times before, no person is expected to use their body to sustain another.

Not without violating the consent of the woman should she choose not to, and just how many elective abortion take place after 21 weeks, can you cite figures?

Why can you people not use the correct terminology, it is not a 'baby' until its birth .. it is a blastocyst, embryo, fetus or any of the other correct terms. Stop being so intellectually dishonest and call it by it's proper name.

There is no burden of proof at all simple because no pro-choicer I have ever known or seen comment has every said it is not human .. of course it is human, it cannot be anything other than human.

The burden of proof is on pro-lifers to show why a 6 week embryo should overrule the rights of the woman, why a 20 week fetus should over rule the rights of the woman .. so far all I have ever seen in arguments from pro-lifers are based on religious morality or just opinion, and neither of these are reason enough to force a woman to remain pregnant against her wishes.

To add a further point, it really doesn't matter in the slightest if the law was changed to say that at conception there is a 'person', you would still have to overcome the conflict of rights and the mothers right to use deadly force in self-defence against the unconsented injuries being sustained by her body.

Perhaps you would care to address those points in the topic here - http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=320356

 

Male Sperm is no longer required for fertilizing a females egg cell as Genetic Engineering can duplicate a sperm cell from other female cells.

Thus....Men have become irrelevant to pro-creation.

AboveAlpha

 

Your entire reply shows you have not read the posts as most of your questions & comments have already been addressed. Your reply does show that you have a very shallow idea of "relevance" (or is it just that only items that agree with your bias are "relevant").

 

Please quote where Pasithea state this, as I cannot believe that she would.

Good parents are parents who plan for a baby, do you really think a woman who does not want a baby, resents the pregnancy all the way through makes a "good" parent?

I find it utterly amazing that pro-lifers degrade women for "sleeping around" calling them trash and sluts who are unable to make informed decisions about their own bodies and then once they have been forced to go through with the pregnancy and childbirth expect them to be a good parent, suddenly they go from being unable to make decisions about their own body to being able to make decisions for another person .. It is utterly stupid.

Misogynistic no, sexist yes.

Why are you demeaning a woman who was found innocent?

All of the above is just opinion with no real relevance apart from in your own personal world ..

Also despite the fact that a 15 year old can read and write, it still doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be allowed onto internet forums. Why? The teenager should accept the fact that they don't have the life skills or experience to engage in debates of this nature.

See how it works, we can all have our own personal opinions on things (BTW that is not my opinion it is purely to make a point) .. however, those opinions do not give us the right to impose our views onto others, especially when those views are in the minority.

 

1-Pasithea never said that. I apologized for misquoting her.

2-I am no sexist. Sexists have double standards. In my opinion, a man who puts convenience over his child is just as trashy and sleazy as a woman that does the same thing. How is that sexist?

Also, I'm not imposing my views on anybody. I'm simply stating my opinion. You're just an ageist.

 

if you say so

 

I thought she wouldn't and good on you for apologising.

You are right, I missed the ending of your comment where you include men and so I apologise for saying your comment was sexist.

If that is the case then you shouldn't have any issues with a woman getting an abortion despite the fact it goes against your opinion .. after all you are not trying to impose your opinion onto anyone are you?

I see you missed the following "BTW that is not my opinion it is purely to make a point" in my post, it's called a disclaimer, you should try it sometimes

 

The whole original point to this thread, is that I thought I was moving to the Center on the Abortion Issue. Neither supporting, nor trying to defy a woman's "right" of a choice. That if I could strengthen the morality of the act, then abortion could truly be a part of North American experience in a manner that we'll all be satisfied with.(We may not agree with it, but if we can make it somehow morally sound we can live with it).

As an example, for the most controversial of provisions in law, we usually grant leeway to religious institutions or to people the legislation in question would otherwise morally offend. I realize that, along the way that I hadn't given up my pro-life position, I had merely cloaked it under a premise of compromise. Something that I could live with.

But obviously my positional offer here as it relates to morality was not enough. As for some reason pro-choice women don't endorse doctors to the extent that they would for all other things non-abortion related. Pasithea showed some relevant examples of unfortunate consequences, but in those cases the doctors were making what they felt was the best decision.

Medical practice is NOT an exact science, they're bound to make mistakes. But unless a woman in question has medical experience, deferring to a doctor may be the best thing. Usually in surgery, it's a team of doctors/surgeons and that should give us relative comfort in the differing opinions and analysis which may lead to the best possible result.

Pro-choicers may or may not(well, they clearly don't) see this kind of plan as an alternative, but I think as long as women have omnipresent power in the Abortion Discussion, the pro-life crowd won't go away.

This isn't a decision regarding autonomy(despite what the pro-choice women may say), this is about a decision regarding human life and how much value we put on human life. Equally, this is about our concept of the word "equality". If it can be thrown away due to "biological differences", then what else can it be thrown away by?

Does this mean that Men can reinstate the Patriarchy?(If it ever existed BTW. Yes men had political and financial advantage. But as I said before, women were politically protected. They're still politically protected, now more than ever with political power and prestige). After all, Men can claim there's biological differences in the make up of a man and a woman.

Not that I want us to reinstate the Patriarchy, but it's very well within our capabilities in this slippery slope argument. Equal Rights must mean Equal Rights, for everyone no matter what their biological state is.

 

Deferring to a doctor is the best thing for medical advice, but not for life decisions.

Which clearly shows it isn't about the "babies" or "sanctity of life" at all, it's about controlling women.

 

It's actually the best thing for both. Are you a medical major? Alright then. If you mean life from an economic standpoint, we can invite a lawyer or a confidante. Evaluate the income of the family and make a decision based on that.

Let's give a definition of Omnipresent.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/omnipresent

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Omnipotent

A long-lasting, external power that claims supremacy above all others. In claiming this power, you do violate babies and the sanctity of life. You also happen to violate any notion of equality as well as the base for which a relationship could stand in the first place.

Cady, the problem of pro-choice women is you think "You're all that". No, you're not being persecuted and you're not special. You're just a human being, among 6.99 billion of us. Your rights aren't any more superior to a man's, nor are they superior to a fetus's(With the lone exception of severe bodily threats).

I know the Feminist groups and equally politically apathetic men gave women a power trip but I'm ready to give the proverbial



Wake up, you're not all that. You're just one of us. If you wanted to be "all that", blame your ancestors. They took that opportunity away from you, now we're equal, even steven, etc.

 

And once again, you do realize that this mindset leads to the abolition of all child support laws...Good luck maintaining your society without fathers lol....

 

That is a whole other matter. I do believe there should be a law requiring the woman to notify the man as soon as she knows she is pregnant. The man should then have the opportunity to sign something claiming parental rights and responsibilities or abdicating them. The woman can use that information in making her decision.