DoctorWho didn't mention any "fear"; nor did he mention any "reprisals". He said "I have nothing to lose". Regardless, the statement of a single individual is not evidence that the "sociopolitical atmosphere in the UK" is "Orwellian".
If a woman aborts the fetus there is no kid to support. IF there's a kid to support and "Dad" wants to sign off he's not a great father..., there's the difference. If you quote me do not alter the quote....
You are correct there are differences. 1. The father does not have a choice. (and don't feed me that junk about "then he should have kept his penis in his pants." The woman should have kept her pants on also.......they are both to blame) 2 The mother's choice ends the child's life. While the fathers allows the child to grow up and live. And don't worry I'll won't quote your statements and then alter them. Don't want to get in trouble for altering a quoted statement again.
The man signs away his rights to the fetus, which is not yet a human. At that point, he is out of the equation. If it becomes a human at that point, it is entirely the choice of the mother. If she chooses to allow the zygote to develop into a human, then she is solely responsible for the care of the baby.
Good post having nothing to do with the post of mine you quoted. Your post is correct IF child support laws are obliterated....and that isn't going to happen Now, IF the man signs away his rights AND responsibilities to that child then IF he ever has any form of contact with that child even if it's an adult and EVEN if that "child" tries to contact him....he will be charged, fined, and jailed.. ..he should NEVER be able to interact with a child he "aborted" just as a woman can never interact with a child she aborted and that is the ONLY equal fair way...
It's not a child, hell it's not even human, when the man signs his rights away. The man isn't allowing it to turn into a human, the woman is.
A fetus is human. It is A human when it's born. The man has no say about whether it's born or not whether he signs away his rights or not..
If you don't know, why assume the unborn human is not deserving of protection? If you don't know, why not come up with a scientific solution to define human life? Make it arbitrary. Brain waves are used to determine death in a comatose human, why not use that for the unborn? Viability is too vague. Even newborns are not viable, on their own, & one could argue that many teenagers aren't either. Why should a distinct human being, with their own unique DNA, gender, & blueprint for growth be denied the right to live based on prejudice, ignorance, & hostility? Humans have historically protected the weak & innocent in our societies. Why have we allowed monsters to eat our children, or pick over their bones for profit? At conception, the new human has all he needs to grow & develop into an adult human. He needs the nurturing of a womb, at first, then the nurturing of a care provider. Neither of those needs should disqualify him from his right to live. If we are to err, it should be on the side of life, not wrongful death. Too many innocent lives have been tossed aside for the agendas of other people, with no regard to the rights of the living human being inside the womb.
Newborns are viable according to the definition of viable. They are able to sustain their own bodies. Zefs are not "a distinct human being", being "human" is an adjective, being A human is a noun. The "prejudice, ignorance, and hostility" belong to the people who refuse to recognize and acknowledge the costs of pregnancy/childbirth/child rearing to the woman. The "new human"??? has all he needs, but, but,...but.....it also needs the "nurturing of a womb", a womb, incidentally, that is attached to a woman. This means the "new human???" does NOT have all he needs. Abortion is not wrongful death. A woman should not be obligated to provide the "nurturing of a womb" if she chooses not to do so. Forcing a woman to provide "nurturing of a womb" is showing no regard for her rights.
You condemn a distinct human being, merely because they are a mammal. Abortion IS wrongful death. it is the taking of a human life, for whatever reason, but none of it justified. Why not kill the father, if there is blood lust for vengeance? Kill the mother, after the baby is born, if you want to take someone's life. they at least had a choice in the matter, while the innocent unborn has done nothing to deserve death. But no, the bloodthirsty abortionists ONLY want to kill the baby, for NO reason, with NO justification. They cry of innocent blood rises up against this nation, & our blood stained hands are covered. You merely redefine these people as 'inhuman' so you can justify killing them for no reason. But your clinical definitions do not change the reality of the unjust taking of a distinct, separate human being. I cannot soft sell this, because it is a monstrous evil in humanity. For most of civilized history, it was viewed as a crime against humanity.. Doctors swore an oath to not do it. But with soothing, clinical words, the attempt is made to soften the act, but it is an unjust, immoral, & violent violation of the basic right of another human being. If we cannot protect their rights, why should we protect anyone's?
You mean like Natural Law? The concept of inherent rights of life, liberty, & property? How does opposing wrongful death conflict with natural law? For centuries, abortion was considered the unjust taking of an innocent life, & laws were passed to protect them. How does condemning the unborn to be killed by a whim, or sold for parts indicate a system of justice?
No such thing as natural law, not in the context you are trying to assert anyway. Abortion is not a wrong full death unless you consider defending yourself against non consented injuries unlawfully. Abortion has never been illegal at any point for centuries, in fact abortion has been legal throughout history for far longer than it was illegal, and the first set of anti-abortion laws (in the USA) had absolutely nothing to do with protecting the unborn, they were based on poison laws due to the concoctions being used being dangerous to the woman, even the later restrictions were about doctors wanting to stop midwives etc from doing them so they could corner the market, again nothing to do with protecting the unborn. That line of thinking did not start in earnest until the 60's. The last part of your comment holds not a shred of reality in it.
well, i'm partial to the American Experiment in self rule. But unfortunately, we have declined into a caricature of its intent. We're mostly a plutocracy, with elitist moneyed puppeteers pulling the strings, & a dumbed down electorate manipulated by the propagandists & money shufflers. But it was a good idea.. that of citizen representatives, Natural Law, & Human Equality. we probably won't see anything like it for a long time.. if ever. - - - Updated - - - Your reply is just assertions, with no logic or factual content. How can we base the protection of human life on whimsical assertions like this?
A zef does not qualify as "a distinct human being" until quite late in gestation. Society decides what deaths are "wrongful" and our society has rightly decided that abortion is not a wrongful death. The "innocent unborn" (LOL) has done nothing to deserve LIFE, nothing! The bloodthirsty abortionists (oh, the melodrama!) only want to end a pregnancy, that is what abortion is, i.e. the termination of a pregnancy. More melodrama.... For most of history, abortion has been legal. Certainly in this country it became illegal in the mid-1800s and became legal again about 1970. Making it illegal certainly did nothing to curtail the practice. Neither did swearing an oath do anything to curtail doctors' practice of it.
These 'debates' are hardly new, & mostly just rehashed arguments. the OP made his/her point. I have made mine. Bickering & ad hominem seem to be the only result of this 'discussion', as seeking a scientific answer, or a moral solution does not seem to be the goal of the pro abortionists.
How is it those who are totally opposed to abortion under any circumstance are the same people willing to prolong the agony of the terminally ill?
Good point and not surprising....but try to remember that if one of these "people" ever have an unwanted /embarrassing pregnancy or are in excruciating pain with no end in sight they will change their minds right quickly!! They only want OTHER people to suffer....
