Proof please? Also you did not address my question. You sidestepped it with a technicality. Please answer the stated question. Regards, LM
For a full treatment of this question I recommend you to the thread: "The central prolife arguement fails to this simple question" This is no technicality .. the zygote is a single celled eukaryote .. which after division makes two equal clones (are these two homo sapiens) Althought the zygote is a human cell .. it is not "a human" there is a difference. as far as classification is concerned: An organism needs to have similaritys (or traits) to make it into that classification. domain: Eukaryota zygote kingdom: Animilia phylum: Chordata class: Mammalia order: Primates family: Hominidae genus: Homo species: sapiens born human "mammalia" All mammals have have body hair, 3 middle ear bones, nourish their young with milk. The zygote has none of these .. so it is not a mammal .. never mind a homo sapien
Bwahahahahahah! For your information; HUMANS Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man") under the family Hominidae (the great apes). Life cycle The human life cycle is similar to that of other placental mammals. New humans develop viviparously from conception. An egg is usually fertilized inside the female by sperm from the male through sexual intercourse, though the recent technology of in vitro fertilization is also occasionally used. The fertilized egg, called a zygote, divides inside the female's uterus to become an embryo, which over a period of thirty-eight weeks becomes a human fetus. At birth, the fully-grown fetus is expelled from the female's body and breathes independently as an infant for the first time.
nice post about mammals .. all mammals breath air as well.. but they are not homo sapiens .. but a zygote is not a mammal either .. not even similar to be honest .. never mind have the similarities required to make the homo sapien club
Males have a stake in the abortion the issue. It is not just the choice of the woman. It is the decision of the man as well, because the baby just as much his off-spring. The woman may carry and birth the child, but the man also plays a financial and authoritative role in raising it.
Fair enough. But nonetheless, why is it acceptable to terminate if one person does it and flat out murder if another person does?
Fair enough? Dude... That reads as though you agree with his assanine claim that a "human" being in the zygote stage of their life is "not a mammal." Your point about the duplicity of having one be a murder and the other not is a GOOD point. Please don't dillute it by ignoring the fact that a human being is a "mammal" even prior to his /her "birth." (parturition)
It's the womans choice as to whether she gives birth to it. The man has no say in that, and he shouldn't. But IMO, he should be free to leave if he doesn't want a baby, and the woman shouldn't be able to come after him for child support.
Because one is legal, the other is a crime. The mugger would be prosecuted for taking away the woman's choice to carry her child.
Then prosecute him for theft because he stole her choice. But they prosecute the mugger for homicide, and as i'm sure we all know, you can't kill something that isn't living (excluding the undead [Happy Halloween]) Therefore, we are maintaining said being is alive AND human. Yet for the "mother" to do the exact say thing is not only acceptable, it's her 'right'...
Well I can't say I agree with your whole premise, but at least you are fair minded to the male's "choice" as well. I commend your fairness on this issue. It is something I very rarely see.
The fetus is living, it just isn't classed as a person. I think fetal homicide laws which class a fetus as a person when it is the victim of an assault to be a little silly. It either is a person or it isn't. I like the idea of fetal homicide laws but I think they clash with Roe v Wade.
Thank you. I believe that men need to have more rights than they currently have. It isn't fair they are at the mercy of the woman, when it is she who makes the ultimate choice to bring a baby into the world. It's easy for people to say that if men didn't want to pay child support they should 'keep it in their pants' but then the exact same argument can apply to women who didn't wish to fall pregnant, so it's a bit hypocritical to pick and choose your arguments. I wish there were more pro choice people who supported extra rights for men, but I don't think there are that many out there, sadly.
So then you agree with my point that it is a double standard? We just differ on the direction of correction. A good start
Women have a pregnancy - men don't. That means women have choices after sex has taken place that men don't have. There's nothing hypocritical about that, it's just a fact of nature. It isn't possible to give men the right to have a pregnancy. It isn't possible to give men the right to request an abortion. That's nothing to do with being pro-choice or anti abortion. With the best will in the world, I can't do a thing about it.
It is possible to give men the choice to opt out of a pregnancy. If it is not their choice to have a child they should not be held financially responsible for the child.
I'd be interested to know how they could manage that! But they do have a child. Not wanting it won't make it disappear!! Women can prevent themselves becoming a parent by undergoing a medical procedure or taking drugs to terminate a pregnancy. There is nothing a man can do to prevent himself becoming a parent once he has made a woman pregnant. Nothing. No law can change a thing. There are no double standards. Both parents are responsible for their child unless both agree to give it up.
Why should women have a choice and not men? If she wants to still go through the pregnancy after the man voices his decision to not want to participate in the child rearing, the woman should have to waive any rights she would have holding him responsible financial or otherwise for the child. In the US child support is the right of the child so that would have to be addressed, but I don't think that the idea is far fetched at all. It would be the same as babies born from sperm donations A DNA contribution does not make you a parent.
Try this. Men do NOT get pregnant. You are confusing giving birth with raising a child. Giving birth can only be done by the woman. A child has a lot of needs while being raised and since the child has two parents it is only normal for both share the responsibility of raising the child. That is true.
I don't think men should be able to force a woman to abort the pregnancy, just himself from the equation.
I agree, no one should force a woman to do anything about her pregnancy. There are some limitations imposed on us by nature that we can't overcome and we must deal with that reality the best we can. Fact remains that children have needs and not wishing to deal with those needs does not make them go away. On the other hand not dealing with those needs most of the time has dire consequences.
