BSBD Tiller the Baby Killer

[wmw999 2,123]

Those evil women.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Is it then also ok for a woman to get the abortion against the "partner's" consent.

The final choice is the womans' and hers alone - it's her body.

In a nation of individuals, responsibility and decisions are tied together intimately.

So - The choice is 100% hers, therefore, all the responsibilities are 100% hers.

Abort or not
Use contraception or not
Raise the child
Pay for college
Pay for the medical bills
etc

It makes sense right?

If one is to simplify the equation so much, then the man should be responsible for NONE of these if the main choice is 100% the woman's. And that includes any taxes that would be needed to support programs associated with raising children. His contribution would be completely voluntary without government or personal pressure of any kind. It would really be charity, in fact.

The exception is rape, that wasn't her choice - in that case, the rapist made the choice. He pays for it all. And goes to jail for the rest of his life.

---This is over-simplified to respond to an over simple position held by many, but it's a logical conclusion and we haven't broken this old ground yet (again) and the current trend of emotional crying in the thread is wearing thin.

So instead of the right vs wrong of the primary topic, how about digressing to the concept of choice = responsibilities and who is willing to 'man' up, so to speak, to that concept.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

And, frankly, the man should be absolutely RESTRICTED from helping the woman in any way in the raising of his offspring..

Unless invited to by the woman in a formal and non-demanding way to have the option to do so.

This would also apply to married couples of course as the wife may choose to abort or not regardless of her husband's position on the matter.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Is it then also ok for a woman to get the abortion against the "partner's" consent.

The final choice is the womans' and hers alone - it's her body.

In a nation of individuals, responsibility and decisions are tied together intimately.

So - The choice is 100% hers, therefore, all the responsibilities are 100% hers.

Abort or not
Use contraception or not
Raise the child
Pay for college
Pay for the medical bills
etc

It makes sense right?

No, it doesn't make sense.

A man has choices to use contraception or not (temporary or permament).

I look forward to you advocating as strongly for responsibility for those decisions.

You've also aggregated what are "benefits" (altho' that's a poor word option, imo; it is the one that is commonly used) for a child with issues of autonomy of personhood for the woman. The first two in your list are the latter, and the bottom three are the former.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

>And back to the decision being the womans alone, I had an ex that chose
>to abort a child that I wanted to keep. We were seperated at the time. I am
>pretty sure she would not have had a "fetus" in her without my input. The
>"fetus" and the father had no choice in the matter.

Correct. You don't have the right to tell someone else what they can do with their own body. Best, then, to not have unprotected sex with a woman until you talk about what you are going to do if she gets pregnant, and ascertain that she's stable/agreeable enough that she will do what you want (and what she says she will do.)

Hmm, you almost danced with the being responcible for your own actions here. There is hope!

It is laughable that you accuse some of us of not being in favor of personal responsibility.

You confuse compassion and caring for those that make mistakes with "personal responsibility" and lack of same.
PUNISHMENT for those that make mistakes is a concept that is deeply embedded in some religions.
You apparently are one of the folks that believes themselves to have a very strong sense of "right and wrong". So strong that you de-humanize those that don't measure up to your standards. That allows you the meaness towards people who are in difficult circumstances.

Here is hint number one - Birth Control is NOT 100% effective. I have a niece by one sister, and a nephew by another, that prove this unpleasant fact.

Spewing crap about "irresponsible behaviour" resulting in unplanned pregnancies is quite ignorant. It can happen, but most adult women will use BC if available. Responsible men will cooperate. Just like in skydiving, you can do everything right, and unplanned results may occur.

Here is hint number two - One can find horrific anecdotes about any human behaviour. The existence of infrequent horrific incidents does not establish a societal trend. (Unless you are a Faux News viewer)

Here is hint number three - The availability of birth control depends, in a large part, on income.

The Rs have been extremely effective in reducing or eliminating distribution of birth control to those populations that need it the most. Condoms in High School? Hell no, that would be teaching kids that sex is OK. Sex Education is schools? Hell no, that is the parent's job. And so it goes. Completely inconsistent and indefensible from a moral and spiritual standpoint, but they do it anyway. You can't have it both ways.

Ever read up on the FACT that the kids that take chastity vows have sex just as much as kids that didn't? The fact that the kids that took the vow were MUCH less likely to use birth control than those that didn't?
So much for moral teachings overcoming basic biological drives. Ignorance is NOT bliss.

I personally am opposed to abortion. I do NOT want to try to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't do when faced with an un-planned pregnancy. I am with HC. Abortions should be safe, legal, and extremely rare. The decision needs to be between the woman and her doctors. Everyone else can butt out.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

I think medical decisions should always remain in the personal realm.

I think that as men we need ot know that when we have sex, there are risks associated that are life altering and beyond our control once conception has taken place. We should know that the medical decision remains with the female. Her body, her decisions. We should know that her decision will have a major impact on us. If we can't handle that pressure, we really should stick to blowjobs.

Those to me are the realities behind sex.

I understand the logic behind your post, however could never agree with a medical decision being taken away from a sane person.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Those evil women.

Wendy P.

What evil women? All I stated was that pro-life doesn't mean pro-life in all circumstances just like pro-choice doesn't mean pro-choice in all circumstances ... silly labels.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[wmw999 2,123]

Women are the only ones who can choose to carry a baby to term, because the baby is in their body. Surrogacy helps a little, but when a man and a woman have sex, the immediate consequences fall rather more directly on the woman. And, frankly, the long-term consequences generally fall rather more directly on the woman.

I've been both a custodial and a non-custodial mother. It's not an intellectual discussion for me. While my life is just one data point, it's one I understand pretty well.

The numbers back me up that, by and large, women take on more of the risk of having children. Yes, men end up paying child support some ("some" used to say less than 100% -- don't infer anything, because I'm not deliberately implying it) of the time. Of course, even custodial mothers who receive support are still supporting their children, with time and lifestyle (well, most of them -- there are some crappy mothers and fathers out there). Just as custodial fathers who receive support are still supporting their children.

Folks, it's not an even playing field. Biology has dictated that. Women in the aggregate have greater consequences, therefore they have greater responsibility. And, yes, greater influence in the choice of whether or not to bear children. It sucks that some women are irresponsible or worse. It sucks that some men are irresponsible or worse. But that's also life, and trying to set it up so that not a single undeserving man or woman benefits means that a whole lot of very normal people will get screwed.

Is that really the desired end?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

>Simply declaring something to be true does not make it so.

Right. You have law, court decisions etc - and the result is that fetuses are not people in a legal sense. That hasn't stopped many pro-life types from trying to get it in the "back door" of course, but in terms of the law, they do not have rights.

Except when the mother and unborn baby person are murdered. How do you square that one?

No one here has yet to answer to this!!!

I think that the laws regarding fetal homicide specifically exclude abortion and several other things. And yeah, I guess it's a grey area (when these laws do practically grant the fetus personhood in specific instances), but there is an obvious difference between when a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy and when someone else forces her to terminate her pregnancy.

I know that a lot of pro-choice people are against the fetal homicide laws because they are afraid that it is a step toward making abortion illegal, and it's probably a legitimate fear. But personally, I think those laws are a good idea as long as they are not used to outlaw abortion. Perhaps it is somewhat of a double standard, but I don't know of a good way around that.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

No, it doesn't make sense.

A man has choices to use contraception or not (temporary or permament).

I look forward to you advocating as strongly for responsibility for those decisions.

You've also aggregated what are "benefits" (altho' that's a poor word option, imo; it is the one that is commonly used) for a child with issues of autonomy of personhood for the woman. The first two in your list are the latter, and the bottom three are the former.

/Marg

again, this is just for argument sake.

why should the man have to 'deal' with contraception if the final arbitor of the consequences of the sex act solely lie with the woman? It's her responsibility alone for the final decision - so she should own all the efforts for planning leading up to it. And all the consequences after the decision as well.

men are free... to romp and play at will totally divested of any ownership of thier actions

it's a brave new world

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Perhaps it is somewhat of a double standard, but I don't know of a good way around that.

it is a double standard, it really should be just a count of extended assault on the woman alone

woman dies - murder
viable life mass dies - no count, the woman died and this is just some tissue associated with the dead woman

see? it's very simple

now back to the pro-choice arguing about pregnant women on the verge of death due to the parasite
vs
pro-life arguing about the newly born infant being kept in close vicinity (to justify it not being born 'really') to the mom while a doctor smashes it with a meat tenderizer

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SpeedRacer 1]

Hey, why do the ones who want to say abortion is murder only focus on vilifying the doctor? If it's murder, then he is just the hired hitman. He wouldn't have done it if the woman hadn't told him to & paid him to do it.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 2,400]

>Except when the mother and unborn baby person are murdered. How do you
>square that one?

Yep. On cue, the "back door" argument is made. Thank you for your (predictable) reply.

In the eyes of the law, a fetus is not a person for the purposes of abortion - but is for the purposes of murder of the mother.

It's similar to removing someone from a feeding tube. The person that removes the feeding tube (per the family's wishes) is not a murderer. But if someone comes into the room, takes her money and shoots her in the head, it is. People seem to "square that one" pretty easily, even though in both cases the person is dead at the end.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Except when the mother and unborn baby person are murdered. How do you
>square that one?

Yep. On cue, the "back door" argument is made. Thank you for your (predictable) reply.

In the eyes of the law, a fetus is not a person for the purposes of abortion - but is for the purposes of murder of the mother.

It's similar to removing someone from a feeding tube. The person that removes the feeding tube (per the family's wishes) is not a murderer. But if someone comes into the room, takes her money and shoots her in the head, it is. People seem to "square that one" pretty easily, even though in both cases the person is dead at the end.

the one who constantly raises extrem examples to make points speaks of a "back door" agrument?

Point is even though you try here, you cant square it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>the one who constantly raises extrem examples to make points speaks of
>a "back door" agrument?

Yep. And you just made it, as predicted. Thank you.

>Point is even though you try here, you cant square it

I just did. There are other legal scenarios where if a doctor kills someone, it is not murder, but if a thief does, it is. There is nothing new here, and people who don't have a political axe to grind have no problems understanding the difference.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Except when the mother and unborn baby person are murdered. How do you square that one?

Doesn't really matter. You could have only one death penalty (or life sentence) anyway.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>the one who constantly raises extrem examples to make points speaks of
>a "back door" agrument?

Yep. And you just made it, as predicted. Thank you.

>Point is even though you try here, you cant square it

I just did. There are other legal scenarios where if a doctor kills someone, it is not murder, but if a thief does, it is. There is nothing new here, and people who don't have a political axe to grind have no problems understanding the difference.

NO, not really

BTW, glad you are such a clairvoyant

You know I did use this much earlier in the thread too. But you must have predicted that usage too

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

So pro-choice people are always pro-choice?

Yes, regarding the subject. I do not expect every "pro-life" person to be vegetarian either, but having someone claiming to be "pro-life" but supporting death penalty sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

Quote

What choices does the man have? None in regards to abortion. None in regards to child support.

The man has the most important choice - who to have unprotected sex with.

Quote

What choices does the viable fetus have

Viable fetus has no choices, but it can't be pro-choice either.

Quote

or the tax payers

You do vote, don't you? You could run for an office and get elected, couldn't you?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

but having someone claiming to be "pro-life" but supporting death penalty sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

Equally as hypocritical as someone who simultaneously supports abortion and decries capital punishment.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Equally as hypocritical as someone who simultaneously supports abortion and decries capital punishment.

I wonder if you understand that there is a difference between supporting a woman right for an abortion if she wants to (that's what pro-choice is), and forcing the women to do abortion (that's what the anti-choice people try to post as opposition to their movement, but which is not true in any way)?

Because if you do, your reply makes no sense at all. Saying that a person has a choice what to do with their body has nothing common with decrying capital punishment.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Equally as hypocritical as someone who simultaneously supports abortion and decries capital punishment.

I wonder if you understand that there is a difference between supporting a woman right for an abortion if she wants to (that's what pro-choice is), and forcing the women to do abortion (that's what the anti-choice people try to post as opposition to their movement, but which is not true in any way)?

Because if you do, your reply makes no sense at all. Saying that a person has a choice what to do with their body has nothing common with decrying capital punishment.

I'm well aware of the difference, thanks (in regards to freedom of choice).

Your refusal to draw the parallel between the two issues I mentioned, while simultaneously using a 'pro-life, pro-war' hyperbole upthread, shows that you are being deliberately obtuse.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,400]

>NO, not really

So you don't understand the difference? OK then.

>BTW, glad you are such a clairvoyant . . .

Oh, I didn't "read your mind." You're just very predictable here.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Your refusal to draw the parallel between the two issues I mentioned, while simultaneously using a 'pro-life, pro-war' hyperbole upthread, shows that you are being deliberately obtuse.

Your refusal to explain first how those "two issues" related in any way, so we could see if there is anything to draw at all, shows that you are being deliberately obtuse.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

again, this is just for argument sake.

why should the man have to 'deal' with contraception if the final arbitor of the consequences of the sex act solely lie with the woman? It's her responsibility alone for the final decision - so she should own all the efforts for planning leading up to it. And all the consequences after the decision as well.

men are free... to romp and play at will totally divested of any ownership of thier actions

it's a brave new world

Sure let’s argue that. I think it’s more than Devil’s Advocate argument; it goes to fundamental concepts of autonomy, i.e., warning: philosophical arguments ahead.

In such an argument as posed above one can think of men as land mines. (I _am_ going somewhere with this analogy. Landmines have the potential to cause things to happen, but the landmine is not responsible for the consequence because landmines are not autonomous. Landmines also don’t have rights or choices. They’re not autonomous, i.e., not capable of making their own decisions; incapable of a process of sensing, deciding/judging, acting without intervention from another external autonomous being; and lack any concept of privacy.

Men, however, are autonomous (one of their many desirable characteristics, im-ever-ho).

A man doesn’t have to “‘deal’ with contraception if he doesn’t want to. That’s his choice. Men aren’t forced to have vasectomies or take other pharmacologicals to limit (or to increase) reproductive capacity or forced to take hormones to reduce sex drives.* [* recognize there are exceptions here, typically involving individuals who are wards of the state for criminal sexual convictions, i.e., the state has limited their autonomy.]

If men are non-autonomous, then their choices of what is done to their bodies, e.g., some of the things listed above, are on the metaphorical table.

If one wants to argue that men are not autonomous, that will abrogate men of all responsibilities toward their progeny, i.e., “romp and play at will totally divested of any ownership of thier actions.” As non-autonomous beings, that will also abrogate them of any rights to or regarding those children.

Back to that land mine. The land mine has no input into what goes into or what comes out. It is what it is. It is not autonomous.

When an autonomous man transfers his sperm to a woman, it’s no longer in his body. Assuming that he gave it freely, rather than being coerced, that’s freely given material. As an autonomous being, if he didn’t want to give it to her, there are other options that don’t even include pharmacological contraception or barriers. He doesn't exercise those options. Those are his choices.

Once those 50 million or so (whatever’s the average sperm count per ejaculate?) are freely given to a woman and are inside her autonomous being, he abrogates preferential rights. His autonomous interests to his freely given sperm, all 50 or so million of them, don’t trump her autonomy.

Children are not considered completely autonomous, either legally or philosophically. We see that in the US in the semi-arbitrary dates at which one accrues autonomy, whether it is age of consent, age of emancipation, age of enfranchisement, or legal drinking age. Before reaching that date, both rights and responsibilities are limited. Some folks do argue for greater autonomy for kids, especially teens, e.g., Danah Boyd.

Personal autonomy, as a basic Kantian precept, underlies a whole lot in the post-Enlightenment western world.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Your refusal to draw the parallel between the two issues I mentioned, while simultaneously using a 'pro-life, pro-war' hyperbole upthread, shows that you are being deliberately obtuse.

Your refusal to explain first how those "two issues" related in any way, so we could see if there is anything to draw at all, shows that you are being deliberately obtuse.

First, YOU can explain the connection between "pro-life, pro-war" and "pro-life, vegan". After you do that, I'll explain the hypocrisy of your "life is life - unless it's an unborn baby" viewpoint to you.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706