E,

I couldn't honestly answer the poll for similar reasoning. Reading your response got me thinking about people who claim that abortion is used as contraception by some women. I've seen video of abortions and read about the types of abortions I didn't see represented in videos. No woman in her right mind would ever forgo birth control and use abortion as her primary contraceptive method. I doubt anyone on these forums would resort to that argument to support a reversal of Roe v. Wade, but you never know.

Rhizo

(December 3, 2009 at 4:55 am)leo-rcc Wrote: It is not as cut and dry as people here make it out to be. During early development of the fetus as long as the fetus is not viable to survive detached from its mother (up to the third trimester) I would say it is the mothers choice.

However, what always gets overlooked in these discussions is the wishes and rights of the father. There is an enormous bias towards the wishes of the woman, but the rights and desires of the man is never considered. What if the father wants the child, promises to take good care of it, either with or without the mother?

Then perhaps he should grow a uterus (and accessories), so that the child can be transplanted into him? If he wants the child, and the mother doesn't, then perhaps he could find another surrogate to carry the child? One thing is for certain: the mother shouldn't be forced to have it just because the person who got her pregnant wants her to.

Quote:Or what if the mother wants to keep the baby but the father wants nothing to do with it?

Then he can leave her? One should not have a child in a relationship with someone else who doesn't want one.

Quote:Should the father be forced to pay for child support?

No.

(December 3, 2009 at 1:17 pm)binny Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 12:50 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: And what if the mother decides to keep the baby and the dad doesn't want any part of it?

It isn't fair, but it all comes down to biology.

So because of a technical issue you are denying 50% of humanity (give or take) the right to decide on what happens to their offspring.

(December 3, 2009 at 1:17 pm)binny Wrote: Men are never going to be in a position to carry a child or give birth. A man can't understand.

And again, how does that justify the denial of rights to either the child or the man?

(December 3, 2009 at 1:17 pm)binny Wrote: If the father doesn't want any part of raising a child then wear a condom or get a vasectomy.

Or the women should have taken the pill or have herself sterilized. There are 2 at fault here, you are shifting the blame. In one case where the father wants to take responibility you deny it, in the other you have no problem holding a man to it.

(December 3, 2009 at 1:17 pm)binny Wrote: If he does want a child then find a woman who wants one too. If you don't agree with abortion don't put yourself in a position where you have to make that choice.

What choice? You just made very clear that according to you there is no choice.

(December 3, 2009 at 1:17 pm)binny Wrote: You guys may not think it's fair, but it is what it is.

I don't even think that it isn't fair, it just plain isnt fair at all by any standard.

(December 3, 2009 at 1:57 pm)binny Wrote: I said it isn't fair. Abortion is a decision for the individual. The woman has to carry the baby so the ultimate decision is hers. It should not be illegal regardless of anyone's personal views on the subject.
I've been pregnant twice. The first one I aborted because I thought it was the best thing to do in my personal situation. Thank goodness it was legal and I had the resources at the time. In my case the father agreed. Looking back on it I was careless and shouldn't have put myself in that position to begin with. The second time I chose to have the baby. Again I was careless, but my situation was different at that time. In that case the father agreed. I now have my tubes tied because I don't want any more children. That was my decision too.

Binny,

The problem is that the law supports your position and clearly fails to protect men's rights in the process and thus fails to balance the situation like it should. I feel that women should have the right to choose and I also feel that men should be responsible for the children they sire depending on how that came about. The issue isn't simple though, as Leo has expressed. It is very difficult to prove intent though, so the law can only do so much. I've known a couple expectant fathers who were crushed by a decision they had no part in regarding a potential life they would have been legally obligated to pay for had her decision gone the other way.

Rhizo

(December 3, 2009 at 12:50 pm)leo-rcc Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 12:31 pm)binny Wrote: The reason the father isn't taken into consideration is because he isn't carrying the baby for nine months.

And should he be punished for that? Because basically you are denying his rights to raise a child by aborting his offspring just as much as you do yours. How is that in any way fair? Is it fair to the child to be aborted when if it were to be carried full term would be guaranteed a loving home? The way I see it there are 2 victims in that scenario.

At the most, the father has a right to find a surrogate. I don't see why though... the father can have 3 kids with 3 different women at the same time... should he have any say in this at all?

I mean... it sounds kind of stupid for a rapist to claim his right to 'the child' he 'helped' 'create'. The 'baby' is just a part of the woman's body for about 9 months, and is as much an entity as is my left ankle. To say that a 'father' has any right over the 'growing baby?' is no different than claiming rights over a woman's hand.

(December 3, 2009 at 2:10 pm)Saerules Wrote: At the most, the father has a right to find a surrogate. I don't see why though... the father can have 3 kids with 3 different women at the same time... should he have any say in this at all?

Because they both had part in the creation of that new life.

Quote:I mean... it sounds kind of stupid for a rapist to claim his right to 'the child' he 'helped' 'create'.

I never even discussed rape, do not muddy the waters here, it only distracts from the topic at hand.

The scenario is 2 people engaged in consented sexual intercourse and an unwanted pregnancy came out of that. That is a scenario were both parties were equal partners with equal blame to get themselves into.

Quote:The 'baby' is just a part of the woman's body for about 9 months, and is as much an entity as is my left ankle. To say that a 'father' has any right over the 'growing baby?' is no different than claiming rights over a woman's hand.

So you equate new life as a limb, and you don't even feel that that is a gross oversimplification of the facts?

(December 3, 2009 at 2:05 pm)leo-rcc Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 1:17 pm)binny Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 12:50 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: And what if the mother decides to keep the baby and the dad doesn't want any part of it?

It isn't fair, but it all comes down to biology.

So because of a technical issue you are denying 50% of humanity (give or take) the right to decide on what happens to their offspring.

It is not their 'offspring' until it has 'sprung'. An unborn baby is a part of the woman's body... nothing more.

(December 3, 2009 at 1:17 pm)binny Wrote: Men are never going to be in a position to carry a child or give birth. A man can't understand.

And again, how does that justify the denial of rights to either the child or the man?[/quote]
If a man ever has an unborn baby growing as part of him sometime in the future: he can have that right to give birth to it. The 'child' is not a child until it is born... try not to confuse a child's rights with the rights of me over my left hand.

(December 3, 2009 at 1:17 pm)binny Wrote: If the father doesn't want any part of raising a child then wear a condom or get a vasectomy.

Or the women should have taken the pill or have herself sterilized. There are 2 at fault here, you are shifting the blame. In one case where the father wants to take responibility you deny it, in the other you have no problem holding a man to it.[/quote]
2 at fault? Rape is the woman's fault then?

What responsibility are we holding men to again? The man can leave if he doesn't want the child and his 'partner?' does... nobody as far as I'm aware is stopping him. A relationship is a thing between people... if a person is not going to 'work with' another person: then they have no say in the matter anyway, as there is no relationship.

(December 3, 2009 at 1:17 pm)binny Wrote: If he does want a child then find a woman who wants one too. If you don't agree with abortion don't put yourself in a position where you have to make that choice.

What choice? You just made very clear that according to you there is no choice.[/quote]
The choice/accident? of getting someone pregnant? The choice of the mother having an abortion?

Those are what choices.

(December 3, 2009 at 1:17 pm)binny Wrote: You guys may not think it's fair, but it is what it is.

I don't even think that it isn't fair, it just plain isnt fair at all by any standard.
[/quote]

Is it fair to say that you have rights to my left leg?

See my previous reply Searules.

(December 3, 2009 at 2:19 pm)leo-rcc Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 2:10 pm)Saerules Wrote: At the most, the father has a right to find a surrogate. I don't see why though... the father can have 3 kids with 3 different women at the same time... should he have any say in this at all?

Because they both had part in the creation of that new life.

Thus the supplier of the wood has ownership over the carver's artwork?

Saerules Wrote:I mean... it sounds kind of stupid for a rapist to claim his right to 'the child' he 'helped' 'create'.

leo Wrote:I never even discussed rape, do not muddy the waters here, it only distracts from the topic at hand.

The scenario is 2 people engaged in consented sexual intercourse and an unwanted pregnancy came out of that. That is a scenario were both parties were equal partners with equal blame to get themselves into.

The scenario is no different. All a man does is start the formulation of a new body part within the woman's body. Perhaps they have equal blame for it having occurred in the first place because the man started the process within the woman... just as the gun seller has an equal blame for a murder taking place simply because he sold the murderer the gun?

Saerules Wrote:The 'baby' is just a part of the woman's body for about 9 months, and is as much an entity as is my left ankle. To say that a 'father' has any right over the 'growing baby?' is no different than claiming rights over a woman's hand.

leo Wrote:So you equate new life as a limb, and you don't even feel that that is a gross oversimplification of the facts?

??? I have an arm... the growing mass inside of me has an arm. I have a heart... the growing mass inside of me has a heart. My arm is a part of me... the other arm growing in my body is another part of me. My brain is a part of me... the other brain growing in my body is a part of me. The entire growing mass is growing off of me... it is just another part of me.

What is this 'new life'? I think something that has just been born is 'new life', and I most certainly don't equate that to my limb. Why not? Because now that mass that was a part of me has separated, and has become its own entity. I feel that the new baby is 'mine'... which is exactly how I would feel if my left arm became 'new life', except that my left arm is as old as I am, and I hardly consider myself 'new'. A baby is only 9 months old (or so)... so I think it is still capable of being called 'new'.

That body of the baby is 9 months old... but it has not lived until it is no longer a part of me (and capable of being called 'life', which an unborn baby is no more capable of than is my arm). Was it life until it separated from me and had an independent will? No more so than me arm.

I think this is simple... I hardly think it is oversimplified.

You are not the carpenter, you are 1 of the 2 components of the plywood.

You are not the gun, you are 1 part of the metal alloy.

That fetus needs you until it is self sufficient, that is not what a limb is.