Are fetuses property to be owned? Are you suffering the abuses to your body in the process of carrying one to term?

No to both?

All you did was donate a little genetic material after 30 embarrassing seconds of activity?

That means you should have the right to force a woman to go through all that, against her will?

I know the Bible says otherwise, but you don't actually get to own your woman as property anymore. Sorry.

Until the day that someone can promise to pay all medical expenses and all loss of wages (not to mention plastic surgery to fix any stretch marks etc), until they can guarantee the child will be adopted by a good family, and until they invent the mind wiping gadget from MIB to make the woman forget she ever gave birth, no-one has the right to tell a woman she has to carry a parasite for 40 weeks!

(January 6, 2014 at 12:36 am)Aractus Wrote: Typical feminist bullshit.

It takes a man AND a woman to create a foetus, yet the man - even if he's the husband - has no legal rights over it until it is born, and the woman has independent legal rights between the time of conception and the time of birth.

If I'm building a house and you put a single brick into the foundations, is it just as much your house as mine? Or do we recognize that the brunt of the effort and contribution was mine, before you demand to move in?

If I donate to you a kidney, do I get to follow you around and tell you what you do with your body in the interests of keeping that kidney healthy?

I actually don't think you're stupid enough to believe the crap you're spewing here, so I'm left with no option but to think you're being deliberately dishonest in order to mask the real reason you oppose abortion, namely, as all arguments against it by the religious are: "My interpretation of my god's words forbids it."

Incidentally, this seems germane. This is what happens when we start disregarding the autonomy of actual, functioning human beings in favor of something that might one day be one.

(January 6, 2014 at 12:44 am)Ryantology Wrote: All you did was donate a little genetic material after 30 embarrassing seconds of activity?

Would you use the same argument not to support the child after it is born? If it's applicable now, why not 9 months later too?

---

(January 6, 2014 at 5:01 am)Esquilax Wrote: If I'm building a house and you put a single brick into the foundations, is it just as much your house as mine? Or do we recognize that the brunt of the effort and contribution was mine, before you demand to move in?

If I donate to you a kidney, do I get to follow you around and tell you what you do with your body in the interests of keeping that kidney healthy?

Same question I put to Ryantology applies to you too.

(January 6, 2014 at 5:23 am)Aractus Wrote: Would you use the same argument not to support the child after it is born? If it's applicable now, why not 9 months later too?

Okay, now we're asking better questions. However, there are some things I don't think you're taking into account: at the point at which the child has been born, it's now a person on its own, and thus the responsibility of its parents. Also, by the time it has been born... well, one would suggest that the woman has waived her right to abort (I'm aware this is a bigger contextual issue than I'm making it, but I don't want to be here all day), and so yes, I would say at that point there is something of a responsibility on the father's side to take care of the life he's produced, being that it now is a life. At that point the consideration has changed from just being about two parties, to being about three.

You might be tempted to say this is unfair, that the woman gets this much choice over these things, but consider how much more buy in the woman has to have in the process to begin with, before you do.

(January 6, 2014 at 12:06 am)Aractus Wrote: Um, no it's called a third trimester abortion. Although illegal in most countries, it's not in Australia (although it's not easy to get one either), and nurses etc are not allowed to say that they are ethically opposed.

My question stands. Does she still have a right to an abortion after her due date, yes or no?

Why stop there?

I think she should have the right to abort until the kid is paying for its own food.

(January 6, 2014 at 5:23 am)Aractus Wrote: Would you use the same argument not to support the child after it is born? If it's applicable now, why not 9 months later too?

Would you use your original argument to allow a man to force his partner to abort against her will?

(January 6, 2014 at 5:49 am)Esquilax Wrote: Okay, now we're asking better questions.

How is asking questions good/bad?

Quote:However, there are some things I don't think you're taking into account: at the point at which the child has been born, it's now a person on its own, and thus the responsibility of its parents. Also, by the time it has been born... well, one would suggest that the woman has waived her right to abort (I'm aware this is a bigger contextual issue than I'm making it, but I don't want to be here all day), and so yes, I would say at that point there is something of a responsibility on the father's side to take care of the life he's produced, being that it now is a life. At that point the consideration has changed from just being about two parties, to being about three.

But what if the father doesn't want to be involved or pay child support. Shouldn't he therefore also have the right to terminate the pregnancy if the mother has that right?

Repeat after me: "WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE! WOMEN ARE PEOPLE!"

Got that? No? Of course you don't get that. You think we're just vending machines. Insert jizz: out comes a baby.

How can a man terminate a pregnancy when he isn't fucking pregnant? I know it's hard for you to understand body autonomy regarding this issue as quite clearly don't consider women to be people, but I'll point it out again anyway. It's our body, we decide whether or not to complete any pregnancy that befalls us. It's not all about the baby that could exist at the end, it's the being used as a human incubator then having our genitals ripped apart bit that's the problem.

(January 6, 2014 at 6:42 am)Aractus Wrote: How is asking questions good/bad?

I'm just saying, I thought you asked something thought provoking there. Just take the compliment.

Quote:But what if the father doesn't want to be involved or pay child support. Shouldn't he therefore also have the right to terminate the pregnancy if the mother has that right?

Yeah, he can have that right the moment that it's in his body, and he'd potentially have to carry it to term with all the attendant health risks there. Seriously, why is it so hard for you to grasp the additional costs that the potential mother is facing that the father is not?

If you had a disease that could be cured either through a treatment or through amputating your arms, and your family didn't want to be involved in paying for the treatment, would they be justified in having your arms amputated against your will, assuming you couldn't pay yourself? Or would you rightly recognize that it's your body here, and you get to choose, not anybody else?