Abortion...

[Moonbeam]

Why do I think that behind that question, przero, is the intention to claim it's yours?

 

[przero]

And the answer is?

 

[Moonbeam]

The answer is that the question is full of unexamined assumptions. Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

[przero]

Never started. And the answer is?

 

[Moonbeam]

Is that a yes or a no?

 

[przero]

I never started beating my wife. impossible to stop what you don't start. Now the answer is? Or is your idea not that well thought out?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: przero
Are you saying it is HER child?

If I may be so bold... it was her egg.

 

[przero]

I know whose egg it was. Now is it her child or thier child?

 

[Moonbeam]

You see, you refuse to give me a yes or no answer but continue to analyze my question. Well fair enough.

Are you saying it is HER child?
-----------------
Nothing in what I said would lead to any suspicion that'w what I'm saying. What you want to do is establish the notion of child, a priori, into the argument before we begin. You want to fixate on the notion of a separate entity, the child and invest in it emotionlly all the atributes of human consciousness. Let us postulate instead the quiverings of a slime mold that one day could be human. We are back before the Cambrian 500 million years age. The primordial soup dweller doesn't belong to anybody expecially itself. It is a growth, like a cancer, in the womb. It is merely a biological phenomenon that begin billions of years ago to reproduce. The significance of the tissue is not there except as is created by the mind.

 

[przero]

The answer you want: No, I have not stopped beating my wife.

Now can you answer yes or no or are you gonna' do the I ain't sure wiggle?

 

[przero]

Big words, small thoughts. Or as they say in Texas, "Nice hat, nice boots, no cattle."

 

[Moonbeam]

I answered, there is no child as you imagine it and no ownership of what isn't what you imagine.

As we say in California, "Never send a Texan to sample the Chardonet. He'll wind up screwing the cow"

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I answered, there is no child as you imagine it and no ownership of what isn't what you imagine.

As we say in California, "Never send a Texan to sample the Chardonet. He'll wind up screwing the cow"

Or as we say in So. California.. Screw the Chardonet where's the Cow...

The it is hers... the egg the whole ball of wax until viability whereapon it is itself. without ownership granted to either the woman or man.
The support of the born human is a legal issue where both are obligated to partake.

 

[Moonbeam]

Suddenly 'in the chips' takes on new meaning.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: Corn

Women are also legally required to not neglect their children.

Of course they are, but didn't they choose to have them, and therefore be responsible for them, even if in spite of the sperm donor's wish not to have children?

You say you don't want women to be punished for being sexual, but then why punish men for the same thing? Both are just a (ir)responsible as the other for getting pregnant in the first place. I understand (but don't agree with) your position that the physical risks of pregnancy is reason for giving a woman the choice to decide whether or not to carry the unborn child to term, but that is not a valid excuse for enslaving the sperm donor for 18 years (but I would go along with having the sperm donor contribute equally to the costs of pregnancy).

If the child is born both are "enslaved" as you call it,if the pregnancy is aborted neither are furthe burdened.I'm sorry but I feel that the greater burden of being the one who's pregnant means that she gets to call that particular shot.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: Corn
I think you misunderstand my point GB. I'm all for having a "parent" who walks away from a family (such as in divorce, etc) take fiscal responsibility for any children he's leaving behind. My argument is that if you are going to give women the "choice" whether or not they want to be enslaved to the care of a child for 18 years, why not give that choice to the man before the baby comes along?

Do you seriously feel that the vast majority of women will carry a child to term knowing that all they're going to get is a check that had to be forced out of the father at gunpoint?(if the guy works,if he doesn't flee town,if he doesn't quit jobs everytime the state catches up with him?) people act as if the abortion choice is made totally by the woman,with zero input or zero say from the prospective gather I say the convo"hey, we were just having fun,you were a great p[iece of ass but I don 't want any part of being tied down with a kid" probably helps bring about more than a few abortions.

Abortion dopesn't just benefit "selfish women" men have benefitted from the right to choice as well

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: GeekbabeAbortion dopesn't just benefit "selfish women" men have benefitted from the right to choice as well

And the lack of choice has hurt both men and women who didn't want a child. If we're going to argue for a womans right to abortion, let's also argue the fathers right to abandon responsibility. For someone who seems as intelligent as you most of the time GeekBabe, you sure are dumb about this issue.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's tough titty Bober. If a woman has no choice then a man has no choice too. And if a woman does have choice the man can't have a choice either. Someone having choice is the more just state because half of us are freed. To have a choice is a woman?s right. A child is the responsibility of the parents. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It's tough titty Bober. If a woman has no choice then a man has no choice too. And if a woman does have choice the man can't have a choice either. Someone having choice is the more just state because half of us are freed. To have a choice is a woman?s right. A child is the responsibility of the parents. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game.

Before I lay me down to sleep I gotta butt in.

It gotta be that the woman has the choice because it is her body... it is not the fetus' nor the mans. Her egg, her sustinance, her life.... until viability. At that point no one owns it it is itself... until birth... then the man and women are parents... a legal term...

 

[BoberFett]

Moonie

When I don't like the rules I change them. That's how the game is played.

And if takes the tighty righties banning abortion in order for me to forward my cause of "male abortion" then so be it.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: HJD1
It gotta be that the woman has the choice because it is her body... it is not the fetus' nor the mans. Her egg, her sustinance, her life.... until viability. At that point no one owns it it is itself... until birth... then the man and women are parents... a legal term...

Jeez HJD1, must you suck Moonbeam off every time he posts something? You sound like a yes man.

And while biologically men have no choice simply because that's nature works, it's that "legal term" which can be changed. If a woman can choose to avoid the LEGAL title of parent by simply aborting the fetus early, a man should be able to choose to avoid the LEGAL title of parent by signing a waiver.

 

[Moonbeam]

And if takes the tighty righties banning abortion in order for me to forward my cause of "male abortion" then so be it.
--------------------------------

Well duh, Bober. If the fundies ban abortion you won't forward the cause of 'male abortion' one iota. You will set it way way back. All those cases where a woman gets an abortion and the man agrees will be lost. They will both legally be forced to be parents. And all those cases where the woman want's the child but agrees not to have it because the father doesn't will be lost because she will legally have to have it.

Of course I can't argue with somebody who would cut off their nose to spite their face.

And all great minds suck alike. HJ's summary was right on. He's obviously brilliant. AHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: HJD1
It gotta be that the woman has the choice because it is her body... it is not the fetus' nor the mans. Her egg, her sustinance, her life.... until viability. At that point no one owns it it is itself... until birth... then the man and women are parents... a legal term...

Jeez HJD1, must you suck Moonbeam off every time he posts something? You sound like a yes man.

And while biologically men have no choice simply because that's nature works, it's that "legal term" which can be changed. If a woman can choose to avoid the LEGAL title of parent by simply aborting the fetus early, a man should be able to choose to avoid the LEGAL title of parent by signing a waiver.

Kind sir, I wouldn't dream of making a comment like that... at least directly. Is it so difficult to believe that more than one person can be on this planet from mars? Mars, a place where difference of opinion occurs and it's ok... it is equally ok to agree. Delay and Bush agree. Kennedy and Kerry argee. There are even folks on here who agree with you, imagine that. It's a common phenomon.
I've said earlier and at least ten times I am a christian and would not be unequally yoked to a spouse or SO that did not see it as I do... but, I live in a country with rights and I support your right to disagree attempt to change it etc.. if changed I will support that law.. if Moonie does not then we will disagree until it is changed again... simple... at least to me.
If you feel that a waiver is the answer fine. I'd agree with that too. But, it would be your child that loses the benefit of your financial support... so long as I don't have to pay for your play I'm fine with it... (generic your)