Roe vs Wade to be overturned?

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
you think the child she would have had instead of the daughter down the road would want to exist too?

Even though she won court case she did not have the abortion IIRC

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
you think the child she would have had instead of the daughter down the road would want to exist too?

Even though she won court case she did not have the abortion IIRC

hense the hypothetical, which is still valid.

 

[Moonbeam]

Why aren't we spending billions on research and legislation that would establish the technology to transfer unwanted fetuses to pro lifers of both sexes drafted on a random basis to carry them to term? Everybody wins.

 

[jeremy806]

Out of curiousity, do you also agree that Oregon should be allowed to apply its "right to die" law without interference from John Ashcroft? And California's law for medical marijuana use should be allowed as well?

Not that I agree with those laws, but I am generally not a fan of federal intervention into anything.

Like I said before, no one is requiring that I live in Oregon or California.

jeremy806

 

[Alistar7]

Until men have an equal say in the life of their child no woman should be able to have an abortion.

 

[Moonbeam]

Until men carry the fetus for an equal time with women, men's say in the viability of a fertilized egg rests solely with the woman. A fetus is just an inevitable consequence of genetics, pure random chance, just like a tumor caused by a virus. Nobody says you can't remove a tumor. The difference is purely in the mind. Where do hydrocarbons get off claiming special privileges. We're just a bunch of molecules having a dream we are alive. We are all such clowns.

 

[Alistar7]

doesnt change the fact a man can have sex with a woman with the intention of getting her pregnant, get her pregnant and express his desire to keep his child. Even if she agreed beforehand that she wanted the child as well she can know change her mind and abort his child, no questions asked, his wishes are not even considered. Yet he would be held responsible if she decides to keep a child he does not want. That is fairness?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Until men have an equal say in the life of their child no woman should be able to have an abortion.

I can't agree with that! Unfortunately I'm at work at the moment, so I haven't got the time to fully lay out my reasoning - but as far as I see see it, biology isn't fair and that's why the system's the way it is.

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

then don't legislate what is in opposition to nature and punitive to those who have no control......

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Until men carry the fetus for an equal time with women, men's say in the viability of a fertilized egg rests solely with the woman. A fetus is just an inevitable consequence of genetics, pure random chance, just like a tumor caused by a virus. Nobody says you can't remove a tumor. The difference is purely in the mind. Where do hydrocarbons get off claiming special privileges. We're just a bunch of molecules having a dream we are alive. We are all such clowns.

Random chance? So you don't have to DO anything or make any DECISION that leads to getting pregnant? Somebody can just randomly become pregnant?

I didn't know that, MB. Thanks for informing us about how procreation works.

 

[Alistar7]

it's alot like spontaneous human combustion....

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Until men have an equal say in the life of their child no woman should be able to have an abortion.

I can't agree with that! Unfortunately I'm at work at the moment, so I haven't got the time to fully lay out my reasoning - but as far as I see see it, biology isn't fair and that's why the system's the way it is.

Andy

If biology isn't fair, then we shouldn't be fair to criminals either. Give them all the death penalty.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Until men have an equal say in the life of their child no woman should be able to have an abortion.

I can't agree with that! Unfortunately I'm at work at the moment, so I haven't got the time to fully lay out my reasoning - but as far as I see see it, biology isn't fair and that's why the system's the way it is.

Andy

If biology isn't fair, then we shouldn't be fair to criminals either. Give them all the death penalty.

I am referring to the fact that the abortion descision lies soley with the woman. Not, as I have read your post to mean, that abortion is "right" or "wrong". Given that, I don't see the relevance of your above post to my last message.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
then don't legislate what is in opposition to nature and punitive to those who have no control......

I have no wish to turn this into a 20+ post marathon (especially on a subject where traditionally everyone has entrenched and usaully inreconcilable viewpoints) so I'll make this my only other post, in order to explain my previous comment.

I personally don't see the moment of conception as the creation of anything other than a set of dividing cells. Similarly I don't see the development of a foetus up to the point where it has a brain and nervous system as sacrosanct. Cold hearted I may be - but this is my own honest view. This is why I personally don't have a problem with early abortion (notice "early"). Up until this point I don't see the "baby" as having any real meaningful "voice" or "rights". Maybe this will change once I am a father - but this is my view, as I have concluded, right now.

Given the lack of status of the developing foetus - I see it perfectly reasonable that the woman should have complete control of her body, and what's going on in her body. I may not like whatever decision she makes - it might even be a 180 degree u-turn on what was earlier agreed) but I would have to accept it. For, if I were a woman, I would want and demand that right.

Given all of this it comes down to what I believe one of Alistar7's points is. That is "If the woman gets all the say, why does the man always have to pay?". In response I would say the following. There are a number of points to be considered in making the decision:

1. The best interests of the baby.

2. The best interests of the mother and father.

3. The freedom of choice.

I say that number 1 means that the baby should be guaranteed financial support from birth until it is able to manage it's own life. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. I would then say that in the majority of cases, it is best for both parents to contribute to the upkeep of the child. It should be a shared economic burden (allowing that financial circumstances pemit an equal share of course). This is what drives point 2. I put in point 3 to reinforce the idea that if your not 100% percent happy with anything or the future prospects of a relationship - you can always say no to risky sex.

Lastly, the other point to this part of the arguement is when the woman changes her mind from a mutually agreed pregnancy and wishes to abort, but the father still objects to this. For the reasons given in the first part of my post - so long as the abortion is timely - I still side with the female perspective. In any other scenario the possibility for forced pregnancy is far too real for my liking.

Sorry that this rambled a bit!

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Until men have an equal say in the life of their child no woman should be able to have an abortion.

I can't agree with that! Unfortunately I'm at work at the moment, so I haven't got the time to fully lay out my reasoning - but as far as I see see it, biology isn't fair and that's why the system's the way it is.

Andy

If biology isn't fair, then we shouldn't be fair to criminals either. Give them all the death penalty.

I am referring to the fact that the abortion descision lies soley with the woman. Not, as I have read your post to mean, that abortion is "right" or "wrong". Given that, I don't see the relevance of your above post to my last message.

Cheers,

Andy

If Women are the only one it concerns, then it is no concern to the WORLD if the US starts putting all our criminals to death. You probably don't understand it, because you don't want to understand it. I don't buy the theory that it is the woman's choice only. Right... then the man gets to pay alimony and other crap. Totally fair. Either make it fair or put a moratorium on it like Alistar said.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Alistar7
then don't legislate what is in opposition to nature and punitive to those who have no control......

I have no wish to turn this into a 20+ post marathon (especially on a subject where traditionally everyone has entrenched and usaully inreconcilable viewpoints) so I'll make this my only other post, in order to explain my previous comment.

I personally don't see the moment of conception as the creation of anything other than a set of dividing cells. Similarly I don't see the development of a foetus up to the point where it has a brain and nervous system as sacrosanct. Cold hearted I may be - but this is my own honest view. This is why I personally don't have a problem with early abortion (notice "early"). Up until this point I don't see the "baby" as having any real meaningful "voice" or "rights". Maybe this will change once I am a father - but this is my view, as I have concluded, right now.

Given the lack of status of the developing foetus - I see it perfectly reasonable that the woman should have complete control of her body, and what's going on in her body. I may not like whatever decision she makes - it might even be a 180 degree u-turn on what was earlier agreed) but I would have to accept it. For, if I were a woman, I would want and demand that right.

Given all of this it comes down to what I believe one of Alistar7's points is. That is "If the woman gets all the say, why does the man always have to pay?". In response I would say the following. There are a number of points to be considered in making the decision:

1. The best interests of the baby.

2. The best interests of the mother and father.

3. The freedom of choice.

I say that number 1 means that the baby should be guaranteed financial support from birth until it is able to manage it's own life. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. I would then say that in the majority of cases, it is best for both parents to contribute to the upkeep of the child. It should be a shared economic burden (allowing that financial circumstances pemit an equal share of course). This is what drives point 2. I put in point 3 to reinforce the idea that if your not 100% percent happy with anything or the future prospects of a relationship - you can always say no to risky sex.

Lastly, the other point to this part of the arguement is when the woman changes her mind from a mutually agreed pregnancy and wishes to abort, but the father still objects to this. For the reasons given in the first part of my post - so long as the abortion is timely - I still side with the female perspective. In any other scenario the possibility for forced pregnancy is far too real for my liking.

Sorry that this rambled a bit!

Cheers,

Andy

Not bad, but if it's the man's responsibility to not "have risky sex" and his choice ends there - why doesn't the woman's "choice" end there too? I do however share in your view that "forced" pregnancies would be a bad idea in the situation you posed.

Just some random comments - not my full opinion.

CkG

 

[Tal]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Until men carry the fetus for an equal time with women, men's say in the viability of a fertilized egg rests solely with the woman. A fetus is just an inevitable consequence of genetics, pure random chance, just like a tumor caused by a virus. Nobody says you can't remove a tumor. The difference is purely in the mind. Where do hydrocarbons get off claiming special privileges. We're just a bunch of molecules having a dream we are alive. We are all such clowns.

lol. When does life start? Heartbeat? Brainwaves? A cut umbilical? Not until the cord is cut? First Breath? just curious here.

 

[Fencer128]

Not bad, but if it's the man's responsibility to not "have risky sex" and his choice ends there - why doesn't the woman's "choice" end there too? I do however share in your view that "forced" pregnancies would be a bad idea in the situation you posed.

Just some random comments - not my full opinion.

CkG

Hi,

(Just broke my "one post" promise to myself!) I see it how I outlined it previously:

Given the lack of status of the developing foetus - I see it perfectly reasonable that the woman should have complete control of her body, and what's going on in her body. I may not like whatever decision she makes - it might even be a 180 degree u-turn on what was earlier agreed) but I would have to accept it. For, if I were a woman, I would want and demand that right.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

If Women are the only one it concerns, then it is no concern to the WORLD if the US starts putting all our criminals to death. You probably don't understand it, because you don't want to understand it. I don't buy the theory that it is the woman's choice only. Right... then the man gets to pay alimony and other crap. Totally fair. Either make it fair or put a moratorium on it like Alistar said.

My problem with your interpretation is that I don't see early (notice "early") abortion as "death" - and so don't agree with your comparison of abortion and the death penalty.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[SuperTool]

Great. More tourism for CA.

 

[LeadMagnet]

I wonder what LaRouche's view of abortion is? If only there was someone who knew his veiws well.
...... .. .. ..... ......

 

[burnedout]

Anybody here ever hear of the study that cited Roe vs. Wade as one of the varied reasons for the drop in the nationwide crime rate?

It is so funny when one searches the web about this theory. Most of the denial originates from the pro-life crowd.

Update: The Donahue/Leavitt study. Here is a link to info pertaining to the study. As I remember, it was and still is extremely controversial.

 

[dahunan]

Can women be discriminated against based on whether they chose to have an abortion or not?

 

[hulk14]

That is so ridiculous!

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: hulk14
That is so ridiculous!

I posted it due to it's ridiculosity BUT.. someone.. somwhere wishes they could discriminate in that manner.. believe it.