Only an idiot could think that the woman is being punished simply by being disallowed to commit a homicide. The fetus gets capital punishment just for existing when an abortion is committed.
Only an idiot would call abortion a homicide. All the word games are getting you nowhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment Capital punishment, the death penalty, or execution is the sentence of death upon a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offence
Right, so she can terminate the pregnancy without his approval, but he can't terminate his responsibility without her approval. In fact, Gomez v Perez basically ruled that she can deny him parental rights - even parental acknowledgement, but can still demand child support.
Oh come on Granny, you are being exceptionally dishonest here. [/quote] Yep, the woman acts as judge, jury and executioner!!!
Yeah, it's a tired excuse, but the rightwing never gets tired of using it when it comes to their property.
It is her body, so it is up to him to ask her what she would do if she became pregnant BEFORE he sticks his willy in her. After that, she can do whatever she likes. But I don't think she should be allowed to have the baby and force him to pay for it, even though he made it clear he wasn't ready to be a father.
You take a known risk when we drive your car. Are you going to take responsibility for an accident even though you weren't the one who caused it? Are your children not your property? Do they not belong to you? Something which belongs to you is your property, is it not? So please tell me all about the nine months of hell a man goes through. We'd all love to know how a male deals with labor. Heartbeat, separate DNA or not, it is attached to someone else, and that means it has no rights at all.
So to make the system fair, you think a man should be able to terminate his responsibility? A man with no legal responsibility would have no motive to use contraception, so the entire burden of birth control, abortion or pregnancy, childbirth, and child support should fall on the woman, in your opinion? You think that's fair...
Either that or she no longer has the option to terminate a pregnancy caused through consensual sex. Either hold both parties as responsible for their actions or hold neither party responsible for their actions. A middle-ground option would be to repeal the Gomez v Perez ruling. Then you could at least force women to grant reasonable parental rights to men in order to have any chance of getting child support.
How is that relevant? She caused it! No my children are not my property, they are not property at all. The hormonal changes a woman goes through and the craziness that ensues is pure hell for the man. This is a false statement by all laws currently on the books.
As long as abortion is a legal option, a woman has no motivation to use contraception. But to answer the question, it doesn't matter if it is fair or not. She is at greater risk, so unless she is a complete moron she should protect herself.
But again we do afford that right to newborns, who are also completely incapable of exercising it without the unceasing help of another person. A newborn is no more capable of exercising this right than a fetus, the newborn requires the mother/guardian t exercise it for them. The only difference between the two, is because the law says there is. That's the point. The category is arbitrary. Every baby is non-viable unless somebody attends to them. Viability is meaningless because there is no way to define it that is not arbitrary. 100% of babies and infants are non-viable if nobody takes care of them. Viability via placenta vs mother's milk/formula makes no more sense than to draw the line between milk and solid food.
Look I'm a physician and you really no idea about the impacts of donating various parts do you? If you think donating organs does not have as much ramifications as being pregnant, all I can is you've got to be kidding me, and you've obviously never dealt with people who have done so. And no, you don't have the right to not care for your kids. You are compelled to do so. People go to jail for not doing that.
I do know that donating blood is not something that disables a person at all, I have done it many times, but NO ONE is compelled to do it even to save a life. Donating bone marrow or a kidney would disable a person for a few weeks, NOT a YEAR as pregnancy/childbirth does. You don't have the right to keep your kids and not care for them, but you can give them up for adoption. NO ONE is forced to be a parent. http://www.ehow.com/facts_5275830_side-effects-kidney-donation.html Kidney donation is very safe and seldom causes any long-term effects. Most people have the kidney removed through a laparoscopic nephrectomy, a less invasive procedure than open surgery. The main risks and side effects are similar to those of any surgery. http://www.livingdonorsonline.org/marrow/marrow5.htm Following surgery you will have pain in your hip area. You may also feel tired. Donors typically return to their usual routine within a week or less. Your donated marrow will be replaced within four to six weeks.
The main difference between the two is that anyone can care for a newborn and it will be done voluntarily. No one is forced. Disallowing abortion FORCES a woman provide care for a zef. Again, only one person can provide the placenta while formula can be provided by anyone. This is a fairly simple distinction.
And no rational person would compare abortion to homicide, so since you're the only one doing that....
Prenancy does not disable a person. It causes them to be pregnant. Parenting also does not make you disabled. You have a very cynical view of your fellow human beings. Nobody is proposing forcing anyone to be pregnant either. There is a 100% chance of avoiding pregnancy if you want to. This is not an academic site, its for mass consumption. A kidney transplant is a very large operation (2 operations actually) that has a variety of serious complications. It is not an easy recovery. This website also simply assumes that the remaining kidney never has an problems. The reason most kidney problems are not as serious as they could be, it because you have 2 kidneys. People with one need to be very cautious. Ya donating marrow is much safer.
No it doesn't. She has full rights and opportunities to either exercise an once of self control and not have sex, or if she has sex, to exercise 3 seconds of thought/planning and avoid pregnancy. This is exactly why she should be required to keep the baby. Nobody else can feed it until it is born. Again having a placenta implant in you is virtually 100% preventable.
If you believe that an undeveloped fetus is a human being then a girl or woman only has equal rights to life. But you must also give rights to all fertilized frozen embryos. Should there be a government draft on wombs in order to birth them?
It's not cynical to know that most women cannot carry on with life as normal when pregnant, they don't feel well, and many women are pretty much disabled. Not really, and live a normal life. You are proposing forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will, and for no good reason except that's what YOU want. The info for mass consumption is adequate for our needs. Yes, it is some trouble to donate a kidney, occasionally there are complications, occasionally the surgery causes some future complications, just like pregnancy and childbirth and especially a c-section which is done in 30-50% of births.
