Birth Control: Sharing the responsibility

Moot on the main discussion, but not the side one that is also occuring. Squidward is trying to make a claim that the man hold no responsibility even if an abortion does not occur. That is the point I am arguing against.

As to the woman's option, it stems not so much from a right, but from the result of a right. Her bodily autonomy (the right) give her the ability to have removed from her body anything she doesn't want in there. This results in an abortion that terminates the offspring. However, the woman does not have a right in and of itself to terminate the offspring. If the offspring is in a surrogate' s body, there is no right for the genetic mother to end that pregnancy. It's an important distinction, and one that will become more important as artificial womb technology develops.

 

The real challenge is opposing abuse that you agree with. If we can take what you listed out of their control, are you also willing to get the governments hands out of healthcare? How about our firearms?

 

Sorry, but you're not going to hijack this thread for some general BS anti-any-government screed. If you don't like the proposal in the OP, then you equally must dislike state and/or federal gov't ruling to limit medical choices to pregnant women. I take it you're not into theocracy, nor are you advocating hypocrisy. My previous statement above stands valid. You don't want to honestly respond, then I'd say we're done.

 

Catch your terminology..."offspring" refers to AFTER BIRTH, NOT BEFORE. Therefore your last 4 sentences are nothing more than opinion, which is irrelevant to the BIOLOGICAL FACT and the LEGAL support of your first 3 sentences.

 

The developing child is indeed the result of the sex that produced it. Furthermore, since , even into adulthood, one is still the child of their parents, that also then extends into the development stages. Offspring is an apt term to cover all stages. It leave no direct implication towards personhood or legal status. Only the actual stage they are at does so. Note I specifically avoid referring to the offspring as a baby since that stage is after birth. However given that the discussion encompasses responsibility after birth as well as abortion right prior to birth, offspring serves well to cover both periods.

As to my last statements, show me where the genetic mother has any right to force a surrogate to abort if the genetic mother wishes to no longer have the offspring. If you think what I said was wrong, detail how they are wrong. Don't just claim them so.

 

I did not mean to trigger you good sir. I simply responded to your attempt to hijack the thread with your citizens united comment. On topic, government should never have the power to force people to give birth (Not that they could), of have a medical procedure, but if you support other abuses of power such as excessive taxes, gun control, and government healthcare, you're saying that the government knows what is best for you.

If only we can infuse government cheese with birth control!

 

Nice try...so long as you ignore the following:

Biologically, a child (plural children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty,[1][2] or between the developmental period of infancy and puberty.[3] The legal definition of child generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority.[1]
Rathus SA (2013). Childhood and Adolescence: Voyages in Development. Cengage Learning. p. 48. ISBN 1285677595.
Mosby, Inc (2013). Mosby's Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing & Health Professions. Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 345. ISBN 0323074030.
Child". TheFreeDictionary.com. Retrieved 5 January 2013.

The nano-second the state denies a personal choice of a medical procedure to a woman based on an INTERPRETATION of biology, but ensures a choice to a man to use contraception that is a double standard. Hence the albeit over-the-top proposal of the OP....to make a point. Hell, look at what's happening in Louisiana!

 

How can I "hijack" a thread that I started? Right off the bat you're babbling nonsense. And yeah, if a woman wants an abortion but the state says she must bring that pregnancy to term REGARDALESS of rape or incest or sudden poverty, etc., that's forcing a woman to give birth. The state does this by eliminating clinics and outlawing doctors/hospitals that provide this procedure. The rest of your rant is OFF TOPIC. Deal with the OP or create your own thread for your issues. If you've got nothing else, then we're done.

 

Let's talk about ignoring:

Offspring and child are legitimate words to use to describe a human at any stage of life, from zygote to elderly. Especially when doing so in reference to another, in this case the parents. I do avoid using child because that does tend to be more emotionally charged.

I will deny a double standard here. You are comparing two different things. Both have equal chance at contraception. If the man had access to contraception and the woman didn't then there would be a double standard.

Now when it come to medical procedures, yes attempting to limit a woman from getting one, be it an abortion, or a hysterectomy, or a tubal ligation, or anything not even related, and yet not limit the man any procedures, that too would be a double standard and a different one. By law, a woman should have a right to a vasectomy, and men to the three I listed. The law is not supposed to care about biology. And as of right now there is no law making it illegal for a man to get a hysterectomy. So yeah when there are laws denying women the ability to get an abortion it is a double standard.

Which still is irrelevant to the fact that I was addressing and refuting Squidward's assertion that a man has no responsibility to the offspring, neither before nor after birth.

 

I addressed the topic. There is no way to enforce abortion laws that already failed long before the internet and abortion drugs. No matter how you slice it, the government should never get to force/deny medical procedures. I do enjoy a good meltdown. Thank you for that.

 

1. Note the FIRST word in my definition. Big difference in BIOLOGICAL versus COLLOQUIAL. 'nuff said.
2. Denial does seem to be your watch word. It's like this....since a man cannot get pregnant, you have a limited equality in this situation. Denial of the choice of abortion to a woman is a double standard, as men can have all types of medical procedures/OTC drugs to insure erections and potency while having the option of vascetomy, condoms, etc.
3. Again, we're in agreement per you last sentence.

 

As the reader can see, Doof just keeps parroting his error ridden opinion while ignoring logic. If the state outlaws abortion and shuts down abortion clinics, and the "morning after" pill is prohibited in state pharmacy's, that's enforcement....plain and simple. And that is/has being done in various states...hence the controversy. Doof's second to last sentence is pure nonsense, as it would cover more than just abortions. Clearly, Doof is not thinking this through, but is compelled to argue otherwise....thus wasting mine and the reader's time. I'm done with him.

 

You were the one trying to denounce my use of the word offspring. I showed where I used it legitimately.

I think somewhere you got lost on what I'm saying. Yes a denial of an abortion is a double standard. What you compare it to for that determination is important. Comparing an abortion to any use of overall contraption, save medical procedures, is apples and oranges. To compare to men's use of non surgical contraception, you have to look at the denial of those non surgical methods to prevent fertilization or implantation to show a double standards. Comparing abortions to non surgical procedures does not show a double standard, because they are different standards from each other. Same goes for other methods/medications. The female equivalent of ED would be something that prevents self lubrication.

BTW did you realize that your citing of my post is inaccurate? I am assuming that you attempted to insert your comments that I responded to into my quoted post, and misplaced them. However it does look like an attempt to change context, by changing what responds to what.

 

Actually it is biology that says that it is a life, a human life in the womb from the moment of conception. Normal word usage is it's an unborn baby in there as I demonstrated for several government and medical website.

 

Well two can play that game, you just want to kill babies, if you get to assign motives to other people and they argue them we get to assign them to you. Fair game or perhaps you should argue what YOU believe and the other person argues what they believe?

 

You are not the first to run and hide from my question.

If you have it through, why do you continue to dodge my question? Is your position that the war on drugs is a success? Crack is prohibited in pharmacies; does that prevent crackheads from getting it? Those who want abortions, abortion drugs, will always get them. What is your solution to:

Black market abortions
Abortion drugs
Medical tourism

Abortion laws failed long before the internet and abortion drugs and no one can come up with a way to enforce them.

 

1. No, you didn't, as the chronology of the post and the subsequent defining words I posted (and emphasized showed). To accept what you put forth requires a blurring of the two word definitions I show above. That just doesn't work, and won't despite stubborn insistence on your part. I won't bother repeating this point in any version.

2. You stubbornly repeat yourself while ignoring the simple fact of what is the end result of what I pointed out. And yes, a vasectomy is a surgical procedure, so your rebuttal crashes and burns. Also, you should remember my final statement 3. Again, we're in agreement per you last sentence.

If your next post is merely a "no it isn't" summation that belabors moot points and details, then I'd say we're done here.

 

There is nothing in the context of my posts that would indicate that I am not using the general definition, which I provided. The stubborn insistence comes from you in attempting to shift the definition to a specifically biological one. There is no dishonesty in my use of the term offspring in the context of this thread.

At what point have I ever made a claim that a vasectomy is not a surgical procedure. I even specifically note the difference between surgical and non surgical contraception methods. Despite the fact that an abortion is not a method of contraception, which is a method to prevent the fertilization or implantation of a zygote, I said there was a double standard in denying women the ability to choose a procedure, any procedure, that men are allowed. And the reverse is true as well. This standard is irrelevant to any biological fact of a given body. A person without a cancer tumor is not being denied to right to the surgery of cancer removal. A woman who is not pregnant is not being denied the right to an abortion. Being a male is not being denied the right to an abortion. The lack of physical/biological condition to perform a given procedure is irrelevant to one's right to said procedure.

Which was:

I am not sure why you felt a need to repeat that you are in agreement, as I did not respond to that at all. If you are referring to another sentence, then you need to isolate that specific sentence, because it was not the last sentence of the referenced post.

You can claim that they are moot, but that doesn't make them so. If that was the case, I could have claimed that your biological definition was moot, given the context. It's up to you whether you continue or not.

 

As the chronology of the posts shows, you seem hell bent on pushing your personal supposition and conjecture as fact. Logically it's not, despite your insistence and convoluted "logic". You feign an inability to understand what has transpired and then fill in your opinion over what has passed. Then you deny.

Yeah, we're done.

 

Pot, kettle, achromatic. Aside from the fact that I established a legitimate use of the word, you tried to make my use of the word offspring illegitimate in my point of noting that bother the male and female sure the responsibility of the creation of said offspring, or ZEF, or baby or whatever term you want to use. And then later you agree with me that yes it is the responsibility of both. Seems I'm not the hell bent one here.

 

Kids living at home after 18 could be considered a burden on some. Maybe we should consider advancing the age of abortion.

 

if he wants to grow it in his body, have at it, he can't force her to do it though

 

Republican already do that once born...

"Bush Criticized for End-of-Life Laws"

https://web.archive.org/web/20051219170102/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html

"But on March 15, a Texas law signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush (search) in 1999 allowed the hospital to go ahead and take Sun off the respirator in defiance of Wanda Hudson's wishes."

 

if we want to make it equal, let the man put the fetus in his body and risk his life and limbs to create a baby

once science finds a way to grow a baby in the lab, this will be a valid point, technology is not there yet - course when they do that, most babies will be born in the lab vs naturally anyways is my guess

 

Don't be stupid.