Birth Control: Sharing the responsibility

Please. Women are no less innocent on this matter. For all that they are rarely talked about, women are just as bad as men.

And while any parent being a deadbeat is disgusting, that does not dismiss the fact that both men and women are held equally accountable for their offspring by law. But using your metric of deadbeat, it seems that we hold women less so by about 11 points.

As I said, it's not just the culture of today. Sex as recreational has been around since before recorded history. Prostitution, affairs, and even within marriages, humans have been having recreational sex, both heterosexual and homosexual, since time immemorial.

Let's not try to pretend that the religious, especially Christians are any better than the rest when it comes to marriage.

Prostitution, nor recreational sex, is not limited to any areas. Even Christian couples engage in recreational sex. Prostitution and affairs are more outward visible signs that sex is both recreational and procreational. It's rather hypocritical to claim that it is natural for sex to be only men and women, yet deny that it is natural for sex to be recreational as well.

So modern society seems to say, well whose morals are moral? Since no one can define them....anything goes.
So I and others take a stand. Not just for the unborn, but for the sake of the culture. Unfortunately we have to live together. It is when your amoral stances infringe upon the lives of others, we have a grave conflict and don't expect that to end any time soon. Your attitudes are reflected in advertising, TV, internet, media, and many places. Ours are taught to our children and children's children through teaching, examples as well as media and Church attendance. It's just the nature of the World.[/QUOTE]

Exactly how does our freedom to engage in recreational sex, in any context, and/or the use of birth control, to wrest this back to the thread topic, infringe upon you and yours? You are still free to make your choices, have sex only for procreation, and limit yourselves to one mate for eternity.

 

It has been considered multiple times and the courts of today and even the Bible, have not put the unborn in the same category of the born.

But even that is irrelevant to the argument of bodily autonomy. No being has the right to use the bodily resources of another against the wishes of that other, even if it means they will die.

 

There is no dodge here and your condescending attitude does not give you a stronger case. The "dodge" here is that you bandy about "Constitutional Rights" yet you ignore those for the "unborn" because they are silent though innocent. You look after your "own " Constitutional rights while you ignore theirs. That proves your narcissism. The word hits a sore spot with you, doesn't it?

 

Christians are not any better and I never stated they are. They do aspire to a standard and many are close to successful. It is my belief the world would be a far better place if the culture "embraced" that aspiration. I work toward the influence of that......not the "everybody does it" attitude that you seem to espouse.

Again.....as I have stated before, the conflict is not your freedom to behave anyway you want to. You can breed with Shetland Ponies for all I care. It is the fact you do not acknowledge the rights of the unborn and their unique design to live a fruitful life. If you applied your stated "rights" to them, we would not have this debate. It is reminiscent of the argument of slavery in America.

 

You are the one that brings up religion. Are there Constitutional rights aside from religion?? Your focus seems to be on God and your disdain for Him. All that aside, the argument here is, the rights of the unborn. Because they are silent you would discount their rights to a fruitful life. I mind my own business but you would not mind theirs.
Again I will point out, your attitude is, I got my life, so to hell with theirs. It is a narcissistic, pre puberty attitude you have and you are the one that needs to buck up and take responsibility as if you were an adult human being with a heart for others.

 

If you are bringing up the slavery argument again, you don't seem to be reading my arguments. Despite the fact that the unborn have rarely enjoyed personhood, even since biblical times, the crux of the abortion issue is not whether they are life or individuals, but that of bodily autonomy. No more than I have a right to the resources of your body, does an offspring have a right to that of the woman gestating or even birthing it. It has no right to her milk if born, nor to her other resources while gestating. To claim such, then across the board, we must deny bodily autonomy, and as such, to save my life, I can take your kidney whether you wish to give it or not.

 

These two statements are incorrect.

First, we do not know whether theirs will be a fruitful life or not. That's before we take into account that such a criteria is subjective. I will agree that in and of itself, the potential future of an unborn, positive or negative, is not sufficient as the basis for whether abortion should be allowed or not.

As to minding one's own business, the unborn's business is directly tied into the gestating woman's business (so worded because we could be talking biological mother or surrogate). Only through the use of external artificial womb technology could we thus separate out the offspring's interests and concerns from that of the woman. If such a case existed, the woman, nor the man for that matter, would not have a say in the continued existence of the offspring because it would not be in their body. The offspring takes of the woman, not the other way around. The offspring is not minding their own business, to use the phrase, bit tying his in with the woman, will she nil she.

 

This is absurd. I am not asking you to be forced to donate your kidney. You make stuff up. You were not created to donate a kidney. However, men and women have roles in the procreation process. When they procreate, another being with rights comes into existence. With that comes responsibilities. You want to shirk those responsibilities and I will acknowledge.....so does a large portion of society. Everybody does it.....you have others on your side. The way I see it, there is a Higher calling.

 

All you're doing is regurgitating old talking points in trying to equate a developing fetus with a full born child! That was medically and factually stupid years ago and still is today...only self righteous religious zealots buy into the convoluted "logic" you display here. Like it or not, YOU do NOT have a legal right in America to enforce your religious beliefs on others to the point where you control a woman's womb. You want a theocracy....move to a middle eastern country.

 

Your first sentence is a blatant lie, as post #272 clearly shows. The following dogmatic screed of yours just makes my case all the more. Medical science and basic facts put the kibosh on your long debunked blather. You can believe what you want, you can choose not to have an abortion. Other people may not have the same economic/social situation as you....but they are NOT choosing for you, as you should not do so for them. That's the law, that's the Constitution. You want a theocracy, move to a middle eastern country.

 

Nothing is being made up here. I am simply pointing out how bodily autonomy works. Without it, you have no right to refuse to give up bodily resources to anyone who need it to live, unless doing so puts your own life at risk.

Yes, the new being has rights, but that doesn't mean they override other's rights. Should the offspring be born, it is then separate from the mother, and there is no longer conflict. Yes both mother and father have plenty of responsibilities to the offspring. That still does not override her bodily autonomy. The offspring still has no right to her bodily functions; not to her blood, her milk, nothing.

Here is one of those key points, that gets readily overlooked. Her bodily autonomy is limited to her body only. If she ends up using a surrogate to gestate the offspring, the mother has no right to end the pregnancy, since it's not in her body. She has no option that results in an end to her responsibilities. Her right is not a termination of her responsibilities. Such a result comes about due to the current limitations of medical science, but given the advances in artificial womb technology, such a result might not always be there. Her right is only in the termination of the pregnancy, not the offspring itself. That said, in the same way that you can refuse me the resources of your body, even if it kills me, the so too can a woman refuse a ZEF the resources of her body, even if it kills the ZEF.

 

Yet another State-imposed edict is not a viable approach.

There are already far too many radical Statists who wish to use the coercive power of government to impose their personal views upon everyone.

Extremists who demand that politicians and bureaucrats seize control of a womb at the instant of conception, rather than allow the individual Americans citizen to exercise her freedom, in consultation with medical and spiritual advisers and loved ones whom she trusts, do so based upon their absurd notion that a microscopic amalgam of cells without a brain is a person.

It isn't, and if and until an actual, viable, sentient human does develop during the gestative process, let's keep the State out of all such very personal matters.

 

If you want a "fair is fair" situation, that should be for all faucets of the abortion equation.
Why doesn't the man get a "choice" when it comes to having an abortion of someone he impregnates? If he knocks up his girlfriend and the GF wants to have the baby and the man doesn't, why should the man be responsible for the child from conception 'til the kid is an adult?

 

The man doesn't get a choice because it's not in his body, just like the woman would not get a choice if a surrogate is used and she (the woman not the surrogate), changes her mind. For that matter the surrogate gets to change her mind and get an abortion even if both genetic parents still want the offspring. It's a matter of bodily autonomy. Whose ever body it is in gets the choice. After it's born, then both are equally responsible.

 

(Notice I cut out the part of your surrogate analogy because it's just pure bunk and has no application in this man-woman choice responsibility.)

You cut out the part of my post about a "fair is fair" situation as you KNOW anything else is not fair to all concerned.

Why should the man be responsible for the "choice" of someone else?

 

Be honest and admit that you cut it out because it is the point that counters your argument and you don't want to deal with it. The surrogate is the perfect example of how a woman does not have an automatic right to terminate her offspring, as is frequently claimed. If a woman did have that right, then she could do so regardless of where the ZEF was gestating. She would not have that right if the ZEF was in an artificial womb either, assuming we were at a point where it was working.

How much fairer do you want other than you get to say what happens to your body, and she gets to say what happens to hers? Again the surrogate examples proves the point. If the genetic mother changes her mind that's too bad so sad. She cannot force the surrogate to abort the ZEF, nor can she simply dismiss her legal responsibilities to the offspring once born.

He is responsible for his choice to engage in sex with a female. Regardless of what birth control methods were employed, there is always a risk of pregnancy. The only time he is not responsible, is if he was raped by the female, or she told him she had no overies or uterus. Both individual are equally responsible for the offspring they created once born, and both are equally able to get rid of what is in their own body.