""" I don't think that's any small thing to shrug off, and I think that the burden placed by requiring a fifth of someone's income for 20yrs is greater than the burden of carry a child to term. """ What? Who does pay for the first 18-20 years of the kid's life, the father ALONE!!!!!!!!??? NO, the mother not only goes through 9 months of pregnancy and child birth, the effects of which last her ENTIRE life, but she ALSO raises the kid . She uses her income and her TIME to raise the kid and paying only 20% of your income to raise a kid is CHEAP....especially when all you have to do is raise your little hand to write a check...
Yeah, it actually is unfair. Pointing it out is no more "whining" than saying that women should have personal autonomy over their bodies is "whining". One hand washes the other, you tell me - is it "whining" to say that a woman should have control over her own body? Or are you going to tell me that it's fair for a woman to want control over her own body, but just whining when a man wants control over his? It seems silly to ask that in response to a post where I said this: Do you realize how impractical any part of that would be?
You: ""Your text tells me that you want it both ways. You want her to risk pregnancy provided she has the abortion.""" Wrong, I never posted that. """. And it injures her body. """ Irrelevant. "" And it injures her body."" Not as much as pregnancy and child birth (and your wives ignorance of the harm done to their bodies doesn't mean a thing) """Cite the law on the books you are using for your conclusions. It is so strange I never heard of such laws.""" There are no laws.......just facts... Oh, and learn some REAL biology. NO woman gets pregnant on purpose.
idk what part of this imbalance you're not getting. Case A) father wants to keep the baby, mother doesn't. It is aborted. The father has no choice in becoming a parent. Case B) Mother wants to keep the baby, father doesn't. Mother gets her way (carries the baby to term), father pays ~20% of his income for the next 18 years.The father has no choice in becoming a parent. OKGrannie correctly pointed out that it is unfair to expected a woman to carry a baby to term just because she had sex, because her having sex did not constitute consent to becoming a mother. I'm sure you'd agree with this, yes? I pointed out that the same applies to men - just because they had sex doesn't mean they consented to become a father, and it is unfair to force them to do so. But you'd see this is silly whining, right?
Again, you're missing the point. If we all agreed that the fetus was never a person or human, and never entitled to human rights, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. You need to decide to paint a room before you decide what color to paint it.
Why would that be impractical? YOU want things so fair...well, if a woman has an abortion and you want the same for men then just like the woman would never see that kid the man should never see it either. YOu want the man to go off scott free and then reap the benefits of a kid once all the work and expense is over..... You: ""Or are you going to tell me that it's fair for a woman to want control over her own body, but just whining when a man wants control over his? "" Men''s right to their own bodies isn't being challenged and etched away on a daily basis....fighting to KEEP women's rights to their own bodies when it's under attack is NOT whining... - - - Updated - - - I gave you a solution and you called it impractical....what is YOUR solution?????
I feel for the men who have to pay child support for 20 years more or less when they didn't want a child. I don't feel so bad for the man who wants a child and wants to force a woman to produce one. Perhaps you think the burden is greater to pay child support because you haven't experienced pregnancy/childbirth while I feel the burden is greater to endure pregnancy/childbirth/child rearing because I haven't experienced paying support. Remember that a woman who chooses to bear a child is also paying a portion of her income to rear the child. Because of the physical differences the legal requirements can never be "equal."
Again, this was in response to your question: "Where do you get this basis for believing that for thousands of years life was believed to start at birth?" The Jewish (and Christian) belief is that the soul (or spirit or self-awareness) existed before conception and persists for eternity. There has been no consistent agreement in Jewish or Christian tradition about the exact point in time when the soul inhabits the body but typically it is assumed to inhabit the body (a) when movement is felt or (b) at the moment of birth. Thanks to medical science we know that those early movements and reflexes do not represent meaningful thought, but we also know meaningful thought is possible a month or two before the moment of birth, making that the first point when self-awareness/personhood/spirit/soul could inhabit the physical body. If you would like to provide evidence that the soul is something different from our self-aware mind, I invite you to do so. You seem to believe brain waves makes us human beings, but many animals produce brain waves. It is self-aware thought (or spirit or soul) that makes us human. Medical science tells us the brain cannot possibly sustain meaningful self-aware thought until the last month or two of pregnancy. As you pointed out in your earlier posts, the first meaningful thought might not even happen by birth, but remember I am giving the fetus the benefit of the doubt by pushing the threshold back to the point where meaningful thought might first be possible. I would hope (if you want a child) you would value it from the first moment you know it is there and I support your right to do so for your own offspring. You should not, however, expect or demand that any other pregnant woman should accept your value system. [/QUOTE] I have maintained that the entry threshold should not be used to remove personhood. That is a requirement you have inserted and I still disagree with it. You still have offered no evidence why this is a universal requirement of any threshold condition. Exit conditions do not have to mirror entry conditions. For example, even before anybody thought of using brain waves to mark the moment of personhood, they were being used to mark the moment of death. You have not presented any evidence to support your position that exit conditions must mirror entry conditions, so you have no case on this matter. The very fact that I do NOT approve of your proposal to eliminate personhood for people who are mentally deficient is evidence that I am not claiming human value is based on IQ. I am asserting that the body is an empty vessel, under construction, and uninhabited by any self-awareness (whether you want to call it personhood, or spirit, or soul) until the brain has developed to the point that it is possible to sustain meaningful thought. I have made it very clear that I do not require evidence of intelligence, just a platform in which it could reside. No, the capability argument is more logical (to give the fetus the benefit of the doubt). By the way, I note that you overlooked my question here "Why would you want to declare it a "person" when you know it has not yet become capable of meaningful thought?" Then, to avoid the labels and semantics, I invite you to provide your underlying rationale to explain why the presence of brain waves justifies treating the fetus as a legal person (but this does not provide legal personhood for any other animal on the planet). No that is a misrepresentation of position. I do not claim meaningful thought makes the fetus valuable enough to be a human. I claim the objective physical capacity for meaningful thought opens the window for the empty vessel (the body) to be inhabited by a self-aware mind (or spirit or soul if that is what you choose to call it). Before that, there is nothing but biology... nothing to distinguish us from all the other animals on the planet... and medical science agrees that there is a point in the third trimester when the brain is first capable of meaningful, self-aware, thought.
Ok, if you think that is fair and it is equality, then just flip the positions. You'd say it's fair, when a woman becomes pregnant, for her to have NO choice in the matter, and for the man to have full say on whether or not she carries the child and becomes a mother - but, you'd say, it's fair, because they're both either parents or not parents. ^_- That's not my argument. You've created a straw man. That's one hell of a straw man there! No, it's already been revoked. I don't see why that makes the status quo perfectly fine. Did you miss the part where I said that there is no practical solution? If I said a practical solution isn't possible, why in the hell would you expect me to provide one?
I haven't experienced either, but I'm not of the mind that people need to have "been there" to understand things. I had a pretty good idea of what combat was like before, and I wasn't too far off. When you actually try to understand someone else's experience, it's amazing how well people are capable of understanding a situation without ever having been in it. I don't think that one is worse than the other, but paying 20% child support takes more working hours from a person's income (I don't, or shouldn't, say "man" because about 10% of the time it's the woman's) than a pregnancy in every hour from conception to birth does. That is why I think they're on fairly equal footing. And while I understand that a woman who chooses to bear a child is also paying a portion of her income to rear the child, a woman will never choose not to have a child and then be forced to pay a large chunk of her income for it. That's why it's fundamentally unequal: if a woman doesn't want the child, the child does not become a burden to her. If a woman wants the child, she will have it, but she can then force unwanted parental burdens on the man. We'd hardly say that it'd be fair for a man to be able to force unwanted parental burdens on a woman, right? But yeah, we're at least of agreement that muting the differing legal requirements would be impractical. I absolutely get defending the status quo, in this regard, based on practicality. There are just some who insist it is absolutely fair, and I think that's a load of crap. I think we're in general agreement here and just getting to such a narrow point of difference that the pencil would break, so to speak.
WTF are you talking about? No laws about what? I never mention any laws.....why are you saying I did when I didn't? Can't you answer honestly EVER? Now what law are you referring to? WHAT EXACTLY am I "making up"?
I asked you for the law you are citing to back up your claims. You told me you had no legal citings. Here, your own words. """Cite the law on the books you are using for your conclusions. It is so strange I never heard of such laws."""
Yet you can't tell me what these claims are? I made NO claims that there were laws about what I posted......I just posted the truth and you don't like it.... Here's my post : """No she doesn't. Women can take their panties off and have sex when and how they want....and how often they want ...and they don't need to use birth control at all and they don't need your permission or anybody's permission and they can have all the abortions they want and YOU can't do one damn thing about it . And that's exactly the way it is and the way it should be """"""" NO where did I refer to any law....just facts you don't like Are you referring to the Constitution which gives women the same rights as everyone else?
A fundamental principle of justice (Rule of Law) is that one person should not be made responsible for the consequences of the unilateral decision/actions of another. Sex is not consent to a child. Especially not in this day in age. It is the woman's choice whether or not to carry an accidental pregnancy to term. On the basis of her decision, current law states that another person (the sex partner) can be made responsible for the consequences of that decision. This is a violation of the Rule of Law. For those that agree that this rule should be violated, they should than have no problem making the woman responsible for the decision of her sex partner. If the woman can make the man responsible for the consequences of her ( carry pregnancy to term) decision in relation to an accidental pregnancy, then the man should be able to make the woman responsible for the consequences of his (carry pregnancy to term) decision in relation to an accidental pregnancy. Anything else would be a violation of the principle that law is to be applied consistently and fairly. Anything else would be discrimination. When we mess with the principles of justice - bad things happen. It is because of these bad things that these principles evolved in the first place. The law is based on precedent. It is the rule, rather than the exception, that when a rule is violated in one area, that violation spreads like a cancer (rapidly falls down the slippery slope). There are many who believe that a woman should be forced to carry an accidental pregnancy to term. If a woman can force the consequences of her decision in relation to that pregnancy on another. Why then should the consequences of decisions of others in relation to that pregnancy not be forced on her ? This is bad precedent. It is against the basic principles on which this country was founded. That individual rights and freedoms are "Above" the legitimate authority of the Gov't. This is a bastardization (pardon the pun) of justice.
A whole range of laws, each cited here - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/363145-abortion-choice-consent.html and here - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/390819-choice-consent-cont.html which includes - Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed Page 305 which states consent is to "express consent," or that which is "directly given, either viva voice or in writing", consent "is positive, direct, unequivocal ... requiring no inference or implication to supply its meaning." Consent is an "act of reason," which must be a "voluntary agreement by a person in the possession and exercise of sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent choice to do something proposed by another.". More simply consent is the willingness that "an act or invasion of interest shall take place" based on "a choice between resistance and assent." In the context of pregnancy, consent means a woman's explicit willingness, based on her choice between resistance and assent, for the fertilized ovum to implant itself and cause her body to change from a nonpregnant to a pregnant condition. - - - Updated - - - Your mentioning of injury during abortion has been dealt with, a woman consents to the injuries caused by an abortion, she does not consent to the injuries caused by pregnancy.
Which again is irrelevant, she has no obligation to use birth control whether there are 100's or 1 of them. finally you are starting to get it, she is responsible for her own body and as such it is up to her who uses her body. Again irrelevant, whatever her motive it is of no concern of yours or falls under the authority of the state to regulate.
And again you are missing the point, whether the unborn are persons or not is irrelevant to abortion. For the sake of going around in circles, let us assume the unborn are persons .. now what?
I am surprised that you do not know of consent laws .. didn't you know a woman who doesn't consent to sex is rape victim?
It's relevant, because that believe is why we're even having the discussion. It is only because people believe that the unborn (at some point) are humans or "persons". Saying it's irrelevant would be like saying the fact that we went to war in Iraq is irrelevant to the discussion of whether it was the right thing to do. We would only have that discussion becauze we did go into Iraq.
Maybe instead of fighting against abortion, you should embrace pro-choice and see it as a step in the right direction. After you set pregnant women from from governmental abuse, then concentrate on some kind of protection for men who have registered their intention to NOT have a child from a given sexual encounter. Just a thought.
You almost made me pro-life there, with the comparison to someone in a coma: If a person in a coma can come out later, you could argue the fetus is similar. However, the analogy is flawed. The person in a coma paid for healthcare or was granted treatment by willing doctors. The fetus could be the product of rape. If rape is an excuse for killing a fetus, then that is another issue for the pro-life people. Also, the person in a coma has many memories and personality and owns possessions. The fetus really has nothing to distinguish it from pre-life. Finally, the fetus is tied to a host, whereas the person in a coma is treated by professionals who do this voluntarily. Can government mandate that you save someone's life, if you see them dying in the street? I say no. Government can only mandates that you not harm them in the first place. I believe a womb is the equivalent of saving the life of fetus. An abortion is like choosing to no longer save someone. You will argue that she choose to put the person in that situation when she had sex, and is equivalent to someone who is responsible for a car crash and now must save the person. But there is one more difference. The person in a coma or dying in the street once had higher functions and person-hood, beforehand. The fetus never had it before. I think that is a key difference that defeats the analogy. She did not take an adult, shrink him down, stick him in her womb, and then abort him.
