Author Topic: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest  (Read 8950 times)

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2879
Quote
Do you not see the hypocrisy in that statement? You think abortion should be allowed because "accidents happen." But only women can choose to not be involved if they are subjected to an "oops" pregnancy. If a man takes precaution and uses a condom, but it breaks and the female gets pregnant, he is on the hook for child support. For 18 years. So long story shot, only women don't have to deal with their "mistakes."
Yes, women make the choices when it comes to their bodies (as do men). 

You say women don't have to deal with their "mistakes"? And to put it in quotes too? How arrogant!

Women have to make the very difficult decision to abort the life growing inside them - but you casually dismiss this. You've illustrated the essence of Sanjeev's 2nd post in this topic.

Quote
It's a separate human. It has its own feet, hands, toes and unique dna
This is not the best argument to make to support the pro-life position. Take it to its conclusion: if a fetus is a separate human, it has zero right to be growing inside another human being and should be removed at once.

While I don't think Castanza was being arrogant, even if he were that would not invalidate the argument. I think it's completely fair that if the man doesn't want the child and the mother refuses an abortion (paid for by the man) he should be off the hook for child support. He should not be penalized for a decision made in the heat of the moment (it's a similar argument that Sanj made for abortions but with the genders switched). I'll say that he should also pay for any lost wages due to her missing of work up until the date of abortion or request of abortion (and date of appointment). Some type of payment should be made while she's recovering from the abortion too. He he doesn't pay, we can get the chemicals out.

Now for the part directed towards me, I disagree here. It has every right to be there. It was created there through the actions of its host and her partner. In almost 100% of the cases, the host and partner knew what their actions could cause. And part of him or her has been in there for a long, long time.

Now, if you follow your logic, since every human has "zero right" to grow inside another human, we should be experiencing extinction in the next... 120 years or so. The government should stop all of these rights violations immediately.

Paul


Castanza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
Quote
You say women don't have to deal with their "mistakes"? And to put it in quotes too? How arrogant!

How is pointing out the logical fallacies in the current legal apparatus arrogant? "Mistakes" in quotes is referring to the attitude women have about their baby they wish to abort. To them it is a mistake that it exists. Which in reality it is not a mistake. It's a direct function of basic biology that the woman knew full and well about before engaging in sex.


Quote
It's a separate human. It has its own feet, hands, toes and unique dna
This is not the best argument to make to support the pro-life position. Take it to its conclusion: if a fetus is a separate human, it has zero right to be growing inside another human being and should be removed at once.
[/quote]

You're not taking the argument to its conclusion. The conclusion would be why the baby is there in the first place? That baby was forced into the world through a decision made by the woman (whether on purpose or not). When you engage in sex you are entering a social contract (Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau talk about these). You know the risks of intercourse and you know that pregnancy is a potential outcome. You can't just back out a contract when the outcome doesn't favor your desire. You wave your right to make that decision (abortion) when you forced another sentient being into the world. 

Quote
abort the life growing inside them

So now its a life? Which is it?


stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2879
I'll say that this video really changed the way I looked at it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzzfSq2DEc4

Paul

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3349
Quote
Now, if you follow your logic, since every human has "zero right" to grow inside another human, we should be experiencing extinction in the next... 120 years or so. The government should stop all of these rights violations immediately.
Paul, it wasn't my logic, you made the point by saying these fetuses were "separate humans". I think they are pretty obviously part of the woman's body - if you removed it, it could not survive.

Quote
So now its a life? Which is it?
Castanza, you can call it whatever you want. It's semantics.

To all the points on child support etc. I thought this was addressed? Men and women both have equal say pre-intercourse and post-pregnancy. During these periods both parties are assuming equal risk. But during pregnancy, women have more rights because they're the ones taking all the risk.
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | irm | mo | nlsn | pm | tap | v | vz | wm

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2879
Quote
Now, if you follow your logic, since every human has "zero right" to grow inside another human, we should be experiencing extinction in the next... 120 years or so. The government should stop all of these rights violations immediately.
Paul, it wasn't my logic, you made the point by saying these fetuses were "separate humans". I think they are pretty obviously part of the woman's body - if you removed it, it could not survive.

Quote
So now its a life? Which is it?
Castanza, you can call it whatever you want. It's semantics.

To all the points on child support etc. I thought this was addressed? Men and women both have equal say pre-intercourse and post-pregnancy. During these periods both parties are assuming equal risk. But during pregnancy, women have more rights because they're the ones taking all the risk.

If you remove someone from life support, they'll die.  Are they not a separate human anymore? Or are they part of the machine?

Also, if they are part of the woman's body, does the woman now have two unique forms of dna? Does she have 4 feet? Or even 6 feet if she has twins? The unborn certainly have feet.

I agree the woman has more rights (the man can't or shouldn't force her to have an abortion). However, her "negligence" of having the baby forces the man into paying for something that he didn't want nor agreed to.

So if the assumption is that the woman has the "right" to have the abortion since she didn't want a child, then the man should have the "right" to not pay child support since he didn't want the child. Both agreed to the initial encounter, yes. But only one agreed to the outcome and as a result should not force the other party to pay for her decision. It was her body, her choice, after all.

At least be fair!
 
« Last Edit: May 20, 2019, 07:26:49 AM by stahleyp »
Paul

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2879
Sanj,


Thanks for the answer. For the parent question, in the beginning of the thread you seemed to express displeasure by saying how abortion is "always decided by men."

By this reasoning, should the way parents treat their children only be decided by parents? Obviously, if men shouldn't have moral opinions about abortions, I don't see why it's fair for non-parents to have moral opinions about what parents do.

Hi StahleyP,

You've answered your own question. 

The vast majority of decision makers (legislators, social service authorities, etc) over the welfare of children ARE parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc, and ALL were children once.

From what I understand about human biology, a nearly unanimous majority of the male decision makers (legislators, authorities, etc) making decisions for women, ARE NOT women who can carry a child to term and NEVER were girls.  And that doesn't change even if Catelynn Jenner becomes a Congresswoman or Senator!  :)  Cheers!

Sanj,

By the way, do you know who signed the Alabama bill into law? Do you know who signed the New York bill into law?

All these male legislators telling women what to do. The nerve of them!
Paul

Spekulatius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2870
Based on the postings here, I assume there are no women on this board.
To be a realist, one has to believe in miracles.

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3349
Quote
So if the assumption is that the woman has the "right" to have the abortion since she didn't want a child, then the man should have the "right" to not pay child support since he didn't want the child.
I don't want to pay my mortgage but I dipped the pen so I'm on the hook, ya dig?

Quote
Based on the postings here, I assume there are no women on this board.
They are the fairer (and smarter) sex, after all. But us guys have all the answers, right?  ::) ::)
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | irm | mo | nlsn | pm | tap | v | vz | wm

Lakesider

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165

Parsad

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8588
Sanj,


Thanks for the answer. For the parent question, in the beginning of the thread you seemed to express displeasure by saying how abortion is "always decided by men."

By this reasoning, should the way parents treat their children only be decided by parents? Obviously, if men shouldn't have moral opinions about abortions, I don't see why it's fair for non-parents to have moral opinions about what parents do.

Hi StahleyP,

You've answered your own question. 

The vast majority of decision makers (legislators, social service authorities, etc) over the welfare of children ARE parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc, and ALL were children once.

From what I understand about human biology, a nearly unanimous majority of the male decision makers (legislators, authorities, etc) making decisions for women, ARE NOT women who can carry a child to term and NEVER were girls.  And that doesn't change even if Catelynn Jenner becomes a Congresswoman or Senator!  :)  Cheers!

Sanj,

By the way, do you know who signed the Alabama bill into law? Do you know who signed the New York bill into law?

All these male legislators telling women what to do. The nerve of them!

She also referenced God while signing the bill...does the Constitution not separate church from state?  You are going to the Constitution when it comes to guns, and then ignoring it when it comes to women's rights...you can't have your cake and eat it too!  Either you make decisions on a fundamental human and constitutional basis, or you admit that the rules are arbitrary and made to fit whatever the whim of the day is based on who is in power.  Cheers!
No man is a failure who has friends!