How many men have no clue

a reply to: Xtrozero

some limited form of abortion available, and 12 or 14 weeks like the EU is fine with me to draw a line in the sand.

12 to 14 weeks?
How about this:
1. If you fall into the 1 to 1.5%, who had NO choice in getting pregnant, you should have a choice as soon as you discover you are pregnant. If you choose to let the life, within you, continue their life cycle, you should receive as much help as possible. From the sperm donor and the state.
2. If you fall in the same 1 to 1.5% and it's either your life or the life developing in your womb, you should have a choice.
The end.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

How about this:
1. If you fall into the 1 to 1.5%, who had NO choice in getting pregnant, you should have a choice as soon as you discover you are pregnant. If you choose to let the life, within you, continue their life cycle, you should receive as much help as possible. From the sperm donor and the state.
2. If you fall in the same 1 to 1.5% and it's either your life or the life developing in your womb, you should have a choice.
The end.

No... That is not a middle ground... Why should NO choice in getting pregnant be a reason for an abortion then. If that developing human is so special then it should not matter how the woman got pregnant even if it was incest or rape. Also, why is it a State issue as to whether you give birth and they need to financially support it? There is this thing called adoption, right? As to the Dad, they are already required to legally pay, so what is your point there?

BTW, if I had sex with a woman and it ended up with a birth of a child and she referred to me as "the sperm donor" I would tell her to kiss my ass for any support...just saying.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Speaking of sperm donors, worked with a woman who gave birth to a son whom she treated like sh*t because he was unwanted. She openly referred to the father, in front of the kid, as the sperm donor.

She should have had an abortion, but for some queer reason did not.

That kid clung to me whenever I was around because his own mother was so abusive towards him.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Why should NO choice in getting pregnant be a reason for an abortion then.

Because they had no choice before the pregnancy occurred.
Their Basic Human rights were violated in an act of violence.

BTW, if I had sex with a woman and it ended up with a birth of a child and she referred to me as "the sperm donor" I would tell her to kiss my ass for any support...just saying.

...
.......
............
We were talking about Rape an Incest.....
I guess they could call their rapist/daddy/brother "Sugardaddy" or "sweetheart" but that would seem a little awkward

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Because they had no choice before the pregnancy occurred.
Their Basic Human rights were violated in an act of violence.

But we are talking about a real human innocent child here, right? Should I be put to death for the crimes of my father? If that is OK then why not 14 weeks because the mother did not want to get pregnant?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Because they had no choice before the pregnancy occurred.
Their Basic Human rights were violated in an act of violence.

But we are talking about a real human innocent child here, right? Should I be put to death for the crimes of my father? If that is OK then why not 14 weeks because the mother did not want to get pregnant?

One made a conscious decision, a choice.
One did not, it was forced on them in a violent act.
They should have any and all help available.
It falls into the same category as the mother's life being in danger.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
One made a conscious decision, a choice.
One did not, it was forced on them in a violent act.
They should have any and all help available.
It falls into the same category as the mother's life being in danger.

Is she really in danger, or you just pulled that out of your butt. If she has the kid will she die?

Can you not see that all this is only your opinion when it is really more black and white than your grey area view point. It is either a human life that is 100% protected outside the death of the mother, or it is not.... Very simple without all the added exceptions.

You also did not answer whether it is OK to kill the baby for the crimes of its father. You keep saying the rights of the mother are more important than the baby, but then you are going to suggest what those rights in limited form are... Total BS BTW.

So the mother is raped and gives it up for adoption... How is that wrong if you believe the developing human has just as much right as you do? Put the dad in jail and give the mother counseling and the baby lives their life with a loving couple wanting a child.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Quadrivium
One made a conscious decision, a choice.
One did not, it was forced on them in a violent act.
They should have any and all help available.
It falls into the same category as the mother's life being in danger.

Is she really in danger, or you just pulled that out of your butt. If she has the kid will she die?

Can you not see that all this is only your opinion when it is really more black and white than your grey area view point. It is either a human life that is 100% protected outside the death of the mother, or it is not.... Very simple without all the added exceptions.

You also did not answer whether it is OK to kill the baby for the crimes of its father. You keep saying the rights of the mother are more important than the baby, but then you are going to suggest what those rights in limited form are... Total BS BTW.

So the mother is raped and gives it up for adoption... How is that wrong if you believe the developing human has just as much right as you do? Put the dad in jail and give the mother counseling and the baby lives their life with a loving couple wanting a child.

I actually agree with you.
But...
After being raped, or the act of incest, there will be mental issues to work out.
If she is strong enough, mentally, and wishes to let this new human being continue along their life cycle, then they should get any and all the help they need. Mentally and physically.

Yet, I realize that not all people have the same mental fortitude.
The stress and other mental issues along with the hormone changes during pregnancy may be too much for some.
That is why I said it falls into the category of the mothers life being in danger.
It depends on the person and their mental fortitude.
I didn't always believe this. Like you, I asked why another human should lose their life because of something their father did....

a reply to: Xtrozero

So the mother is raped and gives it up for adoption... How is that wrong if you believe the developing human has just as much right as you do? Put the dad in jail and give the mother counseling and the baby lives their life with a loving couple wanting a child.

It’s not as simple as just give the baby away. Pregnancy itself changes a body forever.
It is very hard on a woman’s body. Even if the baby was given up for adoption there would be lasting trauma, mental, physical.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Xtrozero

So the mother is raped and gives it up for adoption... How is that wrong if you believe the developing human has just as much right as you do? Put the dad in jail and give the mother counseling and the baby lives their life with a loving couple wanting a child.

It’s not as simple as just give the baby away. Pregnancy itself changes a body forever.
It is very hard on a woman’s body. Even if the baby was given up for adoption there would be lasting trauma, mental, physical.

The pro-life types don't give a damn. To them she is just a baby factory.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

It’s not as simple as just give the baby away. Pregnancy itself changes a body forever.
It is very hard on a woman’s body. Even if the baby was given up for adoption there would be lasting trauma, mental, physical.

I don't disagree, but that wasn't a part of my point.

Which was, if you are going to suggest the baby has a right to life, BUT its OK to kill it if you feel it will be hard on your body makes ZERO sense to me. If you say the baby has a right to life under ALL situations other than maybe a true threat for the life of the mother I can see logic there, anything else is as much BS as the other side saying its not even a human or life until it is out of the womb.

Both views are just bat sh!t cRaZy...

So as a society we need to say, yes it is a developing human, but there are reasons that life could also be stopped. A woman who gets pregnant by accident will go through the same body changes and negative affects as a person who is raped, but with one of them you all want to put some kind or moral punishment on them for having sex and getting an accidental pregnancy.

You also are not accounting for the lasting trauma an abortion can have on a woman too.

So here we are, what makes sense if we allow any abortion outside of threat to the mother. My personal view is to allow it early to provide some limitations so we don't go down even worst paths as a society. I fully understand it is a human in some stage of life even the size of a pea, but we also kill people all the time and not be an illegal act, so we are not breaking new negative moral grounds here by allowing abortion.

originally posted by: VierEyes

The pro-life types don't give a damn. To them she is just a baby factory.

That seems kind of a weird statement when pro-choice call women "uterus owner" and men "sperm donors" . I think pro life call women mothers still...

originally posted by: VierEyes

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Xtrozero

So the mother is raped and gives it up for adoption... How is that wrong if you believe the developing human has just as much right as you do? Put the dad in jail and give the mother counseling and the baby lives their life with a loving couple wanting a child.

It’s not as simple as just give the baby away. Pregnancy itself changes a body forever.
It is very hard on a woman’s body. Even if the baby was given up for adoption there would be lasting trauma, mental, physical.

The pro-life types don't give a damn. To them she is just a baby factory.

Baby Factory........
Uh, No.
Actually we do "give a damn", more so than those who support the premeditated killing of another human being.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I have to say, you are settling into an argument that I consider reasonable. We might disagree on the minutia, but in general we seem to be in agreement. Maybe it's because I took a couple days away from this thread; sometimes a step back makes the path through the forest easier to see.

The one thing I would add in is that I don't see any need to enact a "moral punishment" on the woman who accidentally gets pregnant. Nature, IMO, has already done that. There is no reason to worsen the punishment nature has inflicted.

The ideal situation to me would be that in both cases, the mother has the child and is allowed to put it up for adoption. In the case of rape, the rapist pays child support first to the mother during pregnancy and then to the adoptive parents until the child is 18; in the case of accidental pregnancy, both mother and father share the financial burden equally. But we both know we do not live in an ideal society. That's why I personally could live with early term abortion.

They say a compromise is where neither side is happy with the result. Well, that would be a compromise then: I would still not be happy with early abortion, and the pro-abortionists would still be upset about the limit on abortions.

It's not a discounting of the child's right to life per se; it is more an acceptance that optimal only exists in fantasy.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
During the course of this thread I have changed my stance on the issue, somewhat (I am still at odds but know it is human, in the end).
That being said, I am curious to hear your answer to this (not being argumentative just genuinely curious) :
All human beings have a few things in common. One is that we all start our life cycle once Mitosis begins in the womb.
It can not denied, that after fertilization, the mother or father are no longer in control of our development (other than the power to kill us, but all humans have that power over other humans.......).
We become a separate human being and initiate our own life cycle.
Once we initiate that life cycle, it continues. We contunue to change through gestation, infancy, adolescence, adulthood right on, up to the moment we lose all remaining ability to do so (die).
If you or I would not kill an infant, adult or senior during their life cycle, why do we justify killing someone just starting theirs?
They aren't any less human......
(As I said, I am still at odds)

a reply to: Quadrivium

A fair question.

I do not think we have the moral ability to take that life, with one sole exception: when the developing child's existence endangers the mother. That is the equivalent of self-defense to my mind... a deplorable situation, but a situation that must be resolved. If we do not abort the child in that case, the likelihood is that both the child and the mother will die; if we do abort, only the child dies.

I do not see that as "fair" but then again, life is not fair. It wasn't fair that my father had a massive stroke when I was 16 years old and needed him the most. He was still full of life, and at the time I needed his firm hand and wisdom more than ever. Life simply is not always fair.

But the real question is not a moral one; no one can change my morals, not can anyone change the morals of another. Those are settled arguments, whether or not we may agree or disagree with each other, or how strongly. The real question that needs to be answered is the legal one. To that end, I posted my earlier explanation of how we treat the severely injured. I see much correlation between a developing child and an adult on life support: both are on a type of life support because their inherent life processes are not up to the task; both can have an assessment of potential to recover/develop; both have, through the vagrancy of life, their fate placed in the hands of another.

All legal decisions are a balance that must be struck between the rights of one versus the rights of another. I have a human right to eat, and you have a human right to own property. However, I do not have a right to take your food to sustain myself... your right is superior to mine in that instance. Likewise, there are two (I say three, because I include the father) humans here who all have rights... and these rights can conflict. Therefore, we have to make a decision: whose right is superior to the others in this case?

If I starve because I cannot take your food, is that a tragedy? I say yes, it is; a life has been snuffed out. But is it worth legalizing theft of food? I say no, it is not. People would still starve, and there would be violence over food to boot. Sometimes tragedies happen, and sometimes it is better in the long run to allow for those few tragedies than to make matters worse.

I hope that answers your question.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: VierEyes

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Xtrozero

So the mother is raped and gives it up for adoption... How is that wrong if you believe the developing human has just as much right as you do? Put the dad in jail and give the mother counseling and the baby lives their life with a loving couple wanting a child.

It’s not as simple as just give the baby away. Pregnancy itself changes a body forever.
It is very hard on a woman’s body. Even if the baby was given up for adoption there would be lasting trauma, mental, physical.

The pro-life types don't give a damn. To them she is just a baby factory.

Baby Factory........
Uh, No.
Actually we do "give a damn", more so than those who support the premeditated killing of another human being.

You don't care AT ALL about the quality of life of the woman carrying the fetus. If you did you wouldn't force her through an unwanted pregnancy.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thought provoking....
Can you expand a little on the following? I think it's on topic, if you disagree, disregard.

I see much correlation between a developing child and an adult on life support: both are on a type of life support because their inherent life processes are not up to the task; both can have an assessment of potential to recover/develop; both have, through the vagrancy of life, their fate placed in the hands of another.

An adult on life support, are you saying someone who is brain dead... or maybe someone that has a high probability of recovering?
You have probably seen my post where I try and explain the reason murder is immoral, it's not the act of taking the life, it is the act of causing total, irreversible loss of all remaining ability. I am not sure I did a fair job of explaining it then, or now.
This explains it better than I ever could (It comes from the Journal of Medical Ethics. It deals with exactly my thoughts on the part of the post I quoted above).
jme.bmj.com...


This is another place that I find a lot of confusion:

Likewise, there are two (I say three, because I include the father) humans here who all have rights... and these rights can conflict. Therefore, we have to make a decision: whose right is superior to the others in this case?

While I agree that there are three human beings to consider, what rights are conflicting?

In the small percentage of abortions, due to rape or incest, I understand that the rights of at least two of the three parties will be in conflict. That is what made me change my stance during the course of this thread (I can expound if you would like).

a reply to: VierEyes
Who is forcing them?
In 99% of abortions they, and their partner, made a free and willful choice to try and create a new human life.
I care for all human beings and their basic human rights.