A little baby fetus does have a brain. Even in the earliest stages of development there are still a ganglia and nerve cord, definitely some neural connections in place. How else do you think it's body can begin wiggling around at just 6 weeks? You know, many people justified slavery by claiming the Negroe had the brain of an animal. We can see abortion supporters today still hard at work questioning the brain capacity of their would-be unborn victims. Just an interesting comparison to point out.
The accurate comparison is this: Both those who said the Negro had the brain of an animal, and those who say a 6 week "little baby fetus" has a functional brain were/are lying. And both those who said slaves were not people, and those who now say a zygote is a person were/are attempting to change the meaning of the word "person" for their own agendas.
Isn't that you, Cady, when we're talking about what exactly is inside the woman during the eighth month of pregnancy?
I'm not trying to change the meaning of any word. Legally and historically personhood rights have been granted at birth. Exactly what is inside the woman during the eighth month of pregnancy is a FETUS.
As I said, this is your religion and you answered nothing because it doesn't fit neatly into your "women get special treatment" worldview. You likely didn't even read the whole thing seeing as you ignored the ambiguity of fetal pain data and the judicial abortion called Roe v. Wade. Not expecting much neutrality or logic from you, but who knows? Maybe you'll surprise me. BUT So if the woman is the ONLY one who can make the decision, how the hell would the father signing something EVER matter? Explain how the father has any say? You set this up for me beautifully. Time to tee off on the ultra-feminist. The 14th Amendment (used in Roe v. Wade to apply privacy rights to abortion) reads that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." A man's money falls under property. His quality of living can be extrapolated from liberty, just like privacy was in Roe v. Wade. If a guy accidentally impregnates a woman, and does not want to be a father, all that he can do is tell the woman this. If she wants to have the baby, he can do nothing to stop her because under the 14th Amendment a woman's body is private. And....... Using the same amendment, it is illegal to force the man to pay child support (property, implied quality of life) for a birth that was 100% the woman's choice. Not only that, but it violates TWO of the three statutes in the clause. And I'm not the only one to think this up. This is from the conclusion of a research study done by Sally Sheldon, Professor of Medical Law and Ethics at Kent Law School: "Staying within the confines of the privatised model of child support, I failed to uncover a convincing basis for imposing support obligations on unwilling fathers." https://kar.kent.ac.uk/249/1/Unwilling_fathers.pdf Thus, your quote is hypocritical bs. Using the same three words of the 14th Amendment, YOU SUPPORT A WOMAN'S RIGHTS BUT DENY THE SAME RIGHTS TO MEN. Boom. Lawyered
Not that I'm saying this because it's a stupid concept that can be applied to anything, but Ya boi FoxHastings would call those comparisons of yours "False Equivalencies"
Yes they are, because the text of the Constitution says nothing about abortion. Please refrain from lying about the text of the document. Sorry, but I know about that study and have seen people cite it for years - it's complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*) that ignores the high rate of abortion recidivism. This is usually where you pro-aborts go on about safety and how legality makes it more safe. Well, killing innocent human beings in cold blood shouldn't be safe. - - - Updated - - - \ I will defer to your expertise in this regard.
If blacks had no functional higher brains, there would be nothing wrong with slavery. But they do. Early term foetuses dont.
That is not what I said or implied. I for one have never said that the fetus is part of the woman's body, but I do understand you inability to answer the question. I'm sure you would be more than happy for some other person to come along and hook themselves up to your body without your consent so they can use it to survive, or more likely you would seek a way to remove them even if it led to their death.
False equivocation, It is rather unlikely for me to be able to create offspring within myself, but I should be held responsible for providing for any offspring I create (and it's important to note that we create them through our own voluntary actions). If some random stranger I have no obligation to and no responsibility for tried to have themselves a "simulated pregnancy" at my expense, then disconnecting is probably not adequate - shooting them would be appropriate.
nope it is not. I'd suggest you find out what the legal cause of pregnancy is, it is not as you might think sexual intercourse. Pregnancy is not caused by a male. Pregnancy can only be caused by a fertilized ovum. There are two relationships, one is the sexual relationship between a man and a woman, the other is a pregnancy relationship between a zef and a woman. While a man can cause a woman to engage in a sexual relationship with him he cannot cause a woman's body to change from a non-pregnant state to a pregnant one, the only entity that can achieve that is a fertilized ovum when it implants itself into the uterus (which is the generally accepted start of pregnancy). Thus although a fetus and woman can have a pregnancy relationship they cannot have a sexual relationship, and obviously a man cannot have a pregnancy or sexual relationship with a fetus. So although a sexual relationship between a man and a woman usually precede a pregnancy relationship between a woman and a fetus the two relationships are by no means the same. what is more, not only is it the fertilized ovum, rather than the man, that joins with a woman in a pregnancy relationship, but it is the fertilized ovum, not the man, that is the primary cause of that relationship. The only way a woman will ever be pregnant id if a fertilized ovum implants itself and stays there, and the only way to terminate the condition of pregnancy in a woman's body is to remove the cause pf that pregnancy; the fertilized ovum (or fetus in later stages). Under the law, therefore, it is the fertilized ovum or fetus, not a man, that is the primary cause of pregnancy. How to assess causality, whether of pregnancy or any other matter, is one of the most complex questions in the legal field. Often the law must determine cause in order to assess who or what is responsible for events or damages. The law makes that determination by assessing casual links, that is, by identifying the sequence of events, or chains, that explain how or why an event occurred. The law tries to consider only the causes that are "so closely connected with the result" -Source : Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts - Page 264 that it makes sense to regard them as responsible for it. In the process, courts distinguish between two main types of causes; factual causes, which explains in a broad context why an event occurred, and legal causes, which constitute the sole or primary reason for an event's occurrence. A factual cause can be thought of as necessary but not sufficient cause of an event, there are two types of factual cause - 1. casual links, 2. "but for" causes, the former increases the chances that another event will occur but do not cause the actual event itself (Source : Calabresi - Concerning Cause and the Law of Torts - Page 71) and the latter are acts or activities "without which a particular injury would not have occurred", yet not sufficient in itself for its occurrence eg. If a woman jogs in Central Park at ten o-clock at night although such activity increases the chances they may be beaten, raped or murdered, it does not actually cause those events to occur; someone else has to do the beating, raping or murdering. Exposing oneself to the risk of injury, therefore, while it may be a necessary, factual cause of that injury, does not mean it is the sufficient, legal cause. The person who does the beating, raping or murdering are the necessary and sufficient cause of the injuries, and thus are the legal cause. Among the virtually infinite number of necessary factual causes the task of the law is to locate the one necessary and sufficient cause of the event, that is, the legal cause. The legal cause is "that which is nearest in the order of responsible causation .. the primary or moving cause ... the lat negligent act contributory to an injury, without which such an injury would not have resulted. The dominant, moving or producing cause" - Source : Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed Page 1225, the legal cause is, therefore, both a necessary and sufficient condition to explain why an event occurred. This legal distinction between factual and legal causes relates to the distinction between sexual intercourse, cause by a man, and pregnancy, caused by a fertilized ovum. A man, by virtue of being the cause of sexual intercourse, becomes a factual cause of pregnancy. By moving his sperm into a woman's body through sexual intercourse, he provides a necessary but not sufficient condition for her body to change from a nonpregnant to a pregnant condition, not until a fertilized ovum is conceived does it's presence actually change her body from a nonpregnant to a pregnant state. For this reason, since pregnancy is condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body, it can be identified as the fertilized ovum to be the legal cause of a woman's pregnancy state. In the case of most pregnancies, men and sexual intercourse are a necessary condition that increase the chances of pregnancy by putting a woman at risk to become pregnant, but the conception of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body and its implantation are the necessary and sufficient conditions that actually make her pregnant. What men cause in sexual intercourse is merely on or the factual sequential links involved in pregnancy; the transportation of sperm from their body to the body of a woman. Moving sperm into a woman's body, however, is not the legal, or most important, cause of a woman's pregnant condition, it is merely a preceding factual cause that puts her at risk of becoming pregnant. Once a man has ejaculated his sperm into the vagina of a woman there is nothing more he can do to affect the subsequent casual links that lead to pregnancy. There is no way he can cause his sperm to move, or not to move, to the site of fertilization, nor can he control whether the sperm will fuse with the ovum or not, for this reason is makes no sense to say a man causes conception, much less that a man causes pregnancy. Until a fertilized ovum conceives an implants itself into a woman's body pregnancy cannot occur. Sexual intercourse, therefore, although commonly a factual cause of pregnancy, cannot be viewed as the "controlling agency" or legal cause of pregnancy. The fertilized ovum's implantation accomplishes that task. While the man depositing his sperm inside the vagina may possibly set in motion a sequence of events that may or may not lead to the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the woman's uterus, the law does not identify events that set things in motion as the legal cause of eventual consequences. Sexual intercourse falls therefore under the "but for" factual cause ie without men there would be no sperm; "but for" sperm, there would be no fertilized ova; "but for" fertilized ova, there would be no implantation in the uterus; "but for" implantation by fertilized ova in a woman's uterus, there would be no sustained pregnancies. A man is a necessary factual cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy .. but a man is not the legal cause A man depositing sperm into the vagina is- for the most - a necessary factual cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy .. but is not the legal cause. The sperm fertilizing the ova is a necessary and significant cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy, this is the legal cause. Factual Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/actual-cause/ Legal Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-cause/ What you deem that other people should be responsible for has no bearing or standing on what they deem they are responsible for, you cannot force others to submit to your desires. See above as far as obligation and responsibility. So you would use deadly force in self-defence against a person who does not have your consent to use your body and yet you want to remove that very same right from women .. go figure.
So because a man isn't the legal cause of pregnancy, he has no say in matters of abortion. But if the woman does decide to keep the baby, the man must pay child support? Makes perfect sense. Feminists don't want equal rights. They want ALL of the rights
"""Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post There are Pro-Choicers in here who believe the father should have the right to "abort" their child legally on paper.""""" I don't and never said I did. Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post She's the ONLY one who is pregnant so of course she is the only one to make the decision. Do you really think if a man impregnates a woman he should be able to force her to have an abortion?[/B] Why can't you or any other Anti-Choicer EVER answer that question? You: ""So if the woman is the ONLY one who can make the decision, how the hell would the father signing something EVER matter? Explain how the father has any say?"" OTHER posters suggested a man could sign a legal document eliminating all his rights and responsibilities for the child IF the woman decided to keep it. The woman still has the final say as it should be. While letting men off the hook for fathering children raises taxes I could go along with it IF men who signed away their right and responsibility to their child went to jail for EVER trying to make contact with that child, having contact with that child , or replying to the child's attempt to make contact. And your malewhining about paying for your own kids bores the hell out of me and is off topic.......... Don't like the system? Write your Congressman.....
Are you not aware that we have constitutional rights that, even though they are not specifically named in the Constitution, the concept has been established? "Supreme Court views abortion as a "privacy right" and a "liberty claim." Abortion is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, informed by the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments" http://www.shmoop.com/right-to-privacy/abortion-privacy.html It is very unlikely that highly credentialed researchers would make that simplistic mistake. And this is where you and your ilk would sacrifice the health and safety of the fully established person, the woman, in order to create exceptional rights for the zef. No one disagrees with that.
I am well aware of the Supreme Court making up nonsense that the text does not support, yes. And yet, on analysis, they did. I'm sorry you'll have to speak English if you want a salient response. That hot garbage you spewed at the end does not qualify. Yes, you do.
What is "early term" ? If you stick a needle into an 8 week old unborn human being, it will writhe about in pain. Is that not enough brain development for you?
There is no such thing as an "8 week old" unborn human being......the fetus may move but that doesn't indicate pain.
A zef needs to have enough brain development that its brain can direct its bodily functions on its own to be considered worthy of society's protection. Why do you so enjoy imagining the feelings of zefs? http://www.salon.com/2013/08/07/fetal_pain_is_a_lie_how_phony_science_took_over_the_abortion_debate/ We know a lot about embryology [in the field]. The way that a fetus grows and develops hasnt changed and never will, Dr. Anne Davis, a second-trimester abortion provider, associate professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University Medical Center, and consulting medical director at Physicians for Reproductive Health, told Salon. And what we know in terms of the brain and the nervous system in a fetus is that the part of the brain that perceives pain is not connected to the part of the body that receives pain signals until about 26 weeks from the last menstrual period, which is about 24 weeks from conception. Because the neural structures necessary to feel pain have not yet developed, any observable responses to stimuli at this gestational stage like the fetal flinching during an amniocentesis are reflexive, not experiential. Which is to say, the fetus at 20 weeks cant actually feel anything at all. Which is to say, the fundamental justification for these laws is a really big, really popular lie.
The man has no say in matters of controlling the woman's body, and no right to force a woman to use her body against her will. As it stands now, the man and woman are equally responsible for the care and support of the child. Who do you think should pay for the support of the man's child? They just want the right to make decisions about what happens to their own bodies, the same as men have. Abortion rights benefit men too. In most cases, it's a mutual decision, but if there is a disagreement, it's the woman's choice because pregnancy affects her body and her life the most.
What makes you a human? Is it DNA? If so, I can scrape my arm and millions of cells with a complete set of my DNA just died and fell to the floor. An unborn baby evolves into a human being, it is not one at every stage. If you believe it is then you have to call the police because I just killed millions of humans and they are gasping for air on the floor.
The South didn't believe the North had the right to come in and control their internal affairs either.
If you stick a needle into a freshly dead body, it can jerk in pain, too. Those are just spinal reflexes, not higher brain activity. Early term is first trimester, or maybe second one, when higher brain is not yet developed enough.
To you abortion = slavery To a pro choicer, anti abortion laws = slavery Explain to me why the first is correct instead of the second.
