What is it about pregnancy you find so objectionable?

NO, you altered his posts.

 

Beyond donating his genetic material-- hopefully consensually-- he doesn't partake in reproduction. He's biologically incapable of contributing further.

Question away. I've stated the basis for my beliefs.

Once he has donated his genetic material, he doesn't need to help her.

Yes.

 

So, would it be fair to say that the only reason a woman has the right to get an abortion is how it would affect her body? Because you obviously do not believe the man has a right to change his mind, regarding reproduction, after he has engaged in sex.

In other words, the woman's right to abortion in no way derives from her right not to want offspring. I believe this is a logical implication that can be made from your argument, if you want to keep things consistent.

Otherwise, I just don't understand how all your arguments are fully consistent.

Here's another hypothetical. A man gets a woman pregnant, a fetus now exists. The man wants to reproduce with that woman and have offspring. The woman wants to have a baby too—but not from that man. They had a messy breakup, and now she just wants to spite him. The woman is going to be pregnant either way, her choice to abort will basically have no net overall impact on her body, one way or the other. In this specific case, does the man theoretically have the right to have offspring? The woman plans to just abort and then go have herself inseminated at the sperm bank.

If the man's "reproductive rights" would not infringe upon the woman's right not to have to deal with the burdens of pregnancy, should the man's right to have offspring be respected, theoretically? What do you think?

I am just wondering why exactly the woman has all the rights to have offspring, but the man has none.

 

Yes, her right to abort is derived from her right to her own body. Her right to give her children up for adoption is derived from her right to choose parenthood.

He absolutely does. He just doesn't have the right to make that decision for her and for her womb; he should have the right not to become a father by refusing to grant the child his surname, support the child, or be named the father. He is not a father once he has donated his genetic material; he is only a father when he has held a child in his arms and consented to fatherhood, giving the child his name and welcoming it into his home. Unfortunately, our legal system does not recognize this right.

 

How it affects her body, you mean. No or yes?

Slipping an abortifacient into her drink would [theoretically] not really affect her or her womb, at least not directly. You presume that killing the fetus would be making a choice for the woman. Not so.

Just like you killing all the homeless would not really be "making a choice" for me, if I wanted to feed them. You would not be infringing upon my rights. Even if you killed the homeless person while they were sleeping in my own house, still not my rights being infringed.

 

No, her right to control her own body.

There is no way, not even theoretically, that making a pregnant woman un-pregnant does not change the function of her body. If it is against her will, it is a violation of her right to control the functions of her own body. Pregnancy does not occur just in the womb, and the womb itself is still part of her body. Her right to bodily integrity protects her against all such intrusions.

If they're guests in your home, the killer has absolutely violated your rights as well as theirs.

 

But the fetus is not her body. Killing the fetus does not inherently take away her right to control her own body. The womb has not been disturbed, it just is no longer capable of giving life to a dead baby.

Un-pregnancy is an inevitable outcome. The abortifacient would just speed up the process.

It would no more be a violation of her right to control the functions of her body than you killing homeless people would be a violation of my right to control the functions of my body when I want to give them food. Or a wet nurse who breastfeeds someone else's baby, if someone kidnaps that baby.

But only to the extent her body is actually intruded upon. Whether the fetus is actually killed or not, that in itself has no bearing on the woman's right to control her intrusions. Example: a bad doctor tells the woman he just wants to insert a little camera in there, just to check to make sure everything's okay, but once he has permission to gain access in there he kills the fetus. How is the woman's womb intruded?

But not really. You're just making this up.
As long as the killer doesn't get blood all over the place.

 

correct the fetus is not her body and as such it must gain consent to impose upon her, if she consents to the fetus imposing on her body and a third party violates that consent then they have committed a crime.

without her consent it is an illegal act. It doesn't even matter if she is going to abort at some point the mere fact that a substance has been introduced to her body, regardless of if it has an effect on her, is a violation of her right to consent. The fact that she may abort at a later date has no relevance.

Yes it would.

Bullcrap .. The doctor has gained consent to perform a single operation, if he wilfully kills the fetus then he has violated her consent as she did not give him/her consent to harm or kill the fetus within her .. consent laws are very specific, consent can only be given to what is known, if something is unknown then consent cannot be given or assumed to have been given.

Yes really, saying that they are a guest shows consent has been given for them to be there, should they be there without consent and are shot then certainly under some state laws the shooter has committed no crime.

 

My point (if you were following the original conversation) was that, while that type of logic might be useful trying to explain why a pregnancy should not be forced onto a woman, it does nothing to explain why un-pregnancy should not be forced onto a woman. The fetus would not be imposing, her body would not have to be used.

My point was that this does not really explain why there would be any difference if the abortifacient was slipped into her drink when she was not pregnant.

But he has not intruded. He has not violated her body (not directly). Why does the woman have the right to consent or not to consent? Everything the doctor did to the woman's body he had consent for.

Maybe the father signed the consent form, knowing what would happen. (He probably planned the deception and paid the doctor to do it)

 

I personally don't find anything objectionable about it. I love babies. However, some women do apparently find it objectionable for their own personal reasons, which is none of my business. It is wrong to force a woman to be pregnant against her will. It doesn't matter if you think she's irresponsible, a jerk, or whatever. It is still her own personal decision, and you can not like it, but you don't have any right to force your morality on another.

 

No, it is you who is incorrect.

"Fetus" refers to the fetal stage of life, one of many in the lifespan of an organism.

If the fetus is not "a human," then you are talking about an organism of a different species.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

It proves my neighbor is a psychopath who does not respect human rights and I could be next - that barbarian needs to be locked up for the good of all.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

The mother and father create the kid and put him exactly in that state, helpless and innocent and incapable of causing anyone harm.

Declaring self-defense against a helpless innocent is just flat-out crazy.

 

I say I do. We as a society have the right to force our morality on individuals to stop them from forcing their morality onto other people.
I believe this concept was clearly explained in two of the other threads that compared abortion to slavery. What don't you get about that??
It's hypocritical for you to demand other people not intrude upon your business when the whole reason they want to intrude in the first place is because you yourself are intruding upon someone else's business!

 

How conveniently you forget that the "abortion compared to slavery" idea was thoroughly trounced.

The only similarity is that Anti-AbortionsChoicers want woman treated like slaves by being forced to breed.

 

A woman having an abortion is NOT intruding on anyone else's business but forcing her to remain pregnant is intruding on her business....

 

Aborting her child is not just her business.
For one thing, the fetus can't stand up for itself, is completely defenseless.

 

Yup, it's defenseless and hers to do what she CHOOSES. ...NOT what anyone else chooses....

 

So . . . what exactly do you do to prevent abortion besides making worthless posts on an internet forum?

- - - Updated - - -

No, none of your concepts are clear except that you want to force women to do something that they are unwilling or unable to do. That is the only thing clear about you.

No matter how you personally feel about it, it IS not your business.

 

It is just her business, and maybe the father's. It's certainly not YOUR business unless you are the dad. Even if abortions were banned, women would still find a way to self abort if they do not want to be pregnant, and then her life is danger.

We provide safe abortion for that reason. Women dying from self aborting or going to black market clinicians who are unregulated. IOW, it doesn't matter one ounce what your opinions are to a woman who does not wish to be pregnant.

 

How many different things could we think of to substitute into your sentence? Take out the words "abortions", "abort", and "pregnant" and replace it with something else.

I can think of all sorts of things that are illegal, and the fact that it is illegal can add danger to the person trying to commit the act.

Maybe women shouldn't be getting all those abortions in the first place. If elective abortion was illegal, that doesn't mean all the women who are getting one now would still get one.

That's why I want her to see the 4D ultrasound of her unborn child.

 

Point being? Abortion is NOT illegal, but just like anything else, if unregulated the consequences are always much worse.

Doesn't mean they wouldn't, and more women's lives would be put in danger. That's just a fact.

In most instances, that isn't going to make a difference. Women are not children and are perfectly aware of what they are doing and have their own personal reasons for doing so. You can disagree if you want, but that doesn't mean you have the right to force your personal morals on other people.

 

I remember seeing a horrible crime documentary series on TV where an evil man molested a little girl and later killed her so she could not tell anyone what he had done to her. Now tell me, if molesting little girls was legal, would that girl have been killed? This is the type of ridiculous logic you are propounding. "Make it legal, because if you don't something worse could happen"

The obvious truth is, banning abortion (the elective type) would save far many more lives than the few additional deaths it might lead to.

It might even help save women's lives overall. There is a strong correlation between post-abortion syndrome and suicide. Some women can't live with what they've done.

I would argue many women who are seeking abortion are not thinking clearly.

If the mother has the right to force her personal morals on someone else...

You don't think there's some element of force involved in an abortion? On a little defenseless life?
A woman who gets an abortion is forcing her child to die; it's a direct violation of the fetus's bodily integrity.

 

BS as usual...... abortion does NOT force a child to die.


YOUR force involves FORCING other people. What a woman does with her own body, as you know, is none of your business.

 

I'm going to have to address this ridiculousness later. I have to get back to work.

 

http://time.com/469/will-looking-at-an-ultrasound-before-an-abortion-change-your-mind/