Why Should Men Have ANY Say In Abortion?

Why are you posting what the law is ? I know what the law is and we have been over this already.

My claim is that the law is antiquated, unjust and discriminatory.

Of course pregnancy affects the man if it is allowed to continue to term. He is forced to pay for the consequences of the choice of the woman to allow the pregnancy to continue.

So you are now saying that you do not think the man should be responsible for the consequences of a woman's decision to continue pregnancy ?

Make up your mind.

Sometimes a child has 3 parents. so what.

 

Of course it affects men under the current system... they can be unjustly fined for 18 YEARS because of her decision.

 

Asking for a source that gender inequality exists in custody cases is like asking for proof that the sky is blue.

Stooping to disingenuous ignorance is not helping your case.

Here you go

http://purplemotes.net/2011/11/13/sexism-and-gender-inequality-in-u-s-family-courts/

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/254/mcneely.pdf

Cynthia McNeely makes the same argument that I made earlier.

You make nonsense claims that you are not able to support.

It is hilarious that you give this stupid link.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8292889_do-moms-pay-child-support.html

Of course we can find a few cases where moms pay support. Are you suggesting that this means there is no gender bias ?

Certainly there is someone that is making themselves look stupid.

 

It is what you implied.

 

I asked you to mention specific situations.

my bad, i probably wasnt specific enough.

 

Actually you are trying to create an argument called a loaded question where any reply only leads to the conclusion you want.

You would have been better served with a question as follows - "What are some situations when a cop has the duty to defend a citizen against a person attacking them?" because your little addition on the end and inclusion of "incompetent" isn't relevant to the basis of the premise which was that the police have a duty of care to protect all citizens from unconsented attack and injury, it simply doesn't matter if the attacker is incompetent or not.

 

I never did assume the reason people engage in sex is reproduction. Rather I said specifically that their intent, their reason, could be something totally different. What I said was that that intent or reason does not change its primary purpose in relation to what it is. You can use a monkey wrench to destroy something, that doesn't change its original and primary purpose of tightening large bolts. What part of this is so hard to wrap your brain around? Things have specific purposes, ones that cannot be changed by the user, even should the user alter those things for a different and additional purpose.

 

I have no problem with child support in cases where fathers were clearly interested in having kids with their partner/wife and who have very clearly established their parental rights. I am just very sad to see how the system has been used and abused by women who have committed paternity fraud or even just women who have given their babies up for adoption by pretending not to know who the father is and not giving him ANY say at all, etc. etc. I mean in these cases women really do have all the power. It seems quite unequal when we don't give men who enjoy sex just as much as women do some kind of out from parenting an unwanted child because consent to sex certainly isn't consent to become a parent either if you ask me.

Honestly though, as far as tax coverage goes if our government just took half of what it freaking spends on our military and put it towards kids in need and welfare of single parents and kids it'd really alleviate that burden. But our government is so messed up in how it spends taxes as it is...

 

Therefore, if a living person is the logical and normal end of pregnancy, ending a pregnancy stops that person form being a living person. Thus, ending a pregnancy stops a person from living. Do you understand this? Even from the perspective that there isn't a living human being in the womb, we can say beyond a reasonable doubt that there will be. Thus, our interference changes that course, effectively doing the same thing that would have resulted had we not.

Lets go for another route for just a moment.

A fetus is composed of cells, a fetus will be able to reproduce one day just as a child will one day, a fetus maintains homeostasis, it maintains some metabolism, a fetus body is organized as well as made up of cells, a fetus grows and matures, a fetus uses energy, and many many more qualifications for life. It is separated from the mother by its unique and different DNA. DNA which we cannot deny is that of a homo sapien. Therefore, I see no reason not to believe that a fetus is alive, and is a homo sapien, simply in stages where it has not grown to full maturity. Happy now?

 

In case you haven't noticed, laws are based on peoples morality, laws are just as fluid and chaotic due to this. Anarchy can be the only result of atheistic arbitrary morals, but that is for another discussion entirely.

Her jogging is in no way a cause. Not in any way shape or form, for she did not cause the rape by jogging, she was simply jogging when raped. Rather it was the criminal deciding to rape her, and that alone that is the cause, her jogging has NOTHING to do with it at all, and is totally different from sex and impregnation.

In the situation I described earlier the man could be stepping onto the tracks simply to get a rush of adrenaline excitement, maybe show off to some friends. He takes a risk assessment. He has done it before, his friends have done it before. The chance is less than one percent of him dying, or not even existent in his mind. He steps one the tracks and his shoe gets caught or he faints. The train crushes him. He is still liable for his death by the train, due to the risk he put himself in. Not the driver, not the unlucky accident, he put himself at risk and paid the price.

I have said before, such is done when the risk is first assumed, that is during sex. Having sex brings the risk of pregnancy, thus accepting sex allows for pregnancy. According to what you have said, after the sperm fertilizes the ovum the fetus has no choice but to defend itself against her immune system after being placed in the position it is in. It is live or die. It is still not the one who ultimately puts itself (incopetent or not) in that position or forces the woman to become pregnant, she does.

As stated above, yes she does have another recourse, not let the sperm in in the first place. The fetus at no time uses deadly force against the woman either, there is not justification for deadly force if deadly force is not used*, just as I cannot blast a man who pinched me with a shotgun. The law doesn't allow such a thing. I think it could be argued that the correct course of action would be to remove the fetus in such a way that does not require deadly force, but you hate that method don't you? Birth.

I think I can use your analogy of inviting someone into your house. Say you force someone to exist within your house, and will kill them if they do not injure you. Would injuring you be considered wrong of them, or unlawful?

*I think that when there is a definite threat to the life of the mother if a fetus is to continue in the womb there are justified grounds for abortion. This is a very serious case and very rare though.

P.S. I will have to ask you to shorten your posts a bit, I nearly said TLDR to this one. I do not have the time to argue with three people at once and read posts this long, no offense meant.

 

Ending pregnancy does not stop a person from living as there is no person to stop living. It stops a person from being created (if you want to call this living, fine but the language you are using is confusing)

Regardless you are making the "potential" argument here and I agree with you that there is a potential (although the probability is actually quite small) that fertilization will result in a born human.

We can not say "beyond reasonable doubt" that there will be. The odds are that after fertilization "there wont be".

but OK .. there is a potential. My question to you is how should we value this Potential ?

Please note that although you ignore pretty much all of my comments I answer all of your comments.

Look - Every human cell is "from" a Homo sapiens. When we use the term Homo sapiens - cell, we are using the term as a descriptive adjective and not a noun.

A human cell is not a "Homo sapien" (noun). We can do the same dance with the term "human"

in the phrase "human cell" the word Human is used as a descriptive adjective. (Human cell, Human feces, Human experience and so on)

This does not make a human cell or any of the other terms ... living humans. (noun)

Also, you are changing the goal posts. A zygote is not a fetus.

A zygote is a single human cell. It is from a human/Homo sapiens so it is a human cell/Homo sapiens cell, but this does not make it a human or a Homo sapiens.

Almost human cell meets your criteria " alive - Homo sapiens" These cells are not humans.

Let me save you some time and effort.

The zygote is a single human cell. It is very tough come up with an acceptable definition of "what is a human" that will include a single human cell.

Lets say you did this though - Now your definition also has to distinguish between the zygote cell and other human cells. (Unless you want to claim that almost all human cells are humans which is obviously silly)

So what is the difference between this special cell and other human cells ?

Answer: The DNA in the zygote has the codes "create a human" turned on.

This is pretty much all you have to work with.

Yes, as stated earlier, having these codes turned on means there is a potential for the creation of a human at some point in the future.

Fact: There is no proving that a living human exists "presently" on this basis of the DNA having these codes turned on.

All we can say is that there is a potential for the creation of a human in the future. This potential has yet to be realized but this potential exists.

BTW - I think there are interesting arguments that can be made from this point.... and of course interesting counters to those arguments.

How then do we value this potential is one path you could take.

Perhaps there are others .. but this is the starting point for rational debate.

 

The reason it is so hard to "wrap my brain around" your meaning is that your choice of language is atrocious.

Given the definition of purpose relates equally to the reason for which something is done (ie: motive), saying that the "purpose" of engaging in sex is reproduction is false if other motives more commonly apply.

Given that you are now agreeing that people engage in sex for purposes other than reproduction, please explain how the below quote...

...is anything other than false.

 

You obviously don't know the law. What about child support laws is antiquated, unjust and discriminatory?

prove to me you know what you are talking about. That your argument is based on facts.

Pregnancy itself doesn't effect the man. He is not involved in pregnancy.

His part in reproduction ends after ejaculating sperm into the woman's body.

The fact the woman has a birth control choice after he's done that is neither here nor there. He doesn't have any more repruductive choices.

No I'm not. A man is responsible for supporting his children. He cannot take anya ction to prevent his child being born if he has caused a pregnancy.

If a child does have three parents, then al three parents have to help support it.

Now go away and come back with some reputable sources for your claims and stop posting drivel..

 

the women has to pay child support if the man raises the child without her too

the only way both get out of paying child support is if they are BOTH dead beats, then neither has to pay, they can then force someone else to raise their child

if only one parent is a deadbeat, then they still have to pay child support, laws are weird, but they are what they are....


.

 

Think of it this way. Failed implantation when not directly caused by human action is not something we can change or affect. On the other hand, when it is caused by humans it is something we can directly affect. In my earlier example with a building or a plane, we could not do anything should the foundation of a building in construction be destroyed by a storm. We also could not do anything should a plane be destroyed in a storm while on the runway. We do know though what the end purpose of each is. One is to become an existing building and structure, the other is to become a flying plane. From what we can understand, out direct tampering (say blowing them up) ends either of them from achieving that purpose. What happens as a result of nature we cannot control or assuredly predict, thus we must assume that the end result shall be the natural purpose and function. That is, a fertilized zygote shall become a human, even if we do not consider it that at the moment.

It is the same reason we cannot say "I shall go an nuke this town because it is in the path of a hurricane, a tsunami, and it is on fire. Surely no one in it will survive anyway!". This really starts to fall into ethics. Do you refrain from nuking the town because there may be the slightest chance someone will survive, or do you nuke it for enjoyment because it shouldn't matter anyway? You must realize that even if they are already doomed, they will still died by your hands if you kill them, and it will still be your fault.

This isn't a question of potential survival, but potential death.

The cell is inherently unique in its DNA from all other human cells in existence. It also has those codes to go about the process of growing and forming into what you and I are today turned on. Therefore, we can say "It has the genetic material of a human being, it has the ability to grow and mature and will one day into what we are, it has unique genetic material that sets it apart from all other human cells."

I have provided the criteria that proves the zygote is alive (sorry for changing the goal posts there, but I believe all the things I said regarding a fetus still apply) and I have also provided for reasons as to why it is separate from all other human cells (hence why I am not committing murder when I scratch my arm). So my question to you is, why do you not consider this a human, and if you do not, what do you consider human? Why?

 

Well I can't say its that atrocious . The definition is rather versatile. In this instance I meant that the purpose of sex, in that meaning the reason is exists or has been created, is reproduction. You on the other hand are using purpose to refer to the reason it may be done, which can indeed be pleasure.

Thus "The logical end and purpose of sex is pregnancy." is correct, because reproduction is the reason sex exists. I don't think anyone can deny that. That said, "The purpose of sex for some is enjoyment." is also correct, since that is the reason some people do it, but that does not change what its reason for existing is (which is also the definition of purpose, so yeah).

 

These bloodthirsty abortionists would never kill their own child but they bray night and day for everyone else to.

 

What does IAF stand for? ISRAELI AIR FORCE????????????????

- - - Updated - - -

Could you quit babbling and show proof of your accusations?? You've been asked before? Afraid?

 

Treating women like helpless victims is antiquated thinking.

I never claimed that the man was involved in pregnancy other than as a sperm donor.

My claim is that he is not responsible for the consequences of a woman's decision to continue and unwanted pregnancy.

You can not seem to figure out what it is that you want to say.

Is a man responsible for the consequences of the woman's decision to continue the pregnancy or not ?



I said this:

You said:

Is the man responsible for the consequences of the woman's decision or not ?

 

I disagree laws are based on attempting to stop situations that are detrimental to society as a whole, the fact that they sometimes align with a moral perspective does not mean that that is the reason for their existence.

Murder for example creates a detrimental effect to society via installing fear, abortion does not effect society as a whole.

Her jogging is a factual or actual cause. I've already linked to the court process in this, it falls under "but for" .. the legal cause is the man or woman deciding to rape her it is the last factually and most significant event prior to the crime being committed, take away any of the previous factual events and that woman would not be raped in that situation.

The man could not have raped her if she were not jogging at that time in that place. .that is not to say she has any responsibility for the rape, it is simply a necessary factual event in order for the rape to happen.

The comparison you use is a fail as it does not include a third party that is causing injuries, a better comparison would be that the man who stands on the rails of his own accord is then stopped from getting out of the way of the train by a third party.
Consent to incur the risks of stepping onto the tracks pertains only to the danger incurred by one's own skill, or lack thereof, in stepping onto the tracks, but not to be stopped from stepping off the tracks by another person.

and as I have said a risk assumed does not mean consent is given to a third party to cause injuries. I can assume the risk to stand of the tracks, if I am hit then it is simply my lack of skill that has caused the injuries .. however if a third party stops me from stepping off the tracks then my skill becomes moot and the injuries caused are due to third party interference, which without my consent is illegal.

What you are implying is that if I invite someone into my house and they start to attack and injury me I cannot defend myself due to the risk I had placed myself in by inviting them in, which is absurd.

This still alludes to consent to sex = consent to pregnancy which it is not . .consent to one person for one action is not a proxy for consent to another person for another action, each person and each action must receive individual consent.

The law on self defense and the use of deadly force does not only require for the use of deadly force against the victim in order to be used.

Currently states recognize three contexts of when deadly force in self defence is justified;

1. when one is threatened with death
2. when one is threatened with a serious bodily injury (defined as damage or loss of use of an organ or limb for a protracted period of time, such as six weeks)
3. the invasion of one's liberty, such as in kidnaping, rape, or slavery

Pregnancy undergone against one's will is quite a violation, in medical terms, even a normal pregnancy is an extraordinary condition. Hormones may rise to 400 times their base levels. A woman's respiratory system drastically changes, causing a 40 percent increase in cardiac volume and a 15 percent increase in blood pressure. A new organ is grown in a woman's body, the placenta, and her entire circulatory system is rerouted in order to make her blood supply usable for the growing fetus. Given the quantity and quality of the effects of a fetus on a woman's body and liberty, if a woman does not consent, that fetus is massively harming her.

In fact there are already states that deem pregnancy as a literal injury - ""Nebraska, which defines “serious personal injury” as “great bodily injury or disfigurement, extreme mental anguish or mental trauma, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ.” Nebraska’s statute can be read as stating not simply that pregnancy is like a serious personal injury, but rather that pregnancy is a serious personal injury: pregnancy is an injury. Michigan’s statute does the same work, defining “personal injury” as “bodily injury, disfigurement, mental anguish, chronic pain, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ.” Case law establishing that pregnancy could be considered a “substantial bodily injury” that aggravates the sexual assault and increases the sentence imposed performs the same work as statutes that explicitly define pregnancy as a substantial bodily injury."

In those two states alone they are not saying that pregnancy is like an injury, they are stating it IS an injury.

The supreme court of California also disagrees with you on whether pregnancy is an injury -

People vs Cross On Appeal -

(1) Can a pregnancy without medical complications that results from unlawful but nonforcible sexual conduct with a minor support a finding of great bodily injury?

Holding(s):
(1) Yes, it can, and here evidence of the pregnancy was sufficient to support such a finding.

Issue 1:
Great bodily injury “means a significant or substantial physical injury.” This is a question of fact to be decided by the jury. In Sargent, the court found that the pregnancy itself that followed a rape, constituted a great bodily injury based on the severe intrusion into a woman’s body. In fact, none of the cases cited by the defendant suggested that medical complications or the use of force is required to support a finding of great bodily injury. Each of the cases instead acknowledges that a great bodily injury determination is to be made by the jury based on the facts as presented at trial in the context of the particular crime and the particular injuries suffered by the victim. Furthermore, Section 12022.7 does not make any such limitation. Therefore, the court rejects defendant’s argument here that a pregnancy without medical complications that results from nonforcible but unlawful intercourse can never support a finding of great bodily injury. Proof that a victim’s bodily injury is “great,” that is, significant or substantial within the meaning of section 12022.7, is commonly established by evidence of the severity of the victim’s physical injury, the resulting pain, or the medical care required to treat or repair the injury.

again you are missing the point, you being pinched does not require the use of deadly force in order to immediately cease the injury .. name a single thing, other than deadly force, that can stop the woman being injured immediately.

your attempt at projecting your assumptions onto me is noted, and ignored.

Is this person inside of me and using my resources in order to sustain their life without my consent?

I would hope so, along with the justified grounds of the fetus (as one person) injuring another person without their consent.

Sorry but in order for the proper explanations to be clear the length of the posts is required. I hope your TLDR didn't kick in on the link to the topic I gave you, if it did you must have missed numerous points.

 

If it smells like BS it usually is BS and this certainly smells of BS

 

Given that, were either "purpose" (pleasure or procreation) to be removed, sex would not exist - I believe both are equally necessary.

If sex did not enable procreation, clearly man would never have had more than one generation... But if sex were not pleasurable, he wouldn't have engaged in it beyond the first generation anyway.

 

Add to that-that just because something has a purpose does not obligate a person to fulfill that purpose

 

In some situations it does. and moral purpose obligates somebody to fullfill that purpose.

 

That is irrelevant with regards to what Mrlittlelawyer is trying to argue.