I am sorry if this idea of mine shocks anyone. I am trying to come up with a solution that would stop the cruel womanizing that leads to abortion. Would castrating men who desert pregnant women effectively end abortion (by a deterrent effect)? In conscience, I can't support the death penalty, so that is the strongest deterrent I can support.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Would it matter? It would make you feel better. And thats the real point, right?

No one is making the claim it is not human. But a zygote is not a person in the way that a newborn is a person. It doesnt think or feel.

The mere fact that the law is inconsistent on this issue at all should give people pause.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

S-S, as extreme as I've sometimes been, you don't seriously imagine that castrating anyone would make me "feel better"? I see it as a possible way of ending the social situations that lead to most abortions.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Sadist you are forcing a mother to have a baby, therfore you could be forcing a mother into depression, therefore your driving a mother to suicide. It isn't a choice to want to end your life.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

The most important word here is could. There is a 100% chance that a baby dies in abortion. I honestly think we should castrate men who desert pregnant women. Then no man would ever make a woman pregnant unless he intended to have a serious, stable relationship with her (most likely marriage). I would go even further, moreover. If a man makes a woman pregnant, he should be required to marry her if the woman wants him to. If she doesn't want to marry him, she should be entitled to 100% of his net worth. Castration should be the punishment for male non-compliance. In this way, there would be about 80% fewer abortions (only c. 20% of women who have abortions are married) without any further pain caused for women.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

By the way, here is a very important question I have about abortion:

http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=14739

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

I thought you were going to stop being sexist.

So this is your current system, your are stuck with a wife and baby you don't want or you have to give everything you own to the woman?

Ok lets say a girls says she's on the pill and she's not. If she gets pregnant does she get my money?

What if the mother dumps the child with me (the father) and then runs off . Does she get her ovaries removed? Can i force her down the isle?

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

Okay, you're right, H-P. I have "issues" because of the pain my mother went through when I was born. Forget what I posted. I'll just be 100% pro-life without attempting radical changes in society.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

I, quite honestly cannot think of a more profoundly ridiculous statement. To determine the viability of a human life based upon it's brain function is ludacris. At the fertilization of the egg in the mothers womb, that egg is as high functioning as any human on the planet. It is doing exactly what it's DNA is telling it to do, why does it suddenly become viable at the moment it develops nerve endings? Are we less beholding to it's safety because we can't hear it scream? Lost in all the science and the moral pontificating is the FACT the mother is never required to have the sexual act. If she so chooses, she again as I said is never required to provide care for the child, beyond the 9 month gestation period. This is life at it's very essence, we are simply discarding for convience.

__________________
Get on the Soap box at http://politicsforum.forumup.org/

This is my point about zygotes. They may well not have consciousness. That makes no difference. Consider this: Consciousness is merely a biological phenomenon. Accordingly, it is simply one of many stages of biological development. To state that it defines personhood is arbitrary. Personhood is defined by being genetically distinct and human. A zygote fits that description and so is as much a person as we are. We are just masses of cells. If one person may be killed, then all of us may. Killing takes away everything that a person can ever have. No matter what is done to someone, they still have their life unless they are killed. Ronald Reagan was wrong about many things, but he summed up the issue of abortion best when he said:

"Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born."

We may not, being safe in our own lives, arbitrarily decide whether the helpless should live or die without being logically inconsistent- and, of course, advocating murder knowingly or unknowingly. I believe that most pro-choice people do not understand what they are stating. They do not understand the pro-choice movement's meaning or its implication. In fact, on average, I find that pro-choice people are less likely than pro-life ones to be mean spirited, probably because of the unfortunate association between the pro-life movement and Fundamentalism. I, for one, would like to remove all religious rhetoric from the debate. Let us look at what is happening in abortion and realize that it is legalized murder, not because priests and ministers say so, but because science says so. The statement "Life begins at conception" is not an opinion but a fact. To support abortion, therefore, one must claim that one human life is more deserving of its existence than another. Who decides who is deserving of life and who isn't? What are the criteria? For any argument given that unborn children don't have a right to life, I could make an equally coherent argument that no one has the right to life. It is the right to life that makes all other rights possible, and one can't support any right for any person unless one opposes abortion from conception in all circumstances.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)