Do you think the father should have a choice whether a women has an abortion.

[QUOTE="thepwninator"] True, but there is an implicit consent by the mother through her engaging in unprotected sex (again, assuming it was willingly). If she didn't want a baby, she simply should've had her partner wear a condom.Vandalvideo

but most preganacies are accidents anyway because of (human error I know but still) contraception not performing correctly because of human error so does that mean she waved her rights because she made a mistake using her contraception?

I would like to be able to say the father would have an equal say, but he dosn't.There is no way to logically work this out or integrate it, as someone else in the thread has already said.

[QUOTE="thepwninator"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] No one has the right to use someone's body if that someone does not consent to their body being used by another person.

-Sun_Tzu-

If you have a dog that you refuse to spay simply because you don't want to have it spayed, and then it has pups, is it right to simply gas the young that you allowed to come into existence through negligence?

If the man doesn't get a say in whether the baby lives or dies, then he should have the choice as to whether he wants to pay child support or not.

If she has a choice whether or not to become a mother, why shouldn't he have a choice whether or not to become a father.

It is called responsibility. Valamil

but most preganacies are accidents anyway because of (human error I know but still) contraception not performing correctly because of human error so does that mean she waved her rights because she made a mistake using her contraception?observer77

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"] Your right, it has nothing to do with the mother either. Because I believe the child should have rights considering it is indeed human and an individual. (You may disagree but I'm not going to change your mind and your not going to chance mine.)Vandalvideo

I agree even if we all agreed to fetus was a person then we would be still advotcating that a human have control of another human right?

Not sure if I agree with the second row there. The "sperm donor" only experiences a few hours of "discomfort"... tops. While the woman experiences 9 months of it... minimum.

But I hear ya on the third line (which is probably the most important one). It doesn't sound perfectly fair, but at least the guy doesn't have to worry about the girl running away after 5-8 months, leaving him with the baby that hasn't been born yet...

Hungry_bunny

[QUOTE="observer77"]but most preganacies are accidents anyway because of (human error I know but still) contraception not performing correctly because of human error so does that mean she waved her rights because she made a mistake using her contraception?Vandalvideo

hmmm well then the question of how do you know which couples have not used at all while athers had a mistake happen while using contraception? we can't so how do we prove who has wavered that right, we can't. IMO

If she loves him and respects his opinion, but ultimately it is the woman's decision.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="thepwninator"] She gave her consent by engaging in unprotected sex (assuming it was willingly). The embryo, fetus, baby, whatever you want to call it, has as much a right to life as you or me. It may not be a developed individual yet, but neither are newborns. Why, then, is it fully acceptable in most circles to have an abortion? Because the life (again, embryo, fetus, baby-whatever you want to call it) that is to be oppressed is voiceless. It cannot defend itself.thepwninator

If you have a dog that you refuse to spay simply because you don't want to have it spayed, and then it has pups, is it right to simply gas the young that you allowed to come into existence through negligence?

hmmm well then the question of how do you know which couples have not used at all while athers had a mistake happen while using contraception? we can't so how do we prove who has wavered that right, we can't. IMOobserver77

[QUOTE="thepwninator"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] How the fetus came to be is irrelevant. If the woman does not want to carry the child to term that is her decision. Even if there is a right to life, the right to make decisions about one's own body supersedes the former right.-Sun_Tzu-

If you have a dog that you refuse to spay simply because you don't want to have it spayed, and then it has pups, is it right to simply gas the young that you allowed to come into existence through negligence?

If she loves him and respects his opinion, but ultimately it is the woman's decision.

Cactus_Matt

yeah you would think that people would discuss things like this before ever having sex to make things easier at least I know that's what I did and me and my partner know what we would do if we got pregnant and we know that we share the same feelings towards things communication between people in relationships is going down hill I think.

[QUOTE="Valamil"]It is called responsibility. -Sun_Tzu-

I fail to understand why you keep referring to the unborn as "her body."

[QUOTE="Paladin_King"]Again, how would this "choice" be practically applied?

I agree with you, but I just don't see how this could be enforced. One side gets the final say, and that final say, through its very nature, is 100% of the say. The problem also is that while it's 50% in all the things you listed, it certainly isn't 50% in the actual pregnancy and delivery process, which is what tips it in the woman's favour, imo, which GIVES her the final say. Don't get me wrong, I know where you're coming from...it's just that it's impossible.

foxhound_fox

It was kind of inevitable with this kind of touhy subject:P .

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Valamil"]It is called responsibility. Valamil

I fail to understand why you keep referring to the unborn as "her body."

biologically the "unborn" is part of her body.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="Paladin_King"]Again, how would this "choice" be practically applied?

I agree with you, but I just don't see how this could be enforced. One side gets the final say, and that final say, through its very nature, is 100% of the say. The problem also is that while it's 50% in all the things you listed, it certainly isn't 50% in the actual pregnancy and delivery process, which is what tips it in the woman's favour, imo, which GIVES her the final say. Don't get me wrong, I know where you're coming from...it's just that it's impossible.

Mercenary848

It was kind of inevitable with this kind of touhy subject:P .

[QUOTE="Valamil"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Responsibility does not supersede individual liberty. It might not be responsible, or moral for that matter, for someone to buy an assortment of guns and leave them someplace where a child has easy access to said guns, but the person who purchased said guns still has the right to purchase firearms. The same is true vis-a-vis abortion. The woman may be careless and irresponsible, but they still have the liberty to determine what goes on with their own body.

observer77

I fail to understand why you keep referring to the unborn as "her body."

biologically the "unborn" is part of her body.

That is incorrect. In some cases a woman's body will treat the unborn as a parasite and attempt to remove it.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="Paladin_King"]Again, how would this "choice" be practically applied?

I agree with you, but I just don't see how this could be enforced. One side gets the final say, and that final say, through its very nature, is 100% of the say. The problem also is that while it's 50% in all the things you listed, it certainly isn't 50% in the actual pregnancy and delivery process, which is what tips it in the woman's favour, imo, which GIVES her the final say. Don't get me wrong, I know where you're coming from...it's just that it's impossible.

Mercenary848

I don't see everyone talkign in those terms some of us are tryingto simply think of ways to make it more of a reasonable for the father to have a say. no luck though :(

It was kind of inevitable with this kind of touhy subject:P .Mercenary848

[QUOTE="observer77"]

[QUOTE="Valamil"]

I fail to understand why you keep referring to the unborn as "her body."

Valamil

biologically the "unborn" is part of her body.

That is incorrect. In some cases a woman's body will treat the unborn as a parasite and attempt to remove it.

That does not mean it is not a part of her body. In persons who have Type I Diabetes, the immune system attacks and kills roughly 80-90% of the body's beta-cells (which are responsible for the manufacturing of insulin). Does this mean these beta-cells are not part of the body? Of course not.

[QUOTE="observer77"]

[QUOTE="Valamil"]

I fail to understand why you keep referring to the unborn as "her body."

Valamil

biologically the "unborn" is part of her body.

That is incorrect. In some cases a woman's body will treat the unborn as a parasite and attempt to remove it.

exactly "in some cases"( which is rare) but in the majority it is not seen as a parasite but apart of the womens body therefore not wrong.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Valamil"]It is called responsibility. Valamil

I fail to understand why you keep referring to the unborn as "her body."

This is like a broken record but I don't mind playing it. I am not arguing For or Against abortion. It is legal in the USA and as far as I know, most countries. I accept that and do not believe that we should waste time (politically) trying to reverse Roe v. Wade. I am only saying that people should see things logically, for what they are, and without emotion.

Arguing that it is okay because it is a woman's body is simply illogical. They unborn is Not her body.

Arguing that it is okay because the unborn relies on the mother without her consent is illogical, as I stated with the breast-feeding analogy.

Abortion is okay because we made it legal. Some studies have shown that it has quite possibly been beneficial, which I will not argue with. All I am saying is, don't confuse yourself.

[QUOTE="Mercenary848"]It was kind of inevitable with this kind of touhy subject:P .foxhound_fox

yeah I wish science would come up with some kind of outside women wombs of sort to hold the conceived child so neither had a 100% say and they could be on a more even playing feild as to who wants or will keep the child. if only...

Regardless, the act of sex itself is 50/50 on both sides. Both partners have equal responsibility about being safe and protecting themselves and equal contributions to the creation of the child. As for the pregnancy, ask many mothers and they will tell you that all the pain was worth it to bring a life into the world. I personally would like to be able to experience that side of the fence... but am stuck on the male side unfortunately. Though, there are merits to being there for the woman while she is pregnant.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="Mercenary848"]It was kind of inevitable with this kind of touhy subject:P .observer77

yeah I wish science would come up with some kind of outside women wombs of sort to old the conceived child so neither had a 100% say and they could be on a more even playing feild as to who wants or will keep the child. if only...

[QUOTE="Valamil"]

[QUOTE="observer77"]

biologically the "unborn" is part of her body.

observer77

That is incorrect. In some cases a woman's body will treat the unborn as a parasite and attempt to remove it.

exactly "in some cases"( which is rare) but in the majority it is not seen as a parasite but apart of the womens body therefore not wrong.

Okay you guys have all the answers! NOT! Ha ha. Irrefutably, the unborn does not share the same DNA as its mother. Therefore, it is NOT part of her body. The end! :D

[QUOTE="thepwninator"] Should we knowingly toy with the lives of others?-Sun_Tzu-

And I thought we were talking about the rights of the owner over the visitor, not the home itself?

No, it's her choice, and no one else's.

[QUOTE="observer77"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
Still, the topic wasn't about that part of abortion, but the responsibility and choice that comes with being the mother and father. I have yet to state my stance on the issue and see no need to. The argument is about whether or not it should be up to the father as well, not whether or not its right.

thepwninator

yeah I wish science would come up with some kind of outside women wombs of sort to old the conceived child so neither had a 100% say and they could be on a more even playing feild as to who wants or will keep the child. if only...

yeah there would be no need for abortions and the fight would be over!!! yey no more silly arguements that separates everyone...but we would never be allowed to experiement with it because when it came to doing it to human fetus people would get into the way and then it would fail...I can already imagine the fights after that...

[QUOTE="observer77"]

[QUOTE="Valamil"]

That is incorrect. In some cases a woman's body will treat the unborn as a parasite and attempt to remove it.

Valamil

exactly "in some cases"( which is rare) but in the majority it is not seen as a parasite but apart of the womens body therefore not wrong.

Okay you guys have all the answers! NOT! Ha ha. Irrefutably, the unborn does not share the same DNA as its mother. Therefore, it is NOT part of her body. The end! :D

So, are somatic cells with DNA that mutated from the original DNA during DNA replication not part of the mother's body?

Abortion is okay because we made it legal. Some studies have shown that it has quite possibly been beneficial, which I will not argue with. All I am saying is, don't confuse yourself.

Valamil

[QUOTE="observer77"]

[QUOTE="Valamil"]

That is incorrect. In some cases a woman's body will treat the unborn as a parasite and attempt to remove it.

Valamil

exactly "in some cases"( which is rare) but in the majority it is not seen as a parasite but apart of the womens body therefore not wrong.

Okay you guys have all the answers! NOT! Ha ha. Irrefutably, the unborn does not share the same DNA as its mother. Therefore, it is NOT part of her body. The end! :D

your right the child isa parasite and should therefore be rid of to save the mother form it.:lol:

[QUOTE="Valamil"]

[QUOTE="observer77"]

exactly "in some cases"( which is rare) but in the majority it is not seen as a parasite but apart of the womens body therefore not wrong.

chessmaster1989

Okay you guys have all the answers! NOT! Ha ha. Irrefutably, the unborn does not share the same DNA as its mother. Therefore, it is NOT part of her body. The end! :D

So, are somatic cells with DNA that mutated from the original DNA during DNA replication not part of the mother's body?

yeah I wish science would come up with some kind of outside women wombs of sort to hold the conceived child so neither had a 100% say and they could be on a more even playing feild as to who wants or will keep the child. if only...observer77

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="thepwninator"] Should we knowingly toy with the lives of others?thepwninator

And I thought we were talking about the rights of the owner over the visitor, not the home itself?

[QUOTE="observer77"]yeah I wish science would come up with some kind of outside women wombs of sort to hold the conceived child so neither had a 100% say and they could be on a more even playing feild as to who wants or will keep the child. if only...foxhound_fox

Not that I have any interest in that

>_>

[QUOTE="observer77"]yeah I wish science would come up with some kind of outside women wombs of sort to hold the conceived child so neither had a 100% say and they could be on a more even playing feild as to who wants or will keep the child. if only...foxhound_fox

yeah but like I said earlier it would still lead into some dibate about if it was right to have children in sacks, and that it is not natural and is therefore wrong and it would fail...IMO but if only right.

[QUOTE="thepwninator"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] That's a straw man. Toying with others has nothing to do with the authority to make decisions about one's own body, or to keep to the metaphor, one's own home. -Sun_Tzu-

And I thought we were talking about the rights of the owner over the visitor, not the home itself?