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

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[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...thepwninator

Not that I have any interest in that

>_>

yeah another reason someone will say it shouldn't be allowed...:cry: why do people fight things that would fix stuff...

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="thepwninator"] It is still another individual, albeit a relatively undeveloped one. It is not "her body"; it doesn't even fully share the same DNA.

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

thepwninator

[QUOTE="thepwninator"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
Given the advancements in medical technology, I doubt it won't be long before we are raising embryos to birth age in artificial uterine environments. We already are capable of sustaining very pre-maturely born infants as well as artificial insemination and early-stage development before uterine implantation.

It would be nice to finally end the debate. I would make a comment about the futility of the pro-choice argument but that would be expressing my stance, which I choose not to do in a thread about choice, not whether or not the choice is right.

observer77

Not that I have any interest in that

>_>

yeah another reason someone will say it shouldn't be allowed...:cry: why do people fight things that would fix stuff...

Hmmm...

You didn't hear that.

[QUOTE="thepwninator"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I never said that the fetus is a part of a pregnant woman's body. But it does use the woman's body for food and shelter, the same way that a visitor would use the owner's home for food and shelter. And if the woman or home owner decides to have that visitor leave, I feel as if the woman should have the right to carry out that decision.-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="observer77"]

[QUOTE="thepwninator"] It would also make it relatively easy to create a massive clone-based army.

Not that I have any interest in that

>_>

thepwninator

yeah another reason someone will say it shouldn't be allowed...:cry: why do people fight things that would fix stuff...

Hmmm...

You didn't hear that.

yey!!!! :lol::|I didn't hear it.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Valamil"]

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

thepwninator

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

His point was that, since they do not share the DNA, it is not part of her body. I was arguing against that.

Besides, it is irrelevant where the DNA comes from. Since it is growing in the mother, it is part of her body.

The mother should have no right to go through with an abortion without the fathers consent (and vice versa). Just because the baby is born from one persons body does not change the fact that it took two people to create it and that the baby one half of both parents. An anology to this would be, for example, if you and a freind both bought an xbox together with each person paying half, the freind whos house you keep the xbox at would have the right to destroy it with out the other freinds consent. That doesn't seem right to me. However, if the woman was raped or the father gives up parental rights, then it should be up to the mother to make the decision.

[QUOTE="thepwninator"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

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

chessmaster1989

His point was that, since they do not share the DNA, it is not part of her body. I was arguing against that.

Besides, it is irrelevant where the DNA comes from. Since it is growing in the mother, it is part of her body.

I don't think that women should be able to decide 100% if they want to get an abortion or not but it should be decided between the two of them. And if all else fails send it to court.

[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

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="thepwninator"] The DNA still came from the mother's body. In the case of an embryo, not all of the DNA did.thepwninator

His point was that, since they do not share the DNA, it is not part of her body. I was arguing against that.

Besides, it is irrelevant where the DNA comes from. Since it is growing in the mother, it is part of her body.

The fact, though, is that a fetus is not a parasite. It is a growth that the mother's body has facilitated and permitted, and is, therefore, part of her body.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="thepwninator"] However, that does not address my assertion that it is merely toying with the individual if you can make yourself fully aware of what he/she is going to do within your home, let him/her in, then arbitrarily force him/her out onto the streets with no shelter, no food, no water, etc.thepwninator

[QUOTE="thepwninator"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

His point was that, since they do not share the DNA, it is not part of her body. I was arguing against that.

Besides, it is irrelevant where the DNA comes from. Since it is growing in the mother, it is part of her body.

chessmaster1989

The fact, though, is that a fetus is not a parasite. It is a growth that the mother's body has facilitated and permitted, and is, therefore, part of her body.

[QUOTE="thepwninator"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Your assertion is a straw man though. I personally do not and would never condone abortion. I would never advise for someone to get an abortion, because I do believe that it is a waste of talent and life, and also for your reason of the mother basically "toying" with her child. But I still feel as if the decision to carry a child to term should be ultimately left up to the mother-to-be, rather than say, the government or to keep on-topic (if that's even possible anymore :P) to the father.

-Sun_Tzu-

Having unprotected, consensual sex is more like, IMO, simply inviting the visitor. The visitor may or may not come, but, if he does, you have no right to throw him out if you already knew exactly what he was going to do prior to the invitation.

I believe the man should have 50% of the choice. It was half his fault for the woman getting pregnant, after all. To make a baby, you need sperm and egg...not just the egg.

If the couple cannot come to an agreement, then a third party (i.e. a judge) needs to be involved to determine the capability of the couple. If both sides have the financial ability to support the child, then the party that wants the baby wins. If, however, one side does not have the financial ability to raise a child, then an abortion should be the settlement. Either that, or the side that is financially capable and wants the baby should incur 100% of the financial costs of raising the child.

I know of a few guys that had sex with a girl theyve only known for a few months, got her pregnant, and were guilted/forced into marriage because they had zero input on whether or not the baby would be kept.

Yes, people...there are women that desperate for marriage that they will do that.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="thepwninator"] How is it a straw man? I agree that the decision should be made by the mother-to-be and father, but it would not be unethical if the decision were made by deciding whether or not to use condoms. If the decision is made through abortion, I believe that it is unethical.thepwninator

Having unprotected, consensual sex is more like, IMO, simply inviting the visitor. The visitor may or may not come, but, if he does, you have no right to throw him out if you already knew exactly what he was going to do prior to the invitation.

[QUOTE="thepwninator"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I agree that it would be irresponsible and unethical perhaps to get an abortion when the pregnancy could of been avoided completely if the parents were to use a condom. But how the fetus came to be is in my opinion irrelevant. The fetus is there, and regardless if it got there because of rape or unsafe sex, the fetus is still going to be there. If I may "tweak" the home owner/visitor metaphor just a bit; say the home owner was irresponsible and left their door unlocked. They are inadvertently giving consent to an unwelcomed visitor to enter their home. Now, regardless of their responsibility vis-a-vis avoiding this whole situation from unfolding, shouldn't the home owner still have the right to evict the visitor from their home.-Sun_Tzu-

Having unprotected, consensual sex is more like, IMO, simply inviting the visitor. The visitor may or may not come, but, if he does, you have no right to throw him out if you already knew exactly what he was going to do prior to the invitation.

Not according to the law. /thread.

It's wrong either way, but it's the man's child, too.

Theokhoth

Not according to the law. /thread.

LJS9502_basic

not the guys place to say. he doesn;t have to have the baby and he shouldn't have been having sex with someone who didn't feel the same as him on the issue of a baby anyway.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Not according to the law. /thread.

Solid_Snake325

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake325"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Not according to the law. /thread.

not the guys place to say. he doesn;t have to have the baby

neither does she

and he shouldn't have been having sex with someone who didn't feel the same as him on the issue of a baby anyway.

neither should she

inyourface_12

you make it sound like the woman is innocent in this situation; she is not, she is equally at fault. Unfortunately, the decision rests entirely with her. At least when her 9 months is up she is good to go. A man, if they do not marry, has to carry that burden around for 18 damn years.

[QUOTE="inyourface_12"]

not the guys place to say. he doesn;t have to have the baby

neither does she

and he shouldn't have been having sex with someone who didn't feel the same as him on the issue of a baby anyway.

neither should she

mrbojangles25

you make it sound like the woman is innocent in this situation; she is not, she is equally at fault. Unfortunately, the decision rests entirely with her. At least when her 9 months is up she is good to go. A man, if they do not marry, has to carry that burden around for 18 damn years.

Not at all, unless we firure out how to put the fetus into him

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="inyourface_12"]

not the guys place to say. he doesn;t have to have the baby

neither does she

and he shouldn't have been having sex with someone who didn't feel the same as him on the issue of a baby anyway.

neither should she

LJS9502_basic

you make it sound like the woman is innocent in this situation; she is not, she is equally at fault. Unfortunately, the decision rests entirely with her. At least when her 9 months is up she is good to go. A man, if they do not marry, has to carry that burden around for 18 damn years.

yes, but the woman does not have a fixed figure to adhere to, the man does, and its usually quite high. A coworker of mine pays 30% of his income to child support.

Worse, the check can be used for anything, and a lot of times the child does not see much of the father's money since the woman is spending it on herself.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

you make it sound like the woman is innocent in this situation; she is not, she is equally at fault. Unfortunately, the decision rests entirely with her. At least when her 9 months is up she is good to go. A man, if they do not marry, has to carry that burden around for 18 damn years.

mrbojangles25

yes, but the woman does not have a fixed figure to adhere to, the man does, and its usually quite high. A coworker of mine pays 30% of his income to child support.

Worse, the check can be used for anything, and a lot of times the child does not see much of the father's money since the woman is spending it on herself.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You do know women have to support the child as well....so 18 years for both.:|

LJS9502_basic

yes, but the woman does not have a fixed figure to adhere to, the man does, and its usually quite high. A coworker of mine pays 30% of his income to child support.

Worse, the check can be used for anything, and a lot of times the child does not see much of the father's money since the woman is spending it on herself.

I know if it was my child I'd like to have a say, but in the end it's the woman's body, it's up to her.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

yes, but the woman does not have a fixed figure to adhere to, the man does, and its usually quite high. A coworker of mine pays 30% of his income to child support.

Worse, the check can be used for anything, and a lot of times the child does not see much of the father's money since the woman is spending it on herself.

thepwninator

I don't believe in abortions.

[QUOTE="thepwninator"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Two things to that. One is that if the man has the custody then yes she does. Two is the custodial parent spends more than 30% raising a child so the one paying support gets the easy end of it.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="thepwninator"] But the man paying support did not have any bearing on the decision for whether or not the child would come to existence and, therefore, had no choice on whether his money would be drained away from him or not.thepwninator

Yes.

The decision should be 100% up to the man.

[QUOTE="thepwninator"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Wrong. He had the choice to create the child.

LJS9502_basic

I don't think that the man should have a say in whether or not the woman has an abortion.

But just as the woman can choose to terminate a man's son or daughter, I think that men should be able to terminate their financial obligations to the children. Within the first two trimesters, we should allow men to say, "nope, I ain't supporting the kid". Then if the woman wants the kid, she can take care of it on her own. And if she isn't able to take care of a child, it's still within the time frame in which it's legal for her to get an abortion. If she can't take care of the kid on her own, then she ought to get an abortion.

However, this is only up to the third trimester. After that, the man must be legally obligated to provide child support. But before the third trimester, I think that men should be fully able to say "nope. I refuse to accept that kid, and I refuse to support it. If you want it, go ahead, but you'll be doing so without my help." And if the mother has a problem with that, and can't take care of a child by herself, then she can go get an abortion.

But as far as men actually having a say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion, of course not.

The law is flawed.thepwninator

Personally, I think the couple should discuss it thoroughly before making any decision. However, since it is the woman's body, the decision is ultimately up to her.

Ithink that the man should have at least a say.

I don't think that the man should have a say in whether or not the woman has an abortion.

But just as the woman can choose to terminate a man's son or daughter, I think that men should be able to terminate their financial obligations to the children. Within the first two trimesters, we should allow men to say, "nope, I ain't supporting the kid". Then if the woman wants the kid, she can take care of it on her own. And if she isn't able to take care of a child, it's still within the time frame in which it's legal for her to get an abortion. If she can't take care of the kid on her own, then she ought to get an abortion.

However, this is only up to the third trimester. After that, the man must be legally obligated to provide child support. But before the third trimester, I think that men should be fully able to say "nope. I refuse to accept that kid, and I refuse to support it. If you want it, go ahead, but you'll be doing so without my help." And if the mother has a problem with that, and can't take care of a child by herself, then she can go get an abortion.

But as far as men actually having a say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion, of course not.

MrGeezer

[QUOTE="thepwninator"]The law is flawed.LJS9502_basic

However, the law is not universally flawed, but there are definitely quite a few flaws lying within it.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

I don't think that the man should have a say in whether or not the woman has an abortion.

But just as the woman can choose to terminate a man's son or daughter, I think that men should be able to terminate their financial obligations to the children. Within the first two trimesters, we should allow men to say, "nope, I ain't supporting the kid". Then if the woman wants the kid, she can take care of it on her own. And if she isn't able to take care of a child, it's still within the time frame in which it's legal for her to get an abortion. If she can't take care of the kid on her own, then she ought to get an abortion.

However, this is only up to the third trimester. After that, the man must be legally obligated to provide child support. But before the third trimester, I think that men should be fully able to say "nope. I refuse to accept that kid, and I refuse to support it. If you want it, go ahead, but you'll be doing so without my help." And if the mother has a problem with that, and can't take care of a child by herself, then she can go get an abortion.

But as far as men actually having a say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion, of course not.

LJS9502_basic

No, his mom should support the kid by herself. Or get an abortion. She knew LONG before the kid was born that the father refused to help her out financially. That's plenty of time for her to have aborted the kid if she can't afford to take care of it by herself.