Naturally, I completely disagree with that statement
Sex creates, possibly, a zygote. A child is something that comes much farther along the process. The whole point of this thread is to discuss the rights of opting out BEFORE the zygote has become a child. If you believe the zygote is already a child with a full set of rights, you are pro-life, and obviously are going to disagree with virtually everything in this thread.
Not being overly familiar with the ins and outs of the 'pro-life' / 'anti-life'? debate in the US (we simply don't have the debate here) I would rather not commit myself to one side or the other as I do not know the whole of what that would entail.
I do however believe that a zygote is simply a stage in the life of a human - and if you want to consider everything before adulthood to be childhood, then yes, a child too.
I don't neccessarily disagree with everything in the thread; I just find that the whole topic is actually generated because of the arbitrary decision that has been made to delay the start point of 'Duty of Care' for the mother until some point after conception, while not making the same change for a male. Some would suggest I suppose that the males 'Duty of Care' begins at birth but I think the argument for that is somewhat weak.
The other premise that this argument is made on is that equality is a human right or a democratic right. For a start, this premise perpetuates the case where to right something that is wrong, make something else wrong. Even assuming that the premise is accepted, in this case, where equality is demonstrably impossible (strangely enough males and female are physically different) the argument seems to assume that equivalency is a good substitute. The problem with this is that equivalency is based on perceived value. Perceptions of value change over time and between different people (as can be seen amongst the comments in this group), leading to a situation where it impossible for all to agree that equivalency has been achieved.
I do not think that because women have the right to absolve themselves of their 'Duty of Care' to their child (or, if you prefer, to the human who will become their child) before some arbitrary point, that this justifies in any way that men should be given the same right.
In the name of "equal rights" and "fairness," advocates would agree to this further limiting of a woman's right to choose. I don't.
It doesn't.
I think part of the issue here is that there are factors other than simply 'legal right' acting to influence a persons 'choice'.
I think, that to make this more 'equivalent'*, that the women should also be given the right to 'opt-out' in the same fashion as the man - not requiring an abortion.
On the birth of the child, the responsiblity for the child would then lie wholly with the father. This is the situation being proposed for women, so it should transfer 'equivalently' to men.
*For the sake of argument, lets assume equivalence has some value.
You keep ignoring the fact that an abortion is a woman's right over a fetus and opting out would be a man's right over a human being. Quit ignoring this fact please.
You keep ignoring the fact that at the time the man can optout in this discussion, it is a fetus not a child. By your line of reasoning, given that death is the biological outcome of all life, all of us on this bulletin board are dead.
On the birth of the child, the responsiblity for the child would then lie wholly with the father. This is the situation being proposed for women, so it should transfer 'equivalently' to men.
[/B]
In this case, and assuming the father has opted out as well, we have adoption. I don't see the problem with this, or how it affects the discussion of giving men the right to opt out.
However they can have a right not to choose to parent which is what abortion is about.
It's more than that.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Incorrect. I am comparing a fetus to a fetus. You've already had this explained to you. What it becomes later is of no concern.
Sorry, but I have to say this louder than usual since I'm repeating myself. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT WANTS THE OPT-OUT STATUS TO EXTEND FROM THE FETUS STAGE INTO THE HUMAN STAGE. STOP ASKING FOR THIS AND YOU'LL STOP GETTING A DISAGREEMENT. UNTIL THEN YOU ARE COMPARING AN ABORTION TO SOMETHING THAT'S NOT EQUIVALENT TO AN ABORTION.
Sorry to everyone for yelling.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
A woman does have 100% control in case you hadn't noticed. She alone will determine if the child will live, be born and become human with rights.
That's because it's her body, not someone else. No one else should have any control at this point.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Likewise her parental rights are automatically granted while that is not the case for the father. You are correct that it is not right, but that is the way it is both from biology and from the law. If you care to suggest an alternative that also gives the father some say, I am more than happy to listen to alternatives.
The father has some say but you're just worried because a woman has to name the father if there's no paternity test. You've got the test though, and with that the power.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
As for the second part, as I mentioned earlier, the Constitution does not guarantee a baby two caring, loving parents nor even a certain level of financial support provided by a man.
Are you saying that because a strict reading of the Constitution doesn't allow abortion, it should be abolished?
Or are you saying that because a strict reading of the Constitution doesn't give a man any control of a kid, a father shouldn't get any?
You keep ignoring the fact that at the time the man can optout in this discussion, it is a fetus not a child.
No, no, no.
A man is not opting out of the care of the fetus. I've asked trumptman to change his argument to this many times and he won't consider it.
The argument is for the opt-out of the care of a human. That's the whole argument. If a woman could abort an infant, then the opt-out of care of a human would be a more compelling argument.
A man is not opting out of the care of the fetus. I've asked trumptman to change his argument to this many times and he won't consider it.
The argument is for the opt-out of the care of a human. That's the whole argument. If a woman could abort an infant, then the opt-out of care of a human would be a more compelling argument.
This kind of opting out should only be available to men while women can opt-out of the care of the same human by aborting it before it becomes one.
Sorry, but I have to say this louder than usual since I'm repeating myself. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT WANTS THE OPT-OUT STATUS TO EXTEND FROM THE FETUS STAGE INTO THE HUMAN STAGE. STOP ASKING FOR THIS AND YOU'LL STOP GETTING A DISAGREEMENT. UNTIL THEN YOU ARE COMPARING AN ABORTION TO SOMETHING THAT'S NOT EQUIVALENT TO AN ABORTION.
Sorry to everyone for yelling.
(Covering ears) As others have mentioned there is just some word play here. The fact that it becomes a human child later is of no, repeat NO (look I'm yelling too ) consequence. A human child is not guaranteed a father by the Constitution. If a woman wants a guarantee of a legal partner with whom to parent, then she can wait until she is married, abort in the meantime, or hope he commits to the fetus when he hasn't even committed to her.
Quote:
That's because it's her body, not someone else. No one else should have any control at this point.
Likewise her control shoulddn't extend BEYOND her body to his in committing him to parenting. You haven't ever addressed why a man should be forced to parent against his will.
Quote:
The father has some say but you're just worried because a woman has to name the father if there's no paternity test. You've got the test though, and with that the power.
Only if you can pay for the test. (And they are pretty expensive from what I hear, several hundred dollars) She has the full power of the state behind her. He has whatever is in his wallet. (including lint)
Quote:
Are you saying that because a strict reading of the Constitution doesn't allow abortion, it should be abolished?
Or are you saying that because a strict reading of the Constitution doesn't give a man any control of a kid, a father shouldn't get any?
No I am sayin the right to privacy does not guarantee a newborn child a certain type of family. It does not guarantee that he will have two loving, involved, caring parents nor even one. It doesn't give that child a certain amount of financial funding or anything else.
None of those are rights that are articulated in the Constitution. I mention them because people have found the right to privacy in the Constitution and used it to justify abortion.
That is fine, but they then slippery-slope it into parental care and financial support. Those aren't included in the right to privacy. They have nothing to do with each other. When it is a human child, born into the world. We must consider the rights it has. As I mentioned the Constitution has not guaranteed it any sort of rights with regard to two parents, financial status or things of that nature. However the right to privacy and abortion is not the right to two parents and a certain lifestyle. That is why people have been chastizing you about the word play. One is guaranteed, the other is not.
Which has been the argument all along from what I've read. Bunge is just playing stupid word games and trying to be dense.
No, it's not word games. I think it's just you guys that are being dense. You want something badly enough to ignore logic. I have no urge to save planned parenthood or whatever else.
Are you guys willing to give a mother the option to opt-out after birthing the kid and stick the father with a child? No. That's not abortion either.
And for the last time, this is BEFORE birth. While she's pregnant. NOT AFTER BIRTH. This is the tenth time this has been explained. Catch up.
No, it's not BEFORE BIRTH. You're asking for a father to be able to opt-out of his post birth responsibilities, are you not? When it's granted isn't what I'm arguing against. What's granted is what I'm arguing against.
Are you guys willing to give a mother the option to opt-out after birthing the kid and stick the father with a child?
Are you guys willing to give a mother the option to opt-out after birthing the kid and stick the father with a child? No. That's not abortion either.
The point is this opt out period goes on during the time when BOTH PARTIES can do so. If you don't think that abortion is a method of opting out for caring for a child, you are a <expletive deleted>. Second, a male opting out during the time when a woman can abort still does not mean she is forced to have an abortion. It is just one option of many which are available to the woman. There still is adoption and abandonment.
The point is that the official papers must be signed three weeks before the latest date possible to abort the child in the second trimester. This gives the woman plenty of time to evaluate her options.
Of course, the woman doesn't even have to tell the man she is pregnant, wait seven years, then tell the courts and the man has to pay back-child support. Yes, you heard me correctly. This kind of shit goes on every day.
No, it's not BEFORE BIRTH. You're asking for a father to be able to opt-out of his post birth responsibilities, are you not? When it's granted isn't what I'm arguing against. What's granted is what I'm arguing against.
Are you guys willing to give a mother the option to opt-out after birthing the kid and stick the father with a child?
I don't think you are reading all the posts. Someone clearly said that as long as the father could choose to put it up for adoption, uncontested, as the mother could then sure.
I didn't hear anyone speak up again this option. It is assumed that the reverse is true as well. That if a father gave up his parental rights, that the mother could, uncontested, give the child up for adoption.
Comments
Originally posted by james808
Naturally, I completely disagree with that statement
Sex creates, possibly, a zygote. A child is something that comes much farther along the process. The whole point of this thread is to discuss the rights of opting out BEFORE the zygote has become a child. If you believe the zygote is already a child with a full set of rights, you are pro-life, and obviously are going to disagree with virtually everything in this thread.
Not being overly familiar with the ins and outs of the 'pro-life' / 'anti-life'? debate in the US (we simply don't have the debate here) I would rather not commit myself to one side or the other as I do not know the whole of what that would entail.
I do however believe that a zygote is simply a stage in the life of a human - and if you want to consider everything before adulthood to be childhood, then yes, a child too.
I don't neccessarily disagree with everything in the thread; I just find that the whole topic is actually generated because of the arbitrary decision that has been made to delay the start point of 'Duty of Care' for the mother until some point after conception, while not making the same change for a male. Some would suggest I suppose that the males 'Duty of Care' begins at birth but I think the argument for that is somewhat weak.
The other premise that this argument is made on is that equality is a human right or a democratic right. For a start, this premise perpetuates the case where to right something that is wrong, make something else wrong. Even assuming that the premise is accepted, in this case, where equality is demonstrably impossible (strangely enough males and female are physically different) the argument seems to assume that equivalency is a good substitute. The problem with this is that equivalency is based on perceived value. Perceptions of value change over time and between different people (as can be seen amongst the comments in this group), leading to a situation where it impossible for all to agree that equivalency has been achieved.
I do not think that because women have the right to absolve themselves of their 'Duty of Care' to their child (or, if you prefer, to the human who will become their child) before some arbitrary point, that this justifies in any way that men should be given the same right.
In the name of "equal rights" and "fairness," advocates would agree to this further limiting of a woman's right to choose. I don't.
It doesn't.
I think part of the issue here is that there are factors other than simply 'legal right' acting to influence a persons 'choice'.
I think, that to make this more 'equivalent'*, that the women should also be given the right to 'opt-out' in the same fashion as the man - not requiring an abortion.
On the birth of the child, the responsiblity for the child would then lie wholly with the father. This is the situation being proposed for women, so it should transfer 'equivalently' to men.
*For the sake of argument, lets assume equivalence has some value.
Originally posted by bunge
You keep ignoring the fact that an abortion is a woman's right over a fetus and opting out would be a man's right over a human being. Quit ignoring this fact please.
You keep ignoring the fact that at the time the man can optout in this discussion, it is a fetus not a child. By your line of reasoning, given that death is the biological outcome of all life, all of us on this bulletin board are dead.
Originally posted by Stecs
On the birth of the child, the responsiblity for the child would then lie wholly with the father. This is the situation being proposed for women, so it should transfer 'equivalently' to men.
[/B]
In this case, and assuming the father has opted out as well, we have adoption. I don't see the problem with this, or how it affects the discussion of giving men the right to opt out.
Originally posted by trumptman
However they can have a right not to choose to parent which is what abortion is about.
It's more than that.
Originally posted by trumptman
Incorrect. I am comparing a fetus to a fetus. You've already had this explained to you. What it becomes later is of no concern.
Sorry, but I have to say this louder than usual since I'm repeating myself. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT WANTS THE OPT-OUT STATUS TO EXTEND FROM THE FETUS STAGE INTO THE HUMAN STAGE. STOP ASKING FOR THIS AND YOU'LL STOP GETTING A DISAGREEMENT. UNTIL THEN YOU ARE COMPARING AN ABORTION TO SOMETHING THAT'S NOT EQUIVALENT TO AN ABORTION.
Sorry to everyone for yelling.
Originally posted by trumptman
A woman does have 100% control in case you hadn't noticed. She alone will determine if the child will live, be born and become human with rights.
That's because it's her body, not someone else. No one else should have any control at this point.
Originally posted by trumptman
Likewise her parental rights are automatically granted while that is not the case for the father. You are correct that it is not right, but that is the way it is both from biology and from the law. If you care to suggest an alternative that also gives the father some say, I am more than happy to listen to alternatives.
The father has some say but you're just worried because a woman has to name the father if there's no paternity test. You've got the test though, and with that the power.
Originally posted by trumptman
As for the second part, as I mentioned earlier, the Constitution does not guarantee a baby two caring, loving parents nor even a certain level of financial support provided by a man.
Are you saying that because a strict reading of the Constitution doesn't allow abortion, it should be abolished?
Or are you saying that because a strict reading of the Constitution doesn't give a man any control of a kid, a father shouldn't get any?
Originally posted by james808
You keep ignoring the fact that at the time the man can optout in this discussion, it is a fetus not a child.
No, no, no.
A man is not opting out of the care of the fetus. I've asked trumptman to change his argument to this many times and he won't consider it.
The argument is for the opt-out of the care of a human. That's the whole argument. If a woman could abort an infant, then the opt-out of care of a human would be a more compelling argument.
Originally posted by bunge
No, no, no.
A man is not opting out of the care of the fetus. I've asked trumptman to change his argument to this many times and he won't consider it.
The argument is for the opt-out of the care of a human. That's the whole argument. If a woman could abort an infant, then the opt-out of care of a human would be a more compelling argument.
This kind of opting out should only be available to men while women can opt-out of the care of the same human by aborting it before it becomes one.
This kind of opting out should only be available to men while women can opt-out of the care of the same human by aborting it before it becomes one.
Which has been the argument all along from what I've read. Bunge is just playing stupid word games and trying to be dense.
Originally posted by bunge
It's more than that.
Sorry, but I have to say this louder than usual since I'm repeating myself. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT WANTS THE OPT-OUT STATUS TO EXTEND FROM THE FETUS STAGE INTO THE HUMAN STAGE. STOP ASKING FOR THIS AND YOU'LL STOP GETTING A DISAGREEMENT. UNTIL THEN YOU ARE COMPARING AN ABORTION TO SOMETHING THAT'S NOT EQUIVALENT TO AN ABORTION.
Sorry to everyone for yelling.
(Covering ears)
That's because it's her body, not someone else. No one else should have any control at this point.
Likewise her control shoulddn't extend BEYOND her body to his in committing him to parenting. You haven't ever addressed why a man should be forced to parent against his will.
The father has some say but you're just worried because a woman has to name the father if there's no paternity test. You've got the test though, and with that the power.
Only if you can pay for the test. (And they are pretty expensive from what I hear, several hundred dollars) She has the full power of the state behind her. He has whatever is in his wallet. (including lint)
Are you saying that because a strict reading of the Constitution doesn't allow abortion, it should be abolished?
Or are you saying that because a strict reading of the Constitution doesn't give a man any control of a kid, a father shouldn't get any?
No I am sayin the right to privacy does not guarantee a newborn child a certain type of family. It does not guarantee that he will have two loving, involved, caring parents nor even one. It doesn't give that child a certain amount of financial funding or anything else.
None of those are rights that are articulated in the Constitution. I mention them because people have found the right to privacy in the Constitution and used it to justify abortion.
That is fine, but they then slippery-slope it into parental care and financial support. Those aren't included in the right to privacy. They have nothing to do with each other. When it is a human child, born into the world. We must consider the rights it has. As I mentioned the Constitution has not guaranteed it any sort of rights with regard to two parents, financial status or things of that nature. However the right to privacy and abortion is not the right to two parents and a certain lifestyle. That is why people have been chastizing you about the word play. One is guaranteed, the other is not.
Nick
Originally posted by Longhorn
Which has been the argument all along from what I've read. Bunge is just playing stupid word games and trying to be dense.
No, it's not word games. I think it's just you guys that are being dense. You want something badly enough to ignore logic. I have no urge to save planned parenthood or whatever else.
Are you guys willing to give a mother the option to opt-out after birthing the kid and stick the father with a child? No. That's not abortion either.
Are you guys willing to give a mother the option to opt-out after birthing the kid and stick the father with a child? No.
Adoption.
And for the last time, this is BEFORE birth. While she's pregnant. NOT AFTER BIRTH. This is the tenth time this has been explained. Catch up.
Before birth she has abortion as an option as well. Again, not stuck with child unless she wants to be.
Originally posted by Longhorn
Adoption.
And for the last time, this is BEFORE birth. While she's pregnant. NOT AFTER BIRTH. This is the tenth time this has been explained. Catch up.
No, it's not BEFORE BIRTH. You're asking for a father to be able to opt-out of his post birth responsibilities, are you not? When it's granted isn't what I'm arguing against. What's granted is what I'm arguing against.
Are you guys willing to give a mother the option to opt-out after birthing the kid and stick the father with a child?
Originally posted by bunge
Are you guys willing to give a mother the option to opt-out after birthing the kid and stick the father with a child? No. That's not abortion either.
The point is this opt out period goes on during the time when BOTH PARTIES can do so. If you don't think that abortion is a method of opting out for caring for a child, you are a <expletive deleted>. Second, a male opting out during the time when a woman can abort still does not mean she is forced to have an abortion. It is just one option of many which are available to the woman. There still is adoption and abandonment.
The point is that the official papers must be signed three weeks before the latest date possible to abort the child in the second trimester. This gives the woman plenty of time to evaluate her options.
Of course, the woman doesn't even have to tell the man she is pregnant, wait seven years, then tell the courts and the man has to pay back-child support. Yes, you heard me correctly. This kind of shit goes on every day.
Originally posted by bunge
Are you guys willing to give a mother the option to opt-out after birthing the kid and stick the father with a child?
Why did she take the birth to completion, if she didn't want the child in the first place?
Originally posted by Randycat99
Why did she take the birth to completion, if she didn't want the child in the first place?
Some do so as a career choice. She gets a steady paycheck for 18 years.
Actually, my post wasn't aimed at your post, BR. I put the proper quote in there after I discovered you had posted ahead of me and after Bunge.
Originally posted by bunge
No, it's not BEFORE BIRTH. You're asking for a father to be able to opt-out of his post birth responsibilities, are you not? When it's granted isn't what I'm arguing against. What's granted is what I'm arguing against.
Are you guys willing to give a mother the option to opt-out after birthing the kid and stick the father with a child?
I don't think you are reading all the posts. Someone clearly said that as long as the father could choose to put it up for adoption, uncontested, as the mother could then sure.
I didn't hear anyone speak up again this option. It is assumed that the reverse is true as well. That if a father gave up his parental rights, that the mother could, uncontested, give the child up for adoption.
Nick
Originally posted by Randycat99
Awww, don't pout, lil bunge.
What on earth are you talking about?