You're adding additional contexts to confuse the issue.
It's very simply. You opt-out within a specified grace period, you are severing further physical and legal responsibility of the baby. The remaining partner can reevaluate her own plans in response, or simply proceed with the birth soley under her own liability. Same thing as an abortion/adoption/consumation for the mother.
How abandoning a living human being is the same as an abortion. They're not the same. Explain how they are.
Careful bunge, you're letting your pro-life tendencies show.
When it is unborn, it isn't a baby. It is a fetus. You can't abandon a fetus anymore than you can kill it or else abortion would be murder. The father is abandoning a lump of cells. What the mother chooses to do after that is her own business, including getting an abortion.
It's very simply. You opt-out within a specified grace period, you are severing further physical and legal responsibility of the baby. The remaining partner can reevaluate her own plans in response, or simply proceed with the birth soley under her own liability. Same thing as an abortion/adoption/consumation for the mother.
That's not what you're arguing for. You're arguing for the right to opt-out of a child's life. If you want to argue that a man should be able to opt-out of a feteus' life, but is responsible again when the human child is born, go for it. I guess I can handle that one.
But what you're arguing for is opting out of responsibility of a human. That's different.
Opt-out of the responsibilities of a fetus is fine with me. But that's not what you mean or what you're saying. You are arguing for opting out of the fetus & human stages of life.
That's not what you're arguing for. You're arguing for the right to opt-out of a child's life. If you want to argue that a man should be able to opt-out of a feteus' life, but is responsible again when the human child is born, go for it. I guess I can handle that one.
But what you're arguing for is opting out of responsibility of a human. That's different.
Opt-out of the responsibilities of a fetus is fine with me. But that's not what you mean or what you're saying. You are arguing for opting out of the fetus & human stages of life.
You are being hypocritical. We can only argue about what it is at the time and the decisions made then. If we were allowed to argue what it would become later, then abortion wouldn't be allowed. You claim that when he releases his rights, it is leaving a child. It is leaving a lump of cells. The fact that the mother decides to keep that lump of cells until it becomes an encumbering child is just that, HER CHOICE.
The fetus has no rights, the father deciding to abandon it harms no one. The fact that the mother decides to keep what later becomes a child is her decision and she would bare the responsibility for it.
Can you name for me a single other instance where we penalize someone today for what something could be in the future? That is the antithesis of justice.
You're asking that a father be able to opt-out of his rights for the future child. That's what you're asking.
Again you want to have your cake and eat it too. If we consider what it would be in the future, then abortion would be illegal. Potential does not equal child.
Can you name for me a time when someone is encumbered in the future for actions today except for crimes or legal contracts?
Is a man having sex a crime now? Was he offered a legal contract? If a woman doesn't give consent for sex we call it a crime, rape. What if a man doesn't give consent to father. Why is the crime on him?
Again you want to have your cake and eat it too. If we consider what it would be in the future, then abortion would be illegal. Potential does not equal child.
Can you name for me a time when someone is encumbered in the future for actions today except for crimes or legal contracts?
Is a man having sex a crime now? Was he offered a legal contract? If a woman doesn't give consent for sex we call it a crime, rape. What if a man doesn't give consent to father. Why is the crime on him?
Nick
You're not listening. YOU are asking that a father give up his responsibilities for a future entity. YOU are considering that it will be a human in the future and asking that a man be able to absolve himself of responsibility for that child.
I say let him absolve himself of the responsibilities of the fetus. Fine. If and when the child is born, the responsibility for the human being kicks in. That gives you the equality you want. OK, not what you want, because you don't want equality.
This is silly. It's a coarse, but suitable analogy, but are you responsible for a car after you sell it to somebody, whether it ends up in a junkyard or it is sitting in that person's driveway needing new tires? Unless you promised them new tires in the deal, then no, the buyer assumes your responsibilities and liabilities for the car AS-IS.
If that is too far for your mind to reach, if one co-owner of a car sells his portion of the car to the remaining owner, then apply the same scenario...
You're not listening. YOU are asking that a father give up his responsibilities for a future entity. YOU are considering that it will be a human in the future and asking that a man be able to absolve himself of responsibility for that child.
I say let him absolve himself of the responsibilities of the fetus. Fine. If and when the child is born, the responsibility for the human being kicks in. That gives you the equality you want. OK, not what you want, because you don't want equality.
No it is you who are not listening.(or rather reading )
What the entity will be in the future has no merit on today. When he absolves himself of responsiility, it is the mother that makes the choice to assume full responsibility for what will eventually become a child. If she does not wish to assume it alone, then she can abort. This burdensome lump of cells has no rights nor special significance. It can be recreated with another man who has given proper commitment via marriage or has declared he would like to be a parent when given the choice.
As I have said a commitment involves two parties in agreement. What we have now is one party coercing the other with the full assistance of the government. This ought not be.
I think courts probably don't view humans as used cars. Just my guess though.
Like it or not, the analogy fits. These are transactions, there are recipients, end users, properties, liabilities, etc. If you are going to get caught up in the "human" aspect (so as to avoid facing the very basics here), then "opt-out" is the least of your worries. The notion of abortion is then altogether wrong and not an option at all. Thus you shouldn't even be participating in this discussion. You should start your own discussion on the age-old abortion topic. Starting one inside here would be clearly OT. See ya!
...and in a most ironic turn, the courts may not view humans as used cars, but they sure do view male humans as "work units" that supply money (in the form of unconditional, compulsory childcare), guilty until proven innocent, and utterly secondary in consideration as far as a "woman's needs". That's not really a far stretch at all to "being" a used car, IMO.
So essentially, you have an anti-abortion argument you wish to sideline this topic with? As mentioned earlier, take it somewhere else. This topic isn't about the legitimacy of abortion/anti-abortion.
So essentially, you have an anti-abortion argument you wish to sideline this topic with? As mentioned earlier, take it somewhere else. This topic isn't about the legitimacy of abortion/anti-abortion.
Hmmm...I re-read my last two posts and noticed that I didn't mention abortion. Why are you derailing the thread?
Then what exactly is the significance of a "lump of cells"? If you are ultimately concerned that it has the potential to later become a fully birthed human being, then you are essentially rehashing the abortion legitimacy argument.
Then what exactly is the significance of a "lump of cells"?
Nothing as far as I'm concerned. But why does trumptman keep asking for an opt-out clause for what that lump may become? I've already said that if a man wants to opt-out of any responsibility for that lump of goop, I'll agree with that. But that's not what trumptman is arguing for.
He's argueing that if the lump of cells becomes a human, a man shouldn't have to be responsible for that human because that's somehow equitable.
If the man has opted-out for a lump of cells, that naturally means everything is opted-out thereafter. There is no default opt-in that needs to be re-opted-out at every notable stage of a growing human being. If the woman proceeds to develop that lump of cells into a living baby, despite the man having already opted-out, then the liability and responsibility should be soley her own. The man has long since stepped out of the picture. Done. Finito.
Comments
It's very simply. You opt-out within a specified grace period, you are severing further physical and legal responsibility of the baby. The remaining partner can reevaluate her own plans in response, or simply proceed with the birth soley under her own liability. Same thing as an abortion/adoption/consumation for the mother.
Originally posted by bunge
How abandoning a living human being is the same as an abortion. They're not the same. Explain how they are.
Careful bunge, you're letting your pro-life tendencies show.
When it is unborn, it isn't a baby. It is a fetus. You can't abandon a fetus anymore than you can kill it or else abortion would be murder. The father is abandoning a lump of cells. What the mother chooses to do after that is her own business, including getting an abortion.
Nick
Originally posted by Randycat99
It's very simply. You opt-out within a specified grace period, you are severing further physical and legal responsibility of the baby. The remaining partner can reevaluate her own plans in response, or simply proceed with the birth soley under her own liability. Same thing as an abortion/adoption/consumation for the mother.
You're proving my point. They're not equal.
Originally posted by trumptman
The father is abandoning a lump of cells.
That's not what you're arguing for. You're arguing for the right to opt-out of a child's life. If you want to argue that a man should be able to opt-out of a feteus' life, but is responsible again when the human child is born, go for it. I guess I can handle that one.
But what you're arguing for is opting out of responsibility of a human. That's different.
Opt-out of the responsibilities of a fetus is fine with me. But that's not what you mean or what you're saying. You are arguing for opting out of the fetus & human stages of life.
Originally posted by bunge
That's not what you're arguing for. You're arguing for the right to opt-out of a child's life. If you want to argue that a man should be able to opt-out of a feteus' life, but is responsible again when the human child is born, go for it. I guess I can handle that one.
But what you're arguing for is opting out of responsibility of a human. That's different.
Opt-out of the responsibilities of a fetus is fine with me. But that's not what you mean or what you're saying. You are arguing for opting out of the fetus & human stages of life.
You are being hypocritical. We can only argue about what it is at the time and the decisions made then. If we were allowed to argue what it would become later, then abortion wouldn't be allowed. You claim that when he releases his rights, it is leaving a child. It is leaving a lump of cells. The fact that the mother decides to keep that lump of cells until it becomes an encumbering child is just that, HER CHOICE.
The fetus has no rights, the father deciding to abandon it harms no one. The fact that the mother decides to keep what later becomes a child is her decision and she would bare the responsibility for it.
Can you name for me a single other instance where we penalize someone today for what something could be in the future? That is the antithesis of justice.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You claim that when he releases his rights, it is leaving a child. It is leaving a lump of cells.
No.
You're asking that a father be able to opt-out of his rights for the future child. That's what you're asking.
Originally posted by bunge
No.
You're asking that a father be able to opt-out of his rights for the future child. That's what you're asking.
Again you want to have your cake and eat it too. If we consider what it would be in the future, then abortion would be illegal. Potential does not equal child.
Can you name for me a time when someone is encumbered in the future for actions today except for crimes or legal contracts?
Is a man having sex a crime now? Was he offered a legal contract? If a woman doesn't give consent for sex we call it a crime, rape. What if a man doesn't give consent to father. Why is the crime on him?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Again you want to have your cake and eat it too. If we consider what it would be in the future, then abortion would be illegal. Potential does not equal child.
Can you name for me a time when someone is encumbered in the future for actions today except for crimes or legal contracts?
Is a man having sex a crime now? Was he offered a legal contract? If a woman doesn't give consent for sex we call it a crime, rape. What if a man doesn't give consent to father. Why is the crime on him?
Nick
You're not listening. YOU are asking that a father give up his responsibilities for a future entity. YOU are considering that it will be a human in the future and asking that a man be able to absolve himself of responsibility for that child.
I say let him absolve himself of the responsibilities of the fetus. Fine. If and when the child is born, the responsibility for the human being kicks in. That gives you the equality you want. OK, not what you want, because you don't want equality.
If that is too far for your mind to reach, if one co-owner of a car sells his portion of the car to the remaining owner, then apply the same scenario...
Originally posted by Randycat99
It's a coarse, but suitable analogy...
I think courts probably don't view humans as used cars. Just my guess though.
Originally posted by bunge
You're not listening. YOU are asking that a father give up his responsibilities for a future entity. YOU are considering that it will be a human in the future and asking that a man be able to absolve himself of responsibility for that child.
I say let him absolve himself of the responsibilities of the fetus. Fine. If and when the child is born, the responsibility for the human being kicks in. That gives you the equality you want. OK, not what you want, because you don't want equality.
No it is you who are not listening.(or rather reading
What the entity will be in the future has no merit on today. When he absolves himself of responsiility, it is the mother that makes the choice to assume full responsibility for what will eventually become a child. If she does not wish to assume it alone, then she can abort. This burdensome lump of cells has no rights nor special significance. It can be recreated with another man who has given proper commitment via marriage or has declared he would like to be a parent when given the choice.
As I have said a commitment involves two parties in agreement. What we have now is one party coercing the other with the full assistance of the government. This ought not be.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
I think courts probably don't view humans as used cars. Just my guess though.
Like it or not, the analogy fits. These are transactions, there are recipients, end users, properties, liabilities, etc. If you are going to get caught up in the "human" aspect (so as to avoid facing the very basics here), then "opt-out" is the least of your worries. The notion of abortion is then altogether wrong and not an option at all. Thus you shouldn't even be participating in this discussion. You should start your own discussion on the age-old abortion topic. Starting one inside here would be clearly OT. See ya!
...and in a most ironic turn, the courts may not view humans as used cars, but they sure do view male humans as "work units" that supply money (in the form of unconditional, compulsory childcare), guilty until proven innocent, and utterly secondary in consideration as far as a "woman's needs". That's not really a far stretch at all to "being" a used car, IMO.
Originally posted by bunge
I think courts probably don't view humans as used cars. Just my guess though.
There you go callin a fetus a human being again. Are you a closet pro-lifer?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
What the entity will be in the future has no merit on today.
And the opt-out decision you want can effect what the blob of cells is today, but not the human it will be in the future.
Originally posted by trumptman
There you go callin a fetus a human being again.
I'm referring to the human that will grow from the blob. The effects the opt-out decision has on that blob.
Originally posted by Randycat99
So essentially, you have an anti-abortion argument you wish to sideline this topic with? As mentioned earlier, take it somewhere else. This topic isn't about the legitimacy of abortion/anti-abortion.
Hmmm...I re-read my last two posts and noticed that I didn't mention abortion. Why are you derailing the thread?
Originally posted by Randycat99
Then what exactly is the significance of a "lump of cells"?
Nothing as far as I'm concerned. But why does trumptman keep asking for an opt-out clause for what that lump may become? I've already said that if a man wants to opt-out of any responsibility for that lump of goop, I'll agree with that. But that's not what trumptman is arguing for.
He's argueing that if the lump of cells becomes a human, a man shouldn't have to be responsible for that human because that's somehow equitable.