so we define humanity by self survival? what do we use for folks who were in car accidents, comas etc.?
because they could survive at some point on their own, it's ok for us to treat them as humans now that they can't?
ahhh, self survival potential...i mentioned that it costs millions of dollars to help these 24 week fetuses "self-survive", even at 24 weeks they could never ever survive on their own, yet we care for them and try to save as many as possible...in society we take care of our wounded, our mentally challenged, even our mentally deranged...but we can not perform magic and make babies breath that are not "formed" yet...so work on this...all a woman says is i don't want this fetus, you take it...if people hate abortion then they need to work on a way to take fetuses alive from the uterus and "grow" them elsewhere...without this abortion will always be with us, either in clinics or back alleys...i know of no woman going for an abortion that when asked, "do you mind if we take your fetus and grow it elsewhere for somebody else to love?" that wouldn't answer," sure, i just can't have this fetus growing inside of me for "this" or "that" reason"
ps...as a husband of 19 years and as a father for 16 years i can say that in a GOOD and Healthy relationship, it is not only the woman that decides on abortion, that in a good and healthy relationship, both man and woman, husband and wife, spouse and spouse, both parties will have a say...only in unhealthy and bad relationships will the woman make these decisions without the other person involved, and perhaps this is for the best...afterall she has the carry the child and we can not force women to be incubators for someone else against their will...if you are a man and a woman does this without your consent, without having hours and hours of talks about it, without tears from both of you being shed night after night...then go find yourself a better, healthier relationship...a woman never makes this decision alone unless something is terribly wrong with the relationship (or lack of relationship) she has with the man involved....
g
That's a good thing, it really is.
But at the end of the day it is a pvilidge extended to you, and not a legal right. The chain of command for a husband controlling whether to have children has been severed.
one last thing...again from the "personal" aspect of being a son, a husband, a father and, not nearly as important as the first three things mentioned, as someone who works everyday with pregnant woman and children....
(sorry, some of you may have heard this from me before): why am i pro choice when i work so hard everyday to extend life, to save children born with congenital anomalies that would have died just a few years ago??
because i love and respect my mother
because i love and respect my wife
because i love and respect my daughters
i am pro choice
i respect them enough to know that
they will make decisions in their lives
based on their beliefs, their situation,
where they stand mentally, emotionally, physically
and i love them enough to stand by them
in whatever decision they make
some say it takes a village to raise a child
all i know is that it takes a family to accept
to forgive, to love....
i hope that when and if my two daughters get pregnant
it is a beautiful, loving thing
that they never even have to think about having an abortion
but if they have no say about what happens to their body
to what happens inside it
then that would make my daughters second class citizens
and i will fight to the death, quite literally, to prevent
my daughters from ever being second class citizens
and saying all that, if my 16 year old daughter told me she was pregnant and wanted to have the child, there would be some tears, then acceptance and we would do everything we could to making our daughter and her child feel loved and help them every way we could...
and if she came to us and told us she was pregnant and didn't want to have that child, there would be some tears, then acceptance and we would do everything we could to make our daughter feel loved and help her every way we could...
outlawing abortion wouldn't be a problem for us...we could take a vacation to france or canada or mexico or just about anywhere, take in the sights, hit a museum or two, eat some foreign food, terminate a pregnancy, check out the local nightlife, etc...poor people wouldn't have that option...they would either self-terminate dangerously, back alley terminate dangerously, or have a child they never wanted...with perhaps horrible results...
the answer is not to outlaw abortion, but make abortion not needed...better birth control, better education, ways to remove live fetuses and re-implant them.... till then abortion (like it has for thousands of years) will be a reality
But at the end of the day it is a pvilidge extended to you, and not a legal right. The chain of command for a husband controlling whether to have children has been severed.
husband shouldn't have a "chain of command" nor a "controlling" aspect to any marriage or relationship...it is a partnership...not control or "i have command"...if you don't have a partnership in a relationship, look hard at yourself, look hard at your spouse, look hard at your relationship, cuz something is wrong...
husband shouldn't have a "chain of command" nor a "controlling" aspect to any marriage or relationship...it is a partnership...not controll or "i have command"...
g
....of course not, no husband should control the wife at the expense of her identity----but you don't even have a "partners" say in the matter. Not legally.
....of course not, no husband should control the wife at the expense of her identity----but you don't even have a "partners" say in the matter. Not legally.
i don't need a legal decree to know i have a say with what happens with my family...laws can never replace love...perhaps we should all work harder on loving our families and having them love us back than on making laws...just my humble opinion...
i thought republicans wanted less laws and less lawyers??
g
plus a legal decree will never stop a woman from getting an abortion if she desperately wanted one...but my loving her so much that she always felt safe just might..
i don't need a legal decree to know i have a say with what happens with my family...laws can never replace love...perhaps we should all work harder on loving our families and having them love us back than on making laws...just my humble opinion...
i thought republicans wanted less laws and less lawyers??
g
plus a legal decree will never stop a woman from getting an abortion if she desperately wanted one...but my loving her so much that she always felt safe just might..
You may believe that you have that say, but I think it has more to do with cultural latency than the concrete terms of marriage.
Also, laws against murder won't stop your wife from offing you for the insurance money.
I thought Faust9 and I had covered this, honestly. At the moment, to my knowledge, a fetus has no rights enumerated by the constitution. Because of that, and because of SCOTUS decision in Roe v Wade, the mother's right to privacy trumps those of the fetus.
As Faust and I have pointed out a couple of times already, the law, on its face, seems good and reasonable. (This is of course by design; it makes those who oppose it seem like lunatics). But the problem is that once the fetus has been granted rights enumerated by law, the courts may argue that the rights of the fetus do not trump those of the mother (the Roe decision hinges on whether making abortion illegal except in certain cases violates the due process clause of the 14th amendment and thereby violate the mother's right to privacy). Once a fetus has rights, it is entitled to due process. Once it's entitled to due process, it cannot be aborted. I'm not going to get dragged into discussing hypothetical scenarios, since that's really not what this law is about--however much it may seem to be. This is a law that is designed to enumerate the rights of a fetus, and once that's in place, Roe is in danger. NB: the relevant section of Roe v Wade is here. It's worth noting that R v W does not assert a blanket right to an abortion at any time, and in fact respects the state's ability to limit when they might be procured. It's a very, very small step to use that thinking to overturn the decision and, finally, challenge the legality of abortion altogether.
Cheers
Scott
To me it seems like slippery slope logic. The person deciding whether there has been a loss to prosecute is the mother, which would seem to respect her right to privacy. This law allows mothers to insure prosecution occurs on a level comparable to the loss they have suffered. Otherwise what the mother feels is a death simply becomes assault.
It is slippery slope logic, which is going to be the case when we're talking about a legal system based on precedent.
Quote:
The person deciding whether there has been a loss to prosecute is the mother, which would seem to respect her right to privacy.
Again, the law seems perfectly reasonable and good. People object (I don't know where I stand on it, really) to it on the grounds that it enumerates rights to an unborn fetus, and an enumeration of fetal rights is a threat to Roe v Wade insofar as there is an inherent conflict between the mother's rights and the fetus's.
I hate to break it to you, but unless you're walking around with your d**k stuck in a woman for 9 months, it is her body.
Your ignoring the thrust of what I said: that it's a BS excuse for men to deny their culpability--that they too have a responsibility to the unborn child. The baby is not his problem until he or she is born, and probably not even then. So women have the right to be abandoned and left to their own devices, that's what it REALLY means. And you know, if she opts for an abortion and discovers that the physical and metaphysical consequences where far greater--and far different--from what she expected, from what she was lead to believe, oh well. It was her body, her choice. Good thing the man didn't have anything to do with it. She's a "liberated" woman. And when he mets the soul of his (dead) child in heaven (assuming he gets there), he can try and explain it to the child as well. "Well, son, see, it was your mother's choice to kill you, not mine. I had my 30 seconds of joy and that was it for me."
And you know, I wouldn't have ANY idea what I'm talking about, would I. After all, I'm ONLY a woman who has actually BORNE children.
Your ignoring the thrust of what I said: that it's a BS excuse for men to deny their culpability--that they too have a responsibility to the unborn child.
Any my point was that the man is not directly physically affected by the pregnancy. Any claims about male responsibility are purely socio-cultural, and the simple fact remains that the man is really unnecessary after insemination has occurred.
As I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the core of all this (btw, I got a chuckle out of your use of "thrust") is whether or not the enumeration of fetal rights can be used to trump the mother's rights and thereby undermine Roe v Wade.
Quote:
The baby is not his problem until he or she is born, and probably not even then. So women have the right to be abandoned and left to their own devices, that's what it REALLY means.
I see your point, but keep in mind that this is what it has always meant, and until the man is somehow physically bound to the pregnant mother, that's the way it will always be. The man doesn't have to be there. This is not a development particular to the feminist movement. However, the father can be legally compelled to help out (whether or that THAT system needs retooling is another matter). But again, this is nothing new.
Quote:
And you know, if she opts for an abortion and discovers that the physical and metaphysical consequences where far greater--and far different--from what she expected, from what she was lead to believe, oh well. It was her body, her choice.
Indeed.
Quote:
Good thing the man didn't have anything to do with it. She's a "liberated" woman. And when he mets the soul of his (dead) child in heaven (assuming he gets there), he can try and explain it to the child as well. "Well, son, see, it was your mother's choice to kill you, not mine. I had my 30 seconds of joy and that was it for me."
The flip side of this argument is that we go back to the 19th and early 20th centuries, when women's bodies were either de facto or de juro property of men and could be controlled by their husbands. The current situation (and keep in mind that we've really only been debating this with any seriousness for what, 30-odd years?) is by no means a bed of roses, but it's preferable to women's choices in the matter being so strictly limited.
Quote:
And you know, I wouldn't have ANY idea what I'm talking about, would I. After all, I'm ONLY a woman who has actually BORNE children.
Mea culpa on the gender thing. As for the point here: ok.
To toss in my $0.02 or not to toss in my $0.02... See if I give my viewpoint, it will be well thought-out and reasonable -- except to the people who disagree with me. Those guys &/^ gals will look at me funny and say, "But that doesn't make any sense. Clearly you're wrong because [insert non-sensical reason here]". Of course their reasoning makes perfect sense to them, but in my mind it makes them look like morons who couldn't understand that 2+2 does indeed equal 4 (and they undoubtedly think the same thing about me). So I'll just save us all 5 pages of debate and say that we're all idiots for trying to convince anyone that we're not.
I thought we already had the tabasco sauce and sperm discussion.
Remember our custody thread. You don't even need to f*ck her. She can just get a default judgement against you that can't be overturned, even if you weren't notified about it. Twas the famous thread, DNA testing can get you off Death Row, but not out of child support payments.
Comments
Originally posted by alcimedes
so we define humanity by self survival? what do we use for folks who were in car accidents, comas etc.?
because they could survive at some point on their own, it's ok for us to treat them as humans now that they can't?
ahhh, self survival potential...i mentioned that it costs millions of dollars to help these 24 week fetuses "self-survive", even at 24 weeks they could never ever survive on their own, yet we care for them and try to save as many as possible...in society we take care of our wounded, our mentally challenged, even our mentally deranged...but we can not perform magic and make babies breath that are not "formed" yet...so work on this...all a woman says is i don't want this fetus, you take it...if people hate abortion then they need to work on a way to take fetuses alive from the uterus and "grow" them elsewhere...without this abortion will always be with us, either in clinics or back alleys...i know of no woman going for an abortion that when asked, "do you mind if we take your fetus and grow it elsewhere for somebody else to love?" that wouldn't answer," sure, i just can't have this fetus growing inside of me for "this" or "that" reason"
g
Originally posted by thegelding
ps...as a husband of 19 years and as a father for 16 years i can say that in a GOOD and Healthy relationship, it is not only the woman that decides on abortion, that in a good and healthy relationship, both man and woman, husband and wife, spouse and spouse, both parties will have a say...only in unhealthy and bad relationships will the woman make these decisions without the other person involved, and perhaps this is for the best...afterall she has the carry the child and we can not force women to be incubators for someone else against their will...if you are a man and a woman does this without your consent, without having hours and hours of talks about it, without tears from both of you being shed night after night...then go find yourself a better, healthier relationship...a woman never makes this decision alone unless something is terribly wrong with the relationship (or lack of relationship) she has with the man involved....
g
That's a good thing, it really is.
But at the end of the day it is a pvilidge extended to you, and not a legal right. The chain of command for a husband controlling whether to have children has been severed.
(sorry, some of you may have heard this from me before): why am i pro choice when i work so hard everyday to extend life, to save children born with congenital anomalies that would have died just a few years ago??
because i love and respect my mother
because i love and respect my wife
because i love and respect my daughters
i am pro choice
i respect them enough to know that
they will make decisions in their lives
based on their beliefs, their situation,
where they stand mentally, emotionally, physically
and i love them enough to stand by them
in whatever decision they make
some say it takes a village to raise a child
all i know is that it takes a family to accept
to forgive, to love....
i hope that when and if my two daughters get pregnant
it is a beautiful, loving thing
that they never even have to think about having an abortion
but if they have no say about what happens to their body
to what happens inside it
then that would make my daughters second class citizens
and i will fight to the death, quite literally, to prevent
my daughters from ever being second class citizens
and saying all that, if my 16 year old daughter told me she was pregnant and wanted to have the child, there would be some tears, then acceptance and we would do everything we could to making our daughter and her child feel loved and help them every way we could...
and if she came to us and told us she was pregnant and didn't want to have that child, there would be some tears, then acceptance and we would do everything we could to make our daughter feel loved and help her every way we could...
outlawing abortion wouldn't be a problem for us...we could take a vacation to france or canada or mexico or just about anywhere, take in the sights, hit a museum or two, eat some foreign food, terminate a pregnancy, check out the local nightlife, etc...poor people wouldn't have that option...they would either self-terminate dangerously, back alley terminate dangerously, or have a child they never wanted...with perhaps horrible results...
the answer is not to outlaw abortion, but make abortion not needed...better birth control, better education, ways to remove live fetuses and re-implant them.... till then abortion (like it has for thousands of years) will be a reality
g
Originally posted by dmz
That's a good thing, it really is.
But at the end of the day it is a pvilidge extended to you, and not a legal right. The chain of command for a husband controlling whether to have children has been severed.
husband shouldn't have a "chain of command" nor a "controlling" aspect to any marriage or relationship...it is a partnership...not control or "i have command"...if you don't have a partnership in a relationship, look hard at yourself, look hard at your spouse, look hard at your relationship, cuz something is wrong...
g
not that i feel strongly about this subject
Originally posted by thegelding
husband shouldn't have a "chain of command" nor a "controlling" aspect to any marriage or relationship...it is a partnership...not controll or "i have command"...
g
....of course not, no husband should control the wife at the expense of her identity----but you don't even have a "partners" say in the matter. Not legally.
Originally posted by dmz
....of course not, no husband should control the wife at the expense of her identity----but you don't even have a "partners" say in the matter. Not legally.
i don't need a legal decree to know i have a say with what happens with my family...laws can never replace love...perhaps we should all work harder on loving our families and having them love us back than on making laws...just my humble opinion...
i thought republicans wanted less laws and less lawyers??
g
plus a legal decree will never stop a woman from getting an abortion if she desperately wanted one...but my loving her so much that she always felt safe just might..
Originally posted by thegelding
i don't need a legal decree to know i have a say with what happens with my family...laws can never replace love...perhaps we should all work harder on loving our families and having them love us back than on making laws...just my humble opinion...
i thought republicans wanted less laws and less lawyers??
g
plus a legal decree will never stop a woman from getting an abortion if she desperately wanted one...but my loving her so much that she always felt safe just might..
You may believe that you have that say, but I think it has more to do with cultural latency than the concrete terms of marriage.
Also, laws against murder won't stop your wife from offing you for the insurance money.
Originally posted by dmz
You may believe that you have that say, but I think it has more to do with cultural latency than the concrete terms of marriage.
Also, laws against murder won't stop your wife from offing you for the insurance money.
true dat...why you should never have an insurance policy greater than your wife's love for you...
g
Originally posted by midwinter
I thought Faust9 and I had covered this, honestly. At the moment, to my knowledge, a fetus has no rights enumerated by the constitution. Because of that, and because of SCOTUS decision in Roe v Wade, the mother's right to privacy trumps those of the fetus.
As Faust and I have pointed out a couple of times already, the law, on its face, seems good and reasonable. (This is of course by design; it makes those who oppose it seem like lunatics). But the problem is that once the fetus has been granted rights enumerated by law, the courts may argue that the rights of the fetus do not trump those of the mother (the Roe decision hinges on whether making abortion illegal except in certain cases violates the due process clause of the 14th amendment and thereby violate the mother's right to privacy). Once a fetus has rights, it is entitled to due process. Once it's entitled to due process, it cannot be aborted. I'm not going to get dragged into discussing hypothetical scenarios, since that's really not what this law is about--however much it may seem to be. This is a law that is designed to enumerate the rights of a fetus, and once that's in place, Roe is in danger. NB: the relevant section of Roe v Wade is here. It's worth noting that R v W does not assert a blanket right to an abortion at any time, and in fact respects the state's ability to limit when they might be procured. It's a very, very small step to use that thinking to overturn the decision and, finally, challenge the legality of abortion altogether.
Cheers
Scott
To me it seems like slippery slope logic. The person deciding whether there has been a loss to prosecute is the mother, which would seem to respect her right to privacy. This law allows mothers to insure prosecution occurs on a level comparable to the loss they have suffered. Otherwise what the mother feels is a death simply becomes assault.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
To me it seems like slippery slope logic.
It is slippery slope logic, which is going to be the case when we're talking about a legal system based on precedent.
The person deciding whether there has been a loss to prosecute is the mother, which would seem to respect her right to privacy.
Again, the law seems perfectly reasonable and good. People object (I don't know where I stand on it, really) to it on the grounds that it enumerates rights to an unborn fetus, and an enumeration of fetal rights is a threat to Roe v Wade insofar as there is an inherent conflict between the mother's rights and the fetus's.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by dmz
You see, bunge, even in a working marriage, "it's the womans right to choose" whether to procreate.
A guy can cut all ties to his balls and be safe as milk.
Originally posted by midwinter
I hate to break it to you, but unless you're walking around with your d**k stuck in a woman for 9 months, it is her body.
Your ignoring the thrust of what I said: that it's a BS excuse for men to deny their culpability--that they too have a responsibility to the unborn child. The baby is not his problem until he or she is born, and probably not even then. So women have the right to be abandoned and left to their own devices, that's what it REALLY means. And you know, if she opts for an abortion and discovers that the physical and metaphysical consequences where far greater--and far different--from what she expected, from what she was lead to believe, oh well. It was her body, her choice. Good thing the man didn't have anything to do with it. She's a "liberated" woman. And when he mets the soul of his (dead) child in heaven (assuming he gets there), he can try and explain it to the child as well. "Well, son, see, it was your mother's choice to kill you, not mine. I had my 30 seconds of joy and that was it for me."
And you know, I wouldn't have ANY idea what I'm talking about, would I. After all, I'm ONLY a woman who has actually BORNE children.
Originally posted by Fangorn
And you know, I wouldn't have ANY idea what I'm talking about, would I. After all, I'm ONLY a woman who has actually BORNE children.
Like I said in that other thread, there's at least 7 women AI members by my count.
(hee hee hee)
Originally posted by bunge
A guy can cut all ties to his balls and be safe as milk.
That has about as much value as claiming a woman can sh*t her uterus into the street and be safe.
Nick
Originally posted by Fangorn
Your ignoring the thrust of what I said: that it's a BS excuse for men to deny their culpability--that they too have a responsibility to the unborn child.
Any my point was that the man is not directly physically affected by the pregnancy. Any claims about male responsibility are purely socio-cultural, and the simple fact remains that the man is really unnecessary after insemination has occurred.
As I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the core of all this (btw, I got a chuckle out of your use of "thrust") is whether or not the enumeration of fetal rights can be used to trump the mother's rights and thereby undermine Roe v Wade.
The baby is not his problem until he or she is born, and probably not even then. So women have the right to be abandoned and left to their own devices, that's what it REALLY means.
I see your point, but keep in mind that this is what it has always meant, and until the man is somehow physically bound to the pregnant mother, that's the way it will always be. The man doesn't have to be there. This is not a development particular to the feminist movement. However, the father can be legally compelled to help out (whether or that THAT system needs retooling is another matter). But again, this is nothing new.
And you know, if she opts for an abortion and discovers that the physical and metaphysical consequences where far greater--and far different--from what she expected, from what she was lead to believe, oh well. It was her body, her choice.
Indeed.
Good thing the man didn't have anything to do with it. She's a "liberated" woman. And when he mets the soul of his (dead) child in heaven (assuming he gets there), he can try and explain it to the child as well. "Well, son, see, it was your mother's choice to kill you, not mine. I had my 30 seconds of joy and that was it for me."
The flip side of this argument is that we go back to the 19th and early 20th centuries, when women's bodies were either de facto or de juro property of men and could be controlled by their husbands. The current situation (and keep in mind that we've really only been debating this with any seriousness for what, 30-odd years?) is by no means a bed of roses, but it's preferable to women's choices in the matter being so strictly limited.
And you know, I wouldn't have ANY idea what I'm talking about, would I. After all, I'm ONLY a woman who has actually BORNE children.
Mea culpa on the gender thing. As for the point here: ok.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by trumptman
That has about as much value as claiming a woman can sh*t her uterus into the street and be safe.
Nick
She can't make me **** her either.
Originally posted by bunge
She can't make me **** her either.
I thought we already had the tabasco sauce and sperm discussion.
Remember our custody thread. You don't even need to f*ck her. She can just get a default judgement against you that can't be overturned, even if you weren't notified about it. Twas the famous thread, DNA testing can get you off Death Row, but not out of child support payments.
Nick