Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on February 22, 2005, 02:54:43 pm
-
Ok, I've been thinking about this and would be interested to hear moderate and non-accusing opinions ;)
There has been a case in court recently where a man shot his pregnant ex-Girlfriend several times killing both her and the baby. He was found guilty of a double count of Murder, which seems quite reasonable on the surface.
But there the dilemma arises, if shooting a pregnant woman is a double murder, than that suggests the court accepts the foetus as a living, sentient, seperate being even whilst in the womb, which raises concerns in my mind about abortion. I don't like to have double standards, so why should I think of this double-murder conviction as 'ok' and yet still feel that Abortion should be a matter of Pro-choice?
It's not really a question of 'Is a foetus alive or not?' but more a question of, 'Would you consider this double standards?'
-
I don't think I have an answer to that. You're right, it's a double standard...
...but perhaps, because in abortion, it's the woman's choice, yet in the murder, the woman never chose to have herself or her child murdered?
EDIT:
umm. After. Supposed to be after Flipside... :wtf: :hopping:
-
It is double standards, because IMHO the Father should have as much right as the mother to decide whether the baby should be aborted.
-
Doing it with a gun is a little extreme though ;)
As I said, it's not about the 'right' to abort, it's about how we think about unborn children and the shades of grey situation that hangs over it.
The closest approximation I can think of is that, should a family decide to turn off a life support machine that is keeping a member alive, that is choice, if a third party came in and pulled the plug maliciously, that is Murder.
Edit : Hmmmmm... Let me phrase it another way, would you consider it this a double Murder or a single one?
-
God thats a hard decision, well I think the abortion should only go through if both parents agree so, if the mother didn't want to kill the baby then yes it is a double murder.
-
Sorry, I wasn't very clear there, I meant that, in the situation where the ex-boyfriend shoots a woman who is pregnant, killing both mother and child (the baby was not his, but that is, strictly speaking, secondary) would you consider this act a double or a single case of Murder?
-
How far along was she? In Holland abortion is illigal after 22 weeks. If she was over that limit it would be a double murder. If not, then it would be a single murder.
But then again, we are one of the few people that allow legal abortion and euthanesia in the first place IIRC :p
-
The point I was trying to get across is that I think it was a Double murder, but I was also trying to get across my problems with the abortion system. (i.e. the mother can abort a baby which is also someone elses, the father)
Anyway what's your opinion?
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
(i.e. the mother can abort a baby which is also someone elses, the father)
That is so wrong and so oversimplified.
-
as far as i ma concerned, it was a double murder. it's that simple.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
That is so wrong and so oversimplified.
Care to explain why? I know the mother has to give birth and everything but that is IMHO no justification for denying the father the chance of having a child.
-
The Mother was 3 months pregnant.
I suppose the problem is that a child is a life in potential, I wouldn't blame a mother for aborting her child if the situation demanded it, i.e. the mother was too poor to be able to raise the child, rape victims etc, but this still strikes me as a double murder, the child was wanted and the mother intended to go full term.
I suppose it's just one of those shades of grey situations, but I constantly beat up my own opinions, it's the only way to be sure of them ;)
-
I say single murder.
But if it was anyone else, double. Cause if its in the family, then for some reason that makes it OK.
-
Hmm.. I thought the days of 'West Point Abortions' were long gone..
But, anyway, the point of 'life' or 'being a human being' is something you can argue about endlessly. I'd just have to go with the legal definition that applies to your country, and say it's a double murder....probably...
-
Double murder. No question. No matter how far along in the pregnancy she was.
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
Care to explain why? I know the mother has to give birth and everything but that is IMHO no justification for denying the father the chance of having a child.
No, I meant it the other way around. you said that the mother can decide when, why and how she wants an abortion. Here, if the mother is still married to the man who's child she is carrying, she cannot have an abortion without the consent of the father (unless there are extenuating circumstances, like proven adultery, in which case the issue would go to court).
I don't know how it's done in other countries (which is probably what you were talking about), but I'm quite pleased with the way things are done around here.
-
Single murder. Simple as that.
-
I don't deny that part of my feeling it is a double-murder is because I want it to be a double murder. The woman was happy with a new man, and they were going to start a family, and this jelous bastard came along and took away everything and I want him to suffer.
Yes, that's letting emotion take a part in my decision, but as far as law is concerned, I think emotion should take a part, it's never as simple as the printed word.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
No, I meant it the other way around. you said that the mother can decide when, why and how she wants an abortion. Here, if the mother is still married to the man who's child she is carrying, she cannot have an abortion without the consent of the father (unless there are extenuating circumstances, like proven adultery, in which case the issue would go to court).
I don't know how it's done in other countries (which is probably what you were talking about), but I'm quite pleased with the way things are done around here.
In the U.S., it's slightly different. The father has no voice in the matter, no matter what his relation is to the mother. Incidentally, part of the problem with the entire abortion system in the U.S. is probably that it was legalized by the court, rather than methodically stated by law, leading to grey areas and unhappy people all around.
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
It is double standards, because IMHO the Father should have as much right as the mother to decide whether the baby should be aborted.
I totally disagree. The woman carries the baby. Her body. Her choice. The father can, ofcourse, express his opinions, but he has no right to decide anything in that matter.
-
the mother wanted the child, so the feotus was going to becomes a child, killing the mother killed the child. I see no hypocracy in being pro choice and calling for a double murder charge, this is totaly seperate from the abortion debate, killing a pregnant woman is twice the evil as simply killing a woman, therefore it requiers twice the punishment, now the only question I see ariseing is did the criminal know the woman was pregnent, if he did not then it is simply a single count, but this issue should only come up after his guilt on the matter has been resolved.
-
so then a man also shouldn't pay child support primus? you can't have it both ways...the woman gets to decide to kill the child, but if she decides not to then make the man pay?
i do not agree with your statement.
the child belongs to both parents, both are responsible for the child, and for the life (or death) of the child in this manner. I think that if the man will not concur with the abortion then the child should at that point be lawfully his once it is born. the woman doesn't want it, the man does, let him have it. I'll be flamed for that one i'm sure but i don't care.
My ex killed not just one child, but two. my twins, before she even told me that she was pregnant. so yeah, i'm a bit of a hardline on this. i would have taken them gladly. so she killed my family, and expected forgiveness knowing before hand what my feelings were.
The guy who killed the lady was not killing his girlfriend and his child, he was killing someone else's family. he had no right to decide whether the child lived or died. still stands with me....double murder. torture the bastard before killing him. I am very big on horrific punishment as a deterrent.
-
so why were you haveing sex with someone with wich you differed so sharply?
if she knew how you felt then it stands to reason that you knew how she felt. this seems like a common trend in our culture.
-
according to her, she felt the same as i did, until crunch time came i guess
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
so then a man also shouldn't pay child support primus? you can't have it both ways...the woman gets to decide to kill the child, but if she decides not to then make the man pay?
i do not agree with your statement.
the child belongs to both parents, both are responsible for the child, and for the life (or death) of the child in this manner. I think that if the man will not concur with the abortion then the child should at that point be lawfully his once it is born. the woman doesn't want it, the man does, let him have it. I'll be flamed for that one i'm sure but i don't care.
Yes. The child belongs to both parents and both are responsible for the child. That's why the father should pay support, even if he didn't want the child. Why? Because it is his child, no matter if he didn't want it.
I'm taking a hardline on this one, as in my life, I've only seen fathers who can't or don't want to take the responsibilty of the child.
-
In answer to your question Bobboau, yes he did, she even asked him to think of the baby. And thanks for voicing my own confused thoughts to me so well, I agree with you 110% :)
-
so if the father has to pay child support, which i agree with, why then does a father not have any legal right in the decision when a woman decides to abort? If he doesn't want the child and she does then he has to pay, but if the woman doesn't want it and the man does, she can kill it.
why the double standard?
-
The man doesn't carry the baby. Like I said: Her body, her decision.
-
Originally posted by Primus
The man doesn't carry the baby. Like I said: Her body, her decision.
It takes 2 decide to have a baby. It takes 2 to have a baby. It takes 2 to raise a baby (even if just in the form of child support).
I'm a woman and I would never decide on an abortion without having my husband having a say in the matter. He's as much part of it as I would be. It would be as much his child as it would be mine.
-
her body? his child. as far as i am concerned, when the woman becomes pregnant, the child is first, and she is second. except in the rare case.
when a woman becomes pregnant one of two things can happen, she can either decide to be a mother, or she is nothing but an incubator.
the woman being the one who is the incubator gives her the right to Kill a man's child and the man has no recourse according to you.
let her out of paying child support, it will be a nice monetary compensation for renting her body.
a sfar as it goes though, my personal feelings on the matter are that abortion should not be used as birth control. then are some matters where i understand, even if i do not agree with abortion. but as a form of birth control? never.
-
@Tiara
It takes 1 to carry the baby. And ofcourse man can have a say in the matter. But he can't make the decision. That's how I see it.
@SW
True. Abortion should not be used as birth control. But I fully support abortion.
-
Sorry, I wasn't very clear there, I meant that, in the situation where the ex-boyfriend shoots a woman who is pregnant, killing both mother and child (the baby was not his, but that is, strictly speaking, secondary) would you consider this act a double or a single case of Murder?
In order to answer your question we must first define what it is that we define as human life. How far into the pregnancy is the fetus considered to be a human being. After answering this question the dilemma can easily be rosolved: If the fetus dies before being considered a human being then its a single murder if not then its a double one.
Of course defining when human life begins is not easy.. And I`m not going to try to...
-
Birth control is such a tricky subject, because both sides of the fence have their very good points.
I also support birth control, but only as far as the mother knows what she's doing. As in its ok for her to do whatever she wants to herself, as long as she knows the concequences. Because in the end its her who will have to live with that decision.
I agree however, if a mother wants an abortion and the father is a part of the relationship she should, just out of the fathers sake, consent with him before doing such a thing. As well as talking to a professional. And I agree that abortion should not be used as birth control.
I support abortion when theres good reason for it, but I still personally don't like the idea. As in, its a shame to do such a thing. Oh well, thats just my two cents.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I don't like to have double standards, so why should I think of this double-murder conviction as 'ok' and yet still feel that Abortion should be a matter of Pro-choice?
Probably because it's common knowledge that a fetus starts developing brainwaves a couple of weeks after it's concieved, therefore making it a living bieing - one of "us" so to speak.
The reason you think abortion should be pro-choice, is probably because you're fine with an idiot reaching a decision werther or not to kill a person because it would be an inconvenience, or for whatever other reason.
Naturally, there are special circumstances, when a child is a product of a rape fest, etc. The paragraph above only includes women who love a guy to ejaculate inside them, but aren't prepared to face the consequences of what that actually means. Or in their words "OOOOOOPPPPPPSSSSSSS"
Meh. The above sounds like I'm actually against pro-choice. I think it should be no choice - you need a ****ing licence in the first place. If you screw up, they execute the mother, the father, and the baby on-site.
Oh wait, that's harsh.
-
Originally posted by Primus
@Tiara
It takes 1 to carry the baby. And ofcourse man can have a say in the matter. But he can't make the decision. That's how I see it.
Under 'normal' circumstances, it is a descision BOTH parents have to make. They are BOTH equally responsible for the choice they make.
If the mother decides halfway that she doesn't want the baby anymore because she 'has changed her mind', the father should have all the rights in the world to have a (legal) say in the issue at hand.
Just because she carries the baby doesn't mean she can decide wether to have it or not. She made a conscious choice when she got into it and she can't just back out if the father wants to have this baby.
It's not a goddamn football game in which you simply fold if things get a little rough and let your pals take the heat.
-
In no goddamn way, nobody can tell a woman that she must have the baby. Again, she carries the baby. And the baby is part of her for nine frikkin' months. Her decision. Period.
-
If an adult woman has made the descision to have a child, she has to see it through (barring unforseen circumstances such as illness of the child etcetera or extenuating conditions such as teenage pregnancy).
If she has no legitimate reason for abortion she should ****ing well live with the descision she made. this doesn;t mean she has to keep the child, the father can take the child since he still wanted the child in this scenario.
But if we allow adults to make such important, life-changing descisions and then for no apparant reason back away without, we are just as much at fault as the mother herself.
In short; If someone makes the descision to have a child, they should see it through. it's not like deciding which side of the bed you'll get out today.
I'm pro-abortion if there is a reason. But abortion for no ****ing reason just pisses me off. Such people should think about it before they decide to have a kid.
-
Originally posted by Primus
In no goddamn way, nobody can tell a woman that she must have the baby. Again, she carries the baby. And the baby is part of her for nine frikkin' months. Her decision. Period.
For God's sake the baby is the father's flesh and blood as well as the Mother's. THe mother has no right to kill someone else's flesh and blood.
-
It's not "period", otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate.
I wholeheartedly agree with Tiara's position. (We diverge on the question of "when does the baby become alive", but from a practical point of view I'd much rather have that system in the U.S. than the current one.)
Since two people are involved in conceiving the baby, it belongs to both those people. The only situation where your argument would hold any weight, Primus, is if the woman were a single parent who impregnated herself with sperm from an anonymous donor. The other party has absolved himself of all ownership of the baby without imposing any obligation to have the baby. Unless you remove both ownership and obligation for one party -- and this is the only case where that is possible -- then both parties are entitled to have a say.
-
It's so ****ing easy for a man to say that he wants or doesn't want a child. He isn't the one who has to carry the baby for nine months and put his health in for a possible danger. Neither he has to go through the abortion.
EDIT
Period. From my end. Meaning, I stand ground with my opinions.
-
Originally posted by Primus
It's so ****ing easy for a man to say that he wants or doesn't want a child. He isn't the one who has to carry the baby for nine months and put his health in for a possible danger. Neither he has to go through the abortion.
It really isn't though; it's easy to say that he wants the child to be carried and then doesn't want to support it, yes, but that's outside the context of this argument. It's true that the male doesn't have to go through the pregnancy or delivery of a child, but he sure has to be a part of raising it. In the scenario we're debating, the father is willing to take that responsibility from the mother, and doesn't want to have her unilaterally decide to terminate the potential life of the child. If both parents don't want to support the kid, then there's a case where abortion makes some sense (disregarding the pro-life argument for the moment). But if one does, the other shouldn't have the right to deny that just to escape the consequences of her actions (i.e. the pregnancy) at her partner's expense.
-
I see your point.. But.. If the woman doesn't want the child and the man does, she should go through pregnancy and delivery, so that the man could have the child?
I think that's wrong. Why? Because the mother don't have to go through all that because somebody else wants so.
-
IMO its her own fault for getting pregnant in the first place. After all there's nothing stopping her using the pill, if she doesn't want to get pregnant she could either insist the man uses a Condom or take the pill.
This raises another interesting point, if the man doesn't want the woman to keep the baby then should the man make support payments to the mother.
-
Ideally no, practically yes. There's too many slackers out there who would get a woman pregnant and then leave her to fend for herself for that to work as it should. There are plenty of situations in which the man shouldn't be as responsible as he is, but weeding those out of the garbage is very tough. Remember that an abortion is not always an economically or morally viable option, depending on a lot more than just the woman's own opinions.
-
Well obviously if the man stopped the woman having the Abortion then he would have to pay support. Otherwise he could use it as a punishment.
-
It is a double standard and frankly for a person to support abortion and double murder it is a bit hypocritical considering the fact that on one hand you have the opinion that it is not a person but tissue and therefore not its self alive. I support the law, but I don't support abortion. And I get the feeling that this thread is fishing for a way to coincide each veiw and they simply cannot.
Sorry.
-
Tiara in the two and a half years that i have been here, i think that this is the first time we have agreed on anything. I'm glad it's something big instead of what we thought the best movie of 2004 was.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Ideally no, practically yes. There's too many slackers out there who would get a woman pregnant and then leave her to fend for herself for that to work as it should. There are plenty of situations in which the man shouldn't be as responsible as he is, but weeding those out of the garbage is very tough. Remember that an abortion is not always an economically or morally viable option, depending on a lot more than just the woman's own opinions.
We aren't discussing those slackers out there. We're discussing a man who wants to take full responsibility for the child after birth. If the man is to be the sole guardian, then he is obligated by law to take adequate care of the child. If he fails to do so, it would fall into the catagory criminal negligence if I'm not mistaken.
However, I still stand by my point that when and if the woman and man consciously make the descision to have a child they CANNOT abort it just because they got stage fright. If he OR she didn't know for sure they should've used condoms and/or the pill (or other anti-conception means).
Once a woman is pregnant through a conscious descision, she should see it through.
Now, if the condom ruptured, she was raped, one night stand while single, etc... then there is a reason to have an abortion. but not because she got cold feet. they should've thought of that before they made their conscious descision.
-
Originally posted by Primus
It's so ****ing easy for a man to say that he wants or doesn't want a child. He isn't the one who has to carry the baby for nine months and put his health in for a possible danger. Neither he has to go through the abortion.
You are aware that Tiara is a woman, yes?
Incidentally, last summer I bought a one year gym membership. I used it for a few months, but stopped going some time ago. However, I still responsible to pay for it. And that was just a measly gym membership and $24 per month.
Somewhere in a major city today, some guy got busted for robbing a convenience store. He's going to be tossed in jail for a while. If (miracle of miracles) the prison system convinces him that doesn't want to be a criminal anymore, he still can't leave until at least the minimum time alloted as punishment has passed.
When you make choices, they have consequences, and when your actions entail obligations to others, you are bound by those obligations. You choose to sleep with someone, you deal with the consequences. Getting pregnant entails obligations to other lives than your own, and so you are bound by those obligations.
-
I agree with you wholeheartedly Tiara, which is why my post starts with "ideally no". But you can't have the argument without the legal implications, which is all I'm trying to point out. Truth be told, if the man takes sole custody the mother doesn't want it, it verges on her needing to pay child support. The law should be gender-blind here, but it isn't nor will it ever be.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
You are aware that Tiara is a woman, yes?
Yes.
Originally posted by Tiara
However, I still stand by my point that when and if the woman and man consciously make the descision to have a child they CANNOT abort it just because they got stage fright. If he OR she didn't know for sure they should've used condoms and/or the pill (or other anti-conception means).
Once a woman is pregnant through a conscious descision, she should see it through.
Now, if the condom ruptured, she was raped, one night stand while single, etc... then there is a reason to have an abortion. but not because she got cold feet. they should've thought of that before they made their conscious descision.
I agree.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
You are aware that Tiara is a woman, yes?
What's that got to do with anything? Regardless of where you stand on the abortion issue you can point at tonnes of women who are "wrong".
-
Originally posted by Primus
I see your point.. But.. If the woman doesn't want the child and the man does, she should go through pregnancy and delivery, so that the man could have the child?
I think that's wrong. Why? Because the mother don't have to go through all that because somebody else wants so.
Primus, its a baby, not a cancerous tumor. Women have been having babies since the dawn of time. :)
I believe that two people consenting to sex also must realize that even with birth control they are risking pregnancy. It goes with the territory....so thereby consenting to sex, you are also consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. If you're both adult enough for sex, then by God, be adult enough to take responsibility for the consequences. If not, then keep your stuff in your pants.
-
Yes, I know, Sapp :) But pregnancy and delivery don't always go without problems.
-
No they don't. and the woman knows that when she has sex. she knows every chance that she is taking, ie disease, pregnancy, etc. So she does it the full knowledge. yet she can kill a man's child when she decides to.
-
Yeah. Ofcourse there's possibility of a pregnancy, even when using protection. But that doesn't mean that the woman can't do an abortion if she wants to, even if the man wants to have the child.
*Edited*
-
Sapphire is right, in my opinion, to taking more responsibility to where you stick your wanger, however, hormones are not famed for being reasonable or responsible, the human race comes with a built in drive to 'make babies'.
Sharon wouldn't have an abortion if an accident happened, and I respect that choice and would, obviously, support it, even though I have no particular wish to be a father, should a child come along, I would try to e the best father I could, but I think the problem does not lay with people of my age, it lay with teenage pregnancies etc. A girl or boy goes out with his mates, gets a bit drunk etc etc, and the next thing they know, they are going to be a parent, and they are neither phsycologically nor financially prepared.
Yes, reponsibility is required, but to attempt to apply the same ethics to people who are flooded with Testoserone, who feel constantly pressured to 'prove' their sexuality, and who are fighting against a bodily 'demand' that is, from a species point of view, a matter of life AND death is difficult.
I think the option should be available, but, as in Holland, where possible, every care is taken to make sure there are no other options available to the person involved.
Doctors don't actually like performing abortions too often, it damages the womb, and always carries a possiblity of rendering the woman infertile. I think this is not common enough knowledge, and that an attitude of 'An Alternative to the Pill' can be adopted by girls. But then choosing to have your child killed is far from an easy decision to make.
I suppose my concern in that respect is that the decisions on the laws regarding Abortion are being made by groups that consist predominately of malesand women who have never been in desperate enough a situation to see abortion as their only option.
-
so the man has no rights if the woman wants to abort, but if she wants to keep it and the man doesn't, then he still has no rights and pays the child support. in your way of thinking, men have no rights.
"Life, what a wonderful alternative"
-
Not exactly, that's sort of murky water. In my opinion Men should only have to pay Child support if it is his direct actions that ended the relationship, i.e. unfaithfullness, violence etc. If the break-up is caused by the woman, then she has made her choice and should live with it. If it is mutual then they can sort it out themselves, and only take it to court if there is a dispute.
It's the only way it can work really, else the whole siutation turns around and you'd have scores of men claiming, 'I wanted the baby aborted but she didn't' just to get out of paying for it.
-
no, i think that the non custodial p[arent should have to pay. but by what Primus is saying, the man has no rights at all. If she says kill, they kill it regardless of what he wants, if she says, let it live, then he pays regardless of what he wants. it's a double standard.
-
Originally posted by Primus
Yeah. Ofcourse there's possibility of a pregnancy, even when using protection. But that doesn't mean that the woman can't do an abortion if she wants to, even if the man wants to have the child.
Well it ****ing well should. You sir are a disgrace to the entire father's rights movement, and it's attitudes like yours that have allowed the system to degrade to the point it's at now.
-
No flaming man, let's keep it civil. I disagree with his POV as well, but a different point of view never made anyone a lesser being. just different is all.
-
My point is: Nobody can not tell a woman to have a baby or to have an abortion, if she doesn't want to
And that is my POV 'till the day I die.
A disgrace to the entire father's rights movement, etc.? Yeah... Well, I must admit... That hurt my feelings... I share one point of view of mine and now you think that you know me, huh?
-
The thing about abortion, I think, is that it's a medical procedure; you can't force a person to undergo surgery, for example (except maybe under exceptional circumstances after a long legal action?); so you can't force a partner (er, the woman, obviously) to have an abortion.
But, at the same time, you can't deny medical treatment on the basis of another individuals opinion or beliefs. Whilst it takes two to create a child, there's only one who carries it; and I think the legalities of abortion (or rather who can give consent/seek it) are concerned with that medical situation, rather than the various conflicting moral views.
(Whilst I don't like or approve the idea of abortion as an easy 'get out clause' for unplanned preganancy, I think that's always going to be the inevitable consequence, because every system is open to and will be abused; look at the NHS, benefits services for example. But I wouldn't illegalize it, because I think that choice is important)
Paternal rights/liabilities.... I think there is still a hangover of the old attitude that 'a womans place is in the home', so there's an ingrained expectation that the father must support the family.
I'm not sure if that's always fair, of course; the problem is that you have 2 conflicting things here - 1/ the mother aborts against her will (which IMO would really be a violation of personal rights, even if she's grudgingly convinced to do so) or 2/ the father has to pay for the child he doesn't want.
I believe that the 2nd is a better option (by no means ideal), because it involves a financial 'penalty'; the 1st entails a physical and probably psychological effect which IMO would be more damaging on an individual basis. Obviously it has to balanced against the honest wish of the father not to have a child, against him simply running away from his responsibility.
Oh, and single murder depending on the developmental stage of the child. I'll admit that I'd like to see him go down for a double murder cos he's clearly a twisted ****, but from a detached perspective I don't think you can change the legal age of 'life' around to suit the situation.
-
I see your point.. But.. If the woman doesn't want the child and the man does, she should go through pregnancy and delivery, so that the man could have the child?
I think that's wrong. Why? Because the mother don't have to go through all that because somebody else wants so.
But it's not like the woman is the only one who suffers consequences with child support. The man is also forced to pay money for this baby that he may not have wanted at all. That's not quite at the level of possibility-of-death-during-birth, but it could still change their life significantly.
Both parties suffer consequences. If there is a choice in the matter to change the initial decision that led to the pregnancy, both parties should have a say in the decision. Otherwise, if you're going to say that the baby's part of the woman's body, and so therefore she has complete and total say, how can you justify the father being in any way responsible? It is after all, part of her body - are people not responsible for their own bodies? Should people expect someone else to pay for extensive medical treatment, simply because they got sick from them and then decided to not take proper medication to take care of that illness, before it became serious? That seems to be the sort of thinking you're advocating.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
But it's not like the woman is the only one who suffers consequences with child support. The man is also forced to pay money for this baby that he may not have wanted at all. That's not quite at the level of possibility-of-death-during-birth, but it could still change their life significantly.
Both parties suffer consequences. If there is a choice in the matter to change the initial decision that led to the pregnancy, both parties should have a say in the decision. Otherwise, if you're going to say that the baby's part of the woman's body, and so therefore she has complete and total say, how can you justify the father being in any way responsible? It is after all, part of her body - are people not responsible for their own bodies? Should people expect someone else to pay for extensive medical treatment, simply because they got sick from them and then decided to not take proper medication to take care of that illness, before it became serious? That seems to be the sort of thinking you're advocating.
The act of conception and the action of pregnancy are different, though; the former involves two people, the latter one. The man is responsible for the conception of the child, but he doesn't have any role within the pre-natal development of the child because that is solely within the mothers body. After birth, there's not that medical constraint; the whole reason for giving the mother precedence in an abortion decision is because it's her body, life even, which would be affected.
-
I don't think I have mentioned anything about man paying child support.
I've only stated this:
Originally posted by Primus
My point is: Nobody can not tell a woman to have a baby or to have an abortion, if she doesn't want to
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The act of conception and the action of pregnancy are different, though; the former involves two people, the latter one. The man is responsible for the conception of the child, but he doesn't have any role within the pre-natal development of the child because that is solely within the mothers body. After birth, there's not that medical constraint; the whole reason for giving the mother precedence in an abortion decision is because it's her body, life even, which would be affected.
Yes!
-
The father and mother are both involved in the creation of a human being (or, if you'd prefer, a potential human being). So they both "own" the developing child. Just because only the woman is carrying it doesn't change that, any more than a child living with only one divorced parent changes that he belongs to both parents. Abortion of the child without the consent of one parent is theft of the child from that parent.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Just because only the woman is carrying it doesn't change that, any more than a child living with only one divorced parent changes that he belongs to both parents.
If a child lives with one divorced parent, the parents health is not bound to the child living with them.
I'm not a fan of abortions which take place without both parents consent - it's unfair for one (obvious) reason - but it's the mothers (remember, both mental and physical) health which will be affected, not the father. That's why the mother has precedence.
-
Originally posted by Primus
I don't think I have mentioned anything about man paying child support.
Page 1:
Yes. The child belongs to both parents and both are responsible for the child. That's why the father should pay support, even if he didn't want the child. Why? Because it is his child, no matter if he didn't want it.
This is what I chiefly disagree with. I don't see how anyone can say 'The woman has complete control over the matter' but then say 'but the man takes responsibility for her choice.' It's a violation of free will and self-determination, and is equivocable to being fined or sued for breaking a law. But what has the father done to deserve this? He's impregnated a woman. It may have been intentional, it may have been completely unintentional and due to the failure of some sort of birth control.
The act of conception and the action of pregnancy are different, though; the former involves two people, the latter one. The man is responsible for the conception of the child, but he doesn't have any role within the pre-natal development of the child because that is solely within the mothers body. After birth, there's not that medical constraint; the whole reason for giving the mother precedence in an abortion decision is because it's her body, life even, which would be affected.
That's true, but my chief objection here is forcing one person to live with the consequences of a choice - that they have no control over. If you want to argue straight-out abortion, I'm probably not going to be a very good debater because I look at the situation too literally. To be pro-choice, one is infringing on the life of the foetus. To be pro-life, one is infringing on the life of the mother and possibly the father. With modern medical science the chances of injury during birth are lower, and the survival of the foetus are higher, but it's still not a sure thing.
In the end I tend towards pro-choice, as an abortion is sure to kill the foetus and deny it a chance at life, wheras there's only a chance of the mother/baby dying as a result of or during childbirth. But it seems enough of a grey area to me that it's difficult to wholeheartedly support one or the other.
When you say 'the mother should take precedence' in an abortion decision, though, I completely agree. But in a decision between two people, giving the mother precedence effectively gives the husband no say whatsoever in the matter. In order to give the mother any sort of fair precedence, IMHO, you'd have to have some sort of system set up that involved other considerations besides the wishes of the parents - eg if the mother's life is at significant risk.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
When you say 'the mother should take precedence' in an abortion decision, though, I completely agree. But in a decision between two people, giving the mother precedence effectively gives the husband no say whatsoever in the matter. In order to give the mother any sort of fair precedence, IMHO, you'd have to have some sort of system set up that involved other considerations besides the wishes of the parents - eg if the mother's life is at significant risk.
Well, this is the key issue- how do you give fair representation without infringing the mothers medical rights? Is it right to deny someone medical treatment because of a 3rd party? Especially as it's a black and white choice; there's not really any way to compromise.
At the moment, IIRC, (in the UK) an abortion requires the approval of 2 doctors; this is probably the best you can do (i.e. it involves an assessment of the mothers state of mind and ability to make a rational decision), because to actively take medical control away from the mother is establishing a dangerous precedent... I think the only condition where it may have happened (if ever) is in the case of a mother unable to mentally comprehend the responsibility of pregnancy and childbirth (i.e. due to being too young, or mentally ill) and thus make an informed decision.
-
Again I'm getting the feeling that an unborn child is being compared to a tumor or sickness. Medical treatment for a pregnancy should be thought of in terms of pre-natal care, not termination. And when we use the excuse of possible complications of pregnancy to support a decision for abortion (in the case of an otherwise normal, healthy mother), lets not disregard the possible complications of abortion.
I personally believe that women who pick and choose which of their children survive till delivery do not deserve the label of "Mother" nor the right to become one. And any man who turns his back on being responsible for a life he was involved in creating, does not deserve to be called Daddy....ever. When abortion is being used as a means of birth control--or as a means to escape personal and/or financial responsibility, it only goes to show how low the human race has degenerated.
And I'm not suggesting to shove my standards onto others--I mean, if they can sleep at night knowing they've killed a child for their own selfish reasons, who am I to complain, right?
I'm curious as to how many advocates of abortion are also avid animal-rights people. Kill the Babies, Save the puppies!
Oh, and getting back to the main idea of this thread-- My opinion is: Yes, it should be a double murder charge.