i don't have anything of substance to add to this threadQuote:
Then why not find a girl who actually wants a baby`? Why force someone unwilling?
Printable View
i don't have anything of substance to add to this threadQuote:
Then why not find a girl who actually wants a baby`? Why force someone unwilling?
Pro choice, You've all probably heard all the reasons for being pro choice so I'll spare my fingers from typing. This should be a poll.
Oh, edit: I think the father should have a say in it (like if he wants to keep it).
It's ALSO his child. Now that I think of it, it seems that rule would be hard to enforce. So I back down on that stance. Although morally, I think that's the right thing to do, but I'm not going to make anyone's personal decision (that's why I'm pro choice duh). So yeah, never mind on that.
I know this is late as hell, but I'm a daft and stubborn fucker at 1 in the morning.
This could not make less sense.
Also, are you suggesting that mentally impaired people do not have the ability to think?
Also also, not aimed particularly at you but, I hate the term "pro-life".
That was emotional psycho babble. Now that I've calmed down a bit, I should be better able to respond. And with the mentally impaired thing I've dragged in a whole other issue altogether.
About the pro-life thing - yes I know, it may sound self-righteous, but it is the way pro-lifers see their stance - as in favour of life, just as pro-choicers don't see themselves in favour of abortion but in favour of choice.
I hope this thread was the catalyst of greenhavoc's ban. It's about time :cheeky:
On topic: never thought about the man having a part of the decision before. I don't really agree with it though, since the woman has to dedicate 9 months of her life for the child's development, whereas the man just has to ejaculate. Should be a mix of the woman's decision and the decision of some sort of government agency who ensure the child will be brought up properly.
Some people seem to consider killing a fetus as killing a human. Though this is technically correct there are some more factors that has to be taken inte account. A fetus doesn't know what's going on. It doesn't know that it has a life in front of it, nor does it want this life, as it doesn't know there is such a thing. Killing a grown man on the other hand is something far worse. The man knows that it is alive, and it wants to keep this life. A fetus does not, because it does not know anything about any of this.
Saying that a fetus should have human rights overriding the mothers will to have an abortion is ridiculous. The fetus does not want human rights, in fact, it does not want anything. And the potential mother should have the rights to decide what happens with her body.
Yay for two equally solid absolutist viewpoints butting heads in a world obviously too complex for rigid absolutism.
Personally, I have a moral objection to abortion; I would never want my own child aborted.
But who am I to tell anyone else what to do? It would have sucked to have been aborted myself, and I'm very opposed to late-term abortions (babies can become socialized even in the womb from noises, fetuses whose mothers are around barking dogs are not frightened by dogs when they are born, compared to fetuses who were not around dogs.) so there's a gray area, but i believe IF there is going to be an abortion, make it early.
I do not, however, support any laws preventing early abortions.
Of course I wouldn't have known the difference, but I'm rather enjoying being alive right now.
Why must I be a vegetarian to value human life? I don't eat humans out of the value I attribute to them, nor do I wish to abort a fetus that is already learning and being socialized, what's confusing about that? (Only one of the vegetarians I know is pro-life.)
Yes, but this is only meaningful if the man also has a right to decide whether the potential baby is aborted or not. The problem is that irrespective of what the man says, it is ultimately the woman's choice. That is, man wants + woman doesn't want = abortion. Thus, man's say is ultimately irrelevant.
So, if a man gets a woman pregnant, and he doesn't want, but she does = she can demand CSA from the man and make the kid know its father. Whereas, if a man gets a woman pregnant, and he does want to support it, but she doesn't want it = no child. lol, it is ridiculous. It takes two to tango.
Other than that, I'm neither flat out pro or against - depends on many variables n circumstances (should be same for as to whether the man has a right).
We should feed the fetuses to the malnourished. Two birds one stone.
In my experience, abortions tend to suck for all involved (npi), but they absolutely have to be an available option, and I don't hold the decision against anyone: either to abort a pregnancy or to have a child they don't know they can support in comfort. A pregnancy is only ever a potential life, especially in the first three months, regardless of whether abortion's on the table (again, npi). We've improved the odds considerably, but pregnancy =/= baby. Legally, personhood is established at birth. It's a convenient milestone, easily established by the impression it makes and the resulting mess, and I see no reason to change it.
As for whether the sperm donor should have a say, I'm with IndieArthas; it depends entirely on the relationship. After "the act," that relationship is the man's only real connection with the pregnancy. If you want a say, earn one.