Abortion

[palerider]

Does it give you even a moments pause when listening to these men deciding how ALL women should be forced to behave? I look at human history and I don't see any glimmer of intelligence in the behavior of the great mass of men who have taken us through endless wars. And now to have those same men deciding how we have to yield control of our bodies to their dictates even if we are raped seems to me to be giving away too large a portion of our autonomy.

Arguments don't have genders. How do you answer women who make the same argument as mine?

 

[palerider]

Dr. Who,

I do appreciate you trying to answer my questions, and I take no issue with your response, but you didn't answer the questions I was asking about.

Pale wants to recognize the rights of the unborn and put them on equal footing with everyone else. This would necessarily ban the practice of abortion in all instances where the mothers' health was not being threatened by the unborn child. My question(s) to him was basically, what ramifications will this have and how can we prepare?

As with any policy, one can look at the impact a policy is likely to have prior to adopting it. This allows us to plan ahead and have solutions ready for the foreseeable consequences.

I don't think there is any doubt that enacting his policy will create certain obligations for the state and its taxpayers, this is what I was hoping we could discuss. Pale took my questions as a vein attempt to look for an excuse for why we shouldn't recognize an unborn child's rights but, as I stated, that was not at all my intention. I was merely curious as to whether or not he'd given any thought to the consequences of his policy and see if he had formulated some solutions.

Rather than use an analogy (Pale hates my analogies), I'll use a hypothetical example of enacting his policy and ask you some questions, to see what you think about the consequences of the policy and find out if you can think of any solutions.

Now that there are no more abortions (except medically necessary), there will be more children given up for adoption. While I hope that is not a debatable statement, I won't even guess as to the number because that just seemed to irritate Pale. But my first question was, "Where will they go?" and his answer was, "Where do they go now?"... Perhaps I should know the answer to his question but I don't... Where do they go now? Do we have state run orphanages? I think there are some private ones but I have no idea how many.

That led me to more questions: What is the maximum capacity for these institutions? How many do they hold now and how many can they handle? What is their current operating budget and how much will it rise if they reach maximum capacity?

Those are just a few of the questions I have but I feel they warrant serious consideration... And I state again that my purpose in asking is not to disparage the recognition of rights to the unborn but to encourage those who support the idea to contemplate the repercussions of such a policy, in order to develop solutions to foreseeable problems ahead of time.

I don't think Pale was prepared to deliberate on questions of "What then?" but I think it would greatly strengthen his position if he took them into account when arguing for the recognition of rights for the unborn.

Sorry to have gone so long Dr. Who... I do hope you understand the nature of my questions and are willing to discuss them with me... At the very least begin thinking about the "What then?" aspects of recognizing rights for the unborn, because the Pro-Life argument is advancing and it may become a reality sooner than we think.

At the bottom line is this question: Do any possible answers for any of the questions or senarios above justify denying an entire class of human beings, or even a single human being, their most basic human right?

 

[palerider]

Forty million more lives saved...to be on welfare and unemployment. Would that make things better or worse for us in the current economy? Hmmm? I wonder.

Where exactly do you get the idea that any particular percentage would have been on welfare or unemployment?

 

[palerider]

. I am not one of those people who can look though a microscope at two cells on a slide and convince myself I see a "baby".

Your inabilty to wrap your mind around a fact does not alter it in the least. There were, and are, those who could look right at a black, or a jew, or a gypsy and genuinely not be able to see a human being. How do you suppose you are any different?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Arguments don't have genders. How do you answer women who make the same argument as mine?

It's their choice, I am in favor of women being able to control their own bodies. As soon as you carry a baby you too will have my support in making decisions about your own body. It's called being secure in one's person, it keeps others from using you against your will.

 

[Pandora]

It's their choice, I am in favor of women being able to control their own bodies. As soon as you carry a baby you too will have my support in making decisions about your own body. It's called being secure in one's person, it keeps others from using you against your will.

Mare, I am wondering how you feel about the support of the child.

You are saying its totally up to a woman if the baby is born or killed and you support her in that.

A man has no say in if his child is flushed or born. But once that baby is born due totally to a woman's choice, the man will pay for 18 years to support the child and further on if a court says he will pay for college exc.

Do you think that is fair to the man? Don't you think he should have a say in if he wants to be a parent to the child like the woman has?

 

[dahermit]

Your inabilty to wrap your mind around a fact does not alter it in the least.

Where did I say it did? Also, what "fact" did I dispute?

 

[dahermit]

Where exactly do you get the idea that any particular percentage would have been on welfare or unemployment?

By adding 40 million to the 10% that are already unemployed and those on welfare. Where exactly do you get the idea that 40 million more people would not effect those rates.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare, I am wondering how you feel about the support of the child.

You are saying its totally up to a woman if the baby is born or killed and you support her in that.

A man has no say in if his child is flushed or born. But once that baby is born due totally to a woman's choice, the man will pay for 18 years to support the child and further on if a court says he will pay for college exc.

Do you think that is fair to the man? Don't you think he should have a say in if he wants to be a parent to the child like the woman has?

I'm uncomfortable with a man being able to tell a woman that she has to kill her baby because he doesn't want to pay for it. No, I don't necessarily think it's fair to men, but then I don't think it's fair to make a woman carry a baby to term if she's been raped either.

Men need to keep their pants zipped up if they don't want to be paying child support. I don't think that there are any hard and fast answers to this problem--that's one of the reasons that I disagree with Pale, he wants a one-size-fits-all solution with women carrying the load (so to speak).

 

[Pandora]

I'm uncomfortable with a man being able to tell a woman that she has to kill her baby because he doesn't want to pay for it. No, I don't necessarily think it's fair to men, but then I don't think it's fair to make a woman carry a baby to term if she's been raped either.

Men need to keep their pants zipped up if they don't want to be paying child support. I don't think that there are any hard and fast answers to this problem--that's one of the reasons that I disagree with Pale, he wants a one-size-fits-all solution with women carrying the load (so to speak).

Well if men need to keep their pants zipped up if they don't want to be paying child support, should not a woman keep her panties on if she don't want to get pregnant? (with the exeption of rape of course)

It just seems one sided to me, and unfair.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Well if men need to keep their pants zipped up if they don't want to be paying child support, should not a woman keep her panties on if she don't want to get pregnant? (with the exeption of rape of course)

It just seems one sided to me, and unfair.

Yes, it's unfair. Women have been owned and used and raped by men for all of human history--where's the fair in that?

If women are to be required by law to bear any child they become pregnant with no matter how it happens, then it's only reasonable for all men to be responsible for all the children they father whether they want them or not.

What would be more fair?

 

[Pandora]

Yes, it's unfair. Women have been owned and used and raped by men for all of human history--where's the fair in that?

If women are to be required by law to bear any child they become pregnant with no matter how it happens, then it's only reasonable for all men to be responsible for all the children they father whether they want them or not.

What would be more fair?

it would be more fair for them to have a say in it.

women in history were treated badly. I agree. It is not the fault of the men of today or the potential fathers of today. No more than its your fault that my family were killed and the land stole from them. I do not hold that against you. We as women should not hold the past against the men of today.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

it would be more fair for them to have a say in it.

women in history were treated badly. I agree. It is not the fault of the men of today or the potential fathers of today. No more than its your fault that my family were killed and the land stole from them. I do not hold that against you. We as women should not hold the past against the men of today.

Three out of five women will be assualted in their lifetimes today. If women are going to be required to carry every baby to term by law, then why shouldn't men be required to support them?

If the law places such high value on the lives of babies that women are required to care for them INSIDE their own bodies, then it's only reasonable that the law require the father to support their offspring.

What say would you give the father? He can't demand that she have an abortion, the only say he could have would be that he's running out on his responsibility. With the Pale law and no abortions available for anyone, then no one will have any choice: if two people produce a baby then by law the two of them should be required to care for it equally, don't you think?

 

[Pandora]

Three out of five women will be assualted in their lifetimes today. If women are going to be required to carry every baby to term by law, then why shouldn't men be required to support them?

If the law places such high value on the lives of babies that women are required to care for them INSIDE their own bodies, then it's only reasonable that the law require the father to support their offspring.

What say would you give the father? He can't demand that she have an abortion, the only say he could have would be that he's running out on his responsibility. With the Pale law and no abortions available for anyone, then no one will have any choice: if two people produce a baby then by law the two of them should be required to care for it equally, don't you think?

women are not required to carry a baby but men are required to pay for them

I think it would be fair if it were agreed on. If a woman gets pregnant and wants to keep the baby and the man agrees he wants to be the father then they agree and both will pay

if the woman wants an abortion then she wants it and the man should not have to pay for it, if the woman wants to keep the baby and the man does not then he should not have to pay for it.

its absolutly stupid that women have so much damn power over men and men are dumb enough to put up with it.

a woman can get a man drunk have sex with him knowing she is not protected and hoping she gets pregnant because the man is rich and she wants a settlement. That same man has no power over the life of the baby if she wants to flush it down a toilet but if she decides she wants it or there is big money to be had she can ruin this mans life for over 18 years. if it were a two way street and a man could do the same to a woman i would not care but its very one sided and I am just shocked that there are so many people who buy into this.

A man and woman gets married or are dating and have a baby, are together then later break up...well of course the man should pay child support but a women dating a guy on and off nothing serious but there is sex, holds his life in her hands and we all sit back and call that fair, its not. its dumb and should end.

 

[GenSeneca]

They deserve no answers because they are red herrings.

I am not playing a game. I am asking you a question that logically follows the answer you gave to another question. If you can't answer such questions, it is because your position is weak and you don't want to expose the weakness.

I'm sure you can fabricate some reason why your own words and reasoning do not apply to the exact same situation when I'm asking questions that logically follow the answers you have given.

My questions are legitimate but I can understand why they would be construed as red herrings in this narrowly framed thread, so I will make a separate thread. Unfortunately, you are not prepared to answer any of those question so I doubt you, or anyone else who supports your position, will care to discuss them.

The right to be free is secondary to the right to live.

I don't make a single argument that can not be applied equally to every human being in this country.

Arguments that can't be applied across the board to all human beings are simply not valid arguments ...

If the above statements are to be taken seriously, and you've already established that the right to life extends to a right to be provided the necessities of life, then the state is free to absolve all our other rights, suspend everyone's liberty, confiscate all property and ration all necessities, in order to equally "protect" everyone's right to life.