What a Baby is Alive?

[taks]

cartman's mother wanted to abort him when he was 8.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well that pretty much wins the topic, doesn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes.

 

taks

[Sand]

The man is irrelevant, Moth.

 

Does the man carry the child to term? No.

Does the man have to deal with the side effects of pregnancy? No.

Does the man have to go through the pains of birth? No.

 

Only the woman have to endure these things and thusly it is the only the woman who has the say.

[Dark Moth]

Radical feminist logic at its finest. But hey, who cares about the man? It's not as if he didn't help create it [/sarcasm].

 

Does the child just carry her genes? No. Did the father help create it? Yes. I'll say it again:

 

What is it with you people and always assuming that the father won't even care or won't even be around for the child?

 

Is the baby the woman's alone? No. Was she solely responsible for creating it? No. The fact that she has to carry it is not enough to say it's her decision alone. If she consented to sex and the father is still around (and isn't a total deadbeat) then he has a say in it as well.

 

A relationship, with or without a child, is not just the woman's alone. It's supposed to be both. Trying to give all the power to a woman is both selfish and unfair. Should the woman have more influence over the decision? Probably. But in no way should she have 100% power over the final say.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Dark Moth

[astr0creep]

The man is irrelevant, Moth. 

 

Does the man carry the child to term?  No.

Does the man have to deal with the side effects of pregnancy?  No.

Does the man have to go through the pains of birth?  No.

 

Only the woman have to endure these things and thusly it is the only the woman who has the say.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

All true Sandman but some things you forget.

First, there are some side-effect of pregnancy that only the father can and will feel. Of course those are nowhere near as intense as the mother, at least not physically...

Second, who will mainly be hunting and gathering after birth?

 

The mother has the final decision for sure but I really think it is essential for both future parents to have a long, meaningful discussion about this as early as possible as both of their lives will change until the day they both die and that takes longer than 9 months.

[Gfted1]

The man is irrelevant, Moth. 

 

Does the man carry the child to term?  No.

Does the man have to deal with the side effects of pregnancy?  No.

Does the man have to go through the pains of birth?  No.

 

Only the woman have to endure these things and thusly it is the only the woman who has the say.

 

Wether or not the woman feels pain during childbirth is not only up to the woman, its totally stupid to use as a determining factor on who gets to make decisions regarding their baby.

 

I know you do this shtick but I cant help but wonder if people randomly chop you in the windpipe in real life.

[Sand]

Moth, the fact that she is the only one to carry it is reason enough for it do be her decision alone. As a man, what right do we have to tell a woman what she can do and not do to her own body?

[Dark Moth]

Maybe because the baby is not part of her body?

[taks]

As a man, what right do we have to tell a woman what she can do and not do to her own body?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

she gave up ultimate control when she agreed to be impregnated...

 

taks

[Sand]

It is dependent on her body, like a parasite, and she has the right to excise it from her body.

[Dark Moth]

As a man, what right do we have to tell a woman what she can do and not do to her own body?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

she gave up ultimate control when she agreed to be impregnated...

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed.

 

It is dependent on her body, like a parasite, and she has the right to excise it from her body.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But it's not a parasite. And in case you missed the point earlier, it's something she AND the father both helped create. Kind of blows both your points out of the water, doesn't it? :D

[Sand]

Nope.

 

Woman's body. Woman's choice.

 

If the man can carry the child to term then you might have a case but we can't and you don't.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Sand

[astr0creep]

Moth, the fact that she is the only one to carry it is reason enough for it do be her decision alone.  As a man, what right do we have to tell a woman what she can do and not do to her own body?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You know, a great man once said: "I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you."

 

During pregnancy, that is basically the father's role I find.

And after pregnancy, the parent's role is not limited to the mother, it's pretty much 50/50. No court decision can change that either.

[Sand]

So you are saying that if a woman wants the abortion and the man wants the child the man has the right to force the woman through pregnancy? That is a load of bulls**t. Or vice versa, if the man wants the woman to have the abortion but the woman doesn't, but since he is the "provider" she has to go through with it?

 

Nice 19th century thinking, guys. Why don't you join the 21st century. Oh, consent to sex does not equal consent to have a child.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Sand

[Dark Moth]

Nope.

 

Woman's body.  Woman's choice.

 

If the man can carry the child to term then you might have a case but we can't and you don't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But it's not part of a woman's body. We've been over that before. Now you're just using circular reasoning because you have nothing else to fall back on. I already have more of a case than you do because you can't use any other argument and can't erase the fact that it's partly the man's child. A child that is formed out of the loving relationship of a couple belongs to both, not just the woman. Keep in mind I'm not talking about rape victims here or fathers who abandon the mother. And I know you're taking some of your own reasoning from your own personal bad experiences and looking at it solely through your own eyes. You've never had a father, nor have you ever been one, so how the hell do you know? Simply put, you don't.

 

Also, putting all the power in the woman's hands is not 21st century thinking. Giving power to both the mother and the father is.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Dark Moth

[Sand]

Yes, it is part of the woman's body. It is dependent on her. Until it is independent of the woman's bodily functions, till it is born, it is a part of the woman's body.

 

Its either all or nothing, Moth. It is irrelevant if the couple is in a loving relationship or it is a one night stand.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Sand

[Dark Moth]

Yes, it is part of the woman's body.  It is dependent on her.  Until it is independent of the woman's bodily functions, till it is born,  it is a part of the woman's body.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, circular reasoning. A tapeworm is also dependent on its host for survival. That doesn't make it part of the host's body.

 

A baby is dependent on the mother, but it is not a part of her body. It grows develops independently from her. She was not born with it or the ability to create it alone, nor is it it made up of her cells. Her DNA only makes up half of its genome. Biologically, it is not part of her body. Case closed.

 

Its either all or nothing, Moth. It is irrelevant if the couple is in a loving relationship or it is a one night stand.

Uh, no. Frankly I'm surprised you speak as if you've actually been through it before. Until you actually are a father or are in a loving relationship, maybe you should get off your moral high horse.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Dark Moth

[Sand]

In either case there is a dependency therefore it is the woman's choice to end that dependency. Not the man's. The father has no say in this, or at least shouldn't.

[Dark Moth]

I knew you'd say something like that. You're either not grasping any of my points or just choosing to ignore them. All your points have either been discredited or shot down, so you just go back to stating your opinion without actually giving any more reasons why.

[Sand]

Uh, no.  Frankly I'm surprised you speak as if you've actually been through it before.  Until you actually are a father or are in a loving relationship, maybe you should get off your moral high horse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I get off mine when you get off yours, Moth.

 

I am not going to change my position. A man has absolutely no right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body or things that are dependent on her body.

[Sand]

I knew you'd say something like that.  You're either not grasping any of my points or just choosing to ignore them.  All your points have either been discredited or shot down, so you just go back to stating your opinion without actually giving any more reasons why.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I understand your points quite well and in my view you are wrong. Plain and simple.

 

When making laws on abortion there is no sure bet that the couple is in a loving relationship, or if it is a one night stand, or rape, or whatever the circumstances might be. There needs to be clear cut and no ambiguity whatsoever in determining the rights of those involved.

 

You can't have a law with maybes or what ifs, and the such.

 

Abortion is a form of birth control, and since there is only one gender that gives birth in our species only the woman has the right to determine if she carries the child or not.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Sand

[Dark Moth]

Uh, no.  Frankly I'm surprised you speak as if you've actually been through it before.  Until you actually are a father or are in a loving relationship, maybe you should get off your moral high horse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I get off mine when you get off yours, Moth.

 

I am not going to change my position. A man has absolutely no right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body or things that are dependent on her body.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unlike you, I've had a father and know what a loving relationship is like. So unlike you, I at least have experience to back up some of my POV.

 

I know. Otherwise you might be wrong, and we all know how bad that'd be.

[Fionavar]

Shall we try to step little more lightly or have we arrived at the end of the civil component of this thread?

[Sand]

If every single relationship between a man, woman, and child was exactly like the one you have had then you would have a point. However that is not the case in every single possible circumstance that can come up in relationships. To think that your case is the norm and should dictate the lives of every single human being on the planet is the ultimate in hubris.

 

Keep it simple.

 

Woman carries child. Woman has final say.

[Dark Moth]

I understand your points quite well and in my view you are wrong.  Plain and simple.

 

When making laws on abortion there is no sure bet that the couple is in a loving relationship, or if it is a one night stand, or rape, or whatever the circumstances might be.  There needs to be clear cut and no ambiguity whatsoever in determining the rights of those involved.

 

You can't have a law with maybes or what ifs, and the such. 

 

Abortion is a form of birth control, and since there is only one gender that gives birth in our species only the woman has the right to determine if she carries the child or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The issue is not abortion laws. The issue is whether or not the husband can have a say in whether or not they keep the child or not.

 

Oh okay, a form of birth control. Some might see it as a form of murder, but let's look at it positively, shall we? Frankly, I'd rather contraceptives be a form of birth control than abortion. And I'll say it again, the child is not hers alone. Therefore, she should not be the one to have all the say. Plain and simple. I find it rather amusing that you speak as if you've been there before.

 

If every single relationship between a man, woman, and child was exactly like the one you have had then you would have a point.  However that is not the case in every single possible circumstance that can come up in relationships.  To think that your case is the norm and should dictate the lives of every single human being on the planet is the ultimate in hubris.

 

Keep it simple.

 

Woman carries child.  Woman has final say.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And you're speaking as if every single relationship is like what you've personally experienced. But the fact of the matter is, it's not, therefore I do have a point and you don't. So you say that just because not all relationships are loving that we have to apply your POV to every single one? What logic. Keep it simple? Wow. You mean, keep it so it fits your opinion. Unlike you, I'm making exceptions to my opinion based on the situation. You however are trying to force your standard, even though you've had no experience in the matter, onto everyone out there regardless of the situation. Funny, you complain about religions doing the same thing.

 

Shall we try to step little more lightly or have we arrived at the end of the civil component of this thread?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think we'll step a little more lightly, dear Fio.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Dark Moth

[Sand]

Contraceptives are preferable, yes. You won't get any argument from me there but it is still a viable form of birth control if all other forms failed. As much as the various forms of contraceptives help to stave off pregnancy there is only one action that is 100% full proof against unwanted pregnancy and that is abstinence.

 

Also you are assuming, with the the use of "husband," that the couple is married. Not everyone who has sex are married.