We already debated this one, yamo. The answer is that a father’s obligation to support the child do not inure to the mother, they inure to the child. The mother should not, by her actions, be able to waive support on behalf of her child if she does not have the ability to support the child herself. When the competing interests are the father’s right to be free of an obligation he doesn’t want, and the child’s right to be supported by his or her biological parents (as opposed to society at large through the auspices of the government), the interests of the only truly innocent party – the child – must prevail.
Could it really be called murder? I mean, it’s not exactly malicious.
If you discovered that you had a tumor, would you let it grow? Of course, I’m not calling fetuses “tumors”, but you (should) see the point. (No, I’m not going to be sucked into “but tumors aren’t going to grow up and be cute little living, breathing human beings” debates.) They’re little things that make BIG differences. If you’re not ready for a big difference, rectify the situation, and do your damndest to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Women don’t constantly manufacture ova like men do sperm. We get what we get when we’re born and that’s that. Whilst men can go spouting off whenever they feel “the pressure”, women lose one (sometimes more) ova every damn month for approximately fifty years. That being the case, I’m certainly not gonna relinquish control of what happens to MY eggs to anyone.
I’ve had a notion for someone’s sociology thesis floating around my head for awhile, and y’all can tell me if there’s anything to it. It wouldn’t prove anything about whether the fetus is really a person, but - IMO - it would tell us something about the extent to which pro-lifers believe it’s a person.
Interview a whole bunch of pro-life women of childbearing age, especially on the late side of that age range.
Find out what normal burial practices are in their family.
Find out if they’ve had miscarriages, and if so, at what stage of pregnancy.
Find out what was done with the body of the fetus/child.
Point being, if abortion is murder, then miscarriage is the natural death of a child. If they consider the fetus to be a person, then they should presumably treat the remains of a miscarriage the same as they would the remains of any other dead relative. (IIRC, the pro-lifers have tried to pass legislation here and there over the years that would require burial or cremation of the fetus after an abortion.)
If such research were conducted, it would be interesting to chart % buried (pro-lifers, as a group, aren’t big fans of cremation) against how far into the pregnancy the miscarriage occurred. My bet is that you’d get a fairly small percentage of burials until fairly late in the pregnancy, but it would be interesting to know for sure.
I consider myself a rather extremist pro-choice kind of guy (up until the moment of birth, no legal barriers to abortion + guaranteed availability), but I also agree with Yamo here. There’s no excuse for anything less than 400 million per year from the Federal budget devoted to non-inconvenient, dependable, either-user-controllable birth control. Any pregnancies I cause as a male oughta require an act of will on my part, a category inside of which I do not place “engages in sex with women”.
I believe that life begins the moment the woman’s bra is unsnapped, and the use of birth control is murder.
Is there significant difference from stopping a beating heart and preventing it from beating to begin with?
The reason that murder is wrong, is because it prevents someone from living a life. Whether you suck out a third-trimester fetus with a hoover-matic, or the girl I would have knocked up turns my ass down at the bar, the most important result is the same; someone is denied a life.
I am morally opposed to women turning me down, and demand legislation against it.
Furthermore, everyone must get drunk in the presence of a member of the opposite sex at least once a week. Teenagers may not have curfews, and parents may not interfere with their sex life in any way, shape or form.
Seriously, though.
jjtm posted 01-08-2000 01:47 AM
Yeah, and if a woman found out that she was unable to have get pregnant, that would be no big deal, either. Whatever.
Anti Pro posted 01-10-2000 10:35 PM
I don’t understand. Are you for or against government involvement? Propagandazing to students sounds like government involvement to me.
The way I see it, there are four major categories of logical attitudes (and many more illogical attitudes) towards abortion (although some people’s attitude might depend on the stage of the pregnancy):
The fetus (and by fetus I mean child-to-be, not whatever the specific medical definition is) is not a human being, and injunctions against murder do not apply to it (my point of view).
The fetus is a human being, and killing it is murder, but for some reason or another it isn’t as serious as killing someone that has been born.
The fetus is a human being, killing it is murder, and it is as serious as any other murder. But violence is never justified, even when it would prevent a murder.
The fetus is a human being, killing it is murder, it is as serious as any other murder, and violence against anyone that participates in an abortion is justified.
So, all you pro-lifers that complain that people who shoot abortion doctors make you look bad, do you belong to category 2 or category 3?
Okay, back to being silly: is killing someone before they become a born again Christian murder?
BTW, a man DOES have a right to not father children… it’s called keeping your pants zipped! (Incredible concept, I know…) Of course, a woman doesn’t have to get pregnant in the first place either. I know these are heavy duty concepts but they actually work! And don’t give me that “it’s unrealistic” crap, people abstain all the time. You just have to have a higher standard and respect for yourself.
Best quote: Abortion is sacrificing babies to the gods of selfishness and irresponsibility.
Going w/this asinine line of thinking: if you kill a person before they become a born-again Christian, it’s murder. If you kill them after being born-again, it’s a double murder… and now you have God after your butt.
It is true that 15% of the pregnancies end in miscarriage, but that wasn’t the question or part of my answer.
We were speaking about abortion, the pregnancy is stopped by a someone, not a something.
And murder is the killing of a human being, yes, I don’t believe it’s malicious (for profit, in the clinic’s case) so, I didn’t mean premeditated murder. But it IS the willful destruction of another life.
The argument could become, is it a human being, which has been implied already. My answer goes back to the key point, if you don’t stop that fetus from growing, it WILL eventually become a living, breathing baby.
I know I’ll not convince anyone who believes otherwise, and certainly you won’t convince me to the contrary either.
And to equate a baby with a tumor is an abhorrent concept, so I’m not going to go into that territory.
But, I guess that is why this subject is so divisive, it produces strong feelings on both sides. I reject the vicious attacks ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ because of the hatred, they produce violence which just furthers resistance to any sort of dialogue.
Everyone back to their respective corners. And breathe in deeply…ok, you can let it out now.
Anti Pro, great logic there. Would you like to come over for chicken? It’s a bit young, but you can have it fried, boiled, poached, or Benedict.
A fertilized egg is not a baby anything, because if it were, God would be guilty of mass murder because of the high percentage of eggs he doesn’t let attach to the wall of the uterus.
Ok, Tassey, thank you for bringing in the oh-so-original suggestion of abstinence. That, of course, is the only surefire method of birth control, but the discussion is not about abstinence, the discussion is about abortion. People who abstain have no reason to be considering abortion, therefore, suggesting it is irrelevant.
Anti Pro: You did get the point of the baby/tumor thing didn’t you? Didn’t you? They weren’t “equated”…it it what some would call a metaphor. I happen to have a gorgeous and intelligent little “tumor” who will turn two in April, and I’d like to have a few more “tumors” before I turn thirty. Please don’t make (even vague) allusions as to how I feel about children. It’s how I feel about abortion. A person who doesn’t want (for whatever reason) to have a child will not think of their baby as a baby, only as something small that needs to be removed before it gets bigger, much like a tumor.
>The mother should not, by her actions, be able to waive support on behalf of her child if she does not have the ability to support the child herself.<
but she can list the father as unknown and put the baby up for adoption…a legalistic abortion post partem
> When the competing interests are the father’s right to be free of an obligation he doesn’t want,<
But if he aborts he does not have an obligaation-want it or not.
>and the child’s right to be supported by his or her biological parents (as opposed to society at large through the auspices of the government), the interests of the only truly innocent party – the child – must prevail.<
The child has no superior rights only because of its age/weakness. Do the poor have a right to your money because they are weak and innocent? Many babies starve. Not my babies…not my problem. And, if aborted, that child is no longer his. If a mother brings to term an aborted child then she alone should be obligated to it. I have no problem with killing children in utero and i have no problem seeing them starve post partem. I only want equal political rights. If a thing can’t be done fairly then maybe it should not be done? My only objection to abortion is that there aint enough to go around.
