Who gives a fuck whether it's women or men. Men are just as involved in abortion. They can perform the abortions and they can help produce the aborted fetus.
This kind of sexism is veiled because feminazis think that men have no say over the life of their unborn child. Men can and should step up to save the child from being destroyed though. Abortion is as much the man's fault as the woman's because had he offered to care for it, perhaps the woman would not abort it.
I think you should give a fuck. If you ignore the fact that a pregnancy is made by a man and a woman together then you are losing half the issue.
And I hope you aren't directing your vitriolic bullshit about femanazis and sexism at me, or you may force me to be ageist and tell you to grow up before you get back to me.
...
Good. I believe that if you are going to make Abortion a crime... along the same lines as murder... then, you need to come up with a punishment for the guilty, right?
...
So... if abortion is considered to be murder... what is the appropriate penalty for murder/abortion? Is aborting a fetus the same as killing a 6 month old baby with a pitch fork? What penalty should the Woman, the Man and her Doctor face?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
In which HE needs to bears some of the costs and responsibility for banging her...
If he says he wants the baby... HE has to accept full custody of it to at least age 18... including paying for all of HER prenatal care as well as all costs for the birth. The mother relinquishes all rights... just as if she had given the baby up for adoption.
If he agrees to the Abortion... he is as guilty as the guy driving the car in a drive-by murder... right?
im saying from the perspective of the "abortion is murder and illegal" viewpoint. unless he was complicit (ie. funding or encouraging) in the abortion decision, he is not guilty just for impregnating her. he could still be an accomplice. but just like men have no say whatsoever in the decision now, a guy would not necessarily have any say then either. if it was illegal and he urged her not to, he could hardly be brought up on charges.
The truth is, it still comes down to the issue of abortion itself. Does the fetus constitute a human life, with all inherent rights and respect afforded to the rest of human life? Does a woman have the right to do whatever she wants with her body, regardless of how it affects a fetus, and regardless of whether or not that fetus can be considered as much a human life as any other person already born? Do we, as a society, have the right to impose laws and restrictions on what a person (ie. a woman) should be allowed to do?
It doesn't make sense to pose a hypothetical question like "how much time should they serve?" if we're then going to turn around and say "but it's just a cluster of cells". If that is your argument, then stick with that argument - don't pretend that that is not the issue at hand. If you were to suppose that that were not the issue, and that abortion is murder, then it makes perfect sense for those taking part in abortions to be looked on as murderers.
In other words, don't pretend that the problem is women going to jail or jails being overcrowded (because if you really could put those other questions aside and hypothetically accept that abortion is akin to murder, then these consequences would not be nearly sufficient to justify allowing such crimes to persist), but rather continue to insist that the problem is that women should have the right to choose - that's it! Defend that stance.
You pretend to suspend your bias in favour of objectivity, and pose a hypothetical situation arising from the opposing (ie. pro-life) stance, and claim to find loopholes further along the opponent's line of reasoning that are really only problematic if you never accepted the very fundamentals of the opposing stance to begin with. Do you see why this sort of circular argument is pointless? You're just insulting my intelligence, and you're not really furthering your argument at all.
Granted, there are some people who would call themselves pro-life and would still find your question to be a stumbling block, but I'm sure I could find people who call themselves pro-choice and are just as easily tripped up by equally frivolous, albeit unexpected, questions. Let's look at the argument itself, not those few arguers who really don't know where they stand as well as they think they know.
Sorry, that may be excessively wordy and a little too involved. It's just that I've been meaning to say this for a while, as it has applied to many arguments I've heard, and I really wanted to make myself understood. Did I make myself understood, or did that come across as complete gibberish?
the whole point of the article was asking that people like you defend your stance. nobody on the pro-life said is willing to talk about what penalties would be incurred by people if they got an abortion. we're asking you to think through your position.
all anyone is doing here is pointing on the logistical difficulties of the pro-life movement getting what it wants.
im saying from the perspective of the "abortion is murder and illegal" viewpoint. unless he was complicit (ie. funding or encouraging) in the abortion decision, he is not guilty just for impregnating her. he could still be an accomplice. but just like men have no say whatsoever in the decision now, a guy would not necessarily have any say then either. if it was illegal and he urged her not to, he could hardly be brought up on charges.
...
But he SHOULD.
It's not fair to pin it all on the girl... she didn't get pregnant all by herself. Men need to step up an take on the responsibility that they share in.
No banging... no pregnancy... no abortion... no problem.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I do defend that stance, as do plenty of others on this board. We're only asking that the pro-life side defend the stance that abortion is the same thing as murder, and to therefore insist that women getting abortions be treated as murderers and sentenced accordingly.
If that's the case, then I respect your argument. You're right - it does require a certain commitment to what I'm saying as a pro-lifer.
But then when I show some consitency and say that I do wholehearted agree that they should be treated the same, I'm met with a comment like "So it's the death penalty for women who have abortions and the doctors that perform them? From my perspective, the conservative movement needs more people like you and CorporateWhore." (I think it's safe to say that 2nd sentence is sarcastic).
All I'm saying is that if you can accept the more fundamental arguments that serve as the foundation for a pro-life stance, at least enough to pose the hypothetical question about jail time, then my conclusion should seem like a reasonable one. To waver at this point would be a sign of weakness and a lack of conviction in my stance, so why then am I criticized for not wavering.
I guess I understand that we can't always argue the fundamentals, because everything's been said a million times.
I just get frustrated when people patronize me by implying that even if I was right in those most basic issues, I'd still be wrong due to some other implications, when indeed those other implications are only viewed as wrong because I was wrong to begin with. Why do some people not see the futility of this sort of circular argument?
"It was Luke's fault" (Ed after stumbling on Soon Forget at Kitchener '05)
I bet some people would like to see the mother get the death sentence. Some judge the act itself with murderous intent. Death to abortionists punish them!
When you extrapolate the anti abortion sentiment notice how the irony itself reeks of stupidity?
Interesting indeed
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
...
But he SHOULD.
It's not fair to pin it all on the girl... she didn't get pregnant all by herself. Men need to step up an take on the responsibility that they share in.
No banging... no pregnancy... no abortion... no problem.
why does this not apply the other way with the pro-choice movement? she didnt get pregnant by herself, yet a man has absolutely no power to prevent a woman aborting his child.
the whole point of the article was asking that people like you defend your stance. nobody on the pro-life said is willing to talk about what penalties would be incurred by people if they got an abortion. we're asking you to think through your position.
all anyone is doing here is pointing on the logistical difficulties of the pro-life movement getting what it wants.
Logistical difficulties!! Bah!! My eyes deceive me! This from a pro-choicer.
And the logistical difficulties of splitting up the birth process into 3 trimesters never entered the minds of the justices that legalized abortion. Nevermind the fact that fetuses can now live outside the womb in the 2nd trimester, we go by 'settled law'... The logistical difficulties of overturning the laws of a majority of the states never entered their minds either!
There are myriad logistical difficulties in the pro-choice position. If a pregnant woman and her baby are murdered, it's a double homicide. If a pregnant woman wants to murder her baby, it's abortion. The only difference being that the woman didn't want the baby in the second case. THAT is a logical difficulty, I suppose.
Because of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, murderers can be charged with killing both the woman and the unborn child. This is a good thing. The problem is: the child must either be a worthless mass of cells that is not being killed or it must be a human being that is being killed. That law points out the illogical conclusions that pro-choice advocates must make in order to believe their position.
If the mother wants her child, it is a child. If she doesn't want it, it is not even worthy of life. VERY LOGISTICAL. Oh right logical. Heh.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
I bet some people would like to see the mother get the death sentence. Some judge the act itself with murderous intent. Death to abortionists punish them!
When you extrapolate the anti abortion sentiment notice how the irony itself reeks of stupidity?
Interesting indeed
...
Don't worry... it'll NEVER happen... you know why? Daughters of Law Makers, lawyers and politicians and self-righteous religious fucks get pregnant and have abortions. They can sweep that shit under the rug as confidential 'medical records'... but, put 'em out in open court...
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
the whole point of the article was asking that people like you defend your stance. nobody on the pro-life said is willing to talk about what penalties would be incurred by people if they got an abortion. we're asking you to think through your position.
all anyone is doing here is pointing on the logistical difficulties of the pro-life movement getting what it wants.
And I agree that we should look at the implications of our cause. However, assigning a specific quantitative measurement to the amount of appropriate punishment isn't easy for any crime. I wouldn't know what exactly is just the right sentence for theft, rape, tax evasion, or murder - it's not really a simple question with a clear answer in any case. I personally think 1st degree murder should land you somewhere between 10 yrs to life (not the death penalty) in most cases. However that's a fairly arbitrary number. Also, there are other things to take into consideration (ex. motive, criminal history, etc.). This is probably the real reason that the question tripped up so many pro-life activists. How quick would you be to assign a specific number appropriate for a certain crime? The courts never take sentencing so lightly, but we're expected to. And then their hesitation is twisted and misconstrued, all because they were caught off gaurd with a question that's much more difficult than they make it seem.
I just think that abortion should be treated comparably to murder, however that may be.
"It was Luke's fault" (Ed after stumbling on Soon Forget at Kitchener '05)
If that's the case, then I respect your argument. You're right - it does require a certain commitment to what I'm saying as a pro-lifer.
But then when I show some consitency and say that I do wholehearted agree that they should be treated the same, I'm met with a comment like "So it's the death penalty for women who have abortions and the doctors that perform them? From my perspective, the conservative movement needs more people like you and CorporateWhore." (I think it's safe to say that 2nd sentence is sarcastic).
I agree with the second sentence, in all seriousness and without sarcasm, although my reasons for wishing that more of you took that stance are undoubtedly much different from yours. For one thing, I think it's logically consistent. And of course, it would take the percentage of Americans who believe abortion should stay legal from the 60-70% range up to about 95%
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Logistical difficulties!! Bah!! My eyes deceive me! This from a pro-choicer.
And the logistical difficulties of splitting up the birth process into 3 trimesters never entered the minds of the justices that legalized abortion. Nevermind the fact that fetuses can now live outside the womb in the 2nd trimester, we go by 'settled law'... The logistical difficulties of overturning the laws of a majority of the states never entered their minds either!
There are myriad logistical difficulties in the pro-choice position. If a pregnant woman and her baby are murdered, it's a double homicide. If a pregnant woman wants to murder her baby, it's abortion. The only difference being that the woman didn't want the baby in the second case. THAT is a logical difficulty, I suppose.
Because of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, murderers can be charged with killing both the woman and the unborn child. This is a good thing. The problem is: the child must either be a worthless mass of cells that is not being killed or it must be a human being that is being killed. That law points out the illogical conclusions that pro-choice advocates must make in order to believe their position.
If the mother wants her child, it is a child. If she doesn't want it, it is not even worthy of life. VERY LOGISTICAL. Oh right logical. Heh.
you know there is a difference between logical and logistical?
anyway, i dont feel that way. the murder of a pregnant woman is only one homicide.
I agree with the second sentence, in all seriousness and without sarcasm, although my reasons for wishing that more of you took that stance are undoubtedly much different from yours. For one thing, I think it's logically consistent. And of course, it would take the percentage of Americans who believe abortion should stay legal from the 60-70% range up to about 95%
Yeah, you're probably right, but at least then people would be taking a more earnest look at the issue and not just claiming alegence to one side just for the sake of having an opinion. I'm tired of hearing people say "I believe abortion is wrong, but people should be allowed to choose", or other such half-assed arguments. People need to stop pussy-footing around and take a real hard look at the issue and draw their own conclusions - even if it doesn't end up sounding quite so politcally correct.
"It was Luke's fault" (Ed after stumbling on Soon Forget at Kitchener '05)
Yeah, you're probably right, but at least then people would be taking a more earnest look at the issue and not just claiming alegence to one side just for the sake of having an opinion. I'm tired of hearing people say "I believe abortion is wrong, but people should be allowed to choose", or other such half-assed arguments. People need to stop pussy-footing around and take a real hard look at the issue and draw their own conclusions - even if it doesn't end up sounding quite so politcally correct.
I agree that people should think through all the repurcussions of the things they advocate, whether it's abortion or any other issue.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
So I can pin a pregnant woman down and punch her in the stomach until the baby is dead and I've done nothing wrong??
More logistical illogicisms from my friend soulsinging!
not quite. you're guilty of felonious assault and battery. might be able to pin attempted murder on there too, as fucking with a woman's pregnancy can have serious consequence for her.
illogicisms is not a word. how did you get into that school dude?
Logistical difficulties!! Bah!! My eyes deceive me! This from a pro-choicer.
And the logistical difficulties of splitting up the birth process into 3 trimesters never entered the minds of the justices that legalized abortion. Nevermind the fact that fetuses can now live outside the womb in the 2nd trimester, we go by 'settled law'... The logistical difficulties of overturning the laws of a majority of the states never entered their minds either!
There are myriad logistical difficulties in the pro-choice position. If a pregnant woman and her baby are murdered, it's a double homicide. If a pregnant woman wants to murder her baby, it's abortion. The only difference being that the woman didn't want the baby in the second case. THAT is a logical difficulty, I suppose.
Because of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, murderers can be charged with killing both the woman and the unborn child. This is a good thing. The problem is: the child must either be a worthless mass of cells that is not being killed or it must be a human being that is being killed. That law points out the illogical conclusions that pro-choice advocates must make in order to believe their position.
If the mother wants her child, it is a child. If she doesn't want it, it is not even worthy of life. VERY LOGISTICAL. Oh right logical. Heh.
Just out of curiosity, I'm assuming you wouldnt agree with 1st trimester abortions? Is that correct?
WOuld you still consider that murder? Or if a fetus that can live outside the mother, say, 8 months....if that WOULD be murder, would aborting a zygote, or mass of cells be considered murder and all subsequent punishments would be applicable?
I'm just trying to sort out where it is murder or not.
why does this not apply the other way with the pro-choice movement? she didnt get pregnant by herself, yet a man has absolutely no power to prevent a woman aborting his child.
...
Again... he SHOULD.
The ONE AND ONLY person that should have a say in the matter is the man who knocked her up. Not me... not you... not some asshole politician and definately not some child molesting religious fuck.
Both organized sides of this thing are on extremes... only on the woman's side or totally against the woman. "Hey... Asshole extremists! Two people fucked to get into this situation. Hold them BOTH responsible and grant them BOTH rights!"
How about if the biological father wants the kid and the Mom doesn't? Let him adopt the kid.
If he wants an abortion and she doesn't... tough titties you horny bastard. She's the home team. And guess what? You get 18 years of child support payments for your horniness. Seems a little biased to the woman? Well, when guys walk around for 9 month with a fucking spawn in their stomach, kicking at their bladder, then push a watermelon through the pee hole... then, the guy gets te home field advantage.
Everyone talks about her... keeping her legs shut. What about him keeping his needle dick in his hands?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Again... he SHOULD.
The ONE AND ONLY person that should have a say in the matter is the man who knocked her up. Not me... not you... not some asshole politician and definately not some child molesting religious fuck.
Both organized sides of this thing are on extremes... only on the woman's side or totally against the woman. "Hey... Asshole extremists! Two people fucked to get into this situation. Hold them BOTH responsible and grant them BOTH rights!"
How about if the biological father wants the kid and the Mom doesn't? Let him adopt the kid.
If he wants an abortion and she doesn't... tough titties you horny bastard. She's the home team. And guess what? You get 18 years of child support payments for your horniness. Seems a little biased to the woman? Well, when guys walk around for 9 month with a fucking spawn in their stomach, kicking at their bladder, then push a watermelon through the pee hole... then, the guy gets te home field advantage.
Everyone talks about her... keeping her legs shut. What about him keeping his needle dick in his hands?
im not talking about the woman keeping her legs shut. im saying if you're going to talk about how the man has a role and should be held accountable if abortion were illegal, how come a man has no say whatsoever in abortion decisions when it is legal? the father wants the kid and mom doesnt? he cant adopt the kid.. she can abort it without even consulting him.
im not talking about the woman keeping her legs shut. im saying if you're going to talk about how the man has a role and should be held accountable if abortion were illegal, how come a man has no say whatsoever in abortion decisions when it is legal? the father wants the kid and mom doesnt? he cant adopt the kid.. she can abort it without even consulting him.
...
Which is why I say... he SHOULD. He should have rights to adopt the kid. But, he would still needs to care for the mother during the pregnancy and birth... just as he would if the birth mother was some random gal.
The man SHOULD have some say in the matter... today.
Remember... I'm not Pro-Abortion... I think that is the final (legal) option... I am Pro-Choice. Which includes the choice the man in the equation gets.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Which is why I say... he SHOULD. He should have rights to adopt the kid. But, he would still needs to care for the mother during the pregnancy and birth... just as he would if the birth mother was some random gal.
The man SHOULD have some say in the matter... today.
Remember... I'm not Pro-Abortion... I think that is the final (legal) option... I am Pro-Choice. Which includes the choice the man in the equation gets.
not quite. you're guilty of felonious assault and battery. might be able to pin attempted murder on there too, as fucking with a woman's pregnancy can have serious consequence for her.
illogicisms is not a word. how did you get into that school dude?
Nah, attempted murder would def not hold up.
Suppose your wife (assuming you have one) got pregnant and you both were expecting a child. Some thug punches her in the stomach and as a result, the fetus is dead. You would just want him charged with assault and battery?
What if she got pregnant again and the same thing happened? You could've had two children but because of the actions of the douche, you don't have any.
How is that fair at all? The guy could take your kids from you before they're even born and he only gets an assault and battery charge? There's like no jailtime for that charge either.
Did you know that murder is the most frequent cause of death for pregnant women?
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
What if she got pregnant again and the same thing happened? You could've had two children but because of the actions of the douche, you don't have any.
Well, I tell ya, the first time would be bad enough; but after the second, I think I'd quit inviting him over.
Suppose your wife (assuming you have one) got pregnant and you both were expecting a child. Some thug punches her in the stomach and as a result, the fetus is dead. You would just want him charged with assault and battery?
correct. it would suck, but there you have it. if your wife was doing too much physical exercise and it caused a miscarriage, would you want her charged with negligent homicide or manslaughter? i mean, of course, assuming you let her out of the kitchen while she was pregnant.
correct. it would suck, but there you have it. if your wife was doing too much physical exercise and it caused a miscarriage, would you want her charged with negligent homicide or manslaughter? i mean, of course, assuming you let her out of the kitchen while she was pregnant.
That's a rather extreme position to take. Obviously that would be accidental and it is well accepted that miscarriages are more likely than manslaughter of a born child. If she purposely caused a miscarriage, well yes that would be called an abortion.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
...
A
How about if the biological father wants the kid and the Mom doesn't? Let him adopt the kid.
Let him be pregnant and give birth.... I hate to say this, though it does take two to tango, men and women are definitely not equal in this matter. I would say that it should stay mainly within the woman's right to do as she sees fit for her.. unfortunately, it's a raw deal for the potential father. But in cases where there is conflict with mother and potential father, one can argue that the relationship between the adults (and therefore with the child, should it develop to birth) is a lost cause to start with.... One way or the other, the child is an accident and is not wanted for a number of reasons.
Let him be pregnant and give birth.... I hate to say this, though it does take two to tango, men and women are definitely not equal in this matter. I would say that it should stay mainly within the woman's right to do as she sees fit for her.. unfortunately, it's a raw deal for the potential father. But in cases where there is conflict with mother and potential father, one can argue that the relationship between the adults (and therefore with the child, should it develop to birth) is a lost cause to start with.... One way or the other, the child is an accident and is not wanted for a number of reasons.
So the father wants it but the mother doesn't want her vagina to be stretched out so she aborts it. Excellent reason to abort your child!
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Comments
I think you should give a fuck. If you ignore the fact that a pregnancy is made by a man and a woman together then you are losing half the issue.
And I hope you aren't directing your vitriolic bullshit about femanazis and sexism at me, or you may force me to be ageist and tell you to grow up before you get back to me.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Good. I believe that if you are going to make Abortion a crime... along the same lines as murder... then, you need to come up with a punishment for the guilty, right?
...
So... if abortion is considered to be murder... what is the appropriate penalty for murder/abortion? Is aborting a fetus the same as killing a 6 month old baby with a pitch fork? What penalty should the Woman, the Man and her Doctor face?
Hail, Hail!!!
im saying from the perspective of the "abortion is murder and illegal" viewpoint. unless he was complicit (ie. funding or encouraging) in the abortion decision, he is not guilty just for impregnating her. he could still be an accomplice. but just like men have no say whatsoever in the decision now, a guy would not necessarily have any say then either. if it was illegal and he urged her not to, he could hardly be brought up on charges.
the whole point of the article was asking that people like you defend your stance. nobody on the pro-life said is willing to talk about what penalties would be incurred by people if they got an abortion. we're asking you to think through your position.
all anyone is doing here is pointing on the logistical difficulties of the pro-life movement getting what it wants.
But he SHOULD.
It's not fair to pin it all on the girl... she didn't get pregnant all by herself. Men need to step up an take on the responsibility that they share in.
No banging... no pregnancy... no abortion... no problem.
Hail, Hail!!!
But then when I show some consitency and say that I do wholehearted agree that they should be treated the same, I'm met with a comment like "So it's the death penalty for women who have abortions and the doctors that perform them? From my perspective, the conservative movement needs more people like you and CorporateWhore." (I think it's safe to say that 2nd sentence is sarcastic).
All I'm saying is that if you can accept the more fundamental arguments that serve as the foundation for a pro-life stance, at least enough to pose the hypothetical question about jail time, then my conclusion should seem like a reasonable one. To waver at this point would be a sign of weakness and a lack of conviction in my stance, so why then am I criticized for not wavering.
I guess I understand that we can't always argue the fundamentals, because everything's been said a million times.
I just get frustrated when people patronize me by implying that even if I was right in those most basic issues, I'd still be wrong due to some other implications, when indeed those other implications are only viewed as wrong because I was wrong to begin with. Why do some people not see the futility of this sort of circular argument?
"It was Luke's fault" (Ed after stumbling on Soon Forget at Kitchener '05)
When you extrapolate the anti abortion sentiment notice how the irony itself reeks of stupidity?
Interesting indeed
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
why does this not apply the other way with the pro-choice movement? she didnt get pregnant by herself, yet a man has absolutely no power to prevent a woman aborting his child.
Logistical difficulties!! Bah!! My eyes deceive me! This from a pro-choicer.
And the logistical difficulties of splitting up the birth process into 3 trimesters never entered the minds of the justices that legalized abortion. Nevermind the fact that fetuses can now live outside the womb in the 2nd trimester, we go by 'settled law'... The logistical difficulties of overturning the laws of a majority of the states never entered their minds either!
There are myriad logistical difficulties in the pro-choice position. If a pregnant woman and her baby are murdered, it's a double homicide. If a pregnant woman wants to murder her baby, it's abortion. The only difference being that the woman didn't want the baby in the second case. THAT is a logical difficulty, I suppose.
Because of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, murderers can be charged with killing both the woman and the unborn child. This is a good thing. The problem is: the child must either be a worthless mass of cells that is not being killed or it must be a human being that is being killed. That law points out the illogical conclusions that pro-choice advocates must make in order to believe their position.
If the mother wants her child, it is a child. If she doesn't want it, it is not even worthy of life. VERY LOGISTICAL. Oh right logical. Heh.
-Enoch Powell
Don't worry... it'll NEVER happen... you know why? Daughters of Law Makers, lawyers and politicians and self-righteous religious fucks get pregnant and have abortions. They can sweep that shit under the rug as confidential 'medical records'... but, put 'em out in open court...
Hail, Hail!!!
I just think that abortion should be treated comparably to murder, however that may be.
"It was Luke's fault" (Ed after stumbling on Soon Forget at Kitchener '05)
you know there is a difference between logical and logistical?
anyway, i dont feel that way. the murder of a pregnant woman is only one homicide.
"It was Luke's fault" (Ed after stumbling on Soon Forget at Kitchener '05)
So I can pin a pregnant woman down and punch her in the stomach until the baby is dead and I've done nothing wrong??
More logistical illogicisms from my friend soulsinging!
-Enoch Powell
not quite. you're guilty of felonious assault and battery. might be able to pin attempted murder on there too, as fucking with a woman's pregnancy can have serious consequence for her.
illogicisms is not a word. how did you get into that school dude?
Just out of curiosity, I'm assuming you wouldnt agree with 1st trimester abortions? Is that correct?
WOuld you still consider that murder? Or if a fetus that can live outside the mother, say, 8 months....if that WOULD be murder, would aborting a zygote, or mass of cells be considered murder and all subsequent punishments would be applicable?
I'm just trying to sort out where it is murder or not.
Nuclear fission
Again... he SHOULD.
The ONE AND ONLY person that should have a say in the matter is the man who knocked her up. Not me... not you... not some asshole politician and definately not some child molesting religious fuck.
Both organized sides of this thing are on extremes... only on the woman's side or totally against the woman. "Hey... Asshole extremists! Two people fucked to get into this situation. Hold them BOTH responsible and grant them BOTH rights!"
How about if the biological father wants the kid and the Mom doesn't? Let him adopt the kid.
If he wants an abortion and she doesn't... tough titties you horny bastard. She's the home team. And guess what? You get 18 years of child support payments for your horniness. Seems a little biased to the woman? Well, when guys walk around for 9 month with a fucking spawn in their stomach, kicking at their bladder, then push a watermelon through the pee hole... then, the guy gets te home field advantage.
Everyone talks about her... keeping her legs shut. What about him keeping his needle dick in his hands?
Hail, Hail!!!
im not talking about the woman keeping her legs shut. im saying if you're going to talk about how the man has a role and should be held accountable if abortion were illegal, how come a man has no say whatsoever in abortion decisions when it is legal? the father wants the kid and mom doesnt? he cant adopt the kid.. she can abort it without even consulting him.
Which is why I say... he SHOULD. He should have rights to adopt the kid. But, he would still needs to care for the mother during the pregnancy and birth... just as he would if the birth mother was some random gal.
The man SHOULD have some say in the matter... today.
Remember... I'm not Pro-Abortion... I think that is the final (legal) option... I am Pro-Choice. Which includes the choice the man in the equation gets.
Hail, Hail!!!
ok, gotcha. sign me up.
Nah, attempted murder would def not hold up.
Suppose your wife (assuming you have one) got pregnant and you both were expecting a child. Some thug punches her in the stomach and as a result, the fetus is dead. You would just want him charged with assault and battery?
What if she got pregnant again and the same thing happened? You could've had two children but because of the actions of the douche, you don't have any.
How is that fair at all? The guy could take your kids from you before they're even born and he only gets an assault and battery charge? There's like no jailtime for that charge either.
Did you know that murder is the most frequent cause of death for pregnant women?
-Enoch Powell
correct. it would suck, but there you have it. if your wife was doing too much physical exercise and it caused a miscarriage, would you want her charged with negligent homicide or manslaughter? i mean, of course, assuming you let her out of the kitchen while she was pregnant.
That's a rather extreme position to take. Obviously that would be accidental and it is well accepted that miscarriages are more likely than manslaughter of a born child. If she purposely caused a miscarriage, well yes that would be called an abortion.
-Enoch Powell
So the father wants it but the mother doesn't want her vagina to be stretched out so she aborts it. Excellent reason to abort your child!
-Enoch Powell
Oh my... how you simplify things and bring them down to your level...... A potential mother sees way beyond that.