[Changleen]

the question for you is, if you're in an accident that leaves you in a coma, you are technically unable to think or act of your own accord, are you dead? Are you just a clump of cells? My biggest problem with the situation is allowing someone to arbitrarily decide the parameters of life, could get tricky really quick. .......guess that's why it's such a hotly contested issue......

If you're in a coma as a result of an accident, you have the 'equipment' to think. You've done it in the past, and it's worth trying to restore that function for the benefit of your loved ones and society.

An early stage foetus cannot think, has no means to, and never has done. Only when it's development reaches a certain stage (widely held to be the third trimester) does it start to have what might be described as the beginning of brain activity, and only around the time of birth does it beome self aware. That is when it becomes different and more valuable than a carrot.

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

That is an excellent comparison. I wonder how many of these pro-lifers had a nice hearty American breakfast to keep their strenght up before going out to protest?

Mmm, fried unborn chicken tastes good.

How do you like your unborn chicken? Over easy?

I'm not a fan of the "Potential" argument either. Pregnancy is anything but a sure thing.
15 percent of recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. "As many as 50 percent of all pregnancies may end in miscarriage, because many losses occur before a woman realizes she is pregnant."
Source

 

[Velocity Girl]

That decision that the man is not allowed to participate in will affect him the rest of his life. And what about those women who say they are on the pill but aren't? I happen to have a friend who had that happen. Now he is responsible for a special needs child that he had not planned on.

It's fine and dandy to say that the man shouldn't have any decision because it's not his body and he doesn't have to carry the child or give birth, but if you are going to take that road, you MUST give the man an opportunity to have the burden of responsibility removed. If a woman gets preggo on purpose in a deceptive way the man should not be held responsible.

Bull****. The man will have to work to support that child looong after the woman is done giving birth.

Just my opinion, your milage may vary...

The man was allowed to participate in the decision, he just choose to not exercise that decision at the correct time (before having sex.)

The only birth control that is 100% effective is not having sex. So, anytime a man decides to have sex with a women he is assuming the responsibilities of the potential outcome. I definitely think it's wrong of a women to lie about it, but the pill can still fail. So he is still entering into "the agreement" with a degree of risk. That is the point of his consent. If he doesn't want to trust the women he is with to see his same point of view, don't have sex.

Mind you, I am in no way against pre-marital sex or only using abstinence as birth control....but we know the risks and if you choose to play then you have to accept them. But after you've agreed to those risks, I don't want you, or anyone else, telling me what I am forced to do with my body.

 

[F.O.G]

That is an excellent comparison. I wonder how many of these pro-lifers had a nice hearty American breakfast to keep their strenght up before going out to protest?

Mmm, fried unborn chicken tastes good.

How do you like your unborn chicken? Over easy?

Chicken eggs that you eat for breakfast are UNFERTILIZED, unlike a human embryo.......nice try though

By the way George says HI<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

[-BB-]

Untill it's able to think or act of it's own accord I'd consider it to just be another clump of cells in her body.
After it aquires that function it's a human with rights IMO.

By that logic, Birley Shirly isn't a live being yet either.
All he doe is spout the party line and have others tell him what to do.
:hot:

 

[-BB-]

The man was allowed to participate in the decision, he just choose to not exercise that decision at the correct time (before having sex.)

The only birth control that is 100% effective is not having sex. So, anytime a man decides to have sex with a women he is assuming the responsibilities of the potential outcome. I definitely think it's wrong of a women to lie about it, but the pill can still fail. So he is still entering into "the agreement" with a degree of risk. That is the point of his consent. If he doesn't want to trust the women he is with to see his same point of view, don't have sex.

Mind you, I am in no way against pre-marital sex or only using abstinence as birth control....but we know the risks and if you choose to play then you have to accept them. But after you've agreed to those risks, I don't want you, or anyone else, telling me what I am forced to do with my body.

Just stick it where the... Uh.. um... forget it.
I didn't say a thing.

 

[noname]

If you're in a coma as a result of an accident, you have the 'equipment' to think. You've done it in the past, and it's worth trying to restore that function for the benefit of your loved ones and society.

An early stage foetus cannot think, has no means to, and never has done. Only when it's development reaches a certain stage (widely held to be the third trimester)means not yet determined does it start to have what might be described as the beginning of brain activity, and only around the time of birth does it beome self aware. That is when it becomes different and more valuable than a carrot.

once again you are setting the parameters arbitrarily, some may say it is even later in life, some sooner, then it is up to the people in power to make the call, and their logic could be used at the other end too. that's why I said it gets tricky real fast, my concern on this issue is more along the lines of limiting the governments range of authority, deciding the parameters of life is one more thing I don't want them to try,
on another note, if you kill a pregnant woman and the baby dies, is it a double homocide? Is it only a double homocide if she wanted the baby? gets tough, too tough me thinks for DC politicos to be trusted with.........

 

[Changleen]

once again you are setting the parameters arbitrarily, some may say it is even later in life, some sooner, then it is up to the people in power to make the call, and their logic could be used at the other end too. that's why I said it gets tricky real fast, my concern on this issue is more along the lines of limiting the governments range of authority, deciding the parameters of life is one more thing I don't want them to try,
on another note, if you kill a pregnant woman and the baby dies, is it a double homocide? Is it only a double homocide if she wanted the baby? gets tough, too tough me thinks for DC politicos to be trusted with.........

 

[Ciaran]

But after you've agreed to those risks, I don't want you, or anyone else, telling me what I am forced to do with my body.

Then the woman, after deciding to keep it even though the man says no way, should not be entitled to ANY part of his wallet.

 

[noname]

Then the woman, after deciding to keep it even though the man says no way, should not be entitled to ANY part of his wallet.

sounds fair to me!

 

[BurlyShirley]

By that logic, Birley Shirly isn't a live being yet either.
All he doe is spout the party line and have others tell him what to do.
:hot:

Which party would that be?

 

[Velocity Girl]

Then the woman, after deciding to keep it even though the man says no way, should not be entitled to ANY part of his wallet.

Yes she should, because by agreeing to have sex with her he choose to support a child if the women becomes pregnant and decides to keep the child.

 

[Ciaran]

Yes she should, because by agreeing to have sex with her he choose to support a child if the women becomes pregnant and decides to keep the child.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I still feel and believe that if he does not get a say in whether or not she/they keep the kid, then she does not get a say in his wallet.

Thankfully though, I have never been in that situation. And ultimately I feel that both parties should be responsible enough to NOT get preggo accidentally. (Yes I know... there is no 100% guarantee)

 

[Silver]

Then the woman, after deciding to keep it even though the man says no way, should not be entitled to ANY part of his wallet.

No, she should be entitled to half the cost of the abortion, if she goes that way.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Yes she should, because by agreeing to have sex with her he choose to support a child if the women becomes pregnant and decides to keep the child.

You obviously see the problem here. She makes the same choice to have sex.

 

[Transcend]

You obviously see the problem here. She makes the same choice to have sex.

So you think the guy should have a choice about she does with her body?

 

[BurlyShirley]

So you think the guy should have a choice about she does with her body?

How many times do we have to go over it? You wont agree with it, but...

If a woman is pregnant, but wants to have an abortion, the man has no say. She can kill/abort/whatever, what is supposedly half his. If he wants the child aborted, but she wants to keep it, he is forced to pay. This is just unfair. Its unequal treatment under the law.

 

[Changleen]

I do kinda agree with Burly, but to address Trancend's point, the man should not have the final say on what a woman should do with her body, but if his opinion is different from hers, let us say she wants to keep it and he has no interest in doing so, and he lets her know this lets say inside of the first trimester, I don't see why she should expect any money from him.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I do kinda agree with Burly, but to address Trancend's point, the man should not have the final say on what a woman should do with her body, but if his opinion is different from hers, let us say she wants to keep it and he has no interest in doing so, and he lets her know this lets say inside of the first trimester, I don't see why she should expect any money from him.

Exactly. Im not saying he should ACTUALLY be able to order an abortion done on her.

 

[Transcend]

How many times do we have to go over it? You wont agree with it, but...

If a woman is pregnant, but wants to have an abortion, the man has no say. She can kill/abort/whatever, what is supposedly half his. If he wants the child aborted, but she wants to keep it, he is forced to pay. This is just unfair. Its unequal treatment under the law.

Oh I agree he shouldn't have to pay if she decides to keep it - i just think he should have to sign away all rights for visitation, all contact with the child and mother etc.

That way when the kid becomes some rich football player or something he can't try to come back and cash in. (I believe this was actually a case recently).

 

[BurlyShirley]

Oh I agree he shouldn't have to pay if she decides to keep it - i just think he should have to sign away all rights for visitation, all contact with the child and mother etc.

Yeah, I think that would be fair.

 

[Transcend]

Yeah, I think that would be fair.

The only problem with that, is that some dudes go around sticking their dick in anything that has a heartbeat. That makes it a little too easy. I am sure an abortion isn't the most pleasant thing to go through either you know?

 

[BurlyShirley]

The only problem with that, is that some dudes go around sticking their dick in anything that has a heartbeat. That makes it a little too easy. I am sure an abortion isn't the most pleasant thing to go through either you know?

Im sure its not, but if we want to be a free and equal society, well, we should play by our own rules. Some dudes stick their dick in anything now, and maybe if these were the rules some of the sluts out there would have a few less kids if they thought they wouldnt profit from another baby's daddy.....Im just sayin'.

 

[Changleen]

The only problem with that, is that some dudes go around sticking their dick in anything that has a heartbeat. That makes it a little too easy. I am sure an abortion isn't the most pleasant thing to go through either you know?

If a woman is too dumb to realise she's screwing one of these guys, and consents to sex without protection, or does nothing to protect herself, I have little sympathy.

 

[JRogers]

Im sure its not, but if we want to be a free and equal society, well, we should play by our own rules. Some dudes stick their dick in anything now, and maybe if these were the rules some of the sluts out there would have a few less kids if they thought they wouldnt profit from another baby's daddy.....Im just sayin'.

What's more common: some woman who, for purely financial or malicious reasons, decides to have a kid...or....some deadbeat father who got some girl pregnant and then skipped out?

Quite simply, the former is not a very common occurrence and the latter is widespread in many places inside and out of the US. These laws have to be in place to protect women.

Also, think of the implications of allowing a "she told me she was on the pill but lied" defense. Either (a) it would never work because you would be involved in a he said-she said case every time or (b) it would work and every time some girl got knocked up you'd have another father who skips out with a simple lie.

 

[BurlyShirley]

What's more common: some woman who, for purely financial or malicious reasons, decides to have a kid...or....some deadbeat father who got some girl pregnant and then skipped out?

Quite simply, the former is not a very common occurrence and the latter is widespread in many places inside and out of the US. These laws have to be in place to protect women.

Also, think of the implications of allowing a "she told me she was on the pill but lied" defense. Either (a) it would never work because you would be involved in a he said-she said case every time or (b) it would work and every time some girl got knocked up you'd have another father who skips out with a simple lie.

You're missing the point. In either case, both parties are equally responsible. Why do we need laws to "protect women?" When women are perfectly capable of making sound decisions? They arent children.

 

[Changleen]

What's more common: some woman who, for purely financial or malicious reasons, decides to have a kid...or....some deadbeat father who got some girl pregnant and then skipped out?

Quite simply, the former is not a very common occurrence and the latter is widespread in many places inside and out of the US. These laws have to be in place to protect women.

Actually in the UK the previous is sadly common. When I lived in one of the shadier parts of West London it was 'the way you got a flat off the council' and more babies equaled a bigger flat. That is a sad reflection on those parts of society and the set-up of the welfare state.

Also, think of the implications of allowing a "she told me she was on the pill but lied" defense. Either (a) it would never work because you would be involved in a he said-she said case every time or (b) it would work and every time some girl got knocked up you'd have another father who skips out with a simple lie.

I dunno, if it came to it in court could you just not search her medical records for a prescription for the pill? I know that doesn't cover all cases (e.g. she could be prescribed it but simply not take it) but I guess this would cover a good percentage of cases?

 

[qualude]

What really suprised me about the whole thing is that even in cases of rape or sexual assault, they still aren't legal......luckily, I am sure a judge will overturn it before it actually passes...

 

[BurlyShirley]

What really suprised me about the whole thing is that even in cases of rape or sexual assault, they still aren't legal......luckily, I am sure a judge will overturn it before it actually passes...

I dunno, we just got two brand new judges on the supremo court. This could be a big deal after all.

 

[jdcamb]

I think that if we truly had seperation of church and state. We should have the gubmint pick up the tab for all the community services provided by many different religious groups. Block patrols in the ghetto by muslims. Soup kitchens and homeless shelters by the salvation army. Rehabs run by the various religious groups. Battered womens shelters run by various religious groups. Counselling done in prisons and legal aid by various religious groups etc. Granted they all have their own objectives but they gubmint needs those orgs to keep the basic level of services going. Do you wanna pay more in taxes a shanty town next door.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I think that if we truly had seperation of church and state. We should have the gubmint pick up the tab for all the community services provided by many different religious groups. Block patrols in the ghetto by muslims. Soup kitchens and homeless shelters by the salvation army. Rehabs run by the various religious groups. Battered womens shelters run by various religious groups. Counselling done in prisons and legal aid by various religious groups etc. Granted they all have their own objectives but they gubmint needs those orgs to keep the basic level of services going. Do you wanna pay more in taxes a shanty town next door.

Did you post that in the right thread?

 

[Transcend]

What really suprised me about the whole thing is that even in cases of rape or sexual assault, they still aren't legal......luckily, I am sure a judge will overturn it before it actually passes...

Technically, a judge doesn't have to. Currently the entire law is null and void as the federal decision trumps it. Unless of course the supreme court overturns roe v wade, which is incredibly unlikely even with the current court.

 

[qualude]

Technically, a judge doesn't have to. Currently the entire law is null and void as the federal decision trumps it. Unless of course the supreme court overturns roe v wade, which is incredibly unlikely even with the current court.

This administration will never cease to suprise me with the incredibly unlikely.

 

[Ciaran]

I dunno, we just got two brand new judges on the supremo court. This could be a big deal after all.

Absolutely. With the way things are going in this country right now the overturn of Roe Vs Wade is within the realm of reality.

 

[DaveW]

By that logic, Birley Shirly isn't a live being yet either.
All he doe is spout the party line and have others tell him what to do.
:hot:

That means that (as a mod) you can "Abort" him from the body of ridemonkey!! :love: :trophy_br

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

Its unequal treatment under the law.

Because it's an unequal situation. Blowing your goo is nowhere near the same as turning into shamu and sh1tting a bowling ball after 9 months OR the fricken damage a "harmless" abortion causes. You want out if something goes amiss? Then get her to sign a waiver before you ride the park.

 

[MudGrrl]

my view...


you guys should be dmn happy that you might have more birth control available to you.... so you don't *really* get involved in all the other problems....


as for getting the father's opinion before an abortion...
women need to have control of their bodies, enter bc... if the bc fails (and sometimes it does)...... I would talk to the guy about the decision to abort, unless it was rape. I'm not saying that women need permission slips...........I just think that if you're gonna sleep with someone, you have enough trust with each other that you can make these decisions together.

I could not go out an get an abortion without my S.O. knowing and having a hand in the decision.

This does not mean that I don't support other women's rights to make a decision for herself (she knows the guy /situation she is in better than I do...or the government for that matter).

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

But what if, for sake of argument, it's not an SO kinda situation. I think we all agree that the preferred situation is a happy couple making a joint decision. But that isn't really what we're talking about. Conflict is the issue. What rights/limits should the male have?

 

[biggins]

Sorry, complete BS. They could potentially intercept any communication between someone in the US and myself, and in the process get confidential information that has nothing to do with a case, and which I didn't give anyone permission to have.

It isn't a case of "i'm not doing anytyhing wrong", it's a case of "it's none of their bloody business".

I don't want to be eavesdropped on, or have my email intercepted. Putting up with it because "you are doing nothing wrong" is absolute bull****.

you are hearing me wrong here. i meant that the gov'mt was doing something wrong thats why they are sp paranoid. not the citizens doing something wrong.

 

[Velocity Girl]

You obviously see the problem here. She makes the same choice to have sex.

I guess I'm looking at this from a "business" perspecitive. In business you enter into contracts and those contracts have conditions for possible outcomes of a scenario. Not all scenarios in a business contract are always to the liking of both parties, but once you sign that contract your bound by them. In agreeing to have sex both the man and woman are entering into a "contract" that there is the possibility of her getting pregnant and if she does both parties are agreeing that it is her choice if she keeps the child or not. By consenting to sex, both parties are in essence "signing" this contract. If you guys don't like this contract, don't "sign" it.

Or lobby to get laws put on the books that you can have a legal and binding agreement, before having sex, stating the responsibilites of both parties in the event of a pregnancy.....I would actually have no problem with that and actually think it would be a good idea. Maybe then people would start taking some resposibility for their actions. Women wouldn't use babies as means for "trapping" men, and men would understand clearly that they'll be held financially responsible if a women carries the child to term.