Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JinnKai
This seemed to be in response to FoolThemAll's discussion of "when a fetus becomes a human," which he's right in identifying as the critical "stalemate" in any discussion regarding the "right" of a fetus to live.
And similarly, I think it is a VERY important question to the discussion of father's rights, because it is again where I draw the line. I do not believe that a father should now or EVER have any rights regarding a child until the moment of birth.
My entire opinion about abortion and father's rights stems from my belief that a parasite (or symbiont, should you choose to use that word) is the property of the mother and no one else, in line with every other piece of anatomy.
I similarly reject the position of pro-life individuals who believe that the cells, even in a "human-like" arrangement, somehow constitute "human life", particularly at the moment of CONCEPTION! I fail to see how that a position like that could coexist with a belief that antibiotics are an acceptable practice?
Why? Because for much of a pregnancy, especially immediately following conception, the magnitude of cells in a zygote is equal to the number of cells constituting a bacterial infection.
A "human-like" appearance is similarly unconvincing, and although I grant that the organism is multi-cellular, I do not hold that as a defining characteristic of humanity. There are billions upon billions of multi-cellular organisms which we do not protect from death. Some of them we actively work to destroy.
If you don't believe a baby is a child until birth, then you must see how that changes your opinion of what rights a father is entitled to regarding a fetus.
|
Ownership is different than a responsibility for. Ownership went out with slavery. Humans cannot be property, especially young humans.
Your decision about life beginning at birth is just as arbitrary as the notion that life begins at conception. Neither have scientific basis because science's description of "life" is different than the term people wish to use in this debate: the philosophical meaning of life.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Unworkable I'd think. The woman would have to give your name, and if she doesn't want you to know she just won't give it. If you 'force' her to give the fathers name the feminists will eat you.
|
Then she can't have an abortion. The feminists (and outdated term) can eat all they want. This is a point on which I will not budge because I had a friend who was lied to by his horrible, hateful girlfriend at the time about having an abortion when she was lying about being pregnant.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Eh? So a woman you had sex with had an abortion of your child without your consent so you are now on an adoption list?
|
This is a consideration for men who wanted the child. While it's not their child it at least provides them the option of giving a child in need a good home.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
1 abortion?
5 abortions?
10?
20?
What difference does it make? If its not a human life, and if its a womans choice how can you limit it or call it a problem? Its just another form of birth control right?
|
Abortion shouldn't be just another form of birth control. Those who view it along side condoms and pills clearly have lost perspective.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
A dirty trick, but damn hard to prove.
|
Yes, hard to prove. Not impossible, though.