Roe v. Wade

Post Reply New Topic

What benefit is there to it being a crime?

Childbirth is never risk free.

ruveyn

Wrong. The sperm that fertilized the egg weighs a thousandth of a gram. And infant weighs 3.5 kg. And the woman assumed one hundred percent of the risk in producing the infant, if she goes through with the birth. The baby by mass is 99.999 percent the property of the woman. In addition possession is everything. The woman has the fetus very close to her and she can do what she will with it.

ruveyn

Not all Mothers are able to put their children up for adoption, as it is required under state (or is it federal?) law that BOTH parents consent to adoption and sign the papers, thereby if one parent wants to give up the child but the other parent opposes to the decision and does not sign the adoption forms, then it cannot go through.

Actually, I'd have to see if the body of law supports your position. If you allow me to attach a chain to you, then you can't just arbitrarily decide you no longer want to honor the agreement. You consented, my property rights have merit so long as they do not endanger your life or safety. I doubt any just court would just take your side without some serious hesitation given the facts you are postulating.



Again, you must prove the law would do just that. If I implant my property within you, I have certain rights. If getting my property back requires surgery, you certainly knew that from the beginning and can't now say that it is unreasonable, and I very much doubt any just court would take your position without some serious hesitation.



A woman's body is HER property. Of that I do not contend against. However, if what is within a woman's body is not her exclusive property, then the interest of other parties are valid and must be represented. To deny other people their rights is unjust.



Driving to work is a thousand times more inherently dangerous. Again, a woman knows these risks when she allows a man to copulate with her. If she doesn't want those risks, she has many opportunities to take steps to avert the risk while her body is entirely under her domain and there are no conflicting issues of property rights that can be applied.



What I find ironic about the "woman's rights" argument is the blatant double standard it asserts.

If a man has sex and it results in a pregnancy, society can force him to bear the consequences of his actions.

If a woman has sex and it results in a pregnancy, she is permitted to avoid all the consequences of her actions.

Why is it such a twisted concept to compel a woman to be accountable for her choices just as we currently hold a man accountable?



My suggestion is one of equity. If the mother wants the freedom to do what she wants without anyone else having a say, the father should enjoy absolution for any responsibility because the mother made the choice, not him. A woman, any woman, who is pregnant can give the baby up for adoption and NOT PAY A PENNY in medical bills or child support. Does the father get that option? Confess to the truth that the mother is given all the options with none of the consequences where the father gets nothing but consequences and no options.



The purpose of the law is to provide equity. Under the current arrangement, it doesn't even come close.



Poor argument. If the job of the law was to uphold society's wider values, then abortion would likely still be illegal nationwide and Roe v. Wade would never have happened. You cannot have a "wider value" that disregards justice and equity. Otherwise, you chose to follow a perverse set of laws that cater to agendas and not the "justice" we ask the courts to uphold.



Sounds nice, but that's not the way it works. We don't have draconian and unfair child support laws because we want to "support the kids." If we really believed that then all kids would have free heath care, food and education from K to PhD. The child support laws (as I stated already) are written the way they are to shift the cost off the state to someone else, and they don't care if they nail the wrong person.

Likewise, "autonomy" ends when you bring another party into the deal.



Same goes for a woman. Non-argument. The classic "it's the man's responsibility" nonsense while a woman can do whatever she pleases without consequence.



Another non-issue. According to your line of reasoning (and the courts) it isn't a "child." It is a "fetus" and subject to termination. It is only after the mother unilaterally makes the choice to carry it to term and let it out of her body fully formed that it has any "rights."

And, as I said, she could give it up for adoption and walk away with no attachments or obligations. If she chooses to keep it, she can use the resources of the government to burden the father for everything because of HER unilateral choice.



Again....a non-argument. It isn't a child at the time rights and choices need to be made.

More so, when you interact with anyone your "rights" are always compromised. You cannot exert your rights over the rights of another as if yours are automatically superior. A woman copulates with a man. She gets pregnant. If the copulation was willing, the situation is not her sole right anymore. That ended when she copulated and involved herself in the affairs of another person.



True, but what you seem to miss is that the mother is given the option to totally evade the consequences of her choices while the father gets no similar options.



The man has no actual rights violated? How about having the fruit of his labor STOLEN by the state under threat of violence because of a unilateral choice by the mother that he opposed? Hate to shatter your illusion, but the money you work to earn is very much a valid right. If you steal the fruit of a man's labor, you also complicate other areas of his life because you reduce his ability to support himself (yes, I know of cases where child support takes no consideration for the cost of living or actual income being earned, and some men are trapped in poverty because most every dime they earn is stolen to satisfy child support payments).

I won't go into how some fathers who want to be part of their kid's life do not get any custody rights because the mother doesn't want them in their kid's life...they just want the financial support.

What rights are taken from the mother? She has to endure 9 months of labor and childbirth? That's not any more extreme than making a man provide financial support for the next 18 years. Pregnancy and birth is dangerous? Hogwash. Make a case that a specific woman is in real medical danger because of a health condition that can be documented, and we can take that somewhere, but women around the world have been giving birth since humans appeared on this planet. A blanket "it's dangerous" claim has no validity.

And, again, the child has no rights until it is born (under the law) so the "child's" interest is irrelevant when decisions need to be made. If you want to argue that a "child" has rights before it is born, the we must ban abortion because it violates the rights of the unborn "child."

Two gamete unite to form a zygote. One gamete from each parent. The zygote is the first cell from which all other cells of the fetus will replicate from. So yes, a fetus is 50% of the father's, regardless of the size it eventually reaches. It's home and food source is litterally it's mother. However, you don't belong to your steak dinner, do you? Of course not. Nor do you belong to your home.

So, the baby is 100% by mass it's own property, as is each of us. It's contribution to it's origin remains 50% from each parent. And the mother provided life support for it's first 9 months.

I'm all for discussing the many nuances of this topic, but claiming a fetus isn't 50% of it's father seems to me a silly point of view. That's the very nature of sexual reproduction, offspring is an equal mesh of it's parents.

~NS

Only human persons have rights and can own property. A zygote or fetus is neither. It is the contents of the mother's insides and she owns it. Just like she owns the food in her stomach, or the crap in her bowel or the pee in her bladder or the blood in her veins. Whatever is inside the woman is hers.

Referring to a fetus as a baby is a big mistake. fetuses have no rights. They are not people. Babies only exist after birth.

ruveyn

Fruits of his labor - talk about hogwash! I find it amazing that you consider getting laid labor and pregnancy and childbirth no big deal. You've quite obviously never had a child. It completely changes a woman forever, physically, mentally and hormonally. The risks involved are quite serious and fairly common. Of the top of my head there is: Preeclampsia, placenta previa, gestational diabetes, infection, hemmoraging, placental abruption, placanta accrete, and postpardum depression. These are all complications that can occur in an otherwise healthy woman and they can all be fatal. The complication list lengthens quite a bit when the mother has an underlying condition. Even if all goes well, the mother is left scarred for life with nothing in it's prepregnany shape or position and if it was a c-section she'll have adhesions on her uterus that could cause on and off pain for the rest of her life. Then, if she's lucky, she gets to look forward to wearing a diaper because nearly 50% of women who endured childbirth will, at some point, regularly pee their pants. I haven't even mentioned the joys of labor!

Only a court can take away the father's rights - not the mother, nor can a father take away the mother's rights. If you have issues with child support, those should be separate from the abortion discussion. After all, wouldn't an abortion technically do away with any financial support issues?

Whether someone wants abortions to be legal or not is irrelevant anyway. There will always be abortions. No one can force pregnancy and childbirth on a woman. If a woman is deadset on not having a baby, there will always be a way to get rid of it. Back alley abortions, as mentioned before, were and are indeed real. They are horrific and extremely dangerous. Even if you could force a woman to carry a baby to term (which you can't), what kind of mother do you think she will turn out to be. I would hate to think that I only exist because I had to be born, by law. I would hate to look into my mother's eyes and see nothing but resentment.

OK, I just realized that you meant paycheck and not sperm by "fruit of his labor." I apologize for my brain fart. I still stand by all the rest.

I already rebuted your "anything in a woman is hers" argument. Reply to why you think my rebutle is invalid before rehashing the same line again please.

And, just because I'm feeling foxy, a quote of yours from another topic :


So, uh...

~NS

No you haven't. You have asserted and re-asserted nonsense. Your error is in your premise that the fetus is a baby. It is no such thing. The woman owns her fetus. Possession is nine points out of ten in ownership. The woman possesses the fetus and can dispose of it anyway she chooses to.

ruveyn

An irrelevant argument. The medical dangers, complications, physical and emotional after effects of an abortion are well documented as well. So, if the woman carries the fetus to term, she exposes herself to risk. If she forcibly induces a miscarriage or undergoes any abortion procedure, there are very real risks as well.

From what I can tell, the only "risk free" option a woman has is to never get pregnant in the first place.

Therefore, the whole "medical risk" argument is bunk. Abortion or birth, a woman will face medical, mental and emotional consequences once she is pregnant.

The only legitimate and unilateral "mother's choice" argument is when a medical doctor can certify that in her specific circumstances the mother is in immanent danger of serious medical harm or death because of complications from the pregnancy.

Just as we can not lock away a person pre-disposed to criminal conduct because of what that person MIGHT do in the future but we can take action once a crime is committed, likewise a woman's claim of "medical risk" does not have any validity until she can offer some evidence from a medical professional that she is facing a real threat to her immediate health, and a lot of the "complications" you would cite would have a worse outcome if the mother opted for an abortion rather than dealt with the pregnancy.

I will also state that a lot of "complications" like gestational diabetes only indicate a pre-existing condition. My sister has Type II diabetes. When she was pregnant, she had gestational diabetes. The stress of being pregnant revealed that her body didn't produce enough insulin, and poor eating habits after her first child resulted in having full-blown diabetes that put her on insulin for her second pregnancy. The pregnancy did not create the diabetes...it simply revealed a problem she already had but had not yet manifested.



The issues are related. You want to argue "consequence" by forcing a mother to carry a fetus to term rather than abortion. I'm pointing out the "consequences" that choice has on other parties, and frankly, the courts don't always get involved. Child support is often started by administrative action and they go to the courts who typically "rubber stamp" their decisions rather than following a due process of law.

While an abortion might do away with financial support issues, so would adoption. The conflict is when a woman unilaterally decides to give birth and keep the child....then lets the state impose her choice on other parties who had absolutely no say in the matter.



True. The law can't stop a person from doing what they want. However, considering Americans are going to CHINA to adopt babies (and they pay a lot of money to get one), how can we say that if we didn't mandate adoption there wouldn't be homes for all these kids? Would it be such a bad thing for a kid to grow up in an orphanage but at least have a choice at life?

What I find abhorrent about legalized abortion is that, as my friend's research shows, over 95% of them are not done for any reason outside of the mother's convenience or lack of desire to accept responsibility for her actions. I find it abhorrent that the father of the fetus gets no right or input into that decision. I find it abhorrent that the legal system thinks a person should have the right to act unilaterally and impose consequences on other people but be able to make another choice that absolves herself of any responsibility.

TS

What you find abhorrent is irrelevant. What is relevant are the risks that a woman bears when she goes to term. It isn't YOUR life that is at stake, is it?

ruveyn

I'm not sure you're following the flow of debate anymore, so to recap.
First, I'll begin with your initial assertion.



You reitterated it again later



I replied with



After which this particular facet of the raging debate died for a few pages. But then, you brought it up again.



But you still hadn't addressed the issue that I brought up, namely, that your blanket assumtion that any and everything inside a person belongs to them. It's not some universal law, it is not a garantee. There are exceptions. And in the case of a fetus, I'm of the opinion that it is one of these exceptions.


As to saying it's a mistake to call a fetus a baby...I never did. I used the word "baby" only once in this entire thread, and was actually refering to a baby, in response to your discusion of an infant.

~NS

Exceptions. On what basis? On fact? No. The product of a male implanting a sperm gives the male no ownership claims whatsoever to the product of his act. All he owned was the sperm. The fact is that a zygote forms in the woman's body later to become an embryo, then a fetus. That is nature at work and that is the basis of the woman's ownership of the product of natural change and production. Here is an analogy. if you plant a seed in soil (which you own) and it becomes a crop, you own the crop. You can harvest it or you can destroy it. Your property, your choice.

Legally there is not basis for a father to claim control of a zygote or a fetus in a woman's body. If the man wants something let him claim guardianship rights after the birth, assuming there is a birth.

The key to the argument is possession. The woman possesses the fetus therefore she can control its disposition or disposal (subject to laws concerning public health).

ruveryn