03 Sep 2010, 5:08 pm
Okay, so the woman has all the say because she carries the baby. That also means that the man has no obligation to financially support the child's upbringing? Oh, he does, but I thought that it was the woman's say only with anything child related! 
03 Sep 2010, 5:15 pm
Craig28 wrote:
Okay, so the woman has all the say because she carries the baby. That also means that the man has no obligation to financially support the child's upbringing? Oh, he does, but I thought that it was the woman's say only with anything child related!
The woman has the say whether she will go to term or not.
ruveyn
03 Sep 2010, 5:17 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Craig28 wrote:
Okay, so the woman has all the say because she carries the baby. That also means that the man has no obligation to financially support the child's upbringing? Oh, he does, but I thought that it was the woman's say only with anything child related!
The woman has the say whether she will go to term or not.
ruveyn
So when she aborts the feteus, she alone must deal with the aftermath, her family, partner and friends do not console her or help her in any way. She has the only say, she ALONE bears the brunt of her decision.
03 Sep 2010, 5:19 pm
Craig28 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Craig28 wrote:
Okay, so the woman has all the say because she carries the baby. That also means that the man has no obligation to financially support the child's upbringing? Oh, he does, but I thought that it was the woman's say only with anything child related!
The woman has the say whether she will go to term or not.
ruveyn
So when she aborts the feteus, she alone must deal with the aftermath, her family, partner and friends do not console her or help her in any way. She has the only say, she ALONE bears the brunt of her decision.
Whether she bears the consequence alone depends on her situation.
ruveyn
03 Sep 2010, 5:19 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Craig28 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Craig28 wrote:
Okay, so the woman has all the say because she carries the baby. That also means that the man has no obligation to financially support the child's upbringing? Oh, he does, but I thought that it was the woman's say only with anything child related!
The woman has the say whether she will go to term or not.
ruveyn
So when she aborts the feteus, she alone must deal with the aftermath, her family, partner and friends do not console her or help her in any way. She has the only say, she ALONE bears the brunt of her decision.
Whether she bears the consequence alone depends on her situation. Perhaps her family and friends support her decision. Perhaps not.
ruveyn
03 Sep 2010, 6:35 pm
ruveyn wrote:
The woman has the say whether she will go to term or not.
Isn't this about towards the idea of a right, to not being dragged to bear the consequences, legally, for decisions they didn't made or planned?
In any case, I have a solution: Vasectomy! and don't ever tell her, if she claims a child, it isn't yours.
Another would be abstinence though, I'm not a proposal of it, but surely it is the safest.
Last edited by greenblue on 03 Sep 2010, 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
03 Sep 2010, 6:54 pm
03 Sep 2010, 8:34 pm
nissa_amas_katoj
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 68
Location: Daggett, upper MI, USA, Earth
04 Sep 2010, 9:18 am
04 Sep 2010, 1:19 pm
04 Sep 2010, 11:02 pm
ikorack wrote:
ChrisVulcan wrote:
Too many people are making this case for me to quote all of them, so I'm going to make a bunch of arguments
simultaneously:
A)People throughout the course of their lives need to make choices; it's something we're obligated to do. But choosing whether or not to kill another person is not a choice anyone has a right to make, whether the victim is is the second trimester or the second decade of life.
B) What difference does it make if someone has or has not been born yet? Who can say definitively when a human becomes a person, and therefore an individual with "certain inalienable rights"? Is it when the heart starts beating? Is it when the brain is fully formed? Is it when the fetus can feel pain? Is it when the baby can breathe independently? Can we really afford to guess wrong?
C) One of the pro-choice arguments against pro-life arguments is along these lines: you wouldn't want to be dead, so you project that onto fetuses. My argument: So... fetuses do want to die?
simultaneously:
A)People throughout the course of their lives need to make choices; it's something we're obligated to do. But choosing whether or not to kill another person is not a choice anyone has a right to make, whether the victim is is the second trimester or the second decade of life.
B) What difference does it make if someone has or has not been born yet? Who can say definitively when a human becomes a person, and therefore an individual with "certain inalienable rights"? Is it when the heart starts beating? Is it when the brain is fully formed? Is it when the fetus can feel pain? Is it when the baby can breathe independently? Can we really afford to guess wrong?
C) One of the pro-choice arguments against pro-life arguments is along these lines: you wouldn't want to be dead, so you project that onto fetuses. My argument: So... fetuses do want to die?
A. Opinion, Rights are a myth and you can have whatever rights that are in your power to claim or that society is willing to give you
B. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/definitively i can't really explain the issue with this except by saying that definitively is very relative and everyone has there own standard, Also inalienable rights is a myth.
C. Fetuses lack the brain capacity to want.(at least until they have a working brain) So this argument is neither here nor there.
EDIT: http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/definitively this link is maybe better
A. This is what I believe: all human life has inherent value, and that value is infinite. I can't point to an experiment that proves or disproves this. It's like a postulate in geometry. Here's another of my postulates: there are morally right and wrong actions. Killing is wrong, restoring life is right. I'll admit that it's not something I can argue on because there's no scientific basis on which to argue it, like the basis of two points determining a line.
B. Is this a your reality vs. my reality kind of thing?
C. That was actually the point I was trying to make, although clearly not very well because people keep misunderstanding it.
The baby has no choice in this area, nor does it have the capacity to make that kind of choice.
04 Sep 2010, 11:12 pm
nissa_amas_katoj wrote:
Isn't it a bit absurd in a forum for people with autism and asperger's that there should be ANYBODY who defends the idea that killing the disabled/biologically-different prenatally is compassionate to the dead child.
All life involves suffering. Any time someone is killed, they are spared the suffering they would have endured had they lived longer. But the deliberate killing of any human being at any stage of life because the killer wants to play God and declare their victim 'better off dead' is Nazi-like and has no place in a civilized society.
All life involves suffering. Any time someone is killed, they are spared the suffering they would have endured had they lived longer. But the deliberate killing of any human being at any stage of life because the killer wants to play God and declare their victim 'better off dead' is Nazi-like and has no place in a civilized society.
Clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap
Thank you for somebody finally noticing!
I advise everyone on this forum: don't buy into the "Quality of Life" argument. It was devised as an excuse to take the lives of undesirables, invented by people who see themselves as superior to the rest of the world. (i.e., professors who thought they had more right to live than a mentally ret*d person, a German who thought he/she was superior to a Jew, an able-bodied person who thought he/she was superior to a disabled person, etc.)
It was once used as an excuse to take the lives of people like us: aspies and autistics. Hans Asperger argued for the lives of our population when the Nazis came marching through. I don't know whether or not he was successful, but either way our type came pretty close to the chopping block. Don't be fooled.
05 Sep 2010, 1:48 am
ChrisVulcan wrote:
A. This is what I believe: all human life has inherent value, and that value is infinite. I can't point to an experiment that proves or disproves this. It's like a postulate in geometry. Here's another of my postulates: there are morally right and wrong actions. Killing is wrong, restoring life is right. I'll admit that it's not something I can argue on because there's no scientific basis on which to argue it, like the basis of two points determining a line.
B. Is this a your reality vs. my reality kind of thing?
C. That was actually the point I was trying to make, although clearly not very well because people keep misunderstanding it. The baby has no choice in this area, nor does it have the capacity to make that kind of choice.
B. Is this a your reality vs. my reality kind of thing?
C. That was actually the point I was trying to make, although clearly not very well because people keep misunderstanding it.
The baby has no choice in this area, nor does it have the capacity to make that kind of choice.A. I believe everyone has infinite potential(the future should not be treated as the past when making important decisions is another one of my beliefs), previously i believed everyone had infinite value but then considered the belief of no value because of its extreme relativity. and as for morals their is no use stating what you feel is right before these feelings are tested. Because given mischance something you would normally consider wrong becomes right. also we should be so fortunate that no single persons feelings can forcibly affect our moral decisions.
B. kind of, its a matter of what you consider detailed and convincing enough to consider fact.
C, I think it was the wording, i went back and reread i misunderstood it the first time around my apologies.
05 Sep 2010, 11:11 am
Craig28 wrote:
Okay, so the woman has all the say because she carries the baby. That also means that the man has no obligation to financially support the child's upbringing? Oh, he does, but I thought that it was the woman's say only with anything child related!
The legal liability for supporting the child is predicated on the assumption that the woman gave birth. The issue is NOT who is responsible for supporting the child, but rather whether the child shall be born or not.
Your point is irrelevant to the question. It is a classical of of ignoratio elenchi.
ruveyn
05 Sep 2010, 12:03 pm
05 Sep 2010, 12:53 pm
