Obama and Abortion

[Patroklos]

A guy who doesn't take responsibility for his offspring is equally clueless about fatherhood as any woman, given they chose not to experience it.

In your system we, as men, can discuss and legeslate on this. Women, however, can not. They have to go bake cookies and talk about "girl stuff."

If as a guy you admitted paternity, that is a different matter, specially if you had entered into a social contract (marriage) with a woman, maiking you socially liable for any offspring you create.

Not all fathers and mothers are married.

Except we were made socially liable as fathers, a condition a women can never understand, based in part by laws voted on by women! This is in direct contridiction to your LAW OF WHO IS PRIMARILY AFFECTED!!!

And since most of us have a moral guideline to not allow human death to occur for mere conviencence all around us if it is our belief that is what is happening, you have just justified our inclusion in the decision. Thanks for contridicting yourself. This would be easier on you if you just stoped typing.

Repeated, because it is Gepap's own arguement once again used to boot stomp himself. Gepap

[Theben]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Personally, if I were in power, I would outlaw abortions after the 1st trimester except for danger to the mother or severe defects (yes, slipperly slope)

This would preserve the right to an early abortion, and give the mother enough time to make a decision. 1.5 months or so assuming the mother found out due to a missed period.

Apparently 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester, so later abortions are already relatively unpopular.

I'd change that to allowing for abortions in the 2nd trimester under unusual circumstances and outlawing 3rd trimester for dangers to the mother only, 1st trimester is not restricted.

There's no sane reason why a man cannot provide his input (like we all are here) wrt abortions; if we define laws can only be petitioned by those directly affected by it it would open a huge can o' worms that I don't want to even think about. Aside from that, men CAN be affected by abortion, emotionally.

In the end, the father and mother should have the final say. I personally think the mother's wishes should weigh in more, but that the father have SOME say in it.

Of course my solution would end all this controversy. All males age 13 get mandatory vasectomies. They can then have the procedure reversed anytime after marriage. Abortion problem solved!

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by GePap


They used to hang horse thiefs. Is it right to hang horse thiefs now?

Hell yes, let's bring this into the 21's century, and update it to carjackers!

Given the STATE the power to make abortion illegal does nothing to diminish the power of said STATE. Are you for or against capital punishment?

It's broken as it stands now. 20 years on death row, wtf? 1 appeal, you're found guilty twice? KILL EM NOW, not this 20 years of appeal BS!


We also need to legalize doctor assisted suicide, damnit.

[Patroklos]

I think we should just decant our children.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Patroklos


If you do feel that there is a time when rights should be bestowed and thus the existance of a human being recognized, and we know that thousands plus are being killed after that (murdered if you believe they were human), how can you not feel strongly about that?

1. I don't know for sure exactly when that time is. I'm currently thinking 2nd trimester, but I'm not at all certain of that cutoff point.
2. I'm wary of curtailing rights of beings I'm sure are human beings and deserving of rights (pregnant women) in order to protect the rights of beings I'm not as sure about (fetuses).
3. I'm not a woman. While that doesn't mean my opinion is invalid or should be ignored, I'm concious of it (again, in the context of curtailing rights).
4. I hold a number of moral positions that my government violates from time to time. I don't go out and protest, other than to vote or perhaps write a strongly worded letter (latent Canadianism?). I suppose I have a limited capacity for outrage?
5. I believe there are downsides to the uncompromising "pro-life" viewpoint. Forcing people to have kids they don't want strikes me as a bad idea in general. I would prefer to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, of course.

-Arrian

[Ramo]

though we gave examples parameters to determine where that cutoff should be.

Since we have basically no idea how to model the brain, I don't think there are any reliable parameters to base the cutoff date on. From first principles, we have absolutely no idea what's going on. We're currently analyzing the brain with a tenuous degree of abstraction. As I said, my intuition is that that sentience is well after birth, but would place the cutoff before birth due to the large level of uncertainty. Like Arrian, I don't have strong feelings about the cutoff date (as long as it isn't excessively early) because this is all gut anyways.

So, again, I think the lack of restrictions on abortion is a perfectly defensible position. One that I think we'll move to as our understanding of the brain gets better.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


In your system we, as men, can discuss and legestlate on this. Women, however, do not.

Sorry to tell you this, but one can't "legislate" whether an individual personaly takes responsibility for their action or not. You can only make people liable after the fact, if you can pin the action on them.

Not all fathers and mothers are married.

And unless that unmarried man admitted paternity, or the woman somewhow got a paternity test to prove he is the father, the courts aren't going to make the man pay child support.

Except we were made socially liable as fathers, a condition a wonen can never understand, based in part by laws voted on by women! This is in direct contridiction to your LAW OF WHO IS PRIMARILY AFFECTED!!!

To say women are not affected by child support laws is the height of stupidity. Last time I looked, in a child support case, the parent with the child is the one who is legaly responsible for their care and thus financially liable for the costs of said care. A parent not receiving child custody payments is directly affected financially. Also, WOMEN can be made to pay child support if the man is the one who kept custody of the children and is the primary caregiver and thus financially liable for them. The fact that a woman can be made to pay child support shows the basic problem in your "argument."



]

[Theben]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I think we should just decant our children.

We should pour water out of them into another???

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Theben


I'd change that to allowing for abortions in the 2nd trimester under unusual circumstances and outlawing 3rd trimester for dangers to the mother only, 1st trimester is not restricted.

There's no sane reason why a man cannot provide his input (like we all are here) wrt abortions; if we define laws can only be petitioned by those directly affected by it it would open a huge can o' worms that I don't want to even think about. Aside from that, men CAN be affected by abortion, emotionally.

In the end, the father and mother should have the final say. I personally think the mother's wishes should weigh in more, but that the father have SOME say in it.

Of course my solution would end all this controversy. All males age 13 get mandatory vasectomies. They can then have the procedure reversed anytime after marriage. Abortion problem solved!

My wife works the NICU, and they save babies at 20 weeks and older (mid 2nd trimester). 28 weeks (start of 3rd trimester) have very low chances of adult complications.

My daughter was born at 29 weeks, and was perfectly healthy. My oldest son was born at 30 weeks, and had a few minor issues that saw us at the doctors every day for 2 weeks, but otherwise was healthy.

I can't imagine an "Abortion" in the third trimester at all, frankly. That's a birth. Even if it needs be a C section.

Otherwise, I'm in general agreement.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Theben
I'd change that to allowing for abortions in the 2nd trimester under unusual circumstances and limiting 3rd trimester for dangers to the mother only, 1st trimester is not restricted.

That's what I meant to say.

[Jon Miller]

Ramo, you are suggesting that we define humanity based on mental ability. I disagree strongly with that point.

JM

[Ramo]

To a degree, yes. On what other basis would we deny other animals rights of personhood?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ramo
To a degree, yes. On what other basis would we deny other animals rights of personhood?

by saying we will only accept members of Homo Sapiens Sapiens as "persons."

That seems easy enough.

[Ramo]

Klingons are people too.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ramo
Klingons are people too.

They are self-evidently NOT.