logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> Men's Abortion Rights, Abortion considered.
Greenring7
post Jun 16 2003, 04:40 AM
Post #1


****
Contributor

Group: BANNED
Posts: 93
Member No.: 800
Joined: June-14-03

From: Jacksonville, Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: None



A part of a "woman's reproductive right" is the "right" to abortion of a zygote residing inside of her, under the claim that it is a part of her body.

Now, as a zygote (and later, fetus) is constucted exactly 50/50 of a mothers biological makeup and a fathers biological makeup (remember, nutrition is fuel, not a body part), if we really strive for equality:

Should a Man have equal rights to demand an abortion of "a part of his body?"

-Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Mrs. Pigpen
post Jun 17 2003, 07:49 PM
Post #21


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,351
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Greenring7 @ Jun 17 2003, 12:21 PM)
Last I checked, what you named off were not life and death.

I realize that, and it seems you do too. So why do you think I was referring to those symptoms as life and death?

See, what most pro-lifers are saying is that unless it *is* a life and death case, abortion should not be another form of birth control, available whenever the mother decides that 9 months of her temporary inconvience is not worth the entire lifetime of another human being.

You seem to belive that because the child is within the mother, the mother should be able to kill it for any reason that strikes her fancy, or, for no reason at all.

-Robert

I was thrown by your use of the word 'discomfort' to describe symptoms of physical illness, obesity, (often) asthma, varicosities, deformity, depression, and sometimes-severe emotional disturbance.

I must thank you, however. Between the topic of incest, and your various posts (describing your obvious frivolous regard for the sex act, as well as apparent disregard of resulting responsibility AND you're going into the occupation of instructing future generations) I have never been this unaroused since before puberty. Mr P is away for two months, so that's a good thing...less battery waste. I'm finished responding to this topic. I might need to hurl though. sour.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rattlesnake
post Jun 17 2003, 08:46 PM
Post #22


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 418
Member No.: 619
Joined: March-19-03

From: Down the rabbit hole
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Socialist



Why is it that "cultured" insults always seem so much more vicious and biting then more provincial name-calling, regardless of the lack of vulgarity?


Well, for what it's worth, I don't think that giving your sperm means you should have a right to decied if a woman has an abortion. You didn't do anything. Yes, the baby has your genetic makeup, but did you do anything that someone else couldn't have does just as easily? However, not to be hypocritical, you aren't obligated to pay child support for a child you didn't want to have (or wanted to be adopted after birth.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Jun 17 2003, 10:35 PM
Post #23


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,834
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
Err.
   It's some sort of clue. Fetal development system Sin Sister? Swearing sailor? Sperm saver? Stolen spermer? OH! I think I know! Is it sperm stealer?
FDS SS = Fetal Development System Support Staff, i.e., anybody interracting with a potentially irrational (aka crazy, hormonal, etc) pregnant woman. laugh.gif

QUOTE
I have never heard an argument in favor of abortion based solely on the premise that 'The baby is half mine, so I dispose of it'. Have you?
No, although the argument has often been proferred that the fetus is all hers, so she has the right to dispose of it. Green is specifically raising ownership as a rationale for permitting abortion, and advancing the proposition that "ownership" is shared.

which brings me to my next point...

QUOTE
In addition, Bikerdad, would you care to elaborate on your answer to the question posed?
Okay, I'll elaborate. Male ownership, whether 50/50, or 75/25, or 99/1 or 100/0 does not give the father the right to demand an abortion, because it is unconsciounable (and unconstitutional) in this country to own another person. Any imputed or claimed "ownership" by the mother is likewise moot. The ownership argument depends a priori on the position that it is a fetus, not a baby.


QUOTE
I might need to hurl though. - MrsPigpen
An ever useful and constructive response. huh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Julian
post Jun 18 2003, 01:55 PM
Post #24


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,942
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE
See, what most pro-lifers are saying is that unless it *is* a life and death case, abortion should not be another form of birth control,


Hmm. This may be true of most pro-lifers - I don't doubt that it's what YOU think. But, I have not met all pro-lifers, so I can't say what motivates most of them. Neither, I suspect, have you, nor can you.

However, in my experience, most of the pro-lifers I have met or corresponded with are not only opposed to abortion when it is not life or death. No, they are opposed to abortion under all circumstances, because they think it is wrong under all circumsatnces. They merely oppose abortion on demand first, because they consider it the easiest form of abortion to remove, in turn because it is the least popular form of abortion with the general public; even pro-choice advocates do not seem to actively like the idea of abortion on demand; women aren't encouraged to enjoy the experience, after all.

No, in my experience, most pro-lifers oppose "abortion as birth control" for the same reason as most PETA member oppose factory farming - they think it's a start on the road to their ultimate goals (no abortion at all ever; and no human exploitation of animals at all ever, including pet ownership, respectively).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Greenring7
post Jun 19 2003, 01:37 PM
Post #25


****
Contributor

Group: BANNED
Posts: 93
Member No.: 800
Joined: June-14-03

From: Jacksonville, Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Hey Julian,

That may be your experience, but, in my own, outside of the religious fanatics, of course, most have no qualms with saving a mothers life at the cost of a child's. They just have a problem with killing a child that ins't going to kill you.

Also, Rattlesnake, cultured insults always seem to be more vicious because the people in control seem content to leave them there, as opposed to giving them equal treatment and scolding that the other insults get.

In addition, your assertation that "You didn't do anything" also applies to the mother. The only thing we did was release our reproductive cells from the organs that store/produce them and allow them to combine.

After that, neither the man nor the woman has to do another thing. The zygote/embryo/child does it all themselves. Of course, it does have physical affects on a woman, since it is doing it all itself inside of said woman. They don't even have labor. They are subjected to labor when the child decides.

-Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bd123
post Jun 20 2003, 08:54 AM
Post #26


****
Contributor

Group: BANNED
Posts: 54
Member No.: 781
Joined: June-7-03

From: Ohio USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



I aint read most of this, just the first post... all i can say is I am generally against abortion, unless it is because of rape or incest...

And even if a couple had a conversation with each other about having an abortion, I say whoever says 'no' wins

This post has been edited by bd123: Jun 20 2003, 08:59 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Jun 20 2003, 05:34 PM
Post #27


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,426
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



The semantics of the original question, as to what 'part of the body' means seems to be a focal point.

Greenring7 has used "genetics information derived from" as in ancestorial DNA passed on. I suppose this definition would suggest that all ancestors should be involved in pregnancy decisions as they as could stake a claim as the embryo possessing their DNA to varying degrees. Grandparents can claim 25% genetic involvement, great-grandparents have 12.5% involvement, etc.. I think such a legal definition would be cumbersome. Can dead ancestors have their estate being involved in future pregnancy for perpetuity? What other pregnancy decisions would require input from DNA ancestors?

How about cousins? They have some the same DNA as the fetus ? Would they get a vote? With the ability to identify DNA, possibly there are people in other parts of the world who share similar DNA segments. Depending on how much DNA strands are similar, would they get a proportional vote?

The meaning I assumed for 'part of the body' was the actual physical tissue involved. Pregnancy involved fetal tissue and maternal tissue. The embryo has its body, umbilical cord and placenta while the mother has the uterus, all of which are contained within the mother's body. Males are not providing any part of their body during a pregnancy. (Yes, the placenta is part of the fetus. It is remarkable to think about the birth process once you know the parts. Just think, you lose approximately 25-35% of yourself when you are born. Take that and all the circulatory and respiratory changes, birth is indeed a startling metamorphosis. All who have seen the birth of mammals, i.e. foals, calves, pupps or you own kids, have gotten to see the effects of this metamorphosis as they have a blue appearance as the large circulatory changes kick into place over a few short minutes. The caterpillar to butterfly change is distinctive but not so dramatic and abrupt.)

Which brings us to the third definition of 'part of the body' in a pregnancy which is the formation of a single cell from the joining of the egg and the sperm. Both a male and a female contribute to the resulting egg. Such joinings can happen many places. This has been done in petri dishes. When it happens in a petri dish who is the pregnant person? I would suggest having pregnancy defined as beginning when implantation occurs. No male involvement is required for implantation. It only involves the zygote and the maternal tissue.

As a side note, legally defining humans as possessing full rights once the egg and sperm join has always seemed disingenuous to me. I have yet to see people holding funerals for this stage of development. At some point, people do have emotional attachments to humans as they develope but when that occurs varies from person to person. But I do not think anyone is emotionally attached to the single cell.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Jun 20 2003, 05:52 PM
Post #28


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



What's the saying? Mama's baby. Daddy's maybe?

Providing your DNA doesn't make you a father. It makes you a sperm donor. My take on the abortion rights of men goes something like this:

1. It's a woman's body and it's her decision. The first time a man dies giving childbirth I may reconsider this position.

2. I have yet to see the man who became impregnated or needed an abortion. It's a medical procedure for women only. Why is this such a difficult concept for men to grasp?

3. Where did the idea come from that bringing more unwanted children in the world is a good thing?

This post has been edited by nighttimer: Jun 20 2003, 05:55 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Greenring7
post Jun 20 2003, 06:39 PM
Post #29


****
Contributor

Group: BANNED
Posts: 93
Member No.: 800
Joined: June-14-03

From: Jacksonville, Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Where is this usage of DNA coming from?

That's not at all what I mean.

I mean, ALL OF YOU, comes from an egg and a sperm.

You put an egg and sperm together, and IT GROWS into an embryo, to a fetus, to a child, to an adolescent, to an adult, etc.

I mean that a human is half of their father, as half of it's body is that sperm, and the other half is the egg. Of course, the cells divided, each divided cell half-mother/half-father, but it's not like the sperm enters, and suddenly the egg starts dividing and creating you, using the sperm as half the blue-print. The sperm and egg combines and a new human is formed.

-Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Jul 2 2003, 03:10 PM
Post #30


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jun 20 2003, 12:34 PM)
As a side note, legally defining humans as possessing full rights once the egg and sperm join has always seemed disingenuous to me.  I have yet to see people holding funerals for this stage of development.  At some point, people do have emotional attachments to humans as they develope but when that occurs varies from person to person.  But I do not think anyone is emotionally attached to the single cell.

I object to the implication that the level of emotional concern be the deciding factor in granting full human rights. It seem to me that consideration of scientific fact (that the embryo, as you have alread implied, is a human organism unto itself) is a more objective and reliable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beladonna
post Jul 2 2003, 04:51 PM
Post #31


*******
Resident Beach Bum

Sponsor
July 3, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 868
Member No.: 545
Joined: February-26-03

From: Florida
Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Democrat



Reading what some of the men on this board have written has blown me away. When it comes to children, men are so willing to give up their rights and be totally raked over the coals.

This attitude that women have full control of the fetus has so permeated our society it spills over into child support, visitation rights and other aspects of men's reproductive rights.

Men are forced to pay child support for children that aren't even theirs.

A man plays around, gets a woman pregnant and many say, you played, you pay. But if the circumstances are reversed and it's the woman who is doing the playing we refuse to hold them to the same level of accountability. Instead, we tell her, YOU have a choice, abort the baby OR you can keep the baby and sue the father for child support. Oh and by the way, let's make sure the father has no visitation.

Two extreme cases in point:

QUOTE
GERALD MISCOVICH's ex-wife, Elizabeth, got pregnant soon after they married. In 1989, when the boy was 2, she left her husband, and they reached an agreement on child support and visitation. Two years later, a DNA test showed Miscovich was not the father. But he is still forced to pay child support. Under Pennsylvania law, dating to the 16th century, a child born to a married woman is her husband's child, tests or no tests.

In 1989, the high court upheld a similar California law in a very different case - in which the plaintiff wanted to be a dad. Michael Hirschensohn fathered a child in a long-term relationship with a woman who was legally married but separated; when she eventually went back to her husband, Hirschensohn was barred from seeing his daughter. The courts rejected his lawsuit, despite his bond with the girl and DNA test results, on the grounds of "the state's interest in preserving the integrity of the matrimonial family."


Men should have EQUAL rights (financial, custody) to the unborn/born baby unless it can be proven to the court he is unfit to "have rights" to his children.

Women have rights and choices while men have responsibilities and are expected to support any choice a woman makes. *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***!

A man should be allowed to petition the court to "abort" his parental rights and responsibilities within a limited time of being notified of the pregnancy just like the woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Julian
post Jul 3 2003, 11:37 AM
Post #32


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,942
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



That's all well and good, Beladonna, and I agree with you that men's parental rights need an overhaul.

However, the thread is about men's abortionrights, and it has to be said that men don't have any abortion rights because men don't have abortions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
euphoric
post Jul 12 2003, 12:16 AM
Post #33


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 10
Member No.: 869
Joined: July-11-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Private
Party affiliation: Private



Absolutely not! Abortion should be totally up to the women, she is the one carrying the fetus for 9months.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ataal
post Jul 22 2003, 08:44 PM
Post #34


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 354
Member No.: 674
Joined: April-17-03

From: Phoenix, Arizona
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



Ok I really have to settle myself down on this one.

Breath in....breath out...

I have to agree with the person that said, when discussing abortion, the first person that says "no", wins. I hope I never have to face this decision, because if my wife went and got an abortion, I'd file charges for murder. I know, I know, I wouldn't win. But, I'd fight that battle til the day I died. I don't care how many judges laugh in my face, I'd fight it with everything that I have. Think I'm crazy? I call it passion. Love for my child that would be needlessly slaughtered with a vacuum hose just so she didn't have to through labor. That would be MY flesh and blood too.

Breath in....breath out....

......first person that says "no", wins, unless of course there is a life or death situation which is extremely rare.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Billy Jean
post Jul 22 2003, 08:50 PM
Post #35


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,173
Member No.: 805
Joined: June-16-03

From: Athens, Georgia
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
Should a Man have equal rights to demand an abortion of "a part of his body?"


No, men have no rights over a womens body.

This post has been edited by Billy Jean: Jul 22 2003, 08:52 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Thales
post Aug 5 2003, 03:46 PM
Post #36


*
New Member

Group: Members
Posts: 8
Member No.: 955
Joined: July-31-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



But this is the essence of the question... If there is something growing in a womans body that is created as part of a mutual act, is it not fair that the man also has a say in the keeping of the child. If the woman is in danger due to deliverance of said baby, or if it was a case of rape (or an extenuating circumstance) now that is a different issue. HOWEVER why not allow the man to take custody of the child after birth if the woman does not want the responsibility of raising the child? Who are we to decide who should live or die, that is to be decided by fate, or God, or Allah or whatever you believe in. Do you agree?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Billy Jean
post Aug 5 2003, 03:57 PM
Post #37


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,173
Member No.: 805
Joined: June-16-03

From: Athens, Georgia
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
If there is something growing in a womans body that is created as part of a mutual act, is it not fair that the man also has a say in the keeping of the child.


Yes, but a woman can go to a sperm bank and get the little guys too. If the woman is carrying the baby, going through the discomforts and pains and the baby is inside of her, btw, possession is 9\10ths of the law, then she takes precedence over the father, who just supplied one ingredient and can walk out. The father's bond with the child isn't nearly as strong as the mothers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Thales
post Aug 5 2003, 05:06 PM
Post #38


*
New Member

Group: Members
Posts: 8
Member No.: 955
Joined: July-31-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Billy Jean @ Aug 5 2003, 03:57 PM)
Yes, but a woman can go to a sperm bank and get the little guys too. If the woman is carrying the baby, going through the discomforts and pains and the baby is inside of her, btw, possession is 9\10ths of the law, then she takes precedence over the father, who just supplied one ingredient and can walk out.  The father's bond with the child isn't nearly as strong as the mothers.

You contradict yourself here. If a woman goes to a sperm bank and is artifically inseminated:

1) One would assume that she would WANT to bear the baby (why else would she be there)

2) If the baby is artificially inseminated at a sperm bank then (as i understand it) the male donor's name is kept in secrecy and also the male who donated the sperm has no rights to the child whatsoever, therefore the point would be moot anyway.

3) This is a dangerous line to follow, but when does a zygote/baby stop being property and become a legal person. If you want to look at the law, then i guess the age of 18 because before that a child is under the protection of the parents, and not really a separate identity, so posession could be stated. However, i dont really think posession is a good argument because face it, even though Schwarzenegger carried a baby in a movie, theres no way for a man to carry a child...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Aug 5 2003, 05:06 PM
Post #39


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,426
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Billy Jean)
The father's bond with the child isn't nearly as strong as the mothers.
Are you refering to the physical bond of a womb or do you mean the emotional bond?

If you mean the emotional bond, how do you know?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Billy Jean
post Aug 5 2003, 05:31 PM
Post #40


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,173
Member No.: 805
Joined: June-16-03

From: Athens, Georgia
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



http://www.childresearch.net/CYBRARY/KOBY/...E/cbse0018.html
QUOTE
Many pediatricians have thought about the importance of the touch between mother and child as a key factor in establishing the bond between mother and child. In Japan, we call this "skinship". For the mother and child to begin building a bond with each other, and to begin establishing a human relationship, having a rich "skinship" type of relationship is very important.


http://www.originsusa.org/articles/Why_Bir...ns_Breeder.html
Concerning "Birth Mothers" and adoption
QUOTE
However, one truth that cannot be denied is the truth that thousands of mothers and their lost children have found in reunion: that the deep spiritual/emotional mother-child bond between them has never been broken, despite the decades they were separated. That natural motherhood is forever, that the relationship extended *past* birth. Adopters feeling threatened by this sometimes try to pressure adoptees to end reunions: instead, they should hold their brokers accountable for lying to them with the "as if born to" sales-pitch.


http://www.jhbmc.jhu.edu/healthcarenews/01011604.html
QUOTE
Jan. 16, 2001 (Ivanhoe Newswire) -- When it comes to protecting a child from problems following a divorce, the responsibility falls to mom. Researchers from the University of Washington found the mother's parenting style is the greatest influencing factor on whether or not a child has adjustment problems following divorce.


http://breastfeed.com/resources/articles/dadsbond.htm
QUOTE
For mothers, especially those who exclusively breastfeed, bonding is a natural part of the daily routine. Nursing not only supplies life-sustaining nourishment, it also gives both Baby and Mother ample opportunity to exchange eye contact, skin contact and vocalizations three primary bonding methods. But what about Dad?

In the first few months of life, children are more dependent on Mom for just about everything, and fathers are often challenged to find meaningful ways to interact with their newborn child. Many dads claim to feel more than just a little "out of the loop" during this important stage of life.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: April 8th, 2020 - 08:58 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.