Anonymous
08/01/2012 11:21
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:To 10:01 (my quote function isn't working)
We can all agree that a woman has a 50% responsibility for putting the parasite in her body and a 100% responsibility for hosting the parasite in her body. She also legally has 100% rights determining whether or not she will have the parasite removed from her body.
Although a man has 50% of the reponsibily for putting the parasite in the woman's body, he has 0% responsibility for hosting the parasite and 0% rights to determining if the parasite remains or is removed from the woman's body.
So in my opinion, if he legally has no rights to the parasite, then in the case of removing the parasite he has absolutely no responsibilities, unless he forcibly put this parasite in the woman's body (through rape or incest).
As a result, I have competely left him out of my post above. He is irrelevant to this discussion.
One can't say in one breath that a man is 50% responsible, and in the next breath that he has 0% say in what happens to the parasite.
If you think a fetus is a parasite over which the father has no input regarding its status, than the sperm donor is not worth discussing in this debate.
Nature made the decision about the man's role and responsibility in reproduction. The man's opportunity for "a say" is when he chooses to leave his genetic material in a vagina, or not. If he does not want to be responsible for supporting offspring, or if he wants to be sure to prevent abortion, he should absolutely ensure that he takes his sperm with him when he is done (i.e. used condom). Better yet, vasectomy, monogomy or abstinence are obvioulsy better insurance for him to avoid these pitfalls.
If he mistakenly leaves his sperm in a woman, yes he is shit out of luck. Because only she can decide whether or not to terminate. But if a child is the result of the sex act, he has to take responsibility for his role.
It's simply biology. And yes, I realize that the inequity in power here - the woman has all the say, all the control, all the power - must really piss men off.
Anonymous
08/01/2012 10:20
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
To 10:01 (my quote function isn't working)
We can all agree that a woman has a 50% responsibility for putting the parasite in her body and a 100% responsibility for hosting the parasite in her body. She also legally has 100% rights determining whether or not she will have the parasite removed from her body.
Although a man has 50% of the reponsibily for putting the parasite in the woman's body, he has 0% responsibility for hosting the parasite and 0% rights to determining if the parasite remains or is removed from the woman's body.
So in my opinion, if he legally has no rights to the parasite, then in the case of removing the parasite he has absolutely no responsibilities, unless he forcibly put this parasite in the woman's body (through rape or incest).
As a result, I have competely left him out of my post above. He is irrelevant to this discussion.
One can't say in one breath that a man is 50% responsible, and in the next breath that he has 0% say in what happens to the parasite.
If you think a fetus is a parasite over which the father has no input regarding its status, than the sperm donor is not worth discussing in this debate.
We can all agree that a woman has a 50% responsibility for putting the parasite in her body and a 100% responsibility for hosting the parasite in her body. She also legally has 100% rights determining whether or not she will have the parasite removed from her body.
Although a man has 50% of the reponsibily for putting the parasite in the woman's body, he has 0% responsibility for hosting the parasite and 0% rights to determining if the parasite remains or is removed from the woman's body.
So in my opinion, if he legally has no rights to the parasite, then in the case of removing the parasite he has absolutely no responsibilities, unless he forcibly put this parasite in the woman's body (through rape or incest).
As a result, I have competely left him out of my post above. He is irrelevant to this discussion.
One can't say in one breath that a man is 50% responsible, and in the next breath that he has 0% say in what happens to the parasite.
If you think a fetus is a parasite over which the father has no input regarding its status, than the sperm donor is not worth discussing in this debate.
Anonymous
08/01/2012 10:08
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't care if the fetus can write a dissertation on why it has a right to life. What it does NOT have is the right to parasitize a human who does not want it inside them.
If it were a fully sentient alien, a living, thinking being capable of communication, feelings, pain - it still would not have the right to force me to let it live inside me for any period of time. Now, do I think allowing it to be there for nine months and enduring some (serious) discomfort and risk is the right thing to do? Absolutely. But nobody should be able to force me to be an incubator for another life. Making laws to do so is the government taking away my personal liberty, my bodily soveriegnity. And I won't stand for it.
Working from the parasite viewpoint, who put that parasite in your body? A fetus doesn't magically invade a woman's body just out of the blue. Unless you were raped or molested, it didn't force its way inside of you. If you grew up in some isolated bubble and had no knowledge whatsoever of the birds and the bees, then perhaps this arguement would have some logic behind it. A woman has 50% of the responsibility of planting this parasite in her body.
The arguments about privacy, social implications of unwanted pregnancies, etc, have merit as arguments.
But the argument of how dare this fetus parasite my body and force me to host it is ridiculous, given that you put that parasite in your body, or at least created a situation where it was created. It didn't ask to be in your body, it didn't invade you. You put it there.
Interesting that you don't mention the sperm donor who HELPED put it there.
Anonymous
08/01/2012 10:01
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't care if the fetus can write a dissertation on why it has a right to life. What it does NOT have is the right to parasitize a human who does not want it inside them.
If it were a fully sentient alien, a living, thinking being capable of communication, feelings, pain - it still would not have the right to force me to let it live inside me for any period of time. Now, do I think allowing it to be there for nine months and enduring some (serious) discomfort and risk is the right thing to do? Absolutely. But nobody should be able to force me to be an incubator for another life. Making laws to do so is the government taking away my personal liberty, my bodily soveriegnity. And I won't stand for it.
Working from the parasite viewpoint, who put that parasite in your body? A fetus doesn't magically invade a woman's body just out of the blue. Unless you were raped or molested, it didn't force its way inside of you. If you grew up in some isolated bubble and had no knowledge whatsoever of the birds and the bees, then perhaps this arguement would have some logic behind it. A woman has 50% of the responsibility of planting this parasite in her body.
The arguments about privacy, social implications of unwanted pregnancies, etc, have merit as arguments.
But the argument of how dare this fetus parasite my body and force me to host it is ridiculous, given that you put that parasite in your body, or at least created a situation where it was created. It didn't ask to be in your body, it didn't invade you. You put it there.
Interesting that you don't mention the sperm donor who HELPED put it there.
Anonymous
08/01/2012 09:16
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:I don't think it ends the discussion, even though I might disagree.
What I do think is that the parasite argument simply does not stand alone as an argument. In fact, I think it is a stupid argument that makes this poster seem illogical and a bit wacko. If the fetus is simply a parasite, then the poster is recognizing that it is a separate entity from her, with its own being, DNA, heartbeat, thought processes, pain, etc. This directly contradicts the argument that the fetus is just like tonsils, a mole or an appendix, unwanted tissue in a womans body. Either it is a parasite (a completely separate being living off the host) or an unwanted mole (part of mom, just as any of her own tissue that a doctor might surgically remove). It can't be both. That is an illogical argument. Either one has merit, or the other. Both cannot.
I can't speak for the 20:30 PP (I'm 16:06/9:00), but my argument is that we don't know whether a fetus is a separate being or an appendage (or at what point (if ever) it transitions from one to the other). But it doesn't matter, because even if a fetus is a separate life (even a separate human life), abortion still cannot and should not be outlawed, because doing so would give more rights to the fetus than we give to born humans. After all, we don't force you to donate the use of your body to another born human, even if (as I described above) you're the reason you're in that situation in the first place.
Anonymous
08/01/2012 09:08
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
I don't think it ends the discussion, even though I might disagree.
What I do think is that the parasite argument simply does not stand alone as an argument. In fact, I think it is a stupid argument that makes this poster seem illogical and a bit wacko. If the fetus is simply a parasite, then the poster is recognizing that it is a separate entity from her, with its own being, DNA, heartbeat, thought processes, pain, etc. This directly contradicts the argument that the fetus is just like tonsils, a mole or an appendix, unwanted tissue in a womans body. Either it is a parasite (a completely separate being living off the host) or an unwanted mole (part of mom, just as any of her own tissue that a doctor might surgically remove). It can't be both. That is an illogical argument. Either one has merit, or the other. Both cannot.
What I do think is that the parasite argument simply does not stand alone as an argument. In fact, I think it is a stupid argument that makes this poster seem illogical and a bit wacko. If the fetus is simply a parasite, then the poster is recognizing that it is a separate entity from her, with its own being, DNA, heartbeat, thought processes, pain, etc. This directly contradicts the argument that the fetus is just like tonsils, a mole or an appendix, unwanted tissue in a womans body. Either it is a parasite (a completely separate being living off the host) or an unwanted mole (part of mom, just as any of her own tissue that a doctor might surgically remove). It can't be both. That is an illogical argument. Either one has merit, or the other. Both cannot.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't care if the fetus can write a dissertation on why it has a right to life. What it does NOT have is the right to parasitize a human who does not want it inside them.
If it were a fully sentient alien, a living, thinking being capable of communication, feelings, pain - it still would not have the right to force me to let it live inside me for any period of time. Now, do I think allowing it to be there for nine months and enduring some (serious) discomfort and risk is the right thing to do? Absolutely. But nobody should be able to force me to be an incubator for another life. Making laws to do so is the government taking away my personal liberty, my bodily soveriegnity. And I won't stand for it.
Working from the parasite viewpoint, who put that parasite in your body? A fetus doesn't magically invade a woman's body just out of the blue. Unless you were raped or molested, it didn't force its way inside of you. If you grew up in some isolated bubble and had no knowledge whatsoever of the birds and the bees, then perhaps this arguement would have some logic behind it. A woman has 50% of the responsibility of planting this parasite in her body.
The arguments about privacy, social implications of unwanted pregnancies, etc, have merit as arguments.
But the argument of how dare this fetus parasite my body and force me to host it is ridiculous, given that you put that parasite in your body, or at least created a situation where it was created. It didn't ask to be in your body, it didn't invade you. You put it there.
But I don't think that ends the discussion. Let's say you agreed to donate blood to another adult, and that adult needed regular transfusions of your blood (and only your blood) for 9 months or she would die. For a few months, you donated regularly. And then, one day, you decided you wanted to stop. Regardless of whether you think that decision is morally right, do you think the state should be able to lock you up and force you to give her your blood, even though you put yourself in that position in the first place?
Anonymous
08/01/2012 09:00
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't care if the fetus can write a dissertation on why it has a right to life. What it does NOT have is the right to parasitize a human who does not want it inside them.
If it were a fully sentient alien, a living, thinking being capable of communication, feelings, pain - it still would not have the right to force me to let it live inside me for any period of time. Now, do I think allowing it to be there for nine months and enduring some (serious) discomfort and risk is the right thing to do? Absolutely. But nobody should be able to force me to be an incubator for another life. Making laws to do so is the government taking away my personal liberty, my bodily soveriegnity. And I won't stand for it.
Working from the parasite viewpoint, who put that parasite in your body? A fetus doesn't magically invade a woman's body just out of the blue. Unless you were raped or molested, it didn't force its way inside of you. If you grew up in some isolated bubble and had no knowledge whatsoever of the birds and the bees, then perhaps this arguement would have some logic behind it. A woman has 50% of the responsibility of planting this parasite in her body.
The arguments about privacy, social implications of unwanted pregnancies, etc, have merit as arguments.
But the argument of how dare this fetus parasite my body and force me to host it is ridiculous, given that you put that parasite in your body, or at least created a situation where it was created. It didn't ask to be in your body, it didn't invade you. You put it there.
But I don't think that ends the discussion. Let's say you agreed to donate blood to another adult, and that adult needed regular transfusions of your blood (and only your blood) for 9 months or she would die. For a few months, you donated regularly. And then, one day, you decided you wanted to stop. Regardless of whether you think that decision is morally right, do you think the state should be able to lock you up and force you to give her your blood, even though you put yourself in that position in the first place?
Anonymous
08/01/2012 08:54
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:I don't care if the fetus can write a dissertation on why it has a right to life. What it does NOT have is the right to parasitize a human who does not want it inside them.
If it were a fully sentient alien, a living, thinking being capable of communication, feelings, pain - it still would not have the right to force me to let it live inside me for any period of time. Now, do I think allowing it to be there for nine months and enduring some (serious) discomfort and risk is the right thing to do? Absolutely. But nobody should be able to force me to be an incubator for another life. Making laws to do so is the government taking away my personal liberty, my bodily soveriegnity. And I won't stand for it.
Working from the parasite viewpoint, who put that parasite in your body? A fetus doesn't magically invade a woman's body just out of the blue. Unless you were raped or molested, it didn't force its way inside of you. If you grew up in some isolated bubble and had no knowledge whatsoever of the birds and the bees, then perhaps this arguement would have some logic behind it. A woman has 50% of the responsibility of planting this parasite in her body.
The arguments about privacy, social implications of unwanted pregnancies, etc, have merit as arguments.
But the argument of how dare this fetus parasite my body and force me to host it is ridiculous, given that you put that parasite in your body, or at least created a situation where it was created. It didn't ask to be in your body, it didn't invade you. You put it there.
Anonymous
08/01/2012 08:42
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:16:06, you never answered the question.
Do you feel that science should be entirely left out of the abortion discussion?
16:06 here -- no, I don't think science should be entirely left out. But I also don't think it's the end of the discussion. Science can't tell us what "life" means, and science doesn't speak to how we balance rights. I also am very suspicious of scientific claims as filtered through the anti-choice camp, which gave us such claims as "abortion causes breast cancer" (no, it doesn't) and "abortion makes women depressed and suicidal" (no, it doesn't). That movement, frankly, has lost objective credibility.
Thank you for responding in a respectful manner, and sharing your viewpoint.
I appreciate having a mature, thoughtful discussion on this sensitive subject.
Anonymous
08/01/2012 08:37
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:I don't care if the fetus can write a dissertation on why it has a right to life. What it does NOT have is the right to parasitize a human who does not want it inside them.
If it were a fully sentient alien, a living, thinking being capable of communication, feelings, pain - it still would not have the right to force me to let it live inside me for any period of time. Now, do I think allowing it to be there for nine months and enduring some (serious) discomfort and risk is the right thing to do? Absolutely. But nobody should be able to force me to be an incubator for another life. Making laws to do so is the government taking away my personal liberty, my bodily soveriegnity. And I won't stand for it.
OMG THANK YOU.
Anonymous
08/01/2012 08:28
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
why are you preaching to a girlAnonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one? How many more millions of babies must be killed before we outlaw abortion?
Easy fix don't ever get pregnant
It takes 2
Easy fix: prosecute men that have sex
Anonymous
07/31/2012 23:43
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one? How many more millions of babies must be killed before we outlaw abortion?
Easy fix don't ever get pregnant
Anonymous
07/31/2012 21:32
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Replying to your question "Am I the only one?".
People killing babies are murders, women electing to abort a are making a personal decision.
The leading causes of death of babies in the DC area is gun related murder and the lack of prenatal care. What have you done to save these babies????
People killing babies are murders, women electing to abort a are making a personal decision.
The leading causes of death of babies in the DC area is gun related murder and the lack of prenatal care. What have you done to save these babies????
Anonymous
07/31/2012 20:30
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
I don't care if the fetus can write a dissertation on why it has a right to life. What it does NOT have is the right to parasitize a human who does not want it inside them.
If it were a fully sentient alien, a living, thinking being capable of communication, feelings, pain - it still would not have the right to force me to let it live inside me for any period of time. Now, do I think allowing it to be there for nine months and enduring some (serious) discomfort and risk is the right thing to do? Absolutely. But nobody should be able to force me to be an incubator for another life. Making laws to do so is the government taking away my personal liberty, my bodily soveriegnity. And I won't stand for it.
If it were a fully sentient alien, a living, thinking being capable of communication, feelings, pain - it still would not have the right to force me to let it live inside me for any period of time. Now, do I think allowing it to be there for nine months and enduring some (serious) discomfort and risk is the right thing to do? Absolutely. But nobody should be able to force me to be an incubator for another life. Making laws to do so is the government taking away my personal liberty, my bodily soveriegnity. And I won't stand for it.
Anonymous
07/31/2012 19:29
Subject: I don't believe in the right to kill babies
Anonymous wrote:16:06, you never answered the question.
Do you feel that science should be entirely left out of the abortion discussion?
16:06 here -- no, I don't think science should be entirely left out. But I also don't think it's the end of the discussion. Science can't tell us what "life" means, and science doesn't speak to how we balance rights. I also am very suspicious of scientific claims as filtered through the anti-choice camp, which gave us such claims as "abortion causes breast cancer" (no, it doesn't) and "abortion makes women depressed and suicidal" (no, it doesn't). That movement, frankly, has lost objective credibility.