I was talking this over with some friends. My view is that untill men can give birth ,they should butt out of it. I dont think that any guy has a dog in the fight for or against abortion. It isnt our bodie that will have to nourish the developing fetus. Men dont get Post partum depression,stretch marks, morning sickness or new "pregnancy" wardrobes. Physicaly we realy have nothing to do with a pregnancy after conception. It is all going on in the womans bodie and that is why I think only women should be allowed to make abortion decisions. As you can probably guess I am pro choice, but I am pro choice because I dont feel that I have the right to tell another person what to do with their bodie. Get one or dont, it doesnt matter to me, but the option should still be there.

My view is that since we have a 50/50 split with the woman, in terms of the child's genetic structure and the act of conceiving it, that we should have an equal say in the life/death of our unborn child.

[ 02-08-2003, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Bardan the Slayer ]

for me it depends on how far along the kid in there is
but yes, it is the womans decision and she should have the right to since its her body. that said, i would argue with the woman in question if it was my kid in there.

It's the woman's body you are taking the child out of, but it is the child's body you are killing.

I dont know about the killing part, Bardan. Most children arent physicaly attached to anything, but your missing the point. Why do you feel you have the right to tell someone what they can or can not do with their own bodie? Untill the fetus comes out is is still part of the mother, kind of like a kidney.

No, it is not a part of her body, liike a kidney. It is a human being with a human brain and human individuality. It is a small being with it's own moods (which is why different unborn babies respond to different voices, music, etc) and feelings. It is a dependant organism that, left to it's own devices, will grow into a sentient, walking, talking self-sufficient human being.

A kidney is none of these things. The comparison is silly.

And what do you mean, you aren't sure about the killing?

From Miriam-Webster :

Main Entry: 1kill
Pronunciation: 'kil
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, perhaps from (assumed) Old English cyllan; akin to Old English cwellan to kill -- more at QUELL
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 a : to deprive of life

A foetus is alive. If you deprive it of life, you kill it.

Oh, and just before anyone thinks that my arguments are based on religious beliefs - I'm an atheist [img]smile.gif[/img]

Exactly right, Bardan!

There is ample proof that unborn babies exhibit awareness of their environment, and react to it quite early in pregnancy. Abortion isn't just removing an appendix, it's killing. (Insert obvious references to the film showing the baby reacting to the abortion tool and attempting to flee...)

The question isn't even about the dividing line about when an abortion should be allowed or not, that's just an excuse to drive a wedge in to justify the abortion. The obvious cutoff point is at the time of conception; any other time is just too subject to interpretation or just plain abitrary.

Catholics go even further, you can't officially use contraceptive devices! :D

edit>Hunter, consider this - though a young child is independant of the mothers body after birth, a child still won't survive without many years care from the parents. (unlike many species of animal). Arguing that the unborn child is dependant on the mothers' body doesn't really prove anything.

[ 02-08-2003, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

I am not argueing for the rights of the unborn, SirK. I am argueing that men have no business telling women what to do with their bodies. So far all I have gotten by way of responses is men telling women what they can and cant do with their bodies. Ironic, isnt it?

It should IMHO be laws about the time when and if, and if late one would need a to have the case tested.

In the end, the final word is the mothers.

Well since you brought it up..

My political and religious aspects are to this date yet undecided.

Personally I agree with Bardan- a 50/50 decision between the father and the mother. I'm not exactly pro-life but I know I ain't pro-choice.

If I understand Hunter´s first post we are not discussing the ethics of abortion, rather who has the final decision if an abortion should take place (assuming it is legal/possible) to do so. The abortion poll is probably on page 2 or 3 of this forum if we would like to continue that discussion.

IMO it is the woman who must have the final say! If a man has the final vote, he would not have to endure anything during pregnancy (not counting mood swings and doing midnight shopping ( [img]graemlins/blueblink.gif[/img] ). If a woman feels that she do not want to keep her child, no man has the right to tell her she must continue her pregnancy. (Note: I am not talking about abortion laws here, rather I am assuimng abortion is legal)

No, you seem unable to make the distinction [img]smile.gif[/img]

When you abort a baby, you are *not* letting the woman do what she wants with her body. You are letting the woman do with the body of the child she carries inside her.

No man is telling a woman what to do with their body. We would simply like a fair say in the life or death of our child. It takes 2 to make a baby (and the Child Support Agencies love that phrase). Men are assumed to be responsible for the financial upkeep of their child, but have no rights at all about the life or death of their unborn?

If a woman is pregnant, there is no matter of 'ownership'. She does not 'own' the baby because it is inside her. The baby belongs to nobody, because it is an individual human being.

An unborn baby is not simply "a part of the woman's body, like a kidney"

Look at it this way. If you had a child of, say, 6 months old who had been born, then had an accident and was on a life support machine. Would the mother have the right to arbitrarily turn off the machine? Of course not - she'd be killing another human being. The fact that the child's life support machine is the woman's body makes no difference.

Oh, this is also why I think that people who murder pregnant women should be charged with 2 murders.

I notice you refer to it as "her" child, and the man is faceless. Men tend to love their children just as much as women do. A man is just as responsible for the chil;d as the woman is. Without the man, no conception. No man, no baby. Yet all the physical and emotional ties between a man and his child are ignored.

Yes, the woman suffers the effects of pregnancy. Yes, they can be difficult. That is why we have contraception. It's not 100% effective, but it's rather close. Does this give her the right to abort without even consulting with the father?

I would be damn annoyed if a woman suddenly announced "I took the decision to kill our child because it was making my ankles puffy (or 'I don't want stretchmarks), and as a woman, it's my right to make that decision regardless of what you say."

In all other aspects, a man is held as accountable as the father of the child, yet has no say in it's life or death? Disgraceful.

i think bardan's right on that one... and i don't think abortion should be legal anyway... but if someone has to have the choice, then i think its a 50/50 choice. but when rape or something is concerned the women has the choice - of course.

.

[ 02-09-2003, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

Hunter and Willow: I don't tell a woman what to do with her body - she has already made the decision when she had sex.

What we're arguing here is whether or not someone should suffer the consequences of their actions.

Bardan's comment on "puffy ankles" may in fact be somewhat offensive, but it really is the crux of the argument - women today don't want an inconvenience in their lives - I call this "The McDonalds generation - have it your way"

Terminating a human life - legally or illegally - should not be the end result of a discussion about how inconvenient said pregnancy is.

Note: The increase of abortions is not from career women getting pregnant. Rather it is youths using abortion as a contraception. IMO that is not "advisable" (in lack of stronger word ;) ).

[ 02-09-2003, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

<font color=deeppink>That must be comforting words to a woman who was raped or was unlucky with her contraceptive! :rolleyes: Can we then assume some other things as well? Oh please! :rolleyes: </font></font>[/QUOTE]Read what I said again. Since when is being unlucky with a contraceptive have anything to do with deciding to have sex in the first place?

The woman decides to have sex; she shouldn't be surprised when pregnancy occurs. It's part of the risk of having sex, even with modern contraceptives.

The comment about rape is a valid one, but two wrongs don't make a right - the unborn child never asked to be conceived and it certainly didn't ask to be killed!

So you decided to keep the child in spite of the effect it would have on your studies, I applaud your decision.

There are potential mothers who decide the other way. Women who don't want to sacrifice a career to a childbirth, or simply don't want to be tied down. Inconvenience can mean a lot of things, I wasn't necessarily talking about appearance.

edit>Willow, I'm saddened you're turning this into a man vs. woman debate, I thought you would be better than that. The fact is I know lots of women who think the same way I do. And you know what? They all believe in abstinence before marriage! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 02-09-2003, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

Sir K, we are straying off topic here. I do not believe Hunter wanted a discussion about the legitimacy of abortion. Rather who should make the decision if an abortion would take place. ;)

Perhaps we ought to put a PG13 to this thread LOL! Oh and Sir K, did you ever tell us who you are talking to in that car? :D

[ 02-09-2003, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

This happens all of the time. It is what is refered to as "pulling the plug". It happens to adults, so why not a fetus too?

Anyway, this is still getting away from the topic at hand, which is why should men have a say in it? Whether people think abortion is right or wrong has nothing to do with it.

Also, everyone Please Play NICE!! I dont want to get this thread locked up.

I think that you perhaps should change the title of this thread Hunter. "legality" implies a discussion about abortion being legal or not. ;) Anyways I´ll stop going off topic now I promise. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Aren´t we playing nice? I thought we were? I haven´t thwacked anyone yet. LOLOL! :D

the playing nice was just a catch all. No sense in takeing chances.

Again... not getting into the "is abortion right or wrong" I'm going to assume that abortion is legal and it's going to stay that way.

My problem with the current "status-quo" is that women have fought for the right to "choose" what to do with their bodies, they can at a whim choose to abort or keep the child growing inside them. BUT... those exact same women then turn around and assume it's 100% acceptable for the father to spend 20 YEARS submitting 10-20% of the work of his body to pay for the raising of this child... without ANY input into the decision making process. This is WRONG.

Woman doesn't want child, Man doesn't want child - child is aborted, everything A-OK.

Woman wants child, Man wants child - child is kept and raised by two parent who have chosen to buy into the process, everything A-OK.

Woman doesn't want child, Man wants child - child is aborted, man is left to wonder what kind of person his child would've grown up to be.

Woman wants child, Man doesn't want child - child is kept and raised and the man is FORCED by the gubberment to fork over 10-20% of his income, which is 4-8 hours per week of HIS body, or 6-12 MONTHS of his life over the 20 years that he'll get to pay for a choice the Woman made and he had ZERO input in.

Now I'd like someone to explain to me how this is fair and equitable.

IMO - ideally this choice should be a 50/50 proposition, but in the absence of women actually willing to share the choice, Men should be minimally given an equivelant choice to perform a "virtual abortion" and sign away all rights to and responsibilities for the child that the Woman has chosen to keep.

[ 02-09-2003, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

Regardless of ones stand on the pro-life/choice stand on the issue it is going to boil down to a womans choice. Notice I say "a woman's" choice because each individual woman will make a choice to have an abortion. No man or other woman can stop it, ultimately.

If made Illegal, individual women shall still seek ways to terminated before birth and find methods that are outlawed or even dangerous, putting the their own developed and personal lives in danger.

A woman has the final say short of kidnapping and confinement in a straight jacket and chains.

I say it is stupid to have it a women's choice.

"Men dont get Post partum depression,stretch marks, morning sickness or new "pregnancy" wardrobes"

No, the men are the ones who support the woman when she gets the maternity leave. Sure, they get sick and are in bad moods a lot, but the men bring in the money (hopefully, anyway) and have to suffer the woman's bad moods.

Regardless, as has been said many times, the kid isn't "part of the woman." The kid is a kid, not part of the woman, just lives off the woman. Sort of like a parasite.

I don't really have an opinion on abortion, but I do think these people who say that using the actual eggs for science are wrong. I can't remember the official name (ovary or sumthin?) but it is not alive. At that point it is part of the woman and if she wants to donate it for scientific research then she should definietly be allowed. It isn't killing anyone, but quite the opposite; it could save uncountable lives if a major breakthrough is discovered, like being able to regrow organs.