Pages

Monday, January 20, 2014

Child Support


When arguing about abortion, I’ve seen a lot of people claim "sex isn’t a contract." Other variations of this idea include:

·         Consent to A doesn't mean consent to B (that is, consent to sex doesn't mean consent to reproduction).
·         You clearly don't consent to reproduce if you use birth control.
·         Sex is not a crime and shouldn’t be punished / Rights cannot be restricted unless there is a crime.

The problem is, when it comes to reproduction, these arguments only apply to women. 

If a man gets a woman pregnant--be it his wife, girlfriend, affair, or one night stand--he is legally bound to provide support for that child. In other words, because the man participated in the child’s conception (because the man had sex), his rights are altered. It doesn't matter if the man was only consenting to sex, and not to reproduction. It doesn't matter if he used birth control. It doesn’t matter that sex isn’t a crime. He fathered the kid, so the law considers him responsible for the kid.

And the law takes a pretty hard line on the subject. Courts can require a father to pay child support based not just on what he earns, but on what courts believe he has the ability to earn. Child support obligations remain even if a father goes to prison, or declares bankruptcy. Even if he wants to terminate his parental rights (and therefore his parental responsibilities), the courts usually won’t allow it unless there is another adult prepared to adopt the child and take over that responsibility. And there are many methods for enforcing child support. A man's tax refunds can be intercepted, his property seized, business or occupational license suspended, and in some states his driver's license can be revoked. If he still fails to make payment, he can be held in contempt and given jail time.

In short, if a man has sex he runs the risk of being (rather tightly) legally bound to any new life he creates. In the essay "Abortion and Fathers' Rights", author Stephen D. Hales summarizes the situation:

"...the father, having participated in conception, cannot escape the future duties he will have toward the child. The father can decide that he cannot afford another child, that he is not psychologically prepared to be a parent, that a child would hinder the lifestyle he wishes to pursue, and so on, to no avail."

Sound sad? If a man is forced to pay child support, that could mean serious emotional, psychological, financial, and social repercussions for him. So why do we have child support laws? Is it because we hate sex, and want to punish people for having sex?

No, of course not. And interestingly, you rarely see anyone even suggest as much. No, it’s clear to most people that we have child support laws in order to, you know, support children. Child support laws aren’t enforced to punish men for having sex—they’re enforced because it’s best for the child. In the same way, abortion shouldn’t be outlawed to punish women for having sex—it should be outlawed to protect fetal life. In both cases, it's not about punishment, it's about protection.

And that’s as it should be.

I’d love to live in a world in which there are no unplanned pregnancies and no unintentional parents. I think people should have control over whether they become parents, in the sense that people should have control over whether they get pregnant or get someone pregnant. That’s why I support comprehensive sex education: I want people to understand their own fertility and, if they do choose to have sex, I want them to understand how they can best prevent pregnancy while being sexually active.

However, once pregnancy has happened, once there’s already a new human organism in the picture, it changes everything. I think the people whose actions created that new life should be responsible for its protection. 

Of course, many people disagree. Abortion rights advocates place reproductive freedom over protecting the lives we create, at least when it comes to women and pregnancy. How would this mentality look if they also applied it to men and child support? Hales has an idea:

"A man has the moral right to decide not to become a father (in the social, nonbiological sense) during the time that the woman he has impregnated may permissibly abort. He can make a unilateral decision whether to refuse fatherhood, and is not morally obliged to consult with the mother or any other person before reaching a decision. Moreover, neither the mother nor any other person can veto or override a man's decision about becoming a father. He has first and last say about what he does with his life in this regard."

(And if we’re being really consistent, he doesn’t have to inform the woman he impregnated, or anyone else, about his decision to refuse fatherhood.)

It seems to me that consistency requires abortion rights advocates to argue for the man's right to choose as well as the woman’s: the pro-choice mentality means that, as women can "walk away" from their pregnancies, men should be able to walk away from the women they have impregnated. 

Not very uplifting, is it?

Or we could strive for a different kind of consistency--the kind that holds both men and women to a higher standard. This is why I’m for child support laws, and this is why I’m against abortion.

342 comments:

1 – 200 of 342   Newer›   Newest»
frankbellamy said...

Thank you for highlighting this inconsistency, you are absolutely right that a lot of people are inconsinstent on this point. I (being pro-choice) just don't see the problem with limiting child support laws in the way this argument implies. To be clear, this argument does not imply a total negation of child support laws. If a biological father wants to maintain any kind of custody/visitation rights whatsoever, I do think he ought to be required to pay child support. If the father begins to participate in parenting (either by being married to the mother at the time of birth or failing to disavow his social and legal fatherhood within a reasonable time of being informed of his biological fatherhood) then he ought to have all of the obligations that go along with being a parent, including child support. But if he is willing to sign away all legal rights and responsibilities associated with being a parent when he is is informed of the fetuses/child's existence, then I do think he ought to be able to do that.

LevelUpPlease said...

I think there is merit in allowing potential fathers a limited amount of time in which to make the decision to terminate parental rights; just as a woman has the right to legally abandon her child in many states as long as the child is a few days old and is left at a hospital, firehouse or police station.

LevelUpPlease said...

If there would, it would be a very small, extremist minority as most PCers agree with limitations after viability. I

f I were to make the law concerning men being able to terminate their rights, I would make it so the man has a certain amount of time after finding out about the pregnancy, or, the birth of the child if paternity is in question.

Cat said...

That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard as a reason to remove the choice to terminate a pregnancy. You left out the fact the most abortions it's a mutual ... so when both parties want to terminate, this is your reason to not allow it and basically force both people into parenthood?

aksthomp said...

There's always adoption

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Uh, what? That's an example of what a hypothetical pro-choicer would say, not my beliefs. I am opposed to direct abortion in any circumstance.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

The "Bro-Choicers," perhaps.

argent said...

Ugh I made a huge post but it got lost when I signed in, so here's the short version:


Any humane society must acknowledge that children are inherently needy people with positive rights, and that obligations fall on those whose actions led to the child's existence; our society/culture fails a lot of children of *all* developmental levels in this, so it's not surprising that some pro-choicers are willing to waive the man's obligation in this as well.


"Consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy" makes no sense because the concept of consent cannot meaningfully be applied to involuntary biological processes (however it *can* be applied to abortion itself, a medical procedure performed on at least one human being who did not consent to it).

Melissa McCurley said...

Not all pro-choice people think men should be forced into parenthood either.

I think as long as a woman is able to have unrestricted access to abortion, a man should be able to legally opt out of parenthood.

For example, if a woman's right to abortion in one state ends at 20 weeks, the man must opt out before this point as well.

KB said...

Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency.

I do think making things consistent and giving men "choice" to abdicate parenthood would make for a whole lot of social ills, many of which stand in direct opposition to the moral values PC'ers themselves.
Without forced support from the biological father, you'd see more women fall into poverty and away from opportunity, when they did choose to not kill their own children. And we'd probably see a lot more abortions as a result, as women who know they cannot expect any help; from fathers are pushed financially into a decision they might have not chosen otherwise.

Kelsey said...

I came by to make exactly this point. Thanks, KB. As a practical matter, giving men "choice" in this matter would eliminate parenting as a choice for the women involved.

Nick Reynosa said...

The World Health Organization defines reproductive rights as follows:

Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.


This statement is absolutely ridiculous when one considers that Reproductive rights are not the rights of "couples". In fact the decision is left entirely up to mother, who legally does NOT have to inform the father.How can men be said to have equal reproductive rights and to "decide freely the number, spacing and timing of their children" much less the information if they don't even have a legal right to know they are an expectant father.


Often times when faced with argument pro-choicers will make the concession that the father can sign a form and not be financially responsible for the child. This doesn't represent true equality and completely misses the point of reproductive rights, let me explain.


When arguing for reproductive rights for women, pro-choicers offer three different scenarios and make three seperate arguments.#1 If a women is pregnant and wishes to keep her pregnancy forcing her to have an abortion would be mentally scaring and is immoral. #2 If a women a women is not mentally prepared to be a mother forcing her to give birth would affect her mental health and is immoral. #3 If a women gives birth and voluntarily gives the child up for adoption, she will have to live with the fact that she has a kid out there she does not know; this could hurt her emotionally.


Now take those same three situations and apply them to the situations of males and their reproductive rights. #1 A man's girlfriend is pregnant and he wishes to keep the child; she forces him to have an abortion, is that mentally scaring and immoral. #2 A man's girlfriend is pregnant and he is not mentally prepared to be a father, she gives birth against his wishes; Could this not affect his emotional health and be immoral? #3 A man's girlfriend becomes pregnant and he voluntarily signs a paper not be financially responsible; he will have to live with the fact that he has a child out there, and that could hurt him emotionally.


If pro-choicers contend that reproductive rights are constitutionally protected. And as we see the implementation of such rights are not be enforced equally abortion as a constitutional right violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and is thus unconstitutional.



True reproductive rights and equality can only be achieved by ensuring that both adult women and adult men have total choice over over whom and when they have consensual sex with, and what forms of birth control they use.This guarantees that they will be making a unified decision at the same time and with both equally be accepting the risk of pregnancy. Most importantly this will reaffirm the the greater rights of the the fetus, because neither the woman, man, nor both should have the right to abort said fetus. True reproductive rights should deal with our natural right to sexuality not our unjust right to commit abortion.

KB said...

You have evidence to back that up?

Besides, it doesn't really matter if 99% of abortions are mutual decisions, and 1% are where a mother chooses and a father is helpless as his child is killed. The point is the man is deprived of choice of a woman, unless his choice happens to align with the woman's.

That's not a choice.

Jeff said...

Other than consequentialist ethics (meaning the combination laws that actually prevent the most number of deaths), the only iron-clad argument against making abortion illegal is simply the requirement for personal bodily autonomy. Her right to decide what happens to her body.

Personally, I'm very anti-abortion. I'm very pro-life. And yet I am convinced that the right for the individual woman to choose what is best for her and her body is at the heart of any effective laws to reduce the number of abortions in this country. Second only to education.

Bodily autonomy is at the heart of many of our laws. You can't force a man to give a kidney to another person, it breaks his bodily autonomy. You can't hit a man without his consent. You can't operate on him. You can't end his life. You can't remove an arm. You can't restrict his free movement. You can't use his body to keep another person alive... He has bodily autonomy.

Limiting abortions are a limit to a woman's bodily autonomy. Every woman has a right to decide what happens to her body. She needs no other reason than "I don't want to be pregnant" to end a pregnancy, even if ending that pregnancy results in the loss of life of the fetus.

Say a 2 year old child needed a kidney transplant. The father is a fantastic match. Other than human decency, should the government require him to give up his kidney? Absolutely not. He has his right to say no. Even if the reason the child needs a kidney is the fault of the father who knowingly damaged it. You simply can't use the law to violate his bodily autonomy. That's not to say he's wrong for denying it - but this topic has never been as much about what is right vs wrong as it is what should be legal vs illegal.

So why are we trying to grant special rights to a fetus that we don't grant to a 2 year old child?

-----------

That said, the point of the picture above, when taken with the previous statement in mind, is ludicrous. A man doesn't have an invasion of his bodily autonomy by the fetus, so he has no say. It seems unfair, but such is life.

When a woman says she doesn't want to be a mother, she's say two things. That she doesn't want to give up her bodily autonomy to a fetus, AND that she doesn't want to be financially and physically responsible for another person.

When a man says he doesn't want to be a father, he's speaking only to the second point.

That said, it does seem strange that once the child is born, the mother gets to decide if she gives it up for adoption or not. The father has no say. I agree with the men's rights people on that point - if the mother doesn't want the child, she should lose her rights to the child and he or she would be offered to the father to raise.

If he says yes, then the mother should be obligated to pay a portion of child support, just as the father does now. If he says no, then the child would go up for adoption and both parents would be obligated to offer child support until such time as the child is adopted. If some adoption organization or foster family wants to waive that child support requirement, then that's their prerogative.

But once the child is adopted, child support would end since you'd assume the adopted parents would be well aware of the financial responsibility they were taking on.

But hey, that's just me.

Jeff said...

The woman has to accept a violation of her bodily autonomy for 9 months while pregnant. The man has no such demand.

This is why the right to terminate a pregnancy is the right of the mother, not the father. Once the child is born, then I completely agree that the preference for the mother's wishes over the fathers should be eliminated.

But until that time, the choice is the mother's and the mother's alone - she is the only one of the two who has a pregnancy to terminate or not. The father has rights to give input about the offspring itself, but as long as the fetus is tied to the mother his input can not be taken as anything but suggestion.

Jeff said...

The father's wishes on an abortion make no matter. He doesn't have a pregnancy limiting his bodily autonomy, she does.

The father's rights to the child kick in the moment the child is no longer dependent on the mother for survival. Until that time, the issue of more paramount importance is the right of the mother to maintain her personal bodily autonomy (she gets absolute say in what happens to her body).

Jeff said...

The mother is pregnant. It is her bodily autonomy she must have the choice to continue or terminate.

The father has no limitation to his bodily autonomy, so he gets no say in the decision to terminate or not. It is her decision.

Sam said...

Jeff, you're wrong about the current state of our laws on a few points. While there is a general right to bodily autonomy, it is not held to be absolutely sacrosanct on any issue other than that of abortion. Specifically, abortion is the only situation where deadly force is authorized for a non-deadly intrusion upon bodily autonomy. True, you can't punch me against the consent. And if you tried to punch me, I'd be allowed to fight back... using non-deadly force. But if you punched me in the arm, and I responded by shooting you in the head, I'd be arrested for murder. Even with a really good lawyer, I'd at least get convicted for voluntary manslaughter.
Pro-choice arguments about bodily autonomy confuse the considerable legal distinction between action and inaction. If I see a starving beggar on the street, I have no legal obligation to feed him. But if I slit his throat to put him out of his misery, I become a murderer. Even if I happen to be eating a sandwich, and the beggar grabs it from my hands, I can only repel his non-deadly assault with reasonable force. I can't shoot him or stab him to stop him from eating my sandwich.
Abortion doesn't involve a woman merely putting up a no-trespassing sign in her womb. It involves her hiring a professional killer to use deadly force to vacate her womb at all costs. That is entirely at odds with the general law of self-defense.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

I disagree. If the father is put into jail for nonpayment of child support, that significantly limits his bodily autonomy.

M said...

I think there are a lot of pro-choice activists who would "bite the bullet," but I think the average pro-choicer and certainly the average American would find the idea of letting men out of child support abhorrent.

Nick Reynosa said...

Jeff
You conceded that once the child is born the considerations of the father should be equally considered. However the basis of such equality stems from the father's biological paternity. A paternity that can begins at conception and can be proven through prenatal testing. A father is expecting a child just as much just as much as the mother. Any decisions against his will would have just the same emotional and life consequences.

Furthermore if reproductive rights is really rooted in bodily autonomy and is solely the right of women why does the World Health Organization mention the rights of "couples" and totally omit "bodily autonomy" Along these same lines if these rights are exclusively those of women and they are constitutionally protected how is that compatible with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

I think your comment about the kidney transplant was very insightful however parental responsibility does affect bodily autonomy in many other ways that are protected legally. For example, an infant is entirely helpless both financially and physically the failure of either the mother or father to properly care for the child or financially support the child (through their bodily efforts)can be seen as child abuse and be punished by the law. Abortion is just the ultimate form of child abuse.

LN said...

"That she doesn't want to give up her bodily autonomy to a fetus, AND that she doesn't want to be financially and physically responsible for another person."

A woman can give either of those reasons or none at all to terminate. It seems to me that if women can terminate parenthood responsibilities for financial reasons, men should be able to as well.

LevelUpPlease said...

No, it wouldn't. Plenty of women parent their child without financial support from the father; and sometimes the man parents without financial support from the mother.

M said...

Couldn't have said this any better. There is simply no consistency in this kind of pro-abortion argument: if you do advocate for the right of a woman to reject any reponsibility for the new human life she has co-created, you are morally bound as well to defend a man's right to reject any responsibility to the woman he has impregnated and the new human being that has resulted from it.


People have all the right to recieve comprehensive sex education and take measures to prevent an unwanted pregnancy (that is, access to contraception). Accuarte sex education requires, among other things, that people understand that there are contraceptive methods to reduce the risk of an unintended pregnancy, but no method can fully eliminate that risk. As many other things, contraception may fail even if used correctly (the risk is very low, but it still may happen): if we know this and still choose to have sexual intercourse (and it is our absolutely legitimate right to do so), we must be aware of potential consequences and be ready to take responsibility for them.

No one's guilty of something as natural as sexual intercourse, but as with many other things in life, that doesn't excuse us of being responsible for the consequences of our actions.

If a man impregnates a woman - be it his girlfriend, his wif, his lover, a one-night-stand, or whoever she is -, he has a legal responsibility towards the new human being whether he likes it or not. It's not about punishment; it's about child protection. This is a strange culture we live in, that would condemn a man for neglecting his responsibility just because he didn't plan on impregnating a woman, and still enhances abortion as right - the right of a woman to do just about the same thing.


I am not fond of double moral standards.

Laura said...

Except, Sam, you miss the point that the beggar on the street is able to survive entirely on his own without dependence on you. When a fetus at all stages of conception can survive outside a woman's body, you may have a point. Until then, there is no proportional response. You grow the baby or you don't. To force a woman to carry a pregnancy is a violation of bodily autonomy.

Laura said...

What I mean to say is that your analogy is not at all comparable.

piraterothbard said...

I agree there is a lot of inconsistency. But I just don't think
outlawing abortion is the answer. We need a society which understands
that some men are low income and are trying our best to pay child
support, we are not criminals, we should not have state licenses taken
away which make it harder to provide or garnishing to make us homeless.
Abortion gets rid of unwanted life...I'm sorry man, that's something I
can live with.

I agree there is a lot of inconsistency. But I just don't think
outlawing abortion is the answer. We need a society which understands
that some men are low income and are trying our best to pay child
support, we are not criminals, we should not have state licenses taken
away which make it harder to provide or garnishing to make us homeless.
Abortion gets rid of unwanted life...I'm sorry man, that's something I
can live with.

I agree there is a lot of inconsistency. But I just don't think
outlawing abortion is the answer. We need a society which understands
that some men are low income and are trying our best to pay child
support, we are not criminals, we should not have state licenses taken
away which make it harder to provide or garnishing to make us homeless.
Abortion gets rid of unwanted life...I'm sorry man, that's something I
can live with.

piraterothbard said...

"Without forced support from the biological father, you'd see more women fall into poverty and away from opportunity" - KB that's not necessarily true. Support could come just as easily from the government. (And I do think some support should be forced, especially for middle class/wealth men. Just pointing out that less child support does not have to mean more poverty.)

Jameson Graber said...

You sound as if you thought my comment was a reproach. On the contrary, I think there are good reasons, as you mention, to not immediately accept the status quo on this issue. Also, I'm not sure why you took my comment personally.


And from my perspective, if one establishes a pro-choice position based on reproductive freedom, it seems there's an obligation to extend that reproductive freedom to men within reasonable limits.


I'm not pro-choice on the abortion issue, but that doesn't prevent me from reasoning from a different position than my own.

LevelUpPlease said...

This is why I took your comment as a reproach:

"The first few comments have confirmed something I kind of suspected: a lot of pro-choicers would be happy to "bite the bullet" on this one.
"

"Biting the bullet" does not usually have a positive connotation. Indeed, it usually refers to compromising in one area to maintain an overall advantage; often grudgingly. But, if that was not your intention, I will take your word for it.

Jameson Graber said...

You're right, I could have been clearer. In this case, I used the phrase in scare quotes because the author of the article implies the only options are to be inconsistent or to bite the bullet. But there are some instances in which "biting the bullet" is simply the correct response, even if it goes against common opinion.

materetmagistra said...

@Laura: "To force a woman to carry a pregnancy is a violation of bodily autonomy."

Indeed. This is true. This is what makes RAPE so very wrong.

However, to correct the egregious human rights violation that abortion is and make abortion illegal DOES NOT make a woman pregnant - it does not violate her bodily autonomy.

materetmagistra said...

Exactly. The argument FOR abortion reduces to absurdity.

James said...

As a single father of three kids I understand both sides of the laws...what ppl don't understand is even if the father wants to be part of the child/children's lives and is paying child support that's not always that black and white. I've been the child support paying parent and I'm the supporting only parent. I've never once thought that a life should have been taken cause if my actions..so I'
m very much against aborting a child. Outside of a rape scenario. I have found this interesting tho to give a man the same rights as a woman in this decision...wish that there were more equality when it comes to a single father.

materetmagistra said...

@Jeff: "...the issue of more paramount importance is the right of the mother to maintain her personal bodily autonomy (she gets absolute say in what happens to her body)."

Hmmm. What gives her that right?

Do other humans have such a right?

If so, do all other humans or only some?
How do we determine which humans do not have this right? What criteria shall we use to make sure we do not infringe on those that definitely have such rights?

materetmagistra said...

Wow. Every response mentions "rights" the mother has and/or the father has. What about the human rights of the OTHER human being in the picture - the unborn human?!?

Basically, to speak about any "rights" the mother and/or father have necessarily assumes that some more pressing and more basic human right (in this case, a Right to Live) DOES NOT BELONG to the other human in this case - the PRE-BORN HUMAN.

In effect, it is nothing but needless wear on the keyboard to type responses wrangling whether the mother has more important and relevant "rights" compared to the father. What IS of prime importance is the DENIAL, the ABROGATION, of the most basic Human Right a human being has - the Right to One's own Life. Neither the father nor the mother has any authority to justly remove this most basic human right from another human being.

Kyle Vitasek said...

When you say that you 'support comprehensive sex education' can you be explicit? Do you want your tax dollars going to develop curriculum, pay for hand outs of contraceptives and abortifacients, etc.?

It sounds nice to support comprehensive sex education, yet how much of our money are we willing to put on the line to make that a reality, and how are we collectively willing to define the curricula and goals of said "sex-ed"?

LevelUpPlease said...

Thank you for clarifying. I apologize for my earlier snark.

James said...

Problem I have with your comment is do you know how many times I've heard I cannot have kids I've been fixed then after they get pregnant you find out the truth but by then you're stuck in this society of child support for a one night stand out relationship that won't work... so basically a man that's fertile is any different than a fertile woman that's low income?

piraterothbard said...

Guess I don't understand your comment. I am actually trying to build a movement for low income fathers who owe child support. Our society already has plenty of sympathy for low income mothers. Sorry if my post was not well written and clear in its intent.

KB said...

Agree entirely. I think a holistic solution to the abortion problem has to address the womens' needs side of the equation through more support (including financial) from the community, particularly the government. However, as things are now, I think it would pressure more women to abort. GOP and some Dems are cutting support for early education and basic needs assistance, not increasing them.

David P. Clifford said...

Although I won't comment on abortion and the right for a woman to choose I will comment on the man part of fatherhood. A newborn child needs lots of love and care for a lifetime but more so for those first 18 years because they are innocent and cannot take care of them selfs.It is as real mans responsibility to provide love and financial support for their own flesh and blood. I have a 17 year old daughter who I always have paiid. My child support to her mother except when I fell behind a few times but then caught up. Whatever I paid it was not only worth it for all the love and beautiful memories but also was never enough because I know it cost a great deal of money to raise a child. No woman or man should not be raising a child and not getting the child supporteven when not together it is hard enough with 2 people let alone by your self and the child depends on you.This I will say in closing my daughter was a unplanned pregnancy and as hard as anything may have been for me I am sure it was harder for her mom and for that I thank her and I am very proud of her for the great job she has done raising my daughter. I also will say that my daughter is the best thing that has ever happened to me in my life and for this I am so greatful and thankful and no amount of money or child support would I give back to not have my beautiful daughter

RandomGuest said...

I'm pro-choice and I think that the current child support system is wrong. So, no inconsistency for me.

I believe that raising a child is one of (if not THE) most important service(s) to society as it produces the next generation of workers and consumers. At the same time it's taking the parents a lot of time and money to do so. In other words: parents are doing society a big favor and yet are paying for it. That's not fair. Raising kids should at least not be a financial loss, which means that society should help parents financing their children. As you can see that approach would also solve the child support question (and a lot of other problems like social inequality, too).

Society takes the burden of childrearing for granted, until people stop doing so (like in many European countries). Interesting, how in this case, many governments are willing to spend a lot on money on supporting families...

RoguePaladin said...

I don't mean to be insulting, but I'm also going to be blunt and not beat around the bush. I gotta say, the analogy just does not work. You're trying to connect to things that have absolutely no connection, and you literally failed to show any kind of reasonable comparison. Basically you're saying women should not be allowed abortions because men are forced to pay child support. Huh? That's a leap of logic I'm failing to see existing. That baffled me and doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Men don't have to pay child support on an unborn fetus, they pay child support on a child that they helped create, *after* the child is born.


This would be a good argument for not allowing abortions after the fetus has developed enough to clearly be a child, and also to get the fathers to start paying child support before the kid is born instead of after. But as an argument to outlaw abortion entirely it's just simply crazy, without a shred of logic or reason, and completely ridiculous.


I think this makes a good argument for a need to overhaul the entire child support laws, but there's no clear or even logical or sane way that has anything to do with trying to outlaw abortion. I've heard people make compelling arguments for pro-life, and in all honesty, this is far from being one of them.

RicoSuaveGuapo said...

I like how you handwave-away 18 years of child support payments.

Soul Seeker said...

Absolutely.

Lora said...

Fair enough, that being said women currently have that option, so I would think minimizing that would be a positive.

homemaidsimple said...

Wow! I love this. It's a fresh view on a long argument. Thank you

metazip said...

Pretty convoluted double speak

There was another save mankind from damnation movement before. Prohibition. That didn’t last either. The Southern Baptists tried for many years argument will always be about an individual’s free will of choice.

Use to be that the family unit was responsible for the moral upbringing of a child with religion reinforcing that upbringing. So where does the fault really lie? Who elects and re-elects the morons we now have as our self serving representatives who set themselves up as elitists and then play us against each other?

If a woman chooses abortion for whatever reason, whose fault is it really? The apparent answer is the woman’s as she is making the choice, but is it really her's? What about the prime individuals responsible
in the upbringing of that individual? They share the entire fault here for failing to instill religious morals
in her. But what about an atheist woman, born and raised in an atheist family? What about a woman who’s religion allows abortion – if there is one?

It comes down to free will which is granted not by man and no man shall have control over what
one wants to freely choose...No one! While anyone can say how everyone should live and think (what religions and parents are for), no one can force their beliefs onto others. We do not live in a democracy, or a righteous republic. We live in a republic that
happened to be founded as a Christian nation by Christian men and still is for the moment.

A woman is the sole judge whether or not to have an abortion. That is her God given right to freely choose, right or wrong as she will ultimately have to answer for her choice, not you, not me, just her. Who among us is so pure as to take away her
free will to choose? We are not gods. The real problem as I see it is we have responsible people who have failed at influencing pro-life women and now persecute them for who they are while at
the same time are against persecution for who they themselves are. Again, we are not a righteous republic.

As the saying goes, “...Let he without sin cast the first stone...”

M said...

Jeff -

Very thoughtful post, thanks for contributing!

I don't come to exactly the same conclusions as you, but I can relate. I am pro-life and anti-abortion, but I also think bodily autonomy is very important, and I'm aware that fighting abortion has serious consequences for women's bodily autonomy.

Quite awhile back I wrote this blog post while trying to think it through, I'd be curious to see what you think: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2012/03/bodily-integrity.html

LN said...

Lol 95% of your post was, "this is ridiculous". You could have shortened it to about 2 meaty sentences. ANYWAY.


Women can opt out of parenthood during the unborn phase -- for any reason -- but men cannot. The law tells men that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy and thus to parenthood, with all the future financial obligations. Basically the law doesn't allow for men's choice to be parents, only women's. That's inconsistent.

LN said...

I can't speak for M but why would "I support comprehensive sex ed" mean she supports taxpayer money funding BC? Those aren't...the same at all. Sex ed is just that -- education. It's not free goods. I mean she might support that, but that's not what she said at all.

ignorance_is_curable said...

I had posted a long comment to this page, which appears to have become one of the "invisibles". But here is something different --related-to but not exactly what this blog post was about (prepend only the http):
abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-rules-kan-sperm-donor-owes-child-support-21629154



We might expect this to lead to lots more dissapointments for ordinary infertile couples....

kiawah312 said...

All of your arguments are great arguments for being against abortion. I agree and am against abortion. Some of your arguments are good arguments when it comes to other issues. None of your arguments, however, respond to the constitutional issue in Roe v Wade, which I support. "It seems to me" is fine until you start withdrawing rights from others. The Roe v Wade argument is about "constitutional" right to life, liberty and pursuit... not whether the baby is going to be a life or is a life. Under the constitution, the mother has full rights as a full person "under the law" meaning a living, breathing human being completely independent biologically from another. So when does the baby have full constitutional rights? When the baby is fully biologically independent (even if on life support), which is why the cut off period is when it is. There are in fact things in the world that are not black or white but in between. Pour all of your energy and money into making abortion safe and rare and encourage people to adopt, IMO.

no said...

That picture is the exact opposite of what is acceptable in society though. People can go ahead and label the guy as a dead beat dad but don't blink an eye when he gets a woman pregnant then leaves. It's the woman that has to birth the child and raise it. If the man gets a choice then the woman should too.

Rhonda Lowenstein said...

SO, what these people are REALLY saying is that they support dead beat dads, despite the fact that the women they are abandoning WANTED the child? So abandoning a child is ok, but aborting one is NOT? How is THAT an acceptable argument? Failing to support your child HURTS your CHILD. That's ok, as LONG as life is given to the child, huh? This is more of an argument FOR abortion than against abortion. Many women abort because they can't financially afford to take care of the child and this support of dead beat dads isn't making the argument against abortion. Men ARE needed to get women pregnant and men can take precautions just as women can. But the difference is, when women don't take precautions, they are chastised; when men don't....... crickets chirping..............

Rhonda Lowenstein said...

SO, what these people are REALLY saying is that they support dead beat dads, despite the fact that the women they are abandoning WANTED the child? So abandoning a child is ok, but aborting one is NOT? How is THAT an acceptable argument? Failing to support your child HURTS your CHILD. That's ok, as LONG as life is given to the child, huh? This is more of an argument FOR abortion than against abortion. Many women abort because they can't financially afford to take care of the child and this support of dead beat dads isn't making the argument against abortion. Men ARE needed to get women pregnant and men can take precautions just as women can. But the difference is, when women don't take precautions, they are chastised; when men don't....... crickets chirping..............

MichaelNichael said...

My toddler cannot survive entirely on his own. Therefore, were he to strike me on the shoulder, I should have the legal right to kill him.

wat said...

From the article: "Or we could strive for a different kind of consistency--the kind that holds both men and women to a higher standard. This is why I’m for child support laws, and this is why I’m against abortion."


The author doesn't support dead beat dads. The article specifically says men should have to pay child support. Don't know how you read otherwise...

Rando Oomsus said...

You're talking about fetal rights, not human rights. And when you talk about fetal rights then you're separating the pregnant woman from her fetus and impinge on women's rights. The fetus is human, but it is not a person.

LN said...

What "wat" said. The point of the article is that if pro-choicers were *consistent*, they'd have to support dead-beat dads too. You can't pick and choose (that is, you can't say, "moms go ahead and opt out" and at the same time "dads -- you have no choice") otherwise you're inconsistent.


Pro-lifers expect BOTH parents to take care of the child they create.

LN said...

"People can go ahead and label the guy as a dead beat dad but don't blink an eye when he gets a woman pregnant then leaves."


...Aren't those the same thing? A dead-beat dad is one who attempts to escape his parental duties.

ParsonBoots said...

There you have it folks. People like Rando get to decide which humans are people and which ones aren't. If you are not deemed a person, you can be legally killed. This should send a chill up every spine.
Just wondering: How long after being born does it take for this human to become a person?

ParsonBoots said...

Thank you for making sense.

Defamate said...

Speaking of infertile couples...uterus transplants are a new 'thing'..

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/344870/scitech/science/first-successful-womb-transplants-raise-hope-and-fear

Defamate said...

Toddlers are equivalent to zygotes embryos and fetuses, yes.

Bess said...

You seem to be arguing not for abortion, but instead for anarchy. You say "no man shall have control over what one wants to freely choose," but that isn't true. There are several things I can't freely choose to do because there are laws prohibiting it. I cannot freely choose to run through every stop light without being stopped by the cops. I cannot freely choose to rob someone because I will go to jail. If I were to apply your logic to either of these situations, it would sound like "Running through red lights without impediment is her God given right to freely choose, right or wrong as she will ultimately have to answer for her choice, not you, not me, just her. Who among us is so pure as to take away her free will to choose to rob another person. We are not gods." Using your logic, we should have no laws at all.

Rando Oomsus said...

The fetus is not a fully formed human even in the minimal biological sense. How can a clump of cells inside a womb be a person? Even etymologically it doesn't make much sense, "persona" is mask - and presumes that one has a face. There are also cultural variations for when a human being becomes a person. In the US before WWII only grown-ups were considered persons. In Russia before the Revolution whole families and their servants were considered a singular person. The modern definition goes something like "a human being regarded as an individual". Is the growing fetus inside the womb an individual? Does it have personality and personhood? Does it have agency and volition, a social standing and personal interests? Or is it merely a lump of cells inside someone's body that you're trying to label as a person to support your crusade to impose your will upon others?

Kyle Vitasek said...

Bess, I love your reply. I did a master's level paper on contraception, and I too appreciate the beauty and wholeness of natural family planning.

In addition to the benefits you mention I also think it would (being un-married and not yet a practitioner) benefit the connection between the man and the woman as not only would the woman get better at understanding her body, but also the man would learn to respect and honor her body more.

At the end of the day, unfortunately I think we let the schools do too much of the educating on this with our kids, and we let the culture do too much of the educating. The warped lessons they get on sexual behavior and birth control from the pop culture and the 'phys ed' once-over they get leave much to be desired.

It would be a huge culture shift to have the type of sex ed you suggest taking place in the majority of our schools with our youth actually making more informed decisions about how sex plays into their romantic relationships and how to plan for the possibility of children.

Fairisfair said...

Men have the ability to walk away by signing away their rights. No child support, no future decisions. That is their choice. I understand the point being made but men do have a similar choice. While not the same as they have to live knowing that their child is walking around the world without any of their interaction. But there is still a choice

ParsonBoots said...

Merely a lump of cells? Have you ever even looked at an ultrasound of a womb? 70% of the ladies who have an ultrasound chose not to abort. They know that what they are looking at is absolutely not a lump of cells, but a person who would feel the pain of having his or her limbs ripped off by an abortion doctor. I've watched the unborn try to avoid the abortion doctor's needle, so I would say there is some personal interest and agency in play. You are the one crusading to impose your will upon others, only you want to impose it on the most defenseless people in our society.

metazip said...

You are free to read into my comments anyway you care to, just be careful what you post, or say as the NSA is listening to your every word. We are a Republic, not a righteous republic. As a society we give up part of our freedoms, but reading your comment we should be "Controlled" by someone else who knows better than us. That's the nanny state we are currently headed to directed by progressives in both major parties.

According to you, I shouldn't be able to buy that 32 oz soda, own any gun, or determine what doctor or hospital I wish to go to. I should just sit here quietly as a male and lose my current health policy because it doesn't provide for pregnancy, mammograms, or a pap smear test which I never needed or ever will and then cost me 4 to 8 times more and sent to a hospital and doctors I wouldn't send my dog to.

I shouldn't complain when the media reports roads to major bridges are shut down causing traffic jams for 2 days while they are paid to remain silent or parrot the administration agenda when 4 American Patriots are murdered, or how the president did a lot more than Christie during the sequester with no congressional hearings.

Yes, I should remain silent as people like you spout like the democrats of old that they know what is good for me. Yes, I should just quietly remain silent while another of our freedoms are stripped away. Yes, I should remain silent when we finally dump the progressives and then literally go from the frying pan to the religious right of the republicans fire.

I think not! If you or anyone of your ilk feel so strongly against abortion, why is it I have never seen any of you take 50% of your take home paycheck and give it to these women to live on and support the children until they are 21? Pigs will fly first! I say stay out of my wallet, stay out of our lives, and worry about yourselves.

Defamate said...

70% of the ladies who have an ultrasound chose not to abort.

Got a citation for that?

This study would appear to disagree with you:

http://www.medicaldaily.com/ultrasounds-fail-change-womens-minds-about-abortion-how-abortion-rights-are-mostly-same-41-years

""Published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, the study
found that more than 90 percent of women seeking abortions were
confident that they wanted to follow through with it, even after getting
an ultrasound.""

Perhaps it's just pro-abort propaganda?

ParsonBoots said...

Yes, of those who already have their mind made up, the numbers go way down. The 70% is among those who are undecided before seeing the ultrasound. So I didn't type what I was thinking.

http://www.optionsprc.org/services/project-ultrasound

But I could introduce you to several of those who have changed their minds. You could also find any number of testimonies of those who worked at Planned Parenthood who said they knew seeing an ultrasound would affect the decision and would purposely avoid doing one if possible. I guess the main point of this is that anyone who looks at a baby sucking its thumb in the womb has a tendency to see more than a clump of cells.

Defamate said...

""The numbers barely changed after the women received the ultrasound, and
even after they saw the images. Only 42.5 percent chose to view their
ultrasound images. Of these women, 98.4 percent still went on to get an
abortion.""

So a little over 2%, who were unsure, chose not to have the abortion.

So what you said earlier ""70% of the ladies who have an ultrasound chose not to abort."" is not in fact correct.


Thanks for clarifying, however.


Cheers!

Rando Oomsus said...

Have you even seen a picture of first trimester fetus that isn't a miniature model of a newborn baby? That almost-mammalian-looking thing barely has limbs to speak of.


Fetuses are by no means "people in our society" and what I meant by crusade was the limiting of freedom for women - who are actually "people in our society" - to control their own bodies. Your fallacy is viewing a part of a woman (the growing fetus) as a separate entity. Most likely you do this because of implicit metaphysical assumptions about "soul" or something like that.


Also, I regret even budding in to this discussion. I live in Estonia where abortion is legal and not even a subject of debate for anyone but a small minority of Catholics.

notolaf said...

I have long believed that if a woman is allowed to abort her child for reasons of convenience, that right should be made retroactive. After all, children are, as a rule, a lot more convenient outside the womb than inside!

aislinn said...

this kind of people are irresponsible and selfish.



www.n8fan.net

Anonymous said...

When two people have sex there is a chance of female becoming pregnant, and that's something that those two people were willing to gamble with. If a woman isn't prepared to be a parent she could give the baby up for an adoption or put it into foster care. It's selfish to want to rip away the life of a little baby, and maybe rob a family (if the baby is given to be adopted) the joy of that child.

Anonymous said...

in WWII the Jews, Gypsies, Mentally/physically disabled, homosexuals, and Africans weren't considered People either.

anonymous said...

When a woman has unprotected sex or doesn't use birth control than she knows she can risk getting pregnant. My biological mother could have aborted me. She was unmarried, alone, and physically incapable of taking care of me but she decided to do the right thing and give me the gift of life even if that meant she would have to carry me around for 9 months. If she had aborted me I wouldn't exist. I wouldn't be an artist, I wouldn't have friends and family. It isn't about whether the fetus isn't technically a real person yet, but what it could be. The life it could have. A woman could easily give her child up for adoption if she isn't prepaired to be a parent and logically there is no reason why she should be able to take away the right of that child to live.

Rando Oomsus said...

What country are you talking about? USA? Because when the Americans entered the WWII and set station in Europe they were pretty annoyed that Afro-Americans were just as successful with European women as white Americans. The French and English didn't discriminate blacks as the Americans did. That's just one example I'm aware of. I don't think the groups you mentioned were universally discriminated against.

playingwithplato said...

Nor should they be; remember 'person hood' (whatever this bizarre term means) is defined by those that have person hood, or the power equivocated, and weaker parties that infringe on rights can have their personhood stricken, or never awarded at all! The truth is, even 50 years from now, when fetal viability will be possible completely outside a woman's body, developing lives will be destroyed for precisely the same reasons: infringement on the desires, freedom, of the Self. That science has uncovered new data, observable claims, regarding fetal pain and cognitive development is completely beside the point. Aspects of consciousness never were criteria in the formula, the right of choice.

playingwithplato said...

Only since given a legal choice, has the 'right' to control one's body been given life, or definition itself. Prior to RoevWade, abortion rates, though harder to gather when illegal, were estimated from many angles to be much lower. Analyzed in many different cohorts. Real numbers of abortions were also much lower. With legal permission comes the right to, and instances of, exercise that right. This is true for all vice.

M said...

This isn't meant to be a comprehensive argument against abortion. It's only meant to show that the arguments listed at the beginning of the post ("sex isn't a contract", etc) aren't compelling, because our society doesn't apply those arguments consistently.

wat said...

Not quite true. As the post says "Even if he wants to terminate his parental rights (and therefore his parental responsibilities), the courts usually won’t allow it unless there is another adult prepared to adopt the child and take over that responsibility."

Sarah Lee said...

Courage means to keep working a relationship, to continue seeking solutions to difficult problems, and to
stay focused during stressful periods. See the link below
for more info.

#stay
www.inspgift.com

LN said...

"Your fallacy is viewing a part of a woman (the growing fetus) as a separate entity. Most likely you do this because of implicit metaphysical assumptions about "soul" or something like that."

Er, no, it has more to do with the fact that it has completely different DNA from the mother. Do you know what genetic constancy is? Every single cell in your body has your DNA. Other organisms have their own unique DNA. Basic bio my friend...

Toni said...

Who has the authority to determine when a life has rights?

metazip said...

You are free to read into my comments anyway you care to,
just be careful what you post, or say as the NSA is listening to your every word. We are a Republic, not a righteous republic. As a society we give up part of our freedoms, but reading your comment we should be "Controlled" by someone else who knows better than us. That's the nanny state we are currently headed to directed by progressives in both major parties.



According to you, I shouldn't be able to buy that 32 oz soda, own any gun, or determine what doctor or hospital I wish to go to. I
should just sit here quietly as a male and lose my current health policy because it doesn't provide for pregnancy, mammograms, or a pap smear test which I never needed or ever will and then cost me 4 to 8 times more and sent to a
hospital and doctors I wouldn't send my dog to.

I shouldn't complain when the media reports roads to major bridges are shut down causing traffic jams for 2 days while they are paid to remain silent or parrot the administration agenda when 4 American Patriots are murdered, or how the president did a lot more than Christie during the
sequester with no congressional hearings.

Yes, I should remain silent as people like you spout like the democrats of old that they know what is good for me. Yes, I should just quietly remain silent while another of our freedoms are stripped away. Yes, I should remain silent when we finally dump the progressives and then literally go from the frying pan to the religious right of the republican’s fire.

I think not! If you or anyone of your ilk feel so strongly against abortion, why is it I have never seen any of you take 50% of
your take home paycheck and give it to these women to live on and support the children until they are 21? Pigs will fly first! I say stay out of my wallet, stay out of our lives, and worry about yourselves.

Bess said...

I'm not really sure where in my comment you were able to conclude that I think we should be "'controlled' by someone else. All I was trying to say was that laws are a necessary part of society. The laws that I pointed out were laws against robbing people and laws regulating traffic lights. These are all laws that I think most sane people would agree are necessary.
Your original comment repeatedly said that people should be able to choose to do whatever they want, and to an extent that is true, but it is not a universal claim. There are things that people are not able to choose to do without legal percussions. Things like rob people or run red lights.
You may be ok with me reading into your comment however I like, but I am not ok with you projecting onto my comments. I never claimed that I know what is good for you. I just said that it is not unheard of to have laws that limit what people can do.
And to your final point, assuming that I never do anything to support struggling mothers, this is completely false. I regularly donate to a local organization that supports low income mothers and women who are escaping abusive situations. I also helped to start a scholarship at my university that would benefit single mothers who are trying to get their college degree. I don't see any pigs flying.

Chuck said...

If that is the case, then you are only looking to appease one side. If a man decides not to support, the woman must either give up/abort the child or live in poverty to support the child; if the woman decides to give up/abort, then the man must either live in poverty or give up the child. One side alone can be chosen.


If "social ills" are an issue then perhaps the only solution is to terminate all pregnancies unless both man and woman are fully on board. Then everyone would have opportunity and everyone could have kids if they want them. If one person alone wants a child, they must find another partner.

Gregg Braddoch said...

^ Actually, it has nothing to do with the metaphysical assumptions about "souls" - If we can declare that "underdeveloped" specimens of our own species do not have rights, then legislators, etc. can at any time define "underdeveloped" to target any group of people they so choose:

Are you 20-30 years old and still living at home? Oh well, you're underdeveloped, and we're going to send a SWAT abortion team to clean you up, fetus.

Do you not have a college degree? Ah well, we will send the SWAT abortion team

Are you elderly with a degenerative brain disease? Oh well, we've taken a look at your brain, and it's "underdeveloped" so the nice lady is going to give you some medicine to make you sleep.....forever.

Once the government establishes a precedent of determining who is, and who is not eligible for rights, be it by biological development or otherwise, we are admitting that human beings do not have natural rights, and that they are granted by government - therefore they can take them away.

Many of my examples above may seem very extreme, as they are extreme, however the principle is the same:

Let the government decide who gets rights, and then ultimately nobody has rights - we've seen this previously in history a couple of times: Certain races, genders, or classes of people who were not considered to have rights, even though they were fully "developed" human beings.

Gregg Braddoch said...

^ Exactly - The government isn't allowed (and nobody else for that matter) to decide which people get rights and which people don't - the worst abuses of humanity in history were all caused by this. NATURAL RIGHTS are rights that arise from being HUMAN, not from government permission!

metazip said...

Pigs will fly first before anyone sees your kind freely give 50% of your take home pay to a single parent on a paycheck basis is still standing. Donating a mere pittance of your time or what you make to another group is not what I call personal support, but your kind would have no problem reaching into my wallet to grab my money to pay for these single parents in the form of welfare and then preaching at every street corner what a great job you did stealing my hard earned money.
I didn't choose to become a single parent, nor did I choose for them to become one. That is what free choice is all about. Time you grew up and as an old expression says "...You made your bed, now lie in it..."

KB said...

I think you are missing the point of the argument. You can make it fair to men by giving men the same choice as women (i.e. forced abortions in the even that the man doesn't want to be a father), or you can make it fair to men by giving women as much choice as men currently have (which is, once you create it, you can't kill it off).

One of those choices involves forced death of an innocent bystander. The other doesn't.

Joel said...

The problem is your claim, "a crusade to impose your will upon others." Bad line. Even you could be construed as crusading for your pro-choice will.

Examining the historical definitions of a "person" doesn't help either. Historically, societies with-held the definition of "person" from whole people groups which resulted in enslavement, torture, and genocide. Pro-choice could be cast in the same light in the future.

If there is anything we should learn from history it is that our definition of a person must not hinge upon convenience, political or economic interests, social status, or even the ability to take care of oneself. Personage should be defined by life-time potential. Is the core DNA of the being Human.

If not, than we are not reproducing when we have sex, merely creating an animal that is only human at birth. This idea is illogical and above all, inhuman.

-Joel.

charmcoach said...

Since you bring in choice: Is it a man's choice to be born a man and a woman's to be born a woman? Are we not ignoring the science and anatomy here, which negates the ability to choose?

bboypepperz said...

If you believe that the developing child inside of a mother is considered to be a full human being, and should be treated as such... wouldn't that make abortion a murder? which would result in criminal charges on the mother?
If that is what you do believe..then a miscarriage should be considered involuntary manslaughter. Even if the mother had absolutely no hand in it externally. That every woman that has to suffer from the accidental loss should be thrown in prison.

This is why anti-abortion cannot happen. It's not that we believe that the child inside of the mother is not human. It is that we cannot classify it as human because It could easily never reach earths surface. and filling our prisons with innocent mothers seems highly irrational. People go too deep in to science on this matter..when in reality.. The reasoning behind pro-choice has nothing to do with science at all.

Bess said...

Yeah, this is going to be my last response to you. I choose not to communicate with people who use terms like "your kind" or who project onto others things they didn't say or even hint at believing. You know absolutely nothing about me. I have no idea where you got from my comments that I want your money or that I think the government should be taking your money to pay for single mothers. I am actually a very staunch fiscal conservative and think the welfare system is beyond broken. That is why I choose to donate to charities that I know are doing a better job of helping single mothers than the government.

How you jumped to your conclusions about me shows that you either don't know how to read, or you think everyone is your enemy. I'm not your enemy. I'd appreciate if you would stop making assumptions about me or anyone else. Or you can just keep sippin' that haterade if that's how you get your kicks.

Just another clump of cells said...

Yet if you killed anyone back in those times there would still be serious retaliation. If you really want to get technical; take a strand of DNA from one of my cells and compare it to a strand of DNA from that "clump of cells." Tell me which one is human DNA and which one is not.

metazip said...

Yep! Just another staunch religious right conservative that knows better than the rest how we should live our lives...

HKE said...

That isn't mentioned because this is a strictly "secular" article, as stated by the title.

Bryan Beus said...

So, if you don't draw the line at conception, then the line can be drawn anywhere depending on the (temporary and ever changing) values of society.

You are risking the terrible situation of putting this vulnerable human's life in the hands of a person who may place their own selfish interests over the life of the child.

You mentioned the times before WWII. Are you okay with going back to those standards?

Whether or not you are, all of a sudden it's YOUR LOGIC that the HELPLESS LIFE OF A CHILD depends on.


There's no way I would want to put my life in the hands of someone who says something so wholly irrational as "a human being is not a person."

?!?


That's like saying a chimpanzee is not an animal.

These children are helpless. By deciding for them "when they are a person," rather than assuming that fact that since their life is in motion they have a right to live it, you run the risk of turning (or keeping) our society into a nightmare.


Just look at the Greeks.


They took their newborn babies and left them in the woods to be eaten by wild animals. That was their way of handling an abortion, because children "weren't people."


Is that worse than what we do today? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how you want to look at it.


We burn babies with acid and then saw their limbs into pieces.


Just let the kids live, or be strong enough to not have sex.

Bryan Beus said...

No, she was correct in her revision.

From your own article:

"The 7.4 percent who felt unsure about following through were also the ones who looked at their images, and decided not to have the procedure."



There you have it.

Bryan Beus said...

Poor kid!!!

Wilber said...

Let's play your game. How would a miscarriage be involuntary manslaughter? Manslaughter is an unlawful killing. I don't see how a natural death constitutes unlawful killing. Miscarriage is an unfortunate (natural) result of some pregnancies, so unless the woman did something to intentionally end the pregnancy, it would not be a crime in any way.


So, if that is the only argument you have (since you stated "This is why anti-abortion cannot happen") it looks like you should be willing to jump on board the band wagon.


As to your sentiment that people try to be too scientific about it, I think it is because if you begin your argument "in science", you quickly see that a fetus is actually a human being (the only question is when, at conception or sometime during development in the womb)


If you do not root your decision in science, you root it in religion or emotion. Both of those are inconsistent from person to person, so science is probably the best decision. So, question to the scientific community, when does a fetus become a person (conception, first trimester, etc)?

gondolin25 said...

Still waiting for you to admit you are wrong about a fetus being a part of a woman's body. You need to address that if you expect to keep commenting here. Your lazy arguments have been decimated.

cblawyer said...

In point of fact, at least in some states, you can rescind your rights to the child BUT still have your responsibilities. In Arizona, for instance, you can give up all of your rights as a parent but still have the legal obligation to pay child support if and until someone else adopts the child.

cblawyer said...

You are mixing up the freedom to choose our acts with the freedom to choose the consequences of our acts. You can choose to have sex for example, but whether you use birth control or not you can't choose the consequence of getting pregnant. Our laws used to give a consequence for choosing sex outside of marriage - you could be prosecuted. Then they gave a consequence for getting an abortion - you could choose to get one, but you would be prosecuted. To legalize abortion was to say "we will relieve you of the consequences of your choice" - not "we respect your right to choose." Whether an act is legal or not, you always have the choice. Otherwise, what would the point of law be? Regardless of the law, there ARE negative consequences to all of these things, but to legalize them makes people think that those things won't be harmful to them - not just to unborn children, but harm to the women too.


To say that we are "not a righteous republic" makes no sense because by definition a republic reflects the values of the people IN the republic. "Righteous" or "wicked" or "in between" - the laws are determined by the cultural majority. Even the Constitution can be amended if we as a society decided to place greater value on unborn children. My own values are reflected in my word choice - to say child rather than fetus, which dehumanizes the subject matter.


Perhaps you don't know that in the scripture you quote, Christ tells the woman to "go and sin no more," NOT "you can keep living your life in this way because it's your choice."

Defamate said...

It's not impossible. Especially if every fertilized egg is the equivalent of a born child. It's not like police just throw up their hands and say 'well that kid died, it was natural'. No, they always investigate deaths. Why should a miscarriage be any different especially if abortion is illegal?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24532694

Defamate said...

If you know that sex can lead to rape, and you invite the penis or strap-on in, you cannot revoke consent, because you have invited said objects inside your body.

Makes sense.

Defamate said...

They took their newborn babies and left them in the woods to be eaten by wild animals.

Yeah, because they lacked contraception and abortion. Without abortion, people turn to infanticide.

Just let the kids live, or be strong enough to not have sex.

Yeah, that's *always* worked. It's worked so well for celibate RCC priests, didn't it?

T.K. said...

And what do you do with people like the girls I was in foster care with? One was raped by her father repeatedly and got pregnant at 13, another was coerced into sex with a man in his 30's and got pregnant. One had a miscarriage the other was forced to give birth to her father's child. Over the pregnancy she tried to kill herself several times.

metazip said...

More convoluted double speak...We are a Republic, where the rights of the individual prevails over mobocracy or a righteous republic where the state religion rules all...

Daniel Grande said...

there are a few reasons where abortion is acceptable...rape, incest, and when the child presents a clear and present danger to the mothers health. to simply kill a life because you don't want to have a child is wrong, and is murder.
if someone forces a woman to abort against her will it's called murder, but when a woman decides to abort it's considered a medical procedure.

wat said...

Interesting. Can you link me to that info?

Bryan Beus said...

"Yeah, because they lacked contraception and abortion. Without abortion, people turn to infanticide."

So, what you're saying is that unless we burn babies with acid from the inside out and then saw their heads off...then people will take their children out to the woods to be eaten by wild animals?

I fail to see the logic in either of these scenarios.

"Yeah, that's *always* worked. It's worked so well for celibate RCC priests, didn't it?"

At least it gives the kids a sporting chance. Or, in the very least, at least you were the one fighting *for* them to have the right to live, even if the others around you failed.

Defamate said...

Once in common practice, abortion by intrauterine instillation has fallen out of favor, due to its association with serious adverse effects and its replacement by procedures which require less time and cause less physical discomfort

As for heads being sawn off, if you are talking about partial birth abortion, that is now illegal:P

91% of abortions are before 13 weeks
61% before 9 weeks


.then people will take their children out to the woods to be eaten by wild animals?

No. But they will likely beat them to death, amongst other things. Rates of infanticide have always gone up in the absence of abortion.

But I guess beating a child to death isn't as bad Ru-486 is it?

Bryan Beus said...

You're still not getting it.


When you practice abortion, *YOU* are the one *KILLING* a Human Life!


Nothing that anyone else says or does will ever, ever justify that. Ever.


Not your neighbor who beats their child.


Not a priest who abuses an orphan.


Not a parent who leaves their newborn infant in the wood.


YOU are an INDIVIDUAL person, with free will, the ability to support and stand for something, or to use someone else's bad behavior as an excuse for killing children.


But instead of doing your own individual part to support life wherever you find it, no matter how difficult that may seem, you are instead KILLING THAT LIFE because it's more convenient (either for yourself, or someone else).


To paraphrase an influential political leader of the 20th century,


'Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.'


There are ways for making up for someone else's bad behavior, such as donating to welfare, getting involved with charities, spending time reading to children, visiting hospitals, and many, many more.


KILLING a child is NOT one of those ways.


Once their life is set in motion, they have a right to live it—same as you and me.

Defamate said...

So abortion = infanticide?

A little bit of infanticide is preferable to abortion?

Is that what you're saying?


Colour me confused.

Bryan Beus said...

Consider yourself colored.

Defamate said...

Nope. Not helping.


Could you elaborate?

Bryan Beus said...

I've elaborated enough.


Here's a repetition of what I've said before.

'Once a human life is set in motion, s/he has a right to live it—same as you and me.'


Think about it.

Defamate said...

Why?

Keith Jenkins Jr. said...

Rando, If a "clump of cells is what a fetus is, let me get a "clump of cells" off my arm and put it into a uterus and watch a baby grow...oh its not the same thing?...weird I guess that particular "clump of cells" is something more than just cells and is in fact a living organism...=>human

Defamate said...

Maybe...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/s/somatic_cell_nuclear_transfer.htm

Meik Einsam said...

The most aggravating aspect of this argument is that it's so obviously just jumping through a false loophole to be absolved of responsibility. It is blatant denial. A fetus is obviously a future person. What, in all likelihood, does a fetus become? A person. What does a grasshopper pupa become? A grasshopper. Is it not a grasshopper merely because it hasn't reached that stage in its growth yet? Is anyone really going to deny the grasshopperhood of a pupa conceived by grasshoppers? Then how are we sanctioned to deny the humanity of a fetus birthed by people? You're only trying to let yourself off the hook on a technicality. Well, I'm sorry, but you're not going anywhere, buddy. You created a potential person. You know full well what it is, what it will in all probability eventually become. Killing it just in the nick of time absolves you of nothing. Now, you're just implicated in another crime: obfuscating the truth.
Why is it so hard to just take responsibility, instead of thinking up elaborate pseudo-scientific excuses to behave like a callow teenager?

Meik Einsam said...

This too: the ol' "Have you seen a fetus?? It doesn't even look like a human! Therefore, it must not be!". Huh... Which logical fallacy would that sort of thinking fall under? Soooo, if it doesn't appear to be human, it must not be. Homo sapiens with extreme deformities must not be people either, let's get rid of them.
Don't even get me started on "the freedom for women to control their own bodies". Their bodies make other bodies. How 'bout they exercise some control over their own bodies by not getting preggo in the first place, if they don't intend on raising the child? How 'bout exercising some discretion? I am not counting cases of rape. That's a different matter, so don't even try to refute me on that point. I am talking point blank mutual consent.
And I'm not picking on you personally, just any illogical, hypocritical pro-lifers. But man. When you start to condescend, implying only lunatic Catholics would dare ever challenge something so patently apparent... You just sound like another type of fundamentalist bigot altogether.

Meik Einsam said...

Exactly!!! What incenses me so much about "pro-choice" is that, if you pay attention to its ducks & weaves in reasoning, you can trace it's logical conclusion to euthanasia. Population control. No, the vast majority of pro-lifers will never bother to trudge that far towards that end. But it's really the same principle.

Meik Einsam said...

Well, would you like that right randomly yanked from you by a third party who didn't even bother to consult you?

Donald Dodson III said...

Rape is sex without consent, there for no consent was ever given. Sex is a part of reproduction, so consent to sex is consent to reproduction. Since Rape is done without consent, because it is not rape with consent, your comment has no point.

The Denver Diamond said...

I have always thought that men have the same right to chose to not be fathers as the women do. However once the man HAS consented to being a father and the child has been born and has lived in the fathers care that the father will have to pay child support. You cant just wait until the kid is 2 years old and then go "F this i dont want to be a father, i changed my mind." and then walk away with out paying child support. Same goes for women.

Women cant force father hood on the man any more than men can force mother hood on the woman.

The Denver Diamond said...

Some one invades my body with out my consent i will use lethal force. I consider it self defense not murder. No one, not a child, not an adult, ESPECIALLY not something incapable of cognitive thought has more right to use my body than i do. It is MY body only i decide by who and how and when that body will be used for anything.

Women are people not incubators, unless they chose to be incubators.

The Denver Diamond said...

Because we here about how wonderful the child hood is for those kids growing up in the over crowded system....

The Denver Diamond said...

That is because Arizona is screwed up that way. My dad still had to pay child support to my mother for me even though i was living with him. Arizona (i dont know about now but back then) favors women even if they are highly abusive drug addict strippers living with a felon.

The Denver Diamond said...

You can look it up. Arizona has a website.

Recondaddy said...

Insanely ridiculous argument. First of all, to compare your child to an "invader" who is there to willfully do you harm is so absurd that it barely deserves rebuttal. The selfishness and mental gymnastics required to hold such a view is beyond comprehension.

The growing child is not an invader that infiltrated your body from the outside. It is a human being, sharing your DNA, that is growing from within your body. In that sense, it can neither be compared to a parasite, as your ilk frequently attempts to do.

Secondly, you are ignoring your responsibility in placing the so-called invader, there. To make your invader analogy more accurate, even if you could compare the growing child to an outside entity, you would have to have some responsibility in placing this entity in your personal space, and when you grow tired of her company, decide to kill her.

Imagine you find a homeless person on the street, knock her unconscious, and drag her into your house, far out into the country. When she awakes, she finds herself in your warm house with lots of good food and fresh running water.


Suddenly, you regret the actions you took to place her in your house, and you demand that she leave. Knowing that leaving your house in the dead of winter, miles from the nearest house would mean certain death, she refuses to leave.


Since your actions placed her in your house, you have no moral justification for killing her and kicking her body out into the snow.

Even still, this analogy falls short, since the homeless person's natural environment is not your home -- it's not where they are SUPPOSED to be. As for the child you're intent on killing, there's no other place that she's naturally supposed to be. Your actions placed her there, exactly where she's supposed to be, and you have no moral right to kill her in order to get her out of "your house."

Recondaddy said...

Then why not kill the ones who are already living in such circumstances? After all, if death is preferable to a challenging childhood, why force these children to continue living?

Defamate said...

That is what happens, in the developing world. Children of people living in extreme poverty are either killed, sold into prostitution, or put out on the streets to fend for themselves.

Recondaddy said...

You keep using that word (doublespeak). I don't think it means what you think it means.

The problem with your argument is that it ignores the right of the unborn child.

Sure, I have individual rights, but my individual rights stop at the violation of another individual's rights. My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.

You said: "A woman is the sole judge whether or not to have an abortion. That is her God given right to freely choose, right or wrong as she will ultimately have to answer for her choice, not you, not me, just her. Who among us is so pure as to take away her free will to choose?"

So, by that jacked up logic, if a woman wishes to regularly extinguish lit cigarettes on her toddler's forehead, that's her choice and should be between her and God?

Recondaddy said...

Do you have some statistics on this rampant killing of children in extreme poverty, or are you simply being hyperbolic in order to elicit an emotional response?

Even if it were true that a statistically significant number of impoverished children are being killed in the United States, please explain how the occurrence of one moral evil justifies another.

Are you seriously suggesting having them killed, now, in order to prevent the mere possibility of them being killed, later?

Defamate said...

Infanticide and child abandonment have always been methods of population and birth control. Throughout most of human history in fact.

In the Muslim world, and many parts of Africa, children, predominantly young girls, are sold into marriage or sexual slavery because families can't support 12 kids on less than 1$ a day.

Even in Europe, in van Gogh's time, women often sold their daughters into prostitution if they could not afford to feed them. With the rise of the welfare state, this way of dealing with excess/unwanted children is no long necessary, but in the developing world, where there is no back up plan, people do what they gotta do to deal with mouths that they cannot feed.

http://www.infanticide.org/history.htm

http://www.unicef.org/emerg/files/women_insecure_world.pdf

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/12/world/cambodia-child-sex-trade/

http://www.childrenofbahia.com/childpoverty.htm

-----------

I have profiled mainly girls, but, boys are also sold into slavery. Mostly though, it's girls, because girls are considered worthless because they get pregnant and cost a family more money. Boys can at least provide. This is why female infanticide is also very common.

Bunch of articles here, on the relationship between poverty and infanticide:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=infanticide+and+povery&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=X7_mUoSzG9LyoASP8IEY#q=infanticide+and+poverty&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&safe=off&spell=1

LN said...

They don't have the same rights. Men cannot opt out of parenthood during pregnancy like women can.

LN said...

"Arizona has a website" lol. Several, I'm sure. It's not her job to mine for a source touted by another person, it's their job to back up their claims.

Banana said...

The problem with that argument is merely the type of cells in question, as well as the hormonal and chemical reactions that prompt their growth. The cells on and in your arm, for the most part, are dedicated 'arm' cells, and moreover are dedicated to a certain job on or in your arm. In the womb, the cells are, for the most part, not yet dedicated, have no will or desire, and are, for all intents and purposes, "A clump of cells." Even if you took those Stem cells and put them in a container of liquid, even with all the required nutrients, they would not grow to become a child. It requires the mother's hormones and various chemical reactions to grow, and while this can be simulated, it is difficult.

The point I am trying to make is that the difference you're trying to show isn't the difference between a living, growing thing and your arm cells, the difference you're showing is a very basic difference between types of cells.

Now, since I just can't resist stirring up trouble, my opinion. I agree with Rando, to a point, that the cells in the mother's body are not yet a human during early development. However, when the nervous system begins to form, I believe that they become human, however much or little they may look human at the time. From the moment the brain is functional, it stops being a clump of cells and becomes a living thing with potential.

Defamate said...

I was simply answering your original question:

""Then why not kill the ones who are already living in such circumstances?""


By explaining that what you describe happens *in the real world*.

Keith Jenkins Jr. said...

I am a biomedical engineering student and have had to take many courses in science relating to cells, stem cells etc. I do understand the difference in cells. I am using it metaphorically not realistically. We both know a fetus needs the mother to grow. What I am trying to point out is, "are the cells alive?"..."yes"..."do the cells each have their own unique DNA?"..."Yes"..."Are the cells Human cells?"..."Yes"...ok then If it smells like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck...its a duck.

Jayne D said...

he has the choice to wear a condom.

RandomGuest said...

Concerning child support, it will always be women having the upper hand. If she wants to parent the child, but he doesn't, - he still has to pay. If he wants to parent but she doesn't, she can move away, claim she doesn't know who the father is and give the child up for adoption. From what I have read, states like Utah don't ask too many questions regarding paternity and the time frame to revoke an adoption is very small. Remember, adoption is great!

Another inconsistency (which shows just how stupid the whole system is): if one partner doesn't want to parent but the other does, - bad luck, no. 1, have fun paying for your unwanted child for the next two decades. If, on the other hand, your significant other agrees that parenting is not what he/she wants (that was close!), the baby is given up for adoption and both of you are free from any obligation concerning the child.

Because of these inconsistencies, child support should be paid for by society and not by an unwilling parent as I have explained in an earlier post (http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/01/child-support.html#comment-1212946976)

ret35sgm said...

Actually, you have a problem now...the "fetus" has unique DNA and thus, scientifically and medically, is not part of the woman's body....

ret35sgm said...

Great...then I guess you support the Texas law and others that prohibit abortion after 20 weeks when the latest science shows that the unborn child can actually experience pain....and if your stats are correct, it wouldn't be a huge imposition on abortions. Good to see you are willing to compromise....

ret35sgm said...

Of course, the problem is that the cost to the REST of society goes up. Child support enforcement was increased because our society has devalued marriage to the point that many men were fathering children left and right with no intention of every providing for them. Aggressive child support laws prevent this type of behavior from becoming one more unlimited burden on the rest of the taxpayers. So...the real question is why a woman is not responsible for her "choice" to have sex and fulfill the responsibility she has to the unique human being that she helped create.

Defamate said...

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900885-2

ret35sgm said...

Let's change it to a newborn....the newborn can't survive on its own...Also, the harm to the mother in carrying the child to term and giving it up for adoption is a much lower level of harm than being killed is for the unborn child - which, of course, goes back to the argument or proportionality in deciding who deserves the greater protection from the state....

frankbellamy said...

Ret35sgm, do you view the property taxes that adults who are not parents pay, which are used to support public schools, as representing some kind of failure on the part of parents to provide for the education of their children? Or do you recognize that one of the obligations of all citizens of a society, whether they be parents or not, is to provide the material resources necessary for the upbringing of children?

frankbellamy said...

If the biological father really doesn't want to be a father, then it will do the kid no good for the state to come in and force some kind of relationship.

ret35sgm said...

True...and the woman has the right to use some form or birth control or refuse sex if he doesn't use a condom...once again, both roles in the sex are equivalent...

ret35sgm said...

Once the child is born....unless the laws change dramatically, the father has financial obligation for at least 18 years and in some cases another 4 if the child goes to college. Now, I have no problem with that - but I was point out that those are consequences that can be just as great....and he has no say (as this article points out) under most current laws....

ret35sgm said...

There is no cut off period in federal law. While the partial birth abortion METHOD of abortion was outlawed, federal law merely PERMITS restrictions in the third trimester at the state level. Some states still allow abortions up to the moment before natural delivery. A woman could technically have an abortion while in natural labor.....Here's a thought, how about when modern scientific and medical research shows that the unborn child is able to feel pain and has brain function well enough developed to comprehend pain? While it is not yet completely conclusive, there is some good evidence this might be at 20 weeks which is why many states are picking that point to regulate. And since it is not 100%, I would mention that it might be good to err on the side of the being that would be feeling the pain. The funny thing is that we have more protection in place for doing something that causes pain to your pet than that unborn child.

ret35sgm said...

Exactly...and when they choose to have sex without using effective birth control, they are choosing to become potential incubators....just as men who have similar sex are choosing to become potential financial support for 18+ years.

ret35sgm said...

I'm sure you are right...just as any mysterious death of a newborn is looked at. But police would need evidence for probable cause before they could pursue it...just like any other potential crime.

ret35sgm said...

The example he cited of running red lights is because your "right" to drive through those lights infringes on the right to "life" of others who are endangered by your flagrant disregard of safety laws. That is where this really intersects with the abortion debate...With abortion, the child should (morally) have rights as well despite our current situation where there are no legal rights. Now, we need to balance the rights. A woman (in a normal pregnancy) would be forced to endure some body changes which generally can be overcome within a few months after the birth (and she doesn't have to keep the child, she can put it up for adoption) whereas the child would suffer the loss of an entire life....So which rights are violated to a greater degree? When abortion is allowed or when it is prohibited?

Richard G said...

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURN!!!! HE CITED YOUR ASS TO BACK UP HIS SHIT, BUUUUUUUUUUURN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Richard G said...

You guys... I love you guys!! I feel like I'm the only one ever defending life on Disqus, but here is a whole team of you guys!! You're brilliant!!!

Richard G said...

Its true. Then I show them this: http://iwastesomuchtime.com/on/?i=85865 because as we can see, there is still a lot of room for us on this good earth, and God, or the progress of mankind if you prefer, is giving us new technology to give more food and water to more people than ever before in the history of the world. We're fine. There is no need to use population control, human kind adapts and thrives when we work together instead of killing of tens of millions of our own children.

metazip said...

And just who are you to strip anyone's right to freely choose what to do with their own body? Are you the Flying Pig I so fondly speak of? Think not! Stay out of people's personal lives and their personal choices. None of your concern.

Recondaddy said...

It's becoming really tiresome having to make offer such an elementary counterpoint to such a juvenile argument, but for some reason, the simple logic escapes your side.


No pro-lifer is telling any woman what she can or can't do with HER OWN BODY. For all I care, a woman can tattoo it, pierce it, fill it full of drugs, or offer it to strange men at truck stops. However, when what she does with her body violates the rights of another human being, that's where her rights end.

I notice that you completely dodged my response to you, in favor of this ridiculously tired argument.

As for staying out of other people's business, I'll quit telling women to stop murdering their unborn children if you'll stop telling knuckle-draggers to quit beating their wives. How about that, chief?

B E said...

Idea! The minute an embryo has it own DNA, it can be removed from the mothers body, since ya know, it's its own person now!

TregLoyden said...

I would like to add something to this line of argument of being for "taking responsibility for your actions" principle and "to protect human individual rights to Life/liberty/property" principle. Both these principles and one more, the Non-aggression/Self Defense principles are all very libertarian. Libertarians apply those principles everywhere they look and to any ethical/political question. Yet as a group, they are split on this issue, with Ron Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano being Pro-life and the LP/Reason Mag/Cato being Pro-Choice. I think we should point these 3 principles to them, and ask them humbly, "is not Pro-Life position consistent with your principles?" At the very least, we should be able to move the Pro-Choice libertarians over by asking them how is Pro-Life not consistent with libertarian principles. Perhaps they will find that in cases of rape and incest, they find for abortion, but that is a lot better than being 100% pro-choice.

lynnelmiller said...

actually, that seems like a pretty reasonable solution to the problem.

Rando Oomsus said...

What I wrote was: "The fetus is not a fully formed human..." and thus not a person. I came here to make a point that fetuses aren't included under human rights. That's it. I can't handle all the comments I've received. Sorry.

Rando Oomsus said...

I have not created a potential person, yet. But if I ever do impregnate my girlfriend we're sure to abort it, because for us it doesn't have any rights or privileges (and our local legislation is firm on that). At the end of the day we have to choose whether to have a child or not. And since we're not ready to become parents, that's that. You may now potentially cringe over how I just potentially killed a potential person.

alli3 said...

I understand the logic, but one must also remember that women don't always make the abortion decision alone. In fact they are often times encouraged by their partner to get an abortion. Therefor abortion isn't only pro-choice for women's rights but also for men's. Men and women alike want to keep abortion legal for their own reasons whether right or wrong. Anyhow I think we need to remember who is most likely the victim in such situations.

Ann said...

Yes... the fetus.

metazip said...

The only rights being violated are the woman's, Period! That's the only argument here and your kind's incessant
righteous desire to tell others what they can or cannot do based on your feeble concept that you represent God.

Funny how even the Puritans left persecution when they came to America and then turned around and took up the
same practice themselves. You call yourself a Libertarian, but a bible thumping nanny would be a better description. Try a Progressive like Obama, Hillary, Bloomberg, Christie and others. Your kind’s “Do as I say, not as I do” attitude is very old and constantly rejected.

Ann said...

Ironic that you use that expression... "You made your bed now lie in it."... that is exactly the point pro-life people are trying to make.

Now YOU grow up.

Ann said...

I'm sorry you can't handle the valid arguments against your loathesome way of thinking. You probably shouldn't even be having sex if you can't handle an opposing argument. That sounds like a child's mentality.

Recondaddy said...

Hey brainchild. Once again, you dodge the arguments and go on another irrelevant tirade.

There is actually a creature known as a pro-life atheist, so I hate to shock you in the comfort of your little fiction, but pigeon-holing pro-lifers as a bunch of religious fanatics who are trying to shove God down everybody's throats won't get you off the hook for defending your weak-ass position.

I've given you several opportunities to actually say something intelligent (or even answer my arguments). Instead, you've stamped your feet and thrown a tantrum.

You bore me. Go be stupid somewhere else.

Recondaddy said...

BTW, I thought about being a progressive, but I actually have testicles (and I couldn't manage to get my head that far up my own ass).

Rando Oomsus said...

Yes, I'll inform my girlfriend that I can't have sex with her because I got tired of arguing against a barrage of ideologically mismatched comments about something I'm utterly disinterested in. Sure thing.

metazip said...

Another childish attempt to control someone's life. When you grow up, if that's possible, you will start to reason instead of acting like a buffoon.

Recondaddy said...

Yep, and when you grow up you'll stop advocating for ripping unborn children from their mother's wombs, limb-from-limb, just to appease your own selfishness.

I won't hold my breath.

Meghan said...

The simplest way to deal with this, since there is never going to be a unanimous vote, would be to leave it legal. That way this who are against abortion don't have to have one and those who aren't against aborting can if they so choose to do so. This would be the same logic I use towards gay marriage in the USA, if you are against gay marriage don't marry anyone of the same sex! If you are against abortion then don't have one! Thank you.

ret35sgm said...

I agree with a social compact that involves all of us supporting...but I don't believe that means that society should have to supplement even further (food stamps, welfare) by allowing the parent to abandon their own responsibilities. There is a difference.

frankbellamy said...

Lets not get into welfare, cause that's a whole nother debate. But you do see the problem in your argument now, right? You are assuming that a person who has sex (whatever their sex) takes on the obligations of being a parent, and that if they don't fulfill those obligations then they are imposing a burden on the rest of society, and you are angry about that burden. But to use that anger as a basis for the premise that a person who has sex takes on the obligations of being a parent is circular. Your anger is dependent on the very conclusion you are trying to argue to. I don't grant the premise to begin with, I don't think that a person takes on the obligations of parenthood by having sex, so I don't see anything unfair about society having material burdens associated with raising kids who don't have real parents.


The point of this post was to point out the inconsistency in inegalitarianism of pro-choicers who see a man as taking on the responsibilities of parenthood by having sex but not a woman. We have both avoided that flaw, you by seeing both as taking on such responsibilities, me by seeing neither as. We have both taken internally consistent positions, even if our positions are in direct conflict.

Meik Einsam said...

Now you're just being purposely antagonistic. Like, "I can kill babies, nyah nyah nyah nyah poo pooooo!". How did your heart get so HARRRD, man? Reminds me of the attitude people had over the Roman coliseum games; death as an inconsequential sport, for entertainment.
What's really sad to me is, I could ask to you, "But what if your parents had copped the same cavalier attitude about your life?", and I bet you would even flinch. You'd just respond, "So? I wouldn't exist to know what I was being denied.". As though you really don't value the anomaly of your existence at all. That's DEPRESSING.

Rhonda Lowenstein said...

And yet that isn't how you portray it unless that hypocrisy is "brought to your attention" so to speak. If pro lifers were consistent, they would advocate for children outside the womb also, but that isn't done. There is plenty of inconsistency to go around.

Rhonda Lowenstein said...

Men have the option of giving up their parental rights just like women do. The problem is that men can walk away before the child is born also. If the anti choice crowd had their way, women would be forced to give birth and wouldn't be able to walk away from anything. I fail to see how defending dead beat dads makes your case. Pro lifers defend dead beat dads the same way they defend rapists. You people can't have it both ways. When women are slut shamed and harassed by the anti choice moment and rapists and dead beats are coddled, you pretty much get what you get.

Rando Oomsus said...

Nope, I just differentiate between babies and fetuses in their early development. I also don't think that human life is something overly precious and good for its own sake as if it would be superb if we would populate the planet until it's unsustainable. I believe in making making living good for those who live, instead of going forth and multiplying ceaselessly and without a second thought to whether it's feasible or beneficial for the people doing the multiplying. I'd say I'm pro-life more generally than just pro-human-life in particular and more inclined towards quality instead of quantity. I agree with my girlfriend in that it's kind of banal to concern so much about hindering abortion when even those humans already living aren't all happy, secure and cared for, not to mention the multitude of animals we "farm" and make life a torture for.

metazip said...

Childish at best...

Bryan Beus said...

"No good" whatsoever?

Surely there are a few good things you can think of that might come out of it.

I challenge you to think up some (and you can challenge me about something else in return, if you like).

ret35sgm said...

I never said your position wasn't consistent....I was merely answering your question regarding my thoughts on paying taxes for schools and explaining how I see a legitimate difference between aiding parents (in an effort which also creates educated workers who will eventually be paying taxes when I am drawing Social Security since all the money I put in is already paying benefits for those retired now). In a sense, it is an investment. I agree your position vis-à-vis this article is the mirror image of mine and therefore consistent. I would note that your position does impose the noted burden on the rest of society...that's all.

Curious said...

Can I ask, how many of you 'secular pro-lifers' are not Christian?

Burt said...

Abortion makes me mad. I have to remember to love all people even if they do things that hurt others. We all hurt and we all have been hurt. Dead beat dads and mothers who don't want their children. We need forgiveness. Thankfully, God is willing. Jesus forgives but many are not willing to accept his forgiveness because they cannot recognize what they do is wrong. If you think about, it forgiveness makes no sense if God were to not exist because there would be no such thing as right and wrong. Since God does exist the only hope anyone has is through His forgiveness. A message of love and forgiveness. Let us stop hurting each other.

dwmitch said...

You're thinking zygote, maybe embryo at the latest. Once it reaches the fetal stage everything is in place.

A being has to be fully formed in order to be considered human? Where does that leave those born with a missing limb? Or infants? You didn't come out of the womb with a fully formed skull so were you not a person?

The human brain isn't considered fully developed until around the age of 25. Does that mean we can perform a retroactive abortion on a 24 year old?

And what do past stances have to do with now? In the US before the civil war it was legal to own black people as property. In Russia during the Soviet Union era you could be imprisoned just for being critical of the government. The meso-Americans conducted human sacrifices. Should those things be considered right this year because they were considered right in their respective eras?

watM said...

I still don't get how you think the article is defending dead beat dads. The article says more than once that child support laws are good and should be enforced. How is that defending dead beat dads?

M said...

I authored the post, and I'm agnostic.

Coyote said...

In regards to the taxpayer argument, this argument doesn't really work to justify forcing males to pay child support while abortion remains legal. Why? Because a similar rationale can be used to justify things such as forced abortions, forced sterilizations, infanticide, Chinese-style one-child/two-child policies, et cetera.

Coyote said...

I want to point out that your position on the abortion issue is a pro-choice position which I strongly respect. In addition, I want to thank you for your civility here.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 342   Newer› Newest»