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.

Further Reading: DNA testing means forced fatherhood as states limit abortion, Quartz, June 16, 2019

347 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 347 of 347
Coyote said...

In regards to your last paragraph, what if the woman doesn't tell the man about the pregnancy until after 20 weeks gestation?

This is why while abortion is legal, I support giving males a child support opt-out via legal contract before they have sex with females. At least that way the male's interests in regards to this will be protected regardless of whether or not the female notifies the male about her pregnancy (if she actually gets pregnant) later on. I can elaborate on this later if necessary.

Coyote said...

Yes, giving males an opt-out from child support could cause more females to abort. However, that is simply the results/consequences of pro-choice arguments being extended to their logical conclusions.

Coyote said...

"who's going to get riled up to defend a man's right to choose (to renounce fatherhood)?"

I will while abortion remains legal (though I support a more limited child support opt-out for males while abortion remains legal using a different rationale/argument for my position).

Coyote said...

"but I think the average pro-choicer and certainly the average American would find the idea of letting men out of child support abhorrent."

Maybe right now, but not necessarily after they have solidly examined all of the arguments in this debate.

Coyote said...

"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."

Yep, while abortion is legal, females even have the option (or luxury, if you will) of giving birth and then completely leaving the burden of raising these children on the taxpayers. Honestly, in regards to safe-haven laws, I am tempted to say that all of these children should have a DNA registry for them so that their fathers can pick them up if necessary--otherwise, in practice, a female can simply give up her child without the consent and/or knowledge of the father of this child (without this father being able to get this child back--after all, without a DNA registry, how exactly is he going to find his child even if he knows that the woman anonymously gave this child up using save-haven laws?

I agree with your point in regards to giving males some sort of a child support opt-out.

Coyote said...

I agree with LN on this. The argument here is in regards to pro-choice consistency.

Coyote said...

"Men have the option of giving up their parental rights just like women do."

Even if they do this, I don't think that they can give up all of their parental responsibilities without the consent of the women.

"The problem is that men can walk away before the child is born also."

Right now? If a man tries to do this, can't the woman simply currently track him down and force him to pay child support?

Coyote said...

Well, technically speaking, a woman can get raped and get pregnant as a result without being able to sufficiently prove this rape afterwards. Of course, I suppose that the same can also be true for males (when males are the ones who are victims of rape).

Coyote said...

Obviously while one of the parties has a choice the other party should have a choice as well. I am not disputing this part.

Coyote said...

Condoms aren't 100% effective/efficient, and a female can force a male to wear a condom and/or refuse to have sex with this male if this male doesn't wear a condom.

Please don't try completely blaming this on the male when the female is equally responsible for the resulting pregnancy and when the female is completely responsible for the decision whether or not to give birth afterwards.

Coyote said...

Agreed.

Coyote said...

By that logic, how about we give a full/complete child support opt-out to males who want one? Males who want to pay child support would still be able to do so.

Likewise, how about we legalize elective late-term abortions and/or infanticide for people who want one? Don't like elective late-term abortions and/or infanticide? Then don't get one/don't do it.

Coyote said...

I don't think that labeling individuals who support legalizing elective late-term abortions as "extremist" is very productive.

Coyote said...

Bodily autonomy isn't the only right out there, and not everyone agrees that the right to bodily autonomy should be *that* broad.

Coyote said...

In regards to your point here, we don't choose the gender/sex of our birth. However, we can get a sex change later on, and hopefully future technology in regards to this will be (much) better than current technology.

Coyote said...

I am an agnostic as well. For the record, though, I lean politically anti-abortion--my views on this issue are not as "solid" as of some other people here.

Coyote said...

In regards to this, I think that this is a great post/article. Amazing job! That said, *if* I was politically pro-choice, then I would certainly not use the "consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy argument" to justify legal abortion. Rather, I might very well try arguing that abortion is morally justifiable because prenatal human beings are not/shouldn't be considered to be persons/worthy of having (any legal) rights. Of course, this position here would still justify giving males a full/complete child support opt-out in at least some cases of legally consensual sex, but not in all such cases. I can elaborate on this later if necessary.

Also, I want to point out that I don't think that this post mentions the fact that in practice, females can probably unilaterally give their children away via safe-haven laws and make the taxpayers pay all of the costs for/of these children. Even if the fathers of these children want to raise these children themselves, they might not even know about the existence/birth of these children (or about the previous pregnancies). Also, even if they know that these children exist, I don't see how they would be able to get these children back considering that the safe-haven process is anonymous and considering that, AFAIK, there might be hundreds or thousands of children just in the safe-haven locations nearby.

Rando Oomsus said...

Wow. You are just a master of logical fallacies. Abortion laws are usually discussed in terms of trimesters. It seems common sense that one cannot abort a 24-year old. I pointed out past stances exactly because the category of person has such a variety of interpretations. My aim was to demonstrate what jurisprudence already knows - a human being (in the fetal stage) is not the same thing as a human person. The fetus does not have its own independent (social) life because it is not separable from the mother's womb (it is not already by its mere existence a part of our society and an unprotected member of it, as one reply claimed). Then a bunch of replies argued that since the fetus has a different DNA, it's "scientifically" separate. By the same token we could claim rights for tumors, can't we? The crux of the matter is that the fetus can't have rights because it's not in any sense equal to it's parents, for example. You can't force the woman to have birth only because the fetus' has unique human DNA. I really wish I hadn't even made my first comment. Now I'm in the uncomfortable position of arguing for pro-choice on the other side of the globe. My country in OK with abortion and I think it may have a little something to do with the fact that Estonia is one of the most transparent and atheist countries in the world.

Ludo said...

I'd like to ask a question, particularly to the author of this article: If, in a given situation, it was clear beyond any doubt that a woman carrying a pregnancy to full term would result in terrible suffering for both mother and baby, whereas early termination of the pregnancy, would cause only minor suffering, would you still maintain that abortion was not acceptable in this case?

LevelUpPlease said...

I disagree. If a person holds an extreme view, they are an extremist; regardless of whether I agree or disagree with that view.

LevelUpPlease said...

>>I am tempted to say that all of these children should have a DNA registry for them so that their fathers can pick them up if necessary--otherwise, in practice, a female can simply give up her child without the consent and/or knowledge of the father of this child (without this father being able to get this child back--after all, without a DNA registry, how exactly is he going to find his child even if he knows that the woman anonymously gave this child up using save-haven laws?<<<

Totally agree. I was torn about safe haven laws when they came out for this very reason.

guest said...

The responsibilities of the father are based entirely on the rights of the child. Those begin at birth.However,
prior to birth, the rights of a mother and child can be in conflict. A
mother has a right to her body, as she always does. A fetal right to
life does not override her right to her body, just as someone's right to
life would not allow them to take another person's kidneys without that
person's permission. One person's right to life never infringes upon
another person's right to their body. However, it can infringe upon
another person's right to their money. This is perfectly consistent with U.S. law and applies regardless of if you consider a pregnancy a child or a fetus.

The Denver Diamond said...

You assume that the person medically CAN use birthcontrol. Also you assume that a person cant get pregnant while on birthcontrol.

ret35sgm said...

I will grant you that happens on occasion...but do you really believe that the number of abortions in this country each year are all explained by the small number of women who either can't use birth control or whose birth control fails? I don't think the failure rate is that high. The truth is that many women are using abortion as a primary means of birth control.

The Denver Diamond said...

Stupidest analogy of all time. No it is more like if that homeless person decides to nap in your truck and you go home and find them in your garage. I do not give the mans sperm right to fertilize my eggs and if they do they will be removed promptly.

The Denver Diamond said...

Does it have to be explained that way? Any how I would say that it is non of my business if they are using birthcontrol or what not. I am not their doctor.

The Denver Diamond said...

Oh also i want to add that consent to one thing (sex) does not mean consent to parent hood or to have other people seize control of your own body.

The Denver Diamond said...

I think that they do have that right and people should quit denying them equal rights when it comes to parent hood.

Recondaddy said...

"Stupidest analogy of all time..."

No. I think comparing your unborn child to an external invader wins that race, by a mile. Though, your "correction" to my analogy was pretty dumb, as well. If a homeless person breaks into your garage and falls asleep in your truck, it is most likely that you had ZERO part in their being there. Not so with an unborn child. Your decision to have sex with a fertile man is your implicit consent.

"I do not give the man's sperm right to fertilize my eggs and if they do they will be removed promptly."

Almost too stupid to be addressed. You might as well say, "I don't give chocolate the right to make me fat."

You're no better than the insane mother who kills her children because she "does not give them the right to rake on her nerves, and if they do, she will promptly drown them in the bathtub."

Or, how about the one who says, "I do not give my children to right to interfere in my love life, and if they do, I will strap them into their car seats and drive them into a lake"?

You're no different than they are. We call them psychotic, but you get the kinder moniker of pro-choice.

Lucky you.

Coyote said...

How exactly do you define "extreme", though?

Robert Byrd said...

Life is guaranteed/protectecd for eggs of endangered species. But not humans.

Beth said...

I got pregnant when I was 18. I was terrified. I had just moved across the country with my boyfriend who was addicted to meth and an alcoholic. He was in no way ready to be a father and I was even less ready to be a mom. I sat in my room for hours crying after I took the pregnancy test. I didn't know what I was going to do. I always considered myself pro - life but my beliefs had never been put to the test until I saw that little + sign. I contemplated all my options for hours and hours. Should I keep this baby? Do I give it up? Why did this happen to me? How could I have been so stupid? I cried into my pillow for hours wishing it all to be a bad dream. I wanted it to all go away. I didn't want a baby. I didn't want to go through nine awful months of pregnancy and I sure as hell didn't want to go through labor. Just one week after I found out about my unwanted pregnancy, I started bleeding. When I saw the blood, I panicked. What was happening? Was I losing my little baby? I went to the emergency room right away and of course waited for hours to hear any results. They took me back to get my first ultrasound. I was only six weeks along so I didn't expect to see much and to be honest, I didn't. It was this tiny ball that really didn't have a shape to it. But then the technician pointed out my little baby's heartbeat. It was just a tiny flicker but it was fast and when I saw it, I burst into tears. It wasn't just a ball of cells that the pro - choice people make you think. It was a tiny person. A real little life growing inside me. From that point on, I never thought about getting rid of the pregnancy again. I gave birth to my beautiful son on October 7th and he has been the biggest gift I've ever received. I couldn't imagine not having him in my life. I hope this changes even 1 person's mind about abortion because it is murder. I was only 6 weeks along when I saw my son's heartbeat and most women don't even know they're pregnant at that point. That's all I've got :)

LevelUpPlease said...

An extreme or extremist view one that is far outside the normal limits. For the PL side, an extremist view would be disagreeing with abortion in *all* cases. For the PC side, an extremist view would be wanting NO regulations on elective abortion. Most people, PL and PC, fall somewhere in the middle of those two outer limits.

ret35sgm said...

I would hope you are right about people not taking it lightly. However, it still isn't taken seriously enough. Again, when we start using terms like parasite and body invader to describe an unborn child, we are clearly ignoring the other individual in this equation (other than the mother and father). I know all the concerns you mentioned are important, too. You are right about the emotional trauma and expense...I would add that due to light regulation because of the political nature, it is also riskier than other medical procedures - only after Gosnell are states beginning to take a close look at standards. I agree all that should factor but I am appalled that we are using language to denigrate the value of the unborn child to ensure states can't use a state interest in protecting the child's interest to at least put reasonable limits on the procedure.

Defamate said...

Cardiac cells can beat in a petri dish.


Abortion is murder eh? If you *had* made the decision to abort, do you think that you should have been charged with 1st degree murder, had abortion been illegal?


Just curious.


And grats on your lovely son!!!

mamaofdaba said...

...another reason to love God...He simply loves us...clumps of cells...beautiful 20 yr olds...old feeble weak 90 yr olds.... funny thing about some of these comments...they are only on here because someone cared enough to save their sweet little clumps of cells when first conceived.... Peace be with you.... May all our babies be conceived in love... may all those who do not PLAN their babies be struck with hearts filled with love when they meet their little unplanned darlings....God Bless this sweet little world He Created!!! :)

Beth said...

Absolutely. The heartbeat was present in my ultrasound so therefore, life was present. Taking someone's life is murder and so killing my son should be considered illegal.

Defamate said...

So life in prison for you? Or lethal injection?

h4x354x0r said...

What laws dictate that the man is held to *any* responsibility, whatsoever, *before* the baby is actually born?

No, the baby has to be born first, before the father is held liable for anything. What were you saying about fairness and equivalence again?

The line of viability is very real, and nobody (but the parents) can claim any practical interest in non-viable babies, whatsoever. Human conceptions have about a 70% natural failure rate. It's just plain stupid to put that on any kind of pedestal.

The Denver Diamond said...

I did not read this whole comment because my skin shuddered with revulsion at the idea of it being my unborn child I would rather hang my pregnant self killing me and that invader rather than carry to term. I would rather fall down a flight of stares, permanently disfigure myself with a knife than carry an unwanted child.

The Denver Diamond said...

There is no other relevant individual when it comes to how my body will be used.

Recondaddy said...

And here, all this time, I thought we would find no point of agreement...

Recondaddy said...

*stairs

Coyote said...

Fair enough. Your definition of "extreme" here is valid.

My main concern here was the perceived negative connotation of the word "extreme"--many people assume that something "extreme" is always bad, wrong, and/or atrocious, which would not necessarily be the case based upon your definition of the word "extreme".

Beth said...

Should my life be more important than my child's? And at what point does my son become a person in your opinion? Is it when he was conceived? Was it at the point he could survive outside the womb? Was it at my due date? Or after I gave birth to him? Or could you go as far as saying that it isn't until he is able to express his opinions? When does life begin to someone who is pro - choice? Aren't we crossing a really dangerous line when we as humans try to decide when a life is important enough to save?

Defamate said...

Answer the question. Btw, by your logic, people with artificial hearts are dead, and babies born with hearts but not brains are alive.

Beth said...

Yes, had I gotten an abortion the punishment should have been life in prison or the death penalty. Oh and you didn't answer my question either.

Defamate said...

Life in prison or the death penalty for killing a mindless body that may or may not have ever become a baby. I really wonder if you would change your mind about that if faced with a noose.

Beth said...

May or may not have become a baby? What are you smoking? When a woman conceived, the product is a living, breathing baby in just 9 sorry months. You don't see them as human because people like you insist on killing them before they even have a chance to live. A life for a life. If our society lived that way maybe there wouldn't be so much hurt in this world.

Beth said...

Short not sorry

Defamate said...

Is a zygote a living breathing baby?

Beth said...

So when does this "ball of cells" become a baby?

The Denver Diamond said...

Does my spelling really matter?

Gary Harper said...

I am neither pro life nor pro choice. I am pro responsibility. Do not try to con me that no one on this planet does not know that sex leads to pregnancy. That is such crap, even those saying it know that they are lying.
The problem is that people do not take responsibility for their own actions. They go and abort so that they can shirk this responsibility,
and then can go out and have a little bit of fun again. Any person who will kill their own flesh and blood simply is not to be trusted. They will fuck anyone.
I am talking about both men and women. The men need to step up to the plate and be a dad. Anyone can father a child. Sperm donors do it all the time. And it does not make you a man. Being a dad is makes you a man. The sperm donor is simply forgotten, as he should be. And good riddance. Nothing there that causes any forward movement in the lot of men. If you are not a dad, then you are not a father. You are dead to your child, your society, and to your God. You are a nothing in the eyes of all. So, how does that make you a man?
If I was an employer, and I found out that I had a deadbeat dad or a girl who had an abortion without any regrets afterwards working for me, I would find a way to get rid of them, just to protect my bottom line. They simply cannot be trusted. They kill their own family. I would not want them around, and it should be easy enough to find a reason to fire them, as their selfishness will manifest in other ways, such as screwing off, and being disruptive on the job.
The core of the abortion debate is myopic selfishness to the exclusion of the rights and needs of all others. These people will probably never grow into being productive citizens with an all-encompassing outlook. They are selfish, spoiled, greedy, narcissistic brats. That is the crux of the matter.
Selfishness begets an unjustified self-worth, which begets exclusion of others, which begets wrong action, which begets error, which eventually begets murder, even that of your own flesh and blood. I still believe that those who deny a future to their own flesh and blood have no real future here on earth. And certainly not anywhere else.

Gary Harper said...

Personhood is a legal concept. The Romans accepted citizens as persons, and the slaves as humans. Your argument is flawed, because it assumes that there is a difference between a fetus and a person. You buy into the master / slave and baron / serf conceptualization that has made a tenuous defense of the legality of abortion possible. This conceptualization was based upon keeping what I as the ruler have, and legalizing taking it from those I rule.
The law has nothing to do with morality and a right heart. It has everything to do with maintaining the status quo. Rulers do not care who they kill, as long as they stay in power. And this is the basis of the western legal ideas on personhood. It has to do with inheritance, succession, and preservation of blue-blood lines. Thank you for falling into the legal trap of the ruling classes.
So you think it is right to kill your descendants for purely personal, selfish reasons? It does not say much for you as a person. I simply could not trust you with anything, sorry. Neither as a borrower, or to watch my house when I was away, or to do an errand you promised to do. And that is the core of the debate. You are simply selfish and irresponsible, and unwilling to take responsibility for your own actions. Like a land-hungry baron, or a profligate king.

Gary Harper said...

Planned Parenthood here was started by a Nazi insider. Who hated blacks especially. And their statistics still back that agenda up. Abortion is not a subject for debate in countries that are weakening. Liberal countries are always weaker, and those who guarantee the rights of all citizens, including the future generations, are always stronger. That is why we in America are still too strong to ever conquer -- we still believe in a society fashioned for the future, not for the comforts and expediencies of the present. At least some of us do. The responsibility vs. selfishness that is the core of the abortion debate is still discussed here. Europe has chosen the myopic selfishness of the individual over the moral, societal responsibility of the individual as law. Too bad for you all.

Gary Harper said...

Well put.

Gary Harper said...

A perfect solution, for the self-centered individual who is irresponsible. So when you get old, we should put you out on the street, as you once could take care of yourself? Another perfect solution in a self-centered society.
You are mistaking personhood for self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency is important to kings and barons, who do not want some unborn bastard of theirs to have claims to the throne, or to have a war between the supporters of the one year old heir and the coming fetus in their castle. Thank you for siding with the oppressive master mentality types against the slave mentality types you hope someday to rule over.

Gary Harper said...

And they were "post-partum aborted".

Gary Harper said...

To the unconscious, consciousness never enters the discussion.

Gary Harper said...

In most countries, you are legally correct. Until a law is changed; then you will not be correct. But, the rank and file have a different opinion of what a person or a human is than do the nannies in any capitol, who know so much better than you do what is good for you...

Gary Harper said...

Where do you draw the line? At conception insures that there will be no future infringements on it. And saying all are persons and humans avoids the Nazi ideological trap.

Ty said...

You almost convinced me until you started saying men can leave without telling the women to make things completely fair. First off, this situation will NEVER be completely fair! The man does not have any duties for a child before birth. The woman, however, has to carry this child for 9 months (along with any other consequences that may come with it: being sick/swollen, having to make time out of her day to go to the doctor frequently and paying for that). Along with this, she has to experience anxiety over whether she will be able to keep her job after maternity leave. She knows that she is already being paid less than her male coworkers simply because something like this can happen to HER. Now, depending on her age and position she could be suffering socially from being pregnant at an early age or before marriage. So far, how has the man suffered? Maybe emotionally and psychologically because he is going to raise a child. How has the woman suffered? Psychologically, economically, socially and emotionally and she hasn't even given birth yet. Then, she has to give birth to a human being, which most people agree is the most painful thing any human can experience. And now, after these long 9 months she realizes that she needs to raise this kid (possibly on her own) while trying to either find another job or just keep up the work on her already lower-paying one. She's still not done here. How is she going to afford child care? It is so expensive and she needs it because otherwise she is going to lose her job. What happens to the child? We don't know, the woman may get lucky and find someone to help, but she also may get so frustrated and stressed that she abuses or kills the child, so much for right to life. Now this child is psychologically, emotionally and socially scarred. The women has to experience all this before the child turns one, whereas if the man was in the picture she would feel much less pressure because she will have his better paying job to support their child (I repeat THEIR). Whether the man likes it or not, he has to be more careful when having sex because he needs to be there for any women he impregnates. If he knows he can't or doesn't want to be a father, he needs to know that he needs to use birth control (preferably something that does not force the woman to throw hormones into her body, but that is another argument). Women know this too, that is why so many are fighting for birth control to be offered without age restrictions or questions asked. Women know they can have that extra option of an abortion, so they want to keep that option in case, you know, they get impregnanted by rape in which case the "father" will not help or be there (not considering the fact of how traumatizing the women would be to have her rapist help in raising the child). Finally, you seem to think that all fathers stay in unplanned pregnancies, but that is SO far from the truth. Fathers leave all the time, without a trace, and women are forced to go through what I just described all alone. That's just my humble opinion.

Gary Harper said...

Discussing infanticide is symptomatic, not problematic. So you kill all the children, because some children may be killed later? By that logic, all soldiers should be blown up before going to battle, because some of them may get blown up on the battlefield. Or all drivers should be crushed in auto compacters, because some of them will be crushed in an accident. The crux of it is to teach your children not to be self-centered, self-serving, and selfish to the exclusion of the needs and feelings of others. For abortion is a selfish act; and parentage is more of a selfless act. A society that kills its own children is weak, because it is selfish;, and its members will not stand together for the common good. Such a society is destined to be crushed and burned by the stronger society. And deservedly so; for it is composed of weak, whiney, and selfish individuals who care for nothing outside of themselves.

Gary Harper said...

Non-specific neuronal bursts are not defined as pain. But it does not mean that the fetus does not perceive them as pain. Just pain of a different order. the cells work, they transmit information. That is what neural pathways do. So you need to ask a fetus what they are feeling. There are arguments that fish do not experience pain. They are just running from the tug of the line. Go ask a fish for me if the bleeding hole "hurts".

Bryan Beus said...

It would seem a logical choice.

Ludo said...

Gradually. I don't think that's so very hard to understand.

But the emotions of maternal concern can kick in very suddenly, as they apparently did in your case, Beth. There's nothing wrong with this, but emotions are all they were.

Emotions aren't a great guide to moral behaviour. Your willingness to dispense the death penalty to a frightened single mother-to-be, for making a decision you very nearly made yourself, suggests a certain blindness to the consequences of your opinions. It seems hypocrisy and a lack of compassion for your fellow adult human beings are the fruits of your own strongly-held convictions about this issue.

Now your son is a fully developed child, those emotions of care and protection will be even stronger. Direct them toward your son, but please don't use them to justify rash opinions that can cause very real suffering to your fellow humans.

Apologies for butting in on your argument.

materetmagistra said...

Fetal rights? What might those be? Can you name one?

But, that aside, I AM most definitely talking about HUMAN Rights. That "fetus" you mention happens to be a human being. I am talking about the Rights that every fetal human has by virtue of being a specific thing - a human.

Look at your own admission - "The fetus is human, but it is not a person."
I need to ask, are you now telling me that "Person Rights" exist? What might those be - and how might they be different than Human Rights?

materetmagistra said...

@Rando Oomsus: "The fetus is not a fully formed human even in the minimal biological sense."

Huh? We can most definitely claim that at conception a fully human organism is present. That's all that matters - because inalienable Human Rights are ours at all moments we are human beings - no matter if we are 1-day-old OR 100 years old.

@Rando Oomsus: "In the US before WWII only grown-ups were considered persons."

Wasn't it wrong to murder 5-year-olds back then? If so, this declaration of "personhood" means nothing, because obviously there was some other means to determine that killing a 5-year-old was wrong. I'm guessing that would be the determination that although a 5-year-old wasn't a "person", the 5-year-old was a "human being" and therefore had the right to not be murdered.

@Rando: "The modern definition goes something like "a human being regarded as an individual". Is the growing fetus inside the womb an individual?"

Actually, yes. Biologically, at fertilization, a new organism is formed - an individual of the species Homo sapiens.

@Rando: "Does it have personality and personhood?"

Ah - now we have "Personality Rights." And, again, you try to separate "personhood" from "human being." Human beings are persons, are they not? Are there any human beings that are NOT persons?

@Rando: "Does it have agency and volition, a social standing and personal interests?"

Actually, for its age it is doing exactly what we would expect it to be doing. Only time is needed before these other abilities are attained. [As such, I think you are discriminating based only on age.....]

@Rando: "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?"
That particular "lump of cells" is not just your average lump - it is a particular type of lump - an individual human being. There is no other kind of "lump" that in six years will be attending kindergarten, or in seventeen years will be driving an automobile, or in thirty-six years might run for President.

materetmagistra said...

@Rando Ooosmus: "Your fallacy is viewing a part of a woman (the growing fetus) as a separate entity."

What kind of scientific ignorance is that? The human fetus is a "whole, separate, unique living human being."
Why do you ignore this basic science? Might it be because the ideology you hold (and want to push on everyone) won't allow you to acknowledge the humanity of the pre-born human being?

materetmagistra said...

Richard G, besides Disqus, check out your local newspaper(s) and be a presence on it (on-line discussions) or in it (by writing letters to the editor.) In my little corner of the world, I try to make sure the truth is spoken. But always remember to speak out in love, with the goal to change hearts about these matters.

materetmagistra said...

W-a-y up above I asked this: "What about the human rights of the OTHER human being in the picture - the unborn human?!?"

To which HKE answers: "That isn't mentioned because this is a strictly "secular" article, as stated by the title."
Huh? Human Rights is a secular topic. One does not need to defer to any religious doctrine in order to discuss Human Rights.

materetmagistra said...

@Rando Oomsus: "I came here to make a point that fetuses aren't included under human rights. "

Really? Are "human rights" things that can be "assigned," or are they more akin to things that cannot be separated from the human condition?
At every moment you are this thing called 'human being' you have these things called "human rights." As such, these rights are inalienable to the human condition. A government can choose to recognize and secure OR ignore and/or violate - but, the rights are always still there.
Do tell, why is it that a human being fetus wouldn't have HUMAN RIGHTS?

Kirsty said...

What if you are mutilated in an accident and no longer have a face? Do you stop being a person?

Rando Oomsus said...

Yes, exactly! Thank you. Finally someone gets it that my free discussion was to be taken as a set of strictures. That is exactly what I wanted to say by going into the etymology of the word "person". Also, actors on the stage or in front of a camera "putting on a person" can and should be killed on the spot because they aren't identical to themselves anymore.

Mr said...

A week-old fetus is not a person, sorry. It's a wart on a uterine wall.

KB said...

Militant Atheist

KB said...

M might have other ideas, but mine are that there is no such thing as a soul, so far as we know, and that milestones in human development as use for determining human beings are subjective and arbitrary at best, scientifically inaccurate at worst. Having my first period didn't turn me into a human being. Growing my first tooth didn't turn me into a human being. Going through cervical walls didn't turn me into a human being. There was one event where prior, there was no living human being, and post, there was - with its unique, human DNA, innate characteristics (the nature side of the human personality and anatomy equation), as well as a foundation to develop more characteristics as time goes on (the nurture side of the human personality and anatomy equation). There is one point in the spectrum of my development where previously, there was no code to allow me to develop whereby this existence at this very moment of writing is possible, and after, there was such a code. That point, of course, is conception.

I don't see a scientifically compelling argument to place my existence at any other place besides conception, because I do not believe there is such a thing as a soul.

Henrieke said...

Check this out



http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/media-misleads-on-recent-ultrasound-study

Henrieke said...

check this out:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/media-misleads-on-recent-ultrasound-study

The Mouse said...

The best vengeance in life is to see what happens to these lefty pro-choicers when they age and become possibly infirm. I want to be able to be "pro-choice" about my tax dollars helping them. I want to be "pro-choice" too about not supporting kids that I don't want, if the mother decides to take the child to term. Why the double standards? Liberals shock me with their inconsistencies. Even Camille Paglia, a known feminist (well, she irks feminists actually) admits abortion is killing but a necessary evil. She even criticizes the Left for rejecting its personhood and denying the violence of abortion (clump of cells rhetoric). Even if she is pro-abortion, I admire at least her honesty and not beating around the bush, like most "pro-choicers".

Childsupportpayee for 21 years said...

I'm not for them atall that childsupport system is all about the welfare making money for them selves it's NOT FOR THE children is a tool used for disgruntled women to destroy men

Chaoticblu said...

"You're talking about fetal rights, not human rights"

A fetus is a human. Humans produce other humans.

"The fetus is human, but it is not a person."

Incorrect by dictionary definitions. But you claim to be talking about HUMAN rights in the first place, which do apply to humans then. Which we have already established that fetuses are. The term 'fetus' merely refers to a developmental stage, and I would theorize that the term was coined for medical purposes, so everyone knows exactly what is being discussed, like how all your muscles have specific names. The term is NOT giving or revoking a fetus's human rights or personhood the fetus is not of the human species. The courts are doing that.

Sources:

Definition of 'fetus"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fetus
Note in this one the term "unborn offspring" . If you know any basic biology you know that when 2 species mate and conception occurs, that 'offspring' can only be of the same species as it's parents.

Defintions of "Person"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/person

note the first defintion "living human" which fetuses certainly are, considering a single cell displays all the properties of life (therby both embroys and fetuses as well as all human beings are 'living'. Though I must admit I do not know why they say "living" human. Regardless, assuming a healthy pregnancy the fetus is certainly living and a human being/person. Many courts for some reason just refuse to aknowledge this.

So...what exactly are you arguing ?

Chaoticblu said...

Why isn't it enough to you that a human simply be a human to have rights? Should someone who becomes comatose or brain dead, thus losing their personality be allowed to be cut up and discarded as medical waste then?

Our 'will' as you say is to just see that everyone innocent human being is treated as such, to the best extent we are able. This means an innocent human being should not be killed because it is the selfish will of another to do so. So how about you and others stop imposing YOUR will on innocent human beings.

Either it's wrong (and a crime) for one to kill another whom was merely minding their own business or it isn't. It's absurd to kill a creature that wasn't attacking you, that you are not using for food or clothing, or that you fully brought into existence yourself. And I don't mean 'creature' as a derogatory term guys, we are all creatures.

For the love of whatever you believe in or simply Nature, STOP creating children you do not intend to take responsibility for.

*sigh* obviously rape victims are exempt from the responsibly factor though there are other reasons why it's wrong to abort in that situation.

Chaoticblu said...

*facepalm* the fetus is a unique individual created at conception. The egg and sperm cease to exist as separate cells and combine to form a new human being. 2 entities cannot occupy the same space, therefor all human beings as well as everything that has matter is a separate entity.

Women can do whatever they want with THEIR body. What is wrong is to harm ANOTHER"S body and end another's life when that PERSON is innocent.

It should be our job as a society to protect our people, our citizens, the human beings who live , exist in our society. We have to do this to the best of our ability.

From current laws we see that society generally values life, the importance of 'innocent till proven guilty' and that you can't/should not kill someone without just cause. These causes do not include feeling inconvenienced by the person you kill or killing someone because of what a member of their family did. You can still get jail time for self defense if it was ruled you used excessive force.

Based on these current laws and society views (which fyi when making new laws or arguing cases often previous laws cases and their rulings are brought up; ) it is not unreasonable to want to stop the discrimination of preborn humans in the fetal stage of development and extend human rights to rightly include them.

Just because the pro choice view happens to fit with some religous practices does not mean it doesn't have other merit that anyone can get behind. It's about fairness, making every human being as equal as possible and not discriminating or dehumanizing anyone. Race, gender, mental ability, sexual orientation (in my opinion anyway), nor stage of development or age should prevent someone from having basic human rights and to be treated with respect and dignity.

Chaoticblu said...

To clarify, I'm in America so I am referring to laws here. You say abortion is rarely debated in Estonia, maybe it should be. It is a society issue, as it affects the lives of a place's citizens and future citizens that have not been conceived yet.Anything affecting lives and under what circumstances lives can be taken away is everyone's business , and should be an important topic in all countries.

Chaoticblu said...

Yes! If no rights are sacred and natural where does the government control end? if abortion is seen as commonplace and completely ethical what's to say people's views won't esceclade further and in 20 years or so it'll be perfectly legal to kill your kid any day of the week because they were annoying you?

Sure NOW most pro choicers I believe would say that a woman (and man) are obligated to care for their child once they choose to bear them and the abortion window has closed, but WHY? WHY should they not be allowed to withdraw consent at any time like when they are pregnant?

Apparently 'personhood' comes into play ...NOW but who's to say the next generations won't decide born children or at least infants no longer qualify as deserving of personhood?

The term "pregnant' has changed meaning. If you Google it you'll find it used to mean conception. So abortion would include the ending of life before implantation.

Words change, meanings change because people's views change. And it's very scary when those views include killing of innocents. If you can be innocent and still be legally killed, what's to become of any one of us some day? Or our future generations?

Chaoticblu said...

I had a friend admit he's for murder as population control. Not just abortion,I guess he's into the whole one child policy thing too. At least he wasn't being hypocritical in that regard. Other things he said were blatantly incorrect, like how pregnancy is a health problem and that a fetus was a parasite.

I gave him scientific documentation of the difference between a fetus and a parasite and he didn't respond, he started backing out of the conversation after that, and I gently reminded him he hadn't answered one of my questions but he still didn't answer it.



It's so frutrating when one cannot debate properly. I'm not the best, I make mistakes. But I do answer questions and don't ask a question but refuse to answer any or shoot another question without answering one asked of me.

I just hate when pro choicers 'weave' in reasoning as you say , take back things but refuse to admit they made a mistake, and refuse to answer questions or refuse to respond to new information. You ask me something, I answer you , take the TIME to answer you and provide you resources on the subject..then don't even bother to consider my answer or the resources, don't even bother to knowledge you read what I wrote, understand it and agree or disagree? Why are you here then, claiming to want to learn more or discuss this?

Oh and I'm done teaching basic biology now. I'll go over it ONCE with someone but that's it. It's really alarming how many people don't know things like same species beget save species, the difference between gametes and an embryo...basic fetal development, or the fact that it is the natural order for organisms to reproduce. That baby is SUPPOSED to be in your womb, nature says so. They are not a parasite.

I'm not saying everyone has to conceive, but don't freak out once you do. Intercourse is how babies are made, everyone needs to understand that.

Chaoticblu said...

I think pro choicers keep 'forgetting' or refuse to aknowledge that life at concepion has all it's programing to direct it's development from conception to death. That life is a human being with traits, those traits just are not outwardly expressed yet. It is NATURAL for a human being to start out as a single cell and with TIME form all their parts. These parts are already programmed for physical creations through cell splitting and stem cells froming into diferent types of cells. It seems to outlandish for someone to say these human beings have a right to be killed soly because they are doing what nature intended, which takes time. So because they need time to grow their parts people want to deem them not persons/people and kill them.

This, and claiming a fetus is a parasite, and that pregnancy is a medical disease or conditions...where did this trend of claiming natural things aren't natural come from?

Thanks for sharing your anon and pointing out that personhood shouldn't even be in the debate...that being human should be enough to deserve to experince life on this earth outside the womb.

I always appreciate when people involved in adoption or a rape situation come forward and share their stories and views. It just reaffirms that elective abortion is NOT mandatory in these cases and all children deserve a chance at life no mater the circumstances of their conception.

Chaoticblu said...

There is a difference between being a unique individual and having the capabiltiy to live outside the womb. Even infants and small children are not self sufficient though. You would agree they should be killed then yes? For any reason and anytime?

Stage of development nor self sufficiency have anything to do with a human being being a human being. And 'person' is defined as human being. please check for yourself as I am tired of posting links.

I assume you are being sarcastic, but to clarify: the whole point of the pro life stance is to PROTECT the lives of the preborn, so it would be against that goal to remove an embryo from it's mother's womb unless there was a way safely incubate them somewhere else.

Chaoticblu said...

I agree one shouldn't have to support a child they don't want then (if a woman can freely escape supporting the child)..however I would say the law should be that the topic of possible conception has to be discussed and a paper signed proving both parties understand this. Since abortion is currently legal I this should be included as well (whether or not the woman intends to abort). So, both parties should make clear their intentions on what they intend to do in case of unintended conception/pregnancy in writing and not copulate until an agreement on this is reached. This way, if it's already been established one of them would walk away that party cannot be sued for child support.

The thing is though, IDK how to punish the woman who aborts behind their partner's back since abortion is not illegal. It should absolutely be a crime to take someone's child away from them.

I know the paper signing will probably break the mood but if people are going to insist on being reckless and not wanting to take responsibility for their actions something has to be done.

Chaoticblu said...

This could actually help with facilitating the discussion regarding unplanned pregnancy as well. How many of us have discussed this with partners? I'll admit I haven't in the past but becoming more involved in the pro life movement has made me feel it IS my responsibility to do so. It's only fair to any partners I have as well as fair to me in knowing if I would have moral and financial support in I were to become pregnant. Then I can decide if I am still comfortable being intimate with that person or not and vice versa.

Chaoticblu said...

I get frustrated to Meik. Had to take a break from the discussions for a while >_< So many people with the same illogical views. Answering the same questions and challenges over and over. Wondering if any pro choicers get that 'aha! moment where it all comes together and they truly realize what the pro life movement is all about.

.Condoms are great at helping to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies you have but people need to get it in there heads that pregnancy can still occur and you are still risking conception (which sex is FOR) by engaging in it recreational.

Sex can be a great thing, a great bonding experience and by all means engage if you 100% accept the risk you are taking. If you cannot accept the risk of conception do not do it! Do not engage in something you clearly know the risks of and then whine about it when that risk happens to you. When you could have 100% gotten rid of that risk by simply not consenting to something you weren't completely comfortable with.

Someone tried to say you risk getting into a car accident every time you get into a car too. There is an important difference. You are not the only car on the road.Other people's recklessness can cause you harm.

In consensual sex, you and your partner are the only ones involved. 2 people driving one car on an empty road so to speak. If you get into an accident it would be on or both of your faults. So the only way the car analogy works is if you and/or your partner are responsible for your accident.

So, take responsibility for your actions and DON"T put someone else in your body if you don't' want them there. It is NOT risk you HAVE to take.

Chaoticblu said...

Also, everyone should KNOW you are talking about consensual sex and NOT rape based on what you are actually saying. Who in their right mind would scold someone for being raped? Pro Choicers know damn well when we're talking only about consensual sex, I mean if someone just says 'people who abort are evil' or something I can almost see the confusion but still, most people are NOT going to be harsh to a rape victem. Pro Choicers just like to troll in that respect and try and deflect from the actual discussion.

Chaoticblu said...

Your right about the embryo using hormones to communicate with the mother's body (such as telling the uterine lining to 'get ready") but you are incorrect in saying that the human being conceived is not a human being. BECAUSE a new human being is formed from the merging of 2 individual human's sex cells , the only possible outcome is to conceive a new human being. It will not be a bear, or a chicken, or algae. The offspring of 2 humans will be human as well. That embryo is NOT of another species nor will it ever be.

You are confusing being of the human/homo sapien species and being made up of human DNA with the pro choice view of 'personhood' I believe.
FYI: A single cell displays all the properties of life. A single body cell, plant cell, sex cell, and yes a single celled embryo as well- are all living organisms by biology standards.

An embryo is a living human being. And we are all 'clumps of cells'.

Chaoticblu said...

You're point was incorrect as you must have seen now. Maybe you're just a kid, I obviously don't know, but what I DO know is you are proving things I said earlier about how pro choicers like to come in, say their piece and not even respond to questions or continue debate when presented with new information and ideas and logical challenged to their statements

I sincelry am sorry if you felt threatened or that people were being 'mean'. I try and present myself in a civil but firm fashion as I believe that's debate is supposed to be handled..

However, even with being civil, tough questions will be asked, uncomfortable questions may be asked and while you certainly have the right not to respond to anyone you don't want to, if you choose to engage in discussion you need to try and be prepared for such debate.

I can respect you saying you can't handle this, and you did so in a polite fashion. I thank you for that. I get overwhelmed too at times. If debate is something you stay interested in though you will get better with time. I feel like I did.

I do hope you take away new information to consider regarding abortion and person hood and humanity and human rights from all this. Feel free to come back and debate though or ask questions in the future. I admit it can get heated at times but that's usually when basic concepts are questioned or people act like they don't exist or are untrue. If you are going to debate, you at least MUST understand basic biology and the definitions of terms such as 'human being' 'fetus' and 'person'. These are fact and you can't build arguments without having a factual base first.

Good luck in learning more about abortion and the pro life movement and truly understanding all the concepts (if you choose do further your understanding that is). If you learn the basics, you may find yourself questioning your beliefs, which is what should be done when presented with new information. Good luck coming to terms with your beliefs if you do start to question them and like I said feel free to return and/or please check out other "Secular Pro Life Perspective' articles to better understand the Pro Life movement.

Rando Oomsus said...

Right on! Let's go the dictionary route. The full definition you referred to (in Merriam-Webster) goes: "a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born". My emphasis is on "later stages". Even Wikipedia supports the notion that the it becomes a fetus after the embryonic stage. The prenatal development stage begins from the 11th week. Coincidentally, up to that point it's legal to abort. Moreover, "A fetus is also characterized by the presence of all the major body
organs, though they will not yet be fully developed and functional, and
may not all be situated in their final anatomical location." That is, abortion is typically performed before the embryo becomes a "fetus" by definition.

Chaoticblu said...

The woman and abortion provider are infringing on a human being's rights (in every sense of the concept even if they are not recognize under society's laws yet) when they kill that human against their will. Ripping apart one's body without their consent is clearly a vilation of that human's bodily autonomy.

Frankly no one should have the 'right' to kill someone they were responsible for creating.I can argue agaist killing in cases of rape too for a different reasons.

Really, everyone needs to grow up and be responsible for their reproduction. Stop hiding behind you're 'right' to willy nilly engage in a reproductive act and then kill the child that results from it. It's not very kind to create a child you have no intention of letting live. It's downright foolish , foolish to engage in a risky act KNOWING the risks and KNOWING you are using an act for something other then it's intended purpose, (which should hold you liable for the outcome , just like you void a warranty if you use a product improperly).

If you can handle the risk of conception sure, great, enjoy sex. It can quite a pleasurable experience, emotionally and physically. But another human being should not have to die because you took a risk you truly weren't ready to take.

Chaoticblu said...

You shoudln't have sex if you and your gf refuse to accept the risk of creating a new, living human being. So that's up to you to decide. But fyi-it's more mature to admit you truly cannot handle the possibility of pregnancy and parenthood, and wait on sex then - then it is to jump into something soley because it 'feels good' and not care about or discuss your emotional and /or financial states and what to do if an unplanned pregnancy could occur.

It might sound easy to say "I'll /she'll just get an abortion" but do you even understand what an abortion procedure is? It's barbaric and your gf could very well change her mind...

If you truly accept the risk of sex and will take TRUE responsiblty ofr your actions and any life you create then enjoy. Otherwise , no you should not be having sex until you are in a proper emotionally and financial state to do so and support any life you might create (be it for 9 months and give up your rights or raise them yourselves.)

Chaoticblu said...

And I wasn't saying you actually SAID that about getting an abortion. I know you didn't. I wasn't claiming I was quoting something you said. You're supposed to use quotes when you (the writer, me in this instance) are making a general quote..like regarding a statement that COULD be made or thinks people have said in general. I hope I'm explaining that alright.

So just wanted to clear that up in case it confused anyone.

Chaoticblu said...

I'm not following how pointing out when abortions typically occur (assuming the info is correct)is tied to the defintions I gave proving that a fetus is a human being and therefor a person, and the law just needs to catch up and extend human rights to cover them? I could easily point out that an embryo is also human being and is therefor a person as well. But in the meantime:

Gotta be careful with Wikipedia as it can be written by anyone. A dictionary, is a much more valid reference tool, and Merrimen Webster is a well known name. There is no reason not to go to the 'dictionary route' as words are one way we make sense of our world. Meanings are obviously important.

the fetal stage IS the later stage, it starts at 6 weeks lasts up until birth.During that time, yes the fetus will develop all major body organs. Parts were developed int he embryonic stag as well.

"Abortion " as it is currently defined is the act of terminating a pregnancy. "Pregnancy' I previously read also on wikipedia in the past is most currently defined as starting at implantation. However Merrimen Webster online claims it begins at fertilization. I am trying to find more resources regarding this. See why I said watch out for Wikipedia now?
Merrimen-Webster does give the full definition as causing the death of the fetus or embryo. So abortion CAN occur after implantation. I was just curious where the so called 'abortion pill' fit in to that. But anyway;

Implantation occurs 10-14 days after conception. Thus you are correct a preborn human being could be aborted while they are still in the embryo stage as well as in the fetal stage. To be honest , I learned something new. I didn't know exactly when one stage ended and the other began. I believed I did but I was incorrect.

Haven't validated your statement on when most abortions occure yet. But that was never brought up. You made the statement that another poster was confusing human rights with fetal rights, as well as stating that a fetus was human but not a person(contradicting your earlier statement which inferred they were not human), and I gave you sound references showing that a fetus in indeed a human being and by association also a person.

Any argument you are tying to make regarding the definitions I presented is lost on me I must say. Can you point out if I'm missing something please?

References

Fetal development. Tells when embryonic period ends and fetal period begins)

http://americanpregnancy.org/duringpregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.htm


Abortion Definition http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion?show=0&t=1394023507

Wikipedia article I read in the past (may or may not be valid but posting since I referenced it)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy

Mirable said...

You are the one who argues that if a 9 year old victim of rape does not want to get pregnant then she should have a full hysterectomy in order to prevent that. Actually, you had a bigger problem with a girl considering hysterectomy to preemptively avoid the rape pregnancy you would force her to suffer verses that little girl choosing to give birth at the age of 9.

Sick, as far as I am concerned.

Payee said...

I am totally against childsupport : I was married to a girl from Mexico n her mom had already been a pro a playing the welfare system well as we al know the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree . We were married then divorced within 3 years just enough for her to have 2 kids n get an apartment in Fresno n have all the benifits in full swing , she moved out 4/24/ and the next day I got my paycheck 1/2 of it was gone , garnished by the welfare : I went to Fresno welfare office n they said I ignored all there atemps of contact I notified them the we JUST seperated yesterday n while I was working she was home : n mush have confiscated the letters from them : we'll nothing mattered to them from what I had to say n to make a long story short that was since 1995 last year at this time the welfare said I owed 34,000$ in arrears to the X , the welfare did an audit on my case n so did the attorney I hired since my check has been garnished the entire time of her welfare career: the audit showed that I should have had paid 97,000$ n them it showed amount received 214,000$ : I've been a slave every day : for all these years how could a court of law allow this: we'll we lost our court battle since my financial records were from Oklahoma n acording to the Fresno judge ( not allowed in his courtroom) we lost the case my attourney just quit n I got stuck with this life long bill that goes up every month : childsupport is a lie : those women sighn there childsupport rights over to the state n the state only gives them a small % of that money and the state gets 2$ insentive for what ever they take from my check

Simon said...

I have not read all 323 comments, but I would like you to think about the language "if a man gets a woman pregnant" that you used and the bias it includes. I think it would be more accurate/preferable to say, "if a man and woman have sex and pregnancy results." In the vast majority of pregnancies, women are collaborators in the process of conception, not passively fertilized subjects. A woman gets pregnant as a result of a man's sexual function and her own and, with the important exception of rape, using language that implies a man has "done something to her" leads to some oppressive lines of thinking. Both parties should be taking responsibility for sex. A man "got me pregnant" is not the kind of language that promotes responsibility.

IntelligentChristianFaith said...

What genus and species is that fetus? If it's homo sapien then it is, scientifically speaking a human being, and that is sufficient grounds to predicate "human rights." If you don't think so, then you should probably change your own terminology whenever you refer to human rights in any other context. You don't mean "human" rights but "person rights" or "rights of personhood."

IntelligentChristianFaith said...

Rando, you are, scientifically speaking, wrong about the status of the human fetus. For one thing, its not some undifferentiated "clump of cells" but a living biological organism. Treating it like it's a tumor or something like that biologically and embryologically ridiculous. Mere "clumps of cells" do not have the differentiated organelles and fully functioning life systems that the conceptus does. For another thing, there is no such thing as a generic "Fetus" it's always a speciated fetus like a "pig" fetus or a "horse" fetus or a human fetus. By calling it simply a fetus, your avoidance of the literally correct term "human" is telling. Lastly, we've been down this constitutional road before in trying to parse out fine distinctions between which humans are persons. History does not bode well for the more recent RvW decision since previous decisions about whether slaves are persons and whether women are "persons" in the relevant sense for voting. Before America, there were debates over whether "human" entailed any innate right to life, or liberty, and yet those were thought to be rightly accessible to nobility and wealthy land owners. ONly they were "Free persons." Historically speaking, it is a discriminatory and exploitative path to press a wedge between "human beings" and "persons." That is almost always a decision rendered by the oppressors against the oppressed to sustain discriminatory standards against fellow human beings.

IntelligentChristianFaith said...

So lack of development, small size, location constitute grounds for killing human beings? Sounds shady. I could affirm cases of self-defense or capital punishment. Those at least entail a mortal threat or criminal offense. You are talking about killing genetically distinct, legally innocent, morally neutral, living human beings here, right? I can't see how the free destruction of these tiny human beings could NOT degrade human life broadly. How we treat human beings in their most vulnerable states--elderly or young--shows what kind of people we've become.

Rando Oomsus said...

I wouldn't condone murdering fetuses walking on the street or making them sit at the back of the bus. But as long as that "human being" is inside another human being and hasn't developed enough to survive on its own it's up for the woman to do as she pleases with her body.

TimsH1 said...

Unfortunately this argument breaks down at the start when you take the position that we can morally separate the act of sexual intercourse with the proper result of that act. (i.e. The use of contraceptives does not give weight to the notion that sex is ever free from the responsibility for children who are the product of sex.) The sexual act is the giving of oneself fully to another person. It is intended to be practiced where a commitment is in place and both parties open their sexual (i.e. reproductive) capacity to another person. The woman opening herself to the man and the man giving himself to the woman for the proper result which is the bonding of the two together with an openness to new life! That new life will rightly share an equal number of chromosomes from each parent. It will have completely unique DNA but receive attributes from each parent. There should be no denying the new life either it's uniqueness and right to life NOR should there be any denying it of it's right to BOTH parents!

Contraception has led us to this precipice, where we turn one way and fall into abortion and the destruction of life and the tragic pain and suffering of that choice; or we turn another way and we destroy parenthood and our the dignity we have when we share ourselves fully with another human being. God's plan clearly seen in nature is ALWAYS the best way! When we try to get our way by circumventing His will, we choose what is harmful to ourselves.

Colin Gormley said...

In fairness to the nuts who protested the law, there were quite a few who had no idea what was actually in the bill. Some protested it because they thought the law was shutting down PP "clinics." They didn't know it was PP that would shut them down because they refused to conform to outpatient regs.

IntelligentChristianFaith said...

Rando, what kind of fetus are we talking about? Remember, there is no abstracted "fetus" there are only speciated fetuses, such as a "pig fetus," a "chicken fetus," or a "human fetus." By calling it a fetus you are not referring to the entity but to the level of development. I might as well ignore your humanity, or your name, and call you "adult." That's a pretty awkward way to refer to things just to avoid having to say "human" and avoid having to clarify that you are condoning the willful destruction of human beings.

The "her body" argument falls apart when it is taken into account that another human body is now involved. Do I have a right to swing and flail my arms on a crowded city side-walk? After all, it is my body? Well no, my right to swing my fist ends at your nose. And for the pregnant mother she has a general right of autonomy over her body but that is a bounded right that does not normally entail harming other human beings. Moreover, if the preborn were "her body" it would have to be the same gender, same blood type, same genetics, etc. and it is not. Even if the preborn is female it's a different female than the mother. There two females there. In fact, from the moment the child-in-utero implants in the uterine wall, the mother's body recognizes it as a foreign entity and the immune system tries to attack and destroy it. Her own body knows that child is not her body.

Derp... said...

The other "human being" in this picture is called a "fetus." It called a "Fetus" because science can meaningfully distinguish different kinds of human beings. A person is a sentient human being with rights. A fetus is a dividing cellular mass which (in terms of legal abortion) central nervous system and sentient capacity equal to those of a deep sea brine shrimp.



And there is yet another kind of human being. It's called a tumor. It's a dividing cellular mass with pretty much no sentient thought, but no one seems to care about it. Poor tumors...


Hint: There isn't a conflict between abortion and child support unless you can't tell the difference between cellular mass and a living, breathing child.

Sophia Wright said...

It's a sad comment on how selfish and introspective the western world is today. I'm going to abort [kill] this unborn baby because to have a child would be an inconvenience to me. How did this ever become a normal and acceptable point of view?! If you can't afford a child you can claim child support allowance (http://www.customerserviceguru.co.uk/csa-contact-number/) and if you just genuinely cannot look after it, put the child up for adoption. Life is not something which we as humans have the right to decide to take away.

Aborted Fetus said...

humans are far from endangered

Annoymous said...

yes but it relies entirely on the woman to exist so without her it is nothing and if she does not want to sustain another life form she should not have to

Annoymous said...

Yeah because of racism. They actually had lives, personalities, friends and families. They were more than just technically human they were individuals. Thats the difference.

Annoymous said...

It cannot think or move. It cannot exist beyond the body of the woman it is inside. How is that a human? Beyond it having the correct number of chromosomes? And what is so great about being human what puts human life above the lives of animals if it is not our ability to think and interact with each other to feel and love, a cluster of cells cannot do that. In the early stages of pregnancy that is all the fetus is.

Seriously Woman said...

No. Having a face doesn't make you a person. Animals have faces.

Spock said...

Your arguments are illogical.

Baby got Bumped said...

If someone doesn't want to be pregnant then they shouldn't have to be. The organism inside of them is draining them of oxygen and nutrients and water to sustain itself and it cannot live outside of it's host. It disables it's host body and causes months of discomfort and vomiting, and finally resulting in a life long responsibility. But because this organism happens to have 46 chromosomes its not a parasitic organism?

Im a coat hanger said...

No you should not because your toddler is a person on their own. Who has a personality, thoughts and feelings however rudimentary. He can survive outside of someone elses body which is the point you are missing. He is fully his own person not just a part of someone elses. And who are you to tell people they cannot remove a part of their body that will cause discomfort and possible danger for them.

Virginia said...

Actually no it was not. You can revoke consent in the middle of sex. Do you want to know why? Because it's her body. She has the right to say what goes into her body. She did not say yes to having a baby inside her.
If you pretend to have a condom on while having sex with a woman it is a kind of rape and can be prosecuted, even though the penis was allowed in it had to follow the rules. My vagina my rules.

Use a Rubber said...

I agreed with everything until you said consenting to pregnancy. If you have sex using multiple forms of contraception you are clearly saying no to pregnancy.

We all want the number of abortions to go down. Our side would preach contraception instead of abstinence because no matter what people will have sex. You can't stop it.


Just because people have sex it doesn't mean they want a child. Why don't we work on stopping more conceptions as an option?

Sorry Bro said...

Yes the mans rights are often brushed over. The only decision he gets to make is to have sex with a woman. What happens from then on he has no say in unless the woman lets him. As it should be because it is her body. He does not have to carry the baby to term if he wants her to keep it she does and then another person exists, who she will inevitably love but will not want. It does suck for the man but its necessary.

Sorry Mate said...

It is unfortunate for the father. Some men want the pregnancy to continue and it is terminated. Some wish it hadn't and then have to step up and be fathers or back away and be dead-beat dads. But it is not his body. He does not have a parasitic organism living inside of him that he will have to painfully push out of a very sensitive area. After that baby is born he should get to see this little person that he helped create. If he is expected to pay the woman child support he should get a say in how that child is raised.

Get your head out of your arse said...

Would you not agree that abortion is a consequence? Why do you want unwanted children brought into the world? Do you even care about their feelings? The pain they would feel knowing that if their mother could have gotten rid of them they would have? Or adopted children? No matter how much they love the parents that raised them they will always know that there was a woman out there that after growing them for 9 months just walked away. Pro-Life does not automatically support children. You don't care what happens to them after they get out of the womb just as long as they do.

Respect said...

Yes!

If you want to use your body to grow another human then have at it but don't force your choice onto others.

Its not a baby its a goat said...

When it can live outside of another person. When it can be a person on its own, a little person. Who can have conscious thoughts, breath, love, feel, want things. A newborn can do all those things.

I think late term abortions are mostly wrong because that fetus could have been survived, with help as a newborn outside of the womb but early on its just a zygote.

J. Christ said...

Leave religion out of it not everyone shares your religion. Its your religion and therefore you have to follow it no one else.
I think we should focus on the children we already have. They need your help more than the unborn. Instead you'd rather there were more children in need of loving homes and force women who find themselves pregnant to keep incubating a clump of cells until it becomes a person.
Why don't we help the poor become less poor instead of increasing their numbers. Because lets face it most women who are not in the right place in their life to have a child are poor.

J. Christ said...

That exactly.

You a stupid hoe said...

But how are already born children infringing on the mothers right to choose what is inside her uterus?


Idiot.

Recondaddy said...

Where did I mention my religion? I believe that the post to which you responded was founded upon the common morality of human rights that even atheists affirm. Try again.

You said:
"I think we should focus on the children we already have. They need your help more than the unborn."

False dichotomy. That's like saying, "I think I should focus on my three-year old and kill my 21-month old, because my 3-year old is a special needs child who needs more help than his brother." Responsible people care for ALL their children -- even the unborn ones. It's called being a grown up.

You said:
"Instead you'd rather there were more children in need of loving homes..."

So, what you're saying is that a violent death is preferable to the POSSIBILITY of being born into a less-than-loving home. If that's the case, then why not dismember and crush the skulls of born children who are ALREADY living in such conditions?

"...and force women who find themselves pregnant to keep incubating a clump of cells until it becomes a person."

Newsflash: YOU'RE a clump of cells, as well. The only difference between adult-you and unborn-you is the stage of development. And, by the way, it's a person as soon as it's a distinct human being. Have you ever met a human being who wasn't a person?

You asked:
"Why don't we help the poor become less poor instead of increasing their numbers."

Agreed, but instead of focusing our cannons on the unborn, why not start with the really old? After all, they're just as useless (in your world that ranks human beings according to function) as the unborn. Why not brutally murder the really old poor people, first?

You said:
"Because lets face it most women who are not in the right place in their life to have a child are poor."

Trust me, I know. My mother was the 16-year old daughter of a pig farmer when I was conceived. I never had two pennies to rub together, until I was 32 years old.

However, you continue to assert your belief that death is preferable to poverty. As such, until you are ready to justify killing BORN children who are living in impoverished conditions, your "final solution" is nothing but a smokescreen -- a pitifully crafted excuse to justify abortion-on-demand.

argent said...

You replied to a 7-months-old comment in order to address 0 of my points. Why.

Donald Dodson III said...

I am not saying that we shouldn't work at stopping conceptions, My point is that there is no 100% effective form of contraceptive, except the A word, and so you have sex know their is a risk of pregnancy, no matter how small.

You may not want a child, but you still took the chance, again no matter how small, to create one.

If you have a contraceptive that is 100%, then by all means use that, and there would be no pregnancy for us to worry about.

We may not want the consequences of our actions, but we still have to be responsible for them.

No. said...

No. No, no, no, no, no.
Not how it works buddy.

No no. said...

If pro-lifers were consistent then they would not be killing people at abortion clinics.
The movements are never going to have everyone agreeing with everything because people are different. You talk as if we should blindly agree with people we share a label with.

The Denver Diamond said...

Agreed. If a man states he has no interest in being a father dont force it on him. He has the right to say no. However if he says yes he must stick with it. You cant just be like "I didn't realize having a baby would be so hard. I change my mind"

materetmagistra said...

@"How is that a human?"

Huh?

Have you forgotten basic Biology?

If an organism has a human genome, it is a human being.

@"...a cluster of cells cannot do that. In the early stages of pregnancy that is all the fetus is...."



Again, science verifies that what is living and growing is NOT simply a "cluster of cells" but a complete, functioning ORGANISM. In truth - the ONLY organism that will mature into a "thinking, feeling, interacting" human being IS an immature HUMAN BEING.

At fertilization, a complete human organism has beginning. As human beings, we understand through our reason that HUMAN BEINGS hold fundamental HUMAN RIGHTS simply by virtue of their humanity. Note: Human Rights are not reserved for MATURE human beings - they are held by ALL human beings regardless of age or level of maturity. Hope that helps.

conversate said...

An embryo is mindless tissue

880leewoo said...

Love it! Very interesting topics, I hope the incoming comments and suggestion are equally positive. Thank you for sharing this information that is actually helpful.


matreyastudios
matreyastudios.com

Baby Got Bumped said...

Didn't I? You said consent to sex = consent to pregnancy. That is stupid.

Use a Rubber said...

My vagina my rules.

jenniferlyn said...

I laughed so hard
@ your comment that I spit my diet coke on my tablet!

Charles said...

A fetus is the beginning of a human it's not fully human yet and I rather a women abort a fetus than being a child into the world and she don't take care of it

Charles said...

I've Seen a ultrasound and when they are pretty much a fully formed baby is totally different from a fetus that's 2wks old so there is a big difference and to be honest it is a lump of cells in the beginning the thing is people make a emotional decision about that lump of cells instead of a rational one

Charles said...

Dude your preaching the truth these people are overly emotional and religious and don't understand basic science a fetus is not technically a human being yet hell the fetus of a cat and human look the same in the beginning it's just the basic makeup of mammals

secularprolife.org said...

babies aren't even a human life in my eyes untill their mature enough to be able to consciously remember why their here and what their name is abortion should be allowed and fathers should have the right to walk away? the female had just as much to do with it just as much as the father did

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 347 of 347   Newer› Newest»