"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Why would the taxpayers be stuck with the bill? Babies are easy to adopt out. It's older kids the state gets stuck with.

 

[Tmy]

Why would the taxpayers be stuck with the bill? Babies are easy to adopt out. It's older kids the state gets stuck with.

Cause if mom has a kid and gets no help from dad theres a good chance she'll end up on wellfare! Thats basically what wellfare is for. To help out poor parents. People without kids really dont qualify for much state aid.

States all have child support departments that hunt down deadbeats. The idea is that if mom gets support, she then doesnt need the taxpayer wellfare.

Why would mom adopt the kid out anyway?? She wont abort it, you think shes gonna give it up for adoption.

 

[jj]

Why would mom adopt the kid out anyway?? She wont abort it, you think shes gonna give it up for adoption.

I can't answer for the mom, but I know quite a few children who were adopted as newborns, so it's not at all unheard of you know. In fact, you ought to check out some numbers before you keep blasting away.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

TI cant see why so many people are cool wh a dad opting out of his financail responsibilty. Its bad public policy. Sort of like allowing people to just opt opt of paying taxes. The burnden will just move to the other taxpayers.

You are begging the question, which is whether the child is the father's financial responsibility in the first place.

If the father indicates they want nothing to do with it, early enough in proceedings that the fetus is still clearly a fetus, then maybe any child that results is not their financial responsibility.

Cause if mom has a kid and gets no help from dad theres a good chance she'll end up on wellfare! Thats basically what wellfare is for. To help out poor parents. People without kids really dont qualify for much state aid.

Maybe if the mother cannot afford to raise a child, she should abort or put the child up for adoption?

Why would mom adopt the kid out anyway?? She wont abort it, you think shes gonna give it up for adoption.

Some people don't want a child, but their religious beliefs forbid abortion.

 

[chris epic]

Who said something like, in a good compromise, neither side is happy with the result?

Actually, I did last week:

Honestly, either way you look at it, what ever the solution or compromise, someone is going to feel submissive and powerless. Should we then be "chivalrous" and say "ladies first"? because I think that sounds condesending and undermines the feminist spirit behind Roe v Wade and women's rights in general.

 

[chris epic]

In this case Mr. No-Birthcontrol wants all the advantages of free willy sex but none of the dangers. Booo F'n Hooo.

C'mon. That's EXACTLY how women, that use abortion as just another contraceptive, think. The whole point is that there is a gross double standard that exists and a failure for people to see that and equilize it.

 

[chris epic]

The fetus is not a human. Dad's dont pay "fetus support".

The fetus IS human, just not a citizen of a country. The father doesn't have to pay "fetus" support, the mother does, and the "western union wire" is an ambilical chord.

 

[jj]

The fetus IS human, just not a citizen of a country. The father doesn't have to pay "fetus" support, the mother does, and the "western union wire" is an ambilical chord.

You assert that the fetus is human.

Please explain how you can determine this in a fashion that does not make a placenta a human.

 

[chris epic]

Sorry I'm responding consecutively- alots been said since my post yesterday and I'm really into this issue.

The strawman is that the father is some sort of victim. The baby is the real victim.

The kid is his responsibilty. Why should the child suffer? he did no wrong, even if mom did (ex, lying to her partner that she was on the pill). THe kid has a right to have a dad, be his heir, and be supported. The child is the victim if his parents can financially abort him.

You're exactly right, Tmy- the child that is born should not have to suffer because dad is trying to make a point but that doesn't excuse the fact that this point is extremely valid. Therefore, if a father had the right to protect his child in utero from the mother aborting it then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

You know what this is? Its all kinda sickening. People that want to terminate their parental rights, men and women both (and not in all situations, but most) just don't want to take any responsibility for their actions and as long as we keep dehumanizing feti, then we'll start to dehumanize born babies more and more and this whole thing will spiral out of control.

 

[JamesDillon]

You assert that the fetus is human.

Please explain how you can determine this in a fashion that does not make a placenta a human.

Perhaps, that the fetus is an indepedent organism, whereas the placenta is merely a tissue that lacks the potential to survive independently?

Whatever position you take on the abortion issue, I find it hard to fathom the idea that a fetus is anything but a member of the human species. You can argue about whether it is a "person," since that word has a somewhat more metaphysical connotation, but how can an organism with human DNA be anything but a member of the species homo sapiens?


chris epic wrote:

You know what this is? Its all kinda sickening. People that want to terminate their parental rights, men and women both (and not in all situations, but most) just don't want to take any responsibility for their actions and as long as we keep dehumanizing feti, then we'll start to dehumanize born babies more and more and this whole thing will spiral out of control.

That's a classic slippery slope fallacy, and there's absolutely no basis in the history of legal abortion to support the idea that the practice leads to the "dehumanization" of babies.

That said, you do make a valid point that pro-choice advocates often hide behind the euphemism that a fetus is not a human being. As I noted above, I think that's a cop-out to shield one's conscience from the full implications of legalized abortion. Personally, I favor legalized abortion because I don't believe there's anything sacred about human life, and that society runs more smoothly if adults have some freedom of choice about whether or not to bring a child into the world. But I don't kid myself that abortion is anything other than the termination of a human life.

 

[chris epic]

You assert that the fetus is human.

Please explain how you can determine this in a fashion that does not make a placenta a human.

at the moment of conception a fetus has everything it needs to further its growth as a human with the exception of the nutrients the mother provides. No, the fetus can't live on it's own without the mother- but say the baby is 3 months premature- it can live outside the womb with medical attention. Besides "viable" isn't a very good definition of human being because even a healthy baby born on time still can't survive on it's own.

Here's kind of a weird analogy- Say I'm 7 years old- I don't have the "equipment" needed to procreate, does that make me any less human or just underdeveloped?

 

[chris epic]

In addition to my arguement that a fetus is human:

Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 1981 reads:

"Physicians, biologists and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being--a being is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

 

[chris epic]

You can argue about whether it is a "person," since that word has a somewhat more metaphysical connotation, but how can an organism with human DNA be anything but a member of the species homo sapiens?

PRecisely, James, for example- the United States Constitution defines a "person" as being born but in places like Japan, they mark birth at conception. So to stray away from philosophy we have to look at the biology of it and the biology says life starts at conception.

On the "slippery slope" - you're right, that one was fueled a little more on emotion- but it is obvious that if science says life starts at conception then to believe otherwise is dehumanization by definition.

 

[jj]

at the moment of conception a fetus has everything it needs to further its growth as a human with the exception of the nutrients the mother provides.

So, the chemical gradients and feedback from the womb and the mom that are pretty well known to help the fetus tell "inside" from "outside", "top" from "bottom" and the like, and orient development, have been refuted?

I'll grant you a 3rd trimster fetus is a human. If you look in other threads you'll find I'm comfortable with that, but your argument that all a blastula or a fertilized egg needs is nutrients goes against what I know about fetal development. Could you explain?

 

[Tmy]

This thread isnt really about abortion or when a fetus zygote or whatever is a person. We can go in all sorts of angles and theres been many o thread about those issues

Its about child support and who should foot the bill for the kid. So forgetting all the pro-anti abortion gripes, do you think dads should be able to opt out of providing for the kid?? Is that opt out fair to the child and soceity?

 

[jj]

On the "slippery slope" - you're right, that one was fueled a little more on emotion- but it is obvious that if science says life starts at conception then to believe otherwise is dehumanization by definition.

Oddly, that's not what I see science arguing. Could you please cite some modern references that show that all of the understanding involving the feedback between mom and offspring guides early deveopment was somehow wrong?

If it's NOT wrong, then the fertilized egg, by itself, does NOT have the ability to become a fullgrown aby.

 

[chris epic]

JJ, I'll be happy to argue with you in the science forum. This thread isn't the appropriate place for that.

And I really don't think this is completely about a fathers' desire to terminate his parental rights. The article that was posted was about a father wanting to terminate his parental rights since it is legal for a mother to terminate her parental rights. Therefore, I believe this thread is about FATHERS' RIGHTS weather it be to bar the abortion of his child or "potential child" or to end his parental rights.

 

[mumblethrax]

you're right, that one was fueled a little more on emotion- but it is obvious that if science says life starts at conception then to believe otherwise is dehumanization by definition.

Dehumanizing means something quite different from denying membership in the human species; it specifically has to do with depriving someone of those qualities which are characteristic of humans, which fetuses happen to lack.

 

[Tmy]

JJ, I'll be happy to argue with you in the science forum. This thread isn't the appropriate place for that.

And I really don't think this is completely about a fathers' desire to terminate his parental rights. The article that was posted was about a father wanting to terminate his parental rights since it is legal for a mother to terminate her parental rights. .

Getting an abortion isnt terminating rights. Its ending the potential human. Sure the result is that she wont have a child, but thats the same result if the guy gets snipped. They are both medical proceadures that prevent an unwanted child.

 

[chris epic]

Getting an abortion isnt terminating rights. Its ending the potential human. Sure the result is that she wont have a child, but thats the same result if the guy gets snipped. They are both medical proceadures that prevent an unwanted child.

How so? To relinquish your responsibility of parent hood is to terminate your parental rights. The same goes for adoption or for a young, unwed teen father forgetting to sign a registry that enables his parental rights.