Support NeoGAF

[goomba]

Couldn't the father legally abandon all his rights to the child?

Yes he can, but he is still liable for child support anyway!. Meanwhile, women can abort, adopt out or abandon babies to a hospital anonymously. No questions asked, no financial liabilities.

Men are the only ones who can be forced into parenthood, even if they choose not to be involved in the childs life, they will know the child exists and this would be an emotional drain in itself as well as the financial costs.

 

[Zoe]

Men are the only ones who can be forced into parenthood, even if they choose not to be involved in the childs life, they will know the child exists and this would be an emotional drain in itself as well as the financial costs.

What you're describing is an emotion drain from having to pay for something he doesn't want. If he was truly emotional about having a child, then he would be willing to offer financial support.

 

[JayDubya]

On this point, doesn't abolition essentially force a woman to provide life support to the fetus? I'm not familiar with the actual medical procedure, but I do know that all that is necessary to abort a fetus is to remove it from its mother. Wouldn't that fall under removing a positive as apposed to adding a negative?

On those grounds, it doesn't seem fair to force a mother to maintain life support - at significant physical cost - for a fetus.

a) In 99.x% of the cases, she put him / her there.
b) The process of abortion involves physical trauma
c) Even if it didn't, such a removal and subsequent death from lack of O2 would constitute parental negligence.

 

[numble]

WAMP ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IS0PJdE0Cs

 

[Keylime]

WAMP ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IS0PJdE0Cs

Uh...yeah...

Way too extreme, but I guess it gets the point across. Maybe the only way to get this line of thinking out there is to rape some pro-lifers?

...nah that probably doesn't make sense and may be illegal?

 

[JayDubya]

Disgusting, manipulative ad; the argument is that the matter should be returned to the states, and pre-Roe, whether I agree with it or not, Texas (the state which had its laws unjustly overturned in that case) had a rape exception.

 

[numble]

Disgusting, manipulative ad; the argument is that the matter should be returned to the states, and pre-Roe, whether I agree with it or not, Texas (the state which had its laws unjustly overturned in that case) had a rape exception.

Wait, all this time we've just been arguing whether or not the individual states should make the distinction between a fetus and a human?

 

[JayDubya]

Wait, all this time we've just been arguing whether or not the individual states should make the distinction between a fetus and a human?

That's realistically "what's at stake" barring a Constitutional Amendment, yeah.

 

[numble]

That's realistically "what's at stake" barring a Constitutional Amendment, yeah.

So all the fetus/cells/human/murder/choice/health stuff is just ancillary junk that's unnecessarily filling up this thread?

 

[JayDubya]

So all the fetus/cells/human/murder/choice/health stuff is just ancillary junk that's unnecessarily filling up this thread?

Absolutely not, but what are you getting at?

 

[pxleyes]

Disgusting, manipulative ad; the argument is that the matter should be returned to the states, and pre-Roe, whether I agree with it or not, Texas (the state which had its laws unjustly overturned in that case) had a rape exception.

No, Sarah Palin's position is pretty clear on the subject, and she does not want to give anyone the right to have an abortion.

 

[numble]

Absolutely not, but what are you getting at?

If what is realistically "at stake" is just a question of federalism, why is it okay to invoke murderers, homicide, human being, slavery, life, potential, etc, but not the emotionally hyperbolic claims on the opposing side?

 

[Branduil]

"I didn't have a choice about being raped so I should get to choose to murder my baby."

What wonderful logic they present. They truly are fighting for a better world.

 

[JayDubya]

No, Sarah Palin's position is pretty clear on the subject, and she does not want to give anyone the right to have an abortion.

And she's absolutely right, but as Vice President, she would have zero say re: the appointment of Supreme Court justices which is the only way anything can be done on this issue.

They truly are fighting for a better world.

"All of them. Better worlds."

 

[numble]

"I didn't have a choice about being raped so I should get to choose to murder my baby."

What wonderful logic they present. They truly are fighting for a better world.

Would you support a ban on abortion in your state but the legalization of abortion in the states that surround it?

 

[faceless007]

"I didn't have a choice about being raped so I should get to choose to murder my baby."

What wonderful logic they present. They truly are fighting for a better world.

Since you put that in quotes, I trust you can provide an actual pro-choice woman who has said that.

 

[JayDubya]

Since you put that in quotes, I trust you can provide an actual pro-choice woman who has said that.

Watch the video? (Albeit with equivocation)

 

[Keylime]

I really don't get it.

If your mother or sister was raped mercilessly and were emotionally destroyed, you would tell them to suffer another 9 months with their attackers baby?

Really? REALLY?!

You're less human than the aborted cells and fetuses if so.

 

[kame-sennin]

a) In 99.x% of the cases, she put him / her there.
b) The process of abortion involves physical trauma
c) Even if it didn't, such a removal and subsequent death from lack of O2 would constitute parental negligence.

a) Immaterial. If there was a child on life support, the parent would have the right to remove life support regardless of the circumstances that caused the child to initially be put on life support - barring assault, criminal negligence, ect.

b) I'll concede this point.

c) See counter-point 'a'. The parent of a minor has the right to remove life support. I don't believe the state can order the parents of a terminally ill child to provide life support at financial cost. Similarly, I don't think the state should be able to order the mother to provide life support for a fetus at physical cost.

 

[chaostrophy]

Jay,

Do you see the law as something that should be based entirely on an internally consistent ethical code, rather than something meant to improve the lives of the society that creates it? No one old enough to think about the laws, vote, or otherwise contribute to society is personally in danger of being aborted.

My argument was basically this: (and I don't believe you responded to it, possibly because a mod shut down the discussion). Society punishes murder because being murdered is a possible end for anyone, so everyone has an interest in using harsh punishments to both deter potential murderers and keep convicted murderers from killing more people. But nobody alive and able to contribute to society or debate or form opinions on laws is in any danger of being aborted.

The other reason is to provide some sense of closure and justice for those who had a personal relationship of some kind with the murder victim. But the only person a fetus has any kind of contact or possible relationship with prior to being born is the mother. So if the mother chooses abortion there's no point in society stepping in on behalf of that relationship.

 

[pxleyes]

And she's absolutely right, but as Vice President, she would have zero say re: the appointment of Supreme Court justices which is the only way anything can be done on this issue.

:lol :lol :lol

 

[Branduil]

I really don't get it.

If your mother or sister was raped mercilessly and were emotionally destroyed, you would tell them to suffer another 9 months with their attackers baby?

Really? REALLY?!

You're less human than the aborted cells and fetuses if so.

Why is it more human to say that a baby should die for the sins of others?

 

[Keylime]

Why is it more human to say that a baby should die for the sins of others?

Answer my question and then I'll answer yours.

 

[Branduil]

Answer my question and then I'll answer yours.

Why are you interested in the answers of subhuman monsters?

 

[Keylime]

Why are you interested in the answers of subhuman monsters?

Answer the question.

 

[Branduil]

Answer the question.

Your "question" is the equivalent of asking someone "are you still beating your wife?"

 

[Keylime]

Your "question" is the equivalent of asking someone "are you still beating your wife?"

Answer...the...question.

 

[Branduil]

Answer...the...question.

I don't have anything to say to you if you are unable to discuss things in a civil manner.

 

[faceless007]

Why is it more human to say that a baby should die for the sins of others?

It shouldn't. But since a fetus isn't a baby that's irrelevant.

If you can self-righteously assert it without justification so can I.

 

[Keylime]

I don't have anything to say to you if you are unable to discuss things in a civil manner.

:lol

Excellent defense. Why is that question so offensive, and what is wrong with me asking you to answer a simple yes/no question?

 

[JayDubya]

You're less human than the aborted cells and fetuses if so.

One more time for the groundlings in the cheap seats (the ones flinging stuff at the stage);

The act of rape is aggressive and terrible, the perpetrator of rape has violently violated the rights of another individual. They deserve harsh punishment; their sentencing is too light as is, as it is for all serious, violent criminals.

In the fraction of a percent that is rape pregnancies, the above says nothing about the innocent living human being who has no culpability for the actions of their father, and we are not so ignorant to presume that the child is evil by nature de facto as commonly believed in less reasonable times. Furthermore, there is a humane alternative to abortion that does not involve killing anyone.

In short, adding aggressive homicide to the situation does not in anyway add justice, it merely piles on additional victims.

 

[Branduil]

:lol

Excellent defense. Why is that question so offensive, and what is wrong with me asking you to answer a simple yes/no question?

You're not that dense. You said "You're less human than the aborted cells and fetuses if[ you disagree with me]." Why are you shocked that that's offensive?

 

[Keylime]

One more time for the groundlings in the cheap seats (the ones flinging stuff at the stage);

The act of rape is aggressive and terrible, the perpetrator of rape has violently violated the rights of another individual. They deserve harsh punishment; their sentencing is too light as is, as it is for all serious, violent criminals.

In the fraction of a percent that is rape pregnancies, the above says nothing about the innocent living human being who has no culpability for the actions of their father, and we are not so ignorant to presume that the child is evil by nature de facto as commonly believed in less reasonable times. Furthermore, there is a humane alternative to abortion that does not involve killing anyone.

In short, adding aggressive homicide to the situation does not in anyway add justice, it merely piles on additional victims.

So your answer to my question is...?

 

[JayDubya]

You're not that dense. You said "You're less human than the aborted cells and fetuses if[ you disagree with me]." Why are you shocked that that's offensive?

Especially when we know he knew that we disagreed with him, because he can read.

So your answer to my question is...?

Suddenly I think my previous statement has fallen under significant scrutiny.

 

[faceless007]

You said his question was offensive. His calling you that was not part of the question.

 

[Keylime]

Why can no one answer my question :lol

Yes or no?

 

[Branduil]

You said his question was offensive. His calling you that was not part of the question.

Semantics. It was directly connected to that question, he could have rephrased it as "do you agree with me or are you a subhuman monster?"

That's not a legitimate question, it's an insult masked behind a disingenuously asked query.

 

[JayDubya]

I suppose the answer would have to be "No," if we were being literal, because we would not say "Hey, you have to suffer 9 more months with your attackers baby! Now make me some pie!"

However, in a more general sense I would not encourage anyone to have an abortion and would dissuade it to the greatest extent possible whenever possible in any circumstance.

 

[Keylime]

Semantics. It was directly connected to that question, he could have rephrased it as "do you agree with me or are you a subhuman monster?"

That's not a legitimate question, it's an insult masked behind a disingenuously asked query.

So the fact that I told you my opinion of my guess at your answer means that my question is now less valid?

Please answer the question, yes or no.

 

[numble]

One more time for the groundlings in the cheap seats (the ones flinging stuff at the stage);

The act of rape is aggressive and terrible, the perpetrator of rape has violently violated the rights of another individual. They deserve harsh punishment; their sentencing is too light as is, as it is for all serious, violent criminals.

In the fraction of a percent that is rape pregnancies, the above says nothing about the innocent living human being who has no culpability for the actions of their father, and we are not so ignorant to presume that the child is evil by nature de facto as commonly believed in less reasonable times. Furthermore, there is a humane alternative to abortion that does not involve killing anyone.

In short, adding aggressive homicide to the situation does not in anyway add justice, it merely piles on additional victims.

But, since what's "at stake" here is a question of federalism, you would agree that the pre-Roe law of Texas, which allows rape exceptions, is a justly created law.

 

[JayDubya]

But, since what's "at stake" here is a question of federalism, you would agree that the pre-Roe law of Texas, which allows rape exceptions, is a justly created law.

It's imperfect, but it's better than the current federal dictate by SCotUS fiat.

 

[kame-sennin]

You're not that dense. You said "You're less human than the aborted cells and fetuses if[ you disagree with me]." Why are you shocked that that's offensive?

Why don't you answer the question and explain why his assertion is wrong, assuming you feel that way? I think the question, regardless of the accusations (which I do not agree with) that may have been attached, is relevant.

 

[chaostrophy]

I really don't get it.

If your mother or sister was raped mercilessly and were emotionally destroyed, you would tell them to suffer another 9 months with their attackers baby?

Actually, asking this question lets the pro-lifers off too easy, since they're proposing law that applies to everyone, not just saying they personally find abortion repugnant. The better question would be "if your mother or sister was raped mercilessly and were emotionally destroyed, and lived under a government that treated abortion as murder, and went out and got an abortion anyway due to being traumatized, and were caught, and faced decades of imprisonment or execution, would you serve as a character witness, or in any way do what you could to reduce their sentence? Or would you just tell them to suck it up, they did the crime so they have to pay the price?" But asking that would be uncouth, wouldn't it? Too extreme, and all that.

Why is it more human to say that a baby should die for the sins of others?

Not going to touch the question of whether pro-lifers or pro-choicers are "more human", it's kind of a pointless one. But when it comes to personal empathy, I know people who have been victims of rape, including my wife. I understand that I, or people I care about, may be raped at some point in the future, although because of my sex I won't get pregnant if I'm raped. But I don't have any personal connection with someone who's alive because their parents were legally prohibited from having an abortion, and neither myself nor anyone I care about is in danger of being aborted. So the rape victim gets my empathy, over the fetus.

 

[Keylime]

I suppose the answer would have to be "No," if we were being literal, because we would not say "Hey, you have to suffer 9 more months with your attackers baby! Now make me some pie!"

However, in a more general sense I would not encourage anyone to have an abortion and would dissuade it to the greatest extent possible whenever possible in any circumstance.

Thank you. This is all I was asking.

I agree completely that no one would phrase it that way, and I'm sure you understood that (as you've shown that you can interpret your own message without using someone's exact words).

Watch the video? (Albeit with equivocation)

While I hear you, I just can't understand how you could possibly tell someone who was raped that their opinion about what to do with their unwanted child should not be their choice.

I think the answer in this scenario is that you need to accept the choice of the person, even if you disagree.

 

[JayDubya]

I think the answer in this scenario is that you need to accept the choice of the person, even if you disagree.

No. Because you're just compounding the tragedies.

 

[Keylime]

No. Because you're just compounding the tragedies.

The "tragedy" is relative.

To you it is a tragedy. To the woman it is peace of mind.

 

[Branduil]

Why don't you answer the question and explain why his assertion is wrong, assuming you feel that way? I think the question, regardless of the accusations (which I do not agree with) that may have been attached, is relevant.

I've answered the question before.I don't mind questions, just insults parading themselves as questions. I'm not going to humor RubxQub just so he can feel better about himself.

 

[Keylime]

I've answered the question before.I don't mind questions, just insults parading themselves as questions. I'm not going to humor RubxQub just so he can feel better about himself.

JayDubya is much better at this than you are. I'm not doing this so I can pat myself on the back. I think pushing your moral opinions on others is extremely wrong if both sides have legitimate arguments, and I'm trying to see if you are willing to put yourself in other people's shoes.

 

[Branduil]

JayDubya is much better at this than you are. I'm not doing this so I can pat myself on the back. I think pushing your moral opinions on others is extremely wrong if both sides have legitimate arguments, and I'm trying to see if you are willing to put yourself in other people's shoes.

It's hilarious to see you try to claim the moral high ground after you said that anyone who disagrees with you is subhuman.

I'd love to discuss this issue but I really don't believe you want to. If you did, you wouldn't try to browbeat those who disagree with you.

 

[chaostrophy]

I've answered the question before.I don't mind questions, just insults parading themselves as questions. I'm not going to humor RubxQub just so he can feel better about himself.

That's an answer to a different question: girlfriend vs. sister/mother. You can choose to only date someone who agrees with you on fundamental issues, but family is family regardless of political differences. It's an important distinction in light of the question.