quote Originally posted by cliffw: Should a man have a right to stop the abortion of his child ?

Would anyone like to field this question ?

quote Originally posted by Butter: My friends working together to fix a problem is most always the best approach and in my opinion that is what our government is missing in the way it conducts business.

This is where the problem lies. Republics and Democrats are not friends. They are not even casual acquaintances. They hate each other with level of rage that I can scarcely believe. The vitriolic poison that gets spewed by both parties as they each try to outscrew the citizens like some strange contest is what we have. Look at the percentages for any legislative member. The current system favors the incumbent, and no term limits ensure that they can make careers out of bilking their constituents and beating the system.

Where I see it, the US is like a company coop owned by the citizens. At first we made rules to control the board of directors and the accountants that ran the books. But overtime those people decided that not only were they running the country, they OWN the country and the coop partners are merely an obstacle for the directors to hurdle on their way to doing whatever they see fit. The coop partners are screaming that the company is failing. That the product it makes (which in the US's case is freedom and prosperity) is now so loaded with extra accessories and less quality assurance that the coop partners can no longer benefit from it. Yet the company charter is now intentionally misinterpreted and overruled, and every director we promote to the board is or becomes immediately corrupted by the very system that was supposed to prevent it!

The founding fathers went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the government would be held in check and the country would be run by the people. They wrote documents that were - at the time - the most forward thinking human philosophical pieces ever. They took the thoughts and ideas from people like Calvin, Hobbes (not the cartoon), and Franklin and pushed "hey wouldn't it be great if all people were free" into practical application! That had never been done before, and has never been done again to that scale.

It is heartbreaking and infuriating to realize how far we have fallen as a nation. What is worse is that BOTH SIDES are hopelessly corrupted and confused about which side of the country needs to be above and which side needs to displace water. As a result we are listing further and further towards our own demise.

There is no money right now for Planned Parenthood. There is no money right now for a lot of things. Allow the country to tighten its belt and rely on the impressive awe-inspiring generosity of fellow Americans to rally to their chosen causes to ensure that people those causes help won't be left to suffer from defunding. I can almost guarantee you that everything would be OK if we did this.

This forum is a great cross section of America and the world. There are enough of us here with our own ideas and thoughts that we probably run along the bell curve of American ideals. (Maybe right of center, but that's the nature of the car we all love enough to be here.) What did we as a forum do when Nick needed a laptop? What did we as a forum do when Tyler needed his car finished? When the chips were down and something needed to be done, there were enough people in both instances that cared to make it happen. Did all 20,000 forum members pitch in each time? No. But like America, not *everyone* needs to pitch in to offset defunding of social programs. Only the ones that care. Why do you think MDA has telethons every year?

Sorry for the rant. We are all mad at our politicians for not being able to agree, and this thread illustrates we can't either.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Would anyone like to field this question ?

I'm not scared Cliff, we can field this question without scorn or ridicule, cant we?

Is there any way that man can carry the baby? It would make for a lot easier of an answer. When we get there, my answer is yes if he's willing to allow it to gestate in his body and she was not a rape victim. Until then...

That reminds me of my 9th grade science teacher saying he thought the first man who carries a baby to term and delivered it would probably make some big time $$$. I'm waiting for it... medical tech can accomplish some strange things nowadays, it might happen somewhere down the line.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 02-26-2011).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I'm not scared Cliff, we can field this question without scorn or ridicule, cant we?

Absolutely. Though I can't guarantee emotions might come into play.
We ? Me and you ? I think so. The forum ? I believe so.
A little personal history. After my wife of ten years decided to divorce me, and getting custody of our children, I was devastated and abstinent for about a year. I met a girl who thought I was hot. She seduced me, if willing for sex counts. She found out my history. That I married my wife after she got pregnant. Which I did because I loved her. The vixen got purposely pregnant, hoping I would marry her. Wasn't gonna happen.
I made it clear and she, and her Mom, decided that an abortion would be in the best interest. I couldn't go that route so I pretended like there was a future, to stop the abortion. After the "too late period" I let her know we had no intimate future, though I still stayed in support mode. No abandonment. Eighteen years of child support. I know this woman today and could say we are friends, but not really. I did talk to her today however.
Ok.
Maybe a man can not carry a baby. So what ? Nine months of ... call it what you will ... is nothing compared to eighteen years of child support, personal support for life, with all the problems, drama, worries, happiness, ... gosh, where does the list end ?

quote Originally posted by tbone42: ... if he's willing to allow it to gestate in his body ...

I would cut off my right arm for my daughter. My left arm. Go to jail for her if someone harmed her and I ?had? to.
That is my child in that womb.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I would cut off my right arm for my daughter. My left arm. Go to jail for her if someone harmed her and I ?had? to. That is my child in that womb.

You know, I think me and you have had this conversation before about half a year ago. I value your opinion and candor as much now as I did then. And yeah, I have never seen you get nasty with me even so much as once, even if we haven't agreed or politically see eye to eye. Totally appreciated. That should continue, I value your input on things more than many here. No offense to anyone else.

I believe you being a father is a great thing and I certainly know you care about that girl as much as any human can care for his child. Your situation obviously did not involve the "worst case scenarios" I spoke of earlier, but the mother's intentions were not cool at all. You should not be surprised to find out that I totally agree with what you did in your situation. I am not a fan of "birth control" abortion, or any abortion, really. But I wont tell a mother she has to possibly die to have a child, nor that a rape victim should have to carry a child and be haunted by probably the worst memories of her life. When and if it becomes possible to do something close to "fetal transfers" I believe and hope killing fetuses will be a thing of the past, and then there wont be much outrage over the situation at all.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 02-26-2011).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I value your input on things more than many here.

They don't like me, , , ?
You didn't answer the question.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: They don't like me, , , ? You didn't answer the question.

I meant your input OVER many here.. sorry, poor wording.

Your question of should man have a right to stop the abortion of his child? I thought I already had.. if he didnt rape her and she wont possibly die as a result of complications when carrying to term. (Moreso than normal risk) Yes. I think so, but I dont know what my opinion on that will mean to the law.. likely nothing.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 02-26-2011).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I meant your input OVER many here.. sorry, poor wording.

I was joking. I don't care about them either, .

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Yes. I think so, but I dont know what my opinion on that will mean to the law.. likely nothing.

Yeah, that's the rub I want addressed.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Should a man have a right to stop the abortion of his child ?

Would anyone else like to field this question ?
I find it odd and telling that there are not any more opinions, be it on either side of the question.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 02-27-2011).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Would anyone else like to field this question ? I find it odd and telling that there are not any more opinions, be it on either side of the question.

In theory, a man should have a at least a right to be heard before a judge and present a case against the abortion. In reality, if a woman wants to kill the unborn child in her, she will find a way. To have the greatest chance of a healthy child, a woman has to have a good diet and not do a lot of things that can harm the child. Short of incarcerating someone, there is no way to prevent them from either failing to do what they should or to prevent them from doing things that can harm the child.

I work closely with child welfare social workers. There are certain women that abuse drugs, abuse their children and/or neglect their children so severely that the county takes any future children born at the hospital and places them immediately into foster care. The children are often born addicted to drugs, premature, or screwed up in other ways. One woman said to a social worker I know, "you can't stop me from having babies." To which she replied, "no. But we will be there each time to take the child away from you."

I only post this to be realistic. We have to deal with the real world and not some theoretical world. If a woman is forced to have a child because of the wishes of the father that she likely despises, then she will likely take her anger out on the unborn child. I would still be against abortion even in that case, but I am also a realist. I know what can and will happen in such a situation. I would hope that a woman would not be so spiteful as to harm an innocent child she is carrying and I believe in most cases she won't. I also know that there will be a number of women who will harm the child.

[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 02-27-2011).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Would anyone like to field this question ?

Okay, I think a man should have the opportunity to make his wishes know, but the woman has the overriding decision. It's her body.

Thank you both. Anybody else ?

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 02-27-2011).]

If a man is responsible for his actions nine months later, then he should also have a say what happens during the development of that eventuality. If the responsibility is to be "half" (and, therefore, equal), then that say should, likewise be equal.

quote Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: If a man is responsible for his actions nine months later, then he should also have a say what happens during the development of that eventuality. If the responsibility is to be "half" (and, therefore, equal), then that say should, likewise be equal.

One question for you - what if it were your body, and someone wanted to tell you what to do with it? Would that be okay with you?

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: One question for you - what if it were your body, and someone wanted to tell you what to do with it? Would that be okay with you?

Not quite the same situation. The only thing close to the same situation in the eyes of the anti-abortion side would be if we had a conjoined twin.

Would you have a conjoined twin removed (killed) in order to live a normal life?

[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 03-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Not quite the same situation. The only thing close to the same situation in the eyes of the anti-abortion side would be if we had a conjoined twin. Would you have a conjoined twin removed (killed) in order to live a normal life?

I'm not seeing the correlation to your example. A twin would already be a living intelligent being. A blastocyst or an embryo would not.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: I'm not seeing the correlation to your example. A twin would already be a living intelligent being. A blastocyst or an embryo would not.

In YOUR opinion. That's what this comes down to, really. When is a life considered a life, and worth saving?

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: One question for you - what if it were your body, and someone wanted to tell you what to do with it? Would that be okay with you?

It was her body. She chose to open her legs and let me in.

The proper corollary is the question asked before: Who owns a person and what is that ownership based on; race, social status, location...?

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Would anyone else like to field this question ? I find it odd and telling that there are not any more opinions, be it on either side of the question.

Should a man have the right to stop the abortion of his child?

He should have a say IMO but ultimately it is the mothers body. If that man is not the father however I think he should stay out of it.

quote Originally posted by dsnover: In YOUR opinion. That's what this comes down to, really. When is a life considered a life, and worth saving?

Yeah, had a thread on that a while back, seems it was determined most think it is the moment the child passed the "magic labia". Many including myself disagree.

quote Originally posted by newf: Should a man have the right to stop the abortion of his child? He should have a say IMO but ultimately it is the mothers body. If that man is not the father however I think he should stay out of it.

Same with this. When does the childs life have a right?

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 03-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Same with this. When does the childs life have a right?

I don't know what's your OPINION?

quote Originally posted by newf: I don't know what's your OPINION?

You don't know so you would err on the side of death for the unborn?

quote Originally posted by dsnover: In YOUR opinion. That's what this comes down to, really. When is a life considered a life, and worth saving?

In my opinion, when that life becomes intelligent. However, I value the life of someone already here (the mother) higher than the potential person not yet born.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: You don't know so you would err on the side of death for the unborn?

Not my decision.

quote Originally posted by Flamberge: This is where the problem lies. Republics and Democrats are not friends. They are not even casual acquaintances. They hate each other with level of rage that I can scarcely believe. The vitriolic poison that gets spewed by both parties as they each try to outscrew the citizens like some strange contest is what we have. Look at the percentages for any legislative member. The current system favors the incumbent, and no term limits ensure that they can make careers out of bilking their constituents and beating the system. Where I see it, the US is like a company coop owned by the citizens. At first we made rules to control the board of directors and the accountants that ran the books. But overtime those people decided that not only were they running the country, they OWN the country and the coop partners are merely an obstacle for the directors to hurdle on their way to doing whatever they see fit. The coop partners are screaming that the company is failing. That the product it makes (which in the US's case is freedom and prosperity) is now so loaded with extra accessories and less quality assurance that the coop partners can no longer benefit from it. Yet the company charter is now intentionally misinterpreted and overruled, and every director we promote to the board is or becomes immediately corrupted by the very system that was supposed to prevent it! The founding fathers went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the government would be held in check and the country would be run by the people. They wrote documents that were - at the time - the most forward thinking human philosophical pieces ever. They took the thoughts and ideas from people like Calvin, Hobbes (not the cartoon), and Franklin and pushed "hey wouldn't it be great if all people were free" into practical application! That had never been done before, and has never been done again to that scale. It is heartbreaking and infuriating to realize how far we have fallen as a nation. What is worse is that BOTH SIDES are hopelessly corrupted and confused about which side of the country needs to be above and which side needs to displace water. As a result we are listing further and further towards our own demise. There is no money right now for Planned Parenthood. There is no money right now for a lot of things. Allow the country to tighten its belt and rely on the impressive awe-inspiring generosity of fellow Americans to rally to their chosen causes to ensure that people those causes help won't be left to suffer from defunding. I can almost guarantee you that everything would be OK if we did this. This forum is a great cross section of America and the world. There are enough of us here with our own ideas and thoughts that we probably run along the bell curve of American ideals. (Maybe right of center, but that's the nature of the car we all love enough to be here.) What did we as a forum do when Nick needed a laptop? What did we as a forum do when Tyler needed his car finished? When the chips were down and something needed to be done, there were enough people in both instances that cared to make it happen. Did all 20,000 forum members pitch in each time? No. But like America, not *everyone* needs to pitch in to offset defunding of social programs. Only the ones that care. Why do you think MDA has telethons every year? Sorry for the rant. We are all mad at our politicians for not being able to agree, and this thread illustrates we can't either.

Well Put. I agree with you. I would like to change the change

quote Originally posted by newf: Not my decision.

You would say it is the mothers decision correct?
At which point does she lose that right? After birth? After a certain number of months?
When the child is a certain age? When they reach a certain intelligence?

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy In my opinion, when that life becomes intelligent.

When does life become intelligent? What is your definiton of this?

Here is what the dictionary defines it as:

in·tel·li·gent   /ɪnˈtɛlɪdʒənt/
[in-tel-i-juhnt]

–adjective
1. having good understanding or a high mental capacity; quick to comprehend, as persons or animals: an intelligent student.
2. displaying or characterized by quickness of understanding, sound thought, or good judgment: an intelligent reply.
3. having the faculty of reasoning and understanding; possessing intelligence: intelligent beings in outer space.
4. Computers . pertaining to the ability to do data processing locally; smart: An intelligent terminal can edit input before transmission to a host computer. Compare dumb ( def. 8 ) .
5. Archaic . having understanding or knowledge (usually followed by of ).

Don't we have this capacity from the time before we are actually born? If we didn't, how do we learn? Wouldn't we all just be vegetables then?

quote Originally posted by 2.5: You would say it is the mothers decision correct? At which point does she lose that right? After birth? After a certain number of months? When the child is a certain age? When they reach a certain intelligence?

WTF? I told you it's NOT MY DECISION. If you feel it's yours, have at it.

I have opinions on the matter like many others but please don't try to tell me my opinion is any more right or wrong than yours.

quote Originally posted by newf: What's your point? Did you want to make your opinion about abortion known or are you going to sit on the sidelines and stir the pot as usual?

You brought up intelligence as part of your definition of what is and is not human. It is a fair question to ask exactly how you define what is human level intelligence or in other words what intelligence level qualifies as being human.

quote Originally posted by newf What's your point? Did you want to make your opinion about abortion known or are you going to sit on the sidelines and stir the pot as usual?

My opinion is that it is a very personal decision that a woman has to make, it is her body afterall. If I get a woman pregnant it's because we both agree to her carrying our baby to term. My question is a valid one. I'm trying to find out what intelligence has to do with having an abortion. Why make a baby one isn't gong to want in the first place? Not using contraception is not an intelligent thing to do if one doesn't want to make an unwanted baby in the first place. If one avoids creating an unwanted pregnancy, one will also avoid the moral conflict of deciding to end it or not later. No pregnancy no problem. Happy now?

As for stirring the pot, you should talk so much mister black kettle. You know you are guilty of doing that yourself.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: What's your point? Did you want to make your opinion about abortion known or are you going to sit on the sidelines and stir the pot as usual?

Here's a problem with the argument: Who makes the decision regarding intelligence? Are victims of head trauma, who cannot control their formerly voluntary bodily functions and cannot form coherent sentences intelligent? Stroke trauma? Special needs? Where does this definition lie, and does SCOTUS have the ability to change it as political winds hold sway?

"Not my choice" is a cop out. Is she human or not inside her mother? If so, what makes her life less valuable than her mother's decision? When does she get a say? When is she bestowed the rights to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?" Doesn't our Founding document say that these are bestowed by our Creator - and, therefore, not by Government? Seems Government has interfered with over 53 million lives in the last 38 years....

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: In my opinion, when that life becomes intelligent. However, I value the life of someone already here (the mother) higher than the potential person not yet born.

A drunk driver who causes an accident that results in the death of a fetus can be charged with murder. In your opinion, is this right?

WTF can you people read? Where did I bring up anything about intelligence???

If you guys want to argue abortion please find someone else, I stated my opinion because it was asked I don't care to take it much further, you can all believe what you like I really don't mind.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Here's a problem with your arguement. Who decides indeed? Seems if you don't want Government involved then you shouldn't be able to tell someone what they can or cannot do to their body. Everyone doesn't believe in the same "creator" so why should you impose your beliefs on someone else?

As noted, our Founding Documents presuppose a Creator - God, Zeus, Allah, the Great Green Arkelseizure, whomever (I have my suspicions who it is, though). It has been widely argued that the Founders who wrote these documents, many of them were Deists. I happen to think that the larger majority of people in the USA are Deists, because they act like it. A Deist is someone who believes that God created the world then left it alone to fend for itself. That didn't stop a bunch of learned men to come to the conclusion that the Creator is also an entity who intended for the beings that He created to be free.

Government interfered with "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" when Roe v Wade was handed down. It interfered with the lives of over 53 million people. We should get Government out of this business and out of this decision, and let people live. Unless we'd like to amend the Declaration of Independence.

As I've noted before, I didn't interfere with her choice to spread her legs and let me in and do pushups until I threw up. Why should the government be parcel to continued irresponsibility?

quote Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: As noted, our Founding Documents presuppose a Creator - God, Zeus, Allah, the Great Green Arkelseizure, whomever (I have my suspicions who it is, though). It has been widely argued that the Founders who wrote these documents, many of them were Deists. I happen to think that the larger majority of people in the USA are Deists, because they act like it. A Deist is someone who believes that God created the world then left it alone to fend for itself. That didn't stop a bunch of learned men to come to the conclusion that the Creator is also an entity who intended for the beings that He created to be free. Government interfered with "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" when Roe v Wade was handed down. It interfered with the lives of over 53 million people. We should get Government out of this business and out of this decision, and let people live. Unless we'd like to amend the Declaration of Independence. As I've noted before, I didn't interfere with her choice to spread her legs and let me in and do pushups until I threw up. Why should the government be parcel to continued irresponsibility?

Oh I see so you're pro-choice as long as abortion is not provided by the government, fair enough.

And BTW I know this may be hard for you to believe but all pregnancies aren't always the result of women choosing to spread their legs as you so eloquently put it.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Oh I see so you're pro-choice as long as abortion is not provided by the government, fair enough. And BTW I know this may be hard for you to believe but all pregnancies aren't always the result of women choosing to spread their legs as you so eloquently put it.

No, I'm Pro-Life. I believe that the argument has been framed disingenuously to bend public opinion and no one has reframed the argument effectively for over 30 years. As a result, younger people have grown up believing that the right to a decision is more important than the right of an individual to live. I'm starting by arguing for the 99.4%.

Dr. Stephen Krason writes: "A number of studies have shown that pregnancy resulting from rape is very uncommon. One, looking at 2190 victims, reported pregnancy in only 0.6 percent." (Abortion: Politics, Morality, and the Constitution [Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984], p. 283.) Even then, the ethics are shaky in choosing one person's life over another - the created life did not have any part in the rape; s/he was an unintended consequence. Does that mean that s/he is less valuable?



She is a product of an unintended pregnancy. Is (or was) she worth less than any of my other kids?

[This message has been edited by Patrick's Dad (edited 03-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: No, I'm Pro-Life. I believe that the argument has been framed disingenuously to bend public opinion and no one has reframed the argument effectively for over 30 years. As a result, younger people have grown up believing that the right to a decision is more important than the right of an individual to live. I'm starting by arguing for the 99.4%. Dr. Stephen Krason writes: "A number of studies have shown that pregnancy resulting from rape is very uncommon. One, looking at 2190 victims, reported pregnancy in only 0.6 percent." (Abortion: Politics, Morality, and the Constitution [Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984], p. 283.) Even then, the ethics are shaky in choosing one person's life over another - the created life did not have any part in the rape; s/he was an unintended consequence. Does that mean that s/he is less valuable? She is a product of an unintended pregnancy. Is (or was) she worth less than any of my other kids?

She's super cute but again you are arguing with the wrong person. You are not going to convince me to change my opinion by showing me pics of perfect children that have been born. I told you that I'm pro-choice why not accept it and leave it at that just as I accept you are pro-life.

If you want to argue about the value of life, when it begins and so on I suggest you find someone else.