Who decided that the mother's "rights" outweighed the baby's rights?

[ieffinhatecardio]

Oh my dear friend Cardio....The fact that I don't have a plan for the million babies IS NOT THE MOST VALID POINT. The fact that it is the only thing you can come up with is sad. I don't have a plan for what to do with the homeless but I think something should be done, I don't have a a plan for sending my son to college but I will figure it out. But if you want a plan here it is. My first plan for what to do with the babies (in the US because different solutions need to be looked at otherwise) is to stop women from getting pregnant. I know that millions of babies are aborted, but how many of those million babies are made during drunken lust sessions, pure laziness with contraception, young boys saying "it just feels better without a condom" etc... In all of those millions of instances those people need to be held accountable for their actions, not be able to get away with murder to cover a mistake. Now for all the babies concieved by rape, incest, etc.... the number (in the US) is probably in the low 6 digits at the most. We need to take money that is used in 3rd world countries on programs like Operation New Horizons (google it) and use that money to combat the problem of shortages in places to put "unwanted" kids. It also can be used for my homeless problem and to help lower income families put their kids through college. Now back to those people that are having babies through negligence, again they need to be held accountable. If they abort, charge them and make them do time. If they have the baby but give it up, make them pay child support, there are hundreds of ways to hold someone accountable. If they have more than 2 kids that they have to give up, they are taken to the hospital and it is made sure it won't happen again. The last solution should be to Kill babies and that is what it is, killing. If the women want't to be able to "control" her body, then control it with contraceptives before spreading the legs.

Now, I know deep in your heart it wasn't a "solution" that you are searching for but at the time that was your best comeback. So I have offered. lets see your next "argument"

Your homeless analogy doesn't work because you're not proposing adding millions of new homeless each and every year.

I honestly don't think you're equipped to handle this debate. I say that because you're looking at it through emotions rather than rationale.

For you to spew that the idea of actually having a place for the millions of unwanted babies is sad shows that you're not being logical but instead emotional.

I don't like abortion but I recognize a few things that you seem to dismiss. One, it's not my place to tell a woman what she can do with her body. And yes, until the fetus is an individual according to the law then the mother has control.

The second thing I understand that you don't is that millions of abortions are done each year because those babies are not wanted. If you stop abortions something has to be done with those babies. You seem to dismiss this notion yet it's a fact. Millions of new babies will need love, nurturing and homes.

How will we provide them with these things?

I'll say it again, you want to stop abortions, great, fantastic but we need a workable plan for how to care for those babies. Are you telling me out of all the Pro-Life groups out there a workable solution hasn't been formed?

[militarymuscle69]

Your homeless analogy doesn't work because you're not proposing adding millions of new homeless each and every year.

I honestly don't think you're equipped to handle this debate. I say that because you're looking at it through emotions rather than rationale.

For you to spew that the idea of actually having a place for the millions of unwanted babies is sad shows that you're not being logical but instead emotional.

I don't like abortion but I recognize a few things that you seem to dismiss. One, it's not my place to tell a woman what she can do with her body. And yes, until the fetus is an individual according to the law then the mother has control.

The second thing I understand that you don't is that millions of abortions are done each year because those babies are not wanted. If you stop abortions something has to be done with those babies. You seem to dismiss this notion yet it's a fact. Millions of new babies will need love, nurturing and homes.

How will we provide them with these things?

I'll say it again, you want to stop abortions, great, fantastic but we need a workable plan for how to care for those babies. Are you telling me out of all the Pro-Life groups out there a workable solution hasn't been formed?

You missed the main point of my plan. That was to stop pregnancies, yes there are planned parent hood and what no but people are to lazy to use them. If we enforce punishment for recklessly having unresponsible sex it will not only help the unwanted pregnancy rate but help with the spread of STDs. I have not come at this from an emotional or religious stand point. I HAVE however answered the only argument you can propose. What you fail to do is show me where having a baby on mondya and throwing it in the dumpster on friday is different from aborting a baby. See what you don't understand is I support personal rights. You want to do drugs and ruin your life so be it, you want to take birth control to avoid pregnancy and be able to get banged bareback and contract AIDS, be my guest. But don't not take birth control, get boned, and then force your poor decision onto the baby that comes from it. So see maybe you aren't prepared to debate it because I have shown an answer for your debate. You can't do the same. If my "responsible for your actions" initiative was enforced we wouldn't have millions of babies and then your problem doesn't exist. It is like anything cardio, if you show that there is no recourse for actions the action will continue to be done.

[ieffinhatecardio]

You missed the main point of my plan. That was to stop pregnancies, yes there are planned parent hood and what no but people are to lazy to use them. If we enforce punishment for recklessly having unresponsible sex it will not only help the unwanted pregnancy rate but help with the spread of STDs. I have not come at this from an emotional or religious stand point. I HAVE however answered the only argument you can propose. What you fail to do is show me where having a baby on mondya and throwing it in the dumpster on friday is different from aborting a baby. See what you don't understand is I support personal rights. You want to do drugs and ruin your life so be it, you want to take birth control to avoid pregnancy and be able to get banged bareback and contract AIDS, be my guest. But don't not take birth control, get boned, and then force your poor decision onto the baby that comes from it. So see maybe you aren't prepared to debate it because I have shown an answer for your debate. You can't do the same. If my "responsible for your actions" initiative was enforced we wouldn't have millions of babies and then your problem doesn't exist. It is like anything cardio, if you show that there is no recourse for actions the action will continue to be done.

Enforcing birth control with laws that punish is not a workable plan for many reasons. You haven't answered my question, in fact you've dodged it. All you're doing is evading the real issue.

Defining the difference between an abortion and a mother murdering her baby a week after it was born is rhetoric. It's sensationalized nonsense that has no place in this debate.

This is like debating a teenager that thinks he knows it all but in reality he's not equipped to have a real debate.

[militarymuscle69]

Enforcing birth control with laws that punish is not a workable plan for many reasons. You haven't answered my question, in fact you've dodged it. All you're doing is evading the real issue.

Defining the difference between an abortion and a mother murdering her baby a week after it was born is rhetoric. It's sensationalized nonsense that has no place in this debate.

This is like debating a teenager that thinks he knows it all but in reality he's not equipped to have a real debate.

I am not doding it. Explain why we can't enforce laws on people that are having reckless sex and presenting a drain on the economy? Also the the week old/abortion idea is not nonsense. In both cases a baby is being killed. How is this different?

[Deedee]

I am not doding it. Explain why we can't enforce laws on people that are having reckless sex and presenting a drain on the economy? Also the the week old/abortion idea is not nonsense. In both cases a baby is being killed. How is this different?

Can you plse answer my question, respectfully of course?  If you were walking past a garbage dump and you came across a three day old baby, and something that was essentially this ----> .

...but you could only save one of them, which one would you choose?

[militarymuscle69]

Can you plse answer my question, respectfully of course?  If you were walking past a garbage dump and you came across a three day old baby, and something that was essentially this ----> .

...but you could only save one of them, which one would you choose?

With all do respect Dedee, I find that a silly question. I mean what if I was at a car accident and my wife and kid were in it and could only save one which should I do? save my son because my wife that has lived life to this point, save my wife because we can make another son? See what I am saying? I know you think I should say the 3 day old, but what makes the 3 day old more important than the ----> as you put it. If I had to choose one then I would maybe einy miny mo for it or something because in my eyes they both deserve the chance and I'm not the one to make the decision on who gets it. Then again is there a way to facilitate survival of the fetus? I am guessing you would choose the 3 day old? why?

[Deedee]

By this logic men should give birth to women because man gave life to Eve.     The story of creation does not outline when life starts with a newborn child.  Adam was a man, not a new born child. 

Man did not give life to Eve, and I think it is your logic that is flawed.  However, it was not my intention to quote verse back and forth, although I can give you at least another example which seems to indicate that a living person's life is more important than one that has not been born.

What I was pointing out was that it is not appropriate to bring God into the conversation about abortion because there is nothing in either testament to indicate that God has an opinion either way about abortion.  At best, it would seem that God does not care. During roman times, abortion was legal.

Church doctrine also has no place in the conversation since the rules change with evolving politics and values.  

[Deedee]

With all do respect Dedee, I find that a silly question. I mean what if I was at a car accident and my wife and kid were in it and could only save one which should I do? save my son because my wife that has lived life to this point, save my wife because we can make another son? See what I am saying? I know you think I should say the 3 day old, but what makes the 3 day old more important than the ----> as you put it. If I had to choose one then I would maybe einy miny mo for it or something because in my eyes they both deserve the chance and I'm not the one to make the decision on who gets it. Then again is there a way to facilitate survival of the fetus? I am guessing you would choose the 3 day old? why?

Well it isn't silly and I'm certain there have been people who have had to make a choice... it's feasible for you to be in a car accident and have to choose between wife and child.  But getting back to the ---> versus a living baby, of course I would choose the baby. It's alive and real.  The other is not a viable human being. It doesn't even resemble one in any way.

[militarymuscle69]

Well it isn't silly and I'm certain there have been people who have had to make a choice... it's feasible for you to be in a car accident and have to choose between wife and child.  But getting back to the ---> versus a living baby, of course I would choose the baby. It's alive and real.  The other is not a viable human being. It doesn't even resemble one in any way.

Ok so you save the baby, then find out he is handicapped and must live his life out in assisted living homes at taxpayer cost. Maybe the fetus would have been fine and grown up to support itself.

[Deedee]

Ok so you save the baby, then find out he is handicapped and must live his life out in assisted living homes at taxpayer cost. Maybe the fetus would have been fine and grown up to support itself.

----> .  this cannot be fine or grow up to support itself because it is nothing but a few miscellaneous cells that depend on nourishment from a human being for many months before it becomes something resembling a human being.

Something else to consider while you contemplate forcing women to bear children.

http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/j41/j41chap2_3.shtml

[militarymuscle69]

----> .  this cannot be fine or grow up to support itself because it is nothing but a few miscellaneous cells that depend on nourishment from a human being for many months before it becomes something resembling a human being.

Something else to consider while you contemplate forcing women to bear children.

http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/j41/j41chap2_3.shtml

Whoa Nelly!!! I never said I endorse "forcing" women to bear childern. I did say that if they choose to have reckless, irresponsible sex then they have to pay the consequences. I also laid out options

1. Abort the baby and face charges (murder, manslaughter whatever it would be classified as)
2. Bear the baby, give it up and pay support (can't pay support? I bet most of those mother smoke drink etc...)
3. If you have more than 2 children that you give up and "can't support" then you have your tubes tied
4. Avoid all of this by being responsible and use some sort of birth control.

[Deedee]

Whoa Nelly!!! I never said I endorse "forcing" women to bear childern. I did say that if they choose to have reckless, irresponsible sex then they have to pay the consequences. I also laid out options

1. Abort the baby and face charges (murder, manslaughter whatever it would be classified as)
2. Bear the baby, give it up and pay support (can't pay support? I bet most of those mother smoke drink etc...)
3. If you have more than 2 children that you give up and "can't support" then you have your tubes tied
4. Avoid all of this by being responsible and use some sort of birth control.

I understand that a very hurtful incident from your past has colored your view on this issue, but what you propose here is beyond shocking.

Where does the father come into play?  Since a life cannot be created without the yin and the yang, how does he figure into your equation? For instance, no. 3... if a man fathers two or more children that he refuses to support or abandons, does he get the permanent vasectomy?  4.  What happens if the birth control fails?  No 1.  has already been tried, didn't work. 

It sounds like from your presumption that most of the women who get abortions are drinkers and smokers (of course, all the "bad" women get pregnant out of wedlock ) you should just simply nip the problem in the bud and force all "bad" slash "trailer park" women to undergo government sanctioned hysterectomies and be done with it. Also, since trailer park men are 50% of the problem, they should be required to undergo government sanctioned vasectomies as well.

And btw, in case you don't realize it, you are in favor of forcing women to bear children no matter what the circumstance, even in the case of health risk to the mother. Just look at the title of your thread.

[militarymuscle69]

I understand that a very hurtful incident from your past has colored your view on this issue, but what you propose here is beyond shocking.

Where does the father come into play?  Since a life cannot be created without the yin and the yang, how does he figure into your equation? For instance, no. 3... if a man fathers two or more children that he refuses to support or abandons, does he get the permanent vasectomy?  4.  What happens if the birth control fails?  No 1.  has already been tried, didn't work. 

It sounds like from your presumption that most of the women who get abortions are drinkers and smokers (of course, all the "bad" women get pregnant out of wedlock ) you should just simply nip the problem in the bud and force all "bad" slash "trailer park" women to undergo government sanctioned hysterectomies and be done with it. Also, since trailer park men are 50% of the problem, they should be required to undergo government sanctioned vasectomies as well.

And btw, in case you don't realize it, you are in favor of forcing women to bear children no matter what the circumstance, even in the case of health risk to the mother. Just look at the title of your thread.

What makes you think there was a hurtful incident? In response, I am a deadbeat dad hater. It disgusts me that men don't own up to their responsibilities. I actually pay more in child support than was orderd in my divorce decree. Am I a saint? hell no but I want my son taken care of at expense of my expensive softball habit I have had to cut back on. I directed my post at the female side because everyone elses argument is "woman's rights" The smoke/drink deal wasn't trying to say they are the irresponsible ones. I was trying to say that for everyone that complains they can't pay something (bills, child support, fines etc...) they could cut out things in their life to save money. Now, the medical reasoning. There is only one reason I don't make an exception for the medical and that is the doctor in Kansas/Iowa wherever he was from that was faking medical conditions to legally perform abortions. I have learned that if things aren't black or white some jackass will use the gray area to fuck it up for everyone else. However, I am torn on the idea of allowing rape victims, molested women, incest etc... to abort. I'm not really that cold hearter Dedee. I just hate seeing people go through life making reckless decisions and not having to answer for those decisions. As far as birth control failing, well there is always one kind that is 99.9% succesfull (the .1% was Mary) and that is abstinence. Again if you choose to have sex, be ready for the consequences.

[Deedee]

Wasn't it you who posted that a gf of yours had an abortion without considering you, and that you still think about it? If it is, then I guess that would have something to do with your feelings about whether or not women should continue to enjoy individual freedom and control over their destinies, or not.

However, I am torn on the idea of allowing rape victims, molested women, incest etc... to abort.

If your take is that ----> . this is a viable human life, then you shouldn't be torn either way concerning the above. It's still murder in your eyes. Rape and incest victims should be forced to bear the products of their victimization and according to your rules above, financially responsible for them or risk being severely punished.  You are also of the opinion that any woman who has kidney problems or hypertension, or is severely diabetic... is doodoo outta luck since the -----> . takes precedence over her rights. 

[militarymuscle69]

Wasn't it you who posted that a gf of yours had an abortion without considering you, and that you still think about it? If it is, then I guess that would have something to do with your feelings about whether or not women should continue to enjoy individual freedom and control over their destinies, or not.

If your take is that ----> . this is a viable human life, then you shouldn't be torn either way concerning the above. It's still murder in your eyes. Rape and incest victims should be forced to bear the products of their victimization and according to your rules above, financially responsible for them or risk being severely punished.  You are also of the opinion that any woman who has kidney problems or hypertension, or is severely diabetic... is doodoo outta luck since the -----> . takes precedence over her rights. 

Now come on Dedee, I have always enjoyed debating with you but don't start putting words in my mouth (and it wasn't me with the GF).
In the case of situations where it isn't the woman's fault I am still torn and there is nothing wrong with that. In medical situations I do want to woman to survive and i want the baby to survive. If I can't have both then a decision has to be made. But that is a completely different situation than someone being irresponsible and being allowed to kill to avoid dealing with the consequences. I mean I can't see anywhere that I said rape victims have to "bear the products of their victimization."

[Camel Jockey]

I mean I can't see anywhere that I said rape victims have to "bear the products of their victimization."

What's your opinion regarding abortion when it comes to a rape victim? Do you think a rape victim should be required to give birth, or do believe she has the right to abort the child?

[militarymuscle69]

What's your opinion regarding abortion when it comes to a rape victim? Do you think a rape victim should be required to give birth, or do believe she has the right to abort the child?

covered it earlier but to bring you up to speed I am honestly torn. The part of my objection to abortion where I am 100% against it is when irresponsible people use it to bail them out of their bad decisions. for victims and medical instances, I would like to have the best of both worlds but would not hold it against a woman that was raped and ended up pregnant.

[Deedee]

Now come on Dedee, I have always enjoyed debating with you but don't start putting words in my mouth (and it wasn't me with the GF).
In the case of situations where it isn't the woman's fault I am still torn and there is nothing wrong with that. In medical situations I do want to woman to survive and i want the baby to survive. If I can't have both then a decision has to be made. But that is a completely different situation than someone being irresponsible and being allowed to kill to avoid dealing with the consequences. I mean I can't see anywhere that I said rape victims have to "bear the products of their victimization."

Oops, sorry about that... thought it was you.

I'm trying to see things in a rational way, from your POV and that of Bruce's who claims that as soon as conception occurs, even though it looks like ---> . it is still a baby and therefore has rights.  It would follow that even the ----> . produced by a rapist or an incestuous father is a baby too and therefore shouldn't be punished because the father was a criminal.  By your rules above, the mother should be forced to bear and raise it.

Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else.  Didn't you say that you believe the result of fertilization is a baby from the moment of conception?

[militarymuscle69]

Oops, sorry about that... thought it was you.

I'm trying to see things in a rational way, from your POV and that of Bruce's who claims that as soon as conception occurs, even though it looks like ---> . it is still a baby and therefore has rights.  It would follow that even the ----> . produced by a rapist or an incestuous father is a baby too and therefore shouldn't be punished because the father was a criminal.  By your rules above, the mother should be forced to bear and raise it.

Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else.  Didn't you say that you believe the result of fertilization is a baby from the moment of conception?

Correct, I believe life begins at conception. I have done my best to avoid this but here I go. While my opinion on the issue of abortion is not based on religious aspects, I feel that god would "understand" if a woman was raped/molested/going to die and she had to make a choice. The reason I say this is because there are instances in the Bible that God has condoned murder. Again my opinion on abortion and irresponsible people being made accountable is in no way based on religion. It is based on how I think life should be. Ask any of the guys in my unit under me. I hold everyone accountable and it is a smooth running ship!

[Deedee]

covered it earlier but to bring you up to speed I am honestly torn. The part of my objection to abortion where I am 100% against it is when irresponsible people use it to bail them out of their bad decisions. for victims and medical instances, I would like to have the best of both worlds but would not hold it against a woman that was raped and ended up pregnant.

95% of the women who have abortions are one-timers... that would indicate that most women are not irresponsible.  They made a mistake... once.

If you really want to look at irresponsible people, look at the those who are dirt poor, uneducated, neglectful who have child after child because they're too stupid to take any precaution and because they know the welfare system has to come through and take care of their children for them anyway.

[Deedee]

Correct, I believe life begins at conception. I have done my best to avoid this but here I go. While my opinion on the issue of abortion is not based on religious aspects, I feel that god would "understand" if a woman was raped/molested/going to die and she had to make a choice. The reason I say this is because there are instances in the Bible that God has condoned murder. Again my opinion on abortion and irresponsible people being made accountable is in no way based on religion. It is based on how I think life should be. Ask any of the guys in my unit under me. I hold everyone accountable and it is a smooth running ship!

Oh yes, you're quite right.  God has no problem with executions and encourages them when necessary. For instance, God has clear rules about homosexuality... the acts are deemed an abomination and the guilty are to be executed.  God however, does not say one word about abortion being wrong.  That's why your argument doesn't hold up if you try to impose religion on it.  In fact, there is a passage which states that if a man who is fighting with another man hits a pregnant woman in the stomach and she miscarries, the punishment is a fine to be paid to the husband. Property damage. That's about it.  You are arguing this from the aspect of your "feelings" which are subjective and relate to you only.  That you happen to "think" God understands doesn't quite cut it when you propose to change the lives of millions of women.

[militarymuscle69]

Oh yes, you're quite right.  God has no problem with executions and encourages them when necessary. For instance, God has clear rules about homosexuality... the acts are deemed an abomination and the guilty are to be executed.  God however, does not say one word about abortion being wrong.  That's why your argument doesn't hold up if you try to impose religion on it.  In fact, there is a passage which states that if a man who is fighting with another man hits a pregnant woman in the stomach and she miscarries, the punishment is a fine to be paid to the husband. Property damage. That's about it.  You are arguing this from the aspect of your "feelings" which are subjective and relate to you only.  That you happen to "think" God understands doesn't quite cut it when you propose to change the lives of millions of women.

See, exactly why I tried to avoid religion because you took everything out of context and avoided what I really said. My opinion on why abortion is wrong is not based on religion or emotion. Science has shown fetuses to be "living" beings, similiar to a 1 day old baby. If it is wrong to kill a 1 day old, it is wrong to kill a fetus. All I ask is for consistency in laws. You wanted to know why I was torn on the other issues and I would not hold it against a victim if she aborted a baby. but for the hundreth time, if you have consensual sex, and get pregnant, I'm sorry I think you should be accountable. I will tell my son when the time comes (he is only 7 now) all about sex. I will offer him the protection needed to have safe sex, but he will know that if he gets his dick wet and for some reason the girl ends up pregnant, well he will be working to take care of that child from that day on. Again, no religion, no emotions just pure personal accountability, something that is lacking in the US today.

[Tre]

I'm tired of talking about Iraq. I want to see what people say abou thtis. Who decided that the baby has no rights in the abortion discussion? I thought we were shooting for equal rights for all?

Talk to god about it.

There are more naturally aborted fetuses than there are live births!

[Deedee]

See, exactly why I tried to avoid religion because you took everything out of context and avoided what I really said. My opinion on why abortion is wrong is not based on religion or emotion. Science has shown fetuses to be "living" beings, similiar to a 1 day old baby. If it is wrong to kill a 1 day old, it is wrong to kill a fetus. All I ask is for consistency in laws. You wanted to know why I was torn on the other issues and I would not hold it against a victim if she aborted a baby. but for the hundreth time, if you have consensual sex, and get pregnant, I'm sorry I think you should be accountable. I will tell my son when the time comes (he is only 7 now) all about sex. I will offer him the protection needed to have safe sex, but he will know that if he gets his dick wet and for some reason the girl ends up pregnant, well he will be working to take care of that child from that day on. Again, no religion, no emotions just pure personal accountability, something that is lacking in the US today.

I think it's great that you plan to teach your son to be accountable and the world needs more like that.  Sadly though, you are in the minority, and the majority of women who have abortions do not have men who want to take on their responsibilities. That's why many of these women have abortions.

If you don't mind I'd like to see this science if you can post it.  I personally think you are talking about a fetus in a late term pregnancy.  In the first trimester, this is not an issue. Most countries have regulated access to abortions... late term pregnancy is not a candidate for abortion.

[Cap]

95% of the women who have abortions are one-timers... that would indicate that most women are not irresponsible.  They made a mistake... once.

If you really want to look at irresponsible people, look at the those who are dirt poor, uneducated, neglectful who have child after child because they're too stupid to take any precaution and because they know the welfare system has to come through and take care of their children for them anyway.

Limiting welfare and flooding the poor areas with "precautions" should do it but you can't cure stupid which many times goes in hand with the ghetto/trailer park groups.  Oh, wait.  Was that too politically incorrect?