themistocles

Would pro-abortion opinions agree that killing children is moral because "life is a priviledge/gift" and not a right?

Slavery was an institution in Rome and Greece, should we reinstitute that as well?

themistocles

Responsibility is the "punishment" of living.

If women are apt to beat their children because they know they're too irresponsible to bear them, then they really should not breed...a pro-life position beforehand.

Again, I pose: why should a father be held responsible for rearing a child, or at least provide financial support?

winstonjen

Far from a 'gift' or a 'right', life is an imposition, given without the knowledge or consent of the person who is born.

However, only the person living the life has a right to end it. The tough question, therefore, is "When does life begin?"

Julie

Because it takes two to tango? Women do not get pregnant all by themselves, Men bear just as much responcibility as women in this. If they dont want to be Fathers or pay child support then they should be keeping it their pants.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by themistocles
Responsibility is the "punishment" of living.

No. When you look at how the conception occured then you are punishing her action.

Again, I pose: why should a father be held responsible for rearing a child, or at least provide financial support?



I've long taken the position that if the pregnancy is discovered while abortion is still an option then he should only be liable for 1/2 the cost of an abortion.

alek0

How is this different from argument "If they didn't want to get pregnant, they should have abstained"? I think men should have the option not to be parents if they choose so, by declining all rights and responsibilities for the fetus during the same time frame that abortion is available. If a woman wants to continue unplanned pregnancy, it is her decision and it is her responsibility to provide for the child.

themistocles

Exactly. Which destroys the argument that the choice of abortion is a woman's alone.

Personally, I think the idea that a father shouldn't pay child support or be legally obligated to "play dad" would have greater equity, both morally and practically if we agreed that "a woman has a right to her body". Would you then agree, if a potential father must pay 1/2 of an abortion, that he has more or less half of the "right" to decide whether or not abortion occurs? After all, why should he pay half if it's not his choice? I have a Constitutional right to free speech, but that doesn't mean anyone is obligated by law to publish what I write, or that everyone must listen to me. If women "have a right to their bodies", then it doesn't require the empowerment of anyone other than the individual woman to realize that right, or rather, that someone else must suffer an expense for the right to be recognized.

Julie

Well its Not really different, its the same idea. But by having sex and having the woman become pregnant and then declining to be a father that would in affect increase the rate of abortion as a form of birth control. I maybe pro-choice Im not Pro abortion, it is still killing a potential human and should not be taken lightly. Plus its not an easy thing to do. Its painful both physically and emotionally; its usually invasive (RU486 is not the normal way to abort and even that is painful). Most women would perfer to have never fallen pregnant than have an abortion and should not be in affect forced to abort a child. Men still have half the responcibility of any child they help create, wheather thats paying for half the abortion or paying for half the child.

What we all need are forms of birth control that are more reliable, both for men and women. And better education of young people about the forms of birth control we have now. That would be the better solution for both men and women

Julie

[QUOTE]Originally posted by themistocles

Yup Women do have a right to their own bodies....



No I dont agree that would mean a woman is giving up the rights to her body. Giving half that right to their body to someone else is the exact opposite of being in control of her body. She should have every right to not want to have painful procedures done. Giving half the decision to abort to men negates her right to her body.

Because he chose to have sex knowing the risks included unwanted pregnancy.


I dont But then again I'mm not american

Nor should women be obligated to abort just cause men dont want to take responcibility.

Why the "" why should women NOT have rights to their own bodies? Why should we even be having to fight for the rights to our bodies?

If fact it did require more than the empowerment of the individual women to get us our rights We've had to fight for what we have and are still fighting to be held as equal. Untill that day we must keep fighting. By denying your responcibility as half the unit that created a child you are taking away a womans rights to her body, rights that go both ways to have the choice to abort or not. It would in affect put women in the situation where its never safe to get pregnant unless she wants to be a single Mom (and props to all the single moms out there Its much harder than going it as a pair!)
What then would be the requirements for a woman to bear a child and a man take responcibility? Within a marrage? Over a certian age? Nothing? Thats a scarey idea. Under those conditions we'd have to draw up contracts everytime we had sex.

themistocles

Then why can't women choose not to have sex? They apparently only have "choice" when they're pregnant.

But you didn't answer my question, if men don't have a choice in whether a fetus should be cut up and sucked out or not, then they also don't have a responsibility. If you say that men have a responsibility because they took part in sex, that infers they also have a say in the matter and that women also have a choice in not getting pregnant, since it requires the assistance of a man to become as such. With that in mind, it is patently obvious that a woman is not alone in her "right" to cut up a fetus.

Perhaps by having a baby, it's a "punishment" on the man for having sex?

And all this dances around--avoids the fact that abortion itself is a morally indefensible act that's socially repugnant.


Well, you said men have a responsibility to be a father, then they obviously have a choice. They have a right to their bodies, and that includes not being where they don't have to be. It's not their responsibility, because they have no say in the creation of that responsibility. Women, on the other hand, are "apparently" free to get pregnant, but are free of responsibility.

And, I'm arguing this line to underscore what a selfish, irresponsible, and convenient-centered act abortion is. I don't think child support or paternal obligations should be outlawed, because I don't think abortion should be legal. It's just absurd that both are legal when they're ethically inconsistent with each other. Either women have a right to their bodies (and thus, men don't have a responsibility), or abortion is a selfishly irresponsible act and men are approximately equal in the responsibility of supporting a pregnancy and fatherhood.

Hey, at least with putting babies up for adoption, you don't have to cut them up at earlier stages...But I guess nine months is "too inconvenient" for that responsibility.

Because that "parasite" isn't the woman. When babies become detestable parasites that it's okay to kill them, disguising them under any hokey "right" is a natural way to paint a shameful act into something more diplomatic in nature.



What about the rights of a child? All rights have entailing responsibilities, no right is absolute. It's kind of hypocritical that women would get an absolute right and an option for responsibility, whereas the man has no rights and is responsible based upon the whims of the mother. If you want to argue about "equality" and "rights", then we can start here.

Imagine that novel idea: not getting pregnant.

Well responsibility is an implied contract.

Again, to repeat what I said before, I don't favor getting rid of paternal responsibilities: responsibility is the basis of my sentiment. However, the basis for pro-choice is convenience and avoidance of responsibility, and certainly not about equality. I would rather more and more people act responsibly then irresponsibly. I'd rather people act fairly then unfairly. It seems to me, the pro-choice arguments have put "fairness" and "responsibility" at odds and have opted to ridicule both in the process.