Why is it that women can opt out of taking care of a child but men can't?

[Deleted]

Weird, because after your last few posts, it's like I found you in a feminist catalogue.

Woman's rights above everything else.

Bodily autonomy is a right both genders possess.

But until they are, you wouldn't bat an eye at murder? Seems quite questionable if you ask me. Did you know some babies are born prematurely at 7-8 months, and have all the characteristics of a 9-month old, just less physically developed? Dude, you're rationalizing infant-slaughter right now.

You could always induce birth as an alternative.

[dehotz]

What? There is a point where bodily autonomy is over-trodden by the right to life. at 7-8 months, that's practically a fully-developed baby. The time to terminate the pregnancy passed, and the woman knew what she was getting into when she decided not to make a decision early enough into it. You are literally killing a human in the name of bodily autonomy because someone was indecisive here.

Whoa, at a point bodily autonomy is over-ridden by a right to life? So if I need a kidney or otherwise I will die I can over-ride your bodily autonomy and demand you give one of your kidneys to me?

[AeneasBK]

Bodily autonomy is a right both genders possess.

BTW you'll probably save yourself a bit of flak if you renounce your prior stance on the whole abortion up until birth thing. I'm sure now you've had time to think about it you realise you were wrong, and I'd hate for the topic to get sidetracked... ^_^

[pateuvasiliu]

Bodily autonomy is a right both genders possess.



You could always induce birth as an alternative.

Pretty sure the 7-8 month fetus has a gender, too.

[AeneasBK]

Whoa, at a point bodily autonomy is over-ridden by a right to life? So if I need a kidney or otherwise I will die I can over-ride your bodily autonomy and demand you give one of your kidneys to me?

Go back and read more posts around the one you're quoting and come back with something less derp Context is pretty relevant here

[Deleted]

BTW you'll probably save yourself a bit of flak if you renounce your prior stance on the whole abortion up until birth thing. I'm sure now you've had time to think about it you realise you were wrong, and I'd hate for the topic to get sidetracked... ^_^

I'm not wrong though. Bodily autonomy outweighs right to life, even in law. They just make an exception for it when it comes to pregnancy for some reason.

[Velaniz]

Yeah, KNKA kinda lost it at "up to the point of birth" bit...

Yeah, don't see how even bodily autonomy should hold up then when you practically sign it away.

[Laize]

Yup its totally the mans responsibility, his semen is needed after all. Oh, and you know what, just to be fair, try exercising this concept: ITS ALSO THE WOMANS responsibility

Give it a whirl, see if both those statements can exist in your head at the same time

It's both of their fault she got pregnant.

It is NOT both of their fault when a child is born. It's only one person's "fault". The woman's.

[pateuvasiliu]

I'm not wrong though. Bodily autonomy outweighs right to life, even in law. They just make an exception for it when it comes to pregnancy for some reason.

They don't. It's simply that the third semester fetus has the right to not be chopped into pieces.

Since you know.

It's my body.

And I don't want it chopped.

[dehotz]

Can't have one without the other.

It would simply make people more responsible or make them suffer for it.

What I'm saying is your espousing something because of the supposed deterrent effect it would have on people. Remember you're arguing for less abortions here, if that is what you truly want then increasing the other means people have of preventing pregnancy is the best bet not outlawing abortions, as I said this will push it underground not reduce the numbers. In essence your deterrent won't deter, so it's a bad idea.

[Velaniz]

Whoa, at a point bodily autonomy is over-ridden by a right to life? So if I need a kidney or otherwise I will die I can over-ride your bodily autonomy and demand you give one of your kidneys to me?

Depends. Was I directly responsible for the circumstances that make you require a kidney? Did I do something to you that I knew had some chance of damaging one of your kidneys, and hence necessitating a replacement, all while knowing that a result of that outcome would result in a loss of my bodily autonomy? If yes to both, then yeah, you can take a kidney. Hell, I'll give it to you out of my own will.

[Deleted]

I'm not wrong though. Bodily autonomy outrules right to life, even in law. They just make an exception for it when it comes to pregnancy for some reason.

It's because the fetus is a human being, or considered one lawfully.

Medically it develops the bulk of organs at just shy of the second trimester, mental faculties develop slightly later; If we're talking of a late-term abortion, you're essentially killing a human being.

Unless it's a medical necessity to save the mothers life, no jurisdiction in the world will give you the right to do so.

The law has an obligation to safeguard us, that fetus is considered a human by law, and is afforded the same rights we enjoy.

(This is all in the light of a fetus in the third trimester)

Right now, you're pretty much arguing for the right to kill another human being for the sake of whatever reason you deem necessary.

That's abhorrent.

Short of the mother dying, terminating that life is unconscionable.

[AeneasBK]

It's both of their fault she got pregnant.

It is NOT both of their fault when a child is born. It's only one person's "fault". The woman's.

Who said anything about fault here. We're not talking culpability we're talking RESPONSIBILITY. No wonder you're finding it hard

[dehotz]

Go back and read more posts around the one you're quoting and come back with something less derp Context is pretty relevant here

Excellent job not addressing the point I raised. What context could I be missing, please point it out.

[Deleted]

It's because the fetus is a human being, or considered one lawfully.

So are other humans, I'm not even allowed to take the heart from an actually dead patient if I need one without their consent. I'm not allowed to take a kidney from someone else if I need one without their consent. Why does their bodily autonomy outweigh my right to life?

[badzerath]

What I have never understood is if my grandfather has a heart attack and has no pulse (his heart isn't beating) he is dead and needs to be resuscitated.

When a woman is carrying a child people actually favor abortion to a time past that point (heartbeat and blood flow). Why is the definition of being alive changed to be convenient for something like this?

I'm not against birth control, condoms, etc. I'm not even against abortion before the point I listed above. So, why is the term "pro-life" used in a negative context by some people?

Why is it pro-choice for the woman to decide the childs fate after unprotected sex but not pro-choice to expect her to make the intelligent choice to used birth control of some form if she doesn't want a child?

Why is the act of having unprotected sex not considered consent by the woman to carry a child in 2014?

Why is the act of having sex seen as consent for the man to pay child support for the rest of his life, but not the woman?



The entire system is void of logic, and frankly in 100 years no matter what the immediate outcome of the debate is I think this time period will be judge harshly for its abortion practices.

[Velaniz]

Excellent job not addressing the point I raised. What context could I be missing, please point it out.

The fact that we're discussing abortions of 6-8 month babies because 6 months wasn't long enough to make a decision for someone.

[Deleted]

So are other humans, I'm not even allowed to take the heart from an actually dead patient if I need one without their consent. I'm not allowed to take a kidney from someone else if I need one without their consent. Why does their bodily autonomy outweight my right to life?

One is already dead to whatever causation.

The other is alive, and kicking, and living.

You're killing it for no other reason than convenience at this point.

And conflating organ donation laws with terminating a fetus in the third trimester is laughable.

[dehotz]

Depends. Was I directly responsible for the circumstances that make you require a kidney? Did I do something to you that I knew had some chance of damaging one of your kidneys, and hence necessitating a replacement, all while knowing that a result of that outcome would result in a loss of my bodily autonomy? If yes to both, then yeah, you can take a kidney. Hell, I'll give it to you out of my own will.

By this logic if you drive a car and are involved in a car accident that results in a situation wherein another person has a medical need to a kidney of yours or some of your blood perhaps then you could be compelled to provide these things for them even against your will. Correct?

[pateuvasiliu]

So are other humans, I'm not even allowed to take the heart from an actually dead patient if I need one without their consent. I'm not allowed to take a kidney from someone else if I need one without their consent. Why does their bodily autonomy outweigh my right to life?

Did you conceive the dead patient?