Political Crossfire Forums

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

for those that argue abortion rights for woman on the basis of them not being held responsible for an unintentional pregnancy..

Would you also say that if a man didn't want to get a woman pregnant , and she chooses life, that the man should not be required to pay child support?

Why?

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

lovebush wrote: for those that argue abortion rights for woman on the basis of them not being held responsible for an unintentional pregnancy..

Would you also say that if a man didn't want to get a woman pregnant , and she chooses life, that the man should not be required to pay child support?

Why?
It depends if birth control was used in good faith. i.e. they took positive steps to not get pregnant in the first place?

If Yes, then in the case of an unintentional preganancy when a woman decides to go through with it against the man's wishes then he should be absolved of responsibility.

Gitana · Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:20 pm Post subject:

Quote: Would you also say that if a man didn't want to get a woman pregnant , and she chooses life, that the man should not be required to pay child support?

I would. If the man used birth control, and the woman somehow deliberately became pregnant against his stated wishes, he should not have to pay support or be legally responsible for the child unless he so chooses.

I also think that in the case of a woman who deliberately lied, ie, the man states he does not want a child, and she deceives him regarding birth control, he should also not be legally responsible unless he chooses to be. There have been a few court cases along these lines.

Of course, the legal challenges here are establishing both intent and appropriate, reasonable preventative measures.

How about the other way around? If a man states he cannot procreate, and subsequently impregnates a woman who does not want to bear a child, should she be forced to if the man wants the child?

And how about a couple who do not want children, and use appropriate contraception - should they be forced to bear & raise the child if the contraception fails?

Note: Your opening premise is skewed. No one is arguing for a woman not being responsible for an unintentional pregnancy. What prolifers can't understand is that even making the choice for abortion IS taking responsibility for the pregnancy - it's just a choice they don't agree with. Doing nothing would be "not taking responsibility."
So, really, you can look at it that prolifers want to take away responsibility from the woman - or at least dictate the definition of responsibility.

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

Ridiculous. If the couple decide that the man should sign away all his rights, then fine. If not, and you are the father, take care of what you created. Once theres a child present, before or after birth, your life now comes second. You now have the responsibility of raising the child, feeding it, taking care of it, etc. You helped create it. Your thought process should not include, "whats right for the man, whats right for the women".....but instead, "whats right for the child." Anything else is sickly selfish.

Since we are talking about AFTER the child is born, you cant make it go away, no matter if you wanted it or not. You dont want financial resposibility, give it up for adoption, explore those options. In this country, as it stands today, the woman has total control over whether or not the child is born.

Its not, and should NEVER be, a case of "whats fair to me"....But its all about what is right, and fair for the child. Anything else, is ridiculously selfish...

Gitana · Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:11 pm Post subject:

Quote: In this country, as it stands today, the woman has total control over whether or not the child is born.

Last time I checked, nature had made that decision millions of years ago. :wink:

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

Gitana wrote: Quote: In this country, as it stands today, the woman has total control over whether or not the child is born.

Last time I checked, nature had made that decision millions of years ago. :wink:

Well, last time you checked, you checked in the wrong place. Nature made the decision that women are the gender to carry the child until birth....Nature didnt determine that women are the ones who get to decide if the child lives or not. Our laws on abortion, and our Judicial Branch decided that one. There is nothing at all "natural" about abortions. Childbirth, is natural. Abortion, is not.

Our laws could very easily change, and change who gets a say in the issue, and nature couldnt do anything about it, because abortion, is nothing natural. Our laws could change all they want, and whats natura would stay the same....Women carrying children, sex for reproduction....all natural. Abortion is not.

Gitana · Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:32 am Post subject:

Quote: Our laws could change all they want, and whats natura would stay the same....Women carrying children, sex for reproduction....all natural.

Herbs that grow freely all over the world, natural abortificants....all natural. Sex...all natural. The desire for children...all natural. The desire to not have children...all natural.

For you to add "for reproduction" is erroneous, as humans do not come into a heat cycle solely for reproduction purposes. Human sexual desire can, and does, exist completely seperate of the desire to reproduce. Sex for reproduction is also natural, but for humans (and many animals), sex is not solely for that reason, so to force it to be that alone would be distinctly unnatural. Nature has not endowed an implanted blastocyst with the ability to prevent it's own termination, so by default, and by your reasoning, nature has granted the woman sovereignity over her own body & what may be in it.

Women have always had total control over their reproductive systems, as well as choosing the father of their children, as well as whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term...and they always will, if they choose to exercise that control. There is nothing you can do about it, no law you can pass, no rule you can make, no god you can invoke. The exceptions to our autonomy have been under extremely oppressive theocratic regimes such as the Taliban. But I'd be willing to bet even those women had their ways if they didn't want to bear a pregnancy.

Abortions have been performed for millennia; no law will ever change that; it can only change who can obtain a medical abortion.

Since most prolifers seem to arrive at their views because of their religious beliefs, I just want to point this out:

"So what does the Bible say about the intentional termination of a pregnancy? Nothing. It never comes up. The Jewish scriptures considered a pregnancy a human child only after birth. Even in the holiness code, which takes time out to preach about the evils of mildew, there isn't a single thing about the intentional termination of a pregnancy. The Bible never gets around to saying even word one against the practice.

The only time the Bible actually explicitly talks about the termination of a pregnancy is as a complication in a criminal assault case. "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." (Exodus 21:22) In plain English (and equally plain Hebrew, I'm told), the Bible says that even in cases where the pregnancy is terminated against the woman's will in a criminal assault, it's treated as a property crime, with the penalty being nothing more than a monetary fine negotated between the assailants and the woman's husband. Compare and contrast that with the biblical penalty for murder, which is death. If God thought that killing a fetus was murder, the penalty would assuredly not be so light and trivial."

One message of Jesus Christ was that human beings are no longer permitted to enforce the Old Testament "holiness code" on God's behalf because noone was without sin, so they were not fit to judge anyone. That was God's job.

For strict religious prolifers to have decided that they must not only interfere with another's will, declare abortion a moral issue, & decide for themselves not only what the value of a pregnancy is, but also when life begins - is deciding they are fit to make these judgements; better than God did in Holy Scripture, and despite Jesus's instructions to the contrary.

Food for thought for the "moral."

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Gitana wrote: Quote: In this country, as it stands today, the woman has total control over whether or not the child is born.

Last time I checked, nature had made that decision millions of years ago. :wink:

Well, last time you checked, you checked in the wrong place. Nature made the decision that women are the gender to carry the child until birth....Nature didnt determine that women are the ones who get to decide if the child lives or not. Our laws on abortion, and our Judicial Branch decided that one. There is nothing at all "natural" about abortions. Childbirth, is natural. Abortion, is not.

Our laws could very easily change, and change who gets a say in the issue, and nature couldnt do anything about it, because abortion, is nothing natural. Our laws could change all they want, and whats natura would stay the same....Women carrying children, sex for reproduction....all natural. Abortion is not.
Dying of cancer is natural too, see ya later

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

Gitana wrote: [

The only time the Bible actually explicitly talks about the termination of a pregnancy is as a complication in a criminal assault case. "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." (Exodus 21:22) In plain English (and equally plain Hebrew, I'm told), the Bible says that even in cases where the pregnancy is terminated against the woman's will in a criminal assault, it's treated as a property crime, with the penalty being nothing more than a monetary fine negotated between the assailants and the woman's husband. Compare and contrast that with the biblical penalty for murder, which is death. If God thought that killing a fetus was murder, the penalty would assuredly not be so light and trivial."

."

:think:

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5352 Location: Fulton, Ks

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Gitana wrote: Quote: In this country, as it stands today, the woman has total control over whether or not the child is born.

Last time I checked, nature had made that decision millions of years ago. :wink:

Well, last time you checked, you checked in the wrong place. Nature made the decision that women are the gender to carry the child until birth....Nature didnt determine that women are the ones who get to decide if the child lives or not. Our laws on abortion, and our Judicial Branch decided that one. There is nothing at all "natural" about abortions. Childbirth, is natural. Abortion, is not.

Our laws could very easily change, and change who gets a say in the issue, and nature couldnt do anything about it, because abortion, is nothing natural. Our laws could change all they want, and whats natura would stay the same....Women carrying children, sex for reproduction....all natural. Abortion is not.

It's not natural? OH NOES, Please not something unnatural how shall humanity survive with stuff that's not natural? Oh wait...

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

Quote: For you to add "for reproduction" is erroneous, as humans do not come into a heat cycle solely for reproduction purposes. Human sexual desire can, and does, exist completely seperate of the desire to reproduce. Sex for reproduction is also natural, but for humans (and many animals), sex is not solely for that reason, so to force it to be that alone would be distinctly unnatural.

First of all, no where did I state that the only natural reason or desire for sex was reproduction. For me to add "for reproduction" is NOT erroneus. And after you said it was, you did NOTHING to show me how sex for reproduction was unnatural. What was the point of what you wrote?? Please point to where I stated sex was solely for reproduction, I must have missed that.....

Quote: nature has granted the woman sovereignity over her own body & what may be in it.

Nature has dictated the manner in which we reproduce. How its done, what must take place, the gender that will carry the child, etc.....The natural way that pregnancys end early are via miscarriage, other complications, etc...

You missed the point and decided to make assumptions.

I will leave the biblical discussion for another time, and another place....My views on abortion dont come from there anyway.....I will however point out that being against something, being against something someone does, and judging someone are completely different. Laws against abortion are not judging the people who go through with one, its simply placing value on the life that is being taken away. You can spin all you want and try to make pro-lifers and religious people out to be horrible, self-righteous hypocrits...But that dosent make it so. Being against something, is not the same as being against SOMEONE, and judging them.

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

Selfish_Meme wrote: WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Gitana wrote: Quote: In this country, as it stands today, the woman has total control over whether or not the child is born.

Last time I checked, nature had made that decision millions of years ago. :wink:

Well, last time you checked, you checked in the wrong place. Nature made the decision that women are the gender to carry the child until birth....Nature didnt determine that women are the ones who get to decide if the child lives or not. Our laws on abortion, and our Judicial Branch decided that one. There is nothing at all "natural" about abortions. Childbirth, is natural. Abortion, is not.

Our laws could very easily change, and change who gets a say in the issue, and nature couldnt do anything about it, because abortion, is nothing natural. Our laws could change all they want, and whats natura would stay the same....Women carrying children, sex for reproduction....all natural. Abortion is not.
Dying of cancer is natural too, see ya later

Was there a point to this, or were you trying to pd your post count? see ya later

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

spearsy23 wrote: WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Gitana wrote: Quote: In this country, as it stands today, the woman has total control over whether or not the child is born.

Last time I checked, nature had made that decision millions of years ago. :wink:

Well, last time you checked, you checked in the wrong place. Nature made the decision that women are the gender to carry the child until birth....Nature didnt determine that women are the ones who get to decide if the child lives or not. Our laws on abortion, and our Judicial Branch decided that one. There is nothing at all "natural" about abortions. Childbirth, is natural. Abortion, is not.

Our laws could very easily change, and change who gets a say in the issue, and nature couldnt do anything about it, because abortion, is nothing natural. Our laws could change all they want, and whats natura would stay the same....Women carrying children, sex for reproduction....all natural. Abortion is not.

It's not natural? OH NOES, Please not something unnatural how shall humanity survive with stuff that's not natural? Oh wait...

Congratulations, you just added one more post to your total....going to Disneyland?

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5352 Location: Fulton, Ks

Nope one hundred and 17 left before that trip. Maybe you missed the point, i'll let you ponder it for a while.

WsTxRedRaider06 · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 146 Location: Lubbock, Texas

Oh no, I got your point. But it was irrelevant to what I had said.

FarPastGone · Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 540

GET YOUR GUNS UP!!! :) Sorry, saw RedRaiders, couldn't resist, big Tech fan. :)

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Ridiculous. If the couple decide that the man should sign away all his rights, then fine. If not, and you are the father, take care of what you created. Once theres a child present, before or after birth, your life now comes second. You now have the responsibility of raising the child, feeding it, taking care of it, etc. You helped create it. Your thought process should not include, "whats right for the man, whats right for the women".....but instead, "whats right for the child." Anything else is sickly selfish.

Since we are talking about AFTER the child is born, you cant make it go away, no matter if you wanted it or not. You dont want financial resposibility, give it up for adoption, explore those options. In this country, as it stands today, the woman has total control over whether or not the child is born.

Its not, and should NEVER be, a case of "whats fair to me"....But its all about what is right, and fair for the child. Anything else, is ridiculously selfish...

Quote: ... take care of what you created. Once theres a child present, before or after birth, your life now comes second... I haven't heard it said any better than this.

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Oh no, I got your point. But it was irrelevant to what I had said.

speaking of relevance! :ot:

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

Gitana wrote: [

"So what does the Bible say about the intentional termination of a pregnancy? Nothing. It never comes up. The Jewish scriptures considered a pregnancy a human child only after birth. Even in the holiness code, which takes time out to preach about the evils of mildew, there isn't a single thing about the intentional termination of a pregnancy. The Bible never gets around to saying even word one against the practice.

The only time the Bible actually explicitly talks about the termination of a pregnancy is as a complication in a criminal assault case. "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." (Exodus 21:22) In plain English (and equally plain Hebrew, I'm told), the Bible says that even in cases where the pregnancy is terminated against the woman's will in a criminal assault, it's treated as a property crime, with the penalty being nothing more than a monetary fine negotated between the assailants and the woman's husband. Compare and contrast that with the biblical penalty for murder, which is death. If God thought that killing a fetus was murder, the penalty would assuredly not be so light and trivial."

One message of Jesus Christ was that human beings are no longer permitted to enforce the Old Testament "holiness code" on God's behalf because noone was without sin, so they were not fit to judge anyone. That was God's job.

For strict religious prolifers to have decided that they must not only interfere with another's will, declare abortion a moral issue, & decide for themselves not only what the value of a pregnancy is, but also when life begins - is deciding they are fit to make these judgements; better than God did in Holy Scripture, and despite Jesus's instructions to the contrary.

Food for thought for the "moral."

I must admit you had me stumped with this argument, I had to think about it. the answer is intent, the verse you use refers to an accidental killing of the baby. you cant compare an accident to murder and expect the same punishment. If a man kills another man by accident . the punishment is not death. in fact there were places that man could flee to ,to be safe from vengeful family members.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

lovebush wrote: Gitana wrote: [

"So what does the Bible say about the intentional termination of a pregnancy? Nothing. It never comes up. The Jewish scriptures considered a pregnancy a human child only after birth. Even in the holiness code, which takes time out to preach about the evils of mildew, there isn't a single thing about the intentional termination of a pregnancy. The Bible never gets around to saying even word one against the practice.

The only time the Bible actually explicitly talks about the termination of a pregnancy is as a complication in a criminal assault case. "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." (Exodus 21:22) In plain English (and equally plain Hebrew, I'm told), the Bible says that even in cases where the pregnancy is terminated against the woman's will in a criminal assault, it's treated as a property crime, with the penalty being nothing more than a monetary fine negotated between the assailants and the woman's husband. Compare and contrast that with the biblical penalty for murder, which is death. If God thought that killing a fetus was murder, the penalty would assuredly not be so light and trivial."

One message of Jesus Christ was that human beings are no longer permitted to enforce the Old Testament "holiness code" on God's behalf because noone was without sin, so they were not fit to judge anyone. That was God's job.

For strict religious prolifers to have decided that they must not only interfere with another's will, declare abortion a moral issue, & decide for themselves not only what the value of a pregnancy is, but also when life begins - is deciding they are fit to make these judgements; better than God did in Holy Scripture, and despite Jesus's instructions to the contrary.

Food for thought for the "moral."

I must admit you had me stumped with this argument, I had to think about it. the answer is intent, the verse you use refers to an accidental killing of the baby. you cant compare an accident to murder and expect the same punishment. If a man kills another man by accident . the punishment is not death. in fact there were places that man could flee to ,to be safe from vengeful family members.

The laws and codes of this time frame are relatively different than they are today. Certain people could only do certain things, men had more say over issues than women, etc.
The society/culture of this time frame isn't the same as today.