That's not true. I think we all agree that most men should have a say in what a woman does with the fetus. Just because the final decision rests with the woman doesn't mean that there are many cases where abortions don't occur because the boyfriend or whoever assures them that they want the child and will be there to support it.
Come on...do you really think that ever happens? I'm guessing that if the man is involved in the decision making somehow in which he shows that he wants the baby, then an abortion is much less likely to happen.
<b>Batman</b>: Why do you think I hate you? You're the cool guy with the theatre company! I can disagree with you vehemently and not insult you and certainly not hate you. It's not that hard. I said that I was indignant at the loss of any innocent life. A conditiion of war compromises that. You can disagree with that but you can't disallow that exception to the point of calling me a hypocrite. Innocent victims of the Death Penalty are a true tragedy. I never said anything other than that. My assertion was not false. It may have been inaccurate. I hadn't thought it through to the exceptions that I can justify making. All I did was change one aspect in Mrs. JB's idea and I'm guilty of sloganeering and being incendiary? That's how powerful the truth can be, I guess. Innocent human babies die in abortions, period. I never used the word "murder," but you keep associating me with it. My ex-wife had two abortions before I ever met her. Do you think I would have married a murderer? Regarding Jeff, I was never anything but calm. You were the one name-calling. All too often, a civil discussion is defined as one where everyone agrees. This is a public forum. I didn't derail the conversation. I added some things that were going unsaid. I said it calmly and deliberately. Batman, you are the one ranting here. You are so blind to your own bias. In that other thread, <b>Legendary21</b> calls me a hypocrite (like you did) and I call him a twit and challenge him to make his case. Since when has being a twit been worse than being a hypocrite? The thread ended because the guy had no evidence or no gumption to marshall his evidence. Yet all you take from the whole discussion is that I devastatingly called him a twit. Too much. At least try to be fair. <b>Refman</b>: Did I ever say "No it's not..." You still don't povide the evidence that I request. I've re-read the thread many times and I will still stand by my assertion that it is mostly composed of "positions." I made a powerful argument about the sensibility of a cautious attitude about when life begins-- the wisdom of erring on the side of caution with a life at stake. No one has addressed that. I contrasted it to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that we use in our court sytem. No one has challenged that-- successfully or failinglly. You don't like my tactics, but yours will never save baby's lives. Abortion has to be described in terms which match it's ugly reality. If you let the pro-abortionists control the argument, they will hamstring the best arguments against abortion. I have 4 children. I've seen in utero video of 3 of them. At a very young age (in the range of the abortionists) they smile, laugh and hiccup. They wiggle their fingers and roll around a bit. One of my daughters was sucking her thumb at a very young age. It's a sight to see.
i don't know if it happens...but it certainly could happen, RM95. it's certainly not outside the scope of possibility in this world! I would agree with your assessment and would call it rare...what I'm saying is that even in this situation where the man really wants to be a father, he has absolutely no say in it. It does not matter one iota what his emotional investment in the child is to that point...it does not matter that he is charged with ultimately supporting the child if it is actually born...it does not matter at all. And that's just wrong, in my view.
I must say that was an extremely powerful moment in my life...when I saw my son kicking around inside my wife on a video screen. wow... and when he kicked all night at a sting concert at jones hall...knowing him now and how he likes to dance to music, it seems he was acting as he always has!
OK, well, what if a woman wants an abortion, she's "forced" not to by the father, and she dies during childbirth? I think her family should be able to sue the guy for wrongful death since she probably wouldn't have died during the abortion procedure. OK, crummy example, but I bet it happens (not the suing part) as often as your example does. There's many unfair aspects of all laws, but they shouldn't be changed based on things that could happen. I wish we could get stats on stuff like this, but I'd be willing to be that out of all abortions, not even .001% of them occured in the unfair example you gave.
i didn't say that i had a workable solution, rm...simply that the status quo is inherently unfair. it's the problems of a broken world....damn, there's my theology clouding my logic again!
There are extenuating circumstances in many cases where a woman makes the difficult choice to abort, too. Conditions compromise absolutes here, too. You said in your post that your assertion may have been inaccurate and that you hadn't thought it through to include exceptions. If, after thinking on it, you're retracting your statement that you'll be indignant in any case of the death of an innocent, then I'll retract my hypocrite statement. I wasn't calling you a name here for the sake of it. Your positions on abortion and war do not jibe with your blanket statement about death of innocents -- hence the hypocrite label. You know very well that changing one aspect, especially in the coy, know it all way you did can be incendiary. You conveniently leave out the word murderer, but you plainly insinuate it. And you walk a fine line accusing others of killing innocent babies and then saying your wife isn't a murderer. I'm willing to play the semantic game, though, even on your terms. I am offended that you say that women who make this difficult choice are baby killers. You didn't marry a murderer, according to your statements. Did you marry a baby killer? This had been a civil discussion in which many, disparate, polar opinions were presented. As in that other thread, things got nasty when you joined the thread. I repeat, people from your side have a problem with your tone. Just think about it. Calling someone a twit is not in line with calling someone a hypocrite. The hypocrite label can be earned and clearly demonstrated, as above. The twit thing is pure name calling. I'm not above it. I called you a clown. That was pure name calling. The hypocrite thing wasn't. Don't be so quick to claim victory, as though someone couldn't counter your simplistic argument. We are all aware of the bottom line pro-life argument. I am even swayed by it. But the thread likely ended because people were worn out by you and realized you were going to continue with the emotional argument, angrily delivered, no matter what they said. Many people from your side have tried even louder tactics. Pictures of aborted babies, throwing fake fetuses at pro-choice candidates, intimidating or even killing doctors who perform abortions. It's not passion that's lacking here, it's understanding. Even George W. recognizes the folly of saying "Dead babies, dead babies!" when this subject comes up, favoring a strategy of slowly changing minds and increasing compassion for the unborn. It is your method which will never save the lives of the unborn. Your attempts at persuasion only strengthen the resolve of those who disagree with you. All thinking people are aware of the arguments against abortion. You are not enlightening anyone here.
Just because the Klan is a violent organization doesn't mean that there were many cases where they marched peaceably. It's the same logic. I hope this shows you how it fails to work.
Unlike many of the pro-lifers, I do not believe in making an exception in cases of rape and incest. If the woman cannot view the child as the silver lining of the dark cloud of her rape, then she can put the baby up for adoption. The only time an abortion should be a consideration is when carrying the child to term will result in the death of the mother. At that point, a decision must be made between two innocent lives. Excepting the case where the life of the mother is at risk, why is adoption not always preferable to abortion? Is carrying a child for nine months such an imposition that it should be summarily executed instead? Since so many cling to their abortion rights like a lifeboat in a storm, I propose an interim solution until abortion is made illegal. Instead of eliminating the child early in its development, behind the cover of a doctor and without facing the victim, the woman can bring the child to term and then strangle it once it exits her womb. She can look into the child's eyes as the spark of life leaves them and then she can truly understand the consequences of her actions.I don't think it would be so easy for her without the excuses like, "It is just a collection of cells."
Prove it. That's the way lawsuits work. Perish the thought that people may die as a result of taking responsibility for the life they have helped create. That's a really crappy reason to have the father ignored.
Do you even listen to pro-choice arguments, Hydra? There's a huge difference between a fetus at one month and a newborn baby.
I don't think the father should be ignored...I've never said that. If a father wants the woman to keep the child, he should do what he legally can to help prevent the abortion. Unfortunately for them, it's still up to the woman. At this point where no one's provided a perfectly consistent alternate plan, that's how it should be.
It's illegal to talk to the woman and attempt to convince her that she shouldn't have an abortion? News to me. There's not much else you can do because you shift the unfairness to the woman, and since she's the one that actually has to give birth and put her life at risk, then it can't be that way.
I'm pretty sure God thinks abortion is OK. If she doesn't, she should stop having her subjects lose their children so often through miscarriages. Half of all conceptions are terminated (doesn't implant, or is miscarried in the body's own QC mechanism... ie abortion). You guys need to file a class action lawsuit against God. In the meantime, you can give the vessels that actually nourish that little parasite a break. How many artificial abortions actually occur? Somehow I doubt it breaks 10%. Use your time wisely! Go for the big win! Go straight to the source of most terminated pregnancies! Just tell 'no' to God on her blueprints on mammalian physiology! No more resorbed fetuses! No more genetic incompatibility!
<b>RM95</b>: There are many differences between a 1 MO fetus and a 16 YO and a 97 YO. However, can you state for certain that any of them do NOT have a soul? Isn't that the essence of the argument. I never said or intimated murder. I think murder is a very specific crime. People are killed in self-defense and it's not murder. That is a distinction that exists. The death of aborted fetuses is another. I don't have a name for it. I'm uncomfortable with it; it is a compromise position. Hydra's outlook is a much loftier one and his solution a much heavier one. <b>Batman</b>: I retract nothing. I apologized for my short-sighted statement and amended it for clarification. It clarifies my position; it doesn't contravene it. You will just have to live with it or don't; I don't really care anymore. You continue with the childish name-calling. If you can't accept my exceptions then go ahead and call me a hypocrite if it makes you feel better or superior or drunker. Whatever! I never said or intimated murder. I think murder is a very specific crime. People are killed in self-defense and it's not murder. That is a distinction that exists. The death of aborted fetuses is another. I don't have a name for it. I said babies are killed; I called no one a baby-killer. That IS inflammatory. Tell me about my angry delivery. You are the one gone bonkers. Refman doesn't like my style (and I don't like his), so what? We both have a right to proceed as we see fit with different purposes and different functions. You can't please everybody. Batman writes: "a strategy of slowly changing minds and increasing compassion for the unborn. It is your method which will never save the lives of the unborn. Your attempts at persuasion only strengthen the resolve of those who disagree with you." Horse hockey! Why in hell should anyone have to increase their compassion for the unborn. If you don't have it you don't have it and I'm not going to waste my time (while other babies die) trying to change the mind of someone who needs to be instructed in compassion for the unborn. That should be natural. You put words in my mouth which distort my position. I want to describe the reality of what abortion is and leave you to your own conclusions. As Hydra so poignantly pointed out, when push comes to shove that quivering mass of cells really is much more than that. Hiding from that fact has allowed abortion to flourish.
Wha!? When I say legally I'm speaking about in the courts. Of course he can try to persuade and whatever but he can't prevent a woman from having an abortion if she wants one and she's perfectly fine legally to ignore him and anything he says. The man has no right to anything.
