Something has been bothering me recently and it has to do with how developed countries determine the sanctity of life.

The two elements that hinge on my point are abortion and the death penalty.

The principle behind outlawing capital punishment is the sanctity of life. That is, that life itself is immune from the remit of punishment because it is held higher in value than the value of punishment. However in nations where this is upheld in law, why is it that the same principle tends not to be applied to the issue of abortion.

If the sanctity of life is given enough credence to outlaw capital punishment where is the same credence for outlawing abortion?

We can see the same thing in reverse in the US where capital punishment is given credence by the state but the issue of the legality of abortion is still under much debate.

My point is not to argue the pros and cons of abortion and the death penalty in themselves though that may follow but rather the contradictory approaches of the developed world when determining the value of life when dealing with these two issues.

However in nations where this is upheld in law, why is it that the same principle tends not to be applied to the issue of abortion.
Because there are those who have determined in their own wisdom (which isn't saying much) that a fetus is not considered living until a certain point, even though its cells are living, and the formation is as a living being. If it can't survive outside of the womb, they consider it not life at all. So, therein lies the main argument, which has been argued into the ground - when does "life" occur?

Because there are those who have determined in their own wisdom (which isn't saying much) that a fetus is not considered living until a certain point, even though its cells are living, and the formation is as a living being.

This leads me to my second point. The 'potential' of this developing fetus is dismissed by law and thus abortion is justified.

There is little to no 'potential' in a psychopathic serial killer and yet the life is protected.

Why is it that the absence of the relevance of 'potential' results in two different conclusions?

The principle behind outlawing capital punishment is the sanctity of life.


I'm not sure about that. The arguments I've heard against the death penalty is that it is more expensive, its irreversible in the case of mistakes, and it doesn't seem to statistically deter crime (with each side having their own hand-picked statistics to support them).


...rather the contradictory approaches of the developed world when determining the value of life when dealing with these two issues.

It is very contradictory, but in the eyes of those who are anti-abortion & pro-death penalty, it makes total sense. The arguments I have heard are that life starts at conception, and that a fetus has made no choices/mistakes, etc. Whereas a person facing the death penalty put themself in that position by committing henious crimes.


Because there are those who have determined in their own wisdom (which isn't saying much) that a fetus is not considered living until a certain point, even though its cells are living, and the formation is as a living being. If it can't survive outside of the womb, they consider it not life at all. So, therein lies the main argument, which has been argued into the ground - when does "life" occur?


So, which side of the argument are you on? (That's sarcasm).

I can see both sides of the argument when it comes to abortion, but personally I'm not in favor of forcing women to have babies they don't want.

Being nonreligious I don't view life as being sacred, which is probably why my views and those on the far-right side of this are worlds apart.

I was wondering when another abortion topic would be started.

I think abortion must be considered on a very strict case by case basis. It's for this reason, that I side more on the side of pro-choice than pro-lifers seem to follow. I also have a lot of issues with some of the pro-lifer views.

One view pro-lifers seem to over-whelmingly agree on is that abortion should be illegal, except in the case of rape or health issues. The health issues I have no problem with. Obviously, if the fetus is not going to survive because of a birth defect, it's more humane for the mother and for the fetus to abort it. On the same stance, if the mother and/or fetus are in danger, and the fetus cannot be saved, then abortion is obviously and regrettably the only solution. My argument there is within the hypocricy of that stance. They believe that life begins at conception. Why is an innocent victim of the rape, the fetus, automatically disposable? It can't help it that its father was a criminal and its mother a victim.

Another thing that has been making it's round around legal offices is a law to force a pregnant woman to endure an ultrasound where they MUST look at the fetus in the womb before making a decision. This is punishment that should not be tolerated by anyone.

Very few pro-lifers believe that there should NEVER be grounds for an abortion, which is just crazy! The mother that gave birth to the stillborn baby recently in the media is an example where this sort of law is inhumane and costly.

The only pro-lifer stance I don't find hypocritical to the pro-lifer cause is no abortion except in the case of health reasons. This means even rape victims cannot get an abortion. I don't agree with this stance, but it's the only one I don't find hypocricy in.

Now, I know pro-choice has the potential to be abused and is abused. There are definitely people who have had multiple abortions without any feeling of regret involved. I believe this is a very small minority of people. I believe most people who have had abortions go into serious thoughts and considerations before coming to that conclusion. I've witnessed it at Planned Parenthood by the emotions expressed by others who have made that decision. I've never seen someone walk out of a clinic like it was an everyday routine. Outlawing abortions because of a small minority of people that may abuse it is not the way to go. Rights should not be removed because of a small potential for abuse. If that was okay, then we should outlaw guns, cars, alcohol, smoking, free speech... you see where this is going?

I think abortions before the cerebral cortex development and activation should be legal. Science and medical research recognizes this as when conscious thought begins. We know this starts after the second trimester. Prior to this, there is no brain activity other than brain stem and spinal cord, which only controls internal ticks and are not responsible for conscious awareness. I think once this begins, "life" has begun. Medical research agrees with this sentiment.

I think once this begins, "life" has begun. Medical research agrees with this sentiment.

I'd like to pick up on this point. Let's put aside the cases of rape and medical endangerment and assume that the fetus is perfectly healthy.

The onus of this argument has always been that the fetus is not alive. But here's a different way of looking at it. An abortion is not considered in these cases because the fetus is an unwanted clutch of cells. The abortion is considered because it is the new life that is unwanted. It is life that is the premise for the decision.

Is the notion of a clutch of cells simply cold comfort for the choice that is actually being made?

The arguments I've heard against the death penalty is that it is more expensive, its irreversible in the case of mistakes, and it doesn't seem to statistically deter crime (with each side having their own hand-picked statistics to support them).

Those reasons are so disturbingly bureaucratic that perhaps they are the groundings for the law of non capital punishment. Perhaps I was being overly optimistic in thinking such laws are based on moral principles.

Those reasons are so disturbingly bureaucratic that perhaps they are the groundings for the law of non capital punishment. Perhaps I was being overly optimistic in thinking such laws are based on moral principles.

There are definitely moral complications faced with irreversible mistakes. There have been many cases lately where an innocent victim's punishment has already been carried out, even though they claimed innocence throughout their time in death row, only to be proven innocent by dna and forensic evidence analysis that didn't exist at the time. These statistics are disturbing all on their own. Imagine this happening to you simply because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time and no one believing your innocence.

I'm sure some of it is bureaucratic, but for me, it's far more on the human side. I believe that this will happen less with today's technology, but it's not foolproof. Back then, we believed we had enough technology to prove crimes. Who knows what better capabilities we will have in 50 years?

I'd like to pick up on this point. Let's put aside the cases of rape and medical endangerment and assume that the fetus is perfectly healthy.

The onus of this argument has always been that the fetus is not alive. But here's a different way of looking at it. An abortion is not considered in these cases because the fetus is an unwanted clutch of cells. The abortion is considered because it is the new life that is unwanted. It is life that is the premise for the decision.

Is the notion of a clutch of cells simply cold comfort for the choice that is actually being made?

If the life has not began yet, then it's not really a life. The person choosing that they don't want that life is irrelevant because that life doesn't exist yet. It's different when there is a conscious being losing its life.

It's no different in my opinion than a person using a condom to prevent pregnancy, cells are being lost, but they don't sustain a conscious life on their own with a cerebral cortex of their own.

I actually saw a prolife slogan which was refreshingly acceptable for a change.

Choose Life

Mostly they are the same tired old "preaching to the choir" routines.

And speaking of hypocrisy, the very same hard-line conservatives that are always up in arms over taking care of the “lazy no-counts”, are the very same ones promoting an endless stream of poor children.
Go figure.

Perhaps I was being overly optimistic in thinking such laws are based on moral principles.

Yes, I think you were. As morals are very subjective, they can't have a solid foundation in law.

The sanctity argument sounds a lot like Catholic rhetoric. Catholics tend to be anti-abortion and anti-death penalty, which from my understanding is do to the idea that life is sacred, as you've previously mentioned. It seems like a logical argument.

Protestants, on the other hand, tend to be anti-abortion but pro-death penalty, which as you and I have both mentioned seems contradictory if they're using the sanctity of life basis for their views. But I suspect that they are not.


And speaking of hypocrisy, the very same hard-line conservatives that are always up in arms over taking care of the “lazy no-counts”, are the very same ones promoting an endless stream of poor children.
Go figure.


I've noticed that as well. It also seems like a contradictory view point. I can see eye-to-eye with fiscal conservatives on some of the entitlement & spending issues, but some of their other platforms are so illogical it makes me wonder how they fit in one political party.

So, therein lies the main argument, which has been argued into the ground - when does "life" occur?
Therein also lies the infinite ignorance that we use everyday to try and create useless arguments to make our jobs last a little longer. :rolleyes:

Ah, well, time to toss in my two cents' worth.

First, no matter how you feel about it, abortion is already the last stage of a condition that should not ever have occurred in the first place if abortion is even being considered. That is, we have abortion because of crazy religious views that don't allow birth control to prevent abortions from being needed in the first place.

We have abortion because we don't hold people responsible for their actions uniformly. The female CANNOT run away from the situation. She either has an abortion or a child. Period. The male (sperm donor) can leave because despite laws to the contrary, it isn't that hard for an irresponsible sperm donor to flee the local jurisdiction. When only increases the stress on the young woman that much more.

It is for this reason that I tend to believe guys should not talk about abortion at all unless they are willing to take their stance to its logical conclusion. That is, stay with your partner and your child or support your partner in getting an abortion. If you don't adopt or support a child or support your partner through the abortion decision, you are probably all talk and no action. OK, that's a tough attitude and I know it. But it is an honest belief.

I also consider that abortion is exceedingly complex because many different religious groups define different beginnings of life. If we are to allow freedom of religion, then we must allow each person to act according to their religious beliefs. If they aren't uniform (which they aren't) then you have trouble (which we DO have.)

Some folks say life begins at conception. Others, at quickening. Still others have later starts. Judaism says that separate and independent life begins only when the umbilicus is severed. I can't recall the denomination, but there is a group that focuses on the Biblical phrase, "The breath is the life." They consider the first breath as when life begins.

The point of this little tour is that if you want to allow for full religious freedom, then you cannot stop abortions at any time, any trimester. Otherwise, you disenfranchise those who have the latest start of life. Before anyone tosses anything scientific in this mix, remember that with freedom of religion, the person who is claiming to want religious freedom can at the same time reject scientific arguments. (I see this latter position all the time in the evolution/creation debates.) And don't forget that if the single mother is a member of a sect that uses prayer rather than medicine, she can already make life-or-death decisions to let the kid die anyway.

Finally, abortion prevents a child from enduring the pain of growing up unwanted. How many children grow up bitter and hateful, filled with terrible self-loathing because "mommie doesn't love me" ?? It is hard to imagine a child growing up in such an environment, yet we see unfit single parents in the headlines all the time, usually because their child has been maimed or killed. When a kid grows up neglected, that kid becomes a sad person. I know this from person experience because my dad was one of the neglected and unwanted kids of the world. His mother's abuse via neglect echoed over to my life. It wasn't pretty until Dad learned how to love himself at a relatively late age in life. I was late in learning that lesson myself.

I'll think about the death penalty for a separate post. I must admit mixed feelings on that one, but I'm not ready to discuss it yet.

Ah, well, time to toss in my two cents' worth.

First, no matter how you feel about it, abortion is already the last stage of a condition that should not ever have occurred in the first place if abortion is even being considered. That is, we have abortion because of crazy religious views that don't allow birth control to prevent abortions from being needed in the first place.

We have abortion because we don't hold people responsible for their actions uniformly.



Talk about crazy views -

What a warped argument - Abortion is the fault of religious views.

I dont recall any religious groups picketing public toilet vending machines, or boots or tesco, or online shopping, or even doctors prescibing contraception in the UK. Certainly not on any mass scale anyhow.

But somehow its relgions fault when what is available, isnt used, drunkenly accidentily adopting one bit of religious advice whilst ignoring a whole bunch of other advice in the same act.

You dont seem to hold anyone responsible for their own actions - instead shifting the blame to religion.

Bang another drum.

The point of this little tour is that if you want to allow for full religious freedom, then you cannot stop abortions at any time, any trimester. Otherwise, you disenfranchise those who have the latest start of life.

You would disenfranchise those with the earliest start of life surely?

ie if you allow abortions till 6 months, you are denying those who beleive life starts after abortions, but denying those who believe life starts to allow life.

Thereby giving one latter sides right to abortion over the earliers idea of right to life.

Whish is more valuable life - or abortion.

What a warped argument - Abortion is the fault of religious views.


Maybe it is different in the UK, but what The_Doc_Man says is very appropriate for the US. The religious right, as they are referred to, do not want to fund any sort of sex education other than abstinence only, which has been proven to be ineffective.

You would disenfranchise those with the earliest start of life surely?

ie if you allow abortions till 6 months, you are denying those who beleive life starts after abortions, but denying those who believe life starts to allow life.


Huh? If I'm understanding your rambling correctly, you don't understand what disenfranchise means.

Disenfranchise means to take away someone's rights. Those who believe life starts at conception do not have any rights on other people's body. Therefore, there is no disenfranchisement.

Therein also lies the infinite ignorance that we use everyday to try and create useless arguments to make our jobs last a little longer. :rolleyes:

I don't know Net, I work on fixed contracts, I want an argument that says I'm done.

These are all old arguments.

But one that does not require any stretch of religion, is father's rights, or lack of them.

Rights that are completely trampled on by our laws.

First, the man has no right to stop a woman from having an abortion, and then he has no right to enforce an abortion, and last if she doesn’t have an abortion he has to help pay to raise the child.

Sadly unless she has been date raped, she is actually more culpable then him, in deciding to have sex.

Ultimately in most cases it is the woman who decides.

He has no rights and very little control.

Maybe it is different in the UK, but what The_Doc_Man says is very appropriate for the US. The religious right, as they are referred to, do not want to fund any sort of sex education other than abstinence only, which has been proven to be ineffective.



Huh? If I'm understanding your rambling correctly, you don't understand what disenfranchise means.

Disenfranchise means to take away someone's rights. Those who believe life starts at conception do not have any rights on other people's body. Therefore, there is no disenfranchisement.

Forgive me for thinking, that if religious folk advocated contraception generally, then the abortion debate still wouldn't be over. You can pretend otherwise, for whatever reason you wish.

And again forgive me but I dont think my ramblings or supposed misunderstanding of disenfranchisement, has any real influence on your lack of ability or willingness to acknowledge the two (even forgetting the innocent to be allowed to live or not) sides to the age old thorny problem of whos rights to decide supercede whos in abortion.


We have strayed off topic anyhow, into abortion debate 101 for your benefit.

If the life has not began yet, then it's not really a life. The person choosing that they don't want that life is irrelevant because that life doesn't exist yet. It's different when there is a conscious being losing its life.

This is something I wrestle with philosophically.

Take a wall-lamp that is not switched on. When it is not switched on does it cease to become a wall-lamp or is it still a wall-lamp that is currently not switched on?

A womb is simply a womb thus contraception doesn't change any current state. [EDIT: Scratch that lol] Abortion is different by it's very definition. It alters a current state. When the sperm and egg have fertilized and the development cycle is in process does the resulting entity, the clutch of cells, not become something more than it's current state?

The lamp not emitting light is still a lamp. Why does the definition of the clutch of cells NOT leap beyond it's current state like the lamp does?

My consideration is this. The definition of the clutch of cells DOES leap beyond it's own definition, in the same way as the lamp, at the point when a woman first considers abortion. That the scientific definition of 'alive' MUST be an afterthought to soften the premise for the decision. The decision to not want something that is alive.

I'm sure some of it is bureaucratic, but for me, it's far more on the human side.

I'm hoping you are right. The idea that law in general does not have any moral grounding was quite depressing. :p

This is something I wrestle with philosophically.

Take a wall-lamp that is not switched on. When it is not switched on does it cease to become a wall-lamp or is it still a wall-lamp that is currently not switched on?

A womb is simply a womb thus contraception doesn't change any current state. [EDIT: Scratch that lol] Abortion is different by it's very definition. It alters a current state. When the sperm and egg have fertilized and the development cycle is in process does the resulting entity, the clutch of cells, not become something more than it's current state?

The lamp not emitting light is still a lamp. Why does the definition of the clutch of cells NOT leap beyond it's current state like the lamp does?

My consideration is this. The definition of the clutch of cells DOES leap beyond it's own definition, in the same way as the lamp, at the point when a woman first considers abortion. That the scientific definition of 'alive' MUST be an afterthought to soften the premise for the decision. The decision to not want something that is alive.

Im guessing you've been wrestling with this since the 70s?

Forgive me for thinking, that if religious folk advocated contraception generally, then the abortion debate still wouldn't be over. You can pretend otherwise, for whatever reason you wish.


Black and white thinking on such a topic never works. If religious institutions advocated for contraception, the abortion debate would still be around, but they would be less culpable in the overall problem.


And again forgive me but I dont think my ramblings or supposed misunderstanding of disenfranchisement, has any real influence on your lack of ability or willingness to acknowledge the two (even forgetting the innocent to be allowed to live or not) sides to the age old thorny problem of whos rights to decide supercede whos in abortion.


"Supposed misunderstanding"? I'll gladly listen to your explanation for how the use of the word 'disenfranchisement' in the context that you used it in was appropriate.


We have strayed off topic anyhow, into abortion debate 101 for your benefit.

Abortion debate 101? So essentially what you're saying is I should try to ignore the actual arguments you're presenting and view them in the spirit of what you're trying to say? If you're not capable of presenting a logical rationale for your side in a debate, why should anyone waste anytime listening?

As an aside, I think someone mentioned that you were likely the previous Pauldo person or whatever the name was. I seem to recall that name being attached to a lot of non-sequitor arguments, so I'm seeing why someone made the guess.


That the scientific definition of 'alive' MUST be an afterthought to soften the premise for the decision. The decision to not want something that is alive.


I suspect you're likely right in many of the cases, but people are quick to use such a statement as a rationale for why a law should be a certain way, which is why other people are quick to come up with more palpable explanations.

I suspect you're likely right in many of the cases, but people are quick to use such a statement as a rationale for why a law should be a certain way, which is why other people are quick to come up with more palpable explanations.

I'll try to present my argument for why it would be correct in MOST cases. That is to say my attempt to make it more objective.


Now, I know pro-choice has the potential to be abused and is abused. There are definitely people who have had multiple abortions without any feeling of regret involved. I believe this is a very small minority of people. I believe most people who have had abortions go into serious thoughts and considerations before coming to that conclusion.

From this we see that multiple abortions by any one individual becomes unacceptable. What is the factor that is being incremented that results in unacceptability? If this factor is severed completely from the notion of life how can it be incremented to unacceptable.

Does it not hold that there is a link between life and abortion in each and every case and that is why multiple cases by an individual 'grow' in our perception to unacceptability?

Black and white thinking on such a topic never works. If religious institutions advocated for contraception, the abortion debate would still be around, but they would be less culpable in the overall problem.



"Supposed misunderstanding"? I'll gladly listen to your explanation for how the use of the word 'disenfranchisement' in the context that you used it in was appropriate.



Abortion debate 101? So essentially what you're saying is I should try to ignore the actual arguments you're presenting and view them in the spirit of what you're trying to say? If you're not capable of presenting a logical rationale for your side in a debate, why should anyone waste anytime listening?

As an aside, I think someone mentioned that you were likely the previous Pauldo person or whatever the name was. I seem to recall that name being attached to a lot of non-sequitor arguments, so I'm seeing why someone made the guess.



I suspect you're likely right in many of the cases, but people are quick to use such a statement as a rationale for why a law should be a certain way, which is why other people are quick to come up with more palpable explanations.

I wasn't eloquent at all. You can use that excuse to be as dumb as you want if you wish. Why you would choose that is up to you. I think Bob saw you coming in his opt out at post 2.

You dont seem to hold anyone responsible for their own actions - instead shifting the blame to religion.

Anthony, you missed where I blamed society for allowing a "love 'em and leave 'em" attitude to persist. Religion IS to blame because it is inconsistent. Many modern religions have a double standard regarding men and women and their responsibilities. Devout (extremist) Christians look at Corinthians as evidence that women are somehow inferior and BELONG in the home making babies.

And I'm sorry to say that your logic is most notable in its absence. If you don't want women to have abortions then figure out realistic ways to prevent them from getting pregnant. When you do, PLEASE don't give me that stupidity called "just say no." In the phase of life where a young woman is more likely to get preggers, she is also in the phase of life that is most likely to experiment and least likely to have figured out all of the consequences. You can advise "just say no" but based on statistics, that might well have been the stupidest idea of all time.

You would disenfranchise those with the earliest start of life surely? Typical for a non-thinking, knee-jerk type. No, removing the restrictions on when you can have an abortion does NOTHING repeat NOTHING to people who believe that life starts earlier and act accordingly. Just because we take away the rule that says you can't have an abortion in third trimester, that would not mean that you had to get one. It would mean that if your religion allowed it late in gestation, you could still act according to your religious beliefs. And if you believed that life starts at conception and really wanted to follow that belief, you just wouldn't get the abortion. But you see the "late term abortion" phrase and go into a tizzy. Sorry, but that tizzy was your problem not mine, because it was self-imposed.

Bang another drum. In your case, it seems to be a gong, signifying nothing.

Thereby giving one latter sides right to abortion over the earliers idea of right to life. Ah, you tipped your hand here with the word "idea." You are avoiding the fact that you want the right to stop someone else whose beliefs differ from yours. In other words, you cannot accept another person's differences. So much for the idea of religious freedom. You want everyone to be free to follow YOUR idea of religion. Gee, thanks, pal... but no thanks. And if you can't see that, you remind me of the saying about the mote on someone else's eye.

Forgive me for thinking, that if religious folk advocated contraception generally, then the abortion debate still wouldn't be over. I don't want religion to advocate contraception. I just don't want them to block schools from teaching kids (of the appropriate age) about the concept. What I really DO want is an acknowledgment that "just say no" doesn't work and if you want to address the problem, you have to try something else.

Given a society that is multi-cultural in nature, where the rights of others to have varying beliefs must be preserved, do you or don't you want to reduce the number of abortions? I didn't say this before, but I really DO want to reduce the number of abortions by finding ways to not let it get that far. Because (check your history books on this) abortions have been around as long or longer than the Bible itself. You ain't gonna stop the now. So if you want to do something constructive, do something that has a chance of working. Stop trying things known to not work.

Religion IS to blame because it is inconsistent. Many modern religions have a double standard regarding men and women and their responsibilities.

I dont disgree with what you are saying - its where you focus your argument rather than looking at the wider picture.
Its not like wider society has that problem too? Not just religion.


And I'm sorry to say that your logic is most notable in its absence. If you don't want women to have abortions then figure out realistic ways to prevent them from getting pregnant. When you do, PLEASE don't give me that stupidity called "just say no." In the phase of life where a young woman is more likely to get preggers, she is also in the phase of life that is most likely to experiment and least likely to have figured out all of the consequences. You can advise "just say no" but based on statistics, that might well have been the stupidest idea of all time.



I have - its called contraception? Readly available contraception, even widely advocated - doesn't stop unwanted pregnacies - despite you pretending otherwise. Theres no lack of logic in that on my behalf.

Typical for a non-thinking, knee-jerk type. No, removing the restrictions on when you can have an abortion does NOTHING repeat NOTHING to people who believe that life starts earlier and act accordingly. Just because we take away the rule that says you can't have an abortion in third trimester, that would not mean that you had to get one. It would mean that if your religion allowed it late in gestation, you could still act according to your religious beliefs. And if you believed that life starts at conception and really wanted to follow that belief, you just wouldn't get the abortion. But you see the "late term abortion" phrase and go into a tizzy. Sorry, but that tizzy was your problem not mine, because it was self-imposed.




It clearly infringes on the peoples right to preserve what they consider to be human life., let alone the unborn childs right to live. As much as it enables those who dont consider it life to terminate it. Moving the time limit anyway infinges on someones supposed rights.

I merely stating bother sides of the argumnent. Its you who is non thinking and see it as a settled argument. I'm for abortion to a certain time, probably where teh baby could survive outside the womb. But I'm not going to pretend, those who beleive life has already begun, dont beleive a baby is being killed and their rights to preserve human life are being infringed upon, let alone the rights of the unborn child. JUst as someones rights to terminate may be infringed upon in the opposite opinion.



Ah, you tipped your hand here with the word "idea." You are avoiding the fact that you want the right to stop someone else whose beliefs differ from yours. In other words, you cannot accept another person's differences. So much for the idea of religious freedom. You want everyone to be free to follow YOUR idea of religion. Gee, thanks, pal... but no thanks. And if you can't see that, you remind me of the saying about the mote on someone else's eye.




Exactly wrong - its not my idea at all. I'm just acknowldeging both sides to the argument, to make a reasonable assessment of whose supossed right may be infringed. Failure to do so - would be to ignore peoples ideas, and their perceived rights. Failure to accept other peoples differnaces - is embodied by your statements - of not even acknowledging the truely held, perfectlly logical and valid differnaces of opinion. Not achkmowlding someone elses opinion and feelings allows enables you to trample all over them guilt free. It may feel reasonable to you, but actually its ignorant.

I don't want religion to advocate contraception. I just don't want them to block schools from teaching kids (of the appropriate age) about the concept. What I really DO want is an acknowledgment that "just say no" doesn't work and if you want to address the problem, you have to try something else.



Yes why not - I wouldn't blame religion for the failure of non religiuos views to get their points across. Thats a failure on their behalf just as much, (if you really beleive bothe sides are allowed an opinion). Maybe its a failure or the US government and secular society generally, just as much.

Given a society that is multi-cultural in nature, where the rights of others to have varying beliefs must be preserved, do you or don't you want to reduce the number of abortions? I didn't say this before, but I really DO want to reduce the number of abortions by finding ways to not let it get that far. Because (check your history books on this) abortions have been around as long or longer than the Bible itself. You ain't gonna stop the now. So if you want to do something constructive, do something that has a chance of working. Stop trying things known to not work.

Yes I agree -society isn;'t religion, its wider than that. Which is why your focus on religion and its lack of acceptance of contraception, may help in some areas. Its not really looking at the full picture.


Judging by your response - to automatically assume I'm religiuos, wanting to push my ideas above others, when actually all I am doing is making sure both sides of the argumemant are put forward. (Its the same when any semi religiuso thread opens) Would rather indicate to me, its you who is intolerant of others opinions or beliefs. I dont advocate them - I merely state them.

THis may indicate why true religiuos peoples dont bother argueing on here and the debate gets nowhere.

What you actually want - or certainly all you acheive is to shut debate down. That comes from a non religiuos, pro abortion standpoint. Ignore that opinion if you want, but dont you and Adam pretend its you who is tolernat and reasonable.

It clearly infringes on the peoples right to preserve what they consider to be human life., let alone the unborn childs right to live.


And this would be Exhibit A in the case Anthony v. dictionary. To disenfranchise someone, you have to take away a right they have. No one has the right "to preserve what they consider to be a human life" in another person.


But I'm not going to pretend, those who beleive life has already begun, beleive a baby is being killed and their rights to preserve human life are being infringed upon, let alone the rights of the unborn child.


Here is more rambling. If I'm reading you correctly (and I definitely wouldn't bet on it), you're asserting that a person who believes that life starts at conception has their rights infringed upon when anyone in the world decides to abort a baby. If I am correct, then all I can suggest to you is that you learn the difference between a "right" and a "belief".

They say that in conversations you should always try to find common ground with those you're speaking with. I think we've found some: We both agree that you're not eloquent.


What you actually want - or certainly all you acheive is to shut debate down. That comes from a non religiuos, pro abortion standpoint. Ignore that opinion if you want, but dont you and Adam pretend its you who is tolernat and reasonable.

If someone is not able to defend their side in a debate, then the natural conclusion is that the debate is "shut down".

Dan-cat and I agree on some things, and disagree on others. Even when I disagree with him, its pretty clear that he is putting together logical, rational points. He presents his side of the argument in a way that makes sense and has merit. In the end, neither of us may change our minds, but the debate is useful to see other viewpoints beyond our own.

I don't see the same value in your postings.

And this would be Exhibit A in the case Anthony v. dictionary. To disenfranchise someone, you have to take away a right they have. No one has the right "to preserve what they consider to be a human life" in another person.



Here is more rambling. If I'm reading you correctly (and I definitely wouldn't bet on it), you're asserting that a person who believes that life starts at conception has their rights infringed upon when anyone in the world decides to abort a baby. If I am correct, then all I can suggest to you is that you learn the difference between a "right" and a "belief".

They say that in conversations you should always try to find common ground with those you're speaking with. I think we've found some: We both agree that you're not eloquent.



If someone is not able to defend their side in a debate, then the natural conclusion is that the debate is "shut down".

Dan-cat and I agree on some things, and disagree on others. Even when I disagree with him, its pretty clear that he is putting together logical, rational points. He presents his side of the argument in a way that makes sense and has merit. In the end, neither of us may change our minds, but the debate is useful to see other viewpoints beyond our own.

I don't see the same value in your postings.

Your completely incapable of seeing a opinion other than your own.
Your problem not mine. As is your lack of civility in all you say.

In the end, neither of us may change our minds, but the debate is useful to see other viewpoints beyond our own.

Exactly. I brought it up because I read another discussion on another forum with very bright people who viewed 'pro-lifers' as lacking intelligence.

My gut reaction to abortion is for it to be discouraged but I wanted to throw my reasons up against the wall to see if there was anything blindingly obvious that I hadn't understood.

So far, correct me if I'm wrong, it seems that my view is reasonable as long as it isn't imposed on an individual's freedom. That is to say my arguments are sound but do not outweigh the rights of the individual.

I'd have to agree that they are reasonable, though you're discussing a topic in which reason rarely ever makes an appearance.

Its not like wider society has that problem too? Not just religion.

Anthony, despite the ideal case, I must say that many of our modern society's views do in fact come from a religious origin. I will acknowledge that it is difficult to disentangle them from each other.

It clearly infringes on the peoples right to preserve what they consider to be human life., let alone the unborn childs right to live.

This is a presumed right that doesn't exist in law. It only exists in religious beliefs. Also, a quibble. Technically, there is no such thing as an unborn child. It is correctly called a fetus. Use of the term "unborn child" betrays an attempt to sway the argument by defining the fetus to be something it is not.

Readly available contraception, even widely advocated - doesn't stop unwanted pregnacies - despite you pretending otherwise. Theres no lack of logic in that on my behalf.

Readily available, but not in the Bible belt. Widely advocated, but not in the Bible belt. Contraception doesn't stop squat if you don't know about it and don't use it. Explain to me how THAT is illogical.

Would rather indicate to me, its you who is intolerant of others opinions or beliefs. I dont advocate them - I merely state them.

Let's see... intolerant of others' opinions... but I'm the one who pointed out how the current limit on abortion ignores the religious beliefs of some denominations.

Adam Cameron seems to see the point I'm making in a way that you do not. Your eloquence on this subject leaves much to be desired. I'll not be so intolerant as to hold that against you, though.

Moving the time limit anyway infinges on someones supposed rights.

The operative word here is "supposed." Moving the time limit doesn't MAKE someone do anything. It doesn't infringe on anything except someone else's outraged sensibilities. But it infringes on no rights that an unrelated third party actually has. The move of that time limit allows a person to act within the confines of their conscience. It offers the widest possible tolerance of the beliefs of others. Do you not see this?

The fact that someone makes a choice that you yourself could not make doesn't say anything about either of you except that you are different from each other. You may offer an opinion that someone is wicked or evil for making that decision, but that is your opinion, not guaranteed to be a fact.

Anthony, we take a different world view. In my world view, I am not my brother's keeper. My brother neither needs nor wants nor deserves a keeper. I have no right to claim to be a keeper. The ONLY legit person who COULD make such a claim in this context is the pregnant woman, who is the keeper for the gestating fetus.

Earlier in this thread, someone commented on parental rights of the father. I'll pass a comment on that one, just to stoke the flames a bit more. I fully agree that the sperm donor who WANTS to be a father should indeed have a say in the matter. But here, I am mindful of the yin and yang that applies. With every right, there is a responsibility. With every privilege there is a duty.

When men run away from their pregnant previous partner, they abrogate their rights at the same time they abrogate their responsibilities. And Anthony, here I will agree with part of what you said: Society LETS this happen. That is just wrong. If a guy donated sperm to someone he wouldn't be caught dead with, why did he donate in the first place? If he was that desperate, he should have used a manual method. I will strongly agree that this society allows irresponsible people to contribute to unpleasant situations that have no answers of universal appeal. Having said that, I have to ask: Once you are between the rock and the hard place, who has the right to fault you for your choice if they aren't going to help you? (Offering platitudes in the name of advice is NOT help!)

Exactly. I brought it up because I read another discussion on another forum with very bright people who viewed 'pro-lifers' as lacking intelligence.


I think this comes from an individual's refusal to see reason. If you find someone who is not religious but is extremely pro-life (very rare), their arguments tend to gravitate towards wanting to punish the irresponsible mother. They will point out that it was an active decision to engage in intercourse, the availability of protection, etc.

These are all logical arguments, but they are geared towards punishing the mother by forcing her to keep her baby that she does not want. I cannot imagine how horrible of a life that would be if you were that kid. So, from my point of view, you're not really punishing the mother, you're punishing the kid.

The more typical pro-lifers are the religious variety. Their arguments tend towards the "every life is sacred, god acts in mysterious ways" mantra. They have a hard time understanding that not everyone follows their religion, and thus should not be constrained by their beliefs.


My gut reaction to abortion is for it to be discouraged but I wanted to throw my reasons up against the wall to see if there was anything blindingly obvious that I hadn't understood.


I think everyone agrees that abortion should be discouraged (though those who are pro-choice are discouraging it by encouraging sex education, contraceptives, family planning services, etc).


That is to say my arguments are sound but do not outweigh the rights of the individual.

Based on what I have read of what you've posted so far, I'd agree.

Let's not take any responses personal and follow through with personal attacks.

I would love to hear from someone who is "pro-life" when a rape occurs and a fetus is concieved. What are your opinions in this situation?

I would love to hear from someone who is "pro-life" when a rape occurs and a fetus is concieved. What are your opinions in this situation?
I believe the pro lifers opinions are that it's just unfortunate for the mother but she should learn to forgive and put the child up for adoption:eek:

I believe the pro lifers opinions are that it's just unfortunate for the mother but she should learn to forgive and put the child up for adoption:eek:

I want to hear from them. There are many different beliefs and ideas that qualify as "pro-life."

Something has been bothering me recently and it has to do with how developed countries determine the sanctity of life.

The two elements that hinge on my point are abortion and the death penalty.

The principle behind outlawing capital punishment is the sanctity of life. That is, that life itself is immune from the remit of punishment because it is held higher in value than the value of punishment. However in nations where this is upheld in law, why is it that the same principle tends not to be applied to the issue of abortion.

If the sanctity of life is given enough credence to outlaw capital punishment where is the same credence for outlawing abortion?

We can see the same thing in reverse in the US where capital punishment is given credence by the state but the issue of the legality of abortion is still under much debate.

My point is not to argue the pros and cons of abortion and the death penalty in themselves though that may follow but rather the contradictory approaches of the developed world when determining the value of life when dealing with these two issues.My objections to capital punishment is not based on the "sanctity of life" argument but on the fact that it is irreversible and there is no scope for correcting a mistake if it becomes clear that the conviction was unsound.

As regards to abortion I believe it is justified as a last resort depending on the circumstances

My objections to capital punishment is not based on the "sanctity of life" argument but on the fact that it is irreversible and there is no scope for correcting a mistake if it becomes clear that the conviction was unsound.



Equally as important are cases where there may be coconspirators. McVeigh will never tell us who conspired to kill those people in Oklahoma.

Also everyone ignored my previous post about the father having no rights in this whole process.
It doesn’t seem like men should even engage in this discussion, being as it is, completely about women.

There have been cases where men have successfully been able to block abortions in certain situations through legal means. At any rate, I think it's certainly an important topic of discussion for everyone to be involved in, not just women. Using your argument, non-gays shouldn't have any discussion on whether or not gay marriage is okay because it doesn't involve them.

There have been cases where men have successfully been able to block abortions in certain situations through legal means. At any rate, I think it's certainly an important topic of discussion for everyone to be involved in, not just women. Using your argument, non-gays shouldn't have any discussion on whether or not gay marriage is okay because it doesn't involve them.

I completely agree. Why would any straight person give a second thought to gay marriage?

I completely agree. Why would any straight person give a second thought to gay marriage?

Because they do. Many straight people are fighting the rights for gays to marry because they claim it will destroy the sanctity of marriage. Many straight people, but unfortunately not enough, are coming to the defense to allow gay marriages because it's a right all Americans should have. Too many people have the "it doesn't affect me, so why should I care" approach. They wouldn't like that approach if it was a right they were losing and everyone else thought the same way. I believe that as a citizen here, it's my duty to uphold everyone's legal rights, regardless of how I might be affected personally.

Because they do. Many straight people are fighting the rights for gays to marry because they claim it will destroy the sanctity of marriage. Many straight people, but unfortunately not enough, are coming to the defense to allow gay marriages because it's a right all Americans should have. Too many people have the "it doesn't affect me, so why should I care" approach. They wouldn't like that approach if it was a right they were losing and everyone else thought the same way. I believe that as a citizen here, it's my duty to uphold everyone's legal rights, regardless of how I might be affected personally.



Actually they are not "legal" rights at all. There has to be a law first; then they're legal. Now they may be inalienable, but that doesn’t make them legal.

And anyway it’s just another diversion from the real issues we face; for without economic security and opportunity, no other right or protection is of any value.

It doesn’t seem like men should even engage in this discussion, being as it is, completely about women.

I wouldn't go that far. Its important that men are in the discussion, but I agree in the end that it has to be up to the individual woman that is pregnant.

I think it would be terrible if a woman was planning on aborting a baby that the father wanted and was willing to raise on his own. But for him to be able to mandate she carry the baby to term seems like it is going too far. I know there will be some strange and unusual situations that will come up that could put this to the test, but I think erring on this side is better than erring on the other.


Because they do. Many straight people are fighting the rights for gays to marry because they claim it will destroy the sanctity of marriage.


There are two main factors here: Human nature and religion.

It is human nature to fear the things that we do not understand. Some straight-laced folks have this fear that gay people are out there are to convert their straight children over to the other team. Add in the social pressures that such a family would face from their community, the questions they may ask, etc. and it makes sense why they fear this.

Then there's good ole' holier-than-thou religion that tells people that being gay is wrong. Which the current crop of the religious fundies have turned into "being gay is a choice". Because if being gay is not a choice, then their god made these people as abnormal sinners, which they cannot fathom.

Actually they are not "legal" rights at all. There has to be a law first; then they're legal. Now they may be inalienable, but that doesn’t make them legal.

And anyway it’s just another diversion from the real issues we face; for without economic security and opportunity, no other right or protection is of any value.



Okay, maybe it's not about legal rights as much as equal rights. If we don't allow everyone the same opportunity, then it's really not a free and equal country. You are granted more rights on a legal basis with a true marriage than you are with a civil union or any other terminology. For a country that based on equal rights for all legal citizens, it's definitely a hypocritical stance to not allow them that same right.

There are two main factors here: Human nature and religion.

It is human nature to fear the things that we do not understand. Some straight-laced folks have this fear that gay people are out there are to convert their straight children over to the other team. Add in the social pressures that such a family would face from their community, the questions they may ask, etc. and it makes sense why they fear this.

Then there's good ole' holier-than-thou religion that tells people that being gay is wrong. Which the current crop of the religious fundies have turned into "being gay is a choice". Because if being gay is not a choice, then their god made these people as abnormal sinners, which they cannot fathom.

As far as religion goes, it has no place on a legal stance. It doesn't matter to me what you believe religiously, your religion has no basis on not granting the same rights to others. The government has no right to grant something or prevent something based on a religious stance.

From a human nature standpoint, we'll call it ignorance. Ignorance also has no stance. Not too long ago, people believed that blacks were below whites and interracial couples were very frowned upon. Today, it's not so bad, but there are still rural places where ignorance still holds. I don't blame the individuals, but more the ideals of the region as a whole. People cannot help their own upbringing, but they should still research something before providing an opinion based on something they truly KNOW nothing about.

I know this is a slight tangent.. but... In the average human body, only 10% of the cells are actually human.
The rest are from the trillions of bacteria living on and in us..... so kill whatever you want, it's no different than washing your counter tops. (HaHaha)

I know this is a slight tangent.. but... In the average human body, only 10% of the cells are actually human.
The rest are from the trillions of bacteria living on and in us..... so kill whatever you want, it's no different than washing your counter tops. (HaHaha)

I remember reading about that. It's fascinating how complex our bodies really are and how much of us are not actually human that make up who we are. That these different biological cells can live mostly in harmony is complex beyond comprehension.

Also everyone ignored my previous post about the father having no rights in this whole process. It doesn’t seem like men should even engage in this discussion, being as it is, completely about women.

Thales, did you not read the tail end of my previous post? The last two paragraphs were exactly about men's rights.

I'll try this another way. Everyone is talking about rights. But if you study the matter, rights must be balanced with responsibilities. If a man acts as no more than a sperm donor, he should have no rights. If he takes responsibility to be with his partner and help her through the difficult time, then I'm all in favor of the man and woman together making a decision. I simply suggest that if you cut and run after you find that your former sweetie is preggers, then when you left behind your responsibilities, you left behind your rights at the same exact moment. Rights and responsibilities are yin and yang, forever paired, forever inseparable.

Thales, did you not read the tail end of my previous post? The last two paragraphs were exactly about men's rights.

I'll try this another way. Everyone is talking about rights. But if you study the matter, rights must be balanced with responsibilities. If a man acts as no more than a sperm donor, he should have no rights. If he takes responsibility to be with his partner and help her through the difficult time, then I'm all in favor of the man and woman together making a decision. I simply suggest that if you cut and run after you find that your former sweetie is preggers, then when you left behind your responsibilities, you left behind your rights at the same exact moment. Rights and responsibilities are yin and yang, forever paired, forever inseparable.

That is the opposite of what I'm saying. A man has no right to have his child.

My views which are not specifically aimed at anyone…


Other than the father’s rights to have his opinion heard on the matter, I think the mother should have the last say.

If it could be done, under what circumstance would anyone else force a woman to bear a child she did not want?
And, how would such force be applied?

Would we, at first sight of pregnancy, strap the woman to a table, put her on life support, induce a coma, wait for gestation and deliver via caesarean section?
That was meant to be absurd, reductio ad absurdum, but if we can’t face the logical consequences of our beliefs then that is what it would become. The mother’s body would have become little more than a baby factory under the control of others.

And, in the extreme, how would the birth and subsequent survival of the child be enforced?
(Please do not approach the answer to that question from the point of view that we can not guarantee the subsequent survival of any child;
I mean murder.)
Would it therefore become imperative that any mother tobe who, at anytime expressed a desire not to bear the child, should, for safety reasons, have access to the child removed from her after birth?




I think that people of both sexes, other than the mother, are living in some judgemental ivory tower that allows them to simply sleep well at night with their own beliefs. They sleep with some warm and fuzzy feeling that they have done some good for the day, by their definition of good. They may arise and see a new day, a new challenge, and a new place to force their opinion on someone else.

The mother may not share that same day to day definition of good. The warm and fuzzy’s may have moved on, gone to another tree to hug, another whale to save. The mother may be lost, nowhere to go, no help at hand. The people that required her to have the child have moved on. The righteousness of those that enforced the birth is not replaced by their responsibility for the birth; the mother is alone.




A woman’s body is not simply a baby factory and a fetus is not simply a judgemental belief;
it is an ongoing reality that, ultimately, the mother must bear… or not.

Then there's good ole' holier-than-thou religion that tells people that being gay is wrong. Which the current crop of the religious fundies have turned into "being gay is a choice". Because if being gay is not a choice, then their god made these people as abnormal sinners, which they cannot fathom.

It is a while since I read it but I thought that the bible considered the practice of homosexuality to be wrong, not the mere existence, and of course as women don't really count in the Bible this sanction was only aimed at men.

Brian

I am not personally advocating that men should have any rights in this situation. It’s just that in America the custody and child support laws are flawed.

Men have a harder time getting custody and the vast majority of them are forced to pay the woman, even if in some cases he should be the primary parent. Joint custody is becoming more prevalent lately but it’s still weighted too much towards protecting women.

There was a report on NPR the other day. 13% of the men incarcerated in one of the Southern States, I believe it was South Carolina, are locked up for neglecting to pay their child support.

13% are you kidding me?

Of that 13%, 70% are incapable of paying because they are unemployed and indigent.

I imagine none of these guys would have said “please baby don’t have an abortion”.

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Of that 13%, 70% are incapable of paying because they are unemployed and indigent.

I imagine none of these guys would have said “please baby don’t have an abortion”.

Just because they are poor and the law jails them for it - doesn't beleive me to think that they all wish their kids hadn't been born!

Especially as financial situations can change.

Just because they are poor and the law jails them for it - doesn't beleive me to think that they all wish their kids hadn't been born!

Especially as financial situations can change.

I agree, I think his statement might apply to some, but I doubt it would apply to all. It was a little generalized.

Can I just clarify something here.?
Are you americans saying or agreeing with the statement that America imprisons people who can't rather than wont pay child support?

Brian

Can I just clarify something here.?
Are you americans saying or agreeing with the statement that America imprisons people who can't rather than wont pay child support?

Brian

We don't imprison those who can't. Trust me, if they did then I know people who would have went long ago. Deadbeats who don't pay any support for their kids and never keep a job.

Can I just clarify something here.?
Are you americans saying or agreeing with the statement that America imprisons people who can't rather than wont pay child support?

Brian

Heres a story - quoting the original 13% statistic.

http://www.wbez.org/story/home-page-top-stories/2011-03-22/supreme-court-weighs-rights-deadbeat-parents-84110#

Heres a story - quoting the original 13% statistic.

http://www.wbez.org/story/home-page-top-stories/2011-03-22/supreme-court-weighs-rights-deadbeat-parents-84110#

Yes, that is a transcript from the NPR report.

We don't imprison those who can't. Trust me, if they did then I know people who would have went long ago. Deadbeats who don't pay any support for their kids and never keep a job.

Your personal experiences are hardly considered empirical.

Your personal experiences are hardly considered empirical.

Its as empirical as could be expected isn't it? (in that the ability to pay is always going to be somewhat subjective) Just maybe not too wide ranging or universally true/conclusive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research

just a thought, (And i know it's a horrible thought) but in many ways a fetus is like cancer.

Both grow inside a host body, both are not able to sustain themselves
Both cause a risk to the host.
both are "Alive" and made of human cells

wouldn't it be odd if we said that people couldn't remove those cancer cells... made it against the law.... Because God made their body that way.

That was exactly my point. Statistics for something that is so subjective (as most are) are complete BS. Watch the Penn and Teller episode on it.

That was exactly my point. Statistics for something that is so subjective (as most are) are complete BS. Watch the Penn and Teller episode on it.


What about 13% is subject to interpretation? Now I realize you are most likely not talking about that part.

But no matter how you slice it, a measurable percentage are not able to pay. And any way you dice it a measurable amount of men that do not have custody, deserve it.

I think they should reward joint custody in the majority of cases and in those, no child support should be demanded except in cases of real income disparity.

What about 13% is subject to interpretation? Now I realize you are most likely not talking about that part.

But no matter how you slice it, a measurable percentage are not able to pay. And any way you dice it a measurable amount of men that do not have custody, deserve it.

I think they should reward joint custody in the majority of cases and in those, no child support should be demanded except in cases of real income disparity.

Not able to pay is subjective. One person may be looking for work and unable to find it. Another may not be able to pay because they won't find work or are lazy. Every case is different. Statistics can't account for all unique situations.

Not able to pay is subjective. One person may be looking for work and unable to find it. Another may not be able to pay because they won't find work or are lazy. Every case is different. Statistics can't account for all unique situations.

That's the point of deviations in statistical math, but the numbers are not really the issue are they?

The issue is that a woman decides either way if she is going to have an abortion or not. The father is locked into a life time commitment to her decision. Maybe if a man goes on record as wanting an abortion, she must wave child support rights, or else she must give the child up for adoption.

The issue is that a woman decides either way if she is going to have an abortion or not. The father is locked into a life time commitment to her decision.

Not really. If she opts to have an abortion and the man doesn't want it, then yes, that would be true. But in the reverse scenario, there are thousands upon thousands of cases where the men just up and leave. So in fact, no it is not the case. Biologically, men have it easy, we were given a free pass to stay or go. Don't sign the birth certificate... done and done.

Now you listed of what the woman should have to do in the event the father doesn't want the child.... what if it's the woman that wants to abort and the man that wants the child.. Are you suggesting a law that would put the wants of a man over that of a woman's own body and well being?? (Sounds like someone is reverting back a few centuries)

Not really. If she opts to have an abortion and the man doesn't want it, then yes, that would be true. But in the reverse scenario, there are thousands upon thousands of cases where the men just up and leave. So in fact, no it is not the case. Biologically, men have it easy, we were given a free pass to stay or go. Don't sign the birth certificate... done and done.

Now you listed of what the woman should have to do in the event the father doesn't want the child.... what if it's the woman that wants to abort and the man that wants the child.. Are you suggesting a law that would put the wants of a man over that of a woman's own body and well being?? (Sounds like someone is reverting back a few centuries)

No actually I'm not. I have presented this scenario, as yet another reason why contraceptives are so important.

A single act can destroy lives. People should not drink and drive and they should be very careful about unprotected sex.

Condoms can puncture, or be defective. What then?
What if the woman wishes to abort and the man doesn't? who's rights are more important?
The woman with the risk to her own life? Or the man's right even though he has no personal risk involved with his need or want?

Condoms can puncture, or be defective. What then?
What if the woman wishes to abort and the man doesn't? who's rights are more important?
The woman with the risk to her own life? Or the man's right even though he has no personal risk involved with his need or want?

I'm not making any assertion other than men are not counted at all, except to pay child support.

Obviously the system has failed and no one has proposed anything better. I think incarceration into the penal system is highly flawed and should be replaced by some kind of work program.

I would say that the men are counted as much as should be expected given their level of participation/risk in the birthing process.

If a man wants the baby, and the woman doesn't, I think it's fair enough that most people would agree that a law giving the man the right to force a woman to term would be unacceptable.

If a woman wants the baby and a man doesn't... Well the woman accepted the risk during intercourse, the man should have as well... so it would make sense that his opinion no longer counts.

I will however agree that the system has failed. In multiple aspects, men who don't pay and can often get away with it. Men who can't pay and go to jail for it, and men who get taken to the cleaners because they can easily afford to care for a child, and as such courts award huge amounts of money in child support that end up paying for mother and child. To me that is just as bad, but that is all a legal fairness of payment system that needs to be re-adjusted, and has very little to do with legalities of aborition or the governments decision on capitol punishment (As per the origins of this thread)

I would say that the men are counted as much as should be expected given their level of participation/risk in the birthing process.

If a man wants the baby, and the woman doesn't, I think it's fair enough that most people would agree that a law giving the man the right to force a woman to term would be unacceptable.

If a woman wants the baby and a man doesn't... Well the woman accepted the risk during intercourse, the man should have as well... so it would make sense that his opinion no longer counts.

I will however agree that the system has failed. In multiple aspects, men who don't pay and can often get away with it. Men who can't pay and go to jail for it, and men who get taken to the cleaners because they can easily afford to care for a child, and as such courts award huge amounts of money in child support that end up paying for mother and child. To me that is just as bad, but that is all a legal fairness of payment system that needs to be re-adjusted, and has very little to do with legalities of aborition or the governments decision on capitol punishment (As per the origins of this thread)

Threads evolve and there is no answer to the divine.

Threads evolve and there is no answer to the divine.

HAHAHA, too true, well put!

But I guess that's why no politician has come up with a better solution to child support hu?? Too bad they spend all their time on facebook and solitair! (Reference to an email i received today showing a picture of members of parliment in Ontario i think, playing on FB and Solitair and checking sports scores when they should be working...)

HAHAHA, too true, well put!

But I guess that's why no politician has come up with a better solution to child support hu?? Too bad they spend all their time on facebook and solitair! (Reference to an email i received today showing a picture of members of parliment in Ontario i think, playing on FB and Solitair and checking sports scores when they should be working...)

Reminds me of the photo that was shot by the AP during a Congressional hearing here in the states that shows multiple people playing cards on their laptops.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/solitaire.asp

Is that the picture you are speaking of? It's actually US Congress, hard at work. :rolleyes:

Is that the picture you are speaking of? It's actually US Congress, hard at work. :rolleyes:

Actually, its just the Connecticut House of Representatives according to the article you linked. It wouldn't suprise me greatly if there were individual congress persons in the US Congress that did the same, though.

Actually, its just the Connecticut House of Representatives according to the article you linked. It wouldn't suprise me greatly if there were individual congress persons in the US Congress that did the same, though.

Watching video games would be a marked improvement over their current accomplishments.

For the hundereds of thousands a year some of these guys make.. I would kick some serious video game ass!!!! I'll gladly sit and play cards all day and everyone once and a while go "hu... what? we get a pay raise? Ya i'll vote in favor....Hey did you see this on my friends wall...."