Mint Chocolate Ice Cream Reigns Supreme! & Abortion.

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Thu Aug 02, 2007 1:05 am

kentuckyfried wrote:
Ice Cream is ICE CREAM, not a frozen dessert of just any kind.


Certainly, but I again ask whether a Klondike Bar would be considered Ice Cream, as it is primarily Ice Cream and is fundamentally no different from dipped cone, except that it lacks said cone, making the treat have an even higher ice cream ratio then a dipped cone.
torig
level5
level5
Posts: 1251
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:19 pm

Postby torig » Thu Aug 02, 2007 1:11 am

torig wrote:Abortion should be executed as soon as possible and for a few very valid reasons only:
While I agree that a pregnant woman should consider the above, and that her decision should be informed by those factors, I strongly feel that the final decision needs to be hers, and hers alone -- unconstrained.

xander


I never said these factors should govern whether an abortion is "allowed" to take place. But they sure should enter the decision making process.
If the woman, and the man (?) agree an abortion is in order, one should happen. I do feel that performing an abortion at 7 months (for example) or performing 6 abortions in 2 years time (again, an example) is really stretching it, on the other hand.

The "I guess there should really be limits to what can and cannot be done in terms of abortion" in my text was a bit unfortunate, as I didn't mean limits imposed by third parties. Rather limits by common sense ;)
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Thu Aug 02, 2007 1:52 am

torig wrote:I never said these factors should govern whether an abortion is "allowed" to take place. But they sure should enter the decision making process.

I'm sorry for the confusion, but this bit implied otherwise:
torig wrote:To get back to the topic at hand. I guess there should really be limits to what can and cannot be done in terms of abortion. Abortion should be executed as soon as possible and for a few very valid reasons only:...


xander
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Thu Aug 02, 2007 1:57 am

xander wrote:While I agree that a pregnant woman should consider the above, and that her decision should be informed by those factors, I strongly feel that the final decision needs to be hers, and hers alone -- unconstrained.

xander


What about the rights of the father? Now, certainly if the mother's life is in danger she should have the final say, and the woman is the one to bear the child until birth, but allowing her to make such a decision unilaterally in a normal healthy pregnancy is unfair to the father. Such a approach denies the father's rights while still holding him to his responsibilities.

A father has a legal duty to provide support to their child, and provide for the child's welfare. The child part of him, and from him. The father will have primary financial obligations to that child for at least 18 years (unless the child legally emancipates themselves), yet they are to be denied any say in whether the child is allowed to come to term?

Further, what if the father is willing to accept full custody and parental responsibility for the child? The mother, who was a willing participant in creating the child, is given sole right to terminate that child for no other reason then it will inconvenience her for a few months?

Now, don't take this as an endorsement of abortion, I am strongly against it. But, removing the father from the decision making process should result in removing him from the results of that decision.



Now, back to ice cream. I think I'll have an orange creamcicle.
kentuckyfried
level2
level2
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: Canada

Postby kentuckyfried » Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:05 am

Feud wrote:Now, back to ice cream. I think I'll have an orange creamcicle.


Ah! I forgot how much I used to love creamsicles, I used to eat them far too much when I was younger :)

In regards to your Klondike suggestion, I would say that if there is ice cream in it, you should be able to call it ice cream without persecution.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:06 am

Feud wrote:What about the rights of the father? Now, certainly if the mother's life is in danger she should have the final say, and the woman is the one to bear the child until birth, but allowing her to make such a decision unilaterally in a normal healthy pregnancy is unfair to the father. Such a approach denies the father's rights while still holding him to his responsibilities.


Until the father can carry the child, he cannot be the deciding factor. We have to leave it up to the couple to work it out themselves. However in the event of a dispute, the woman should never be forced to carry the child against her will.

Feud wrote:Further, what if the father is willing to accept full custody and parental responsibility for the child? The mother, who was a willing participant in creating the child, is given sole right to terminate that child for no other reason then it will inconvenience her for a few months?


Yes.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:12 am

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:Until the father can carry the child, he cannot be the deciding factor. We have to leave it up to the couple to work it out themselves. However in the event of a dispute, the woman should never be forced to carry the child against her will.


So a woman is allowed to terminate her obligations at her convenience, but a male is not? A woman should not be required to deal with nine months of effort as a result of a previous choice, but a male is obligated to pay ten's of thousands of dollars whether he wants to or not for that same choice? In the case of a dispute, the woman is given full control of the situation, and the man is legally required to be subject to her will?

That is an incredibly sexist and legally irrational way to go about things. It flies in the face of equal protection under the law, by allowing individuals exclusive rights based solely on gender.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:16 am

Feud wrote:So a woman is allowed to terminate her obligations at her convenience, but a male is not? A woman should not be required to deal with nine months of effort as a result of a previous choice, but a male is obligated to pay ten's of thousands of dollars whether he wants to or not for that same choice? In the case of a dispute, the woman is given full control of the situation, and the man is legally required to be subject to her will?

That is an incredibly sexist and, dare I say, legally irrational way to go about things.


This is a woman's body we are talking about. It is one thing to require some financial support for a child. It is quite another to force someone to go through nine months of pregnancy. I don't really agree with the way men are legally the primary financial supporter. I think it is sexist and the product of an outdated social structure. However I don't think the government has any business telling anyone what they can and can't do inside their own body.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:23 am

Feud wrote:What about the rights of the father?

What rights?

Feud wrote:Such a approach denies the father's rights while still holding him to his responsibilities.

What responsibilities?

Feud wrote:A father has a legal duty to provide support to their child, and provide for the child's welfare. The child part of him, and from him. The father will have primary financial obligations to that child for at least 18 years (unless the child legally emancipates themselves), yet they are to be denied any say in whether the child is allowed to come to term?

It is entirely the decision of the mother. She must make the choice, but should also be held responsible for the consequences. You are trying to accuse me of holding men to a double standard -- I am not. If a woman decides to carry a pregnancy to term, over the objections of any man (who, point of information, might not be the biological father), she is responsible for that decision, and for what happens to the child. Legally speaking. It is my opinion that the laws should reflect that, though I am aware that they do not, as they stand.

Feud wrote:Further, what if the father is willing to accept full custody and parental responsibility for the child? The mother, who was a willing participant in creating the child, is given sole right to terminate that child for no other reason then it will inconvenience her for a few months?

It sucks to be him. And I take objection to your implication that a 9 month pregnancy is an "inconvenience." Despite modern medicine, pregnancy is still a risky process. A pregnancy can endanger the health of the mother, could ruin her financially, and (while it is not supposed to happen) could cost her a career and livelihood. That is a bit more than an "inconvenience."

Feud wrote:Now, don't take this as an endorsement of abortion, I am strongly against it. But, removing the father from the decision making process should result in removing him from the results of that decision..

I did not say that he should be entirely removed from the decision making process. I said that the final choice is the woman's. Legally speaking, the father has no say. That does not mean that he is not part of the decision making process.

EDIT: As further posts were made while I was writing...

Feud wrote:So a woman is allowed to terminate her obligations at her convenience, but a male is not?

What obligations does the father have? He can abdicate responsibility for the child, though he abdicates rights over the child at the same time. It is sometimes difficult to do, and something that needs correction in the legal system, but, as I said above, the father has no rights, and no responsibilities.

Feud wrote:A woman should not be required to deal with nine months of effort as a result of a previous choice, but a male is obligated to pay ten's of thousands of dollars whether he wants to or not for that same choice?

If the woman is making the choice, the man should not be responsible to pay for it. That is what it means when it is her choice, and not his.

Feud wrote:In the case of a dispute, the woman is given full control of the situation, and the man is legally required to be subject to her will?

He shouldn't be, no.

Feud wrote:That is an incredibly sexist and legally irrational way to go about things. It flies in the face of equal protection under the law, by allowing individuals exclusive rights based solely on gender.

When a man can become pregnant, the same standard will apply to him. Equal protections apply to equal situations. As a man cannot become pregnant, he cannot get the protection that pregnant women get. People without cars are not required to pay for car insurance. Would you claim that people who own cars are receiving unequal protection because they are required to have car insurance?

xander
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:42 am

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:This is a woman's body we are talking about. It is one thing to require some financial support for a child. It is quite another to force someone to go through nine months of pregnancy. I don't really agree with the way men are legally the primary financial supporter. I think it is sexist and the product of an outdated social structure. However I don't think the government has any business telling anyone what they can and can't do inside their own body.


Since I edited me post after you started typing, but before you post, allow me to recover some ground.

Granting an individual exclusive rights based solely upon gender is generally accepted as a violation of the equal protection clause. Further, I think that the government does have the right to require people to take responsibility for their actions, and I think that they have the duty to protect the rights of individuals from the encroachment of others.

The "it's a woman's body" argument brings a nice emotional response, but it ignores that the woman and man chose to create the child by choosing to behave in a certain way. For every right, such as the right to freely associate, there lies a responsibility for the consequence of the exercise of that right.

A woman, having chosen to be in the situation that she is in (barring rape, for which the man should have no say) is not being forced to do anything beyond facing the consequences of her actions. By allowing her to have the sole decision you are infringing on the father's legal right to that child, and denying his right to equal protection under the law.

Further, an abortion can be a very traumatic event. If the father is not allowed to decide, you are forcing him to endure potential pain and anguish due to the actions of others, yet rejecting any opportunity he has to defend himself from such an attack.

The child, though inside the woman, is a co-creation of the man, and he should have just as much right to say it should live as anyone.

Edit: Since xander disagrees that men should have a legal right to a child, I am adding this in. One can disagree with the law, but that does not change what the law is. In the United States a man does have both legal responsibilities, as well as rights to their children. These rights can only be removed by order of the courts, due to some action taken by father to disqualify as a proper parent. So, with that in mind, my argument is based upon the current system.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:55 am

Feud wrote:Granting an individual exclusive rights based solely upon gender is generally accepted as a violation of the equal protection clause. Further, I think that the government does have the right to require people to take responsibility for their actions, and I think that they have the duty to protect the rights of individuals from the encroachment of others.


It's only about gender because men can't become pregnant. This is in no way an equal rights issue. This is about not telling someone what they can and can't do with their body.

Given the earlier nudity discussion, is it also sexist to allow men to walk around without a shirt, but require a woman to wear a top?

Feud wrote:The "it's a woman's body" argument brings a nice emotional response, but it ignores that the woman and man chose to create the child by choosing to behave in a certain way. For every right, such as the right to freely associate, there lies a responsibility for the consequence of the exercise of that right.


That's nice, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a woman's body and she has a right to with it as she chooses.

Feud wrote:A woman, having chosen to be in the situation that she is in (barring rape, for which the man should have no say) is not being forced to do anything beyond facing the consequences of her actions. By allowing her to have the sole decision you are infringing on the father's legal right to that child, and denying his right to equal protection under the law.


Until a father can carry the child through pregnancy, this is not an equal rights issue.

I'm actually rather revolted that someone can make these sorts of arguments.

Feud wrote:Further, an abortion can be a very traumatic event. If the father is not allowed to decide, you are forcing him to endure potential pain and anguish due to the actions of others, yet rejecting any opportunity he has to defend himself from such an attack.


The same would be true of forcing a woman to carry a baby against her will. In this case the fact that the woman is physically involved trumps the father's purely emotional involvement.

Feud wrote:The child, though inside the woman, is a co-creation of the man, and he should have just as much right to say it should live as anyone.


Again, it is not an equal division. A woman needs a man to become pregnant, but a man does not have to endure pregnancy. The overwhelming majority of the responsibility is upon the woman in this situation and thus she is the one who has the final say in what happens.
Last edited by Stewsburntmonkey on Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
shinygerbil
level5
level5
Posts: 4667
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Out, finding my own food. Also, doing the shinyBonsai Manoeuvre(tm)
Contact:

Postby shinygerbil » Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:02 am

Feud wrote:Further, an abortion can be a very traumatic event. If the father is not allowed to decide, you are forcing him to endure potential pain and anguish due to the actions of others, yet rejecting any opportunity he has to defend himself from such an attack.


Yet surely, he cannot have the final say? Surely there is more potential pain and anguish for the mother than the father, as far as we can judge these things quantitatively.

If my girlfriend were to want an abortion, I may feel terrible and wrecked up inside (my feelings on abortion are *very* mixed, and always have been), but at the same time I know that I cannot force her to go through pregnancy if she doesn't want to, and I would support her all the way, whatever her decision. *She* comes first; she is my highest priority. To assume anything else would be selfish.

My first instinct would be to drop everything (uni, whatever) to look after her and the baby, but what if we were unable to give our baby a decent quality of life? What if we were forced to put him/her up for adoption? To me, to see my very own child taken away from me after I have had the chance to hold it and look at it, would be the worst anguish of all. I would honestly rather an abortion.

About the father's legal rights, does this mean that people in different countries with different laws are entitled to entirely different opinions? While the law may have some effect on a father's decision (if he had, say, no rights to the child at all, then perhaps he would not be so keen to keep the baby), but ultimately the law is not, to me, a perfect moral guide.
User avatar
KingAl
level5
level5
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:42 am

Postby KingAl » Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:55 am

Well, everything that I'd have said has already been said (I presume you can infer my views from those I've previously expressed), so on that note - cookies and cream and hokey-pokey are on level ground.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here: this is the War Room!
Ultimate Uplink Guide
Latest Patch
User avatar
wendryn
level1
level1
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:14 am

Postby wendryn » Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:18 am

Feud wrote:Granting an individual exclusive rights based solely upon gender is generally accepted as a violation of the equal protection clause. Further, I think that the government does have the right to require people to take responsibility for their actions, and I think that they have the duty to protect the rights of individuals from the encroachment of others.


Let's start with the first bit. This is not granting rights based solely on gender. This is basing rights on the fact that the woman is *carrying the child*. You carry a child, you run the risk of dying because of it, you are absolutely welcome to decide what happens to your body. I'm carrying the child, I run the risk of dying (yes, actually, I do, with O- blood, so don't blast that bit), I can say whether or not I'm going to carry the child. The father gets input, as far as I'm concerned, but the father of the fetus does not get to dictate whether or not I will risk my life so he can have a baby.

Feud wrote:Further, I think that the government does have the right to require people to take responsibility for their actions, and I think that they have the duty to protect the rights of individuals from the encroachment of others.


You think the government has the right to make people take responsibility for their actions? That's nice. That's why we have the legal system in place. I'm not sure which individual you think is encroaching on the others, though - the woman encroaching on the "right to life" of the fetus or the woman encroaching on the right of the man to have a child carry on his bloodline? Or, perhaps, the woman encroaching on the right of the man to decide he doesn't feel like wearing a condom? Somehow, however, giving a man the right to force a woman to carry a fetus is not encroaching on her rights? Sounds rather lopsided from my point of view. Oh, wait, I'm female. I'm supposed to allow a man to have *as much say* over what happens to my body as I do.

Feud wrote:The "it's a woman's body" argument brings a nice emotional response, but it ignores that the woman and man chose to create the child by choosing to behave in a certain way. For every right, such as the right to freely associate, there lies a responsibility for the consequence of the exercise of that right.


If I choose to take the morning after pill, if I choose to terminate a pregnancy, I am taking responsibility for my actions. In my opinion, my responsibility is not just to carry the fetus to term, but also to be able and willing to raise the child in a reasonable, stable household. I could not have done that in the past. I have not had an abortion, but, quite honestly, if I had become pregnant at any time since I was 19 years old (I'm 32 now) I would have considered it a responsible choice to terminate a fetus. You may throw in adoption, but I could not have held the jobs I did during those times while I was pregnant. It would have done me damage to carry a child to term, more than I would have been damaged from deciding, responsibly, to terminate a pregnancy.

Feud wrote: By allowing her to have the sole decision you are infringing on the father's legal right to that child, and denying his right to equal protection under the law.


The father can give up legal rights to his offspring before it is born. The mother can't. He can walk away; she can't. This is infringing on the mother's right to not have a parasite for 9 months that completely screws with her body. The father doesn't have rights until the fetus is actually born for the simple reason that you can't really detach the fetus from the mother. The fetus is, for those 9 months, a part of the mother's body. If you extend your argument, the father should be able to decide what the mother eats, how she exercises, and everything about the pregnancy because it is his kid, too. That sounds a lot like slavery to me, but you are headed that way. His legal rights start when the mother is no longer required for the survival of the fetus. He doesn't have equal protection because, whatever your stand on when life starts, what happens to the mother happens to the fetus and vice versa, and the father can stand back and watch. He has no physical connection to the fetus. The mother does. Deal with it. Again, once you can carry the fetus, you can do what you damn well please, but until then women should be able to decide what happens to their bodies.

Feud wrote: Further, an abortion can be a very traumatic event.


Given. No argument there.

Feud wrote: If the father is not allowed to decide, you are forcing him to endure potential pain and anguish due to the actions of others, yet rejecting any opportunity he has to defend himself from such an attack.


Anguish I get. Pain, though? What, you're going to beat your head against a wall? You don't have to deal with pain. It isn't your body. Also, if the father is allowed to reject a termination, wouldn't it follow that he should also be able to force one? Is that acceptable in your world? You are talking about forcing a woman to do something that seriously affects her health, and your argument for the other side is that it is going to hurt your feelings if you don't have a say in the result of your sperm. Emotional anguish I'll give you - it is a hard decision. The person making the decision should be the person most affected, and that is not the man. Won't be, either, barring leaps in science.

Feud wrote:The child, though inside the woman, is a co-creation of the man, and he should have just as much right to say it should live as anyone.


The important part is that the fetus is inside the woman, not inside the man, and he is not dealing with anything other than emotional bits. The woman is rather more intimately involved. If the fetus dies inside the woman (yes, it happens, it happened to a friend) it can eventually kill the woman. A fetus dies inside the woman, the man goes on, maybe feeling sad. Woman can die. Man is depressed. Major difference there.


Feud wrote:In the United States a man does have both legal responsibilities, as well as rights to their children. These rights can only be removed by order of the courts, due to some action taken by father to disqualify as a proper parent. So, with that in mind, my argument is based upon the current system.


The father can give up legal rights to a child, which you seem to be missing. People do it pretty regularly. Parents who want to give up their child for adoption relinquish parental rights, and the man can do that by himself at any time. Fathers should have a right to the child. Fathers should not, ever, have a right to a fetus unless he is carrying the thing.

wendryn
Last edited by wendryn on Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:27 am

Feud wrote:Since xander disagrees that men should have a legal right to a child, I am adding this in. One can disagree with the law, but that does not change what the law is. In the United States a man does have both legal responsibilities, as well as rights to their children. These rights can only be removed by order of the courts, due to some action taken by father to disqualify as a proper parent. So, with that in mind, my argument is based upon the current system.

Now that Wendryn is done with my computer, one other small comment: we are discussing abortion because its legality is under constant debate in our culture. Part of the debate should be about the responsibility of the people involved, i.e. the pregnant woman, and the guy that contributed the sperm. I feel that abortion should be legal, and that the legal system ought to be set up to deal with the consequences of that legality, including outlining the responsibilities and rights of the involved parties.

You have basically told me that I cannot declare the man irresponsible because the current laws encumber him with certain responsibilities. Part of my stance is that those laws are part of the problem, and should be changed. Thus, they are part of the debate, and relevant to the points that I am making.

You want to change the law to make abortion illegal. I want to change the law to remove the man from the picture. If you are going to argue that I cannot push for my change to the legal system, then my only counter-argument is that abortion is legal, and that my argument is "based upon the current system."

xander

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests