Quote from: Dan on September 08, 2011, 02:47:45 PM
Why, because it isn't yet viable outside of the mother? According to that logic a person in a persistant vegitative state on life support can't be killed either.

Because she didn't give consent.

And if a fetus does not give consent?

What about a minor on life support? Minor's are not legally able to give consent on most things.

Quote from: Dan on September 08, 2011, 02:49:13 PM
And if a fetus does not give consent?

What about a minor on life support? Minor's are not legally able to give consent on most things.

Yep. The parents can give consent for the minor to be taken off life support.

So are you saying the mother can give consent for the fetus to be terminated?

Quote from: Dan on September 08, 2011, 02:52:58 PM
So are you saying the mother can give consent for the fetus to be terminated?

Uh, yeah.

Somehow I think there is a conflict of interest.  :-\

Quote from: Dan on September 08, 2011, 02:54:29 PM
Somehow I think there is a conflict of interest.  :-\

What? How.

She wants to look good in her bikini in 2 months so she really doesn't want the baby. The baby has no say. Maybe the baby wants to live. Maybe the baby isn't all that worried about her having morning sickness during fall mid terms. Just a possiblity.

Quote from: Dan on September 08, 2011, 02:57:28 PM
She wants to look good in her bikini in 2 months so she really doesn't want the baby. The baby has no say. Maybe the baby wants to live. Maybe the baby isn't all that worried about her having morning sickness during fall mid terms. Just a possiblity.

The higher functions of the brain don't develop until after the first trimester. But I don't know why you'd assume every woman who has an abortion has one for vanity.

Not saying every woman getting an abortion is doing so for superficial reasons. Are you saying none do it for superficial or selfish reasons?

Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 02:44:52 PM
Killing a woman's baby without her permission should definitely be a crime. Calling it murder though is probably just a practicality.

And the obverse of that coin?
This is the point I've been trying to get across throughout this entire thread.

Why does she have all the rights and the man gets none?

Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 08, 2011, 06:43:34 PM
The man has all the same rights he had before he impregnated her.
As does she.  Nothing has changed in that regard. He gets to say what
he does or doesn't do with his person, and she gets to do the same with hers. 
The notion that a man has a say in what a woman does with her body merely because
he has sexually marked her as his own is no longer acceptable or tolerable in our society.

Were not talking about her body, were talking about his child.
When she decided to have sex with him and got pregnant, that's when it is no longer about her body, but rather a life, their child.

Why are you libs so callous towards life?

Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 08, 2011, 07:16:16 PM
Your first two sentences are worthy of response.  Your last sentence is not.

So in response to your original point . . . if the man in question is that worried about
giving a woman with whom he does not have a stable child rearing relationship the power
of life and death over an embryo or fetus that he has helped to cause, then he should keep
his penis to himself.  And if he is not responsible enough to manage that, he has absolutely no
right, nor should he have any expectation, to assume any power or control over that woman's
reproductive and human rights once he has irresponsibly impregnated her.  The very notion is absurd.

It's not that black and white, what if she lied and said she couldn't get pregnant, or by no fault of his own, she screwed up on her birth control.

You may think it doesn't deserve a response, but just because it's she doesn't want the baby, does not give anyone the right to kill.
It's still partly his child.

As I asked before, why are you libs so callous when it comes to a babies life, but scream bloody murder over cutting old growth forests?

Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 08, 2011, 07:26:31 PM
It must be that we hate little embryos and love old trees. There can be no other explanation.

Sad you can't answer seriously, it was a valid question.

Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 08, 2011, 07:38:40 PM
Again, just like the first post, you made a couple more or less valid points which I could respond to,
and then accused me (by association, no less) of not caring whether babies live or die.  That's not a valid question.
 

Then why are you so adamant about the fact that he as a father has no rights?

I ask again, why do you support killing a child over harvesting lumber from old growth forests?