On abortion

[All-American]

Maybe we can even plug them in somewhere and use them to generate power.

Looks like somebody has already cashed in on this idea.

And only a few weeks ago we learned from The B.C. Catholic newspaper of the Archdiocese of Vancouver that children aborted in British Columbia were being incinerated as fuel in Oregon.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/05/16/...rtion-problem/

[imanihonjin]

When you said that a man should be able to force a woman to have her cervix dilated and the contents expelled.

Feel free to quote where I have suggested that I believe a man should be able to force a woman to have her cervix dilated and the contents expelled.

[All-American]

"Baby".
I give up.

As well you should. People have been calling the entity occupying its mother's uterus a "baby" or a "child" for hundreds of years now.

[Pelado]

I'm not criticizing cardiacs response. It's what the law is based on right now. I just think that in ten years, we'll have to rethink it.

It does offer a solution for that scenario (sort of...Who pays? ) but if we're claiming that any entity that is "viable" has a significant right to life, then what do we do with unused embryos from ivf, for example? Do we allow embryonic stem cell research....ever? Do we allow the use of birth control methods that don't prevent fertilization? Seems like a pretty wanton destruction of human life...

My understanding is that embryonic stem cell research is currently legal, and that Bush just put a moratorium on federal funding (which I would assume Obama has lifted). Or is that just stem cell research in general?

[Moliere]

When you said that a man should be able to force a woman to have her cervix dilated and the contents expelled.

no one said that

If a mother can abort a fetus then a man should have a similar right in that he can disavow his parental rights/responsibilities in regards to the fetus/baby.

[ERCougar]

Feel free to answer the question.....when did I say the father of [insert what ever term for the mass you choose] should be able to tell the mother what she can or can't do with her body?

When you said that a man should be able to force a woman to have her cervix dilated and the contents expelled.

[imanihonjin]

"Baby".
I give up.

Feel free to answer the question.....when did I say the father of [insert what ever term for the mass you choose] should be able to tell the mother what she can or can't do with her body?

[ERCougar]

"Baby".
I give up.

[imanihonjin]

I have no idea what you're talking about.
My problem with abortion opponents is that they're telling a woman what she can do with her own body. Now you're saying I should be okay with a man telling her what to do with her own body.
Hmm

I have no idea what you are talking about. When did I say that a man should be able to tell the woman carrying his baby what she can do with her own body?

[ERCougar]

I am not advocating the position. However, I, and I am not sure, but I think Moliere would agree, that if you get to a point where an abortion is justifiable there is no justification for allowing a husband to disavow his parental obligations if he chooses to do so.

I have no idea what you're talking about.
My problem with abortion opponents is that they're telling a woman what she can do with her own body. Now you're saying I should be okay with a man telling her what to do with her own body.
Hmm

[imanihonjin]

That part doesn't seem inconsistent, it is inconsistent. By agreeing with Eddie jones completely you also agree that a husband wants to abort the baby but the wife disagrees, then he should be able to disavow the baby entirely. Again, I would be interested in your moral justification for that because it seems contrary to what you have been espousing.

I am not advocating the position. However, I, and I am not sure, but I think Moliere would agree, that if you get to a point where an abortion is justifiable there is no justification for allowing a husband to disavow his parental obligations if he chooses to do so.

[TripletDaddy]

If you policy starts with the mantra that paternity is optional for a woman, it seems inconsistent to allow a woman to opt of of paternity but not a man.

That part doesn't seem inconsistent, it is inconsistent. By agreeing with Eddie jones completely you also agree that a husband wants to abort the baby but the wife disagrees, then he should be able to disavow the baby entirely. Again, I would be interested in your moral justification for that because it seems contrary to what you have been espousing.

[imanihonjin]

You do? That seems inconcisistent with your prior morality play.

You agree that if a man wants to abort the baby but the woman doesn't, the man should be able to disavow the baby entirely?

If you policy starts with the mantra that paternity is optional for a woman, it seems inconsistent to allow a woman to opt of of paternity but not a man.

[byu71]

Sure there is: the US Senate.

Maybe the house, but not the Senate. Harry Reid is the champion of blame the old, white, guy.

Sure it is hypocritical because he and actually they take care of themselves. I don't think they consider themselves old, white, men.

[All-American]

Let's face it. There is no advocacy group for men's rights. Especially old, white, men.

Sure there is: the US Senate.