What is it about pregnancy you find so objectionable?

You can argue the woman has the right to get an abortion. But it's much harder to simultaneously also argue that she has the right to keep the fetus.

You talk about "reproductive rights", but what does that even really mean, exactly?

 

You're seriously going to make me repeat myself about not repeating myself? I've already addressed this.

He should have the same right to become a father or not become a father that a woman has to become a mother or not become a mother. If his sperm is stolen and he is not forced into fatherhood, it's not his reproductive rights that have been violated-- only his property rights.

 

It's only difficult if you refuse to understand the concept that women have rights over the functions of their own bodies.

It means exactly what it says-- free people have the right to reproduce. They have the right to reproduce as they see fit with the consent of all other participants. A woman has the right to get pregnant, to stay pregnant, to get an abortion; she has the right, upon giving birth, to keep her child or to surrender it for adoption. A man should have the same right to agree to father a child or to refuse to father a child. They should have the right to seek medical assistance from trained professionals, with their permission, without government interference. The government should not, at any point, interfere with this process unless there is a proven risk to born and named children.

 

Wrong. "The fetus" causes harm to its mother exactly never.

 

And your ""proof" ???

 

As usual you are wrong, all the proceeds of abortion are treated as clinical waste and must be disposed as correctly.

Just as any other medical waste is disposed of, perhaps you want to see open caskets and headstones for a liver as well.

I'll just give you the same response in here as I did on the actual thread, a response you ignored.

Says the guy who wants to kill any newborn that doesn't meet his expectations, what do you think they are going to do with the approx 220,000 downs syndrome babies born each year Anders, after you have killed them.

 

Sanity? Logic? The ability to see reason?

Does the kid cause the pregnancy? No.

 

Try science...really, it isn't a frightening as you imagine....but it will make a liar out of you.

No "kid" caused the pregnancy. The only thing that can cause a pregnancy is the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterine wall.

 

As usual you look at this from a very childlike simplistic viewpoint .. what part of consent and choice do you not understand. It is not up to you or the state to force your opinion on abortion either way. As to China, PLEASE do show where ANY women in China is forced by the state to have an abortion, it is still the woman's choice.

 

So similarly, if a woman was receiving fertility treatments and had one of her eggs stolen (she had consented to their removal though) and someone else used one of her eggs to have a test tube baby (without her consent), that would not violate her reproductive rights, according to you, correct?

In other words, you don't believe reproductive rights actually include the right not to have offspring, necessarily. So when you use the term "reproductive rights", you are entirely referring to the process of gestation, correct?

I am just trying to understand your explanation. Because when I try to break it down and analyze it, it is actually very vague, and some of the terminology you used was ambiguous.


Contrary to popular belief, I am not against reproductive rights. I believe men and women have the right not to have their genetic material be used to start forming a child. But once they have come together and the child starts forming, the rights are no longer just about them. That is, they did have a choice, they made that choice when they engaged in procreation.

 

It is clearly you who should try science.

No ovum implants into a uterus.

 

Human in the way you are using it is an adjective. Fetus is a noun ie it is the name of something, saying that a fetus is human is correct, saying a fetus is A human(noun) is incorrect.

It has a detrimental effect on society due to the fear factor of there being a murderer about, abortion does not invoke any fear factor at all in society.

If you lived in the same location you most certainly would be affected by a murder, tell me how does your neighbour having an abortion affect you?

You are 100% wrong, the initial injuries are made by the fetus on the woman, should the fetus be deemed legally as a person and those injuries are not consented to then legally the woman can defend herself up to and including deadly force and what is more the state has an obligation under the equal protection clause to help her defend herself.

 

As long as it doesn't prevent her from having the children she wants, yes. That's a violation of her property rights. Which is serious enough on its own, mind you.

There's something of a difference between eggs and sperm, because of supply issues, but both sexes produce far more of either than they could possibly raise children.

Reproductive rights absolutely include the right to have offspring. They just don't include the right to exclusive use of one's gametes once they've left your body.

So, in your opinion, consent to any sexual act that can cause pregnancy is consent to parenthood? On what grounds?

 

Except it is not the woman who is initiating force, it is the fetus that is initiating force, or do you not agree that anything you are required to do against your consent is force?

- - - Updated - - -

Her right to abortion is exactly the same as her right not to have an abortion.

- - - Updated - - -

100% wrong

 

These are basically your arguments:

They might sound good on the surface, but let's closely analyze these arguments.

 

I'll thank you to stop altering my arguments to better suit your purposes.

 

It takes two to tango. I'd like to see a woman try create offspring all by herself.

And do you think people have the right to have all the offspring they want?
If so, does this right carry any obligations? (i.e. providing for all those children)

But you basically said that "reproductive rights" don't necessarily include the right not to have offspring. So it appears you are actually just referring to gestation. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and explain.

 

Altering posts is not allowed....if he did you can report him

 

I did it with red print in parenthesis, so it is obvious to see what I modified.

So basically you are saying that if the woman wants the pregnancy, someone else does not have the right to cause miscarriage because every person has reproductive rights—the right to have offspring, correct?

So what if it's the biological father who slips the abortifacient into the woman's drink? (This isn't as uncommon as you may think) Doesn't the father have the right to decide whether he reproduces?
According to just this particular argument, why would it be too late for the man after he engaged in sex to change his mind, but not for the woman? So the woman has all the decision making power because if she doesn't want the child it's a strain on her body, and if she does want the child, she has a right to have offspring?

Does the woman still have an inherent right to have offspring when her co-partner in the procreation process doesn't give his permission? Since the woman can't reproduce all by herself, I don't see why the woman should have absolute "reproductive rights" (=the right to have offspring, according to you).

Or what exactly does "reproductive rights" mean, if I have got it wrong??

I will let this speak for itself. Going through with pregnancy doesn't equal parenthood, and you believe consent by the man to a sexual act is consent to make biological offspring from him, without his consent.

 

You didn't mention you did that in your post. It was meant to deceive.

 

His arguments don't make any sense on closer examination. I'm not even sure if he knows exactly what he means by "reproductive rights". I was trying to translate it for him, to make his argument more clear.

 

Yes, this is correct.

It's not his womb. He should have the right to decide not to accept the child, but our legal system does not recognize that right. If he does not accept paternity of the child, he is not a father-- he is a sperm donor. He assisted the woman in exercising her reproductive rights, either by consent or by her appropriation of his genetic material after he discarded it.

It shouldn't be, but our legal system is immoral.

He gave his genetic material freely. Whether he wants to be a father or not, what the woman does with it is her prerogative.

 

You think the woman has the right to reproduce, even far beyond the extent of just how it affects her body, and even if the man did not want to partake in reproduction.

You claim every individual has the right to create and have offspring. I am just questioning that.

You believe a woman should have the right to reproduce even though she was not able to do it all on her own, and the one who assisted her did not intend to help her with this.

Yet, simultaneously, you believe a woman's right to terminate the reproduction process she had previously started is greater than any right to life of the developing human being.