[miladyshaila]

I think you are missing my points... I simply feel it should be one way or the other... NOT BOTH. It is a distorted sense of justice. My personal belief is that the father should have equal rights from CONCEPTION and because I believe the fetus IS a human being, I don't believe a woman should be able to abort. HOWEVER.. if abortion is to remain legal and the fetus is denied human rights then THE LAW IMPLIES the man does not create the human born CHILD. They only acknowledge that he made the FETUS and he has NO RIGHTS TO IT. So by saying that the fetus is NOT a HUMAN that is created by BOTH at conception... the make makes NOTHING (Based on the way the laws stand NOW) I say either give the man equal rights and BAN abortion, or say he does in fact make a human being at conception. And it is not a lie... A who makes a FETUS HAS NO RIGHTS only after it is born and that is my issue! I am not quoting ANY lie.

Law now...

#1. Both man and woman CONSENT to sex. Man and woman create a FETUS through pregnancy in the woman's body.

#2. Man wants the fetus to be born. Woman does not want fetus to be born. Who decides? WOMAN, Man has ZERO RIGHTS to the FETUS he made. Woman ONLY consented to SEX, not to motherhood on THAT day. So woman kills fetus and is not forced into be a mother even if she consented to the sex. Man looses! Woman wins!

#3. Different couple... Woman wants fetus to be born. Man does NOT want fetus to be born. Who gets their way? WOMAN!! Man again has zero rights over the fetus he just made. He only consented to SEX that day, Not to FATHERHOOD. BUT she can... ALLOW it to grow and give birth making it a HUMAN by herSELF through her choice, not the choice of the man. So now the woman is a mother by HER choice and can now FORCE a man to be responsible for the BORN HUMAN she alone chose to make even if the man never consented to FATHERHOOD. He never made that human born child.. He only made a fetus... She did the rest by allowing it to remain and BECOME a human child. So she should have all the rights and responsibilities that her choice alone made.

MEN DO NOT MAKE HUMAN BORN CHILDREN PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.

If the fetus was recognized as a HUMAN from conception THEN they would BOTH make the human and both have rights from the beginning and then BONUS... The law would have to ban abortion as it should.

Why is this so hard to understand? Are the words "Human" and "fetus" and "child" confusing you? Are you not seeing that they dehumanize the unborn and then humanize it at birth? Giving the woman the SOLE credit for ALL born children that are running around on this planet? Because the mans contribution never had a chance or ever MATTERED in making the CHILD.

EASY... Abortion LEGAL... Man SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS over something he never made.

Abortion ILLEGAL... Then both should have equal rights because then the law sees both made a human at conception.

My "babbling" has been to SHOW CAUSE for this reasoning which is totally logical. The law should PICK ONE. Either the fathers DNA counts from the get go... or NOT AT ALL.

[justcurious55]

So, what about the cases where neither man or woman wants to become parents. By your logic, I believe, they both only consented to having sex-not becoming parents. But if abortion is outlawed, no one has any rights then. The government forces both people to be responsible for a child neither of them wants.

[cdad]

Your so confused its actually funny. Lets take point #3 as your example. Was there rape involved ? No. Was the man so stupid he didn't use birth control. Could be. Did he engauge in the act willingly knowing what the full concequences would be. Lets hope so. Bottom line is if a man wants responsibility then they have to show it in the first place. The only real guarantee to not having a child is to not have the sex in the first place. So your argument is mute. Because what your trying to say he consented to an act that MAY produce a child and decides its not his thing. Duh. You need to stop mixing boudries and start considering real arguments because so far you have nothing but a belief to go on.

[miladyshaila]

There is always the choice of adoption. I mean, what if after 2 weeks of having the child you don't want it? But you don't want someone else to have it either? You can't kill it! It is a human being. And Califdad... The SAME MUST APPLY TO THE WOMAN! This is my point! Where is the equality??

[cdad]

There is always the choice of adoption. I mean, what if after 2 weeks of having the child you don't want it? But you don't want someone else to have it either? You can't kill it! It is a human being. And Califdad...The SAME MUST APPLY TO THE WOMAN! This is my point! Where is the equality???

Lol.. you just answered your own question. It does apply to the women and that is your complaint. As you have noted she is responsible from the get go. There is your equality.

[justcurious55]

There is always the choice of adoption. I mean, what if after 2 weeks of having the child you don't want it? But you don't want someone else to have it either? You can't kill it! It is a human being. And Califdad...The SAME MUST APPLY TO THE WOMAN! This is my point! Where is the equality???

So you're saying, if I were to get pregnant, even though me and my boyfriend would not want a child at this time, I should have to carry it for 9 months, go through labor, and then all of the legal proceedings to give it away?

I'm with califdad. Your argument isn't working

[miladyshaila]

I agree it is not the popular vote, but you are not seeing my point, I think it is because you don't want to. To put it up for adoption, you just sign a paper to terminate your parental rights.

My problem is with the laws... they are supposed to represent JUSTICE. They way the laws are now are not justice. Your comment is just like a slave owner who hears that slavery should be stopped and them responding with "You mean have to give up the slave I paid for and go through my life having to do my own work?"

When you have sex knowing the consequences, you must be ready to accept them, and the rights to both people must be equally fair. Again as of now, the man has NO say in the outcome of a pregnancy. So he has no way to consent to person hood and make a human. Are you grasping the different words I am using to make my point? Because I think you are missing it. Again, I believe that if abortion is to remain legal, then no man should have rights or responsibilities towards the child unless it is agreed upon by both parents after the birth. The born child should have only one LEGAL parent at birth... the mother. Because the man CAN NOT choose to make the fetus a human being and because he should not be forced to 18 years of support to a child he did not opt to bring into person hood and be forced into fatherhood when the woman was the only decider. Can you grasp the concept... ONLY THE WOMAN MAKES BORN HUMAN CHILDREN THROUGH HER CHOICE. Thank to the law, so man makes nothing (since a fetus is a NOTHING in the eyes of the law). I just want to see it go one way or the other. Fair for both.

Equal rights for man, woman and fetus... No abortion

All choices, rights and responsibilities for the woman and none for the man... Keep abortion legal.

Easy and logical.

[cdad]

Your logic doenst apply. Your logic isn't logic at all it's a belief. If you follow your logic then you could end up cutting off the hands of a thief to keep them from stealing. After all it's a preventative measure. As far as your slave analogy its exactly what your true position is. You figure once you impregnate a woman you own her. Isn't that what your saying? After all its your right to pick. Hey you could even force her to have an abortion. Since you don't want the child and its half yours. Your idea of easy and logical doesn't work. So after you file your papers and make it to the supreme court let me know. Right now you don't even understand what your talking about so how can you expect to argue it to others. How about overturning the constitution while your at it since its not filled with logic? That would be a good start for you too.

[miladyshaila]

I never said anything about a man OWNING a woman... I totally disagree. I said as the law stands NOW, it IMPLIES (without realizing)... a man does not make a human child. So if this same law remains, he should have no rights or responsibilities at all.

[Fr_Chuck]

Your post is so silly, I will have to assume you are either not serious or you are merely baiting others for personal fun. And to be honest I am fairly sure you are another poster who was banned earlier but I could not match your IP addresses up to this point.

With that said

No, your babble makes no difference since you are missing several things.

1. laws do not have to make common sense.

2. you have no no idea ( or appear to) as to why the rights of the women to have an abortion was done. It was not made legal for any other reason than the right to privacy, as given in the US Consitituion. The idea was that the government could not interfere with the rights of the women to do with her body what she wanted , that did not harm her health.

The fetus up to that point, for purpose of abortion is not considered a person. *** Although by state laws, if the baby is killed by an assult, the person can be charged.

The man had no bearing in the case, and the man, always is giving his consent to be a father when he has sex,

[cdad]

I never said anything about a man OWNING a woman...I totally disagree. I said as the law stands NOW, it IMPLIES (without realizing)...a man does not make a human child. So if this same law remains, he should have no rights or responsibilities at all.

The law as it is implied does recognise that a man is needed to create a child. It also implies rights to that man already. You seemed to have missed that in your studies. May I suggest actually reading up on it before you make that statement again and again and again as you have all though this thread. Im not going to do your research for you. But its already on the books. SO again I ask that you stop saying it as if it were true. That's where you keep falling apart in your argument. You make assumptions without reading and doing the needed research to make a valid argument.

[shazamataz]

EASY... Abortion LEGAL... Man SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS over something he never made.

Abortion ILLEGAL... Then both should have equal rights because then the law sees both made a human at conception.

There are no 'equal rights' in making abortion illegal... making it illegal gives both parents NO right to make a decision.

If both 'parents' were responsible enough in the first place the decision wouldn't even be on the cards... they would have realised that sex can equal pregnancy.
My partner and I do have sex and we realise that even with protection it can equal pregnancy... we have discussed our options and what we would do if I did fall pregnant BEFORE it has happened so we know we are both on the same page.

Honestly, I don't feel sorry for guys in that situation (most of the time) because they were not smart enough or educated enough to realise that it could happen before they pull 'ol mr. willy out of their pants. (same goes for women)

[miladyshaila]

Fr_Chuck,

I am not "joking" and I am very serious in my posts. I am not "baiting" others for personal fun. I do understand the laws as they are now. I just disagree with them and want to find a way to change them in a round about way by pushing them into a "catch 22" so to speak. I know what the laws are, and I am not asking about what is legal NOW. I want to know if I brought my points into a court of law... Could I get them to see that by allowing abortion, they really have no right to give the father any rights... by using their own logic in relation to abortion against them.

If they see this point and see how wrong it would be, they could not allow fathers not to have rights, so they would have to ALL agree the fetus IS a human and it deserves full protection as all other humans regardless of location. Then the killing would stop.


" A central issue in the Roe case (and in the wider abortion debate in general) is whether human life begins at conception, birth, or at some point in between. The Court declined to make an attempt at resolving this issue, noting: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Instead, it chose to point out that historically, under English and American common law and statutes, "the unborn have never been recognized... as persons in the whole sense" and thus the fetal child are not legally entitled to the protection afforded by the right to life specifically enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment. So rather than asserting that human life begins at any specific point, the court simply declared that the State has a "compelling interest" in protecting "potential life" at the point of viability."

I do believe that is ever they all agreed to view the fetus as a human, they would make abortion illegal. To force them to choose between keeping the fetus a "Non Human Being" thus giving all rights to the woman to choose to make it become human, which cancels the importance of his DNA because the same DNA on one day has no legal rights then it can’t possibly on another day. If his DNA contribution makes no human at conception, but only a non human fetus... then that is all the credit his DNA buys him FOREVER. OR admitting that his DNA IS what makes a human being in order to avoid the above logic BECOMING a law. And to see that there are no gradations to being human, you either always are, or you are not (As if to say an infant is just a little human, a toddler a little more human and so on). So since I believe this logic CAN show that as things stand now, there is reason to make fathers non existent If I can do that, it MIGHT change the laws because if that happened, how fast do you think everyone would agree the fetus is human? I believe it would force the courts into a catch 22 leaving no other option than to overturn Roe v Wade giving human status that has equal protection under the law.

Once again…I KNOW how the laws are NOW…I want to take my point to CHANGE the laws. So telling me I do not understand the schizophrenic laws is not true. I just don’t agree and want to see if I can find a lawyer who could take my views and find a way to present it to the courts to hopefully change what it is now. The questions are not WHAT IS LAW NOW. It is can I use these theories to change current laws.

And no, I have never been banned from this site. I am just looking for help and answers but no one is getting my point.

[cdad]

Ok, for one thing your making the case against yourself perfectly clear. Your arguing the wrong point. Your not looking at law your looking at a theory you have. First off. Do you have any proof whatsoever of what a human is and is that consensus across the board? In any argument you have to define the parameters. Your argument is saying YOU and YOU alone are the sole deciding factor. Bring the proof you need. When they decided Roe v Wade They admitted they didn't have a consensus. So where is this new consensus? Where is the headlines that are so earth shattering? Where is the proof? I guess won't overturn any laws no matter how unjust you feel about them. Courts want proof. Do you have it? If not then this suject and question is mute. The law is what it is. If you don't like the law you seek change. They have given you the answer to create change. So where is it?

[miladyshaila]

The consensus would come when they would see that by the ways things are now, it is not right to give men ANY paternal rights because they do not make the CHILD that pops out of the woman. SHE IS THE SOLE CREATOR OF BORN CHILDREN. She is what makes the TRANSITION FROM FETUS (that the man helps to make) TO THE HUMAN BORN CHILD (that the man does not make).

[shazamataz]

I still don't get what you are trying to do.
Are you saying that you want abortion to become illegal?
Or are you saying that it should be legal but both man and woman have to agree to it?

[miladyshaila]

ILLEGAL Here is how my friend explains my point, seeing as she is more "educated than I am, I will post her explanation of what I am trying to do.

" OK, the deal is legally that the courts have skirted defining "personhood." This issue would press them into defining it. If they defined it as beginning at any other point in time besides conception, then only women should have sole "property rights" prior to personhood and sole custody rights afterward. She has all rights and responsibilities because the man had no choice in establishing personhood. If the mother allows her "property" to mature to the point of personhood, it was solely her choice."

Is this better?

[miladyshaila]

It is taking their OWN argument to the logical extreme! It's saying, "you want to treat people like property, let's legally define it that way then and see what can of worms we can open."

[cdad]

It is taking their OWN argument to the logical extreme! It's saying, "you want to treat people like property, let's legally define it that way then and see what can of worms we can open."

Try again. Its just not working.

Natural and legal rights: Definition from Answers.com

[miladyshaila]

If the law says that what is inside her body... it is her property and unless she gives or shares her property no one else can take it. The law is treating the fetus as property. So it should be fought, that since it is the woman's, it does not belong to the man. He gave away his property when he had sex, it is no longer HIS, but hers. The laws agrees by saying the fetus is hers to do as she wishes. And disregarding his sperm. Once that sperm leaves his body, it is no longer his. It is a gift. So he should therefore have no rights based on this fact. So it should become law when it is looked at this way. It is their logic after all. The fetus is not a person and the man can never make a person. So no rights or responsibilities should be given or forced upon him.