Originally posted by TacDavey
And what about the woman? Sure, she's a criminal, but that doesn't mean we can drag her into an operating room, strap her to a table, and perform operations on her.
I feel your comment would have been much more appropriate if you would have put "operations" in quotes. hmm
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you really think that's a good argument?
Dunno...seems to fit. A very small amount of people are killed by lethal injection. A very small amount of women are forced to get an abortion. They both wear shoes, too.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That strikes me as an extremely dangerous precedent. You seem to be proposing that if a man changes his mind and decides he doesn't want kids he should have the option to force someone using his sperm to have an abortion.
Your perspective on his post seems contrived and borderline irrelevant to his point. I get what you're trying to do, though. Your argument could be made better by mentioning something about a person wanting the moisture back from their breath after exhaling. That seems as legit as a man wanting his sperm back after he's ejaculated. But do we own our DNA to such an extreme point like Lord is alluding?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Dunno...seems to fit. A very small amount of people are killed by lethal injection. A very small amount of women are forced to get an abortion. They both wear shoes, too.
I imagine TacDavey is opposed to capital punishment as well. At the very least is fails at Hume's is/ought gap.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Your perspective on his post seems contrived and borderline irrelevant to his point. I get what you're trying to do, though. Your argument could be made better by mentioning something about a person wanting the moisture back from their breath after exhaling. That seems as legit as a man wanting his sperm back after he's ejaculated. But do we own our DNA to such an extreme point like Lord is alluding?
My issue is pretty much the same as TacDavey's, Lord seems to make the argument that the man can force an abortion because he doesn't want to be bothered by kids. In the case of rape is this understandable (though I still disagree with it) but the justification he builds the argument from isn't limited to that condition.
Using a drug to prevent implantation (or taking back sperm he donated) seems to be within the realm of reasonablity to me. He should have legal claim to his actual sperm.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
My issue is pretty much the same as TacDavey's, Lord seems to make the argument that the man can force an abortion because he doesn't want to be bothered by kids. In the case of rape is this understandable (though I still disagree with it) but the justification he builds the argument from isn't limited to that condition.
His idea about it seems legit, though. People do pull the guilt trip thing sometimes. Get the man drunk, have sex with him to get pregnant? It has happened. Who doesn't know a situation like that? That's legal blackmail. So, yes, the guilt trips suck. Lesson learned: don't put your dick in places you don't want it to go when you're sober (an effective male contraceptive is STRONGLY needed).
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Using a drug to prevent implantation (or taking back sperm he donated) seems to be within the realm of reasonablity to me. He should have legal claim to his actual sperm.
It seems unreasonable to me. It's not a donation if you have the option to take it back, right? It's called being a dick. I'm sure people sign papers that relinquish rights...not too sure, though.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosCan you provide a non-arbitrary argument for why strapping someone to a table (in many cases against their will) and pumping them full of chemicals until they die, is better than strapping someone to a table and giving them an abortion?
Do you really think that's a good argument?
Obviously, if you're against capital punishment, then the connection is meaningless. He never stated as such, though.
Originally posted by dadudemon
His idea about it seems legit, though. People do pull the guilt trip thing sometimes. Get the man drunk, have sex with him to get pregnant? It has happened. Who doesn't know a situation like that? That's legal blackmail. So, yes, the guilt trips suck. Lesson learned: don't put your dick in places you don't want it to go when you're sober (an effective male contraceptive is STRONGLY needed).
You've changed topics completely.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It seems unreasonable to me. It's not a donation if you have the option to take it back, right? It's called being a dick. I'm sure people sign papers that relinquish rights...not too sure, though.
Being able to take something back doesn't make it not a donation. I believe people have sued charities to get back donations they made when they felt that the charity used their money improperly. Once you've signed whatever relevant papers there are the legal situation becomes much more complex (there is a legal argument that it is illegal to sign away rights and any contract that attempts removes them is invalid).
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You've changed topics completely.
Lord: "Just because the man may not have to pay for the child and not have to raise it doesn't factor in the emotional baggage or blackmail that may arise if the woman escapes prosecution. It's the same reason why some men do not want to donate sperm because they don't want that 'knock on the door' from a child they have no emotional connection with."
Sym:"That strikes me as an extremely dangerous precedent. You seem to be proposing that if a man changes his mind and decides he doesn't want kids he should have the option to force someone using his sperm to have an abortion."
dadudemon: "Your perspective on his post seems contrived and borderline irrelevant to his point. I get what you're trying to do, though. Your argument could be made better by mentioning something about a person wanting the moisture back from their breath after exhaling. That seems as legit as a man wanting his sperm back after he's ejaculated. But do we own our DNA to such an extreme point like Lord is alluding?"
Sym: "Lord seems to make the argument that the man can force an abortion because he doesn't want to be bothered by kids. In the case of rape is this understandable (though I still disagree with it) but the justification he builds the argument from isn't limited to that condition."
dadudemon: "His idea about it seems legit, though. People do pull the guilt trip thing sometimes. Get the man drunk, have sex with him to get pregnant? It has happened. Who doesn't know a situation like that? That's legal blackmail. So, yes, the guilt trips suck."
Emphasis added.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Once you've signed whatever relevant papers there are the legal situation becomes much more complex (there is a legal argument that it is illegal to sign away rights and any contract that attempts removes them is invalid).
Yeah...just thought that you couldn't "sue" for rights after you signed away your rights to your sperm.
Well certainly in any non rape situation a man should not be entitled to force anyone else to have an abortion 😖
I do not think that any woman should be FORCED to have an abortion whatever the circumstances, however, if a man or boy is raped or is the victim of statutory rape he should certainly not have to pay child support.
However, this thread is dealing with the hypothetical. All yanks on this thread know that in the US the courts don't care as long as SOMEONE is on the hook for child support - and those in the UK like me will all know that UK law doesn't even touch the issue of female on male rape. In fact, our laws are so haphazard and out of date by turns, that it was not even possible to prosecute a perpetrator of male on male rape until 1995!
So it's the Demi Moore Disclosure scenario?
Micheal Douglas will have a hard time demanding the court force Demi to have an abortion.
Sure he'll escape child support. But she'll get to keep the kid unless Douglas demands custody.....which he'll surely get. If he can prove it.
If he can, good on him. It's kind if hard to believe a man can't only screw a woman he doesn't want too (not a hard scenario to imagine when blackmail is involved.) but also impregnate her! (Guy should know better) If the woman is so hot that you have to go all the way then you get what's coming .....literally.
If the crime the guy has done is so incriminating that a woman can blackmail him into impregnating her then. Yes. He has to supply child support to the kid. Messed up.
It's all a mixed bag really.
Originally posted by TacDavey
That seems pretty cold. So because the father doesn't want to be bothered by an annoying kid knocking on his door later in life that child has no right to life?And what about the woman? Sure, she's a criminal, but that doesn't mean we can drag her into an operating room, strap her to a table, and perform operations on her. AT the very least, it would have to be done for a MUCH better reason than "I don't want some kid bothering me later in life".
I never said that, you are taking my comments about the sperm donor situation out of my post and applying it to the main issue.
So, equally you think it's right for a woman to deceive and cheat her way to a pregnancy by any means using a man's body when it's perfectly legal for her to go to a sperm bank and use that?
The only reason that some women decieve men in this way is to use emotional blackmail just because a certain man might not have wanted a child with them. They can use the child in question to disrupt a man's future relationships, his career, where he lives, his whole life basically.
My previous post was predicated on two criminal situations:
1. A woman has raped a man, by any means and is pregnant as a result of him.
2. A woman has knowingly tampered with his condoms and/or gone of her birth control pill without - and this is crucial - telling him about it. The only reason she would do this is if he didn't want kids. That is wrong - completely wrong and you're telling me the man just has to accept being a father when the purpose of using contraception in the first place is to ensure against a child.
Oh, and everyone who is decrying forced abortion no doubt have the same concerns about forced chemical castration on men, because as we all know, only men are sex offenders/rapists 🙄
Isn't chemical castration supposed to be an alternative to prison ie a punishment the felon can choose...? If he likes, can't he decide to do time in prison instead?
In your numbered scenarios (2) is nothing whatever like (1). In (2) the women merely lied. In the hypothetical scenario of (1) she is a depraved monster. The two are not really comparable.
Originally posted by Bigon
Isn't chemical castration supposed to be an alternative to prison ie a punishment the felon can choose...? If he likes, can't he decide to do time in prison instead?In your numbered scenarios (2) is nothing whatever like (1). In (2) the women merely lied. In the hypothetical scenario of (1) she is a depraved monster. The two are not really comparable.
I believe it depends on the country or state concerning chemical castration, but it, and the death penalty (which I agree is not just limited to men of course), are other pratices of forced measures which are welcomed by some people who may conversely disagree with abortion.
Now you might say two of those are penalties for crimes but mistakes are made none the less.
On your second point I agree, they are not the same in terms of rape, but the practice of tampering with contraceptives is illegal and I would think that you could equally challenge the mental state of anyone resorting to that also.
Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
I never said that, you are taking my comments about the sperm donor situation out of my post and applying it to the main issue.So, equally you think it's right for a woman to deceive and cheat her way to a pregnancy by any means using a man's body when it's perfectly legal for her to go to a sperm bank and use that?
Of course not. Why would you say that? It isn't right to do that at all, but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to someone who has committed a crime.
Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
The only reason that some women decieve men in this way is to use emotional blackmail just because a certain man might not have wanted a child with them. They can use the child in question to disrupt a man's future relationships, his career, where he lives, his whole life basically.
This is a dangerous line of reasoning. You are saying that because the woman MIGHT blackmail the person later in life, that person has the right to force her to have an abortion? Until she actually DOES blackmail the man, you cannot punish her or the baby for the blackmail. If/When she blackmails the person, steps should be taken to punish her, and the child should be found a better home. You cannot punish someone for a crime they have yet to commit.
Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
My previous post was predicated on two criminal situations:1. A woman has raped a man, by any means and is pregnant as a result of him.
2. A woman has knowingly tampered with his condoms and/or gone of her birth control pill without - and this is crucial - telling him about it. The only reason she would do this is if he didn't want kids. That is wrong - completely wrong and you're telling me the man just has to accept being a father when the purpose of using contraception in the first place is to ensure against a child.
No. He doesn't have to accept being a father. In that case, I don't think he should legally be forced to support the child. But that does NOT mean he has the right to force the abortion of the child.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr_iWYq8A7M&feature=related
this video was just in there..lol