"Men Must Approve Abortion, Women Are Hosts"

[Neutraligon]

(That last line though?)

The next time you ask a fetus if it's worried about being aborted and it says "yes", call me.

You cannot be scared of something you cannot forsee. When the abortion is happening, it would be very scared. Also, fetuses can't respond to my questions.

Source for this too. You are just adding up all the unsourced claims you have made.

[Galloism]

(That last line though?)

The next time you ask a fetus if it's worried about being aborted and it says "yes", call me.

You cannot be scared of something you cannot forsee. When the abortion is happening, it would be very scared. Also, fetuses can't respond to my questions.

I doubt it would be any more scared than my toenails. At the time when roughly all elective abortions occur, there's insufficient intelligence to register fear.

[Walrusvylon]

Pregnancy is temporary. Death is permanent.

You know what else is temporary?

Rape. Kidnapping. Aggravated assault. Home invasion. Forced organ donation. Forced blood donation.

That's irrelevant, because death isn't the other option.

[United Territories and States]

to appease both sides, why not, for every abortion, it gets heavily taxed?

[The V O I D]

(That last line though?)

The next time you ask a fetus if it's worried about being aborted and it says "yes", call me.

You cannot be scared of something you cannot forsee. When the abortion is happening, it would be very scared. Also, fetuses can't respond to my questions.

You seem to have a habit of making unsourced claims that seem generally false, as well as non-equivalencies.

Overall, you have a habit of being wrong.

[Walrusvylon]

You cannot be scared of something you cannot forsee. When the abortion is happening, it would be very scared. Also, fetuses can't respond to my questions.

I doubt it would be any more scared than my toenails. At the time when roughly all elective abortions occur, there's insufficient intelligence to register fear.

I'm talking about when there is sufficient intelligence to register fear.

[Trotza]

(That last line though?)

The next time you ask a fetus if it's worried about being aborted and it says "yes", call me.

You cannot be scared of something you cannot forsee.

Exactly. And if you're here debating it it didn't happen to you. So the whole "wow I really feel lucky to have dodged that bullet" trip seems a bit much.

[Neutraligon]

to appease both sides, why not, for every abortion, it gets heavily taxed?

Why? That would only harm poor women, making it something only the rich can afford.

[The V O I D]

You know what else is temporary?

Rape. Kidnapping. Aggravated assault. Home invasion. Forced organ donation. Forced blood donation.

That's irrelevant, because death isn't the other option.

Yes, it is; if the victim chooses to defend themselves, it can end in the attacker's death. As for the final two, if they aren't forced to donate, someone dies because they refused to give up their blood/organs.

to appease both sides, why not, for every abortion, it gets heavily taxed?

How about no, and we keep it the way it has been, with the woman doing whatever she wants with her body?

[Ashmoria]

You cannot be scared of something you cannot forsee. When the abortion is happening, it would be very scared. Also, fetuses can't respond to my questions.

I doubt it would be any more scared than my toenails. At the time when roughly all elective abortions occur, there's insufficient intelligence to register fear.

what would even a 9month fetus be afraid of? it might get a jolt of fear hormones from its mother, i suppose but it would have no way of knowing even what fear IS until after birth.

[Walrusvylon]

You cannot be scared of something you cannot forsee. When the abortion is happening, it would be very scared. Also, fetuses can't respond to my questions.

You seem to have a habit of making unsourced claims that seem generally false, as well as non-equivalencies.

Overall, you have a habit of being wrong.

Source. http://www.lifenews.com/2014/02/12/unbo ... tudy-says/

[Trotza]

to appease both sides, why not, for every abortion, it gets heavily taxed?

How about we don't pile on more taxes for unnecessary moralist justifications? And considering choice is already the law of the land, I'd hardly call that appeasing both sides. More like giving up significant ground to one of them.

[Galloism]

Mothers have physical control of the child the entire time that the safe haven window exists. There is no practical way for a father to ever have physical custody unless she first cedes it to him or she gave birth while in jail (and even then it's unlikely).

Because of the way custody works after birth, even in states where the law is in text gender neutral, women and only women can effectively use such a law, either themselves or through an agent.

A father can use it if the mother consents. A mother can use it regardless of the fathers consent.

This is what's called the law being de facto sexist.

In every state, women have responsibility after birth only if they choose, and men have responsibilities only if the women choose not to surrender them.

It's poll tests with grandfather clauses all over again. I'm saying it's racist, and you're on the side of Oklahoma legislature arguing that because you didn't write "no niggers voting" into the text of the law, it's not racist.

how many times do i have to say that i have no problem with men being able to use the emergency relinquishment law?

Except it's engineered such that they can never use it. It's sexist with clever wording to hide the sexism. You are supporting sexism in the same way pro Oklahoma poll test people supported racism.

if its difficult that's not my problem.

I'm glad SCOTUS didn't feel that way way back when, or the vast vast majority of black people still wouldn't be able to vote.

if the mother is taking good enough care of the baby that the father is never left alone with it long enough to take it to the firehouse then its probably not an emergency situation at all. (although most states allow fathers to have visitation with their infant children that they don't live with)

Which takes at a minimum of 6 - 12 months, whereas safe have laws last for a matter of a few days or weeks.

By the time he could even conceivably get access with the best lawyers on earth, the window has closed. The law is engineered so men can never use it, just as poll tests were engineered so black people could never pass them. This is the status quo you support.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

When the abortion is happening, it would be very scared.

How do you know? Do you know for a fact that fetuses can experience fear?

[The V O I D]

You seem to have a habit of making unsourced claims that seem generally false, as well as non-equivalencies.

Overall, you have a habit of being wrong.

Source. http://www.lifenews.com/2014/02/12/unbo ... tudy-says/

I saw the question you edited out, and I don't have any claims to support; you're the one making all the claims.

Also, lifenews... yes, as if I'm going to take an obviously pro-life source with a pro-life bias as absolute fact on this matter, compared to the hundreds of sources which say you are wrong and aren't necessarily pro-choice nor pro-life.

[Neutraligon]

You seem to have a habit of making unsourced claims that seem generally false, as well as non-equivalencies.

Overall, you have a habit of being wrong.

Source. http://www.lifenews.com/2014/02/12/unbo ... tudy-says/

life news..the group that makes up studies you are really using them? Why not link to the actual paper.

[The Serbian Empire]

And people say we don't need feminism.

We need a lot more than just feminism to stop these types of politician.

[Ashmoria]

how many times do i have to say that i have no problem with men being able to use the emergency relinquishment law?

Except it's engineered such that they can never use it. It's sexist with clever wording to hide the sexism. You are supporting sexism in the same way pro Oklahoma poll test people supported racism.

if its difficult that's not my problem.

I'm glad SCOTUS didn't feel that way way back when, or the vast vast majority of black people still wouldn't be able to vote.

if the mother is taking good enough care of the baby that the father is never left alone with it long enough to take it to the firehouse then its probably not an emergency situation at all. (although most states allow fathers to have visitation with their infant children that they don't live with)

Which takes at a minimum of 6 - 12 months, whereas safe have laws last for a matter of a few days or weeks.

By the time he could even conceivably get access with the best lawyers on earth, the window has closed. The law is engineered so men can never use it, just as poll tests were engineered so black people could never pass them. This is the status quo you support.

I DONT CARE. if someone wants to reengineer the law to make it more available to fathers IM FINE WITH THAT.

i just don't have the strange obsession over it that you have.

[Luminesa]

Source. http://www.lifenews.com/2014/02/12/unbo ... tudy-says/

I saw the question you edited out, and I don't have any claims to support; you're the one making all the claims.

Also, lifenews... yes, as if I'm going to take an obviously pro-life source with a pro-life bias as absolute fact on this matter, compared to the hundreds of sources which say you are wrong and aren't necessarily pro-choice nor pro-life.

Here's one that doesn't necessarily swing either way:
http://www.expectantmothersguide.com/ar ... pregnancy/

A fetus is certainly aware when the mother is stressed, and it can feel her stress and emotions.

[Mavorpen]

Source. http://www.lifenews.com/2014/02/12/unbo ... tudy-says/

I saw the question you edited out, and I don't have any claims to support; you're the one making all the claims.

Also, lifenews... yes, as if I'm going to take an obviously pro-life source with a pro-life bias as absolute fact on this matter, compared to the hundreds of sources which say you are wrong and aren't necessarily pro-choice nor pro-life.

Jesus that article is garbage.

The sense of taste can be tested as early as thirteen weeks. Janus reported that just as newborn infants like the taste of sweet fruit water, so does the developing fetus prefer sweeter tastes; and U.S. researchers at the Monell Chemical Senses Center (Philadelphia) demonstrated that the fetus will swallow more of the amniotic fluid if it is sweet, rather than bitter.

Implying that this means that fetuses have a conscious "liking" for sweet things over bitter is like saying that E. coli has a conscious preference for glucose over lactose.

[Mavorpen]

I saw the question you edited out, and I don't have any claims to support; you're the one making all the claims.

Also, lifenews... yes, as if I'm going to take an obviously pro-life source with a pro-life bias as absolute fact on this matter, compared to the hundreds of sources which say you are wrong and aren't necessarily pro-choice nor pro-life.

Here's one that doesn't necessarily swing either way:
http://www.expectantmothersguide.com/ar ... pregnancy/

A fetus is certainly aware when the mother is stressed, and it can feel her stress and emotions.

"certainly aware"

Based on the vague and uncited source of "researchers"?

[Neutraligon]

I saw the question you edited out, and I don't have any claims to support; you're the one making all the claims.

Also, lifenews... yes, as if I'm going to take an obviously pro-life source with a pro-life bias as absolute fact on this matter, compared to the hundreds of sources which say you are wrong and aren't necessarily pro-choice nor pro-life.

Here's one that doesn't necessarily swing either way:
http://www.expectantmothersguide.com/ar ... pregnancy/

A fetus is certainly aware when the mother is stressed, and it can feel her stress and emotions.

I am seeing claims without evidence.

[Ashmoria]

I saw the question you edited out, and I don't have any claims to support; you're the one making all the claims.

Also, lifenews... yes, as if I'm going to take an obviously pro-life source with a pro-life bias as absolute fact on this matter, compared to the hundreds of sources which say you are wrong and aren't necessarily pro-choice nor pro-life.

Jesus that article is garbage.

The sense of taste can be tested as early as thirteen weeks. Janus reported that just as newborn infants like the taste of sweet fruit water, so does the developing fetus prefer sweeter tastes; and U.S. researchers at the Monell Chemical Senses Center (Philadelphia) demonstrated that the fetus will swallow more of the amniotic fluid if it is sweet, rather than bitter.

Implying that this means that fetuses have a conscious "liking" for sweet things over bitter is like saying that E. coli has a conscious preference for glucose over lactose.

whoa is that kind of human experimentation LEGAL?

[Neutraligon]

Jesus that article is garbage.



Implying that this means that fetuses have a conscious "liking" for sweet things over bitter is like saying that E. coli has a conscious preference for glucose over lactose.

whoa is that kind of human experimentation LEGAL?

I don't see why not since it can't harm the fetus.

[Mavorpen]

whoa is that kind of human experimentation LEGAL?

I don't see why not since it can't harm the fetus.

But the fetus is a person and it hasn't consented. D: