"Men Must Approve Abortion, Women Are Hosts"

[The V O I D]

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 need a reputable source, this one still seems a bit iffy to me. Sorry, but until a reputable, valid source agrees with you (hint: the likelihood sources in favor of your pseudoscientific beliefs being nonzero is definitely zero), I'm going to assume you're wrong and go with the actual science and such.

[Lady Scylla]

(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.

Ehhh. The Amygdala is nowhere near as developed in the fetal stage, and doesn't start to be fully structured until well into infancy. Furthermore, the Amygdala needs to communicate with the cortex to develop any sense of a threat, which isn't developed until the late stages of infancy. So, even if a foetus were capable of feeling fear (unlikely) it'd have no idea. The Amygdala, for clarification in this context, is what gives you those involuntary movements when you hear a loud noise, as an example. It overrides your brain to provide a response to a potential threat.

[Galloism]

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.



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.


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.

I'm really big on equal rights, and even bigger on your false claim that mothers and fathers have equal rights after birth. I do hope you stop making such demonstrably false statements in the future.

I'm a little silly like that - caring about equal rights passionately and all. Sorry if that aggravates you.

[Lady Scylla]

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.

So we should allow terminations up to about age 2.

[Ashmoria]

whoa is that kind of human experimentation LEGAL?

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

injecting stuff into the amniotic fluid cant be harmful?

[Neanderthaland]

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?

I doubt it would be worse then the fear and discomfort of being squeezed out of a vagina in any case.

[Ashmoria]

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.

I'm really big on equal rights, and even bigger on your false claim that mothers and fathers have equal rights after birth. I do hope you stop making such demonstrably false statements in the future.

I'm a little silly like that - caring about equal rights passionately and all. Sorry if that aggravates you.

it bugs me that you think that i should have to share your obsession exactly as you have it.

[Neutraligon]

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

injecting stuff into the amniotic fluid cant be harmful?

Clearly some stuff can and some cannot. I am assuming (since that sort or research passed IRB or something similar) that this injection could not cause permanent harm to the fetus.

[Ashmoria]

injecting stuff into the amniotic fluid cant be harmful?

Clearly some stuff can and some cannot. I am assuming (since that sort or research passed IRB or something similar) that this injection could not cause permanent harm to the fetus.

if its a real study i guess it must be legal. it is very surprising to me that it would ever be allowed.

[Neutraligon]

Clearly some stuff can and some cannot. I am assuming (since that sort or research passed IRB or something similar) that this injection could not cause permanent harm to the fetus.

if its a real study i guess it must be legal. it is very surprising to me that it would ever be allowed.

Why shouldn't it be allowed? I mean of course assuming they know what they are injecting will cause no harm. Although, there are studies that might cause harm when trying to deal with medical issues of the fetus.

[Luminesa]

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 need a reputable source, this one still seems a bit iffy to me. Sorry, but until a reputable, valid source agrees with you (hint: the likelihood sources in favor of your pseudoscientific beliefs being nonzero is definitely zero), I'm going to assume you're wrong and go with the actual science and such.

I think the site is cute myself (then again, I like pink and softness and sweetness), but okay. How's this?

http://www.emaxhealth.com/1020/babies-w ... s-emotions

The baby's emotions form along the mother's. If she is happy during her pregnancy, the baby has a higher chance of being happy and healthy when born. If she is depressed, the baby may not only develop depression, but they may also suffer physical effects. So their emotional bonds are very close indeed.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm really big on equal rights, and even bigger on your false claim that mothers and fathers have equal rights after birth. I do hope you stop making such demonstrably false statements in the future.

I'm a little silly like that - caring about equal rights passionately and all. Sorry if that aggravates you.

it bugs me that you think that i should have to share your obsession exactly as you have it.

It's not that he cares that you have said passions.

It's that, from his point of view, the view that men and women have equal parenting rights under the law is demonstrably wrong.

You might not care about how things should be, but you were, nevertheless, wrong, as Gallo demonstrated.

[Galloism]

I'm really big on equal rights, and even bigger on your false claim that mothers and fathers have equal rights after birth. I do hope you stop making such demonstrably false statements in the future.

I'm a little silly like that - caring about equal rights passionately and all. Sorry if that aggravates you.

it bugs me that you think that i should have to share your obsession exactly as you have it.

Not at all - but I do wish you'd stop defending a sexist status quo and claim silly things like men and women have equal rights with regard to children. Doing so actually undermines people trying to fix it.

That's really all I ask. I'm not asking for you to help overturn sexism. Just stop trying to convince people nothing's wrong.

When it comes to fighting sexism, Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Just don't obstruct.

[Paledonn]

No, no child has been conceived. I am fairly certain that your body shares one genetic code.

Me, yeah, but my brother has two - he's a chimera. Very rare.

The fetus and the mother do not share the same genetic code. However, they are related.

Neither does my brother's skin and his blood.

Half of the chromosomes come of the father and half the mother. In a sense, the child is half the fathers.

Let's say I accept this.

I am fairly certain you have one circulatory and nervous system. A fetus and the mother do not have the same circulatory and nervous system. Thus the fetus is a seperate body. A mother can die and a baby can live.

This is only true beyond a certain point. About 24 weeks, iirc.

A baby can die and a mother can live. This would not be the case if they were one organism. If I implanted an African fetus or zygote into a Caucasian, the fetus would not develop as a Caucasian.

If a fetus is part of the mother's body then the mother is a strange 4 armed 4 legged being with multiple sets of genetic code, 2 sets of genitalia, and 2 brains. Compounding on this strange circumstance is that half of these are uselessly stored inside, until they come out and magically are bestowed with value and protection under the law.

So I'm going to go back to Neut's question earlier. A woman cuts off her body's attachments to the fetus, not touching the fetus.

What happens next?

Besides from this, why shouldn't a father have access to the decisions involving the unborn child he helped create?

My parents created me. Do they have a right to take a pint of blood from me against my will?

If the woman cuts off the fetus it dies. If I lock you in a flooded room you die. 24 weeks thing accepted, however very few abortions do happen then and during those few cases that argument stands. Your parents don't have the right to take a pint of blood from you after you are 18, but before 18 they have custody over you and I'm pretty sure they can if they don't break any laws. However this argument would still be against abortion even if I wasn't refuting it, as it defends the rights of the offspring rather than the will of the parent(s).

However what I am arguing is that the father should have partial say over his offspring. My analogy for this would be cattle breeders can have partial ownership, or stock, over a bull. The bull resides on one persons property. Unless something is signed the person whose property the bull is on does not have the right to put down the bull without consulting the other owner(s).

The same thing should go for a father and mother, with both having laid down capital (or in this case genes and emotional investment) but mother being the one providing sustenance and carrying the baby. However, the father should not be cut out as he laid down his "capital." At the very least he should legally have a chance to talk to the woman. Same goes for guys trying to force the girl they knocked up to abort. I would think both should have to consent, but maybe this should be applied case by case, as there are always different circumstances.

[Ashmoria]

it bugs me that you think that i should have to share your obsession exactly as you have it.

It's not that he cares that you have said passions.

It's that, from his point of view, the view that men and women have equal parenting rights under the law is demonstrably wrong.

You might not care about how things should be, but you were, nevertheless, wrong, as Gallo demonstrated.

a compassionate law designed to keep babies out of dumpsters is not a smoking gun.

[Neutraligon]

I need a reputable source, this one still seems a bit iffy to me. Sorry, but until a reputable, valid source agrees with you (hint: the likelihood sources in favor of your pseudoscientific beliefs being nonzero is definitely zero), I'm going to assume you're wrong and go with the actual science and such.

I think the site is cute myself (then again, I like pink and softness and sweetness), but okay. How's this?

http://www.emaxhealth.com/1020/babies-w ... s-emotions

The baby's emotions form along the mother's. If she is happy during her pregnancy, the baby has a higher chance of being happy and healthy when born. If she is depressed, the baby may not only develop depression, but they may also suffer physical effects. So their emotional bonds are very close indeed.

While the actual article looks intersting it does not support the claim the poster made, all it says is that the mother's psychological state during pregnancy may have an actual physical effect of the development of the fetus and baby (due to chemicals from stress). It says nothing about them actually feeling anything.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It's not that he cares that you have said passions.

It's that, from his point of view, the view that men and women have equal parenting rights under the law is demonstrably wrong.

You might not care about how things should be, but you were, nevertheless, wrong, as Gallo demonstrated.

a compassionate law designed to keep babies out of dumpsters is not a smoking gun.

Neither is suggesting that men and women have equal rights under the law when it comes to parenting, apparently, as Gallo just said.

A compassionate law may be a compassionate law, that doesn't mean the system doesn't give precedence to the mother rather than the father.

They're two related, albeit different, statements. Nobody is complaining about the compassionate law, in fact, I doubt Gallo has any problems with the law itself and the fact that it exists to protect the babies from being dumped into a dumpster can, but Gallo's complaint is that you're misconstruing the situation to believe men and women have equal parenting rights, which, again, he has demonstrated it is not true.

[Lady Scylla]

Clearly some stuff can and some cannot. I am assuming (since that sort or research passed IRB or something similar) that this injection could not cause permanent harm to the fetus.

if its a real study i guess it must be legal. it is very surprising to me that it would ever be allowed.

How do you think they determine if medications the mother takes pass through to the foetus?

[Ashmoria]

a compassionate law designed to keep babies out of dumpsters is not a smoking gun.

Neither is suggesting that men and women have equal rights under the law when it comes to parenting, apparently, as Gallo just said.

A compassionate law may be a compassionate law, that doesn't mean the system doesn't give precedence to the mother rather than the father.

good lord. a minor law that makes a minor distinction between a father and a mother isn't really enough to say that they aren't equal under the law. I'm sure there are other remnants out there that need tweaking. it really doesn't change the fact that mothers and father ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW in all ways that are important. its quite different from a few decades ago when men were considered inferior parents or 100 years ago when women were.

in fact if you can find me a case where a MAN left a baby at a fire station and then was prosecuted for it i will consider it a bigger deal.

[Ashmoria]

if its a real study i guess it must be legal. it is very surprising to me that it would ever be allowed.

How do you think they determine if medications the mother takes pass through to the foetus?

i don't know but that would have a compelling reason to be allowed, not unlike amniocentesis that from time to time causes a miscarriage.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Neither is suggesting that men and women have equal rights under the law when it comes to parenting, apparently, as Gallo just said.

A compassionate law may be a compassionate law, that doesn't mean the system doesn't give precedence to the mother rather than the father.

good lord. a minor law that makes a minor distinction between a father and a mother isn't really enough to say that they aren't equal under the law. I'm sure there are other remnants out there that need tweaking. it really doesn't change the fact that mothers and father ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW in all ways that are important. its quite different from a few decades ago when men were considered inferior parents or 100 years ago when women were.

in fact if you can find me a case where a MAN left a baby at a fire station and then was prosecuted for it i will consider it a bigger deal.

I'm not suggesting that this law means this.

What I am saying is that Gallo's complaint is not about the existence of the law as you suggest, but rather, its application and the fact that while the laws are written to be gender neutral, its application is not gender neutral.

[Galloism]

If the woman cuts off the fetus it dies.

Logically.

If I lock you in a flooded room you die.

Also, if you're a home invader and I push you outside into a blizzard you die.

Still legal.

24 weeks thing accepted, however very few abortions do happen then and during those few cases that argument stands.

Those abortions aren't elective. They're because of severe medical risk or hopelessness of success (I.E., severe risk of death to the mother or the brain didn't form or something)

Your parents don't have the right to take a pint of blood from you after you are 18, but before 18 they have custody over you and I'm pretty sure they can if they don't break any laws. However this argument would still be against abortion even if I wasn't refuting it, as it defends the rights of the offspring rather than the will of the parent(s).

However what I am arguing is that the father should have partial say over his offspring. My analogy for this would be cattle breeders can have partial ownership, or stock, over a bull. The bull resides on one persons property. Unless something is signed the person whose property the bull is on does not have the right to put down the bull without consulting the other owner(s).

The same thing should go for a father and mother, with both having laid down capital (or in this case genes and emotional investment) but mother being the one providing sustenance and carrying the baby. However, the father should not be cut out as he laid down his "capital." At the very least he should legally have a chance to talk to the woman. Same goes for guys trying to force the girl they knocked up to abort. I would think both should have to consent, but maybe this should be applied case by case, as there are always different circumstances.

Well, I'm pretty supportive of the prospective parents talking it out in most circumstances. However, it's still inside one person's body taking their nutrients and using their bloodstream to deliver their nutrients.

Ultimately, it's that person's decision, just as it would be my brother's decision to get a vasectomy even though his brain and his genitals may have different DNA sets.

[Ashmoria]

good lord. a minor law that makes a minor distinction between a father and a mother isn't really enough to say that they aren't equal under the law. I'm sure there are other remnants out there that need tweaking. it really doesn't change the fact that mothers and father ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW in all ways that are important. its quite different from a few decades ago when men were considered inferior parents or 100 years ago when women were.

in fact if you can find me a case where a MAN left a baby at a fire station and then was prosecuted for it i will consider it a bigger deal.

I'm not suggesting that this law means this.

What I am saying is that Gallo's complaint is not about the existence of the law as you suggest, but rather, its application and the fact that while the laws are written to be gender neutral, its application is not gender neutral.

application is always a problem. sometimes it leans towards mothers sometimes toward fathers. its a problem of humanity.

[Paledonn]

Neither is suggesting that men and women have equal rights under the law when it comes to parenting, apparently, as Gallo just said.

A compassionate law may be a compassionate law, that doesn't mean the system doesn't give precedence to the mother rather than the father.

good lord. a minor law that makes a minor distinction between a father and a mother isn't really enough to say that they aren't equal under the law. I'm sure there are other remnants out there that need tweaking. it really doesn't change the fact that mothers and father ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW in all ways that are important. its quite different from a few decades ago when men were considered inferior parents or 100 years ago when women were.

in fact if you can find me a case where a MAN left a baby at a fire station and then was prosecuted for it i will consider it a bigger deal.

https://www.google.com/search?q=safe+ha ... e&ie=UTF-8

Inform thyself. Neither man nor woman can be prosecuted for this in any of the 50 US states. First proposed by one of those dastardly, sexist republicans. But you are right both man and women are equal under the law, despite divorce proceedings and this topic heavily leaning towards women. Each sex can cite both positive and negative taboos in our society.

[Costa Fierro]

Ah, the old "women are more important than men because pregnancy" argument. Come back to me with an argument that doesn't reduce men to the role of walking sperm dispenser.

Don't believe I said anything about women being more important than men.

It was implied.