|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...are not mere sperm. They're already people and should be treated as such, not flushed down the toilet because you created "too many".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it odd that you state your opinion as though it was an objective fact. I hold an opposing opinion. I don't think an embryo is a person. I think it's a nonsentient ball of cells, and I think the fathers have a right to say no at this point. It goes further than just that, though. There is much more at stake than whether or not these two women get to be "natural mothers."
Men are already confounded with regards to abortion - if we want the baby and she doesn't, too bad. If we don't want the baby and she does, too bad, AND we have to pay for her video rentals and salon appointments for almost two decades thereafter. The decision is hers, unilaterally. These women have not yet been impregnated, so the whole "keep your laws off my body" argument doesn't even apply at this point.
As men, we have zero reproductive rights. I mean that 100%. Our sperm can be taken from us illegally, BY FORCE, and used against our will, and the bill is sent to us afterwards. Laws are routinely passed that BAR the use of DNA testing in paternity cases. Grown women are statutorially raping eleven-year-old boys, and those boys are getting nailed with child support payments (while the rapist gets to raise the resulting offspring). I don't think we need to give these dames another nanometer, gentlemen. They have too much already. If we don't put a stop to this, we'll never get any reproductive rights at all. They will keep raping us, boys and men alike, both sexually and financially. And they will never stop.
Furthermore, the law said that the embryos would be destroyed if both parties didn't consent, at the time that they were engineered into existence inside a test tube or Petrie dish or however this was done. All the parties knew the rules before they signed up for the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I find it odd that you state your opinion as though it was an objective fact. I hold an opposing opinion."
If it's only an opinion, then it's the same "opinion" that biology textbooks have.
"Men are already confounded with regards to abortion - if we want the baby and she doesn't, too bad. If we don't want the baby and she does, too bad, AND we have to pay for her video rentals and salon appointments for almost two decades thereafter."
I understand that. That's a separate point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do you figure that the statement "an embryo is a person" is a fact?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday July 01, @09:58AM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
It is a basic biological fact that life begins at conception. Every biology textbook will state this. So an embryo is a human life - that much is a fact.
But what about the embryo as "person"? Well, I can admit this is a matter of opinion. But just where is the dividing line - what makes a human life a "person"? And, much more to the point, who gets to decide that? If, for instance, an embryo is merely a "nonsentient ball of cells", then what is a person in a coma, or a persistent vegetative state? More to the point, by exactly what reasoning is "sentience" now the basis for determining human life? And if so, does that mean that abortion must be considered murder after the point when the fetus develops the ability to feel pain? But, if not, and some other standard is used to justify late-term abortions, then why stop there? What, after all, is so magical about birth? Why not allow infanticide? Some moral "ethicists" like Peter Singer have actually maintained the morality of infanticide. In all these arguments there is huge dose of subjectivism.
From a more religious perspective, human "personhood" begins when God infuses the body with a rational soul. Because we cannot know for sure exactly when God does this, we cannot be sure whether what we are killing is really a human person or not: hence the moral prohibition. But even from a secular perspective, we cannot know what standard to use to judge a human life a human "person", and thus the same prohibition should apply.
Vince S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"From a more religious perspective, human "personhood" begins when God infuses the body with a rational soul."
rational eh?... well then I'd have to put the onset of personhood at around 19 years old then... 22 if the kid goes to college... and only 2 weeks a month for life if the kid is a girl. ;)
In all honesty... IMO getting the religous and subjective argument going is simply sidelining the real issue.
The fact is that abortion is legal, the fact is that women have ABSOLUTE control over a potential life up until the time that abortion is no longer acceptable. The fact is that their primary argument for this control is that they have the right to choose what's done with their body. I happen to be of a mind that if it's ok to abort for comfort of a woman for 9 months (only the last couple of which are actually uncomfortable) then men should have the right to reject 20 YEARS of forced labor... which amounts to MORE than 9 months of time spent WORKING to pay for that child if the guy was working 24 HOURS A DAY. (at current support guidelines)
I'd rather push for equality at the place that society is at than hold out for some anti-abortion nirvana that's never going to happen.
BUT... even this isn't the root issue here, it seems to me that the root issue is that those men have as much right to determine the fate of their genetic material as the women do. It's another slap in the face of men everywhere and if allowed would further establish that women have ABSOLUTE control over OUR sperm. IMO - the idea that men should accept a frozen bunch of cells as a person while woman are destroying recognizable fetuses on a whim is INSANE. Makes me glad I'm shooting blanks these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vince, regardless of what my personal beliefs on abortion are, it's here, it's legal, and it isn't going away until women demand an end to it. We men can talk all we want, but so long as women see it as their "independence" from the "Bondage of biology" the only response we'll get is "as a male, it's not your body, you have no say."
So I say fine and dandy.
The best way to oppose something is to embrace it, warts and all. And so long as women have post-coital reproductive freedo0m and birth control, this is the PERFECT opportunity to demand it for men. "Oh, you're pregnant? Weeell, that's a shame. Tell you what - here's my $175 for my half of the abortion, and my declaration of non-fatherhood. Hope it works out for you ... and if you do decide to vacuum out the lil' rascal, gimme a call. You're a real sport."
You combine this with mandatory DNA paternity tests for all children & declarations of child support, plus a "who files walks" doctrine in divorce, presumptive joint custody in a divorce, the male pill, and an enforcement of "Innocent until proven guilty" in alleged abuse, and you have the beginning of a revolution.
Trust me, Vince, this will shut down local franchises of "Mommy, Inc." and will bring women to the table to negotiate.
In short, like in tug-of-war - just let go of the rope, let them have all they want, and watch them fall on their ass. Then when they're trying to stand and off balance do you pull them into the mud-pit. Give it all to them. In spades.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now you're talking. I think paternity tests should be AUTOMATIC and MANDATORY in all divorce proceedings. I also want to see an end to vaginamony-- I mean alimony, and I want to see itemized receipts legally mandated for child support recipients.
You ever read Calvin and Hobbes and wonder why Calvin looks NOTHING like his father? Someone once suggested that it's because his mother was banging the milkman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah. Alimony is bullshit, it's an excuse for worthless and weak women to be a parasite with the sanction of the state.
Either women are "strong and independent" - or they're not. If they are, they don't need alimony. If they need alimony, then the lil' darlings need to lose some rights and privileges - for their own protection of course.
Hey, if they're not "strong and independant" then they are "Weak and dependant." Like children.
Funny how pheminazis and they're sympathizers are perfectly willing to embrace sexism and inequality under the law - so long as it's the men who get the shitty end of the stick, eh?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 30, @05:56PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree wholeheartedly BG about the moral status of the embryo. However please understand what many of us are also objecting to is the complete hypocrisy shown by feminists. It's all about what women want, screw everybody and everything else.
Ideas have consequences. If the embryo really is a human life, then both mother and father are responsible for its welfare. That means, since we do not have any kind of artifical womb at the moment, that the mother is morally obligated to have the embryo implanted, and thus should be legally obligated as well. Now just imagine the shrieks from feminists if that were suggested! How dare parenthood be "forced" on anyone?!
But, if hypothetically for argument's sake, the embryo is not really a human life, then there is nothing really morally wrong with destroying it. So then the question merely becomes one who should have the legal rights over the embryo, e.g. one of property and contract law. Now the existing contract, made at the time of the IVF, clearly states that the embryos are to be destroyed without the father's consent for implantation. But no, all of a sudden, feminists wax eloquent about parenthood (for the mother) but don't think twice about "forcing" parenthood on the fathers (don't think for a minute they won't be pursued for child support after birth).
It all comes down to this: men are to pay for women's choices, no matter what or how you slice it, and screw any concept of moral values or legal rights: they are only brought up when they provide a convenient argument, which are later abandoned when they don't support the feminazi cause.
Vince S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. But then I'm opposed to the whole IFT system of creating embryos, storing, and discarding unused ones. Enevitably some will be destroyed even in the best of circumstances.
That's not really what this case is about however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What if the male wanted the embryo in order to place it in a surrogate or in his new wife in order to have a child? What then? Would the former female wife/partner have a say in how the embryo is used?
Of course, I'm opposed to the entire IVF thing from the get go .... but I wonder why all this isn't spelled out in advance so everyone knows their rights (except of course the embryo)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So many unwanted children in the world and these couples spend tens of thousands on fertility treatments... guh...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pheminazis have a deplorable tendancy to measure everything by one standard - what does any given woman want at any particular moment?
That's it. That's the sum motivator. Everything is rubricized as some "choice;" and nothing must be turned into a moral absolute. And if there is now way to go about it without some moral absolute, it's pleaded, "You have to understand how hard it is for a woman..."
I don't know - and to be frank, I don't give a rat's hairy ass - whether an embryo is human. Since it's not my choice to make, it's not me that will have to live with the moral consequences. If there is a God, and it is human, and it is murder, let the woman who chooses to kill it go to Hell for it. It's been hammered to me until I'm sick of the litany to the point of puking that "You're a man, you'll never understand."
Excellent. As I'm a non-breeder at this point, it's supreme indifference to me. Find a motherfucking standard, apply it across the board, and stick to it, the good and the bad.
IVF is wrong? Fine. In that case, women who are infertile have no right to children. Suck it up, babe. Find your fulfilment otherwise. Not my problem.
It's a human that deserves to be born? Okay, babe. Bear them ALL. Every. Last. One. Line forms on the right.
Want to be the sole determiner of if a baby is born? Suck it up and take sole responsibility for it - anything less is pure moral cowardice in the form of talking the talk and refusing to walk the walk.
Want Dad to be responsible for having sex and "Assuming the risk of fatherhood." Likewise then, you assume the risk of motherhood. Don't want to be a mother? My grandmother said in her day the pill was an asprin held firmly between the knees.
It's onluy complicated when some pheminist half-wit starts upchucking a bunch of unnecessary and immaterial garbage. Is it a baby? Does a PARENT assume the risk of parenthood by sex, or can they opt out? [NOTE CAREFULLY THE GENDER NEUTRAL PRONOUN - sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.] Is it a thing?
Pick one. Be philosophically, legally, and morally consistant. Apply one standard, and apply it across the board. Apply it to everyone, in every case, and without variable.
And if "it's different" for men and women, before som Pheminista troll even picks up on that - unless you're willing to start surrendering rights to me because we're different, you're just blowing wind. If you believe it, you first. Prove it.
(insert sound of crickets)
Didn't think so.
This is typical Pheminazi Horsecrap, and these two c**ts would do the world a favor if they hung themselves. They're whining is pathetic, they knew the consequences, knew the job was dangerous when they took it, and in typical pheminine fashion, they wan't their cake and eat it too. One seperate rule for them, they're so they're just so special and deserving of it.
I'm going to go puke now.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bravo, TGK! Too bad philosophical consistency isn't part of the curriculum of any given women's studies course.
The feminazi mindset simply defies logic, as consistency rarely leads you where you really want to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man, that post was a fun read. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prof. Tom Leykis says that you should never donate sperm, because it is possible that the laws could be changed in such a way as to charge you for child support. You don't think it'll happen? I am afraid it may. I used to entertain the idea myself, but man, now that I know all about the selfish feminist garbage that goes down in this country and others on a daily basis, there's just no way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H
The good Proffessor may well be right. In the UK anonymity was promised for parents (mainly single women) who gave up their children for adoption. The legal system overturned that when children sought knowledge of their biological parents. Laws can, and all too often change.
TC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The hell of it is that these changes are sometimes RETROACTIVE in nature. Laws should tell people where they stand, because they are taken into consideration before people make decisions. Retroactive changes are basically a breach in contract between the state and the individual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if these women have figured out that declaring it against the embryo's human rights in a country an embryo is assumed to lack them is really the best idea.
I also wonder, akin to others, how the women would feel if their husbands wanted to use the embryos for their own purposes without allowing them custody or in other form knowledge. That would feel kind of, gee, painful?
And, I'm sure they were informed upon the fact that they needed both parties consent before going in for this. Sorry it didn't work out, but it can't always.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
