Johnny wrote:
[snip]
How do you think the lady who was artificially inseminated won her
judgement
against the fetility clinic doctor not so long ago?
There is to be no discrimination with regard to gender.
Men are not required to become pregnant just as women are NOT
required
to
provide the sperm to create a child.
How about neither women or men are required to provide sperm,
neither
women nor men are required to provide ovum and neither women or men
are required to provide use of their wombs?
They aren't, technically.
But they do.
So do you think men and women should be forced to provide their
gametes?
Sure seems that is what the lobbyists for tax dollars for stem cell
research
are thinking.
I don't see anyone suggesting coercion here.
Paying them for something that is not only theirs is illegal.
Men should be compensated for their half of the fetus if pay must be
awarded.
The gender differences do not allow one gender being treated above the other
gender.
Do you think women but not men should be forced to provide their wombs?
Each person, if you are for choice, is responsible for the choices they
make
themselves that affect them as individuals.
Ok.
When a choice involves something that is considered community property,
as
are children,
Children are not generally considered "property" but I know what you
mean.
Thank you.
So, why would they pay for it then with these stem cell dollars?
If it isn't property then why is is treeated as such by stenm cell reseach
and fetal body parts merchants?
there must be some sort of equality measure which would take
into account the motivation of both parties.
How about this then: Either partner has the right to "disposess"
themselves
at any time up to some arbitrary cut off, say onset of the third
trimester
for the sake of argument. If both parties dispossess themselves the
child
will be aborted or put up for adoption.
Which would require the legal consent of both the male and the female
involved;
which disallows failing to document which man impregnated the
woman who seeks an abortion.
If the woman was able to pass the burden of pregnancy and childbirth
onto the man then it would indeed be outrageous if she were to have
an abortion without first giving him that option. As it is, it is
unfortuante
that men have no say on the issue but the alternative is even worse.
How is it fair for men and women to have equal say in the outcome
when the consequences of that outcome are not the equal for both?
If one does then the child will
be the sole responsibility of the other.
Possibly.
However the womb is the sole property
of the woman so she is free to choose whether or not to use it for
incubating
purposes.
And, if they chose the abortion they would be both be paid in this pay for
fetuses thing I read about.
I must confess I've never heard of this "pay for foetus thing". I'd
have
thought there would be enough people aborting to provide adequate
resources for stem cell research without having to pay people for it.
Yet, this could be a very sticky issue since the need for fetal body parts
for stem cell research isn't so vast.
Who wouldn't want to screw to make a buck I guess.
Why shoudn't they?
Do you see any gender discrimination in that?
Only in the last instance. There would be no requirement for women to get
pregnant, right? Is that what you meant?
No. I meant there should be no requirement for men to provide their
sperm,
no requirement for women to provide their eggs and no requirement for
women to provide their wombs. How is that gender discrimination?
Do you think men should be entitled to withold permission for the
mother
of their unborn child to use the mother's womb?
I am not saying either person should singularly have the authority to
make
the decision.
When a child is involved there are two parents.
It is quite inequitable to say that one of the two parents has sole
authority in these matters.
OK but do you think it is equitable for a man to have any authority
over how
his wife, girlfriend or one night stand uses her womb?
Because she consented to its use; whether knowingly or unknowingly.
I don't buy that. She consented to give her eggs the opportunity to be
fertilized. Not quite the same as consenting to 9 months of pregnancy
followed by childbirth with no option to change her mind.
But, I don't mean this as if the man's choice is superior to the woman's
choice.
What about the case where the man doesn't want it and the woman does?
See?
I see. The woman's wishes are more important than the man's because
it is her body and not his that is being used.
Currently the situation is entirely stacked in favor of the female as far as
whether she chooses to keep or to have the child aborted. And, from the use
of the womb standpoint, just how long is the woman allowing the 'community
property' use of her womb? Isn't less than 12 weeks in most cases?
And, in the case of a married woman who is impregnated by someone other than
her husband the husband would be entitled to his share of the payment for
the fetus since the person who impregnated his wife was forbidden from doing
so unless the husband wanted another man to impregnate his wife.
It is much more complicated, imo, when abortion is legalized in any
pregnancy as compared to no abortions being legal except in rare
circumstances.
More complicated? maybe. In humanity's overall best interests? I think
not!
Fair is fair, and sexism in law which is what Pro-Choice is IS
ILLEGAL!
You could equally well describe pro-life as sexist because it
demands
so
much more of the woman than it does of the man.
Erroneous statement.
It requires nothing more of either gender than that which they already
have
inherent in them as persons.
Pro-life holds that women should sometimes be forced to use their wombs
to support the foetus. Pro-life does not hold that men should ever be
forced to use their wombs in this way.
Is that like trying to force someone who is mute to sing an aria?
LOL!
The reason a mute person couldn't sing an aria is because they don't
have the ability to sing,
Just as a man has no ability to become pregnant.
not that the law is discriminatory.
There is no law that says mute persons can not have abortions, right?
I'm not aware of any law that says mute people can't sing. I'm not
aware of any law that says non-pregnant people can't have abortions.
Similarly the
reason men don't have the right to become a father if they succesfully
procreate is because they lack the ability to become pregnant, not
because the law is discriminatory.
So, you mean that a woman choosing an abortion without the consent of the
male does nothing to deny any man of fatherhood after he performed what was
necessary to impregnate a female?
Seems very discriminatory to me.
No one has the right to become a parent unless they can find someone
who is willing to be the other parent. A man has the right to offer his
sperm. He does not have the right to force a woman to allow him use of
her eggs and he does not have the right to force her to allow the egg
he fertilized the use of her womb.
It is still equal protection from the
law because a pregnant man would be treated in exactly the same way and
it is not the fault of the law that there is no such thing.
It is not equal protection because the contribution of the man is being
ignored,
It is acknowledged but it is also acknowledged that it is not an
ongoing contribution unlike the mothers.
What is the woman contributing other than her ovum or ova?
How is she electively contributing the use of her womb other than by NOT
getting an abortion?
Why does it matter that there is no other way in which she is
electively
contributing the use of her womb.
Does the fact of the one off contribution entitle the man to demand an
ongoing
contribution from his wife/girlfriend/one night stand?
It could. People didn't have a problem with these things before Roe V Wade
in most states in the USA.
and because there are laws against discrimination on the basis of
gender. The child is community property.
What about the womb?
If a doctor wants to pay a man and woman for their property in common then
they both get the payment right?
OK.
They decide what to do with it later, right?
Ok.
If they are married they are in common.
If a man wants to sell a testicle to some biz that will buy it, then
shouldn't his wife share in that gain?
Why?
What is so weird about all this is the bartering of human flesh in
Pro-Choice.
What next, you know?
The charge of sexism against the Pro-Life position can be defended but
only by using exactly
the same argument that your charge of sexism against the Pro-Choice
position refuses to accept.
How so?
The defence that inequality is dictated by nature.
Where is that codified in law to support sexism?
Exalting one natural difference above another is more discrimination.
Do you think trees are more worthy of being cut down or not cut down than
thistles or vice versa?
I think people are more "worthy" of not being killed than chickens and
chickens
are more "worthy" than mackerel, which are more "worthy" than thistles.
It is irrational not to take relevant natural differences into account.
I am not picking sides.
I am.
Sexism then.
I am saying the male and female are not to be treated unequally in law.
In some respects they are treated unequally but not this one.
Denial?
You think one brand of donuts deserves protectionist legislation over
another brand, domestic brands that is?
Why should they?
Pro-Choice is sexist becuase it acts as if women have an unequal right
in
this area.
Discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal.
What part of the 14th Amendment are you forgetting here?
Pro-choice does not violate the 14th Amenment.
Ridiculous.
Where in Pro-Choice is it ever said that 'It's a man's right to choose?"
LOL!
Why is it you want to defend platitudes that are so blatantly sexist?
When do politicians say, "I am for a man's right to choose."
Really a "woman's right to choose" is simply equiavlent to a
"pregnant persons right to choose".
Which is equivalent to "a woman's right to choose."
I am advocating that the person who is destined to experience
pregnancy and childbirth should be given the choice of removing
the cause. Gender is only relevant in as much as men can't
experience such things.
The point is that
nature
is sexist and it is not so easy to see how the law can fully
compensate
without overcompensating.
So, why are you resisting it by making lies to support sexism in law?
I'm not.
What part of 'a woman's right to choose' isn't sexist?
The women do not become pregnant on their own.
But they are the only party that gets to become pregnant.
Their mothers did. Their mothers didn't have them aborted.
Why should they have their children aborted?
Why shouldn't they?
.
