right to life or a womans choice?

[Marcus Bryant]

It came FROM the parents. It's no longer a part of the parents.

If I give you ten dollars, it's no longer a part of my assets.

So once the sperm and egg combine it is no longer a part of the parents.

[Marcus Bryant]

Not legally, he doesn't.

Well good. Then the sperm and egg are part of the parents' bodies, so they collectively should be able to determine what happens to their property.

[Spurminator]

No, but it's still living inside of the mother's body, and completely dependant on it.

[ClintSquint]

Enough already! Unless you happen to be the woman making the decision, STFU!

[Marcus Bryant]

No, but it's still living inside of the mother's body, and completely dependant on it.

Doesn't matter. They just gave their assets away as you said. They have created another individual. It is no longer their property.

[Spurminator]

Well good. Then the sperm and egg are part of the parents' bodies, so they collectively should be able to determine what happens to their property.

In a perfect world, yes, but ultimately the mother has the final choice because it's her body that bears the burden of carrying the decision for 9 months.

[Spurminator]

st gave their assets away as you said. They have created another individual. It is no longer their property.

Then they can give it away.

Oh wait, no they can't, because it's feeding off the mother.

[Marcus Bryant]

In a perfect world, yes, but ultimately the mother has the final choice because it's her body that bears the burden of carrying the decision for 9 months.

Are they not legally bound to bear the burden after the 9 months?

[Uncle Donnie]

Let's say each eni y.. mother and child... has an equal right to its own body (which I believe) . If they were separate, then neither has any right to harm or feed off of the other. But they are not separate. The embryo is dependant on the mother. Therefore, in keeping with the mother's right to her own body, she has the right to rid herself of that responsibility.

Otherwise, you give the embryo more of a right to the woman's body than the woman herself.

That seems like a pretty big contradiction. If the child has an equal right to its own body how is it not being violated when the child is terminated?

[Spurminator]

Are they not legally bound to bear the burden after the 9 months?

Nope... they can leave it at the hospital as soon as it's out of the womb.

[Samurai Jane]

Let's say each eni y.. mother and child... has an equal right to its own body (which I believe). If they were separate, then neither has any right to harm or feed off of the other. But they are not separate. The embryo is dependant on the mother. Therefore, in keeping with the mother's right to her own body, she has the right to rid herself of that responsibility.

Otherwise, you give the embryo more of a right to the woman's body than the woman herself.

So basically the baby has a right to live as long as it's not dependent on the mother, which is directly related to the technological advances that are made in this area.

[Spurminator]

That seems like a pretty big contradiction. If the child has an equal right to its own body how is it not being violated when the child is terminated?

Because if the mother is forced to carry the child, then her body is being violated.

[Marcus Bryant]

Then they can give it away.

Oh wait, no they can't, because it's feeding off the mother.

Doesn't matter, it's no longer their property. It just takes a little time for the transaction to close.

[Spurminator]

So basically the baby has a right to live as long as it's not dependent on the mother, which is directly related to the technological advances that are made in this area.

Correct, and if those advances are made, my stance on this issue would likely change.

[Marcus Bryant]

Because if the mother is forced to carry the child, then her body is being violated.

Men and women are forced after their children leave the womb to pay for them.

Also, again, if the woman doesn't want her "body violated", then don't engage in the behavior that leads to that or take steps to prevent it.

[Spurminator]

Doesn't matter, it's no longer their property. It just takes a little time for the transaction to close.

If it's no longer their property, they are no longer responsible for its care.

[Uncle Donnie]

Because if the mother is forced to carry the child, then her body is being violated.

Nice repe ion, but it doesn't justify the ultimate violation of the child's body.

[Spurminator]

Men and women are forced after their children leave the womb to pay for them.

That's health care.

[Shelly]

The "right to choose" also would seem to imply a right of the father to "choose" whether or not he wants any responsibility for the child whatsoever. I submit that men should be allowed to choose to disown their unborn children without any further financial responsibility whatsoever.

May sound harsh, but at least they aren't killing the child.

Anyways, the issue of abortion on demand is ridiculous. A choice already exists: don't .

Well, it takes two to tango, so I agree with your non-fornicating stance.

I get wage garnishments all the time for dead beat dads (and back taxes, but that's another story). And the woman on the order 99% of the time has the same last name as our employee so I'm assuming they were married. IMO, he does NOT have the right to choose for at least that reason. We had one guy that owed $100k in back child support, which he didn't pay unless the gov't finally got him through an employer. Yet, someone told me he was raising his grandchildren.

What pisses me off about it is that it's up to me as the employer to make sure the his child support is paid. If I don't, I get penalized. Unfortunately, by the time I get a wage garnishment on an employee, we've already have laid him off.

[Spurminator]

Nice repe ion, but it doesn't justify the ultimate violation of the child's body.

How do you justify the violation of the woman's body?

Somebody's getting violated here. I never said it wasn't ugly. Priority goes to the mother.

[Marcus Bryant]

That's health care.

If it's no longer their property, they are no longer responsible for its care.

Oh really? Tell that to a judge.

[Marcus Bryant]

How do you justify the violation of the woman's body?

Somebody's getting violated here. I never said it wasn't ugly. Priority goes to the mother.

The mother had a choice not to in the first place.

[Uncle Donnie]

How do you justify the violation of the woman's body?

Somebody's getting violated here. I never said it wasn't ugly. Priority goes to the mother.

The difference is that one person's life is ended, the other's is not. One person made choices that created the situation, the other did not.

[Samurai Jane]

How do you justify the violation of the woman's body?

Somebody's getting violated here. I never said it wasn't ugly. Priority goes to the mother.

Why does the priority go to the mother? We are talking about a temporary inconvenience for her versus the death of the child.

[Shelly]

I mean seriously, why can't parents try out a child for a month or two? If they don't like the kid, cut his head off and dump him in a trash can.

Well, I wouldn't be so drastic, but I think teenagers should be forced to care for toddlers before they decide they want a baby. Give them a two-three year old and trust me they won't think that having a baby is such a good idea.