I was being entirely respectful to the discussion, and I feel contributing to a very delicate issue. When you respond to me with Don't expect a well though out or delicate response from me. You're doing a disservice to the conversation by trying belittling me or shut down the conversation.
Whether it's a person is besides the point as there is no single legal definition of a person and the federal statue being applied here does not attempt to define it either. You can argue that then it shouldn't be called murder, but murder is just a legal label and the statute could just as well call it what you suggested.A person is a person is a person. It cannot conditionally be a person depending upon who is viewing it. Either it is or it is not. If a mother can terminate it and have it be called simply tissue matter, then that is what it legally is for anyone who terminates it. Charge the father with a crime against the prospective mother, but the father committed no wrong against anyone else, at least as far as the law is concerned.
Whatever the ruling the Judge in this case needs to be a mother, I don't trust men one bit on these matters.
At least not until we can transplant a functioning uterus into a man.
Because you're equivocating. It's obvious why a financial burden and pregnancy are not the same.
You also seem to be under the impression that all mothers just receive CS payments and leave their kid somewhere to fend for itself. Her obligations don't end once she has the baby.
Whatever the ruling the Judge in this case needs to be a mother, I don't trust men one bit on these matters.
At least not until we can transplant a functioning uterus into a man.
A woman should have the right to abort with or without her partner's consent and a man should have the right to forfeit responsibility for the same reasons. I consider that just.
So going back to my original point, why doesn't a man get a say (all thing being equal) in the life of a child he may WANT to keep? They both made a choice that resulted in a pregnancy, why should only one person get to decide what happens to that potential life?
I understand what pregnancy does to a woman, but she choose that as a risk of engaging in sexual activity.
Why should the person who has the physical burden be able to choose? Is this a real question?
I can understand why straight men don't like the current arrangement. It effectively gives women multiple chances after the pregnancy has occurred to change her mind (which I support), while at the same time forcing men to rely on either surgery (vasectomy or something like that) or condoms (which aren't nearly as close to perfect as one would like) as his only options, and without any recourse after the pregnancy has occurred. But at the same time I also think that a discussion about child support should focus on, well, the child. And I don't think it would be a good thing to allow men en masse to elect to legally abandon their responsibilities for their children.
But I do get the frustration, and while I don't think there's any perfect solution to it, I think
our emphasis should be on getting more (and more reliable) options for men to prevent pregnancy in the first place.
Yes. And again, you're trying to dismiss my question in a rather demeaning manner. It's not like I'm talking about rape here, I'm asking about 2 consenting adults. Both of whom knew the risks.
So women are allowed to murder their unborn babies, but men aren't?
Holy shit
Because it's a dumb question unless you think pregnancies should be forced on women, do you?
Did I say forced? Again, not talking about rape. 2 people who had sex knowing that a pregnancy might happen. Both parties informed. I'm not sure what you aren't getting about my question, or if you're just not willing/able to have a conversation about it.
Did I say forced? Again, not talking about rape. 2 people who had sex knowing that a pregnancy might happen. Both parties informed. I'm not sure what you aren't getting about my question, or if you're just not willing/able to have a conversation about it.
It's (a) SlipperySlope
Do you think the majority of women would carry to term without child support on the table?I can understand why straight men don't like the current arrangement. It effectively gives women multiple chances after the pregnancy has occurred to change her mind (which I support), while at the same time forcing men to rely on either surgery (vasectomy or something like that) or condoms (which aren't nearly as close to perfect as one would like) as his only options, and without any recourse after the pregnancy has occurred. But at the same time I also think that a discussion about child support should focus on, well, the child. And I don't think it would be a good thing to allow men en masse to elect to legally abandon their responsibilities for their children.
But I do get the frustration, and while I don't think there's any perfect solution to it, I think
our emphasis should be on getting more (and more reliable) options for men to prevent pregnancy in the first place.
Is it forced if she has no other choice. Do you understand what I'm even saying to you? Do you understand what you're saying?
I doubt a murder charge will stick. This will obviously hinge on the definition of "human being" and abortion law will be taken into account. Assault & battery is more likely.
Did I say forced? Again, not talking about rape. 2 people who had sex knowing that a pregnancy might happen. Both parties informed. I'm not sure what you aren't getting about my question, or if you're just not willing/able to have a conversation about it.
Do you think the majority of women would carry to term without child support on the table?
Do you think the majority of women would carry to term without child support on the table?
If the woman doesn't want a pregnancy and the man does, what do you think should happen in plain english.
Do you think the majority of women would carry to term without child support on the table?
That's short-sighted, though I understand your trepidation. There are plenty of men and childless women who are just as committed to equitably enforcing reproductive law as any mother.
Do you think only men ever pay child support?
I think the woman should be able to do whatever she wants. But when it's the opposite case (this time the man wanting to opt out) he should be able to free himself from any legal responsibility. So plainly said, don't force anything onto someone else when he doesn't want to. That goes both ways.If the woman doesn't want a pregnancy and the man does, what do you think should happen in plain english.
The fact that he was (I assume) banned for this post is bloody messed up. Regardless of your stance on the issue."I don't want this to be considered murder, because then logically all abortions are murder, and that revelation would seriously interfere with my sex life, which is what really matters to me."
I hate risking a ban so close to E3, but this is the one issue where I just can't hold my tongue. Some things are more important than video games.Innocent human life, money, and fast food. /list
I agree but it's a matter of probability, the odds a mother understands all the facets of a forced unconsented miscarriage and this particular case seems to me to be astronomically better than the rest.
I think the woman should be able to do whatever she wants. But when it's the opposite case (this time the man wanting to opt out) he should be able to free himself from any legal responsibility. So plainly said, don't force anything onto someone else when he doesn't want to. That goes both ways.
What an interesting judicial precedent. How many weeks along was she?
The fact that he was (I assume) banned for this post is bloody messed up. Regardless of your stance on the issue.
who cares the intent is what makes it murder. He gave her that pill intending to stop the baby from coming to term.
Glad I won't be on that jury. Good christ. What a mess.
As you can legally get an abortion in Florida at the 6-7 week mark, they are going to have a bitch of a time getting a murder charge to stick. I really don't think it is going to happen.
That said, there are so many other charges they can throw at him, it is a sure thing he's going to prison well past his 40th birthday. I wouldn't be too worried about him getting off light.
I'm honestly not sure. Do you think it would be good for society if we saw a precipitous drop in the birth rate because of it?
C'mon son, don't do this to yourself.So women are allowed to murder their unborn babies, but men aren't?
While I don't disagree with you, you need to be able to see the other side of the coin. In the end, both parties had a responsibility to practice safe sex, and more often than not it's improper precautions taken that result in a pregnancy. She did have a choice, as did the man.
It's a very complex situation and there is no perfect solution.
I think the woman should be able to do whatever she wants. But when it's the opposite case (this time the man wanting to opt out) he should be able to free himself from any legal responsibility. So plainly said, don't force anything onto someone else when he doesn't want to. That goes both ways.
That would be forcing an abortion upon the mother in many ways.
I think the current laws are fair, or as fair as they can be. In the end, I agree with Mumei in that education and access to proper birth control is the most effective solution.
Has anyone pointed out that Florida has a statue covering this? Fl. Stat. 782.09. Take a look.
Yes and I also pointed out that it doesn't apply in case of a fetus this young AND that he is facing federal charges. You aren't going to get anywhere reading Florida statutes.Has anyone pointed out that Florida has a statue covering this? Fl. Stat. 782.09. Take a look.