All of the arguments in this thread focus on mother and fetus...
What about the father?
All of the arguments in this thread focus on mother and fetus...
What about the father?
Except sperm are genetic clones of the father (well, clones with half the genetic material of normal cells). So, they belong to the father. The law of self-ownership would dictate the father has the right to do with these cells as he pleases. And from a scientific perspective, sperm by themselves are a dead-end; they are incapable of sustaining long-term homeostasis and cannot reproduce. Their stasis as being 'alive' is questionable.
It's not. It's instead a war on being irresponsible, and to prevent an innocent life from bearing the burden of your foolish decisions. But, evidently it's a "right" to abort a baby. It's just like you have a "right" to a physician's services, or to part of my paycheck.
An-caps would disagree with you on the well settled bit. Why should anyone have any rights over anyone else?
responsibility for =/= rights over. An-caps generally agree that individuals act purposefully in their own rational self-interest (praxaeology) and that actions (including irrational ones) have consequences. The argument could be made that acting in such a way that results in a pregnancy puts a moral responsibility of some sort upon the parents.An-caps would disagree with you on the well settled bit. Why should anyone have any rights over anyone else?
How in the world can several million court orders stipulating a father pay support be argued as not well settled?
If it is "well settled", why is there need for court orders?
The fathers say "less", the mothers say "more", and the judge decides. However,
What if that father never wanted the baby? (us men are easily tricked into releasing sperm)
What if his support is just subsidizing the mother's crack habit?
What if the father has no rights of visitation or equal time/say in childrearing?
What if the father is not paid for the days he takes care of the children?
What if the mother has a common-law husband (and step-dad for child) but won't officially remarry/adopt due to loss of benefits?
What if the mother blew a lump sum settlement?
This is far, far, far from settled but rather a boondoggle for the legal industry.
A fetus cannot survive on its own
Funny. I don't find 'ability to survive on its own' as a qualifyer for life in my textbook. I suppose tapeworms aren't alive. Neither are mosquitoes or ticks. For that matter, you couldn't survive on your own. You must consume something that is or was once living or you will die. That's not surviving on your own.
Again you have failed to show what is and isn't living. Where is the line? If the morning after pill is murder, doesw
That make pulling out a preemptive murder? Are condoms preemptive murder? Where is the line?
I just told you...
Sperm are the property of the father. When a lone sperm fertilizes an egg it ceases to be a sperm, by definition. I reserve the right to do whatever I wish to the cells in my body since they belong to me and because they are clones of the original cell (zygote) that spawned me.
I draw the line where science tells me to draw the line.
Again you have failed to show what is and isn't living. Where is the line? If the morning after pill is murder, doesw
That make pulling out a preemptive murder? Are condoms preemptive murder? Where is the line?
Again, people fail to see that they have ZERO right to tell another human being what to do when people own their own bodies. Doesnt matter if its murder, abortion, alive, not alive, unless it is YOUR progeny, no one else gets a say so in the matter.
Why can people not understand this most simple concept of Liberty?
So yes to condoms then
In the case of a fetus, a father currently has no legal footing to protect his progeny, the survival is completely at the womans discression, abortion is her choice alone.
On the other hand if the father doesn't want his progeny to survive for whatever reason he doesn't get to make that choice either, it's left completely up to the woman.
How can right minded people accept this disparity?
I'd prefer to start with the Congress.I'm all 4 aba lets start with anyone that wears a suit and tie
In the case of a fetus, a father currently has no legal footing to protect his progeny, the survival is completely at the womans discression, abortion is her choice alone.
On the other hand if the father doesn't want his progeny to survive for whatever reason he doesn't get to make that choice either, it's left completely up to the woman.
How can right minded people accept this disparity?
I'd prefer to start with the Congress.![]()