5 minutes

[Tangerine_]

One question that hasn't been discussed here is does a father have any right to prevent the woman from aborting if the sex was consensual and the woman understood she could get pregnant?

When a man bears the physical responsibility of carrying a child in their womb, yes. Until then no.

 

[schuylaar]

Our state legislature decided that six weeks was the right answer.

Whoa you live in one of THOSE states?

 

[Rob Roy]

Viability of an embryo (or rare cases of 2nd term fetuses) is the ability for it to survive outside the womb. I guess in your mind that equates to the same challenges a paraplegic would face.

Edited: because you seem to also believe full term conjoined twins is also the same thing.

No, I think causing other human beings pain is hard to justify if the other human being hasn't caused you pain first. I'm not sure when / if an unborn is a human being, but I tend to think of a later stage fetus as being more human than not.

So if a fetus could survive outside of the womb, you'd have a problem with it being aborted?

Given that some fetus could survive and others couldn't around 5 months how would you set a time limit ?

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Whoa you live in one of THOSE states?

Ohio? Yes. Fortunately, Governor Kasich vetoed it last month.

 

[schuylaar]

When a man bears the physical responsibility of carrying a child in their womb, yes. Until then no.

Figures it's coming from a man who's never been pregnant.

I just love how a man feels he has rights.

He don't.

 

[Rob Roy]

When a man bears the physical responsibility of carrying a child in their womb, yes. Until then no.

What if the father DIDN'T want the baby to be born and refused to pay support for it? Is he obligated to ?

 

[Unclebaldrick]

No, I think causing other human beings pain is hard to justify if the other human being hasn't caused you pain first.

Oh for fuck's sake. Why aren't you in school ruining undergraduates' experiences?

 

[schuylaar]

Ohio? Yes. Fortunately, Governor Kasich vetoed it last month.

Ugh..Kasich.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

When a man bears the physical responsibility of carrying a child in their womb, yes. Until then no.

Next issue please.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Ugh..Kasich.

Compared to TRUMP!? Hooray, Kasich. Your pussy would be safe with him.

 

[schuylaar]

What if the father DIDN'T want the baby to be born and refused to pay support for it? Is he obligated to ?

Yes

Why do you insist on torturing yourself, Rooooooob?

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Yes

Why do you insist on torturing yourself?

and us. It is like having the teacher's pet of a Community College ethics class commenting on everything.

 

[Rob Roy]

Figures it's coming from a man who's never been pregnant.

I just love how a man feels he has rights.

He don't.

Well, there was that time I thought I was a little bit pregnant, but after a hard push I discovered it wasn't a baby. I should really stop eating cheese.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Well, there was that time I thought I was a little bit pregnant, but after a hard push I discovered it wasn't a baby. I should really stop eating cheese.

What right did you have eating cheese? Was it trying to eat you?

 

[Tangerine_]

What if the father DIDN'T want the baby to be born and refused to pay support for it? Is he obligated to ?

Of course. And I'll give you the same answer we gave our teenagers. "If you don't want the responsibility of a child DO NOT spread your DNA around. Simple.

 

[NLXSK1]

I agree, it's not my business what people decide to do with their OWN bodies.

The question then becomes, does an abortion abide with the statement above or does it conflict with it ? When does the body / right of another being (the unborn) come into play in this situation becomes the question. I'm not sure I have that answer.

None of us have that answer therefore it should be between a woman and her doctor. Freedom gives you the right to be offended by what other people choose to do.

 

[NLXSK1]

However, nobody has explained fundamentally that POTUS is singular.

Who invited the Trump children in the first place, retardo?

Invited them where? You seem confused.

 

[Rob Roy]

There might be more involved than that. Do you think not causing pain is a good reason to endanger the life of the mother or fetus?

I think human life should be cherished, but I also agree with Dr. Gruber's point that no being has a right to impose on another to sustain life.

The question then becomes if a woman has consensual sex and knows the possible consequences, did the fetus impose or was it invited?

Since some would agree that once a woman births a child she has no right to kill it, even if the maintenance of it is an imposition, this issue seems to be one of when does the being acquire rights ?

 

[NLXSK1]

You seemed genuinely concerned when people abused (caused pain) to children. While children are usually mismatched in a confrontation with an adult, an unborn being capable of feeling pain is even more incapable of running away etc.

So, I'm not saying you should butt into anyone's business, I'm generally against that, it just seemed if you had concern with causing a child pain, you might also be concerned with causing an unborn pain also.

At what point are a woman's rights superseded? You do realize that your whole social construct disintegrates the moment you put a value on this right?

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Invited them where? You seem confused.

Meetings with foreign governments?