Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Abortion thread: (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
djmich
Footballguy
I'm thinking through the logic of allowing a womans autonomy to reduce a mans autonomy, not trying to relate decisions around a womans uterus and dollars.
For the entirety of the mans life he will be impacted, to summarize that impact as ""hey i shoudnt have to pay for that" comically understates the impact a child has on a man. Of course you are presuming that the impact is only financial, none of the emotional and life impact a child has on a man (wanted or not).
To your point around the interest of the child being paramount, I agree completely. But I am talking about before it is has achieved person-hood. Early on when it is slightly different and has slightly more value than the cells that comprise my toe nail, as it seems there is general agreement approximates the value. This thread isn't about children that have survived childbirth.
This is not a monumental decision, if the fetus at that point (say week 8) has next to no value. The woman, at that point is making a decision, with no influence from the man. A decision that she will allow the value-less fetus to develop into a child. What good reason should the man be bound to it...other than "well someones gotta pay for it"?
Are all the "pro-choicers" going to chip in to raise the kid (seems like the comparable to spocks "pro-lifers" wont support social services). We freely talk about the impact to society around unwanted children when it comes to unwanted pregnancies and a womans right to choose...what about those same impacts when it is unwanted by the man.
gianmarco
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Right leaning state congresses seem to be worried of losing power and want to push stuff now while they can (and while the SC leans right).
Or it’s part of the deep deep state to push people away from the GOP?
gianmarco
Footballguy
Perhaps the man should have been more careful/responsible. A man can't have an unwanted pregnancy without his input.I'm thinking through the logic of allowing a womans autonomy to reduce a mans autonomy, not trying to relate decisions around a womans uterus and dollars.
For the entirety of the mans life he will be impacted, to summarize that impact as ""hey i shoudnt have to pay for that" comically understates the impact a child has on a man. Of course you are presuming that the impact is only financial, none of the emotional and life impact a child has on a man (wanted or not).
To your point around the interest of the child being paramount, I agree completely. But I am talking about before it is has achieved person-hood. Early on when it is slightly different and has slightly more value than the cells that comprise my toe nail, as it seems there is general agreement approximates the value. This thread isn't about children that have survived childbirth.
This is not a monumental decision, if the fetus at that point (say weekhas next to no value. The woman, at that point is making a decision, with no influence from the man. A decision that she will allow the value-less fetus to develop into a child. What good reason should the man be bound to it...other than "well someones gotta pay for it"?
Are all the "pro-choicers" going to chip in to raise the kid (seems like the comparable to spocks "pro-lifers" wont support social services). We freely talk about the impact to society around unwanted children when it comes to unwanted pregnancies and a womans right to choose...what about those same impacts when it is unwanted by the man.
Unless he was forced against his will. Then, maybe you have a point. Oh, wait.....
djmich
Footballguy
Perhaps the woman should have been responsible and we should force all women to carry their pregnancies to term...is that what you are arguing for?
gianmarco
Footballguy
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
HellToupee
Footballguy
-OZ-
Footballguy
Not necessarily willingly.
If you're willing to let a woman "out" of an unwanted pregnancy, it seems you should let the man out too. But if the man wants the baby, he still gets no say.
I get the woman's perspective, but it seems men should get some say. But no, it's the woman's body.
Except that it's also another life.
The argument has been made that we give more rights to dead people, that we can't harvest their organs without their consent. I'm kinda against that rule. Let doctors harvest viable organs needed to save lives. I get that there will be unforeseen consequences, but if life is sacred, over bodily autonomy, let's make that true.
A woman's potential liability for having sex is a few hundred dollars; a man's is paying and paying for 18 years; and that's perfectly fair. The two weren't making the same gamble. When they had sex, she went into it knowing she was in a position to limit the possible damage by getting an abortion. He went into it knowing he was not in any position to limit the damage. She was relying on herself; he was relying on someone he couldn't be sure of. So he was doing something a lot more dangerous to society than she was. Of course he should have much greater personal liability.
The laws of physics do not make risking conception inside your own body and risking conception inside somebody else's body a symmetrical relation.
The laws of physics do not make risking conception inside your own body and risking conception inside somebody else's body a symmetrical relation.
Last edited by a moderator:
djmich
Footballguy
I’m not sure how you can call two tremendously different outcomes based on essentially the same action fair. It might be the law and yes one needs to act in consideration of the law. But that doesn’t mean it’s fair to the individual or best for society.
Row v Wade gets overturned, is it fair that the woman has to carry the pregnancy. She knew the liability.
Row v Wade gets overturned, is it fair that the woman has to carry the pregnancy. She knew the liability.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
The man doesn’t have a reduction of his autonomy except in the most academic and disingenuous of possible senses.I'm thinking through the logic of allowing a womans autonomy to reduce a mans autonomy, not trying to relate decisions around a womans uterus and dollars.
For the entirety of the mans life he will be impacted, to summarize that impact as ""hey i shoudnt have to pay for that" comically understates the impact a child has on a man. Of course you are presuming that the impact is only financial, none of the emotional and life impact a child has on a man (wanted or not).
To your point around the interest of the child being paramount, I agree completely. But I am talking about before it is has achieved person-hood. Early on when it is slightly different and has slightly more value than the cells that comprise my toe nail, as it seems there is general agreement approximates the value. This thread isn't about children that have survived childbirth.
This is not a monumental decision, if the fetus at that point (say week
Are all the "pro-choicers" going to chip in to raise the kid (seems like the comparable to spocks "pro-lifers" wont support social services). We freely talk about the impact to society around unwanted children when it comes to unwanted pregnancies and a womans right to choose...what about those same impacts when it is unwanted by the man.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
We aren’t talking about fairness, as I’ve been trying to explain. We’re talking about basic dignity.
djmich
Footballguy
Bearing the responsibility of caring for another life is a big limiter of personal autonomy to me.
djmich
Footballguy
I'm not sure which collective we you are speaking for but I was responding to Maurile's post above mine, he specifically used the word fair.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Yes. With the man’s burden in having to pay money.
Not with the loss of bodily autonomy. Which is why they aren’t comparable. Which is what I’ve been saying.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Mario Kart
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
H Jass
Footballguy
Nah, I definitely stand by what I said. In a thread where everyone is parsing down to the week development level and zygote/embryo what-not, I'm encouraged that common ground someday can better be found by thoughtful individuals.
Mayor Pete being for literally zero restrictions is extreme and, unfortunately, ghoulish.
Where are you getting this? They were talking about abortions being allowed when the life or the health of the mother is at risk. That’s a restriction.
H Jass
Footballguy
Chris Wallace asked if there is should be any limit, whether it be "6 weeks or 8 weeks or 24 weeks or whenever" to a women's right to have an abortion. There was a lead in before that about New York's latest expansive law dealing with health, but Wallace's question and certainly his answer seemed to be a very general "any limit". IF his actual feeling on it is how I read it right now, that's extreme. I have typically liked the guy (and again this pre really much specific policy proposals so stay tuned I guess), but if he means how I read it here then my opinion of him, at least, falls precipitously.
Now you may argue that he was solely talking about health of the mother, then ok, that seems rather unclear to me and I guess we'll see his actual policy when he puts it out. And to be clear, I'd rather it to be your interpretation of it given the policy ramifications of his position in how I read it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Politician Spock
Footballguy
My take from his response was that there should be limits.... decided by those involved in the situation, instead of being imposed on them by those not involved at all.
I'd have to go back and watch it again, but my recollection is that it was prefaced by Chris Wallace saying that New York just changed its exception from "life of the mother" to "life or health of the mother," and Buttigieg was commenting on that -- and he specifically mentioned the life or health of the mother in his answer (about when people get devastating medical news after already having picked out a name).
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish
Footballguy
NCCommish
Footballguy
You know these laws have no chance. They will not make it through the lower courts and there is little reason for the SC to take them up. These are so extreme as to be a legal joke.
What this does though is change the national conversation. No one is talking about Virginia or New York now are they? No they are reacting in horror to what these guys did. The electorate doesn't want Roe overturned. And in these laws they see more problems than in those expanding rights. Thanks Alabama! There is reason to believe this is going to be an electoral disaster for the GOP.
What this does though is change the national conversation. No one is talking about Virginia or New York now are they? No they are reacting in horror to what these guys did. The electorate doesn't want Roe overturned. And in these laws they see more problems than in those expanding rights. Thanks Alabama! There is reason to believe this is going to be an electoral disaster for the GOP.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
this really is so so simple
if there is a pregnancy there is a living human unborn - it cannot be any other way.
for exceptions of rape, incest and health of mother, allow the killing of those innocent unborn - which is like 2% of all
that would stop 98% of abortions - the ones everyone hates
for all others for convenience, ban them ... don't have sex if you don't want to end up pregnant - the man and the woman both share the same responsibility for that sex and anything that comes from it
if there is a pregnancy there is a living human unborn - it cannot be any other way.
for exceptions of rape, incest and health of mother, allow the killing of those innocent unborn - which is like 2% of all
that would stop 98% of abortions - the ones everyone hates
for all others for convenience, ban them ... don't have sex if you don't want to end up pregnant - the man and the woman both share the same responsibility for that sex and anything that comes from it
timschochet
Footballguy
The Alabama and Georgia laws will almost certainly be struck down by federal district and circuit courts.
But I wouldn't dismiss the idea that the Supreme Court might take them up in order to reconsider Roe and Casey. The Supreme Court last reaffirmed Casey in 2016 (Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt), with Thomas, Alito, and Roberts dissenting. Since then, Gorsuch and Kavenaugh have been added to the court. It takes four votes to accept a case for review. By the time these cases make their way up the chain, 2016 will be distant enough that the Supremes may decide to weigh in again.
(I do agree on the electoral disaster part.)
Last edited by a moderator:
whoknew
Footballguy
I think the reason these are getting passed now is because these legislatures think they have a good chance - with the changes to the Court - to get Roe/Casey overturned, as you wrote. And I agree that they may be correct.
gianmarco
Footballguy
Politician Spock
Footballguy
technicaldifficulties
Footballguy
Not sure if this has been covered: do parents have to attach a sonogram to their taxes to get a write-off? Asking for a friend
badmojo1006
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
I have sex for enjoyment. As do all my lovers. Its what sex is for.
Not for children or to have a pregnancy.
**Though I admit that there may be some who are not in it for enjoyment -- like yourself perhaps.
Last edited by a moderator:
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
If they didn't do it for enjoyment (or the assumption thereinOr at least that's what they assume is going to happen.
) we wont be having sex together.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
the people who don't mind when unborn babies are killed are exceptionally few and far between
Stealthycat
Footballguy
you do understand there is always a risk though and if you knock a gal up .... you're going to be financially liable for about 18 years
your choice - but there are consequences and you cannot opt out as a man can you ?
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Yes, we know this going in and we know the options before and after. We are adults; informed adults. And we does not include you or any other third party.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
good - then you know that sex can equal a living human baby
I know, you're not planning it ... but nobody drives on a rainy day expecting a hydroplane ... but we all know its possible too right ?
thing is ... you choose to help create a life .... that's not a cheap burden, its a God given life that's innocent and has a right to birth ---- as you said, ya'll know going in a baby can be made, take responsibility for your actions
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
you don't have any choice - only she does ... and she can choose to have it killed, ending the pregnancy
you don't have a choice to not pay for the raising of the child if she chooses to allow it to live
also, you are right, it is legal right now ...... but the snowball is gaining speed and abortion in the next few years will be regulated to incest/rape/mothers health and 98% of all abortions will end
Stealthycat
Footballguy
Similar threads
