If she can form babies sort of the same way testicles form sperm, then yeah it would become.... acceptable. I'm kind of assuming her babies would just be clone copies of her.

Her body, their child. The "it's her body and she can do with it as she pleases" camp treats the womb and children that develop in it like it's something that occurs in the women in the same way a cyst or some such occurs in the human body.

His and her child is not a part of her body. She can tie up her fallopian tubes all she wants, and the man has no right to interfere - that's a part of her body. But when she's carrying a child the game changes.

Authority? Wtf? Where is this coming from? What the hell does this have to do with masculine or patriarchal authority? And nobody is forcing her to raise a child until s/he is an adult. She can opt for others to do that, if she has other aspirations and goals in life.

Both sexes are needed for baby-making, ffs.... The fact that one of the sexes has to carry the offspring and squeeze them out when they're properly formed does not mean that that sex carries more weight in the say of what happens to the offspring.

You're trying to argue that a mother should have more rights to children than a father, because of pregnancy, labour and child birth?.... Really? Remember: THEIR children - his and hers, not hers alone.

That is true in many ways, although I think cancer is a more apposite analogy than a cyst.

You seem to be following the common anti-abortion tactic of ascribing to me the view that all abortions are moral.

You didn't ask for a defence of 'universal abortions' you asked for the best reason I have to be pro-choice and it's as I stated it above. If the abortion is going to hurt someone then the woman is obligated to take that into consideration when making her decision, just like her right to park wherever she wants is constrained if someone is asleep in her desired parking space. I don't consider a fetus alive - that's the point of difference between me and an anti-abortion advocate. We likely agree that the father's interests deserve respect.

This is the ultimate free rider problem. Men have to contribute basically nothing to the pregnancy process, which is a tremendously risky and health-altering condition and process, even with modern medicine. Women, and their bodies, do all the substantive work, so the right belongs to them and them alone. What your position stipulates is that men can make women their indentured servants for nine months (or longer).

No, it really does. If I write an entire report and you just gave me the pen, did you do 50% of the work? There is a hell of a lot more than just "squeezing it out," and I think you're either misinformed, or you're being disingenuous.

No, you misunderstood me (and I wasn't clear enough). I meant that a lot of people would be pissed off if abortion was criminalized. I suspect there would be more of them and they would be more angry than the groups that actively oppose abortion right now, so from this standpoint it would create more social unrest. But that is just my guess for which I don't have any proofs.

But as I said, the best argument why I think it's not reasonable to criminalize abortion is that I dont see any good reasons to do so.

I'm not going to go into any philosophical analysis, I've only read the first page and I'm pretty sure you have covered everything so far. I'm just going to reply to the OP, who in my opinion is an idiot living in a box, with some comedy from Bill Hicks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHx8l1usD90
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4mFHqYr06k

People who live inside their own little happy bubble need to open their eyes and understand that human life is worthless and always has been. Thousands of kids die of hunger every day. There is a constant circulation of people on this planet going on on a daily basis. Try looking at the world as an observer with no opinion and no stake in the outcome and you will come closer to the truth.

And everything has been said... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q...eature=related

Yeah, I just posted that...itt too...

Why?

Cool, so who exactly is going to take care of the thousands of orphans?

On abortion at least, yes. A woman is risking and losing much more when a man forces her to have a child then a man does when a woman decides to have an abortion against his will. She does all the work before the child is born, and often even after that.

Some very respected economists and their research disagree with you.

How often does someone change their personal opinion after confronted with facts that show the exact opposite? My guess is not as often as we might think... I bet this hardball character will come out of this lengthy discussion completely unchanged, still bearing the same ideas and principles as he did before he got here.

While all of us feel the strong urge to extend our personal opinions / knowledge to other people, nobody really cares about what the opposing party has to say. Only people that have learned to criticize themselves and to always be open to new knowledge can do that, but it is obvious that when someone has a borderline "fanatic" bond with their opinion, releasing the grasp on it is quite impossible.

What, that they're both foreign, malignant and harmful objects?

Therein lies a major problem. The ones that do consider it life would say the abortion does a lot of harm, discounting the emotional harm done to the father, as well as the social harm done to the family unit.

The man's real contribution comes predominantly after the pregnancy, but also during pregnancy in the form of social, moral and financial support. Obviously the guy that can't do anything during labour except for holding her hand and boosting morale.

Then you've grossly misunderstood my position. Strong and/or wrong language. Indentured servitude is a contractual labour (not that kind of labour) agreement between employer and employee. What led you to think that I ever framed the relationship b/w the parents like such? You can't even frame that as a fiduciary relationship, barring obtuse examples involving sperm donors in which case the child would be treated as some kind of property or commodity.

You've effectively relegated the role of the male to that of a seeder and nothing more by the incongruous pen analogy.

Exactly, which is why the father's role and involvement is so very important. Evolution probably says that the best strategy for the male is fire-and-forget strafing runs across many fertile fields, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were thinking from that point of view when you thought the father doesn't do anything besides supplying the equipment.

Oh, okay. Well, I'm sure we would see a ton of protesting and lots of weeks of news headlines about it.

Then what are all of the bad ones? Social unrest is one apparent reason.

Um.. The father's role biologically, socially, morally, financially etc.? Liek, duh?

I'm in the favour of the government doing that. Let's not get into the politics of that one here.

Oh, I see we're being completely impartial and objective here. What you're saying is... I don't know how else to put this gently... lolbad.

A more crucial point is the fact that children without authority figures most commonly in the form of a father are at greater risk for criminality and anti-social tendencies. Yes, there's a correlation between increased abortion rates and decreased criminal rates. The likely explanation behind the scenes is that the overwhelming majority of those mother's who've aborted did not have the father or some other familial paternal figure present in their lives.

This does not mean, however, that abortion is a possible solution to decreasing crime or some other nonsense. I... sincerely hope that's not what you were implicitly suggesting. Still, it's a far cry from saying abortion helps prevent a cause for social unrest.

This is coming from a guy who gets his opinions on important matters from comedians? lol

You just can't make this stuff up.

Well I guess. I rember seeing a documentary about foetal development and some relation to cancer formation/ chemical response; something about the placenta creating a barrier which prevents the body from attacking the foetus as if it were cancerous.

Cant seem to find it on the interwebs though.

That's not a major problem, they're just wrong (imo). I dont think homosexuality is evil either. Does the fact some people do consider it evil imply I have a 'major problem' by condoning it for those who wish to live in a homosexual relationship?

Your position isnt making sense.

You: What's the strongest reason for being 'pro-choice'?
Me: We shouldn't inhibit people's freedom more than we have to.
You: That's not good enough - the man deserves consideration too.
Me: So? I'm not in favor of all abortions. People have to consider others' rights when exercising their freedom. A fetus isn't alive and so doesnt have rights which need to be considered when exercising one's freedom.
You: Some people think it does so you have a major problem.
Me: ?


Your claim above that some people believe that it does do a lot of harm (ignoring any social considerations and/or harm to the father) is no longer about 'the strongest reason for being pro-choice'. Now you're attempting to argue the case for being opposed to abortions. If such an argument is based on the fetus being alive, it's never going to be compelling to those of us who consider that to be a false assumption.

Where do you get this from? Is this based on research or your own intuition?

Pretty sure there's numerous studies that will back that up.

My main issue is with 'most commonly in the form of the father' - is this implying that if we were to sample the children of, for instance, lesbian parents, and compare it to the children of parents of both sex, the children in the former group would be more likely to have anti-social tendencies? Is it implying that the mother cannot be an authority figure or would be less effective - that's the sort of vibe I'm getting.

Also, the few studies that I'm aware of show that more permissive, less authoritarian parenting can be associated with lower self-control and more substance abuse later on in children, but I'm not sure this maps onto either 'criminality' or 'anti-social tendencies' (I'm not saying that I know it doesn't, just that I haven't seen any evidence to be believe it to be true). Having an over-authoritarian parent can be just as bad, if not worse.

Can she choose to throw her body off a building onto an unsuspecting crowd below? Its body her choice right?

Her body her choice is really a silly counter argument against a pro lifers ascertation that a fetus is a human being and deserves societal protection.

How does any of this matter? The question is does abortion cause harm. The damage man suffers from woman having an abortion is practically zero or at least should be zero, but a woman is risking a lot by not having an abortion, so it obviously is not something men should have an equal say on. If you want to argue about something argue that about the value of the fetus, not some nonsense about men and children.

The last sentence was admittedly not relevant to the issue.

Yes I agree (sort of), but Hardball didn't seem to be arguing for this.

Why should he be arguing it? Some pro-choicers have already declared the fetus a non-human being and thus okay to kill.

I did not directly address you specifically because I knew you would reply with some kind of idiotic comment, and yet you still managed to do it. Some people of great intelligence, not that you might ever know, express their views through comedy because any other means would drive them completely insane. Carlin was one of the greatest social commentators and philosophers of his generation. I would prefer if you did not waste your time responding to this message with another ignorant comment.

It's about roles in the child's life. The mother provides care and comfort, while the father provides discipline and direction. In the case of lesbian parents I would think each parent assumes a role.

Healthy, moderate dosage, enough for normal development. Too much of anything, even the good stuff, has the potential for adverse affects elsewhere.

You know that harm is not just physical harm, right?

You really can't make this stuff up.

Well, babalooo is right. Just because someone uses comedy as a vehicle doesn't mean they are somehow invalid.
You'll find it hard to refute some of the points or even deny the general slant of the Carlin clip.

FFS, Shakespeare wrote comedies, does that mean we should stop studying him?

There has been some resistance by the Christians in this thread to the separation of the idea of person (as the locus of moral value) and the biological category of being human. However, this separation seems to me a relatively clear implication of various Christian doctrines.

For instance, the doctrine of the Trinity shows that the substance of a being (God) is not identical with the person(s) of the being. Similarly, the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead into new bodies found in Paul seems to indicate that we are not identical with our physical bodies (as we acquire new ones). Thus, it is still an open question for the Christian whether we as persons should be always be identified with our living biological bodies.

It's true that the stakes are high. If the pro-lifer is correct, then a person is killed when a woman has an abortion. However, the stakes are high on the other side as well. The positive social ramifications of access to legal abortions (e.g. lower crime rates, lower divorces rates, etc.) are at stake, as is the personal freedom of women to follow their own life plan in a decision that could affect the rest of their lives.

This is why I think it is relevant that the Bible doesn't really provide an answer to the question of when human life should be protected by the weight of law. The question is a hard one, with little clear guidance from either religion or philosophy. In difficult cases like these, even with high stakes, or especially with high stakes, I think we should be very cautious of having the government decide what answer everyone will have to accept.