How many people are involved in a pregnancy situation?
1. The mother
2. The father
3. The fetus.
All three should vote on who will have full rights to the fetus (who will raise the fetus. Who will be responsible for the fetus.). After all, this is a democratic country. ;)
Now, since most people on this planet chose to live (as opposed to commit suicide), it is safe to assume that a fetus would want to live. If our assumption is wrong, then he's free to commit suicide and correct the situation. I know that suicide is illegal but I don't think that people commiting suicide care if they are found guilty after the fact so that law is not a deterent. So, we assume that the fetus would vote for being responsible for himself (even though he is not viable on his own).
The mother aboviously gets a say as to whether or not she wants to be responsible for the fetus. However, her vote, along with the other two votes (the father's and the fetus') counts as one.
The father currently has no say in the matter (neither does the fetus). But since there are three people involved in a preganacy situation, all parties involved should have a say in the outcome.
So, to recap, there should be three votes. Each vote counts as one. The fetus vote is assumed to be a vote for taking responsibility for himself. The law should be changed to give the father his right to vote for taking responsibility for the fetus. Then all votes are tallied. All that is needed for the fetus to get a chance at life is for one parent to side with the fetus by casting his/her vote for taking responsibility for the fetus. The people who vote to take responsibility for the fetus will share in that responsibility. The people who opt out, walk away (they are not forced to participate in any way, shape or form.).
But there's a dilema. What if there are more than one fetus (twins). Both parents can cast their votes for NOT taking responsibility for the fetuses, the fetuses are assumed to vote for taking responsibility for themselves, we would have a tie. In this case, we could bring the grandparents into the picture. **NOTE:** the grandparents are not chosing whether or not the fetuses get aborted. The grandparents are voting to raise the child as their own (full responsibility). Or we can say that the parents get one vote for each fetus. We would need a study to see if a fetus would vote for taking responsibility of his/her sibling (I'd wager not. Selfish little bastards). If we have a case like Octomom, then we may be in a bit of a pickle... but I'm sure that **if we just start to consider this as a possibility....,** that we can over come the obstacles.
So, should we even consider this as a possible alternative to abortions or do we just off the little bastards? Do you have any solutions to the dilema or do you have an alternate proposal?
|
1
point
3
points
1
point
Well..., I'm glad you asked ;) Actually the mother would get to incubate the baby. See..., incubating the embryo is part of raising the child. The mother would raise it for 9 months and then, afterwords, the father raises the child until age 18 without the mother who doesn't want the baby. The burden is unequal when it comes to raising the baby to adulthood; I mean, the man does most the of work while the mother's role is done and over with after 9 months. Now, since it is a lot harder to take care of a child for ANY 9 month period AFTER the child is born than it is to take care of a child while it is "incubating", it is a small price to pay for the fetus to get a chance at life, AND for the father to get a chance to be with his baby. I mean, is 9 months such a burden to bear for a human life? After all, the mother should bear some of the responsibility for the pregnancy (even if it is only 9 months). 1
point
I've been accused of being against abortion. But that is not the case. People who are for abortion feel threatened by my position on abortion (which is why they attack me, even though what I say has no relevance to any laws that exist or that are being proposed). But no, I am not against abortion. I'm looking at abortion from a different angle. I'll try to explain. Bankers want to have the final say as to what they do with the money that is entrusted to them. After all, they are bankers and they know what's good for us. So they lobbied the government to remove the barriers that where in place that held bankers accountable for what they did. Then they did what they wanted and when things didn't pan out they weren't held responsible and we had to bail them out. Now we hear a lot about rights. Women rights, gay rights, handicap rights, minority rights, you name it. But have you ever heard of men rights or the rights of a fetus? So what the hell does this have to do with my view of abortion? Glad you asked. ;) See, women wanted to have the final say as to what they do with the fetus that is entrusted to them. After all, they are mommies and they know what's good for all of us. So they lobbied the government to remove the barriers that where in place that held them accountable for getting pregnant. Then they did what they wanted and when things didn't pan out they weren't held responsible and they went out and got an abortion. And all this time no one said, wait a minute.... half that fetus belongs to the dad. Why shouldn't he have a say in the matter? Why should the fetus not have a say in the matter either? All I'm saying is that when you let someone have the last and final word on anything, without any checks and balances, without any accountability, no responsibility for the actions being taken, no consequences for said actions, then things are not as good as they can be. In this case, the rights of fathers and fetuses are being trampled on. So how do you put checks and balances on pregnancy? How do you hold a woman accountable and force her to take some responsibility for her actions? What consequences would be imposed? How will fathers and fetuses get their rights restored? If you get pregnant (or get someone pregnant) you have some responsibility for raising that child. incubating an embryo is part of raising a child. If the father wants the child but the mother does not, then the mother would be responsible for raising the baby for 9 months and then, afterwords, the father raises the child until age 18 without the mother who doesn't want the baby. The burden is unequal when it comes to raising the baby to adulthood; I mean, the man does most the of work while the mother's role is done and over with after 9 months. Now, since it is a lot harder to take care of a child for ANY 9 month period AFTER the child is born than it is to take care of a child while it is "incubating", it is a small price to pay for the fetus to get a chance at life, AND for the father to get a chance to be with his baby. I mean, is 9 months such a burden to bear for a human life? After all, the mother should bear some of the responsibility for the pregnancy (even if it is only 9 months). So, to recap, the mother would be responsible for 9 months in the event that the father wants the baby. This restores the father's rights to the baby and gives the baby a chance at life. Now some might argue that 9 months is too long a burden for the rights of a father and a fetus but to those I say, if you can't do the time, don't do the deed (kind of catchy no? ;). I would also say that we need some check and balances. Everyone should be held accountable and be made responsible for their actions to some degree. There needs to be consequences to your actions even if its only 9 months. No one should have a last word over someone's life. However, if the father doesn't want to take full responsibility for the baby, then the mother can abort. See..., I'm not against abortion. I just want fathers and embryos to have a say in something that they have a vested interest in. 1
point
You have been accused of being against abortion because you are against abortion. You said: "This is too scary to contemplate. All I can say is that when my time comes I'll tell the late JC that I fought for all the fetuses of the world. Granted, I never went to a protest and carried a sign or donated money for the cause or anything but I put up some pretty tough arguments on the subject right here on CD... were it counts... right? ;)" This is, of course, regarding your post on your debate on what would have happened if The Virgin Mary had aborted Jebus. You said that, and you yourself created the debate. So I guess its not too scary to contemplate... since you contemplated it. So is it a lie? Are you against abortion, or are you just that insane that you thought you never said that... like twenty minutes between posts. From what I have gathered so far... You have the most points... because you have the most posts. You have the most posts because you have numerous positions on every debate... You have numerous different positions on every debate because your Christian fundamentalist armchair zealotry conflicts with the real world. I like how you recap too Check it out... Just because you say it twice in one post, doesnt make it so. 1
point
lol, I understand your confusion. The Mary aborting JC debate is a joke debate. The argument you quoted basically says that I don't pay more than lip service to anti-abortion. If I paid more than just lip service, I'd be out there protesting. A half hearted argument on CD doesn't constitute against abortion. But I would be remiss if I didn't clarify. I personally don't like abortion but I wouldn't work towards getting the law changed. The way I look at it, if there's a God and He's not for abortion, you deal with Him and leave me out of it. I want nothing to do with it ;) As far as the points, I have the most points because I've been here the longest and, yes, I'm very prolific, and yes, I like to play the field and play both sides against the middle (mainly because I don't care who wins because it doesn't count towards real life). This is all in fun. ;) So to recap ;) I recap for those who want the cliff notes version of the argument ;) BTW, I would never rule out insanity ;) Per the 26th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the national voting age is 18, and so the fetus's vote doesn't count. However, your idea about the woman being forced to carry the fetus to term, in the case where she doesn't want it but the man does, is interesting. That would not seem to unduly inconvenience the mother, and would also respect the father's want. On the other hand, after codifying that into law, the state would be telling an individual what they can and can't do with their own body, which is overstepping their bounds. So I'm somewhat torn on that later point, so I'm forced to default to letting the woman decide. If she wants to keep it, great. If not, well, it's her body, and she's the one who has to live with the consequences. Side: Two
1
point
|
