The Third Wheel Of Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Edy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Edy

Guest
Premises;

A Father is a significant party, within a birthing unit. He has rights and responsibilities for his child when born. Therefore a Father has authority on the termination of his unborn biological mass.

Definition;

By birthing unit, I mean the collection of parties involved in the raising of a child. Three parties, Mother, Father and potential child.

Termination, in this premises means the purposeful killing of a co-owned biological mass. The biological mass is not a woman’s body part. It has its own DNA which is a part of the Father and Mother. Both of which are co-owners and responsible.

Also, allow me to better describe the definition of abortion. Abortion is an unnatural birth. It is the manual, mechanical birth of a biological mass. A natural birth, has a baby born whole, in one piece. When a Dr pulls out a leg, that leg is born. That leg is a born product of the birthing units, co-owned biological mass.

The nitty gritty;

A male must provide monetary support for a child he does not want. A one night stand mistake for example. From this I derived, a male is responsible for the cultivation of his sperm. Either he is or is not, pick one. If we agree that yes a male is responsible then all parties within the birthing unit have responsibility for the biological mass and it’s termination.

When discussing the topic of males rights with other men, they are like deer in the headlights. They like to think they have rights but act like victims, afraid to stand up for their position. Especially if I ask them, would they oppose an abortion of their 8 month unborn baby. 1930s woman were oppressed by sexist double standard because they had no choice. The irony.

Being religious, my views on abortion itself are opposed to pro-choice. Even pro-choicers are not pro-choice. They are “pro-her dictatorship”. Regardless the purpose of this discussion is not for or against abortion.

I believe the topic of abortion is a moral issue, which varies from person to person. For this reason it should not be a legal issue, but! A Father has the right and responsibility to protect his child, born or not. This leads me to my ultimate point.

Abortion requires the consent of the biological Father. If terminated against his will, then legal action must be enforced, for the Murder of his Unborn Child.

Anyone disagree?
 
I like the spirit you’re showing. But I don’t think the details of that plan will work.
 
Sounds a little “Red Pill Masculinity” ish.
Edy said:
If terminated against his will, then legal action must be enforced, for the Murder of his Unborn Child.
Click to expand...
In the United States, murder is a legal term. Abortion ls killing, however it is legal in the US. Cannot see any DA trying to press murder charges on a woman for abortion under the current laws.
 
This is why I make a definitive difference between biological mass and unborn baby.

A biological mass has no Mother or Father. It has its own DNA, therefore is not a woman’s body part.

An unborn baby has a Mother and/or a Father. If either male or female considers themselves as the biological Mother/Father, then the destruction of their unborn child is defined as murder. It’s the difference between kill and murder.

If someone had an ultra sonic ray gun that could kill a Mothers unborn baby. It is most definitely murder if the gun is used.
 
Agreed. Laws do change from state to state. That does not mean we can not define a fixed moral code.

From a moral standpoint, we can break up the definitions of kill and murder. Ie killing in self defence is not murder. It may be argued that assisted suicide is not murder.

It seems as though I make the case that abortion is not murder when a consent is given by both parties. That’s not my argument at all. My motivation is better described as pushing for the rights of a Catholic Father who’s expecting a child, with an atheist Mother. (My personal view, all abortions are murder) if she decides on an abortion, he has no rights.

When the terms used are, biological donors, then that’s an argument for someone else to represent. But if we accept the terms Father and unborn child. No matter how you look at it, it is murder in the eyes of the Father. An injustice is committed.

edit*
I pulled this from the link. Another example of having your cake and eating it too. Here they argue a foetus is equivalent to bacteria. But a pregnant woman has more value than a man with bacteria. Ridiculous…

Pro-choice advocates typically focus on the harm done to a pregnant woman and the subsequent loss of her pregnancy, but not on the rights of the fetus. They tend to support policies that do not confer rights or personhood status upon a fetus. Such advocates focus on enhancing penalties for an assault on a pregnant woman and recognizing her as the victim. For the purposes of this webpage, NCSL describes these types of legislation as “penalty-enhancement for crimes against pregnant women.” These are described and listed towards the bottom of this webpage. This webpage is intended to include a range of legislation on this issue and is not intended to serve as a source for legal definitions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top