upvote!

Now I must admit I'm confused, first you say you "support up to 16 week voluntary abortions and the morning after pill" and also agree with me that "I believe that (late 2nd and 3rd term abortions) is murder because it is proven that the fetus can live outside the mother's womb." Then I'm guessing you disagree that each State should have the right to decide amongst its own people their choice, in otherwords wishing to impose your views upon them. I can't help what happens in China or influence their choices, but someone in the U.S. could move freely from one State to another (as many are doing over State taxes now) to a State whose laws(morals) were the same as theirs. If you want to get into burden, then why shouldn't the male get a say. He will be responsible for child support, even if it is at an amount he cannot afford and jailed if it is not paid. A State could set up a system then if the male wanted the abortion and the female refused he was under no obligation to pay. Conversely then, if the male wanted the child and the female didn't, should he get a say by denying the abortion and having sole custody after birth? What if both want the child but can't afford it? Is it the child's fault it is unable to provide for itself and is a moocher on society until such point it can work? At what age should the child start working? 13? 10? 6? Think a 6 yr old can't work? The North had child labour at this age long after slavery was outlawed in the South.

It is hard sometimes for one person to consolidate all their beliefs into one(by this I mean when dealing with isms you tend to support some of the ism while rejecting other parts of the same ism) and this is one of those cases. The woman has a right to her body, the baby has a right to life, both of them cannot be true. The woman can speak for herself, the baby cannot, but others speak for the baby. Who's view is more important? Surely the baby is the most effected, but the woman is close behind. Perhaps abortions should be legal until the child is 18...but no, few would make it out of their teenage years then.

This is why the U.S. was set up the way it was. A State says, "You weirdos can do what you want there, but we are not doing it here." But, if 3/4 of the States decide, "Hey, this really really does make sense to most everyone so we'll amend the Constitution," then the others must relent. As the issue stands now, one side almost gets it complete way and the other is denied almost anything. Would it not be fairer to everyone's views?

All that said, I completely support your right to morally disagree with me. Now let's go play devil's advocate and stir up a hornet's nest in the immigration topic lol ;D

WHAT?! you hesitate to discuss it with me because I have strong feelings?! Everyone-a zombie has taken over DK's body!

if there is a law forcing me to do something, then it is force over choice.
so, by your reasoning, those with very rare blood types, should be forced to give blood, because if they don't someone who needs that blood may die. They are committing murder. What if a doctor refuses to treat a patient and they die. Are they murderers?

The example you have provided is definitely some serious contradiction...
Also this Goznel case, is so atrocious it should give all, reason to examine their positions very carefully. I do believe he went way over the line in both moral and legal terms.

choice

I must admit you make a compelling argument. being men we have been forever fortunate in never having to make such a wrenching decision... I just don't believe the masses have ever or ever will co-operate. It has been happening throughout history, will continue to do so and when illegal resulted in more not less death... most unfortunate...

your initial premise implies because one becomes pregnant one becomes a slave. You are keeping life from happening by wearing a condom-because life would have happened.

"desire to deny it life" incorrect, as far as discussing me-so I will assume discussing other females as well. "owning oneself implying owning afetus" on this I agree with you. One does not imply the other. However, obligation comes into play, and it must always be in my rational best interest to support the fetus. If I am to die if I deliver the fetus, is it in my rational self interest to choose the unborn fetus? Why do you not have a obligation to make sure sperm from each time you ejaculate has a chance to meet with an egg?

I have been told many times I see things in black and white so go ahead and yell at me if you want to. I can take it. If you don't want a baby you have several options before abortion. Option 1, don't do what gets you pregnant in the first place. Option 2 , use one of the many forms of birth control that starts being taught in kindergarten.

lol

I would naturally prefer to live in a world where abortion never happens and where your moral judgement prevails. Life exists, in scientific terms in your spittle. I do not know much about embryology, and while I can grudgingly tolerate abortions in early pregnancies (due perhaps to my ignorance and recognition that prohibition has proved worse) because I believe they have no conscience and are not yet sentient beings, I find no tolerance for aborting babies that have brain waves (which some claim occur as early as six weeks) or have reached the stage where they could be viable outside the womb. So given my choice and limited knowledge there would be no abortions. But, I do not trust the government to be arbiter of these decisions.
Frankly, except for rape, incest, and risk of death to the mother, all should be carried to term and if unwanted put up for adoption. But that's my preference... My moral code is not accepted by all.
How do you feel about the morning after pill?

I agree that under the law, it should not be a federal issue. Morally, I disagree with you. From a practical matter, the wealthier and more technologically sophisticated societies become, the less burden it is to carry a fetus and then birth a baby. Infanticide was very common as little as 300 years ago, and in any society living on the edge of starvation -very rational decision from the point of the "female." What about China's one child law? Should the female find herself pregnant, what happens if she births a second child?

Khalling, your last statement reminds me of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStP...

Your response is illogical. Peikoff is an Objectivist. A pregnant mother is not a slave. Take the emotion out of your reasoning, I am using scientific terms. The logical implication of not owning oneself leads to Mao, Stalin, welfare states, environmental nonsense, shall I continue?
From your "logic" I will then make the case that if the mother cannot support herself financially, then the state has the obligation to feed the mother to keep the fetus alive!!! oh, and you should go to prison for ejaculating without keeping the sperm alive-it's potential life!

You are reading too much or I'm explaining too little. If you have a child, you are a mother. If you have a child and later abort a fetus, you are still a mother to the child and a female to the fetus. If the fetus is developed enough to survive outside the womb and you abort instead, you are still a mother to the first child and a murderer of the other in my eyes, though not in the laws.

My personal view of abortion is each State should have the choice of the laws as this is not a Federal issue. That way each State could determine the morals(see my other posts about my view on morals) and people could determine if they wanted to live in that State by those laws or move to another. E Pluribus Unum is this country's motto, but too many want the entire country to be exactly alike instead of finding strength in differences. Everything the same leads to stagnation, stagnation to decay........and boy is this country decaying now.