Originally Posted by rkzenrage (Post 375074)

You did not specify the nature of your question.

Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 374829)

My point is that no one has a right to tell anyone what to do with their own body. How's that for reality.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 375091)

Reality? Why aren't I allowed to do drugs?

Originally Posted by BigV (Post 375095)

[winging it]Hey, xoB, is the "doing" against the law? Or is it something more tangible, more definite, like possession?[/flying it into the ground]

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 375097)

Because it is against the law. Personally i think it shouldn't be.

It's not an equivalent though, because this isn't about whether the state has a right to tell women what to do with their bodies (again, I think they should not), but rather empowering individual men with the right to make decisions about individual women's bodies.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 375098)

Because some laws infringe on rights. In fact, according to you, all of them do.

Originally Posted by lumberjim (Post 375113)

bruce,

this analogy would work better if you were comparing it with someone compelling another person to do drugs.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage (Post 372525)

If the male states that he wishes to choose full custody of the child that should be his right.
It is his child as much as hers.
The woman made a choice, one she made with someone else, knowing FULLY what her role would be before-hand... she need only fulfill her role as far as the birth is concerned, as far as she chose when she took the initial risk.

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 375079)

My mistake, I thought you had professed libertarian leanings.

I wouldn't have thought I'd need to specify the nature of my question, given that you have spent much of this thread advocating a change in law. If you are simply expressing how you would feel if you were the father in question, then that's personal. You are advocating a change in law, that is a political opinion.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 375080)

Why not politically?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 375118)

Sorry dude, I don't buy it. If the men carried the babies for 9 months and took the same physiological risks it would be different. The woman carries the baby, she get to say if she wants to do that for 9 months or if she wants to terminate it. Her choice, not yours. Men are but the sperm donors.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 375118)

Sorry dude, I don't buy it. If the men carried the babies for 9 months and took the same physiological risks it would be different. The woman carries the baby, she get to say if she wants to do that for 9 months or if she wants to terminate it. Her choice, not yours. Men are but the sperm donors.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 375141)

I agree with you until the cord is cut. Then it becomes theirs, not hers.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 375141)

I agree with you until the cord is cut. Then it becomes theirs, not hers.

Originally Posted by yesman065 (Post 372750)

All of what everyone is saying seems to hinge on WHEN the "fetus" is determined to be a "child." At what point does the child earn those rights? Upon conception, 3 months, 6 months....not until birth?
If it is considered a child upon conception - what right does the mother have to KILL it? However, if it is not considered "human" until birth, then one could argue that everything between conception and birth is entirely up to the woman. The difficulty comes into play during the undefined period between conception and birth where we recognize the fetus as a child. I'm thinking as I'm typing, and thats always dangerous for me, but what if at, say 6 & 1/2 months the "mother" decided to (and I love this nonpersonal terminology) terminate the pregnancy? Is/would that be ok and should the father have no say under those circumstances?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 375141)

I agree with you until the cord is cut. Then it becomes theirs, not hers.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 375117)

That's complete bullshit, considering how many people alcohol and tobacco kill.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage (Post 375139)

Libertarians are about as conservative as one can get (neo-cons, the fools who call themselves conservative today are NOT conservative by any stretch of imagination or the definition of the word).