Is abortion ok

[doubloon]

My former state has an interesting "legal" definition of it.

Probably the same in mine, the clarification is worth noting. I was a little loose with the word murder. A few of places in the bible prescribe death as punishment for death by violence but intent is never discussed AFAIK. May have to finally dust off the bible.

Never watched the west wing, wasn't sure where that clip was going given the topic and the setting but I certainly wasn't expecting the slavery was acceptable and stoning homo's was OK commentary. Interesting and heady stuff to be putting in an evening soap opera.

I agree from a legal standpoint defining the moment in time a developing fetus deserves protection as a person is the crux of the problem. Even before Roe v Wade was pulled I don't know if any late term abortions (or miscarriages) were treated as or investigated as "murder".

Appreciate the comments, something to think on.

 

[doubloon]

That's a very slippery slope. Before every genocide, the targeted group is legally dehumanized.

All killing not being murder is not a "slippery slope". That's the way law works whether it's codified by an oligarchy or baked in a burning bush.

It is our job to be vigilante and temper law as best we can to be fair to all who are governed by it. Some would argue planned parenthood is a form of legal genocide or "classicide" and the people it targets are just a numbers problem, dehumanized.

Laws aren't perfect, not even the laws of the bible that said it's OK to own slaves and stone homo's to death, but it's the only game in town that makes sense.

 

[doubloon]

Individual states trying to decide who does/doesn't count as a person didn't work out so well in the mid 1800s.

Please expand on exactly what didn't work out so well and why.

Before the mid/late 1800s abortion prior to the quickening was legal in every state and recognized as the moment a fetus became a person by, at least, some christian sects.

At least one respected member of the founders of catholicism back in the first century said abortion was not murder/homicide and should only be considered a sin if it was intended to cover up adultery.

 

[AmmoFort]

Please expand on exactly what didn't work out so well and why.

Before the mid/late 1800s abortion prior to the quickening was legal in every state and recognized as the moment a fetus became a person by, at least, some christian sects.

At least one respected member of the founders of catholicism back in the first century said abortion was not murder/homicide and should only be considered a sin if it was intended to cover up adultery.

LOL. Was raised Catholic. Great Uncle was a Catholic priest, not the rapey kind. Catholics are retarded. Christianity I consider real. Catholicism is...I don't know just a power grab? They spread the word of Christ I'll give them that, but their shit is fucked up. So...just sayin'.

 

[Fig]

It doesn’t matter that abortion is not in the Constitution (as to the definition of a “person”),…which is really what this is all about. The Declaration of Independence has been recognized since the first American court was constituted as “Natural Law”, and it explicitly says people (men) are created equally and granted the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by God. Abortion is murder, and the only way for the murder to avoid he reality of what they’ve done is to pretend the human being they murdered isn’t a legal “person”. You would think leftists/democrats could learn a new trick, but legally murdering and/or enslaving human beings is their entire ethos, pathos, and logos. Like slavery they will have to be bayoneted in the face before they get it. Leftism is a mental disorder that renders the sufferer unable to comprehend reality. They kind of know it too, which is why they have taken to talking about their personal reality rather than our shared one.

 

[doubloon]

LOL. Was raised Catholic. Great Uncle was a Catholic priest, not the rapey kind. Catholics are retarded. Christianity I consider real. Catholicism is...I don't know just a power grab? They spread the word of Christ I'll give them that, but their shit is fucked up. So...just sayin'.

Regardless of what you may think about catholics, Augustine of Hippo was likely one of the foremost influencers shaping whatever documents you may revere in your pursuit of "christianity".

Might want to look into the origins and history of the documents you consider "real".

 

[AmmoFort]

Regardless of what you may think about catholics, Augustine of Hippo was likely one of the foremost influencers shaping whatever documents you may revere in your pursuit of "christianity".

Might want to look into the origins and history of the documents you consider "real".

Did he take part in the penning of the King James Bible? Fuck catholicism it isn't real. As in it pretends to be something it isn't. And people also believe it's something it isn't. Catholics need to do that whole walk away thing.

 

[doubloon]

Did he take part in the penning of the King James Bible? Fuck catholicism it isn't real. As in it pretends to be something it isn't. And people also believe it's something it isn't. Catholics need to do that whole walk away thing.

On what bible do you base your christianity?

ETA: I realized after I responded you're probably just trolling and don't know much about catholicism or christianity since you don't seem to understand the difference between the first century and the 17th century.

 

[AmmoFort]

Technically since I'm no where near what you would call a scholar, and I'm a fucked up sinner, I base my Christianity on my belief in Christ. So my Christianity is not based on any certain bible. The Bible I trust in is the King James Bible.

Do you believe in Christ? If so what bible to you put your faith in?

 

[doubloon]

I'm no scholar, I don't restrict my study to any single religious text. I neither believe nor disbelieve, I am still a seeker.

I only asked about the bible version because some versions are biased to reinforce certain political beliefs and positions.

Catholicism and christianity were basically the same horse for the first thousand or so years until they parted ways.

 

[AmmoFort]

On what bible do you base your christianity?

ETA: I realized after I responded you're probably just trolling and don't know much about catholicism or christianity since you don't seem to understand the difference between the first century and the 17th century.

Not trolling. At least not on purpose. You just seem to be playing devils advocate in here. I admit I had no clue who that guy you mentioned was. I'm not a scholar and don't pretend to be one. How much do I know of Catholicism? Just what was taught to me at Sunday school for probably 5 years. Catholicism never sat right with me. I knew something was fucked up. Now many years later I see that the Catholic Church is a joke. I knew/know some great Catholics, and truth be told my belief in Christ is somewhat owed to the Catholics. But anyone who is still standing by the pope and the shit show that is catholicism is a grade A1 retard.

I can hardly fault them as when you are completely piped into the MSM you can hardly be expected to develop any views that differ from the norm.

 

[doubloon]

Not trolling. At least not on purpose. You just seem to be playing devils advocate in here. ...

I can hardly fault them as when you are completely piped into the MSM you can hardly be expected to develop any views that differ from the norm.

In some ways maybe a little bit of devil's advocate on some topics but not piped into MSM at all because I don't watch news on TV except the local station for stuff that matters like weather. And I don't subscribe to or read any news magazines or newspapers. When I see people spitballing bullshit they got from fox or cnn or any other biased "news" outlet that piques my interest I research it to try to find the whole truth. Hint: Not a single one of the big news outlets is reporting the whole truth, just pandering to what you want to hear so you'll stick around during the commercials.

I've made it clear here multiple times I'm not a fan of abortion and would counsel family members against it but I wouldn't condemn anyone over it.

But you're throwing a lot of hand grenades attacking what you seem to think I believe and trying to paint me as some kind of abnormal news junkie. Not providing much content content and, if we're keeping score, you haven't scratched a single one of my battleships.

 

[AmmoFort]

In some ways maybe a little bit of devil's advocate on some topics but not piped into MSM at all because I don't watch news on TV except the local station for stuff that matters like weather. And I don't subscribe to or read any news magazines or newspapers. When I see people spitballing bullshit they got from fox or cnn or any other biased "news" outlet that piques my interest I research it to try to find the whole truth. Hint: Not a single one of the big news outlets is reporting the whole truth, just pandering to what you want to hear so you'll stick around during the commercials.

I've made it clear here multiple times I'm not a fan of abortion and would counsel family members against it but I wouldn't condemn anyone over it.

But you're throwing a lot of hand grenades attacking what you seem to think I believe and trying to paint me as some kind of abnormal news junkie. Not providing much content content and, if we're keeping score, you haven't scratched a single one of my battleships.

Not keeping score. I feel about the same on abortion. I have never in my life thought of terminating a baby I had a part in creating. Just wouldn't do it. I do now think it is murder and have for probably 10 years. I originally had the wool pulled over my eyes and thought it was a woman's choice. Technically I still think it's her choice, but where I differ now is I just want it called out as murder. Whether she is punished as a regular old murderer is not something I have much of an opinion on. But like I say call it what it is murder. There are tons of instances I think are justified self defense or defense of a loved one that get called out as murder. The verdict is part of the issue, but we need to at least agree on the definitions. Which as others have said is why they dehumanize and mislabel...confusion is a place they relish.

I wan't saying you were the one piped into the MSM, I was speaking of Catholics that don't have enough sense to flee their unholy church.

At least one respected member of the founders of catholicism back in the first century said abortion was not murder/homicide and should only be considered a sin if it was intended to cover up adultery.

Also my whole point of responding to you in the first place is you brought up Catholicism and I think that religion was a farce from the beginning.

 

[Fx51LP308]

Never watched the west wing, wasn't sure where that clip was going given the topic and the setting but I certainly wasn't expecting the slavery was acceptable and stoning homo's was OK commentary. Interesting and heady stuff to be putting in an evening soap opera.

Just as a bit of quick background, that episode of West Wing was entitled, "Take This Sabbath Day." It was, basically, about Capital Punishment and what some people would do to fight either "for it," or "against it." An inmate had his last appeal denied on a Friday evening. The execution was scheduled for 12:01am, the following Monday. The defense lawyer, a friend of one of the WH staffers, pleaded with that staffer to get to the President (who was out of town) to intervene against the execution. The WH Chief of Staff questioned why it wasn't happening immediately after the court denial (hence, no time to reach the President and "force his political hand" for an intervention), and the lower staffer replied, "We don't execute people between sundown Friday and Sundown Sunday." In other words, "We don't execute people on the Sabbath."

Thus, the time gap was all the "anti" death penalty folks needed to fight like crazy against the execution of this inmate. The defense lawyer even went so far as to reach the Rabbi of Toby Ziegler (Communications director) who would attend Temple that Sat. Morning. Let's just say the Rabbi "altered" his daily sermon that morning, and that's what led to the clip I showed you above.

There were others that also attempted to reach the President in their fight against executing this inmate. What they did not understand is that the President understood the political reality of the situation... that a significant majority of the American People favored Capital Punishment. He could not intervene.

The President, a Roman Catholic himself, agonized over this, the entire weekend. At the very end of the episode, he called his childhood priest to the Oval Office (played by the late Karl Malden of all people). The following is that conversation.



BTW, the "Quaker" referred to in this clip is the deaf Political operative Joey Lucus, played by Marlee Matlin, who makes her own attempt to dissuade the President from allowing the execution.

 

[quietmike]

All killing not being murder is not a "slippery slope". That's the way law works whether it's codified by an oligarchy or baked in a burning bush.

It is our job to be vigilante and temper law as best we can to be fair to all who are governed by it. Some would argue planned parenthood is a form of legal genocide or "classicide" and the people it targets are just a numbers problem, dehumanized.

Laws aren't perfect, not even the laws of the bible that said it's OK to own slaves and stone homo's to death, but it's the only game in town that makes sense.

It used to be legal to horse whip a lazy slave or hang a rebellious one, but was it ever right?

It used to be legal to sterilize or lobotomize the mentally ill, but was it ever right?

That's the problem with putting all your belief on the law.


Voltare said those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

 

[quietmike]

Please expand on exactly what didn't work out so well and why.

There was this thing called the civil war, maybe you heard about it? Over half a milllion people died.

 

[Skeptic1]

The writers of the constitution wanted to protect people within our borders from an abusive government. They had just witnessed a civil war. One of the contested issues was slavery; which the 13th amendment abolished.

By stating that a person born in this country and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen, the writers were taking special care to recognize the freed slaves as citizens. As an aside note; that first sentence didn't give pregnant women license to plant anchor babies on US soil. That's what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," was for. The wife of a foreign diplomat in the US could not give birth to a baby and expect it to be a US citizen.

Really? Am I missing something here?

The constitution was ratified in 1788

Civil War 1861

 

[quietmike]

Really? Am I missing something here?

The constitution was ratified in 1788

Civil War 1861

Democrats said slaves weren't really people, just like with the unborn.

 

[Longshot231]

Really? Am I missing something here?

The constitution was ratified in 1788

Civil War 1861

I stand corrected. What I meant to say was the writers of the 14th amendment. Thanks for pointing out the error.

 

[quietmike]

Exodus gave clear instructions on the protocol for buying and releasing slaves but whatev.

I gave legality (codified law) as the only earthly standard that matters when it comes to men judging and punishing other men(women, children,whatev).

Everything the Nazis did to the Jews was perfectly legal under Geman law at the time, so Hitler did nothing wrong?

 

[DarnYankeeUSMC]

The men making these decisions don't get pregnant when they get fucked , they should have no say in what a woman should do with their body . Let those guys get fucked in the ass by a rapist and carry the load around for 9 months and see if they have a different perspective . .

Nice spin . No new argument needed . Her body her choice, rules should not be made by some dumb fucker that can't get pregnant .

You might want to check the ratio of female to male is in Congress. It's not all men making the rules. They couldn't pass the laws without the females vote.

 

[doubloon]

Not keeping score. ...

I wan't saying you were the one piped into the MSM, ...

Also my whole point ...

Ah, my bad for misinterpreting.

Christianity and catholicism were the same thing for quite a while. I was also raised catholic and also lost faith in the church the more it compromised for the sake of packing pews. So I started looking at other religions and found, as it appears to me, the three major religions of the world are based on alarmingly similar texts.

The bible is one of those books where you can find words to justify almost anything you want ... stoning sinners, wiping out unbelievers, turning the other cheek ... all you need is somebody to tell you what parts are important and what parts to ignore. Of course it depends on which version/translation you pick because some versions have more fire and brimstone and some are nerfed a bit when it comes to the mention of violence.

I agree the catholic church needs some major reform but so do most organized religions. The methodists are going through their own kerfluffle at the moment where some churches are departing from the main branch on religious/money/interpretation reasons.

 

[doubloon]

You might want to check the ratio of female to male is in Congress. It's not all men making the rules. They couldn't pass the laws without the females vote.

Keep your facts out of my conspiracy butter.

<chain.gif>

 

[doubloon]

Everything the Nazis did to the Jews was perfectly legal under Geman law at the time, so Hitler did nothing wrong?

I'm not a Germany/war scholar so I can't validate the premise of your challenge about Hitler's wrongness. There are several here who have demonstrated deep knowledge in this area who can provide some insight on the legality of Hitler's campaign at both the local and global level. Also, I do not have an in depth knowledge of all the things Hitler did so I'm not qualified to judge all the actions of Hitler.

But, if we presume your premise about Geman law and Hitler not violating any Geman laws then your conclusion/claim that Hitler did nothing "legally" wrong would be correct within the constructs of Geman law. Your statement literally defines itself.

But that's probably not what you're trying to say and you're probably trying to be "clever" and set a "trap" where I say something like "Hitler did <this> wrong." and you say "AHA! GOTCHA!".

You genuinely seem incapable of wrapping your head around the idea that legality and morality are not the same thing, never have been and never will be ... at least not on this earth.

Whether or not George Washington did anything "wrong" or Jeff Davis did anything "wrong" or Lewis Wetzel did anything "wrong" or the comanches did anything "wrong" (from a strictly legal point of view) all depends on the perspective of whose rules (laws) are used as the lens to view their actions.

 

[doubloon]

Democrats said slaves weren't really people, just like with the unborn.

Citation needed. Which democrats said it, when and in what words.

 

[doubloon]

I stand corrected. What I meant to say was the writers of the 14th amendment. Thanks for pointing out the error.

Yeah, I believe what you were trying to say about the founder's intent to be mostly true. I like to paint them in a favorable light myself.

They were hotly divided on a number of issues, not the least of which was religious freedom, and it took a while to level out human rights, citizenship, voting, etc. ...

 

[doubloon]

It used to be legal to horse whip a lazy slave or hang a rebellious one, but was it ever right?

It used to be legal to sterilize or lobotomize the mentally ill, but was it ever right?

That's the problem with putting all your belief on the law.


Voltare said those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

So you an Voltare (Voltaire) are in agreement the bible peddles absurdities and people commit atrocities in its name?

Beating slaves was legal and right as documented in the bible. There were even guidelines on how much you were allowed to beat your slaves.

The rest is just more of the same, you trying to conflate legality and morality.

What I do or do not think is "right" from a moral position has no impact on the punishment I may face from a legal position.

Legality and morality are not the same thing.

 

[Fx51LP308]

Citation needed. Which democrats said it, when and in what words.

Perhaps he's referring to the US Constitution,

Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of course, this was cancelled by the 14th amendment, first section, "All persons born or naturalized in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are Citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside...." etc. etc.

 

[doubloon]

Just as a bit of quick background

Ah ... that's actually a clever little bit of playing religion against politics and demonstrating (if accurate) how religious bias permeates our laws and not always in a "good" way. Obviously "good" or "bad" is subjective here depending on the point of view of the participant ... the politician not wanting to take a position and potentially lose votes, the family wanting swift justice ... a lot of ways to play on this.

 

[quietmike]

You genuinely seem incapable of wrapping your head around the idea that legality and morality are not the same thing, never have been and never will be ... at least not on this earth.

Legality and morality are not the same thing.

Laughable statements considering your argument is kiling babies is legal, therefore perfectly fine.

 

[quietmike]

Citation needed. Which democrats said it, when and in what words.

Seriously? They were not legal people deserving of constitutional rights. That's the only reason they could be owned by others, be beaten w/o it being a crime, or killed w/o consequence.

 

[doubloon]

Perhaps he's referring to the US Constitution,

Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of course, this was cancelled by the 14th amendment, first section, "All persons born or naturalized in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are Citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside...." etc. etc.

Ah, taxes, possibly. But it's a little bit of a leap from there and incomplete to say "democrats" said slaves weren't real people. Indians were also excluded.

The added bit of "just like with the unborn" is fallacious at best or just ignorant or intentionally inflammatory depending on intent.

 

[quietmike]

Ah, taxes, possibly. But it's a little bit of a leap from there and incomplete to say "democrats" said slaves weren't real people. Indians were also excluded.

The added bit of "just like with the unborn" is fallacious at best or just ignorant or intentionally inflammatory depending on intent.

If a segment of society is declared sub-human, and not deserving of legal protections, how does the description of those people matter?

 

[doubloon]

Laughable statements considering your argument is kiling babies is legal, therefore perfectly fine.

You like to add extra words and imply meaning where there isn't any. Nowhere have I ever said "killing babies is legal, therefore perfectly fine.". At least stick to the truth when making accusations.

If a segment of society is declared sub-human, and not deserving of legal protections, how does the description of those people matter?

So are you claiming this is still the case today or are you just whining about select things in history that don't agree with your personal moral code?

Please weigh in on all the atrocities documented as legal and "perfectly fine" in the bible.

 

[quietmike]

You like to add extra words and imply meaning where there isn't any. Nowhere have I ever said "killing babies is legal, therefore perfectly fine.". At least stick to the truth when making accusations.

The point is not all killing is murder.

And, based on statements you've made, we seem to be in agreement that it's only murder if the law defines it as murder.

So are you claiming this is still the case today or are you just whining about select things in history that don't agree with your personal moral code?

Please weigh in on all the atrocities documented as legal and "perfectly fine" in the bible.

As I've repeatedly said from the start, whether it's the unborn, slaves, native Americans, or any other genocide, first they are legally dehumanized so they can be killed w/o consequence.

 

[doubloon]

As I've repeatedly said from the start, whether it's the unborn, slaves, native Americans, or any other genocide, first they are legally dehumanized so they can be killed w/o consequence.

Yes, yes, yes ... as you've said, as you've said, as you've said ...

Clearly your opinion is the only opinion that matters to you. You've repeatedly made that very clear.

So you went back and dug up a quote of me saying "not all killing is murder" but how does that support the wild and baseless accusation you made that I said "killing babies is perfectly fine". If you think what you've quoted supports the idea that I claim "killing babies is perfectly fine" then you are not comprehending what you're reading.

 

[quietmike]

Yes, yes, yes ... as you've said, as you've said, as you've said ...

Clearly your opinion is the only opinion that matters to you. You've repeatedly made that very clear.

As opposed to...

Keep your facts out of my conspiracy butter.

<chain.gif>

So you went back and dug up a quote of me saying "not all killing is murder" but how does that support the wild and baseless accusation you made that I said "killing babies is perfectly fine". If you think what you've quoted supports the idea that I claim "killing babies is perfectly fine" then you are not comprehending what you're reading.

Then what is your argument? You've repeated how the bible condones slavery and killing others for certain sins. Your never exactly said abortion is fine, but your argument would certainly lead one to that conclusion.

 

[Skeptic1]

I stand corrected. What I meant to say was the writers of the 14th amendment. Thanks for pointing out the error.

That being said......... abortion is morally wrong.
The "wrong" starts long before the abortion though.

Humbly

 

[doubloon]

Your never exactly said abortion is fine

I never at all said abortion is fine.

I've stated very plainly multiple times I would counsel family members against abortion.

If I haven't said it in this thread or recently I'll say again I don't believe a zygote, embryo or fetus to a certain point is a "person" and termination of a pregnancy at any of these stages should not constitute murder.

I have at least implied, if not stated clearly, anyone who says they believe a zygote is a person and all abortions are murders but doesn't push for legislation to investigate absolutely every miscarriage as a potential murder is a hypocrite.

 

[doubloon]

The "wrong" starts long before the abortion though.

Si.

Every party involved in an unwanted pregnancy as a result of promiscuity or stupidity should be accountable.

An unwanted pregnancy as a result of violence is a tragedy where the perpetrator should be held accountable and the victim should not be required to bear the burden.

 

[Skeptic1]

Si.

Every party involved in an unwanted pregnancy as a result of promiscuity or stupidity should be accountable.

An unwanted pregnancy as a result of violence is a tragedy where the perpetrator should be held accountable and the victim should not be required to bear the burden.

What about a young man that gets his girlfriend pregnant. She ends up wanting to get an abortion. He does everything he knows to stop her from doing it. She does it anyway. He walks aways and never speaks to her again.......
Lives with the scar and regret the rest of his life.
Is he guilty?

 

[Rthur]

What about a young man that gets his girlfriend pregnant. She ends up wanting to get an abortion. He does everything he knows to stop her from doing it. She does it anyway. He walks aways and never speaks to her again.......
Lives with the scar and regret the rest of his life.
Is he guilty?

No, because the system has taken all his rights to/on the decision.

R

 

[doubloon]

What about a young man that gets his girlfriend pregnant. She ends up wanting to get an abortion. He does everything he knows to stop her from doing it. She does it anyway. He walks aways and never speaks to her again.......
Lives with the scar and regret the rest of his life.
Is he guilty?

Strictly speaking in a world of fantasy laws they are both "guilty". Unwanted pregnancy as a result of promiscuity or stupidity.

What should be done is the complicated and messy part virtually, probably actually, impossible to enforce. But I'll try to carry on the entire conversation by my lonesome. Feel free to try to interrupt me but don't get your hopes up.

Option: Force her to have the baby, put it up for adoption and force the two of them to pay child support or put them in prison? Truly a fairy tale ending.

Option: Give them the option of avoiding child support and prison by being voluntarily spayed and neutered? Unicorns really do fart rainbows.

But, honestly, that's why the word "should" appears so many times in those sentences. Because, in reality, 100% enforcement is not practical by any force less than an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being. It's like the war on drugs.

Depending on the state in the present time she may not have the option of abortion (assuming she doesn't have the means to flee to an abortion friendly state) and, I assume, she might have the option to carry the pregnancy to term and put the baby up for adoption. I don't know but don't believe any of these states provide a vehicle for either parent to pay child support even if they wanted. If the father wanted to adopt I assume he'd have to apply and go through the process to be judged suitable or not.

In a state where abortion is an option and she chooses to do so then if the father is remorseful he will have to learn to live with it or seek some therapy, I really don't care which because he fucked up and karma is a bitch. If he's not remorseful maybe maybe he'll get hit by a bus but more likely is he'll just pollinate another girl. I'm not aware of any program that would require community service from either of these people for their transgressions to benefit something like sex education but it doesn't sound like a bad idea.

Either way, in both these cases, another child will not be brought into a loveless home without the means or commitment to support it into adulthood and I'd say the world is a slightly better place because of it.

But what about the parents who had a baby out of wedlock and threw it away?

If there really is a god that will judge their immortal souls then they will pay in due time. It is not my job or my place to judge them here based on their moral fiber, I am only expected to judge them by the laws of man if called upon to do so. If the aborted baby actually has a soul then it is an innocent and I would expect it to receive its reward early without having to muddle through this experience ... truly a blessing.

 

[doubloon]

No, because the system has taken all his rights to/on the decision.

R

Well, they're not married (assumption based on "girlfriend") so he never had any legal rights over her decisions to begin with so nothing taken away.

The law has not granted any rights to the father here but that's not the same as taking them away.

From a biblical view anyone born of a forbidden union is cast out of the church to their tenth generation so even god denies the father any rights to the future of the child.

 

[Rthur]

Well, they're not married (assumption based on "girlfriend") so he never had any legal rights over her decisions to begin with so nothing taken away.

The law has not granted any rights to the father here but that's not the same as taking them away.

From a biblical view anyone born of a forbidden union is cast out of the church to their tenth generation so even god denies the father any rights to the future of the child.

Something about granted and rights doesn't add up.
One he was born with the other is issued.
Whether they recognize them or not he still is the father.
Even you quoted this.
My point.
As far as biblical forbidden isn't the same as unwed.

R

 

[doubloon]

One he was born with the other is issued.
Whether they recognize them or not he still is the father.

Nobody is saying he's not the father in the biological sense, the sperm donor. It's generally accepted there is more to legally being a father than just being a sperm donor.

But who are we talking about being "born with"? The girl is pregnant, nothing has been born yet, you can't be "born with" anything if you're not born yet.

You'll have to spell it out for me along with the part about whatever I quoted. Born with what? Issued what? And why does he only get one?

 

[Rthur]

Nobody is saying he's not the father in the biological sense, the sperm donor. It's generally accepted there is more to legally being a father than just being a sperm donor.

But who are we talking about being "born with"? The girl is pregnant, nothing has been born yet, you can't be "born with" anything if you're not born yet.

You'll have to spell it out for me along with the part about whatever I quoted. Born with what? Issued what?

He, the father, was born with rights.
Society only remembers this when she, the mother, wants money.

R

 

[doubloon]

He, the father, was born with rights.

The father (unwed sperm donor) was born with rights to a child that hasn't been born yet? Sounds like a Hallmark movie.

I either missed it or don't understand the reference similar to "the slaves are not people so it's OK for the democrats to kill them" clause so help me out. Specifically which part of the constitution or bill of rights or amendments thereof spell out these rights?

I suppose these rights extend to in vitro fertilizations as well?

 

[Rthur]

The father (unwed sperm donor) was born with rights to a child that hasn't been born yet? Sounds like a Hallmark movie.

I either missed it or don't understand the reference similar to "the slaves are not people so it's OK for the democrats to kill them" clause so help me out. Specifically which part of the constitution or bill of rights or amendments thereof spell out these rights?

I suppose these rights extend to in vitro fertilizations as well?

You are obviously reaching.
Not to see the one sided game currently is either obtuse or intentional.
I missed where I mentioned slavery.
Look up strawman.
Hallmark does believe in child support, maybe you've heard of it.
Condescension is funny.

R

 

[doubloon]

You are obviously reaching.

I'm not reaching and you didn't mention slavery.

I thought you were paying attention to the other posts so apologies for the slavery joke whizzing by.

The question was genuine in case you have something more than hyperbole to back it up. Unless you're telling me your claim about unwed parental rights of unborn children was meant to be a strawman.

I *think* it's the 14th amendment that protects parental rights but I believe unborn children are specifically excluded from those protections.

I would genuinely like to know where the rights of an unwed sperm donor over an unborn child are spelled out and if they extend to in vitro fertilizations.