Does a man has any right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body?

[fated]

Really? got any evidence to back this up?

[SIZE=+1]RECOGNITION AND RESPONSE TO INFANT CUES RESPONSE[/SIZE]
At the simplest level, mother–child interactions are built up from the mother and the infant recognising and responding to each other. It is the parental recognition of, and emotional response to, infant cues that we propose could be studied using fMRI. Techniques based on simple infant responses (e.g. non-nutritive sucking to elicit the presentation of a particular stimulus) have revealed that even 2-day-old infants recognise their mother's face, voice and odour of her breast milk (Bremner et al, 1997; Porter & Winberg, 1999). This recognition is reciprocal; mothers can recognise their infants by sight, by their cry, by smell and even touch within a few hours of birth (Kaitz et al, 1992). If mothers and infants are predisposed to attend to sensory cues from one another, it might be expected that there could be a biological basis for this recognition. Papou

ek (2000) noted that some maternal responses to infant cues occur so quickly (within 200–400 ms) that they are considered too fast for conscious perception. In earlier work, Papou

ek also observed mothers responding to infant behavioural cues (such as different hand positions during different states of alertness), even though they reported being unaware of such signals. This further suggests that there may be some relatively automatic parenting responses to infant-specific sensory and behavioural cues (‘intuitive parenting’ responses) (Papou ek, 2000).

 

[fated]

Really? got any evidence to back this up?

Why are abortion rights important to you?

 

[cantata]

I understood. Don't worry, you came to a point where you wanted me to give a woman the right to kill a human she refused to look at.

It's not your business to hand out rights, so no, I didn't.

I just continued to expect you to adhere to the rules of polite discussion, which includes not just ignoring what people are saying to you and posting ranty little sentences which have nothing to do with what everyone else is saying.

I don't care whether you agree with me. But I do care about your conduct as a debater, and it has been poor over the last few pages. I hope you will return to the more rational and courteous form of debate in which I have seen you engaging elsewhere.

 

[IzzyPop]

[SIZE=+1]RECOGNITION AND RESPONSE TO INFANT CUES RESPONSE[/SIZE]
At the simplest level, mother–child interactions are built up from the mother and the infant recognising and responding to each other. It is the parental recognition of, and emotional response to, infant cues that we propose could be studied using fMRI. Techniques based on simple infant responses (e.g. non-nutritive sucking to elicit the presentation of a particular stimulus) have revealed that even 2-day-old infants recognise their mother's face, voice and odour of her breast milk (Bremner et al, 1997; Porter & Winberg, 1999). This recognition is reciprocal; mothers can recognise their infants by sight, by their cry, by smell and even touch within a few hours of birth (Kaitz et al, 1992). If mothers and infants are predisposed to attend to sensory cues from one another, it might be expected that there could be a biological basis for this recognition. Papou

ek (2000) noted that some maternal responses to infant cues occur so quickly (within 200–400 ms) that they are considered too fast for conscious perception. In earlier work, Papou

ek also observed mothers responding to infant behavioural cues (such as different hand positions during different states of alertness), even though they reported being unaware of such signals. This further suggests that there may be some relatively automatic parenting responses to infant-specific sensory and behavioural cues (‘intuitive parenting’ responses) (Papou ek, 2000).

This says nothing about parent-child attachments prior to birth. '2 day old infants'. 48 hours works out to somewhere around 12-24 feedings, ample time to learn the sight, sound, and smell of the mother. The rest goes to show that mothers respond to some cues on a subconscious level.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Arbitrary
[SIZE=-1] ADJECTIVE: [/SIZE]

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.

[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
human being [/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1] NOUN: [/SIZE]
A human.


[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1] zy�gote [/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1] NOUN: [/SIZE]

1. The cell formed by the union of two gametes, especially a fertilized ovum before cleavage.
2. The organism that develops from a zygote. (Which in this case is a human).

Emphasis mine.


So, by definition you have arbitrarily taken rights away from a human.

Sorry, but false. The issue is when a fetus becomes a 'person'. The criteria used by many has been given to you; it is far from arbitrary. You might not agree with it; that's fine. But that doesn't make those criteria arbitrary.

I can logically do the same thing by using a similar until statement:
Until the human likes piano music.

And defend it, I assure you, the same way.

You can certainly claim that personhood starts when a human likes piano music; however, that is in no way the 'same thing' that others have done, and logic does not come into such a claim. The arguments you have previously used to support such a claim fail because they are either (a) manifestly false and/or (b) irrelevant.

 

[catlover]

Why are abortion rights important to you?

Because women worry that a patriarchal society, which has viewed women as disposable, will not allow her access to an abortion if shes becomes pregnant as a result of a rape, or if her life is in danger from a pregnancy.

 

[catlover]

not disagreeing with you but i was just wondering if it is actually possible to know if a mother will suffer from postpartum?

Unfortunatley, Andrea Yates, the woman who suffered from post partum psychosis and drowned five of her children was told to stop having babies because her psychosis would get worse with each birth.



HOUSTON — A psychiatrist testified Friday that she warned Andrea Yates not to have any more children after she tried to commit suicide twice within months of having her fourth child in 1999.

But despite the warning, Yates had her fifth child in late 2000. The next June, Yates drowned 6-month-old Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah in the bathtub.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202606,00.html

 

[Renton405]

It's not directed at guys like you, who know that. It is for fundamentalist/conservative guys, imagine if their girlfriend, sister or a female friend get pregnant and decides to get rid of the baby. I don't think that they would just let that go and I don't think that they fully understand

I'm tired of seeing guys arguing against it as if they know what they are talking about

Because there are 2 lives involved. Secondly, there is also a father of the child too. So that is 3 people involved.

Sadly the baby cannot say anything during that time. but if it could, im pretty sure it would ask not to be brutally killed.

So during this process the unborn child is put in a position of life or death, unknowingly. That is unfair to the child and is a violation of its own human rights. If the mother and father have no morals and no respect for human life, the child will be killed probably. However, if they realize that life is sacred and that the child deserves to live, it will live. Its a battle between good and evil during the process of whether or not to have an abortion.

 

[catlover]

Because there are 2 lives involved. Secondly, there is also a father of the child too. So that is 3 people involved.

Sadly the baby cannot say anything during that time. but if it could, im pretty sure it would ask not to be brutally killed.

So during this process the unborn child is put in a position of life or death, unknowingly. That is unfair to the child and is a violation of its own human rights. If the mother and father have no morals and no respect for human life, the child will be killed probably. However, if they realize that life is sacred and that the child deserves to live, it will live. Its a battle between good and evil during the process of whether or not to have an abortion.

It's evil to force 11 year old rape victims to give birth. It is evil to believe a woman should die in childbirth.

The order includes the judges, politicians and legislators involved in the decision, as well as the doctors, nurses and the girl’s parents, the Manila Bulletin Online reported today.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06083002.html

 

[Wednesday]

Back to the beginning Honestly we are running in circles wth this argument

Ok, I have researched basic definitions of abortion, embryo, foetus and infant. This is what I have got

Abortion - removal or expulsion of embryo or fetus.

Embryo - a multicellular, diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching or germination. In humans, it is called an embryo from the moment of fertilization until the end of the 8th week of gestational age, whereafter it is instead called a fetus.

Fetus - In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development begins about eight weeks after fertilization, when the major structures and organ systems have formed until birth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

Just look up what foetus means, please.

Infant (baby) - In basic English usage, an infant is defined as a human child at the youngest stage of life, specifically before they can walk and generally before the age of one

Wikipedia is your friend (if you are looking for basic definitions)


Now, I admit that I have made some rush assumptions and statements in the OP, because I was a bit annoyed by male anti - abortion advocates. I am sorry. But, the OP question still stands.

And another thing, how is the life of fetus or embryo is more important than the life and health of a woman

 

[fated]

It's not your business to hand out rights, so no, I didn't.

I just continued to expect you to adhere to the rules of polite discussion, which includes not just ignoring what people are saying to you and posting ranty little sentences which have nothing to do with what everyone else is saying.

I don't care whether you agree with me. But I do care about your conduct as a debater, and it has been poor over the last few pages. I hope you will return to the more rational and courteous form of debate in which I have seen you engaging elsewhere.

OK, I support a physicians right to defend his patient, the fetus.

 

[fated]

Because women worry that a patriarchal society, which has viewed women as disposable, will not allow her access to an abortion if shes becomes pregnant as a result of a rape, or if her life is in danger from a pregnancy.

And so you defend peoples every right to have constant risky sexual relations and have abortions?

I completely disagree, by the way, preventing abortion exalts one of womens principal societal roles. Mom.

 

[psychedelicist]

so we all must conform to soietal roles? what if a woman has no intention of doing so? should she be forced to anyways? should we all be forced to conform to societal roles if they arent to our liking?

 

[fated]

so we all must conform to soietal roles? what if a woman has no intention of doing so? should she be forced to anyways? should we all be forced to conform to societal roles if they arent to our liking?

In so much as motherhood is a foundational societal role, the society has the reasonable right to protect its dignity.

 

[psychedelicist]

so the wishes of one person should be ignored so this idea called motherhood can protect its dignity? sorry but i never understood the need for intellectual property (a being owning an idea) to begin with much less when society can own an idea. it was my understanding that individuals within a society have their own ideas, and that the face of society itself changes based on this, not that society must be a neverchanging entity its inhabitants conform to.

 

[fated]

so the wishes of one person should be ignored so this idea called motherhood can protect its dignity? sorry but i never understood the need for intellectual property (a being owning an idea) to begin with much less when society can own an idea. it was my understanding that individuals within a society have their own ideas, and that the face of society itself changes based on this, not that society must be a neverchanging entity its inhabitants conform to.

You seem to assert that I have said something that I did not. There are certain indispensable roles in society that deserve protection. Like police, and mommies.

 

[psychedelicist]

You seem to assert that I have said something that I did not. There are certain indispensable roles in society that deserve protection. Like police, and mommies.

protection from what? the idea that women do not wish to be mommies? what makes them deserving of the protection?

edit: and after going back over the question i do not see what i have asserted that is incorrect. you say that 'the society has the reasonable right to protect its dignity.' dignity is a mere idea. to protect society from what you see as a detrimental idea is nonsensical at best. to even worry about the idea of dignity is absurd- the idea of what constitutes dignity is changeable from society to society,and if dignity is a changeable idea i see no reason why it should not be changed.

unless i have misinterpreted what you mean.

 

[Calliso]

It's evil to force 11 year old rape victims to give birth. It is evil to believe a woman should die in childbirth.

The order includes the judges, politicians and legislators involved in the decision, as well as the doctors, nurses and the girl’s parents, the Manila Bulletin Online reported today.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06083002.html

That makes me sooo angry! Was the thoughts and feelings of the 11 year old girl a girl who physically could have been severely damaged by carrying the pregnancy to term even taken into consideration here? Somehow I doubt it! Absolutely horrible!

 

[catlover]

And so you defend peoples every right to have constant risky sexual relations and have abortions?

I completely disagree, by the way, preventing abortion exalts one of womens principal societal roles. Mom.

Yes, woman can choose to give birth and become a mother, but the sole purpose of the female existance is not to multiply.

That is like stating a man's primary purpose, in life, is [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] into a vagina. There is more to a person's existance than reproductive organs.

 

[catlover]

That makes me sooo angry! Was the thoughts and feelings of the 11 year old girl a girl who physically could have been severely damaged by carrying the pregnancy to term even taken into consideration here? Somehow I doubt it! Absolutely horrible!

It makes me disgusted as well. It is cases like that which are played out over and over again in South America which makes me realize abortion must be kept legal.

I would not want male dominated institution deciding the fate of a rape victim's decision to abort or give birth.