Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[leroy]

Uh huh. So if you have a cesarian and leave it on the bed, just like the coma patient, then you are good with it? No, of course you're not. Don't throw gore at me to try and make me concede the point when your position is not dependent upon how much gore there is. Grossing someone out is not a valid argument, let alone the sound one.

I simply said that killing (abortion) is a worst crime than letting someone die………what is so controvertial about this?

In abortion you actively do something with the intent of killing a person. This is not analogous to run away and let someone die.

I can get up any time and walk my spooty butt away for any reason I please. Or for no reason at all. There are no hospital papers to sign that say I have to support someone else with my life. None.

Granted and just before having sex you can repent and go away.

The problem is that with pregnancy the woman already donated her womb, you can’t no longer repent and kill the beneficiary once you made the donation, if you already donated a kidney, you can’t kill the beneficiary and get your kidney back.

What does innocence have to do with anything? You are just throwing in random non-sequiturs. If the fetus went on a 10 state killing spree that would have no bearing on the morality or immorality of abortion

My point is that killing an innocent person is a mayor evil compared to being “enslaved for 9 months”............
Especially if the woman was responsible for her enslavement,

 

[HonestJoe]

Your example doesn't cover the situation of an
unplanned pregnancy between unmarried people.

It wasn't intended to. The example is a pure hypothetical to demonstrate how "the pregnant person" and "the biological mother" are logically distinct roles, even if they happen to be held by the same individual in most cases. It's a case of the exception literally proving the rule.

 

[Revoltingest]

It wasn't intended to. The example is a pure hypothetical to demonstrate how "the pregnant person" and "the biological mother" are logically distinct roles, even if they happen to be held by the same individual in most cases. It's a case of the exception literally proving the rule.

You proved nothing.

 

[leroy]

Suppose, for example, that it was a one night stand and that the dude before hand made it extremely clear that children are not an option. Furthermore the woman agrees to that and says that she's on the pill (which, say, is a lie) and further informs him that even if she gets pregnant, she'll take a morning after pill. And that even if that doesn't work, there's always abortion. And they then have sex with that a priori understanding and agreement.

In my book, this guy is tricked into getting her pregnant and bears no responsibility at all.

But what does the child has to pay the piper? Financial support is the child´s right (not the woman’s right) so why does that child has to pay for the irresponsibility and lies of the mother?

I understand that the man is innocent, but so is the child, and in my opinion the child’s right to have food, shelter and other basic needs trumps the unjust situation that the man has to face.

Another option would be that the government should take care of the child, but this implies more taxes, why should we pay more taxes just because woman are tricking men?

So in my opinion, yes it´s unfair, yes it is gender inequality, but the child´s right to have access to basic needs trumps gender inequality.

 

[SomeRandom]

But what does the child has to pay the piper? Financial support is the child´s right (not the woman’s right) so why does that child has to pay for the irresponsibility and lies of the mother?

I understand that the man is innocent, but so is the child, and in my opinion the child’s right to have food, shelter and other basic needs trumps the unjust situation that the man has to face.

Another option would be that the government should take care of the child, but this implies more taxes, why should we pay more taxes just because woman are tricking men?

So in my opinion, yes it´s unfair, yes it is gender inequality, but the child´s right to have access to basic needs trumps gender inequality.

I basically agree with this in principle. A pregnancy does carry heavy consequences and should ideally involve both parties providing for the child. Of course that’s assuming it is not forced and came to term without consequence (which sadly isn’t actually terribly common. I think the US in particular has a much higher infant mortality rate compared to the rest of the developed world, just for example.)
I feel for the guy and his predicament. But the kid shouldn’t be punished for having awful parents.

(Though I am fiercely pro choice. Sorry.)

 

[ppp]

In abortion you actively do something with the intent of killing a person. This is not analogous to run away and let someone die.

Incorrect. Pulling the needle out of one's arm and walking away when doing so will result in someone's death is still an act of intent.

Granted and just before having sex you can repent and go away.

And you can pull the needle out walk away while only halfway through the process.

And even that doesn't matter, because you are still claiming that one person is obligated to use their body to support another. And that is false.

My point is that killing an innocent person is a mayor evil compared to being “enslaved for 9 months”............
Especially if the woman was responsible for her enslavement,

Consent to sex is not consent to become pregnant.
Consent to become pregnant is not consent to remain pregnant.

 

[HonestJoe]

You proved nothing.

Only your inability to read. Stop getting caught up in the details and focus on the point I'm actually making if you want to discuss them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Only your inability to read.

That's gotta be it.
I just canna match your keen intellect
or hypersophisticated reasoning.

 

[leroy]

Incorrect. Pulling the needle out of one's arm and walking away when doing so will result in someone's death is still an act of intent.

And you can pull the needle out walk away while only halfway through the process.

I don’t see the point of the arm , care to explain it?

And even that doesn't matter, because you are still claiming that one person is obligated to use their body to support another. And that is false.

You are obligated to “not kill innocent humans” ….. having 9 months of “enslavement” is just a nasty and unavoidable consequence of respecting that principle.

So if you accept the principle that you can’t kill innocent humans, why making an arbitrary exception with pregnant woman?

If you dont respect this principle, then where do you draw the line? When is it morally ok to kill innocent humans?

Consent to sex is not consent to become pregnant.
Consent to become pregnant is not consent to remain pregnant.

Agree, but I don’t see why is it relevant.

Consent in playing baseball is not consent in hitting a man with the ball, but if you hit the man you have to pay the consequences……if the consequence is that the man will die unless you call an ambulance the you most call the ambulance.

In this analogy the man is the embryo, both are fully dependent on you and in both cases you created this situation of dependency ,

 

[Sheldon]

I specifically adressed the major and important difference between consciousness state and presence of consciousness. You can't harm a rock thus you can step on it, but you can't step on babies because it will harm them. WHat makes one perfectly moral and the other not is that one is a conscious human being capable of human suffering and the other one is not. A fetus, while not as innert as a rock doesn't possess any signs of higher consciousness until the third trimester and no capacity for pain until the 12th week at the earliest, most generous estimate (around 18 weeks with reasonnable certainty at the earliest). How can you cause harm to a thing that cannot feel harm and has no consciousness? A person sleeping isn't sedated and to sedate a person you need their consent and with an explicit purpose. A person in a sedated state is also conscious in the sense that it possess the property of consciousness, it's just impared. An early in development fetus isn't impared or otherwise forcefully handicaped; it simply doesn't have certain property and characteristics.

Another excellent post, and of course an insentient foetus, that cannot experience pain, demonstrably cannot suffer it's own termination. This of course is a specific rebuttal of a false claim made by people who oppose a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

It is of course not a reason or justification for an abortion, nor does it need to be, as that is for women to decide themselves, and whether anyone agrees with their motives or not, it is their body, and therefore must be their choice.

 

[Sheldon]

The problem is that with pregnancy the woman already donated her womb, you can’t no longer repent and kill the beneficiary once you made the donation, if you already donated a kidney, you can’t kill the beneficiary and get your kidney back.

The kidney would no longer be part of your body, so it's a very poor analogy. The idea a woman donates any part of her body to the process, rather the process being part of her body, is fundamentally wrong.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Neither should the opposite spread the legs.

Unless God is the father?

 

[leroy]

When he was tricked into it for example.

Consider a hypothetical one-night stand where a priori understanding and agreement is such that it's just sex and that children are out of the question. Let's go a step further and say that the woman promises that she is taking the pill and that even if she gets pregnant anyway that she'll take a morning after pill and that even if that doesn't work, she'll abort.

Then afterwards, it turns out she lied about everything and actually just wanted to get pregnant and bag a rich guy to do it and trick him to be part of it.

In such scenario, I don't think the man has any responsibility.



Let's exaggerate even further - and this is a true story that happened in the UK on multiple occasions.
Single women with a ticking biological clock wishing to have a baby and don't care about not having a man.
So they go to nightclubs and pick up a guy. They have a one-night stand and use a condom. Upon finishing, she says she is going to take a shower and takes the used condom with here to "throw it away".
Yet instead of throwing it away, she takes a syringe to get the sperm out of the condom and squirts it into herself.

Again in such a scenario, I don't the man has any responsibility.

He can off course choose to be involved. But he can't be forced.
In fact, especially in the second example, I feel the man even has grounds to sue the woman and get paid himself.

And what about the innocent child? Who is going to pay for his basic needs (food shelter etc.)……..(assuming that the mother cant)

If the man doesn’t want to take care of the child then ether

1 we let the child die

2 we all pay more taxes for the government to support the child

3 we force the man to pay for financial support.

I honestly think that option 3 is the best

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The woman has just as much responsibility as well with her decision as to who she sleeps with.

And yet fathers aren’t forced to give blood to the mothers. There isn’t anything comparable until (cis) fathers can be pregnant.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But what does the child has to pay the piper? Financial support is the child´s right (not the woman’s right) so why does that child has to pay for the irresponsibility and lies of the mother?

Children are always victims of the bad choices of their parents. Why should this situation be any different?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But the kid shouldn’t be punished for having awful parents.

Kids are always punished when they have awful parents.

Which is exactly why I think that having kids is not a joke or something you do on a whim.
Ideally, it is planned carefully and agreed upon with the partner. Almost like a contract where both parties commit in shared responsibility - in whatever way they see fit.

Sadly many people tend to be irresponsible and yes, kids are always the victim.

 

[Sheldon]

Can you please post a link to the verifiable data, which demonstrates that a fetus has no feeling, or is not conscious "during the 3rd trimester of the pregnancy around 24 to 28 weeks of gestation"?
Clearly not.
I guess you think making assertions because you can serves a useful purpose on forums.
I doubt anyone comes on a forum just to hear people's story-telling.
Easier to go to the Fairy Tales Library.

One more question. Rather, two.
Why do Atheist believe that posting their beliefs as fact is cool?
Does doing so not reveal a desperate desire to believe anything one would rather believe?
Scientists have beliefs as well, but they are not too proud to say probably. .. or seem to, or may be... etc.

The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life
... Human fetuses seem to already have some limited control on their body, as they react to touch, sound, smell, and pain, and even show facial expressions responding to external stimuli (Lowery et al., 2007). Some researchers (Lagercrantz and Changeux, 2009), though, believe that these reactions may have subcortical non-conscious origin and that, only shortly after birth, newborns show signs of basic self-awareness. In fact, developmental studies provide evidence about infant behaviors displaying some level of self-awareness in their first weeks of life (Rochat, 2011). ...

Pride and arrogance is really disgusting. Ugh.

Pubmed, really? That is hilarious.

"The science shows that based on gestational age, the fetus is not capable of feeling pain until the third trimester," said Kate Connors, a spokesperson for ACOG. The third trimester begins at about 27 weeks of pregnancy."


"What we can say about the fetal nervous system is that based on the best science we have" on the neurons that carry pain signals is that the "system isn't developed until the third trimester of pregnancy,"

Scientists' knowledge of the fetal nervous system was summed up in a 2005 review in the journal JAMA. The authors of that review outlined in detail the evidence on how this system develops, based on a number of previous studies on the anatomy of the fetus at various stages of development.

since the publication of the review, "no research has contradicted its findings," said a recent statement from American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."
--------------------------------------------------------------

"A new report from the U.K.’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) concludes that, before 24 weeks, nerve endings in the brains of fetuses aren’t sufficiently developed to experience pain. The findings, based on a review of recent studies examining fetal development and capacity for pain, undermine the argument for a Nebraska law passed in April prohibiting most abortions after 20 weeks’ gestation."

 

[leroy]

The kidney would no longer be part of your body, so it's a very poor analogy. The idea a woman donates any part of her body to the process, rather the process being part of her body, is fundamentally wrong.

I don’t see the relevance, assume that the absence of a kidney causes the same harm (or discomfort) than being pregnant.

The woman tacitly agreed to share her body with someone else, once she made that decision she can´t no longer repent……….not to mention the womb would also be part of the embryos body

Imagine that a crazy scientist connects himself with you for a weird experiment (against your will) now you are fully dependent on this scientist such that if the scientists disconnects his body from you, you will die.

Do you think the scientist should have the moral (and legal) right to kill you? Can the scientists repent from his experiment and simply kill you? Or should he wait 9 months until th e experiment is done and its safe to disconnect you?

 

[leroy]

Children are always victims of the bad choices of their parents. Why should this situation be any different?

Sure, but children shouldn’t be victims,

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

But should we forcé the father to be a father and support his children?

Shouldt the father be legally obligated? (Despite the fact that woman don’t have that obligation)

I say yes, because the child’s right to have shelter and food, trumps any “gender inequality” that might rise from it.

Given that parents neglect/abandon kids all the time, what is the problem?