Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[leroy]

I urged him to look up the definition of person right at the very moment I disputed his labelling a foetus or blastocyst as a person, had he done so, he could have disavowed himself of this erroneous idea, again i can't tell if it is deliberate or not.

Person
noun

a human being regarded as an individual.E]

What part of this definition removes the fetus from being a person?

A foetus remains part of a woman's body, right up until that umbilical chord is cut.

Ok ok , so are you saying that a fetus becomes a human (and a person) in the moment where the umbilical chord is cut? Is this what you are saying ?

Anyone that is connected to a woman through an umbilical chord by definition can't be a human (nor a person) .....is this something that you would afirm ?

(this is an honest question I whant to understand your view)

 

[leroy]

Oh dear, sophistry and semantics, followed by another straw man fallacy. If you don't understand the words body or autonomy then go learn them.

Each word has many definitions and definitions are "context dependent " .....I am simply asking what do you mean by bodily autonomy in this particular context so that I can understand your argument. .... what is so wrong with asking for clarification on what you mean with certain words?


And I'll ask an other question.....do you have a genuine interest in talking about abortion with someone who has different opinions than you? Or do you simply whant to "win" the debate?

 

[leroy]

I
1 and 2. A person is defined as a human being, a human being is defined as man woman or child of the species Homo sapiens.

Is a foetus a man woman or child, think carefully now?

3 I have never asserted that a foetus is a parasite, ever.

4

Your inability to answer questions clearly and directly is becoming boring and tedious.


Please answer with a simple yes or a simple no.

"Answer yes or no

1 Do you affirm that a fetus is not a person

2 do you affirm that a person is not a human

3 do you afirmt hat the fetus is just a parasite (like a worm) moraly speaking....is the fetus as valuable as a worm ?

4 you don’t affirm nor reject any of this statements? (You are agnostic with this issues)

Read my responses, for once

.


That is the issue, your responses are contradictory or atleast this is what it seems to me. .... but don't worry I am willing to take the blame, maybe I am the one with issues, maybe I am the one who is unable to understand your stuff, despite the fact that you are being clear enough.......but this is precisely why I am asking for clear and direct answers...........I am asking for simple yes or no answers so that I can understand your view.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

There may be problem with this: a woman who aborts, is preventing a life to be; a man who - as defined in OP - “aborts”, is abandoning a child that is here already.

Still, financial obligations aside - whether they know it or not - walking away from one’s child is a great personal loss.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If she knows the potential consequences before consenting to sex, she has nothing to complain about.

That's some pretty misogynistic, rapey logic there.

 

[Sheldon]

Throughout the thread, @leroy has been going out of his way to avoid and ignore the bodily autonomy argument. Instead he prefers false equivocations while ignoring the actual argument of bodily autonomy of those at the other side of the table.


It's almost as if the lore that underpins all this "pro-life", or rather "pro-birth", nonsense has brainwashed these people into considering women to being second rate citizens who shouldn't be capable of making their own decisions and / or have the exclusive rights over what does and doesn't happen to their bodies.

Almost. I wonder why that is.

I have dealt with “my understanding” of the bodily autonomy argument, why don’t you develop your argument so that I can refute it? You can start by explaining what you mean exactly with bodily autonomy and then by explaining why bodely autonomy justifies the killing of an innocent human ?
Develop you argument, so far all we have is “because I say so arguments” I think that women (nor men) shouldn´t kill innocent people / I am not treating woman as second class citizens I am suggesting that is morally wrong to kill an innocent person regardless if you are man or woman.

Duly noted, now what has that to do with a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and terminating a pregnancy? Only I have read anyone suggest anyone should be allowed to kill innocent people? Do you think endlessly repeating this dishonest hyperbole will sway anyone?

Nothing , because the comment that you are replying to is not intended to deal with "bodily autonomy "[

Try again.

 

[Sheldon]

What part of this definition removes the fetus from being a person?





Ok ok , so are you saying that a fetus becomes a human (and a person) in the moment where the umbilical chord is cut? Is this what you are saying ?

Anyone that is connected to a woman through an umbilical chord by definition can't be a human (nor a person) .....is this something that you would afirm ?

(this is an honest question I whant to understand your view)

It can't be both a single individual, and an insentient part of a woman's body, I'd have thought that was pretty obvious, thus referring to a foetus or blastocyst as a person is disingenuous.

 

[Sheldon]

Each word has many definitions and definitions are "context dependent " .....I am simply asking what do you mean by bodily autonomy in this particular context so that I can understand your argument. .... what is so wrong with asking for clarification on what you mean with certain words?


And I'll ask an other question.....do you have a genuine interest in talking about abortion with someone who has different opinions than you? Or do you simply whant to "win" the debate?

A debate necessarily involves opposing arguments, it's in the definition, maybe you should look that up as well.

 

[Sheldon]

Your inability to answer questions clearly and directly is becoming boring and tedious.

You really don't have good grasp of irony do you?

Please answer with a simple yes or a simple no.

No.

"Answer yes or no

1 Do you affirm that a fetus is not a person

2 do you affirm that a person is not a human

3 do you afirmt hat the fetus is just a parasite (like a worm) moraly speaking....is the fetus as valuable as a worm ?

4 you don’t affirm nor reject any of this statements? (You are agnostic with this issues)

1. I have already answered this several times, and explained my answer.

2. How can a person not be a human, it is how the word is defined?

3. I have never claimed a foetus is a parasite, ever.

That is the issue, your responses are contradictory or atleast this is what it seems to me. ....

I am dubious, but please quote me making contradictory statements?

but don't worry I am willing to take the blame, maybe I am the one with issues, maybe I am the one who is unable to understand your stuff, despite the fact that you are being clear enough.......but this is precisely why I am asking for clear and direct answers...........I am asking for simple yes or no answers so that I can understand your view.

Not all questions have yes or no answers, and sometimes people create false dichotomies, to force someone in to a yes or no answer, even though neither answer would represent their position. Maybe the word facile, is something else you should look up.

 

[leroy]

It can't be both a single individual, and an insentient part of a woman's body, I'd have thought that was pretty obvious, thus referring to a foetus or blastocyst as a person is disingenuous.

The fetus is not part of the woman's body, its an independent organism with its own DNA. .......(Otherwise you would have to say that the mother has 4 arms 4 legs 2 heads, 98 chromosomes, 2 spiral chords, 4 eyes etc.)


There is nothing in your definition of person that excludes a fetus from being one.....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The fetus is not part of the woman's body, its an independent organism with its own DNA. .......(Otherwise you would have to say that the mother has 4 arms 4 legs 2 heads, 98 chromosomes, 2 spiral chords, 4 eyes etc.)


There is nothing in your definition of person that excludes a fetus from being one.....

Do you think this matters to the abortion question? Do you think a person has the right to live inside another person without their consent?

Heck - in some US states, you have the right to kill people who are in your house without your consent.

If anything, fetal "personhood" only strengthens the bodily security argument. It's questionable whether I have the right to amputate part of my body, but I most certainly have the right to get some other person out of my body if they're in it against my will.

 

[Sheldon]

The fetus is not part of the woman's body,

Of course it is, we just went through that, it is attached to it either as part of the placental wall, or by an umbilical chord, from which it derives its sole access to both oxygen and nutrition, directly from the woman's blood, It is therefore a part of the woman's body and entirely reliant on it.

its an independent organism with its own DNA.

Well that's a tautology, but it demonstrably is not independent, as has already demonstrated, and as has been pointed out a toenail has unique DNA, so what?

.......(Otherwise you would have to say that the mother has 4 arms 4 legs 2 heads, 98 chromosomes, 2 spiral chords, 4 eyes etc.)

Facile nonsense.

There is nothing in your definition of person that excludes a fetus from being one.....

Yes there there is, a foetus is not a single individual, it is attached to, part of, and reliant on a woman's body.

 

[GardenLady]

You probably have a fried whose father is a rapist, don’t you think that your friend has the right to live?....... my point is that if you are going to kill anyone kill the rapist, not the innocent child

Shockingly, I think that the raped woman is innocent, too. After having been violently abused and violated, I do not believe she should be burdened with the sustained long-term trauma of carrying the rapist's child, unless SHE (not YOU) decides that is a burden she can bear.

Does a born person (the purported friend) have a right to live? Yes, of course. If a pregnant woman who was violated and could not bear the sustained trauma, I refuse to judge her.

 

[GardenLady]

Regarding multiple comments about the "pro-life movement." One of the ironies of the last 50 years is that the pro-life movement has utterly failed to win the hearts and minds of the majority of the public. And so they want to use the government to impost their (typically, religious) views on everyone else. This despite conservatives claiming to the champions of the Constitution, which forbids using the government to impose religious doctrine.

A true story: A good friend of many years ago was from a small town in a conservative southern state. Her family were socially, politically, religiously conservative and pro-life. Then her brother's 16-year-old daughter ran off with her 18-year-old boyfriend. She returned home several weeks later, pregnant. By explicit mutual consent of the girl, her parents, and my friend (the aunt), the girl flew up to visit Auntie Sue and had an abortion. Then the family went back to their socially, politically, religiously, conservative and pro-life life. This happens Every Day.

It's always different when it's "your" high school or college daughter or your son's high school or college girlfriend. Then, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Nor do they address the beginning of a human life
that is accorded all the right of citizens...& the
extent of those rights at the various stages of life.

But the constitution defines a citizen as being born or naturalized.

 

[SomeRandom]

Regarding multiple comments about the "pro-life movement." One of the ironies of the last 50 years is that the pro-life movement has utterly failed to win the hearts and minds of the majority of the public. And so they want to use the government to impost their (typically, religious) views on everyone else. This despite conservatives claiming to the champions of the Constitution, which forbids using the government to impose religious doctrine.

A true story: A good friend of many years ago was from a small town in a conservative southern state. Her family were socially, politically, religiously conservative and pro-life. Then her brother's 16-year-old daughter ran off with her 18-year-old boyfriend. She returned home several weeks later, pregnant. By explicit mutual consent of the girl, her parents, and my friend (the aunt), the girl flew up to visit Auntie Sue and had an abortion. Then the family went back to their socially, politically, religiously, conservative and pro-life life. This happens Every Day.

It's always different when it's "your" high school or college daughter or your son's high school or college girlfriend. Then, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Ironically most of my highly Christian friends and family are staunchly Pro Choice because of the Pro Life movement. They felt that the movement lacked real human empathy and compassion. Also many of them being teachers, they laughed at the incorrect medical information that I guess they saw from various Pro Lifers.
I recall after having the Sex Ed talk at school (which thankfully was based on science) I asked one of my cousins if he supported abortion.
He said something to the effect of
“I do not believe it is a moral thing to do. But I cannot in good faith not extend sympathy and I believe it’s far more Christ like to offer support than condemnation.”

 

[Sheldon]

You probably have a fried whose father is a rapist, don’t you think that your friend has the right to live?....... my point is that if you are going to kill anyone kill the rapist, not the innocent child

Abortion does not involve children.

 

[Revoltingest]

But the constitution defines a citizen as being born or naturalized.

That would indeed be a problem for anti-abortion types.
But SCOTUS isn't bound to interpret the Constitution
literally or as originally intended...they may infer their
own agenda.

 

[leroy]

Heck - in some US states, you have the right to kill people who are in your house without your consent.

Do I have the right to invite you to my house as my guest, then change my mind and kill you ?....pretend that I made a mistake my intend was not to invite you, but I simply dialed the wrong number..... / my point is that the person is there (inside the mother ) because of something the mother did.....

Heck - in some US states, you have the right to kill people who are in your house without your

That law exists because the guy in your home might be a criminal/ this is not analogous to a pregnancy

If anything, fetal "personhood" only strengthens the bodily security argument. It's questionable whether I have the right to amputate part of my body, but I most certainly have the right to get some other person out of my body if they're in it against my will.

What can I say....... I simply disagree the right to live trumps 9months of unwanted pregnancy. ... the fetus is not guilty of anything.

 

[Sheldon]

Do I have the right to invite you to my house as my guest, then change my mind and kill you

What a brilliant analogy, however a better one would be you arriving at my house unannounced when I don't want you there, in a way that might risk my life, and me having you removed, then you dying of exposure because you had nowhere else to live. Except even then it's a poor analogy, as you are person, and an insentient foetus or blastocyst is not.

A better analogy again, would be you asking to leave a sperm sample in my fridge overnight, then months later me throwing it out, and you accusing me of murdering someone.