Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[Sheldon]

no you did not mentione it, I did, I explained a relevant difference a fetus and a foot that makes one a person and the other a non-person

No you introduced two straw man claims I hadn't made. Now one more time, since you agree your foot is a part of your body, and deny that the 8 biological facts I presented are a sound argument for a body part, how many of them don't apply to your foot? I accept a foetus is not a foot, things can share a characteristic and still not be the same see, did you not know this? So a foetus and a foot can be different yet both be part of the body of a person. Do you need me to list the 8 facts again?

Sheldon
so well done on those two irrelevant straw men. Now, there were 8 points of comparison I cited that you deny makes a foetus or blastocyst part of a woman's body, so since one assumes your foot is part of your body, how many of those 8 points don't apply to your foot? I realise a foot is not a foetus, indeed that is rather the point of the comparison, and one assumes you think a foot is part of your body?

Thats a strawman.

No it's not, what on earth are you talking about? I don't think you know what a straw man fallacy is. or are you just obfuscating yet again?

My claim is that having all those 8 points doesn’t necessarily makes you a “non-person”… yes the foot has all those 8 points, but that’s not the reason why the foot is not a “non person”

So the 8 biological facts I offered as evidence a foetus is part of a woman's body apply to a body part, well quelle surprise.

1 Is your foot part of your body?
Yes, see I can answer questions with a simple YES and NO, why cant you?

I can, when it is apropos, just not when you introduce one your jejune false dichomties.

2. I gave an argument listing 8 biological facts, explaining why they indicate together that a foetus is part of a woman's body.
Sure I accept the biological facts* (at least for the purpose of this discussion).....

And that they all apply to a body part, your foot.

I don’t accept your conclusion “that these 8 facts necesairly makes something part of somelese bodey."

Yet they all apply to a part of your body, odd that. So your bare refusal to accept facts isn't becoming ever harder for you to defend. Especially given the dearth of facts offered to defend your denials.

And you seem to agree with me, given that you accept that parasites are not part of the bodey despite the fact that they have all 8 points

I don't remotely agree with you at all. A parasite is not the same as foetus in many ways, it is defined as a different species for start. All 8 of those biological facts most certainly; do not apply to it, that is nonsense.

Sheldon
3. You have denied this, but not addressed them with anything approaching objective facts that counter them.

I gave you 2 examples of things that are not part of someone else’s body that match all these 8 facts

No you didn't. you simply claimed it.

Example 1 (real): parasites that live in your body

Which are a different species, and do not share all of those biological characteristics.

Example 2 (hypothetical): you being connected to my body

It's not an example, you made it up, dear god.

This shows that these 8 facts don’t necessarily show that something is part of one body

No it shows you started this discourse way out of your depth, and now are drowning by trying to oppose one tangential point, with Frankenstein fantasies, and by misrepresenting parasites as being the same a s a foetus. It's risible nonsense.

Sheldon
So, since your foot is part of your body, and you claim those points don't make a foetus part of a woman's body, how many of those 8 points of comparison do not apply to your foot?
Fallacious logic.

The fact that the foot has all these 8 points and the fact that my foot is part of my body, doesn’t imply that everything that matches these 8 points is part of my body.

Actually it really does imply just that, as i explained in the original argument, but that's a nice bare denial again.

Sheldon
I'd say (again) no, since worms are a symbiont. Though again I fail to see the relevance in this context, perhaps you can explain without resorting to another ludicrous false equivalence ending in a subjective absolute.

The relevant thing is that worms have all those 8 points

No they don't, and they're a different species.

You must have a especial and uncomon defintion of symbiont
Because according to traditional definitions an unwanted fetus would count as a symbiote

You're saying a foetus is a different species now?

 

[Sheldon]

So do you agree that arguments that say “abortion is ok even if the fetus where a person, because the woman can do whatever she wants with her body” are fallacious?....

Wow, you do love to leap from one non-sequitur to another. However, you would have to present such an argument, before I could say definitively whether or not it was fallacious. Since a woman is a person, and one could argue (just as one example), that even were I to accede purely for the sake of argument, that a foetus were a person, the woman's suffering is real, but the foetus or blastocyst could not suffer it's own termination in any meaningful way, as it is insentient and can't feel pain.

 

[leroy]

Are you saying there is no conclusive evidence you can present that a blastocyst or foetus is a person? .

Of course there is no conclusive evidence on either side, this is why scholars disagree. This is why this is a controversial issue, only brilliant and illuminated individuals like you claim know the answer beyond reasonable doubt.
My argument (this specific argument) is that given that we don’t know we should play safe and “not kill the fetus” because there is a reasonable chance that it might be a person. … We usually don’t *“kill”* anything unless we are sure that it is not a person.

So the claim is that unless you are nearly 100% sure that the fetus is not a person, you should be pro life. .. But this is not you, you are part of an illuminated circle that know with certainty that the fetus is not a person.

 

[Koldo]

Hmm. Not sure you understand the concept of implied meaning.

I am pretty sure it is distinct from getting wildly imaginative.

But as you will recall, I didn't state that "medical science informs when personhood starts", I said it..."inform the law on when abortion is legally acceptable, which involves the concept of when a foetus becomes a "person".
Where exactly do you think the the law-making process gets information regarding the viability, sentience, etc of the foetus at different stages? A Christmas cracker?

Viability and sentience don't automatically equal to personhood. The medical science neither informs when abortion is legally acceptable nor when a fetus becomes a person.

 

[leroy]

Wow, you do love to leap from one non-sequitur to another. However, you would have to present such an argument, before I could say definitively whether or not it was fallacious. Since a woman is a person, and one could argue (just as one example), that even were I to accede purely for the sake of argument, that a foetus were a person, the woman's suffering is real, but the foetus or blastocyst could not suffer it's own termination in any meaningful way, as it is insentient and can't feel pain.

the woman's suffering is real,

And the suffering of the poor man that has to pay for financial support for his unwanted child is also real.

but the foetus or blastocyst could not suffer it's own termination in any meaningful way,

Killing a person (even if painlessly) is considered a much , much, much more serious crime than not paying for financial support.

The point is that if you grant that the fetus is a person, then the father can make the same type of argument that “pro choicers” use to avoid his responsibilities of having an unwanted child. The only difference is that the mother is killing his son, while the father is only avoiding financial support.


and ofcourse we already agreed on that the mens argument is not valid, so it follows that the woman´s argument isent valid ether

 

[leroy]

No you introduced two straw man claims I hadn't made. Now one more time, since you agree your foot

Again you are using fallacious logic.

The fact that the foot has all 8 points + the fact that the foot is part of the body, doesn’t necessarily implies that everything that has these 8 points is part of the bodey. Please make an effort and try to understand why your logic is fallacious.

No it's not, what on earth are you talking about? I don't think you know what a straw man fallacy is. or are you just obfuscating yet again?

It seems to me that you where saying that once you are born, you are a person, and even if you get all those 8 characteristic at some point in the future you will still be a person. Is this a correct representation of your view?

And that they all apply to a body part, your foot.

Again the fact that these 8 points apply to my foot and the fact that my foot is part of the body don’t prove that everything with those 8 points are part of my body.

Yet they all apply to a part of your body, odd that. So your bare refusal to accept facts isn't becoming ever harder for you to defend. Especially given the dearth of facts offered to defend your denials.

I don’t reject any of your 8 facts, I reject your conclusion that states that having those 8 fact necessary implies that it is part of the body.

The fact that my foot is part of my body doesn’t show that the conclusion is true, it simply shows that some parts of my body have these 8 facts.

I don't remotely agree with you at all. A parasite is not the same as foetus in many ways,

Ok , ok but which of the 8 points do parasites fail to have?


Also hoy does it work exactly.

If you have 7 points one is an individual organism, but when the 8th point is fulfilled one automatically becomes part of the body?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Are you saying there is no conclusive evidence you can present that a blastocyst or foetus is a person? .

Of course there is no conclusive evidence on either side,

So no then, you have nothing to contradict the medical and biological facts I have presented, thank you for finally admitting that, but sadly failing to have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge the facts I presented.

"we don’t know we should play safe and “not kill the fetus” because there is a reasonable chance that it might be a person.

The decision to abort does not entirely rest on the spurious argument that an insentient blastocyst or foetus is a person, I never said it did. That argument you have failed to defend with anything, but denials of objective biological facts. The right to bodily autonomy you have admitted (and I will quote you) that you don't think you should lose, so why should any woman.

… We usually don’t *“kill”* anything unless we are sure that it is not a person.

That is demonstrably untrue, and even were it the case, a foetus is not a person, and even if as you choose to delude yourself, I accepted an insentient collection of cells, that was part of a woman's body, was inexplicably an individual person, it would remain insentient and unable to suffer, unlike the woman whose body it was a part of, and whose suffering was a known fact, but that your misogynistic indoctrination has taught you not to care about.

You claim to have some magical power to know things without reasoning or facts. Whereas I am merely able to use my limited intellect, to examine facts. Sadly I am not the genius you purport yourself to be, and cannot create "facts" from nothing.

Even simple word definitions are meaningless to you, who can conjure alternatives at whim, and use them in an ad hoc fashion, that would seem like pure opportunistic duplicity to mere ordinary humans like myself.

 

[Sheldon]

KWED said: ↑
Hmm. Not sure you understand the concept of implied meaning.

I am pretty sure it is distinct from getting wildly imaginative.

Like imagining that being lied to about contraception by a spouse, when you can take responsibility for contraception, is in any way comparable to being raped by a spouse.

That did seem wildly imaginative to me, I must say.

 

[Sheldon]

And the suffering of the poor man that has to pay for financial support for his unwanted child is also real.

Ah I see, so you're claiming you'd rather be raped, than welcome an unexpected chid into the world, well each to their own I suppose, but given your relentless dishonesty in this debate so far, I have to say I am dubious.

 

[Koldo]

Like imagining that being lied to about contraception by a spouse, when you can take responsibility for contraception, is in any way comparable to being raped by a spouse.

That did seem wildly imaginative to me, I must say.

It is comparable in a certain regard. I am honestly bemused how bringing up the word 'rape' to make a point can suddenly bring about a mental meltdown.

 

[Sheldon]

Killing a person (even if painlessly)

What evidence that contradicts current medical science, can you present that a foetus or blastocyst can experience pain?

The point is that if you grant that the fetus is a person,

Based on what, you have failed to offer anything but denials of scientific facts.

the father can make the same type of argument that “pro choicers” use to avoid his responsibilities of having an unwanted child.

No he cant, as he exercised his choice already, even though misogynists like yourself want to "have their cake" and then let women take all of the responsibility and risk.

The only difference is that the mother is killing his son, while the father is only avoiding financial support.

No the woman is left with the appalling choices, the "man"?, if they are a selfish misogynist, as some are unfortunately, as we see here from your posts, run away to their next victim.

 

[Sheldon]

It is comparable in a certain regard. I am honestly bemused how bringing up the word 'rape' to make a point can suddenly bring about a mental meltdown.

Well it certainly wasn't my intention to contribute to you having a "mental meltdown", so my apologies if my presentation of facts has discombobulated you.

 

[leroy]

Ah I see, so you're claiming you'd rather be raped, than welcome an unexpected chid into the world, well each to their own I suppose, but given your relentless dishonesty in this debate so far, I have to say I am dubious.

One wonders, how did you arrived at the conclusion that I would make such a claim.

I said that the man can use the same type argument that *some* prochoiceres make (I have no idea if you would make such a claim)

The claim being “even if the fetus is a person (in the same way a child is) abortion would be ok because of bodily autonomy”

If that argument is valid, then the man arguing “not paying child support is ok, because I have “money autonomy” would also be valid……………..obviously my point is that ether both arguments are valid or none is valid (I would claim none)

eroy said: ↑
And the suffering of the poor man that has to pay for financial support for his unwanted child is also real.

that comment was intendet to be sarcastic.

The point is that probably the man that has to pay 18 years of child support suffers more than the woman that has to deal with pregnancy for 9 months. ………… so if you claim the woman´s suffering justifies abortion,(even if the fetus is a person) then certainly the mans suffering should be a good excuse to avoid financial support.

Obviously the point is that neither the man nor the woman have a good justification

But again this is not an argument directed to you, this is an argument directed to those who claim that the woman´s suffering (or bodily autonomy) is enough to justify abortion (evenif the fetus is a person,

 

[Sheldon]

Again you are using fallacious logic.

That is an oxymoron, I can only suggest you Google the definition of those words.

The fact that the foot has all 8 points + the fact that the foot is part of the body, doesn’t necessarily implies that everything that has these 8 points is part of the bodey.

Since those are biological facts, used to explain why a foetus is part of a woman's body, then yes it really does, Though your bare denial and you inability again to spell body, are rather surprising.

Please make an effort and try to understand why your logic is fallacious.

Please make an effort to learn simple word definitions, and stop using the word logic as mere rhetoric. Do you even know what logic means? I'll give you a chance to Google it and get back to us.

It seems to me that you where saying that once you are born, you are a person,

Again look up the meaning of the word person and tell me that is not the case and why..

and even if you get all those 8 characteristic at some point in the future you will still be a person. Is this a correct representation of your view?

No, that's a nonsensical fantasy you're suing to obfuscate. Why is a foetus not part of woman's body, beyond your bare unevidenced denials, and your ludicrous fantasy analogies?

Again the fact that these 8 points apply to my foot and the fact that my foot is part of the body don’t prove that everything with those 8 points are part of my body.

They are biological facts, and yes they would.

I don’t reject any of your 8 facts, I reject your conclusion that states that having those 8 fact necessary implies that it is part of the body.

Oh no, someone is rejecting facts, whatever can I do now...

The fact that my foot is part of my body doesn’t show that the conclusion is true, it simply shows that some parts of my body have these 8 facts.

Would you care to point to a part of your body that:

1. Isn't topologically connected.
2. Has a clear cellular boundary, between it and you.
3. Was formed independently of your own body.
4. Does not share your immune system.
5. Get's it's oxygen and nutrition from a separate human individual that isn't you.
6. Has a separate immune system from your own.
7. Has a separate metabolism from your own.
8. Is individually sentient, apart from you.

Go on, knock yourself out champ.

Ok , ok but which of the 8 points do parasites fail to have?

The ones I already explained.

Also hoy does it work exactly.

How does what work exactly?

If you have 7 points one is an individual organism, but when the 8th point is fulfilled one automatically becomes part of the body?

We don't have 7, we have 8, your BS hypotheticals are meaningless. What if we have 888, since we are making up hypotheticals?

 

[Koldo]

Well it certainly wasn't my intention to contribute to you having a "mental meltdown", so my apologies if my presentation of facts has discombobulated you.

I am afraid I have absolutely no idea what facts you are talking about. Your criticism of my position has nothing to do with facts.

 

[Sheldon]

One wonders, how did you arrived at the conclusion that I would make such a claim.

I didn't. I just read your own post.

The claim being “even if the fetus is a person (in the same way a child is) abortion would be ok because of bodily autonomy” If that argument is valid, then the man arguing “not paying child support is ok, because I have “money autonomy” would also be valid……………..obviously my point is that ether both arguments are valid or none is valid (I would claim none)

One attempts to enslave women, by removing their bodily autonomy, while the other attempts to leave women as solely responsible for an unwanted pregnancy. If you don't want to be financially responsible for a child, then don't impregnate a woman, it's not that complex really, be a man, and not a boy.

The point is that probably the man that has to pay 18 years of child support suffers more than the woman that has to deal with pregnancy for 9 months. …………

Oh so you've been pregnant then, and given birth? Or are you simply making up another false equivalence again...

so if you claim the woman´s suffering justifies abortion,

I never claimed this.

the mans suffering should be a good excuse to avoid financial support.

A man has a choice, don't get anyone pregnant if you don't want the responsibility of being a parent, that's pretty simple, even you should be able to grasp that?

 

[Sheldon]

I am afraid I have absolutely no idea what facts you are talking about. Your criticism of my position has nothing to do with facts.

Well I don't want to add to any meltdown obviously.

Maybe if you're up to it you can re-examine the exchange, and you may be able to see the facts presented, but only in your own time obviously.

 

[Koldo]

Well I don't want to add to any meltdown obviously.

Maybe if you're up to it you can re-examine the exchange, and you may be able to see the facts presented, but only in your own time obviously.

I am afraid I am unable to see what is not there.
But feel free to quote any fact you see as contradicting my position.

 

[Sheldon]

I am afraid I am unable to see what is not there.

Bias is often projected in this way.

But feel free to quote any fact you see as contradicting my position.

You've just stated unequivocally you are unable to see it, so how would quoting it again help?

 

[Koldo]

Bias is often projected in this way.

You've just stated unequivocally you are unable to see it, so how would quoting it again help?

I have seen tons of criticism but no facts that contradict my position. Perhaps you think your opinions are facts?